Tuesday, December 20, 2016

World Leaders Should Be Held Responsible for Terrorist Attacks

Yesterday, 2017 added yet another terrorist attack, this one in Germany.

Someone, probably a Muslim radical, took a truck and smashed it through a Christmas market, killing 12 people and injuring 48 others.

While, according to USA Today, the attack hasn’t officially been confirmed as a terrorist attack, let’s face it: It’s a terrorist attack – a copycat of what happened earlier this year in Nice, France.

Other than Muslim terrorists, most people just don’t go around intentionally plowing vehicles through crowds, particularly at Christmas time.

2017 seems to be the year of terrorist attacks, from Germany to France to the U.S. to France to the U.S. to the U.K. to Turkey to… Honestly, I can’t keep them all straight, especially when 2016 wasn’t exactly a picnic either.

And that’s pathetic. It’s pathetic that our leaders have been so criminally remiss in protecting their countries. It’s pathetic that so many people have died because presidents and chancellors and prime ministers are more focused on agendas than facts and logic and the citizens they’ve sworn to serve.

So when USA Today writes that, for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, “there will be renewed scrutiny of her decision to allow almost a million asylum seekers to enter Germany, a move that’s already brought her heavy criticism,” I say good.

The woman should be in jail, convicted on 12 counts of murder due to gross negligence and 48 counts of attempted murder due to gross negligence.

President Obama? He should be in jail for every single life lost or damaged in the Boston and Orlando and San Bernardino and Benghazi and Fort Hood attacks, etc., etc., etc.

And French President Francois Hollande? According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, more than 200 French citizens have died on his watch, not to mention about 800 injured.

That’s a lot to account for.

These politicians need to be held accountable for the massive amounts of blood on their hands. It’s their wayward policies that have allowed these terrorists to walk among us, then mow us down with gunfire or trucks or blow us away with bombs…

Over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And yes, that deserves some serious jail time, if not the death penalty.

Because the death penalty is definitely what they decreed for their peoples.

Monday, December 19, 2016

Snowy Roads in Pennsylvania Point to Political Shenanigans

Out here in Central Pennsylvania, it snowed on Saturday. Not a lot, but definitely enough to cover the roads. Maybe about two inches, three tops.

I’m not sure exactly when the precipitation started, but it was early enough in the morning that the majority of the accumulation had happened by the time I woke up. And it stopped well before I went out at 2:00 in the afternoon.

That’s plenty of time for the snow crews to get out there to salt and plow the roads.

Yet it never happened.

Pulling out of my driveway, I didn’t drive onto slush. I drove onto snow. Two to three inches of it, actually, except for the tire treads marking where cars had already come and gone.

That was true of the whole development. And of the not insignificant road right outside my development. And of every other regular road I came across, in fact.

Even when I hit the highway, there wasn’t a single sign it had been plowed or salted. And while the constant traffic had kept the snow from ever sticking, a little salt probably would have been helpful, particularly for the early morning or late night, when the sun isn’t out to keep residual moisture from turning into, I don’t know, something as dangerous as ice.

Now, after last year, when states ran out of salt, Pennsylvania’s department of transportation – PennDot – said it was well prepared for whatever came our way this time around. Yet, again, its resources were never employed.

I can’t link to any articles proving this theory, but how much do you want to bet that someone in Governor Tom Wolf’s administration is making or taking money off of this?

My guess is that the guy or gal in charge of these kinds of decisions either gets a bonus check if they come under budget, or nobody checks that budget carefully enough to see when money is being misallocated.

Either way, it’s unacceptable that the roads were as dangerously messy as they were when we’re paying taxes meant to keep those roads safe.

And it’s even more unacceptable considering how Wolf is going to be raising our gas tax by $0.06 per gallon for that alleged purpose.

Politicians. Who needs them?

Apparently not Central Pennsylvania.

Friday, December 16, 2016

Ariana Grande Makes Me Despair for Womankind

Thanks to Hailee Seinfeld, Ariana Grande and a random snapshot of a friend’s husband’s coworker I got last night, I’ve never been more disgusted with my gender.

I don’t understand how women get any respect whatsoever when so many of us behave like our bodies are up for the lowest bidder.

This diatribe begins with me being (stupidly) curious about the music video to Hailee Seinfeld’s Starving, which is a pretty catchy song despite its complete hodgepodge of sexualized messages.

With lines like “I didn’t know that I was starving ‘til I tasted you / Don’t need no butterflies when you give me the whole damn zoo / by the way – by the way you do things to my body,” I already understood the music video was going to be something less than classy.

Sure enough, it’s filled with parted lips, stroking hands and skimpy outfits.

Essentially, it’s just what women everywhere need to break the glass ceiling. At the strip club.

Then I (stupidly) clicked on the next featured music video, Ariana Grande’s Side to Side.

And, forgive my language, but… What. A. Whore.

There’s no polite way to say what that chick is doing to the camera the whole time with her arrogant eyes, her parted legs or the carefully calculated shots of her rump – and those of twelve other stripperlicious women – thrust out as she rides an exercise bike in ways exercise bikes were NEVER meant to be ridden… to say nothing of the shower shots of her backup harlots.

The way these women portray themselves, they’re nothing but sex objects, and such cheap ones that they’re free. You can practically watch them masturbating for you on YouTube whenever you want.

This worse-than bargain-basement mentality is one that’s permeating society these days, as evidenced by the pictures I got from a friend attending her husband’s Christmas work party last night. It’s a company with a single female employee, who showed up dressed in a cutout mini-dress (emphasis on the mini) and stilettoes that would have fit in pretty well with either Hailee Seinfeld or Ariana Grande’s skanky music videos.

On what planet is that a good idea?

I guess a planet where it’s okay to portray yourself and – as a result – your entire gender as nothing more than the stuff of immature and/or disgusting boys’ fantasies.

So Hailee Seinfeld, Ariana Grande and random coworker, newsflash: Women are worth more than their bodies. And it’s high time you started reflecting that fact.

Thursday, December 15, 2016

That Story About the Muslim Girl Attacked on a Subway? She Made It Up.

There’s already so much hate in the world today. So it’s a truly disturbed person who will add fuel to the fire by making up stories about people being hateful.

That includes Yasmin Seweid, an 18-year-old Muslim college student in New York City who claimed she was attacked on the subway by three men who tried to pull off her hijab, called her a terrorist and yelled Trump’s name, all while fellow travelers stood by and did nothing.

Seweid took those allegations to the police and filed a report, all of which made the news…

Until she admitted to making the whole thing up. Now, of course, the only news outlets to give any updates on the situation are Breitbart, Infowars and Fox News.

Oh yeah, and The Washington Post, which is running the headline, “She claimed she was attacked by men who yelled ‘Trump’ and grabbed her hijab. Police say she lied.” Putting the “Police say she lied” at the end of the title is manipulative. So is immediately following it up with a picture of Seweid looking gorgeous in a mere head scarf, not a hijab, and the lines:

“The attack described by Yasmin Seweid sounded all too familiar.

“The 18-year-old Muslim woman from Long Island told police and media outlets in early December that she was riding the subway home one night from Baruch College, where she is a student, when three drunk men cornered her and began screaming “Donald Trump!”

Because, you know, that kind of thing happens to Muslims around me all the time. It’s an epidemic. And I constantly see it on the news too. Much more than, say, college professors forcing their liberal values on students or, I don’t know, terrorist attacks caused by Muslims.

Moving on though…

While police recognized right away that there were numerous inconsistencies with Seweid’s story, Fox News reports that they gave her the benefit of the doubt as a traumatized victim.

But when no witnesses came forward, the MTA security footage showed just one of the perps she’d described, and she disappeared over the weekend, reappearing with the excuse that she was at a relative’s house, they started pressing Seweid a little harder.

Her excuse when she finally ‘fessed up? “Family problems.”

She’s now under arrest for filing a false report – and of a time and resource-sucking supposed hate crime too.

I don’t care what kind of problems she has. Disseminating hatred the way she did is inexcusable.

Way to make the world a more hateful place, Yasmin Seweid, for Muslims, Trump supporters and everyone else.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Associated Press Allows Silicon Valley to Stand on Utopic Delusions

Yesterday, I picked on the Drudge Report for a misleading headline.

Today, let’s switch sides and call out the Associated Press for being what it is: an agenda-driven hack.

In “Tech leaders couldn’t beat Trump; they’ll meet him instead,” an article featured on Yahoo! Finance, AP Technology Writer Michael Liedtke starts out with copy that at least resembles a journalistic endeavor (despite making a glaring AP style error in his very first sentence).

Silicon Valley worked hard to defeat Trump? Check.

It was worried he’d “stifle innovation, curb the hiring of computer-savvy immigrants and infringe on consumers’ digital privacy”? Debatable, but whatever.

Apple’s Tim Cook, Google’s Larry Page, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and their fellow CEOs from Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Oracle and Cisco, along with Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg, will all be going to Trump Tower to see if they can get along with Trump after all? Got it.

But then the article devolves into this how “Trump’s denigration of Mexicans, his pledge to deport millions of immigrants now living in the U.S. illegally, and his crude remarks about women were widely viewed as racist, authoritarian and sexist by an industry that prides itself on its tolerance.”

If Liedtke had immediately followed that up with “though many would disagree with that self-assessment” or if he had changed “prides itself on its tolerance” to “strongly backs liberal talking points,” it wouldn’t be such a big deal. Rather like the claim that tech companies didn’t like Trump because he’d be bad for “consumers’ digital privacy,” I could roll my eyes and move on.

But legitimatizing Silicon Valley’s claim of being all about the little people is inexcusably false.

First off, those tech leaders make billions. And while I’m sure they give some of it to charity, the majority of those gains go into their pockets despite all their platitudes about helping out others.

Plus, Silicon Valley is a veritable den of sexism, a fact even the most liberal circles recognize. Just this January, The Guardian ran an article backing the claim that 60% of female workers there have experienced “unwanted sexual advances.”

In 2015, Newsweek didn’t shy away from the belief that the industry “has been described as savagely misogynistic.” And even the rabidly liberal Huffington Post wrote how, “It’s pretty obvious by now that Silicon Valley is a cesspool of sexism,” which “reaches to the very top of the corporate structure.”

So don’t tell me that Michael Liedtke or the Associated Press doesn’t know any of that.

This is a blatant piece of liberal bias masquerading as news. And the people behind it should be ashamed of themselves.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Just Because You Agree With It Doesn’t Make It True

At church the other day, I got to listen to a presentation about truth and how to find it.

Honestly, it wasn’t the most coherent lecture I’ve ever listened to. Being a professional editor, I wanted to find the speaker’s outline and rearrange the whole thing.

Yet it did start out with a really interesting political cartoon of a woman asking, “How do you know if a news story is true?” and a man replying, “If I agree with it.”

Too often, that really is the way we define truth. If we’re conservative, we accept everything on Fox News or the Drudge Report. If we’re liberal, all we do is watch CNBC and CNN.

Either way, it’s dangerous.

For example, on the Drudge Report this morning, the headline: “McConnell, Ryan Back CIA over Trump” caught my attention. Considering how little I think of Republican leadership these days – with solid, fact-backed reasons, might I add – I instantly got up on a high horse.

And then had to climb right back down.

Because that headline didn’t present the facts in a truly honest fashion. It didn’t so much lie as mislead, probably because it doesn’t care for the Republican establishment either.

Again, there’s good reason to think Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan would kowtow to Democrat demands or play it unacceptably safe to maintain political power. They’ve done it plenty of times before.

But that doesn’t make it right to condemn them when it’s not actually deserved… rather like seems to be the case now.

The Bloomberg article the Drudge Report linked to does have the headline: “McConnell, Ryan Back CIA After Trump Attacks Hacking Probe.” But that’s misleading too considering that it’s followed immediately by two snippet summations, the first being that “GOP leaders caution against casting doubt on election outcome.”

The actual piece then opens up by saying that both “top Republicans in Congress offered strong support for the intelligence community Monday” and yes, it was “in sharp contrast to President-elect Donald Trump’s attack on the CIA.” However, “both leaders also warned against using the issue for partisan gain or casting doubt on the outcome of the election.”

There’s a difference between disagreeing with Trump and “back[ing the] CIA over Trump” – a heavily implied one, at the very least.

If I had stuck with the Drudge Report headline, I would have been ticked off for no real good reason… I would have been in error. And that’s a problem.

Because it doesn’t matter whether I instantly agree with it or not. It matters if it’s true.

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Trump’s Nomination of a “Climate Denier” to Lead the EPA Is Hysterical!!!!

Donald Trump just selected what the League of Conservation Voters calls “an outright climate denier” to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

That just makes me giggle.

I didn’t laugh after Election Day when I saw pictures of Hillary Clinton supporters crying at what was supposed to be her victory headquarters. Honestly, that made me tear up a little bit too seeing how very upset they were and how very divided America is.

And I didn’t chortle at YouTube compilations of people hyperventilating and saying that they were going to kill themselves because of the election results. Again, it’s genuinely sad how many lies these people accepted; they have no idea how enslaved they are to propaganda.

Admittedly, I did laugh my head off when Trump invited the mainstream media up to Trump Towers last month, then told them what they could do with themselves. But that’s because those people are such smug little dictator-wannabe narcissists with delusions of godhood.

They’re also a large part of the reason why I just have to giggle about President-elect Trump choosing Scott Pruitt to head up the EPA, an organization he’s repeatedly pressed to keep accountable and within the lines of federal law.

(How dare he! Right?)

The mainstream media, meanwhile, has done everything it possibly can to promote the notion that man-made global warming is a thing. That it’s a threat. That it needs to be combatted at all costs or else the seas will rise and the earth will sink and the polar bears will all die off.

The mainstream media told us that in 2010 during Snowmageddon, when the D.C. area got snowstorm after snowstorm after crazy, big snowstorm that shut down everything for days.

It told us that in 2011 when every single state in the U.S. save Florida had snow on the ground.

And it also told us that during the winter of what I believe was 2013-2014, when the whole entire country was hitting record lows on a weekly basis.

It also ignored multiple scandals from climate change institutions, happily encouraged the falsification of data, and did nothing to hold so-called global warming experts accountable when they made ridiculous predictions about the world's end.

So Scott Pruitt, “outright climate denier” taking over the EPA?

Yup! I find that hysterical. And so should you.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Ohio State University Marks 14th Terrorist Attack on America in the Last Eight Years

We had another Islam-inspired terrorist attack on American soil on Obama’s watch yesterday, this time at Ohio State University.

What are we up to now? Eight? Nine? 10? More?

I guess it depends on how you’re counting.

According to the New York Post back on June 16, right after the Islamic-inspired Orlando massacre, America had suffered under eight terrorist attacks under President Obama’s unwatchful eye, with the other seven listed here. But, the article was careful to note, it wasn’t “counting the underwear bomber, Times Square bomber, Fed Ex bombs and other near-misses.”

Personally, I’d count those. It wasn’t as if Obama or his team did anything to stop those terrorist attacks from meeting their full intended potential. Nobody died in those situations because of the random acts of God (the Christian one, not the Muslim one. Obviously).

So if we count those three, that means we’re up to 11. Minimum.

Moreover, June 16 was before Ahmad Khan Rahami’s dumpster bomb in New York City and his bomb that went off in Seaside Park, New Jersey, at a Marine Corps race.

Which takes us up to 13.

And now we have 14 with Ohio State, where Somalian-born, Islam-following student Abdul Razak Ali Artan first rammed into a group of fellow students with his car, then got out to start stabbing them with a butcher knife until he was shot by a police officer.

Eleven people were injured in the attack.

In case you’re too PC to ask, yes, Abdul Razak Ali Artan was Muslim. A devout one too, who was quoted in the school paper as saying:

“I wanted to pray in the open, but I was kind of scared with everything going on in the media. I’m a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be.”

Nope. Clearly. Not at all. A religion of peace if I ever saw one.

Just as surely as America is safer under President Obama.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Forget America’s Trump. Canada Is Led By a Pretty Dangerous Nitwit!

Considering what Canadian Prime Minister Justin Tredeau said about former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s passing, someone should tell him that prettiness alone isn’t a useful qualification to run a country. You need brains along with that beauty.

In an intentional public statement, Trudeau said that “Fidel Castro was a larger-than-life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.” And he added that, “while a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for ‘el Commandante.’”

According to CNN, Canada has maintained a healthy relationship with the communist country for decades, apparently more than happy to ignore what actor – and former Cuban – Andy Garcia describes as a horrific farce.

“The promises of his so-called revolution of pluralism and democracy were and continue to be a false promise and a betrayal of all basic human rights,” Garcia told Fox News Latino. “The executions, persecution and imprisonment of political dissidents and the LGBT community, denial of free press, elections and religious freedoms, continue to be [Fidel Castro’s] legacy.”

Famed singer Gloria Estefan, whose family also fled Castro’s Cuba, posted on Facebook and Instagram that, while “the death of a human being is rarely cause for celebration, it is the symbolic death of the destructive ideologies that he espoused that, I believe, is filling the Cuban exile community with renewed hope and a relief that has been long in coming.”

Meanwhile, Cuban-American Senator Marco Rubio asked on Twitter if Trudeau’s fawning eulogy was a joke, “… if this is a real statement from the PM of Canada, it is shameful & embarrassing.”

And Representative Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, who had to flee Cuba with her family when she was just eight years old, said, “I’ve been reading [Trudeau’s] sickening love letter to dead Fidel Castro, and I’m thinking, ‘Sure, you did not lose a loved one to an execution squad. You did not lose a loved one to the gulags in Cuba.”

And this all about a man who “served his people for almost half a century”? “A legendary revolutionary and orator” who installed such amazing national improvements that even his detractors have to recognize “his tremendous dedication and love” for his people?

That just doesn’t seem to jive.

Neither does a whole entire stadium full of pro-football fans in a Cuban-heavy community booing a player for nothing more than saying nice things about Castro, which is exactly what happened to San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick on Sunday down in Miami.

Kaepernick also got excoriated before the game – which he lost – by Miami Dolphins linebacker Kiko Alonso, who’s of Cuban descent. Alonso tweeted something in Spanish that I won’t repost (though you can check it out here if you want.)

But perhaps Ted Cruz, whose father was born and raised in Cuba, said it best:

“Disgraceful. Why do young socialists idolize totalitarian tyrants? Castro, Stalin,Mao, Pol Pot – all evil, torturing murders.”

Good question. The answer might be because they’re told being pretty is what matters most.

Monday, November 21, 2016

Donald Trump Tells the Media What It Is

President-elect Donald Trump might not have fired American media megastars yesterday, but he certainly told them they didn’t deserve their jobs in no uncertain terms.

Inviting a number of high-profile TV execs and anchors to an off-the-record meeting at Trump Tower, he took them all to task for their unethical behavior while covering him.

According to the New York Post, a source described the scene as being “like a f*cking firing squad… The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down.”

The president-elect called out CNN Chief Jeff Zucker directly, telling him, “I hate your network. Everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,” referenced an NBC female correspondent as being far less-than-impressive and also derided another female reporter who had cried when Hillary lost the election.

Several times, various attendees tried to take back the conversation, but the hour-long lecture was Trump’s to own. And own it – and them – he apparently did.

Whether that was classy or not is up for debate. But it wasn’t inaccurate or undeserved.

The media has been willfully working to destroy America for far too long. Back in 1931, there were self-righteous lunatics like The New York Times’ Walter Duranty, who praised the USSR, denying there was any famine while men, women and children starved to death by the droves.

Eighty-five years later, the American press is still turning a blind eye to societal travesties, aiding and abetting destruction and chaos and heartbreak with its biased coverage.

Networks like CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN flat-out lied about a string of criminals who died at the hands of cops, saying the deaths were racially motivated. As a result, we’ve had cities across the country erupt into chaos, with residents terrorized, businesses vandalized and lives endangered.

Meanwhile, American police have been murdered in retaliation. Three more – maybe four – were shot on Sunday after being directly targeted. One died.

Muslim atrocities involving beheadings and mass shootings are excused or glossed over while Christian bakeries and government workers are savaged in the press for merely refusing to support gay marriage.

And illegal immigrants are given a free pass to rape and murder and drive drunk at worst or, at best, suck America dry of funds and resources it already can’t support.

So yes, I’m very happy to hear that Trump took the media to task last night.

And really, what is it going to do about it? Write mean things about him in the press?

Liberal Designer Refuses to Bake a Cake for Almost First Lady Melania Trump

Last Friday, I read an article about some fashion designer I’ve never heard of, Sophie Theallet. Apparently, she'll be refusing her services to the almost First Lady Melania Trump and is calling on the rest of the fashion community to do the same.

“As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom and respect for all lifestyles,” Theallet emailed, “I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next first lady. The rhetoric of racism, sexism and xenophobia unleashed by her husband’s presidential campaign are incompatible with the shared values we live by. I encourage my fellow designers to do the same.”

Designing dresses for current First Lady Michelle Obama, however, has been “a highlight and an honor,” Theallet made sure to say. “She has contributed to having our name recognized and respected worldwide. Her values, actions and grace have always resonated deeply within me.”

Values, actions and grace like palling around with a bunch of unapologetic, influential misogynistic rappers who use the N-word and promote violence?

Okay. Sure, Sophie, darling. Whatever.  

At first, I just shook my head at this, attributing her stance to the typical boo-hooing the liberal left has been doing ever since it lost the elections. But then I read a comment about it from someone labeled only as John:

“So one person refuses to provide services to another because she doesn’t agree with her views or life choices? Guess she’s lucky she doesn’t bake cakes.”

And just like that, my eyes went wide, my jaw dropped and all I could think of was, “Oh, snap!”

Because what a double-standard Sophie Theallet is more than likely living. While I haven’t spoken to her myself and therefore can’t confirm this theory, chances seem pretty darn high she was right there with the rest of the liberal left screaming for that cakery’s head last year when it refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

But when it comes to liberals standing up for their beliefs, it’s a whole different story.

Personally, as a conservative, I support her right to boycott whoever she wants to boycott, even if it’s entirely ridiculous and based on lies and willful stupidity. It’s her business, and she should be allowed to run it how she sees fit just as long as she isn’t physically hurting anyone.

Besides, I wouldn’t want the wife of any president I voted for wearing such overpriced trivial trash anyway.

€1,352 for an “abstract print shirt?” While we’re throwing around “ism” insults, how about classism?

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

A Historical Message About Political Payback

Since I’ve been studying up about the War of 1812 for my Founding America novels, I’ve gotten some fascinating insight into the history of political paybacks.

You see, back in 1814, there was a political party called the Federalists, which thought it was right and the opposition was wrong. Meanwhile, the opposition – the Democrat-Republicans – thought it was right and the Federalists were wrong.

Sound familiar yet?

One election year, the Federalists came into power with a Federalist-dominated Congress and a Federalist president. 

Now, many of these men, President John Adams included, had done a lot of good for their country already. Back when they were the underdogs, they fought against political oppression and societal discrimination (even if they did take it too far sometimes).

Yet once they got into power themselves, they made a mess out of things by passing a series of bills called the Alien and Sedition Acts. Among other things, those laws criminalized making false statements against the federal government, with “false” being up for Federalist interpretation…

That made enough citizens mad that, the next time elections were up, they voted the party out of congressional and presidential power and the Democrat-Republicans into it.

Now, many of these newly elected officials, President Thomas Jefferson included, had done a lot of good for their country already. Back when they were the underdogs, they fought against political oppression and societal discrimination (even if they did take it too far sometimes).

Yet once they got into power themselves, they made a mess out of things by ignoring Federalist input. As a result, they dismantled the country’s national defenses and set up trade embargoes to avoid going to war with Europe… at the expense of the Federalists.

Hey, payback is a vicious dog, right?


Except that it’s a dog that bites both ways. 

First the Federalists' vindictive behavior hurt their entire country. Then the Democrat-Republicans’ smug, 12-year victory lap led America into economic recession and a poorly-planned war that saw our capitol burned to the ground – where, incidentally, the enemy was often aided by ticked-off Federalists, which then backfired on them since the war ended in the Democrat-Republicans' favor.

What a mess!

It almost seems like a historical lesson in being gracious when you win and gracious when you lose, convictions and all… if for no other reason than to make sure any ungraciousness doesn’t fall back on you when the pendulum swings the other way.

Don’t get me wrong… I fervently believe we should sign away all of Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders, dismantle Obamacare and do away with just about everything – if not everything – that he’s done in the last eight years.

But we don’t have to be pretentious, deliberately vindictive jerks about it. 

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

DONALD TRUMP WON!!!!!!!!!!!!! And America Still Stands a Chance

I meant to set a reminder alarm on my phone today for 4 p.m. Instead, I set it for 4 a.m.

It’s a mistake I’m really not upset about considering that 1) I already wasn’t sleeping and 2) I got to check the news…

Which showed Donald Trump had won the presidential election.

I’ve actually cried tears of joy this morning. I’ve never done that before over an election, and I certainly didn’t expect to this year over a President-elect Donald Trump. For that matter, I’m not crying tears of joy over him. I’m crying because Hillary Clinton didn’t win, which means America still has a chance.

On Monday night, I talked to two friends on the phone about the elections. (They brought it up; I didn’t.) They’re both liberals and both voted for Hillary, and the one was making cracks about me voting for Trump and about how little he’s paid in taxes.

Immediately, the Clinton Foundation jumped to mind with all of its power grabs and tax investigations and fraud allegations. But the mainstream media didn’t report on any of that in any significant way, so my liberal friends never heard about it.

On Tuesday night, I talked to another friend in person about the elections. (She brought it up; I didn’t.) She’s liberal and voted for Hillary, and was saying how she knows Hillary isn’t perfect and has made mistakes but how Donald Trump’s comments about women are so disturbing.

Immediately, the Clinton’s disgusting level of disregard for women jumped to mind, between Bill’s lengthy list of serious sexual misconduct accusations, Hillary laughing about her defense of that child rapist, and their collaboration over “bimbo eruptions.”

But again, the mainstream media didn’t report on any of that in any significant way, so my liberal friend never really heard about it. Or at least she didn’t hear about it enough.

So essentially, this electoral decision was less Clinton vs. Trump and more the mainstream media vs. the American people.

It was a battle between misinformation and the truth: the truth that liberals and liberalism are destroying this country. That they are transforming it into something our founders never would have dreamt of dying for because it wouldn’t be worth a paper cut much less bayonet wounds and cannon devastation and choking on one’s own blood.

This election was a battle about whether their legacy wants to be treated like adults or children. And we voted for adulthood.

So now America? Now it’s time to prove we can handle it.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Women Can Be Really Destructive Too

According to Breitbart, Pharrell Williams – the singer of one of the most obnoxious songs ever composed – says that, “If all the women in this nation decided to vote and support the first female candidate, there’d be nothing to worry about. It’s that easy.”

Sure. It’s that easy once you turn off your brain, conscious and very soul. Which Pharrell seems to have done.

“Has she been dishonest about things?” He asked. “Sure. Have you? She don’t lie no more than any other politician does.”

What a ringing endorsement.

Equally ridiculous is Pharrell’s insinuation that Hillary’s highest qualification for president is her gender: that we need to “save the nation” by not electing another “destructive” male president.

So here’s my very valid question: Has he ever met actual women?

Women can be just as destructive as men since we can be just as selfish as men, choosing our own personal interests over, let’s say, the lives of American citizens in Benghazi or the safety of our national secrets or the mental health of a traumatized, 12-year-old rape victim.

Sure, you can argue that Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan and Nero were all men. And they were all horrible. But so were British Queens Mary and Elizabeth, who tortured and slaughtered Christians who didn’t agree with their exact ideologies.

(Yes, Elizabeth was horrible too. Don’t believe the whole PR campaign she inspired.)

Then there was Isabella I of Spain, who presided over the inquisition, where people were subjected to the most disgusting torments possible.

So don’t go telling me that women can’t be destructive. Because we can be when given enough power. Just like men.

That’s the real problem: enough power. The more of it people of either gender get, the more we’re likely to abuse it. It’s human nature to be tempted by power, and it’s a rare person who can handle it honorably.

Hillary Clinton already has a ton of it. And she’s already made a career of abusing it.

Don’t we think that, female or not, she’s had enough?

Thursday, November 3, 2016

Obama Admits America Is Something Special After All

Reporting on how President Obama was down in North Carolina at a Hillary Clinton rally, Business Insider quotes him as saying:

“We won’t win this election, potentially, if we don’t win North Carolina. I hate to put a little pressure on you, but the fate of the republic rests on your shoulders. The fate of the world is teetering.”

I find that language rather fascinating. And no, it has nothing to do with the word “potentially,” which is placed in quite the awkward position in that address.

I mean, is North Carolina potentially pivotal or excruciatingly pivotal? Which one is it?

But moving on... The fact that he has to exhort anyone to vote for a hailed feminist saint against the supposed second coming of Hitler is entertaining. It makes me smirk that the race is so close: that someone as uncouth and unstable as Donald Trump is giving someone as publically praised, polished and political as Hillary Clinton a run for her money.

Then there’s Obama’s claim that “the fate of the world is teetering” on this American election.

Put that way, he almost makes it sound like America is special. Yet hasn’t he promoted the idea throughout his political career that America is anything but? That America is, in fact, a deeply flawed, racist, sexist, bigoted place clinging to its “guns and religion”?

Oh, he’s paid lip service to American exceptionalism before when put on the spot or when trying to score political points. But those declarations are easily belied when he says that America is exceptional in the same way “the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

And since actions speak louder than words, it’s also worthwhile to point out how he’s bowed to foreign leaders, let Iran and Russia walk all over this country, and made belittling statements about us on the world stage in apology for America’s past sins, both real and imagined.

All of which strongly suggests – even states – that, in his mind at least, America isn’t anything worth striving for.

Yet now, all of a sudden, it is? Now we’re the keepers of the republic ideal? Now that his party might lose power, there’s so much good we’ve done and can still do?

It’s amazing how convenient America’s attributes are in a liberals’ hands. Isn’t it.

Friday, October 28, 2016

Erica Garner Calls Out Hillary Clinton Campaign for Callously Using Her Father’s Death

Oh, here’s a doozy!

Let’s break that headline down real quick.

Erica Garner is the daughter of Eric Garner, the New York City man who resisted arrest for suspicion of selling unlicensed cigarettes, was consequently put in a chokehold by a police officer, lost consciousness and died on July 17, 2014.

That’s who Erica Garner is.

Clinton, in this case, means Hillary Clinton, not her unrepentant, un-sentenced rapist of a husband. Though the distinction makes little difference when it comes to staffer corruption levels. You have to be exceptionally evil or inexcusably stupid to work for either Clinton.

Finally, we have the last two words of the headline - “WikiLeaks emails” - which is actually a misnomer. It should read “WikiLeaks-released emails” or “Hillary’s hacked emails” since it’s referring to the online communications Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks gang stole that show Hillary and her top cronies plotting to take the U.S. presidency by any means necessary… like using people’s deaths to score political points.

Now that you understand the headline, let’s delve into the story itself.

It appears that some of the WikiLeaks-released emails pertained to Eric Garner and how the campaign could use him to its best advantage. It also appears that, despite the mainstream media’s agreement to publish as little negative news about Hillary as possible, those emails were somehow seen by Erica Garner.

And, understandably, those emails did not make her happy.

In a series of tweets, she said: “I’m troubled by the revelation that you and this campaign actually discussed ‘using’ Eric Garner… Why would you want to ‘use’ my dad?” And then, “These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence.”

While I disagree with her belief that we have a widespread police violence problem, she nailed it on addressing how unabashedly heartless and scheming Hillary Clinton and her close circle are.

They don’t care about anyone but their own agenda, which is acquiring more power.

Thanks in part to WikiLeaks – and thanks in part to good old-fashioned intellectual integrity – we’ve seen how poorly the Clinton family has used the power they’ve already obtained.

Do we really want to give them more?

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Why Voting Liberal on the Social Issues Doesn’t Help Society

Last week, I got involved in a political discussion at work.

Normally, when politics come up in my ultra-liberal office, I put on my headphones and tune everyone out. But there was no escaping this one, since there were only two people in the room when my colleague brought it up.

And one of those people was me.

I didn't flat-out tell her I was voting Republican, but I implied it a few times as gently as I could around her portrayal of Trump as the instigator behind all the recent violence against women and racially-charged police shootings. (I'm not being sarcastic here. She really did say that.)

I also dared to give my opinion on Trump’s worldview, which is that he’s neither racist nor sexist but opportunist. He'll be nice to whomever he wants to be nice to and viciously attack anyone he doesn't, punching back with every personal slur he can to gain the upper-hand.

By the way, that's not a quality I admire in him.

But I also don't admire what my colleague went on to say about how she sympathizes with conservative fiscal values but never votes Republican because she cares so much about the social issues.

From a logical perspective, I can't respect that position.

While it’s good to care about your fellow people being able to live free, enriched lives, nobody can lead a free, enriched life when they’re seeking freedom above fiscal, governmental and societal responsibility.

Consider how, under the last eight years of a liberal, social-issues-preaching regime, we’ve racked up unsustainable amounts of debt. Our government has levied thousands of pages worth of additional taxes and regulations. And our society has too often devolved into chaos, with destructive riots; a flood of illegal immigrants encouraging gang violence, drug violence and drug use; homeless communities springing up; and jobless teenagers turning to crime.

Factor all that in, and it doesn’t matter whether we have all the affirmative action, gay rights, free abortion and other social-issue platforms liberals adhere to. Nobody will truly benefit from them – if they ever truly benefited from them – because everybody’s taxes will be too high to lead worthwhile livelihoods, our movements will be too stifled by government surveillance and our neighborhoods will look like the inner cities of Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore.

That’s what setting social issues above fiscal, governmental and societal responsibility does.

And what kind of person is going to vote for that?

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

My Epic Rant Against the Man Bun

Today, I could talk about Global Warming scandals or Hillary Clinton’s reported temper tantrums or how not-funny Amy Schumer is. (Because she’s really not funny.)

But I’m not. Instead, I’m going to talk about man buns and how much I hate them.

If this was simply an aesthetic rant about how dumb and unkempt and homeless man buns usually look, I wouldn’t waste your time addressing the issue. I’m not even sure I’d bring it up just to point out how utterly pretentious most man-bun sporters are, walking around like they’re God’s gift to the universe because they look dumb and unkempt and homeless.

(Sorry to those men who manage not to look dumb and unkempt and homeless while wearing man buns. But you’re few and far between.)

However, it seems like the man bun phenomena is the latest offshoot of emasculating men… one more way to make them fit into some sick, psycho-feminist version of what a man is supposed to be.

For too many decades now, men have been told they’re a second-rate gender (or even third- or fourth-rate, depending on your definition of the word). And so they’ve responded to the criticism by increasingly feminizing themselves.

I’m not talking about watching an occasional chick flick or holding meaningful conversations about something other than football. Real men aren’t Neanderthals or meatheads or misogynists.

But they’re also not women.

Real men strive to be intelligent, respected and respectable – the opposite of dumb, unkempt and homeless, by the way – by working hard in life to support or prepare for their families. As un-feminist as this might seem, men are supposed to be leaders. Real leaders – the kind who act with integrity and confidence and courage.

I know I want a strong man someday. Someone I can respect. Someone who can keep down a job.

Besides, from my experience, men are already as emotionally needy as I can tolerate without them taking on more “female” qualities.

So please, men… Be men! And let us women be women. We’re much better at it anyway.

Including wearing buns.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Why Don’t Liberals Want to Teach the United States Constitution?

I recently went to a friend’s homecoming at Elizabethtown College in Central Pennsylvania, which just so happened to fall on the same day as my own alma mater’s homecoming… at its rival school, Messiah College, also in Central Pennsylvania.

This would have been my 10-year homecoming too, which I’m told is a pretty big deal. Yet I didn’t care. E-town had better food available and a thirty-minute drive difference. Plus, I just don’t have a great opinion of Messiah College.

The campus is beautiful and safe, the class sizes are cozy and some of the professors are stellar.

But that’s offset by a humanities-wide agenda to indoctrinate students to liberalism. As I remember Messiah College, religious classes were used to undermine the Bible, English classes were hijacked to preach about pacifism and who to vote for in the 2004 elections (hint: It wasn’t George W. Bush), and even science classes weren’t guaranteed to be entirely scientific.

Oh, and don’t bother having a different opinion unless you want to put your grade in jeopardy.

(I never had a bad experience with a history professor there though. Loved them!)

Not to say I would have gotten a different experience at E-town. I just wouldn’t have paid more for it under the false pretense of a Christ-centered education.

But as much fun as I have bashing my alma mater, that’s not my main reason for writing today. You see, while at E-town’s homecoming, I ran into some of my sister’s liberal friends who got into a discussion about how distasteful it was to teach the U.S. Constitution in history classes.

Oh, the horror!

Now, admittedly, I didn’t stick around for the full conversation. They were totally killing my two-beers-over-2.5-hours buzz (apparently, I’ve turned into a lightweight), so I left. All the same, they got me thinking…

According to liberal dogma, the United States of America is a racist, sexist, closeminded, bullying, bad, dark and yucky place. It’s been that way since its founding: fundamentally flawed from the start.


In that case, why not teach the Constitution – one of our most important founding documents that everything else in this country is supposedly predicated on? I mean, if liberals are right, shouldn’t such a formidable piece of history only solidify their arguments? It was, after all, composed and signed by a bunch of unapologetic, disgusting slave owners, right?

Yet they seem to want to do the exact opposite, only calling it a racist, sexist, closeminded, bullying, bad, dark and yucky manuscript… instead of proving it to be as much.

It’s almost like they don’t believe the academic or intellectual integrity of their own argument.