Skip to content

Democrat Common Sense — A Non-Sequitur

February 22, 2018

Mark Alexander


Source …..

“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any…” —James Madison (1788)

There’s a lot of Democrat chatter this week about “common-sense gun control,” their ubiquitous terminology for undermining what our Founders understood to be the First Civil Right of all people.

“To Keep and Bear Arms” is the unalienable right enumerated in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. It is thus second only to the First, but make no mistake: It guarantees the First and all others.

Frankly, whenever the words “common sense” come out of a Democrat’s pie hole, caveat emptor — all critical thinkers should vigorously challenge with prejudicial skepticism whatever follows thereafter.

In the wake of the Parkland, Florida, high school murders by a sociopathic assailant using a firearm, we cannot overlook the abject failure of federal, state and local agencies to intervene despite having been warned of the risk posed by this individual.

But it’s the response from Donald Trump versus that from Barack Obama which demonstrates the great divide between Republicans and Democrats on the causation for such violent acts.

Republicans, rightly and consistently, call attention to the cultural factors that result in violence — the statist policies that have propagated that culture, and the fact that young minds are inculcated with a saturation of media violence. On the other hand, Democrats predictably focus on the inanimate objects used to commit violence (in this case a semi-automatic rifle), the latter being a much easier target, as well as a tactic within a larger leftist objective — constriction of the Second Amendment and, ultimately, gun confiscation.

When I contemplate the words “common sense,” it first invokes the notion of an understanding of something which is universally shared.

Second, I think of the 1776 pamphlet, “Common Sense,” published by Thomas Paine, which framed the cause and call for undertaking the fatigues necessary to defend American Liberty thusly: “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.”

Clearly, the Democrat Party long ago abandoned Paine’s understanding of “common sense” as it related then and now to supporting and sustaining Liberty for this and future generations. That understanding is in direct conflict with the statist policies they advocate.

So, to consider what should be inferred from their use of “common sense” in regard to the Second Amendment, here are a few examples from the past week.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “Congress has a moral responsibility to take common sense action to prevent the daily tragedy of gun violence in communities across America.” (In other words, anyone who doesn’t comply with the Democrats’ political agenda is immoral.)

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo: “The president should follow our lead and advance common sense gun safety legislation.” (Make no mistake, by “gun safety” Cuomo means “gun confiscation.”)

Speaking for leftist celebrity hypocrites, Jimmy Kimmel: “This is the perfect example of common sense. … This is a mental illness issue, because if you don’t think we need to do something about it, you are mentally ill.” (That’s right, forget the mentally ill perpetrator. If you don’t agree with Kimmel, you’re mentally ill.)

Of course, leftist editorial pages and advocacy groups across the nation, funded by the billionaire archenemies of Liberty who support them, are insisting on “common sense” gun control measures.

The socialist Daily Kos: “Are we ever going to have common sense gun laws?” “Let’s talk common sense. The National Rifle Association [is] one of the main reasons we remain unable to pass common sense gun laws.”

Most notably, within hours of the latest tragedy in Florida, the two most prominent Democrats in the nation were leading the “common sense” bandwagon, including the Orwellian BIG lie that “most Americans agree” with them.

Hillary Clinton: “The majority of Americans support common sense gun reform.” (Fortunately the majority of Electoral College votes did not support Clinton.)

Barack Obama: “Caring for our kids is our first job, and until we can honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep them safe from harm, including long overdue, commonsense gun safety laws that most Americans want, then we have to change.” (That’s right, according to Obama, if you’re a defender of Liberty and the Second Amendment, you don’t “care for our kids,” and when he says “gun safety laws” he means “gun confiscation.”)

(Keep in mind, all of these politicos have taxpayer-funded armed security with them 24/7, and they reside in high-security, walled domiciles.)

So, what is it that Clinton and Obama, and their legions of socialist useful idiots, mean when they refer to “common sense” gun control measures?

Both Clinton and Obama have advocated for the Australian gun confiscation model, and implementation of that model in the future would be the Democrats’ greatest legislative prize.

Obama declared in 2014: “The one area where I have been most frustrated … is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common sense gun safety laws. … A couple decades ago, Australia … basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws. … This is something we should politicize. … I would ask the American people to think about how they can get our government to change [our gun] laws.”

During her 2016 campaign, Clinton likewise declared: “The Australian government … offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and then they basically clamped down on guns going forward. … By offering to buy back those guns, they were able to curtail the supply. … Several communities have done gun buy-back programs, but I think it would be worth doing on the national level.”

Now, to be clear, when Obama says “imposed very severe, tough gun laws,” he’s referring to gun confiscation.

And when Clinton says “offering to buy back those guns,” she’s referring to gun confiscation, which she then says “would be worth doing on the national level.”

As a resource for dealing with gun-grabbing leftists, earlier this week I posted a detailed transcript of a debate with a suburban lefty on the Australian gun confiscation issue — and much more regarding the Second Amendment.

Clearly, Australia isn’t plagued with the broken families and the urban poverty plantations that five decades of failed Democrat social policies will engender. But appealing for gun control after a mass shooting is much easier than acknowledging the generational policy failures that account for most crime in the U.S.

The indisputable fact is this: If you don’t have a violent criminal record, or have ties to drugs or gangs, the probability of your being murdered in the U.S. falls in line with other developed nations where most types of guns have been banned for years.

To that point, according to research regarding murders in the nation’s second deadliest city, “The average homicide victim in Baltimore in 2017 had 11 previous arrests on his record. About 73 percent had drug arrests, and nearly 50 percent had been arrested for a violent crime. About 30 percent were on parole or probation at the time they were killed, and more than 6 percent were on parole or probation for a gun crime.”

Similarly, “The average homicide suspect, meanwhile, had 9 previous arrests on his record. About 70 percent had drug arrests, and nearly half had been arrested for a violent crime. Nearly 36 percent were on parole or probation, and 6 percent were on parole or probation for a gun crime.”

Here are a few more reality-check bullet points regarding the assault on the Second Amendment, ammunition for debate we should all be having with those who have bought into all the emotive “common sense” nonsense, including those unwitting teenage pawns being used to advance the Left’s agenda.

The nation’s most dangerous cities are invariably Democrat strongholds. More than half the murders in the U.S. occurred in 2% of the nation’s counties. Show me a deadly city, and I’ll show you a Democrat in charge of it.

For the record, the top urban crime centers have the most restrictive firearm regulations in the nation. Using Demo-logic, then, shouldn’t these “gun-free zones” be the safest places in America?

If crime in America is a “gun problem” and not a cultural problem, then Switzerland should be a slaughterhouse. There are more full-auto assault rifles per capita in Switzerland than in any other Western nation, and yet the Swiss have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world — far lower than in the UK, which has the strictest gun laws in Europe and, now, one of the highest rates of crime. Several other Western nations with substantial numbers of guns in private hands, including Germany, Austria and Iceland, also have low homicide rates.

Despite all the Democrat rhetoric about “common sense,” Obama had full legislative control of the 111th Congress in 2009, including a filibuster-proof Senate majority and a House with 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Democrats could have enacted every gun control measure they wanted at that time, much as they could have enacted their ruinous immigration policies. But they didn’t.

Perhaps their understanding of “common sense” is not so common.

Crime in the U.S. has actually declined significantly over the last two decades. Concurrently, gun ownership in America has increased significantly, while homicides by assailants with guns have also declined.

Apparently, more guns, less crime.

While President Trump is going to take a second pass at outlawing some firearm modifications, which, in effect make them function like select-fire weapons, recall that there was a so-called “assault weapon ban” in place from 1994-2004, when it expired. Research by the Department of Justice determined that the ban had no impact on reducing crime, and implementation of another ban is unlikely.

And according to the FBI’s latest annual crime statistics, rifles were used in 252 homicides, while knives were used in 1,544 homicides, blunt objects in 437 homicides and bare hands in 624 homicides.

The Leftmedia’s saturation coverage (selling advertising on the blood of innocents) communicates this to potential future mass murderers:

  1. We’ll make sure you’re famous by devoting all our air time to you.
  2. As targets go, a school will get you the most attention, and nobody will shoot back.
  3. Use an AR-15 — they’re the most popular gun for the job, and then we will call it an “assault weapon.”

What about the Leftmedia reports asserting that most Americans agree with added gun-control measures? This is a classic case of the tried-and-true “Pollaganda Effect,” whereby the MSM inundates viewers with opinion masquerading as “journalism,” then polls them on what they’ve just been told.

And it’s these same media propagandists who are fomenting student protests nationwide this week.

Finally, liberals tend to share a pathological insecurity, which causes them to embrace the false security of statism. They live in deep denial, particularly when hiding from the reality that history repeats itself. Recall the words of George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Or Aldous Huxley: “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.”

We are all deeply affected when sociopaths slaughter innocents, regardless of their weapon of choice. But it is no small irony that the Left side of the ideological spectrum is uniquely accountable for the mass murder of millions of innocents in the last century — but in every case only after they were disarmed.

And consistent with their insecurity, what is also at the core of the Left’s gun hysterics is a deep fear of common folks, self reliant individuals across the nation who still uphold the most basic tenets of American Liberty.

Tucker Carlson aptly summarized it up: “The calls you’re hearing today for gun control have nothing to do with protecting Americans from violence. What you’re witnessing is a kind of class war. The Left hates rural America, gun-owning America, the America that elected Donald Trump. They call it ‘gun control.’ It’s not. It’s people control. For the Left, voters who can’t be controlled can’t be trusted.”

Here’s the bottom line on “common sense” in regard to the Second Amendment: In his landmark work, “Commentaries on the Constitution” (1833), James Madison’s Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, wrote, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Those words ring as true today as when first written.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776



Shooting Survivor Quit CNN Town Hall After Refusing to Ask ‘Scripted’ Question

February 22, 2018

Joel B. Pollak


Source …..

Colton Haab, a student who survived last week’s mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, refused to participate in a CNN Town Hall on Wednesday night after he was told to ask a “scripted” question.

Haab, a junior at the high school, told Fort Lauderdale ABC affiliate WPLG that CNN invited him to speak at the televised town hall in nearby Sunrise, Florida, and that he and his parents had dressed up for the occasion.

But CNN then told Haab he would have to read a question that CNN had prepared for him:

Haab: I expected to be able to ask my questions and give my opinion on my questions.

Reporter Janine Stanwood: But Colton Haab, a member of the Junior ROTC, who shielded classmates in the midst of terror, says he did not get to share his experience.

Haab: CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions, and it ended up being all scripted.

Stanwood: Colton wrote questions about school safety, suggested using veterans as armed school security guards, but claims CNN wanted him to ask a scripted question instead. So he decided not to go.

Haab: I don’t think that it’s going to get anything accomplished. It’s not going to ask the true questions that all the parents and teachers and students have.

The town hall was overwhelmingly stacked in favor of gun control. Two students whom CNN chose to ask questions attacked National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch as a bad mother. CNN’s Jake Tapper, who moderated the event, did not defend Loesch.


13 Things the Media Don’t Want You to Know About Mueller’s 13 Indictments

February 22, 2018

John Nolte


Source …..

Last week, the leak machine that is special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens, and our disgraced media disgraced themselves even further by comparing these alleged crimes to Pearl Harbor. The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. Basically, these indictments reveal to us all kinds of inconvenient truths the corrupt media are hiding from the public, and below are 13 of them.

Before we get started, I must credit Byron York for doing most of the work in breaking down the Mueller indictment. You will definitely want to read his full piece here.

We will start with my favorite:

  1. Mueller Did Not Indict the Russians for Election Meddling

In the end, although they have been indicted for all kinds of sexy stuff, like identity theft and bank fraud, these 13 Russian citizens (who will never be extradited to America) are not charged with what we are told is their big crime — meddling in the election.

John Hinderaker believes, and not without merit, that Mueller did this to protect Hillary Clinton.

  1. The Russians Never Tried to Elect Trump

The biggest lie Democrats and the media wish to spread is that the Russians actively worked to make Donald Trump president. These indictments have exposed that narrative as anti-science hogwash.

Chaos was the only Russian gameplan, which is why, after Trump’s surprise win, they organized anti-Trump rallies. Before the election, they promoted Trump and Bernie Sanders to gin up opposition to the person whom they believed would be the next president — Hillary Clinton.

Had the polls showed Trump running away with it, the Russians would have promoted Hillary.

The indictment quotes a Russian document that lays out the primary goal — to create “political intensity through supporting radical groups, users dissatisfied with [the] social and economic situation and oppositional social movements … [to] spread distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.”

  1. The Russian Campaign Began Two Years Before Trump Announced His Presidential Run

The indictment clearly states that the Russian operation began in May of 2014 with “the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016.”

The media would have you believe this conspiracy centered around Trump. It did not; it never did — at least not until after he won the election, and then the Russians organized events in opposition to him.

  1. Most of the Russian Spending Occurred AFTER the Election

Even though this Russian chaos campaign began in 2014, most of the money spent was still AFTER the 2016 election. According to Byron York, “Just 44 percent came before the election, while 56 percent came after the election.”

  1. The Budget for This Operation Was Laughably Small

Starting in September of 2016, two months before the election, the Russians spent a measly $1.2 million a month. When you compare that to the billions spent by Trump, Hillary, special interest groups, and the anti-Trump corporate media, it is like dropping a teaspoon of water into a boiling cauldron.

  1. Only $3,200 Was Spent on Advertising in Swing States

Trump is president because he picked off Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The total Russian ad spend in those three crucial states was hilariously close to zero: $1,979, $823, and $300, respectively.

  1. Only 11 Million People Saw the Russian Facebook Ads — Kind Of

While 11 million people saw the Russians’ Facebook ads, the context is important. The 11 million saw these ads between 2015 and 2017, and only 44 percent of the ads were placed prior to the election.

During all this time, the Russians spent a total of $100,000. Compare that to the Clinton and Trump campaigns, which spent a combined $81 million on Facebook advertising.

  1. Vast Majority of Russian Ad Buy Did Not Reference the Election

According to Facebook, this is the truth about that minuscule ad buy: “The vast majority [of the ads] didn’t specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate.”

  1. Other Russian Facebook Content Was Even More Hapless

Byron York explains:

Of course, Facebook is more than ads; the vast majority of the material on it is so-called organic content, produced by the people who use Facebook. The company estimates that a total of around 150 million people may have been “served content” from a page associated with the Russians during the two-year period before and after the election. That means that some Russian-produced content was visible on news feeds — not that Facebook users necessarily saw it or engaged with it.

“This equals about four-thousands of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content,” Facebook executive Colin Stretch said in prepared testimony before the Senate last November.

  1. After Trump’s Victory, the Russians Organized an Anti-Trump Rally

To continue to create chaos, after Trump won, the Russians organized competing rallies in New York. One was pro-Trump, the other against.

  1. CNN and MSNBC Immediately Became Putin’s Patsies

Newsbusters reports that CNN and MSNBC were Putin’s perfect patsies when it came to promoting Russia’s anti-Trump rally:

One of the revelations in Friday’s indictment handed down by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was that alleged Russian attempts to sow disunity in 2016 included the organization of both pro- and anti-Trump rallies in New York City on the Saturday after Election Day.

A check of their November 12 coverage showed both CNN and MSNBC gave enthusiastic coverage to the Russian-organized anti-Trump rally that day, with live reports every hour. Correspondents celebrated the idea that it was “a love rally,” and repeated the marchers’ anti-Trump mantras, such as: “We reject the President-elect.”

While the two liberal anti-Trump networks offered heavy coverage of the anti-Trump rally throughout the day, a check of coverage between noon and 5:00 p.m. Eastern found that the Fox News Channel offered only a short re-cap (66 seconds) at the start of their 4:00 p.m. Eastern hour.

  1. President Obama Knew the Russians Were Meddling, Thought It Was Funny, Did Nothing

Just three weeks before the election, a full three years into the Russian chaos program, Obama dismissed the whole idea of election meddling and mocked Trump as a whiner:

But the larger point I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even — you could even rig America’s elections, in part, because they are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved.

There is no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. And so I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.

And here is a video of Rachel Maddow in 2014 laughing it up after Obama dismissed Russia to that of “a gnat on an elephant’s butt.”

A year later, the Russians would set up their chaos operation.

  1. The Russians Promoted Black Lives Matter, Immigration, and Muslims

The Washington Examiner:

The primary objective of the Russians’ conspiracy, according to Mueller’s indictment, was to “spread distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general,” and not necessarily to put Trump in the Oval Office, as many Democrats have claimed.

Russian groups allegedly created Facebook and Instagram pages that promoted polarizing content across a range of issues not specific to any political party — including a pro-immigration page called “Secured Borders,” a Black Lives Matter-themed Instagram page called “Blacktivist” that supported third-party candidate Jill Stein, and religious-linked pages called “United Muslims of America” and “Army of Jesus.”

Now that we know the Russians are only interested in creating chaos, those who help in this effort against Trump, like CNN and NBC News, can no longer be described as “unwitting patsies.” Rather, they will reveal themselves as willing colluders and collaborators and must be called out as such.


Pro-Choice Dem Issues Sickeningly Tone-Deaf Comment on FL Shooting

February 22, 2018

V Saxena


Source …..

California Sen. Kamala Harris, an avid pro-abortion advocate with close ties to Planned Parenthood, responded to last week’s mass shooting in Florida by issuing a tone-deaf comment regarding gun control.

“This cannot be a political issue; we have to be practical. I support the Second Amendment, but we have to have smart gun safety laws,” she said last Thursday during an appearance on MSNBC.

“And we cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered,” the California lawmaker added.

As noted by, while Harris may have had “good intentions” (I personally doubt that), her words were “deeply hypocritical” given that she happens to be “one of the strongest abortion supporters in America.”

Harris reportedly maintains a 100 percent pro-abortion rating with NARAL Pro-Choice America and a 100 percent rating with Planned Parenthood’s “2018 Congressional Scorecard.”

The Daily Wire further noted that she received $43,155 in donations from pro-abortion activist groups during the 2016 presidential election.

Furthermore, during the election two years ago, she asked her supporters to sign a petition to “defend Planned Parenthood.”

“We can all agree on one thing. Washington is broken. Voting to strip federal funding from an organization that provides vital health services to 2.7 million Americans is the epitome of dysfunction,” the petition read, according to the Los Angeles Times.

This woman clearly believes in abortion, a medical procedure responsible for the merciless slaughter of over 60 million babies since the Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973.

So for her to suggest that “babies are being slaughtered” due to a lack of gun control is the epitome of hypocrisy, not to mention tone-deafness.

But it’s also an indication of how she and other leftists view unborn babies.

“You would think Harris would be at least minimally self-aware enough not to refer to ‘babies’ when describing callousness towards children dying. That’s how little regard the left has for life in the womb,” opined “Allahpundit ” of HotAir.

Exactly. To Harris and crew, unborn babies are just useless “clumps of cells.” But we as conservatives know that every unborn life is a human being, who although less developed, is no different than the 17 who were killed during the mass shooting last Wednesday at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Look, if Harris and others like her want to push for gun control, fine. It’d be quite nice though if they could at least stop acting like they give a damn about “babies being slaughtered,” because the fact is they clearly don’t.


Jessica Vaughn: Feds Should Prosecute Sanctuary City Officials

February 22, 2018

Robert Kraychik


Source …..

“There needs to be some consequence for having a sanctuary policy,” said Jessica Vaughn, advising the federal government to withhold certain funding from sanctuary city jurisdictions that shield criminal illegal aliens from justice. “Sanctuary policies,” she added, “are killing Americans.”

Vaughn, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, joined Breitbart News’s Senior Editor-at-Large Rebecca Mansour for a Tuesday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight.

The federal government should strip at least some federal funding from state and local governments with “sanctuary” policies, said Vaughn.

She added:

The other thing that [the federal government is] trying to do is to deny certain federal law enforcement grants to sanctuary jurisdictions, whether they’re cities, states, counties; they’re trying to make these grants off-limits for sanctuaries, which makes sense. Why should a jurisdiction get taxpayer money for law enforcement when they’re stiffing one of the biggest law enforcement agencies of the federal government. They shouldn’t. There needs to be some consequence for having a sanctuary policy. … Hopefully the federal government will be able to deny them some funding.

The federal government should consider prosecuting state and local officials who implement and enforce “sanctuary policies” violative of federal law, said Vaughn. Victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens shielded by “sanctuary policies” should considering suing “sanctuary jurisdictions” for damages, she added.

She also argued that Congress should “pass some laws that would facilitate imposing consequences” on “sanctuary” jurisdictions, as well as politicians and officials implementing them.

“California has become the new Confederacy, now,” observed Mansour, as a Californian. “We’re just deciding that we’re not going to listen to the federal government. We’re essentially firing on Fort Sumpter, here.”

“People are literally dying because of these policies,” said Vaughn of Americans killed — via murder or negligence — at the hands of illegal aliens shielded by “sanctuary” policies.

The country should be “sanctuary for Americans,” she concluded.

Breitbart News Tonight airs Monday through Friday on SiriusXM’s Patriot channel 125 from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific).


Do not let the children lead

February 21, 2018

Michelle Malkin


Source …..

Where are all the grown-ups in times of crisis and grief? Don’t bother searching America’s prestigious law schools.

Two adult men, occupying lofty perches as law professors, argued this week that the voting age in the U.S. should be lowered to 16 because some high school survivors of the Parkland, Florida, shooting who want gun control “are proving how important it is to include young people’s voices in political debate.”

That was the assertion of University of Kentucky law professor Joshua Douglas on He praised some student leaders at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who’ve been making the rounds on TV, shouting at President Trump, Republicans in Congress and the NRA “to demand change” — which Douglas defines obtusely as “meaningful gun control,” whatever that means.

Because these children are apparently doing a better job at broadcasting his own ineffectual political views, Douglas asserts, “we should include them more directly in our democratic process” by enfranchising them now.

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe similarly tweeted, “Teens between 14 and 18 have far better BS detectors, on average, than ‘adults’ 18 and older.” On what basis does distinguished Professor Tribe make such a claim? On a foundation of pure, steaming BS.

Undaunted, gun control advocate Tribe urged: “Wouldn’t it be great if the voting age were lowered to 16? Just a pipe dream, I know, but . . . #Children’sCrusade?”

This is unadulterated silliness. It’s hashtag hokum from a pair of pandering left-wing profs exploiting a new round of Democratic youth props. I have called this rhetorical fallacy “argumentum ad filium:” If politicians appeal to the children, it’s unassailably good and true.

This is not compassion, but abdication. America is not a juvenilocracy. It is a constitutional republic. There is a reason we don’t elect high school sophomores and juniors to public office or allow them to cast ballots. There are many, many reasons, actually.

Pubescents are fueled by hormones and dopamine and pizza and Sonic shakes. They’re fickle and fragile and fierce and forgetful. They hate you. They love you. They need you. They ignore you. They know everything. They know nothing. All in the span of 10 seconds. I know. I have two of them.

If you’re lucky, they’ve only Googled “Should I eat Tide pods?” or “What happens if I snort Ramen powder?” and not actually attempted the latest social media stunt challenges.

But that’s what kids do. Because they’re kids.

Many may be exceptionally smart, passionate and articulate beyond their years, but they do not possess any semblance of wisdom because they have not lived those years. Their knowledge of history, law and public policy is severely limited (Common Core certainly hasn’t helped). And their moral agency and cognitive abilities are far from fully developed.

Most are in no position to change the world when they can’t even remember to change their own bedsheets.

Yet, Tribe relishes the opportunity to hide behind the young Parkland activists headed to CNN’s propaganda town halls and Washington, D.C.: “NRA will meet more than its match in these amazing kids,” he gleefully cheered. “(I)t’ll meet its master and will be brought to heel. At long last.”

President Obama employed this very same kiddie human shield strategy to ram his federal health care takeover through Capitol Hill and down our throats. Immigration and education lobbyists use it, too. Their cynicism is unbounded. Human prop-a-palooza infantilizes public discourse and renders measured, mature dissent impossible. Those who question the logic, efficacy and wisdom of the latest left-wing “children’s crusade” face accusations of “hating” the children. Refusing to acquiesce to their tears and protests is tantamount to letting them die.

Showing resilience and resolve in the face of horrific adversity deserves the highest praise and attention. Juvenile victim status, however, does not warrant absolute moral authority or the unfettered powers in the political arena that ideologically stunted law professors are so eager to bestow upon them.

It’s fine to listen, but do not let the children lead.


Looks like the only person fooled by Russian ‘meddling’ was Michael Moore – here he is vocally parti

February 21, 2018

Robert Laurie


Source …..

Michael Moore is the ultimate capitalist.  Oh sure, he beats the socialist drum, but he does it for a buck.  If you look at his life – complete with Harvey Weinstein parties and an array of multimillion-dollar homes – you’ll quickly realize he’s a 21st Century snake-oil salesman who decries the “1%” while coveting money and the comforts that come with it. …And hey, more power to him.  He has a gimmick that sells, and it’s made him a fortune.

His most recent business model is centered around his opposition to Trump.  First, he read the tea leaves and wisely called the 2016 election early.  Then he set himself up as a premiere voice in the “Resistance” that Keith Olbermann thought he was going to lead.

To be honest, it hasn’t been as lucrative as some of his previous ventures. His movies haven’t done quite as well as they have in the past. One was a bit of stand-up released in 2016 to tepid reviews and microscopic (even by Moore standards) box office.  Another is stuck in studio legal limbo thanks to the Weinstein mess. The Broadway show was a flop.

…. But at least he still has the protests.  Those are successful, right?  Remember when he joined that “Not My President” mob marching on Trump Tower just after the election?

Yeah….about that.

The Russians indicted for meddling in the 2016 presidential contest were also behind anti-Trump rallies after the election, prosecutors said Friday, revealing another aspect of Russia’s alleged interference as it worked to sow discord in the United States.

“After the election, the defendants allegedly staged rallies to support the president-elect while simultaneously staging rallies to protest his election,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a Friday press conference.

Friday’s indictment filing – signed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller – says the defendants organized a Nov. 12 “Trump is NOT my President” rally in New York.

…And Here’s Michael Moore, appearing front and center in that Russia-organized debacle.

According to Michael Moore’s Facebook page, Trump is a “sociopath” and a “racist.” He also decried the way “Russia hacked into our election in order to help Trump.” Here his is, drawing attention to, and thereby helping with, their efforts:

Yeah. It’s long. The funniest part is when he says Hillary’s not a liar.

Anyway, it looks like Michael Moore is one of the “Russian Bots” we keep hearing about. At the very least, he unwittingly worked to spread their message.

That’s not a surprise, since this is hardly the first time Moore has been a stooge for a communist regime. Remember that time he praised Cuba’s healthcare system?

All in a day’s work for this capitalist.

Thomas Issues His Cultural Ruling

February 21, 2018

Thomas Gallatin


Source …..

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made a rare public appearance Thursday, speaking at the Library of Congress. His remarks yielded some noteworthy fruit. He opined, “At some point, we’re going to be fatigued with everybody being the victim.” Thomas went on to describe a recent encounter he had with a young black woman in Kansas who exclaimed to him that she was “really tired of having to play the role of being black.” She added that she “just want[ed] to go to school.”

Thomas then relayed the wisdom he received from the most influential person in his life — his grandfather, who took in Thomas and his brother when his single mother was unable to care for him. Thomas described his grandfather as a “hero” and “the single greatest human being I’ve ever met.” From him Thomas learned to “always … play the hand you’re dealt. If you’re dealt a bad hand, you still have to play it.” The future justice learned that there was no room for complaining, epitomized by one of his grandfather’s most regularly voiced refrains — “Old Man Can’t is dead. I helped bury him.”

Reflecting on his own experience, Thomas worried that the over-politicization of the judicial confirmation process will dissuade good people from serving. “This is not the Roman Colosseum. We’re not gladiators,” he observed. “And I think we’re going to lose some of our best people who choose not to go through the ordeal. They don’t want to have to fight the lion in order to be a judge or to be in government. And I think it’s our own fault for allowing this to happen.”

On the Supreme Court since surviving Ted Kennedy’s despicable character assassination attempt and winning confirmation in 1991, Thomas has been a principled and constitutionally committed justice and thus has served as a lightening rod for leftist criticism even to this day. Case in point is an article written by Jill Abramson and released in New York magazine just yesterday advocating for Justice Thomas to be impeached over — what else? — Anita Hill’s accusations as part of the #MeToo movement. There are no new accusations against Thomas; rather this is merely another attempt by leftists to demonize and libel the conservative justice as they seek to further their radical extremist agenda. Yes, we certainly are fatigued with everybody being the victim.


Trump Is the Worst President?

February 21, 2018

The Patriot Post


Source …..

On the occasion of George Washington’s birthday observation, wrongly dubbed “Presidents’ Day,” a newly released New York Times poll of so-called “presidential politics experts” ranked President Donald Trump, after just one year in office mind you, as the worst of America’s presidents. This same group of “experts,” in a laughable display of “objectivity,” ranked Barack Obama as the nation’s eighth best, up 10 spots from the 2014 poll. That raises the obvious question: Other than the fact that he is no longer president, what standards have changed to suddenly improve Obama’s ranking by 10 spots?

Actually, the real question is this: What standard of judgement were these “experts” using? It would seem they relied most heavily on their own subjective political bias. A truer and more objective guide by which to judge a president is the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II, which delineates the duties and limits of the office. Judging from the opinions of these “experts,” it’s a good bet many of them need to reread, if not read for the first time, the Constitution. Even leftist Nate Silver bemoaned the poll’s lack of objectivity, tweeting, “It speaks poorly to the field of presidential scholarship that political scientists have Trump ranked as the worst president of all time — after only one year on the job — below presidents who e.g. helped blunder us into the Civil War & Great Depression.” He still misses the point, of course. Faithfully upholding the presidential oath to support and defend the Constitution is the true and only test. On that, Obama not only utterly failed but intentionally and contemptuously so.

Furthermore, using the constitutional test, these experts also get it completely wrong by ranking the likes of Franklin Roosevelt (3), Lyndon Johnson (10), Woodrow Wilson (11) and Bill Clinton (13) far too highly. The experts couldn’t even get the simplest one correct: Washington, not Lincoln, is first among presidents.

Obviously, this Times survey is purely a political hit-job designed to reinforce the Left’s desired anti-Trump narrative rather than report on any genuinely objective, scholarly measurement of a president. By using unnamed “experts” to declare that Trump is just the worst, the Times aims to continue brow-beating Americans into rejecting a man who actually had a pretty impressive first year in office. That’s especially true when compared to the last eight years of the most anti-American presidency in the nation’s history. But, honestly, should Americans expect anything less from the Leftmedia?


It’s all THEATER: Florida high school shooting survivor caught on video rehearsing scripted lines, coached by camera man

February 20, 2018


Source …..

Is anyone surprised anymore at the depths of deception invoked by the fake news media? All weekend long, the media paraded high school kids in front of news cameras, exploiting them as props for the emotional exploitation of the public. Now it turns out these kids were coached to repeat scripted lines, just like actors reading lines for a movie production. It’s all scripted, in other words, to push a gun control narrative rooted in emotional reaction rather than constructive solutions.

It also turns out that one of these kids — David Hogg — is the son of an FBI agent. In other words, his father was part of the same deep state swamp that has been committing treason to try to destroy Trump. This was almost never mentioned in any of the TV news interviews where he was vehemently defending the FBI and blaming President Trump for the shooting.

This is all explained in more detail by Lucian Wintrich, via The Gateway Pundit:

EXPOSED: School Shooting Survivor Turned Activist David Hogg’s Father in FBI, Appears To Have Been Coached On Anti-Trump Lines [VIDEO]

In less than a week since they survived a mass murdering gunman attack on their school, two student who quickly became media stars of the Parkland, Florida school shootings are now media obsessed to the point they say they are snubbing an invitation to meet with President Donald Trump this Wednesday in favor of appearing on a televised town hall with CNN’s Jake Tapper. […]

One student, in particular, David Hogg seems articulate and highly skilled at setting a new anti-Conservative/anti-Trump narrative behind the recent school shooting. Few have seen this type of rapid media play before and when they have it has come from well-trained political operatives and MSM commentators.

Immediately, these students-turned-activists threw up some red flags.

In what seemed initially as an incredibly odd move for a high school student, Hogg’s vehemently defended the FBI and placed the blame squarely on the President’s shoulders…. before admitting that his father was in the FBI.

“I think it’s disgusting, personally. My father’s a retired FBI agent and the FBI are some of the hardest working individuals I have ever seen in my life,” proclaimed David Hogg to CNN.

“It’s wrong that the president is blaming them for this.”

Continuing, Hogg demonstrated his complete lack of American civics knowledge. A clueless Hogg appeared unaware of the fact that the President is not ‘in control’ of each department and branch of government, but must work and negotiate with them. Hogg added that Trump is in charge of the FBI.

“He can’t put that off on them. He is in charge of them and these people, what they love to do is push this off on bureaucracy and say it’s not them,” he said. “He is in charge of the FBI … the executive branch is supposed to enforce laws and as such, President Trump is in charge of that and the FBI.”

Anyone who has been following the news could tell you that many in the FBI have been working against the president from the start, with the most notable case being the Obama Administration alongside the Clinton campaign’s attempts to push the false ‘verification’ of the junk Steele Dossier. It has also been widely reported that the FBI received tips well in advance of the Florida school shooting and decided, for whatever reason, not to act.

The fault for this tragedy lies squarely on the shoulder’s of the FBI who could have prevented this back in January.

Adding to the credibility of Hogg, in a recently uncovered early cut from one of his interviews it appears he was heavily coached on lines and is merely reciting a script. Frequently seen in the footage mouthing the lines he should be reciting, Hogg becomes flustered multiple times and apologizing and asking for re-takes.

Why would the child of an FBI agent be used as a pawn for anti-Trump rhetoric and anti-gun legislation? Because the FBI is only looking to curb OUR Constitutional rights and INCREASE their power. We’ve seen their propaganda many times. Don’t let them win.

Read more coverage at The Gateway Pundit.


%d bloggers like this: