Skip to content

TGIF – July 19,2019.

Berkeley shows it’s intellect…again.

As noted by various news outlets, Berkeley  has gone on a witch hunt to discover and ban “gendered” words, such as manhole cover, or manpower.

Now if only they could figure out how to “de-gender” their people at birth, they would have a perfect world and the rest of  us could rest easy, knowing that these wingnuts couldn’t reproduce themselves.

This isn’t 2016.

Wednesday we posted a piece commenting on the furor over President Trump’s supposedly racist tweet regarding the not so fabulous AOC plus three, noting that color wasn’t the point.

Having said that, we also note that a lot of the attention-getting tactics Trump used in 2016 are unnecessary now, and may even be harmful to his campaign.

Not only does the whole country know who he is now, but he knows his and the country’s detractors and enemies by name and face now.

Take for instance the nicknames.

At best there are only a half dozen or so viable Democratic challengers, so why not hold off on labeling all but the top two or three until one shakes out on top in the primaries?

Take Biden for instance.

It’s obvious that Joe Biden hasn’t been in a real political combat zone for far too long. That’s not to say he can’t sharpen up with the aid of a newly hired debate coach, but he clearly wasn’t just off his game in the last debate, he didn’t even have a game.

If he can’t do better in the next Democratic debate at the end of the month, he’s toast.

Much as Trump’s base may love the schoolyard name-calling, the people opposing Trump have plenty of real things to attack them on, and that may be more functional this time around.

The squad of what army?

What do people hear and feel when Representatives Omar and Tlaib and the others of the “squad” swear to remain a thorn in the President’s side, or when they denounce Israel on a daily basis?

For many, they hear the blind, unreasoning hatred expressed by the radical proponents of jihad.

It doesn’t help the situation when one of the squad makes light of 911. Three thousand people have died and are still dying  to satisfy the murderous wishes of those people “who did something.”

As the dust and broken concrete and body parts were still swirling in the September air, someone hung a  banner that day that said “We will never forget.”

So, when the women of the squad sound like radicals, it isn’t hard to see why people see them that way.

 

What color would you like?

Maybe we should dye everyone’s skin pink, or blue or orange.

For some reason, Dr. Martin Luther King’s wish that America become essentially colorblind just didn’t make it in the real world, and that’s a shame.

The phrase this or that “…of color” is probably one of the most detested identity politics phrases in existence.

Now we have the outrage machine all spun up because the President insulted four “women of color.”

Never mind that he didn’t identify them as “colored”.

He identified them as bigoted, anti-Semitic, open border supporting liars, and they seem eager to prove that is exactly what they are.

They may also be part of a larger group of well-funded and very far-left socialist individuals whose purpose is to  change the U.S. into something they can control from afar.

Was the President’s tweet somewhat over the top? Maybe, although it’s biggest failing was that it identified all four women as immigrants. A little fact-checking would have gone  a long way to legitimize the message in the tweet.

Still, race wasn’t even mentioned in that tweet.  It was the “squad” that made it racist, not the President.

Let’s remember that two of the four, upon finding out they had won their elections, made that all about “…impeaching the motherf—–r”  and that’s still their main goal.  Never mind that people in the Bronx needed more jobs, or that more low-income housing would relieve the strain on the people in their districts.

So, let’s ditch the race-baiting “of color” qualifier.  A jackass of any color is still a jackass.

 

America’s new civil war.

America is in the lead up to another Civil War.

So far this hasn’t led to an all-out shooting war, but it’s a civil war nonetheless.

On one side you have the pro-America groups and on the other the groups who are sure the country and the culture of slavery was founded in America by racists and homophobes.

Actually, slavery was a world-wide condition long before it appeared in America, which was reportedly in 1680, and not all slaves prior to that time were black. Slavery was recorded as early as 3500 BC in the Middle East, and it spread into Europe in the Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries). Many slaves were the “Christians” of that era.

(Incidentally the English-speaking country we now call America was founded by a bunch of Englishmen in Jamestown, VA on May 13, 1607, well before 1680. Of course Spain and France had each glommed onto a piece of the North American pie long before then.)

The practice was also widely used in sub-Saharan Africa, prior to the development of the Atlantic slave trade, which was introduced by Portugal. So much for America being the originator of slavery.

That’s beside the point however.

Right now, there is a vocal, if small percentage of the population that seems to want the country to live under a different flag, as witnessed by incidents like the hoisting of the Mexican flag in Aurora, Colorado, or members of the so-called caravans waving the flags of their home countries.

However politically incorrect the President’s weekend tweet was regarding the “squad,” he simply gave voice to what a lot of people were thinking.  There are 192 other countries out there, and if you don’t like it here…well, maybe the squad should check out some of them.

So far, this clash is largely a media event, but it could go south (no pun intended) quickly. All it’s going to take is for groups like Antifa, or one of the white supremacy groups to pull something stupid, and this thing could go off like a roman candle.

 

TGIF – July 12, 2019

Soccer “stars” shoot equal pay argument in the foot.

Normally we’d be all in on the U.S. Women’s soccer team’s equal pay for equal revenue stance.

Not so much this time around.

Soccer isn’t an “American” sport, but for those who like it that’s neither here nor there.

What we are pretty sure of though is that it doesn’t deserve to have this specific “national” team. There’s something wrong with rewarding a sport, any sport, whose members trash the nation it is supposedly representing.

Apparently there were a lot of watchers rooting for France, England and the Netherlands this year, and that has to impact the team’s monetary value.

Not real smart when you are angling for a raise.

The camel’s whole head.

You’ve probably seen the rogue’s gallery photo array of the America-hating newly elected “women of color” whining about everything from the politician-driven overcrowding at the border to the one whining that America isn’t the Disneyland of her childhood dreams.

Now, it is a free country, so these women are free to have their own personal opinions.

As part of our governing body, they are not free to attempt to overthrow the government they so obviously don’t want to represent.

Their attitude makes it doubtful that giving them access to confidential and top secret information is a good idea.

At some point in time, we may find ourselves having to add another qualifier to those required to run for office. One that quantifies “national loyalty” as an ironclad requirement.

Scaredy-cat lefties.

Why are Dems so afraid for us to find out how many people without legal authorization for residency live here?

It’s unlikely that the President’s stop gap measure to come up with an accurate count will work any better than asking the question on the census.

Still, it’s better than nothing and has the added advantage that it could be updated every year.

Although we don’t have an exact count, CBP figures show nearly ¾’s of a million apprehended in  FY 2017, just at the southwest border.

Pelosi plays the race card…again

Really, Nancy?  Make America white again? This from an old, rich “well-connected” white woman?  Perhaps she hasn’t looked in the mirror lately.

Probably nothing is more untrue and more galling than Dems accusing President Trump and the people who voted for him of being racists.

The bad part of that is she and her liberal accomplices may be succeeding in creating racial animosity where there was none.

It seemed that for a short while, maybe during the decade of the 1980’s and perhaps a little of the ’90s, the country as a whole was approaching the point where skin color wasn’t a huge issue.

Sure, there were pockets of racial animosity, but by and large, people were judging each other by their strengths and weaknesses.

Don’t believe it? Then answer me how a somewhat politically  inexperienced candidate like Barack Obama got elected President in 2008, over a white man celebrated as a war hero. He was elected as much by whites as other ethnicities.

Twice.

Fast forward to the present day, and Nancy (Dolezal?) Pelosi.

You can’t turn on a news/opinion broadcast or pick up a paper without some liberal shouting that Trump and his supporters are RACIST, to the point that the word itself has lost all meaning.

Since “Russia, Russia, Russia”  has lost its cachet, maybe Dems just needed another “R” word to substitute.

Still, and as much as we might want to ignore it, Dems have succeeded in making skin color and ethnicity an abiding issue again.

Nice going, Nancy. You must be so proud.

How much for your vote?

According to the media, Kamala Harris is offering up to $100 billion to black voters making less than $100 – $125,000 a year to assist them in buying homes if they vote her into office.

That income level would put the people eligible for Harris’s $25,000 per family handout smack dab in the middle of upper echelon middle class households in many parts of the country.

This kind of “government assistance” is exactly what caused the housing crash in the 1980’s, as politicians decided everyone should own a home, whether they could pay for it or not.

It is just as hard for lower income white buyers to scrape together a down payment and closing costs as it is for blacks.

In talking to several black voters, most said that a candidate’s skin color was the last thing they would consider when voting for a future President. Several said they were insulted that Harris seems to think their votes are for sale.

Identity campaigning isn’t setting as well with many non-white voters as the Democrats might hope.

One woman noted that “It’s easy to see what kind of people she runs with” after reading the article explaining what Harris was offering.

Another noted that it was better for voters before there was TV.  “Then” she said, “candidates actually had to have something intelligent to say, instead of running on their looks.”

TGIF – July 5, 2019

Should we end legal immigration?

With reports of Democrat senator and president wannabe Booker personally escorting five asylum seekers over the Mexican border into the U.S. people are beginning to ask whether 2-plus million immigrants a year is just too many to process.

Since Democrat politicians plainly favor illegal immigrants over those who have followed the rules, perhaps if they win in 2020, we should halt the one million or so legal immigrants until we have processed all the illegal ones.

Of course it could take a long time to process the millions of people who have jumped the border, but hey, what’s another 20-30 years or so?

Of course that wouldn’t work, since one half of our Congress belongs to a party that favors completely open borders.  The answer by these bimbos to ending legal immigration would be to personally escort two million people and more over our useless border.

Egad.

Of Democrats and rubber rooms.

With elected senators personally escorting people across the border in violation of our laws, and AOC going on hysterically about concentration camps and CBP hiding dead people, one has to ask whether a perquisite to be a Democrat these days is to live in a rubber-walled room.

Based on recent news reports, the answer is a resounding YES.

One more time – citizenship question.

Apparently the DOJ is requesting another week to come up with a reason to ask this question that will satisfy SCOTUS.

Why not tell the truth?  It isn’t about gerrymandering, but it is about figuring out how many people can LEGALLY vote in national elections.

With California now permitting illegal migrants to vote in local and state elections, it wouldn’t be too surprising to find out that they are also voting in national contests as well.

Of course there are other reasons, such as to determine how much Federal money should be allocated to help both legal and illegal immigrants, but the reason above is paramount.

It isn’t even as though it’s a new question. That question has been on census forms since 1820, the last time in 2000, as this NPR article illustrates. There is no reason to exclude it now.