Skip to content

The Hitler-esque left.

Is Bernie Sanders reading Hitler’s propaganda in the original German, or using a translation? We don’t know, but reading it he surely is.

Back in the 1930’s Germany wasn’t doing very well economically, the result of their involvement in WW One.

Along comes Hitler, and convinces the populace that the problem was that the Jews were hoarding all the country’s money.

Fast forward to 2019, substitute “capitalist” for Jew, and “socialism” for “Reich” (which essentially means kingdom) and you have Bernie’s and the other socialists’ platform.

All of the so-called progressives, or as they prefer, democratic socialists, must convince enough voters that because capitalism doesn’t make everyone equally rich, they must embrace total government control of everything, or in other words, socialism.

That kinda works, because what socialism does is leave everyone (except those in the government) equally poor, which is after all, a form of income equality.

Will that work in today’s America?

Probably not right now, but if we keep indoctrinating our young people one day in the not too distant future, it might.

“Free” is a siren song, especially to the 18-30 crowd who feel they are being crushed by student loan debt that they weren’t smart enough or experienced enough to avoid.

What’s really the hoot about all this hoopla is that it’s being touted by an old, kinda rich white guy. Kinda, because his net worth is estimated at “only” about two million dollars. That puts him way behind the estimated net worth of Elizabeth Warren, authoress of the wealth tax scheme,  whose assets and income are estimated at just above $8 million. That’s still below $10 million.

Has anyone noticed that the so-called “wealth tax” is set to incomes high enough that it leaves a lot of Democrats unaffected by it?

As of right now it appears that most of us are still striving to earn as much as we can, more or less on our own.

Even so, 44% of the population does not pay any Federal income tax at all, up 2% from 2016, prior to the TCJA tax cuts.

It may well be that the rich will have to pay more, just to keep the books balanced. Most of the truly wealthy can see that.  We will either have to cut back on national spending drastically, or get more money from somewhere.

Although it’s really old news, one of those greedy capitalists, Ken Langone, last year made it possible for medical students at New York University Medical School to graduate tuition free. Seems like he’s noticed you can’t take it with you, and perhaps has also noticed that we are graduating too few doctors to serve the country.

Darn those greedy capitalists anyway. It’s so hard to demonize them when they do things like that.

TGIF – April 5, 2019

Is Howard Schultz 2020’s Ross Perot?

Although most political watchers think President Trump has a better than even chance of winning in 2020, given the far-left focus of Democrats, there is no doubt that there is a large contingent of voters who aren’t happy with either party.

GOP voters are upset that President Trump hasn’t so far been able to drain the swamp, while more than the usual number of Democrat voters feel their party has stampeded so far left that it no longer represents them.

These people tuned into the Schultz town hall on Thursday.

Most felt that he came across as “liberal-light” but he didn’t scare anyone off. They don’t think he can win, but he did well enough for them to consider him for a protest vote. Some who also voted for Perot in 1992 remarked that he sounded very much like Perot.

Unlike Perot, Schultz came out early with his position on some key issues, including third trimester abortions, which he doesn’t support.

Perot managed to garner nearly 19% of the vote and reduced Bill Clinton’s margin of victory substantially, reportedly by as much as seven points. If Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks, learns from Perot’s mistakes, he could become a spoiler.

Two miles of fence.

President Trump showed off two miles of completed “wall” today, giving us a look at what the next two years could produce in his bid to protect the southern border.

While it was nice to see what a few tens of millions of dollars is buying in today’s market, it’s real impact was made obvious by the law enforcement and CBP personnel who explained it’s real effect on their efforts to control illegal border crossings and protect their employees.

The President also reiterated his view that Mexico was “helping” enough to stave off closing said border for now.

Some of his detractors are giving him hell for changing his mind on closing the border at this time.

It seems like after two-plus years it should be obvious how the President negotiates. First he’ll tell you the worst than could happen and then he waits to see if you got the point.

It seems as though Mexico has, at least for now, gotten the point.

Do illegal entrants have to pay “reparations?”.  

Lately we’ve been hearing a lot about 21st century U.S. residents paying reparations, i.e. cash payments for the sins of our (mostly white)18th century ancestors.

Some might say we’ve been doing that at least since the mid 1960’s, in the form of various affirmative action policies.

Here’s the thing. To be fair, these reparations should only be paid by the descendants of those slave owners. Many people, even in the 16th, 17th and 18th and 19th  centuries did not own slaves. Some couldn’t afford it, and others were always against the practice.

And no one who immigrated to this country after 1865 ever owned a slave.

The Democrats and certain race-baiters seem to think this is a winning argument for them.

Like a lot of this claptrap, this sounds better than it will perform in practice.

Democrats – already a bridge too far?

As Democrats made good on their threat to seek subpoenas to force AG Barr to release the full unredacted Mueller report and all of its more than one million supporting documents, have they already gone too far?

In addition to that move, we have Adam Schiff coming very close to an outright threat against the Justice Department itself, not just Mueller.

Things like this keep people asking…What are these people so desperate to hide?

That nagging feel of unease got Donald Trump elected in 2016, and the ensuing two-and-a-half years have exposed a lot of chicanery on the part of Democrats.

Add to that the seeming Democrat infatuation with socialism, and you have a decided tilt toward these voters repeating their 2016 decision.

The continued assault on the President is now, more than ever before, starting to look a lot less like sour grapes and more like a determined effort to effect some very disturbing changes to the country itself.

Reinforcing that feeling is the way some Democrats seem determined to take out any Democrat who even smells slightly like a moderate.

GOP-inclined voters have so far been putting their money where their mouths are. As of January 31, the Trump campaign reported over 19 million dollars in its war chest.

It’s likely that Nadler’s move today will loosen up even more cash, even though it is still very early in the campaign cycle.

Irrational hate or irrational fear?

The dipsy Dems are all hot and bothered because they gave a command to Attorney General William Barr and he didn’t obey.  Thus we now have all sorts of threats from Jerrold Nadler and his bunch to subpoena the AG, etc. etc.

Pundits on both sides notwithstanding, a lot of people really don’t give a damn about reading the Mueller report.

The AG says the President didn’t “collude” with Russia and that’s good enough for them. Some do think about it enough to ask…if there was no crime, how could there be obstruction of justice?

Still, we have the Democrats jaybirding about wanting to see every single scrap of paper related to the report, and yada, yada, yada.

It’s not clear what they would even do with a couple of million pieces of paper.  Most of them won’t even the read the 400-page report.

So why in the hell are they still going on about it?

As we have said here before, it may go back to what Donald Trump’s election may have disrupted.

One thing seems sure. There are several people, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Rice, McCabe, Strzok, Page and the rest of the gang who apparently did conspire to rig the 2016 election.

So whose pocket were those people in?

Were they just afraid of being pushed off the gravy train, or was there more to it?

Maybe we will never know, but this obsession with continuing to investigate the President might, and probably should start an investigation of a very different sort.

Should cops oppose red flag laws?

After the Parkland shooting, law enforcement caught bloody hell for not locking up the shooter before he hurt anyone, and even more so for leaving guns in his possession.

The answer seemed to be “red flag” laws, and several states have passed them.

Now some law enforcement officers are refusing to honor the laws.

Our readers tend to be pro-Second Amendment, and many are NRA members.  We wondered what they thought, so we asked.

Almost to a person, they said that IF the red flag laws are fairly written and fairly enforced they were OK with removing firearms for a short period of time  Most thought a year was too long. saying things like this:

If you take away a person’s gun, then you need to go to court within say, 90 days and prove that they are a danger to themselves and others.”

What they worried about was the laws being used in a punitive fashion, and they all wanted some mechanism to be sure that didn’t happen.

As one man said “We shouldn’t ever have another situation like the Parkland murders happen again. On the other hand, just because two people, like a couple, argue a lot doesn’t mean you should take their guns away. The person who loses their guns should absolutely have the right to fight the order in court.

As for the sheriffs and law enforcement officers refusing to uphold the law, like a lady said;  “If you don’t like the law, then resign, or fight it in court. We don’t get to obey just the laws we like in this country.”

Do they think that this will lead to actual repeal of the Second Amendment?

That’s something we have to be on guard to protect. There’s no doubt that some in the government fear armed citizens. But refusing to disarm people like that creep who shot up the school is just stupid. That will turn everybody against legal gun ownership.”

So there you have it.

Over 100 million people in the U.S. legally own firearms. They hunt, they participate in shooting sports or they simply have a gun to protect themselves.

They don’t go around randomly shooting school kids, and they don’t support people who do.

That said, it would behoove anti-gun groups to understand that they also intend to back the Second Amendment to the hilt.

TGIF – March 29, 2019

Haters gotta hate.

If you want to know why Democrats and their news publicists simply can’t accept that Putin isn’t hiding under President Trump’s bed, you have only to listen to Eric Holder.

Holder holds a generational grudge against America for a wrong that a Republican President righted 150-plus years ago.

That’s the kind of hate you can’t reason with.

Likewise those who believe that Hillary lost because Putin is hiding under the President’s bed or under his desk can’t be talked out of their beliefs. Trying to do so is an exercise in futility.

What you can do is quit giving them recognition by arguing with them. Vote against them, ignore them on Twitter, block them on your TV, and move ahead.

Will Trump close the border?

He says so, but seeing is believing. Mexico would have us believe they aren’t aiding and abetting caravans, but pictures of buses loading up the travelers belies that.  Presidente Obrador may be right when he says he isn’t causing migrants to leave their home countries, but Mexico also isn’t doing much to stop them from using his country as a super highway.

Even so, he seems to be amenable to at least providing some help, chiefly by allowing the U.S. to keep them in Mexico.

Given the thousands of migrants that will enter our country just this week, citizens in border towns may have to get behind the closure if they want to control the ill effects border penetration is causing.

Little guys can win.

Finally, if you are as tired of politics as we are, take a gander at some kangaroo rats defending themselves by kicking the chops of snakes trying to eat them. This really is a story you have to see to believe.

 

The immigration issue Washington ignores.

Immigration is polling as America’s number one issue, but it’s unlikely politicians really understand all the nuances.

Some, perhaps even many people are beginning to ask why governors are not raising their own state defense forces to defend their states and citizens against the consequences of tens of thousands of illegal entrants every month.

Once the illegal aliens clear the border, they become essentially trespassers or at least unwanted guests on state lands.

Citizens speak of overcrowded classrooms, emergency rooms in hospitals overwhelmed by illegals, and wages being depressed by the ready supply of people who see $7.25 an hour as riches.

One man who spoke on the issue noted that if someone who is not an immigrant trespasses on his property he can have them put in jail and asks why this doesn’t apply to people dumped by the Federal government into his town.

These people are not satisfied, much less convinced by “asylum” claims, saying “Look we know that asylum is nothing more than one big con. Only a few percent can even prove that the grounds for asylum applies to them.”

To put it mildly, they are pissed.

One man suggested that his state’s governor simply refuse to accept the people released by the Feds.

Many of these people voted for President Trump because he promised to get a handle on illegal immigration, and especially now that the Mueller investigation is over they expect him to do it, by any means necessary.

They don’t see over 8,000 people entering illegally in just two days as getting a handle on it.

Most say that the President should close the border, and run the border crossers back into Mexico, again by any means necessary.

And they aren’t blind to how there got to be 8,000 people at the border. Another person noted:

“Mexico is providing transportation to the border by the bus load. Maybe it’s time to do something about that, trade be damned. How about we bill Mexico a few thousand dollars per border crosser? Maybe that would get their attention.”

And under the more reasonable objections, there is an undercurrent of people that believes that if the government doesn’t or can’t protect the border, maybe they can.

Politicians who ignore that do so at their own peril.