I have been saying all along that one of Trump’s largest detractors was that he speaks in broad-speak. He makes sweeping claims and offers little substance. However, when he does offer substance, often it’s not bad. Such is the case with this memo from his campaign about how to get Mexico to pay for The Trump Wall.
My grandmother always said that there are two things one should never talk about at the dinner table, religion and politics. Both topics carrying heavy emotions and people get very heated in their exchanges on religion and politics. I always felt that one of the greatest things about the United States was that we DID talk about religion and politics. Growing up with parents in academia, I have been engaged in serious debates on these topics since I was a young child. My father’s best friend, when I was a child, was a man he did not agree with at all on almost anything political. Yet, they managed to have a long and meaningful friendship. I too have had, and continue to have, friends with whom I have not agreed with on both topics.
Now it seems that we cannot discuss politics… not for fear of being rude… but fear of being prosecuted by the thought police. In this case the thought police is a group of 15 State AGs (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State) and the AGs from D.C. and the Virgin Islands. [Is it just a coincidence that all of these AGs are Democrats?] Speaking for the group NY AG Eric Schneiderman said that “Climate Change” was “real” and companies advertising thoughts stating otherwise would be prosecuted for fraud. The Justice Department is also considering a similar course of action against “deniers.”
Are these people serious? Unfortunately they are very serious. Liberals and progressives, including many RINOs, have been chipping away at our civil liberties for years. Now these traitors are so emboldened to openly advertise their absolute contempt for the First Amendment. The Citizens United SCOTUS case basically granted corporations with the same rights as citizens… meaning corporations (for-profit and not-for-profit) also have a right to free speech. While I do not agree with the Citizens United decision, I am also against any attempt to circumvent the First Amendment.
There are so many corporations and people engaging in real acts of fraud that hurt numerous people and this is what these AGs want to spend their time on? If the NY AG’s office is looking for a fraud case to prosecute, I have one against Facebook I would love to have them work on!
This SCOTUS ruling brings us one step closer to the Progressive agenda of allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote. This ruling states that it is OK for states to draw electoral district lines including people who cannot vote such as children, non citizen immigrants and illegal immigrants.
I am of the opinion that citizenship matters… just as secure borders matter. Without citizenship and secure borders we don’t have a nation. This is part of the Agending: Grinding America Down!
The state of Vermont is very interesting from a sociological and political science perspective. Thirty years ago Vermont was considered one of the most conservative states in the country. Today Vermont is considered on the most liberal states. There are several factors that went into this 180 degree change with a literal invasion of “flat-landers” leading the way. First one thing needs to be clarified. Vermont is often said to have been one of the most conservative states in the country… but this is not quite true. Vermont was conservative in a very Libertarian fashion. This distinction between Conservatism and Libertarianism is important. The Libertarian style indigenous Vermonters did not care what other people did in their own bedrooms or homes. This hands off attitude towards politics and social morays left a kind of vacuum that was filled by the significantly liberals that moved in.
Vermont has been biting the hand that feeds it for decades. A hundred years ago the predominant business was agriculture. Today Vermont exists as a tourist destination. Yet time and time again the state financially rapes the very people who support its’ economy. Second home owners, who by very definition use all of the public services less than year round resident, get taxed at a higher rate. How does this make any sense? Property owners who never have any kids in the Vermont schools have to pay higher school taxes than the residents with kids in the school. Vermont has one of the highest room and board taxes in the country as well as the highest alcohol tax in the country. All of this makes Vermont less and less hospitable for both second home owners and tourists.
As someone who has owned businesses in Vermont I can personally attest to the fact of just how business unfriendly the state is. But don’t take my word for it, “In 2015, Vermont was ranked by Forbes magazine as 42nd best among states in which to do business.”
Vermont was one of the first states in the country to have “free” medical insurance available to all children via a program called “Dr. Dynasaur.” Now Governor Peter Shumlin wants a Medicare style single payer health insurance system. Vermont taxes have been going up and up for several years now. Again this year the Governor is asking to raise taxes. Vermont is one of the only states in the country that does not require a balances budget. Prior to Shumlin’s term Vermont had managed to balance the budget; not any more.
Apparently Shumlin and his progressive allies never heard the famous quote from British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.” There is no such thing as “free education” or “free medical care.” Eventually someone has to pay.
The average American is an ignorant lazy selfish asshat… and as such we are getting exactly what we deserve. All of the people who signed this “petition” should be disqualified from voting. For that matter, I am all in favor of stupid people having to wear a sign or tattoo on their forehead!
Today has not been a good day for Donald Trump. In one interview he says that women who get illegal abortions should face punishment and in another he says he would pick Supreme Court Justices who would look at Hillary Clinton‘s Email Scandal.
In the first interview, Chris Matthews asks Trump if abortion should be banned and Trump says yes. Matthews then asks Trump if abortion is banned, should women who get an abortion be punished. Trump tries to evade answering but Matthews holds the course and eventually Trump says yes, women who obtain illegal abortions should be punished. This statement by Trump is troubling on several levels. First, taking such a hard line will cause the 70% of the American public that is on the pro-choice spectrum to bristle. Secondly, prior to Roe v Wade women were very rarely criminally prosecuted for illegal abortions. Today one hardly ever hears a cry to start prosecuting women for illegal or self-inflicted abortions (many women have turned to supposed “homeopathic” abortion alternatives that can be ordered online). So why Trump would take this stance is puzzling as it only seems that it would cause further chastisement and disdain from women voters.
In the second interview Trump is asked who he would pick for the open SCOTUS seat… and he replies, “Well, I’d probably appoint people that would look very seriously at her email disaster because it’s a criminal activity, and I would appoint people that would look very seriously at that to start off with.” WHAT? Does this man who is running for President of the United States not understand our three branches of government and what each of them do? The Supreme Court does NOT investigate anything! The Justice Department has dozens of agencies that DO investigate crimes but the Supreme Court is not one of them. If Trump doesn’t understand the basic separation of powers and the structure of our government, how can he claim to be qualified to be President?
This must be the most honest speech ever given by Hillary Clinton… and yes I realize its’ edited… that’s kind of the point.
As I have said many times before, I am not a Trumpster. When Donald Trump first announced his candidacy I did support him because I knew he could turn the Republican Party on its’ head and shake things up; and things needed to be shaken up. I did not think he would go the whole distance. I thought I would bring about some change and fade away in the primaries. I was wrong. Trump has shown amazing resilience and I do believe this fight will go right through into the convention and possibly afterwards if the Party plays some trickery to sideline Trump.
This documentary (which for some reason repeats itself at the end) is very interesting and did garner some more respect from me for Trump.
This particular post was born in a Facebook conversation following the terror attacks in Brussels…
Ary: Brussels didn’t deserve this, neither did Paris, neither did Ankara, Istanbul, Madrid, London, and NYC. There is no justification for terror attacks on civilians.
Richard: But Islam is the religion of Peace.
Ary: Islam isn’t the enemy, militant Islam is the enemy. I’m not worried my neighbors across the street are going to blow up my house, but the people being radicalized in certain Mosques around the world make me worry
Richard: If a person is a practicing Muslim… they are a threat. One cannot be a loyal patriotic American and be a practicing Muslim… they are mutually exclusive. Someone of Islamic heritage that is not practicing… that is another story.
Vinny: Richard, please tell me the difference between a moderate Christian whose book (the bible) can be read to incite violence against women/children and own slaves, and the moderate Muslim who believes in the Quran.
Either taken to the extreme can be dangerous, on that I think we both agree. However, you believe that even non-extremist belief in the Quran is counter to American values. So please tell me the difference between the Quran and the Bible.
There are many differences between the Bible and the Quran. While both books claim to be the word of God, the Bible is written by many different people over a long period of time, whereas, the Quran is based on one man’s life, Muhammad. The Christian Bible has various sections in which different people express the words of God. These people being human, I am sure some of them were “good” while others may not have been. What we do know about Muhammad though is that he was NOT a good man. He was a pedophile. He married one of his twenty wives when she was just six years old. Many Muslims point out that Muhammad did not have sexual relations with her until she was nine or ten, as if this is any less of a crime against a child. Muhammad embraced violence. He is known to have killed at least one man himself and ordered the killing or assassination of dozens. Muhammad was a misogynist. He declared that the majority of hell’s inhabitants would be women because they were half as smart as men, not as religious as men and they were ungrateful to their husbands.
It is also of interest to read both books and see what lessons are given. Let us look at the act of lying. The Bible has only two verses where lying is permitted and in both instances it is only acceptable when standing up to evil (Exodus 1:19 and Joshua 2:4–5). On the other hand, lying is part of the Muslim religion in the form of Al-taqiyya. According to TROP (The Religion of Peace.com), “There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.” If it’s OK for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim, how can we ever trust what a Muslim says?
Vinny you write, “Either taken to extreme can be dangerous, on that I think we both agree.” I would not agree. What is your proof of that. There is plenty of proof about the dangers of Islam being taken to the extreme, but what evidence do you have of harm caused by Christian extremism? Let’s take the worst Christian group, Westboro Baptist Church… these people are mentally ill and filled with hate. They demonstrate at the funerals of fallen soldiers and they demonstrate with signs saying “God Hates Fags” (that is even their website address www.godhatesfags.com). These people take snippets from the Bible and turn it into the most repulsing form of vitriolic vomit one can think of… BUT… But, they don’t kill anyone! They HATE homosexuals but they do not kill homosexuals. On the other hand, we all know that Muslim extremists do kill homosexuals. WBC members don’t stone people for adultery, but the Muslims do, and not just the “extremists.” This is a “deliberately slow and cruel punishment.”
What about some other “extreme” Judeo/Christian groups? When was the last time you heard of the Amish stoning someone? Or the Chabad-Lubavitch? Both of these groups take a fairly conservative/strict interpretation of their respective religious texts. And yes, they both engage in certain behaviors, such as shunning or ex-communicating, that we may not agree with… but they don’t kill anyone! There are estimates that historically 270 million people have been killed by jihad.
Lastly, look historically at the spread of Judaism/Christianity and Islam. Islam has only spread through wars and violence, “Convert or die!” Christians send out missionaries with no weapons other than the Bible. Jews… they don’t proselytize at all. I have always wanted to go to a Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall and bang on the door during a service and say, “Have you heard the good news? Who wants to be a Jew?” but I am a wiseass.
I could go on and on… but what’s the point?
Ted Cruz made a campaign stop in the Big Apple last week to give a talk at the Women’s National Republican Club. Cruz spoke to a packed room and garnered much applause for his rebukes of Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner William Bratton regarding their responses to his suggestion that police spend more time in Muslim dominated neighborhoods. Cruz said, “We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.” While de Blasio and Bratton may take issue with this statement, it seems like common sense to me. People need to stop allowing the forces of Political Correctness to whitewash this issue. Radical Muslim Terrorism is a threat to all of Western society. Our current commander-in-chief, President Obama, has never been able to utter those three simple words. Never. Cruz had no problem addressing where the problem is and what we need to do about it. For our collective safety we cannot permit the rise of “no go zones” where Islam is permitted to run unchecked under its’ own Sharia Law.
As impressive as Cruz usually is on TV, he was even more inspirational in person. The thing that stuck in my mind the most after the talk was how much Ted Cruz contrasted with the current front-runner Donald Trump. Cruz is a genuine Constitutional Conservative. When he speaks he does so in a calm and rational manner. He demonstrates his understanding of the law and his ideas for the future. He carries himself with class.
After the Cruz talk was over, former Republican Governor George Pataki of New York was seen entering the building. On his way in Pataki took questions from the media and some bystanders. Pataki said, “We need to nominate anyone but Donald Trump!” Could there be an endorsement coming from the former Governor?