Disgusting

The unbridled hatred for America demonstrated by so many so-called ‘liberals’ evidenced by actions desecrating our flag or showing disrespect for our country is disgusting. If they hate our country so much, then why don’t they get out! Perhaps they can go to a country they can love such as N. Korea, Afghanistan, or Iran. It is especially galling to see those who are making millions of dollars each year because of the opportunities afforded by living in America showing such disrespect for America! The current ‘liberal’ demonstrations of disrespect by players in the NFL is the apex of hypocrisy. These are men who should be aware that they are privileged to be earning millions of dollars in a country that allows such personal achievement. Instead, they return hatred and disrespect in repayment. Personally, if I should turn on a game where ANY NFL players kneels during the national anthem, I intend to turn the game off. If it happens too often this year, I may simply decide to boycott any NFL games for the remainder of the year. In addition to their hypocrisy, I find it insulting that they believe that I should hate or disrespect my country simply because they want it. Not only do I have little respect for their actions, but I totally disagree with what they are expressing. Why don’t they just go riot with all of their other ‘liberal’ brothers!  

I also rescind my invitation

I want to join President Trump and also rescind any invitation to Curry of the Warriors to any kind of social affair. I am so sick and tired of hearing spoiled, rich, know-nothing people express their hatred for our country and for our president that as far as I am concerned you can all go take a long walk off a short pier. It would be only fitting if you were somehow forced to live in a country like North Korea or Afghanistan so that you could learn to appreciate what you have here in America. In addition, who told you that your opinion is so important! You are simply rotten, spoiled, insolent brats demanding that you have everything your way. As for me, any professional sports figure who wants to grandstand his political views deserves to lose his prestige and money. I never have put any faith in your opinions anyway, and now I have an excuse to simply stop watching you play as well. Hopefully, there will be many other people who feel the same way I do, and stop spending any money to watch you. If so, maybe once you are hurt enough in your pocketbook, you might learn to be a decent person with respect for other people’s feelings and opinions. It is an honor to be invited to the White House BY ANY PRESIDENT! By the way, the same goes for the NFL players who show their disrespect and hatred for our country and our flag!

California 'sanctuary law'

For those of you who may be confused by the new California ‘sanctuary law’, I will give you some highlights by providing some what-if scenarios.

What if a person commits a murder in California?

Scenario one: The person accused of the murder is a U.S. citizen.

The person will be held, possibly without bail, and prosecuted for the crime of murder. If unable to afford an attorney, a totally insufficient defense lawyer will be provided by the state of California whose only role is to convince the accused person to accept a plea bargain. Of course, if the accused is wealthy, then he may be able to afford to hire a decent attorney.

Scenario two: The person accused of the murder is an illegal alien who has no legal right to be in the United States.

Since the person is an illegal, the state’s ‘sanctuary provisions’ are invoked. Most likely, the accused will be granted bail, and perhaps the state will provide the money to pay the bail. Of course it is obvious that the state will pay the legal expenses of the accused allowing him to hire the attorney or attorneys of his choosing. If the U. S. immigration service has an outstanding warrant for the accused, it is obvious that the state of California will pay all of the legal expenses incurred by the accused to avoid arrest by the immigration service as well as providing alternate I.D. documents for the accused to prevent the immigration service from successfully finding him.

Scenario three: In addition to being an illegal alien, the accused is either a member of violent criminal gang (such as ms-13) or the accused is a known terrorist.

In addition to all of the benefits noted in scenario two, the state of California will also pay the accused an ‘apology’ amount to be no less than $50,000 for the inconvenience that the accused will be subjected to in avoiding any consequences for the ‘wrongful accusation’. Of course, all charges will be dropped immediately.

Hopefully, you can see how the same principles will be applied for all other felonies committed in California, such as rape, theft, assault and so on.

Of course, you can probably see that this new ‘sanctuary law’ will cost the state of California millions (or maybe billions) of dollars in new legal expenses. If you are a legal resident of California, don’t concern yourself with this cost. In discussions regarding how to afford this expense, California is debating how to divert all Federal funding received for the purpose of enforcing immigration policies into a fund to help pay for this bill. There has also been discussion of releasing all illegals being held in California prisons and using the prison money to pay the costs of the ‘sanctuary law’. Failing that, they are also investigating the possibility of taxing American citizens incarcerated in California to pay the costs of incarcerating illegals in California. Democrats in the California legislature are also considering new taxes to be levied on any American citizen who is employed in California to cover any shortfall. Again, if you are legal resident, do not concern yourself with the cost of this law. Democrats are also already examining how California can declare bankruptcy and pass all of the costs on to the Federal government.

Of course, the actual effects of the ‘sanctuary law’ may not be this grievous, but it does appear that if you are a legal United States citizen residing in California, perhaps you should consider getting out of the state before being an illegal becomes a legal requirement in California!

Have a good day!

Taking the low road

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez has said that all democrats must support abortion without exception. I guess that this means that the Democratic Party is the party of Hobson’s choice. In his opinion there can be no discussion, debate or difference of opinion permitted in the Democratic Party on this issue. On listening to him regarding other subjects, I can say with complete assurance that he has the same attitude about almost every subject. Stating it a little differently, it appears to me that Tom Perez believes that the Democrats should be the party of NO CHOICE! What ever happened to the concept of free speech! Speaking of speech, is it possible for Tom Perez to utter even one complete sentence without using obscene language. His cursing is obnoxious! Since the democratic leaders put him into the chairman position, it is easy to ascertain the attitudes of the democratic leadership. Obviously they whole-heartedly support and demand that in order to be a ‘good’ democrat, you must love to murder babies before they are born. Secondly, they obviously believe that being a loud, foul-mouthed dictator is the necessary qualifications for a democratic leader. Personally, I can see nothing positive to having such a low-grade individual in a powerful position.

An article By Daniel Bonevac

Last week I ventured where few conservatives dare to tread — MSNBC. Washington Post fact-checkers had that very day proclaimed that they had documented 1,000 false or misleading statements from the mouth (or the Twitter account) of the president. The president, they insist, has trouble with the truth.

To those of us who voted for Trump, this sounds wrong from the start. We supported him partly because he resisted the lies that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the media have been telling us. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," "Obamacare will reduce costs by 20 percent," "Global warming is a greater national security threat than terrorism," "Islam is a religion of peace."

Those are lies. They didn’t come from Donald Trump.

But what lies is Trump supposed to have told? Before looking at cases — two points. First, let’s set aside hyperbole, which is a figure of speech; a hungry child who tells his mother "I’m starving!" is exaggerating. He isn’t telling a lie. Second, lying is more than saying something false; it’s doing it intentionally, saying something the speaker knows is false. Talk of lying, in this context, is misleading. The issue is truth, as The Washington Post is careful to note — even if its readers are not.

Now, on to cases. On MSNBC, the example I was given concerned murder rates in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Trump said, in 2016, that they were going up. But in 2007, the host exclaimed, the rate was four times as high!

A moment’s reflection should show that those two claims are perfectly compatible. The murder rate might be climbing now after an earlier and larger decline. (For a graphic representation, draw a checkmark and look at it in a mirror. The line goes down, and then starts going up again.) In fact, that was Trump’s point: the change in policing following the Black Lives Matter protests swapped a successful strategy for an inferior one. Trump was right. Imagine a doctor who followed the logic of an MSNBC host:

 Patient: "Hey doctor, my temperature’s rising. It’s now 101 degress."

 Doctor: “That’s not true! Your temperature was even higher when you had the flu."

The doctor’s allegation wouldn’t fool anyone.

An interlocutor on the show gave a second example, saying, "Trump said people on both sides committed violent acts in Charlottesville, Virginia. But only one side had someone ram a car into a crowd!" Again, these claims are plainly compatible. People on both sides engaged in violence, but only one engaged in a certain kind of violence. (Let’s set aside the point that the perpetrator didn’t ram his car into a crowd but into another car, which hit a third car, which was pushed into a crowd.)

Again, in another context, this kind of reply would fool no one. "Both American and Japanese bombers attacked aircraft carriers at Midway," "Not true! Only the Americans used B-17s!"

The Post's examples are less overt, but just as incorrect. The president has touted "new highs in a stock market that he previously derided as being a 'big, fat bubble . . . " That’s not a contradiction. Trump quite reasonably believes that the economic fundamentals have changed for the better since his election. Reducing regulations and proposing tax cuts arguably justify price levels that previously reflected monetary easing more than economic prospects.

In instance afrer instance, the story is similar. The President asserts that P. The Post observes that Q — which is entirely compatible with P — and concludes that P is false.

Several examples concern announcements of job-creating investments. The president has taken credit for bringing jobs back to America, and the companies concerned have given him credit for their decisions. Yet the Post claims that because the companies had other incentives for making the investments, Trump’s statements are false. That’s absurd. People make decisions on the basis of many factors; one thing’s being a reason doesn’t preclude something else from being a reason.

Some examples concern disputed matters of fact. Did Hillary Clinton give the Russians control over 20 percent of our uranium supply? Well, the Russians ended up with that 20 percent, and the Clinton Foundation got $145 million. What happened in between remains mysterious. But it’s far from clear that the answer to that question is "No."

More absurd examples concern the future. Is Obamacare dying, as the president claims? Will Mexico pay for the wall? Maybe; maybe not. It’s outrageous to count Trump’s statements as falsehoods.

If anyone has trouble with the truth, it’s the so-called fact-checkers.

Harry Truman is reputed to have said, "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." I think he’d find a kindred spirit in Donald Trump.

Daniel Bonevac is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. Author of five books, most recently, "Ideas of the Twentieth Century," and editor or co-editor of four others, he has published over 60 articles in professional journals. He has also written for The Washington Post, The Critique, and The American Spectator. His massively open online course, "Ideas of the Twentieth Century," has enrolled over 50,000 students. He is co-founder of BriefLogic, a marketing communication firm. He is also a contemporary Christian musician and songwriter; you can hear his music on his daughter’s debut album, "Transfiguration." To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.

 

an article By Jason Devaney

A Republican congressman said he will meet with President Donald Trump to tell him that Russia was not behind the hack of a Democratic National Committee computer server last summer.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., told Fox News' Sean Hannity that he recently met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who presented evidence that showed another entity, not Russia, stole the DNC data.

"It is my understanding from other parties who are trying to arrange a rendezvous with myself and the president, it is being arranged for me to give him the firsthand information from [Assange]," said Rohrabacher, who generally takes a pro-Russia stance on issues.

"If the information comes out, there will be an outrage among the American people that their time has been wasted. They've had this story over and over and again shoved down their throats as if the Russians colluded with Donald Trump, and this is an attempt, as I say, to negate their vote in the ballot booth.

"When the American people realize that this is a con job and a power grab they'll be upset."

Assange reportedly told Rohrabacher that Russia was not involved in the data theft.

"I'm trying to get this out in the public now where we can get this Julian Assange thing straightened out so that people know that it wasn't the Russians that hacked into the system, and that's not how this information was released," Rohrabacher said Monday.

There are several congressional investigations and a Department of Justice probe looking at whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. A report earlier this month claimed the DNC hack never took place, and instead it was someone on the inside who leaked sensitive information.