Wry humor

Reject Kyrsten Sinema

Kyrsten Sinema is the proverbial fish-out-of-water. She would be a perfect candidate for any political position in the state of California, but she is unqualified to represent Arizona in the U.S. Senate. She is an advocate for sanctuary cities and sanctuary states, which is perfect for the anarchist environment of California, but is dead wrong for Arizona. She is opposed to protecting our southern border, insisting instead that criminals, illegal drugs, human trafficking, MS13 gang members, and illegal aliens all crossing into Arizona really is not a problem. Apparently, her goal is to have Arizona experience the “California effect” of city streets being used as open sewers and used drug syringes lying around on the sidewalks. She expresses the total disdain of our military and our policemen that is so prevalent in current “liberal” attitudes. She even supports enlisting with the Taliban to wage war against and kill American soldiers. She has mocked Arizona residents in the past, and it is ludicrous to pretend that she shares any kinship with the majority of Arizona residents. It is time for the “fish out of water” to be mercifully placed in a nice socialistic society such as Venezuela where her ideas can die a natural death.  

An ideal senator

I don't know if you watched the news broadcast which gave the entire speech by Susan Collins in which she painstakingly outlined her reasons for voting for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. It was a beautiful example of the use of logic and meticulous ethical dedication to determine the right and proper conclusion. I had never heard of her before the speech, but I am grateful to have been privileged to witness such an example of dedication to truth and moral standards. I came across the link below, and I highly recommend it. Just click on the link to read the article.

Susan Collins Has ‘Clear Eyes, Full Heart’

Why I vote.

Get out and vote! Be sure to vote in this extremely important upcoming election! We need your vote! This message is repeated over and over. Voting is important. Elections have consequences, and other similar statements. But I feel the need to illuminate why I personally desire to vote.

 

            I hear some people make statements like, “I am a democrat, so I vote for the democrat”, or conversely “I am a republican.”, or “I vote for the best candidate”. However, these statements have little meaning to me. Instead, I want to vote for the candidates that I think support my beliefs, and in my opinion will do what is best for this country. Instead, our political system wants to present me with a choice of supporting a political agenda, and I have to search beyond the simpleton stereotypes being expounded by most of the candidates.

 

            Today, I want to talk about the innocent-appearing concept of political correctness. It is a little difficult to define exactly, but a famous quote helps. The author of the quote was speaking about pornography, and he said that writing a legal definition of pornography was very difficult, but he could certainly identify it when he saw it. In my opinion, political correctness is a tool used to force others to behave or think a certain way based on the use of public shaming. It has little or nothing to do with the moral or logical results of the thought or action. The central theme is to control other people. It is the forerunner of developing a dictatorial society where individual thinking or freedom of speech are outlawed. I believe in the values expressed in our constitution, which includes freedom of speech. Attempting to curtail freedom of thought and freedom of speech therefore violates my beliefs, and I think it also undermines the welfare and health of our nation. I am compelled to oppose political correctness.

 

            What are the consequences of political correctness? What should you expect to happen when a group of people have succeeded in implementing political correctness? In my opinion, one offshoot is intolerance of divergent opinions. Additionally, another is the grouping of people with non-complying opinions into the general class of “enemies”. This leads to a society based on divisiveness where there are no mutual goals for the common good expounded. Instead, an aura of suspicion and hatred develops fueled by the group expounding political correctness. This is further exacerbated by the smugness and self-proclaimed moral superiority of the “PC” enforcers. They then claim that the “enemies” can be subjected to any kind of treatment because their dissent must be destroyed at any cost. At that point, you have the emergence of the “Maxine Watters” type of individual and the Antifa-type organizations who claim that assaulting the “enemies” with violence, threats and any manner of insults is permissible. All of this is thoroughly distasteful and extremely destructive to keeping a free society. It violates the very foundation of my principles, and I vehemently oppose it.

 

            Therefore, I am opposed to any group or organization who advocates or supports the concept of political correctness. How does this relate to why I vote? Obviously, if I vote for candidates who advocate or support this, then I am undermining my core values. Political correctness, the current undercurrent of hatred by the democratic leaders, the endorsement of assaulting GOP leaders in public, the destruction of free speech, and the corrosive win-at-any-cost attitude of the democratic leaders all are abhorrent to me. I have heard the leaders of the Democratic Party repeatedly advocate or endorse some or all of these “PC” concepts. The most prevalent of the “PC” attitudes is “you must hate everything and everyone related to Trump”. I cannot and will not hate anyone based on “orders” from anyone. Why do I vote? I vote to defeat the current destructive agenda of the Democratic Party!   

 

Political slander

For me, the actions and attitudes of the democratic senators before and during the confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh can only be described as worse than reprehensible and it seriously discredits their position as senators. The confirmation process is not supposed to be comprised of a multitude of unsupported allegations directly from the sewer. The confirmation process is not supposed to be a hateful attempt to destroy the nominee’s reputation and his life. The democrats stated that they intended to stop the confirmation of any nominee proposed by President Trump even before the nominee’s name was known. When they were unable to discredit him in their initial attempt, they organized a slime ball campaign of lies and proceeded to transform the entire process into a disgusting travesty for the sole purpose of destroying Brett Kavanaugh. As an aside, Diane Feinstein should be referred to the ethics committee for hiding information from the confirmation process. This was definitely unethical behavior.

This is not the first time that the democrats have used gutter tactics to attempt to derail a Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation. This needs to be stopped. First of all, the purposeful disruptions of paid agitators in the gallery should not be permitted in the future. There is really only one way to stop it. There should only be senators of the committee and the nominee present in the hearings. In addition, the obvious posturing by the democratic senators for the cameras only provides a means for the democrats to corrupt the process. The news media should not be allowed to film the hearing, but should be provided a written transcript of the proceedings instead. However, the written transcript should be available for the general public in an easily accessed format to ensure that the biased reporting by the media can be discerned by the public. These changes should help to diminish the corruption of the process.

However, the slanderous allegations must be stopped, and the only way to accomplish this is to provide for severe punishment for politically based slander. Politically based slander should incur an aggravated sentence at least 5 times as severe as regular slander charges. In addition, politically based slander should also incur criminal felony perjury charges based on the attempt to lie to or mislead the senate. To prove politically based slander, one should have to prove the slander as in current slander cases plus one more fact. That fact should be that the allegation was made public after the person was nominated as a Supreme Court justice. The alleged date of the incident should not be considered in determining if the slander is politically based, only the date that the allegation was made public. Once the offender is convicted in civil court of politically based slander, then the case should automatically be referred to the proper law enforcement agency for the criminal prosecution.

Is American democracy dying

Click on link below to read the article:

Kerik: Kavanaugh and the Decline and Death of Democracy

Investigate the Dimms

The senate must stop the democrats abuse of the system

Click above to read the article

Another Trump attaboy - Another win for America

Click the link below to read the article:

Canada to Stay in Revamped NAFTA