Another 'liberal' hate-based article

I just finished reading an article in the Washington Post on 2/19 by Glenn Kessler. It was written clearly for only one purpose, to demean, diminish or otherwise discredit President Trump's message in Florida. The article was so biased that I could feel the hatred oozing out, but I want to also commend Mister Kessler in that he has the ability to twist the reader's perception quite subtlety so that the misdirection was very obscured.

His first deflection was to mislead the reader into believing that the liberal media cannot write lies because they will be punished by 'someone' for printing lies. Everyone that has ever read the slanderous articles in the 'gossip' columns knows that the writers and publishers get away with murder. There is NO public recrimination for writing or publishing lies. Successful lawsuits for slander are rare because there really is no recourse for those injured by lies that are published. His whole argument for believing in the integrity of  'reporters' is flawed and totally incorrect. Every Trump supporter is very aware of the distortions, misdirection and outright lies being peddled by the liberal media about President Trump.

Then there was Mister Kessler's lie by misdirection regarding the Thomas Jefferson quote by President Trump. The quote was correct, and it applies to the current situation exactly as President Trump implied. Mister Kessler went on a rabbit trail to mislead the reader by trying to discount the validity of the quote by stating the Thomas Jefferson made the quote as a reaction to his being mistreated by the media, implying that the quote should therefore be discounted. Guess what. President Trump is being mistreated by the media in a very similar fashion in a totally hateful and unfair manner.

Then Mister Kessler embarked on a lengthy and circuitous defense of obamacare attempting to present this abomination as something desirable. A health care plan that costs the average family nearly $1000 in premium costs per month and has a deductible of more than $7000 per year is not affordable for the vast majority of Americans, and clearly does not provide 'affordable' health care. He also avoided mentioning the fact that almost all of the insurance companies are losing billions of dollars in association with obamacare. He made a big deal of saying that the grossly excessive premiums are not being paid by some of the people because they receive 'taxpayer assistance'. 'Taxpayer assistance' is paid for by the average taxpayer who is NOT receiving any obamacare reimbursements. 'Taxpayer assistance' is NOT FREE, but Mister Kessler tries to imply that it is!
A quick comment about Air Force 1 and 2 costs is also needed. If President Trump had not said anything, the cost would have been in excess of 4 billion dollars and that is a FACT.

Last of all, Mister Kessler tries to imply that there is 'adequate vetting' of refugees. It is a fact that both Obama and Hillary Clinton were both working very hard to diminish or delete vetting of refugees in addition to distributing illegal aliens throughout the U.S. with zero vetting. Both Obama and Hillary made it crystal-clear that they both wanted no vetting, no borders, and no deportation of anyone. It should be very clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that most of Mister Kessler allegations in his article are either flawed or outrageously wrong.

Are you a deplorable - part 2

If you believe that the overwhelming majority of police officers in America are good, decent people interested in doing the best job possible to enforce the law, then the looney left may label you as deplorable. If you do not support Obama's claim that all police officers are  racists, then the looney left will probably label you as deplorable.  If you do not support the 'Black Lives Matter' call to murder police officers, would it surprise you if the looney left labeled you as deplorable? If you respect our police officers and wish to support them in their work, does that make you deplorable? If you believe that America is governed by laws, not by mob rule, then the looney left will certainly label you as deplorable. The looney left encourages rioting, violence and mob rule and calls your right to free speech deplorable. What label would you apply to people who hate our police officers, call for the murder of our police officers, spread lies about our police officers, organize and participate in riots and destruction of property, and generally encourage an atmosphere of hate? Is the title 'looney left' good enough? For me, being called deplorable by the looney left is a sign that I am definitely doing the right and proper actions.

Are You a deplorable - part 1

If you believe that an unborn child is a human being, then the looney political left may label you as deplorable. According to the looney left, they can label an unborn child as a 'fetus', which they have defined as non-human, and they believe that a 'fetus' can be killed for absolutely no reason. According to Hillary Clinton and many more looney leftists, the 'fetus' can be murdered during the actual process of birth. If you believe that killing an unborn child is murder, then the looney left may label you as deplorable. If you see abortion as an issue of killing an unborn child instead of an issue of 'reproductive rights', then the looney left will probably label you as deplorable. If you ask the question, "What crime has the unborn child committed which deserves a death penalty?", then the looney left will probably label you as deplorable. If you believe any of these things, and the looney left has labeled you as deplorable, are you proud of the title?

David Horowitz on Dems: ‘Party of Hate’

“We have in this country a large ‘hate-America left,’ “Horowitz told Sean Hannity on Fox News. “It dovetails with the Democratic Party.

"It's a party of hate."

Horowitz said that the left's vitriol has not fazed President Donald Trump.

"The great thing about Donald Trump is that he's not intimidated by the attacks of the left," he said. "We're in the midst of one of the big witch hunts of American history."

Horowitz referred to Sen. Elizabeth Warren's attacks on Sen. Jeff Sessions during his confirmation hearing for attorney general.

The Alabama Republican was "defamed and slandered as a racist by Elizabeth Warren, who is making a career out of character assassination," he said.

"The spirit of the whole Democratic Party looks on people that disagree with it as racist, sexist, homophobes, Islamophobes," Horowitz added. "That's why we can't have a civil discussion in America anymore."

David Horowitz on Dems: ‘Party of Hate’

An article by Sandy Fitzgerald

Since the 9/11 attacks, 72 people coming from the seven Middle Eastern countries named in President Donald Trump's executive order on travel and refugees have been convicted on terrorism charges, according to a new report released Saturday.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies, the report stands "in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president's order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in."

At least 17 of those who have been convicted claimed to be refugees, while three came into the United States as students. Twenty-five more eventually became American citizens, the report shows.

According to a breakdown of the countries and the numbers of people who were eventually convicted of terror crimes:

·         Somalia: 20

·         Yemen: 19

·         Iraq: 19

·         Syria: 7

·         Iran: 4

·         Libya: 2

Jessica Vaughan, the center's director of policy studies, said she based the report on information from a report in 2016 from the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. 

We are no longer a country based on the rule of law

The Looney Left has won a political victory today. America lost!!! In our history, it has been a matter of pride to be able to state that America is ruled by law. Today the Looney Left has managed to flush our laws down the toilet. To paraphrase the law: The president has undisputed authority to deny entry to the U.S. to ANYONE if, IN HIS OPINION, that person or class of people constitute a danger to the citizens of America.

Here are the names of the Looney Left judges who ignored the law and stated that they will write their own law. Judge Michelle Friedland, Judge William Canby Jr and Judge Richard Clifton today ruled that their power exceeds the power of the president and that their power exceeds the power of federal law. It is crystal-clear that these judges don't give a damn about the law. It is also crystal-clear that these judges don't give a damn about the safety of American citizens.

In my opinion, if there is ANY American citizen killed by anyone who has an association with any of the seven countries that President Trump tried to protect us from, then these three judges should by held personally responsible for the deaths. It would seem fair to me that these three judges be convicted of accessory to murder for ANY murders committed by any terrorist admitted into the U.S. from this point on who has any connection to any of the countries listed in President Trump's E.O. Although I am opposed to doing anything which benefits terrorists, it seems to be just and proper for the three judges to be beheaded by the same terrorists that they demanded be admitted into the U.S.

Obstruction for the sake of destruction

An incoming president should be able to install a working cabinet within a reasonable timeline. It is a forgone conclusion that depriving the president of a functioning cabinet is more than a hindrance. It is a crippling situation. The senate confirmation process is completely flawed because it provides a perfect instrument for the opponents of an incoming president to play politics strictly for the purpose of interfering or totally preventing an incoming president from working effectively. This not only prevents effective government during the interim, it also sets up a scenario that is dangerous for the security of America. While the opposition is playing political games, terrorists or hostile governments can use the ineffectiveness to attack America. This really needs to be corrected.

A simple and effective change to the process of filling the cabinet positions could provide a solution to this problem. First of all, do away with the ‘confirmation’ process in its present form. An incoming president would install his cabinet nominees into their cabinet position with full authority to perform their cabinet functions as ‘acting’ cabinet members as soon as the president announces his selections. Then the senate has a given time period, probably 30 to 60 days, in which by a majority vote they can reject the nominee. This preserves the senate’s power to vet cabinet nominees while avoiding the problem of crippling the incoming president’s effectiveness.

However, there is one other problem which needs to be addressed. Clearly, the direction of the political environment in America is toward total non-cooperation between democrats and republicans. Clearly, the democrats have demonstrated the possibility of making a newly-elected president completely ineffective by destroying the process of cabinet selections. It is imperative that for the sake of America, the president must be allowed to build a working cabinet. Therefore, it is obvious that if an incoming president is opposed by a congress controlled by the opposing party, there must be safeguards in place to prevent the congress from preventing the president from building his cabinet. Therefore, the first senatorial rejection of a cabinet nominee should require only a majority of the senate to pass. The second cabinet nominee rejection and all subsequent rejections should require a super-majority of 60 votes in the senate.