Tag Archives: politics

Fascism on the Left

The Left continues to call the Right fascists. But today the Left employs everything they define as fascism. They’re trying to silence the Right.

Who is protesting conservatives at our colleges and universities? The liberal Left.

Who thought about blowing up the White House? A liberal Leftist.

Who protested in the streets for weeks after the election, destroying property, and berating Trump supporters? The Liberal Left.

Frankly, fascism has more in common with socialism, an intrinsically left wing ideology, than conservatism.

Don’t call me fearful, xenophobic, racist and uneducated when you know nothing about me. That’s a typical Leftist tactic: someone disagrees with you, label them with one of a host of phobias, the more the merrier, because the Left has no platform. They tried to buy the election in Georgia as well as the White House last fall. Neither worked out well, did they?

The Democrats have no platform other than “no borders” and “support sanctuary cities”, and attack the Right: you’re backward if you’re pro-life (an attack against religion); you’re xenophobic if you believe in borders (employing the laws already on the books); you’re homophobic if you believe in men’s and women’s public restrooms. You’re evil if you don’t agree with the Left.

Because I believe in borders, because I believe in legal immigration, because I believe a nation without borders isn’t a nation doesn’t make me xenophobic; because I’m pro-life doesn’t make me backward; and because I believe in gender specific public restrooms doesn’t make me homophobic.

Go ahead and call the new militant Left Antifa (short for anti-fascism) if you want. They’re still employing the same tactics you accuse the White House of using but that I don’t see. What I see is the Left trying to silence the Right through violence.

Our colleges and universities won’t let anyone with even a hint of conservatism speak at their campuses. That is an affront to free thinking. What is that teaching our youth about opposing views, that out of debate often comes the best solutions?

Just because liberals cite the dictionary definition of fascism doesn’t mean the Left can’t employ the same tactics. They do, they are, and it’s all sleight of hand to blame the Right for being fascists even though they’ve done nothing to warrant that label.

We had eight years of failed Left wing policy and look what it got us: wage gains largely confined to the rich. A failed toppling of the Libyan regime that not only did not include Congress but failed. A line drawn in the Syrian sand that was crossed and ignored. Race tension the worst it’s been in forty years. A “stimulus” plan to help recover from a recession that resulted in the weakest economic growth of any post-recession period since World War II.

There’s a reason why some called Obama the Bubble President. He entered office thinking, They love me, so they’ll love everything I do! But he had no plan for what to do if Congress worked against him. Every president has to negotiate with Capitol Hill, but Obama thought wheeling and dealing, negotiating—politics—was beneath him. So he signed executive orders to further his agenda, sure his successor, Hillary Clinton, would continue his legacy but that today are being overturned.

The voters wanted a change and so they voted for one. All you boo-hooers need to grow up. Vote Trump out of office in four years if you still think he’s doing a poor job, but leave him to do the job he was voted into office to do. We all want a better, safer America. Let him sink or swim on his own. He doesn’t need your help to fail. If he fails he’ll do it on his own. But no president succeeds on their own.

There are a number of items on Trump’s agenda with which I don’t agree. But there have been a number of items on every president’s agenda with which I haven’t agreed. So what? All Americans vote based on the choices presented. Trump was not my first choice in the primaries, but when it came down to him or Clinton, he was, in my opinion, the only choice.

Disagree with me if you must, tell me I’m wrong, but leave the personal attacks out of it. I’m not evil, I just want government to do what it’s supposed to do: represent We, the People, who elect them to office. There is enough bickering between the parties. They’re so caught up in their personal agendas they’ve forgotten us.

Consider that solidarity is a two-way street: We’re all tired of gridlock in Washington; that’s why Middle America voted into office someone to “drain the swamp.” Maybe, just maybe, if we all got together to support “45” government might work a little better.

Leave a comment

Filed under Op-ed

Politics and the Objectification of Women

“If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.” —Matthew 5:29-30


It’s been said that our eyes are bigger than our stomach, or as my father was fond of saying at the Thanksgiving table, “Take as much as you want, but eat all you take.”

Perhaps the same can be said about a man’s limp penis—that is, that it’s smaller than a man’s eyes. But a man’s eyes often deceive his penis.

I was young once, growing up in the 1960s, the decade of free love. Some of my earliest memories are of my body responding to girls, even though I had no idea about sex or from where babies came. I recall as teen sitting in my car waiting for the light to change and watching a pretty girl in cut-offs cross in front of me. My body responded. It did what it’s designed to do, before the impure thought crossed my mind.

In my twenties I once walked into a bar where young women danced naked on tables and runways; they wouldn’t let me in because I didn’t have on a jacket and a tie. Today they call these establishments gentlemen’s clubs, which is a misnomer because a true gentleman would never patronize one.

As a single man in my thirties I saw a woman in a grocery store wearing a Harley Davidson t-shirt. I laughed and politely asked her if I could take her for a ride. She laughed, too. She understood the double entendre even as I doubted she understood the definition of a double entendre. Back then it was flirting, and it went no further: I left her in the produce section and moved on to the liquor aisle. Today it’s sexual assault.

Much has been said this campaign season about Donald Trump’s comments about and actions toward women, that he objectifies them, and therefore that makes him unpresidential and unelectable.

I have news for you, men and women of America, and the mainstream media, who seem intent on destroying Donald Trump’s run for the president: Men have long objectified women. It’s in our DNA. The world’s oldest profession dates back to biblical times.

In America we embrace objectification of women. From the Vargas pinup girls of the 1940s to today’s advertising campaigns that use sexy women to sell anything and everything from beer to automobiles. We’ve made a business of objectifying women, but oh man, don’t you dare make a sport out of women! These women who self-objectify themselves tell us it’s not okay to look. But secretly they want us to look, to turn our heads away from the competition. In the mean time, less attractive women would give anything to have someone look at them with admiration, perhaps even desire.beyonce-the-superbowl-and-the-fine-line-between-ownng-our-sexuality-and-exploiting-it_thumb11

In Corporate America how many women confuse dressing for success with using their sexuality to close the deal?

What would Jesus say about women expressing their sexuality because it makes them feel good about themselves? What would he say about bikinis and miniskirts? About Victoria’s Secret and beauty pageants? About twelve-year-olds experimenting with sex? About soft porn on prime time TV? In 2015, the porn industry in America made between ten and twelve million dollars; globally it’s a 97 billion dollar industry. Talk about misogynists.

I’m not defending Donald Trump, if what’s being said about him is true. But I do wish the mainstream media would instead focus on the important issues of this campaign season: Hillary Clinton’s inability to tell the truth about anything; her failed foreign policies and failure to keep state secrets; her, at best, mediocre term as a New York senator; the Clinton Foundation’s dubious donors; her proclamation to be a champion of sexually abused women—that they deserve to have a voice and be believed, unless you come forward with credible evidence against her husband of sexual improprieties. In those cases expect to be slandered, bullied, and threatened.

No, this campaign season is about Trump’s alleged words and alleged actions, not about Clinton corruption, deception, and lies. Nor is it about which candidate is best suited for the office, which one will best represent the will of We, the People, and not just the top ten percent wealthiest people, which one won’t dance at the end of the puppet strings of Wall Street and Corporate America. Which candidate will hold to the ideals of our Constitution, appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, work to end Washington gridlock, and put America first.

The mainstream media would have us believe that Hillary was a victim of her husband’s sexual addiction. Forget that she was an enabler. They say what happened with the Clintons twenty years ago is unimportant, that the voters don’t care about it; but what Trump did and said ten or fifteen years ago is meaningful today. The media paints Trump as a predator unfit to hold office.

If you’re a Democrat it’s okay that FDR died with his mistress at his bedside, that JFK was a womanizer, and that Bill Clinton is a sex addict. But Donald Trump is unfit!

According to the media, who openly colludes with the Clinton campaign, Trump is arrogant, racist, a misogynist. He’s divisive and plays upon the fears of Americans, never mind that those fears are anything but imagined. The Clinton campaign employs conspiracy theories to discredit Trump, while playing the right wing conspiracy trump card to protect their candidate.

Trump claims he doesn’t need the presidency. He’s running to “Make America great again.” Clinton does, and she’ll do anything, say anything, stoop to any low while professing to always take the high, moral ground (another lie) to win the Oval Office.

I’d rather see Trump hold the office than someone with loathing in their heart for those she outwardly embraces, who has no conscience; someone incapable of telling the truth and unable to apologize; someone who espouses empty promises she has no intention of fulfilling should she become president; someone in it only for themselves—for there is no greater evil than evil masquerading as good.

No doubt the final presidential debate will spend an inordinate amount of time on Trump’s alleged sexual assaults because they think that’s important to the American voters. How much time will they devote to the important issues of policy, transparency, and platforms?

Too little, I fear.

Leave a comment

Filed under Op-ed

Election 2016: Epic But Perhaps for All the Wrong Reasons

Neither One 2016 (Because oh my god, WTF, nooooo)

Bumper sticker

The last candidate for whom I voted was Bush 41. Every candidate since I’ve voted against their opponent—against Clinton in 1996 I voted Bob Dole; against Al Gore in 2000 and against John Kerry in 2004 for Bush 43. And I voted against John McCain in 2008 because I couldn’t wrap my head around Sarah Palin as Commander in Chief should something happen to McCain. But fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on you: in 2012 I voted against Barack Obama.

But now it’s 2016: Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.

A year ago very few gave Trump a chance to win the Republican nomination, while Hillary Clinton was supposed to have an easy walk to the Democratic nomination over Bernie Sanders.

Trump won easily, and Hillary, even with help from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is now the former head of the Democratic National Committee because of her efforts to tip the scales in Clinton’s favor, struggled to put away Sanders.

During the first presidential debate, Clinton claimed that President Obama took the high moral road in not responding to Trump’s “birther” accusation. Maybe he did, but that’s not important. What’s important is that Hillary, being the guttersnipe she is, sank to new lows—how low can she sink only time will tell—by bringing up Trump’s 20-year-old comments about a former Miss Universe. Her campaign has thus far been based not on policy, other than to claim experience, but instead on bashing and baiting Trump.

Trump said little about the Miss Universe episode the night of the debate, perhaps surprised by the attack. But in the days afterward, he counterpunched by bringing up Clinton’s past attempts to silence the women who came forward to accuse her husband of sexual improprieties.

The mainstream media continues to downplay Clinton’s past, claiming Americans care little about it due to the passage of time. Clinton of course was the victim of Bill’s infidelity, never mind that she enabled his behavior and today asserts to be a champion of sexually abused women, claiming that every sexually abused woman deserves to be heard and believed. Unless of course you accuse her husband.

Yet this same mainstream media continues to ask the question whether the Trump-Machado incident will be a factor in his run for the White House. Do we need any more proof of mainstream media bias?

Here is more: The Democrats disclosed a list of donors right before the debate to hide the fact that Comcast, NBC’s parent company and debate moderator Lester Holt’s employer, donated $5.6 million to the Democrat Party during the convention in Philadelphia. And we’re to believe Holt was unbiased, interrupting Trump 41 times while interrupting Clinton only 19 times? Holt never brought up Benghazi or the Clinton email scandal, even as he wouldn’t let the birther issue go in his questions to Trump. Do Americans care about Obama’s birth certificate?

I can’t know what kind of president Trump would make. If you do, feel free to leave a comment and let me know.

I do believe Trump when he says he doesn’t need the presidency. I believe Hillary Clinton does: it’s the one role missing from her 40-year resume. She’ll stop at nothing to win the White House, stoop to any low, say anything to win the vote of minorities even while Democrats are largely to blame for their plight, and she will do little should she win the election to improve race relations other than spend more taxpayer dollars for social programs to maintain the minority status quo.

Her pundits claim she has the experience to make a good president. Hell, even Obama says she’s the best candidate for president, perhaps ever.

What I see is experience at failed foreign policy, failure to keep national security secure, failure to keep government and the Clinton Foundation separate, failure to make good her promises as a senator of New York, lies to Americans and Congress and corruption, and failure in her own marriage.

Trump, when he stays on script, puts forth a good message: American security, America jobs, the American economy. He wants to do right for America.

Clinton’s platform is to stay the course Obama has laid out. More of the same failed policies that have gotten us to where we are today: no government transparency—as evidenced by Obama sending billions of dollars to Iran without Congress’ approval—a weakened infrastructure, a Middle East that threatens to blow up at any moment, a once “JV” terrorist group that has expanded to 30 nations, unfair trade agreements that have cost American jobs, a weakened armed forces, and a leadership that refuses to call ISIS what it is and what its name professes it to be, Islamic terrorists, because it would shame all Muslims.

Really? To follow that line of reasoning doesn’t the label White Supremacists shame all Whites? Didn’t Hillary Clinton shame all Trump supporters by calling half of them deplorable and irredeemable?

Clinton will likely appoint Supreme Court justices who will rob Americans of more rights, as Obama is doing. Her open door immigration policy is a disaster, one which will put American security at risk. She will dance at the stings of of Wall Street and Corporate America, both of whom have financed her campaign.

Again, I can’t know what type of president Donald Trump would make. He’s not a perfect candidate, but there never has been. His opponent is perhaps the least perfect candidate ever to run for the office. Maybe Trump would hold the office for only one term.

Yet I do know what type of president Hillary Clinton would make, and it’s not one I envision as good for America.

Trump represents real change: change in foreign policy and change in government. Clinton will maintain the status quo: more failed foreign policies and more government gridlock. A forgotten middle class as she makes even more money, and empty campaign promises given to minorities, until the next campaign.

Peel away the layers of the onion, Clinton’s attempts to cloud the election with garrulous claptrap, and the choice is simple.

neitherone2016

Leave a comment

Filed under Op-ed

One of Clinton’s Deplorables Speaks Out

“It’s deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia.” —Hillary Clinton

No, Hillary, he’s tapped into the real concerns of Americans.

You think America is great. Trump understands what’s troubling the average American, starting with career politicians who say anything, make any promise to get elected, and then go about the business of lining their pockets with money from special interest groups, Wall Street, and Corporate America. Why would I, or anyone in their right mind, believe that you would be a champion of the common man—oh, pardon me, person. Man is politically incorrect, isn’t it?

You understand, Hillary, the top 10% wealthiest Americans because you’re one of them. You have no real concern over the economic growth of the nation or the unemployment rate. You’re a multi-millionaire who is beholden to the super PACs who are funding your campaign. Why would they sink millions into your campaign and expect nothing in return? Bernie Sanders asked that question many times before the DNC cheated him out of the nomination. You never answered the question, only denied it.

Trump’s a billionaire who will turn over the running of his empire to his children and has said he will accept no salary for the presidency. How deplorable is that? You and your husband will no doubt raffle off overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom like you did when Bill was in office: all about the almighty dollar, isn’t, Hillary? She who dies with the most toys wins, even though you can’t take any of it with you.

What’s deplorable is that all you do is attack Trump and say almost nothing about your own platform. Maybe because you know no one would vote for you if you put it out there: eight more years of the failed policies of your predecessor and mentor.

And what’s even more deplorable is your pathetic attempt at an apology. Hillary, if you’re reading this (which I know you’re not, because I’m one of the deplorable Americans you view with such disdain, at whom you look down your elitist nose), an apology with an explanation is no apology at all.

I’m tired of politics as usual—the thought of eight more years of Obama, the idea of eight more years of lies and corruption and cover-ups turns my stomach and keeps me up at night.

I’m sure it does many other deplorables as well.

hrccaricature

Photo courtesy of ingur.com 

Leave a comment

Filed under Op-ed

Tax System Unfair—To The Wealthy?

A family member recently sent me an email that was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to explain the tax system in terms of beer—how unfair it is to expect the wealthy to pay more taxes. Although I’m a beer aficionado, I found little humor in the metaphor because it seemed as if it weTaxesre written by a member of the top 10% wealthiest Americans and portrayed their elite class as victims.

But it got me to thinking: what of those wealthy who pay no taxes at all by off-shoring their profits? They get the biggest tax break of all, don’t they?

And wealthy corporations run by wealthy people who off-shore more jobs to create more wealth for themselves while leaving more Americans jobless (some claim 20%) and the average American earning nearly $5,000 less than they did before the crash… how fair is that? Trickle down? More like trickle up. What will the one percent do when the middle class is gone and the 90% at poverty level can’t even afford to shop at Walmart? Sell their products to China I guess, and complain about having to support those on Welfare.

And how fair is it to call lazy the bottom 90% of Americans who work harder and longer hours for less money than for the 10% wealthiest Americans to admit that they’re greedy?

By all means, bash Bernie Sanders for being a democratic socialist, and keep the corporate socialist status quo: loopholes, bailouts and influence in government.

Let’s face it: campaigns are run by politicians who hope, with their double speak and lies, to influence the common people to win their vote; but once in office they do little to benefit We, the People who cast their votes (notice I didn’t say they elect them) because the wealthy who funded their campaigns at some point will cash in their chips to benefit from their investment in the political process.

How fair is that?

Leave a comment

Filed under Op-ed