Friday, October 19, 2018
Not Crazy, but Evil
by Trevor Grant Thomas
Thomas is an author and a mathematics teacher. He has written opinion pieces for the American Thinker.
Whose Slave Are You? (Romans 6): We’re Not Battling “Craziness.” We're Battling Evi...: Ever since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, the American left has been—as my mother likes to put it—in “rare ...
comment:
When one side calls the other evil, what is the response? Typically, it is the liberals who call conservatives evil, but the conservatives do not respond in kind.
Perhaps that should change. Hillary Clinton said she doesn't feel obligated to be civil until she wins. If you hold back because you want to be civil, doesn't that put you at a disadvantage?
Human beings are moral creatures. This is true no matter what your religion is. We are obligated to choose between good and evil. If not, then there is no such thing as good or evil.
I'd prefer civility, but incivility must be responded to. It is not evil to call evil by its true name.
Stop being Mr. Nice Guy when the other side does not reply in kind.
The trouble with never Trumpers
Updated:
11:30:
I've been looking for all of this blue wave evidence for awhile now. What are the Democrats depending upon? Non-issues like "Horseface" tweets.
Again, how important is it in comparison with greater concerns?
Here's a question. If Stormy Daniels was a man, would they care what Trump tweeted? When women want to be equal, then why do they have a problem when Trump goes after a woman who went after him? They want old school chivalry, but then they want to act like shrieking harpies.
Maybe Stormy Daniels deserved what she got. No apologies necessary!!!
9:47 am:
Seems like they don't have a sense of proportion.
Not once since I have begun to read Betsy Newmark again, have I seen a thing about the attempted coup against a duly elected President.
For people who seem to think it is so doggone important that the President not say things like "horseface", it seems odd that they cannot bring themselves to question why the previous administration has any business trying to alter to the outcome of an election. Not to mention to try to subvert one that is already in office, and make up things to try to get him impeached and removed from office.
They seem so intent upon finding fault with a president who does things like that, and then ignore far more serious affronts to our social compact, the Constitution of the United States. The law is that the government does not interfere in political elections. Do you have any idea what it will mean to this country if that doesn't change? What we are seeing now with the Democrats far exceeds anything that Nixon did that got him impeached. After all, Nixon's Plumbers were privately organized and paid goons. The Democrats are using the public treasury to fund their political activities. This is a far, far more serious turn of events than Watergate ever started to be.
What also lacks perspective is their seemingly disinterested reaction to obviously conservative policies of this administration and its salutary effects upon our sovereignty and prosperity. In other words, why focus on "horseface" comments, and then ignore the abundance of good news? No perspective at all. In fact, they seem downright petty in their criticisms of Trump.
Again, it is a matter of credibility to me. These never Trumpers are really not conservative at all, and are trying to fool the rest of us into thinking that they are.
If only the liberals weren't so extreme, they would vote for Democrats, Newmark says. Puhleeze. When have the Democrats ever been "nice" to the GOP? If it is about good manners and breeding, then why didn't it work for the Bushes? The Bushes were "nice" enough. But they may as well as been Hitler. In fact, ANY GOP president is going to be treated that way no matter how nice he/she is. The left isn't civil, and never has been in my recollection.
It looks to me that they are looking for excuses not to support Trump.
11:30:
I've been looking for all of this blue wave evidence for awhile now. What are the Democrats depending upon? Non-issues like "Horseface" tweets.
Again, how important is it in comparison with greater concerns?
Here's a question. If Stormy Daniels was a man, would they care what Trump tweeted? When women want to be equal, then why do they have a problem when Trump goes after a woman who went after him? They want old school chivalry, but then they want to act like shrieking harpies.
Maybe Stormy Daniels deserved what she got. No apologies necessary!!!
9:47 am:
Seems like they don't have a sense of proportion.
Not once since I have begun to read Betsy Newmark again, have I seen a thing about the attempted coup against a duly elected President.
For people who seem to think it is so doggone important that the President not say things like "horseface", it seems odd that they cannot bring themselves to question why the previous administration has any business trying to alter to the outcome of an election. Not to mention to try to subvert one that is already in office, and make up things to try to get him impeached and removed from office.
They seem so intent upon finding fault with a president who does things like that, and then ignore far more serious affronts to our social compact, the Constitution of the United States. The law is that the government does not interfere in political elections. Do you have any idea what it will mean to this country if that doesn't change? What we are seeing now with the Democrats far exceeds anything that Nixon did that got him impeached. After all, Nixon's Plumbers were privately organized and paid goons. The Democrats are using the public treasury to fund their political activities. This is a far, far more serious turn of events than Watergate ever started to be.
What also lacks perspective is their seemingly disinterested reaction to obviously conservative policies of this administration and its salutary effects upon our sovereignty and prosperity. In other words, why focus on "horseface" comments, and then ignore the abundance of good news? No perspective at all. In fact, they seem downright petty in their criticisms of Trump.
Again, it is a matter of credibility to me. These never Trumpers are really not conservative at all, and are trying to fool the rest of us into thinking that they are.
If only the liberals weren't so extreme, they would vote for Democrats, Newmark says. Puhleeze. When have the Democrats ever been "nice" to the GOP? If it is about good manners and breeding, then why didn't it work for the Bushes? The Bushes were "nice" enough. But they may as well as been Hitler. In fact, ANY GOP president is going to be treated that way no matter how nice he/she is. The left isn't civil, and never has been in my recollection.
It looks to me that they are looking for excuses not to support Trump.
Don Surber: Goodbye Twitter and Facebook
Don Surber: Goodbye Twitter and Facebook: I have had it with the managers of Twitter and Facebook. They can do what they want with my accounts. After what they did to Life Site News,...
comment:
This post of Surber's is consistent with what I have been saying about corporations.
The GOP is supposed to be against the little guy, but look who is really for the little guy--- Trump.
The Democrats LOVE corporations. Look how they are moving the culture in the way they want. Yet, somehow the popular perception is that the GOP is in bed with corporations and the fat cats.
The fat cats are against Trump. The fat cats are against the little guy. So why does the little guy line up with these scumbags? Because they let a few breadcrumbs fall off their tables?
This may all sound leftist to some, but the Framers of the US Constitution limited the government for a reason. They limited how much the Federal government could do for a reason. You cannot trust people with too much power.
When Romney said that corporations are people, he showed that he lacked the proper understanding of how our government was organized. The Constitution was written to protect the individual against the overpowering influence of the state. Any such government that protects the rights of individuals can remain free. Otherwise, freedom evolves into tyranny.
comment:
This post of Surber's is consistent with what I have been saying about corporations.
The GOP is supposed to be against the little guy, but look who is really for the little guy--- Trump.
The Democrats LOVE corporations. Look how they are moving the culture in the way they want. Yet, somehow the popular perception is that the GOP is in bed with corporations and the fat cats.
The fat cats are against Trump. The fat cats are against the little guy. So why does the little guy line up with these scumbags? Because they let a few breadcrumbs fall off their tables?
This may all sound leftist to some, but the Framers of the US Constitution limited the government for a reason. They limited how much the Federal government could do for a reason. You cannot trust people with too much power.
When Romney said that corporations are people, he showed that he lacked the proper understanding of how our government was organized. The Constitution was written to protect the individual against the overpowering influence of the state. Any such government that protects the rights of individuals can remain free. Otherwise, freedom evolves into tyranny.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Blue wave or red tide?
Updated:
6:00 pm:
The update in the morning, which was about a district by district breakdown, was done by Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball. He was fairly accurate up to 2016, but missed badly in that race. Maybe he is still wrong.
Perhaps one more comment, and I'll close this thread.
Polls depend upon models. If the models are wrong, the poll will be wrong. The question that should be asked is if the model is wrong.
For example, if blacks leave the Democrats, the model is likely wrong. If blue collar workers leave the party, the model is wrong. And so forth.
Are the models wrong? Apparently they were in 2016. Therefore, they could be wrong again.
4:00 pm:
The conventional wisdom that the GOP will lose the Congress because of historical patterns --- is not actually the case.
I was in town today, and saw a political commercial. If there's anything that might turn this election to the Democrats, it is the healthcare issue and liberals' deep pockets. They can run lots of ads like the one I saw, and it might make a difference.
It is particularly evil for them to capitalize on healthcare because Obamacare wasn't supposed to work anyway. It was supposed to fail, and give rise to calls for single payer. As if on cue, that is what the Dems seem to be pressing for this go-round.
It might work. But it is only because they created a system that cannot work. My own premiums are set to go through the roof. People cannot afford this stuff for much longer. But they may have become dependent upon it.
11:00 am:
One of those districts mentioned as a possible Dem pickup was the Seventh District in Houston. I lived in this district for many years so the incumbent is familiar with me. After checking the map of the district, and the voting pattern in previous elections, I really don't see where the opportunity is for the Dems.
If this is an example of their reasoning, I would say that there is reason to believe that they are wrong in their analysis of other races as well.
Of course, something could have changed in the last few years, but I think that is unlikely.
In addition, there is a lot of talk about Tx. Sen. Ted Cruz being vulnerable. This is not likely unless something has changed. The only way the Dems win this one is if the GOP falls asleep.
10.18.18 10 am:
Some articles that expand upon the theme:
Seat by seat analysis of congressional races comment: not sure if this is a nonpartisan analysis of a Democratic one. But if it is a Democratic one, even they are somewhat doubtful at this point.
Speaker Ryan thinks the GOP will hold on. ( Didn't read this one, at this point, I am no fan of Ryan )
Could Trump win 20 percent of the black vote? ( Didn't read this one either, as VDH is a bit loopy to me. There is some talk of this in other quarters, though.)
A worker party led by Trump? Here's the wildcard. If Trump can expand the GOP into areas previously held by Democrats, he can create a new majority.
You have to hand it to the Democrats for being able to hang on to what they don't deserve. The GOP for its part, doesn't deserve to win either, for if they did, they would be more open to a guy like Trump. They sure don't seem to be willing to help much, if any at all.
10.17.18:
Stories like this one seem to suggest that it will be a surprising day on election day for somebody. If the stories are true, then how can the Democrats possibly win? If the stories are false, then the GOP could still win, provided that they hang on to their own people.
Trouble is, you really don't know what people are going to do. It is all a matter of turnout.
I suspect that it's the Dems who will be surprised. For they live in a bubble of their own creation. Since they will not tolerate dissent, they may come to find that their support is weaker than what they believed to be so. Dissent isn't a matter of weakness. It tests your assumptions, if you allow it to. It is a strength, not a weakness.
If I am wrong, maybe that will be a surprise for me. But I wasn't surprised that Trump won. However, I was surprised that Obama won.
We'll see.
6:00 pm:
The update in the morning, which was about a district by district breakdown, was done by Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball. He was fairly accurate up to 2016, but missed badly in that race. Maybe he is still wrong.
Perhaps one more comment, and I'll close this thread.
Polls depend upon models. If the models are wrong, the poll will be wrong. The question that should be asked is if the model is wrong.
For example, if blacks leave the Democrats, the model is likely wrong. If blue collar workers leave the party, the model is wrong. And so forth.
Are the models wrong? Apparently they were in 2016. Therefore, they could be wrong again.
4:00 pm:
The conventional wisdom that the GOP will lose the Congress because of historical patterns --- is not actually the case.
I was in town today, and saw a political commercial. If there's anything that might turn this election to the Democrats, it is the healthcare issue and liberals' deep pockets. They can run lots of ads like the one I saw, and it might make a difference.
It is particularly evil for them to capitalize on healthcare because Obamacare wasn't supposed to work anyway. It was supposed to fail, and give rise to calls for single payer. As if on cue, that is what the Dems seem to be pressing for this go-round.
It might work. But it is only because they created a system that cannot work. My own premiums are set to go through the roof. People cannot afford this stuff for much longer. But they may have become dependent upon it.
11:00 am:
One of those districts mentioned as a possible Dem pickup was the Seventh District in Houston. I lived in this district for many years so the incumbent is familiar with me. After checking the map of the district, and the voting pattern in previous elections, I really don't see where the opportunity is for the Dems.
If this is an example of their reasoning, I would say that there is reason to believe that they are wrong in their analysis of other races as well.
Of course, something could have changed in the last few years, but I think that is unlikely.
In addition, there is a lot of talk about Tx. Sen. Ted Cruz being vulnerable. This is not likely unless something has changed. The only way the Dems win this one is if the GOP falls asleep.
10.18.18 10 am:
Some articles that expand upon the theme:
Seat by seat analysis of congressional races comment: not sure if this is a nonpartisan analysis of a Democratic one. But if it is a Democratic one, even they are somewhat doubtful at this point.
Speaker Ryan thinks the GOP will hold on. ( Didn't read this one, at this point, I am no fan of Ryan )
Could Trump win 20 percent of the black vote? ( Didn't read this one either, as VDH is a bit loopy to me. There is some talk of this in other quarters, though.)
A worker party led by Trump? Here's the wildcard. If Trump can expand the GOP into areas previously held by Democrats, he can create a new majority.
You have to hand it to the Democrats for being able to hang on to what they don't deserve. The GOP for its part, doesn't deserve to win either, for if they did, they would be more open to a guy like Trump. They sure don't seem to be willing to help much, if any at all.
10.17.18:
Stories like this one seem to suggest that it will be a surprising day on election day for somebody. If the stories are true, then how can the Democrats possibly win? If the stories are false, then the GOP could still win, provided that they hang on to their own people.
Trouble is, you really don't know what people are going to do. It is all a matter of turnout.
I suspect that it's the Dems who will be surprised. For they live in a bubble of their own creation. Since they will not tolerate dissent, they may come to find that their support is weaker than what they believed to be so. Dissent isn't a matter of weakness. It tests your assumptions, if you allow it to. It is a strength, not a weakness.
If I am wrong, maybe that will be a surprise for me. But I wasn't surprised that Trump won. However, I was surprised that Obama won.
We'll see.
Very scary
Updated:
10.18.18:
This bridge is only about a half mile from a supermarket where I buy groceries. I thought it was a little further away than that. Close!
Anyway, I saw where the bridge is out, and it was a pretty big section of bridge. Water came up in a lot of places in town, but the supermarket is open. Some other places are not so lucky. I saw boats in crazy places, like you see after a hurricane along the Gulf Coast. The high water brought the boats inland from the lake quite some distance from where they usually are.
Things may get back to normal quickly, as long as it doesn't rain again.
10.17.18:
Here's some live action of a bridge collapse maybe ten miles from here. Wow.
The bridge just collapses due to the water flowing over it so fast.
I heard about this yesterday, but I didn't know this video existed.
10.18.18:
This bridge is only about a half mile from a supermarket where I buy groceries. I thought it was a little further away than that. Close!
Anyway, I saw where the bridge is out, and it was a pretty big section of bridge. Water came up in a lot of places in town, but the supermarket is open. Some other places are not so lucky. I saw boats in crazy places, like you see after a hurricane along the Gulf Coast. The high water brought the boats inland from the lake quite some distance from where they usually are.
Things may get back to normal quickly, as long as it doesn't rain again.
10.17.18:
Here's some live action of a bridge collapse maybe ten miles from here. Wow.
The bridge just collapses due to the water flowing over it so fast.
I heard about this yesterday, but I didn't know this video existed.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Wolfe's guilty plea
You really have to wonder why anybody would vote Democrat when you study what this guy did.
He wasn't charged for leaking the FISA application to a reporter-ette that he slept with. No, he was only charged with making false statements. The false statements charge is only a slap on the wrist, and it protects a lot of very guilty people.
That is why you can sometimes get a bit discouraged. At least the victory for justice occurred, even if it is only a fraction of what should have happened.
The thing that could encourage a person is that if the truth wasn't being blockaded continually by the media, the people would make better choices when they vote.
Democrats should suffer this time around, but they are still talking like they could win. No way that they should win. A terrible defeat it would be if they did win. The public has to make decisions based upon incomplete information. Imagine how things would be if the full truth got out.
They are holding up things like the FISA application because it "compromises sources and methods". But that is not what they are protecting. The Wolfe plea shows what and who they are protecting. If we had an honest media, they would be screaming bloody murder.
Don Surber: Trump's real threat to DC press corps https://t.co/3Kwy1VaL04— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 17, 2018
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Cherokee boogie
Update:
10.16.18:
White woman speak with forked tongue, kemosabe. Heap bad medicine.
originally posted many moons ago...
1.29.15:
I may have some Cherokee blood. Hey, it was researched. There's some folks with injun names in my ancestry. Yep, and I know their names, too, kemosabe. It doesn't even go back that far. My Grandma's daddy's middle name was "wise counsel". Yep, yep, yep.
Elizabeth Warren made her political bones being a fake injun. What does it all mean?
Anti white man, that's what. We are so brain washed into rejecting our own culture that we have to fake our identities in order to be acceptable to our peers.
10.16.18:
White woman speak with forked tongue, kemosabe. Heap bad medicine.
BUSTED: Elizabeth Warren Reffered To As "Woman Of Color" In 1995 Fordham Law Review - https://t.co/hcssAArhFM https://t.co/6qgAIaZ70L via @realdcwhispers— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 16, 2018
originally posted many moons ago...
1.29.15:
I may have some Cherokee blood. Hey, it was researched. There's some folks with injun names in my ancestry. Yep, and I know their names, too, kemosabe. It doesn't even go back that far. My Grandma's daddy's middle name was "wise counsel". Yep, yep, yep.
Elizabeth Warren made her political bones being a fake injun. What does it all mean?
Anti white man, that's what. We are so brain washed into rejecting our own culture that we have to fake our identities in order to be acceptable to our peers.
Stormy Daniels Parody
She seems to have lost a lawsuit lately. I got the idea to find the song called "stormy", and I found this parody song.
Not too bad.
Another reason for me thinking of this song is that it is raining up a storm out there. Flash floods are possible.
Monday, October 15, 2018
Elizabeth Warren really is Pocahontas
Cuz she says so. Bwah, hah, hah!
Anyway, there is no native American database of DNA, so she cannot prove a thing with her DNA test.
One thing that this might prove is that she's running for president in 2020.
The land of the Free and the Brave is turning into the Freak and the Fake.
Jeez.
Anyway, there is no native American database of DNA, so she cannot prove a thing with her DNA test.
One thing that this might prove is that she's running for president in 2020.
The land of the Free and the Brave is turning into the Freak and the Fake.
Jeez.
The blind spots
People have their blind spots. I know I have had mine. That is why I came up with the phrase "the truth is a slippery thing." When you are blind to the truth for whatever reason, you can miss it. It can be in plain sight, and you could still miss it.
When I read some "conservative" sites, I think I see the blind spots.
There are several of those spots here in this post on Betsy's Page. I stopped reading her blog in the recent past when she got too critical of Trump. Since I wanted new perspectives lately, I decided to give her blog another read.
Lo and behold, a number of blind spots seem to have been discovered by the lady. Although, she is not acknowledging the previous error in the way I think she should, she at least seems to be coming around to some slight understanding of the phenomenon.
There are several to mention here in this article. It is a rather long article.
Let me sum up the problem concisely. Some folks, like Betsy Newmark, cannot bring themselves to see that the Democrats are inveterate liars. There is a reason for that, and yet Betsy cannot seem to come to that conclusion that would enable her to understand why things are the way they are.
Perhaps she does understand, but is feigning ignorance. In that case, she is also a liar. My blind spot may be to give her the benefit of the doubt. At this point, at least, I don't think she is lying. But she had better get a clue soon. Time may be running out.
The possible reason that Kavanaugh's nomination succeeded is that the GOP's credibility was on the line. The reason they may be getting a clue is that patience with them may getting rather thin. They need to get on the ball. They almost let Kavanaugh's nomination fail just because they cannot stand up to the liberal's gimmickry.
I don't know if it is complicity or not, but if it continues, it cannot be distinguished very easily.
When I read some "conservative" sites, I think I see the blind spots.
There are several of those spots here in this post on Betsy's Page. I stopped reading her blog in the recent past when she got too critical of Trump. Since I wanted new perspectives lately, I decided to give her blog another read.
Lo and behold, a number of blind spots seem to have been discovered by the lady. Although, she is not acknowledging the previous error in the way I think she should, she at least seems to be coming around to some slight understanding of the phenomenon.
There are several to mention here in this article. It is a rather long article.
Let me sum up the problem concisely. Some folks, like Betsy Newmark, cannot bring themselves to see that the Democrats are inveterate liars. There is a reason for that, and yet Betsy cannot seem to come to that conclusion that would enable her to understand why things are the way they are.
Perhaps she does understand, but is feigning ignorance. In that case, she is also a liar. My blind spot may be to give her the benefit of the doubt. At this point, at least, I don't think she is lying. But she had better get a clue soon. Time may be running out.
The possible reason that Kavanaugh's nomination succeeded is that the GOP's credibility was on the line. The reason they may be getting a clue is that patience with them may getting rather thin. They need to get on the ball. They almost let Kavanaugh's nomination fail just because they cannot stand up to the liberal's gimmickry.
I don't know if it is complicity or not, but if it continues, it cannot be distinguished very easily.
Bigger a-hole rule
Must be bored, because I am reading a lefty site.
It is the Mahablog, the one I have written about before. This is where I got kicked off from commenting because I must have triggered the liberal lady there.
Maybe I didn't write about the story behind that, or maybe I did. Anyway, it was pretty tame stuff to be getting kicked off a blog for, but that's liberals for you. The reason I am bringing it up again is because I think their behavior is self-defeating. What happened with this incident with the Mahablog's action in my case may have been an excellent example of the bubble they live in. By insisting upon conformity to their point of view, without exception, they invoke the tendency towards group think.
So, the Mahablog writes up about a rule that she thinks the GOP violated in the Kavanaugh circus show. It is called the bigger asshole rule. She seems the GOP was acting like bigger assholes than what they were acting like. For one thing, she is admitting that the left acted like assholes. But, she doesn't seem to think that will hurt the Dems in the midterms, but the opposite. The biggest aholes are supposed to lose elections, the rule says.
For Barbara O'Brien to think that must mean that she is living in her own little bubble. Hard to say what the public will do, but she only accepts CNN's polling on the question, as opposed to other polls which state otherwise. In that way, I think she shows that she is in a bubble. The polls were wrong about Hillary in 2016. But then again, they don't want to accept that outcome either.
I am looking for other things to read, because this usual stuff is getting tiresome.
Reminds me of a joke. When someone asks you how you are doing, just say, "same shit, different asshole". There doesn't seem to be a shortage of assholes.
It is the Mahablog, the one I have written about before. This is where I got kicked off from commenting because I must have triggered the liberal lady there.
Maybe I didn't write about the story behind that, or maybe I did. Anyway, it was pretty tame stuff to be getting kicked off a blog for, but that's liberals for you. The reason I am bringing it up again is because I think their behavior is self-defeating. What happened with this incident with the Mahablog's action in my case may have been an excellent example of the bubble they live in. By insisting upon conformity to their point of view, without exception, they invoke the tendency towards group think.
So, the Mahablog writes up about a rule that she thinks the GOP violated in the Kavanaugh circus show. It is called the bigger asshole rule. She seems the GOP was acting like bigger assholes than what they were acting like. For one thing, she is admitting that the left acted like assholes. But, she doesn't seem to think that will hurt the Dems in the midterms, but the opposite. The biggest aholes are supposed to lose elections, the rule says.
For Barbara O'Brien to think that must mean that she is living in her own little bubble. Hard to say what the public will do, but she only accepts CNN's polling on the question, as opposed to other polls which state otherwise. In that way, I think she shows that she is in a bubble. The polls were wrong about Hillary in 2016. But then again, they don't want to accept that outcome either.
I am looking for other things to read, because this usual stuff is getting tiresome.
Reminds me of a joke. When someone asks you how you are doing, just say, "same shit, different asshole". There doesn't seem to be a shortage of assholes.
The Democrats cannot be serious
So much that is happening these days points to anarchy. Well, if there's one thing that the Democrats cannot have, and that is anarchy.
What the anarchy really means is that they have to be the ones to restore order. Oh, yeah. They create anarchy so that they can pose as the ones who have to clean it up. Yep. Sounds like a protection racket.
Look. Even Democrats cannot run a government that won't enforce any laws. Taxes have to be raised, order has to prevail. Big government cannot exist at the same time with anarchy. Anarchy is the opposite of big government.
It's the same with their threats of saying the Supreme Court isn't legitimate, so that they have to pack it with liberals. The Supreme Court is legit, or it isn't. Make up your minds, libs.
I think their anarchy routine isn't serious. You don't promote big government with anarchy, you do the opposite. If they are about anarchy, then they should rule as anarchists. But that isn't what you get with liberals.
They are not serious here.
What the anarchy really means is that they have to be the ones to restore order. Oh, yeah. They create anarchy so that they can pose as the ones who have to clean it up. Yep. Sounds like a protection racket.
Look. Even Democrats cannot run a government that won't enforce any laws. Taxes have to be raised, order has to prevail. Big government cannot exist at the same time with anarchy. Anarchy is the opposite of big government.
It's the same with their threats of saying the Supreme Court isn't legitimate, so that they have to pack it with liberals. The Supreme Court is legit, or it isn't. Make up your minds, libs.
I think their anarchy routine isn't serious. You don't promote big government with anarchy, you do the opposite. If they are about anarchy, then they should rule as anarchists. But that isn't what you get with liberals.
They are not serious here.
Sunday, October 14, 2018
I put a spell on you
Oh no! The witches are after us.
You know what? This could be serious. Barnhardt has some convincing evidence that the "Anti-pope" known as Francis is dabbling in witchcraft. Yep, he accepted a "Stang", which is a staff that "warlocks" are said to use. A couple gals gave it to him, and are pictured wearing some red wristband that also has witchcraft connotations.
You can make jokes about this, but it may not be a joke.
But it does put to the lie that Democrats are so level headed, tolerant, and scientific. But we have always known better. Or should have.
One Thousand Witches To Gather In New York City To Put A Hex On Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh On October 20th In Brooklyn https://t.co/4zPfR2kj59— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 14, 2018
You know what? This could be serious. Barnhardt has some convincing evidence that the "Anti-pope" known as Francis is dabbling in witchcraft. Yep, he accepted a "Stang", which is a staff that "warlocks" are said to use. A couple gals gave it to him, and are pictured wearing some red wristband that also has witchcraft connotations.
You can make jokes about this, but it may not be a joke.
But it does put to the lie that Democrats are so level headed, tolerant, and scientific. But we have always known better. Or should have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)