In Defense of our Culture and our Country

by Jack

Seems like anytime a person says we ought to protect our border with Mexico (because of drugs, crime, illegal immigration, disease control, pollution and general safety reasons) they are labeled a xenophobe (a racist). The person/s defending our country could be Asian, White, Hispanic or Black, it doesn’t matter because the left will play the race card. See, it’s all about labels for them and the nastier the better! Labels divide people and when people are divided they are easier to defeat, it’s the simple and that obvious. Where did the left learn to be so blatantly devious? That’s a rhetorical question, but it’s something you ought to think about. But, the point is, the rabid left has crafted insults and used mockery to manipulate voters for decades.

donald trump-protests-kidsWe’re coming up to an election unlike any I’ve ever seen or that we are ever likely to see repeated in our lifetime. We’ve finally got a candidate (Trump) who is not afraid to say what he thinks. However, when that happens you have to take the good with the bad. And you know there’s going to be controversy, the medial loves controversy and they will make the most of it, so we have that going against us. But, we can handle it, and we’re already handling it. Trump’s candor isn’t that shocking, we get where he’s going and for the most part we usually agree with him. But, the left has this endless supply ammunition to exploit, thanks to Trump being Trump.

Candor is refreshing. I’ve always felt it’s better to know what’s on a politicians mind and deal with it than to be treated like the proverbial mushrooms. I’m sick of being treated like a mushroom, aren’t you? That part has morphed into a version of political correctness, which today has all but censored blunt, honest political speech. But, they nicey-nice PC talk is still… BS.

I’ve had it with the BS, save that for the real mushrooms. And I’ve had it with the phony, professionally crafted candidates, saying whatever is necessary to resonate with the greatest possible number of voters. That’s still manipulation and it’s no better than the race card. ENOUGH already!

Our challenge today is to deny these elements their devious manipulations and hold firm to our common sense and our beliefs in American idealism. When in doubt, we should fall back on the time tested truths our founders gave us. You won’t find many of their ideas and ideals in a Hillary or Bernie speech, because these two characters are completely off the rails when it comes to understanding our heritage and our legacy. They don’t have a clue what it means to protect our borders, language and culture.

As good citizens, as voters, as people who understand what makes this country great, we ought to follow the lead of Donald Trump and be just as outspoken and politically incorrect as he is. You might be surprised to hear how many of still believe in the American dream if you do. Sure, it takes a little courage to do that, because you are going to tick off the lefties. You are going to be called ugly names… for daring to protect your country from invasion. However, that’s a small price to pay compared to what we’ve paid in the past to defend this nation, isn’t it?

So, be prepared to speak up! Be prepared to say you support the rule of law! Be prepared to say you support a fair and well managed immigration policy. Be prepared to tell the world that you are an American first and foremost, then you are Irish or Peruvian or Lithuanian or Spanish, etc.. Let people and the politicians know your honest, heartfelt desire to protect this nation and keep it safe from drugs, crime and invasion. If doing that requires a secure Southern border with Mexico, then so be it. If electing a guy like Trump, who is sure to offend the delicate sensibilities of the politically correct crowd, then so be it. This is our country, founded on our idealism, with our foundation 100% defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! That’s us and we better not lose sight of that.

It’s been a long struggle to promote and defend our noble ideals. It hasn’t always been a perfect country, but we were always on tract to fulfill the founders vision that was. So, if you want to genuinely be part of this great experiment in liberty, then you have to speak up and not be afraid. Defend what you know is right about America and don’t be timid about it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to In Defense of our Culture and our Country

  1. Pie Guevara says:

    Who is going to defend against illegal alien criminals the US when the ICE refuses to?

    They were among the nation’s top priorities for deportation, criminals who were supposed to be sent back to their home countries. But instead they were released, one by one, in secret across the United States. Federal officials said that many of the criminals posed little threat to the public, but did little to verify whether that was true.

    It wasn’t.

  2. Chris says:

    Jack: “Seems like anytime a person says we ought to protect our border with Mexico (because of drugs, crime, illegal immigration, disease control, pollution and general safety reasons) they are labeled a xenophobe (a racist).”

    Ridiculous. No one is calling Trump a xenophobe or racist because he says we ought to protect our border. We are calling him a xenophobe and a racist because the extreme methods he advocates to control the border are xenophobic and racist, as are his outrageous statements on both the Mexican and Muslim communities.

    This is not hard to understand.

    Other things that are not hard to understand:

    1) The US has never had a national language, and the founders were clear on why.

    2) There is no “invasion.” Saying there is is paranoid xenophobia.

    3) Immigration has been at net zero for several years.

    4) It is not just “lefties” who object to Trump’s racism and xenophobia. It is also responsible conservatives and libertarians. You know this; you just repeat otherwise, like a mantra, perhaps to convince yourself. You do it so you don’t have to think.

    5) Donald Trump will never, ever win a general election. Line up behind him all you want. Buckley kicked out the Birchers back in the day, and the Trump crowd is just the new iteration of those racist losers. Enjoy being a part of them, and being marginalized by your betters in the conservative movement.

    • Tina says:

      “The US has never had a national language, and the founders were clear on why.”

      I’d be interested in quotes from the founders to back that up Chris.

      Although English has never been made an official language it has been assumed by the millions of people who came here up until the last forty or so years. Most people who come legally still seem to be anxious to learn the language if they don’t already speak American English.

      English is spoken by 1.8 billion people world wide now. The founders didn’t make it the official language by putting it in the Constitution. The founders didn’t believe in heavy handed government control. However they did encourage adopting a common language or the sake of national unity and English was the most common language at the founding.

      The link above further informs:

      In most of the British Empire, the main goal was trade so fewer Britons actually settled. This explains why English did not come to dominate colonies in Asia and Africa, where it was the language of business, administration and education, but not the language of the people.

      To this day, English has a key administrative role in these former colonies. For a long time, access to English meant access to education, whether in the mission schools in Africa or the first universities in India. This created an English-speaking elite in some of the world’s most populous countries, and elites are good at self-preservation.

      Post-independence, many countries became officially multilingual for the first time, but the various groups needed a language for communication with each other and with other nations. Again, that was English. English is now the dominant or official language in 75 territories: a direct legacy of the British Empire.

      In countries where large settler colonies were formed, such as Australia, Canada and the USA, native languages and cultures have been pushed to near-extinction by the presence of English.

      There is no valid reason to change the already well established common language. Anyone who wants to immigrate here should learn the language for their own sake.

      “There is no “invasion.” Saying there is is paranoid xenophobia.

      Now Chris, obviously no one is suggested we’ve seen our shores hit by a large contingent of armed forces (D-Day), you know that. We are, however aware that a enemies are “invading” our country by coming across our borders covertly and illegally. We also know that people are being encouraged to enter our borders illegally because our government facilitates them coming and staying through policy, lack of enforcement of our laws, and because the sheer numbers are almost impossible to deal with in the courts.

      INVASION: an invading or being invaded; specif.: 1. an entering or being entered by an attacking military force, 2. an intrusion or infringement, 3. the onset, appearance, or spread of something.

      That last one also applies if you think in terms of the drugs, drug cartels, and how long this has gone on without our government finding a way to stop it.

      “Immigration has been at net zero for several years.”

      Numbers USA:

      A new study released by the Center of Immigration Studies shows that both legal and illegal immigration increased 39% between 2014-2015. More than 3 million immigrants settled in the U.S. in the last 2 years, this rate is now higher than the pre-recession levels of 2007.

      The study estimates that out of the 3.1 million new immigrants to enter the U.S. in the last two years, 1.1 million (550,000 annually) were new illegal aliens while the other 2 million were new legal immigrants (both temporary and permanent). The numbers are based on Census Bureau data and does not account for immigrants that may have been missed by the Bureau.

      The major findings of the study include:

      • The data shows that 3.1 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country in 2014 and 2015, or more than 1.5 million annually.

      • This is a huge increase from previous years. In 2012 and 2013, 2.3 million immigrants arrived (about 1.1 million annually) and from 2010 and 2011, 2.1 million new immigrants arrived (around 1 million annually).

      • New illegal aliens increased from 700,000 (350,000 annually) from 2012 and 2013 to 1.1 million (or 550,000 annually) in 2014 and 2015.

      • New legal immigrants, both temporary and permanent, have increased around 30% from 1.6 million in 2012-2013 to 2 million in 2014-2015.

      This immigration increase can be attributed to lack of interior enforcement, the Obama administration’s catch and release policy for border apprehensions, and an increase in temporary worker visas passed by Congress in last year’s omnibus bill.

      Those who cry racism and xenophobia are ignorant of the facts, irresponsible in terms of the health and well being of the population, and like, totally PC.

      “Donald Trump will never, ever win a general election”

      Yeah, the smartest guys in the room said that about Reagan too. Trump is a bit of a blowhard…big deal. Hillary and company are lying criminals and Bernie is a radical left over from the sixties who would turn this nation to Venezuela given the chance.

      Your candidate are not only unsuitable to be president they are both deeply flawed politicians whose policies run counter to the American way of doing things.

      “Buckley kicked out the Birchers back in the day”

      If it’s time for anything, it’s time for the Democrats to “kick out” the socialist fascists and commies that have taken over the party.

      Chris you have just overtly labeled jack a racist…AGAIN. What an ignorant closed-minded individual you are!

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Hmmm, millions of illegal aliens flooding our country year after year does not constitute an “invasion” according to Chris. He must have a very narrow definition of the term.

      What would you call it? An unwelcome visit from the neighbors who decide they are going to live in your house despite your wishes?

      This is typical of Chris. He distorts the language to use it as a weapon so he can label the very real need to control our borders “paranoid xenophobia.”

      Some English major, eh?

  3. Libby says:

    Here’s the thing, Jack. As a practical matter, our southern border is about as protected as it can be. Any talk of a fence or a wall is wildly impractical. They will climb over, tunnel under, and cut through.

    And it does seem to me that if you were serious about these violent druggies, you would want to go after sad sacks and rich brats in this country who makes a market for the stuff. “Everybody: we’re not screwing around with this no more, jail, then rehab, everybody, every time.”

    If you were serious about curbing the flow of illegal labor, you would go after the Republicans in this country who hire them. Jail the Board of Tyson, and you will get results. (And maybe the Teamsters can redeem themselves.)

    But you refuse to consider anything as practical or effective as this, which is where we get the idea that you are angsting over the Mexicans as Mexicans.

    Also the fact that you drop code like “noble ideals.” You know what you mean by that and so do we. You don’t want Mexicans as a whole, as a race, in your country. You don’t like them. You don’t like the way they live, and you want them out of here … or maybe here, but in more manageable and subservient numbers.

    The day you can write about this with dropping any racist code, we will reconsider.

    • Tina says:

      Good thought and good ideas Libby…however:

      You are wrong to think only Republicans hire illegals. Tyson Foods has always been tied to Democrats:

      Local Democratic politics first brought Tyson and Clinton together in the early 1970s, when the future President was a young teacher at the University of Arkansas Law School in Fayetteville. That was shortly after Tyson’s parents were killed in a car crash, leaving him the family business.

      It was about that same time that Clinton made friends with Blair, now Tyson Foods’ general counsel and the man who helped Hillary Clinton make a $100,000 profit in commodities trading on an investment of just $1,000.

      But the Tyson-Clinton relationship has not been without its ups and downs.

      Although Clinton had Tyson’s support when he first became governor in 1979, the two men had a falling out shortly thereafter over one of the hottest local issues of the day: truck weights. In 1980, Tyson supported Clinton’s successful GOP opponent, Frank White, because the Democrat had opposed the poultry industry’s campaign to raise the legal truck weight in the state to 80,000 pounds.

      White was unable to keep his promise to raise truck weights, however. But in 1983, after being returned to the governor’s mansion without Tyson’s support, Clinton signed a bill raising the limit to 80,000 pounds.

      While Clinton was governor of Arkansas, Tyson Foods flourished.

      And what party is supported by the big corporations firing Americans to hire foreign workers? Apple, Google and their ilk. Honey the days of the Republican’s being the party of “fat cats” is OVER!

      Republicans are strongly for enforcement of the law, period.

      Liberals are more likely to encourage, promote, celebrate and popularize drug use…never mind the negative affects to families and communities.

      You have a lot of negative biases…it’s bigotry actually…for the simple reason that you do not care to get it. You love having this convenient “enemy” that you can hang ALL failures on including those of your own party. And please, the use of code? What the he77 do you think has constructed this entire PC mindset of not code designed to marginalize and demonize any opposition’s views. It’s absurd to claim that all opposing ideas are based in racism.

      I understand standing up for your party and it’s ideas and ideals but you have taken this to another level that is just ugly, divisive, and totally untrue.

      • Libby says:

        Tina, your eternal refuge in irrelevant literalism is just infuriating. Tyson is a huge meat processor, like a metaphor. Meat processors are huge employers of illegals. This is the point to be dealt with. The political affiliation of the actual Tyson owners are actually irrelevant (I just like to get a dig in here and there), as is any affiliation with the Clintons. I would be more than happy to jail Dems who hire illegals over American union members.

        So, you know what? We agree. Right? If there was no work for illegals, they would not be here, right? And we could be working together to deal with this … if you could see past your clan affiliation.

        We have never been able to get either party to deal with this because, as you point out, they are both paid off by economic powers that would rather hire illegals than union members. (Or they are, themselves, an economic power.)

        So what you need to do is, next time Trump starts bellowing that “wall” idiocy (contrived solely to exploit your racism), you tell him to stuff it, and explain what meaningful measures he proposes to take.

        • Tina says:

          Libby: “So, you know what? We agree. Right? If there was no work for illegals, they would not be here, right? And we could be working together to deal with this … if you could see past your clan affiliation.

          Don’t pull that crap with me. We agree the law should be enforced. YOUR PARTY is the party of the clan. YOUR PARTY had a super majority for a couple of years and did nothing about it…under Obama nothing has been done to uphold the law in eight years.

          Concentrate on challenging your own flawed candidates with their horrendously, economy killing bad policies, INCLUDING their border and immigration policies and stuff your specious (tired) accusations of racism!

    • Harold says:

      Here’s the thing, Jack. As a practical matter, our southern border is about as protected as it can be.

      Haaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa , Your opinion is about as porous as the southern border!

      • Tina says:

        Nicely said Harold, high fives!

        • Libby says:

          He said something?

          • Chris says:

            Libby, as far as I can tell no one but Peggy has actually said anything for at least three months. Ironically, the frequency of comments has never been higher while the actual level of substance has never been lower. That’s because there is no substantial defense of Trump, so his supporters here are just throwing out every possible rationalization they can to see what sticks.

          • Libby says:

            I know. I acknowledge that neither party will deal with the issue, and what do I get? A YOUR PARTY rant. It would seem to be an incurable condition.

  4. Chris says:

    If our culture and country is under any real threat, it isn’t from Mexican immigrants.

    The threat comes from a presidential candidate who:

    a) endorses violence against his political opponents

    b) endorses state discrimination based on race and religion

    c) refuses to condemn white supremacist groups who support him

    d) endorses the muzzling of the press, forcing the military to follow illegal orders, and other facets of fascism

    e) endorses torture

    f) endorses committing war crimes such as murdering the family members of terrorists

    g) praises dictators such as Kim Jong-un and Vladmir Putin

    h) insults our allies, says dropping a nuclear bomb in Europe isn’t outside the realm of possibility and suggests pulling out of NATO

    i) normalizes and encourages bullying through his disgusting and derogatory comments to journalists, POWs, and nearly every other presidential candidate


    j) normalizes crass public behavior by bragging about his penis size in a presidential debate.

    And that’s just the short list.

    The threat also comes from a portion of the citizenry that has been stupid enough to let such an unqualified man–who would be the first president in American history with no experience in either government or the military–to come so close to becoming the leader of the free world.

    The threat of Donald Trump will be stopped before he ever sets one foot in the White House. The threat posed by his ignorant and unethical supporters will take years to combat.

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Wow, Chris threatens Trump. Wow, Chris calls his supporters an ignorant and unethical threat.


      Take your meds and calm down progressive boy, before you blow a gasket.

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Re : c) refuses to condemn white supremacist groups who support him.

      I note that Hillary and Bernie are falling all over themselves to disavow the racist Democrat party affiliated organizations La Raza and MEChA and condemn the violence they engage in at Trump rallies.

      Hey, chump, weren’t you speciously and idiotically saying I was demanding Hillary and Bernie make voluntary strong statements against the violence of protesters at Trump rallies a little bit ago?

      What are you now “demanding” of Trump? Eh?

      Sheesh, you are such an oblivious and moronic hypocrite.

  5. Chris says:

    From the leftist commies at the Media Research Center:

    “In an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Monday, presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump said that he does not support the G.I. Bill.”

    Of course, Trump’s typically rambling response left some wondering whether Trump even knows what the GI Bill is:

    I would like a reporter to ask Trump what the three branches of government are. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t know.

    Rick Perry was driven from the race because he couldn’t think of a third department he would cut. Trump displays a deeper level of ignorance of how our government works on a near daily basis, and somehow he still won’t go away. How can his supporters be this stupid?

    • Tina says:

      Obama was your fawning choice in 08, the man who thought America had 58 states (even thought about it before saying it), and advised bringing a gun to a political fight and advised his supporters to “get in their face” when trying to recruit voters.

      (Yes, that IS the same sort of leap you insist on taking now).

      This highly touted candidate went on to stutter his way through speeches sans teleprompters, said “during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos…you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith,” and thought that “Austrian” was the official language of Austria. He’s a man who went on to identify a navy corpsman as a “corps-man.” He said America invented the automoble…Germany did. The “cool” president poked fun at his bowling game by comparing his performance to Special Olympics performers. In a speech on healthcare he talked about his plan bring “inefficiencies” to healthcare. The man was said to have a ‘flourescent” intellect by one fawner. Let the tape roll on that video to witness the promotion of a man unprepared to be president whose eloquence was entirely overblown and his persona and delivery highly managed.

      Obama’s record as president is indefensible. So much for you, and your party buddies, ability to pick a candidate. He is the worst president to lead this nation and you managed to reelected him with the same fawning devotion and promotion.

      As far as I’m concerned you have no solid ground on which to stand and criticize. YOU are discredited along with the man you defend, the party you defend, the policies you defend, the media you rely upon, and the two deeply flawed candidates that you cannot quite get behind. Attack mode is ALL you have.

      • Chris says:

        “advised bringing a gun to a political fight”

        That was a metaphor, and you know it. An inappropriate metaphor, but a metaphor nonetheless. Are you really going to pretend Trump was speaking metaphorically when he said he’d pay the legal fees of supporters who knocked out protesters?

        Speaking of: remember when we used to debate only metaphorical violence from politicians? Those were the days. It seems like a more innocent era; now we have to deal with actual calls for violence from guys like Trump, and people like you shrugging it off like it’s no big deal. That’s how much Trump has corrupted you.

        The rest of your examples were slips of the tongue, and some of them (like the Special Olympics crack) Obama even apologized for. When has Trump ever apologized for anything?

        You’re unreachable.

        • Tina says:

          “That was a metaphor”

          Which is why I said to a political fight.

          “Are you really going to pretend Trump was speaking metaphorically when he said he’d pay the legal fees of supporters who knocked out protesters? ”

          I’m not going to pretend anything. The people who refused to be civil during that event paid for by Trump don’t listen to reason. They refused to respect the speech and assembly rights of others assembled there. they didn’t have the good manners to leave quietly when asked to do so. This crap has been going on for a long time. I don’t know what was said to the man who ended up punching the protester but I don;t find anything strange about Trump telling him he’d pay his legal bill…he’s that done with the lefts protest goons. The assault will be handled in the courts, as is appropriate.

          Where do Trump supporters go to secure the opportunity to assemble in peace and hear their preferred candidates message? Pleas from your leadership ring hollow given the machine is paying some of these people to protest and they do it KNOWING there is no way to control their behavior.

          The Presidents war on cops has made the situation worse since they are reluctant to interfere in situations involving minorities.

          I don’t advocate violence but neither do I support intentional incitement to violence. I also told my own children, male and female, “I don’t want to catch you starting a fight but if someone hits you, you have my permission to hit back.” Today I would add, “If someone makes it a practice to harasses or intimidates you, you have my permission to hit them.”

          This intolerant crap in politics has had it’s day…I am done being a nice guy when it comes to the arena of ideas and done with the Saul Alinski method being used in only one direction. PLEASE be prepared, I’m not the only one. You and your party can learn to be tolerant and civil or accept the consequences.

          Trump has made no ACTUAL CALLS to violence. NOBODY took his words to heart. His supporters are not attacking anyone at Hillary or Bernie rallies. Exactly who needs to do anything but “shrug it off?” On the other hand…

          “The rest of your examples were slips of the tongue”

          But not exactly the picture you paint of superior intellect and more suitable to be president. Trump is a human being and there is a whole lot more to the man than the handful of bluster you’ve gone postal over to discredit him as a candidate. Your shallow observations are petty and meaningless but totally understandable given you have no candidate to champion.

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Chris: “We are calling him a xenophobe and a racist because the extreme methods he advocates to control the border are xenophobic and racist, as are his outrageous statements on both the Mexican and Muslim communities.”

    Nonsense. You are speciously calling him a xenophobe and a racist because you think that is an effective way to marginalize him. How’s that working for you?

    The idiot thinks the rest of us are idiots. Get a grip, Chris.

    Trump may be a loose cannon blowhard with a big mouth, but he is no racist xenophobe. This is a huge problem for the left. They so loosely toss about such terms as to render them meaningless. No wonder Trump has had such remarkable success. There are many people in this country who are completely fed up with the excesses of the left and their vicious, overblown, mindless rhetorical garbage.

    Americans are more interested in jobs, economic recovery, and America regaining trust and a respected status in the world than they are in your foaming at the mouth nonsense, progressive boy.

  7. Pie Guevara says:

    It will really only come down to this in the general election —

    Will you vote for the odious Trump or the even more odious Hillary? Or will you just bow out?

    Obviously Chris is on a campaign against Trump. Ho hum. Like no one saw that coming.

  8. Chris says:

    Even RedState’s Erick Erickson can see that Trump’s attacks on Judge Curiel were racist, and is now condemning other conservatives for refusing to call it what it is:

    But not only that, we are now seeing an American political press joining in as well to avoid calling racism, racism. The American political press has not been slow to call things racist and whip up racist sentiment. The American political press whipped people into a frenzy over Ferguson and Baltimore and Trayvon Martin. We saw press outlets altering or distorting 911 audio to make it sound like words were said that were not said. We had the national press play up aspects of Ferguson to shape opinion while ignoring other aspects. We saw the same with Baltimore.

    The press loves to create racists from whole cloth. But now confronted by what is absolutely racist, the press and the Party of Lincoln will not make eye contact with it.

    No, I am not talking about Donald Trump and his African American. I am talking about Donald Trump trying to get a federal judge to recuse himself from a legal case by attacking his Mexican heritage.

    CBS News called it “another startling and racially charged missive from Trump”.

    MSNBC declared it “racially charged.”

    The Washington Post described it as“racially tinged attacks on a federal judge overseeing a pair of lawsuits against him.”

    Even the New York Times wrote, “Mr. Trump again steered his pirate ship into uncharted waters, firing off personal and racially tinged attacks against a federal judge”

    These were not racially tinged or racially charged attacks.

    This was racism plain and simple.

    The partisan press has long muddied what is and is not racist in this country and now confronted by actual racism cannot bring itself to use the word lest it be judging Trump.

    The attacks are racist. To claim that someone is unable to objectively and professional perform his job because of his race is racism.

    And damn the GOP for its unwillingness to speak up on this. The leaders of the party, confronted by Todd Akin, abandoned ship for his stupid statements on rape and abortion. But the Party of Lincoln intends to circle the wagons around a racist. Damn them for that.

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Hey chump, who cares? Evidently fools like you and Erickson think Mexicans are a race. They are not. Neither are Latinos. They are no more a race than Americans are a race.

      Trump insinuating that the judge has it in for him because he is “Mexican” is a ridiculous thing to say, (the judge is an American), but it is not racist.

      All this means is that even Erickson is as stupid as you are.

      • Chris says:

        Oh, Jesus.

        “Ethnic bigotry” and “racism” are often used interchangeably in this country. (I’d also argue that Mexicans are treated as a distinct racial group, and since race is entirely socially constructed, the term “racism” fits.)

        But fine. Trump’s comments were bigoted towards the Mexican ethnicity. Is that better?

        • Tina says:

          No it’s not better!

          Trumps reference to his ethnicity was not bigoted it was descriptive!

          I’m pretty sure that Scandanavians wouldn’t make the same assumption based on Trump building a wall on the Mexican border.

          • Chris says:

            Why, Tina? Would not some Scandinavians be just as outraged as some Mexicans toward the policy?

            Trump (and you) have both said there are Mexicans who support building the wall. It is fair to assume most Mexicans, as a group, would be against such a thing, but once you take a generality about an ethnic group and assume it applies to a specific individual within that group, that is ethnic prejudice by definition.

            And when people go around “describing” peoples’ ethnicities and races, apropos of nothing (Trump: “Look at my African-American!”) it does indicate a certain preoccupation.

            You’re also missing the sheer idiocy of Trump’s statement. It doesn’t matter if the judge is pro-wall, anti-wall, or neutral. A judge is allowed to have political leanings; judges are human. By Trump’s logic, all anti-Obamacare justices should have recused themselves from cases involving that subject, while all Catholic judges should reuse themselves from cases regarding abortion. Are you in favor of that? Then why are you defending Trump’s ridiculous, childish interpretation of law, where only pro-Trump judges can hear cases brought against him?

  9. Chris says:

    This seems too crazy to be true, but Snopes checks it out.

    The other day Trump tweeted a picture of a black family with the text, “American Families for Trump.” The problem? The family pictured does not endorse Trump, and the photo was stolen–a form of plagiarism–from an unrelated news article.

    I get why people think Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy and dishonest. I really do.

    I don’t get why anyone thinks Donald Trump is any less untrustworthy and dishonest.

    • Tina says:

      Trump hasn’t had the time in politics to rack up the Clinton record of egregious lies, deceit, corruption, law breaking and thuggery. We’ll have to elect him to get a fair comparison.


      • Chris says:

        Tina, Trump’s record of lies, corruption and thuggery already stacks up there with the worst of them in just the few years he’s been involved in politics. Electing him is dangerously irresponsible.

  10. Pie Guevara says:

    Oh my, poor Jack. According to Chris, Jack must be a stupid, ignorant, unethical paranoid xenophobe.

    By extension, Jack must also be a racist.

    Chris is such a likable fellow. All progressives are.

  11. Tina says:

    Right on, Pie.

    Chris likes politics and wants to play but his own choices are indefensible, especially the front runner and her misogynist hubby.

    Some of the charming attributes of the misogynist:

    He will zero in on a woman and choose her as his target. Her natural defenses may be down because he’s flirtatious, exciting, fun, and charismatic at first.

    As time goes on, he begins to reveal a Jekyll & Hyde personality. He may change quickly from irresistible to rude, and from rude back to irresistible.

    His behavior toward women in general is grandiose, cocky, controlling, and self-centered.

    Sexually, he likes to control women and gives little or no attention to their sexual pleasure. Foreplay, if it occurs at all, is only a necessary means to an end. He likes oral sex but only as a recipient. His favorite positions enable him to avoid looking the woman in her eyes.

    He will cheat on women he is dating or in a relationship with. Monogamy is the last thing he feels he owes a woman.

    Chris is forced to resort to specious attempts to make our candidate a monster and create shame in us. It’s a fools errand he’s constructed for himself but he’s “unreachable.”

    A new book about Hillary and what we could expect in a Hillary White House comes from ex-FBI agent Gary Byrne, see here for a peek inside.

    If Hillary wins the Democrats will have another ‘first” to brag about and add to the brand, First Horn Dog to hold the first lady slot.

    (Icky Shudder)

  12. Pie Guevara says:

    Tina, Jack :

    It appears to me that Donald Trump has a legitimate gripe about U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel presiding over his case, but why he chose to make an issue of it is beyond me.

    Trump should be concentrating on the economy and jobs and half a dozen other things and let his lawyers handle the court case. The result is that this has become a sideshow and the lame stream has weaponized it. Trump mentioning Curiel’s Mexican heritage was not a very astute political move. It takes the focus off things far more important.

    Gonzalo Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. Ostensibly they are not officially connected to the racist organization, National Council of La Raza (La Raza translates as The Race), but why would they assume the title of a racist organization? The National Council of La Raza and other La Raza affiliates are behind much of the violence perpetrated by protesters at Trump rallies.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Gonzalo Curiel has, at the very least, the appearance of a a conflict of interest. I am not saying Curiel has done anything wrong, but he should recuse himself.

    It also appears that this case should have been dismissed long ago. If Trump’s lawyers are any good, Curiel will not be long on the case and it will soon be dismissed.

    • Tina says:

      Agreed, Pie. I’m not so sure Curiel’s association with La Raza is completely benign. As I noted in comments on another thread, “Make America Mexico Again,” his positions are not always, by my way of thinking, in the best interests of America. He supports open borders, for instance. (See articles and information at Discover the Networks on La Raza)

      The problem as I see it is when groups based in identity, race, (or religion) are elevated in status and influence above other Americans. La Raza, or at least some within the organizations, have that as a goal and they are achieving it. Power hungry people are usually not that interested in equality or individual rights.

      We’ve worked hard in this nation to live up to the idea of equality for all. I believe that elevating group power above individual power is a sure path to division, chaos, and racism, the very thing we wish to put behind us.

      Everyone assumes the white man is the only group interested in oppression. But we’re all humans first; we share the same capacity for zealotry and radicalism that often leads to tyranny and oppression. It doesn’t help that these groups have Marxist roots. As we are finding, assimilation is impossible for people who don’t share American values…it’s true even for some Americans 😉

      • Chris says:

        Again, if the case had anything to do with Trump’s border wall, there might be a legitimate point about Curiel’s bias. But it doesn’t. Judges have to be trusted to put their like or dislike of a defendant aside in order to rule on the case in front of them. To say that Curiel can’t do that because of his heritage is ethnic prejudice, more commonly referred to as racism.

      • Libby says:

        Tina, you’re just bummed that “Skull and Bones” has competition. Seriously, how can you be so … if not racist … then craven.

        La Raza is no threat to you, and the judge is entitled to his civic affiliations.

        So there’s this, the veteran monies, and the immigration hypocrisy … in what? … two weeks? The fourth estate is earning their money … making up for past lapses. All good.

    • Libby says:

      But if the appearance of conflict is solely the result of baseless accusations? His lawyers have filed no request. Because if they filed such baseless paperwork, their legal reputations would be ruined. I’ll bet five bucks that they would, at this point, like to dump their client. Alas, legal ethics will not permit that either. Bummer.

      • Tina says:

        Libby anyone who favors and encourages mass illegal infiltration and works to supplant our culture and values with socialist/Marxist values IS a threat to me and my progeny.

        John Kerry is a Skull and Bones member.

        The fourth estate is doing the usual, covering the butts of Democrats and demonizing any opposition…token stories are rife with explanations and excuses.

        • Libby says:

          Well, unless you plan to rip up those SS checks, unless you plan to spurn the advances of Medicare when the time comes, you are a socialist. So, get a grip. Because we are going to expand them. We are going to have universal single payer health coverage and a guaranteed minimum income for all the citizens!

          John Kerry is a white boy, so it stands to reason. That is not the point. The point is that lots of groups in this country organize to advance their own interests. If you object to Mexicans doing this, because they are Mexicans, you are a … all together now ! ….

          And the Queen of Denial will reign forever!

          • Tina says:

            “Well, unless you plan to rip up those SS checks, unless you plan to spurn the advances of Medicare when the time comes, you are a socialist. ”

            Come on now…you know I’m a victim of an outdated socialist safety net just like every other “sucker” that got “fooled” into accepting a retirement cushion with such a dinky return. Taxpayers are suckered too, they can’t work enough to sustain the darn thing so we rack up debt giving people something that doesn’t represent anything near a “living wage.” When the safety net doesn’t even cover the rent….

            So, if we’re going to have such a system shouldn’t it be more like the teachers retirement plans? We don’t have to be draconian about reforms, you and I are stuck with what we got, but do you really think it’s the best that can be done for younger generations?

            See I think reforms haven;t happened because the government borrows from it and they don’t want to lose than extra cushion. Why shouldn’t people who work be building that cushion for themselves?

            “We are going to have universal single payer health coverage and a guaranteed minimum income for all the citizens!”

            Yes, and free college and pre-school, and months long vacations…and…you people never stop. You also assume the wealth builders will continue to invest and take all of the headaches to provide those jobs. Monumental idiocy assumes a static condition.

            It isn;t I who is in denial lady. Tell me Libby, where will the money come from? Tell me how people will bother working and making the big bucks when the federal government plans to take 90% of it every year? And when the bill comes for the states portion what then? Mass exodus perhaps? After that we’re ina condition where the government must FORCE it’s “citizens” to produce or become Venezuela.

            Deny all you want Libby but there’s your Nirvana…people digging in garbage cans for scraps and dropping like flies from disease and hunger!

            “Oh no, it couldn’t happen here.”


            “Eternal vigilance is not only the price of liberty; eternal vigilance is the price of human decency.” – Aldous Huxley In an introduction to the 1965 radio version of his novel Brave New World

            “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. – Abraham Lincoln

  13. Tina says:

    “That’s because there is no substantial defense of Trump, so his supporters here are just throwing out every possible rationalization they can to see what sticks.”

    It’s also because this is a story kept in the news by the left to avoid talking about Hillary’s FBI investigation, her failures in Benghazi, her sleazy baggage, or her deplorable economic plans and the failed record of the last seven years.

    There are ways to promote Trump and criticize Hillary but instead we are distracted by the usual shrill accusations of racism, hypocritical since the accusers on the left never condemn with equal fervor the racism and bigotry that exists on their side of the aisle or the outrageous comments made by leftist politicians and civil servants.

    • Libby says:

      Tina, you have yet to explain to us how a proposal to ban all Muslim immigration is not racist. All I’ve heard is that is would be temporary. Fine. It is still racist to slander and/or act against an entire group based on the behavior of a few … even temporarily.

      So what else you got?

      • Chris says:

        Technically, Libby, it’s not racist; it’s religiously bigoted. Though Arabs and Muslims are often conflated in the racist mind, so racism may have something to do with it.

      • Tina says:

        I disagree! When a nation is exposed by conditions of war the rules can and often do change. This particular war features an enemy that wears no uniform and strikes under cover of looking like an average person. Remember, people described the San Bernardino guy as a pleasant sort of fellow.

        We must remember to put these remarks in the context of the San Bernardino terror attack. The terrorists involved were not vetted properly…obviously something is not working! Hence “temporary ban” became a suggestion for a possible strategy. It’s not rocket science.

        Its a huge story only because the PC left saw an opportunity to label Trump a racist and made it a story. You’re good at that Alinsky game and you win either way. The person is either reluctant to speak freely in future or they go away, marked for life. It’s “cruel” but effective, as Alinsky wrote.

        Trump is popular in part because a lot of “folks” in the heartland are done with your sick, dishonest, cruel game. Especially since so many of your own people are no gems themselves.

        • Libby says:

          This will work if you are at war with Islam. You may be, but I am not, and neither is the nation. We are “engaged” I suppose you could call it, with Islamic Jihadis, organized as AQ, ISIS, Boko, etc. I am all for keeping affiliated fellas out of the country, but once again, to act against the entire religious group is racist/bigoted, whichever, both … and wrong.

          It also plays into the propaganda hand of “enemy”, having the national hypocrisy exposed like that.

          • Tina says:

            Relentless hammering criticism, going on for days and weeks, over a soundbite lasting only a few seconds hammered home whatever damage.

            And please…when GWB was president you liberals spent your days and nights giving aid and comfort to our enemies

            The enemy doesn’t give a rats butt that you are sensitive. YOU are just scum in a sea of scum they want to overrun and either kill or oppress. We had better get wise soon or it will be time to throw up our hands in surrender.

            Explain Hillary accepting money from nations that throw gays off of buildings and mutilate women. Explain the president negotiating with a known sponsor of terror. Talk about a recruitment tool…”even the President of the United States agrees that our cause is great.”

            I repeat:

            When a nation is exposed by conditions of war the rules can and often do change. This particular war features an enemy that wears no uniform and strikes under cover of looking like an average person. Remember, people described the San Bernardino guy as a pleasant sort of fellow.

            We must remember to put these remarks in the context of the San Bernardino terror attack. The terrorists involved were not vetted properly…obviously something is not working! Hence “temporary ban” became a suggestion for a possible strategy. It’s not rocket science.

            You took an off the cuff suggestion, blew it all out of proportion, and treated it like it had been written in stone for politics, the politics of personal destruction. What do you care about, the safety of the American people or your party?

            If you cared about the safety of the American people over your party you would show this man more respect…ask him to clarify his words and accept his explanation.

            Trump cares about the safety of Americans…all Americans!

          • Libby says:

            And I repeat, we are not at war with Islam.

            And any American possessed by fear for their safety on account of the Muslim living down the block is in dire need of psychiatric intervention.

        • Chris says:

          No, it’s a huge story because a presidential candidate advocated religious discrimination, and didn’t even bother trying to prove that such discrimination would be necessary or productive.

          Again, according to foreign policy and counter-terrorism efforts, banning Muslim immigration (temporarily!) would:

          1) Help ISIS recruit
          2) Alienate our allies
          3) Keep potential victims from fleeing ISIS
          4) Increase hostility between the US and the global Muslim community
          5) And increase hate crimes against Muslims here at home.

          Any rebuttal to these points? Other than “Obama has already done these things, so it’s Ok if Trump does them even more?”

          Bush didn’t propose banning all Muslim immigration after 3,000 dead Americans were killed on 9/11. I am puzzled as to what country anti-Muslim conservatives who support this plan are living in, where the situation is somehow more dire now than it was then.

          • Chris says:

            Ugh. “3,000 dead Americans were killed” is not what I meant to write.

          • Tina says:

            “…a presidential candidate advocated religious discrimination”

            Calling it that is a political move that doesn’t reflect the truth.

            A temporary halt on immigration by those who share the same religion with terrorists is not religious discrimination; it is a smart defensive strategy at least worth consideration. The PC cops prefer politics to safety for Americans of all religions.

            If Trump actually became the president and this idea came up for discussion, counter terrorism advisors would inform him as you suggest above. He would consider that advice and a workable strategy would result.

            His decision certainly couldn’t be any worse than Hillary’s ill-advised decision to leave poor Chris Stevens without proper security in Benghazi or Barack Obama’s decision to release criminal illegal border crossers onto America’s streets.

            Get a grip…you’re spinning out of control.

          • Libby says:

            Tina, stop denying stuff that’s come right out of the man’s mouth, in public, before witnesses, on tape.

            It’s psychotic. Stop it.

  14. Tina says:

    Libby: “Well I tried.”

    Apologies Libby. It’s hard to get past your “digs” to see when you’re being sincere.

    We probably could give it a shot but you have shown nothing but hostility (and no compassion) for employers so ultimately we would probably run up against a big fat wall.

    If I could wave a magic wand everyone in America would get a chance to experience work from the employers perspective. Small business has suffered greatly of late and that’s where a lot of good jobs are created.

  15. Tina says:

    Libby: “…any American possessed by fear for their safety on account of the Muslim living down the block is in dire need of psychiatric intervention.”

    You do have a rich imagination, Libby. But you work off of only a few limited emotions. You need to expand your game. Adding reason and logic to your quiver might help.

  16. Tina says:

    “…stop denying stuff that’s come right out of the man’s mouth”

    Stop pretending that’s all he said! Stop playing gotcha politics.

    And do you really want to challenge me to find single sentence off the cuff remarks? Joe Biden is a treasure trove of soundbites…Billy Boy and Hillary, a mega package. Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren…”you didn’t build that!” Nasty insult that, granted, is not as emotionally hot as playing the race card but come on! An entire group of risk takers?

    Sometimes real bad moments take more than a few words.

    I know, how about the time Obama awkwardly insulted the Queen by talking over the British National Anthem. (Where were his protocol advisors?)

    Continuing in the “Obama as a great friend to our allies” vein, Israel News Agency informs:

    Washington, D.C. — October 2, 2014 … US President Barack Obama criticized Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House yesterday warning him not to proceed on “proposed settlements in a disputed part of east Jerusalem.” The White House then issued a press statement on “Israel settlements” hours after Obama met with Netanyahu. (Adding injury to insult – do you accuse him of hating Jews?)

    The White House stated: “This development will only draw condemnation from the international community, (and) distance Israel from even its closest allies.”

    Netanyahu, in an interview yesterday with Univision responded:

    “This isn’t a settlement. These are neighborhoods in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel,” said Netanyahu.

    “If you said to me that in some city in the United States or in Mexico, or anywhere else, Jews cannot buy apartments, there would be an uproar. You know, there’s not only the freedom of property, but the right of every individual to live where they want, as long as they purchase the apartment legally and don’t expropriate, don’t take over, which isn’t the case here. This was a free transaction.”

    “So I just want to understand this policy. It flies in the face of American values, and it flies in the face of common sense.” (In his MSNBC interview, the Israel Prime Minister added that the criticism was leveled at a mixed neighborhood in which a large portion of the approved construction will be designated for Arab residents alongside Jewish residents.)

    If the press didn’t fawn all over over this man you might realize he is a man, not a god, no more qualified to be president than any other man, including Donald Trump.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.