Power To The People

Latest

Democrats In Denial

As a well-experienced observer of the media, I have come to a conclusion: Washington politics is peopled almost entirely by a bunch of spineless, whiny drama queens.  They are bound and determined to play out their own version of Much Ado About Nothing, and their good buddies in the media insist that this is the “news” that we should all be concerned about.

Case in point: the great John Lewis controversy.

1q5q4w0

Congressman John Lewis pouts at the unfairness of it all during the Democrats’ great ‘Sit-In of 2016.’

Over the weekend, Congressman Lewis announced to the world that he plans to boycott Donald Trump’s inauguration, saying on Meet the Press that “I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president.”

I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m no fan of Donald Trump.  I said early on that I wouldn’t vote for him, and I didn’t.  I have no regrets in that regard.  While I do, at times, find his responses to his Democrat and media critics to be emotionally gratifying (it’s about time that someone in the Republican Party was willing to stand up to the left-wing media apparatus), I also find them to be juvenile, and unbecoming of the next President of the United States.  In the area of presidential dignity, I was hoping that we would raise the bar, not lower it.

But the Democrats have taken this to an entirely new level.  Prior to the election, the left-wing media went to great lengths to weigh their national polls, reinforcing the Democrats’ belief that Hillary’s ascension to the presidency was inevitable.  This may have been a calculated strategy – perhaps they wanted make Hillary’s victory to seem so inevitable that Republicans would just stay home on election day.  But regardless of the reasons behind it, the only real outcome of this contrived sense of inevitability has been a political party in denial, unable to accept that their Chosen One lost the election.

56094129

Actual footage of a Democrat voter.

The narrative that Russia “hacked the election” has fed and compounded this denial among members of the Democrat Party, despite the fact that they have offered no solid evidence that Russian involvement changed any votes.  They haven’t even really proved that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from the Russians.

But reactions by the Obama administration, and by Democrats at large, show that their outrage is politically motivated, more than anything.  When millions of Americans’ personal information was hacked from the Office of Personnel Management, the response from the Obama administration was notably tepid when compared to their outrage over losing an election.  But the DNC emails showed the public the kind of disdain that Democrat leadership holds even for its own constituents.  The corruption inherent in the Democrats’ primary process, and the resulting disenfranchisement of millions of Democrat voters, was made public for all to see.

And that has the Democrats enraged.

giphy

All of this is borne out of denial.  Their candidate is one of the most corrupt politicians on the national stage.  Her career has been defined by her ability to dodge scandal after scandal, from her dogged repetition of “I do not recall” in the Whitewater hearings, to blaming the Benghazi tragedy on a YouTube video.

They really did expect that a nominee under investigation by the FBI for criminal negligence, for using an un-secure, private email server while Secretary of State, would just skate right into the White House.  When James Comey announced that the FBI would not recommend her indictment, they took that as her complete vindication, though it was blindingly obvious that some kind of deal had been worked out between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

But because she’s a Democrat, and because she’s a woman, America should find no fault in her, no matter how corrupt she’s been throughout her political career.  And because Her Grand Inevitableness lost, and lost to a candidate as reprehensible as Donald J. Trump, the Left has pulled out all the stops to undermine our electoral process.  They trumped up charges that Russia “hacked” the election.  They attempted to sway electors into violating election laws to change their votes.  They tried to disrupt the process to certify the Electoral College’s vote.  And they failed, each and every time.  Kinda makes you long for the days when every Democrat in America insisted that refusing to accept the results of an election posed a major threat to American democracy, doesn’t it?

It’s interesting to note that the “scandal” surrounding John Lewis is centered entirely around the fact that Donald Trump’s response to Lewis was typical Trump: on Twitter, Trump didn’t bow or scrape.  He was forward and forceful, saying that “Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results.”

The reaction from Democrats was immediate and completely predictable: HOW DARE Donald Trump criticize a “civil rights icon” like John Lewis?!?!?!?!?!

how_dare_you

Of course, they completely ignore the fact that Lewis’s civil rights ‘legacy’ is 50 years old.  Today, he is a career politician and a political hack, capitalizing on his past in the civil rights movement to sustain his own political power.  This is rather typical of how Democrats operate: they will accept a former Klansman like Robert Byrd, completely writing off his past, as long as he pledges allegiance to the Democrat Party and the socialism for which they stand, and will likewise completely ignore the ineffectual career of a man like Congressman Lewis, calling upon ancient history (politically speaking) to turn him into a saint if anyone should have the temerity to actually stand up to him.  The Race Card is, after all, a long-held staple of the Democrats’ political playbook.

And John Lewis isn’t the only Democrat going apoplectic over Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration.  Various performers have proclaimed that they will not perform at the inauguration (though, interestingly, the media articles that proclaim this typically leave out any mention of whether or not they were asked to perform).  Others have been bullied into not performing by the ever-tolerant Left.  Various politicians have indignantly proclaimed that they will not attend.  And while these stories may make easy headlines for the news media, they make the news cycle rather boring.

This is the same thing they did the last time the Executive Branch changed from Democrat to Republican – they forced recount after recount, even to the point of violating Florida election laws in their mad denials, and for years thereafter we were treated to rabid hippies insisting that George W. Bush had “stolen” the election.  John Lewis skipped his inauguration, too (though he seems to have forgotten that fact, as he’s insisted that Trump’s will be the first inauguration he won’t have attended).  This is nothing new: to Democrats, Republican victories will always be illegitimate, because they just can’t handle rejection.

1-oskgdb6av2ywmzovevyg4w

So when it comes to the Left vs. Right angst that has dominated the drama over Donald Trump’s impending inauguration, I propose this solution:

If you want to attend Donald Trump’s inauguration, then attend.  If you don’t want to attend Donald Trump’s inauguration, then don’t.  Your decision to attend (or not) is not worthy of media headlines (unless it is driven by death threats, as it has been for some performers who have pulled out of the events).  Instead of behaving like a whiny, petulant child, as Congressman Lewis has, choose something novel, such as behaving like an adult.

0uxvwii

Just throw that election on the ground.

Time Gets Us All

My latest column is up at AND Magazine!

Here is an excerpt:

“This thing all things devours;capture
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Grinds hard stones to meal;
Slays king, ruins town,
And beats high mountain down.”
-JRR Tolkien, The Hobbit
If I’ve seen it once, I’ve seen it a thousand times. People seem frustrated with 2016. It’s been a stressful year. An emotional year. A year filled with political angst, with personal hardships. Celebrities we’ve known all our lives have died this year. Let’s face it: 2016 sucks, right?

Well, it’s just another year.

That’s right, I said it. In the grand scheme of things, 2016 is just a unit we use to measure the passage of time. Those pithy little letters you write to 2016 on your Facebook page don’t really amount to anything. Time doesn’t give a shit about you. It doesn’t care about your feelings. It doesn’t care about that celebrity you hadn’t thought about in years, but suddenly loved so much once they started pushing up daises.

Continue reading here.

Streep’s Shrieks

Why on Earth should anyone care what some liberal actress said in a speech at an awards show?  Hollywood actors have been saying stupid things during awards show speeches for decades, and Meryl Streep’s screed was no different.

She began the speech with this:

I’ve lost my voice in screaming and lamentation this weekend, and I have lost my mind sometime earlier this year…

Now, this hasn’t been included in most of the sound bytes or blog posts that I’ve seen, but from my perspective, she’s basically saying “Completely ignore what I’m about to say, because I’m totally off my rocker.”

2017-01-09-14-56-47

And the main thing is, Streep’s tirade was completely refuted by her own tirade.  She went on at some length about the diverse backgrounds of Hollywood actors and actresses, then saying this:

So Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners and if we kick ‘em all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.

Because, you know, there’s no diversity in football or MMA; everyone knows that those low-brow forms of entertainment are only performed and consumed by white male cisgender transphobic homophobic Islamophobe rednecks – Trump’s people, by the definition of liberals from Hollywood and New York.

“What is Hollywood, anyway?” Streep read from her speech, “It’s just a bunch of people from other places.”

You know, just like pretty much every other demographic group: a bunch of distinctly different people with different beliefs and different backgrounds get lumped together and generalized as a larger whole.  It’s done all of the time throughout the media, from Hollywood to Millennials to African-American voters to women to white male cisgender transphobic homophobic Islamophobe rednecks.

But when it comes to groups like the Hollywood filmmaking industrial complex, or the mainstream news media, or even university staff, there tend to be certain demands of ideological purity required for membership.  When FOX News first launched in 1996, it was a huge deal, because never before in the history of television news had there been a TV news network with a conservative bent.  Conservatives in Hollywood can quickly find themselves unemployed if they voice their political opinions – just recently, there were reports that Nicolas Cage was reluctant to play the part of Ronald Reagan in a film, because the film would portray Reagan in a positive light.  There may not be any official blacklists in Hollywood these days, but playing certain roles or expressing certain opinions definitely gets factored into hiring decisions in Hollywood.  The movie industry, the news media, and college campuses are known as progressive enclaves because that is what they have become.

Hollywood actors may “belong to the most vilified segments in American society right now,” but that reputation has been earned…and not by skin color or nation of origin, as Meryl Streep assumes, but by the constant churning out of culturally degradating “art,” and through the unofficial blacklisting of conservative actors, producers, writers, and directors, and through exactly the kind of condescending political diatribe that Streep chose to give.

 

Fake News and Russia

My latest column is live at AND Magazine!

Here is an excerpt:

1461691866In their shock and awe at the election of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States, Democrats are flailing wildly for any excuse to overthrow the results of November’s election, so that they can end the Trump nightmare and coronate Her Highness Hillary Clinton as Supreme Empress of the Socialist States of America.

Their apoplexy over losing this election seems to know no bounds. In the immediate aftermath, we saw major protests, and even some riots in major US cities (which, ironically, were mostly populated by Clinton supporters). It has reached the point now where they are literally attempting a coup, trying to influence the Electoral College to overturn the results of the election.

Unfortunately, the two allegations that have gained the most traction in the mainstream media don’t seem to be going away anytime soon: Fake News and Russia hacked our election!

As I wrote recently, the fake news phenomenon is real, and it’s something that we should all be on the lookout for. But when Democrats cite fake news as a factor in the election, what they really seem to be saying is “The media shouldn’t have been so focused on Hillary Clinton’s scandals.” You see, last year when Kevin McCarthy pointed out that the Benghazi Committee hearings were having a negative effect on Hillary’s poll numbers, what Democrats heard was “Kevin McCarthy just admitted that the entire Benghazi Committee is politically motivated to stop Hillary!” In the days and weeks following McCarthy’s appearance on Hannity, the left-wing media ramped up that rhetoric, taking his statement severely out of context, and building their own “fake news” narrative around it. This seems to have given them an excuse to dismiss every negative piece of news about Hillary…so as more and more news came out about Hillary’s massive negligence with her personal email server, or her use of the Clinton Foundation to sell access back when the was Secretary of State, the Left just wrote it off as baseless attacks by the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.”

Continue reading here.

Question Everything

My latest column is up at AND Magazine!

Here is an excerpt:

In the aftermath of the U.S. presidential election, suddenly America has a new crisis:

FAKE NEWS

1453300608Fake news has been around for a while, but it seems that the election of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States has suddenly brought this crisis into the limelight. We’re not talking, of course, about satire sites like The Onion. Most times when you see fake news, it actually looks fairly real, unless you know what to look for. People’s increased reliance on social media for news has made it a lot easier for fake news to make the rounds. As the famous saying goes, “a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.”

This crisis is reached such proportions, the president Obama has found it necessary to speak out on the issue. However, like most on the left, his agenda with the fake news crisis has more to do with shutting down right wing media than with actually ensuring that people are getting honest news.

I myself have noticed a lot of fake news permeating Facebook and Twitter, especially during the Republican primary. The first sign of fake news is usually (though not always) a sensationalistic headline, commonly known as “clickbait.” Clicking on the link would take you to some obscure blog which, if it had any source material at all, would usually refer to another blog site that posted the exact same thing, word for word. By the time you make it to the source article, there may have been a few sentences added, but there was no real source at the source. The more nefarious sites are actually dressed up to look like legitimate news outlets, but if you look at the URL, it doesn’t quite add up.

Continue reading here.

Trump vs The 1st

fc8a3eb0-400c-44d9-9378-d95b7a2e94ac

Even though he isn’t officially the president until January, it seems that President-Elect Donald Trump can’t do much of anything without stirring up some controversy.  In the weeks since the election, the media has devoted ridiculous amounts of time and energy to micro-analyzing every name drop or rumor related to his potential cabinet picks – it’s become so banal it just isn’t worth paying attention to anymore.  But while everyone toys with the idea of ‘Secretary of State Mitt Romney,’ The Donald apparently decided that cabinet-related controversies were too boring.  Time to stir the pot:

Here’s a screenshot, just in case the tweet gets deleted:

capture

I know that the vast majority of Republicans aren’t fans of flag-burning, except when it’s done as part of the proper disposal of a flag (or when the protester accidentally lights himself on fire).  I’m not a fan of flag-burning-as-protest myself.  I don’t condone it, I won’t participate in it, no matter whose flag it is.  But regardless of anyone’s personal feelings regarding the practice, it is a legitimate form of dissent, protected by the First Amendment.

I normally wouldn’t care what Donald Trump has to say about flag-burning, except for a couple of minor details:

  1. He is the President-Elect, and will be POTUS in just under two months.
  2. This is not the first time The Donald has made statements that directly contradict the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that flag burning is a Constitutionally-protected form of “symbolic speech,” and the President doesn’t take an oath to protect and defend only those parts of the Constitution that he agrees with.

The big question moving forward is, how will Republicans react to Trump’s anti-freedom screed?  One of the hallmarks of the 2016 election cycle was Republicans willing to set aside conservative values and ideals to side with Donald Trump, and I’ve already heard from multiple Republicans (who voted for Trump) who’ve said that they would be okay with President Trump violating the Constitution, as long as it’s for something they agree with.

Thus far, the response from the Right seems to be “meh.”  Trump’s comments have been downplayed, called a distraction, or dismissed as unserious…and yet, had this type of pronouncement come from a Democrat president-elect, the resulting apoplexy from the GOP would be epic.

This kind of statement, coming from the next Leader of the “Free” World, should worry all freedom-loving Americans.

Does that seem right to you?

“It’s a free country!”

This used to be a mantra, but we don’t hear it so much anymore…because, truth be told, it just isn’t true.  We used to be a free country, but after 200 years of the evolution of our government into a massive bureaucratic state, we aren’t anymore.  We may not even be the freest nation in the world anymore.

does-that-seem-right

U.S. Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  • If you yell “fire” in a crowded theater, you could be charged as a criminal.
  • Certain statements are considered to be “hate crimes.”
  • Refusing to engage in business for religious reasons can result in fines and forced re-education.
  • Peaceable assembly in large numbers requires a paid permit from the government.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  • In many states, gun ownership is prohibited to certain people based on specific, legislatively-defined criteria.
  • Certain types of arms are outright banned for private ownership.
  • In most states, legal gun owners are required to obtain costly permits in order to bear arms in public – and then, only if their arms are concealed.
  • Many states ban openly bearing arms.
  • In times of peace, as in times of war, the U.S. government maintains a standing army, rather than a ‘well regulated Militia.’

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

  • In some states, law enforcement officials are allowed to legally invade a person’s home, without the homeowners’ consent, to conduct surveillance.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  • For several years, the NSA used general warrants to collect data on many Americans’ phone calls.
  • The police can put up a roadblock and stop & question you at any time, as long as they say they’re trying to stop drunk driving.
  • In some states (California in particular), authorities set up roadblocks to check cars for compliance with government-mandated air pollution standards.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

  • According to the United States Supreme Court, if you exercise your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, but don’t actually tell anyone that you’re exercising your 5th Amendment rights, your very silence can be used as evidence against you in court.
  • In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled that the government can transfer property from one private owner to another private owner.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

  • In major cities (and some cities not so major) across America, you can now be ticketed and cited for traffic violations by automatic cameras.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

  • We may actually be good on this one.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

  • We can’t seem to agree on the definition of “cruel and unusual punishment,” so instead of giving the most horrific criminals in our society a quick, painless death, we lock them up for decades, until they die.  How is that not cruel & unusual?

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  • Modern government seems to think that, if it isn’t explicitly protected within the Amendments, it’s okay for them to regulate…hence the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of the Interior, the FAA, the FDA, the FCC, and so on…

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  • Modern government seems to think that, if it isn’t explicitly protected within the Amendments, it’s okay for them to regulate…hence the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of the Interior, the FAA, the FDA, the FCC, and so on…

 

So when it comes to the Bill of Rights, we’re 1 out of 10.  Not too shabby.

so-i-got-that-going-for-me-which-is-nice

 

a972