HITLERY CLINTON, IF AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED…

Just when you think it’s over, apparently, it is anything but.  And just when you wished it was over, it’s like a bad penny that Hitlery just keeps showing up.  And to be perfectly honest, what does it say about the state of a political party when the best it is that they will again have to offer, in what will be essentially 4 years from now, a very tired looking, and even more corrupt, 73 year old white woman as their candidate to be president?  I mean, really?  But then, having said that, when you stop to consider who else is currently being touted as potential candidates, old Hitlery might actually have a chance.  I mean look at who’s being mentioned; Elizabeth Warren, Andy Cuomo, perhaps Bernie Sanders and even Marty O’Malley?  But if a 69 year old Hitlery couldn’t properly inspire voters, how will a 73 year old version of the same model be able to?  But as long as Hitlery's the biggest name out there, damaged goods or no, she's gonna have people continuing to spread rumors of her return.

So it was then that in speaking to Greta Van Susteren, formerly of the Communist News Network (CNN) and of FOX News, on her new MSNBC program “For the Record with Greta”, that Robby Mook, Hitlery’s former campaign manager who did such a masterful job of, quite possibly, yanking defeat from the jaws of victory, wouldn’t deny that Hitlery might attempt yet another run for the presidency against Donald Trump in 2020.  Guess she intends to test that “three strikes and you’re out” rule.  The possibility of this inevitability occurred on St. Patrick’s Day in Scranton, Pennsylvania, when Hitlery made an appearance and joked, “I am ready to come out of the woods.”  A reference to the photos captured just two days after her election loss of her walking in the woods near her Chappaqua, New York, home.  Too bad she managed to find her way out.  I would have much preferred to have her out there wandering around for the rest of her life.

It was at this gathering that Hitlery would go on to say, “I am rethinking my strategy.”  And add, “The walk in the woods stuff didn’t work as well.”  Well no shit, maybe a better time to have ‘rethought’ her strategy would have before she implemented her ‘there’s-no-way-I-can-possibly-lose’ strategy.  And perhaps next time, if there is a next time, she’ll actually have a strategy, unless, of course, she’s been placed into the home by then.  Democrats might want to reconsider running a couple of 70+ year olds in 2020, now that Bernie is also making a lot of noise about running again, since it doesn’t really do all that much to inspire voters, especially younger voters.  What sort of free stuff will they be promising then that wasn’t already promised this time around?  It just all seems so very bizarre to me.  Personally if I was her age and had her money I’d set up a homestead on some nice quite Caribbean island and live out my days in peace and quiet with my grandkids.  

And in what I guess was an attempt to go a bit deeper on the subject, Van Susteren probed Mook to speak for his former boss.  She asked, “What are the odds of her running again?”  Mook responded with a laugh saying, “I’m going to let her answer for that.”  But being ever the hardnosed journalist (NOT), Greta persisted asking, “Do you want to guess?”  Mook said, “I think what happens right now, we’ve got to get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, then we can start worrying about the next cycle.”  And he went on to say, “But we’ve got to make sure that this cannot happen again in two years or four years to anybody else.”  Mook accused Russia of interfering with the election saying, “Putin did not want her to become president.”  And too, there were all those folks in middle-America who just didn’t want her to be the next president either.  So, there is always that.  These guys have simply run out of excuses for Hitlery’s loss.  And yet…

I thought it funny when Mook said, "we’ve got to get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, then we can start worrying about the next cycle.” I’m guessing we can interpret that to mean: "We need to figure out what where we went wrong, what we left out of our repertoire of dirty tricks to steal the election."  Getting to the bottom of what happened is easy.  Hitlery ran a horrible campaign!  That and the fact that the American people had had enough of the regressive, PC, socialist, liberal lunacy for eight years, and said they didn't want another four years of white guilt shaming, being told we make too much money and we didn't build that, pandering to racist blacks and Moslems and illegal aliens, higher taxes and adding another $10 Trillion to our deficit, getting screwed over by "tweeking" Obamacare, and in general the anti-American sentiment from our own politicians.  And that Democrats refuse to acknowledge that says far more about them than it does about Trump.

Ya know, this goes to show you just how utterly batsh!t-wackadoodle-crazy the Democrats truly are.  They just can't bring themselves to accept the fact that not everyone, least of all the great many of the American people who still do love this country, buys into their leftist ideology and policies, and it seems to leave them at somewhat of a loss as to where they need to go from here.  All of these poor little snowflakes cried to Trump, "I can't believe you may not accept the election results!"  Really?  And yet, here we are five months after the fact and you’d be hard-pressed to find a Democrat anywhere who accepts that Hitlery actually lost the election.  And if there truly is a God then there should be little or no chance that the deviant treasonous criminal that is Hitlery will ever be the president of these United States.  Perhaps she needs to look into one of the many countries she took money from and see if they are looking for someone like her to be their leader.

And finally all I can say is, when it comes to the prospects of yet another Hitlery candidacy, is, “Yes Hitlery, PLEASE run again.  Pretty please!”  Because in a way she’s the ideal candidate because she supports forcing her twisted progressive ideology upon our society.  And yet while she may remain the best the Democrats have to offer, the American people made clear, yet again, that she is not their choice for president.  And still she doesn’t seem to be able to take a hint.  And apparently even getting smacked upside the head with an electoral 2x4 didn't get through to her.  You know, it’s just not that hard to figure out why Hitlery lost.  Which has me wondering if the Democrats really are so stupid as to be unable to figure it out.  I mean it really had nothing to do with any involvement by the Russians, and I would also argue that it had very little to do with WikiLeaks.  The truth is, she was a horrible candidate who ran an even worse campaign.  Frankly I think anyone could have beaten her.  

THE LEFT’S UNIQUE APPROACH TO THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS…

So, just how far to the left are those who reside in what can easily be referred to as the ‘Socialist Republic of Vermont’?  To justify using that moniker one need look no further than to who it is that they have been sending to Congress for the last few decades.  You could very easily refer to the congressional delegation from that state as being “The Three Stooges” of leftwing politics.  Because besides ‘Leaky’ Leahy (76) in the Senate, you also have Bernie ‘The Socialist’ Sanders (75) and over in the House you have Peter Welch.  Now the average age of this little cadre of leftists is 73, with Welch being the youngest at 69.  Now you cannot tell me that these three represent the best and brightest that Vermont might have to offer.  But then again, maybe they are.  After all, it’s Howard Dean who was once their governor.

But be that as it may, my purpose here is not to rant about the loons from any one state.  I choose, instead, to focus primarily on Patrick Leahy, aka ‘Leaky’ Leahy, and how it is that the Senate Democrats approach the confirmation process, especially for a nominee who does not come from the far-off-leftwing-kook-fringe.  Or for a nominee who does not view the Constitution as they do, as a living, breathing document, but as it was intended by the men who actually wrote it.  Two Democrats told Judge Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing yesterday, during what were described as being “opening remarks”, that it’s not a good thing for a Supreme Court justice to interpret the Constitution based on the Founders’ original intent.  I’m quite sure the spirit of old Teddy Kennedy was in the room somewhere.

It was old ‘Leaky” who said, “In contrast to past nominees like John Roberts, whose judicial philosophy was not clearly articulated when he appeared before this committee, Judge Gorsuch appears to have a comprehensive originalist philosophy, the approach taken by jurors such as Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, former Judge Bork.”  And he went on to say, “While it has gained some popularity within conservative circles, originalism, I believe, remains outside the mainstream of moderate constitutional jurisprudence.”  And, he added, “It has been 25 years since an originalist has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Given what we've seen from Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas and Judge Gorsuch on record, I worry that it goes beyond being a philosophy and it becomes an agenda.”  Seriously?

The late Justice Antonin Scalia once defined originalism this way:  "The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted."  But it was at Monday’s hearing that ‘Leaky’ urged Gorsuch to answer all questions asked of him at the hearing “as clearly as possible.”  He said, “It's important to understand -- determine whether you understand the court has a profound impact on small businesses and workers, on law enforcement and victims, on families and children across America.”  And then went on to say, “It is not contrary to the duties and obligations of a Supreme Court justice to consider the effects of their rulings.”

Leahy actually said that the confirmation hearing will help the Senate decide if Gorsuch is “committed to the fundamental rights of all Americans".  He asked, “Will you allow the government to include our Americans’ personal privacy and freedom? Will you elevate the rights of corporations over those of real people? And will you rubberstamp a president whose administration has asserted that executive power is not subject to judicial review?”  Actually, from the Democrat perspective, at least when it is a conservative nominee involved, the confirmation process provides an opportunity for the many allies of the left in our state-controlled media as well as various leftist organizations like moveon.org, to come up with ways to attempt to destroy those nominees who possesses a non-leftist view of the Constitution.

Dianne Feinstein, (83), also expressed concern regarding “originalist” philosophy.  She said, “Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should look to the original, public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision of the Constitution means. This is personal, but I find this originalist, judicial philosophy to be really troubling."  She added, "In essence, it means that judges and courts should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789.”  She said, “However, to do so would not only ignore the intent of the framers, but the Constitution would be a framework on which to build. But it severely limits the genius of what our Constitution upholds. I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves.”

And it was at the beginning of the ‘hearing’ that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, warned Gorsuch that he would get questions that would, undoubtedly, cause him to scratch his head.  He said, “We'll hear that when you rule for one party and against another in a case, it means you must be for the winner and against the loser. Senators will cite some opinions of yours and then we'll hear that you're for the big guy and against the little guy. You will scratch your head when you hear this, because it's as if you judges write the laws instead of us senators.”  And he went on to say, “But if Congress passes a bad law, as a judge, you are not allowed to just pretend that we passed a good law. The oath you take demands that you follow the law, even if you dislike the result.”

Sen. Grassley said, “So if you hear that you're for some business or against some plaintiff, don't worry. We've heard all of that stuff before. It's an old claim from an even older playbook. You and I and the American people know whose responsibility it is to correct a law that produces a result that you dislike, it's the men and women sitting here with me.  And closed by saying, “Good judges understand this. They know it isn't their job to fix the law. In a democracy, that right belongs to the people. It's for this reason that Justice Scalia said this, quote, ‘If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you are not always going to like the conclusion you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong.”

What we have here is nothing more than a very clear admission by the Democrats that they do not follow the Constitution, nor do they possess any desire to.  Out of their own mouths they admit they will manipulate the Constitution however, and whenever, necessary in order to advance their leftwing, anti-America agenda.  They view it being more like a set of guidelines etched in ‘Jell-O’ than the actual set of rules that has propelled this young nation into a position of power, wealth and prosperity, and a country whose liberties allow for the poorest to gain great wealth, which these Democrats seem so intent upon destroying.  Human nature has not changed, the evil our Founders fought still exists, but now they call themselves the Democrat Party. They are the people our Founders warned us about. 

Democrats are type of individuals that our Founders attempted to hold at bay with our original Constitution, it is no wonder the liberal Democrats of today want to destroy it.  Pay close attention to the content of questions asked of Judge Gorsuch. The left will clearly expose their preference for rewriting or creating law by judicial fiat rather than by sound legislation or constitutional amendment.  That is why they have worked so hard to pack all the federal courts. It is known as election insurance. What they can't get through Congress they will finagle through the courts.  Just look at the rulings from those activist judges to President Trump's temporary ban on some Moslem countries who support terrorism.  They operated well outside of their jurisdictions, to say nothing about the constitutionality of their rulings.

Let’s be clear, Trump was elected by originalists, so WE'LL be deciding the policy, thank you very much.  Oh the arrogance of these jerks, it just never seems to end.  It likely goes without saying that I strongly disagree with the position taken and the statements made by old ‘Leaky’ and Feinstein that the Constitution should not be interpreted as the Founders intended.  Because as far as I’m concerned that’s EXACTLY how it should be interpreted, as the Founders intended.  Furthermore, "Advice and Consent" does not mean that either you see things our way or you don't get confirmed.  It means, let's make sure the President didn't nominate someone completely and bizarrely unqualified, as Barry was allowed to do, with unqualified meaning far more than you simply see things differently than we do.

So it’s various shades of gray that has become the prominent theme of America's very corrupt, and blatantly dishonest, Democrat Party. The law is nothing more than what you want it to be, when you want it to be.  Geez, what a bunch of loons.  And it’s those on the left who define “evolves”, “as being able to make up the rules as one goes along in order to make it better fit the agenda at the time, then change them when it goes against you.”  Democrats refuse to accept the premise that the ‘intent’ of the Founders that was true for the Constitution at the time of its drafting, is just as true today.  That’s the true genius of the document that is our Constitution.  The principles hold up through time.  Not that you can bend it and twist it to be whatever your whims tell you that it should be on any given day. 

Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito as well as Judge Robert Bork were and are all very great men, and great jurists.  The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and should not be openly interpreted to be changed every day based on some leftist whim.  The original intent, and original words and original understanding are still very much valid, much to the chagrin of those on the left.  Constitutionalists are what we need on the courts, not those who would rule based on their "emotions" or their "desires" or their political views, only on what the Constitution states and the laws passed under and within the authority of the Constitution.  This is simply proof the Democrats are unconstitutional and guilty of sedition and subversion.  And sadly, many who call themselves Republicans are as well.

ON THE SUBJECT OF POLITICIANS AND TRUST…

When it comes to politicians I can probably count the number that I actually trust, to the highest degree I feel comfortable with, on one hand.  Now that said, there are others that I can bring myself to trust, to at least some degree, dependent upon the issue that we may talking about at the time.  But there is one guy that I simply cannot bring myself to trust at all, regardless of the issue being discussed.  And that would be, of course, Paul Ryan.  Now throughout the last presidential campaign I was one of those slow to get onboard the ‘Trump Train.’  And again, that was based almost completely on my certainty of being able to trust Trump do to what he said he would do if elected.  In the end, after being left no other option, I decided to vote for Trump, because voting for Hitlery was just something I could not bring myself to do, nor was sitting out the election an option.

Now fast-forward to nearly 60 days into the Trump administration, and while I have no doubt that I did the right thing in voting for Trump, being someone who tends NOT to put all my eggs in one basket, it’s not yet that I trust him implicitly.  And I certainly don’t agree with him on everything.  For instance, I do not favor this new healthcare bill being advanced in the House, as apparently President Trump does.  And I can honestly say that I am with those registered Republican voters who, according to a recent CBS poll, are much more likely to trust President Trump than Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.  Over the course of the last 8 years, Ryan promised time and again that he would work tirelessly in the effort to curb the ambitions of the radical individual who then occupied the Oval Office.  And not one of those promises, NOT ONE, was kept.  Ryan has earned no one’s trust.

Anyway, in getting back to this recent poll, apparently CBS asked respondents to describe their views about Trump.  Voters were given the option of describing themselves as either “believers,” (21 percent) “conditionals,” (22 percent) “curious,” (21 percent) or “resisters,” (36 percent).  Trump has overwhelming authority over those who described themselves as Trump believers — 75 percent reported they trusted the president as their sole source of political information, and only 2 percent said the same of Ryan.  Twenty-two percent of believers said they trusted both men equally.  Surprisingly, those in both the “believer” and “conditional” support categories agreed that Trump needed “to be his own kind of president,” although the conditionals were more likely to assert that, with 80 percent. Seventy-eight percent of believers reported the same belief.

However, neither group was especially supportive of the new Republican healthcare plan.  Thirty-two percent of believers, which I suppose is the group that I would include myself in, support the measure, and only 11 percent opposed.  Fifty-seven percent of all believers reported it was too early to say if they supported the plan.  Conditionals were less likely to support the plan, with 15 percent approving the bill; 5 percent of those who were curious about if Trump supported the measure. Forty-three percent of voters in that category opposed the plan.  Overall, those who were Trump’s supporters believe that Trump’s claims that he was wiretapped during the campaign are correct, with 64 percent believing Trump’s statements.  Only 14 percent of those who oppose Trump believe the wiretapping claims.  Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that he had.

It's not surprising to hear that Ryan has such a low trust factor.  And like I said, I’m not in favor of RyanCare no matter what the president may have to say about it.  And I won't be even if Ryan's side decides to concede a few small points to the Freedom Caucus in his quest for passage.  It would appear that they think we're stupid and are trying to make it look like they’ve compromised on a couple of things to satisfy the opposition.  It's still government run healthcare colluding with health insurance companies against the people.  Open selling across state lines and getting rid of the 30% mandate penalty you're giving the insurance companies.  The fact there's a $100 Billion bailout in the bill for insurance companies means when this scheme goes bankrupt, with the American taxpayer is expected to pay for government incompetence and failure yet again. 

It goes without saying that those who consider themselves as being Trump supporters would trust the President over Ryan, as well as all the rest of our limp-wristed RINO's.  Our dislike and distrust didn’t suddenly come to an end on election night nor did it begin at the onset of the last campaign.  And I would strongly recommend to our congressional Republicans that none of them should become too comfortable in their majorities, because come next Election Day, if they continue to put themselves above the people, they could very well come to find themselves on the losing end.  The bungled attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare, their resistance when it comes to the border wall, the fact that they are already complaining about the modest budget cuts being proposed by the president, and the fact they did nothing to pushback against Barry's anti-America agenda for eight long years, to the detriment of the hardworking taxpayers, makes them unworthy of our trust.

SOCIALISM AND THE RABID IDEALISM AND NAIVETE OF YOUTH…

These days I can’t help but feel at least some level of guilt when it comes to how it is that my generation has, in a way, let down the current generation.  Because I feel that we haven’t adequately made them understand the very obvious evils of Socialism, nor have we sufficiently defended capitalism and the benefits that come from having free-market economic system.  And the reason I say that is because of recent polling data would seem to indicate that millennials are simply no longer all that alarmed by the idea of socialism.  For instance, it’s according to a fairly recent poll that showed 53 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds view socialism favorably, compared to only a quarter of Americans over 55.  And yet another poll found that 43 percent of respondents younger than 30 viewed socialism favorably, compared to 32 percent thinking favorably of capitalism. 

So why might this be?  First of all, I think a big player in creating the false impression that socialism is somehow a far more fair and just, system is our pathetic system of public education.  Millennials don’t seem to know what socialism is, and how it’s different from other styles of government, because they haven’t been taught that.  They don’t understand the definition of socialism is where the government ownership of the means of production—in other words, true socialism requires that government run the businesses.  However, in yet another poll that was taken, it was only 16 percent of millennials who could accurately define socialism, while 30 percent of Americans over 30 could.  Incidentally, 56 percent of Tea Partiers accurately defined it. In fact, those most concerned about socialism are those best able to explain it.  So once again, as it relates to those on the left, ignorance is bliss.

However, young people don’t actually like the true definition of socialism—the idea of government running businesses.  Millennials reached adulthood after the Cold War ended and haven’t really heard all that much about Soviet socialism.  And, something that should come as no surprise, neither have they learned nearly anything about it in school.  Also, without the obvious association between socialism and the existence of a foreign threat, they have less of a reason to accept the any of the arguments made for why socialism is economically and politically restrictive.  And I doubt few have gone to all the trouble of looking into how it is that socialism has been nothing but an unmitigated disaster everywhere it has ever been tried.  Millennials are also much less religious than previous generations, so they are less sensitive to the concern that socialism replaces God with government.

We shouldn’t be surprised millennials don’t possess any knowledge about what socialism is.  But it’s the leaders of Democrat Party, whom millennials tend to trust more, who never seem to want to admit that the Democrat Party shares many more similarities with Socialism than differences. Take, for instance, former Democrat presidential nominee Hiltery.  Despite making the claim that she, herself, is not a socialist, she found herself being unable to explain, or unwilling to admit, how Democrats and socialists are different during an MSNBC interview back in January 2016.  But Hitlery wasn’t the only one who resisted answering the question and that any reasonably intelligent person knows the answer to.  Because it was also then chairman of the Democrat National Committee, Debbie Wizzerman Schultz, who couldn’t bring herself to answer the very same question.  

So while the supposed ‘leaders’ of the Democrat Party can’t bring themselves to admit that the party is essentially becoming more and more socialist, it’s a growing number of ‘former’ Democrats who are now coming out of the closet, so to speak, and revealing their true selves for the leftwing, America-hating, kooks that they are. Hence the fact that the "Democratic Socialists of America" is now one of the fastest-growing political groups amongst liberals.  According to the L.A. Times socialists are becoming more and more prevalent in American society.  It says, “The surge of activism sweeping the U.S. since Donald Trump’s election has energized the nation’s largest socialist organization, which has tripled in size over the last year to claim more than 19,000 dues-paying members. That’s a record for the DSA, which was founded in 1982.”

It goes on to say, “People really felt that they had to do something to combat the incoming Trump administration,” said David Duhalde, the deputy director of the Democratic Socialists of America’s national leadership, which helps coordinate chapters spread across 40 states. “We’re not only somebody you can resist Trump with, we’re somebody you can build a better world with.”  And it is their website explains their goal by saying, “As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives.”  There’s and old saying that says, It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

As a matter of fact, many leftists groups grew after Trump's surprising win in November.  They like to refer to it as the "Trump Bump" and liberal organizations like the ACLU, the Democrat Party, and the New York Times are swelling in numbers.  But socialism?  And it was also the L.A. Times that said, “... unabashed socialism hasn’t had this big of a voice in American politics in decades, and many leftists say they feel energized. New members of the Democratic Socialists of America say they want build a grassroots movement engaged at the local level — and either pull the Democratic Party leftward or shove it out of the way.”  After the November election, I think we’ve already begun to see an attempt to push the frail corpse of the DNC out of the way as socialists try to take over the party.  But most Americans assume they already had.  Perhaps that's why Hitlery lost in the first place.

Anyone who thinks that socialism is a good idea needs to go live in a socialist "utopia" and experience it firsthand.  And Mr. Duhalde’s idiot claim of weakening corporations in order to make workers stronger is a joke.  Under socialism they claim everyone is equal?  But as history continues to show us. Under socialism some are far "more equal" then others.  You won’t have the opportunity to get rich and I doubt you’d like being told that you and your children will work in a factory forever or on some failing cooperative farm until you die poor while the people who are in charge of your socialist dream live like royalty off YOUR work.  And under the great plan of socialism if you complain you simply disappear never to be seen again.  Socialism kills the human spirit, it sucks the life out of achievement and destroys the incentive to create and invent.  Ask anyone forced to live in such a system, how much they enjoyed it? 

RINOS NOT HAPPY WITH THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET…

Apparently promising to do everything they could to repeal Obamacare isn’t the only thing that the RINO Republicans have been lying to us about.  Because Kentucky Republican congressman Hal Rogers, who has spent more than three decades on the House Appropriations Committee, including six years as the chairman, is just one of many RINOs who have now rejected, pretty much outright, President Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget as Congress begins consideration of the president’s rearrangement of priorities.  It was this senile old fart who said, “While we have a responsibility to reduce our federal deficit, I am disappointed that many of the reductions and eliminations proposed in the President’s skinny budget are draconian, careless and counterproductive.”  So what part about the need to cut spending does he not get?

Rogers said he was ‘concerned’ about cuts to programs in Kentucky.  He said, “In particular, the Appalachian r Commission has a long-standing history of bipartisan support in Congress because of its proven ability to help reduce poverty rates and extend basic necessities to communities across the Appalachian region.”  He then went on to say, “Today, nearly everyone in the region has access to clean water and sewer, the workforce is diversifying, educational opportunities are improving, and rural technology is finally advancing to 21st Century standards.”  Now no offense to Mr. Rogers, but just in case he hasn’t noticed, our country is $20 TRILLION IN DEBT!!   So, at the risk of being obvious, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky are going to have to bite the bullet just like the rest of us. 

Money needs to be cut and everyone is going to have some excuse why it is that theirs is simply too important to be cut!  This boob, Rogers, went on to say, “We will certainly review this budget proposal, but Congress ultimately has the power of the purse. As the full budget picture emerges in the coming weeks, I am optimistic that we can work with the Administration to responsibly fund the federal government, including those agencies which serve as vital economic lifelines in rural parts of the country that are still working to overcome substantial challenges.”  Well sir, let me put it to you this way.  Everyone, and that would include even those folks in Kentucky, are going to need to understand that if we are to save our sinking ship we’re all going to be required to give up something.  

Another top House Republican and the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Mike Conaway, also took shots at the president’s cuts to the agriculture programs.  And it was this RINO who said, “At first blush, I am pleased that the administration is working to restore the strength of our nation’s armed forces to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the equipment that they need to defend our country and our interests around the world.”   And he then went on to say, “On the USDA budget, I am concerned that the cuts, while relatively small in the context of the total federal budget, could hamper some vital work of the department.”  First I’d like to inform Mr. Conaway that NO cut is too small.  And either he gets that or maybe it’s time for him to move on to other employment!

Anyway, it was also Conaway who said, “I think it is very important to remember that net farm income is down 50 percent from where it stood just four years ago. America’s farmers and ranchers are struggling, and we need to be extremely careful not to exacerbate these conditions. In fact, we need to do all we can to be there to help our farmers and ranchers. The work they do is critical.”  And he added, “I think it is very important to remember that net farm income is down 50 percent from where it stood just four years ago. America’s farmers and ranchers are struggling, and we need to be extremely careful not to exacerbate these conditions. In fact, we need to do all we can to be there to help our farmers and ranchers.”  While I have nothing against farmers or ranchers, need I remind them that our country is BROKE!

And still another RINO Republican taking on the president’s budget cuts is Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio).  It was Portman who said, “The Great Lakes are an invaluable resource to Ohio, and The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has been a successful public-private partnership that helps protect both our environment and our economy.” He added, “The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has been a critical tool in our efforts to help protect and restore Lake Erie, and when the Obama administration proposed cuts to the program, I helped lead the effort to restore full funding.”  And he also said, “I have long championed this program, and I’m committed to continuing to do everything I can to protect and preserve Lake Erie, including preserving this critical program and its funding.”  Again, WE’RE BROKE!

Look, these guys sound a lot more like Democrats than the conservative Republicans that they routinely profess themselves to be.  Everyone has an excuse when it comes to why it is that their funds should be spared the budget axe.  But if we’re going to be fair about the cuts that we all know need to be made, then we’re ALL going to have to give up something.  And if these RINOs can’t bring themselves to understand that, then maybe come the next election, they should be made to face a primary challenge from someone who isn’t actually afraid to BE a conservative.  President Trump is only doing what candidate Trump promised.  And if these RINOs in Congress either refuse, or are simply unable, to see what is the bigger picture here, then it’s going to require we the people to provide some proper encouragement so they do!

And to be honest, I knew months ago, that if, or when, Donald Trump won, these RINO Republicans had the potential to pose the bigger problem to him than even the Democrats. They've talked tough, all the way up to previous elections, then get what they want and then return to business as usual.  Republicans wanted the House, they got it, they wanted the Senate, and 4 years later it was theirs yet they still complained about needing the White House.  And now that that too is theirs, they have no more excuses.  And yet, that’s ALL they continue to get!  We now have a president who is working to actually fulfill his campaign promises and more.  So it’s time for all those Republicans who have been lecturing us about the need for streamlining our government and about our Founding Fathers, to step up!

These career politicians had better finally do something this year, and approving President Trump’s budget is a place to start.  It's the least these do-nothings could do.  As I said earlier, we are $20 Trillion in the hole and everyone is going to have to take a hit.  It's time for the Republican Party to make the tough decisions and to start governing.  Either that or risk being returned to that status in which they seem to be much more comfortable and, apparently, are much better suited for.  A word of warning to all those who may choose to simply dismiss the president’s budget proposal as not being serious.  Fail to pass this budget at your own peril!  It’s just that simple, really.  The time for action is now.  We simply can no longer afford to kick the can down the road.  We have wasted far too much time.

WHEN TV SHOWS BECOME LESS ABOUT ENTERTAINMENT…

Now wouldn’t you think, from strictly a business standpoint, that those whose job it is to make television shows and movies, would want to make shows and movies that people actually wanted to watch and to, in the case of movies, be willing to pay ever higher ticket prices?  That they would be willing to put their addiction to political correctness aside just long enough to make a buck, because isn’t that really what it’s all about.  But oddly enough, that simply does not seem to be the case.  Because it is for some bizarre reason that these people have this need to lecture us to the point where it takes precedence over making a profit. 

As a for instance  ABC has ‘When We Rise’, Amazon has ‘Transparent’, and Netflix has ‘Orange is the New Black’, and though all of these show have been ‘critically acclaimed’, viewership is quite low.  And that’s likely because no one is interested in winding down after a long workday with a social justice lecture. Then there are shows like ABC’s multicultural/LGBT comedy Modern Family or Black-ish, which recently ran an anti-Trump episode.  Though these are some of the bigger shows for the network, they aren’t reaching a wider audience due to the politically correct topics.  So who is it that’s doing the ‘critically acclaiming’ I wonder?

But despite the low ratings and in the increasing disinterest in shows such as those mentioned, the major networks continue to be willing to charge full speed ahead with even more social justice programming which will, no doubt, provide to the American people even more opportunities to simply tune out.  Variety states, “The new wave of ‘woke’ broadcast shows is a response to the political and cultural moment, but also to long-simmering changes in the TV business... Across broadcast TV, programmers are confronting hot-button issues with an intensity not seen in decades.”  And it would seem that that intensity has been met with low ratings.

Apparently Fox is now set to premiere a new limited series, ‘Shots Fired’, on March 22, a show birthed during the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Creator Reggie Bythewood says the point of the series is to get a reaction out of people; like the same kind of “anger that we felt” during the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin trial or in Ferguson, where white officer Darren Wilson shot an “unarmed black teen.”  And in an attempt, I guess, to make some sort of a larger point, it’s in ‘Shots Fired’ that the races are reversed, this time we have a black cop shooting a white teenager. 

Sorry, but reversing the races won't change the circumstances.  Creators of this show seem headed down the same road as those liberal professors who were shocked by the results of their "experiment" to switch Trump and Hitlery's genders and replay the debates.  Ms. Blythewood lives in a world obsessed by race.  Most of us do not.  If the circumstances are that one person behaves like a thug and gets himself shot by the police, he won't get a lot of undeserved sympathy from us regardless of his skin color or the skin color of the cop, because we just see people, not race, and we judge the situation accordingly.

And so it’s at the beginning of every new television season that the wife and I will pick out a few potential shows that look interesting based on the previews that we’ve seen.  But rarely, if ever, do things progress beyond the first episode.  Sadly, we’re always disappointed.  And on those rare occasions where we actually do enjoy the show enough to keep watching, it’s usually by the midpoint of the season that things come off the tracks and we simply stop watching.  Because it’s only after we’ve been sucked in that the show begins preaching some leftwing cause.  So no one should be surprised when the ratings are in the toilet.

And since ratings don’t seem to be near as important as lecturing, I think we’ll keep our expectations rather low regarding the possibility of any watchable shows coming along anytime soon, especially if those like ABC’s entertainment president Channing Dungey have their way.  You see, it was she who said, “We have always wanted to try to tell stories that represent America in all of its shapes, sizes, colors — you name it. So that kind of programming is important to me. Whether it comes in the form of a limited series or a comedy or a drama. It was important to me yesterday. It will be important to me tomorrow.”

If you spending any time watching primetime television in America, whether it be on network television or on cable, you would come to recognize how it is that the creator and producers of many to today’s programming go well out of their way, and work very hard, to project the same false image.  That image being, of course, that it’s 25 percent of America that is LGBTQ.   But the truth is that that number is actually closer to 2.5 percent.  But it’s all nothing more than a continuing effort to normalize the not-normal.  Or, shall I say, to make the unacceptable appear to be more acceptable.  Either way it’s simply another form of propaganda.

And also, you’d think that America is 50 percent black and none of them are low-life scum.  And the few that are, are only that way because of whites. They are the divine race, incapable of sin.  Yup, and if they hadn't been aborting themselves out of existence since the 1970's, Blacks would likely be 25% of the population instead of just 13.  I’m always amazed by the number of those who so willingly expose their ignorance by basing their knowledge a particular issue, be it abortion, poverty, terrorism or, heaven forbid, politics, on something they saw on some television show.  And yet they have the nerve to get upset when you tell them they’re nuts.   

In a normal free market the companies that produce today’s television programming would quickly realize the folly of their ways and start producing shows that more Americans would actually want to watch.  Except that this is not a free market.  Clearly they’re is collusion going on between these production companies.  It’s all about winning the all-important culture war.  Straight is bad, gay is good, white is bad, black is good, women are good, men are bad, or just plain stupid, and on and on it goes. Breaking up the media giants would be a good first step, but what really needs to be done is to successfully discredit those responsible.

As is the case with NBC, and Saturday Night Live in particular, they seem to be on a mission to offend and anger as many Conservative (Trump supporting) viewers as they possibly can.  Yet, eyeballs watching the show translate into eyeballs watching the commercials that air during that program.  Succeed in pissing off and losing a third, or more, of your audience, and that's a big hit on your advertising revenue.  Liberals and Progressives, it would seem, are far more interested in spreading their Utopian Messages of Ethnic and Sexual diversity than they are in making a profit.  But then, liberals and logic go together like vampires and sunlight!

HOW BEST TO DEAL WITH SANCTUARY CITIES…

Please excuse me if I don’t appear as enlightened as those of you who reside there in the outer regions of leftwing kookdom, but no matter how hard I try I simply do not understand the entire concept of “sanctuary cities’.  I mean, am I to understand that the residents of these fair cities, right down the last person, are in complete and total agreement with their city’s leaders when it comes to harboring these known criminals and for no other reason than because those criminals are in this country illegally?  And that those same leaders refuse to hand them over to federal immigration officials when apprehended?  And can I also assume that since I rarely, if ever, see any protests ‘against’ this unlawful practice, that the residents of these cities have no problem with this practice?  Because I’ll tell ya, if I were to live in any one of these cities I would most definitely make my concerns known and if ignored I would move by family because of my concern for their safety.

So anyway, imagine my surprise when I heard the news that the number sanctuary cities has now increased to nearly 500 and apparently all thanks to a recent push in counties and jurisdictions avowed to shield illegal aliens against President Trump’s immigration policies.  Now what do you suppose it is that would motivate these places to put so many of their own citizens at such great personal risk?  And yet, it’s according to The Washington Times that the ‘Ohio Jobs & Justice Political Action Committee’ (OJJ) keeps a running list and has added over three dozen new cities just this year.  And, apparently, it’s the founder of this little group, someone by the name of Steve Salvi, who has promised, “More will be coming. A lot of communities now, there’s resolutions in the works and citizens groups encouraging city councils to pass them.”  So again I would ask you, are those who live in these cities, and counties, agreeable to all of this?

Now that said, there are cities on OJJ’s list which dispute their inclusion and some will soon be removed because their sanctuary status is about to change.  The Times states two cities in Alaska, Dayton, Ohio, and Miami, Florida, most surprisingly, will soon be removed after confirmation with Homeland Security.  It only took one day after Trump’s threat to withhold federal funding from cities who choose to harbor immigrants for Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez to announce his city’s compliance with assisting federal agents with deportations.  According to the report, “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handled deportations, says 279 municipalities refused to cooperate on at least one case in fiscal 2016.”  And it goes on to add, “All told, those sanctuaries released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants back onto the streets that ICE agents had been trying to deport.”

Since they represent absolutely nothing of value to America, why are so many of our cities rushing to protect illegals who are not only criminals but thieves who steal the social services paid for by citizen taxpayers.  Might it, perhaps, have something to do with politics?  I’m just guessing, of course.  And I suppose the only hope is that voters in these locales will come to vote their traitorous leaders out of office at the first opportunity as well as publicize the obvious increase in crime and other associated problems from the keeping of illegals in their midst.  But then, as I was pondering earlier, can there be that many voters who go along with this madness?  Personally, from my point of view, being a fiscal realist, the more cities that select themselves to be excluded from federal funds, the closer we get to balancing our budget.  And they must also be committed to allowing an increase in crime rates, since they will shield even criminal illegals.

Now I do, however, find it rather interesting that according to Mexico’s immigration laws, every article of law controls illegal immigration into Mexican territory. If you immigrate to Mexico, Article 32 states you must speak Spanish and must be a professional who is useful to the Mexican society.  There are no bilingual programs in the school and no pressing 2 for English. All business must be conducted in Spanish. Investors are welcome; but must pay higher than minimum wage and your land purchases are restricted. And it’s Article 34 that states foreigners must have the necessary funds to support themselves and their dependents. There are no welfare programs, food stamps, government housing or entitlements.  And Article 87 states foreigners must be “physically and mentally healthy.”  Articles 73, 85, 86, 87 state foreigners must be on a national population registry, cooperating with federal local, and municipal police.

And then it’s Article 116 which states that foreigners using fake documents face a fine and imprisonment. Immigrants must show birth certificate to show citizenship. Articles 117-121 state foreigners who fail to obey laws will be fined, deported, and felons imprisoned. No one is allowed to enter the country with a criminal record. There is no due process of deportation. There is no 14th Amendment. Law enforcement officers are required to enforce Mexico’s immigration laws at all times. Articles 123-126 make illegal immigration a felony. Articles 127 state any Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner is subject to five years in prison.  So here’s a suggestion, how about we simply pattern our immigration laws here in the U.S. after those of Mexico?  After all, if it’s good enough for them, it should be good enough for us, right?  Hell, you’d think even old Jorge Ramos would go along with that, right?

To think that illegals, who in many cases are illiterate in their own language and have very limited skills to earn a living, could actually contribute to America in any meaningful way, as the way the Left continues to assert, you would think that they would be assets back in the country where they came from.  But the fact is they are departing in mass numbers that are essentially being ignored, if not welcomed by their own society, which means that their potential contributions were negligible where their spoken language was understood.  Let’s face it, it takes some level of talent and/or skill to be an asset on foreign soil, but the Left appears to only care about the number of dependents who might also become dependable votes for the Democrat Party.  Hence the rationale for placing our citizens, and those who have come here legally, at risk.  And all under the guise of diversity.  

And so why is it that this is such a Republican versus Democrat issue?  For one reason and only one reason.  All you gotta do is follow the votes. Democrats only care about the votes.  Republicans, while alarmed by the votes, are more concerned about the social costs, both in dollar costs as well as public safety and quality of life costs.  Both sides know that at some point, illegals will get amnesty on some basis.  Both sides know that in the meantime, illegals are already voting in greater and greater numbers.  Motor voter was designed to bring in minority and illegal voters.  DACA makes it easier for dreamers to register and to vote.  No literate individual, on either side of the issue, can deny this with a straight face.  The difference is, Conservatives have the law and the interests of our country on their side. Democrat either don't care or ignore the costs associated with the invasion while hiding behind their false compassion.

Some will claim that the cutting of federal funding is virtually a useless endeavor, that all it will do is to infuriate the Democrat base voters that live in these cities and lead to violence and destruction of private commercial property as is typical of the liberal Democrat protest ‘rally’.  Others purpose a more ‘drastic’ sort of response.  They say we should, instead, select 1 major California city, say San Francisco.  Use U.S. Military troops to first surround the city and then arrest the Mayor, Chief of Police, City Council, and impound their accounts and holdings.  Then charge them with treason for failing to protect the people from threats that are both foreign and domestic.  Then proceed to cut all federal funding, deny State access, broadcast to the city that any illegal or undocumented alien will be treated accordingly if they surrender peacefully, those that do not will be incarcerated in a Federal Prison.  Too severe?  I wonder.

And it would be those same folks who advocate such extreme measures who also make the argument that the entire expense for such an operation should then be charged against the both the offending state and local governments.  Now I’m thinking that something like this would likely only need to occur once, or possibly twice, before the message was received loud and clear by other states and municipalities that insistent upon breaking federal immigration laws.  And I think we would begin to see more and more cities abandoning the practice.  And frankly, if cutting funds were to lead to rioting and destruction, so what. I’m quite sure that the voters in those cities would soon grow tired of it and either choose to get rid of their socialists leaders, or to relocate to somewhere that was less accommodating to those in this country illegally.  And by the way, cutting funding to such cities would also be a great way to fund construction of the wall. 

And while I suppose it’s important to at least consider the potential for collateral damage when it comes to any potential riots, in both the cost in both property as well as in lives lost, we should not let that cloud our judgment nor prevent us from looking at the bigger picture.  And as much as I might be in favor of letting these bastions of leftwing lunacy burn, there would be unintended consequences generated that would affect those communities then made to deal with the influx of those fleeing the cities and everything that they tend to bring with them.  How often do you hear other communities complain about liberals fleeing California bringing their trash with them?  So in order to spare those outlying communities, we would need to very swiftly make examples of those cities who continue to refuse to see the error of their ways.  If there were severe consequences for those cities who choose to ignore federal law I think we would soon see their number drop rather precipitously.

EDUCATION LESS ABOUT ‘EDUCATING’ AND MORE ABOUT DIVERSITY…

So what is it that has now become the primary purpose of the public school system in this country?  Because I can’t help but wonder if we have now gotten to the point where any longer even bother with trying to pretend that what it’s about is providing the best education possible to our children?  Because it would seem to me that that is no longer the case.  What it has become increasing about is the complete and total brainwashing and indoctrination of our young in an effort to mold them into future government worshiping robots.  I only say that because we no longer seemed to care all that much whether or not our teachers are actually capable of teaching.  

You see, it’s very soon that prospective ‘teachers’ in the not-so-great-state of New York will likely no longer have to pass a basic reading and writing literacy exam in order to become a teacher.  That state’s Board of Regents is expected to ditch the ‘Academic Literacy Skills Test’ in part because black and Hispanic ‘teaching’ candidates struggled to pass the exam.  Apparently, just 41 percent of black teaching candidates and 46 percent of Hispanics were able to pass the test on their first try, compared to 64 percent of white candidates.  And since ‘teaching’ is really no longer about ‘teaching’ it has been deemed appropriate to simply do away with the test. 

The multiple choice exam is meant to ensure high standards among prospective teachers, which many teaching preparation programs have struggled to do.  So I guess who needs to worry about high standards when what we really need to focus on is increasing our quotas for blacks and Hispanics.  And really, who is it that is unable to pass your basic multiple choice test?  Apparently, it no longer matters if teachers are dumb as rocks, after all, we’re only entrusting them to teach our kids.  Right?   But then, as I said earlier, what we are entrusting our schools to do, is a far cry from what is actually being done in our schools. 

A December 2016 study by the ‘National Council on Teacher Quality’ found that 44 percent of teaching programs “cannot ensure that most of their incoming candidates are among the top half of college students.”  A state task force recommended the board scrap the exam because of the number of black and Hispanic candidates struggling to pass it.  The board is expected to adopt the recommendations on Monday.  The ‘National Council on Teacher Quality’ bills itself as being an advocacy group which claims to advocate for tougher evaluation of classroom teachers.  And yet, apparently, being able to read and write isn’t a necessary skill for teachers.

And then there was some Pace University ‘professor’, Leslie Soodak, who said, “We want high standards, without a doubt. Not every given test is going to get us there.”  As you likely already guessed, Prof. Soodak was a member of the task force that advocated abandoning literacy tests for teachers.  Soodak went on to say, “Having a white workforce really doesn’t match our student body anymore.”  So education has become less about providing the most qualified teachers and more about being satisfied with less qualified teachers that more closely match the racial makeup of the student body?  What a totally ‘progressive’, totally stupid idea.

Opponents to the exam unsuccessfully attempted to have it struck down in court in 2015, arguing that it was discriminatory because racial minorities performed worse on the test than white candidates, but a federal judge then declined to strike it down.  But how dare anyone suggest, or demand, that those hired to teach our children actually be able to read, write or be at least somewhat familiar with the subject they are supposed to be teaching!  Don't you see your racism for what it is?  White people are born able to read, it's all part of their white privilege!  Don't you dare suggest that others aren't hired just because of their qualifications!

So what we have here, once again, is nothing more than the dumbing down of our public education system and all in the name of that favorite subject of the left, diversity.  But what about what's best for the students?  Oh, I’m sorry, silly me!  It shouldn’t be about that all and, actually, it hasn’t actually been about that for quite a number of years!  What it's about, what's it’s always about, and what it MUST ALWAYS be about, is what’s best for the future of the Democrat Party.  And of course that would be because ensuring our children are kept as ignorant ensures they grow in ignorant adults which in the best interest of the Democrat Party.

Look at the last 20 years of education, where teachers have at one time or another been directed not to use red ink when grading papers, or never to use the word fail, for no other reason than to avoid hurting the little kiddies feelings.  So should we really be surprised to hear that things have now progressed this far.  Look at what’s being turned out by public schools: students who are taught that they were winners even when they weren't, that they've done great when they failed, so naturally, they’ve learned very little, and they were just passed on up the chain to get rid of them.  They leave school with no understanding of how to deal with the real world.

SHAME ON YOU FOR YOUR WHITE PRIVILEGE…

I cannot say enough how much I appreciate that those on left, whether they identify as Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, Socialist or even Communists would take the time to come up with a helpful ‘list’ that all of us white folks can use to determine just how truly despicable we all are.  Now of course I’m not serious and this list, called "10 Ways You Can Actively Reject Your White Privilege," is really pretty humorous.  But while a certain amount of humor can be derived from reading it, it was at the same time that I couldn’t help but wonder what sort of person, or group of people, would take the time to compile such a list.  This list is what follows:

1.  Take up minimal space during anti-racism dialogues and protests.

2.  Stop contributing to gentrification and calling it “urban development.”

3.  Listen when people call you on your microaggressions.

4.  Never invite people of color to the table for the sake of claiming diversity.

5.  Refrain from using your non-white friends as your “urban dictionary.”

6.  Stop lifting up non-confrontational people of color as examples of what POC activism should be.

7.  Call your friends, family and co-workers out on racism – even if a POC isn’t in the room.

8.  Understand that all anti-racism work doesn’t look the same and advocate accordingly.

9.  Realize that all discussions about race aren’t for you. And be okay with it.

10. Recognize that you’re still racist.  No matter what.

While there's much to laugh about regarding this rather idiotic little list, let's take the time to make note of a few of the items mentioned.  First, how absolutely ridiculous to tell white people not to physically take up too much space at an anti-racism rally.  Isn't that fat-shaming overweight white people by telling them they simply aren't wanted as allies in this ongoing fight?  Also, it’s number that 4 advises us NOT to invite people of color to the table just for the sake of being "diverse".  But does that same sentiment extend to such things as racial quotas in hiring and university admissions policies?  And if not, why not? 

And as we move further down this little set of guidelines for us privileged white folks, it’s when we get to number 5 that things become equally amusing, because it would seem that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't ask a "person of color" what something confusing means.  God forbid you try to explain it yourself and end up being accused of "whitesplaining."  But the best one, obviously, is the last.  If you're a racist no matter what you do or say, then why go to all the effort?  I mean, if there is absolutely nothing I can do to alter the fact that I am racist, then I might as well choose to live with it, not stress about it and maybe even enjoy it.  Right?

Now in an effort to make my own little contribution to the ongoing discussion of white privilege, let me offer up my own personal list which can then be taken however anyone may choose to take it:

1.  Be proud of being white.

2.  Don't apologize for being white.

3.  Talk to whoever you want whenever you want.

4.  Go where you want. If someone doesn't like it, too bad.

5.  Don't use urban slang, it just makes you sound like an uneducated moron.

6.  Continue being proud of being white.

7.  Don't worry about whitesplaining, that's just a nonsense word made up by imbeciles.

8.  Microaggressions are a myth created by the lazy and the excuses makers.

9.  Live the best life you can.

10. Lists like this are racist. Non-whites are racist. And they are crybabies. It's not your problem, it's theirs.

And in an effort to get MY list up to 20, I offer up the following items for your consideration as well:

11.  Remind everyone that without white people none of the things they enjoy would be possible: phones, TV, cars, medicine, science, etc., etc.

12.  Become a "regular" dictionary so that your non-white friends have the opportunity to not sound like a moron from the ghetto

13.  Don't go to any anti-racism dialogue or protest events. Heck they are already fat enough and take up too much space themselves.

14.  Look at someone who says you committed a "microaggression" like a moron...because they are.

15.  Diversity as a goal is stupid, so take the list above’s advice.

16.  Let the ghetto remain the ghetto, stay in the suburbs and build your real estate projects where they will not get looted the next time the non-whites are upset.

17.  If your friends or family say something that may be racist, just continue the conversation. Because really...isn't everything racist these days anyway.

18.  Continue not giving a flip about conversations on racism, because it is about them not you.

19.  Realize that anti-racism work is useless and is targeted at a non-issue in society.  Again, it is about them, not you.

20.  Just live your life, be as nice as you can so that you are not hurting others.  And if you do that....it will be about them and not you.

And just out of my own curiosity what percentage of blackness is it, exactly, that permits one to identify as being ‘black’.  As a for instance, Barry “Almighty”, while being 50 percent white is still referred to as being a black man, yet someone like Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, Tim Scott or Allen West, all of whom are 100 percent black, they are still routinely referred to as either not being black men, or as not being black ‘enough’.  So please excuse my confusion.  We all must know what percentage is required that in turn certifies ones right to refer to oneself as being, ‘black’.  Is there some sort of a test or law that will help us poor white folk?

But to tell you the truth I’m getting more than a little tired of all this idiotic nonsense.  So I have decided to, instead, embrace all of my ‘isms’ and ‘ists’ as well as all my ‘phobias’ and endeavor to turn micro aggressions into macro aggressions.  It is time to push back and push back as hard as I possibly can.  It’s time to start calling all this exactly what it is, pure unmitigated crap.  In the past Americans built on what came before them.  We took the mediocre and we made it better.  We took the good and made it great.  And what we made great we shared with the world.  The leftwing has to tear down everything, and it never builds anything up.

And, as far as I’m concerned, there seems to be very little reason to actually celebrate diversity, at least as it is defined by the left, because it’s rather skewed to say the least.  Because, you see, the left’s definition of diverse is rather one sided in that doesn’t include conservatism or capitalism or right wing politics.  So I say it again, I am tired of the left's nonsense and therefore I shall enthusiastically embrace my white privilege, I shall practice macro aggressions at every opportunity.  And when they call me some ‘ist’ or ‘phobe’ I shall accept it with a great sense of compliment because they really have no idea what it means. 

Personally, it’s to my way of thinking that this whole privilege-by-race-thing is completely ass-backwards.  Because from where I’m standing it’s the blacks who have most, if not all, of the privilege.  They’re the ones who get everything handed to them for ‘free’ with folks like me, an old white guy, being left to pick up the tab for all their freebies.  And all the while being left to cover all of my own expenses.  And does my daughter have white privilege because she needs higher test scores to get into college, or needs to take out more loans than do her black counterparts?   I’ve always said that when I come back I’m coming back black.