No MAGA Allowed

Hey, we don’t serve their kind here. And that’s ok.

Never mind making a cake. You can refuse to serve someone simply because you don’t like their politics according to a judge in New York. There are two differences between this and the cake ruling just handed down by the Supreme Court.  The first is that wearing a MAGA hat doesn’t make you constitutionally protected.  Yeah, I know, free speech.  That’s not what they argued.  They said Make America Great Again was a religious expression.  I didn’t really buy that either.
The other difference is that the bar wasn’t asked to serve him a specialty drink celebrating his politics.  In other words, it’s not like he walked in and asked the bar to make him a MAGA Mai Tai*.  He was refused general services based on his politics.
Actually, this is a victory for the freedom of business owners. The judge’s interpretation is that since he wasn’t kicked out specifically for his religious views (or any other civil rights protected status), it was A-OK. So you could refuse to serve someone for being a liberal, for wearing saggy pants, or many other reasons.  You could kick out anyone who wears a suit and tie on Sunday morning and say it was how they dressed, not their religion.
In Chicago, if you happen to be one of the handful of conservatives left, you could even refuse to serve blacks just with the basic assumption that they are all voting Democrat. The DNC assumes that, it’d be reasonable for you to as well. Of course, everyone has conveniently forgotten that back in the day it WAS the Democrats who refused to serve blacks.
Freedom not to serve people is also a victory for consumers. After all, if someone hates you because of how you look, what you wear, or who you vote for, why would you want to give them money? If I’m about to walk into an establishment and buy their stuff, I actually wouldn’t mind if they met me with a sign that says “don’t pay me, I hate you”. Or as Trump haters put it, “I love everyone except for you”. Sounds more warm and fuzzy when they put it that way.
*MAGA Mai Tai – Regular Mai Tai served in a whiskey glass so you get the fruity goodness but still look macho drinking it. No umbrellas.
Advertisements

Hillary Clinton or Roseanne Barr?

Hillary Clinton and Roseanne Barr expressed their political beliefs in 2012. Guess which one is more radically leftist.

Let’s talk reality for a minute. Hillary Clinton ran against Trump in 2016.  Roseanne Barr has been a vocal supporter of Trump.  Roseanne’s ABC show was cancelled because of her racist insult directed at former Obama staffer Valerie Jarrett.  So Clinton is the leftist and Barr is the crazy right winger, right?  In 2012, one of these two individuals took the  Political Courage Test and here’s her results. Go ahead, try to guess. Hillary Clinton or Roseanne Barr:
– Pro-choice
– Supports higher corporate, capital gains, and income taxes on upper earners
– Supports higher government spending on education, welfare, and the environment, and cuts in defense
– Against the death penalty
– Supports federal spending to grow the economy
– Believes humans contribute to global warming and supports federal environmental regulations
– Supports bringing home ALL of our troops and using the savings to pay for Universal Single-Payer healthcare
– Supports gun control
– Does not want Obamacare repealed
– Supports same-sex marriages
– Opposes private accounts for social security
– Supports marijuana legalization
 
Here’s the kicker, ready?
– Does not support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin
– Supports amnesty for illegal immigrant minors
– Supports sanctuary cities
 
These are the positions Roseanne Barr took in the 2012 survey when she ran for President as the Peace and Freedom party nominee. Oh, I’m sorry, did you think she was a conservative? Did you think her vocal Trump support meant she was a right-winger? Unless she has changed 100% in four years, Roseanne Barr is left of Hillary Clinton. She’s out in the loony left with Bernie Sanders.  It makes me wonder what ABC, and Roseanne had in mind when they brought her show back spotlighting her as a Trump supporter.  
Maybe she’s a better actor than we all thought.

Trump Campaign Mole Had One Question

Halper wasn’t there to find out about illegal Russian influence. He was there to find out if Trump had Hillary’s emails.

The cat is out of the bag.  The FBI did actually have a mole working with the Trump campaign.  Cambridge professor Stefan Halper was hired by the FBI and paid nearly half a million dollars by the DoD’s secretive Office of Net Assessment to gain the confidence of Trump campaign officials and inform on them to the FBI.  But the questions Halper asked had nothing to do with Russian collusion.  They wanted to know one thing: did the Trump campaign have Hillary’s emails.

According to reports, Halper asked George Papadopoulos and Carter Page if the Trump campaign had gotten Hillary Clinton’s emails from the Russians.  He wasn’t concerned about collusion, but rather if the Trump campaign had received those emails and was holding on to them for the opportune moment.  If the Trump campaign had those emails, it could spell doom for Clinton, the Obama administration, and the FBI.

Obama’s FBI had exonerated Hillary Clinton before they even began their investigation.  As part of the immunity deal with Clinton’s attorneys, they allowed for the destruction of evidence that might have established a timeline of when and how her emails were deleted.  Obama himself and other Obama administration officials like Loretta Lynch had emailed Hillary under pseudonyms.  The discovery of Hillary’s emails could be detrimental to the entire power base of the Democrat party.  Obama had just as much reason as Hillary to find out if Trump had them.  So that was Halper’s mission.

This wouldn’t be the first election espionage mission for Halper.  In 1980, Halper worked as a mole in the Carter administration, leaking foreign policy intel to the Reagan campaign under George H.W. Bush’s direction.  He was part of a group in the CIA who helped Reagan anticipate Carter’s foreign policy positions during an election year.  The scandal came to light a couple years later, but was quickly forgotten.  Halper also had connections with MI-6, the British spy agency that Christopher Steele used to work for.

The Bush’s have been against Trump from the start.  Stefan Halper was their former spy.  Even working for the Obama’s to help save Hillary, he was the perfect man for the job.

For those keeping score at home, this is another instance where Trump was proven right.  He said the FBI was tapping his phone.  After much ridicule, the FBI admitted that they were surveilling the phone lines at Trump tower.  Trump said the FBI used the phony Steele dossier to start the Russian investigation. The House investigation determined that in fact the dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign, had been used to secure FISA warrants to spy on Trump.  Trump as recently as last week suggested there was an FBI informant working his campaign officials.  After being ridiculed again by the media and relentlessly fact-checked, the truth has come out and he was right again.

But the scariest thing is that Halper wasn’t investigating Trump or Russia, as former CIA director Brennan suggested.  Halper wasn’t there to find out about illegal Russian influence.  He was there to let the Obama administration and Hillary campaign know if there was going to be an October surprise.  His mission was to find out if Trump had Hillary’s emails.

 

Confirmed: The Fix Was In

Hillary Clinton was presumed innocent until, and after, proven guilty

The Washington Post is reporting this morning that James Comey knew the Justice Department was protecting Hillary Clinton, drafted a letter exonerating her in early May, then gave immunity to her aides who subsequentially confessed to lying and destroying evidence.

A month later, after Comey wrote the exoneration letter, Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately where they “talked about wedding plans”. They didn’t. The fix was in. All they needed for the show was to have Hillary be interviewed by the FBI. Bill needed assurances that the Justice Department still had her back and that Comey had already chosen to exonerate her.

Five days later, Comey interviews Hillary Clinton, with her aides who had been granted immunity allowed in the room to serve as her lawyers.  Two days later, Comey goes public with his exoneration letter as though he had just come to that decision.

September 28, Comey tells Congress that he did not make his decision until after interviewing Hillary Clinton.  He states emphatically that he did not make the decision until after interviewing Hillary Clinton.

Here is the Washington Post timeline:

Early March – Comey receives information from Russian sources that the Justice Department is working to ensure Hillary Clinton won’t be prosecuted.  Loretta Lynch had also spoken to Comey and asked him to call the “investigation” a “matter” instead so as not to make it sound so bad.

(Sidebar: why would Russia know anything about the Justice Department’s relationship to Hillary Clinton?  Perhaps because of how the Uranium One deal was covered up?)

May 2 – Comey drafts the exoneration letter

May 3 – Paul Combetta, Clinton computer specialist, admits to lying to the the FBI about knowing the emails should have been preserved and deleting them anyway.  Combetta is given immunity because Comey, apparently, wanted to move up the line to get someone more important.  AFTER he had already written the exoneration letter.

May 5 – The media reports that there is little evidence Clinton committed a crime

May 16 – Comey sends the draft of his exoneration around to other members in the FBI.  This is before Cheryl Mills is interviewed.  Part of the deal to interview Cheryl Mills becomes immunity and the destruction of her laptop, which likely contained evidence.

June 27 – Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton meet privately on his jet.

July 2 – Hillary Clinton is interviewed by the FBI for 3 1/2 hours with her aides in the room serving as her lawyers.  The aides have immunity already.  They can confer and make sure they get their stories straight.

July 5 – Comey exonerates Hillary Clinton.

Anyone with any sense and understanding can clearly see the fix was in.  There was no way the Obama Justice Department was going to prosecute Hillary Clinton.  And Comey worked with the administration to make sure it never happened.  The investigation should be reopened, and prosecution of Comey, Lynch, the Clintons, Mills, Combetta, Abedeen, and Obama should be on the table for obstruction of justice and perjury.

Finland Needs Babies

Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money, or simply out of other people….

Socialism is all fun and games until you run out of other people’s resources. In Venezuela things were going great so long as the state could fund itself by selling oil. Great of course being a relative term. If you’re a relative of someone in the government, then things are great.

In Finland, they are running short of a different commodity: babies. Finland’s social system is similar to US social security in that it is dependent on having a high taxed worker to non-working consumer ratio. In the US, the conundrum we have run into is that Social Security was stable when there were at least three workers for every retiree. By 2030 we expect to see two workers per retiree and Social Security will run out of money.

Finland is facing the same dilemma.  They are running out of workers to fund the free-loaders.  They are not making enough new workers to keep the socialist ponzi scheme going. This is driving them to adopt new policies such as increased maternity leave. They are even rethinking their progressive stances on family values. Of course, when the purpose of having more babies is to support the welfare state, this strategy can backfire. Additional maternity leave means more labor is needed to fill those gaps.

While some have suggested that nationalism is the barrier to admitting more immigrants, I have a feeling the true barrier is the fear of adding more dependents to a broken system. After all, in a state built on social safety nets and transfer of wealth who wants to volunteer to go there and work to pay for it all?

Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.  In Finland, they have simply run out of other people.

 

A Different Way To Look At “Illegal”

How to read the news

Here is a different way to look at illegal immigration. I saw a post from Dan Rather the other day about how Spanish speaking people rescuing others from Houston shouldn’t be thought of as anything other than American. Sure, why not? I mean, assuming they actually are Americans.  If the President of Mexico offers aid to Houstonians, we don’t automatically grant him citizenship.

The problem is that the Left has defined the debate. On their terms “citizen” means “white dude”. Immigrant means “Hispanic (regardless of citizenship)”. Illegal immigrant means you are simply a racist, privileged white dude for using that term. Nobody is “illegal”. They are “human”.  Right?

Instead of using the often confused terms of immigrant and illegal immigrant, let’s replace those terms with “Taxpayer” and “Tax Cheat”. After all, that’s what an illegal immigrant has done. They have cheated on their paperwork, or not filed at all. See how the stories change in that context.

Take today, there is a story about how immigrants are battling detection and deportation after Harvey. Really? We are deporting citizens because they emigrated to the USA? No, they mean illegal immigrants, but nobody is illegal so that is a racist term. Let’s try this instead, “Tax cheats battle detection and IRS penalties after Harvey”. Still feel so much sympathy?

Trump considers ending the Dream Act (which wasn’t actually an act, just a regulation) for children of immigrants. What? We are deporting citizen children because their parents came here legally from other countries??  No, of course not.  But again, illegal immigrant is a racist term used by citizens (privileged white dudes). So let’s try it differently. Trump considers crackdown on tax cheats filing illegitimate child tax credit claims. Ah, suddenly it doesn’t sound so bad.

So that’s the assignment. If you see an article that says “immigrant” but means “illegal immigrant”, just substitute “tax cheat”. If you see an article that says “immigrant” and means “legal citizen who emigrated”, read it “taxpayer”.

By the way, if you think this is a ridiculous idea just remember that anyone who is here illegally is either dodging taxes, committing identity theft, or filing the wrong return. Most are paid under the table or with a false tax ID. The reason businesses use their labor is because they are illegally paid less than minimum wage and don’t operate under the same overtime and labor laws that citizens…sorry, taxpayers do. So if you read every story in that lens, taxpayer and tax cheat, you won’t be that far off.

Matt Walsh: How It Ought To Be

In a cookie cutter world…

Oh Matt. Matt Walsh is sticking by a tweeted photo and commentary of a man carrying a woman and baby out of a flood. Ok, let’s start with what he got right. The baby is probably in no circumstances going to be carrying the man or the woman out of the flood waters. Woman or man protecting the child, we’re good.

21105976_1669671863065917_8245532479166072481_n

Gender studies professors. Gosh, if your biggest beef with them right now is gender roles? You’re probably not paying attention. Maybe you should go back to science and chromosomes and start with them there.

Now, to the rest of his analogy. Matt, your world view demonstrated by this picture is a tiny box. In that box, you view a woman who is probably 120 lbs and her husband who wears camo, hunts and gathers. He probably drives a big truck. So when it floods, he carries her out. That’s nice. Probably happens a lot. That’s not how it “ought to be”.

How it ought to be is that the parents care for the child and whoever can walk or carry does the walking or carrying.  I’ve known far too many physically strong women, and honestly a fair share of physically weak men, to try to fit the world into that one size fits all box. By the way, if your child is bigger than you, it’s ok if they carry you to safety too.

We can of course debate all day on averages and so on.  Of course there are biological differences.  But people aren’t defined by laws of averages.  They are defined by their individuality.  If average height for a woman is 5’5 and average height for a man is 5’10, that does not mean it ought to be that a 6′ tall woman should let her 5’4 man carry her out of danger.

The same goes for emotional strength, common sense, intelligence, education.  America isn’t about cookie cutter. It’s not about people being limited to their stereotypical boundaries. It’s about people realizing their full potential and being better and more than the standard picture someone else has in their head. That’s how it ought to be.