Why Trump El Paso Pic Triggered the Left

elpasotrumpPhoto.JPG
American Spectator,  August 12, 2019

We have long ago become inured to Democratic politicization of mass shootings and the accompanying tirades against President Trump suggesting he is somehow responsible for these atrocities. Consequently, the Left’s exploitation of the recent massacres in the cause of gun control was all too predictable. This time, however, they added a new ruse to their rhetorical repertoire. After El Paso and Dayton, Democrats failed to dissuade Trump from visiting the victims, an omission they would have inevitably denounced as callous, the Left went berserk when he and the First Lady posed for a photo with an infant survivor of the El Paso shooting and two relatives.

The phony outrage erupted when the First Lady posted a tweet about the El Paso and Dayton visits that contained a photo featuring herself holding the baby, Paul Anchondo, and his Uncle Tito with his arm around the president. Why would this upset anyone? Well, it turns out that Tito Anchondo, like his brother Andre — who was killed shielding his son from the gunfire — is a Trump supporter. This photo undermines two carefully cultivated leftist myths: that Hispanics by definition disapprove of Trump and that he is a Mexican-hating racist. This was too much for the Democrats and their media allies, who, with characteristic hypocrisy, attacked Trump for politicizing the tragedies.

But as NPR reported, Tito Anchondo doesn’t see it that way and suggests that his brother would also have rejected the claim: “My brother was very supportive of Trump.” To Democratic claims that Trump’s rhetoric has incited mass shootings, he said, “I think people are misconstruing President Trump’s ideas.” He also told NPR, “We should be coming together as a country at this time instead of threatening each other with hate messages.” Anchondo told the AP on Friday that Trump “was just there to give his condolences and he was just being a human being.” The Democrats aren’t having any of this, of course. READ it HERE

 

1 reaction Share

Giving the Devil His Due

by Paul Kengor, Aug. 9, 2019 Crisis Magazine

I wrote here at Crisis back in March 2018 about the all-too-common link between mass shooters and fatherlessness. That was in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida incident. Looking at a list of the worst mass shooters in U.S. history, it was clear that the vast majority came from broken families lacking a consistent biological father throughout their rearing and development. Very few had good, stable dads.

That’s a sad situation. It’s also sad, I noted, that our culture’s fundamental transformers are dedicated to a new family structure that, by definition, deliberately excludes dads. Same-sex-“married” mothers are homes without dads. Worse, the cultural revolutionaries are also committed to fostering homes that deliberately exclude moms: same-sex-“married” fathers are homes without moms. And if we dare urge caution or question the wisdom of these structures, then we’re the insensitive ones. More than that, we’re bigots, homophobes, haters.

Obviously, this doesn’t mean that every fatherless home is a dead-ringer candidate to produce a mass shooter. That would be a ridiculous generalization. There is, however, a long-acknowledged pattern of notable social problems for children raised in fatherless homes.  READ it HERE

1 reaction Share

Democrats, in Showing Their Extremism, Do Nation a Favor

demdebate.jpg

From left, Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Andrew Yang, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio participate in the second Democratic presidential primary debate hosted by CNN Wednesday, July 31, 2019. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

 

By David Limbaugh August 2, 2019  PJMedia

In Wednesday evening's Democratic presidential debate circus, the left's favorite darlings turned on one another with a selfish vengeance, which was a positive development for the country and mildly entertaining. The glorious infighting continued among progressive commentators.

This acrimony, coupled with the public exposure of the left's crazy ideas, surely diminished the party's image among sane voters. The more leftists reveal their inanity and extremism, the better for President Trump and the nation. As one lifelong-Democrat African American caller told Rush Limbaugh the day after the debates, "The Democratic Party is no longer recognizable to me."

The consensus was that frontrunner Joe Biden was verbally awkward, tripping over numbers and phrases, and providing confusing instructions to viewers seeking to sign up for text message updates from his campaign. While fellow Democrats gave Biden a pass for his politically incorrect comments during his term as vice president, he got no such slack for his debate faux pas.

To be fair, however, you don't have to do much these days to run afoul of progressive thought police. All it took was for Biden to tell Kamala Harris as she was introduced to the stage, "Go easy on me, kid." Biden was obviously referring to Harris' aggressive attacks on him during the previous debate and playfully, even deferentially, asking her to soften her blows.

Virtue-signaling liberals were compelled to evince indignation. BAFTA Award-winning television writer Dominic Mitchell tweeted, "Kid? She's a grown woman Biden. Come on, man. Don't be such a sexist wuss straight out of the 1950s." Another Twitter user said Biden used a "single sentence quip intended to simultaneously diminish Harris and characterize her as overly aggressive. He'll say it was a joke, which is what his supporters will claim while belittling critics as humorless and aggressive. Women know it well." Rev. Laura Everett was harsher, tweeting, "'Go easy on me, kid' may pass to some as folksy banter, but underneath is centuries of sexism and racism, and a presumption of privilege where niceness avoids critique."  READ it Here

 

1 reaction Share

The Great Excluded and Our Nationalist Future

 

By Matthew Boose,  American Greatness    July 27, 2019

The Trump versus “the squad” brouhaha merely affirms what pundits have been saying since Trump’s MAGA movement swept up the American Right in 2016: American politics, from here on out, is American nationalism versus multiculturalism. A drift on the American Right towards nationalism, and deeper polarization between multiculturalism and nationalism, seems inexorable.

Trump’s “go back” tweets and the ensuing chaos expressed a widely felt frustration on the Right—a feeling that led to Trump’s election in the first place. That frustration is with the fundamental unfairness of America’s current multiculturalist regime.

Multiculturalism declares that America is for “everyone,” except, of course, for those it pointedly excludes. Trump’s base are the Great Excluded. Until Trump came along, they were up for grabs politically, waiting for someone who cared about them and what they care about.

Leftists balk at the “bigotry” of Trump and his supporters. To them, nationalism is vulgar, uncouth, and racist by definition. They dismiss Trump supporters as racist. The Left’s lazy recourse to labeling everything “racist” says more about diversity politics than about the people leftists constantly slander.

Many on the Left now find it incontrovertible that Trump, and all his supporters, are xenophobes.

Republican support for Trump went up after his tweets. How could so many Americans be so hateful? But these charges merely add insult to the injury of the Left’s abuse. What about leftist racism and bigotry? Doesn’t that count?

Certainly not, interjects the polite, well-educated leftist. It isn’t possible to be bigoted toward certain groups, namely, those which enjoy the institutionalized hegemony of their colonialist ancestors, or whatever middlebrow shibboleths the badly educated are taught by their sociology professors to repeat.  READ it HERE

2 reactions Share

On the Tragedy of Robert Mueller . . . . Who set the old man up?

It is wrong — morally, theologically, ethically — to disrespect people who have gotten older and who, apparently as a result, have lost an edge. With age comes life experience that prompts the emergence of wisdom, even as it also brings myalgia, arthralgia, and the general awareness that the human body has more things that can go wrong than does an automobile. Particularly painful is when a great mind shows some wear and tear rather the benefits and boons of maturing and improving from the years of acquired learning, cognition, and just-plain street know-how. There is no substitute for experience.

The Robert Mueller Circus on Wednesday thus was a human tragedy of many dimensions. I never knew the man he is said to have been, and I do not know him now. Sadly, apparently neither does he. His quiet retirement from public life and fading into the woodwork of social wall-paneling would have been a well-deserved phase, earned after decades of public service — except for one thing that justifies not letting him go gentle into that good night.

That one thing is that he allowed his name to be used for two years to do terrible damage. To our country. To our society. To the President of the United States. And also to certain individual human beings whose lives have been destroyed in his name, though apparently not by him. READ it HERE

 

1 reaction Share

Of Progressive Carnivores and Cannibals

  

American Greatness
By Victor Davis Hanson| July 14th, 2019


The Obama-era Democratic Party bears little resemblance to the themes embraced just 11 years ago by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries.The parameters of marriage, in Obama’s words “between a man and woman,” has now transmogrified beyond gay civil unions to legal gay marriage to transgendered fixations.

Obama once protested that he was no king who could open the border and grant amnesties by fiat. Yet his view of immigration has metamorphosed well beyond DACA and Dreamers into Democratic candidates going into Mexico to escort aliens unlawfully into our country, and 500 sanctuary jurisdictions in which federal immigration law is all but null and void. An American citizen convicted of using a fake Social Security Number and phony ID is a felon who is all but unemployable; an illegal alien who commits the same crimes learns quickly that these are not deportable offenses and mostly never prosecuted. READ more HERE

 

1 reaction Share

Why the Dems Will Never Win Back Trump Voters

American Spectator, June 24, 2019

It’s an article of faith among Democrats that the President’s base consists primarily of white working class voters without college degrees, and that they must be won back in order to beat Trump in 2020. This is why Elizabeth Warren inflicted that cringe-making, “I’m gonna get me a beer,” video on a long-suffering electorate. It is why Joe Biden, who reputedly enjoys a special rapport with blue collar voters, is the frontrunner for his party’s presidential nomination despite his penchant for gaffes and plagiarism. Thus, during this week’s Democratic debates, the candidates will devote considerable effort to courting the “deplorables.”

This will, however, be an exercise in futility because everything they believe about Trump’s base is false. Their view of this large and growing segment of the electorate is distorted by a myth concocted primarily by the media to explain away a deeply uncomfortable reality — that Trump possessed a better understanding of the public mood than did the professional political class. They were unable to abandon their preconceived notions about Trump and his supporters, despite easily accessible contrary data. The belief that his message was resonating only among the working class was debunked by Nate Silver as early as May of 2016:

It’s been extremely common for news accounts to portray Donald Trump’s candidacy as a “working-class” rebellion against Republican elites.… But the definition of “working class” and similar terms is fuzzy, and narratives like these risk obscuring an important and perhaps counterintuitive fact about Trump’s voters: As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000.

That figure wasn’t merely above the national median household income, it was higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton’s supporters. Silver went on to point out that the general portrayal of Trump’s voters as uneducated also failed to conform to the facts: “About 44 percent of Trump supporters have college degrees… higher than the 33 percent of non-Hispanic white adults, or the 29 percent of American adults overall, who have at least a bachelor’s degree.” Blue collar workers were a real and valuable cohort of the President’s supporters, but the financial and educational make up of his base was more complex than most acknowledged.  READ it HERE

1 reaction Share

Sacred Duty: A Soldier’s Tour at Arlington National Cemetery

   tom-cotton-1-150x150.jpg

Sacred Duty: A Soldier’s Tour at Arlington National Cemetery
Imprimis - April/May 2019 • Volume 48, Number 4/5 • Tom Cotton

Tom Cotton was elected to the U.S. Senate from Arkansas in 2014, following one term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves on the Senate Banking Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee. A graduate of Harvard College, he studied government at the Claremont Graduate School and received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2002. In 2005, he was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, rose to 1st Lieutenant, and served deployments in Iraq with the 101st Airborne and in Afghanistan with a Provincial Reconstruction Team. His military decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantry Badge, and Ranger Tab. He is the author of Sacred Duty: A Soldier's Tour at Arlington National Cemetery.

 

Every headstone at Arlington tells a story. These are tales of heroes, I thought, as I placed the toe of my combat boot against the white marble. I pulled a miniature American flag out of my assault pack and pushed it three inches into the ground at my heel. I stepped aside to inspect it, making sure it met the standard that we had briefed to our troops: “vertical and perpendicular to the headstone.” Satisfied, I moved to the next headstone to keep up with my soldiers. Having started this row, I had to complete it. One soldier per row was the rule; otherwise, different boot sizes might disrupt the perfect symmetry of the headstones and flags. I planted flag after flag, as did the soldiers on the rows around me.

Bending over to plant the flags brought me eye-level with the lettering on those marble stones. The stories continued with each one. Distinguished Service Cross. Silver Star. Bronze Star. Purple Heart. America’s wars marched by. Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. Korea. World War II. World War I. Some soldiers died in very old age; others were teenagers. Crosses, Stars of David, Crescents and Stars. Every religion, every race, every age, every region of America is represented in these fields of stone. READ it HERE

1 reaction Share

MacIver Institute Applauds President Trump’s Efforts To Improve Health Care Price Transparency

health-costs-e1561611113837.jpg

MacIver News Service | June 26, 2019

MADISON — On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order directing his administration to take steps to improve price and quality transparency in health care. The MacIver Institute applauds the president’s common-sense efforts to truly bend the cost curve of health care down.

Trump’s executive order demands providers make the true cost of services available to patients in plain language, requires out-of-pocket costs be made known to patients earlier, makes health care quality metrics more widely available to consumers, and expands health savings accounts, among other measures.

In response, MacIver Institute president Brett Healy issued the following statement:

“We’ve all probably gotten a shock hospital bill. That experience is just one example of why price transparency, or lack thereof, is one of the main drivers of spiraling health care costs and barriers to care. When patients don’t know what they will be paying for a procedure, whether through insurance or out-of-pocket, there is no downward pressure on prices that is usually part of a healthy market.

“Fortunately, President Trump understands that it’s consumers in a free market that will drive down the cost of care, not another government program that only puts more money into the current failed system. The president’s executive order is a big step toward changing course and truly lowering the cost of health care for all Americans.”

Fact Sheet On President Trump’s Executive Order

READ it HERE

1 reaction Share

Britain’s Compulsory Abortion Fight Shows Risks of Government-Controlled Health Care

alfie-1250x650.jpg

June 26, 2019 The Daily Signal - The Heritage Foundation

After doctors in Britain’s single-payer health system recommended that a mentally disabled woman undergo an abortion, a judge ordered the woman—an unidentified Roman Catholic—to have an abortion against her will. 

In her June 21 decision, Justice Nathalie Lieven—a judge in Britain’s Court of Protection, a panel that handles cases involving the mentally disabled—declared, “I have to operate in her best interests, not on society’s view of termination.” 

The case was quickly appealed —and, happily, quickly overturned.

Britain’s Court of Appeals on June 24 reversed Lieven’s order and ruled that British physicians cannot abort the intellectually disabled woman’s unborn child.

The three-judge panel has yet to issue its reasoning in the case, but its rationale cannot come too soon. In the meantime, the facts of the case are instructive.

The New York Times reports that the woman, of Nigerian descent, has been diagnosed with a “‘moderately severe’ learning disorder and a mood disorder.” There was, according to the Times report, no evidence that the unborn 22-week-old fetus was “impaired.”

In short, the proposed compulsory abortion was to be the late-term destruction of a healthy child. 

In her ruling, Lieven opined, “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll.” The woman’s mental suffering would be worse, she asserted, if the child had to be removed and put up for adoption.

Read it HERE

 

1 reaction Share