by Edward Ring, American Greatness - September 26th, 2019
Just over three years ago, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, speaking at a fundraiser in New York City, characterized half of Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables.” And for more than three years, Trump, along with everyone who supports him, has been subjected to passionate hatred from nearly everyone who would rather have seen Clinton elected.
It might be tempting to return the favor and hate back. That not only would be a tactical mistake—since you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar—but also inaccurate targeting. There are a surprising number of liberals, progressives, and even socialists, who are not only anti-Clinton, but are begrudgingly, and increasingly, capable of seeing the positive side of the Trump presidency.
A very early indication of this came in October 2016, when John Pilger published in the London Progressive Journal an influential article titled, “Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump.” Pilger, notwithstanding his socialist leanings, is a world-renowned journalist and filmmaker of undeniable courage and integrity.
In an eloquent tirade notable for its many, many examples of how Hillary Clinton is a murderous establishment puppet, this observation by Pilger summed it up: “She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted ‘exceptionalism’ is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.”
Sound familiar? And wow, how that system has tried, and continues to try to take down Trump. READ it HERE
by Rob Crilly The Washington Examiner | September 25, 2019
President Trump set out a nationalist worldview on Tuesday, attacking globalism and delivering a comprehensive account of how his vision informs policies on everything from trade to abortion.
“The future does not belong to globalists,” he told the United Nations General Assembly, a body founded on a globalist consensus. “The future belongs to patriots."
“The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country unique," he said.
This time around, there were no pithy epithets like the "Rocket Man" jibe he directed at North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during his first appearance at the U.N. Nor did the audience — always a tough one for Trump — break into disbelieving laughter as they did last year at the claim his administration had accomplished more “than almost any administration in the history of our country.”
Instead, Teleprompter Trump steered away from cheap shots and expansive claims to deliver a speech that, three years after coming to power, emphasized how his "America First" slogan was being put into practice.
It suggested a systematic approach to foreign policy, according to James Carafano of the Herit READ it HERE
The emotional, physical, and intellectual damage wrought by the climate change movement now is coming into clear view. It’s an outcome that should enrage every parent.
by Julie Kelly, American GreatnesSeptember 19th, 2019
On Friday, schoolchildren around the world will be prompted to walk out of class as part of the “Global Climate Strike.” These young “climate strikers” will protest alleged inaction on climate change and promote an end to fossil fuel use.
“Our house is on fire—let’s act like it. We demand climate justice for everyone,” the event’s website warns.
It is the latest stunt orchestrated by the international climate cabal and yet another example of how the Left shamelessly exploits and manipulates children to propagandize any cause. (Think of the high school students in Parkland, Florida.) But this time, the climate cabal is using a special-needs teenager from Sweden to indoctrinate more children and adults with climate change dogma.
Greta Thunberg is a 16-year-old from Stockholm—which is ironic because the teen exhibits many traits associated with a hostage attempting to please her captors.
In a way, Thunberg is not the face of a climate crisis but an alarming example of how the climate cabal has needlessly terrified two generations of young people. The emotional, physical, and intellectual damage wrought by the climate change movement now is coming into clear view and it’s an outcome that should enrage every parent. READ it HERE
Tucker Carlson’s much-discussed monologue last week leaves much to be desired. But factual errors or rhetorical excesses are not why it attracted vociferous criticism on the American Right. What really set the critics off is Tucker’s underlying moral premise: American republicanism sometimes requires public restraint of private vice, even in the sphere of economics.
The fact that this is even a debatable premise speaks volumes as to why American conservatism has struggled to become a majority for nearly 90 years. And the fact that this is the bottom line of President Trump’s approach to economics speaks more volumes as to why he swept the Republican field and won the White House.
Carlson and Trump agree that American business owners have long since stopped thinking they owe anything to American workers or communities because they are American. They contend too many American executives, responsible only to shareholders who in turn value only the highest monetary return possible, are unconcerned about whom they contract with so long as the contracts are upheld. Nearly everyone concedes this is how business operates today; the question is whether correcting or influencing this is a proper matter for public action.
Read it HERE
Add your reaction
By Bobby Harr American Thinker, August 28, 2019
Dr. Beth Mynette, a mom from Washington, D.C., is making new bombshell allegations against her soon to be ex-husband, Tim Mynett, and self-proclaimed "intersectional feminist" Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). The claims made by Beth specifically relate to the intimate relationship between the "colleagues" and how it's destroyed her marriage, according to the New York Post.
Beth Mynette alleges that Tim, a political consultant to Omar since 2018, admitted having an affair with the freshman congresswoman to his wife back in April and even declared his love for her. Despite Beth's attempt to "fight for the marriage" and work things out, her disgraced husband proceeded with the divorce filings.
After roughly seven years of marriage, the couple physically separated around April 7 of this year, just after Tim delivered the news to Beth on his alleged affair and proclaimed love for the congresswoman. Omar also separated from her husband recently, according to reports.
The former couple has a 13-year-old son together whom Beth is seeking primary custody of due to Tim's "extensive travel" with Omar, which is not part of his job description, according to the documents.
READ it HERE
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
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
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