Will Democrats Self Destruct, Again? ……

Democrats Are Falling Into the Ilhan Omar Trap

 

Indeed. It sure does looks like the democratic party in its haste to support an American Muslim Congress critter is handing Trump exactly what he, as well as his supporters, want. It very well could give the “president” the upper hand going into the 2020 election.

Regardless what anyone may like to believe, I’m referring specifically to liberals and progressives, Americans remain very leary of Muslims and their intentions in America. It is only natural, given that a handful of evil and violent Muslim terrorists from Saudi Arabia killed over 3,000 innocent American souls on September 11, 2001.

The Koran says what it says and anyone who has ever read even parts of it knows that in the Islamic faith infidels are essentially considered the enemy of Allah. The Koran says that infidels must either convert, become subservient to Islam and Sharia law, or be killed.

Not all Muslims agree with what is written in the Koran. Not even a majority. However, doesn’t make sense for Americans of all faiths, as well as those with no faith at all, to keep their gaurds up and be steadfast in their wariness of evil potential that rests in the “holy” book of  Islam.

Now for David Frum’s take on the Ihan Omar remarks.

Many of President Donald Trump’s tweets backfire, but not his tweet attack on U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar. That one tweet succeeded to perfection. Trump wishes to make Omar the face of the Democratic Party heading into the 2020 elections—and now he has provoked Democrats to comply.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have offered full-throated endorsements of Omar. “Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage. She won’t back down to Trump’s racism and hate, and neither will we. The disgusting and dangerous attacks against her must end,” Sanders tweeted. Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg have expressed themselves more circumspectly, but have still aligned themselves with her in ways not easy to undo. “We are stronger than this president’s hatred and Islamophobia. Do not let him drive us apart or make us afraid,” O’Rourke tweeted. Of the 2020 hopefuls, only Amy Klobuchar added any caveat to her statement about Omar. (“You can disagree with her words—as I have done before—but this video is wrong.”) Joe Biden and Cory Booker have thus far refrained from comment.

Having promised not to “let him drive us apart” from Omar, Democrats are now stuck with responsibility for the reckless things the representative from Minnesota says, not only about Jews, but about other issues, too. Omar has already served notice that she does not intend to behave more circumspectly in the future. In a Friday-night interview, Stephen Colbert asked Omar whether she would heed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s advice to back-bench it for a while. Omar answered, “I think Nancy knows this very well. Women have been told to go slow and not be seen and not be heard for many years. She wouldn’t have made it to where she is if she did. And it’s certainly the case for minority women … We are not there to be quiet. We are not there to be invisible. We are there to follow the lead of people like Congressman John Lewis and make good trouble.”

The Democrats are on notice. More remarks will be coming.

Against Omar’s propensity to provoke, the Democratic Party seems institutionally almost defenseless. Pelosi was thwarted when she attempted to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitic expressions by House members. Instead, the House substituted more muddled language in which Jews appeared in a laundry list condemning all expressions of intolerance against “African-Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants and others.”

After Trump’s tweeted attack, Omar will become even more internally uncriticizable and unmanageable, without becoming any more careful or responsible. Indeed, the speech by Omar that provided Trump with the sound bite he exploited—“some people did something”—itself exemplifies her carelessness and irresponsibility. The speech was delivered at a fundraiser in California for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Here’s the full sentence from which Trump took his sound bite: “CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

CAIR was, in fact, founded seven years before 9/11. That error should matter to more than fact-checkers. It severs CAIR from its own history of radical advocacy and apologetics.

More BELOW the FOLD

The Truth, Regardless What Huckabee Sanders Would Have You Believe……

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Sunday that she doesn’t believe members of Congress are “smart enough” to examine President Trump’s tax returns, pushing back against Democrats’ demands for information on the president’s finances.

Of course we ALL know that Sara Huckabee Sanders is full of the brown stuff.

Certainly there are a multitude of congress criters and senators that are light years smarter than President Trump. He proves this every single day of his presidency!

In an interview with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace, Sanders said that Democrats were treading a “dangerous road” and that their request for Trump’s tax returns is “all about political partisanship.”

No it’s not. It is ALL ABOUT seeing whether our president is honest and on the up and up. In other words it is all about America knowing wether of not their presiodent is possibly compromised by their dealings with some foreign country. Particuarly some adversarial country like say Russia or China.

“Frankly, Chris, I don’t think Congress — particularly not this group of congressmen and women — are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that I would assume that President Trump’s taxes will be,” Sanders said. “My guess is most of them don’t do their own taxes, and I certainly don’t trust them to look through the decades of success that the president has and determine anything.”

Franklly,  as I said above, there are many Congress critters that are smarter than Trump. He proves this truth almost daily.

That aside, Congress also has attorneys, as well as other knowledable resources to aid them in sifting through the minutiae  that no doubt makes up Trump’s tax returns.

She added that the Democratic effort puts “every American” in jeopardy.

“If they can single out one, they can single out everybody,” she said.

Trump refused to release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential campaign, breaking decades of precedent under which candidates for the White House voluntarily released their returns. Trump claimed it wouldn’t make sense to release his tax returns while, he said, they are under audit.

Well, lets think about that for a minute.

How exactly does it it put “every American” in jeopardy knowing their president is not a crook. A person that is in no way compromised by the nefarious interests of a hostile nation?

Whatn Americans want to know is that their elected officials are in no way compromised by any private dealings they may of had before becoming our nations head of state. Trump certainly has given many reasons for pause. As well as to question his motives and loyalty to this country.

There can be ONLY one reason he has refused to release his ax returns. There is something, or many things, he does not wat the nation to know aboput him.

Source Article

Our Next President?……

Finally we find ourselves excited about a young, articulate, intelligent, educated, rational, and reasonable democrat that talks sense and actually has a vision that just might remedy some of our national problems.

The Mayor of South Bend Indiana this 37 year old is a Rhodes Schoolar, speaks 7 languages, and most importantly understands that American capitalism is the single most powerful engine known  to mankind with respect to economic development and growth.

He has not yet declared his candidacy but has plans to announce this coming weeked. He has raised 7 million dollars in the first quarter of this year, out performing the majority of announced democratic candidates.

Directly below is a 13+ minute video woth watching. Folowed by a hot link to the full complete interview, Be sure to make time to take in both.  Pete Buttigieg may very well be The Real Deal. Just what America needs during this era of Trumpism and general political insanity.

The article teaser:

In the sprawling 2020 Democratic field, Pete Buttigieg may be the unlikeliest serious contender of all.

He’s just 37 years old. He’s the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, a city of barely more than 100,000 people. If elected, he would become the youngest president in American history, and the first to be openly gay.

Yet Buttigieg has a remarkably broad range of experiences and talents. After graduating from Harvard, he became a Rhodes scholar. He advised major businesses as a McKinsey & Co. management consultant. He won the mayoralty at age 29 and then, while serving, was deployed as a naval intelligence reserve officer to Afghanistan. He speaks seven languages and has performed Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” on piano with the South Bend Symphony.

Even while officially just “exploring” a Democratic nomination bid, Buttigieg has ridden his millennial appeal past more experienced rivals in some polls and in fundraising. The $7 million he raised in the first quarter of 2019 exceeded the totals of Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker.

Full article BELOW the FOLD.

 

 

America’s Non Christian Founding Principles……

We are living in the Era of Trumpism. An era that is essentially void of ethical values and principles. America, having elected an individual whose only dicernable values are money and what’s in it for me, now has a Head of State that is, for all intent and purpose, running our nation rudderless.

It is for the above stated reasons that we are posting Is The US Founded Upon Christian Principles? It is our hope rational thinking folks will read the article and identify for themselves why Donald j. Trump is indeed a clear and present danger to ourcontinued exstance as a representatie democracy. Evangelicals in paticular seem not to understand ourFounder’s thinking. Nor do a very many conservatives and libertarians of other Christian denominations.

And now the teaser…

Christians claim that the US Constitution and therefore the US itself is founded upon uniquely Christian principles, and that the Christian principles have Biblical sources.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the influential US Founders, a Deist, described the fact that in the deliberations by Virginia statesmen for the wording or the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, which preceded the US Constitution 1st Amendment, the Virginians rejected the linkage of the name “Jesus Christ” to the phrase “the holy author of our religion”:

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” [1]

What are the Christian principles Christians claim are the principles upon which the US Const. and therefore the US was founded? (2)

Full article BELOW THE FOLD.

Increasing Authoritarianism……

The following opinion article from The Washington Post  is spot on. In the era of Trumpism the possibility of increasing acceptance of a more authoritarian govcernment is very real. Trump is not in any way shape or form an honest or true conventional conservative. Trump cannot really be identified as having any real political ideology as he has no core values of any kind. His only value is to do whatever works. For him and his family real estate empire. If any ideology can be applied to Trump is would be might makes right. The ideology that ALL tyrants subascribe to.

 

The strongmen strike back

Authoritarianism has reemerged as the greatest threat to the liberal democratic world — a profound ideological, as well as strategic, challenge. And we have no idea how to confront it.
Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these days, the one for which we are least prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism. We are not used to thinking of authoritarianism as a distinct worldview that offers a real alternative to liberalism. Communism was an ideology — and some thought fascism was, as well — that offered a comprehensive understanding of human nature, politics, economics and governance to shape the behavior and thought of all members of a society in every aspect of their lives.
We believed that “traditional” autocratic governments were devoid of grand theories about society and, for the most part, left their people alone. Unlike communist governments, they had no universalist pretensions, no anti-liberal “ideology” to export. Though hostile to democracy at home, they did not care what happened beyond their borders. They might even evolve into democracies themselves, unlike the “totalitarian” communist states. We even got used to regarding them as “friends,” as strategic allies against the great radical challenges of the day: communism during the Cold War, Islamist extremism today.
Like so many of the theories that became conventional wisdom during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, however, this one was mistaken. Today, authoritarianism has emerged as the greatest challenge facing the liberal democratic world — a profound ideological, as well as strategic, challenge. Or, more accurately, it has reemerged, for authoritarianism has always posed the most potent and enduring challenge to liberalism, since the birth of the liberal idea itself. Authoritarianism has now returned as a geopolitical force, with strong nations such as China and Russia championing anti-liberalism as an alternative to a teetering liberal hegemony. It has returned as an ideological force, offering the age-old critique of liberalism, and just at the moment when the liberal world is suffering its greatest crisis of confidence since the 1930s. It has returned armed with new and hitherto unimaginable tools of social control and disruption that are shoring up authoritarian rule at home, spreading it abroad and reaching into the very heart of liberal societies to undermine them from within.
We in the liberal world have yet to comprehend the magnitude and coherence of the challenge. We do not know how to manage the new technologies that put liberalism at a disadvantage in the struggle. Many of us do not care to wage the struggle at all. Some find the authoritarian critique of liberalism compelling; others value liberalism too little to care if the world order that has sustained it survives. In this new battle of ideas, we are disarmed, perhaps above all because we have forgotten what is at stake.
We don’t remember what life was like before the liberal idea. We imagine it as a pre-ideological world with “traditional autocrats” worshiping “traditional gods” who did not disturb “the habitual rhythms” of people’s everyday life, as Jeane Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, once put it. This is a fantasy. Traditional society was ruled by powerful and pervasive beliefs about the cosmos, about God and gods, about natural hierarchies and divine authorities, about life and afterlife, that determined every aspect of people’s existence.
Average people had little control of their destiny. They were imprisoned by the rigid hierarchies of traditional society — maintained by brute force when necessary — that locked them into the station to which they were born. Generations of peasants were virtual slaves to generations of landowners. People were not free to think or believe as they wished, including about the most vitally important questions in a religious age — the questions of salvation or damnation of themselves and their loved ones. The shifting religious doctrines promulgated in Rome or Wittenberg or London, on such matters as the meaning of the Eucharist, were transmitted down to the smallest parishes. The humblest peasant could be burned at the stake for deviating from orthodoxy. Anyone from the lowest to the highest could be subjected to the most horrific tortures and executions on the order of the king or the pope or their functionaries. People may have been left to the “habitual rhythms” of work and leisure, but their bodies and their souls were at the mercy of their secular and spiritual rulers.