The Long Version

Retired broadcast journalist. Blogging helps scratch the itch. Recovering exRepublican – Sober and still Conservative.

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Double Standards are the Only Standards Left

leave a comment »

Double Standards definition

There are two major political ideologies in America.

Left and Right. Liberal and Conservative.

In 2021 that appears likely to change to just one when it comes to control of the federal government. The Progressive-Democrat-Socialists have managed to gain total control of the Presidency, House, and Senate and they have wasted no time doing what they have wanted to do for decades: eliminate their opposition.

One method to accomplish this goal is having the ability make the rules. However, when making those rules make them such that they only apply to one side, the opposing side. Double standards are manipulative and dishonest at their core. They are infuriating and damaging to anyone on the wrong side. They are the height of hypocrisy and have no place in political discourse or societal governance, yet by all indication that is exactly how the game is going to be played in 2021.

Consider these examples:

Stating condemnation for what occurred at the Nation’s Capitol Building last week is only accepted if you’re a Democrat. If you’re a Republican you are an insurrectionist or domestic terrorist by default. These sentiments have been parroted by Left Wing media and Democrats holding public office. According to CNN’s Don Lemon, you are allied with ‘The Klan and Nazis’ if you even voted for Donald Trump.

President Trump called for protests that would be ‘peaceful and patriotic’ and he got labeled a national security threat. Even though CNN has reported that authorities now know the storming of the Capitol was a “planned event’ and intelligence agencies knew at least 2 weeks before January 6th of these plans. But on the other side, Representative Maxine Waters, from California, can call on her supporters to get ‘physical’ and ‘in the faces’ of Republicans and she gets the chairmanship of the financial services committee.

Republican members of congress, utilized a process described in the constitution to offer an objection due to the improper and unconstitutional changes made to the election rules in some states and they were labeled seditionists. Democrats in congress raised money for groups who attacked our police, burned our cities, destroyed our businesses, and established autonomous zones, but they were celebrated as justice warriors.

Last week Democrats called for unity, democracy, and healing. Days later, seeking power and political advantage the Democrats have gone back to their natural state. The party of impeachment, removal, and division.

Jim McGovern, the Democrat Chair of the House Rules Committee, said in his opening remarks during the 2021 impeachment proceedings, that “Republicans last week voted to overturn the results of an election!” Guess who was the first objector to Donald Trump’s election on January 6th 2017? The very first objector was none other than Jim McGovern. Guess which state he objected to? Alabama. The very first state called. Alabama. President Trump won Alabama by 30 points.

They can object to Alabama in 2017 with no grounds or evidence to support them, but then turn around and tell Republicans they can’t object to Pennsylvania in 2021 when there are legal grounds and evidence to support it.

  • Pennsylvania, where the state Supreme Court unilaterally extended the election from Tuesday to Friday without legislative input.
  • Pennsylvania, where the Secretary of State unilaterally changed the rules, ignoring the constitutional role of the state legislature to make changes to election laws.
  • Pennsylvania, where county clerks in some counties and you can imagine which ones, let people “fix” their ballots. That’s against the law. They allowed them to take secured mail-in ballots and “fix” them in direct violation of the law.

But they accuse the Republicans of trying to overturn the election and the media nods its collective head in agreement and reports it as if it was fact.

Guess who the second objector was in 2017? Jamie Raskin, the Congressional Representative managing impeachment number two for the Democrats.

Democrats objected to more states in 2017 than Republicans did last week but somehow this time it’s wrong.

Democrats can raise bail for rioters and looters last summer, but when Republicans condemn all violence, including the violence last summer and the violence last week, they are wrong.

Democrats were willing to investigate the President of the United States for fours years, but will not even look at an election that 80 million Americans, half the electorate, both Republicans and Democrats, have doubts about.

Americans are tired of the double standards.

These examples are from just the past week.

When will ALL fair-minded people, regardless of political affiliation, stand up and demand the double standards end?

How long before you’re on the other side of a double standard? Or do you suppose that will never happen?

If you’re a Democrat, you may be right. Your political opposition may be silenced forever.

But don’t think that’s a good thing.

Written by DCL

January 13, 2021 at 5:23 pm

Posted in Politics

The Great Reset

leave a comment »

 

by Justin Haskins

On Nov. 3, Joe Biden could be elected the next president of the United States, but most Americans still do not know the truth about Biden’s radical ideology.

Despite having sold himself as a “moderate” Democrat for decades, Biden has consistently shown that his views on globalism and America’s place in the world are far from mainstream.

This argument is best proven by examining Biden’s close ties to the World Economic Forum, which is now pushing for a remarkably troubling “Great Reset” of capitalism, and the many statements Biden has made over the past several years echoing Great Reset ideology.

The Great Reset movement has been widely adopted by numerous world leaders, including the head of the United Nations, Prince Charles, the International Monetary Fund, international trade unions, and CEOs of major corporations.

Using the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change as the justifications for a fundamental transformation of the world’s economy, the Great Reset movement aims to destroy modern capitalism and replace it with a system that embraces numerous left-wing social programs, such as basic income systems and the Green New Deal, as well as force all corporations around the world to adopt leftist social justice causes.

In an article published on the World Economic Forum’s website, WEF founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab — who is spearheading much of the Great Reset movement globally — wrote that “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”

“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” Schwab also wrote. “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

Schwab and other supporters of the Great Reset blame many of the world’s problems on the perceived failure of the existing “social contract” and what they call “shareholder capitalism” — the current economic system in much of the Western world.

Under “shareholder capitalism,” individuals can buy shares of companies, which are then expected to produce goods and services they can sell to customers for a profit. (Sounds terrible, I know!)

Although Biden, to my knowledge, has never been asked directly about whether he supports the Great Reset, he has made numerous comments echoing similar talking points. For example, in July, Biden called for the end of the “era of shareholder capitalism.”

Additionally, just like the World Economic Forum and supporters of the Great Reset, Biden has said government should use the coronavirus pandemic as a justification to “rewrite the social contract” of the United States.

Biden’s “Build Back Better” plans also come straight out of the Great Reset movement’s playbook. For many years, supporters of the Great Reset at the World Economic Forum and elsewhere have talked about “building back better” by dramatically expanding the power of government, pursuing costly “green” infrastructure plans, and substantially increasing the authority of international institutions.

Biden’s proposals would do just that, and the “Build Back Better” name is just too similar to what others affiliated with the Great Reset movement and/or the World Economic Forum have said to be a mere coincidence.

For example, in 2016, a development specialist at the World Bank, discussing climate change-related natural disasters, wrote for the WEF, “The pressure for governments now is not to wait until a disaster strikes to ‘build back better.’ Instead, the urgent need is to build better now, and to thoroughly assess current risks to industrial infrastructure.”

In May 2020, the World Economic Forum posted to its website an article titled “‘Building Back Better’ — Here’s How We Can Navigate the Risks We Face After COVID-19,” in which the writer argued, “We have looked at ways to ‘build back better’ and it’s very clear that investing in greener economies is going to be a huge part of recovery efforts.”

On July 13, 2020, less than a week after Biden called for an “end to the era of shareholder capitalism” while promoting his own “Build Back Better” plan, the World Economic Forum published a piece titled “To Build Back Better, We Must Reinvent Capitalism. Here’s How.”

And these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many others showing the WEF using the “build back better” slogan prior to and following Biden’s release of his Build Back Better policy proposals.

Biden also has close ties to numerous Great Reset advocates and leaders at the World Economic Forum, where Biden has on multiple occasions delivered keynote addresses.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry — the co-chair of Joe Biden’s climate change “Unity Taskforce” and a man many believe could serve in Biden’s administration — has publicly backed the Great Reset and called for reforms to the American “social contract.”

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who has been named to Biden’s transition team, is a member of the WEF’s Forum of Young Global LeadersButtigieg’s climate policy adviser, David Victor, is affiliated with the World Economic Forum and authored in June 2020 a lengthy article for Yale University titled “Building Back Better: Why Europe Must Lead a Global Green Recovery.”

Further, Biden has close relationships with at least three World Economic Forum board members who support, to varying degrees, the Great Reset platform: Al Gore, David Rubenstein, and Laurence Fink, the chairman and CEO of BlackRock, whom many Democratic donors have reportedly pushed to be Biden’s choice for treasury secretary.

Additionally, WEF board member and Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is a longtime supporter of Kamala Harris, Biden’s 2020 running mate.

More evidence of Biden’s intimate relationship with Great Reset advocates can be found in the launch of the Biden Institute, which is based at the University of Delaware. In 2017, when the Biden Institute first started, Biden said he wanted to model some of the new organization’s activities after the World Economic Forum, and he even met with the WEF’s leader and the world’s biggest advocate of the Great Reset, Klaus Schwab, to help develop a plan for the future of the Institute.

Taken together, Biden’s policy plans, campaign messaging, and connections with key Great Reset figures seem to point toward a very troubling conclusion: Joe Biden is likely an advocate of the radical Great Reset, a proposal that, if enacted, would completely overhaul the world’s economy in favor of more collectivism and the centralization of power in the hands of international elites.

That might sound unbelievable, but when there’s smoke, there’s almost always fire.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com and the editorial director of The Heartland Institute.

This article was originally posted by TheBlaze.com

Written by DCL

October 26, 2020 at 3:27 pm

The Left’s Game Plan for November 3, 2020

leave a comment »

Election 2020You may or may not be familiar with something called the Transition Integrity Project.

You should be.

It is an alliance of Never-Trumpers and Democratic Party operatives who formed a group to war game the 2020 election.

According to The National Pulse, it was founded by Nils Gilman, a professor of the history of the intelligentsia at the University of California at Berkeley, and Rosa Brooks, a former Obama Pentagon official and the daughter of former Democratic Socialists of America co-chair Barbara Ehrenreich.

Members of the group include John Podesta, Bill Clinton, Donna Brazile, Jennifer Granholm, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Michael Steele, members of the Lincoln Project, and other high level political operatives.

You get the picture.

This group created a set of scenarios forecasting instability during the November election and titled it “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition.” If you were wondering why all the talk and concern over peaceful transition of power, you can look to this group and this document as the match that started that fire.

To me it reads like a conspiracy theorists manifesto, but it’s obviously written to appear benign, non-partisan, civil, and “for the greater good” and maybe it is. That’s for you to decide.

Some things to consider regarding the cast of characters who put this together. The founder Gilman isn’t what I’d call a tolerant guy. His Twitter feed is full of hate for anyone ideologically opposed to him. He tweeted this about Michael Anton just a few weeks ago. “Michael Anton is the Robert Brasillach of our times and deserves the same fate.”

For those unfamiliar with Anton or Brasilliach, Michael Anton is a former Deputy National Security Advisor and speech writer for Trump and Brasilliach is a French intellectual who was shot by firing squad in 1944 by French resistance forces for his advocacy of Nazi collaboration and anti-Semitism.

Again, you get the picture.

Anton recently wrote an essay titled “The Coming Coup,” which warned of plans for a “color revolution” in the U.S. where elections are overridden by mobs and plotted by Deep-Staters connected to George Soros, who invented the color revolutions elsewhere. Do a search for Color Revolutions if you’re unfamiliar with that term.

The target in Anton’s piece is the Transition Integrity Project and rather than argue or defend his project, Gilman suggested the killing of his critics.
I think everyone should read Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition regardless your political affiliations and decide for yourself what it means.

I make note of the makeup of the participants in its creation and the fact that not one is a Trump supporter for a reason. This isn’t an objective paper. This is anti-Trump and anti-Republican. They use the term non-partisan because “Republicans” were involved, but there is no pretense of non-bias.
After reading it, it became clear to me this was a playbook containing all the play calls needed for any given scenario on November 3, who would call the plays, and how they would be executed.

I don’t want to give anything away here. I want you to take the time to read this.

Whether you come away with the same conclusions I have or the complete opposite. Whether you agree with their position and proposed actions or they chill you to the bone. This is information people need to know about prior to what I believe is the most pivotal election in our lifetime.

You can read or download the full document HERE

Written by DCL

October 10, 2020 at 10:07 am

Election Day Chaos and Confusion. Just Part of the Plan?

leave a comment »

Empty envelopes of opened vote-by-mail ballots for the presidential primary are stacked on a table at King County Elections in Renton, Washington on March 10, 2020. (Photo by Jason Redmond / AFP) (Photo by JASON REDMOND/AFP via Getty Images)You’re going to see a flood of news stories from the major news sources in the coming days and weeks leading up to November 3rd, mourning the problem of uncounted mail-in ballots with not so subtle implications any such problem on November 3rd will be due to a massive effort to rig the election for Trump.

What they won’t tell you in their misleading headlines or stories is WHY the ballots are not counted. Politico has already published such a story about the Florida primaries. No mention of the actual legal reasons ballots were not counted. I see this as a precursor to more stories that will, by implication as opposed to direct evidence, lead you to believe something malicious and illegal is happening when, in fact, the opposite is far more likely to be true.

Election law governs how we vote, when we vote, and how ballots are counted. The states handle their own elections and Congress determines the rules for federal elections. Mail-in voting tends to have a greater number of illegitimate ballots due to mistakes on the ballot, no signature, mismatched signatures, or missing deadlines. This isn’t anything new. States who’ve had mail-in voting for some time all go through this every election, but you never heard the media claiming mass voter fraud because of it.

Election law is not a suggestion. It’s the law.

In the Florida primary the ballots were thrown out mostly because they arrived late and/or weren’t signed. Throwing out illegal ballots isn’t voter suppression and mail-in voting isn’t fraud nor is it rigged. But rules matter and must be followed to avoid those potential problems.

Of course the problem of late ballots due to people mailing them too late or an overwhelmed postal service, led the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to effectively say, to Hell with Congress, we’ll write our own law! Which they effectively did with their ruling on September 17th. The polling shows a very close race in Pennsylvania and no Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since Harry S. Truman in 1948. I’m sure this had no bearing on the heavy Democrat majority on the court. Nah, no way…

Pennsylvania’s highest court gave the Democratic Party a series of victories Thursday, including one allowing repairs to glitches and gray areas in the battleground state’s fledgling mail-in voting law and another that kicked the Green Party’s presidential candidate off the November ballot.

The state Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, granted the Democratic Party’s request to order a three-day extension of Pennsylvania’s Election Day deadline to count mailed-in ballots. And it ruled that the Green Party’s candidate for president did not strictly follow procedures for getting on the ballot in November and cannot appear on it. ~  KDKA – CBS Affiliate in Pittsburgh

PROBLEM: the judicial branch doesn’t have the authority to do that.

Federal elections are controlled by congress NOT the courts. No wonder the Penn Supreme’d ruling sent seismic waves through the country. Pennsylvania is a swing state and that ruling makes those judges look like fixers rather than objective jurists.

The Democrats are sowing the seeds of mischief in the upcoming election. You don’t even have to be a super rational or logical thinker to see how their actions and attempts to completely change this election and how votes are cast and counted weeks before it happens to see this.

The longer Democrats can delay the announcement of a clear winner, the better their chances to pull off a heist. Why do I use that term? Simple observation. Trump rallies and appearances are attended by thousands. Thousands more line their streets to welcome his motorcades. Biden appearances aren’t even being covered because they don’t want people seeing the empty rooms and lack of “in-person” support. It’s crazy how stark this indicator is.

The Democrats own internal polling is not showing Biden with a lead. The current public polls showing him leading by 2 or 3 points means Biden will lose by 8 or more points in all of those states if we go by previous election trends and statistics. Particularly the 2016 race where Clinton was supposedly running away with it in the polls.

The charades and mirages being played and set up by the DNC, Biden, and the powers that want him in office, are almost too numerous to count and they are following strategies that have been used before, just not in this country. Look into the term “Color Revolution” and see how it has been used to shape the politics of other nations and regimes. Elements in the US government are pretty good at it.

The talk began in June, with zero evidence to back it up, that Trump would not leave office if he lost the election.  Joe Biden said the military will “escort Trump from the White House with great dispatch.”  Al Gore, the global warming monster, concurred. This is all done to set the table and put you in a state of mind to accept those attempting, in effect, a coup attempt, as heroes for election integrity.

A little more background. There was a story intentionally leaked over the summer about a meeting of 100 high level Democrats, Never Trump Republicans, and others in the ruling class of community organizers who met play out a war games type exercise regarding outcome scenarios for the November 3rd election.  One such scenario suggested a definitive Donald Trump victory.  John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, suggested that Biden refuse to concede and then pressure states that Trump won to only send Democrats to the Electoral College vote. The Democrats would rely on the military to handle the rest.

Think that’s a stretch? Don’t. In 2016 Democrats and Hollywood leftists tried getting Republican electors to cast their votes for Clinton. That’s mild compared to where the DNC has devolved since then.

The exercise determined “technocratic solutions, courts, and reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here.”  It then says if Trump wins it will be “a street fight, not a legal battle.”  Now do you understand why Democrats have been so slow to condemn the riots, fires, looting, and assaults in the streets? If that leaked report is true and there is sufficient evidence to believe it is, they’re basically telling you they will increase the riots everywhere across the country.  No more working through democratic principles, the Constitution or, legal system.  There are powerful people building an army of loser arsonists to set the entire nation on fire. You think you’ve been spared because your town hasn’t seen the destruction of the major population centers and Democrat strongholds you’ll be spared again? Not this time.

And then there was this… Over the summer, two former Army officers, wrote an open letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs asking him to send the 82nd Airborne Division to the White House and drag President Trump from the Oval Office at exactly 12:01 PM, January 20, 2021.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff outranks all other commissioned officers but is prohibited by law from having operational command authority over the armed forces.  So, these two idiots, that should have had been court martialed by now, asked the CJCS to break military law which would have resulted in a court marshal as well, all because they suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

This is just the beginning. The Democrats know Biden and his VP selection couldn’t be any worse. Why they chose a dementia ridden career politician and a woman who has more than her fair share of baggage, both political and personal, is anyone’s guess. But the closer we get to the election, the more desperate they will become. You know that saying about a cornered wild animal?

If Trump is actually inaugurated for a second term, it will be a miracle in my opinion, regardless the actual outcome of the election which I believe will be a runaway blow out for Trump based on observation alone. Have you seen the crowds lining the streets and trying to get into his events? Now compare that to those rare glimpses into anything Biden does publicly. I mean, it’s startling the lack of enthusiasm and support wherever Biden goes in public. It doesn’t take a clairvoyant to read those tea leaves.

We’re in for a blockbuster, action packed storyline filled with twists and turns, villains and heroes, and an explosive ending.

Get out the popcorn.

Written by DCL

September 18, 2020 at 6:45 pm

The COVID-19 Narrative and Journalistic Malpractice

leave a comment »

Truth or LiesFor four months we have been watching a media smokescreen and misinformation campaign.

I was originally going to make this a Facebook post, but then I decided it would probably get removed by some self-righteous, virtue signaling, social justice warrior patrolling the feeds so I moved it to the blog.

Americans Doubt News CoverageThe media has done nothing but tell us how everything that has gone wrong or is bad regarding COVID-19 since day one is Donald Trump’s fault. They show us death counts, infection rates, compare us to other cherry picked countries, and not to mention selective data mining, and have shaped and perpetuated a narrative that kept the nation captive and ignorant.

However, as usual, a casual review of ALL the data as well as putting ALL the data into proper context, will render a very different story. 

The true story.

Listening to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and every other left of center news network (even FOX), will lead you to believe we are number one in every terrible category that has anything to do with this virus. We are also told that President Trump is ignoring the problem. But that’s how cherry picking works.

If we look at the top 20 nations for “observed case-fatality ratio” you’ll find the U.S. at number 12 with Great Britain #1 by a mile. In the U.S. the number of confirmed cases with the number of U.S. has Case Fatality Rate of 3.4%confirmed deaths is at 3.4%. Great Britain is at 15.2%… EVEN with all the admitted mistakes in record keeping from all the states, EVEN including deaths from shootings and car crashes that were counted as COVID deaths, we are at 3.4%. But that’s just not good enough for the media nor it’s desired narrative. Because that puts the U.S. in the company of countries like Bolivia, Columbia, and Guatemala. A country of our resources and wealth shouldn’t hanging with “THOSE” countries they say and being “12th worst in the world” is nothing to brag about.

Except, we’re not 12th worst in the world…IF you don’t cherry pick data. When you look at how America’s CFR compares to other similarly developed countries you see a much different picture. The U.S. actually has a lower CFR than Japan. What? How is this possible? Japan has been lauded by our news media as a shining example. But if the U.S. is doing better than Japan why are we so bad in the media’s eyes? Hmmmm?

When we look at TOTAL CFR (case fatality rates) the U.S. isn’t anywhere near the top of the list nor is it in 12th place. When we compare all cases and deaths worldwide the U.S. comes in at number 56… Of course we’d rather be dead last on that list, but 56 spots from the top should at least suggest that we are far from the incompetence the media portrays day after day.

The media would also have you believe we are the absolute worst when it comes to testing for COVID. Except we have tested over 53,000,000 people and our per capita test numbers are only behind the tiny countries of Luxembourg, Bahrain, and Israel. Bet you haven’t heard that report before.

How did we get to such a high number of tests in such a short amount of time and why haven’t we done more? That’s a great question. But you’ll have to ask the CDC why it made testing in the early phase of the disease so difficult to do. Like only allowing people who had traveled to China to be tested. In the beginning of this mess, testing or developing tests by private companies, universities, etc, was literally blocked by the CDC and FDA which was reported in the Wall Street Journal. Then, when the CDC finally started shipping tests to the states, many of them were defective.

Testing ONLY improved when the White House removed some of the regulatory road blocks that kept private labs, medical facilities, and universities from developing their own tests and testing methods. Once private industry jumped on board to help with the testing, the tests got better and the results more accurate. Gee, imagine that? Government screwing things up while private industry makes them better. Hmmmm, again… No mention of this problem nor the solution by your “free press.”

Then we moved into the Mask Era. Every day the Trump administration was pounded for not mandating masks as if a President can simply make laws by Royal edict… Can you imagine the 

Rep Eric Swalwell tweets Stop Wearing Face Masks

attacks if Trump had actually done that? He’s already a dictator for…doing…something Pelosi and Schumer don’t like. I think…

However, let’s go back to March when the media was reporting this: “U.S. Health Officials say Americans shouldn’t wear masks to prevent Coronavirus – Here are 3 other reasons not to wear them.” Democrat Congressman and Deputy Assistant Impeachment Cheerleader Eric Swalwell even tweeted, “Stop wearing face masks. #Coronavirus” on March 4, 2020.

65% of Americans wear a mask in publicYet here we are after a complete 180, creating another angry and divisive issue for people to fight about. A recent Pew Research poll showed 65% of Americans wear one when in public places and that poll was done BEFORE Trump went public with his support of wearing masks and the media was hounding Trump to force mask wearing because according to them no one was. Wrong again newsies.

But the biggest club the media has chosen to bash the president with, is Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). During a March press conference, President Trump made the horrific (in the minds of Dems) and now famous or infamous (depending which color voting sticker you wear) statement suggesting HCQ could be helpful in treating COVID-19. You’d think he had just told Americans to drink poison and bleach! Oh wait, the media did say that… And for the next week we were told Trump isn’t a doctor and he doesn’t know anything and he’s trying to kill people.

CNN went so far as to find a story in Nigeria about Chloroquine poisonings and blamed THAT on Trump. All it takes is the arch enemy of the Democrat arm of the media saying something positive about anything and the media is immediately against it.

The FDA, which had previously given the green light to HCQ for some COVID patients, suddenly gave it the red light citing a study that claimed there were dangerous side effects like blindness and heart attacks. The media went on a blitz telling the public they could die of heart attacks or go blind if they listened to Trump! But then, the study the FDA was pointing to was retracted by the authors citing bad data and unverifiable records. I’m sure you remember the media coming out immediately with a retraction and apology for scaring the bejeebers out of everyone. No? Oh, that’s because they didn’t say anything about it.

Hydroxychloroquine studyThen in July a newer study published in the International Journal of Infectious Disease, came out saying HCQ DID help to “significantly lower the death rate” in COVID patients. Even a Yale Epidemiologist wrote about the positive benefits of HCQ in treating COVID-19 in Newsweek magazine. Dr. Harvey Risch published a study showing the drug is effective for treating the virus.

Now, these doctors who have come out and spoken the truth from studies and their own experience treating COVID-19 are being threatened, fired, black listed, and called quacks. Thousands of doctors worldwide have prescribed this medication in a protocol with Zinc and other medicines with success, yet the media and certain people in our government at the federal and state levels are doing all they can to silence this debate. Why?

It’s a 65 year-old drug that is used for many illnesses, but mainly Lupus and Rheumatism. It is derived from a natural medicine called Quinine, which comes from a tree bark. It has been proven safe and used safely for decades in this country. So why the pushback?

Imagine how different this conversation would be if ANY Democrat had come out in support of this treatment rather than Donald Trump. You know it would be like night and day. There would likely be a push to make it an over-the-counter medication as soon as possible. But, unfortunately for people who do get the virus, the wrong person said something good about it.

HCQ is cheap and plentiful and it’s been around so long it doesn’t have a patent. And maybe that has something to do with this whole controversy. No one makes any real money on this drug. Any pharmaceutical company can produce it. There is no exclusivity. No big bucks. Not that money is a motivator or anything…

You may also remember the “COVID Parties” being thrown all over college campuses in those “evil” Republican states like Alabama.Covid Parties? CNN took the lead reporting how college students in “Republican States” were throwing parties to see who would get COVID first. They were even betting on it! With real money!!!! But then a Journalistic Icon decided to dig into the story. No, not the New York Times. Wired magazine connected the loose ends (or wires as it were) and they found “no credible evidence” of COVID parties taking place. Their headline read “COVID Parties are not a thing.” None of the other media reports were true. CNN had failed again.

This is just a small sampling of the kind of media reports droning away day after day on TV and the web. Yet, day after day they are exposed as inaccurate or blatantly false. Truth no longer appears to be the standard of quality journalism, at least on the national stage.

The standard now is political and the standard bearer looks a lot like the Democrat party.

Written by DCL

August 1, 2020 at 6:49 pm

What’s the Real Risk During the COVID-19 Shutdown?

leave a comment »

by Nedra Sorenson
Guest Blog

John Adams Quote on Freedom

I keep hearing that “the virus is the boss” – that it is the disease that has to dictate how life goes on…WHETHER life goes on. But that’s not what’s happening. The virus isn’t the boss here – FEAR is the boss. And the ones who are pushing the fear, the ones whose voices are the loudest, telling us how fearful we should be, are the LEAST fearful.

THEY are not worried that they haven’t gotten a paycheck for the last five weeks (because they’ve been voting themselves raises and non-deductible/no co-pay health care and Platinum Parachute pensions for years – all on the backs of American taxpayers).

THEY are not worried about overdue mortgages or not being able to make the rent on their business property (because their second home in the Hamptons or Napa Valley was paid for in cash and is now a huge tax write-off).

THEY are not worried about having to sit for hours in mile-long queues to get a cardboard box of groceries from the food bank (because they can snack on gourmet gelato kept nice and cold in their stainless steel Subzero freezer).

THEY can film themselves wallowing in a bubble bath in their oversized tub and say they are just like the rest of us. THEY can film their upper body workouts as they sit in their designer home office at their designer desk and tell us how important it is to stay inside while they can move around outdoors at will. THEY can set up hotlines for people to phone in “social distancing” violations by their neighbors while they sneak off to the gym.

I keep asking myself how many deaths have occurred from cancer in the last 40 days? How many from heart disease or diabetes? How many from plain, old everyday influenza? How many people died from accidents in the last month? How many lives were snuffed out by abortion since February?

Each death diminishes me because I am part of the main…yet death is a fact of life that we face every day. The fact, currently, is that we are NOT being held hostage by a disease (by the way with a 97-98% SURVIVAL rate!)…we are being held hostage by fear, fear that’s being promoted by those whose only real interest is in seizing crisis-produced power and holding on to it.

In the 1700’s there was this guy named George. He was rich and powerful…he was a tyrant. He used coercion and repression and fear to control his subjects. And the fledgling Americans – who had SO much to lose (but everything to gain) rose up and said “ENOUGH!”

Because freedom isn’t easy, people…liberty isn’t SAFE. Liberty is RISK. LIFE is risk. Every day we face and risk death…every day there is the possibility of losing everything. The question each person has to ask themselves is, IS IT WORTH THE RISK?

Do we live our lives in freedom, risking all we have for what we could have…or do we listen to the fear, give in to the fear and let our children and grandchildren struggle under the crushing weight of trillions of dollars in tax burden because we were too fearful to face the risk?

Do we leave future generations the knowledge that we were willing to be controlled, to believe the narrative that someone was only thinking of our health and safety, while the economic lifeblood of the world drained away?

Do we decide that Eliot was right…that this is how the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper? The whimper of a fearful world, masked and cowering behind closed doors – while those in power lower their silk scarves from their faces to tell us how safe they are keeping us?

You can ask me, am I scared? Yes. I’m scared. But despite the fact that I’m in the at-risk demographic – elderly, with underlying health issues…I’m more scared for my neighbors, for my country, than the possibility of death by COVID-19…because NOBODY gets out of this alive.

In the end it’s HOW you live, not IF you’ll die.

Written by DCL

April 25, 2020 at 10:36 am

The Divided States of America: A Return to 1861?

leave a comment »

US Civil War

Dr. Jack Devere Minzey, born 6 October 1928 – died 8 April 2018, was the Department Head of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein.

This was the last of his writings before he passed. My hope is it helps the reader recognize and reject the emotionally charged narratives being perpetuated by our news media day after day and differentiate between the fact challenged accounts of current events and the reasoned and historically supported accounts like this one. – Thanks to Kristine Manning for sharing this.

Civil War: How do civil wars happen?

by Dr. Jack Devere Minzey

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge. That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections. That’s a civil war

There’s no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.

This isn’t dissent. It’s not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they’re the worst thing that ever happened to the country but then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship.

Your very own dictatorship.

The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can’t scratch his own back without his say so, that’s the civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that’s not the system that runs this country. The Democrat’s system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.

If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. He can use the IRS as his own police force and imprison citizens who speak against him. He can provide guns and money ( Fast and Furious, Iran nuclear deal ) to other countries to support his own agenda and watch while one of America’s Ambassador’s is dragged through the streets and murdered while doing nothing to aid our citizens. His power is unlimited. He’s a dictator.

But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can’t do anything. He isn’t even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has ‘discretion’ to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn’t even have the ‘discretion’ to reverse him. That’s how the game is played. That’s how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn’t yet won that particular fight.

When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren’t even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn’t allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission but under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it’s Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.

Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can’t serve in it if you’re not a member. If you haven’t been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren’t in the club. And Trump isn’t in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren’t in the club with him.

Now we’re seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That’s not a free country.

It’s not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an ‘insurance policy’ against Trump winning the election. It’s not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It’s not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It’s not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn’t supposed to win did.

Have no doubt, we’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.

Written by DCL

December 16, 2019 at 7:05 am

Posted in Politics

Ukraine Official Refutes Key Impeachment Testimony

leave a comment »

BOMBSHELLWe see the word “BOMBSHELL” used in news media a lot these days and most of the time it’s nothing more than click bait.

This story, however, may actually fit the term.

This is from TIME magazine at TIME.com so my Left of center friends shouldn’t use the source as a fallback position to ignore it.

A top Ukraine official who is mentioned dozens of times in the impeachment report released last week and has been called a critical figure “at the center” of the impeachment inquiry, is now disputing testimony by the Democrat witnesses upon which the entire impeachment process rests.

In a recent interview with TIME, Andriy Yermak is questioning the recollections of crucial witnesses in the impeachment inquiry.

“Listen, I want to tell you straight,” Yermak told TIME in the interview on Dec. 4, “Of course, now, when I watch these [hearings] on television, my name often comes up, and I see people there whom I recognize, whom I met and know,” he says, referring to the witness testimony. “That is their personal opinion, especially the positions they expressed while under oath. I have my own truth. I know what I know.”

Where this really gets dicey is with regard to Gordon Sondland’s testimony. As you may recall, Mr. Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, had previously testified that there was no quid pro quo but then later revised that statement and testified the opposite in a written statement and again during the hearings. That is important to remember and consider when listening to Yermak’s recollection of his “meeting” with Sondland.

The key testimony that allowed the Democrats to move forward with impeachment came from Sondland, the ONLY witness to say he believed there was a quid pro quo in place. NO OTHER WITNESS made this direct allegation.

That testimony hinges on a meeting between Vice President Pence and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in Warsaw on September 1.

Sondland testified that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and told him U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

From the TIME.com article –

“Based on the testimony from Sondland and other witnesses, the final report from the House Intelligence Committee concluded last week that Sondland made this offer of a quid pro quo clear to Yermak that day in Warsaw.”

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

KABOOM! Is that bombshell enough?

In his initial testimony to the impeachment inquiry in October, Sondland said he never knew the U.S. aid to Ukraine was conditional on the investigations Trump wanted.

But then the following month, Sondland amended his testimony with a new sworn statement, in which he described the conversation with Yermak in Warsaw and identifying it as a quid pro quo on behalf of the president.

“I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland wrote in the amended testimony.

Yermak, a central figure in this entire process, says that never happened.

Mr. Schiff? Mr. Nadler? Houston?
We have a problem…

Written by DCL

December 12, 2019 at 7:21 am

Dear Adam Schiff, What is Quid Pro Quo?

leave a comment »

Dear Mr. Schiff,

How exactly do you define Quid Pro Quo?

Is it simply “Get dirt on my opponents or else!” as you and the Democrats have decided? If that is indeed where you are planting your flag then President Trump is right, there is no quid pro quo.

If we look at the entire conversation in question it goes pretty much like this:

Mr. Ukrainian President, you’re newly elected and it looks like you’re taking your country in the right direction, but you need to know something up front. Your country lost 7 Billion dollars of our taxpayers money. Your country convicted two officials, one of which was the head of the anti-corruption bureau, for interfering in the 2016 presidential election by colluding with the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

Now two of your Investigator Generals have been blocked by our State Department after they provided evidence to our Department of Justice regarding this collusion along with evidence of corruption surrounding oil and gas contracts that involved out former Vice President. You should look into that. We also have reason to believe the people who did all of that and made this corruption possible are still in your inner circle. So as a matter of national interest, I can’t give you any more money unless you can demonstrate you’re not part of this corruption but rather are dedicated to cleaning it up.

If that’s how you define quid pro quo Mr. Schiff then yes, that’s all on the tape of the phone call. That’s all in the transcript. IF THAT’S the definition then guilty as charged…

But that’s not your definition is it? Because that wouldn’t fly in a kangaroo court. Not even one run by you and Nancy Pelosi. In your tunnel vision world all you heard in that phone call was “get dirt on my opponent.” Fortunately a majority of Americans heard something quite different.

The conversation with the Ukrainian president which he confirmed, when taken in full context of the full conversation, is not “get dirt on my opponent.” Mr. Schiff believes cherry picking, paraphrasing, and redefining what was said equates what was actually said. It doesn’t.

The other problem is how the Democrats have convinced many Americans that quid pro quo is some new law that’s been broken… It isn’t. In fact the Obama administration was chided by the media for the same thing on numerous occasions leading one US newspaper to label Obama the King of Quid Pro Quo.  

The ignorance displayed in this country regarding anything to do with civics is an indictment on our public school system and an advantage to the Democrats.

Written by DCL

November 8, 2019 at 7:19 pm

Same Destination, Multiple Paths?

leave a comment »

Same Destination, Many Paths

A blog post by John Pavlovitz titled “I’m Not the Radical Left, I’m the Humane Middle” popped up in my social media. The headline grabbed my attention so I clicked.

It’s a nice, flowery, feel good post. It says the kind of things that make our brains produce a good dose of endorphins, serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin. The neurochemicals that make us happy and feel good.

So what’s wrong with that you ask?

Nothing, unless the flowers are covering the weeds. I’m not saying the article is an overt attempt to mislead or misinform. I’m sure the author earnestly believes in everything he wrote and how and why he came to his positions and opinions. But I don’t think he truly resides in the “Humane Middle” as he calls it. I don’t think he owns that real estate. I think he sits in the section of the bell curve the majority of us populate, if not more toward one side than the middle.

I believe Mr. Pavlovitz is an ideological leftist. I believe he is doing what ideological leftists do. He’s making a case to convince us and probably more importantly, those who share his worldview, their position IS the middle, the perfect balance, the ultimate destination, and if you aren’t just like them you’re simply “indoctrinated into a white nationalistic religion of malice.” Those are his words.

I don’t have a problem with people whose ideology is on the left side of the spectrum. If I was to pass one on the street I’d consider them with kindness and respect just like any other person walking that street. When I see people out and about I don’t see them as ideologues or members of a political party.

They’re just people. Like me.

I was taught to “Love my neighbor as myself” and I try to live that way. What I find problematic with folks of a leftist ideological persuasion is they don’t seem to be satisfied just having their own ideas, opinions, and beliefs and simply expressing them. In my experience, those on the left, and more so the activist left, aren’t happy until you accept and adopt their ideas, opinions, and beliefs as your own and they won’t hesitate to apply social pressure, even force, to get you there. Because, from my experience and interaction with political liberals, they’re right and you need to come to grips with that and change. PERIOD.

They are so convinced they know better than you how to live your life, they are going to do everything they can to live it for you and it’s all wrapped in the name of compassion, love, and humanity. They’re kind and tolerant until you refute their doctrine. Do that and you’ll see another side and it won’t be smiling.

Mr. Pavlovitz took an inventory of his positions. It’s a nice list that resembles what one might think Utopia is made of. He believes his list is “the list” everyone should have because, again, he’s in the middle. If your list isn’t like his, you’re the problem. You’re the extreme.

So, I decided to go ahead and do the same inventory to see how extreme I am, but I’m going to also explain the what and why of each point, how I got there and what makes me believe the way I do. That’s something Mr. Pavlovitz doesn’t do and I wish he did. But I believe if he got into the nuts and bolts of each item on his list he’d soon find himself well beyond the middle and it would ruin the entire thesis. How do I come to this conclusion? Read his other writings…

So let’s compare Mr. Pavlovitz’ “extremism screening list” with mine.

John: I believe in full LGBTQ rights.
Me: I believe in basic human rights. I don’t subscribe to the idea that different groups of people have different rights or more rights or less rights than any other. I believe every human being has a right to life, liberty (freedom to choose their life path), and the pursuit of personal happiness under the rule of law. I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcomes.

John: I believe we should protect the planet.
Me: I believe we should be responsible stewards of the planet and all it provides. I’m certain we have very different ideas about what that means and how that can and should be achieved. We probably agree that people have and do exploit this planet’s resources and far too much is wasted and misused.

John: I believe everyone deserves healthcare.
Me: I believe everyone should have access to healthcare. I do not subscribe to government run healthcare. There are better and far more efficient alternatives and they must be made available in the marketplace preferably at the community level. Health-share programs are providing a glimpse into how that might work. A public safety net for those who are truly unable to afford or provide for their own healthcare is a must but not how we currently fund and operate it. For any system like this to work it requires a high level of integrity and honesty amongst the populace. That’s just one reason our current system is broken. 

John: I believe all religions are equally valid.
Me: Valid is an interesting term to use here. Validity doesn’t necessarily equate goodness for humanity. I believe any religion that teaches love and respect for all people, service to others, self-restraint, self-reliance, chastity, temperance, charity, humility, kindness, patience, diligence, et al, brings good to all humanity and has value. Religions that violate free agency and seek to control adherents have no value in my opinion.

John: I believe the world is bigger than America.
Me: Yep, the world is big. But at this point in our development as human beings, national borders are still a reality and necessity. Until we stop dividing ourselves into tribes with hard ideological segments that’s not going to change. The wide spectrum of cultural and ideological differences in this big world require them. I am an American. I love my country. I will protect and defend my country from any who would harm it or the way of life we enjoy. I do not have ill will toward any other nation or people. I will make my country the best I can within my sphere of influence. I believe our constitution is an inspired document containing principles that, when followed, lead to greater happiness and prosperity for all people. We, as a nation and a people, aren’t doing that right now which has lead to the place where John is feeling squeezed.

John: I believe “pro-life” means to treasure all of it.
Me: I believe in the sanctity of human life at any and all stages of development. While I believe life is sacred, I believe the choices of those who willingly and knowingly take a life should have grave consequences up to and including paying for their crime with their own in certain cases and in accordance with our laws. I believe life begins in the womb. Once that life is created I believe we have a moral obligation to assure that human being has all the rights available to any of us and should be protected. I believe there are exceptions with regard to when an abortion is the right decision, which John appears to be couching, but those circumstances should be rare and few. 

John: I believe whiteness isn’t superior and it is not a baseline of humanity.
Me: This one tells me how far to one end of the spectrum John really is. I don’t know ANYONE, nor can I say I have ever met ANYONE who believes “whiteness” is superior. Do those people exist? Yes, we know they do because they’ve told us so. However, those who share John’s views would have you believe white supremacy is a massive problem by scale. It’s not. But they have convinced themselves that the election of Donald Trump is proof that half the people in this nation are white supremacists. Hence the need to make that statement in his list. NO SKIN COLOR is supreme. Such a radical view is a tiny minority in this country. See point one.

John: I believe we are all one interdependent community.
Me: Ideally yes, but language barriers, cultural differences, religious beliefs, and our propensity to judge each other makes harmony on a large scale sometimes difficult, but not impossible.

John: I believe people and places are made better by diversity.
Me: I believe if we lived by the golden rule, it wouldn’t matter what mix of ethnicity, culture, ideology, lifestyle, et al existed in our communities, places of employment, cities, states, or countries. We can and should be able to get along and work for the common good of everyone. Live and let live. However, diversity for diversity’s sake is a mistake and is counter productive. It creates an environment of preferential treatment which goes against human nature and the concept of fairness. This conclusion comes from people with much higher credentials, more academic placards, and greater influence than I.

John: I believe people shouldn’t be forced to abide by anyone else’s religion.
Me: No one should be forced to believe or live any religious tenet. I don’t believe anyone is. I believe this is an extreme Left view and is patently false. Just because religion and religious belief is around you and you are exposed to it doesn’t mean you are being forced to abide by it. In fact, we are seeing converse examples of this extreme view as the Left attempts to force people of faith to abandon or hide their religious beliefs so as not to “impose” upon those who don’t share them. They tend to twist the concept of separation of church and state into something none of the framers of our constitution ever said or imagined. Numerous court cases in recent memory validate this trend by secularists in society.

John: I believe non-American human beings have as much value as American ones.
Me: I absolutely agree. Until they come to America, break our laws, and/or threaten American lives in any way. Then they, by choice, devalue themselves and we must uphold and sustain our laws to protect our rights as citizens and the privileges citizenship has in our country. Others are welcome to come and enjoy the fruits of this nation. All I ask is that they do it legally, contribute while here, and be inclusive and welcoming to those unfamiliar with their unique cultures and ways and vice versa. I’ve lived in another country for an extended period of time. The non-Americans seem to understand this better than most Americans and expect the same behavior from us while living as guests in their countries.

John: I believe generosity is greater than greed, compassion better than contempt, and kindness superior to derision.
Me: All true. Now how do we get large scale adoption and practice of these important traits?

John: I believe there is enough in this world for everyone: enough food, enough money, enough room, enough care – if we unleash our creativity and unclench our fists.
Me: I believe there is tooI see this every day. I see people helping people, sharing their abundance, teaching principles of self-reliance which creates a “can do” attitude and magnifies self-confidence, but that’s not what gets the headlines. The headlines scream the opposite incessantly which leads many people to think that’s the norm. It’s not. But that’s how people tend to see it and for Liberals it seems to really spike the emotions. They seem to see the world only as reported on TV or in their Twitter feed. With emotions revved to maximum capacity the finger pointing begins and since they see themselves as “knowing better than you” they blame you, the ones who see the world differently and believe differently (more diversely), than they do. That almost seems contradictory to what they publicly say though doesn’t it? We agree on this point, but he seems to not see the forest for the trees.

Bottom line: Anyone can create a list of platitudes without explanation or detail to provide context or reveal intent and make it sound amazing, wonderful, and woke. But doing so doesn’t place you in a position of neutrality to say “see, I’m the middle. I’m in the place where everyone should strive to go.” I’m sorry but you don’t get to determine where the center is. Neither do I. That, in and of itself, is a journey of discovery and I believe always becomes self-evident at some point.

Frankly I’ve always seen those in the middle, the centrists, the moderates, to be little more than fence sitters. People with their finger in the air waiting for the popular winds of change push them toward a decision, or to take a position, or make a stand. If that is where you plant your flag, I’m sorry, but to me that’s just wishy washy and indecisive. Besides, walking or sitting in the middle of the road tends to get one run over.

When we dig down to find that bottom line, I believe Mr. Pavlovitz is trying to get to a place we all want to exist. One that is full of kindness, love, abundance, and void of envy, hatred, and poverty. The perceived difference for me and conservatives like me, is Mr. Pavlovitz and liberals like him think their way of getting there is the only way and if you’re not doing it their way, well, you’re just not educated enough or have the intellect to see how life really works. In fact, you may be relegated to something white and undesirable, measured only by how you vote or don’t…

Mr. Pavlovitz appears sanctimonious to some extent. But to him and those who share his views, I’m certain I’m the sanctimonious one.

Or maybe I’m just a “bitter, ignorant cretin, Trump-asslicking loser” as articulated by singer/songwriter Richard Marx on Twitter when I disagreed with one of his angry hostile profanity laced political tweets about the president. In fairness I started the feud. I’m not proud of the tweet that started it and in hindsight wish I hadn’t reacted the way I did. See what happens when we assume “we’re” right and “they’re” wrong?

I really do believe I want what Mr. Pavlovitz wants and what Mr. Marx (the singer not Karl) wants and what everyone in the giant middle section of the bell curve probably want too.

I sincerely do.

If our political, social, and ideological positions didn’t get in the way, we’d likely be a lot closer than we are.

Written by DCL

October 23, 2019 at 3:31 pm

Posted in Humanity, News, Politics