Mason Weaver was being interviewed by Trish Reagan. Weaver is a black man supporting Donald Trump for President. His responses to her leading questions about Trump being a bigot and racist were perfect.
Reagan started off the conversation by asking about the whole Harriet Tubman picture on the new $20 bill. "What good does it do me as a black man? How does it benefit me as a black man to have a black woman on the $20 bill? What has it done for me to have a black man in the White House? What does it do for me? I am here to compete in America, not to be predicated with symbols. I support Donald Trump because he wants to build a wall."
Weaver gets even more on point. When asked about claims that Trump won't help 'your community' Weaver was brutally honest and to the point. "What community? I don't live on a plantation. What Donald Trump will do with taxes will help black taxpayers and white taxpayers. What he will do for jobs will help black workers and white workers. I want Trump because of what he'll do for America."
Mason is absolutely correct. The duplicity of liberals is exposed in his statements. The left claims they are inclusive and welcoming to everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Sure, they claim to be, but their attitudes and policies tell us that they look down upon many of those groups. Their policies and statements tell us that they see minority groups as helpless, unable to succeed on their own, despite the numerous and continuous examples to the contrary.
The liberals continue to divide us into smaller and smaller groups, delineated by some demographic characteristic. There is no unity in divisiveness. There is only unity when we come together as Americans realizing that sound tax policy helps all Americans; that economic policies, including fair and equal trade policies, brings jobs back to America, which helps all Americans; that truly treating all people equally in the eyes of the law unites us rather than divides us.
But hey, the Democrats have been dividing us for decades. How have their policies helped to bring the black community out of poverty? Poverty that they created with the legislation and policies they said were designed to help minority populations. How does sticking the picture of a black, Republican woman on the $20 bill do anything to help solve the woes of any Americans? How many people are going to get jobs because Harriet Tubman is on a piece of paper?
Doesn't really matter to the liberal because now they can sit in their coffee house telling each other how much they've done to help the black community while they listen to some bearded, unkempt poet recite verses about his vegan bicycle.
This list has been around for a while but it's worth revisiting. The 12 reasons to vote for the Democrat party candidates:
1. I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. My Labrador and I are getting hitched next Saturday.
2. I believe Oil company profits of 4% a gallon are obscene but the 15% tax by the government on the same gallon of gas isn't.
3. I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
4. Freedom of speech is fine as long as I agree with what is said and nobody else is offended by it.
5. I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
6. I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Saturday can tell us the at the polar ice caps will melt away in 10 years if I don't start driving a Prius.
7. I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted as long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
8. I think illegal aliens have a right to free healthcare, education, and social security benefits; and we should take away social security benefits from those who paid into the system.
9. I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as some bureaucrat sees fit.
10. I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe group who can't get their agenda past the voters.
11. I think that it's better to pay billions of dollars to people who hate us rather than drilling our own oil because it might upset some endangered beetles, gopher, or fish.
12. I voted for Democrats because my head is so firmly misplaced toward the south end of my body that it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.
No trees, spotted owls, fish, or wolves were harmed in the creation and distribution of this message.
Californians have been under water restrictions for quite some time now. Recently they've gotten some rain and in some places, reservoirs are starting to fill up. But the water restrictions are still in place because there is still a lack of water. Yet, a homeowner's association in central California is now threatening to fine residents if their lawns are brown or plants are dying. This is a high dollar neighborhood and the concern is that the lack of beautiful, lush, green, lawns is hurting home values. The association has decided to make their fine larger than the fine homeowners receive if they are caught watering their lawns. Way to pitch in and help everyone.
It's interesting that Obama is once again going to visit another head of state. Saudi Arabia this time, trying to get Saudi Arabia to not sell off our bonds they own. He'll cow tow to them, bend at the waist and kiss the King's ring. Why is it that he's so afraid of being seen as protective of America? Why not just tell Saudi Arabia that if they would stop supporting terrorism, they wouldn't have to be afraid of what's in the 9/11 report? Why not tell them that we're growing less dependent upon their oil, whether it's because we have our own oil or it's because we are going solar/wind? We really hold more cards in this hand than Obama wants to admit, but then again he doesn't like America having any power and wants to take us down a notch, so he's acting all subservient.
So many Trump supporters are screaming about the election system being rigged, simple because Trump didn't win in Colorado or Wyoming. Why not scream about the states that have winner take all elections? If you are truly all about listening to the will of the people and being a true democracy, why aren't the delegates split between candidates based upon their percentage of the vote? Oh, that's right, because you won a lot of those states.
Many of you want fairness in the income tax system, but 43 Americans don't pay any income tax and some get money back even though they didn't pay it into the system. How is that fair?
For you closed minded liberals, let's be clear on one thing, I am not dismissing solar energy in total. In fact, I'd love to put solar panels on my house but right now the costs are prohibitive for most middle class consumers; for reasons we've talked about before and won't go into here. But it's clear that large scale alternative energy 'solutions' are not yet ready for prime time. Two more tax payer funded/supported solar energy companies are going under and either have or will declare bankruptcy.
Sun Edison and Abengoa have not been able to meet production demands or estimates and can't produce the energy for a reasonable, competitive price. In fact, 5 of the top 6 solar energy producing companies in the U.S. have lost half of their value in the first 3 months of 2016. It's simple economics, none of these companies have been able to mass produce solar energy as a viable alternative to cheap and efficient fossil fuel generated energy. Investors don't like that in any company and have been selling off their stock.
Abengoa is typical of the problem. They declared bankruptcy in November of last year and now they are selling off their assets including 5 photo voltaic solar power plants around the world. The move is designed to try and get enough cash for Abengoa to help them pay down their debt and restructure into a more viable company. The problem is, technology has not yet caught up with our desire to have mass produced solar energy that is low cost and efficient to transmit over long distances. And in part because of government subsidies, costs of building plants are artificially high, which means smaller, regional type plants are economically feasible.
Abengoa was the second largest recipient of government largesse under Obama's multi-billion dollar bet on renewable energy behind only Solyndra; another company that went belly up. Back in November when Abengoa declared bankruptcy, the Washington Times reported the company had received $2.7 billion in loan guarantees from the Obama administration. Townhall.com reported that the amount was $2.8 billion in a combination of loan guarantees and grants. Either way, we, the American taxpayer got stuck with paying off debt and losing grant money in a scheme that was sure to fail. Even at best, if the company had been able to produce viable energy, the cost would not have been competitive.
Essentially we paid to have a company sell us something we really need at a higher price that what the market wanted to sell it for previously. That just makes a ton of economic sense. But as Governor Moonbeam stated, it's not about making economic sense, it's about meeting social or environmental goals.
Earlier this week Senator Barbara Boxer verbally attacked Father Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest and member of the conservative Action Institute. His crime in her eyes was that he disagreed with the Pope about man caused global warming. Bill Nye said he would be in favor of jailing anyone who disagreed with the 'scientific consensus' regarding climate change. (Doesn't that go against scientific methods?)
But now even NASA has to admit their claims about climate change are not being born out by the facts. Once again, NASA's data shows that Antarctica is not only not shrinking, but it's growing. Even worse for them, the increasing size of Antarctica is reducing sea levels by .23 mm a year.
This comes on top of reports that the Earth's temperature is not even increasing but it's actually cooling. What is a governmental agency, who's mission has been changed to combating global warming supposed to do? Maybe they'll focus full time on educating us on the contribution of Islam to the space program.
The IPCC recently put out another report that said the ice mass in Antarctica is slowly melting and causing increasing ocean levels that will kill the human race by not only reducing land masses around the world, due to higher sea levels, but also contribute to the mental health issues that cause global terrorism.
Makes you wonder what scientific data the IPCC is using to support their claims? Oh, that's right, they've made up data before to support their claims and get more grant money. Facts, schmacts.
It seems that every state trying to protect the idea of having separate bathroom and locker room facilities for men and women is suffering the typical liberal smear campaign. Bigotry, discrimination, uncaring; all the usual buzz words are being used. Any argument against having shared facilities is ridiculed and derided. But as usual, we were right.
I was listening to a talk show late one night this week. I cannot for the life of me remember who the host was but he had a pastor from a United Methodist Church on his show. This pastor was supporting the gender neutral bathroom idea and said any state passing a law requiring separate facilities was backwards, reacting unnecessarily to fear, and so on.
As I gathered from the interview, this pastor is from the NE, was admittedly liberal, and had been asked to testify in support of gender neutral, LGBT, and other oppressed class issues. He's the 'religious expert' who tells liberals that the rest of the Christian religion is bigoted and wrong.
One of his biggest points was that not once, NOT ONCE I SAY!, has there been an incident of a male pervert going into a shared locker room or rest room doing anything inappropriate. It just hasn't happened and was a false argument used by the right to oppose equal access for people who identify as another gender or no gender. Really? Not once, huh?
The University of Toronto made the decision to do the 'right thing' and made all shower facilities at coed dorms, gender neutral. Unisex bathrooms and show facilities were established at Whitney Hall. It was going to be a great example of non-biased, all inclusive policies that would usher in a new era of good feelings. Yeah, about that.
With the school year starting in mid-August it didn't take long for some enterprising young men to take advantage of the situation. On Sept. 15 and again on the 19th, campus police were called to one of the shower facilities in Whitney Hall. There they were told by 2 coeds that they had been showering and looked up to see someone holding a camera phone over the shower stall and video taping or taking photos of the girls showering.
As such, the University has decided that they are going to identify a couple of shower and bathroom facilities as gender specific, for now, until they figure out a solution. There will still be gender neutral facilities, but I'm sure the usage of those will be 99% guys and a couple of girls who can't wait in line at the women's bathroom.
Of course students were told that this type of thing wasn't going to happen, despite concerns from students themselves, who know that kids these days video tape everything they do. The administration down played the idea that privacy would be non-existent because of course kids these days attend classes telling them that everyone is equal and is entitled to safe zones and private space and respect and blah, blah, blah.
OK, liberals will say, 2 incidents in the thousands of encounters in gender neutral facilities. No, you can find many more stories about these types of things; you also have to ask, how many times were girls video taped and the pervs didn't get caught?
Donald Trump has tapped into the frustration that many Americans have with the establishment elite in the Republican party; the same old games are no longer playing well with the electorate. Honestly, so has Bernie on the other side of the aisle. His blunt talk has captured the feelings of many in the country and recent events in the Colorado primary have fueled more of the popular opinion. But are things there really as they seem? Not quite.
The basic problem that most people have with the Colorado GOP is that they are 'ignoring' the will of the people and putting that election into the hands of the politicos. Yes, they did that to an extent. Trump has complained that he basically got screwed again and blamed Ted Cruz along with the establishment GOP. People don't like the notion that their voices weren't heard when the party decided to not have a primary or caucus and let political officials choose the delegates. Many have said it's not true to the democratic process. But we aren't a democracy, we are federal republic.
In a federal republic, we elect people to make the decisions for us, not to do exactly what we tell them, so the process in Colorado, while unappetizing to many, is more true to our form of governance that people realize. And the rules for the CO selection of delegates were changed in August of last year. Apparently not too many people were paying attention back then, including the Trump campaign staff.
You see, CO GOP leaders changed the rules to help out Jeb Bush, not Trump or Cruz. They wanted to back an establishment candidate and did not want Trump or Ted Cruz for that matter. They would have taken Marco Rubio over either of them. But one little problem that they didn't see coming, much like the national party elitists; Bush and Rubio are out of the race because they couldn't figure out soon enough how angry the party members are about politics as usual. I would bet that the GOP really preferred John Kasich to Cruz, but giving him the delegates wouldn't do as much to stop Trump as they wanted so the CO party had to bite their collective tongues, hold their breath and give their delegates to Cruz.
Trump of course is calling foul and saying he got cheated, even blaming Cruz for the whole deal and calling on him to denounce the delegates. Trump may have gotten screwed but not by the Colorado party; he got screwed by his campaign staff. You see, the RNC sends out a book to each campaign outlining the delegation selection process in each state. Trump's campaign knew about the deal way back in August and certainly in October when the book was sent to each campaign. They either ignored the book or decided they couldn't win or maybe they thought The Donald would win just by showing up in the state one time.
Cruz on the other hand played the game by the rules the state party set out. His campaign focused their efforts on wooing the party officials that had votes. You may not like the rules but if those are the rules of the game, then you play by them if you want to win. Cruz wants to win. Trump wants to whine about being cheated. Maybe that's why Cruz has won four in a row.
The way the Colorado GOP chose their delegates isn't the way most people want it done. But as usual the rank and file in CO were like many across the country, watching football rather than paying attention to the process. The rank and file in Colorado could have complained back in August but they didn't, they were too worried about Peyton Manning's health and whether or not Brock Oswiler could keep the Broncos in the playoff hunt. Trump hasn't evolved as a campaign enough to realize his force of personality isn't going to get him the win all the time, you have to focus your campaign efforts on the people who really have a vote, he didn't. That's his fault and no one else's.
We have rental properties and have for over 10 years. Like any business you get good customers and you get bad customers. It's hard to tell sometimes but there are some common indicators that tell you not to rent to someone. Generally, if there is a question, we try to give the potential tenant the benefit of the doubt. There are some things that you learn, like background checks are important; now the Obama administration wants to take that away because it's, of course, discriminatory.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is considering a new regulation or interpretation of current law, that will make it illegal to refuse to rent to those with criminal backgrounds. Even though the Fair Housing Act doesn't identify criminals as a protected class, HUD is saying that refusing an application based upon criminal history is a form of racial discrimination, due to racial imbalances in the U.S. justice system.
“The Fair Housing Act prohibits both intentional housing discrimination and housing practices that have an unjustified discriminatory effect because of race, national origin, or other protected characteristics,” say HUD’s newly-released guidelines. “Because of widespread racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal history-based restrictions on access to housing are likely disproportionately to burden African-Americans and Hispanics. While the Act does not prohibit housing providers from appropriately considering criminal history information when making housing decisions, arbitrary and overbroad criminal history-related bans are likely to lack a legally sufficient justification.”
Now that sounds all well and good, but who decides what is arbitrary and over broad? HUD officials of course. And as we know from experience in working with any government agency, the definitions of specific terms are a moving target. Speaking to the National Low Income Housing Coalition on Monday, HUD Secretary Julian Castro said that because you've been arrested shouldn't bar you from renting a home. In order to bar someone from renting, you must prove that it's for the safety of other tenants; but what if you rent single family dwellings? Does the safety of neighbors come into consideration?
There is only one specific exception to the rule; those convicted of manufacturing or distributing illegal drugs. Why not sex offenders too? So if I decide that someone with a history of burglary or assault, maybe 2 or 3 convictions, is not eligible, because I want to protect my property and/or the neighbors, I now have to consider whether or not I'll be accused of unfair discrimination and could potentially lose my property because I don't have the cash to pay the fine.
You know about the law of unintended consequences: in this case, that means that we have to consider not renting to HUD applicants. Which is too bad because we currently have 2 properties rented, long term, to HUD recipients and they've been good tenants. Then of course, when the supply of rentals for HUD recipients begins to shrink, the feds will begin to mandate that landlords dedicate a specific percentage of their rentals to HUD or low income tenants. We've seen it happen in the mortgage lending market and how that turned out. What will happen is that the 'mom & pop' landlords will be driven out of the business and large companies who can afford to spread losses and hire attorneys will take over the business.
The reasoning behind this rule is because the justice system is unfairly imbalanced with a disproportionate number of minorities in prison or jail. Well who's running that justice system? If the system is truly racially discriminatory and minorities are being unfairly convicted, who's fault is that? Why not fix that system since you're in charge of it?
The truth is that the vast majority of landlords will rent to those with some criminal history; we generally look at the type of offense, how long ago it was, and we talk to the person to get to know them a little bit. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well. If large corporations take over, they'll implement impersonal rules that can't be bent or won't make exceptions. Seems to me that guarantees fewer people will be able to rent.
So what it's really doing is punishing not only property owners, who are using rentals as a source of income and retirement funding; but also those who have fallen on hard times and need help. Typical government meddling.
Glorious Leader wasn't pulling a prank when he said on April 1st that Iran was living up to it's end of the nuclear 'we can't call it a treaty' pact he made with Iran. Despite Iran still supplying Hezbollah with weapons, testing banned missiles, and doing pretty much anything it wants. Yes he did say that Iran needs to send better signals about it's intent to quit doing these things but he's not withholding any aid and in fact he's going to give them more just to reward them for something.
In fact, he is going to allow Iran to gain access to more U.S. dollars because the $150 billion we've already given them, by them I mean the big six, hasn't had an immediate positive impact on the Iranian economy. That proves that he still doesn't have a clue about economic practice or foreign policy. You can't pull any economy out of several decades worth of mismanagement in a few months or without a complete change of philosophy. Neither can you believe that Iran is spending that influx of capital on economic growth as opposed to military growth.
While Iran continues to flaunt the terms of the agreement, there is one thing that is continually swept under the rug by Obama and the media; Iran has never signed the deal. Not the real powers that be. It was agreed to by President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, not by the Grand poobah Ayatollah Ali Khamenei nor the Revolutionary Guard. Without their support, the deal will never be ratified by Iran nor will they abide by the terms of the agreement, but Obama continues to live in his fantasy world; either he really believes that the trust and good will he exhibits will change the behavior of the Iranian government or he's working to build them up and destroy the West.
According to most sources, Iran is using the money that has been given to them to fund the very projects that were supposed to end under the terms of the agreement. Fully 50% of the new influx of capital is being diverted to items termed 'defense', which means the nuclear and missile development programs. Also some of that money is going to Iran's overseas military operations including funding Hezbollah with more and better weapons, subsidizing the Syrian rebels, funding new terror organizations operating in the Sinai Peninsula specifically to attack Israel and the moderate, pro-West government in Egypt.
In fact, word from inside Iran is that Obama's waffling and capitulation has virtually destroyed the opposition reformists inside Iran. Remember, Rouhani was seen as a 'moderate' and was part of the opposition to the Ayatollah, as much as you can call them an opposition party. Now the Ayatollah has begun to ramp up the rhetoric about dissolving any opposition parties and groups. Way to go Obama. Is that what you wanted? Many of us are beginning to entertain the thought.
There is a new report about climate change, formerly known as global warming, that is designed to scare the bejeezus out of ignorant people. Of course that then leads to more political 'action' and money being thrown at the pseudo-scientists studying man caused climate change.
To make the story short, certain scientists are claiming that a huge sheet of ice in the Antarctic could break off and or melt by the year 2100. Of course the ocean levels will rise by anywhere from 1' to 12' causing all kinds of havoc, death, disease, and... you know the deal. The ice sheet is the size of Mexico and is apparently much more sensitive to very small changes in temperature as well as pollution than these climate alarmists thought previously.
This story is of course being played out across all of the normal liberal media outlets as if it's gospel and certain to happen. In one fish wrap, online, the comments section was varied as far as those who believed and didn't believe what the authors were saying. One response in particular caught my attention because is encompassed many of the arguments the gullible public latches on to and whines about.
As climate models have been getting more accurate, they have been consistently forecasting that the effects of climate change will be worse and happen more quickly than previously thought.
Even if a few studies go against this trend, the overall scenario is getting grimmer. What many people do not understand is that climate change is dynamic - complex feedback systems mean that the effects of climate change such as rising sea levels, droughts, stronger hurricanes, heat waves (and cold waves), greater extremes of weather, etc. will continue long after we decrease the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere . At some point, humans lose all control over the process and the resulting changes will be too large for "mitigation" to have much of an effect. It is no comfort that before we reach that point wars over food and drinkable water will create global disorder. We have less than 10 years to do something about this.
First of all, the 'few studies' are somewhere in the range of 650+ peer reviewed and published studies over the last 2-2 1/2 years. That clearly says the science of man caused global warming is far from being settled. In fact you can make a very strong and convincing argument that the alarmists are dead wrong. The author of the comment says we have less than 10 years to act; isn't that what we heard from these people in the 70's when it was global cooling? Then when Al Gore and his movie stars latched on to global warming, it was 10-15 years before the coast lines were under water. Well, here we are and the coastlines are still there.
But I also want to point out that the commenter said that at "some point, humans lose all control over the process..." Really? When have we had any control over climate change? We put so much less carbon and pollution into the atmosphere than we did 30 years ago or especially 125 years ago when everyone was burning coal, coal oil, kerosene, wood, and whale oil for light, heat, and manufacturing. It didn't change the climate one bit. We can't change the climate; we can change pollution but that's a different argument: sometimes I think a lot of lay people equate pollution with climate change.
We cannot mitigate the changes the Earth is going through because we don't, for example, put more than .01% of all the so called greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Volcanoes put thousands of times more carbon dioxide into the air than we do. We as a species have never had control over the climate or the weather. If we did, don't you think some liberal snake oil salesman would have been selling the idea to drought stricken Californians? In a heart beat.
Simply, this report is just designed to create more panic and keep the money flowing. Too many people, for the alarmists' liking, are waking up to the idea that all of this global warming/climate change crap is just that, crap. They are seeing what's going on in our world and know that the Earth is not warming; it's all just part of the natural cycle that has been going on for millennia.