Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico

22May/170

Diversity of opinion? Really?

It never ends. Democrats on the Senate finance committee were hearing testimony about tax reform proposals and thought there were some very good ideas from the five people who testified. However every one of them said that was not enough ethnic diversity among the five witnesses. One senator said there were not enough African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, or women on the witness list. The same senator said that he thought there were some very good ideas spanning some broad viewpoints. But then immediately said that because of the lack of diversity in the ethnic and gender areas of the witness list that there really was not true diversity of opinion.

So once again the liberals are showing you what they truly believe as opposed to what they say. Those senators believe that if you have a certain skin color or gender that you must agree on every issue. They don’t really want a diversity of opinion they just want to look at the panel and say there are people that look different so there must be diversity. Never mind that Maxine Waters and Condoleezza Rice, both African-American females, hold philosophically diverse opinions on almost every issue. Never mind that George Soros and Arthur Laffer hold significantly different viewpoints on economic issues. Yet both are white men. Apparently words don’t mean anything it’s only the demographic characteristic that’s important.

Here are a couple of facts about this situation: the Democrats had equal input into the witness list and who could be called to give testimony. If they had truly wanted to see ethnic or gender diversity, they could have provided it. However once again they manipulated the situation so they could grandstand during their opportunities to speak. This was organized prior to the hearing by the Democrats to try and embarrass the Republican majority.

Let’s not forget that tax reform will benefit all of us, regardless of the color of our skin, or sexual orientation, or gender. I have not seen anyone put forth a tax reform bill that provides benefits only to certain that is that these or other demographic groups. It’s all based upon income without regard for any demographic characteristic.

While we are at it, let’s talk about this whole identity politics movement. We as a country and a society have made a great deal of progress in civil rights over the past 50 years fighting primarily against the Democrat party who have tried to stall the march towards equality. Remember it was them who put in place all of the Jim Crow laws and other laws that promoted and allowed segregation and racism. Why aren’t the people pushing for a quality celebrating how far we have come as opposed to continuing with this victim mentality?

And if we really have not made progress as they claim, we have been following their tactics and their plan to achieve racial equality for three or more decades. If it’s not working then let’s try something new to improve the status of race relations and the standing of minorities in America. Once again it just shows you that it’s more about having power as opposed to achieving a true goal.

15Mar/170

Poor little snowflakes

our society is not doing a very good job of raising our children. Now this is a complicated issue that I'm going to blame parents not necessarily for doing the wrong thing in their day to day lives in raising their kids but allowing the government and especially our schools to not only indoctrinate our children but to raise a generation, probably multiple generations, of children who are afraid to do anything because they might get hurt: whether that be physically or emotionally.

Gold Ridge elementary school in Folsom, California is just the latest in a very long string of schools that is molly coddling our children. The school's principal sent home a letter recently telling parents that children will no longer be allowed to play tag on school time or property. So when recess comes around any child being caught playing tag will be disciplined; I'm sure that discipline will escalate each subsequent time a child is caught playing this dangerous game. And that's exactly the reason for them banning the game of tag from school grounds. It's too dangerous and children get hurt.

This comes not too long after the same school band touch football because, once again, children could get hurt. It's a dangerous dangerous game that could result not only in physical harm to children but if there are children who are not as physically gifted as others they can suffer emotional trauma as well. Maybe it's because they are getting picked last or maybe it's because they aren't given the football to run or throw or catch. What? Do they not have safe spaces?

So now what we are telling kids is that they should go back to their cell phones and play video games, text their friends, or search for Pokémon. What happened to the way we were raised? Is it any wonder that kids today are physically inept and more sickly than they used to be? Teachers used to tell us to go rub some dirt on it and get back in there. Sometimes it was a significant injury and they took us to the nurse but nobody freaked out over it by telling everyone else that you cannot play because one little snowflake got hurt.

I remember a time in elementary school, I think I was in the fourth grade and our outdoor basketball courts were built on a slope. That meant that one and had to be built up about 2 1/2 to 3 feet in order to make it level. One day I ran to Harvard and as I was about to fall off the raised and, I grabbed the pole that held the backboard it spun me around and as I fell I scratched my stomach from the belt line all the way up my chest. It was a nice scrape but there was really no bleeding. I do remember kind of losing my breath. The teacher on duty at the time came over pulled up my shirt saw that it was no big deal and told me to go back to playing basketball. When I got home I showed my mom and she had no problem with how it was handled. I'm sure many of you had similar situations that were dealt with the same way and guess what the world did not end.

1Mar/170

Random thoughts and observations

it seems that we are experiencing a time in our country when liberal hypocrisy is being featured not only in their words but their actions as well. Don't get me wrong, liberal hypocrisy has always been on display but when you add the level of emotion that liberals are experiencing right now they tend to lose what little ability to think rationally that they may have had before. Many of you probably have not been aware of what is going on with the New York Knicks of the NBA. The Hall of Fame coach, Phil Jackson, was hired by the team to be the general manager and president of basketball operations. By all accounts he has done a terrible job. He is trying to get rid of their best player by humiliating him in public, he is hired a coach that does not like to run the offense that Phil made famous and requires him now to run that offense. He has done everything that he hated in a general manager when he was a coach. But I was listening to Stephen A Smith and a couple of other pundits and they opined that Phil is doing everything he can to get fired. Because if he's fired collects the remaining $24 million due him on his contract. If he quits, he doesn't get that money. It was an interesting observation and these commentators didn't seem to have a problem with it. But I have heard them opined before about corporate CEOs who are given a golden parachute. They have become outraged that someone who is not performing to expectations could be given tens of millions of dollars in severance pay. That's exactly what Phil is doing, protecting his "golden parachute". Once again it seems that when it comes to celebrities in the sports or movie world, those with liberal tendencies cut them a lot of slack and hold corporate executives to a different standard.

I was listening to a comedy channel on XM radio and the show that was on was basically a talk show. Touching a little bit on various topics including comedians but also political satire. The host said something about midgets. A guest berated him for using the word midget because that's not politically correct and is offensive to midgets. But Ralphie May, a well-known comedian, has a great take on midgets or rather the word midget. He says that the politically acceptable term of "little people" is too broad and not specific enough. If you say "little people", you could be talking about a kid or a short person. Maybe you are talking about a dwarf or a midget but how can you be sure? When you say "midget" everyone knows exactly what you are talking about. Plus midgets are grown people that said that the little kids table at Thanksgiving patient with the adults. The little people, the kids, said that the Broken down card table in the living room. I just thought it was a good point.

You really have to be biased and close minded or unbelievably ignorant to think that the mainstream media is treating Pres. Trump fairly and what stories they report. Earlier this week Pres. Trump held a meeting with the presidents of a number of traditionally black universities and colleges. He wanted to get their input on what needs to be done to help more minority children attend college, if they want to. He also discussed increasing the availability of financial aid for anyone wanting to attend trade schools as well. A picture of the group in the oval office was released. Instead of talking about the important things discussed in the meeting, the press picked up on the fact that Kelly Anne Conway was sitting on the couch with her legs folded underneath her. The media felt it was more important to point out that she was disrespecting the office rather than the discussion taking place between Pres. Trump and the university presidents. And once again the group that met with Pres. Trump was very complementary not only about his ideas but about the fact that he genuinely listen to them and understood their point of view. They are optimistic that not only does he really want to solve problems but he wants them included in the solution. This has happened in virtually every meeting Pres. Trump has held with anyone yet you do not hear that in the mainstream media.

On Tuesday of this week a representative from Congressman Steve Pearce's office was in Silver City to hold their monthly meeting at the Chamber of Commerce. This is a meeting that is generally used for constituents to request help or express opinions in a one-on-one format. Often it is veterans who need assistance in some way shape or form they come to speak to Congressman Pearce's representative. This week a group of people exercise their First Amendment right and formed a protest outside of the building. In some of the emails that were sent to me by the organizers it was inferred and stated in one case that they should force their way into the building and demand to be heard. First of all they would not have had to force their way in as Congressman Steve Pearce will listen to any of his constituents. Secondly the protesters occupied private property without seeking permission from the property owner. But what was really interesting was a conversation I heard later between a participant and one of his acquaintances that did not attend the protest. The nonparticipant was very excited by the turnout and believes that the progressives are regaining the momentum and will really change things back from the destructive actions of Pres. Trump. Just more proof that liberals live in a fantasy world.

22Feb/170

Liberal Hypocrisy – George Clooney edition

George Clooney is one heck of an actor; that doesn't mean that he's super smart, super knowledgeable, or that he's more insightful or aware of world events than anyone else. He's just a very successful actor. But that doesn't stop him from expressing his opinion on a number of topics, especially political or world events. Don't get me wrong, he has every right to do so and should; good for him. But isn't it amazing how so many leftists hang on his every word (or many celebrities for that matter)? Despite hating the rich in general, leftists adore celebrities despite many of them being super rich.

Clooney and his wife, Amal, have been very critical of President Trump's attempt to place a temporary ban on immigration from 7 countries identified by the Obama administration as supporting terrorism against the United States. It doesn't seem to matter that Amal is a human rights lawyer and can easily read the law and should know that any president has the right and obligation to do what Trump did. But they've called Trump racist for trying to institute a temporary halt to immigration; just like every other uninformed or lying liberal.

But now it seems that the Clooney duo may be having a change of heart. Amal is pregnant with twins. She and George have regularly traveled to some of the countries on the list, Iraq and The Sudan for example. Amal has traveled to those locations in the course of her work and George in his humanitarian efforts. Both of them should be lauded for that work and their willingness to go to those countries. But now that she's pregnant, they don't think it's a good idea for her to travel 'dangerous countries' and put their future children in harm's way. Sounds like a good decision to me but why the change in opinion? Maybe because it's their future family that's in danger and not our families? Maybe it hits close to home now?

That's usually what liberals practice; it's OK to bring potentially dangerous people into our neighborhoods and put our children at risk but never, ever put themselves or their families at risk. And I wonder, do they support the Planned Parenthood view (aka the liberal view) of unborn children? That until the child is born, it's not a viable human being with rights? If so, then what are they worried about? If Amal is attacked and they lose the unborn babies, what's the big deal, these weren't 'viable' human beings according to the leftist view.

Now of course, not everyone in those countries is a bad person intent upon harming Westerners in general or the Clooney's in particular but why take the chance? They don't have an ability to screen out people who might want to do them harm so why take a chance by putting themselves in a dangerous situation? Kind of the same thing that we want to do for our families...

24Jan/170

Democrats Hold a Forum: white people are the problem

I would bet that even the most dedicated political junkie did not realize that the Democrat party held a forum for the candidates desirous of becoming the chair of the party to express their views. The forum was held Monday night and was supposedly geared to discuss what went wrong in 2016 and how to get their party back on track. What became evident quickly is that it was the problem caused by white people. Specifically, consultants or consulting firms that are either white or owned by white people.

As the current chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, Jamie Harrison, put it, "we have to stop, particularly with the consultants. You cannot come to the DNC and get a contract and the only minority face you have is the person answering the phone." Fox news consultant Jehmu Greene, said, "minority consultants need to get the same resources that the white consultants have gotten. The DNC did in his poor, pathetic job attracting minorities she said. Really? While they got fewer votes from minority groups than they normally do they still got the overwhelming majority of votes from those constituencies. Maybe they should be looking at how their policies affected those groups and why they finally woke up to realize it was the Democrats who have been in charge for the last 50 years.

Sally Boynton Brown, who happens to be white and director of Idaho's Democratic Party opined that the Democratic Party needs to provide training that focuses in part on teaching Americans how to be sensitive in how to shut their mouths if they are white.

Each of the candidates said that the Democratic Party must embrace completely and unapologetically the Black Lives Matter movement. Sally Boynton Brown said that she was saddened that they were even having this conversation about BLM. She felt it was her position to sit down and listen without speaking, to tell other people to shut up and then to tell them what she heard from the activists.

If you really believe that when people are the problem than where you running for the chair of the DNC? Shouldn't you let the minority have that position simply because of the color of their skin? After all you agree that the color of your skin is the real problem.

19Jan/170

Back with some random thoughts and observations

it was unintentional but we have not posted for a while for a lot of reasons. But we are back after having some time to drive around Southwest New Mexico contemplate what I was hearing on the radio and come up with some observations and of course opinions.

I listened to a good portion of Obama's final press conference (Yahoo!) And it is very clear that he lives in a fantasy world. All of his comments about how great the economy is how much better America is because of him being president and all that egotistical bull crap that he likes to spout about himself. One thing that was very clear is that the press representatives in the room idolize him and never asked him tough questions about the deficit, the increase in terrorism, or any of the reality that we live with every day. But one thing struck me more than everything else about his statements; that was his claim that race relations in America are so much better now than when he took office. Of course he said there is some work to do but things are so much better and he is so hopeful because among our young people they are much more tolerant and understanding and less likely to judge people based upon the color of their skin or some other demographic characteristic. What a load of crap. How many times have we seen college students hold a rally to keep white people from entering certain areas? How many safe zones do we have in college campuses where you cannot say the word Trump or other words that might be offensive to their little ears? There are places where white kids are not allowed so that black kids or those practicing the Islamic religion can go to be by themselves, heaven forbid that one of the excluded groups enters their safe space, that person is likely to be verbally assaulted if not physically assaulted. We can go on with the examples of the tolerance that our young people are showing in the acceptance of others, damn I need a sarcasm font. We are raising some of the most intolerant kids because of what they are being taught in college and for president Obama to say anything else means he is totally ignorant or is a liar. Hell, he might even be both.

Mark Lamont Hill is a professor at some school teaching race history or tolerance or something like that. He's probably one of those people responsible for safe places where black kids can go and not be exposed to white people. But he's making news because of what he said about comedian and television host, Steve Harvey. Harvey is an activist in addition to his professional gigs. He often talks about issues facing black communities. He was invited to meet with Donald Trump this week and like other black activists who have met with Mr. Trump, he came away believing that the president elect is serious about addressing the issues facing many of our inner city citizens. Mr. Hill is not impressed with Steve Harvey, Jim Brown, Ray Lewis, or any of the other black activists who have met with Donald Trump. Mr. Hill says that Steve Harvey is a "mediocre Negro". He states that Harvey is not really an activist for his race, especially because he is successful and is thus not a good example of what black people face in this world. In fact he doesn't like any of the successful black people talking about race issues that face the average black person in America, according to Mr. Hill. Never mind that many of these successful black Americans came from impoverished backgrounds; never mind that they overcame many of the obstacles that Mr. Hill claims to be an expert on, never mind that their experiences could serve as a shining example for everyone, not just black youth. But can you imagine if a conservative or a white person used the phrase "mediocre Negro"? There would because for that person to be strung up from the nearest tree, for them to lose everything that they had ever built or gained or earned, and for them to be banished from public life forever. Maybe Mr. Hill should get out in the real world and try to understand that you do not have to be a professor to be a leader in any movement, that practical experience can make you a leader in your community.

I have a new definition for Metro sexual: gay in the streets, straight in the sheets.

I listened to portions of the four confirmation hearings being conducted by the Senate this week. Nikki Haley is the nominee for ambassador to the United Nations. One of the Senators, and I did not catch his name as I came in to the hearing midstream, was asking how ambassadors select Haley thought the United States should deal with the United Nations. The gist of the overly long question was did Nikki Haley believe that the United States should pull out of the United Nations altogether? Mrs. Haley said that there were certainly grave concerns about the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations as currently formed. She also expressed concerns about the fact that the United States pays approximately one quarter of the operating budget for the United Nations, yet that the body continually works against the best interest of the United States and its allies. I thought it was interesting to note that we are still the primary funding nation for the United Nations. When Obama took office he said that the United States cannot be the sole leader of the world that we must take our "rightful place" alongside the other nations of the world rather than out front. So wouldn't that mean that every nation that is a member of the United Nations should be paying their fair share of the operating costs? Yet not one nation even comes close to supporting the United Nations monetarily compared to what the United States pays. Shouldn't Russia, England, France, or Germany be paying as much as we are?

I was listening to some of the Democrats in the Senate question Dr. Tom Price, president elect Trump's nominee for health and human services director, and they were talking about the repeal of Obamacare. One of the Senators asked if the plan that would be put forth to replace Obama care would insure or guarantee that all Americans would have insurance coverage. She opined that any replacement for the current affordable care act would leave so many Americans out in the cold without access to healthcare. First of all, there is no problem with anyone having access to healthcare. It is typical of the liberals to skew the argument to make it seem like people are going to die if the current plan is scrapped. The simple fact is that Obama care and any other similar program is not about healthcare but paying for healthcare. That aside, if making sure that all Americans have coverage is a goal for the Democrats then why do so many Americans not have coverage now? How is it that the affordable care act that they authored and shoved down our throats took health insurance away from so many American people but yet they demand that any replacement cover everyone? There must be some kind of device that removes all principles, ability to detect hypocrisy, or somebody's ability to tell the truth when they enter Congress.

So if Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden because they ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge, was it God's goal or wish that man remain ignorant and half naked?

If Jesus is the Lamb of God, did Mary have a little lamb? A friend tells me I'm going straight to HE double toothpicks for that one.

Have you ever noticed that the symbol doctors use for their profession is a snake on a stick? How did they come up with that? If you saw someone coming at you with a snake wrapped around a stick how would you react? Would you be all happy and saying, gave the doctors here? Or would you be like get the hell away from you with that snake on a stick you crazy moron? Shouldn't a snake wrapped around a stick be the symbol for lawyers?

5Jan/170

Hate crimes are on the rise?

the media is reporting that there has been a spike in "hate crimes" since the election of Donald Trump. The majority of these records are based upon a press release from the Southern poverty Law Center which lists 701 hate crimes against Muslims and other minority groups since election day. What's interesting is that a significant portion of those 701 reported crimes involve people using racial slurs that are uncorroborated and, if they happened, while reprehensible do not meet the definition of a crime. What is also notable in its absence is the attacks upon Donald Trump supporters were people that someone believes is a Donald Trump supporter. If calling someone names that are vile and reprehensible is a crime then certainly anyone who has supported Donald Trump has experienced those crimes. Shouldn't they be reported as well? Not to mention the actual vandalism and property damage Trump supporters have suffered at the hands of the tolerant left.

But has there really been a spike in hate crimes since the election? As an example, the female Muslim student at the University of Louisiana who claimed that a white male ripped her hijab off, then spent at her admitted later that she made the story up. She is not the only one: Eleesha Long, a student at Bowling Green University, posted on her Facebook page that three men wearing Trump T-shirts began throwing rocks at her and calling her racist names. She did not report the incident to police but after her Facebook post began to get a lot of attention, police at Bowling Green University took her down to the station where she filed a written complaint. as police began to investigate her claim, other posts on her Facebook page as well as a search of her cell phone found that she was nowhere near the location where she claimed the incident occurred at the time she claimed it occurred. Again, she later admitted that she made the incident up. Yet the Southern poverty Law Center kept these and other fake incidents on their list in order to prove their claim. These are far from the only incidence that have proven to be fake.

Then there are the incidence which have dubious connection to any type of hate crime. A woman in Florida returned to her car after shopping to find that her car window had been broken out and her purse stolen. A note was left under the windshield wiper which contained a number of racist terms and threatened the woman if she did not leave the country. It turned out that she had left the note in order to make it look like a hate crime rather than a simple burglary. Once again, even though disproven as a hate crime, Southern poverty Law Center kept this on their list. There are number of other dubiously reported hate crimes that include things like vandalism, such as a swastika being painted upon the door of a minority business owners shop. Video surveillance shows the individual spray painting the symbol on the door but it cannot be determined what race this person is or was.

Quite simply if you begin to look at the list from the Southern poverty Law Center which is the basis for most of the reports in the media, and you extrapolate the number of false or unprovable stories, hate crimes are not on the rise. What is on the rise is the hatred from the left being spewed towards those that they believed to have voted for Donald Trump. What is also on the rise is the number of attacks upon the person or property of people that others believe may have supported Donald Trump. That story is not being reported in the media because it doesn't fit their narrative that America is racist and that Donald Trump supporters are racist as well.

Filed under: Stupid People No Comments
21Dec/160

This says it all about liberals

One of the 'principles' that liberals have is that they know better than you what's good for you. They are also always right and if you disagree with them, you are a racist, misogynistic, demagogue. Just look at the laws we now live by; you can't have a big gulp soda, you can't have suites in the vending machine, you don't know how to raise your kids and shouldn't homeschool them, etc.

One of the other things, tenets, that liberals live by is that they are okay to do certain things because they are doing it for the right reason. You do not have that right. Obama exhibited that behavior perfectly in a recent interview with National Public Radio.

President Obama has some advice for President-elect Donald Trump: Do as I say, not as I do.

The outgoing president, in an interview with NPR, urged his successor to pursue policy changes through Congress and not via executive order. “Going through the legislative process is always better in part because it’s harder to undo,” Obama said.

The pen-happy president may be learning the hard way, after he accelerated his use of executive actions in his second term. Frustrated by Republican opposition in Congress, Obama in 2014 had openly shifted tactics to rely on executive and administrative actions to pursue his agenda.

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” he declared at the time.

While some of his subsequent directives were uncontroversial, others were sweeping and met immediately with legal challenges. Some of the most ambitious executive actions were meant to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation; however, the Supreme Court effectively blocked those 2014 changes this past June.

Quite simply, he's telling Trump to 'do as I say, not as I do' because you're inferior to me in all aspects.

Filed under: Stupid People No Comments
21Dec/160

We can’t say he’s mentally ill, but he’s mentally ill or help us great emperor

I am not overly surprised at the continued hypocrisy and lack of principles that are continually exhibited by liberals. What does surprise me is that many so-called professionals who have to live up to professional standards in their chosen career field, failed to do so often. In the medical community there are very specific and strict standards for behavior by professionals especially when it comes to discussing publicly a person's medical condition. But if liberals believe they are right and they are saving the world from a perceived evil, principles be damned.

Have you heard about the three psychiatry professors who have written to Pres. Obama asking him to require Donald Trump to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by an "independent" psychiatrist or medical professional. Judith Herman, Nanette Gartrell MD, both of Harvard, and Dee Mosbacher MD, of University California San Francisco have written to Pres. Obama claiming to know that Donald Trump is mentally unstable. What is unbelievable about their letter is that they make a diagnosis of a mental disorder and they ask Obama to basically be King Obama and require Donald Trump to undergo a neuropsychiatric evaluation prior to becoming president.

It is interesting in their letter that these three medical professionals who have sworn an oath to adhere to a set of ethical standards say they cannot make a diagnosis of a public figure like Donald Trump without having personally examined the individual. in the letter they say that President-elect Trump exhibits behaviors like grandiosity, hypersensitivity to criticism, impulsivity, and an inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. In addition Dr. Lynne Meyer, a psychologist expands upon the comments in the letter by diagnosing Mr. Trump with narcissistic personality disorder.

According to the diagnostic and statistical manual, the book used to codify certain diagnoses that are accepted by the medical community, narcissistic personality disorder can be diagnosed if an individual exhibits five of nine personality traits. The nine are listed below.

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believe that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Is interpersonally exploitative
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.”

So if you look at these nine does Donald Trump Exhibit 5 of the 9? I wouldn't disagree that he has a large personality but has he exaggerated his achievements were talents? If he had the media would've told us so over and over. He is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success power etc.? I don't think he's preoccupied with fantasies because he's achieved all of that. As to number three, during the campaign he connected with the average person, the average voter. Throughout his career he has spent time on job sites talking to the actual workers who like him. Requires excessive admiration? Well he does have an ego. As a sense of entitlement? Based upon the way he outworked Hillary Clinton I would say he never thought he was entitled to the position especially if you compare it to her attitude towards the presidency. Does he exploit interpersonal relationships? To save exploiting means that he takes advantage of other people but the people who work for him are unbelievably loyal, so I'd say they don't feel exploited. He certainly doesn't lack empathy based upon the way he connected with the average person and could articulate what they were feeling. I would say there's no way he's envious of anybody else but maybe he believes others are envious of him and he would be correct. Is he arrogant? That's a tough one, maybe; but he's also confident and those two things are often mistaken for each other.

For these medical professionals to come up with a diagnosis is unbelievably arrogant and unprofessional. What if someone had asked for president Obama to undergo medical evaluation as these people are of Donald Trump? The media would have called into doubt there abilities and called for them to have their medical licenses revoked. But I would argue the president Obama exhibits more of these traits that Pres. Trump does.

And here's the kicker, to ask Pres. Obama to force President-elect Trump to undergo a neuropsychiatric evaluation grants him more authority than our laws do. President Obama is not King or Emperor although I can argue that he believes he is. Just look at how many times he has gone around Congress to accomplish what he wanted when Congress clearly told him no. He's even said that he will take whatever action he needed to take to accomplish his goals and ignore Congress. How is that not demonstrative or indicative of narcissistic personality disorder?

And it belies the attitude of the liberal, that government is here to take care of everything. That government and by proxy the individuals in those high offices have all the authority to tell us or anybody else what to do (except other countries of course). Can you imagine a Pres. Obama tried to execute their wishes? But it just goes to show you that would liberals lose they cannot accept the results and they will do anything they can to denigrate the winner and usurp their authority, Even abandoning any principles they might've had. Microphone off

20Dec/160

Tolerance, isn’t that what they preach?

yesterday the electoral college confirmed the election of Donald Trump. Right up to the time that members of the college were to vote opponents of Donald Trump or lobbying to have them change their votes. Isn't it ironic that more members of the college decided not to vote for Hillary Clinton than did members decide not to vote for Donald Trump?

But we're told by the left that we are to be accepting of the results of the election but as we know that's only if we lose. If they lose tolerance is the least important thing in their mind. We saw a number of stories regarding the efforts of many people on the left side of the aisle to influence electoral college members and try and get them to change their vote from Donald Trump.

I will not disagree with their right to say those things. What I will disagree with is the victory all and hatred and threats that they used. Certainly there were people on the right side of the aisle who asked elect towards to not vote for Barack Obama. We did not see a lot about that in the media at the time but it did happen. There were no reports that members of the electoral college were threatened or needed police escorts. However when the liberals lost the death threats were numerous and frequent. There were black members of the electoral college who were also Republican and voting for Donald Trump. They needed police escorts to go to their meeting.

We saw a number of protesters show up and try to disrupt the meetings when the vote was not going to go their way. They threatened the elect doors many of whom are required to vote that way by law in their state. So they were asking those people to violate the law and face fines or jail time for doing so. Some states require that if the electors is not going to vote the way the people of the state asked them to that that person is removed and an alternate is put in his or her place. We saw that with a couple of the electors who decided not to vote for Hillary.

In fact, moviemaker Michael Moore offered to pay the fines for anyone who took the risk and made the decision to not vote for Donald Trump. Now isn't that trying to influence an election by an outside force? I know it's not the same thing as the alleged influence of the Russians but it is offering money to public officials charged with voting for the president to change their vote and abrogate their duties. Isn't that illegal? At the very least, it's using money as free speech which is protected by the laws of this country, which the liberals don't like that particular Supreme Court case by the way.

Certainly the liberals speak of tolerance and acceptance but when it comes to practice they rarely practice what they preach. Supporters of Donald Trump were told to put a gun in their mouth, they were physically threatened, physically assaulted, and verbally abused. Some people said they would not participate as a member of the electoral college ever again because of the experience. Isn't it sad that the liberals can't practice what they preach, accept the results of the election and move forward?