The Problem With Net Neutrality

When the idea was created in 2002 by leftist college professor Tim Wu, Net Neutrality was just four innocuous things:

  • Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
  • Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
  • Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
  • Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

But as with oh-so-many things devised by the left, Net Neutrality sounds good, but isn’t. It is, in fact, a terrible idea, for a whole host of reasons.

It is always a bad idea to have government enforce, especially what the private sector is already enforcing without government. You never want government involved, unless you absolutely can not help it.

All of these four Net Neutrality things were being adhered to at the time Net Neutrality was coined and created. And they have all been adhered to each and every day since.

So Net Neutrality was and is totally unnecessary. So any government enforcement thereof is totally unnecessary.

Net Neutrality is a solution running around, in chicken-headless-fashion, blindly looking for a problem.

But that’s not why Wu created it. The left saw the private sector Internet take off like a rocket, totally government-free. The left desperately needed a fairy tale to convince people to allow the burying of government hooks into the Internet, so as to then reel it back in.

That fairy tale is Net Neutrality. We’ll let another leftist college professor, Robert McChesney, explain what then:

“At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

How very Venezuela of them.

Net Neutrality’s “ultimate goal” is to have government be the only way you can connect to the Internet.

How very China-North Korea-Iran-Saudi Arabia of them.

Net Neutrality has always been the left’s Trojan Horse, to get the government into the Internet, with the “ultimate goal” of a total government takeover.

Which is what the Barack Obama Administration executed in 2015. Under the false rubric of “Net Neutrality”, the Obama Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pretended to be Congress and totally rewrote existing telecommunications law.

Congress had in the 1996 Telecommunications Act classified the Internet as Title I. Which leaves the Internet largely unmolested by government, no coincidence that the internet did so very, very well.

Obama’s FCC, without Congress, “reclassified” the Internet to Title II  which was created by the 1934 Telecommunications Act. Because we all know that 1934 Congressional intent was to regulate something that wouldn’t be created for another sixty years.

Title II is for landline telephones. The telephone network bears just about zero resemblance to the Internet network. The Internet network is significantly more complex.

So why did Obama’s FCC do this? Because the FCC has HUGE regulatory (and taxing) powers in Title II. They have just about none in Title I.

Having the government regulate the Internet like a telephone will cripple the Internet. And shrink it back down to phone network size, scope and power.

(See also: Obamacare driving private health insurance providers out of the Obamacare network.)

Which, again, is what the left actually wants. Kill the private providers, ultimately leaving us with government as our only one.

Thankfully, the Donald Trump FCC is in the process of undoing the Obama reclassification power grab. Which has led to this last fortnight’s left-media freakout.

Repeated again and again in the freakout is the “Net Neutrality” Trojan Horse lie, with endless mentions of the the harmless “Net Neutrality” but with zero mentions of the accompanying HUGE power grab.

Leaving out the HUGE power grab allows the left-media to dishonestly portray the Trump FCC as “tools of the Internet providers.”

Rather than as what the Trump FCC actually is: reasoned, reasonable steward of 1/6th of our entire economy.

Restoring the pre-Obama-power-grab status quo will allow the private sector to deliver us the free speech-free market, that is the government-free Internet.

This is really very good news – no matter what the leftist “news” media says.

Advertisements

Did the Mainstream Media Forget How Obama Treated Fox News?

I know the mainstream media is always licking its wounds after President Donald Trump smacks them around in his press conferences since being in office.

And I hate to add salt to their wounds, but it seems they’ve got a case of amnesia.

It all started when President Trump went all-out against the network because they reported on an unsubstantiated 35-page document that claimed Trump is being blackmailed by the Russian government.

Trump praised those in the media who had restraint from peddling the false report.

“I have great respect for the news, great respect for freedom of the press,” Trump said, thanking those who didn’t run the unsubstantiated story, saying his opinion of them may have “gone up a notch.”

But the mainstream media rallied around CNN.

“The journalist whom Trump called on should have yielded to CNN. Don’t allow him to refuse to answer questions  from certain news outlets,” Politico reporter Peter Sterne tweeted.

Acosta whined that incoming press secretary Sean Spicer threatened to toss him out of the press conference after he repeatedly interrupted the president-elect demanding to get his question answered.

I can’t recall the mainstream media rallying around Fox News anytime over the last eight years when President Obama attacked them.

In fact, let’s review the times Obama blamed the number one name in news (AKA Fox News).


October 25, 2008

Then-candidate Obama complained he would be polling higher if Fox didn’t exist. This may work in soap operas and song lyrics, but that’s not exactly the best start to a working relationship with the press.

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,” Obama told liberal journalist Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine. “[T]he way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latté-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?”

June 16, 2009

Obama says that Fox News is entirely devoted to “attacking my administration.”

JOHN HARWOOD: Last question. When you and I spoke in January, you said–I observed that you hadn’t gotten much bad press. You said it’s coming. Media critics would say not only has it not come, but that you have gotten such favorable press, either because of bias or because you’re good box office, that it’s hurting the country, because you’re not being sufficiently held accountable for your policies. Assess that.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all, I’ve got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration. I mean, you know, that’s a pretty…

HARWOOD: I assume you’re talking about Fox.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, that’s a pretty big megaphone. And you’d be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me on that front.

October 14, 2010

Obama admitted in a softball interview with Rolling Stone that he “disagrees” with Fox News. No shock there, but added he believes Fox has a “destructive viewpoint.”

“Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”

December 2010

After the Democrats’ midterm election shellacking, President Obama reportedly toldlabor leaders in a private meeting that Fox News was partly responsible for him “losing white males” who tune into the network to “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7.”

He needed someone to blame for the massive losses because the next election was his.

May 10, 2011

Obama takes a shot at Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch.

“One CEO had this to say about reform. ‘American ingenuity is a product of the openness and diversity of this society… Immigrants have made America great as the world leader in business, science, higher education and innovation.’ That’s Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, and an immigrant himself. I don’t know if you’re familiar with his views, but let’s just say he doesn’t have an Obama bumper sticker on his car.”

January 27, 2013

Obama hits Fox News for making “compromise” a “dirty word.”

“One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

September 26, 2013

Obama went after Fox News on the campaign trail for his health care law.

“If you’ve talked to somebody who said, ‘Well, I don’t know, I was watching Fox News and they said this is horrible,’ you can say, ‘you know what? Don’t take my word for it! Go on the website.”

February 2, 2014

During a pre-Super Bowl interview, President Obama suggested Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly was being unfair for asking questions about ObamaCare’s shortcomings, the IRS scandal and Benghazi.

“Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out,” O’Reilly said. “That’s what they believe.”

“And they believe it because folks like you tell them that,” Obama said, adding on the IRS scandal: “These kinds of things keep on surfacing, because folks like you will promote them.”

October 2, 2014

President Obama insisted ObamaCare is “working pretty well in the real world” despite it being a “fanged threat to freedom on Fox News” in a speech at Northwestern University.

May 12, 2015

Obama hits Fox News for anti-poverty narrative.

“There’s always been a strain in American politics where you’ve got the middle class, and the question has been, who are you mad at, if you’re struggling; if you’re working, but you don’t seem to be getting ahead. And over the last 40 years, sadly, I think there’s been an effort to either make folks mad at folks at the top, or to be mad at folks at the bottom. And I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And, look, it’s still being propagated.

“I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu — they will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re like, ‘I don’t want to work, I just want a free Obama phone’ — or whatever. And that becomes an entire narrative, right? That gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress — which is much more typical — who’s raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.”

September 20, 2015

Obama takes a shot at Fox News for allegedly covering him unfairly.

“I want to repeat — because somehow this never shows up on Fox News. I want to repeat — because I’ve said it a lot, unwaveringly, all the time: Our law enforcement officers do outstanding work in an incredibly difficult and dangerous job. They put their lives on the line for our safety. We appreciate them and we love them.”

October 27, 2015

Obama claims “certain televisions stations” distort his position on guns.

“And some of you who are watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs. Please do not believe this notion that somehow I’m out to take everybody’s guns away and every time a mass shooting happens one of the saddest ironies is suddenly the purchase of firearms and ammunitions jump up because folks are scared into thinking that Obama is going to use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights.”

November 5, 2015

Obama blames Fox News for making him “seem scary.”

“It’s interesting, because we’re talking in Iowa; people always, I think, were surprised about me connecting with folks in small-town Iowa. And the reason I did was, first of all, I had the benefit that at the time nobody expected me to win. And so I wasn’t viewed through this prism of Fox News and conservative media, and making me scary. At the time, I didn’t seem scary, other than just having a funny name. I seemed young. Sometimes I look at my pictures from then and I say, I can’t believe anybody voted for me because I look like I’m 25.”

September 18, 2016

At a Clinton fundraiser in New York City, President Obama predicted a close election “not because of Hillary’s flaws,” but because of Fox News and some blogs “that are churning out a lot of misinformation…”

November 3, 2016

Obama blames Fox News for “balkanization of the media.”

“The problem is we’ve got all these filters. Look, if I watched Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me either because you’ve got this screen—this funhouse mirror—through which people are receiving information. How to break through that is a big challenge.”

November 29, 2016

Obama blames Fox News for election loss.

“In this election, [they] turned out in huge numbers for Trump. And I think that part of it has to do with our inability, our failure, to reach those voters effectively. Part of it is Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country, but part of it is also Democrats not working at a grassroots level, being in there, showing up, making arguments.”


While the media and liberals are lamenting the fact that Trump is defending himself against CNN and other left-wing news outlets, they were largely silent as President Barack Obama routinely attacked Fox News for 8 years.

So, it happens during every presidency. The president feels a need to defend himself, so before CNN and MSNBC and other speculation news outlets have another seizure, as President Trump points out how unjustly his administration is being covered, think about all that President Obama said about his “enemy” in the media.

The irrationality in some precincts and the dishonesty of the talking heads and the absolute hysteria that surrounds some news stories is simply dumb and incredibly annoying. You get nowhere when you present the facts and they are rejected, so why bother? Facts don’t matter to these ignorant morons or conspiracists, why debate them? And the worst part is if you don’t see it the way that these far leftists do, then you’re branded as a racist.

Why the US Hasn’t Brought “Fire and Fury” to North Korea

As the world ponders the meaning of President Donald Trump’s threat of “fire and fury” on North Korea, it’s worth asking why his predecessors never took those steps to stop its nuclear program. Trump isn’t the first president to threaten North Korea. The others were all bluffing.

When Bill Clinton was confronted with the threat of North Korea’s exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, he considered military force. But he ended up going for negotiations in what became known as the Joint Framework Agreement. The North Koreans froze their plutonium program in exchange for fuel shipments and a light water reactor from the U.S. Neither side ever fully delivered.

Then there was George W. Bush. He didn’t like North Korea. He put the nation in the original “axis of evil.” On his watch, the U.S. discovered Pyongyang had a secret uranium enrichment program, in violation of the spirit of Clinton’s deal. Then in 2006, North Korea tested its first nuclear device. By 2007, Bush had lifted crippling sanctions on the regime’s elites and entered into new negotiations. And surprise: The North Koreans backed out of those talks at the end, too.

By the time Barack Obama came into power, the North Koreans were back to building up their program. They perfected missiles, sunk a South Korean ship and shelled a South Korean island. The current tyrant, Kim Jong Un, ascended to power and proceeded to consolidate his position, killing his uncle and later his half brother. All the while, Obama pursued a policy of “strategic patience,” aimed at not rewarding Kim’s regime for its provocations and rogue behavior.

Now Trump has inherited a mess. Not only is Kim testing ballistic missiles at an alarming rate, as the Washington Post reported this week, but also the Defense Intelligence Agency now assesses North Korea can miniaturize a nuclear warhead so that it can fit inside a missile. Game, set, match.

So why didn’t the last three presidents take out North Korea’s nuclear facilities when they had the chance? The answer is Seoul, the thriving capital of South Korea. The North has enough artillery pieces within range of this metropolis to kill hundreds of thousands of people, which could very well begin a world war and throw the global economy into a tailspin.

Past presidents have understandably feared the North would retaliate in this way. But for some today, that fear is fading. John Plumb, a former director of defense policy and strategy for Obama’s National Security Council, told the Atlantic last month: “If I were the Trump administration, I would be looking at the threat to incinerate Seoul and trying to figure out how real it is. Because to me, it’s become such a catchphrase, and it almost — it starts to lose credibility. Attacking Seoul, a civilian population center, is different from attacking a remote military outpost. It’s dicey, there’s no doubt about it.”

Intelligence officials have said in recent months that this threat remains very real. While there are steps the U.S. can take to mitigate the problem, such as dropping cluster munitions on the big guns, it’s an imperfect and high-risk strategy. An attack on North Korea would be unpredictable and could unleash far worse on U.S. forces (which have been stationed in South Korea for more than 60 years), not to mention allies like Japan.

All of this gets back to Trump’s bluster. At this point we as Americans ought to expect more careful words from the president. At the same time, nothing Trump said was that different from the implicit threat against North Korea, or any power that threatens American cities with nuclear destruction.

Don’t get me wrong: There are few people on the planet more deserving of “fire and fury” than Kim Jong Un. But would such a strike even eliminate its nuclear program? How far is Trump willing to go? Will he order an invasion of North Korea to topple the regime? And if he does, would he commit the manpower, capital and time to stabilize the country once the Kim dynasty falls?

According to retired Admiral William Perry, Clinton’s second secretary of defense, the U.S. couldn’t even take out North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure with military strikes, given how much it has expanded in the last 20 years. What’s more, the price paid by South Koreans would be unacceptable. This is what he told a group of journalists this spring at an event sponsored by the Hoover Institution.

It’s possible that Trump is counting on his reputation as an impetuous novice — one who Kim just might fear would roll the dice by attacking North Korea. But Trump’s ultimatum allows the boy-tyrant in Pyongyang to test the president’s mettle. (Already the North Korean state media has threatened Guam.) We can expect more taunts and threats in the coming days, proving Trump’s threat was hollow. As hollow as past presidents’ pledges to do the same.

Crimes Against Humanity

It falls to America, to us to stop war crimes and atrocities all over the world. Other countries will not do that including great powers like China and Russia. So is left to we the people and our elected representatives to decide who were going to save. 

It’s a gut wrenching decision as millions of people have been murdered all over the world by sick tyrants. President Trump’s missile attack on Syria has sent a new message to the world that the USA is going to hold war criminals accountable at least to some extent. The previous president, Barack Obama would not do that. Instead, use negotiations which often failed.

 

“We’ve eliminated Syria’s declared chemical weapons program. All of these steps have helped to keep us safe and help keep our troops safe. Those of the results of diplomacy. And sustain diplomatic efforts no matter how frustrating or difficult they sometimes appear are going to be required to resolve the conflicts whirling in the Middle East from Yemen to Syria to Israel and Palestine.”- PRESIDENT OBAMA

And now we know the negotiations were phony. Not on the United States as part, but Syria did not eliminate its chemical weapons program. Casting grave doubt on whether Iran will obey the nuke deal President Obama made. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that the Syrian Dictator Assad is a war criminal. He is. But there are many other countries around the world in the same awful category. 

According to Human Rights Watch, the North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-un allows the following. A systematic widespread and gross human rights violations including murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortion on and on and on. Roughly eighteen million people in North Korea do not get enough food according to a U.N. report released last month. But that’s not enough to attack the country. 

There is some sense of responsibility on the part of the North Korean people themselves. Sometimes, you have to fight for your life and rights. The United States cannot declare war on North Korea despite the atrocities. But if the loony dictator continues to violate international weapons laws, targeted military action can be taken with justification. And then there’s ISIS, which routinely rapes and kidnaps women, sells them into slavery, executes homosexuals, slaughters Christians and basically kills and maims at will. 

ISIS is currently under attack by a coalition of nations headed by you guessed it, us. And there’s no excuse for not wiping ISIS off the face of the earth. A lesser group Boko Haram based in Nigeria, Africa kills children. Reuters is now reporting that group may have murdered 15,000 people over the years. It’s a Muslim extremist group. It uses female and child suicide bombers, at least forty four children were killed in suicide attacks in 2015 alone. The world has not yet united against Boko Haram. But it should. 

So, you can see that President Trump, the leader of the free world has his hands full. For eight years, President Obama expressed indignation over crimes against humanity and he did attacked evildoers with drones. But the problem is getting worse worldwide. And now it’s up to President Trump to see if he can control it.

The US Attacks Syria 

Two nights ago, around eight o’clock (standard central time), sixty missiles were launched from American war ships in the eastern Mediterranean. Fifty-nine missiles hit their targets. The goal was to destroy an air base from which Syrian planes recently dropped sarin gas on civilians, killing thirty children and twenty women according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. According to reporting based on a variety of agencies, this is the fifth time, at least, the Syrian dictator Assad has violated the Geneva Conventions and used poison gas to kill civilian.

Back in 2012 President Barack Obama threatened Assad.

“The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences, and you will be held accountable.”- PRESIDENT OBAMA

But Assad was not held accountable. Instead the Obama administration did what it always did, talked. And announced a deal with the dictator. A fascinating footnote is that Susan Rice was on point alongside John Kerry:

“We were able to find a solution that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished.”- SUSAN RICE

“With respect to Syria, we struck a deal where we got 100% of the chemical weapons out.”- JOHN KERRY 

Obviously, a false belief. For years Assad has been protected by the Russians, who were warned the attack was coming last night so they could move their personnel out of the air field.

“Russia should be embarrassed and ashamed. They are saying there were no nerve agents or chemical weapons left. We know that for the better part of this year, Assad has been using chlorine bombs against innocent civilians and population centers, and now yesterday, a couple days ago a nerve agent, sarin. So the Russians have been covering for Assad and if it were not for the Russians, Assad would not still be in power.”- SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL)

That’s true. Putin continues to prop up Assad while thousands of people die and at least five million Syrians are refugees. Most sane people support the missile attack last night. Sane is the key word here.

“It doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gasses. I think there is a zero chance he would have done this deliberately.”- FMR. REP. RON PAUL (R-TX)

The former congressman apparently believing Assad was set up by somebody. Now the morality of the attack is certainly acceptable. When you have war crimes being openly committed, a noble nation will confront that. Unfortunately, noble nations are in short supply these days, the USA being an exception.

Also America’s national security is in play because poison gas can be used by terrorists. Assad has a close relationship with Iran and Hezbollah. Once chemical weapons become acceptable, the world becomes an unstable place. Assad’s air force should have been destroyed a long time ago and NATO should have established safe zones inside Syria to protect the innocent. Under President Obama none of that was remotely possible because of his strategy of retreat. But now the new President Donald Trump is sending a message to the world: The US will not tolerate war crimes from nations like Syria.

The downside is for every action, there is a reaction. So security is heightened here in the USA, as we become an even bigger target for evil-doers.

Summing up, America was justified in destroying the Syrian airport, rogue nations should be dealt with by the world but if they are not, the lone superpower has a responsibility. Even most of the Trump-haters in Congress agree that if we can stop children from being gassed to death, we should do so.

Do Powerful People in DC Really Want to Know the Truth?

You may remember that the IRS was accused of auditing some conservative groups for political reasons. That is illegal. The woman in charge of the office where that allegedly happened was Lois Lerner. She was called to testify in front of a congressional committee. She took the Fifth Amendment. So after that Ms. Lerner packed up and left the IRS with a nice government pension. Absolutely nothing happened to her. And we never learn if higher government officials were involved.

I believe the Obama administration did not want to know what happened with the IRS. The leftwing media did not want to know, nor did the Democratic Party.

Today we have two big time political allegations: Whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and whether National Security Advisor Susan Rice was spying on the Trump campaign and transition team using her position with President Obama to surveil and hurt Mr. Trump. Answers to both of those questions have not been provided to the American people, as they must be if we are to keep our election system legitimate. The FBI is investigating the Russia deal. I’m not sure where the agency is on the illegal surveillance issue. The bureau has not defined it.

But Congress is looking into Ms. Rice to conduct a bipartisan investigation, but its not likely, as Democrats and the liberal media have already acquitted Susan Rice.

“One of the central figures the Republicans went after and after and after was Susan Rice. And after two years they could find nothing that Susan Rice did wrong.”-REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA)

Congressman Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, speaking about Ms. Rice’s role in the Benghazi investigation and putting forth the opinion that she is a scapegoat even before any testimony is heard. Does Congressman Schiff really want to know what happened in the surveillance deal? You make the call.

But it is obvious his fellow travelers on the left do not want to know. In fact, the loons are now branding the whole thing racial.

“Did she do something wrong? There is no information indicating that. So they are making her, you know, basically, they’re defaming her without any reason to do so because she’s a woman. Maybe because she’s a black woman.”-DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

Sure. Anyone who thinks Rice may have been involved in spying on Trump is obviously a racist. It’s so clear and undeniable now I feel like a moron for not seeing that before. (Please sense the sarcasm.)

Susan Rice is entitled to the presumption of innocence and should be called by Congress to testify as soon as possible. But with Easter break quickly approaching, that call will be down the road. At that time I expect Ms. Rice to take the Fifth, just as Lois Lerner did. That means others in government will have to step forward to testify about what Susan Rice did or did not do in order for we the people to know.

Yesterday, President Trump said that he believes the surveillance situation is

“going to be the biggest story.  It’s such an important story for our country and the world. It is one of the big stories of our time.”

It is clear the president has a vested interest in this having tweeted he was surveilled by President Obama himself.  So obviously Mr. Trump would like to know the truth. But the anti-Trump folks will try to prevent sunlight on Susan Rice, no question about it. Because if the former national security advisor was using her very high office to help the Democratic Party before and after the election, that is a huge scandal and President Obama will have to be questioned. That’s a big if, and premature conclusions as well as speculation are the enemies of true justice.

The polls say that most Americans want answers to the Russian intrusion into the presidential election, and I believe most of us want to know the full Susan Rice story as well. If the federal government cannot define both fairly quickly, this nation is in major trouble. America simply has to have a justice system that works.

The Left Cannot Get Over Their Election Loss

Friday, Tom Perez, the newly anointed chair of the DNC (the party that lost the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives), called the forty fifth President of the United States a bully and someone who really didn’t win the election. In fact Perez had even more to say in his rant:

“We have a bully in Washington in the White House. Donald Trump, you don’t stand for our values! Donald Trump, you didn’t win this election! Donald Trump, your bromance with Vladimir Putin isn’t doing you any good! Donald Trump, we will resist!” -Tom Perez, DNC Chair

Don’t stand for our values? What are “our values”? And what values do you want us Americans to resist? Law and order? The letter of the law? The Constitution? The obligatory power of the President to protect Americans?

While the left acts like children and just cannot get over the fact that Hillary lost the election and won’t stop their abusive invectives against the man who was CONSTITUTIONALLY elected, calling him illegitimate and his Cabinet scumbags; that man is doing his job we hired him to do. He is building up and modernizing the military, as well as strengthening law enforcement. With General John Kelly, he is ridding this country free of some of the most dangerous elements, who simply don’t belong here and weren’t allowed here in the first place. Like the violent gang members, the ones the leftists city mayors want to keep here, risking the safety of their own law abiding Americans. And with General James Mattis, the military is poised to eliminate those cockroaches known as ISIS, just as President Trump promised.

Imagine a president who not only does what he says, but can actually figure out what the end goal is. As opposed to President Obama’s foreign policy was to have no strategy and that graduated to “contain ISIS and to degrade and destroy them”, all of which never happened. 

And all the while, these wusses obsessing that Russia interfered with our election and our democracy. But these bozos still haven’t figured out what exactly Russia did. But they must have done something because Queen Hillary should have been coronated. Instead of admitting that the woman was so desperate for power (as she set up a private server to collect money and run the government) anyway… you know the rest. The Russians didn’t write her emails that sunk her, she did. And by the way, the Russians didn’t give Hillary the questions before the CNN debate, Donna Brazile did. And no one seems to care or want to investigate that Barack Obama danced with the devil in Tehran, whose people cut off our heads because we’re infidels, you know the the ones who yell “death to America!” The ones he gave one hundred and fifty billion dollars to and another four hundred million that they thought they could quietly get away with.

So while they moan and groan about blowing up the White House and and literally try to suppress our free speech by burning down our building, our president is doing what we hired him to do. 

He’s building up the military and he’s dealing with the greatest historical threat that faces America today: the threat of the Chinese-backed North Korea. Whose leader, Kim Jong-un, is as unbalanced as President Obama’s budget. If or when the clash of the titans does come, these leftist wimps will be the first to pee in their pants and run under their desks and thank their lucky stars that President Donald John Trump and his generals have the guts and the instincts to put on their big boy pants every morning to face the reality of the real danger that is confronting America today.