Do you think the Trump economy has been good to all Americans?

“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.”
―Confucius

The slowly diminishing circus of Democratic presidential hopefuls is engaged in a black cat–seeking exercise on a grand scale with regard to the highly emotional climate hoax.  They are seeking to frighten the populace with what is not there.  The clear and present danger is not weather-related disaster, but rather the assured calamity that will result from the outlandish proposals offered as solutions to a nonexistent problem.

The vacuity of the whole concept of climate change has been demonstrated in provable detail by many learned papers by credible authors.  Civilization as we know it will absolutely not end in ten or twelve or any number of years because of weather changes induced by mankind, as the alarmists so shrilly contend.

What is happening is that rabid socialists have found a fertile audience in the emotionally driven shallow thinkers of our society.  This group can be easily manipulated by appeals to emotion without having to resort to facts.

The political Left, the socialists and Marxists best defined by the current Democratic Party, have adapted the climate, made it an issue, and weaponized it as a tool in their long-term quest for total consolidation of power in the government and total control over our lives.

The Democratic presidential candidates are climbing all over each other trying to out-left the next one in their platform proposals, but let’s stick to their recent climate proposals as illustrative of how absolutely absurd they have become.

To bring the insanity together, CNN felt compelled to host a Climate Change Town Hall so all the socialists could showcase their delusions in one place.  Here are some of the more mind-blowing solutions proposed to the non-problem.

Andrew Yang proposed that the government confiscate gas-fueled vehicles.  Everyone will have to drive electric cars.  He would also ban fracking.

Joe Biden will eliminate fossil fuel and certainly ban fracking.  He  opposes nuclear energy.  He blames climate change for cancer.  Doesn’t everyone?

Kamala Harris’s solution was to ban plastic straws and ban fracking.  She opposes nuclear energy.  Tough to suck it up with Kamala.

Bernie Sanders proposed abortions, especially for women in poor countries, to control population growth.  He would nationalize energy production and ban fracking.  He opposes nuclear energy.

Cory Booker cast the issue as environmental racism and would ban fracking.  How did we miss the connection between hurricanes and racism?  Oh, wait, see Bernie Sanders with regard to abortions.

Fauxcahontas Warren would stop building nuclear energy plants and ban fracking.  Said nothing about signal fires.

Beto O’Rourke, a representative from Texas, no less, vowed to get rid of all fossil fuels and ban fracking.  Also opposes nuclear energy.  Beto needs a new state — quickly.

Pete Buttigieg would tax fossil fuel and give the money to the poor.  There’s a solution everyone missed.  He would also ban fracking and opposes nuclear energy.  Says God thinks greenhouse gases are a sin.  Let’s be sure we have this straight: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and necessary for plant life, so, by extension, God says supporting plant life is a sin.

All of the candidates want to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement that Obama committed the U.S. to by executive order and President Trump wisely withdrew from.  The agreement amounted to a resource redistribution plan for the benefit of third-world nations, particularly since there is no climate change to solve.

None of the candidates seems to understand that the United States is the only nation in the world that has reduced its emissions over the past 15 years while growing its economy, nor do they understand that a major reason for that is the increase in the use of natural gas made possible by hydro-fracking technology.  They all want to ban the cleanest energy of all: nuclear energy.  None seems to have contemplated how greatly increased electrical demand will be satisfied with no fossil fuel or nuclear generation.  Wind and solar are too intermittent to satisfy a large percentage of demand anytime soon, and, without huge government subsidies, no alternative energy source is close to being affordable, not that any of these clowns cares.

The “Green Proposals” would destroy the economy of our nation, costing tens of trillions of dollars and returning nothing even if any of them were viable.  Worse, none solves any climate problems because there are no climate problems to solve.

The real irony is that less than 50 years ago, the previous generation of self-proclaimed climate experts were assuring us that the planet was on the verge of the next ice age.  Weather cycles in tens of thousands of years.  One must wonder what changed so dramatically in 50 years that our demise has gone from freezing to incinerating in a geological flash.  The answer is political narrative.  Certainly not the geophysics of weather.

Dave Ball is a voice for conservatism, the author of conservative political commentary, a guest on political talk shows, an elected official, and a county party official.

“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.”
―Confucius

The slowly diminishing circus of Democratic presidential hopefuls is engaged in a black cat–seeking exercise on a grand scale with regard to the highly emotional climate hoax.  They are seeking to frighten the populace with what is not there.  The clear and present danger is not weather-related disaster, but rather the assured calamity that will result from the outlandish proposals offered as solutions to a nonexistent problem.

The vacuity of the whole concept of climate change has been demonstrated in provable detail by many learned papers by credible authors.  Civilization as we know it will absolutely not end in ten or twelve or any number of years because of weather changes induced by mankind, as the alarmists so shrilly contend.

What is happening is that rabid socialists have found a fertile audience in the emotionally driven shallow thinkers of our society.  This group can be easily manipulated by appeals to emotion without having to resort to facts.

The political Left, the socialists and Marxists best defined by the current Democratic Party, have adapted the climate, made it an issue, and weaponized it as a tool in their long-term quest for total consolidation of power in the government and total control over our lives.

The Democratic presidential candidates are climbing all over each other trying to out-left the next one in their platform proposals, but let’s stick to their recent climate proposals as illustrative of how absolutely absurd they have become.

To bring the insanity together, CNN felt compelled to host a Climate Change Town Hall so all the socialists could showcase their delusions in one place.  Here are some of the more mind-blowing solutions proposed to the non-problem.

Andrew Yang proposed that the government confiscate gas-fueled vehicles.  Everyone will have to drive electric cars.  He would also ban fracking.

Joe Biden will eliminate fossil fuel and certainly ban fracking.  He  opposes nuclear energy.  He blames climate change for cancer.  Doesn’t everyone?

Kamala Harris’s solution was to ban plastic straws and ban fracking.  She opposes nuclear energy.  Tough to suck it up with Kamala.

Bernie Sanders proposed abortions, especially for women in poor countries, to control population growth.  He would nationalize energy production and ban fracking.  He opposes nuclear energy.

Cory Booker cast the issue as environmental racism and would ban fracking.  How did we miss the connection between hurricanes and racism?  Oh, wait, see Bernie Sanders with regard to abortions.

Fauxcahontas Warren would stop building nuclear energy plants and ban fracking.  Said nothing about signal fires.

Beto O’Rourke, a representative from Texas, no less, vowed to get rid of all fossil fuels and ban fracking.  Also opposes nuclear energy.  Beto needs a new state — quickly.

Pete Buttigieg would tax fossil fuel and give the money to the poor.  There’s a solution everyone missed.  He would also ban fracking and opposes nuclear energy.  Says God thinks greenhouse gases are a sin.  Let’s be sure we have this straight: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and necessary for plant life, so, by extension, God says supporting plant life is a sin.

All of the candidates want to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement that Obama committed the U.S. to by executive order and President Trump wisely withdrew from.  The agreement amounted to a resource redistribution plan for the benefit of third-world nations, particularly since there is no climate change to solve.

None of the candidates seems to understand that the United States is the only nation in the world that has reduced its emissions over the past 15 years while growing its economy, nor do they understand that a major reason for that is the increase in the use of natural gas made possible by hydro-fracking technology.  They all want to ban the cleanest energy of all: nuclear energy.  None seems to have contemplated how greatly increased electrical demand will be satisfied with no fossil fuel or nuclear generation.  Wind and solar are too intermittent to satisfy a large percentage of demand anytime soon, and, without huge government subsidies, no alternative energy source is close to being affordable, not that any of these clowns cares.

The “Green Proposals” would destroy the economy of our nation, costing tens of trillions of dollars and returning nothing even if any of them were viable.  Worse, none solves any climate problems because there are no climate problems to solve.

The real irony is that less than 50 years ago, the previous generation of self-proclaimed climate experts were assuring us that the planet was on the verge of the next ice age.  Weather cycles in tens of thousands of years.  One must wonder what changed so dramatically in 50 years that our demise has gone from freezing to incinerating in a geological flash.  The answer is political narrative.  Certainly not the geophysics of weather.

Dave Ball is a voice for conservatism, the author of conservative political commentary, a guest on political talk shows, an elected official, and a county party official.

Many modern leftists truly believe conservatives are evil. They can see no other reason why somebody would wish to deny other human beings free… well, anything. They fail to understand how someone would risk depriving others of their “right” to live anywhere they want, have everything that anyone else has, choose their own gender or genders—and be free from the consequences of their own actions.

In this way, they actually are evil, or, at minimum, the consequences of their beliefs and actions, even though they choose not to acknowledge them, are consistently, historically, evil. To those they (inadvertently?) victimize, this is a distinction without a difference. I know this is a difficult concept for a decent person to grasp, but it is factually so, nonetheless.

These leftists claim conservatives are evil and I claim they are evil, so obviously we are equally wrong—or right, depending on one’s perspective, no? This is clearly not how the mainstream media, academia and Big Tech see things. To the Media-Academic Complex, everything those on the left side of the political spectrum believe, do and propose is for purely altruistic reasons, while everything those on the right side of the political spectrum believe, do and propose is done out of intolerance, bigotry, greed or sheer spite.

Leftists impose their will on others because they purport to believe they know what’s best for them. They are the anti-Framers. This is why they slander the Founders, disdain the Constitution, and demand that statues and murals depicting them be removed. They would replace the Declaration of Independence with near total dependence on The State, meaning those like themselves. They try to repeal Natural Law and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — granted to us all by the Creator — by saying that equality of outcome supersedes equality of opportunity, and that God doesn’t really exist, is only a construct of ignorant, superstitious, backward rubes in rural wastelands.

They do this so they can replace God with themselves and Judeo-Christianity with the hyper-fundamentalist religions of Marxism-Socialism and Secularism. As Churchill said of the ultra-pompous Sir Stafford Cripps, “There but for the grace of God goes God.”

Communism extinguished over 100 million souls in the Twentieth Century alone. It has destroyed the lives of countless others in the two decades since. Western leftists should take a good look at the “quality of life” in “s—hole countries” like Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela, but of course they won’t. They are too busy denigrating the U.S.’s capitalist, free market system that feeds and donates money to much of the rest of the world’s nations to admit that there is a low quality of life –and often no life at all for dissenters — in these glorious “People’s Republics.” 

The United States was “born” by declaring that every person is born with equal rights to pursue human happiness and dignity… and that our rights come from God, not Rod… or Donald, Alexandria, Bernie, Joe, Elizabeth or Hillary. Far too many progressives and nearly all leftists believe that they and they alone are qualified to bestow rights upon others. They may disdain authority and the successful, yet they act as priest and pastor, judge, jury and executioner. They are the would-be arbiters of our freedoms, secret police waiting for us to carelessly use an incorrect pronoun to address someone in the “nanogender community” or declare that we aren’t convinced that climate change is entirely driven by human activity. They reject the idea of a higher power but are certain we — who could not ask to be created and cannot create ourselves — can choose our own sex.

Graphic credit: Pixabay

Many modern leftists truly believe conservatives are evil. They can see no other reason why somebody would wish to deny other human beings free… well, anything. They fail to understand how someone would risk depriving others of their “right” to live anywhere they want, have everything that anyone else has, choose their own gender or genders—and be free from the consequences of their own actions.

In this way, they actually are evil, or, at minimum, the consequences of their beliefs and actions, even though they choose not to acknowledge them, are consistently, historically, evil. To those they (inadvertently?) victimize, this is a distinction without a difference. I know this is a difficult concept for a decent person to grasp, but it is factually so, nonetheless.

These leftists claim conservatives are evil and I claim they are evil, so obviously we are equally wrong—or right, depending on one’s perspective, no? This is clearly not how the mainstream media, academia and Big Tech see things. To the Media-Academic Complex, everything those on the left side of the political spectrum believe, do and propose is for purely altruistic reasons, while everything those on the right side of the political spectrum believe, do and propose is done out of intolerance, bigotry, greed or sheer spite.

Leftists impose their will on others because they purport to believe they know what’s best for them. They are the anti-Framers. This is why they slander the Founders, disdain the Constitution, and demand that statues and murals depicting them be removed. They would replace the Declaration of Independence with near total dependence on The State, meaning those like themselves. They try to repeal Natural Law and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — granted to us all by the Creator — by saying that equality of outcome supersedes equality of opportunity, and that God doesn’t really exist, is only a construct of ignorant, superstitious, backward rubes in rural wastelands.

They do this so they can replace God with themselves and Judeo-Christianity with the hyper-fundamentalist religions of Marxism-Socialism and Secularism. As Churchill said of the ultra-pompous Sir Stafford Cripps, “There but for the grace of God goes God.”

Communism extinguished over 100 million souls in the Twentieth Century alone. It has destroyed the lives of countless others in the two decades since. Western leftists should take a good look at the “quality of life” in “s—hole countries” like Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela, but of course they won’t. They are too busy denigrating the U.S.’s capitalist, free market system that feeds and donates money to much of the rest of the world’s nations to admit that there is a low quality of life –and often no life at all for dissenters — in these glorious “People’s Republics.” 

The United States was “born” by declaring that every person is born with equal rights to pursue human happiness and dignity… and that our rights come from God, not Rod… or Donald, Alexandria, Bernie, Joe, Elizabeth or Hillary. Far too many progressives and nearly all leftists believe that they and they alone are qualified to bestow rights upon others. They may disdain authority and the successful, yet they act as priest and pastor, judge, jury and executioner. They are the would-be arbiters of our freedoms, secret police waiting for us to carelessly use an incorrect pronoun to address someone in the “nanogender community” or declare that we aren’t convinced that climate change is entirely driven by human activity. They reject the idea of a higher power but are certain we — who could not ask to be created and cannot create ourselves — can choose our own sex.

Graphic credit: Pixabay

Here’s something we can agree with the Democratic Party base on:

Presidential candidate Julian Castro is despicable.

According to Nate Silver’s outfit, Five Thirty Eight, Castro was the big loser of the third Democratic debate, based on his sneakily age-ist and downright dishonest attack on Joe Biden.

Castro lost big points on favorability and the willingness of even left-wing voters to vote for him, according to Five Thirty Eight:

So after Ipsos polled voters before and after the debate, we calculated the change in candidates’ net favorability (favorable rating minus unfavorable rating). O’Rourke may not have picked up many potential supporters, but he did improve his net favorability rating by more than 8 points with his debate performance. Castro, meanwhile, took the largest hit, dropping 6.7 points in net favorability, which could be related to his heated exchanges with Biden.

He lost nearly a third of his support, if you look at Five Thirty Eight’s fourth chart, with Castro at the bottom, the only one highlighted with red line, based on how badly he lost support compared to the others. He went from an already miserable 19.7% favorable rating to an even more pathetic 13% favorable rating in just one night. None of the others saw that kind of tumble. Castro really turned off a lot of voters.

What’s more, Castro, in Five Thirty Eight’s third chart, is one of the candidates least likely to be Democratic voters’ second choice – pretty much every candidate is considered more of an option to Democrats than this guy. There are a couple of tiny exceptions, such as Amy Klobuchar’s voters being more repelled by Bernie Sanders, and Biden’s supporters not being interested in Andrew Yang, but Castro overall is rock bottom, and he’s particularly repellent to Bernie’s supporters. (It’s an interesting chart).

All it took was one debate and now even the Democrats, having gotten a good look at him, want no part of him. We couldn’t stand him anyway. Now even the Democratic voters are onboard.

Which is quite a fall. Less than a year ago, Five Thirty Eight, which slants left but tries to be fair because of its focus on forecasting (which it still sometimes gets wrong), was hailing Castro as a guy who could potentially win the Democratic nomination, based on his appeal to Latino and Millennial voters, along with a slice of what it calls ‘the left’ (obviously, he lost the Bernie people, so somewhere along the line he offended them earlier) He was less strong with black voters and a group they call Democratic ‘party loyalists’ — presumably nice Democrats you run into in places like rural New York or outback Texas —  the much-eclipsed Clinton-era-type moderate Democrats who quietly won much of the House in the last midterm.

It’s made Castro the one big loser out of the Democratic debate, done in by his attack on Biden’s age, which offended Democrats – certainly older Democrats who like Republicans are a large bloc of voters – and probably a lot of others. For me, the dishonesty of how he represented Biden’s remarks – aggressively misrepresenting Biden’s remarks and then calling him old and forgetful — even though everyone knew what Biden actually said, was just despicable.

Then to make matters even worse, he lied about it – get a load:

 

Julian Castro Defends Controversial Attack on Biden: ‘I Wasn’t Taking A Shot at His Age’ https://t.co/r5FuvvekMK

— Mediaite (@Mediaite) September 13, 2019

 

CASTRO: ““I wasn’t taking a shot at his age, I was taking a shot at the fact that he had just said the words ‘Buy-in,’ you would have to buy in. So I said, ‘Look, you just said that you would have to buy in.’ He said, ‘No, I didn’t.’ I said, ‘You know, I mean, did you forget that you just said that you would have to buy in?'”
REPORTER: “Yeah, right. ‘Did you just forget what we said two seconds ago?'”
CASTRO: “Right. So what I’m saying is, when you read the transcript and you understand the health care policy and the meaning of that, the significance of that, the difference is that 10 million people would get left out under his plan. That’s why that’s so important. It’s not an attack on Vice President Biden. It’s not something about personality. It’s about the health care policy. That was my focus.”

Which was the same kind of lie his no-good twin brother Joaquin made when he first doxxed the Trump voters in his district (which included some of Julian’s) and then dishonestly claimed he had no intention of wishing them violence. Nice business you have here…

Which actually raises questions about why Castro was in the debate at all. He’s clearly not ready for prime time and now he’s mercifully scuppered his own hideous political career. He was in the bottom-of-the-barrel position at the end of the debate lineup, way over on the end, and that signals his support was already very low, possibly lower than the threshhold of qualification. Was he placed there as an affirmative action concession? To make the stage look diverse? I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats, who already have been caught rigging even this nomination process. 

It’s time to give this clown the hook, and cripes, keep him away from any public role whatsoever.

Image credit: Twitter screen shot, from Mediaite

Here’s something we can agree with the Democratic Party base on:

Presidential candidate Julian Castro is despicable.

According to Nate Silver’s outfit, Five Thirty Eight, Castro was the big loser of the third Democratic debate, based on his sneakily age-ist and downright dishonest attack on Joe Biden.

Castro lost big points on favorability and the willingness of even left-wing voters to vote for him, according to Five Thirty Eight:

So after Ipsos polled voters before and after the debate, we calculated the change in candidates’ net favorability (favorable rating minus unfavorable rating). O’Rourke may not have picked up many potential supporters, but he did improve his net favorability rating by more than 8 points with his debate performance. Castro, meanwhile, took the largest hit, dropping 6.7 points in net favorability, which could be related to his heated exchanges with Biden.

He lost nearly a third of his support, if you look at Five Thirty Eight’s fourth chart, with Castro at the bottom, the only one highlighted with red line, based on how badly he lost support compared to the others. He went from an already miserable 19.7% favorable rating to an even more pathetic 13% favorable rating in just one night. None of the others saw that kind of tumble. Castro really turned off a lot of voters.

What’s more, Castro, in Five Thirty Eight’s third chart, is one of the candidates least likely to be Democratic voters’ second choice – pretty much every candidate is considered more of an option to Democrats than this guy. There are a couple of tiny exceptions, such as Amy Klobuchar’s voters being more repelled by Bernie Sanders, and Biden’s supporters not being interested in Andrew Yang, but Castro overall is rock bottom, and he’s particularly repellent to Bernie’s supporters. (It’s an interesting chart).

All it took was one debate and now even the Democrats, having gotten a good look at him, want no part of him. We couldn’t stand him anyway. Now even the Democratic voters are onboard.

Which is quite a fall. Less than a year ago, Five Thirty Eight, which slants left but tries to be fair because of its focus on forecasting (which it still sometimes gets wrong), was hailing Castro as a guy who could potentially win the Democratic nomination, based on his appeal to Latino and Millennial voters, along with a slice of what it calls ‘the left’ (obviously, he lost the Bernie people, so somewhere along the line he offended them earlier) He was less strong with black voters and a group they call Democratic ‘party loyalists’ — presumably nice Democrats you run into in places like rural New York or outback Texas —  the much-eclipsed Clinton-era-type moderate Democrats who quietly won much of the House in the last midterm.

It’s made Castro the one big loser out of the Democratic debate, done in by his attack on Biden’s age, which offended Democrats – certainly older Democrats who like Republicans are a large bloc of voters – and probably a lot of others. For me, the dishonesty of how he represented Biden’s remarks – aggressively misrepresenting Biden’s remarks and then calling him old and forgetful — even though everyone knew what Biden actually said, was just despicable.

Then to make matters even worse, he lied about it – get a load:

 

Julian Castro Defends Controversial Attack on Biden: ‘I Wasn’t Taking A Shot at His Age’ https://t.co/r5FuvvekMK

— Mediaite (@Mediaite) September 13, 2019

 

CASTRO: ““I wasn’t taking a shot at his age, I was taking a shot at the fact that he had just said the words ‘Buy-in,’ you would have to buy in. So I said, ‘Look, you just said that you would have to buy in.’ He said, ‘No, I didn’t.’ I said, ‘You know, I mean, did you forget that you just said that you would have to buy in?'”
REPORTER: “Yeah, right. ‘Did you just forget what we said two seconds ago?'”
CASTRO: “Right. So what I’m saying is, when you read the transcript and you understand the health care policy and the meaning of that, the significance of that, the difference is that 10 million people would get left out under his plan. That’s why that’s so important. It’s not an attack on Vice President Biden. It’s not something about personality. It’s about the health care policy. That was my focus.”

Which was the same kind of lie his no-good twin brother Joaquin made when he first doxxed the Trump voters in his district (which included some of Julian’s) and then dishonestly claimed he had no intention of wishing them violence. Nice business you have here…

Which actually raises questions about why Castro was in the debate at all. He’s clearly not ready for prime time and now he’s mercifully scuppered his own hideous political career. He was in the bottom-of-the-barrel position at the end of the debate lineup, way over on the end, and that signals his support was already very low, possibly lower than the threshhold of qualification. Was he placed there as an affirmative action concession? To make the stage look diverse? I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats, who already have been caught rigging even this nomination process. 

It’s time to give this clown the hook, and cripes, keep him away from any public role whatsoever.

Image credit: Twitter screen shot, from Mediaite

Health Care:

Why do you think life expectancy started to decline unexpectedly after Obamacare went into effect?

In 2009, President Obama and other Democrats continually lied that with Obamacare you could keep your doctor, keep your health plan, and premiums would go down substantially. Instead, freedom of choice was taken away, and premiums, out of pocket expenses, and deductibles skyrocketed. So why should the public believe Democrats’ promises today that you can have a choice of doctors and your costs will go down?

Why do you tell the public that Medicare for all will pay for everything when there are many limits on Medicare?

Shouldn’t the public be told that Medicare pays bonuses to hospitals if they don’t readmit as many patients after thirty days? Isn’t that essentially encouraging hospitals to deny care to people with preexisting conditions?

If the Democrats get their way on government run health care, millions of good private sector jobs will be lost, and hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars in stock value, real estate and bond value will be lost. The federal and state government will lose substantial income and Social Security tax revenue. State and local governments will lose sales, property and other taxes and fees. Severely underfunded public pension plans will become more severely underfunded. How will the Democrats fill all these gaps?

Opiates

Did President Obama contribute to the drug overdose crisis by dictatorially stopping a years’ long investigation into a billion dollar a year drug running operation by terrorists to appease Iran?

How many people have died from terrorism and drug overdoses because of Obama’s actions?

Should the federal government be sued along with drug companies for helping to fuel the drug overdose crisis because they didn’t enforce the border very well and they allowed drug running to continue?

Racism:

Why is it racist to enforce immigration laws that Congress passed?

Presidents Clinton and Obama, along with Sen. Schumer and other Democrats, said similar things about illegal aliens as Trump, so why weren’t they called racists?

Isn’t it racist to continue to abort black and brown babies at such a high rate compared to their share of the population?

Does the Democrats’ complete devotion to Planned Parenthood help fulfill its founder’s wish to have abortion to build a cleaner race?

Since the Democrats say they are the party of science, when is the only scientific date that a human life can begin?

Why do Democrats continue to support prevailing wage laws such as the Davis Bacon Act, which is racist in intent, which have oppressed minorities and taxpayers for almost ninety years? Is it because they are beholden to the big money from labor unions?

Doesn’t the fact that Democrats didn’t push for reparations while Obama/Biden were in office show that they are just pandering for votes and have no intent that it will ever happen?

Why do Democrats continue to lie about what President Trump said about Charlottesville in order to gin up racial hate and division?

If the statues and murals were so racist and divisive why weren’t there protests and actions to take them down during Obama/Biden or in previous years?

Why do Democrats continue to spread the lies about Ferguson, Missouri which have been used to gin up racial hate and violence and especially hate of cops?

How many cops have been killed because of the false “hands up don’t shoot” narrative?

Isn’t the term “white privilege” a purely racist term to gin up racial hate and division?

Why have the Democrats played the race card for decades? Would they rather keep minorities dependent on government than give them opportunities to move up the economic ladder? Why won’t Democrats admit how well minorities have done under Trump’s economic policies?

Climate Change/Fossil Fuels:

How would people from the Bahamas be evacuated without the benefit of planes and boats that are powered by fossil fuels?

When you get rid of gasoline how will you fund roads and bridges. What tax will replace it?

What do you replace plastics, asphalt and the thousands of other products derived from crude oil with?

Why do you call people who say truthfully that the climate is changing and has always changed cyclically and naturally “climate change deniers”? Is it because you want to mislead the public?

In 1922, the Washington Post and other newspapers said coastal cities would soon disappear because of warming. In 1970, on the first Earth Day, billions were going to starve soon due to a food shortage because of global cooling.  In 1989, the UN said there were only ten years left to save the Earth because of global warming.  Why should we believe the current predictions which are the same as the ones in 1922 and 1989 when previous predictions have been 100% wrong?

Why are the Democrats always running on fear? They seek to scare the public, especially the children, and the solution is always to transfer more freedom, power and huge amounts of money to the very wealthy DC area?

Why should the public believe that Democrats can control temperatures, sea levels and storm activity forever when they didn’t keep their promises on Obamacare and can’t balance the budget?

Shouldn’t government policies be based on facts instead of inaccurate, manipulated computer models and wild guess predictions?

Constitution and the rule of law:

President Obama repeatedly said the Constitution didn’t allow him to dictatorially change immigration law but did it anyway with DACA. Is it OK for a President to violate the Constitution if Congress doesn’t do what they like?

Can sanctuary cities and states pick and choose whatever laws they like?

Guns:

Houston has 2.3 million people. Chicago has 2.7 Million people or 17% more. They have similar demographics, with both cities having a little less than half of their population being white. Houston has very lenient gun laws and lots of gun shops. Chicago has very strict gun laws and very few places to buy guns. Yet from 2016 through 2018 Chicago had 1,960 homicides and Houston 850, so Chicago had 130% more. Why did Houston have so many fewer homicides per population vs. Chicago if the availability of guns is the problem? Doesn’t the cause have to be something else?

Did you realize homicides are down nationwide in Trump’s first two years vs. Obama’s last year?

When the Nazis took away the guns in Germany, did that make the people safer or more vulnerable?

Political corruption:

Isn’t the biggest example of political corruption for decades when the Obama White House, the Justice Department, the intelligence agencies and the State Department colluded with the Hillary campaign and the DNC to defeat Trump before the election and to take him out after the election with a fictional document created by a foreign national who hated Trump?

Is it ever proper for the FBI to get warrants to spy on and send informants into an opponent’s presidential campaign?

Was it proper for people within the Obama administration to shake down businesses and have slush funds at CFPB, Justice and the EPA that they used for political purposes and to reward political supporters?

Was Hillary corrupt when her family and her Foundation got huge amounts of money from foreign sources?

Should Russia have received permission to buy United States uranium assets accompanied by huge amounts of money sent to the Clinton Foundation from interested parties?

Corporate greed vs government greed:

Doesn’t too much power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats lead to corruption?

Have you ever seen a country collapse because the private sector had too much money and freedom?

Have countries throughout history collapsed when the government got too much power and money?

Graphic credit: YouTube screen gtab

Health Care:

Why do you think life expectancy started to decline unexpectedly after Obamacare went into effect?

In 2009, President Obama and other Democrats continually lied that with Obamacare you could keep your doctor, keep your health plan, and premiums would go down substantially. Instead, freedom of choice was taken away, and premiums, out of pocket expenses, and deductibles skyrocketed. So why should the public believe Democrats’ promises today that you can have a choice of doctors and your costs will go down?

Why do you tell the public that Medicare for all will pay for everything when there are many limits on Medicare?

Shouldn’t the public be told that Medicare pays bonuses to hospitals if they don’t readmit as many patients after thirty days? Isn’t that essentially encouraging hospitals to deny care to people with preexisting conditions?

If the Democrats get their way on government run health care, millions of good private sector jobs will be lost, and hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars in stock value, real estate and bond value will be lost. The federal and state government will lose substantial income and Social Security tax revenue. State and local governments will lose sales, property and other taxes and fees. Severely underfunded public pension plans will become more severely underfunded. How will the Democrats fill all these gaps?

Opiates

Did President Obama contribute to the drug overdose crisis by dictatorially stopping a years’ long investigation into a billion dollar a year drug running operation by terrorists to appease Iran?

How many people have died from terrorism and drug overdoses because of Obama’s actions?

Should the federal government be sued along with drug companies for helping to fuel the drug overdose crisis because they didn’t enforce the border very well and they allowed drug running to continue?

Racism:

Why is it racist to enforce immigration laws that Congress passed?

Presidents Clinton and Obama, along with Sen. Schumer and other Democrats, said similar things about illegal aliens as Trump, so why weren’t they called racists?

Isn’t it racist to continue to abort black and brown babies at such a high rate compared to their share of the population?

Does the Democrats’ complete devotion to Planned Parenthood help fulfill its founder’s wish to have abortion to build a cleaner race?

Since the Democrats say they are the party of science, when is the only scientific date that a human life can begin?

Why do Democrats continue to support prevailing wage laws such as the Davis Bacon Act, which is racist in intent, which have oppressed minorities and taxpayers for almost ninety years? Is it because they are beholden to the big money from labor unions?

Doesn’t the fact that Democrats didn’t push for reparations while Obama/Biden were in office show that they are just pandering for votes and have no intent that it will ever happen?

Why do Democrats continue to lie about what President Trump said about Charlottesville in order to gin up racial hate and division?

If the statues and murals were so racist and divisive why weren’t there protests and actions to take them down during Obama/Biden or in previous years?

Why do Democrats continue to spread the lies about Ferguson, Missouri which have been used to gin up racial hate and violence and especially hate of cops?

How many cops have been killed because of the false “hands up don’t shoot” narrative?

Isn’t the term “white privilege” a purely racist term to gin up racial hate and division?

Why have the Democrats played the race card for decades? Would they rather keep minorities dependent on government than give them opportunities to move up the economic ladder? Why won’t Democrats admit how well minorities have done under Trump’s economic policies?

Climate Change/Fossil Fuels:

How would people from the Bahamas be evacuated without the benefit of planes and boats that are powered by fossil fuels?

When you get rid of gasoline how will you fund roads and bridges. What tax will replace it?

What do you replace plastics, asphalt and the thousands of other products derived from crude oil with?

Why do you call people who say truthfully that the climate is changing and has always changed cyclically and naturally “climate change deniers”? Is it because you want to mislead the public?

In 1922, the Washington Post and other newspapers said coastal cities would soon disappear because of warming. In 1970, on the first Earth Day, billions were going to starve soon due to a food shortage because of global cooling.  In 1989, the UN said there were only ten years left to save the Earth because of global warming.  Why should we believe the current predictions which are the same as the ones in 1922 and 1989 when previous predictions have been 100% wrong?

Why are the Democrats always running on fear? They seek to scare the public, especially the children, and the solution is always to transfer more freedom, power and huge amounts of money to the very wealthy DC area?

Why should the public believe that Democrats can control temperatures, sea levels and storm activity forever when they didn’t keep their promises on Obamacare and can’t balance the budget?

Shouldn’t government policies be based on facts instead of inaccurate, manipulated computer models and wild guess predictions?

Constitution and the rule of law:

President Obama repeatedly said the Constitution didn’t allow him to dictatorially change immigration law but did it anyway with DACA. Is it OK for a President to violate the Constitution if Congress doesn’t do what they like?

Can sanctuary cities and states pick and choose whatever laws they like?

Guns:

Houston has 2.3 million people. Chicago has 2.7 Million people or 17% more. They have similar demographics, with both cities having a little less than half of their population being white. Houston has very lenient gun laws and lots of gun shops. Chicago has very strict gun laws and very few places to buy guns. Yet from 2016 through 2018 Chicago had 1,960 homicides and Houston 850, so Chicago had 130% more. Why did Houston have so many fewer homicides per population vs. Chicago if the availability of guns is the problem? Doesn’t the cause have to be something else?

Did you realize homicides are down nationwide in Trump’s first two years vs. Obama’s last year?

When the Nazis took away the guns in Germany, did that make the people safer or more vulnerable?

Political corruption:

Isn’t the biggest example of political corruption for decades when the Obama White House, the Justice Department, the intelligence agencies and the State Department colluded with the Hillary campaign and the DNC to defeat Trump before the election and to take him out after the election with a fictional document created by a foreign national who hated Trump?

Is it ever proper for the FBI to get warrants to spy on and send informants into an opponent’s presidential campaign?

Was it proper for people within the Obama administration to shake down businesses and have slush funds at CFPB, Justice and the EPA that they used for political purposes and to reward political supporters?

Was Hillary corrupt when her family and her Foundation got huge amounts of money from foreign sources?

Should Russia have received permission to buy United States uranium assets accompanied by huge amounts of money sent to the Clinton Foundation from interested parties?

Corporate greed vs government greed:

Doesn’t too much power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats lead to corruption?

Have you ever seen a country collapse because the private sector had too much money and freedom?

Have countries throughout history collapsed when the government got too much power and money?

Graphic credit: YouTube screen gtab