Author: Poetrooper

Jay Michaels wrote recently [over] at American Thinker of the lack of Trump yard signs this election compared to the number of Mitt Romney signs back in 2012. Back then, in his solidly middle-class neighborhood of “cops, nurses, teachers, plumbers, electricians, landscapers, small business owners, and retirees,” there were Romney signs displayed on the lawns of twenty percent or so of the 130 homes. Now there are no Trump counterparts.

Michaels concludes that this lack of signage is indicative of less support for Trump, with a supportive theory that it may be a matter of marital political discordance, where wives are less inclined to vote for Trump because of the candidate’s boorish behavior toward women. However, a quick survey of the many comments following the article will quickly disabuse you of that as the primary cause for the lack of Trump signage. Far and away, the most frequently expressed reason for failure to publicly demonstrate a citizen’s loyalty and support for The Donald with signs or bumper stickers has nothing to do with domestic disagreement within the home, but rather with liberal Democrat lawlessness.

Comment after comment to Michael’s article reveals a reluctance to publicly declare one’s political stance for fear of signs of being stolen and homes and yards vandalized, or, especially in the case of bumper stickers, with one’s car being keyed by inspired members of that mob of supporters of free speech and inclusivity who support Hillary Clinton. Those comments came from wide swaths of this country and, quite sadly, represent a reality that this old man never thought he’d live to see: Americans afraid to publicly post their political loyalties for fear of retribution from disagreeable fellow citizens.

Born myself at the start of World War II, I’m a relentless reader of history and novels set in the years leading up to that war, primarily in Europe but in Asia as well. Because of the knowledge gained in my reading, I’ve always been dismissive of liberal claims that American conservatives were Nazis and fascists. The comparison is mostly in error, as those European movements were essentially leftist and socialist in nature – admittedly to the right of the Soviet-supported communist movement, but still well to the left of American conservatism. So I’m reluctant to resurrect that chestnut of an argument that my political opponents are Nazis, but I swear to you: if you know the history of those times, you can’t help but be aware of the similarities in the fanatic, intolerant behaviors between contemporary Democrat liberals and the fascist movements of those foreboding times.

Under the rubric of political correctness, promoted by the Democratic Party, we are witnessing a boa-like crushing constriction of the cherished, constitutionally certified concept of free speech. More and more we are told that language perfectly acceptable but a short time ago is now threatening to one or another segment of society that the Democrats have singled out for special linguistic and social protections. To anyone who has studied that period, this language-controlling behavior by Democrats is so parallel to that of those who fomented the deadly socialist movements of pre-WWII Europe that it easily justifies a comparison.

Stealing opposition political signs, vandalizing yards and homes, destroying the paint jobs of cars bearing disliked political messages – all of it conveys a clear message of political intolerance, long incubated by the Democratic Party and now come to full growth in this election year, that should demonstrate to all reading this that these free speech-crushing Democrats, like their European fascist predecessors, need to be crushed themselves.

One question: When was the last time you heard of anyone stealing Hillary signs? Of course, that lack could be the result of the inability to even find one.

Crossposted at American Thinker

…what a rude jerk you are.

If the best casting director in Hollywood went in search of the perfect actor to play a typical know-it-all, smug, smarmy liberal to represent the Democratic Party on the vice presidential debate stage Tuesday night, he could not possibly have made a better selection than Tim Kaine. This was my first opportunity to see this potential president-in-waiting in action, and all I can say is that this sneering motor-mouth, who immediately began a pattern of repetitive and, I believe, intentional interruptions of his opponent and continued it as long as the moderator would let him get away with it, was woefully less than impressive.

Kaine was a squeaky-voiced, unctuous reminder of far too many of the self-righteous liberals I’ve had to contend with in my long life. You know the type: rolling the eyes, shaking the head to deliver their not so subliminal message that we’re just so totally smarter than you are that you can’t possibly understand what we’re saying. We’ve all seen it, in the past mostly within our own families, but in the last few years it has become the standard form of public liberal discourse. There is only one side, and that is theirs. They know it all, and if you disagree, you are a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, and they’re entitled to smirk snottily about it.

That is exactly the role Tim Kaine played on his opening night on the world stage, and I must say he did it flawlessly. Not everyone can play such an irritating jerk so convincingly, depicting to perfection the arrested adolescence that is the defining characteristic of liberalism, and do it so well before such a huge audience.

I guess congratulations are in order: hey, Timmie, you really showed us deplorables, kid!

Crossposted at American Thinker

Democrats have been high-fiving and deliriously jiving since their candidate introduced the voluptuous Venezuelan vigilante upon Donald Trump during Monday night’s debate. The Dems would have you believe that this luscious Latina was used and abused by that cruel capitalist in a manner that should totally disqualify him from ever serving as president. Apparently as her boss, a business owner who hired her and signed her to a contract that required her to maintain her lovely person in a physical state so as to be able to gracefully and gorgeously represent the public persona of Miss Universe, her mean old plantation master castigated the poor, pretty thing for ignoring those specific terms of her contract and becoming a very non-contractual fatty.

That mean old boss, an investor who’d devoted millions of dollars to a business enterprise only to see it fall on its (her) fat face, was not happy with his increasingly large charge and expressed his disappointment with some really mean words that by now have surely been banned by the thought speech movement. He actually referred to his glamorous grub grazer as Miss Piggy, which currently has liberal panties in spiraling, knotted twists from Berkeley to Boston. Why, how could he be so crass, so cold, so unfeeling toward the sensitive emotions of this tender tendering of Latina loveliness?

Uh, well, since Monday night’s sucker-punching by Hillary and NBC’s Lester Holt, a good deal of information has emerged about the gorgeous gastronomic gorger that would lead us to believe that once again the Democrats have somehow managed to step on their minimally depending appendages by bringing forth a witness so quickly and easily impeached by her extensively sleazy and even murderously criminal background. Just Google Alicia Machado and do a little searching through all those hits, and you’ll quickly see that this Trump accuser is a very suspect source of anything approaching truthful. Her intimate relationship with a Mexican drug cartel leader that reportedly yielded a child should make anyone question her judgment, but it’s her defiant defense of that relationship and other aberrant behaviors that should ban her forever from serving as a credible witness in any legal proceeding and most certainly in an American presidential election.

But if you still have questions about the young woman’s judgment, perhaps her reported live sex fling on a Spanish reality television show could move your thinking along.

But I think I know why Hillary may feel a common bond with this gangster bimbo. Alicia, you see, was accused of driving a getaway car for her gangster boyfriend in a killing in Venezuela but escaped prosecution for lack of witnesses. Don’t you think Hillary must admire Alicia for that? After all, in a symbolic sense, isn’t that what Hillary Clinton has always done for Bill in all his extensive history of sexual predation: drive his getaway car?

Crossposted at American Thinker

Ask health care providers to describe what constitutes a serious health event and you’re likely to get a bewildering assortment of medical definitions based on lengths and levels of experience of the opinionaters as well as the nature of their medical specializations. They’ve all seen such a variety of human health crises that it’s impossible to narrow all their experiences down to a common description, even of a single event.

But I will wager almost every health care provider in the country, upon viewing the video of Hillary Clinton’s collapse at the 9/11 memorial last weekend, will agree that what we are witnessing is a serious medical episode. They will vary widely as to causation but considering the age of the subject and her past health history, virtually none will dismiss the events depicted in that brief video as anything less than a serious medical incident.

Yet the Hillary campaign is doing its very best to dismiss possible thousands of professional opinions in its attempt to convince the American public that her serious medical occurrence was inconsequential pneumonia and indicative of nothing medically prohibitive regarding this almost 70-year-old woman’s ability to serve four years in one of the most stress-inducing jobs in the world.

All of which brings me to CBS and “60 Minutes”, which just ran a segment on the continuing nuclear threat to America, presumably from the Russians, in some new Cold War the media keeps insisting we are now entering. The “60 Minutes” piece, which will air a second segment next week, was obviously contrived to insert doubt in the minds of American voters as to whether Donald Trump is up to the mental and emotional challenges of handling a nuclear confrontation. The timing is simply too convenient to be otherwise. And consider the source.

As I watched all the ominous details unfurling on CBS, an image kept replaying in my mind, that of a seriously debilitated senior citizen first being held rigidly erect, then collapsing towards the pavement, being grabbed up, thrown into a van, and then hustled away out of public view. My reaction: How could any person in that condition be capable of responding effectively to an alarm of incoming missiles should the two events occur concurrently? Moreover, wouldn’t the circumstances of such a physical collapse by the commander-in-chief throw the entire National Command Authority into question? Who present would qualify to determine the c-in-c incapable of performing her duties? Long, confused minutes would tick by while incoming missiles continued to fly at near-orbital speeds to their American targets. Until such a medical determination occurred, who in the command structure could or would assume the enormous responsibility of ordering our defense forces to respond?

As the “60 Minutes” piece made clear, intricate codes and confirmation processes are all part of the fail-safe protections built into our National Command Authority to prevent a mistaken release of our own nuclear arsenal. Watching that CBS presentation, I had to wonder how any person in the condition of that woman who stumbled from that curb and collapsed towards the pavement beside that van could possibly comprehend such complexities as those codes and processes demand. And if she could not, but her authority couldn’t be quickly transferred, what might be the fate of our nation?

Thank you, “60 Minutes”, for opening my old, weak eyes to Hillary’s inability to serve.

Crossposted at American Thinker

Last night in the NBC Presidential Forum, Hillary unveiled her latest version of dindunuffin with the very lame claim that all classified information is transmitted with a header that clearly indicates that the contents of the following or underlying document are classified in one ordering or another, ranging from confidential to esoteric versions of top secret headings that ordinary folks like us will never see. Nice try, Hillary, but that weaselly excuse is easily shot full of holes, with the first buckshot barrage being fired recently by the FBI, who verified that she did indeed receive and send emails that contained classified information.

Had NBC moderator Matt Lauer been on his toes (or so politically inclined), he would have immediately countered her latest justification with the simple question, “Might someone on your staff have removed those headings when the classified emails were taken off the secure State Department network so that they could then be retransmitted in the clear on the open email network you had established?” Of course, that had to be case, and Lauer knows it, as does Clinton, as well as all the rest of us watching this slowly evolving train wreck.

Removing such headings and retransmitting those documents on an unsecure network is a federal crime. Receiving such transmissions that contain obvious classified information – such as that regarding potential Air Force satellite drone targeting intelligence or details regarding American human intelligence assets on foreign soil on that unsecure network while lacking those classification headings – is a serious federal offense as well, carrying prison time for ordinary citizens.

FBI director Comey lamely professed that his vaunted investigators could find no evidence of intent by Hillary and her minions to violate federal security regulations. My question for him is, “Director, just what do you call the removal of security classification headers from classified documents so that they can be retransmitted in the open on an unsecure network if it is not a clear demonstration of intent to subvert the communications restrictions imposed by federal security statutes?”

And the last question that should be asked of Hillary when she makes these silly “heading” excuses for her felonious behavior is this: “Madame Secretary, could you please explain how such forewarning headers could be utilized in your voice-to-voice phone conversations that were classified? Without the presence of headers, would it not be the content of the conversations themselves that determined the manner in which they should be handled regarding their security level?”

Hillary Clinton, last seen heading south…

Crossposted at American Thinker