#fakenews media completely unhinged

But you knew that already, because it’s been so well documented.

You might have heard that President Trump has banned mobile devices larger than a smartphone from airline flights. But do you know why? According to the following #fakenews headlines, you’d be left scratching your head as to why the president would do such a thing. Get a load of these, then skip down and read the real reason for the ban.


Believe it or not, the New York Times, in a random act of journalism, gets it right. The real reason for the ban is that the Islamic State is in the process of developing explosives that will fit inside a laptop.

WASHINGTON — Intelligence showing that the Islamic State is developing a bomb hidden in portable electronics spurred the United States and Britain on Tuesday to bar passengers from airports in a total of 10 Muslim-majority countries from carrying laptop computers, iPads and other devices larger than a cellphone aboard direct inbound flights, two senior American counterterrorism officials said.

Two additional American officials said the explosives were designed to be hidden in laptop batteries. All four spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to publicly discuss the sensitive information.

And do you know how we gathered this intelligence? The Yemen raid that took place right after President Trump took office in which we lost a Navy SEAL (and which the left has heretofore completely discounted as having been a fruitless endeavor).

So there is a credible threat, after all. But look at the way #fakenews has reported it. This just illustrates how unhinged they are. Imagine how different the headlines would read if the circumstances were the otherwise the same, but Obama were still president.

Imagine if we had this intelligence but did not act on it, and some jihadist managed to take down an aircraft using an explosive he had hidden inside a laptop. They’d try to impeach Trump if that occurred.

Folks, I maintain that the left, and by “left” I’m referring both to the Democrat Party and #fakenews media, wouldn’t mind a terrorist attack occurring if it meant they got to pin the blame on President Trump. That’s how unhinged and partisan they have become. Trump’s election has left them bordering on insanity. The Democrat Party, its accomplices in the #fakenews media, and the lunatics who vote for them and believe the #fakenews represent the largest hate group in America, and it’s on display literally every single day.

Why do you think the Democrats have opposed President Trump on every single safety measure he has tried to put in place to protect Americans from jihadists? It has nothing to do with their adherence to the Constitution — they don’t even know nor care what’s in it — nor is it about fighting racism or xenophobia. They are trying to hinder the president’s ability to protect us while at the same time making it easier to jihadists to do what they do. They want chaos so they can undermine the president. This is who Democrats are and what they do.

Book review, quote du jour, and brilliant commentary all in one post

I just finished reading (the day before yesterday, in fact) Brett Baier’s new book, “Three Days in January: Dwight Eisenhower’s Final Mission.” The core subject of the book is that brief transition of power between President Eisenhower and President Kennedy in January, 1961, and hones down even deeper to Ike’s farewell address to the nation just before he left office in which he warned the American people (and the president-elect) about the growing military-industrial complex. The Cold War and an arms race between the United States and Soviet Union was going full throttle by then, and President Eisenhower was trying to keep us balanced between strong national defense and runaway military spending. Also built into the novel is a loose biography of our (highly underrated) 34th president, who saw himself, even in retirement, as more of an Army general than former chief executive.

This is a fabulous book. Baier is an excellent writer, and the material was thoroughly researched. I first heard about Baier’s book a few weeks ago when he was a guest on the Rush Limbaugh Show. It is extremely rare for Rush to invite guests onto his show to talk about a book. It literally only occurs once every few years. So I figured it had to be a special book to warrant this level of attention from the Maha Rushie.

There is one quote from the book that I’m adding to this post, because it allows me to segue into some commentary on liberalism and the Democrat Party, and it’s a quote that serves as Baier’s interpretation of how President Eisenhower viewed Soviet communism:

But what was its appeal? He looked at the scene and saw an illusion where people were promised liberation at the expense of personal freedom; community at the expense of individuality. There was the myth of superiority grounded in a rickety economic system.

As I read this, my immediate reaction was, my gosh, this sounds a lot like liberalism in the 21st century.

There are two elements here that warrant explanation.

1). Liberalism promises liberation at the expense of personal freedom. In the end, you get neither.

For example, let’s look at ObamaCare. What does ObamaCare presume to offer? It’s not just health coverage, because ObamaCare isn’t just about health coverage. It’s about putting government in control of health care. And when government controls your health care, it controls YOU. With ObamaCare, liberals presume to offer a person liberation. Liberation from what? Liberation from the whims of free-market health care and greedy, heartless insurance companies. Liberation from being one hospital stay away from bankruptcy. You know the left’s arguments.

In the end, you lose personal freedom because government is now in control of your health care. But the liberation you were promised also proves elusive; since ObamaCare places enormous mandates on health insurers, competition is discouraged, premiums skyrocket, and on top of that, your deductibles are often so high that you end up paying thousands of dollars out-of-pocket before you ever get to use your health coverage. So instead of of liberation, you find yourself in bondage to government.

2). Liberalism promises community at the expense of individuality. In the end, you get neither.

This is particularly ironic since we just had a community organizer as our president for eight years. Yet we’re more divided as a nation now than we were before. Liberalism discourages individuality in the name of equality. But what liberalism ultimately produces is sameness, not by elevating those on the bottom, but by reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. The only sense of community under liberalism is among homogeneous groups. This is because liberals drive a wedge between different groups by pitting one against the other, thus discouraging any sort of cross-group sense of community.

With liberals, it’s poor vs. rich, women vs. men, blacks vs. whites, gay BLT’s vs. homophobes, Muslims/jihadists vs. Islamophobes, transgenders vs. bathroom signs, etc. Each homogeneous group is united around one thing: victimhood. The left seeks to turn all these protected groups into victims. Most often, the victimhood is contrived, and the ones doing the victimizing are simply straw men created by the left. So with liberals, you lose your individuality, and really the only sense of community is among homogeneous groups united around a contrived grievance against made-up bogeymen.

You might be a liberal if…

Liberals infuriate me, but it’s also entertaining to make fun of them, which I do from time-to-time. The thing about liberals is that their mental gymnastics are so illogical that a logical person can’t make sense of their thought processes. For example, liberals are always talking about the rights of women and gay BLT’s and pointing out things they find discriminatory. But right at the top of their list of protected victim classes you will find Muslims and jihadists. You won’t find a religion that is more discriminatory against women and gay BLT’s than the Muslim faith. So logically one cannot be both pro-woman/gay BLT and pro-Muslim/jihadist. But liberals are. I only point these things out. I don’t try to make sense of it.

The above is just one example of the left’s faulty logic. There are many more. For example, you might be a liberal if…

A five-year-old knows which bathroom to use, but you don’t.

You believed that Donald Trump’s wait-and-see approach to accepting election results was a threat to democracy, but you refuse to accept the election results.

You believe the Russians hacked the election for Trump even though Hillary won by 3 million votes.

You believe CO2 is a pollutant even though it occurs naturally, and without it life on earth could not be sustained.

You have no idea what dihydrogen monoxide is, but you would sign a petition to ban it if someone told you that corporations were putting it in your food.

You believe Bernie Sanders, who owns three homes, is a man of the people.

You are able to decipher 50 shades of gender, but wouldn’t know an Islamic jihadist if he were standing in front of you with a machete shouting “Allahu Akbar!”

You believe global warming is an imminent threat, even though global warming hucksters have been telling us its an imminent threat for 30+ years.

You are a strong independent women who wants someone else to pay for everything.

You participated in the day without a liberal woman last week thinking the rest of us were going to miss you.

You are unable (or unwilling) to see a correlation between rising crime/rape/riots in Sweden, France, Germany, etc. and the explosion of Muslim immigration.

You took on $80K in college debt for a degree you cannot use and expect someone else to reimburse you.

You visit your local Planned Parenthood clinic and ask for a mammogram.

You object to the objectification of women by the patriarchy, but regard female entertainers who objectify themselves as feminist icons.

You are appalled that Donald Trump said mean things about women, but you proudly proclaim yourself a “nasty woman.”

You engage in body mutilation in the form of piercings, unnatural hair color and/or tattoos, but seeing the red, white & blue shakes you to the core.

You believe women wearing a hijab is a sign of progress.

You believe government shouldn’t tell a woman what to do with her body and that her health choices (i.e., abortion) are private between her and her doctor, but government should be able to force that same woman to by health insurance.

You say you are pro-choice but you oppose school choice.

You default reaction after every Muslim terrorist attack is to warn of a backlash against Muslims.

You’ve known Donald Trump for 30 years but never called him a racist until he ran against a Democrat.

You accuse your political opponents of racism — all of them — but you’re the one who’s always bringing up race.

Irony

We have recently been made aware that there is a rape epidemic in Sweden owing exclusively to the flow of Muslim refugees into the country. One would have never thought that Sweden would be overrun with such lawlessness, but when you import the Third World, you get the Third World. They obviously don’t assimilate well. You haven’t seen a great deal about this in the mainstream press, at least until very recently, because the left is so determined to protect Muslim refugees, even the rapists among them.

While these things are happening in Sweden, and while Paris erupted in riot this weekend (also owing to lawless Muslim immigrants), President Trump is trying to protect Americans from the same lawlessness. He has been met with harsh resistance from the left for a so-called “Muslim ban.”

This is one of many great ironies about the left. Jihadists and Muslims in general are at the very top of the left’s hierarchy of protected victim classes. This is in spite of the fact that Muslims represent much of what the left claims to despise. They are misogynists, they execute homosexuals, they are religiously intolerant, and they would impose their religion on the rest of the world via Sharia Law.

I’m honestly don’t understand why the left is so protective of Muslims & jihadists when they represent so much of what the left claims to hate. I can’t relate to the liberal psyche, nor do I want to. These are merely things I observe about the left. Liberals and liberalism defy logic. This is why you can’t reason with them or make any sort of compromises. You simply have to defeat them.

Thank goodness we have a president who is determined to protect us from this sort of Third World lawlessness, even when he is so vehently opposed by Democrats and the #fakenews media. So, ladies of the left, while you’re out protesting President Trump and his so-called “Muslim ban,” can you honestly look at the rape epidemic going on in Sweden (and elsewhere) and say you want those things to happen to you here in the U.S.?

The Democrat Party’s protected victim classes

Rush Limbaugh explained on yesterday’s show how the Democrat Party creates victims out of various Americans and that it is a tremendous disservice to those who are self-victimized. No one victimizes you. You do it to yourself. And in doing so, you, the victim, acquiesce yourself to a lifetime of anger and mediocrity.

Look how easy the Democrat Party has made almost half this country think they’re victims of something.

And what happens to you when you’re a victim? Well, when you’re a victim, you automatically have a built-in excuse for failure. When you are a victim, it’s always somebody else’s fault. When you’re a victim, success is not possible. When you are a victim of something, you are acknowledging that you are as far as you’re gonna get, and you can’t get any further, because there are more powerful forces arrayed against you than the force of yourself against it.

And the Democrat Party does this on purpose. The Democrat Party makes as many people victims as possible because it freezes them right where they are. And that’s usually in lower middle class or abject poverty. It makes them resentful. If you’re a victim, you’re not happy. You can’t be happy. It’s impossible to be happy. It’s even difficult to be content. If you’re a victim, you’re always mad, but never at yourself. You’re mad at somebody else.

Rush continued beyond this with his victimhood monologue, but I have to cut it off somewhere. Here’s the link if you want to read the whole thing.

At any rate, the left has created several classifications of victims. And the list grows continually.

For example, if you’re a jihadist, you’re a victim of Islamophobia.

If you’re black, you’re a victim of racism and discrimination (typically by liberals themselves).

If you’re a woman, you’re a victim of misogyny.

If you’re a limp-wristed beta male, you’re also a victim of misogyny.

If you’re a gay BLT, you’re a victim of homophobia.

If you’re a transgender or one of the left’s 50 shades of gender, you’re part of a subgroup of the larger gay BLT victim class in which you’re a victim of not knowing which bathroom to use.

If you’re an illegal immigrant you’re a victim of xenophobia.

I think this covers the primary victim classes. I may have missed one or two. Of course, there are enumerable sub-groups within the larger victim classes. It gets very complicated. This is because the left tends to complicate things that aren’t actually complicated.

The next part, and this is where it gets really fun, is trying to nail down a hierarchy of who ranks ahead of who in terms of victimology. You see, sometimes there are clashes between victim groups. And ultimately, one group receives more sympathy than the other.

For example, a jihadist opened fire at a gay nightclub in Orlando last year, murdering several dozen clubgoers. We learned from that incident that jihadists are at the very top of the list of protected victim classes. I don’t know why this is. You would have to delve into the liberal psyche to come up with an answer, and that’s not a place I am willing to go. I’m just making observations here.

I’m not sure who ranks second on the list. It may be the 50 shades of gender, given the way the left is up in arms over the bathroom issue.

As for who’s third, it could be illegal immigrants. After that, it’s either the gay BLT’s or female victims of misogyny. But this is where it starts getting muddy.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

Not since liberals suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome during the Era Before Obama have we seen them so unhinged. Honestly, this is wonderful, because the American left is willingly exposing itself to everyone who’s paying attention. The left’s lunatic fringe is fully on display, and they’re doing it to themselves.

First came the derangement following Election Day, when Jill Stein (no doubt a Clinton puppet) attempted to steal the election via a doomed recount endeavor. Then came the effort to sabotage the Electoral College by wooing and intimidating Trump electors. The result was a loss of two Trump electors and five HRC electors, so that maneuver backfired. (Doh!) Then came the attempt to sabotage the actual certification of the electoral votes in the U.S. Senate last week, and that went nowhere, too. Interspersed in all this failed maneuvering has been a feckless attempt by the left to blame the election results on Russian hackers, for which there is and always has been zero evidence. You have Trump getting bashed by the entertainment industry, Trump’s cabinet nominees being savaged for being “too rich,” and all sorts of craziness coming from the crazies on the left.

Now liberals have turned their attention to the confirmation hearings for Trump’s appointees. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s home run choice to serve as Attorney General, is being castigated by the left as a…wait for it…wait for it…RAAAAACIST! Like we’ve never heard that one before. Folks, there isn’t a shred of evidence that could lead one to believe Jeff Sessions has so much as a racist cell in his body. Senator Sessions is a solid conservative who loves the country and will do a fabulous job as AG, especially coming off the corrupt AG’s President Obama had in charge the past 8 years. Jeff Sessions is a fine and decent individual, and to watch these deranged, lunatic leftists attempt to sit in judgment over our next AG is the height of irony.

I’ve heard it said before that liberalism is a mental illness. I completely disagree with this. To put liberals on par with the mentally ill is a slam on the mentally ill. Mental illness is a medical condition that can be effectively treated by medication and/or professional counseling. You cannot cure liberalism with medication. The only cure for liberalism is truth, objectivity, reality, open-mindedness, and logic, and, with few exceptions, liberals reject all of these. Liberalism is a result of maleducation, unhappiness, poor upbringing, any number of external factors and circumstances that cause the human mind to reject what is obvious to the rest of us. I mean, my gosh, they celebrate and rally around the mass killing of the unborn. That by itself should tell you everything you need to know about liberals.

Now that we have the election of Donald J. Trump and the rapid spread of Trump Derangement Syndrome among the American left, their lunacy, their fecklessness, their intolerance, and their closed-mindedness are all on full display right in front of us.

Barack Obama’s bitter half

Michelle “Mooch” Obama’s true colors are coming out now that her husband is soon to leave office and his successor, Donald Trump, is riding the wave of a complete repudiation of the Obamessiah and his 8 years of misery. Mooch says we have no hope now. In a recent interview with The Oprah, the outgoing First Lady remarked, “See, now we’re feeling what not having hope feels like. You know, hope is necessary. It’s a necessary concept. And Barack didn’t just talk about hope because he thought it was just a nice slogan to get votes.”

First, Obama did talk about hope just to get votes, but on to the larger point. What does it say about Mooch’s husband’s 8 years in office that she has no hope? If her husband had actually been an effective president, she would be brimming with hope.

But I’d say for the first time in 8 years, we actually have hope for the country. The stock market is soaring, companies are abandoning plans to send jobs overseas, and Trump’s thank you tour is packed everywhere it goes. That Mooch believes we are without hope illustrates just how out-of-touch she is.

Mooch wasn’t even proud of her country until 8 years ago. Since then she has lived like royalty on the taxpayers’ dime, enjoyed lavish vacations, and been supported by an enormous staff the likes of which no previous First Lady has ever required. Yet she leaves the White House now with nothing but bitterness and ingratitude, which is typical of an entitlement-minded liberal.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/12/16/for_the_first_time_in_eight_years_we_finally_have_hope_mrs_obama

Obama’s scapegoats

Years ago, Rush Limbaugh posited the “Limbaugh Theorem” to explain why President Obama is never held accountable for the consequences of his ruinous policies. His theory is that Obama isn’t seen as governing. There are all these unseen forces working against him and he isn’t responsible for anything.

For example, the chronic high unemployment of the past 8 years, along with our anemic (or non-existent) economic growth aren’t Obama’s fault. It’s George W. Bush’s fault. Even though Bush left office in January, 2009, he apparently has had more of an impact on our economy that the man-child who has occupied the White House for nearly 8 years.

The exploding healthcare costs resulting from ObamaCare aren’t the fault of ObamaCare. Remember, Obama said our premiums would go down by $2,500 and if you liked your doctor, you would get to keep your doctor. If you liked your plan, you would get to keep that, too. But none of that actually played out. ObamaCare is on the verge of imploding. But it’s not because of ObamaCare. It’s the fault of greedy insurance companies.

The war and refugee crisis in Syria is the fault of climate change.

Our four dead state department employees in Benghazi weren’t the result of any failures on the part of the Obama administration, but resulted from an obscure YouTube video.

The rise in Islamic jihadism is the result of “Islamophobia.”

Trump’s electoral victory was in no way a repudiation of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, or their policies. It was the fault of Vladimir Putin.

If you like your doctor…

“Your premiums are going to go down $2,500.”

“If you like your doctor you get to keep your doctor.”

These were things President Obama told us several years ago when the Democrats were trying to win public support for ObamaCare.

It was a lie. It was always a lie. The fact that you can’t keep your doctor and that premiums are skyrocketing isn’t some new wrinkle. It was always going to be this way.

Insurance companies are bailing out of ObamaCare like passengers on a sinking ship. They can’t afford to stay. They were never supposed to. Even though every single American is mandated to buy their product, they can’t afford to stay in. But they will serve as scapegoats nonetheless.

We are headed toward a single-payer system unless we elect the right people right now and repeal this behemoth. Of course, single-payer was always the objective, where government becomes the sole provider of healthcare. The pain Americans are enduring in the meantime, where ObamaCare premiums are becoming like a second mortgage, is part of the process.

This is liberalism, people. This is what happens when you elect liberal Democrats. This is what you get.

Equality vs. sameness

Rush Limbaugh brought up a novel concept on his radio show a few weeks ago that I have been sitting on…until now. He discussed the fact that liberals claim to be all about equality, but really what they’re all about is sameness. There is a huge difference.

This enables me to describe one of many fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are actually pro-equality. Liberals are pro-sameness.

Let’s take as porting event: baseball, basketball, football, whatever. You have two teams. They begin a contest with a beginning score of 0-0. The referees apply the rules evenly and fairly to both teams. That’s equality. Now, one team is going to win. It will most often be the better team, or at least the team that plays better that given day. But they both had an equal chance to succeed.

Liberals would take that same contest and rig the outcome so that it ends in a tie. That’s sameness, and there’s nothing equal or fair about it. In this case, one team — the better team — gets screwed, and the other team is propped up superficially. This is liberalism. This is what they refer to as equality, but it’s really just sameness, where we’re all set up for the same outcome regardless of ability and work ethic.