Saturday, January 20, 2018

Trump Didn't Believe Ogbjma's Job Anyalsis : "Jobs Aren't Coming Back" Trump : Bulls**t!

Trump say Barrrack's Jobs plan is bulls**t! I'll Fix it!! 
Barrrack's new wave transformation religious jihad was to once and for all reduce America  influence around the world so Iran could become the leader in the middle east and have influence else where to tip the scales of power.

Barrack Ogbjma made one thing very clear from the very beginning of his run for the Presidency. Barrrack did not like this country as it was founded.

Barrrack believed if could reduce America's power as a nation by reducing it's population to a mostly dependent subculture of capitulant survivors, he could control them much better, easier then having  to deal with a free people that act independently.

But, again as luck would have it, it's the turn of the card is always anticipated as a winner, and it was indeed a winner when the people decided Trump could fix this mess of criminals left behind by Barrrack. And he has.

President Trump Proclaimed Sane : The Media Is Insane

From what I've heard, the insurance companies are in a panic as there are so many news media types being admitted to mental institution, and or applying for insurance coverage to pay medical professional's fees to help them over this nasty blip in the news that President Trump has actually been proclaimed to be sane.

Just imagine how horrifying it would be when all of a sudden you realize your entire mental state that has been given up to the idea that what you hate the most in life is actually yourself. Where do you go to find a safe place as you try to figure out how this happened and what to do next?


President Trump's Button : Of Course it's Bigger and Better! Who Knew?


What I find disturbing  is that there are a lot of people that believe President Trump actually has a button on his desk that he can push to launch missiles any time he wants. No really, there are many more than anyone would believe he can do this.

And worse, there are even some Republicans as well. Yeah I know,  I thought it was just democrats, but they are ignorant on the procedure to launch missiles if we are attacked. Any one with half a brain should be able to conclude it would have to harder then just to decide this morning that the president wants to destroy a country so all he has to do is reach over and push a button.

But ask yourself this question, why do so many among us still vote democrat? Wonder no longer.



Progressive's View of The World : Reality Doesn't Exist.


Here, in one picture, maybe the perfect definition of the saying 'a picture is worth a thousand words' to explain the main stream media's total inability to live in the real world.

All that's needed is to proclaim realty no longer exists and therefore it doesn't. And if you object to what we say, telling you what the truth is, you must be destroyed.                                                            


Friday, January 19, 2018

President Trump Grounded In Reality : Success Follows

I worry that there are so many among us that are uninformed and ill-informed, misinformed as to what our nation actually means to the survival to freedom it self.  So many are still in that camp believing allowing others to do the thinking for them this will be a shield against the tyranny of the few using and abusing them.

They vote as they always have regardless of the consequences, even in the face of over whelming facts to the contrary.

Here President Trump moves to establish contact with this Marine for obvious reasons, much like he has established contact with the rest of us that lives in reality with his fulfilling his promises. The question that remains is why is this so hard for so many to understand?


  cid:8D297561-2973-4798-937E-553F3ECD59B7 
       cid:6211A7B6-E90B-4FD9-82DB-DE35367EDF4D
         R. A. ‘Skip’ Paradine, Jr.
        Sergeant Major of Marines
        EOD, U. S. Marines, Ret’d
            

Those who hate him will always hate him, no matter what. In his stead, I certainly couldn't imagine Hillary (or Bill, for that matter) or Obama making anything even close to this gesture. If you cannot understand the meaning of this I feel sorry for you.



Please try to understand the weight of this image. This soldier lost both arms. The feeling of a handshake is now lost to him.

Trump realized this, and so touched his face, so he can feel the human connection. This is what I see when I think of Trump's motives. He gave up a billionaire lifestyle to now be insulted, dragged through the mud, and lied about, on a daily basis.

All to save this country and people he loves. God Bless America!

Pro Life Movement Winning : Progressives Losing Ground?

As the progressive liberals become less powerful and convinced that they are by right the sole answer to all things moral and ethical, they find they must escalate their point of view by becoming more and more unreasonable and unresponsive to the shifting beliefs among the citizens.

If the progressives believe all they have left is stonewalling common sense demands of the majority by falling further back into their previous patterns of behavior of just resistance, they are signaling they are without recourse. They believe they have lost the debate especially now with Donald Trump as President?

They are telling everyone they are not committed enough anymore to their most basic tenant of unrestricted abortion to have a debate any longer? I wonder what direction the progressive will take next? If it is anything like the attacks on President Trump, this will become violent. In realty, it's all they have left.

The left is bankrupt, morally and ethically.

Why the Pro-Life Movement Is a True Expression of America’s Founding Principles
Mike Gonzalez / /

The most successful social movements in American history have almost always channeled the philosophy of the founding generation, and in most cases, religion.

Religious conviction along with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which defines rights as both God-given and equally applicable to everyone, drove both the anti-slavery and civil rights movements.

In many ways, the modern pro-life movement has followed in this tradition in defense of the individual right to life itself. Public opinion on the issue of abortion has certainly shifted over the last half century, with an increasing number of Americans identifying as pro-life, and an even higher number of people calling themselves pro-choice while actually holding more pro-life views.

Undoubtedly, the work of a few dedicated organizations has contributed to this shift.

This year, the nation’s capital will host the 45th annual March for Life. The march initially began as a protest of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which defined abortion as essentially a constitutional right under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Many Americans opposed this decision on both moral and legal grounds, and used events like the March for Life as a sounding board for their views. The rally has continued and grown over the years, attracting people from all over the nation who believe that abortion is fundamentally wrong.

 Why I’m Traveling 710 Miles to Attend the March for Life

While the pro-life movement has sharpened in focus and increased its scope over the last 50 years, the pro-choice movement has drifted further away from its more limited public goal, once famously articulated by President Bill Clinton: that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”

At one time, this argument held more sway. Its proponents said that abortion was simply going to happen regardless of legal restrictions, and that it should therefore be in a “safe” environment rather than in a back alley. Hillary Clinton tried to revive this rhetoric in 2008, emphasizing that abortions should indeed be “rare,” but she then dropped that language in the 2016 election. She even advocated scrapping the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal dollars from directly funding abortions.

This must be pointed out, not to demonstrate the shiftiness of the Clintons, but to show how the pro-choice movement has become more strident and insistent on abortion being more than just a necessary evil, but a positive good for individuals and society.

As scholar David Grimes said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, “Abortion is good for you, your family, and society. … It’s a win-win-win.”

While pro-choice advocates would undoubtedly balk at this comparison, many have drawn similarities between the debate over abortion and the one over slavery in the 19th century. The original terms of the debate, in both cases, mostly revolved around the utility and practicality of an institution’s existence.

Most of the Founding Fathers recognized slavery as an institution that was out of step with the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, and sought its eventual extinction. However, by 1860, a sizeable clique of Americans believed that slavery was actually a moral positive and needed to be preserved forever. This sharp moral division proved intractable and led to war.

In a provocative piece in the Public Discourse, Regent University professor Miles Smith IV wrote that the arguments for abortion on demand, couched in the language of individual autonomy, run parallel to the arguments of the more radical Southern slavery advocates.

Defenders of slavery saw government intrusion on their “property” as a violation of their sacred rights. As a result, they sought to make sure that slavery remained accepted and protected to a maximum extent under all conditions.

“In the same way,” wrote Smith, “modern abortion advocates have viewed any obstacle to abortion-on-demand—including waiting periods and parental consent for minors—as an entirely unwarranted invasion of women’s totalitarian authority over their unborn children.”

The terms of the abortion debate have shifted in the last 20 years from “safe, legal, and rare,” to no restrictions under any circumstances. This shift is evident in the left’s opposition to any reasonable limits on abortion practices. For instance, the pain-capable abortion bill, which would prevent abortions after 20 weeks.

The 20-week limit was set because studies have shown this is around the time babies can feel pain. Even most European countries, which are generally more left-wing than the United States, place restrictions on abortions early in the second trimester. Yet, many pro-choice proponents attacked this legislation as dangerous.

Abortion provider Planned Parenthood said of this measure on its website, “20-week bans are part of an agenda to ban all abortion. Anti-abortion politicians in Congress and in state legislatures are pushing their agenda, bit by bit, to ultimately outlaw abortion completely.”

There has also been hostility toward the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which would extend legal protections to babies born after a botched abortion. It must be noted that killing a baby after birth stretches the limits of what could even be described as an abortion. Yet some, like former Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., have been willing to at least theoretically cross that line.

Now, Democrats’ refusal to get behind the born-alive bill speaks even louder. The distinction between the pro-life and pro-choice camps is becoming more clear than ever. Which raises the powerful question faced by many past generations of Americans: Do we really believe that all men are created equal? Or shall we cast that belief aside when it’s convenient?

Americans are quick to excoriate generations of the past for failing to uphold their convictions and for falling short of our founding ideals. It is worth noting that we, too, may be judged and found sorely wanting.

Senator James Lankford On The Issues : What's Happening In Congress

Excellent discussion with Senator Langford. His comments make so much sense but leaves one bewildered as to who is actually in charge. 

And worse maybe, how did we get to this point in time where our government could become this dysfunctional.

Q&A: Sen. James Lankford on Earmarks, Democrat Obstruction, and More
Rachel del Guidice / /

The Daily Signal spoke with Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., Wednesday on news of the day, including conversations on Capitol Hill about reinstating earmarks, the senator’s proposal to help end obstruction of President Donald Trump’s nominees, and more.

Lankford’s proposal to help end obstruction of Trump’s nominees would decrease the current 30 hours of wait time between debate an voting for the nominee to eight for most executive branch nominees, and two hours for most federal court nominees.

What follows is a lightly edited transcript of the conversation.

Rachel del Guidice: I wanted to first start off and get your thoughts on the talk that’s been going around Capitol Hill about reinstating earmarks. I know the House Rules Committee is holding a few hearings this week, so I just wanted to first get your thoughts on reinstating earmarks and then what you’re hearing on Capitol Hill.

Sen. James Lankford: Yeah, it’s an interesting dialogue to come up again. I thought it was a settled issue that should remain settled. We should not have earmarks similar to any way it was done in the past. The issue is not whether Congress has the authority to appropriate dollars. Clearly, constitutionally they have the authority to do that and the responsibility to do that.

The issue is how it is done and it’s used as a vehicle to get people to vote yes on legislation that they should vote no for because it’s not good legislation. So, if it’s used as a tool, which has been the conversation, and even was a part of the president’s conversation in the White House meeting last week, is how do we get more legislation moving, well, let’s do earmarks again. I think it’s the wrong direction.

del Guidice: What are you hearing? Do you think there’s a large consensus that this could happen or there’s substantial support against it?

Lankford: I think there’s substantial support against it. There are individuals that say, “Hey, there are projects that previous administrations would not do or this administration would not do and they’re not aware of,” and I understand that.

When you’re the representative of that area, you have a responsibility to stay current on the needs and the issues that are federal issues in your district or your state. But, reinstating earmarks, or anything similar to what it looked like in the past, is a terrible idea.

del Guidice: I wanted to circle back with you on a proposal that you’ve been working on to limit the debate hours for presidential nominees. Where is that at and how are you hoping that will continue to go through the Congress?

Lankford: So, we have had a hearing on that in the Rules Committee. That was the only hearing all last year actually was on that issue. It was in December. The proposal that I brought, as you know, was the 2013 proposal that Democrats brought and said this is a good solution for 2013 and 2014.

I have said it’s a good solution then, it’s a good solution now and in the future to take away the sunset date. That’s two hours for district court judges, eight hours for everyone else, except for Supreme Court, circuit court, and Cabinet officials. They’d be 30 hours. But that is limiting what we call the post-cloture time, time that is actually just wasted time.

Once it’s determined that these individuals have gone through committee, been approved by committee, they’ve already gone through the first section of time that everyone knows they’re actually going to pass, this is just a loss of time.

So, in the past, all these individuals just moved in regular order, pretty consistently, most of them by unanimous consent or by voice vote. Or they were put together in packages where 20, 30, 40 people at a time and moved but now, there’s just long contracted delay. The product with that is that it doesn’t just take the president a long time to get his nominees, the product is that the Senate can’t actually debate legislation.

We’re constantly in 30-hour post-cloture debate time on nominees that are going to pass like they did last week unanimously, but it’s just wasting time that you can’t actually get in on legislation and vote on key issues.

del Guidice: And so you think this would help if this were to happen with the obstruction we’ve been seeing … and it’s taking so long for them to get confirmed?

Lankford: I absolutely think this would not only help with the obstruction that’s happening on nominees but allow the Senate to get back to voting on legislation again.

del Guidice: There’s been a lot of discussion, Democrats wanting to tack DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, onto a spending bill that we’re going to have to pass. It looks like the spending bill’s going to be pivoted until February, but what do you think should happen with DACA and “Dreamers”? This is an issue that won’t be going away and going forward. What do you hear on Capitol Hill and what is your perspective on that?

Lankford: It’s interesting, a lot of our Democratic colleagues are very focused on, we have to get a solution for DACA, and they don’t want to discuss the border security portion of it at all. Or they don’t want to say, “We will build a small section of the wall, but we want to do extensive work for the DACA recipients.”

What many of us have said from the very beginning is, when you’re dealing with kids in DACA, these really are kids that as a whole have lived their entire lives in the United States but they were brought here by their parents, and their parents were not legal, obviously, those children were not legal. But, the children came as children at no fault of their own.

As a friend of mine often says, if an adult is pulled over for speeding, you don’t ticket the 4-year-old in the back seat. They were a passenger along for the ride, but the adult in the front is responsible for those actions.

So there is a difference with dealing with those in the DACA program, and I think that we understand that. But, there is a need to really resolve the issues around border security and chain migration. Or, you will have a DACA vote five years from now, and another one five years after that. So, you can’t just deal with one issue and not deal with the larger issue around border security.

So, that has been the sticking point because our Democratic colleagues do not want to discuss border security, they want to discuss DACA. But, even the president at the very beginning, in September, said whatever we have to do with DACA we’re also going to have to do significant work on border security to get this done. And that still holds true, and now, four and a half months later, we’re still trying to get our Democratic colleagues to the table to actually have serious debate on border security.

del Guidice: Are there any specific items that you would want to see in legislation for DACA as a give-and-take that would happen with immigration reform?

Lankford: Yeah, I don’t think there’s an unwillingness, Republicans or Democrats, with a legislative solution on DACA. So, it’s not as if this is a trade back and forth but it is an acknowledgment that if you’re going to deal with DACA, then you’re going to have to deal with the border security. Only because those two issues are connected.

The reason those individuals are here is because we didn’t have border security in the past. And that doesn’t change or get better unless you resolve that issue at the same time. So we want to be able to resolve it.

But there are key things. We treat individuals that come into the country illegally one way if they’re from Mexico or Canada and completely different if they’re from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, wherever else it may be. There’s no reason to do that. We should treat all people that cross our border illegally the same. With a great sense of fairness for those individuals, but we should treat people the same if they cross our border illegally.

We should deal with issues around … I’m trying to think of how many issues are even on the border … So you’ve got fence in some areas that needs to be built, you have wall in some areas that needs to be built. You have technology in some areas that needs to be constructed. You have fiber networks that need to go to each other so we can have broadband access and good communication in those areas.

All of those things need to be dealt with. At the same time, you’re also dealing with legal issues. You’re dealing with what’s called expedited removal process. That’s a legal issue that needs to be resolved. We have to deal with federal access to lands. There are some lands that are federal lands that we can’t get access to those lands when it’s even a different agency.

So, Customs and Border Control can’t get access to areas that are run by the Interior Department. Well, that’s just got to be cleaned up. So you don’t have areas that are open for people crossing illegally but even Customs and Border Patrol can’t get onto it.

And so, all those things have to be resolved. But again, none of this should be controversial, all of this should be a commonsense issue if you’re going to have a secure border. That means you have to fix in law and in fact a secure border.

del Guidice: And lastly, pivoting to the March for Life. This will be the first time that a president has addressed the March for Life with a video. What is your opinion on how this is just monumental for the pro-life movement and for the nation as a whole?

Lankford: It’s a big deal anytime the president speaks anywhere, but when he speaks about something like this it’s especially significant. The vice president of the United States spoke last year to the March for Life, that was a significant moment.

Now for the president to step up and say, “You know what, our nation should be a culture and nation that is committed to a culture of life.” To be able to honor each individual no matter how old or how young that individual happens to be, we should be a culture that’s based around life. And the appreciation and value for each human being. That there is no human being that’s too small, or too young, or too old that doesn’t have dignity and worth.

Supreme Court Stands For Religious Liberty : Freedom Wins One

What a great example of people finally deciding that the 'new wave' ideology of everyone must be obedient to just point of view or be destroyed was shown up to be a failure to delivery justice.

But then it was never about justice for the liberals, it was and still is about being in control. Their loss of power with the arrival of Donald Trump leaves little for them to contemplate as to what they must do to regain control, the only thing they know is to  attack, attack, attack. 

The liberal agenda has nothing to offer the people, so why vote for them? Ever.


The Supreme Court Quietly Gives Religious Liberty a Big Win
Monica Burke / /

Religious liberty and freedom of conscience won big at the Supreme Court last week, just in time for Religious Freedom Day on Jan. 16. The justices declined last week to hear a legal challenge against a Mississippi law that protects citizens, small businesses, government employees, and charities from official discrimination by government if they believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The Mississippi law benefits people on both sides of the marriage debate because when a government can punish one group of citizens for dissenting from cultural orthodoxy, it can punish any group for any belief.

In declining to hear a case against Mississippi’s Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act (HB 1523), the Supreme Court let stand the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in the face of challenges by the ACLU and Lambda Legal.

Now a year after HB 1523 was passed, Mississippians know they are free to live according to their religious beliefs about marriage without fear of losing their livelihoods. It’s a victory in a battle that never should have happened in the first place. HB 1523 was a direct response to the threat of anti-religious discrimination after the Supreme Court redefined marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges.

During oral arguments for Obergefell, Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was asked whether religious institutions could lose their tax-exempt status owing to their beliefs about marriage. “[I]t’s certainly going to be an issue,” he told the court. “I don’t deny that.”

Although Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion in Obergefell that those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman do so based on “decent and honorable premises” and that “neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here,” Verrilli’s comments told a different story.

Verrilli’s remarks signaled that the government could use its powers to tax and spend to force its views of marriage upon citizens.

In the two and a half years since Obergefell, activists, local and state governments, and federal authorities have treated the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman with contempt.
Billionaire LGBT activist Tim Gill pledged to “punish the wicked.” Delivering upon his threat, government authorities have denied citizens across the country the right to live in accordance with their beliefs about marriage.

Members of numerous professions, including entertainment, counseling, emergency services, technology, farming, and the military, have been demoted or terminated from their jobs because of their beliefs about marriage.

The government also has targeted religious nonprofit organizations. Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia stopped contracting with faith-based adoption agencies because they would place children only with married moms and dads.

When the president of Gordon College privately wrote President Barack Obama to request a religious exemption from an effort to force government contractors to accept new views about marriage and sexuality, the school nearly lost its accreditation. Meanwhile, a local school district refused to employ students of Gordon College, and the city of Salem suspended its long-term contract that allowed the college to use the Town Hall.

Legislators in Mississippi responded to this wave of anti-religious discrimination by passing HB 1523. The bill protects individual citizens, public servants, businesses, and religious institutions from being penalized by the government for belief in traditional marriage.

But the ACLU and Lambda Legal sued on behalf of clients who claimed to be harmed by the law. Last June, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs had no standing because they failed to demonstrate that the law would violate their rights in any way.  The Supreme Court was right to leave the lower court’s decision intact.

These protections should not be controversial. Kennedy recently reiterated his call for tolerance of disagreement on marriage during oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case of a Colorado cake artist whose belief in traditional marriage drew intense ire from state officials. Admonishing Colorado’s state solicitor general, he stated that “tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual.”

It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant, nor respectful of [Jack] Phillips’ religious beliefs. If federal, state, and local authorities would heed Kennedy’s call for tolerance and respect in Obergefell and Masterpiece, laws like HB 1523 would not be needed.

But as more and more Americans are forced to choose between their job and their conscience, both state legislatures and the Congress should promptly protect citizens from the new wave of government discrimination.

State laws such as HB 1523 and federal legislation such as the First Amendment Defense Act would ensure that the government cannot put anyone out of work for their beliefs about marriage.

Furthermore, what’s at stake here extends far beyond the marriage debate. If the government can wield its power to silence opinions it disfavors, then everyone is at risk of being punished for holding the “wrong” opinions.

When Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that we commemorate today, he observed that Almighty God created the mind free and that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment or burdens would beget only hypocrisy and meanness. This admonition bears remembering in our modern debate over the redefinition of marriage.

The residents of Mississippi are fortunate that their legislators got it right with HB 1523. Now, Americans in all 50 states need courageous leaders to stand up for their rights, too.

The ''Fake News'' Strategy : Old Legacy Media Fears Control Is Lost

And to question why the progressive socialist liberal democrats are celebrating the ''new media'' strategy of 'fake news' to regain power, is to wonder if the democrats are not mentally capable of explaining their views without having to rely on deception for who and they are?

The progressive liberal is single minded. There cannot be any other opinion or idea that will satisfy their personal need for control of all outcomes other then the ones they hold closest to their hearts, their own belief in the rightness of their cause.

So in the present atmosphere of Donald Trump and his attitude that the ''news media'' is fake, which it is on so many different fronts, the legacy media has denied it's own failures to deliver their most basic agenda, ''our news or no news'' that worked so well for them and for ever it seems, the old media has become no more then a fantasy, live out past  successes to dominate the news of the day as though the present reality doesn't exist.


Don’t Let Liberals End Opinion Diversity Under Cover of ‘Fake News’ Campaign
Mike Gonzalez / /

The issue of fake news is very much in the news, as it were, and President Donald Trump is being compared to Stalin for his dismissal of journalists who are purveyors of it as “enemies of the American people.” It may be good to jog our memory back to how the term “fake news” arrived among us.

Only then do we remember that it first was intended to be used as a weapon in a sustained campaign by liberals to regain their former monopoly over news delivery, and end one of the most important and hard-won victories by conservatives—the information diversity that arrived with the internet.

Disinformation, of course, has been among us since man first began to use language, sought to conceal something, and lied about it. So a very long time. But the present use of the term fake news is of much more recent vintage, as we can see in this chart:




Internet searches for “fake news” really kicked up in early November 2016. It is to then that we can trace this Nov. 6, 2016, article by The New York Times’ media critic, Jim Rutenberg, credited with the first use of the term.

“The internet-borne forces that are eating away at print advertising are enabling a host of faux-journalistic players to pollute the democracy with dangerously fake news items,” Rutenberg wrote.
The purpose of Rutenberg’s jeremiad was to draw attention to the secular demise of mainstream newspaper outlets and decry the success of conservative outlets.

Rutenberg’s evidence was comprised of outrageous examples of conspiracy mongering by alt-right sites—content, he complained, that can “live alongside that of The Times or The Boston Globe or The Washington Post on the Facebook newsfeed and be just as well read, if not more so.”

But it is clear from his piece that his real target was opinion diversity. “If you have a society where people can’t agree on basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?” Rutenberg quoted The Washington Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, as asking.

We heard a very similar version in former President Barack Obama’s complaint to David Letterman this month:  One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don’t share a common baseline of facts. If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you are listening to NPR.

We know which planet our 44th president inhabits, and which he thinks is in a galaxy far, far away.
We also know whose “basic facts” Rutenberg trusted: In his seminal 2016 column he mentions the hard-left and equally conspiracy-driven MSNBC as a normal, mainstream network.

The loss of the previous progressive monopoly on the dissemination of news and analysis has poisoned the liberal soul since the internet came on the scene. The left’s “fake news” campaign began, then, as an attempt to smear all legitimate conservative news purveyors, from Fox News Channel to The Weekly Standard to the Washington Examiner and, of course, The Daily Signal, that provide an alternative news selection and interpretation.

This effort to delegitimize conservative outlets went horribly wrong, of course, when Trump appropriated the term and weaponized it. I must admit that when the president started doing it, I thought it wouldn’t fly. The current brouhaha proves that I was wrong.

As a former journalist, I don’t particularly like calling newsmen “the enemies of the American people.” It is indeed a term once used by Stalin. (Though it hardly makes Trump a Stalinist, a distinction that should be reserved for those who actually massacre millions and oppress those who survive.)

My friends in the media are not enemies of the American people. But they are mostly liberal.

Ask the more existential question, “Do liberals like America?” and that’s harder to answer. Many liberals don’t hide their contempt for the U.S. (there are many, many examples; find them yourself) and many others still proffer to like an America I don’t recognize. Which is why we should all be present in the marketplace of ideas. After gaining this beachhead, conservatives must protect it against what will be sustained attempts to dislodge them.

In 2014, I had a celebrated exchange with Darrell West and Beth Stone at Brookings Institution over their frightening call in a paper for digital platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter to change their algorithms in a manner that would prioritize information from liberal sources.

But West and Stone won, and social networks are now “fact-checking” their content. As my colleague Katrina Trinko points out here, this is censoring the news.

Ending opinion diversity this way is the real threat to freedom of the press and the First Amendment, and what should keep those who worry about it awake at night.

Thursday, January 18, 2018

United States Energy Exports Reach Record Levels : Trump Wins Again!

I wonder why the progressive socialist liberal media doesn't want anything to do with this information being made public across the nation. I wonder as well why the media finds the good news that America is coming back to positive exports, positive returns from pipeline installations both north and south, and becoming a leader again of the world in energy?

Can it be just the fear that the progressive's agenda, based only on 'resistance' and hate for Donald Trump and the Republicans, is running on empty? Their bold faced lies about who they are isn't enough to get back the power that they so dearly believe is theirs by right especially when on so many different fronts, Trumps agenda is succeeding making that climb out of he sewer just that much more difficult.

Amazingly, not even nightly lies and total misinformation in the media can't give the liberal democrats enough cover to shield them from their total exposure as the empty suits they really are. The democrats are seen as bankrupt mentally, morally and ethically. They are showing us all they have nothing to offer.

Why vote for people that you know are not interested in you or your problems but want to use and abuse you to get back their power to control you?

US Poised to Shatter Records for Oil Production, Gas Exports
Michael Bastasch / /

The U.S. is well on its way to becoming a net exporter of natural gas for the first time in decades after breaking an annual record for oil production, according to the latest government data.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the U.S. to become a net natural gas exporter once it’s compiled all the data for 2017. The U.S. is sending more gas to Mexico via pipeline and shipping more liquefied natural gas overseas.

It’s good news for President Donald Trump’s administration, which has been promoting an “energy dominance” agenda for the past year, but the implications could be farther reaching. Unleashing U.S. energy exports has the potential to upset longstanding geopolitical and economic arrangements across the world.

The Energy Information Administration expects the U.S. to have the third-largest gas liquefaction capacity in the world by the end of 2019, behind Qatar and Australia, assuming all such projects underway are finished on time. The administration also expects a doubling of gas pipeline capacity to Mexico, furthering pushing up exports.

That news came about after the administration released its short-term U.S. energy outlook this January. In that report, the statistics agency projected U.S. crude oil production averaged 9.3 million barrels per day in 2017.

Production is projected to further increase through the next year, averaging 10.3 million barrels per day and breaking the record set in 1970 of 9.6 million barrels per day. Production could average 10.8 million barrels per day in 2019, rivaling Russia.

Russia and Saudi Arabia agreed in November to extend oil production cuts until the end of 2018 to keep prices up after the collapse in the summer of 2014. Though with crude now hovering around $70 a barrel, some are predicting that agreement could fall apart.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.