What actually happened was the democrats are forced to have their collective hands in their own pockets because the pockets of others are empty. The people are spending their money now because they believe the country under Trump has turned away from the ''pit of despair'' left behind by 8 years of Barack Ogbjma and his criminal ilk among the progressive socialist liberal democrats.
And when democrat have to have their hands in there own pocket they don't know what to do. If they aren't stealing tax dollars from the tax payers, they are found wondering in the treasury building looking for the key.
If you ever wondered why there so much hate coming from the progressive socialist liberals democrats, it's that they are scared to death the population will find out that the socialist democrat agenda and ideology has been a lie and that the democrats knew it was a lie but demanded everyone comply with that lie just enrich them selves ands\ their friends.
Nancy Pelosi is a billionaire? Diane Feinstein is a billionaire as are a multitude of other prominent democrats wail-on about the rich taking all the money from the poor.
Why do people actually believe anything what the democrats say? Who votes for them and why?
Barack's ''Dreamers'' are democrats voters now and the potential for hundreds of thousands more progressive socialist liberal democrat voters if amnesty is granted to them as a group and then if not more then a million over the next 5 years due to 'Chain Migration' of 10's of thousands of relatives. For the progressive liberal, amnesty is not about citizenship, this is about more uncontrolled chaos in our civil society and where the there is chaos, especially to the socialist democrats that can't allow a crisis to go to waste, there is profit.
That the DACA 'Dreamers' are mostly uneducated and unsettled, many have little or no work experience even after twenty years of living off the land and taxpayers, they are unable to speak the English language with enough proficiency to work effectively in industry, or have any need of want to assimilate into the American society, but rather group around other like illegal immigrants causing problems with local officials.
And why haven't these fine individuals applied for citizenship? How come they are still roaming around in our country as illegal immigrants after all these years?
Cutting Through the Media’s Falsehoods About ‘Dreamers’
When members of Congress battled over the budget, some threatened to block funding unless Congress provided amnesty to illegal alien Dreamers who benefited from President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which President Donald Trump announced he is ending.
Conscientious members of Congress should not give in to this threat. Amnesty will encourage even more illegal immigration—just as the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act did. That bill provided citizenship to 2.7 million illegal aliens. Yet by 1995, another 5.7 million illegal aliens were residing in the U.S. Many of them crossed the border to join their newly legalized friends and family. Others, no doubt, believed that since the U.S. provided amnesty once, it would do so again.
However Congress decides to deal with Dreamers, it should be based on the real demographics of the DACA populace, not the glamorized image typically presented by the media.
Watching television reports concerning Dreamers, one would think that the DACA program applied only to college-educated immigrants who were just a few years old when their parents brought them into the country illegally.
We are led to believe that most are so fully Americanized that they would now have trouble speaking their native language and are all but ignorant of their birth countries’ cultural norms. Thus, we are supposed to believe returning them to their native lands would be a cruel hardship.
In fact, many DACA beneficiaries came here as teenagers. All were eligible for the program as long as they entered the U.S. before their 16th birthday. By that time, there is no doubt that they spoke the language of their native countries fluently and knew their culture intimately.
DACA had no requirement of English fluency, as evidenced by the application form that had a space to list the translator used to complete the form.
The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that “perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only ‘basic’ English ability.”
Unfortunately, many Dreamers are poorly educated. Only 49 percent of DACA beneficiaries have a high school education, even though a majority are now adults. And while military service could also qualify an illegal alien for DACA, out of the current 690,000 DACA beneficiaries, only 900 are serving in the military.
The Obama administration did not check the background of each DACA beneficiary, despite a requirement that they have no felony convictions and pose no threat to national security. Only a few randomly selected DACA applicants were ever actually vetted. This may explain why, by August this year, more than 2,100 DACA beneficiaries had had their eligibility pulled because of criminal convictions and gang affiliation.
Even if a random background investigation produced substantial evidence that an illegal alien might have committed multiple crimes, the alien would still be eligible for DACA if he wasn’t convicted.
Thus, it seems that a significant percentage of DACA beneficiaries have serious limitations in their education, work experience, and English fluency. What’s the likelihood that they’ll be able to function in American society without being substantial burdens to U.S. taxpayers?
Without changing the sponsorship rules, any congressional amnesty bill providing citizenship could significantly increase the number of illegal aliens who will benefit beyond the immediate DACA beneficiaries. Giving lawful status to Dreamers will allow them and their families to profit from illegal conduct.
(Chain Migration)
History shows that providing amnesty will attract even more illegal immigration and won’t solve our enforcement problems. Congress shouldn’t even consider such relief unless and until we have a sustained period of concentrated enforcement that stems illegal entry and reduces the illegal alien population in the U.S.
Congress should instead concentrate on providing the resources needed to enforce our immigration laws and secure our border.
Look no further then the University of Wisconsin to find advocates for the tenets of Marxist philosophy of socialism who was dedicated by ideology to reduce individual survival to it's lowest denominator. That is the individual will be best served if he can live only one day at a time, leaving his future to be determined by governments regulation and laws that are designed to benefit only the group or collective rather the an individual.
An Individual having an optimistic vision of a prosperous future drives some individuals to gain an advantage over others that find being subservient and compliant more to their personal liking and therefore become disadvantaged in the group..
The progressive socialist philosophy and ideology understands it isn't fair that one man's ambition and hard work would allow him to have more things to ease his life and existence then others who can only stand and wonder why that happened.
All people must not be able to hold over others the power to become self-sufficient and therefore independent of group control of outcomes. The Marx agenda and theory is of course, ''From each according to ones ability and To each according to ones needs''.
What we see here at the UW is Marxist socialism of class division, envy and ultimately class warfare. Divide and conquer.
University Offers ‘Problem of Whiteness’ Class, Again
The University of Wisconsin-Madison will reintroduce a class this spring that teaches students why being white is a bad thing.
The “Problem of Whiteness” course—part of the African Cultural Studies program—makes its mission to help students “understand how whiteness is socially constructed and experienced in order to help dismantle white supremacy.” The class will also investigate how white people “consciously and unconsciously perpetuate institutional racism and how this not only devastates communities of color but also perpetuates the oppression of most white folks along the lines of class and gender.”
The course aims also to teach students about what an ethical white identity entails, as well as what it means to be woke. “Student feedback was overwhelmingly positive—students said they found it valuable to examine majority cultures and how power imbalances are created, sustained, and challenged in societies around the world,” a University of Wisconsin-Madison spokesperson wrote in an email to The College Fix.
“The problem of racism is the problem of whites being racist towards blacks,” the course’s professor, Damon Sajnani, told The College Fix in a 2016 phone interview. Sajnani is also a rapper who writes songs about the problems of whiteness.
Not everyone is happy about the course, however, including multiple state lawmakers who loudly expressed their displeasure over the university’s course offering. “I am extremely concerned that UW-Madison finds it appropriate to teach a course called, ‘The Problem of Whiteness,’ with the premise that white people are racist,” state Rep. Dave Murphy, R-Greenville, wrote in a statement after the course was first announced in 2016.
“Even more troubling, the course is taught by a self-described ‘international radical’ professor whose views are a slap in the face to the taxpayers who are expected to pay for this garbage,” Murphy continued. Despite Murphy’s and others’ objections, the university continues barreling forwarding and has no plans to retract the course for spring 2018.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison did not reply to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment in time for publication.
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.
Again, why should the main stream media care if what they scribble down or babble on about has no basis in fact?
I guess I will repeat myself as I have on many occasion trying to explain what the progressive socialist liberal left democrats are all about, and so here I go again. It's not ever about what is true or not, fact or fiction, all that is required by the progressive left media is their attack agenda strategy, it's ''The seriousness of the charge'' and then demanding victims of the lefts charge to defend themselves.
Of course there can't be a defense or rebuttal as the media has no intention of having such a debate in any kind of public forum. The strategy is only about the ''charge'' and how those that have been charged are guilty.
Here Are the 5 Worst ‘Fake News’ Reports on Guns in 2017
President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are strongly pro-Second Amendment, which means new gun control laws were dead on arrival in 2017. But the mainstream media, not to be quietly defeated, exposed its anti-gun bias more than ever this year. The national newspapers and left-wing TV networks continued to churn out unbalanced reports on gun crime and laws, while refusing to learn accurate terminology. Here are the top offenders.
1. USA Today
The colorful newspaper that lands outside hotel rooms seized the mantel for this year’s most ridiculous, yet hilarious anti-gun propaganda reporting. One story, authored by the unnamed “editors,” lists accessories that can be added to the popular AR-15 rifle. The authors include in that list a “chain-saw bayonet.” To illustrate this, USA Today tweeted a video depicting an actual chainsaw attached—somehow—to the bottom of a rifle.
Anyone with common sense knows a chain saw weighs more than a rifle and its weight would pull it down, much less be stuck to an electric socket. Readers immediately mocked the absurd getup by posting mockups of other “possible modifications” to an AR-15—laugh-out-loud things like a nuclear missile and a full-size F-16.
Andrew Wilkow added increasingly smaller AR-15s under the full-size one, like one of those Russian wood dolls of decreasing sizes.
2. CNN
After the horrifying shooting of Republican members of Congress on a softball field, CNN published a story in June titled “Where does the GOP baseball shooting leave the gun control debate?” It was not a news report by any definition. The entire article is an interview—conducted by email—with the president of the (mostly irrelevant) Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
The reporter did not “email interview” any pro-Second Amendment group or activist for any balance. CNN didn’t even include that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., who almost died in the politically motivated shooting, had not changed his views on protecting the Second Amendment from any further infringement.
Also, there seems to be no one employed by CNN who has any knowledge of firearms statistics. Jim Acosta, the senior White House correspondent, tweeted: “Since Sandy Hook there have been at least 1,552 mass shootings, with at least 1,767 people killed and 6,227 wounded.” Acosta, who has almost a half-million followers on Twitter, was not actually citing CNN, but an article in the left-wing outlet Vox.
Click through the article and you’ll see the data it contains is riddled with errors. It takes statistics from a group called “Gun Violence Archive,” which makes up out of whole cloth the definition of “mass shooting” to include people who are shot, but not killed. The group includes “news reports” for media sources instead of citing law enforcement agencies. Nowhere in the article does Vox mention that there is an official government definition of “mass shooting,” which is four or more people killed outside the home in one incident.
In fact, the number of people killed annually in mass shootings has been an average of 23 over the last 30 years. Don’t believe me? That statistic is from leading gun control voice in Congress Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who gets her data from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
Acosta never explained his promotion of the bad reporting. The tweet remains on his account, giving the fake news legitimacy to CNN viewers.
3. NBC News
In this story, published five years after the Sandy Hook massacre, NBC reports that Congress has passed no new gun control laws, even when President Barack Obama was in office. That was true (aside from regulations through the White House), but NBC gives every reason for this, except a fact-based one. The reason Congress doesn’t pass more gun control laws is that not one has ever been proven to reduce gun crime.
Instead, NBC puts the blame on anti-gun groups not being unified against the powerful NRA. (That would come as big a surprise to the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and other pro-Second Amendment groups.)
NBC also nonsensically reports that gun control groups can’t compete with the resources of the NRA. It leaves out that those groups receive tens of millions of dollars from billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, while the NRA is funded by its grassroots members.
To cap off the bias in this story, NBC violates journalism rule 101, which is to ask a representative from the other side of the issue for a response.
4. The Economist
The Economist was once a reliable source of information on economics and finance. But, as this gun story makes clear, the magazine is now a partisan tool of the left. In a November story about the tragic church shooting in Texas, The Economist cites “mass shooting” data from Mother Jones, a far-left outlet, rather than government agencies. Then the reporter writes that the shooter used an AR-15, which “was prohibited in 1994, but legalized in 2004 when America’s assault-weapons ban expired.”
That’s true, but not the whole story. The ban expired because Congress determined it was not effective in decreasing the number of homicides by rifle. The reader is left with the false impression that lack of a gun ban was directly responsible for the horrific church shooting.
The Economist does not even include data from the FBI, which would illuminate readers about the issue of gun violence. The most recent statistics available are from 2016. The FBI data show that there were 11,004 homicides by firearm. Of those, only 374 were by rifles of any kind.
5. The Associated Press
Almost every media outlet in the country—TV, print, and online—pays the Associated Press to use its wire service to supplement or replace its own reporting. This means AP has an outsized impact on news reports because its work appears in everything from local newspapers to network news.
Eagle-eyed Cargar Dolor recently tweeted to me: “This AP story from today claims that authorities recovered a ‘40mm pistol.’” Clearly, the reporter knows nothing about the basic ballistics of firearms, and neither do the editors.
Many of these mistakes would be funny if they weren’t rooted in ideological narrowness. They show how the mainstream media deliberately attempts to confuse the public in order to build support for more gun control laws.
At a higher level, the repeated bad reporting in just one area of public debate that shows the top editors and managers in mainstream media assign reporters to cover gun crime, without any expertise on the subject, research into data, or fact-checking.
If it weren’t for conservative media and informed social media users, the average American might walk the streets in fear of being attacked by someone wielding a rifle with a chainsaw attached to the bottom.
Little wonder why the media has taken the lead to demonize the tax bill that the GOP just passed into law. As the good senator points out, the people that need the relief the most will see some good news in their pay checks starting in February or so and then watch the progressive socialist scream their collective heads off as they don't have anything to counter that good news. As I have stated, and many others as well, the Progressive socialist liberal democrats are ethically, morally and innovatively bankrupt. They have nothing to offer that would help to lessen the troubles that besiege the average taxpayer. Their only claim to fame is a constant offering of free stuff to the people in exchange for their vote. The problem for the progressive democrats is their last 8 year history has shown the democrats up to liars and con-men that ran the some old scam to dup the voters once again. The democrats promise everything but then take everything and then demand the loyalty and votes from the used and abused that believed. Noting for nothing is still nothing.
I Voted for Tax Reform. Here’s Why It Will Help America.
The tax cut bill just passed by Congress and signed into law by the president is not perfect. But I voted for it because it will help working families and small businesses, give almost all Americans an immediate pay raise, and create millions of new jobs. But you don’t have to take my word for it. In fact, as citizens, you shouldn’t take any politician’s word for it. And happily, you won’t have to.
As in any political debate, there has been a lot of overheated speculation about this bill. Some Republicans who opposed my work with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., to change the bill to provide more tax relief directly to working and middle class said that would destroy the bill and crush its chances to spur economic growth. The argument was silly.
But so are many of the criticisms of the bill coming from the left. Some Democrats say the bill will only cut taxes for businesses, not individuals. That’s false. The centrist Brookings Institution says the bill will reduce taxes for all income groups in 2018 by an average of $1,600.
Some congressional Democrats argued this tax rate reduction plan was the worst bill in American history, apparently forgetting about the Fugitive Slave Act, or the Alien and Sedition Acts. These criticisms are nuts. In total, the bill is estimated to cut some federal taxes by a total of $6.5 trillion over the next 10 years, and raise others by $4 trillion over the same period, coming out to a $1.5 trillion tax cut.
I am not thrilled about the potential hit to the deficit. But I also believe we cannot tax our way to a balanced budget. The only way to close the deficit is with economic growth and spending discipline.
With new jobs, higher wages, and more investment, the larger overall economic pie will give a bigger slice both to American workers and to their government.
Over the last two decades, the United States’ 35 percent corporate tax rate has cost us trillions of dollars in aggregate international investment. The new 21 percent rate in this bill will help bring more of the global economy to our shores, instead of having us send so much of ours overseas.
And of course the doubling of the standard deduction and child credit will deliver immediate, substantial tax relief to middle-income families. And the good news is, in a few weeks, we will be able to ignore the political speculation and rhetoric and just see for ourselves.
Now that the bill is law, the IRS will begin to implement the new rules, and paycheck withholding guidelines will change. In another few pay periods, you either will or won’t see a raise in your take-home pay.
Over the course of the next year, two years, three years, we either will or won’t see more “Help Wanted” signs in business windows. We will or won’t see more listings on job search websites. We will or won’t hear about this or that business expanding, opening a new branch or a new plant.
The new, $2,000 per-child tax credit—which Rubio and I successfully fought to make available to millions of additional working families—won’t make raising kids easy. But it will make things like diapers, braces, little league, or piano lessons more affordable again.
I voted for this tax bill because I believe it will deliver higher take-home pay, more relief for middle-class families, and business tax reform to spur hiring, wage growth, and investment. Every Democrat in the House and Senate voted against the bill because they thought it would not do those things.
In a few weeks, we’ll start to see—in your paychecks, at your office, in your community—who was right.
Al Gore say climate change will destroy the planet.
The frantic call came out from Al Gore last week when he got up last week and discovered that he has been iced in by a storm caused by Donald Trump and the Republicans that are denying climate change exists.
One could hear Al Gore loudly lament if only Trump had signed the Paris Agreement none of this would have happened.
Mr. Gore asked the assisting emergency personal after leasing him from his ice prison why so many people are so ignorant on what some scientists mostly agree on to be accepted proof that climate change if allowed to go unchecked will destroy us?
Mr Gore stated what could be more important to man kind then saving earth for future generations? Why is this so difficult for so many that are standing in the way of our(my) success? It's money verses survival? Tell me it isn't so.
Now all we need is just another 5 $billion tax dollars, or a little more this year to continue the necessary research to save the planet. The past $billions were spent on meaningful computer models that proved we need better models and much more desperate research to save mankind.
Viewing his boat after emergency crews chopped the ice from his door so he could escaped to freedom, Mr Gore it was said weep bitterly.
Sometimes the effort to understand how some people think and what process they use to make conversation coherent and believable is so difficult that those of us that rely common sense and acceptable logic are left stunned and speechless.
And if there is one state that seems to have an unequaled number of illogical and mentally challenged people, it's California. And of course they are led by perhaps the most delusional and diabolically subservient progressive liberal democrat that has every stepped behind the microphones to personally explain what a clinically identified lunatic looks and sounds like by everything he thinks and says for public consumption.
That California Governor Jerry Brown can casually dismiss the murder of a citizen, Kate Stienle by a 5 time illegal immigrant criminal and how will hide him from federal ICE agents in a California sanctuary city where he will have the opportunity to kill again and then be released again. I wonder what will happen if he kills another immigrant or heaven forbid a California legislator?
‘First Stop to Hell’: Father of Son Killed by Illegal Immigrant Slams Sanctuary States
The father of a young man killed by an illegal immigrant slammed California’s sanctuary state law on “Fox & Friends,” and said Gov. Jerry Brown should go straight “to hell.”
“I wish he would get on the bullet train, first stop to hell, and he should get off and stay there,” Don Rosenberg said of Brown, a Democrat, on the show Wednesday. “His concern for criminals, be they legal or not, is outrageous and has cost the live of many Californians.”
Rosenberg’s son, Drew Rosenberg, was killed by Roberto Galo, an illegal immigrant from Honduras, in 2010. Drew Rosenberg was on his motorcycle in San Francisco, when Galo made a last-second turn and collided with him. Galo continuously ran over Rosenberg’s body in an attempt to flee, before finally jumping out of his car and running away.
Galo was stopped by the San Francisco police months earlier for driving without a license and going the wrong way down a one-way street. Instead of being arrested, Galo was cited and released, according to CBS News.
Don Rosenberg said the charge against Galo was originally vehicular homicide, but was then reduced to misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. Galo only spent 43 days in jail for killing Drew Rosenberg, and was allowed to continue living in the United States for two more years until he was deported.
S“When [Barack] Obama was president we couldn’t even talk to anybody,” Don Rosenberg said. “There was no response whatsoever.”
He also expressed concern over a potential deal on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and said the government should fix the rest of the immigration system before addressing the issue. “Our position is you don’t do anything about DACA until you take care of everything else with illegal immigration and I’m very nervous about that one,” Rosenberg said.
San Francisco is a sanctuary city, and recently came under fire for finding Jose Ines Garcia Zarate not guilty for the murder of Kate Steinle. A jury found the illegal immigrant not guilty on all counts, except for felony possession of a weapon. Steinle’s murder sparked a national debate about the legality of sanctuary cities and the politicization of immigration.
Rosenberg appeared in a television ad in May where he referenced Steinle and his son, saying, “California should be a sanctuary, for Californians.” He appealed to Brown not to sign the bill making California a full sanctuary state, but Senate Democrats passed the bill on a party-line vote and Brown signed the bill into law in October.
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.
To define a Conservative and a progressive liberal along the lines of philosophy and ideology to the meaning of patriotism isn't all that difficult really. The Conservative believes the issues are bigger then themselves, looking to higher powers for leadership for answers, while the progressive liberal believe they are the answer. The Conservative looks outwardly to the greater community and culture, religion and academia for help to define issues and obtain answers. The socialist democrat has no problem defining the issues and obtaining answers from their own internal belief that their native intelligence alone, obtain as well in academia, is more then adequate to solve the greatest problem facing the nation and the world. And that is destroying any opposition to the liberal agenda of domination, and that opposition is Conservativism itself and those that support it. One of most basic fundamentals of Conservatism is building, construction for the future and success. The progressive socialist are about the destruction of the individual allowing the freedom that is acceptable is the opportunity to obey. No greater threat to the liberal socialist then the Conservative belief that a person has the right to own property and the right to the individual freedom to chose. The progressive ideology is about looking inwardly for intellectual power while the Conservative looks outwardly for experience in life and historical evidence to solidify their agenda. And investigation into success and failure of each across the centuries soon points out that liberalism, progressivism and socialism are failures.
The Difference Between How Conservatives, Liberals Define Patriotism
A new poll by the American Culture & Faith Institute uncovered some interesting—and perhaps worrisome—trends when it comes to how Americans think they can properly support their country.
The study found that Americans think patriotism is generally in decline, but we can’t even agree on how to define it, let alone settle on whether it’s generally a good or bad thing.
For instance, believing that America should always come first, conservatives rated military service and protecting the American flag highly on the patriotism scale, while liberals did not.
Liberals largely embraced the idea that using nonviolent civil disobedience to overcome social injustice was a particularly patriotic act, while conservatives tended to be more lukewarm to that.
There was even a divide over which corporations and organizations are considered patriotic. Conservatives favored retailer Hobby Lobby, the National Rifle Association, and Chick-fil-A as patriotic, while liberals clearly leaned toward Starbucks, The New York Times, and Planned Parenthood.
It was perhaps no surprise that the National Football League, which has been plagued all season by controversy over national anthem protests by players, is viewed very differently by the American left and right. Only 10 percent of conservatives labeled the NFL “very patriotic,” while 30 percent of liberals in the survey said it is.
If anything, the survey’s findings point to some of the most intense friction points in the culture wars.
That there are sharp political divisions in this country is nothing new. From the earliest days of the United States’ existence we have been fighting over what policies are most effective, who is fit to hold power, and what cultural norms will produce the best outcomes. But if this poll and the general feeling of America in 2017 are any indication, our divisions are a bit deeper than they had been even up until quite recently. If we can’t agree on what patriotism is, where are we going to find common ground?
Part of this trend undoubtedly flows from the powerful push by America’s elite institutions to move away from creating unity out of an incredibly diverse nation. Instead, they aim to divide and elevate what are often the smallest distinctions among us.
America in the past was mostly devoted to celebrating its unity and its institutions designed to buttress our national identity. We were committed to forging this identity through our country’s timeless founding ideas, as well as our unique history. Our culture now almost reverse-engineers that effort—both in rejecting our founding ideas as untrue or outdated, and abandoning our history as in many ways sordid and indefensible.
In place of a kind of unifying and expanding civic nationalism, we are left with the all-too-familiar squabbles over race, class, and gender. That’s why battles over identity and patriotism are now so ferocious and seem worse than in the past.
A fundamental disagreement over what defines our country’s cornerstone ideas, along with polar opposite conceptions of how best to define identity, are creating unbridgeable fissures in our society—ones that many Americans desperately want to stitch back together. Some liberals, like professor Mark Lilla at Columbia University, have pleaded for the left to re-embrace the kind of civic unity of the New Deal-era progressivism or face catastrophe. “We must relearn how to speak to citizens as citizens and to frame our appeals for solidarity—including ones to benefit particular groups—in terms of principles that everyone can affirm,” Lilla said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed column.
So the culture wars, and the wars over identity, will continue as many Americans grasp for leaders who can effectively re-create a concept of unity from the shattered and hostile factions of our republic. This is almost impossible to do if, at the ground level, Americans have such a vastly different notion of what human nature is or define patriotism in radically different ways.
The American Culture & Faith Institute poll found that only 10 percent of conservatives consider themselves “culture warriors” as opposed to 22 percent of liberals.
If we are committed to reversing our country’s long-term problems, perhaps that needs to change.
Elections serve their purpose, but it’s clear that culture and outlook define our politics more than anything else. That battleground is more important than any temporary electoral victory or defeat.
People like Chelsea Handler as well as so many others that find themselves useless in the wake of the new reality where the people are taking charge, believing they have the power to make the necessary changes to save the country.
Oh no! Not the unclean and unwashed?
The people understand and see the elites for what and who they are. They are delusional and atrociously unethical as well as, given the total body of electronic information and entertainment distribution in general, immoral, clinically seen as mentally challenged and pathologically crippled.
When strong Conservative women like Sanders or Molly Hemmingway express themselves so efficiently and accurately, the progressive liberal democrats tremble in fear as the clarity of opinion pulls back the curtain that exposes progressive socialism to the light of reality that has rotted the very soul of America for decades.
Knowing and understanding the truth for a democrat is like a the stake in Dracula's heart, it's terminal. They no longer are progressive democrats, but actual human beings ready to become productive members of the community..
2017 was a rough year for conservative women. Public figures such as Ivanka Trump, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and the anchors at Fox News were constantly attacked for their appearance.
“Please welcome that dumpster, smokey-eyed raccoon, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders!” said Chelsea Handler on her self-titled Netflix series.
Attacking women for their looks was a theme among self-proclaimed feminists, who time and time again found a reason to call conservatives “problematic.”
To highlight the hypocrisy on display from liberal women in 2017, The Daily Signal and The Federalist teamed up to declare the most problematic women of the year. For more, tune into our podcast and Facebook Live “Problematic Women” show every Thursday.
I'm an American citizen and I love this country that has given me everything. I believe that America is the last hope in this world for Democracy and Freedom. She must be defended at all costs!
