While on the campaign trail last October after then-candidate Trump insinuated that he may not accept the results of the election, the main stream media and the democrats rightfully attacked him for it. Sen. Hillary Clinton said “…by doing that he is threatening our democracy.“

That was on the campaign trail, the day after the election democrats were singing a different tune. On the night of the election, after Trump had surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to secure the victory, Clinton refused to come out and address her supporters at her election watch party. All her distraught supporters heard from the campaign was a statement from John Podesta saying there would be no comments until all votes were counted.

Finally, only after President Obama has called her urging her to concede and after Trump had delivered his victory speech, did Clinton call Trump and offer her concession.

For the next few weeks many on the American left proceeded to attack our republic’s system of government calling for the end of the Electoral College.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein raised millions of dollars to pay for recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan, only to end up deepening her campaign’s coffers while strengthening Trumps margin.

Then they claimed that Russia interfered with American democracy by affecting the results. They didn’t mention that the only “interference” was exposing the lies and deceit of the Democratic Party. They basically said, pay no attention to the truth about their actions that the Wikileaks emails exposed, just pay attention to Russia.

The same people who openly mocked Trump for suggesting that he may not accept the results, were now saying that Russia “rigged” the election in his favor.

Imagine their reaction had Clinton won, Gary Johnson had raised money for recounts and the Republicans has insinuated that the election was “rigged” in Hillary’s favor.

Donald J. Trump has done something that a whole lot of people, myself included, never thought that he would even come close to accomplishing. He has been sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America. The biggest reason this has happened?

The hypocrisy of the so called “progressive” American left.

Not only did they sit by and cheer on Obama as he continued doing all of the things that they hated George W. Bush for, things that they called Bush “literally Hitler” for — they gave him a fucking Nobel Peace Prize and painted this fake narrative of him as this honorable and respectful man of peace and justice. They were completely quiet for 8 years of endless war, drone strikes and bombings in more countries than his predecessors, the killing of more innocent civilians than his predecessor. Not a peep as the Obama administration doubled down on the illegal, anti 4th Amendment spying of American citizens by the NSA.

They continue to spread the ridiculous and completely false notion that his was a presidency full of transparency and devoid of scandal.

They were quiet as he used the power of the Federal Government through the IRS to attack political enemies, even after they were caught destroying the hard drives with evidence. Not a hush from the American left as the Obama Administration was caught selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Crickets, when they were proven to fabricate a story that the Benghazi massacre was a response to “some video.” They ignored the fact that his secretary of State bypassed National Security protocols and set up her own private email server and destroyed the evidence when caught. Actions that would at the very least would not allow anyone else to ever hold the position of mailman yet alone the highest office of the land.

The American left applauded the growth of government through Obama’s bypassing of congress and appointment of czars, his vast imperial powers through his unprecedented use of executive orders and the growing activism via the legislation from the bench of his judicial appointees.

Now that someone you don’t like has those same powers at his disposal, you “peaceably protest” by throwing rocks at banks and spitting in the faces of law enforcement officers?

The “progressive” American left has poisoned the waters of political discourse by screaming false alarms of racism, sexism, any other “-ism” you can think of and so-called privilege at every turn.

When you continue to irresponsible label half of the country as racists and bigots don’t act all surprised and proceed to cry like spoiled little babies when they don’t vote along the same lines as you.

I didn’t vote for Donald Trump either, I opted out of being forced to choose between the eviler of two lesser’s and voted for Gov. Gary Johnson. In that my conscience is clean.

That being said the way leftists are reacting over Donald Trump is sickening. I am embarrassed for you.

If the “progressive” American left really wants to know why Donald Trump is President?, all they have to do is to look in the mirror.

It has come to my attention, as of late, that I have been a little overboard in my bashing of the Republican Party Presidential nominee.

So, as a registered Republican and a liberty-loving conservative, in an effort to show loyalty I will use this post to bash progressive Democrats and their idiotic progressive beliefs.

Can you believe the progressive agenda that the Democrats want to push on our republic?

They want to destroy small business and cause the price of goods and services to go up like crazy by increasing the minimum wage? Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?

They believe that “everybody has got to be covered” and show support for the countries of the world that have single-payer health care system. And get this, when asked whose going to pay for it? They say “The governments gonna pay for it.” Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?

They believe in ridiculously burdensome high taxes on the job creators, causing them to not hire as many workers and not produce as much goods. When talking about taxes they even say things like, “If you look at actual raise, some very wealthy are going to be raised…” Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?

How about their hatred of the First Amendment. They say things like “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws…” So much for freedom of speech under those progressive Democrats huh? Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?

How about their love of the baby murdering organization founded by an evil racist, Planned Parenthood? They say things like it does “good work for millions of women” and they slam the “so-called conservatives” who disagree. Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?

How about the way they want to force private business owners to hand out government forced paid maternity leave? Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?

They want to drastically increase Medicaid, Medicare, social security and infrastructure spending massively. Racking up even more trillions of dollars of debt, and kicking that debt down the line for future generations to have to deal with. Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?

Or how about their silly slogans like “Hope & Change,” or “I’m With Her,” or “Make America Great Again.” We all know that progressives believe that America is not great and only they (through big government) can make it great again. Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?

No Real Conservative Republican in their right mind could support those progressive Democrat ideas. It’s a good thing we have a real Conservative Republican as our nominee… oh wait, those are all Donald Trump beliefs.

Man are we screwed, America.

Early this morning a 29-year-old Florida man with an explosive device strapped to his chest, an automatic weapon and a handgun walked into an Orlando nightclub frequented by the LGBT community and proceeded to conduct what some have called “the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States.”

Via NBC News:

Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, 29, believed to be the man responsible for what has been described as “the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States.”

Officials said a hostage situation developed after the gunman stormed the Pulse Nightclub about 2 a.m.

The shooter was identified by several law enforcement sources as Omar Mateen, 29.

He was shot dead about three hours later when a SWAT team entered the club, police said. A handgun and AR-15-type rifle were recovered at the scene, according to police.

The law enforcement sources told NBC News that Mateen was born in New York in 1986 and was listed as living at a residence in Port St. Lucie, about 125 miles south of Orlando.

Mateen had active security officer and firearm licenses, according to Florida records, and his family said he worked in security. Marriage records show he was married in Port St. Lucie in 2009, and a relative said he had a 3-year-old son.

The incident is being investigated as an act of terrorism, officials said.

Mir Seddique, Mateen’s father told NBC News, “this has nothing to do with religion.” Seddique said his son got angry when he saw two men kissing in Miami a couple of months ago and thinks that may be related to the shooting.

“We are saying we are apologizing for the whole incident. We weren’t aware of any action he is taking. We are in shock like the whole country,” Seddique said. Read More…

Law enforcement officials told ABC News that Mateen’s parents were born in Afghanistan, and he was “on the radar” of U.S. officials for some time, but was not the target of a specific investigation.

Also a public records search shows that he has been a registered Democrat for the last nine years.

So of course this must be the fault of those crazy gun totin,’ bible thumpin’ Christian Conservatives. At least that is what those on the left and many in the media will try to say in the next few days as they call for gun control.

The question I ask is, how would have “stricter gun laws” stopped this? Mateen was a licensed security guard.

It was not a “gun,” or a crazy Christian Conservative gun nut that massacred 49 people in Orlando and injured 53 more.

It was not the NRA or the 2nd Amendment.

It was a registered Democrat, with a bomb strapped to his chest, who held sympathetic beliefs to Islamic Terrorism and whose parents were originally from Afghanistan.

Donald Trump and his supporters will take this as an opportunity to ramp up their xenophobia, Hillary Clinton and her supporters will use this as an opportunity to ramp up their anti-second Amendment rhetoric.

That being said, it’s not the fault of Democrats, nor is it the fault of Republicans.

It’s not the fault of “guns,” its not even the fault of “all Muslims.”

Its the fault of evil.

I don’t know what the solution is, but what I do know is that the rights of free people should not be taken away because of the acts of cowards with evil in their hearts.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(U.S. Const. amend. IV)

Until the past few years with the rise of NSA spying and TSA pat downs, the Fourth Amendment has not been talked about as much as the Second or First. That does not make it any less important, as a matter of fact eliminating Fourth Amendment Rights, pretty much eliminates First & Second Amendment rights along with them.

Recently, Democrats in both New York and California have introduced bills that would outright ban the sale of mobile devices with encryption technology. The similar bills introduced in California by State Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) and in New York by Assemblyman Matthew Titone (D-Staten Island), if passed, would require all smartphones that are sold to be “capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider.”

Via endgadget:

Cooper’s reasoning puts a novel spin on the same, tired “The police can’t do their jobs unless tech companies do it for them” argument. This time, he used human trafficking as the boogeyman that needs defeating and which can only be accomplished if the government has unfettered, disk-level access to its citizens’ cell phones.

“If you’re a bad guy [we] can get a search record for your bank, for your house, you can get a search warrant for just about anything,” Cooper told ArsTechnica. “For the industry to say it’s privacy, it really doesn’t hold any water. We’re going after human traffickers and people who are doing bad and evil things. Human trafficking trumps privacy, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.” Apparently human trafficking also trumps the 4th Amendment as well. Read more…

Forcing everyone into using un-encrypted mobile devices and opening up not just the government sector thieves but private sector thieves as well to be able to access your private information is much worse. People use their smart phones today for banking, medical information and a whole host of other legal activities that require privacy.

While I agree that human trafficking is a disgusting and vile criminal activity that has to be stopped, it is not more important than the fundamental right to privacy. If a warrant can be obtained for all those other things it can be obtained to search a smart phone as well.

Stole this from Wirecutter.

The latest hero that the religious right is touting as a staunch defender of “traditional marriage” is a thrice-divorced registered Democrat who has given birth out-of-wedlock in-between her four marriages.

Combine that, with the fact the Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and eccentric billionaire reality television star Donald Trump are currently leading most polls in the race for President, and it makes one think that we must be living in an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Kim Davis is a Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who defied a U.S. Federal Court order requiring that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell v. Hodges U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States.

Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis continued to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses on Tuesday, despite a Supreme Court ruling against her the previous day, was jailed for contempt of court.

Davis filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court seeking to put the lower court’s order on hold while she seeks an appeal, however the Supreme Court denied the application. Stating that she was acting “under God’s authority,” Davis ignored the court order and continued to deny the licenses. Last Thursday she was jailed for contempt of court and has been labeled as martyr by many on the religious right.

Mike Huckabee and other instigators in the religious right claim that jailing Davis for refusing to do her job because of her religious convictions is the “criminalization of Christianity.” The problem is, unless her Apostolic Christian beliefs require her to keep her job in the public sector (which I seriously doubt they do), she’s not in jail for violating her religious beliefs.

Working for the state is not a “right.” Kim Davis, whatever you may feel about her religious convictions, was wrong to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her office. If you are not willing to enforce the law, you should not be an officer of the state. Her job as a county clerk is not to determine the constitutionality of laws, it is to perform the issuing and registering of various licenses, recording and keeping of various legal records, registering and purging voter rolls, and conducting various election duties and tax duties. There are many other occupations that she can pursue if her current job no longer suits her religious beliefs.

Signing off on state documents is not the same as being forced into participating in a same-sex wedding ceremonies as private business owners such as bakers, photographers and ordained ministers have. If she was an ordained minister and refused to marry same-sex couples in her private establishment I would vehemently support her right to do so. If you want to participate in civil disobedience, don’t work for the state.

The hypocrisy amongst the so-called conservatives of the religious right who have infested the conservative movement is down right sickening. If Kim Davis was a soldier who abandoned her post after the country goes into war, because her religion tells her that “thou shalt not kill,” would Mike Huckabee and other social cons be as quick to defend her? If she was working for the INS and refused to deport a criminal invader because her religious convictions were against it, would the religious right be holding rallies in her honor?

As I’ve stated before the religious right have nobody to blame but themselves for what has happened to the institution of marriage, if they were true small-government conservatives and not bigots masquerading under the false banner of “religious liberty,” the fight all along would have been to get the government out of the business of issuing licenses to marry all-together.

I’ve took this quiz a few times over the years, its fluctuated a bit but the Republican party constantly keeps slipping…

Though this poll doesn’t ask enough questions, for example while I am against Nation building and foreign occupation, I believe radical Islam needs to be eradicated. The poll doesn’t ask enough questions to make a clear distinction.

Demoncrat Congressman and all-around major douche-canoe Alan Grayson’s children are on welfare. Grayson, who has the creepiest campaign advertisement pictures I have ever seen in my life is the 17th richest congressmen in the country, in 2010 his net-worth was estimated to be over $90 million.

Actual Alan Grayson web ad.

Yet his children and his estranged wife are receiving tax-payer funded government food stamps.

Via WFTV:

“I don’t have any money at all,” said Grayson’s wife, Lolita Grayson. “He’s been holding all our money for years and years.”

Grayson’s wife said she applied for and received an EBT card from the state.

Her attorney showed Channel 9 paperwork from the Orange County School District, which shows the congressman’s four kids are on free lunch.

“Did you ever think you’d be on food stamps?” asked WFTV’s Karla Ray.

“No. Never, because my husband, he’s been the sole provider for me for the last 29 years,” said Lolita Grayson.

But Alan Grayons’ attorney, Mark Nejame, said it’s no surprise the information is coming out now, one week before Election Day, arguing Lolita Grayson’s assistance application is incomplete. Read More…

Fucking “progressives.”

This was posted this past June in the Readers’ Forum: Sunday letters section of the Winston-Salem Journal.

Spot on.

In their never-ending quest to control every aspect of our lives (except for the murder of unborn children) progressives are at it again. A year after former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to ban big gulp cups in the city, another libtard is attacking the sugary drink industry. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Communist, Conn) is seeking a National Soda Tax.

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (C., Conn) or is that Jane’s Addiction frontman Perry Farrell?

The disgusting communist pig, DeLauro, introduced the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Act, also known as the “SWEET Act,” on Wednesday, which would impose a 1 cent excise tax per teaspoon of caloric sweetener in soda, energy drinks, sports drinks, and sweet teas.

From The Courant:

“There is a clear relationship between sugar-sweetened beverages and a host of other health conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, obesity and tooth decay,” said DeLauro, a Democrat from New Haven who is serving her twelfth term in Congress as a representative for the state’s third district. The bill is titled the SWEET Act. Milk, and milk substitute products, as well as fruit and vegetable juices, would be exempt from the tax.

“We in the midst of dual epidemics, with obesity and diabetes afflicting our nation and the related, astronomical health care costs,” DeLauro said. Read More…

The Founding Fathers would be ashamed at us for the scumbags we’ve allowed into congress.

It’s funny how a couple years and a change in whose making the nominations from the Oval Office can change opinions.

The remarks below are Harry Reid in 2005, when the DNC held 48 seats in the Senate and they spent pretty much all of their time blocking President Bush’s nominees to federal courts:

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a “procedural gimmick.”

The Websters dictionary defines “gimmick” as – – “an ingenious new scheme or angle.” No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new.

The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.

Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.

Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.

The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules.

In establishing each House of Congress, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules.”

In crafting the rules of the Senate, Senators established the right to extended debate – and they formalized it with Rule XXII almost 100 years ago. This rule codified the practice that Senators could debate extensively.

Under Rule XXII, debate may be cut off under limited circumstances.

– 67 votes to end a filibuster of a motion to amend a Senate rule.

– 60 votes to end a filibuster against any other legislative business.

A conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington describes the United States Senate and our Founders Fathers vision of it.

Jefferson asked Washington what is the purpose of the Senate?

Washington responded with a question of his own, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?”

“To cool it,” Jefferson replied.

To which Washington said; “Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

And this is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.

It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.

And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.

In fact, my colleague from Georgia – Senator Isakson – recently shared a conversation he had with an official from the Iraqi government.

The Senator had asked this official if he was worried that the majority in Iraq would overrun the minority. But the official replied… “no….we have the secret weapon called the ‘filibuster.’”

In recalling that conversation, Senator Isakson remarked: “If there were ever a reason for optimism… it is one of [the Iraqi] minority leaders, proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government, as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority.”

And he was right.

I spoke yesterday about Senator Holt and his 1939 filibuster to protect workers’ wages and hours.

There are also recent examples of the filibuster achieving good.

In 1985, Senators from rural states used the filibuster to force Congress to address a major crisis in which thousands of farmers were on the brink of bankruptcy.

In 1995, the filibuster was used by Senators to protect the rights of workers to a fair wage and a safe workplace.

Now Mr. President, I will not stand here and say the filibuster has always been used for positive purposes.

Just as it has been used to bring about social change, it was also used to stall progress that this country needed to make. It is often shown that the filibuster was used against Civil Right legislation. But Civil Rights legislation passed – – Civil Rights advocates met the burden.

And it is noteworthy that today the Congressional Black Caucus is opposed to the Nuclear Option.

For further analysis, let’s look at Robert Caro, a noted historian and Pulitzer Prize winner.

At a meeting I attended with other Senators, he spoke about the history of the filibuster. He made a point about its legacy that was important.

He noted that when legislation is supported by the majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster’s delay – as public protest far outweighs any Senator’s appetite to filibuster.

But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation …prevents a Senator from ramming it through…and gives the American people enough time join the opposition.

Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House.

In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.

Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats ability to voice their concern in the Senate.

If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization.

Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

And that is why the White House has been aggressively lobbying Senate Republicans to change Senate rules in a way that would hand dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches – the Congress and the Judiciary.

Unfortunately, this is part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by this White House and Republicans in Washington.

From Dick Cheney’s fight to slam the doors of the White House on the American people…

To the President’s refusal to cooperate with the 9-11 Commission…

To Senate Republicans attempt to destroy the last check in Washington on Republican power…

To the House Majority’s quest to silence the minority in the House…

Republicans have sought to destroy the balance of power in our government by grabbing power for the presidency, silencing the minority and weakening our democracy.

America does not work the way the radical right-wing dictates to President Bush and the Republican Senate Leaders. And Mr. President, that is not how the United States Senate works either.

For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”

It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.

They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington.

They want to do away with the filibuster.

They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers.

I doubt that’s true.

Legendary metal vocalist Glenn Danzig was recently interviewed by the Minneapolis-St. Paul City Pages, in which he dropped an inconvenient truth bomb about liberals while talking about the Tipper Gore founded Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), when asked about his hit song “Mother” being his response to Mrs. Gore.

My view on Democrats is that they’re fascists disguised as liberals, or liberal moderates. You’re not allowed to say anything that they don’t agree with. You’re not allowed to do anything. Also, the whole Obama, “I can kill anybody with a drone with no trial,” is kind of disturbing. I’m surprised that more people who are supposedly liberal aren’t more disturbed by it. I think whatever Obama does is OK with them, because he’s Obama. It’s bullshit.

Sounds about right to me.

You’re probably going not going to hear much about this story, mostly because most musicians tend to lean to the left, thus they are probably not going to complain about it. But according to WLWT in Cincinatti, images of members of some hard rock bands have been used in an attack ad against Steve Franzen, Republican candidate for Kentucky’s Campbell County Attorney.

Jim Daley, [Democrat] released a flier with misleading information on one side and pictures of rock stars from the bands Stone Sour, Avenged Sevenfold and Disturbed with no connection to Franzen on the other.

“Supposedly they’re my clients, but I haven’t seen any of these people,” Franzen said. “I don’t know anything about them, other than supposedly they’re rock musicians.”

Franzen said he’s uncertain of the legality of what Daley sent out.

Notice how neither the article, nor the accompanying video make any mention of which political party the candidates are affiliated in. I had to do a Google search to find out that Franzen is the Republican and Daley, the guy who used the images of Rock Stars as “criminals” is the Democrat. You could be damn sure that if the political parties were reversed, they would have then been mentioned in the story.

Hat Tip: Blabbermouth.net

I don’t really care for any of those bands, so here’s some Sons of Liberty…