Let’s Solve Melissa Click’s Problem!

First Amendment Choker Melissa Click who, when she’s not obtaining muscle to expel student reporters from events on public property, is a University of Missouri communications professor, has been charged with simple assault, a misdemeanor.

Reports say Click grabbed student journalist Mark Schierbecker’s camera in an effort to stop him from filming a protest over the treatment of blacks at the school, then tried to find “some muscle” to force him away physically.

Click resigned her honorary appointment to the journalism faculty but remains employed in the communications department. She has allegedly apologized for her actions, and a report says more than 100 colleagues have signed a letter that proclaims support for her. They said Click “has been wronged in the media” by being attacked for her misbehavior and by hearing of demands for her dismissal. Those colleagues want the university to “defend her First Amendment rights of protest and her freedom to act as a private citizen.”

How funny and how stupid! So her colleagues (co-conspirators?) want to defend her First Amendment right to choke the life out of the reporter’s First Amendment right? They want to call her a private citizen when she was, in fact, a public employee on campus at her place of employment, a public, taxpayer-funded university? Clearly, the faculty assclowns at Mizzou are contriving some kind of defense for her. We know what kind of communication this is. It’s called bullshit.

There may be a way out of this that will satisfy everyone, however. Click has been doing “research” on 50 Shades of Grey. Dismiss the charges and forego dismissal from the university if she agrees to a public spanking! It would be televised and sent viral. Click would have to hike her bare bottom, and Schierbecker would have to deliver 10 whacks with a paddle, with four stereophonic, high definition digital microphones placed near her soon-to-be-red rump and four by her mouth to catch every thwack and every wail of pain! It would be juicy indeed, and Click could even use it for her research!

Everybody wins!

Hey, I’m a problem solver!

A Defense of Trump and His Supporters with an Attack on National Review

Conservative magazine National Review marketed a special issue today devoted to the destruction of Donald Trump’s campaign to win the Republican nomination for president. The issue’s cover features ornate, three dimensional appearance, gold lettering in relief that proclaims “Against Trump”. The lettering sits on a royal purple background underneath a cluster of golden leaves and blooms. The magazine amassed the cogitations of 22 conservative purists who denounced Trump as a faux conservative who would destroy conservatism, the Republican Party, and these United States.

The issue “hit” news stands today and was previewed yesterday by news outlets like CNN and Fox News. One source described National Review’s circulation as limited and has having fallen since 2010.

As volcanoes vomit lava, so the editors and the contributors enlisted to pen essays for the magazine spewed sulfur from their bellies at Trump and anyone who supports his candidacy.

During an interview Friday morning with Martha MacCallum on Fox News’s America’s Newsroom, conservative L. Brent Bozell called Trump a “shameless self-promoter and huckster.”

The Editors described Trump as “a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot on behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.”

Mona Charen lists a litany of sins that cry to conservative heaven for vengeance and asks “whether [Trump’s] recent impersonation of a conservative is just another role he’s playing.”

Their answer to the question of who should be the Republican nominee for president is, by and large, Ted Cruz; yes, that Ted Cruz, the gargoyle of gridlock that his Republican colleagues hate.

Within the criticisms one can detect hypocrisy, snobbery, and a destitution of pragmatism.

As a voter, I don’t care about strict ideology. I tend to be conservative, socially and fiscally, but I want policies that will achieve efficiency, profitability, and strength. I am not against all social programs. I want to take home as much of my check as I can, but I can support some programs if they achieve a civic benefit and am willing to be taxed for them. And I understand that there are many Americans who disagree with me, so I cannot in good conscience say my ideology always owns the answer for every challenge. Compromise is necessary, not as an evil, but as a good, a give and take that makes allowances for everyone and achieves vital goals. The last seven years we have seen what a failure to compromise reaps: virtually nothing. The gridlock that Cruz and these conservative purists stand for will keep us chained, enslaved to polarity.

American government should work for Americans and their benefit. “Free trade”, which benefits a few investors and robs Americans of jobs, isn’t free. It costs workers tons. It costs them their livelihoods, their ability to feed and shelter their wives and kids, their self-esteem, and the respect of those who don’t suffer as they do. They are our neighbors, our fellow citizens, not objects on a philosophical landscape. Yet greed stylized as a “principle” insists that investors make a few cents more on a share of stock in a year, even if it means several hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of their fellow citizens lose their $30- or $40,000 a year livelihood!

No “conservative principle” nor “liberal principle” should dictate how a president or congressman governs, but rather a constitutional pragmatism. The Constitution does not call for the employment and application of “conservative principles” or “liberal principles”. It calls for the formation of a more perfect Union, the establishment of Justice, the insurance of domestic Tranquility, provision for the common defense, the promotion of the general Welfare, and the securing of the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity. The government should make these their goals to accomplish, honoring and promoting the rights of the people, collectively and individually, along the way.

Because they enjoy the right to speak and write freely, the Sanhedrin of conservative purity may say what it wants. We do not have to give it permission to define conservatism for us nor to accept any of the principles upon which it insists for good government.

When it makes claims, however, the soundness of those claims should pass muster with our Reason. Let’s examine a few bits.

Bozell claims Trump is a shameless self-promoter and huckster. One fails to see how that designation does not apply to any candidate in the race for the presidency. Each and every one of them is promoting themselves. They always spotlight what they have done or said that achieved good or constancy while turning the lights off on the bad or inconstancy they achieved. Their self-promotion includes the derogation of those who are running against them. They aggressively sell themselves and do so by ridiculing their opponents, all hyperbolically.

Bozell’s claim has little more than its colorful wording.

Similarly, the Editors’ claim that Trump is trampling underfoot conservatism and its works with a crude, heedless populism belies the fact that the people who comprise that populism are thoroughly disgusted with the political establishment and the ideological purists who haunt it. Actually, it is the conservative and the liberal ideologues, stuck in a perpetual tug of war based on their ideas instead of the people, who have given birth to the populism the National Review finds so threatening. Ideology in Washington has bred inefficiency because of its tolerance for polarity and its intolerance for compromise, despite the fact that statistics show the country split into thirds.

From what I can see on the web, the percentage of Americans who identify as conservatives runs between 35 and 40%. The percentage of Americans who identify as moderates runs about 35%. The percentage of Americans who identify as liberals runs between 20 and 25%. Presumably, those left over do not identify with any ideology.

Those are generalities. People likely shift their ideological identification based on the issue presented to them, and their concerns are likely pragmatic. How many governing conservatives decry welfare but want states to offer businesses incentives to relocate there, a form of corporate welfare, and a slap in the face to businesses already there? Don’t “right-to-work” laws diminish the free market by crippling a worker’s ability to compete? Aren’t workers a part of the supply and demand equation? How many conservatives are fiscally so but socially not and stand with the pro-abortionists, even though faith and science declare that life begins at conception and the Declaration lists the order of predominance as “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”?

Liberal ideologues are no better, and while many have led the fight to prevent “legislating morality”, they engage in it themselves, crafting “hate” laws and compelling people to pay for other peoples’ insurance and thrusting gay marriage on a nation through endless nagging and condemnation. It’s laughable until it becomes murderous: Hillary boasts of her defense of women, yet her support for the legalized murder of the unborn has exterminated the lives of millions of women!

Where were conservative purists when illegal aliens began crossing the border to satisfy their needs and the greed of Big Agriculture for cheap, sometimes slave, labor? Now they want to expel the illegals and offer no pathway to citizenship, after winking and looking the other way for decades!?

I suppose somewhere sometime a conservative columnist or two may have raised the issue over illegal immigration in what they wrote, but what did conservative purists do?

Nothing! If only they had made as big a stink back then as they are now about Trump! It’s easy to denounce another. Why don’t you denounce yourselves for your failures, conservative purists!?

The answer is simple: Everyone compromises. You can throw ideological purity out the window like dirty water or three-days old coffee. That’s where it belongs, just like the condemnation of Trump!

It’s time to be constitutional. It’s time to be pragmatic. It’s time to get things done. Let Trump’s desire to win, his respect for the common citizen, his ability to negotiate, and his efficiency, productivity, and profitability work for us and our country.

The “purists” have had their chances the last seven years and failed miserably. Let them sit in their plush leather chairs on thickly carpeted floors behind closed doors to sip cognac, puff on cigars, and fume about the lack of ideological purity amid the smoky wisps.

Keep them there!

Hillary’s Hell

You have heard the saying that this or that person “lives in his own private hell.” Such an axiom seems true of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary cannot elude the past she crafted when she crushed the women who accused her husband of molesting them sexually, preying on them as one in power preys on the weak creatures about him. Burning questions incited by her own charge of “sexism” against Donald Trump are burning her up inside.

Now media outlets report that the CIA inspector general has identified that emails with a security classification above “Top Secret” have been recovered from Clinton’s private email server. Publicly, Clinton has apologized for what she essentially described as a lapse in sound judgment. Privately, she is fuming that she is being challenged and that her past actions are biting her in the behind.

It is much more than a political inconvenience for Hillary, despite at least one media report that the information in the SAP emails – “Special Access Programs” – is “innocuous.” Really? Innocuous information receives the highest, most restricted classification? Of course, the reporter himself, from NBC, has not seen what the information was.

Not that it matters in terms of whether a criminal act has occurred or not, but it is incredible that a member of the media would report that information contained in the highest, most secret classification would be “innocuous” without seeing it, no matter who his source was. If the information was innocuous, then the source should have shown the emails to the reporter. The source didn’t.

The public should understand that material is classified based on its value, whether the designation appears on the email or not. In fact, investigators have at least one email in which Hillary instructed a staffer to remove the classification. In her perverted eyes, that allows her to say she did not send or receive any classified material on her server without addressing the real question (and which still leaves open another question of whether she herself, or a staffer, loaded classified material onto her server); in fact, such a removal does not alter the material’s classification level.

People know from their everyday experiences that a person can get experience doing this and experience doing that to build up their resume and yet not be a person of character, even be a rotten person. We all have met and had to deal with someone like that. Superficially, their resume is stacked. In reality, the person does not have the heart and the temperament and the character to manage a department or branch or the people in them, much less to govern a nation.

Ambition has corrupted Hillary Clinton, and as the legal noose tightens around her neck, and Bernie Sanders’ galloping, inspired campaign propels his support closer to, and sometimes over, hers, you can imagine the white-knuckled, teeth-gnashing anger gathering within her, ready to explode.

With disaffection growing within the Democratic Party and without, she will not win the presidency, and she may not even win her party’s nomination.

Hillary Clinton’s ambitious, arrogant, angry character, has crafted her own hell.

 

 

 

British Boobs, and Pics of Angry Muslims!

The United Kingdom once stood as a noble, righteous nation – flawed, granted – but always striving for excellence. The expansion of the English culture and language owes to the English spirit: tough, never-say-die, idealistic, inquiring, seeking the good of the Crown and its peoples, noble yet democratic, industrious, and profitable. From England’s womb emerged the greatest, freest countries on Earth: the United States, the Dominion of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Now we see the decadence of the once proud empire and its prime nation. Certainly, it could be expected that such a limited number of people would not secure primacy forever. Yet it is not England’s martial primacy that we miss, but the dissolution and disintegration of its spirit, the utter effeminization of its character!

Yesterday, on Monday, January 18^th, A.D. 2016, the British Parliament debated whether to ban Donald Trump from entry into its country. Trump is the leading Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States. The request for the ban derived from a petition seeking it and signed by over half a million people (that isn’t even a fifth of Britain’s 2.7 million Muslims, a 2011 census figure from its Office for National Statistics).

Oddly, the reason for the request was the irritation of some petitioners over Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S. Trump wants to establish an effective vetting procedure first to make sure Muslim terrorists do not slaughter American citizens by getting lost in a crowd of students or refugees or by stealth when they enter the country.

So some Brits proposed a ban because a ban was proposed. The difference is that Trump’s ban would keep out bloody murderers; the British ban strangles free speech and political action. No less a person than Prime Minister David Cameron called Trump’s remarks, “divisive, stupid, and wrong.”

Others said even worse things, such as the Labour Party’s candidate for mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who misfired rhetorically when he said that he hoped Mr. Trump’s “campaign dies a death.”

Some Brits spewed vitriol over Trump’s additional comments that some sections of London were so radicalized that the police did not want to enter them. One can only wonder what Londoners really think, those who have to go about their lives day-to-day, as opposed to the rosy picture England’s politicos want to present, like it has always been safe for people and police to go into ethnically or racially unique neighborhoods! There’s an investigative piece for the British press.

The real problem that exists is a philosophical fascism in England and in these United States that chokes off ideas and expression unless it conforms to some 1984ish standard of tolerance and diversity. Say something the government doesn’t like, or some misfit doesn’t like, and they’ll clap the hate speech label on you like flypaper and prosecute your ass!

I’m Hispanic, but you know what? I’m proud of America’s white Anglo-Saxon and Christian heritage. It may be far from perfect, but an inspection of the rest of the world reveals it is a lot better than most, if not all.

This is the movement we are seeing in the United States: people vomiting on the proliferation of political correctness tyrannizing the country and overthrowing it. Citizens have had their fill of the spoiled, sissified diversity-thumpers calling the shots with their hissy fits, wrecking our culture, and promoting godlessness and corruption while allowing a ghetto mentality to fester and spread like a virus. We are tired of having our values pissed on and told its wrong to bring them to the public marketplace, even as the diversity thumpers demand the acceptance of theirs. We hate to see excellence dropped as a standard and mere participation made the rule. Down with the notion that an idea is the best not because it is the best, but because it represents “the marginalized” or because it includes everybody or makes everything “accessible.”

What all those words are is code, code for “we are going to gut your Christianity and your political liberty and your Constitution to make our foolproof world where nobody gets hurt and the consideration of the offended is primary, except if you adhere to the white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture from which you emerged. That must be disintegrated and a new, exotic culture established.”

No More!

We have had it with your phony tolerance, which is actually quite intolerant. We are sick of your imposed understanding of diversity, which is another word for a mess. And if you don’t like the fact that the United States is going to take measures to protect itself, including banning murderous Muslims, who should be required to reject the verses of violence in the Quran anyway, give us a call when you experience the next Muslim mass murder.

It is you, David Cameron, who are stupid and wrong, and you lie to paper over the ills brought on by the migration of Muslim hordes to your country. You were elected to represent and serve your people, but instead you think it is your job to engineer them socially. Reports of unrest and danger from Muslim residents in London surfaced long before Trump’s comments. Divisiveness in and of itself is not wrong. Citizens – in your case, subjects – have a right and a responsibility to debate the merits of the people whose faith intrinsically advocates violence against “infidels”, i.e., anyone who is not Muslim. How stupid of you to reject a temporary ban on Muslim entry to secure the well-being of your subjects but to denounce free speech and legitimate policy proposals.

By the way, Jeb Bush speaks for hardly anyone. He is at or below 5% in the polls.

It is you Brits who have spawned this whole political correctness tyranny, this philosophical fascism that is strangling our countries like a plumber from Boston. May you find your mojo again. Meanwhile, we are going to do what we think is right and safe for our country. If you don’t like it, too bad!

The Oil, Water, and Fire of the Republican Debate on Jan. 14

The Republican presidential candidates took the stage last night and shone brightly on the Fox Business Network debates. Although the debates seemed to drag at times, that may have been me. I might have been maxed out on politics and the campaigns. I think just about everyone scored high marks, so I will just leave my key impressions.

The post title indicates three qualities of the debate: oil represents the form or rehtorical quality of the candidate, water the substance, and fire the political or leadership character of the candidates.

I am not sure why Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum cannot gain traction. They know the issues very well, their respective characters blaze brightly, and their rhetoric is sound. They are good Americans, and pro-American and pro-Constitution without any veneer or compromise.

Somewhere in the mettle of Carly Fiorina’s being lies a warping. She’s knowledgeable and a leader, but something isn’t right, and I am not sure what it is. It might be the sense that I don’t think I would like to work for her. She might be too harsh, not superficially so, which so many people look at these days, but deep inside. I would favor her over Hillary Clinton, but Fiorina isn’t even my third choice for president.

Rhetorically, Ted Cruz performed outstandingly. He possesses a brilliant intellect, and he discombobulated Donald Trump last night with the rebuttals to Trump’s birth questioning, most painfully and inadvertently extracting an expressed willingness  by Trump to entertain becoming Cruz’s vice-president. It was an astonishing moment, and the first and so far only serious misstep Trump has made. Trump may have played that card to indicate his willingness to test the birther issue on Cruz, but if so, it was lost in the messy dialog of the moment, and it made him look bad. How much, if at all, it disrupts his standing in voters’ eyes remains to be seen.

Cruz won the debate. He owned the oil last night. A careful spectator will note, however, that Trump’s attacks prior to the debate worked and revealed another side to Cruz: He has his foot inside two doorways: the insider doorway and the outsider doorway. Only the most gullible could gather enough non-sense to place any credibility in Cruz’s explanation that leaving off the $500,000 loan from Goldman-Sachs, where his wife works, was a “filing error”.  It was a “not filing error”, because Cruz did not list it on his report to the Federal Elections Commission when he ran for the senate as an outsider. It clearly would have made him look different than he wanted to to voters. In my opinion, Cruz lied when he left the loan off his report, and he is lying now about it being an error.

On top of that, his diatribe against “New York values”may have alienated liberal folks thinking about voting Republican.

Does that disqualify him for me? No. All politicians lie to some extent. But practically, with Huckabee and Santorum never having gained traction, Cruz drops from being my No. 2 choice to No. 3 and Rubio rises to No. 2.

Rubio has been near the top in his substance and form all along. He isn’t perfect. His inexperience, which open him up to being manipulated, his missed votes in the senate, and his sometimes misleading campaign ads mitigate his qualifications and character. The flip side is that I believe he has a much better than average mastery of national intelligence and foreign policy. When he looked the camera in the eye and said what happened to our sailors would not happen during a Rubio adminstration, his spirit, his greatest asset, was palpable and thoroughly embraceable – much more so than Cruz, who sometimes is too brilliant and planned out for his own good – and I couldn’t help but shake my fist and say, “Yeah!”. Of all the candidates, he has moderated his presentation the most to convey the impression that he is the coolest, calmest, and most collected under fire, even when Bush is stabbing him in the back. Though I dislike his connections to the establishment, Rubio is a legitimate candidate.

In some ways, Bush looked like he had his best debate, but he overreached when he told Trump he would teach him about the nuclear triad, then falsely tried to wax inclusive when he said he would support anyone on the stage, and came “unhinged” when Debate Moderator Neil Cavuto asked him whether he thought people who agreed with Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban Muslim immigration were unhinged, as he had described Trump. Bush was a deer caught in the headlights in that moment. He didn’t expect Cavuto to be driving that question (indeed, finally a tough question for Bush). Of course, Bush had to say, “No”, but it set up a contradiction: either he doesn’t really think Trump was unhinged (incorrect, perhaps, but not unhinged); or he does, and he really thinks anyone who supports the Trump ban is unhinged, too. Either way, it appears Bush lied.

To me, Bush has the smallest fire up there on the main debate stage. He has had every opportunity and advantage in his life and as governor, when he had a very friendly legislature to work with, something he won’t necessarily have in Washington, as his older and more competent brother discovered. He is like a kid who brings all his friends with him to fight one guy because he needs the support. I cannot support his candidacy.

Christie is too much of a politician, as is Kasich, who like Cruz has keen ties to Wall Street. I cannot support either one. Carson isn’t qualified, using humor to mask his deficiencies.

That leaves the Donald. The debate setting brings to the surface Trump’s rhetorical weaknesses, simply because he isn’t a lawyer or academic debater and doesn’t have much experience with formal argumentation. He is a businessman and patriot who brings his keen intellect, savvy, skills, and winning spirit and ways to bear on getting things done efficiently and profitably. Thus, he excels in the board room, the negotiating conference, and on the campaign with a crowd or one-on-one. That is not to say he fails to deliver standout moments. He delivers them, as the targets of his counterattacks well know. He remains the most qualified candidate, an outside the box thinker who will not be bound by trite politics, conventional thought, and special interests that pervade the institutions of government and the spooks who haunt them.

Trump may seem harsh on the outside, but on the inside, he is one of us, just more successful.

In that regard, and contrary to conventional wisdom, I think Trump would perform better against Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders, though I think he would defeat both.

 

 

 

Sex Sells, Except When It’s Thrust Against the Donald!

The sneaky Republican establishment cabal planted their most recent attacker in front of the media cameras and microphones Wednesday night. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley delivered the Republican rebuttal to President Barack Obama’s 2016 State of the Union message.

Her job was not the usual one, though. She followed a surreptitious directive to talk as much smack, if not more, against Donald Trump as against Republican arch-foe and high priest of liberalism Obama. The cabal’s strategy was to fashion a different instrument to convey its message, one with tons of sex appeal and a wispy voice to whisper sweet negatives into the ears of American voters. Sex sells, its members no doubt thought, so a young, attractive, relatively unknown but compliant political woman, the daughter of legal immigrants from India – with a carrot of the vice-presidency bobbing nearby – might accomplish with her charms what other candidates and cooperating media had not been able to do to the Donald with all their huff and puff: knife his candidacy in the back to be done with it!

Don’t be too quick to charge me with sexism nor to stifle my free thinking with any censorious indignation. Read Haley’s words:

“During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices,” she said in a tone fit for a library. “We must resist that temptation.”

Wow! In one sentence she called Trump an angry witch, or maybe a word that rhymes with witch and begins with a “b”. Seductive sea nymphs earned the name “siren” when they called out from their islands and beguiled sailors into shipwrecks with their beautiful, haunting songs.

So let’s see. Building a wall to throttle illegal immigration will shipwreck America? Bringing manufacturing and other jobs back to the U.S. will shipwreck America? Protecting the right to gun ownership, self-defense, and revolution by standing firm on the Second Amendment will shipwreck America? Taking care of our veterans will shipwreck America? Building up our military muscle to regain our position as the indisputable No. 1 military power that destroys ISIS, and that defends our freedom and the rest of the world’s will shipwreck America? Temporarily banning Muslims – the ideological group that spawns the bloodthirsty jihadis – until we can establish effective vetting procedures that will help to keep all our citizens safe will shipwreck America?

Did Haley lock her intellect in a safe deposit box before she stepped in front of the cameras?

I do not doubt that Haley can be a competent politician. When one places oneself in a position beholden to the Republican establishment cabal, however, one compromises one’s intellect. She uninhibitedly proffered a few more reasoning blunders.

First, she suggested that being angry is bad. Funny, the Bible says to be angry but not to sin. She doesn’t get to devalue anger with a label of inappropriateness. It isn’t her job to instruct voters how to feel. Rather, she should represent the feelings of the voters. Candidates who sympathize with or share voters’ anger are doing their jobs.

Second, if the voters are angry, the causes of their anger should be the focus of Haley’s attention and care. She does not have to support every proposed remedy nor every part of every proposed remedy; she should support the feelings voters have for the issues that disturb them and be working industriously to fix those issues. Her babysitter rhetoric, talking down to voters and belittling candidates who are trying to find national and international solutions, doesn’t fit and doesn’t work. I submit to you that Haley herself does not know which proposed remedy proffered by the candidates will make Americans the safest.

Thus, third, Haley alienated Republican voters with her disrespectful rhetoric just to take an establishment swipe at Trump, the Republican frontrunner, and Cruz, who is No. 2 now.

Haley conveyed her next blunder in these words:

“Growing up in the rural South, my family didn’t look like our neighbors. No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws (italics and bolding mine), and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in our country.”

Last time I checked, Gov. Haley, illegal immigrants were not abiding by our laws, either when they crossed into our country, unlawfully, or when they decided to continue their illegal visits to remain here, also unlawful. Further, Haley depreciated the value of her own parents’ lawful entry into our country by likening it to the situation of the illegal immigrants.

If we stroll down that intellectual block farther, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, pagans, etc., do not advocate violence against other belief systems, violence such as mass murder, rape, child molestation, etc. Last time I checked, legislatures in our 50 United States passed laws that made those activities unlawful, not to mention morally reprehensible. Shockingly, there is a belief system that does advocate the perpetration of such unlawful activities: Islam.

Don’t take my word for it. If you like your privacy, search out the verses of violence in the Quran on Duckduckgo.com. If you don’t mind being tracked by snoopers, use another search engine. I have not checked, but I would not be surprised to discover that today, Muslim countries, and countries with large Muslim populations, contribute by far the largest quantity of mass and genocidal murders on planet Earth.

Using Haley’s own standard, Muslims should not be allowed into our country on the basis of their ideological and practical commitment to bloody unlawfulness against those who fail to embrace “the prophet” and a host of other related concerns. Infidels are part of the “Great Satan” and must be exterminated.

Finally, the establishment-picked refuter missed the whole point of the voters’ sentiments when she acknowledged that Republican politicians had played a role in the leadership and legislative bankruptcy of the country during the Obama administration, then said they would fix it. No, Nikki, we have given you guys, and girls, more than ample time and opportunity to do your jobs. You failed. Now we want someone else, someone who isn’t part of the establishment cabal, the self-perpetuating liars’ clubs in both parties who serve the monied special interests and only accidentally the common citizens.

See you at the ballot box!

Missouri Professor Melissa Click: the Face of Academic Hate

You can hear new words to the old melody: “There she was just a-walkin’ down the street, singing ‘Get some muscle to get rid of this creep!'”

Those could well have been the lyrics of University of Missouri Communications Professor Melissa Click, who demanded that a reporter be given the boot from the recent racially-charged campus protests layered in mendacity and deception.

Imagine that: a communications professor strangling communication and tinkling all over the First Amendment! See how her angry self-righteousness has warped her features into a mask of hate!? Click! And you have Professor Hate-Face.

Am I being too harsh? After all, Prof. Hate-Face was knee deep in the research of 50 Shades of Gray and Lady Gaga, each a milestone and pillar of contemporary culture’s literature and lyrics. No doubt her reading of 50 Shades inspired her sadism toward freedom of the press. Amid the angry contortions of her countenance one can discern the wrinkles of an inner gratification.

It is hard for students to learn if you won’t let them know, Prof. Hate-Face. Some of us thought college expanded the mind’s horizons to the truth. Prof. Hate-Face apparently sought to apply a theory of constriction: the less truth a person knows, the better.

Tsk, tsk. If Missouri’s state lawmakers get their way, Prof. Hate-Face will have to obtain her gratification elsewhere. They want her fired. Stay tuned.