Wednesday, August 31, 2016

If Voter IDs are Racist, Everything Requiring IDs should be Considered Racist

Leave it to politicians to politicize common sense. That’s what happening on both sides of the aisle when it comes to voter identification, though Democrats are pressing the bounds of politicization much further. The latest example is the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to address a North Carlina voter ID law struck down by a lower court.

The Democrats say such laws are racist. They know that minorities are less likely to have valid forms of identification, so they make them the victims of laws that require identification in order to vote. They stop with voting, though. They don’t point out that the same should apply to buying age-restricted items like tobacco or alcohol. There are other situations that require identification, but we’ll focus on that one.

By law, one has to present a valid form of identification in order to purchase restricted items. If progressive sensitivities (aka their liberal agenda) say that voting is a right that should not be taken from someone just because they don’t have proper identification, shouldn’t the same be said about buying beer? Cigarettes? If someone is a U.S. citizen who has chosen to not get valid identification, why should their right to purchase items be removed based upon racial discrimination? They should just be able to go in and say that they’re of a valid age just as a voter can in North Carolina today.

If that doesn’t make any sense to you, it’s because you can’t warp your brain to the way that a liberal is required to think.

One might wonder how the Republicans are politicizing it. The reality is that they have a solution. All they have to do is set a law declaring acceptable forms of identification for all age-restricted activities. Buying alcohol or tobacco would be included. Entering premises that cater to adult patrons such as bars, casinos, or strip clubs would be included. Some things, such as buying a firearm, require two forms of valid identification. And yes, voting should be included on the list because it’s age-restricted as well.

The challenge in doing this is two-fold. First, it would mean consolidating individual laws listing requirements for specific age-restricted activities into one which would be a much larger task than most realize. The second reason is catering to special interest groups. Oversight in many industries such as alcohol and tobacco is already established and appreciated. Changes, even for the sake of preventing voter fraud, are frowned upon by these groups. With the solution staring them in the face, they refuse to act upon it.

Would voter ID laws affect minority voter turnout? Yes. Is that bad? If we don’t politicize it and isolate it outside of the concept of voter fraud, then again the answer would be Yes. Once voter fraud is brought into the equation, everything changes. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2007), the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana state law that required all voters to present a photo ID. The majority opinion found that the burden placed on voters was “offset by the benefit of reducing the risk of fraud” and that the law was “eminently reasonable.”

This same argument was made and failed in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. There’s a good chance it wouldn’t have failed in the Supreme Court, but we’ll never know because they were too busy to consider it.

via Soshable

Monday, August 29, 2016

Colin's safe space.

via Facebook

Best Weiner tweet of the day.

via Facebook

Feed the meter, meet the "leader."

via Facebook

HuffPo Terminates Journalist, Deletes Story Questioning Hillary’s Health

Communist-style state-run journalism is alive and well in the United States. We’ve seen the Trumpeters at Breitbart and Drudge make a mockery of their “conservatism” by hopping on the Trump train hard. We’ve seen CNN this week fire Dr. Drew after he questioned Hillary Clinton’s health. Now, Huffington Post has joined the attack on dissenting views by terminating David Seaman and removing his stories that also questioned Hillary’s health.

For the record, I am not a Donald Trump supporter. I’m also not a Hillary Clinton supporter. Lastly, I’m not one who has bought in fully to Clinton’s failing health conspiracy theory. With that said, I’m also not blind to the fact that her coughing and odd behavior should warrant an independent health evaluation (which, to me, should be a requirement for every Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate, but I digress).

With all of the appropriate disclaimers out of the way, let’s look at the censorship occurring at the Huffington Post. This isn’t the first time it’s happened. They censored a review of Vaxxed and have been prolific in their use of Orwellian comment controls. They’ve deleted many stories in the past, though this one is arguably the most perplexing since it addresses an issue that’s vibrant right now. Whether you believe that Hillary is in good health or not, it’s valid to question it.

For posterity, we will post the article that was deleted. We do not own the rights to the article and if Seaman would like us to take it down, I’d gladly do so and link to wherever he ends up posting it instead. I just don’t want it to be lost in the dungeons of HuffPo’s trash folder for nobody to see. After the article, I’ll continue with my commentary as well as show a video with the journalist’s reaction.

Hillary Clinton’s Health Is Superb (Aside From Seizures, Lesions, Adrenaline Pens)

Hillary Clinton: Stronger Together. How strong? Well, the great woman’s health is excellent, superb even. Her heart and mind one hundred thousand times stronger than the strongest beams of steel that built our great American cities more than a century ago. Her soul a shining exemplar of selflessness, service, and humility, her footing sound… wait, are we talking about the same person here?!

The same Hillary Clinton who recently became the latest unintentional star of YouTube, with a truly endless upload stream of videos purporting to show Hillary Clinton wildly seizing up when several reporters begin questioning her at once? Yes, the same Hillary Clinton who became the star of this Paul Joseph Watson video, attracting 3,554,177 views since it was uploaded on August 4th:

I realize some readers might be wondering after watching Paul Watson’s video… how is she strong, or healthy, after seeing all that?

Look guys, I need to keep my job and platform. A lot of people read the Huffington Post and AOL properties. We all know what happens when you speak a little too much truth about the Establishment-beloved Clintons.

Just ask longtime broadcaster Dr. Drew Pinsky. “CNN has canceled Drew Pinsky’s HLN show, Dr. Drew On Call, just eight days after Pinsky made comments on a radio show questioning the health of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Pinsky’s show, which is six years old, will air for the last time Sept. 22,” The Daily Beast reported.

But what do you think? Is Hillary Clinton strong and wise and healthy? If so, why does Paul Watson and the team at Infowars want to hurt her feelings? They should know better over there: Americans are allowed to vote for anyone they want this election season, and support anyone they want, so long as that person is Strong Hillary Clinton.

Stronger Together. Together, Stronger. Or something.

The Huffington Post editorial staff has full control over their website. If they don’t like a story, it’s within their power to remove it. No law was broken and journalistic standards of ethics were arguably maintained. However, the article isn’t spewing out wild accusations. The video referenced in the article has millions of views and over 40K likes. This was not an article that was removed because the site wants to maintain a journalistic standard. It was removed because they didn’t like what it implied. It was removed because they believe at least one of three things:

  1. Hillary is totally healthy and questions about her health are reproachable
  2. Tim Kaine is healthy enough and would make a great President if Hillary had to step down for her health
  3. Hillary’s glorious light of approval might dim on the site if they allowed the article to live

If you’re a publication that lives and breaths on opinions, there are better ways to handle a situation like this. The best thing to do is to post an editor’s note. It can be bland saying that the views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and do not represent the opinions of AOL, the Huffington Post, or its editors. They could have been more harsh and said that they completely disagree with the author’s assessment but for the sake of journalistic integrity they’ve allowed the post to remain. Instead. they took China Road. They didn’t like it so they removed the story and terminated the author.

On the scale of journalistic integrity, I’ve always held HuffPo somewhere in the middle. This incident pushes them down to the realm of bottom feeders.

Here’s Seaman’s reaction. Warning: strong language is used here, kiddos, because this guy is as upset as they get right about now.

via Soshable

Sunday, August 28, 2016

All major credit cards accepted

via Facebook

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Trump Will Sell His Version of Amnesty to His Supporters and They’ll Forget They Every Wanted Deportations

It’s not news to most of us that Donald Trump has performed an almost flawless 180-degree back flip on deporting illegal immigrants. It was the staple of his campaign for a year. It was the very issue upon which he launched his successful bid to win the GOP nomination.

Now, he’s going to deport “the bad ones” which, assuming that he’s talking about those who have committed crimes other than being in the country illegally, will account for about 180,000 of the 11-12 million illegal immigrants in the country today. That means that he went from wanting to deport 100% of the illegal immigrants down to under 2%. It won’t matter, though. We’re finally starting to see the real motivation for his supporters.

During part 2 of Sean Hannity’s town hall interview with Trump on Fox News, Trump did something amazing. He used a variation of push polling to convince the audience that THEY wanted amnesty. Keep in mind that he repeated over and over again that it’s not amnesty and that they won’t become citizens, but at the end of the day it all means the same thing. People who are here illegally will continue to stay here and have the vast majority of the benefits given to citizens and those who have been granted amnesty.

The push poll didn’t start out very well for Trump. Even after loading the question in his first poll, the majority of his supporters still replied that illegal immigrants, including the “great people” who have been here for “15 or 20 years,” should be deported. To someone of lesser skill, this might be bad news. Not Trump. He’s the best salesman to ever run for President. He persisted with his “poll” until he got the results that he wanted. Eight times he polled the crowd.


By the end, there was literally ONE man in the audience willing to say that these “great people” should be deported. He stood up at Hannity’s request and as the camera focused on him, we saw the lone voice of opposition in a sea of fools who had just been conned into denying their political perspective for the sake of their chosen one…

…and that’s the point. Many conservatives are saying that this is going to hurt him. It will not. He’s going to rise in the polls. I’m not Nate Silver, but I would say that at this point he should be considered a slight favorite to win. Why? Because his base will not leave him and Hillary Clinton is just that bad. Millions of Independents and right-leaning Democrats who were held up by his harsh tone towards immigration will now have the excuse they need to dump Hillary.

What about the wall? Some are saying that he’s going to eventually backtrack on that as well. They point to an instant a few weeks ago when he said he was “almost 100%” certain he’d get the wall built. They perceived this as an early sign of flip-flopping, but it wasn’t. He’s simply facing the reality that he’ll still have to sell the wall to Congress in order to have it built and funded. He will absolutely, positively NEVER back down on the wall even if it takes three or four Presidential terms to get it built. This is his monument. He doesn’t want another library like other Presidents. He wants a big, beautiful, and unique reminder to generations in the future that says, “Trump was here.”

A word of advice to fellow NeverTrumpers: it’s time to stop talking policy against Trump to his ardent supporters. He’s not a man of policy and neither are they. There is no promise other than the wall and his intention of increasing spending that will stick. Everything else he proposes from his SCOTUS list to being pro-life to protecting the 2nd Amendment to defending Israel can change at any moment. In fact, here’s even better advice: stop talking to his ardent supporters altogether. They cannot be reached. This is the clearest example of a cult of personality that American politics has ever seen. The only thing that can stop him is to focus on the conservatives and Independents who are only considering him because they believe Hillary is worse. It’s a waste of time to attempt any discussion with his full-blown supporters.

If he can change the perspectives of a huge room full of people in eight minutes with a push poll, he’ll be able to do or say whatever he wants from a policy perspective and his followers will never leave him. They’re hooked on his authoritarianism, not his policy proposals. They’re lost and chances are they’ll never come back. The GOP is their party, now. It’s time to start a new party.

via Soshable

Politics aside, you have to love a headline like this on multiple levels.

via Facebook

Monday, August 22, 2016


via Facebook