Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Remember in November 2020 – playing cards

You know as well as I do the American political dynamic has reached new levels of insanity. More than one person I follow has commented on this upon returning to the US after traveling abroad. Tensions are high. Many people are concerned about the 2020 election and a lot of attention and money are spent on it. As we know, our leaders affect our nation, thus elections matter.

Most of us want sanity to return. It’s relatively few who are stoking the fire and gaslighting the culture, but that number is growing. Those who want to help reclaim sanity but don’t want to hustle and tussle with potentially violent leftists can take a more subtle approach. Public awareness is essential in a society like ours, especially around election time. Introducing the Remember in November 2020 Edition playing cards.

Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: campaign, culture, right wing

Maybe Trump voters understand more than his haters realize

original article: Understanding Why Religious Conservatives Would Vote for Trump
February 10, 2020 by Andrew T. Walker

It’s a complicated situation for religious conservatives. But these are complicated times.

In January 2021, someone will take the presidential oath of office, and religious conservatives will undoubtedly play a crucial role in whom it will be. Their influence will be the focus of an untold number of postmortems, of the type they’ve been accustomed to hearing since 2016, when the notorious “81 percent” of evangelicals voted for the unlikeliest of candidates: Donald Trump. There are two competing interpretations of Trump’s enthusiastic support from religious conservatives: that it is a lesser-of-two-evils transaction based on self-interest, or that it shows a voting bloc compromised by every form of democratic vice, whether racism, nativism, or nationalism.

If trends hold, there will be a similar turnout in 2020. Rather than wait for the postmortem, I can tell you what will happen now: Millions of religious conservatives will approach their votes with a political realism that requires balancing undesirable tensions and conflicting realities. They will vote not so much for Donald Trump — with his uncouth speech and incessantly immature tweets — as they will vote against the worldview of the Democratic platform. Those who make this calculation are not sell-outs, nor have they forfeited the credibility of their values carte blanche. For blind allegiance does not explain the voting relationship. That religious conservatives are not progressives does. Between Never Trump and Always Trump is a third category: Reluctant Trump. Voters in this category don’t get the fair hearing they deserve, since they defy the simple binary portrayal of religious conservatives as either offended by Trump or sold out to him.

Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: campaign, christian, conservative, culture, government, opinion, patriotism, philosophy, politics, Republicans, right wing

Who gets absolute moral authority?

original article: Malkin: Who gets absolute moral authority?
July 20, 2016 by Michelle Malkin

My 12-year-old son couldn’t remember the phrase “take a walk down memory lane” last week, instead describing a stroll through “nostalgia road.” I knew it would come in handy.

Put on your hiking boots and join me for an educational trip down good ol’ nostalgia road.

It seems like yesterday when Champion of Wimmin Maureen Dowd, bemoaning the lack of sympathy for anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan, declared in The New York Times that “the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.”

No ifs, ands or other hedging qualifiers. Absolutely absolute.

And it was just a blink of an eye ago that the same New York Times spilled barrels of adulatory ink on the 9/11 widows known as the Jersey Girls. Remember them? The quartet of Democratic women parlayed their post-terror attack plight into powerful roles as Bush-bashing citizen lobbyists.

Their story, the lib narrative-shaping paper of record reported, was a “tale of a political education, and a sisterhood born of grief.”

Moms and widows deserved special consideration in the public square, the argument went a decade ago. Their experience and their testimony warranted respect, deference and the national spotlight.

But then, as now, only a special class of victims is entitled to cash in the Absolute Moral Authority card. Not all parents and spouses who have lost loved ones can join the Club of the Unquestioned and Unassailable.

On Monday night at the Republican National Convention, Pat Smith shared her own tale of a political education born of grief after her diplomat son, Sean Smith, died in the Benghazi terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton, she passionately insisted, “deserves to be in stripes!”

GQ sports writer Nathaniel Friedman showed his compassion for Smith’s loss and pain by tweeting, “I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost I would like to beat her to death.”

MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who had helped make Cindy Sheehan a media star and urged her to run for Congress based on her status as a grieving war mom, fumed that Pat Smith had “ruined” the entire convention with her heartfelt testimony. The smug Democratic political operative turned TV bloviator, who had also elevated the Jersey Girls’ celebrity status with multiple bookings on his show, couldn’t bear to speak Smith’s name:

“I don’t care what that woman up there, the mother, has felt. Her emotions are her own, but for the country in choosing a leader, it’s wrong to have someone get up there and tell a lie about Hillary Clinton.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chimed in on the same network that he was disgusted with how the GOP convention was using Smith to “exploit a tragedy.”

GOP-bashers heaped similar derision on father Jamiel Shaw Sr. and mothers Sabine Durden and Mary Ann Mendoza, who all spoke at the convention about losing children to criminals who had slipped illegally through open borders and revolving deportation doors. “Progressives” sneered at Shaw as an “Uncle Tom” for pointing out that Latino gangbangers targeted his black son because of his race. The intolerant tolerance mob also accused Durden of being “fooled” and Durden and Mendoza of being “exploited for apocalyptic theater.”

Will these horrified hang-wringers be as outspokenly offended next week when the Democratic National Convention dedicates an entire evening to the so-called Mothers of the Movement?

Among the sainted moms of the Black Lives Matter movement who will speak on Hillary Clinton’s behalf are Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner; Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin; Maria Hamilton, mother of Dontre Hamilton; Lucia McBath, mother of Jordan Davis; Lesley McSpadden, mother of Michael Brown; Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, mother of Hadiya Pendleton; and Geneva Reed-Veal, mother of Sandra Bland.

Each of these cases lumped under supposedly unjustified gun violence and systemic racism is complicated and distinct. For starters, Bland hanged herself when her friends and family wouldn’t bail her out of jail after she had kicked a police officer. Two of the “children” involved in police shootings (Brown and Hamilton) had assaulted cops during their fatal encounters.

But drop all questions and doubts. “These mothers have worked tirelessly to raise awareness around the issues that surround their children’s deaths,” the liberal Huffington Post reports.

Because these women endorse race-baiting, gun-grabbing narratives and left-wing candidates, no one working in the mainstream media will ever challenge their parental prerogative to participate in politics on behalf of their loved ones.

Moms who have lost their children to Democratic incompetence, corruption and open-borders treachery are out of luck. The dealers of Absolute Moral Authority play with a loaded deck.

anti-war, bias, campaign, corruption, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, fraud, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, scandal, tragedy, troops, victimization

Filed under: anti-war, bias, campaign, corruption, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, fraud, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, scandal, tragedy, troops, victimization

Do Democrats really realize how difficult it has been on working-class Americans to finance Obamacare?

original article: Watch: Mom Says The 15 Words No Democrat Wants To Hear Right To Hillary’s Face On Live TV
March 15, 2016 by Warner Todd Huston

One woman at CNN’s recent Democrat town hall seemed to sense the possible dangers of voting for a left-leaning candidate, and shocked Hillary with what she had to say about Obamacare.

During the CNN televised town hall Teresa O’Donnell of Powell, Ohio, stood to ask a question of the former Secretary of State, first explaining how Obamacare has seriously hurt her and her family due to the exorbitant costs it has inflicted upon them.

“I would like to vote Democratic,” O’Donnell said, “but it has cost me a lot of money.”

She went on saying, “And I’m just wondering if Democrats really realize how difficult it has been on working-class Americans to finance Obamacare.”

O’Donnell told the audience that since the President’s signature Affordable Care Act went into effect the monthly premium for her family healthcare costs has “skyrocketed.” She says her costs have soared from $490 a month to $1,080.

The woman did note she hadn’t purchased her insurance through an Obamacare exchange so, in an effort to rescue Obamacare from the bad publicity, Hillary said the woman should check out the exchange avenue for her insurance.

This Ohio woman isn’t alone in her distaste over Obamacare. As Independent Journal noted, a recent Rasmussen poll found that 54 percent of respondents do not like Obamacare.

Hillary, though, has made Obamacare a major plank in her campaign noting she was for “Obamacare” before it even existed since she tried to get universal healthcare put in place when she was First Lady during her husband Bill’s presidency in the mid 1990s.

“What we have to do, I think, is defend the Affordable Care Act and fix it,” Hillary said in a recent campaign video. Late last year Clinton said, “I’m not going to let them tear up that law, kick 16 million off their health coverage and force the country to start the healthcare debate all over again.”

She has also attacked insurance companies for “predatory pricing” and said that they are “gouging” Americans with their rates.

Her Democrat opponent, self-avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, wants to go even farther by proclaiming healthcare a “right.”

“My view is simple,” Sanders says on his website, “health care is a right, not a privilege.”

campaign, Democrats, economics, government, health care, nanny state, progressive, public policy, reform, tragedy, video

Filed under: campaign, Democrats, economics, government, health care, nanny state, progressive, public policy, reform, tragedy, video

For Trump detractors and supporters

Bill Whittle has some great points to make about Trump. Whatever your opinion of him we should at least recognize Trump is a wild card. And that should invite a closer look into this candidate.

campaign, elections, elitism, ideology, philosophy, politics, Republicans, video

Filed under: campaign, elections, elitism, ideology, philosophy, politics, Republicans, video

The Clintons are a war on women

Possibly the most famous sexual predator not in prison is named Bill. No, not Cosby, his name is Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a war on women. Any widely accepted definition of abuse of women should include the former philandering president. So how do we square Hillary’s recent comments on hearing, believing, and supporting abused women with Hillary’s own efforts to utterly destroy any woman who accuses her husband of sexual predation? Watch The Run Down address the particulars of the question.

buse, campaign, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, feminism, fraud, government, hypocrisy, ideology, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization, video

Filed under: abuse, campaign, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, feminism, fraud, government, hypocrisy, ideology, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization, video

Does Hillary Clinton know about Protestants?

Let’s see if you can follow the logic. First, Catholics are supposed to oppose abortion and birth control. Second, many Republicans oppose abortion. Therefore Republicans oppose birth control or all Republicans are Catholic.

If you see a flaw in that reasoning you may be capable of independent thought, in which case you can see through Hillary Clinton’s glib propaganda in defense of Planned Parenthood. It’s not even artful propaganda. It’s shallow, mindless drivel offered by a supposedly smart woman in an attempt to turn the tables on Republicans in light of the recent scandal Planned Parenthood found itself in. To defend Planned Parenthood and to help deflect attention away from the astonishing undercover videos, Mrs. Clinton is trying to help her liberal base make logical connections that make no sense whatsoever. If she can suggest all Republicans oppose birth control I can suggest she doesn’t know Protestants exist.

original article: Hillary Clinton Again Defends Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies, Lies About Pro-Lifers
September 23, 2015 by STEVEN ERTELT

Abortion advocate Hillary Clinton is trying to turn the tables on the pro-life Republican presidential candidates who have gone after her for defending Planned Parenthood even after it was caught selling aborted babies and their body parts. Now, Clinton is trying to go on offense by making false claims that they oppose contraception.

Clinton recently had a long interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board in which she dismissed and refused to answer questions about how Planned Parenthood sells aborted baby body parts.

“I will continue to defend Planned Parenthood, because services that Planned Parenthood provides are broad, and necessary for millions of American women. Five hundred thousand breast screening exams. A lot of other screening programs that are carried out. Family planning and contraceptive testing for HIV AIDS.

“The Republican have made it clear in recent years that they are not only opposed to abortion, which they have been for quite some time. They’re increasingly opposed to family planning and contraception. This is a direct assault on a woman’s right to choose health care. Forget about abortion, which is something that a limited number of Planned Parenthood facilities perform, with not a penny of federal money.

“The money they want to cut off…is money that goes to health services. That is why it’s important that we continue to try to educate the public and draw a very clear line in defense of Planned Parenthood.”

Never mind that not only do pro-life Republicans support contraception they have pushed to support the sale of non-abortifacient birth control over the counter. Clinton’s claim that pro-life republicans oppose birth control is patently false — as polling data showsRepublicans support contraception.

Clinton ignores the 10 videos showing Planned Parenthood apparently violating multiple federal laws in order to maximize the profit it makes selling aborted babies and their body parts.

She also ignores Planned Parenthood’s own figures showing it doing more and more abortions. The abortion giant Planned Parenthood released its 2013 annual report and the new numbers indicate it did more abortions than the year before — killing 327,653 babies in abortions while taking in millions in taxpayer funds.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America  released its 2013-2014 Annual Report and Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, broke down the numbers.The report indicates Planned Parenthood did 327,653 abortions in 2013, an increase over the 327,166 abortions it did in 2012.

While it remains America’s biggest abortion corporation, the “nonprofit” continued to make money — bringing in $305.4 million last year and $305.3 million this year. Planned Parenthood continued to receive over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money, as it took in $540 million in 2012 and $528 million in 2013.

“Despite this lack of increase in its primary business, Planned Parenthood continued to receive over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money,” Sedlak said. “It has such a tremendous publicity machine that it convinced corporate and private donors to increase donations by more than $75 million (from $315.4 million to $391.8 million).”

“The increased donations, plus an increase of $28 million in “other operating revenue” and the reduction in costs from closing clinics, led to a near-record $127.1 million in profits for the largest abortion chain in the nation. This was the second highest reported annual profit in Planned Parenthood’s history,” he explained to LifeNews.

Some other takeaways from Planned Parenthood’s own figures:

  • In 2013, abortions made up 94% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services.
  • For every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performed 174 abortions.
  • While abortions rose, Planned Parenthood adoption referrals dropped 14% in one year, and prenatal care services dropped 4%.
  • Planned Parenthood’s cancer prevention services are down 17% over one year, and contraceptive services dropped by 4%.
  • During fiscal year 2013-2014, Planned Parenthood received more than $528 million in taxpayer funding, or more than $1.4 million per day, in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements.
  • Taxpayer funding accounts for 41% of Planned Parenthood’s overall revenue.
  • Planned Parenthood reported more than $127 million in excess revenue, and more than $1.4 billion in net assets.

While it did more abortions, Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive business declined from 3,724.558 customers in 2012 to 3,577,348 customers in 2013.

abortion, bias, campaign, Democrats, elections, false, fraud, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, politics, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, scandal

Filed under: abortion, bias, campaign, Democrats, elections, false, fraud, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, politics, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, scandal

Carson knows something the media doesn’t – opinion does not make law

In light of Dr. Ben Carson’s recent comments about a Muslim being elected president of the United States three important points need to be brought to the forefront.

First, as One News Now’s Bryan Fischer thankfully pointed out the U.S. Constitution does specify that a religious test shall not be used for public office in the U.S. But there is nothing anywhere in the universe that states PEOPLE cannot use what ever test they please to determine who they will vote for, for any office. As Fisher explains the Constitution’s ban on religious tests applies to the federal government, for federal office. You and I, and Dr. Carson, can impose any religious test we may wish.

Second, Dr. Carson was stating facts about Sharia law (what it actually states about killing gays or oppressing women or suppressing speech) (facts which CAIR needs to explain) and he was stating his OPINION about the kind of person he would want as president of the United States. Somehow we are supposed to act like Carson claimed the constitution doesn’t allow for Muslims to run for office. He said nothing of the kind! It’s not surprising to see the main stream media deliberately misrepresent Dr. Carson’s comments in this way, but Carly Fiorina should know better. She may be an anti-establishment candidate, but she’s certainly comfortable using the news media to pander.

Third, Carson was not proposing a new law forbidding Muslims from running for office nor was the claiming any such law currently exists. I realize it’s common place for the political left to think in terms of law. When the people don’t voluntarily do what liberals think they should do, liberals eagerly promote and implement new laws to force the people to comply. That’s how illiberal “liberals” are today. That’s how they roll. So when Carson states his legitimate and well founded opinion about who the American people should (or in this case should not) prefer for the highest office in the land, of course a left leaning news media and Democrats think he was talking about the law. He wasn’t. Anyone actually paying attention and who doesn’t have a vested interest in purposefully misunderstanding Carson can plainly see he was not saying the law forbids Muslims from holding public office in America. He was merely stating Sharia is in direct conflict with the law of our land and that he was very uncomfortable with the prospect of anyone holding such beliefs becoming POTUS. And he has every right to that opinion. He also has the benefit of being right about it.

I expect the liberal news media to slander conservatives and all Republicans with Nazi comparisons, constant accusations of racism, sexism, and any number of phobias, then turn around and defend Muslims at any hint of unfavorable fact. The liberal press goes out of its way to correct “misunderstandings” when their beloved politician or candidate or policy is criticized, so I don’t expect them to defend Carson’s obvious meaning by these comments. But shame on you Carly Fiorina for using the MSM to trash Dr. Carson like that and perpetuate a phony scandal.

bias, campaign, diversity, elections, government, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, islam, law, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal

Filed under: bias, campaign, diversity, elections, government, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, islam, law, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal

Planned Parenthood can’t even be honest about website maintenance

Planned Parenthood Fundraises Off ‘Extremist Attack.’ Then People Took a Closer Look…
July 30, 2015 by VICTORIA TAFT

Planned Parenthood claimed their website was hacked by anti-abortion “extremists” yet somehow the website was still able to solicit (and apparently process) donations from the public. It turns out PP implemented a “site down campaign” falsely purporting their website was attacked. Some people actually looked into the source code of the website to discover the fraud.

When the scam was made public PP tried to cover their tracks by claiming the site was under maintenance, and yet was still able to accept online financial donations. It seems the situation is worse that it originally looked – instead of a hack attack, it was a smear campaign designed to drum up sympathy for PP and make them look like the victim by fraudulently accusing their critics of committing a crime. Does this campaign in itself qualify as a crime?

read the full article

abortion, abuse, bias, campaign, corruption, cover up, criminal, extremism, false, fraud, funding, gaffe, greed, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, lies, progressive, propaganda, scandal

Filed under: abortion, abuse, bias, campaign, corruption, cover up, criminal, extremism, false, fraud, funding, gaffe, greed, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, lies, progressive, propaganda, scandal

Radical Netroots Nation denies white lives matter. And they’re racist.

The radical left wing group Netroots Nation had Democrat presidential candidate Martin O’Malley speak at a recent event. In the 20 minute video there is plenty of protesting for unknown reasons – it’s not like there were any Republicans on stage. But near the end of this recording O’Malley tries to appeal to the most basic tenets of common sense and common decency: all lives matter. He begins with the obligatory “black lives matter” and proceeds with “white lives matter” on his way to “all lives matter”. But when he mentions white lives matter, you might be surprised to find out the people of Netroots Nation don’t actually agree with that.

At the 20 minute mark O’Malley begins the lives matter routine but the audience can clearly be heard shouting “NO” when he says white lives matter.

Now, before anyone tries to say Netroots Nation didn’t actually deny white lives matter, please offer me a scenario in which white Southerners could EVER say “NO” to “black lives matter” and not have such a comment deemed racist. If anything should be met with universal agreement it would be that “all lives matter”. But Netroots doesn’t believe this.

Some argue that saying “all lives matter” diminishes the importance of the issue of blacks being killed by police. Never mind the fact police kill more whites than blacks. We’re talking about people who make a living fomenting racial strife, we can’t have inconvenient truths mentioned here.

The fact is “black lives matter” is an exclusive thing. Its supporters often object to the fact any other lives matter too. If you object to someone saying all lives matter you are elevating the value of the lives one group over another. You can claim you’re merely trying to promote awareness about injustice (and if that injustice is that cops kill blacks because of racism, you got some ‘splainin to do, and some contradicting evidence) but you need to justify why the implication that other lives DON’T matter isn’t really part of the package.

Let me ask a question raising a related point. Some claim the Confederate flag is about heritage, not racism. Most other people say that flag is about racism, pure and simple, and that other opinion is illegitimate. As it stands, I happen to agree with the majority on this one point: the Confederate flag stands for racism, no matter what anyone else wants it to mean. (I don’t agree with censoring it or removing the flags from historical markers or video games – because I don’t agree with hiding history or with infringing upon free speech). But since we don’t let the proponents of the Confederate flag define what that flag means, why should we let the black-lives-matter crowd define what that phrase means?

In most of American politics if something can be construed as racist or discriminatory in some way (especially if someone says they are offended) our society bends over backwards to accommodate and eliminate the offensive material, with apologies and all. The mere accusation of racism takes over any other considerations. The phrase black lives matter is harmless enough (though still exclusive, elitist, and actually anti-diversity) but to object to “all lives matter” and insist only “black lives matter” can be spoken is downright racist. I see no reason to object to all lives matter; well no good reason. There are race-pimping, opportunistic reasons to do that, sure, but I don’t consider those reasons good for America.

And I see no reason to deny the racist nature of insisting only black lives matter. If you object to saying all lives matter, and insist only the “black lives matter” mantra be permitted, you’re racist. Pure and simple. And so is Netroots Nation. I don’t care if some people want the phrase to mean something else. We live in an age where words and ideas can be redefined at whim, but where racism trumps everything else.

No one is saying racism doesn’t exist anymore. Now, Institutionalized Racism is a different thing. I don’t see any Jim Crow laws in effect anymore. I don’t see any water fountains or rest rooms or lunch counters set off to the side for blacks only (mandated by law, I remind you). I don’t see any laws in place specifically designed to make things tougher for blacks. If you do, show me. If you oppose voter ID but have no objection to the legal requirement of marriage licenses your argument is invalid. On the other hand, I see plenty of laws in place to make things easier for blacks. I see plenty of government programs set up with the assumption black people are incompetent rubes who can’t survive without government telling them what to do. All a person of color has to do is yell racism and all attention is diverted away from facts, and any wrong doing or mistakes made by the POC are ignored. There’s a word for that: it’s called privilege. And as Bob Parks eloquently explains, some people get paid to find racism so they find it even when it isn’t there.

Besides, we have good reason to question whether Netroots Nation or other progressives really believe black lives matter. Apparently some don’t.

bigotry, bullies, campaign, culture, Democrats, discrimination, elections, elitism, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, protests, relativism, video

Filed under: bigotry, bullies, campaign, culture, Democrats, discrimination, elections, elitism, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, protests, relativism, video

Pages

Categories

Archives

April 2020
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930