The RNC ended yesterday, and I immediately began to become comfortable with the notion that Donald Trump is qualified to become president. Until now, the main reason I have supported Trump is that he is not Hillary Clinton. Hillary is the most corrupt person to ever run for the presidency. She is not a quality person of high character, nor does she have a stellar resume that would indicate she could effectively lead the country. Instead, her resume indicates that she would continue to build her personal wealth and power, and make bonehead decisions that would not serve the country well. Why anyone believes with that resume she would suddenly become a capable president is beyond my comprehension. But why choose Trump?
I have been extremely impressed by his children. Some in the press have said that what we may have seen this week is the birth of a new political dynasty - add the name Trump, to Bush and Clinton. Maybe. They seem to be fine young people who have the pedigree we may want as future leaders. But we aren't voting to groom his children for future office. I believe that what his children tell us about their father goes directly to Donald Trump's character. Great parenting can produce slugs, but it would be extremely rare for slug parents to produce great kids. Donald Jr. and Ivanka (I missed Eric's speech) both emphasized how their father took the time to include them in the business and teach them what he knows. Trump sounds like a father that was present in his children's lives. He also made sure they had the education to reach their dreams. These are the marks of a great leader. We are not voting for Ivanka, Donald Jr. or Eric but they give us important clues to who the person Donald Trump is away from the cameras.
Leaders of large businesses must set the direction that solves short and long term problems facing that business. Trump seems to be approaching his potential presidency as a CEO. His platform centers solidly on better trade deals and reducing over-regulation. The desired outcome of these efforts are more jobs. Not government jobs, but private sector jobs produced by organic growth in the American economy. Economic growth and more good jobs solve so many of America's problems. The deficit becomes manageable, discontent in impoverished cities is reduced, crime is reduced, and fathers remain in the family. Each of these benefits brings their own benefits. A strategy centered around more, better American jobs is a strategy that solves much of what is going wrong in America.
Trump has been called a populist. The definition of a populist is a person who seeks to represent the interest of ordinary people. How refreshing would that be? Trump does seem to have the knack for identifying what concerns ordinary Americans, and setting priorities accordingly. His pledge to be the law and order president, his tough stand on borders, illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism are all examples of addressing what ordinary Americans are concerned with. He should wear the populist title as a badge of honor.
Donald Trump is an executive from a substantial business he built and leads. This may be the best time to turn to a problem-solver from the private sector to execute on the problems facing America. Politicians and lawyers have proven their ineffectiveness, so why not try a business leader? I have experienced first hand how an effective executive can completely turn around a business with their ideas, energy and persistence. I think it's worth a shot, especially when considering the alternative.
Politicians and press lying to the American public is nothing new, but the increased frequency and the kinds of lies told are new. Why have these institutions made a conscience decision to prolifically mislead those they claim to serve. Here is what I am referring to:
On November 5th, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 and wounded 30 people that he worked with at Fort Hood Texas. During the shooting, he shouted Allahu Akbar, "Allah is Great". On his business card appears the acronym SoA, Soldier of Allah. The shootings at Fort Hood were officially classified as workplace violence, not Islamic Terrorism.
On September 11th, 2012, the United States embassy in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and resulted in the deaths of our ambassador and 3 CIA contractors. The Obama administration crafted a false narrative that blamed the attack on an internet video that ridiculed The Prophet Mohammed. Evidence mounted until it was acknowledged after the election of November 2012 the attack had been an act of Islamic terrorism.
In an environment where American opinion of Iran was 8% favorable, 88% unfavorable, the Obama administration negotiated a nuclear agreement they claimed was a strong deal that ensured Iran would not develop nuclear weapons for an extended period of years. Later, it was admitted by Ben Rhodes, an Obama administration staffer, the press had been deliberately misled in order to gain public support for the deal. Recently, binding side agreements have disclosed that Iran will be able to build a nuclear bomb much faster that stated by the administration.
On June 17, 2015, Dylan Roof killed 9 Black members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston South Carolina. The press and politicians immediately recognized a tie between Roof and white supremacy. They used a picture of Roof posing for a picture in front of his vehicle that included a Confederate flag on its license and forever associated the flag as a symbol of Roof's racism. Since then, the Confederate flag has essentially been eradicated from the public.
On December 2, 2015 Syed Farook killed 14 and wounded 22 co-workers in San Bernadino California. Initially, the press reported this was a result of workplace disagreements that led to violence. The name of the attacker was withheld for hours because it was a middle-eastern sounding name. Politicians leaped on the news story as evidence that guns were too easy to get and that stricter gun laws are needed.
On Friday November 13th, 2015, a massive coordinated attack in Paris, France, killed 130 and injured 368 at several locations. The attackers immediately claimed the attacks were a response to air strikes in ISIS controlled locations, however certain politicians and press organizations tried to cite availability of weapons as a root cause. This line of reasoning quickly failed as it was acknowledged that France has strict gun laws and ISIS claimed responsibility.
On June 12th, 2016, Omar Mateen opened fire on patrons at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Even though Omar pledged allegiance to ISIS during the attack, the response from politicians and press alike was this was a hate crime against the LGBT community.
On July 7th, 2016, Micah Johnson ambushed and killed 5 police officers in Dallas, Texas. The murders occurred within days of 2 cop on Black killings that prompted the #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) movement to protest. Many of the protesters called for the killing of cops in retaliation. Before he was killed, Johnson acknowledged that he was mad about the recent shooting of black men. Regardless, the press and politician were not willing to link Johnson's actions to the BLM movement. Some even justified the killings. A new narrative that links the killings to Johnson's past military experience has also been mentioned. Johnson was killed with a robotic bomb, which led to some calling his death a lynching.
On the evening of July 14, 2016, Bastille Day, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel murdered 84 and injured 303 people by intentionally driving through the crowd gathered to watch fireworks in Nice France. Within hours, the press was reporting that Mohamed had recently went through a difficult divorce, and that he may have been expressing his frustrations. It was later discovered that he had been in contact with radical jihadists, and may have recently self-radicalized, however 3 days later, CNN continues to report that no ties to ISIS have been found.
On July 18th, 2016 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Gavin Long killed 3 and wounded 3 police in an ambush attack. Long, from Kansas City Missouri, had left social media messaging that indicated he was irate over the shooting of the Alton Sterling. He also was a member the Nation of Islam organization that fosters a message of black superiority. Two days later, the press reports that Alton was a former marine with anti-government beliefs, and may have had PTSD. No linkage with BLM or Islam was mentioned.
They Dylan Roof example is the exception that proves a rule. Our politicians and press have taken political correctness to an extreme. This extreme requires that no criticism can be made against a minority. To do so might might cause a group of uneducated, politically incorrect majority to react with discrimination or profiling.
In practicing this form of reverse discrimination, the prophetic writings of George Orwell in Animal Farm have become more real than ever. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal.
I'm an old white guy that has seen the incredible progress made by minorities over the past 50 years. When I was 10 years old, segregation was firmly in place in the Johnson County "colored hollers", and minorities were not represented in the Shawnee Mission Public Schools district. Now minorities live in virtually all neighborhoods and work at nearly every business. It all culminated in the election of a black president in 2008, and his nomination of minorities to cabinet and justice positions. Eight years ago it seemed that America has moved past color and race.
That is why I am having so much trouble accepting the BlackLivesMatter movement for what they claim to be. I have listened hard to BLM movement leaders explain why they are not a racist or terrorist organization. I hear them say that BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean that white or blue lives don't matter. I understand their position that BlackLivesMatter means they need the attention in areas that other races don't.
BLM exists to bring attention to police hunting of black men for execution. I hear my BS detector going bonkers. All studies that normalize data to a logical anchor, tell a far different story. Whites are more likely to be shot by police than blacks. The police are 18 times more likely to be shot by a black man, than is an unarmed black man being shot by a cop. These statistics normalize the data to the number of white and black police contacts (opportunities), not the percentage of whites and black in the population base. Normalizing to population is not a statistically valid comparison, but is the basis of many of the mainstream media delivered "facts'.
Adding to the confusion, minorities have been told for years by politicians, media and leadership that they are profiled. They say minorities are singled out for traffic stops. Minority loan applications are rejected. They can't get into good colleges or hired into well-paying jobs. Minorities don't get a fair shake at good housing in quality neighborhoods. Rightly or wrongly, minorities have had a constant stream of this message for years. I, as a white man, have not been told that. Even though I have been pulled over by the police, I have been rejected for loans (it's been a while), and I have not been selected for certain jobs. It never crossed my mind that my misfortune was because I'm white. I can't relate to the minority experience, so I do acknowledge their perception is their reality, even if it is not accurate in every instance.
So maybe BLM is exposing valid concerns and/or perceptions of minorities. And maybe that's okay and I should accept it for what it is. I could easier accept BLM if they would only coordinate their message with their following. They must acknowledge that "hands up, don't shoot" was completely false and cannot be the basis for their movement. They must control their demonstrations to avoid chants of "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon" or "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now!". If they don't, BLM will never be accepted with old white folk like me.
Almost seven years ago, I blogged about the possibility that a foreign power could install their agent as a leader in our politics, and then speculated on what that politician might do to weaken and eventually defeat our country. I reread that blog recently and decided to elaborate on the possibility,. updating it with recent events. Tuesday, September 1, 2009
What If?
I am not a believer in elaborate conspiracy theories. When the far left wackos tried to make the case that George Bush was intentionally ruining America, I laughed. I also laughed when the far right wackos accused Bill Clinton of outlandish intent. I am confident that Clinton would have pulled the trigger when he had Osama in the crosshairs had he known what was to come. Bush was not a conservative president. His decision to push for TARP1 was a disappointment. Both of these presidents made mistakes. I believe that each came to work each day with the intent of doing good. Neither approached their day thinking of how they could screw up the country. Intentions were pure. Approach, strategies, and sometime their decisions were flawed.
I am having an increasingly difficult time maintaining this mindset under the current presidency. Obama’s programs and decisions are very difficult to explain. While I would agree that he is doing nothing that he did not communicate during the campaigns, the totality of his spending and certain decisions that border on the irrational make his intent hard to square with the well being of America. So if his intent is not to improve America, what is it? Let me pose a hypothetical.
Let’s start with Gulf War 1, Desert Storm. Despite Hussein’s threats of how, if invaded, he would turn the country red with American blood, the truth was far different. The Iraqi army was decimated. The short-lived war was a clinic in proper battle strategy, planning and execution. The American losses were in the low hundreds (even lower except for a lucky SCUD strike), while Iraqi losses were in the hundreds of thousands. Trenches dug to slow American armor became mass graves for the Iraqi army. Aircraft pounded, softened and demoralized a poorly equipped Iraqi army that surrendered in mass. It was a turkey shoot for the better trained and equipped coalition forces.
Militant Islamic, such as Osama bin Laden and his fanatic ilk, certainly would have notice the vastly superior military might of the USA. It no doubt became apparent that battling America head on would never be a successful strategy. So without a military option, they would only have individual terrorist acts as a tool to defeat America. America is an expansive country with millions of people. They would never be able to inflict significant damage to American civilians on American turf. Even if they tried this approach, the resilience of the American people would have risen to defeat them. They were left with no feasible strategy to defeat America through violence. So what if they moved in a completely different direction, such as attacking the US economy? How could that be done? After all, America’s military might is a product of its economic might. Just as American defeated the USSR during the cold war, if you cause the collapse of the American economy, you defeat the military. You would also demoralize the American people as their wealth and way of lives evaporate.
The attacks of 9/11 were definitely terrorist attacks, but what if the true intent was not to generate terror, but instead to collapse the US economy? The twin towers were the hub of our capitalist system. The actual damage from the attacks did close our markets for a week. The architect of 9/11 may have thought their attack was enough to cripple the US economy. However the behemoth economy, largest in the world, could recover. While personal wealth did suffer, (and continues to), the markets rebounded and began a slow recovery. The 9/11 terrorists had vastly underestimated what would be required to kill our economy. So they went back to the drawing board.
Next they decided on a play taken from the communist playbook. The USSR had long worked to place their agents into high positions within the US government. The CIA had Aldridge Ames, and there were others. During the cold war, rumors of communist congressmen and other high ranking officials abounded. McCarthyism was a product of these rumors. The damage caused by a single communist agent in a prominent position would be massive. If Islamic terrorists could recruit a rising star in American politics that also happens to be Muslim, they would have a weapon that would potentially bring down the US economy. What if Barrack Obama was that politician they found and recruited?
Beyond their wildest dreams, this Chicago community organizer gains an important ally in the mainstream media and begins a climb to the state house, the Senate, and finally the Presidency. The potential of this attacker could be greater that a nuclear bomb in every major US city. As president, the strategy is developed. First, relieve the pressure overseas by pulling troops out of the country the terrorist use as home base. Second, disembowel the intelligence community by removing every tool (Patriot Act, Guantanamo) that has proven successful in identifying Al Qaeda members and their plots since the attacks of 9/11. And finally, take the kill shot by running the US debt load to unsupportable levels. With a quadrupling of the yearly deficit and a doubling of the overall debt, this one act has the potential of bankrupting US credit. If we cannot get loans, we cannot fund the military. Without the military we are venerable to many outside enemies.
And we're back.
Looking back on the past 7 years and bringing actual events into the theory makes the speculation more compelling. The debt and deficits have continued to climb and led to an Obama-inspired forced austerity policy (sequestration) that severely crippled the military. Our military is in sad shape with army, navy and air force personnel and hardware at historic low levels.
And worse, our economy has never fully recovered from 9/11. Executive policies that seem intended to restrict business growth have done just that. Without growth, a solution to our debt and deficit problems is elusive. Without growth, our military will continue to become weaker. Score one for the enemy. America is weakened with little hope for strengthening in the short term.
What would the enemy do next? Here is a checklist:
Remove US military presence from countries used by the enemy to train, plan, organize and direct terrorism. Allow the enemy safe haven.
Polarize the American citizenry. Turn blacks against whites against Hispanics against gays against republicans against democrats against the rich and the poor. Make it virtually impossible for these synthetic divisions to allow unification against a common purpose.
Disarm the populace. Buy up all surplus ammunition. A disarmed population has little protection from its own government.
Create safe passages into the country for enemies of our country. Open the borders and halt immigration enforcement. Accept unvetted refugees from countries that share ideology with the enemy.
Intimidate the domestic police force. Make local law enforcement difficult and more hazardous.
Use political correctness to provide cover for obvious harmful actions and policies. Shame common sense solutions such as profiling those who are most likely to be our enemies by claiming this is not reflective of American values. Encourage Americans to "become better" and treat our enemies with respect and tolerance.
Never name the enemy as this might serve to galvanize an opposition.
Give the enemy cover inside America. When the enemy has success, blame the NRA, guns, homophobia, xenophobia or Americans.
Gut the ability of federal investigators to proactively identify enemies within US borders using fairness and American values as arguments.
Sign a treaty with the central country of your enemy's ideology. Fund their efforts and clear the way for development of weapons of mass destruction.
If an inside agent could accomplish this, they just might ensure the defeat of America.
It is a confusing time in America. Statement of fact and Blinding Flashes of the Obvious (BFO's) are met with charges of racism, xenophobia or homophobia. The mainstream media are willing participants, providing favorable coverage of their message, and trash anyone who conflicts with their bias. Many people have been deceived - are you one? Take the simple test below to see if you are among the duped.
1. The only major religion to teach that non-believers should be killed is:
a) Islam
b) Christianity
c) Judaism
d) Global Warming
2. The only major religion to sentence homosexuals to death is:
a) Islam
b) Christianity
c) Judaism
d) Republican party
3. The only major religion to condone the beating of wives and raping of women is:
a) Islam
b) Christianity
c) Judaism
d) Democrat party
4. The only commonality between the Orlando, San Bernadino, Ft. Hood and Paris attacks are:
a) Islam
b) Christianity
c) Failed background checks
d) The gun show loop hole and illegal guns
5. If you were in charge of Homeland Security, to promote safety and security, additional scrutiny would be directed toward which group:
a) Muslims
b) Christians
c) Jews
d) Conservatives
If your answer to any question was not "A", then count yourself as one of the deceived. A good suggestion would be to start getting your news from sources other than ABC, xNBC, CBS, or CNN. Start by reading a number of news articles on the internet, applying critical thinking skills and sticking with sources who don't have an obvious bias toward one position or another, but rather publish both sides. It takes more effort, but is highly successful at discerning truth from the fog of nonsense that bet describes the mainstream media.
Hillary Clinton may be the most flawed politician ever to run for the presidency. If she isn't, Donald Trump is. But there is a substantial difference between Trump and Clinton's flaws. Trump is not a competent politician and many of his blunders are precisely related to this. Clinton is a seasoned politician and her blunders are the result of character flaws or intentional action. In other words, Clinton is not a good person. She would not be a good leader.
She lacks a sense of personal responsibility. You don't need to dig deeply to find multiple examples of Hillary not taking any responsibility for her personal deficiencies. Early on, "the vast right wing conspiracy" was the cause of her and her husband's bad press. Just in the past few months, additional evidence that Bill was a epic cheater has come to light. It wasn't a fabrication by the vast right wing. It was truth of which Hillary was very aware, and quite possibly an enabler.
Remember the "what difference does it make?" line uttered during the congressional investigation into Benghazi? She was deflecting blame for the death of 4 Americans, including her employee the Libyan ambassador, claiming the entire fiasco was caused by a YouTube video that disparaged Mohammad.
The entire email episode is peppered with Clinton quotes claiming that what she did was no different that what other cabinet members had done. While most Americans see the difference, Hillary claims there isn't any. She claims her personal email was a "mistake", however that does not amount to taking responsibility as she has not face any consequence.
She lies obsessively. She no longer knows what truth is. Hillary has this personality disorder that is common in politicians. She rarely answers the question she is asked, but when she does, it is usually a lie. Politifact, a left leaning fact-checker, has two pages of Hillary lies just from her recent candidacy. An entire blog post could be dedicated to the lies she tells in a single speech, so I will simply recount a few of the golden oldies.
When she and Bill left the white house, Hillary claimed they were "dead broke". Interesting how they were able to put a $855,000 down payment on their home during this period.
During the 2008 campaign, Hillary claimed that during a trip to Bosnia, she and her posse came under sniper fire and they had to run with their heads down to their awaiting vehicle. She must not have known that press camera's were taping the event. The fact was their arrival was stress free, with no gun fire. The sniper fire was either imagined or completely fabricated.
Clinton claimed to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first to have climbed mount Everest. The problem is that Hillary was 6 years old when that climb was made. Facts are difficult for a pathological liar to avoid.
Benghazi is the best evidence that lying comes natural to Hillary. Early on she became aware the deaths of 4 Americans was the result of a terrorist act, Yet she felt she needed, or was directed, to cover up that fact during an election year when her boss was claiming that Al Qaeda was in retreat and terrorism on the decline. She sent her State department minions out to the talking head shows claiming the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video, then told the families of the victims that she would make the film maker pay for what he had done. All lies. All in the open now without the help of HRC.
Then there are the possible and probable lies about her $100,000 cattle futures profit, or the Whitewater paperwork that suddenly appeared in the white house residence after the scandal had died. In short, she lies about everything. Barack Obama agreed.
She is unaccomplished. It is amazing to hear her supporters answer the question "What has Hillary Clinton accomplished in her many years in politics?". Most are speechless. A few ramble about her time as first lady, Secretary of State or Senator from New York. But mostly, her accomplishments can be summarized as marrying Bill and being a woman. The left will claim the following are accomplishments.
Sanctions on Iran that brought them to the table. Actually, there were sanctions on Iran before HRC and bringing them to the table ultimately led to John Kerry's disastrous nuclear agreement that does nothing for America while paving the way for Iran to develop nuclear arms.
Nearly every foreign policy "victory" of Obama's has HRC's fingerprints. I struggle to find the foreign policy victories. I guess that means the peace we now find in the mid-east, the decline of ISIS, and the horrible trade agreements now in place.
Rebuilding America's leadership and prestige after the Bush administration's failures. I guess that means that HRC was instrumental in developing the apologetic "leading from behind" foreign policy of the Obama administration.
HillaryCare. Republicans and democrats united in opposition and a bill was never delivered for a vote. It was a complete failure, just as Obamacare has been.
She has brought candidate hypocrisy to a new level. The best example is her constant blathering about how Wall Street has walked over the middle class to gain their wealth, and how she will stop it. All the while, she has collected millions of dollars in speaking fees from the same villains.
Maybe it is evolution, but you don't need to go far back into history to hear HRC claiming that she believed marriage was between one man and one woman. She pivoted quickly when it became political expedient to do so.
She is crooked. Trump has a knack of naming his opponents in an effective way. In this case, the name could not be more perfect. It started with Whitewater and cattle futures, but has become perfected with the Clinton Foundation. The foundation is based on quid pro quo and pay for play. It began during HRC's term at the state department and has expanded in the years leading up to her candidacy. The foundation has accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in donations in return for favorable rulings, inside information and "future considerations" once she becomes president.
If HRC is to be stopped, this may be her downfall as information drips almost daily on shady decisions, appointments and favors after a significant donation - many from foreign governments. This is the reason Clinton had a private email server, and why she tried to wipe it, "like with a cloth?". If the FBI was able to recover a few of those wiped emails that indicate pay for play, she faces prison time or the need to phone a friend for a pardon. All other Clinton scandals pale in comparison.
She is evil. As a Christian and a believer in the sanctity of life, any pro-choice candidate cannot be supported. But HRC is not the typical pro-choice candidate. HRC believes there should be no restrictions on abortion, none. And while the president does not directly rule on issues such as abortion, they do appoint the judges who do. With the next president appointing 1-4 supreme court justices during their term, can we afford to let HRC make those choices?
During a recent interview on "The View", HRC said that an unborn child just hours away from birth has no constitutional rights. Earlier she said that unborn children simply do not have constitutional rights, including the right to life. Weeks before she related her husbands veto of partial birth abortion claiming these decisions should be made using the mother's own conscience. Simply put, HRC would object to any restriction on abortion right up until the moment of birth. This can only be described as evil.
I have hesitated to share my opinion on the recent transvestite bathroom usage "right", manufactured by the left. My hesitation is mainly due to the significance of the problem. With a poor economy, Obamacare, open borders, class envy, racial tensions, and executive over-reach brought on by the election of the worst president of all time, who uses which bathroom seemed comparatively unimportant. But I do have an opinion.
The entire issue (if there really is one) can be synthesized down to one thing - somebody must feel uncomfortable somewhere. Either the tranny must feel uncomfortable using the bathroom that matches their genitalia, or the rest of us must feel uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a person who has non-matching junk. My logical mind immediately moved to a solution resulting in the least uncomfortabilty. Let's see, approximately .1% of the population are sexually confused, leaving 99.9% who are not. By my calculation, the least uncomfortabilty would be produced by requiring everyone to use the bathroom constructed to accommodate their girl or boy parts.
Is that a violation of civil rights? Not hardly. Nobody has the right to never be uncomfortable.
Discrimination? That solution does not discriminate. Everyone, all 100% of us, gays, straights, confused and unconfused are held to the exact same standard. We all do bathroom selection based on whether we have a pee-pee or a nina. Anyone who is confused or forgets, can sneak a peek and immediately be reminded. The standard is equal and non-discriminatory in its application.
The first time I tipped my hand on how I feel, a acquaintance asked why I was concerned that a tranny would mess with a person in a bathroom, and the gigantic chasm between liberal and conservative critical thinking skills hit me. The liberal view is that we conservatives are afraid that allowing trannies in public restrooms would facilitate sexual attacks by trannies on normal folks. Never crossed my mind but was enlightening on the shallowness of liberal thought. I politely responded that I wasn't concerned about trannies being in the wrong bathroom, but was concerned that by holding no bathroom usage standard, we allow every pervert in the world an avenue to enter the wrong one. The liberal response? None. It was obvious he hadn't thought of it.
I have to admit, you really have to hand it to the progressives. They are uncanny at manufacturing a non-issue and leading the press on to cover it as a civil rights issue. Then they get a substantial portion of the useful idiots to parrot how unfair it is to deny others their "rights". Using this mechanism they continually chip away at the standards and principles that society is built on. Their ability is my greatest fear. A Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the white house would enable the left to stack the Supreme Court with leftist judges for at least one generation, and probably more. The LGBT community could stock up on special rights never intended by the constitution, or required to remedy discrimination. In a heartbeat, we would realize the famous Animal Farm quotation, that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal".
We cannot allow democrats to win in November. Liberalism is how we get such unnecessary confusion.
