The Left And Fidel Castro; A Strange Obsession Only On The Surface

In November of 2016, Fidel Castro, the former “president” of Cuba, died.  For decades, Castro ruled mercilessly, ruthlessly murdering tens of thousands of his own citizens and oppressing the entire country.  Cubans lived in constant fear and horrible living conditions under Castro.  Yet the left had nothing but endless praise for Castro when he died.

Thanks to the efforts of Fidel Castro, the very notion of individual liberties does not exist in socialist Cuba.  Free speech, freedom of assembly, a free press, the right to a fair trial, economic freedom, freedom of religion, and privacy from the government are all luxuries the Cuban people do not have.  Fidel Castro first ruled as a total dictator for 17 years, but then “eased up” and allowed for a constitution to be written (under his watching) while the government shifted to a “republic”.  This wasn’t much of a republic, as only Castro’s party was allowed to exist and Castro held the three most powerful positions.  Journalists and activists who criticized the government or called for change were swiftly prosecuted in mock trials, jailed, beaten, placed in solitary confinement, and denied basic healthcare.

Thousands were murdered by Castro via his firing squad alone, most after mock trials, while the less fortunate didn’t even get that “privilege”.  Even being accused of trying to escape Cuba was enough for the firing squads to be unleashed on you.  Power outages for entire days were commonplace during Castro’s rule, while supplies often ran short, with some Cubans forced to make sacrifices, like using soap as toothpaste.  Through this all, international humanitarian organizations like Red Cross were never allowed into Cuba, with those accused of affiliating being sentenced to years of abysmal prisons and beatings.  

[S]ome Cubans [were] forced to… [use] soap as toothpaste.

In 1994, 71 civilians attempted to flee Cuba on an old boat.  Cuban government ships caught up to the old boat and assaulted it mercilessly, killing 42.  The government crew ignored the cries for help from the innocent civilians and never helped any of them on board.  Those who survived were immediately detained by the Cuban government.

In 1996, Castro’s Cuban Air Force shot down two United States civilian planes flying over international waters, killing all four aboard.  In 1965, with opposition to Castro’s regime growing, Castro ordered the construction of hard labor camps for undesirables.  Dumped into these camps was anyone who refused to “volunteer” on behalf of the revolution, gays, and Christians, among others.  Tens of thousands of prisoners were locked in these camps at a time.  Prisoners were brainwashed, tortured, enslaved, and starved.  Cuba’s travel policy under Castro separated families, while one neurologist doing work for the country was told she couldn’t leave to visit her family in Argentina because her brain was “property of the government” (there’s communism for you in a nutshell).  The list of families torn apart to advance the interests of Fidel Castro is nearly endless.  The stories of the innocent children Castro murdered are tear-jerking.  Under Castro, it was illegal for Cubans to move from regions with extremely horrid living conditions to regions with slightly less horrid living conditions.  Illegal aliens caught trying to make a better life for themselves within Cuba were forcefully deported to other areas of Cuba.  And despite all the problems that were plaguing, including over a quarter of the population living in poverty, Castro never did anything to alleviate the suffering of Cubans, throwing 10% of the government budget at the military.

[One neuralogist’s] brain was [deemed] “property of the government”

Fidel Castro separated regular Cubans from tourists.  Since tourism made up a large part of the Cuban economy, the Cuban government needed to make sure that tourists were treated conversely to how ordinary Cubans were treated.  This means that while Cubans were suffering in poverty, tourists were treated to luxurious hotels, restaurants, beaches, etc., which the general populace was forbidden from utilizing.  Cubans called this “tourism apartheid”.

[Former President Jimmy] Carter… [called] Fidel Castro his “personal friend”

Castro converted a country receiving more immigrants per capita than almost any other nation (including the United States) to a country where people will do anything to escape.  A country with a higher living standard than much of Europe to a country with the highest suicide rate in the Western hemisphere.  Castro killed nearly a hundred thousand Cubans and enslaved half a million in labor camps.  A million more risked their lives to flee the country altogether.

Last but certainly not least, Fidel Castro very nearly knocked over the first domino in what would have caused world destruction during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.  In both the Cuban Missile Crisis and the constant aid of terrorist groups seeking to undermine the United States, it was blatantly evident that Fidel Castro was a grave national security danger for the United States.  

Castro converted a country receiving more immigrants per capita than almost any other nation… to a country where people will do anything to escape.

Consider how the left pretends to be for human rights, that the left supposedly loves gays, that the left shook at the very thought of Donald Trump “getting his hands on the nuclear codes” (enough so to run a television ad about it before the general election), that the left acts as if it is pro-democracy, and that the left is vehemently opposed to the death penalty, the left should have deplored Fidel Castro.  When the news broke that Castro had died in November 2016, prominent Democrats should have been dancing in the streets (along with top Republicans).  After all, Fidel Castro was a human rights train wreck, sent gays to hard labor camps and tortured them, is the only man to have pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war, was in disguise as a supporter of democracy to gain support during the Cuban Revolution but turned into a dictator once he got power, and was a huge proponent of firing squads unleashing bullets on victims who had not been allowed due process.  But alas, the left cried its heart out along with all the brainwashed Cubans who believed Fidel Castro to be a god.  However, the brainwashed Cubans at least didn’t know any better; for the left, there is no excuse.

When it was announced that Castro had died, prominent liberals like then-President Barack Obama, former President Jimmy Carter, Jeremy Corbyn (Leader of the radically left-wing British Labour Party), Pope Francis, and Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, all rushed to publish statements expressing sadness over the passing of Fidel Castro.

[T]he left cried its heart out along with all the brainwashed Cubans who believed Fidel Castro to be a god

In March 2016, Barack Obama attended a baseball game with Fidel Castro.  Obama was so chilled with his pal Fidel Castro that Obama was even caught doing the wave with the heartless murderer, as if Obama didn’t have a care in the world.  This was especially troubling because just before Obama ran off to the baseball game, a terrorist attack in Brussels left 31 dead and hundreds injured (when you accept so many Muslim immigrants, you can’t reasonably expect different results).  Obama declined to attend any sort of event for the victims of the attack, instead choosing to go to a baseball game with a terrorist who murdered tens of thousands of his own people.  This is straight out of the Bill de Blasio playbook, as de Blasio ditched multiple NYPD ceremonies honoring Miosotis Familia, who died in the line of duty, to instead join rioters thirsty for blue blood.  Similarly, Obama skipped events commemorating those who perished in Brussels to relax with a dictator who murdered tens of thousands and oppressed millions.

After Castro died, Obama published quite the statement:

“At this time of Fidel Castro’s passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people. We know that this moment fills Cubans – in Cuba and in the United States – with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.

For nearly six decades, the relationship between the United States and Cuba was marked by discord and profound political disagreements. During my presidency, we have worked hard to put the past behind us, pursuing a future in which the relationship between our two countries is defined not by our differences but by the many things that we share as neighbors and friends – bonds of family, culture, commerce, and common humanity. This engagement includes the contributions of Cuban Americans, who have done so much for our country and who care deeply about their loved ones in Cuba.

Today, we offer condolences to Fidel Castro’s family, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Cuban people. In the days ahead, they will recall the past and also look to the future. As they do, the Cuban people must know that they have a friend and partner in the United States of America.”

There are several obvious questions; why did Obama have to walk a tightrope with his statement?  Why couldn’t he call out Castro for what he was; a terrible human being?  Why did Obama allow for his statement to be interpreted either way?  Why did Obama offer condolences over a man like Fidel Castro?

Obama declined to attend any sort of event for the victims of the attack, instead choosing to go to a baseball game with a terrorist who murdered tens of thousands

The absolutely awful Jimmy Carter also had a long and friendly history with Fidel Castro.  During his presidency, Carter called for the complete removal of Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism (never mind Cuba’s long history of funding and supporting terrorist groups, especially those seeking to destroy the United States).  Carter also blamed the United States government for the discussed 1996 Cuban attack on two civilian planes flying over international waters and applauded Castro’s “activism and wisdom” on the issue of climate change.  Carter even went so far as to call Fidel Castro his “personal friend”.  When Castro’s soul was mercifully taken from this world, Carter released the following chagrining proclamation:

Rosalynn and I share our sympathies with the Castro family and the Cuban people on the death of Fidel Castro. We remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country. We wish the Cuban citizens peace and prosperity in the years ahead.”

The same questions asked by Obama are relevant here, with the addition of a few more.  Why does Carter reminisce about foreign trips with cruel dictators?  If Castro loved his country so much, why did he turn it into a hellhole and trap his citizens within its borders?  If he acted in the best interest of his people, why did Castro torture, oppress, and murder countless innocent Cubans?  And finally, why is Carter offering sympathies for this monster?

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offered the following shameful declaration:

“It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President.  Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century.  A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.  While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”.  I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away.  It was also a real honour to meet his three sons and his brother President Raúl Castro during my recent visit to Cuba.  On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro.  We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.”

These are perhaps the most ignorant and idiotic 170 words in the history of mankind.  First off, how could anyone with half a brain be in “deep sorrow” when they find out a psychotic serial killer has finally died?  Fidel Castro didn’t “serve his people”; he abused them and made their lives miserable.  Fidel Castro was no “legend”, and the myth of his “improvements” in the health and education departments will be debunked later on in this post.  I’m not sure who Trudeau has been speaking to, but it is neither true that Castro’s detractors recognize his love for his own people (if this were the case, as mentioned previously, he wouldn’t have tortured, oppressed, and murdered innocent Cubans), nor that the Cuban people love Castro.  It was apparently an “honor” for Trudeau to meet with the pig.  Trudeau finished off the embarrassment by offering Canada’s “deepest condolences to the family friends, and many, many supporters” of Fidel Castro and reiterated that Canada “join[s] the people of Cuba… in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader [Fidel Castro].”  

Super-liberal Pope Francis called the death “sad news” in a telegram to the Cuban government.  Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the British Labour Party, wrote that Castro would be remembered as a “hero” and “champion”.  Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VA) insisted if he were president he would have released a statement “similar” to that which Obama released regarding the death of Fidel Castro.  The list of leftists who worship Fidel Castro is indeed almost as long as the list of Fidel Castro’s human rights violations.

When Hillary Clinton was in the running for president, not only did Castro publish articles pushing hard for Hillary Clinton, he flat-out endorsed the “nasty woman” before the general election.  All the media wants to talk about is Trump’s nonexistent ties to Russia, but how’s this for a foreign government trying to influence an election?  Clinton couldn’t be bothered to disavow Castro, despite her appropriately harsh words for Fidel Castro when the situation was convenient.

All the media wants to talk about is Trump’s nonexistent ties to Russia, but how’s this for a foreign government trying to influence an election?

Now contrast these sympathetic leftist statements glorifying Fidel Castro’s bloody legacy with responses from Republicans.  Distinguished Republicans such as President Donald Trump, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and House Speaker Paul Ryan all issued harsh words directed at Fidel Castro in their proclamations.

First and foremost, the President.  Donald Trump’s first reaction was to tweet this, which nailed it: “Fidel Castro is dead!”  The message of celebration is so simple, yet the most educated and prestigious Democrats couldn’t communicate in hundreds of words what had taken Trump just four.  These Democrats completely missed the mark with their ignorance and fictitious reflections, while Trump needed just a couple dozen characters to hit the bullseye.  Trump’s full statement, an extension of his perfect tweet, further elaborated on Fidel Castro’s horrible actions but remained on target:

“Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.

While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve.

Though the tragedies, deaths and pain caused by Fidel Castro cannot be erased, our administration will do all it can to ensure the Cuban people can finally begin their journey toward prosperity and liberty. I join the many Cuban Americans who supported me so greatly in the presidential campaign, including the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association that endorsed me, with the hope of one day soon seeing a free Cuba.”

Senator Marco Rubio, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Senator Ted Cruz, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell, and Vice President Mike Pence, among other leading Republicans, all published flawless declarations on Fidel Castro, correctly assessing him as a ruthless dictator and oppressor.

[T]he most educated and prestigious Democrats couldn’t communicate in hundreds of words what had taken Trump just four.

It was not only leading Democrats themselves glorifying Fidel Castro.  Leftist media sites ran article after article praising the savage.  The Guardian (on multiple occasions), The Huffington Post (numerous times), Salon over and over, The Washington Post, Independent, and The New York Times (again here) all had kind words for Castro in commending and honoring his life.

Why?  Why do leftists dance around Fidel Castro’s legacy, refusing to acknowledge the blatant truth?  Why it is so simple for conservatives to correctly assess Castro’s impact?  Why does the left gripe about Trump not taking alphabetical foreign trips (this is not a joke) but turn a blind eye to Castro’s horrific human rights rap sheet?  Knowing the left, the answer is not surprising in the least.

While Fidel Castro ran Cuba into the ground, he instituted several classic liberal reforms, including socialized healthcare, education for all, and aid for foreign countries, among others.  While in practice none of these reforms ever did anything for the Cuban people, that didn’t matter to leftists as they got so caught up in the theories of these reforms that after Castro launched these programs, he was essentially a god on the left.

Let’s start with healthcare.  The Huffington Post, The New York Times, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, The Huffington Post again, Jeremy Corbyn, Independent, Justin Trudeau and The Guardian all heaped praise on Fidel Castro for revamping the Cuban healthcare system, which they each claimed provided world-class healthcare to all Cubans, regardless of class.  This is utter hogwash.

Through the work of Castro, there are three systems of healthcare in Cuba.  The first is for tourists who come to Cuba specifically for healthcare.  These tourists pay in hard cash for vanity treatments and enjoy clean facilities and top-notch doctors.  The second is for Cuban officials.  Similarly to the tourist healthcare system, this one is five-star.  Last is the system for regular Cubans, which is an absolute disaster.  As National Review writes on the subject:

“Hospitals and clinics are crumbling. Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, whatever home is. If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce…

In the real Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market. A nurse spoke to Isabel Vincent of Canada’s National Post. “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year. If you have any pills in your purse, I’ll take them. Even if they have passed their expiry date.” The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent. Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice. When they travel to the island, on errands of mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry. One told the Associated Press, “The [Cuban] doctors are pretty well trained, but they have nothing to work with. It’s like operating with knives and spoons.”…

So deplorable is the state of healthcare in Cuba that old-fashioned diseases are back with a vengeance. These include tuberculosis, leprosy, and typhoid fever. And dengue, another fever, is a particular menace.”

Leftists applaud and idolize the Cuban healthcare system as equal, first-class, and a role-model for the United States.  Clearly, the opposite is true of the Cuban healthcare system.  While it may be free for all Cubans, the conditions are horrid and medicine is scarce, while treatment for some Cubans is more equal than treatment for others.  It is certainly not a model system, and yet leftists love the concept so much, they still drool over the Cuban healthcare system.  They refuse to see the reality of the situation.  Clearly, leftists live in fantasy land.

Furthermore, while the aforementioned proponents of the myth of fantastic and equal Cuban healthcare will point towards low infant mortality rates as one of their main pieces of evidence, there is a story behind these numbers.  The Cuban government has nailed down foreign perception.  We’ll see this more in-depth later, but we have already gone over the special and separate treatment that tourists receive.  The low infant mortality rates are just an extension of the Cuban government controlling foreign perception.

[T]reatment for some Cubans is more equal than treatment for others.

To be sure, infant mortality rates have worsened since Castro took over Cuba.  As National Review once again points out:

“The regime is very keen on keeping infant mortality down, knowing that the world looks to this statistic as an indicator of the general health of a country. Cuban doctors are instructed to pay particular attention to prenatal and infant care. A woman’s pregnancy is closely monitored. (The regime manages to make the necessary equipment available.) And if there is any sign of abnormality, any reason for concern — the pregnancy is “interrupted.” That is the going euphemism for abortion. The abortion rate in Cuba is sky-high, perversely keeping the infant-mortality rate down.”

In plain terms, the Fidel Castro manipulated this number by forcing women to abort babies that might ruin the statistic.  Considering how the left freaks about “My body, my choice”, one would expect at least some resemblance of consistency.  Moreover, the left refuses to acknowledge the truth behind these numbers in order to protect their image of this cruel dictator.

For the left, convenience trumps everything.

Publications like The Guardian, The Huffington Post, Independent, and The Washington Post all worshiped Castro for his foreign aid program, through which he sent thousands of doctors to places of need around the world.  This was just a giant public relations stunt, which the left happily ate up.  While Castro’s own people suffered from a shortage of doctors and awful healthcare, Castro shipped off all of Cuba’s medical professionals.  The classic joke in Cuba has become “if you want to be treated by a Cuban doctor, leave Cuba”.

Similarly, Castro was applauded by The Guardian, British leftists, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, and The Washington Post for his assistance of Nelson Mandela in the South African overthrowing of the apartheid.  Wouldn’t the resources used to aid Mandela have been better utilized in Castro’s own poverty-stricken country?  The reality is that Castro could care less about helping his own people or even the people of South Africa; he only cares about global image.

The classic joke in Cuba has become “if you want to be treated by a Cuban doctor, leave Cuba”.

Likewise, the idea that the Cuban education system improved drastically is one giant lie.  The Cuban education system simply didn’t make huge strides during Castro’s reign.  Granted, literacy rates increased significantly, but these improvements were matched by similar countries.  Meanwhile, the number of teachers in Cuba fell off a cliff due to the ridiculously low wages (you can thank communism for that), while Cuban higher education was essentially brainwashing in disguise.  In spite of this, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Jimmy Carter, The Huffington Post again, The New York Times, Justin Trudeau, Jeremy Corbyn, and The Guardian again still push the patently false narrative that Castro helped Cuba run away from the competition in the education department.  

Finally, Fidel Castro won the public relations game by pretending to be a climate-change warrior (a man who almost brings the world to nuclear war can in no way care about the environment).  The Huffington Post, The GuardianJimmy Carter and another Huffington Post article bought into this and use it as justification for their unhealthy obsession with the monster.

The left threw away their national interests, supposed beliefs, and morality to deify a heartless dictator who made the lives of his people miserable in every single way, all because Castro talked the right talk.  But there is one last reason why the left reveres Fidel Castro; Castro may have taken away all civil and political liberties, which the left despises, but he made healthcare and free education a right (no matter how poor either system really is).  Under Castro, freedom of speech or movement were nonexistent, but free (terrible) healthcare is a natural-born right.  Your brain might be “property of the government”, but at least it’s for the greater good (in theory; in practice, as always is with communism, decisions are made in the best interests of the government, like sending doctors overseas to improve global image, and never in the best interests of the people, save for overlaps).  And that is what gets leftists excited.

Even if we were living in leftist-unicorn-land and Cuban education and healthcare were top-notch, would that be enough to justify praise of Castro?  Would you trade freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement, the right to a fair trial, and freedom to not have to live in a constant state for slightly better healthcare and education (assuming that it is true that Cuba has model healthcare and education, which it doesn’t)?  Even if Cuba did surpass all others in healthcare and education, it would be foolish to consider Fidel Castro to be a hero and magnificent leader just because of this, especially when he oversaw the murder, torture, and oppression of millions.  This is the equivalent of calling Saudi Arabia, a country that operates under complete Sharia law and does not allow women to do anything outside of the home without a male guardian, a leader in women’s rights because it offers 10 weeks paid maternity leave.  Oh wait…  

One last point; a lazy excuse used to explain off all the problems plaguing Cuba is that the United States blockade forced Cuban living conditions through the floor.  This can be easily debunked.  Perhaps if Castro didn’t waste resources overseas in an effort to improve global image, this argument might be feasible, or if Castro didn’t jail and torture those accused of being associated with the Red Cross.  Fidel Castro and his cronies are the only ones to blame for what has happened to Cuba.

Fidel Castro and his cronies are the only ones to blame for what has happened to Cuba.

Leftists discard all morality, “values” (they’re not exactly values if they are constantly ignored for the sake of convenience), and national interests when it becomes convenient.  Rather than see the truth of what Castro did to Cuba, leftists are happier to live a lie and pretend that all of Castro’s radically leftist reforms worked perfectly.  For the left, convenience trumps everything.

 

 

 

 

***The past tense was generally used in this article, but most of the problems that existed under Fidel Castro continue to exist.  For example, while it was written “higher education was essentially brainwashing in disguise”, this is still true; the past tense was only used for consistency, as this was an article about Fidel Castro specifically.

 

Bill De Blasio; An Absolute Humiliation

It is no secret that the left hates the police and wants cops dead.  The latest Bill de Blasio debacle was therefore quite predictable.  However, to see it play out in real time was equal parts horrifying and mortifying.

On July 5th, New York City police officer and mother of three (once again, this song pops up) Miosotis Familia was assassinated by cop-loathing punk and ex-convict Alexander Bonds.  Bonds’ social media posts were in line with the heavily anti-cop rhetoric coming out of Black Lives Matter (not to blame them directly for the murder, but this is a natural byproduct of the words and actions of Black Lives Matter, and they are most certainly happy with the result).

The next day, 500 NYPD cops were to be sworn in in an event made somber after Familia’s murder.  De Blasio couldn’t be bothered to attend the swearing-in ceremony, nor the service honoring Miosotis Familia due to what he called “scheduling conflicts”.  This was an embarrassment already; what could possibly be more important than the NYPD event, especially after Familia had just died in the line of duty, or the honoring of Familia, who had just died while protecting de Blasio’s City?

[W]hat could possibly be more important than the NYPD event… or the honoring of Familia?

Turns out de Blasio was too busy preparing to go to Germany to attend the ceremony.  What’s in Germany, you ask?  Violent leftists riots against the G20 Summit, which the Mayor just had to participate in.  This would be shameful enough as it is (skipping the events to join bloodthirsty rioters), but as we come full circle, more than 200 police officers were injured by rioters who threw bottles and firebombs at law enforcement.  Our story, however, does not end there.  This is Mayor de Blasio, so of course, the tale couldn’t end until the topic arose of de Blasio wasting taxpayer dollars.

[A]s we come full circle, more than 200 police officers were injured by rioters who threw bottles and firebombs at law enforcement.

While the event organizers paid for de Blasio and his three aides, the city’s taxpayers footed the bill of the NYPD bodyguards who accompanied de Blasio for security purposes (oh, the irony).  The defense offered for the use of taxpayer dollars for what was clearly a personal trip (and a highly inappropriate one at that) was that the trip was for a “city purpose” and could therefore be funded by taxpayers.  The obvious question that followed was what exactly the “city purpose” was, to which de Blasio’s camp responded, “[De Blasio] was representing New York City and our values, and providing an alternate American viewpoint to the deeply problematic vision of President Trump.”  How exactly New York City gains from de Blasio taking political trips to oppose the president remains unexplained, and how this money is better spent on political trips than addressing the City’s actual problems (which taxpayer money is supposed to do) like its failing subway system, for example, remains a mystery.  No surprises here, though; this is the same guy who makes taxpayers pay for his personal $2 million legal fees (after promising he’d pick up his own tab) and his personal helicopter rides, which help him skip the traffic that’s plaguing his city (try fixing it, genius) and ruin little league baseball games.

[H]ow this money is better spent on political trips than addressing the City’s actual problems… remains a mystery.

De Blasio ditched the swearing-in of 500 new city cops and the service honoring Familia to, of all things, join vicious, firebomb-chucking, cop-hating monsters injure police officers and destroy the city of Hamburg.  And all the while, the police-disgracing mayor was protected by NYPD police officers, which he had effectively middle-fingered on his way out to join the riots, funded by taxpayer dollars, taxpayers who he had repeatedly lied to and abused.

 

Why Isn’t Black Lives Matter Considered a Hate Group Yet?

We live in a day and age where most Americans have gotten over race and no longer care about it.  But the left, with the help of its racial brainchild Black Lives Matter, hope to once again make everyone identify exclusively with those who have the same color skin as them, only when segregation and nonsensical racism return to the United States, they want blacks to be the oppressors and whites to be the oppressed.  Furthermore, Black Lives Matter has mastered the art of firing up blacks with fabrications, using these rowdy blacks to advance their awful agenda.

The Ku Klux Klan hates blacks and Jews simply because they are black and Jewish, respectively, and its members desire to live separately from blacks and Jews (among others).  They consider those of the “right” skin color to be “superior” to others.  This is immoral and is called racism, or discrimination based on race.  For the same reason, Black Lives Matter is racist as its black members hold their own race to be superior, constantly try to segregate themselves from whites, and have made it quite clear that they dislike whites because they do not have the “correct” skin color.  Oh, and they also want dead cops.  What a great group.

(Considering skin color when evaluating a person is a huge topic to come in an upcoming blog post, but it is quite obviously immoral and silly.  The person has no control over it so it is immoral, and it tells you nothing about the person so it is silly.)

First, the racism and segregation.  Toronto BLM co-founder Yusra Khogali tweeted that whites are “recessive genetic defects” (perhaps she should start by taking a middle-school biology course, where she’ll learn that this is not only racist but patently false) and that whites should be “wiped out”.  She continued to spew her nonsense by rambling that “Whiteness is not humxnness” and that “white skin is sub-humxn” (the word “human” is intentionally spelled without the word “man”, because as you’ll see in just a second, it is not only whites that Khogali despises).  In a separate rant, she prayed “[Please] Allah give me strength [sic] to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today.”  When the comments surfaced, Black Lives Matter did not disassociate itself from her and the left largely defended her, so we can only assume that they tolerate these statements.

Last year at a Black Lives Matter rally in Philadelphia one of the leaders commanded a segregation of whites and blacks.  Using a megaphone, she ordered “I need all white people to move to the back – make space because this is a Black Resistance March.  I need all white people to move to the back and make room for the black and brown brothers and sisters.”  After getting flustered by the pesky whites refusing to adhere to her racist demands, she screamed: “You will appropriately take your place in the back of this march because it will be truly led by the black and brown community and that’s it.”  She then enjoined the media to do the same, yelling “Make room for black media.  White media get to the back. Black media come to the front.”

In April, Black Lives Matter of Philadelphia barred white people from its meetings.  They explained that it was a “black only space” and their goals were “black-centered”.  When a Twitter user pointed out that Martin Luther King Jr. always marched arm-in-arm with whites, BLM of Philadelphia validated their stance by saying they were like Malcolm X, the infamous racist who advocated for segregation (just with blacks on top), considered blacks to be superior to whites, and banned whites from his meetings.  If it wasn’t already crystal clear, BLM and the left, as they themselves admitted when pressed, resemble Malcolm X and his opinions of black supremacy much more than they resemble MLK and his calls for racial equality.

Martin Luther King Jr. always marched arm-in-arm with whites

In May, BLM of New York City held a “blacks only” Memorial Day party.  The event’s ad read “Clear your calendar – It’s a lituation! You’re invited to take part in the UNAPOLOGETICALLY Black festivities. Bring yourself, bring Bae (or come find Bae), whatever you like. We got you. We got us.”  One organizer wrote “When we say ‘The People’ we mean Black People. Being intentional around being around Black People is an act of resistance.This is an exclusively Black Space. So if you do not identify as Black and want to come because you love Black People, please respect the space and do not come.”  In Toronto, BLM publicly refused to sell a supporter a t-shirt because he was white.

Black Lives Matter is not about equality, it is about racism and segregation.  Martin Luther King Jr. was about equality, and he has been largely disowned by the left and BLM (though they can never outright say this is the case, they have slowly been distancing themselves from him over the years).  It has reached the point where the left and BLM are practically doing a Malcolm X impression, where they push for black supremacy, the restructuring of the economy to ensure equal outcome instead of equal opportunity, bogus reparations for slavery (as if over a million lives lost, the destruction of much of the south, and trillions of dollars lost in the civil war weren’t enough), and segregation.

Martin Luther King Jr. was about equality, and he has been largely disowned by the left and BLM

Black Lives Matter treats cops worse than dirt.  Before this past NFL season, the Dallas Cowboys asked the league if they could put a decal on their helmets in honor of the fallen policemen of the Dallas shooting.  The league shut down the idea.  However, when Colin Kaepernick chose to wear socks at practice depicting cops as pigs, the NFL was mum.  Kaepernick, who was largely supported by the leftist media (including HuffPo, the New York Times, Salon, and Slate), is a huge celebrity in the BLM movement.

But BLM doesn’t stop as insulting cops; they want cops dead (but don’t take my word for it; take theirs).  At a BLM demonstration in August 2015, the protesters chanted “pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon!”, using the derogatory “pig” term for officers and effectively calling for the death of policemen.  This chant took place just hours after police officer Darren Goforth was brutally murdered from behind, leaving behind a wife and two children (this fantastic and relevant song is a reminder that every dead cop is a lost son, father, brother, and husband).  Another BLM crowd repeatedly chanted kill the police, and another we don’t need no cops we shut [expletive] down (not only do you need cops, you also need a third-grade English course).  Yet another cried “what do we want, dead cops, when do we want them, now!”

This chant [for dead cops] took place just hours after police officer Darren Goforth was brutally murdered from behind, leaving behind a wife and two children

A police-loathing, white-despising, racist group like Black Lives Matter can only keep churning forward and accomplish its goals if it has its followers in the palm of its hand.  The first step to conning innocent blacks into joining the hate group is to exploit a story of a cop acting in self-defense and killing a black suspect.  This is a huge story to come, but Black Lives Matter will twist the narrative so much that what supporters and the media will parrot becomes unrecognizable from what actually occurred.  Once you’ve fooled your base into believing that cops seek to purge America of blacks, you convince them that cooperating with the police only does damage, despite all evidence and recommendations pointing towards resisting arrest, even if you did not commit a crime, being the most foolish thing one could possibly do, as it needlessly makes a situation high-stakes and officers have just split seconds to decide whether you are a serious danger and need to be shot.  And as soon as legislation comes around trying to educate young children on the dangers of not cooperating with the police, you do whatever it takes to make sure that the legislation never becomes law.

Recently, a New Jersey bill which would require schools to teach children how to properly and respectfully interact with police officers unanimously passed through to the Senate.  Black Lives Matter, in an unfortunately unsurprising move, came out completely against the bill, as it would teach black kids not to run or resist when being arrested, which would significantly reduce the number of black deaths BLM can exploit, especially if other states followed suit.  BLM furiously tweeted that people needed to call their Senators to shut down the bill.  The only lazy reason BLM could come up with was that the bill put the onus on the citizen to understand what to do when interacting with a cop.  This is complete and utter hogwash; police routinely train for all kinds of wild situations, of course including basic interaction with citizens.  The truth, that BLM only wishes for more convenient dead blacks, is unmissable.  BLM has essentially nailed down the perfect cycle; black person (usually male) aiming weapon at police officer/attacking officer/reaching for officer’s weapon/etcetera is shot and killed by the officer in self-defense.  BLM and the left (with the help of the media) twist the story and get blacks everywhere riled up, at which point the top blows off and blacks riot and destroy property, rant that the racist “system” needs to be fixed, and ultimately get revenge and retaliate against police officers, at which point the cycle begins again.  Lather, rinse, repeat until you have ignited a full-on race war, there is no police, and blacks and whites are segregated.

The case of Korryn Gaines is the epitome of the function of this cycle.  The story begins with a video from March 2016, where Gaines, a black woman driving with a five-year-old son and a baby in the back, is pulled over by a cop.  It starts off with what appears to be a routine traffic stop for Gaines not having a license plate, with the officer asking for license and registration.  Instead of providing the necessary information, Gaines informs the cop that “I do not participate in any of you guys’ [sic] side laws and things like that, I don’t participate in that”.  She added “you have no authority”.  The police officer warns her that since she doesn’t have any license plate and she refuses to provide her information, he has no way of identifying her, and if she doesn’t comply, he will need to arrest her.  Gaines is very taken aback that the police officer warned her that he may need to arrest her, and continues to yap about the officer’s lack of authority and that she doesn’t “participate” in American laws.  The police officer begs Gaines to just comply and states he’s being especially patient since she has children in the car and doesn’t want to arrest her in front of her kids.  Eventually, Gaines relents and gives them identification, but not before a second officer is forced to take Gaines’ keys to ensure she doesn’t speed away.  

The officers go back to their vehicle, and after less than a minute, Gaines gets out of her vehicle and complains that she wants her keys and identification back.  The officers instruct Gaines to go back to her vehicle and when they’re done they’ll give it to her, and when Gaines gets back in her vehicle, her five-year-old son sitting in the back seat asks if she got her keys back.  She replies “No, and they know not to give them to me, cause I [would] pull right off on they [expletive]s [sic].”  The kid notes to his mom that “[the police officer] just was being nice,” and Gaines quips “[you mean] me, right?”.  Gaines, without a care in the world, starts to fix her hair, and then voices to the camera “these [expletive]s want to see a fight today… they [are] going to have to kill me.”  She then commands her five-year-old son “[If the police officers] tell you to get out [of] this car, or take your seat belt off, do not get out this car, do you understand?”  The small child, not knowing any better, responds “yes”, and his mother adds “you better fight they [sic] [expletive]s, FIGHT THEM, do you hear me?”, to which her kid answers “yes” again.

Gaines… [voiced] to the camera “they [are] going to have to kill me.” 

One of the officers returns to Gaines’ vehicle and informs Gaines that her car will be towed away.  Gaines continues to demand her car keys, and the officer even offers to give her back every key on her keychain except her car key.  The officer warns her that if she doesn’t exit the car when the tow truck driver arrives, she will be arrested.  Gaines, out of nowhere, declares to the officer “you’re not going to kidnap me”, and the officer interposes he doesn’t plan on doing so.  Gaines rambles “you’re not going to kidnap me, I’ve never been arrested, I’m not committing a crime, there is no victim here, so the first chance you put your hands on me, I promise you I will own your [expletive] in that department over there”.  The officer pleads with her to just leave the car and take her children, and she retorts that she won’t let them steal her car, kidnap her, or kidnap her children.  She lets him know that “if you plan on shooting somebody today, then you can get your wish” because “I promise you, if you put your hands on me, you will have to murder me so go ahead and get ready to do that.  You will have to kill me, I promise you”.  She then turns to her son and tells him he needs to take over the camera and he needs to record everything, because “[the police officers are] going to try to fight me [Gaines]”.  She notifies a third officer that she will not get out of her vehicle and that “they will have to kill me today”, and the officer responds “nobody wants to kill you”.  She then exclaims “you guys are going to take me away from here in a body bag, I promise you!”  

No sane person would act like this.

After some back-and-forth where she insists she won’t exit the car and that the police will have to murder her, she screams at the third office she hopes that “[the officers] burn [in hell]” and calls the police officers “pigs”.  As the police start to be more authoritative in ordering Gaines to exit the vehicle, Gaines’ five-year-old son breaks down crying, and she tells him to never forget that they stole his mother.  After the police are forced to take the baby out of the vehicle so that they can move the process along and tow the car, Gaines utters to her five-year-old “you see what they do to us, you fight them, they are not for us, they want to kill us, and you never EVER back down from them.”  The officer interjects the brainwashing session and asserts to the kid that the police are his friends and that they don’t want to kill people, and Gaines jaws at the officer that the kid doesn’t believe him, because “[the child sees] videos of you shooting people that look like his father,” confirming that Gaines had been convinced by the left and BLM that police murder innocent blacks consistently.  The video ends with Gaines ranting that there are tons of videos online of police officers shooting innocent blacks and that they will need to kill her to get her out of her vehicle.

No sane person would act like this.  Clearly, Gaines had been severely brainwashed.  The police were polite and nicer than they had to be.  But Gaines still acted as if she was being tortured by the police, even trying to impress upon her son that police officers are evil pigs.  Gaines had been convinced by BLM and the left that the police hate and murder blacks, and this was the product.  Gaines had become paranoid of the police through lies and deception, and no matter what the police said or did, she would always believe they wanted her murdered and that cooperating was sealing her own death sentence.

Black Lives Matter has mastered the art of firing up blacks with fabrications

Our story, sadly, did not end there.  The police came to Gaines’ house, after she failed to appear in court for the traffic violation in the video, to issue an arrest warrant.  The police could hear people inside and knocked for ten minutes, but no one would open the door.  So the police went to the landlord and got the key to the door.  When they opened the door, they saw Gaines pointing a shotgun at them with her son on her lap as a human-shield.  A standoff ensued, during which Gaines insisted to a relative that the police were only after her “because she was black” and that the police were “devils”.  After three hours Gaines got restless and told the police that she would kill them if they didn’t leave.  At this point the police opened fire on her, and she fired back.  Gaines died in the shootout, while her human-shield was shot in the leg, though it was unclear who shot him.  Thankfully, no police officers were injured.  As a side note, her use of her own child as a human shield is a violation of international war treaties, and technically if this was a time of war, would make her a war criminal.  And if I could make a prediction right now, this child ends up trying to kill a police officer when he gets older, or at the very least he becomes heavily involved with BLM.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

Gaines… [was] pointing a shotgun at [the officers] with her son on her lap as a human-shield.

The truth of the shooting did not stop “the cycle” from trying to cash in on Gaines’ self-inflicted death, which said cycle had caused.  Salon, HuffPo (again and again and again and again and again) and Slate ran dishonest pieces which called for people to remember, honor, and say the name of Korryn Gaines, arguing that her “murder” was completely unjustified and another example of police abusing innocent blacks (some even went so far as to point to the landlord cooperating as evidence that blacks cannot trust anyone).  The liberal Think Progress first portrayed the police as villains and then claimed that police must handle situations with children better, as children who are involved in high tense situations, or even just witnesses of an arrest, can be emotionally and physically damaged.  Perhaps they should preach that people shouldn’t use children as human shields, and perhaps they should watch the video of Gaines first altercation with police, in which officers begged Gaines to consider her children and refrain from brainwashing her children throughout the arrest.  Think Progress ran another article titled “Police Fatally Shoot Woman Holding 5 Year-Old Boy In Her Lap,” which is obviously highly misleading.  And if you aren’t convinced that police aren’t gunning down innocent blacks for target practice, consider the fact that BLM is forced to use the severely flawed Gaines case as evidence of police abusing black people.  If they had better stuff, they would be using it; instead, they must twist stories of police acting in self-defense.

Lather, rinse, repeat

Based on the facts, the only thing to conclude is that Black Lives Matter is a hate group bent on the murder of police and the segregation of America, and that BLM is doing whatever it can to make sure black people think the police are the enemy so that it could exploit more black deaths.  There isn’t an ounce of humanity in this hate group.

 

An earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to Gaines’ death as a “murder”

 

LGBT and the Left; Fools, Anti-Semites, or a Cruel Combination of the Two?

There is simply no other conclusion to infer.  If the left and the LGBTQBLAHBLAHBLAH+ community are not viciously anti-semitic, why else would they take the course of action that they do?  Why else would they smear Israel and promote Islam, if not for the fact that they are Muslim-apologists and abhorrent Jew-haters?  The theoretical “progressive” values (this is not how it plays out in practice) of acceptance, peace, and tolerance are all ingrained within Israeli society, while the opposite is true for Muslims, so why does the left embrace Islam, and why won’t the left endorse Israel?  Why must leftists criticize and malign Israel constantly?

[J]ust 4% of Palestinians believe gays should be accepted into society

Here are the mile-long lists of the human rights violations of all the countries that run under complete Sharia law, which as we went over in the last blog post, is the Islamic legal code: Egypt, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.  Sentences in these countries for being gay range from decades of imprisonment to death by stoning, while transgenders are commonly targeted and threatened with violence.  Considering Israel’s spotless record on the rights of gays and transgenders (Israel is the seventh best country in the world for gays, even better than both Great Britain and the United States) versus the fact that just 4% of Palestinians believe gays should be accepted into society, combined with the fact that 54% of Democrats called “the treatment of gay, lesbian, and transgender people” a “very important” issue for them in the 2016 election, it would stand to reason that leftists would be completely behind Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[E]verything the left claims to stand for–government transparency, democracy, fair trials, diplomacy, peace, equality, etc.–is part of Israel

Just 33% of Democrats sympathize with Israel over Palestine (that number is 74% for Republicans).  This is shocking, considering that everything the left claims to stand for–government transparency, democracy, fair trials, diplomacy, peace, equality, etc.–is part of Israel.  Meanwhile, everything Palestinians and Muslims stand for is the opposite of what leftists claim to stand for.  To make matters even more dangerous, leftists time and again promote terrorism against innocent Israelis and seemingly can’t get enough of burning the Israeli flag.  What gives?

[L]eftists time and again promote terrorism against innocent Israelis and seemingly can’t get enough of burning the Israeli flag.

There are only two explanations for the left’s unfounded detestation for Israel.  Either leftists are so incompetent that they cannot see the basic truth, or they have such hatred for Jews that the truth is irrelevant (although the two being simultaneously true is a very real possibility).  Either way, there is no reason why any Jews should be voting blue, yet 70-80% of Jews still vote for Democrats in national elections.  Aren’t we Jews supposed to be intelligent?

Either leftists are so incompetent that they cannot see the basic truth, or they have such hatred for Jews that the truth is irrelevant

Perhaps one would argue that leftists are too inept to understand the fundamentals of Israel and why they should support Israel, but given the sharp contrast between the treatment of gays and transgenders in Israel versus Muslim countries, surely LGBTQABCSKIPAFEWZ+ folk would be smart enough to realize Israel is the country they should be backing.  Hell, Israel even had a gay pride parade with hundreds of thousands of people, whereas in Muslim countries one can be thrown off a building just for being gay, and just 4% of Palestinians support gays being welcomed into society.  To have a functioning brain is apparently too much to ask these days, as gays and transgenders still refuse to even tolerate those who support Israel when they should be applauding Israel.

It is either pure density on the part of the LGBTETC+ community for not realizing the truth, ferocious anti-semitism, or both.

On June 24th, the annual Chicago Dyke March was held (“dyke” is apparently slang for “lesbian”).  The march was labeled as an inclusive and “intersectional”, and yet when three attendees had the audacity to bring with them a rainbow-colored Israeli flag, they were promptly “asked” by organizers to leave.  Nevermind all the pesky facts and statistics; the paraders were told their flags were “offensive”, that the flags “made people feel unsafe”, and that the march was strictly anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian.  How can leaders of the LGBTETC+ movement be so dumb, and how can anyone with a brain be offended by a flag that represents everything they are marching for?  Those with Islamic and Palestinian flags were allowed to stay (as they should have been) despite the atrocious treatment of gays by these groups of people, yet those with the flag that represents the gold standard of gay rights are banished.  Just like by leftists, the same options exist.  It is either pure density on the part of the LGBTETC+ community for not realizing the truth, ferocious anti-semitism, or both.

[G]ays and transgenders still refuse to even tolerate those who support Israel when they should be applauding Israel.

Islam Is A Religion Of Violence, And The Left Just Can’t Come To Terms With It

Those of us with functioning brains have known for some time that Islam is a religion comprised largely of radicals and terrorists, and while “moderates” do make up the majority of Muslims, the number of extremist Muslims is far greater than leftists lead people to believe, and there is a blurry line at best between “moderates” and “extremists”.  Leftists, however, are still hanging onto the theory that there is a negligible amount of “extremist” Muslims while the overwhelming majority of Muslims are “peaceful”, and that few (if any) moderates are at risk of becoming extremists.  The left’s conjecture came crumbling down in October 2016 when a self-described “moderate” Muslim student attacked innocent bystanders at Ohio State University, injuring a dozen people.

[T]here is a blurry line at best between “moderates” and “extremists”

First, the statistics.  Here are the percentages of Muslims, in surveyed countries, that believe suicide bombings against civilians can be justified if they are in defense of Islam: 59% of Palestinian Muslims, 55% of Lebanese Muslims, 59% of Egyptian Muslims, 29% of Turkish Muslims, 43% of Jordanian Muslims, 61% of Bangladeshi Muslims, 32% of Malaysian Muslims, 21% of Indonesian Muslims, 46% of Tanzanian Muslims, 25% of Nigerian Muslims, 31% of Senegalese Muslims, and 46% of Israeli Muslims.  It gets worse.

Islam is about as peaceful as Adolf Hitler.

Horrifyingly, large percentages of residents in Muslim-majority countries support Hamas and view the terrorist group in a favorable light (note non-Muslims are included in this question).  8% of Turks (the country is almost entirely Muslim), just under 44% of Lebanese Muslims (the only country surveyed where Muslims were counted separately)*, 39% of Jordanians (the country is 93% Muslim), 38% of Egyptians (the country is 90% Muslim), 35% of Palestinians (Palestinians are 97% Muslim), 37% of Tunisians (the country is 99% Muslim), 29% of Bangladeshis (the country is more than 90% Muslim), 21% of Indonesians (the country is 87% Muslim), 28% of Indonesians (the country is 63% Muslim), and 24% of Israeli Arabs (almost all of which are Muslim) view Hamas favorably.  Here are just some of Hamas’ war crimes, which include thousands rockets at schools, densely populated cities, hospitals, and anywhere they have a chance at killing an innocent Israeli,  dragging dissidents through the streets on the back of motorcycles, using human shields consistently, such as launching their rockets from atop schools and hospitals, and violating ceasefire after ceasefire, to name just a few.

[T]he Koran declares… “[Allah] has made [men] superior to [women]

The Koran, or the Islamic holy text, teaches to murder all non-believers until only those who believe in Allah remain on dozens and dozens and dozens of occasions.  Furthermore, the Koran leaves no room for ambiguity on the topic of gender equality, even declaring in one verse (of many, many sexist verses) that “[Allah] has made [men] superior to [women]… and as to those women from whom you fear disobedience… beat them.”  Even just as a precaution if you have suspicions of disobedience, the Koran teaches you should beat women.

Here are the long lists of the human rights violations of all the countries that run under complete Sharia law: Egypt, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.  Just look at Sharia law, the Islamic law code, in practice, and it is quite clear that Islam is about as peaceful as Adolf Hitler.

[T]ry to be gay in one of these countries; sentences… range from decades of imprisonment to death by stoning.

Just to throw out a few more statistics, here are the traits Muslims in the Middle East associate with Westerners; 68% call us “selfish”, 64% consider us “greedy”, 61% “immoral”, and 57% “arrogant”.  Just 29% see us as “generous” and 33% “honest”.  If you find these stats shocking, hold onto your seat.  66%, or almost two out of every three Muslims, deem Westerners “violent”, and 57% view Westerners as “fanatical”.  Remember all those facts about Muslim approval of violence and the violent teachings of the Koran?  Yet two-thirds of Muslims regard us as violent, and the majority look on us as fanatics.  Just 44% of Muslims consider the West to be “respectful of women”.  Is this some kind of joke?  Muslims could not be less respectful to women if they tried (as demonstrated by their human rights crimes), yet they label the West, where women are equal in every way to men, as disrespectful of women.  But perhaps the most ridiculous stat of them all is the following; only 31% of Muslims see Westerners as “tolerant”.  It is quite strange that Muslims label the West intolerant considering that all the factual evidence points towards Muslims being possibly the least tolerant group of people the world has ever seen, all the teachings of the Koran that preach to be intolerant and either kill or convert everyone, and the facts that a large percentage of Muslims support the murder of innocents for the sake of Islam and that Muslims literally kill people in the name of destroying Western society.  And try to be gay in one of these countries; sentences in the aforementioned countries for being gay range from decades of imprisonment to death by stoning.

Perhaps you would argue that in predominantly Muslim countries, Muslims become radically bloodthirsty, but in “Western” countries they are absorbed into society and become normal people. First off, a religion of peace should not inevitably turn vicious in isolation, but the more important point is that reality would disagree that this is the case.

In Great Britain, 78% of Muslims want those who publish cartoons of Mohammed to be persecuted, 68% of Muslims wish for those who insult Islam to be persecuted, and 62% of Muslims are opposed to people being allowed to express criticism of Islam.  22% disagreed that religious leaders who back terrorism should be removed, 19% said they respect Osama Bin Laden, and 17% said they respect Saddam Hussein.  Meanwhile, 24% thought that suicide bombings in defense of Islam can be justified.  

[A] religion of peace should not inevitably turn vicious in isolation

In France, 35% of Muslims believe suicide bombings in defense of Islam can be justified.  In Spain, that number is 25%, while in Germany it’s 13%.  As far as acceptance of the orchestrators of the September 11th attacks goes, just 48% of French Muslims, 35% of German Muslims, 33% of Spanish Muslims, and a mere 17% of British Muslims are willing to admit that Islamic extremists carried out the attacks.

But what about the United States?  Our “moderate” Muslim population is mostly averse to suicide bombings, with just 13% concluding that suicide bombings in defense of Islam can be justified.  Just 40% of American Muslims concede that Islamic extremists carried out 9/11.

Islam has been the catalyst for a smidge under 20,000 dead innocents since the September 11th attacks

Why let in any Muslims at all when large percentages of them are averse to everything the West has to offer and a huge chunk of them promote terrorism against the West and its allies?  Again, this is not to say that there aren’t any “good” Muslims who can fit in nicely in the West, only that the risk of letting in one Muslim who wants to destroy the West (and very well may act on it) is not worth the “reward” of two moderate Muslims integrating into society.

ISIS, the Islamic terror group, has slaughtered thousands and oppressively subjugated millions through the medium of Islam.  The countries that run under Sharia law are basically hell on earth.  Overall, Islam has been the catalyst for a smidge under 20,000 dead innocents since the September 11th attacks (which, as the Muslim populace is unwilling to admit, was indeed carried out by Muslim extremists).  Does it sound like a “religion of peace” anymore?

In spite of all the facts, statistics, and evidence that shows that Islam is anything but a religion of peace, the left still tries to pretend this is the case.  Former President Barack Obama claimed that “99.9%” of Muslims reject Islamic terrorism.  It makes one wonder what world Obama thinks he’s living in, because in this one, the least you will ever see in a given country is 10% of the Muslim population supporting suicide bombings, while it is not uncommon to see that number in the 30s, 40s, and even 50s.  Former presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton tweetedMuslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”  Once again, this is demonstrably false, as not only are Muslims and violence happily bound together by the Koran, but huge percentages of Muslims, as we just went over, lobby for terrorism, and tens of thousands of people have been killed in the name of Islam in just over 15 years.  The detestable Washington Post called Islam a “religion of love”, while two-thirds of Democrats believe Islam and Christianity to be equally militant (where then are all the Christians who side with violence for religion’s sake, and where are the dozens of thousands of dead bodies from Christian terrorist attacks?).

Think about it this way; when it comes to gun control, the left essentially makes the argument that even though only one-in-a-million citizens will ever misuse their gun, this is enough to necessitate extremely strict gun control (or, as leftists dream, a total gun ban).  Why, then, is it immoral to bar Muslims from our country, when it is not one-in-a-million Muslims that are a threat to society, but one out of every two or three Muslims?  When such a large percentage of Muslims are one step away from committing terrorist attacks against innocent Westerners, as those who approve of bloodshed in defense of Islam are just a recruitment or insult-to-Islam away from committing an act of terror, why should we let any Muslims in?  When Muslims view Westerners as evil and immoral, when they bring with them a backward culture, and when they cheer the murder of innocent Americans, why welcome them into society?  This is not bigotry, only national defense.

Barack Obama claimed that “99.9%” of Muslims reject Islamic terrorism.

Islam is no religion of peace, it is not true that “99.9%” of Muslims are moderated, and Islam is not just as dangerous as any other religion.  When tens of thousands of innocents have been killed by a religion in the last 15 years, when the holy book teaches brutality towards and the destruction of non-believers, and when every country run under the legal code is an absolute hellhole, the religion is no longer a religion of peace, and America as the leader of the free world is certainly at war with such tyranny disguised as a religion.

This is not bigotry, only national defense.

The only things separating “extremists” from a large percentage of what the left calls “moderates” is that the former has been pushed just a little bit and has acted on its abhorrence of non-believers and Westerners.  The latter, in contrast, has not yet decided that it must undertake drastic measures to defend Islam, though it certainly backs those who take such measures.  To tell apart a “moderate” that supports terrorism from a “moderate” who does not is borderline impossible; when confronted and there is any incentive to lie (e.g. on immigration papers) both will attest to not being keen on violence in defense of Islam.  This means there is truly no way, within reason, of knowing if a self-described “moderate” is secretly seeking to act on their hate for the West, thereby making all Muslims national security threats.

To tell apart a “moderate” that supports terrorism from a “moderate” who does not is borderline impossible

Never had this been more evident than in the case of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a Muslim student at Ohio State University.  In August of 2016, Artan was interviewed by the school newspaper.  Here is what he had to say:

“I just transferred from Columbus State. We had prayer rooms, like actual rooms where we could go pray because we Muslims have to pray five times a day. There’s Fajr, which is early in the morning, at dawn. Then Zuhr during the daytime, then Asr in the evening, like right about now. And then Maghrib, which is like right at sunset and then Isha at night. I wanted to pray Asr. I mean, I’m new here. This is my first day. This place is huge, and I don’t even know where to pray. I wanted to pray in the open, but I was scared with everything going on in the media. I’m a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be. If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don’t know what they’re going to think, what’s going to happen. But, I don’t blame them. It’s the media that put that picture in their heads so they’re just going to have it and it, it’s going to make them feel uncomfortable. I was kind of scared right now. But I just did it. I relied on God. I went over to the corner and just prayed.”

Sounds like your classic “moderate” Muslim.  Nothing to see here; just an innocent Muslim trying to pray in the open, but fearful of what people will think when they see a Muslim praying considering how the evil “media” has depicted Muslims as hateful and radical (I would argue that the opposite is true; the media is happy to paint a picture of a world where Muslims are “99.9%” peaceful and then show it to viewers as if it is reality, while the truth is that Muslims are quite militant).  But everything was not as it seemed.

In November of the same year, Artan drove a car through the Ohio State campus and then got out and began stabbing people.  A total of 13 were injured, most of them moderately injured (let’s just hope their injuries weren’t as “moderate” as Artan), though thankfully no one died.  Artan was the only one killed in the ordeal, a bullet put in his body by a heroic police officer after Artan refused orders to stand down.  Artan, who had previously declared himself to be an innocent peace-loving Muslim and who had ranted about the falsely belligerent portrayal of Muslims by the media, had proven our point; it is impossible to distinguish between the most peaceful of Muslims and the most aggressive of Muslims.  At least until the latter gets pushed over the edge (Artan reached his “boiling point” when he didn’t like how the United States was handling a Muslim humans rights crisis in Myanmar) and runs around stabbing people.

A total of 13 were injured, most of them moderately injured (let’s just hope their injuries weren’t as “moderate” as Artan)

Because of the inconvenience of the truth, the left is forced to lie, spin stories, ignore statistics (the left has already mastered all these), and sometimes straight-up pray for a favorable outcome when it comes to Muslims.

After the Ohio State attack, in which the police officer happened to be white and the terrorist happened to be black, some on the left tried to make the shooting a racial issue.  This shtick is commonplace, and essentially follows every single police shooting of a black man (no matter how justified).  But the left trying to make this about race was uniquely egregious because it wasn’t just a typical case of a police officer acting in self-defense as a black suspect was about to attack him, but a heroic officer saving countless lives by taking action and gunning down a deranged, knife-wielding man intent on murder.

[I]t is impossible to distinguish between the most peaceful of Muslims and the most aggressive of Muslims… until the latter… runs around stabbing people.

Immediately following the attack, Tariq Nasheed, a Black Lives Matter activist, tweetedThis Ohio State shooting with hero cop Alan Horujko and the Somali “terrorist” is extremely interesting.”  What was interesting about what happened, why the race of either party even mattered, or why the word “terrorist” was in quotation marks was never explained, proving that this was just a lousy attempt to spin the story as to better fit the wanted narrative.  What’s more expedient; a Muslim being shot down by a heroic cop after injuring a total of 13 in an act of terror, or a white police officer shooting a black man in cold blood?  As a side point, if Black Lives Matter won’t denounce Tariq or any of this, we have nothing else to believe but that Black Lives Matter has no issue with it.

In December of 2015, 14 were killed and 22 were injured in a radical Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.  It was a nationwide tragedy.  However, there were some among us who were privately upset not over the fact that 14 Americans were killed, but over the inconvenient religion of the shooter.  Shameful.

When John Podesta, Chairman of Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, was emailed news of the terrible tragedy in an email chain (the link sent was from the news station MSNBC with Chris Hayes reporting on the incident), his response was not remorseful in the slightest.  He did not talk about the 14 Americans who were killed or his sadness over the killing.  He did not offer any hint of sorrow.  His only words were the following disgraceful ones: “Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk [one of the shooters] was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.”  John Podesta, and we would have to assume the entire Clinton campaign as no one had any gripes about the comments, was not upset that 14 Americans had perished, but that the religion of the perpetrator didn’t fit his narrative.

Leftists do not care about the truth, they care about convenience.  The truth is that Islam is a militant, barbaric, backward religion, but it would be convenient if it were peaceful, civilized, and progressive, so the left runs with the second version.  This requires much mental gymnastics, lying, covering up, twisting, and distracting.  But don’t worry; these things, leftists have mastered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*This site was used to calculate percentages of Muslims who support Hamas, along with the Pew poll cited.

Can’t the Left just Fake it and Act Human?

The unfortunate case of Otto Warmbier was deeply saddening.  However, while normal Americans were disheartened by the debacle, leftists were busy licking their lips at the death of an innocent white man at the hands of a communist regime.

[T]here are no “normals” on the left; only whacked-out radicals

In January 2016, 21-year-old American student Otto Frederick Warmbier was arrested by North Korean authorities for allegedly stealing a propaganda poster.  This occurred while President Obama was still in office, and Obama went with his usual lax and apologetic foreign policy, doing nothing but “urging” North Korea to let Warmbier return to the United States.  This was obviously ineffective; North Korea had zero incentive to listen to Obama, and so Warmbier remained in North Korea, where he was sentenced to 15 years hard labor after a show trial.

Obama went with his usual lax and apologetic foreign policy, doing nothing but “urging” North Korea to let Warmbier return to the United States.

President Donald Trump ran on the promise of a tough, America-first foreign policy, and had been loudly criticizing Obama’s foreign policy for years.  And to Trump’s credit, as soon as he heard about Warmbier’s situation, he commanded Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to do all he could to get Warmbier back.  Finally, after months of diplomacy failed, Trump and his team informed North Korea that they would be taking Warmbier back.  They didn’t ask permission; Trump knows, as he has been repeating for years, that the United States always has the upper hand in negotiation, and there is no reason to negotiate as if we are on equal terms.  Obama’s strategy was to negotiate on equal grounds, which is why he got burned over and over again.  If we’re the sole world superpower, shouldn’t we be acting like it at the negotiating table?

North Korea did not protest when Trump’s team demanded Warmbier’s release, and within days Warmbier was back in America.  However, joy quickly turned to sadness.  Alas, Warmbier had been tortured into a coma and died days after arriving back in the United States.

If we’re the sole world superpower, shouldn’t we be acting like it at the negotiating table?

Normal people would feel some sort of sorrow for Warmbier, whose harmless prank got himself killed.  Surely it was a childish and ill-advised thing to do, especially in a communist country like North Korea, but the punishment did not fit the crime whatsoever.  Warmbier was certainly dumb, but not deserving of death.

But there are no “normals” on the left; only whacked-out radicals, a large percentage of whom adore communism, and an even larger percentage of whom relish the slaughter of innocent whites.  The two together proved irresistible for the left, and to none of our surprise, the left collectively rejoiced over the arrest, sentencing, and murder of Otto Warmbier, an innocent 21-year-old whose only crime was stupidity.

Warmbier was certainly dumb, but not deserving of death.

The left immediately jumped on the story of a white boy making a fool of himself and paying the price.  Right after the story broke of Warmbier’s “crime” and arrest, the detestable Salon published a piece openly taunting Warmbier titled “America’s biggest idiot frat boy” which made fun of the fact that he thought his “white privilege” would protect him and asserting his sentence was “richly deserved”.  

Meanwhile, the Huffington Post put out an article titled “North Korea Proves Your White Male Privilege Is Not Universal”.  In the post author La Sha, a black woman, writes that she now agrees with her mother that Michael Fay, a white American student who had vandalized cars in Singapore and had been sentenced to four months in jail to go along with four lashes, got what was coming to him because he thought his “white privilege” would protect him in China.  “That’s what the hell he gets [for his white privilege],” and “he earned that” the author’s mother had quipped at the time.  

Salon published a piece… which… [asserted] [Warmbier’s] sentence was “richly deserved”.

La Sha articulated that both Fay and Warmbier got what they deserved for falsely believing that “the shield [their] cis white male identity provides here in America [is] teflon abroad.”  She claimed that the prank Warmbier pulled is not simply plain stupidity that a black or Hispanic or Native American student could well have done instead of a white student, but:

“an unfortunate side effect of [Warmbier] being socialized first as a white boy, and then as a white man in this country. Every economic, academic, legal and social system in this country has for more than three centuries functioned with the implicit purpose of ensuring that white men are the primary benefactors of all privilege.”  

La Sha then made the ludicrous posit that Warmbier thought the North Koreans would be fine with his crime since he was white, proposing:

“I’m willing to bet my last dollar that he was aware of the political climate in that country, but privilege is a hell of a drug. The high of privilege told him that North Korea’s history of making examples out of American citizens who dare challenge their rigid legal system in any way was no match for his alabaster American privilege.”  

She then compared Warmbier to mentally ill white terrorists.  

“When you can watch a white man who entered a theatre and killed a dozen people come out unscathed, you start to believe you’re invincible. When you see a white man taken to Burger King in a bulletproof vest after he killed nine people in a church, you learn that the world will always protect you.”  

This is complete and utter malarkey and an embarrassment to both the intelligence and morality of normal human beings.  La Sha continued to vomit nonsense, blaming the parents of Warmbier for not raising him properly.  “And while I don’t blame his parents for pressuring the State Department to negotiate his release, I wonder where they were when their son was planning a trip to the DPRK. Didn’t they impress upon him the hostile climate that awaited him? Didn’t they rear him [sic] to respect law and order? Did they not teach him the importance of obeying authority?”  Why the hell would you blame the parents for pressing the State Department to try to get him back?  And what is this nonsense about “obeying”?

[La Sha’s postulates are] complete and utter malarkey and an embarrassment to both the intelligence and morality of normal human beings.

La Sha mercifully ended the column by comparing Warmbier’s sentencing of 15 years of hard labor to her own situation as a black woman.  “I’m a black woman though. The hopeless fear Warmbier is now experiencing is my daily reality living in a country where white men like him are willfully oblivious to my suffering even as they are complicit in maintaining the power structures which ensure their supremacy at my expense. He is now an outsider at the mercy of a government unfazed by his cries for help. I get it.”  No, you don’t get it; you’re completely equal to every other American in every way, and you have every benefit and opportunity available to you.  You face absolutely no discrimination and the only thing possibly holding you back is your imaginary “struggle” and “glass ceiling”.  If you think that hard labor is like being an average American, you most certainly don’t get it.

[Black women] face absolutely no discrimination and the only thing possibly holding [them] back is [their] imaginary “struggle” and “glass ceiling”.

Finally, the radically left-wing Comedy Central had a bit on Warmbier after his sentencing. Throughout the item, Warmbier was ridiculed and laughed at.  The man who has made being cringingly unfunny an art, lunatic Larry Wilmore, orchestrated the humiliation, starting off:

Tonight’s story is about the North Korean government, which recently captured one of America’s most annoying exports, a frat bro.”  

Wilmore went on with the mockery, making fun of Otto’s name as sounding like “one of the three fakest sounding names [Wilmore’s] ever heard” and theorizing that it must have been made up for a fake I.D. (this was some sort of wild attempt at humor), as Wilmore rambled off that the I.D. would have his address as “69 Weed Avenue”.  Meanwhile, the far-left audience was cracking up at every single one of Wilmore’s horrifying and unfunny “jokes”.  Wilmore labeled Warmbier “Otto Van Crybaby” for begging to be let back home (I’d love to see how Wilmore would handle 15 years of hard labor and constant torture), and yukked that he should have realized his aforementioned fake I.D. reads on the bottom “Frat bro privilege not valid in totalitarian dystopias”.  As the tape played of Warmbier weeping at his show trial that he “made the worst mistake of [his] life”, the far-left audience was dying of laughter.  Wilmore continued to heckle Warmbier’s pleas, repeating to the audience’s thunderous laughter what Warmbier had cried, and bringing the wholly distasteful segment to a close by commenting “I’m sorry, guys, it’s just tough for me to have much sympathy for this guy and his crocodile tears” and reveling in Warmbier’s begs for mercy.  Words cannot describe how disgusting this is.

Warmbier labeled Warmbier “Otto Van Crybaby” for begging to be let back home

There are two things to take away from Warmbier’s death.  Firstly, it goes to show just how inept and incompetent Obama’s foreign policy was, and that it’s about time America had itself an overseas strongman.  Secondly, the left still glorifies and salivates over communism and all the innocent “enemy” deaths that come with it (which for the left would include unfavorables such as whites, conservatives, and Jews) even after its failed experiment of the 20th century.  Can’t the left just have some dignity and pretend to be human for a change, or is that too much to ask?

 

Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer; the Embodiments of Hypocrisy

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and former (thank goodness) President Barack Obama are the definitions of a hypocrite.  To these two (and really the Democratic Party as a whole), anything Democrats do is justifiable and logical, while everything Republicans do is terrible and irrational.  The trouble begins when the two overlap, and it becomes especially problematic when the Democrat attacks Republicans for something that they themselves had already done or said.  Obama and Schumer’s hypocrisy is blatantly on display when investigating the evolution of their rhetoric on both the travel ban and the prospect of blocking a Supreme Court nomination.

First some background.  In January, Donald Trump signed an executive order which, for 90 days, barred travelers and refugees from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen from coming to the United States.  Trump feared that our vetting process was not strong enough to weed out the many terrorists that reside in these countries and saw a temporary ban as the only way.  Leftists across the United States protested the “travel ban” on the grounds that it was “Islamophobic” (all the terrorist-hotspot countries happened to be largely Muslim).  They declared that Trump intentionally chose these seven countries because he wanted to ban Muslims from the United States and called the “travel ban” a “Muslim ban”.  This was all rubbish, of course, as these were all countries that former President Barack Obama (the hero of these same leftists) had deemed terrorist concerns.

Chuck Schumer immediately came out against the ban (what a surprise), holding back fake tears as he labeled it “un-American”, “mean-spirited”, and later insisting that it should be “thrown in the trash”.  This was quite the flip from Schumer’s previous positions on travel bans.  Back in 2011, when Barack Obama placed an even longer travel ban (Trump’s was just 90 days, Obama’s was six months) on an almost entirely Muslim Iraq, Schumer was mum.  In fact, in this sense, Schumer was joined by the entirety of the Democratic Party, which stayed quiet when Obama banned travel from Iraq, an over 95% Muslim country, but fulminated when Trump did similarly, tagging Trump an “Islamaphobe”.  To make matters even more pathetic, when pressed on the hypocrisy not one of the aforementioned protestors of the travel ban could provide a reason as to why they were against Trump’s travel ban but had not been against Obama’s.

You never need to look too far to find glaring hypocrisy on the left.

But wait, there’s more!  Not only did Trump use the seven countries which Barack Obama had determined to be terrorist concerns, Obama himself had placed travel restrictions on anyone who had even stepped foot in any of these seven countries.  Chuck Schumer and his protesters were nowhere to be found when this was going on.  And just in case you haven’t gotten the point, in 2015, after several terrorist attacks committed by vetted refugees in Europe, Chuck Schumer mulled a nonpermanent Syrian refugee ban (Syria was one of the countries included in Trump’s executive order).  To sum it up, Schumer went from considering a provisional Syrian refugee ban to calling Trump “un-American” and “mean-spirited”, as Schumer held back tears, for banning Syrian refugees.  Meanwhile, Barack Obama condemned the travel ban and remarked that he “fundamentally disagreed” with the ban, which he called a “religious ban”.  This is the same Obama who did almost the exact same thing as what he was now claiming to be “fundamentally against”.  You cannot make this stuff up.

[T]he Democratic Party… stayed quiet when Obama banned travel from Iraq, an over 95% Muslim country, but fulminated when Trump did similarly, tagging Trump an “Islamaphobe”.

In 2016, Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court’s vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.  Republicans refused to hold a confirmation hearing or vote, maintaining that the American people should decide the direction of the country in the upcoming election.  The left fumed that Republicans were going against the constitution, breaking tradition, and not allowing Barack Obama to govern.  Obama called the vacancy “dangerous” and “deeply concerning”.  Obama must have an awful memory, since in 2005 Obama became one of the first Senators to ever filibuster a Supreme Court nomination (the Bush-nominated Justice Samuel Alito Jr.), and his filibuster, if successful, would have left a vacancy for close to four years instead of the less-than-a-year vacancy the right orchestrated.

Obama who did almost the exact same thing as [Trump and then] claim[ed] to be “fundamentally against” [what Trump had done].

In February of 2016, Schumer commented on the situation, exclaiming “Well, the job, first and foremost, is for the president to nominate and for the Senate to hold hearings and go through the process. You know, the Constitution, Ted Cruz holds the Constitution, you know, when he walks through the halls of Congress. Let him show me the clause that says president’s only president for three years.”  He added that “Here, he doesn’t even know who the president’s going to propose and he said, no, we’re not having hearings; we’re not going to go forward to lead the Supreme Court vacant at 300 days in a divided time.”  

This was highly hypocritical considering that in 2007, when asked about the potential of a Supreme Court position opening up during George W. Bush’s second term, Schumer responded that barring extreme circumstances, the Senate should not confirm a potential supreme court nominee from President Bush.  Schumer, without even knowing whom Bush would potentially nominate, preemptively proclaimed he would try to keep the Senate from nominating Bush’s nominee.  And lest we forget, Schumer intended to keep the seat vacant for upwards of 450 days, while he bashed conservatives for trying to keep the Supreme Court at 8 justices for 300 days.  But our tale of hypocrisy didn’t end there.

Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama… are most certainly #NotMySenator, and thank-the-Lord are #NotMyPresident, respectively

In January of 2017, as Democrats braced for Trump’s Supreme Court nomination, Schumer announced he would oppose anyone nominated by Trump and would work hard to keep the seat open, despite his previous cries of the danger of keeping the seat open.  “[I]f the nominee is out of the mainstream, we will do our best to keep the seat open. Let’s remember that, of the last four Supreme Court nominees, two nominated by a Republican president, two by a Democrat, they had bipartisan support. What I said — you didn’t show it on the air there — is, if the nominee is not bipartisan and mainstream, we absolutely would keep the seat open.  I’m hopeful that maybe President Trump would nominate someone who is mainstream and who could get bipartisan support. We shall see. But, if they don’t, yes, we will fight it tooth-and-nail, as long as we have to.”

Schumer intended to keep the seat vacant for upwards of 450 days, while he bashed conservatives for trying to keep the Supreme Court at 8 justices for 300 days.

Would it be daring to suggest that had Clinton won, Schumer would not have called for a bipartisan candidate and would have criticized Republicans who demanded a mainstream nominee for being “sore-losers”?  Schumer also lamented that “It’s hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support.”  Doesn’t this go against his previous cries for Republicans to at least give the guy a chance?  And why isn’t Schumer concerned any longer about the dangers of keeping the seat open for so long?  After all, if Schumer got his way, the seat could stay open for up to eight years or more.

These two hypocrites, Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama, are most certainly #NotMySenator, and thank-the-Lord are #NotMyPresident, respectively.  You never need to look too far to find glaring hypocrisy on the left.