Rand Paul: Donald Trump setting GOP up for worst defeat since 1964

By Chris Villani1 hour 20 mins ago

2

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul - a Republican candidate for president - today warned his party risks its worst electoral beating since 1964 if frontrunner Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination.

"It would probably be the worst defeat we've had since (Barry) Goldwater, I'd predict, if Trump where the nominee," Paul said in a Boston Herald Radio "Morning Meeting" interview, referring to the 1964 race during which the Republican from Arizona carried only six states against Lyndon B. Johnson.

A recent Quinnipiac national poll showed Trump lapping the field with 28 percent of those surveyed saying they support him. Paul, who entered the race with a strong following of libertarians and conservatives, languished towards the back of the pack with 2 percent of the survey.

Paul today blasted Trump, accusing the celebrity mogul of masking liberal views with red-meat rhetoric.

"There is a lot of bluster and anger on Trump's part, but a lot of his solutions are big government solutions," Paul said. "I think eventually people are going to come to their senses and say 'oh my God, I liked his angry vitriol, but I didn't realize he was for gun control, Obamacare, increasing taxes, and taking private property.' "

The Kentucky senator had lashed out at Trump in the first primary debate earlier this month and said he will be campaigning hard to warn Republican about what he described as the billionaire's moderate views.

"If one side doesn't have ideas or has ideas that seem to be more liberal Democrat than Republican, we need to point these out to people," he said. "It would be a tragedy if we were to get the nomination and then we discover we nominated a liberal Democrat. That would be a great irony."

Paul singled out Trump's stand on eminent domain -- a hot-button issue for libertarians.

"He has been a proponent of using eminent domain to take property from small property owners and use it to make business and make money for himself," Paul said. "There was a case of a woman who had lived in a house for 30 years. He built a casino next door and when she wouldn't sell, he used the government to take it from her."

Last week, Paul wrote an online oped charging that Trump is a supporter of the Kelo Supreme Court decision, which allowed the government to take private property under eminent domain.

"When people find this out, they are going to be horrified," Paul said.

Paul's feud with the frontrunner began at the first Republican primary debate when Trump said he would not rule out running as a third-party candidate.

"That really ticked me off," Paul said. "I have nothing against people running as a third party. I do have a problem with people being dishonest and using the Republicans to get a lot of attention and then running as a third party."

'Liberal Agenda' To Blame For Islamic State Rise Says Former Army Boss

LONDON, United Kingdom – The former head of the British Army, Lord Richards, has said the rise of the Islamic State is a result of a “liberal agenda”. Richards claimed the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, lacked the “balls” to take the fight to the country's enemies causing many of the problems in the region today.

He made the comments in a new book by Sir Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon called 'Cameron at No10: The Inside Story'. It details the twists and turns of the Cameron premiership, and lifts the lid on a number of difficult relationships he has had with others.

According to the book Lord Richards had asked Cameron and his team to take a much tougher line in Syria and Libya. Richards said: “If they’d had the balls they would have gone through with it. If they’d done what I’d argued, they wouldn’t be where they are with ISIS.”

He added: “In Ukraine, as in Syria and Libya, there is a lack of strategy. The problem is the inability to think things through. It seems to be more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft.”

Lord Richards was chief of the defense staff from October 2010 to July 2013, the position is the UK equivalent of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He has made little secret of his disdain for the group of left-wing Conservatives who are all from the same trendy West London district of Notting Hill, which was itself made famous by a film of the same name. 

The Notting Hill Set includes both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. 

Last year Richards first revealed details of how Cameron had rejected a "coherent military strategy" to take on the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad in 2012. Richards had argued the plan would have "squeezed out of existence" the terrorists who went on to create the Islamic State.

Instead of increasing the pressure on the Islamists both Britain and America took a very hands off approach. This is widely seen as the reason the Islamic State was able to gain the foothold it enjoys today.

The book also details the rocky relationship between Cameron and the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Mr Johnson returned to the House of Commons at the General Election and is now seen as a major rival to the Prime Minister. 

During the campaign Johnson wrote about the number of Prime Ministers who, like Cameron, had gone to school at the $50k a year Eton College. This led Cameron to send him a text message saying “The next PM will be Miliband if you don’t f******* shut up.”

The text shows how little faith Cameron had in his own chances of beating Labour's Ed Miliband at the election. He had even planned his own resignation speech in advance of polling day. He would have said: “It is clear we have not won and I will have to go… Being Prime Minister of this country is the best job one can possibly have.

“I wish Ed and Justine every success in doing it. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve.”

In the end Cameron made history by being one of the only sitting Prime Ministers ever to increase the number of seats he held in the House of Commons.

'The Silent Majority'

'The Silent Majority'

10:46 AM, Aug 31, 2015
BY WILLIAM KRISTOL

Share on twitterShare on facebookShare on emailMore Sharing 

I've suggested before that 2016 is beginning to look more and more like 1968. This is true in terms of the presidential contests—on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders is Eugene McCarthy, Hillary Clinton is Lyndon Johnson, Joe Biden will be Hubert Humphrey, and (the big question!) Elizabeth Warren could be Bobby Kennedy; and on the Republican side, where Donald Trump is "a kind of cartoon version of Richard Nixon."

But the reason our politics looks like 1968 is that our broader social condition is increasingly reminiscent of 1968. This was brought home in remarks Saturday by Houston district attorney Devon Anderson, after the shooting of Harris County sheriff's deputy Darren Goforth. 

"Anderson...said the criticism of police had gotten out of hand: 'It is time for the silent majority in this country to support law enforcement,' she told reporters at a news conference."

"The silent majority." The phrase is back, and rightly so. I'm pretty sure the silent majority does support law enforcement, and will speak up. But isn't it time for political leaders to speak for and support the silent majority? Donald Trump claims to do so. Can't the Republican party do better? Won't some other Republican candidate—a current contender, or someone not yet in the race—emerge to speak convincingly for middle America?

After all, when GOP candidates did aim to speak for the silent majority, they won 5 of 6 straight presidential elections (1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988). Since then they've lost the popular vote 5 of 6 times—with the one exception being when George W. Bush came closest to being a silent-majority-type candidate in 2004. Obviously, the phrase won't be enough. There will have to be a re-thinking of Republican and conservative orthodoxy, something both Nixon and Reagan were willing to do. I'd prefer more of a Reaganite than a Nixonian re-thinking. But either way, the time is right and the moment is now.

Rain on EPA’s Parade

Rain on EPA’s Parade

American Spectator - Monday August 31, 2015

No, the “waters of the United States” subject to Clean Water Act (CWA) regulation do not include things like dry land over which water occasionally flows. That’s the conclusion of a federal judge who just put on hold the Environmental Protection Agency’s latest power grab.

The Clean Water Act empowers EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to regulate the use of private property that affects “navigable waters,” which the Act definesas “the waters of the United States.” In late June, EPA and the Corps finalized a rule defining that term. This was, they said, a boon to those potentially subject to CWA regulation, because “the rule will clarify and simplify implementation of the CWA consistent with its purposes through clearer definitions and increased use of bright-line boundaries…and limit the need for case-specific analysis.”

In reality, it was yet another step in what the Supreme Court called “the immense expansion of federal regulation of land use that has occurred under the Clean Water Act.” The rule extends federal regulation—and prohibitions on land use—to “tributaries,” which it defines as anything that directly or indirectly “contributes flow” to an actually navigable body of water or wetland and “is characterized by the presence of the physical indicators of a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark.” The point of that legalese is to reach things like “perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams”—in other words, areas that aren’t really “waters” at all. The broader the definition, the more land that is subject to CWA permitting requirements and, ultimately, EPA control.

The problem for the federal government is that the Supreme Court rejected basically the same expansive approach in a 2006 case, Rapanos v. United States. In a separate opinion that some believe to be controlling, Justice Kennedy explained that, to be within the reach of the Act, a water must, at the least, “significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’”

Judge Ralph Erickson recognized that the new rule “suffers from the same fatal defect.” It “allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the ‘chemical, physical, and biological integrity’ or any navigable-in-fact water.” That includes “vast numbers of waters that are unlikely to have a nexus to navigable waters within any reasonable understanding of the term.” In other words, EPA is overreaching once again.

This result should not be surprising to the agency; a colleague and I (among many others) helpfully raised the same points in comments on the proposed rule last year.

Judge Erickson also identified other defects. For one, the rule is arbitrary and capricious because it “asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote and intermittent,” despite there being “no evidence [that] actually points to how these intermittent and remote wetlands” affect the quality of navigable waters. It also “arbitrarily establishes the distances from a navigable water that are subject to regulation,” roping in any damp patch within 4,000 feet—a number that, it appears, was plucked out of thin air.

For the 13 states party to the lawsuit, the rule is now stayed. EPA has said it will apply the rule elsewhere beginning on August 28.

Judge Erickson’s decision will not, of course, be the final word on this matter. In other cases, EPA has argued (with some success) that district courts lack the power to decide this kind of dispute. But Judge Erickson’s decision is notable as an early preview of the way that courts are likely to look at the issues at play in challenges to the rule. And its even-handed application of Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” approach from Rapanos suggests that, in the end, the “waters of the United States” rule will be sunk.

This article first appeared on Cato at Liberty.

Read More Here

Former Navy SEAL describes the most egregious part of the Hillary Clinton email scandal

www.businessinsider.com  · Business InsiderAugust 26, 2015

REUTERS/Brian SnyderClinton at a campaign town-hall meeting in Claremont, New Hampshire, on August 11.

The truly egregious aspect of this whole story is that Clinton's private email server was never meant to, cleared to, or thought to be handling classified information.

I heard it said on cable news the other day, during a discussion of the latest developments in the Hillary Clinton email scandal, that trying to figure out how to explain the US government's classification system is like trying to explain how the earth was created.

In other words, it was too complicated for this particular journalist to adequately explain during his two-minute segment on the scandal relating to Clinton's private email server.

Well, he is partially right. It is somewhat complicated, in that classifying information from a particular agency differs from how it might be classified at a separate agency. The classifying authority (he or she who sets the level of classification) might be a senior government employee at one organization (a GS-15, say), or the person might be a more junior-level employee at another.

For example, when this author started at the CIA, he was classifying intelligence reports as a lowly GS-11, albeit, under the supervision of a more seasoned GS-13 or GS-14, most of the time.

Really, though, it is not that complicated.

Start with the big picture. You have the US government (USG). Within the constitutionally created three branches of government, there is the executive branch. It is run by the president of the United States and his cabinet. The executive branch includes numerous agencies, each of which carries out various policies and legally mandated tasks.

The Department of Energy, for example, has a certain role. The Department of Veterans Affairs has a separate role. The Department of Agriculture has yet another role. All three differ in their missions and tasks.

Wikipedia

Of those three, probably only the Department of Energy has a need to classify any of its information above the "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) level, the lowest level of classification above UNCLASSIFIED. The Department of Energy, for example, was deeply involved in the recent Iran nuclear negotiations, and would thus have dealt with large volumes of sensitive information.

So far, so good. Next, there is of course the USG's national-security establishment, also under the executive branch, which includes the military, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, etc. In contrast with those agencies not focused on national security, these agencies classify almost all of their information, at some level, mostly above the FOUO threshold.

So, let us examine the term "information." What are we talking about here? What does it mean to be "CIA information," or "NSA-derived intelligence," or "military reporting," or "CIA-derived intelligence?" This gets to the root of classification. The aforementioned terms refer to the "owners" of the information that is being presented.

In other words, "CIA reporting" refers to information collected by the CIA, either through its human sources or through other techniques. "NSA-derived information" refers to information collected by the NSA through its own particular methods.

This is important to note, this ownership, obvious as it may seem. The agencies that collect the information, or intelligence, also classify it. That is to say, if I were a Department of Defense human intelligence collection officer, gathering information from my human sources, then my own agency is going to classify any acquired intelligence appropriately, to be handled within channels designated for human collection.

It follows then that if I am from the NSA, acquiring information as it does, then that intelligence information is going to be classified by the NSA, and along those lines appropriate for the handling of the information in separate channels, required for NSA-specific information.

REUTERS/Rick Wilking Josh Mayeux, network defender, at the Air Force Space Command Network Operations & Security Center at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in 2010.

Still with me? It is pretty simple: Different agencies classify their information according to how it is collected, and the sensitivity of it, and that information mustbe handled in the channels designated as appropriate for that information.

So, what do we mean by "channels?" Imagine that you have three separate pieces of intelligence information, or three separate intelligence reports. One is classified "SECRET/A," meaning it was acquired by a certain agency, through a specific means of collection, designated by "A," and it is classified at the SECRETlevel.

A second report is classified "TOP SECRET/B," meaning it was acquired by a different means of collection ("B"), and is TOP SECRET. The third is classified "TOP SECRET/C/PAPER ONLY," which will be explained below. These are all notional classification markings — not real ones.

What the classification markings tell you is that these three reports must all be handled in a certain way, and in certain channels. The first, classified as "SECRET/A," must be handled within channels (i.e., computer terminals) designated as SECRET/A-level terminals. Only those with the appropriate clearance can get access to those channels (terminals), and only reports up to the "SECRET/A" level can be transmitted on them.

Reuters

The second report, "TOP SECRET/B," is more highly classified, and can only be transmitted in channels (terminals)— much more restricted in number — that can handle reports up to that level.

To gain access to those terminals (and thus, those particular intelligence reports) requires more stringent vetting and background checks, and far fewer personnel in the USG carry a TOP SECRETclearance than do those with a SECRETclearance. Think 5,000 versus 200,000, for example. The actual numbers might differ, but you get the idea.

The third report, in this scenario, is even more highly classified, as it is designated for "PAPER ONLY" (again, a notional classification), meaning it will not be transmitted over computer terminals at all, and will only be hand-delivered to certain designated principals for their read and return with a signature showing that they have seen the report. The report will then reside with the originating agency (i.e., that which collected it).

Obviously, the third report is highly classified, and has been deemed sensitive enough to merit an extremely limited readership, possibly as low as five to 10 people in the USG. That is a highlyrestricted channel, one controlled outside computer terminals, via hand-delivery only.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

So, we now arrive at issue of Hillary Clinton's private email server. Can you now see why it is a problem? At what level do you think the Clinton server was deemed secure to handle classified information, as she reportedly did on the server? You guessed it: UNCLASSIFIED.

Let that soak in for a second. Clinton's server should never have handled one piece of classified information, as it was never established to be a secure server for handling classified information.

Therein lies the truly egregious aspect of this whole story. Clinton's private email server was never meant to, cleared to, or thought to be handling classified information. No safeguards were in place to protect classified information. No routine security protocols were installed. No measures were taken to protect sensitive reporting.

The use of the server flew in the face of basic, rudimentary, day-one security procedures that every single USG employee with a security clearance understands to be necessary.

Well, almost every single US government employee, it seems.

Read the original article on SOFREP. SOFREP is an apolitical news site run by former military special ops and intelligence professionals. Become a member of SOFREP Underground. Copyright 2015.

The truly egregious aspect of this whole story...

Christie Lampoons Clinton: ‘She’s a Disgrace’ For Comparing Republicans To Terrorists

dailycaller.comYesterday

Chris Christie called Hillary Clinton “a disgrace” on Sunday for her recent comments comparing Republicans to terrorist groups.

Clinton, on a campaign stop Thursday, talked about Republicans’ attempts to defend Planned Parenthood, saying, “extreme views about women? We expect that from some of the terrorist groups. We expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, but it’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States, yet they espouse out-of-date and out-of-touch policies.”

Christie responded sarcastically to Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” saying, “there’s a real uniter, that’s the woman you want sitting in the Oval Office to bring our country back together. That’s a disgrace and she’s a disgrace.”

Wallace pressed Christie for clarification, asking, “Wait, Hillary Clinton is a disgrace?”

“She’s a disgrace for saying that, for comparing them to terrorist groups, don’t let her go on that, Chris, that’s awful,” Christie told Wallace. “That’s a disgrace, it is a disgrace. Can you imagine if we compared the Democratic Party to terrorist groups? Can you imagine the outrage in the mainstream media for that? Yet she stood up and said that Republicans are like terrorist groups.”

Christie also skewered Clinton on her understanding of “what mainstream America likes,” adding she’s “ignoring what’s really going on at Planned Parenthood.”

“Well, here’s what I don’t think mainstream America’s for, I don’t think mainstream america is for an organization getting federal funding, who kills children in the womb, in a particular way, so that it maximizes the value of their body parts on the open market for sale for profit,” Christie said. “Now if Mrs. Clinton thinks that’s what mainstream America likes, I’m happy to have the debate with her. But of course she doesn’t answer because she doesn’t to want talk about what’s really going on at planned parenthood, she just wants to talk about these vague generalities about ‘war on women.'”

“But I’m not going to be someone who’s going to stand up and allow her to call my party terrorists,” he added.

Follow Derek Draplin on Twitter.

Barack Obama Started This War On Police

5:17

1. • Sheriff David Clarke: Barack Obama Started This War On Police • Judge Jeanine • 8/29/15 •

   iizthatiiz 90,449 views
   

   SUBSCRIBE

   3,085
   551

   
   

   • Sheriff David Clarke: Barack Obama Started This War On Police • Judge Jeanine • 8/29/15 •

   iizthatiiz 90,449 views

   

   SUBSCRIBE

   3,085

   551

   26

   Published on Aug 29, 2015August 29th, 2015 • Sheriff David Clarke placed blame for the execution of Harris County deputy Darren Goforth squarely upon President Barack Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder. The Milwaukee County Sheriff said that Obama and Holder laid the groundwork for "this war on police" by supporting 'activists' who have disparaged law enforcement based upon a set of lies.
   
   
   Appropriate comments will be welcomed
   Foul language, insults, and rants will not
   
   Fair Use Disclaimer:
   
   This video may contain copyrighted material. This material is made available for educational, research, and news reporting purposes only. This constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law which allows citizens to reproduce, distribute or exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures or televised programming under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder.

   • Category

     • News & Politics

   • License

     • Standard YouTube License
   PublishedAug 29, 2015August 29th, 2015 • Sheriff David Clarke placed blame for the execution of Harris County deputy Darren Goforth squarely upon President Barack Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder. The Milwaukee County Sheriff said that Obama and Holder laid the groundwork for "this war on police" by supporting 'activists' who have disparaged law enforcement based upon a set of lies.
   
   
   Appropriate comments will be welcomed
   Foul language, insults, and rants will not
   
   Fair Use Disclaimer:
   
   This video may contain copyrighted material. This material is made available for educational, research, and news reporting purposes only. This constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law which allows citizens to reproduce, distribute or exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures or televised programming under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder.

   • Category

     • News & Politics

   • License

     • Standard YouTube License

Victim-hood-ism, Guns, Hillary, and the Virginia Shooter

Victim-hood-ism, Guns, Hillary, and the Virginia Shooter

Lloyd Marcus

Recently, I asked my 87-year-old dad: "Was it a dream, or did you and Mom allow a man dressed like a woman to run through our home and out the back door?" Dad replied, "Wow! How on Earth could you possibly remember that?" I was a toddler then, now in my sixties. Dad said the man was being chased by the police, and my mom felt sorry for him.

Today, transvestites are celebrated, awarded for courage. And yet, more Americans than ever view themselves as victims.

A caller on a radio show said people are fed up with both sides complaining about being victims. He cited conservatives' bogus claim that there is a war on Christmas. I thought, "Sir, the left's war on Christianity is real."

The left (Democrats, Hollywood, and MSM)'s gospel of victim-hood-ism is a despicable lie designed to create division, paranoia, fear, and hate in Americans. The entire Democratic Party platform is based on the lie that everyone is a victim of someone or something.  Women are victims of American men.  Blacks are victims of whites, police, and America. The poor are victims of the rich. Homosexuals are victims of heterosexuals. Illegals are victims of American citizens.  Kids with bad parentsare victims of wholesome households. Employees are victims of employers.

The Democrats' list of bogus inequalities goes on and on. Meanwhile, in the few incidences in which the inequalities are real, Democrat fixes have caused or exacerbated them. 

Exploiting the goodness of Americans, Democrats insidiously package their infectious victim-mindset disease in passionate-sounding terms such as "white privilege," "income inequality," and "social justice." What decent American does not desire justice for all?

So along comes Bryce Williams, a nut-job black homosexual bad employee who swallowed the left's victim crap hook, line, and sinker. This guy's victim mindset sounds like a comedy bit from a movie. For example, when his employer talked about "out in the field" reporter assignments, Williams was offended; convinced that this white man was sending him "back to the field"...as in cotton and black slavery. Don't laugh, folks. The left's rhetoric has gotten that crazy. Allow me to remind you of an article alerting us that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are now racist. 

A black interviewer on TV explained why he was offended when a police officer used the term "low income neighborhood." The paranoid interviewer concluded that the term was really code, actually meaning that the black residents are unworthy of police respect. Therefore, the term is racist. I thought, "Dude, you need help."

Two things turned my stomach this week – bad salmon from the grocery store and Hillary Clinton exploiting Williams's murders of the reporter and cameraman in Virginia to further the left's gun-grabbing agenda. While I realize this is what brain-dead emotion-driven leftist zealots do, common decency says, must you guys politicize everything? From the weather (acts of God) to humans behaving badly, leftists immediately brainstorm how to use it to further their anti-God, anti-freedom, and anti-American agenda.

The left's arguments against gun ownership are totally illogical. Good people with guns stop bad people with guns. Also, a gun is the great equalizer. If my petite wife is alone, approached in a parking garage, do I want her attacker staring at a can of mace or down the barrel of a gun in her hand? And yet, leftists claim to be great defenders of women.

Stats overwhelmingly confirm that states where folks carry guns, murder is down. In cities with the strictest guns laws, murder is way up. 

Criminals acquire guns illegally. Gun laws, disarming law-abiding citizens, empower criminals. Why do leftists vehemently reject this obvious truth?

Conspiracy theorists offer various reasons why the left is hell-bent on disarming the American people. I believe that the simple answer is that leftist males are metrosexual wimps. Feminized and PC (politically castrated), leftist males join radical feminists in viewing guns and the slightest display of testosterone, power, or aggression for any reason as bad. This is why leftists are drugging little boys into femininity. 

Deceptively, liberals always claim to put people first. The reality is liberals eat, drink, and sleep increasing the Democrat voter rolls. Why? Because Democrats in power equals more liberal radical agenda items, which the American people would never vote for, crammed down our throats.

Liberals care only about empowering government, repealing Americans' freedom of choice. Liberals view the pain, suffering, and lives of We the People as acceptable collateral damage toward achieving their goal.

Unless they can blame Republicans or inanimate objects (guns), leftists treat bad behavior as always the fault of someone else. I believe that individuals are solely responsible for their behavior. However, Bryce Williams was unquestionably a fanatic; a terrorist of the left's religion of victim-hood-ism.

One would think leftists might feel a little responsible and back off their spreading of hate (victim-hood-ism). Don't bet on it. The murdering of reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward are gifts to further the left's mission to disarm Americans. I realize that sounds harsh. Sadly, my analysis is true.

An outgrowth of the left's despicable gospel of victim-hood-ism is its equally despicable Black Lives Matter movement, which is based on the lie that cops routinely murder young black men. The left's calculated impugning of police has lead to police across America ambushed and assassinated.

Upon completing this article, I turned on the TV, hearing breaking news. As the result of a black radical group's clarion call to kill cops, Texas deputy Darren Goforth was assassinated, shot from behind execution-style while fueling his patrol car, by a black man. When Goforth fell to the ground, his assassin stood over him, shooting multiple times. Deputy Goforth leaves behind a wife and two kids.

I wish to encourage each and every one of you to take a stand for what is right. God uses ordinary people like you and me.

Victim-hood-ism, Guns, Hillary, and the Virginia Shooter

Victim-hood-ism, Guns, Hillary, and the Virginia Shooter

Lloyd Marcus

Recently, I asked my 87-year-old dad: "Was it a dream, or did you and Mom allow a man dressed like a woman to run through our home and out the back door?" Dad replied, "Wow! How on Earth could you possibly remember that?" I was a toddler then, now in my sixties. Dad said the man was being chased by the police, and my mom felt sorry for him.

Today, transvestites are celebrated, awarded for courage. And yet, more Americans than ever view themselves as victims.

A caller on a radio show said people are fed up with both sides complaining about being victims. He cited conservatives' bogus claim that there is a war on Christmas. I thought, "Sir, the left's war on Christianity is real."

The left (Democrats, Hollywood, and MSM)'s gospel of victim-hood-ism is a despicable lie designed to create division, paranoia, fear, and hate in Americans. The entire Democratic Party platform is based on the lie that everyone is a victim of someone or something.  Women are victims of American men.  Blacks are victims of whites, police, and America. The poor are victims of the rich. Homosexuals are victims of heterosexuals. Illegals are victims of American citizens.  Kids with bad parentsare victims of wholesome households. Employees are victims of employers.

The Democrats' list of bogus inequalities goes on and on. Meanwhile, in the few incidences in which the inequalities are real, Democrat fixes have caused or exacerbated them. 

Exploiting the goodness of Americans, Democrats insidiously package their infectious victim-mindset disease in passionate-sounding terms such as "white privilege," "income inequality," and "social justice." What decent American does not desire justice for all?

So along comes Bryce Williams, a nut-job black homosexual bad employee who swallowed the left's victim crap hook, line, and sinker. This guy's victim mindset sounds like a comedy bit from a movie. For example, when his employer talked about "out in the field" reporter assignments, Williams was offended; convinced that this white man was sending him "back to the field"...as in cotton and black slavery. Don't laugh, folks. The left's rhetoric has gotten that crazy. Allow me to remind you of an article alerting us that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are now racist. 

A black interviewer on TV explained why he was offended when a police officer used the term "low income neighborhood." The paranoid interviewer concluded that the term was really code, actually meaning that the black residents are unworthy of police respect. Therefore, the term is racist. I thought, "Dude, you need help."

Two things turned my stomach this week – bad salmon from the grocery store and Hillary Clinton exploiting Williams's murders of the reporter and cameraman in Virginia to further the left's gun-grabbing agenda. While I realize this is what brain-dead emotion-driven leftist zealots do, common decency says, must you guys politicize everything? From the weather (acts of God) to humans behaving badly, leftists immediately brainstorm how to use it to further their anti-God, anti-freedom, and anti-American agenda.

The left's arguments against gun ownership are totally illogical. Good people with guns stop bad people with guns. Also, a gun is the great equalizer. If my petite wife is alone, approached in a parking garage, do I want her attacker staring at a can of mace or down the barrel of a gun in her hand? And yet, leftists claim to be great defenders of women.

Stats overwhelmingly confirm that states where folks carry guns, murder is down. In cities with the strictest guns laws, murder is way up. 

Criminals acquire guns illegally. Gun laws, disarming law-abiding citizens, empower criminals. Why do leftists vehemently reject this obvious truth?

Conspiracy theorists offer various reasons why the left is hell-bent on disarming the American people. I believe that the simple answer is that leftist males are metrosexual wimps. Feminized and PC (politically castrated), leftist males join radical feminists in viewing guns and the slightest display of testosterone, power, or aggression for any reason as bad. This is why leftists are drugging little boys into femininity. 

Deceptively, liberals always claim to put people first. The reality is liberals eat, drink, and sleep increasing the Democrat voter rolls. Why? Because Democrats in power equals more liberal radical agenda items, which the American people would never vote for, crammed down our throats.

Liberals care only about empowering government, repealing Americans' freedom of choice. Liberals view the pain, suffering, and lives of We the People as acceptable collateral damage toward achieving their goal.

Unless they can blame Republicans or inanimate objects (guns), leftists treat bad behavior as always the fault of someone else. I believe that individuals are solely responsible for their behavior. However, Bryce Williams was unquestionably a fanatic; a terrorist of the left's religion of victim-hood-ism.

One would think leftists might feel a little responsible and back off their spreading of hate (victim-hood-ism). Don't bet on it. The murdering of reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward are gifts to further the left's mission to disarm Americans. I realize that sounds harsh. Sadly, my analysis is true.

An outgrowth of the left's despicable gospel of victim-hood-ism is its equally despicable Black Lives Matter movement, which is based on the lie that cops routinely murder young black men. The left's calculated impugning of police has lead to police across America ambushed and assassinated.

Upon completing this article, I turned on the TV, hearing breaking news. As the result of a black radical group's clarion call to kill cops, Texas deputy Darren Goforth was assassinated, shot from behind execution-style while fueling his patrol car, by a black man. When Goforth fell to the ground, his assassin stood over him, shooting multiple times. Deputy Goforth leaves behind a wife and two kids.

I wish to encourage each and every one of you to take a stand for what is right. God uses ordinary people like you and me.