Is Trump Done? (Revised)

After much thought and deliberations I have decided to resind what I have written below. I don't think I wrote the post in anger. I did write with some despair. I watched us lose several elections that were very winnable. Probably taken via shenanigans. I also watched out GOP "leadership" fail in more ways than I can count.

They didn't provide the campaign funding necessary to win.

They have not, and will not, put forth any effort to overcome the strategies, both legal and illegal, that the progressives have honed to an art form.

They will not recognize the party has changed. Yes, we are still moral in how we live our lives. But no longer are we the party of big businesses. Take a look at the top 10 richest people in the USA. Eight of them donate solely to progressive causes and candidates. Only Peter Theil and Elon Musk donate to conservatives. And Musk is not fully on board. Nearly every company in the USA (and the world) have gone woke. Yet our party "leaders" continue to beg for table scraps.

Initially, my thoughts ran towards DeSantis. But the more I read about him the more I become concerned. That the McConnell/Romney branch have remained quiet regarding DeSantis says volumes. While I still feel, outside of Trump, DeSantis is our best options, I am no longer comfortable throwing my support behind him.

TRUMP 2024!!!!

I am going to say something that is going to be unpopular here. It is time we moved away from Trump. Not because I want us to go back to the old ways, but because he has become a bit of a liability. Before we go too far down the road here I will acknowledge that his track record endorsing candidates was nearly perfect. 93% of the candidates he endorsed won at all levels, including primaries, state level and national offices. The caveat here is nearly all of those wins were in districts that really weren’t all that competitive. In districts that were close, his track record wasn’t as good. In Washington state, his endorsed candidate lost. The previous District 03 representative was a republican. However, she made a mistake in voting to impeach Trump, which put her in the cross hairs. I’d bet a dime that she and her team tried to make a calculated decision for her upcoming 2022 campaign. In a purple district, sometimes one has to make decisions that MIGHT go against your normal stances. She was primaried and lost to Joe Kent who was endorsed by Trump. This district is and has been purple. A region that might not take to Trumpism. While I was in favor of taking down those republicans who voted to impeach Trump like Cheney and the putz from Illinois, Herrera-Beutler needed to be saved. Yes, she voted against Trump. But she was a reliable, if squishy, republican, and most importantly, represented a purple district. Incumbency has its benefits, and I have no doubt she would have won fairly handily. In Pennsylvania his endorsed candidate lost to a man who has the mental capacity of a 12 year old (just a guess, not a medical diagnosis). I wonder if Dr. Oz could have won if he didn’t have Trump’s endorsement. Considering how corrupt Pennsylvania elections can be, I do have my doubts. But maybe if Oz wasn’t endorsed by Trump, the cheating apparatus would have not swung into full gear. Who knows.

We Told You So

I've had this one sitting in my tabs for quite a while. Posting it now. Needs some work, but I don't have time as I'm work on an essay about the most recent elections. 

Does anyone remember a few years back when the fight to allow gays to marry was all the rage? Does anyone also recall there were many folks who warned of the slippery slope that would soon present itself? Weren't those people and their concerns dismissed? They were called bigots, homophobes, stupid. 

The concerns were many. 

Questions

Below are several rhetorical questions that we know the answer to. However, we should demand the left answer these questions. 

Why would former VP Biden go out of his way to demonize at least half of the US population? What is his ultimate goal by calling us enemies of democracy as well as treasonous and seditious felons? 

Why would Biden refuse to protect our southern border?  Why would Biden knowingly allow in fentanyl, human trafficking, cartels, and terrorists to cross our borders unhindered?  Why would Biden allow child predators and unaccompanied minors to cross our borders? 

All We Know...

All we are saying is that no one has even begun to explain how we are going to convert from a fossil fuels-based economy to a renewable energy economy. Sure windmills, solar farms at the like are discussed in glowing terms as the answer to all that ails us. No one has explained how a grid that is troubling now is going to handle the increased demand as we switch over to renewables. No one has explained how people who are low to middle income are going to be able to afford to purchase all that is necessary for a renewable economy. Has anyone actually studied and researched what it will take to shift completely to a renewable based lifestyle? I would be willing to wager there are studies out there, but they can’t be released because the answer to just to dire.

All we are asking is how much money will it take to convert from fossil fuels to all renewables? Multi billions? Trillions? We know enough about this transition to know it will be expensive. We also know enough that if the government is involved, the cost will be even higher. Nothing the government ever touches is cheap. I truly believe that it will make the 100’s of billions spent on the interstate system and the trillions spent on the so-called “Great Society” programs look like monopoly money.

All we are pointing out is when Mt. Etna erupts it spews out more CO2 into the atmosphere in a day than mankind has released since the dawn of time. We want you to know that we are aware of this fact. We also want you to know cow farts and driving around in our SUVs, we haven’t even begun to have an impact when compared to hat mother nature can release in a moment.

All we what is for you to agree the climate changes. It has changed. And it will change. It has always done so and will continue to do so. Without humans. We know for a fact that before the advent of any form of human released CO2, there have been periods of warmer climate in recorded history. We know that when Christ walked the earth, it was considerably warmer than it is now. It is also a fact the during Medieval times, the earth was also quite warm.

All we want you to know is that we are very much aware that the climate tyrants have yet to provide a target. What is the target temperature we are trying to achieve via all of the draconian measure that left would like us to surrender to? Will eating less meat, or none at all, get us there? Will giving up our gas-powered vehicles, our property rights, and our freedoms to choose get us to climate nirvana? What is climate nirvana? What is the right amount of rainfall for Seattle? What is the perfect temperature for Chicago? How much snow should fall in the Rockies? If these numbers are provided and Seattle gets more rainfall one year, do we have to give more? If Chicago is a bit cooler on a giving year than what it is “supposed to be”, were the measures not enough? If instead of 10 feet of snow in Aspen 11 feet should happen to fall, what happens then? 

All we know is that every single climate prediction for the past 50 years has proven to be false. Every. Single. One. In the 70’s we were all gonna die because the next ice age was just round the corner. In the 1980’s through the 1990’s global warming was going to do us in. When the temperatures stopped rising and the Mann hockey stick was shown to have been to be possibly manipulated, it was climate disruption. When climate disruption was not catching on because hurricane intensity didn’t increase and tornados weren’t as deadly as predicted, the next marketing scheme became climate change. I will give the globalist credit; they have hung on to this definition like a dog on a bone. The thought was who can argue against climate change? Easy to manipulate the masses into believing the changes in climate are a direct result of humans. Those who are hyping climate change and the draconian measures they espouse know a significantly large portion of the population won’t bother to do any sort of fact checking. They will drink up the climate change narrative without a second thought. Everyone who is not a globalist, or a leftist, knows that the climate changes. It has always changed and will continue to do so.

Lastly, we are all very much aware what the globalists want to accomplish has absolutely nothing to do with “saving the planet”. Oh sure, the useful idiots who parrot the climate change rhetoric are true believers. That is readily apparent. But those at the levers of power don’t care one iota about the planet. Their behavior says it all. Private jets. Laws that exclude the rich and powerful. It is all about power and control. It is all about fundamentally changing the way the 99% live their lives. If you think that while the powerful are espousing that we all live in cramped high-rise apartments and eat bugs while they will do the same, you really need to pull your head out of your backside. Do you really think Obama will give up his estates in Hawaii or Martha’s Vineyard? Do you think Newsome will give up his ribeye and fancy bottles of wine in the name of climate change? If you think the elites will curb their globetrotting ways, you just aren’t terrible smart. If you think it is OK for the elites to tell us how to live our lives, where we can live, what we can eat, how much (if any) property we can own, and use the term for the “common good” while the powerful don’t practice what the preach, you truly are not very bright. The term “useful idiots” has been attributed to various Marxist and communist leaders: Lenin, Stalin, and a host of others, have used this to describe the people, both in and out of the various countries, whom they used, and later discarded, to rise to tyranny. If you who support the tyrannical dictates from the global elite think you are going to be taken on the ride they are attempting to build, the term fits you like a well-fitting pair of boots. Those same boots will be used to step on your neck.

When Do We Make A Stand?

At what point do we decide to take a stand? When do we call out a fascist for what they are? So we decide not in this case, but when the next group gets oppressed is that when we put our foot down? What if it's a group you aren't terribly fond of. History is replete with examples of once favored groups falling out of favor. The most glaring example is 1920s and 30s Soviet Union as Stalin completed his purges of what he considered undesirables. Deplorables?

If you are Jewish or support Isreal's right to exist then good luck getting a word in edge wise at the University of California, Berkeley. 

Nine law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley's School of Law amended bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers supporting Isreal or Zionism. There is no free speech for Jews at Berkeley.

snip...

Berkeley Law's Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a progressive Zionist, has observed that he would be banned under this standard, as would 90% of his Jewish students.

This was done to supposedly give safe space to Palestinian students. The entire campus? Couldnt they give them a crying room some place and put up notices that an upcoming speaker might hurt their feelings? I didn't notice a mention of safe spaces for Jews at UC-Berkeley. And considering the stated goal of the Palestinian government is not just the elimination of the Jewish states but the genocide of the Jewish population, you'd think that maybe a safe space or two might be in order. Mind you, I have not heard of any Jewish students being attacked by a Palestinian student. And I have not heard of any Palestinian student getting attack by a Jewish student. Considering the anti-jewish atmosphere at UC-Berkeley the latter would be front page news.

"In the interest of protecting the safety and welfare of Palestinian students on campus, " allies of the anti-Isreal accepting its antisemitic rationale, "will not invite speakers that have expressed and continue to hold views or host/sponsor/promote events in support of Zionism, the apartheid state of Isreal,  and the occupation of Palestine."

And no, UC-Berkeley and their student groups cannot hinder free speech. As long as UC-Berkeley receives federal funding, they are bound to adhere to federal law and the Constitution. 

Please read the entire article. What is going on a UC-Berkeley and other locations is quite scary. Are we repeating 1933 Germany?