Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Denial Of War

November 16, 2015

After the terrorist attacks in Paris, France’s Le Parisien daily decared: “This Time It’s War”. What, then, do we call all the other times terrorists attacked if not war? We have “progressed” so far that we no longer recognize war when it is right in our face.

War means killing your enemy before they kill you and doing it as quickly and efficiently as possible until they surrender. War is horrifically bloody, vicious, and often indiscriminate. War causes mass destruction and casualties that bring out the worst in human nature and offend all human sensibilities. Reluctance to wage war is wise and prudent. Refusal to do so when necessary is suicide.

There is no such thing as a humane war. That is an oxymoron impossible to achieve. The “war on women”, the “war on drugs”, and the “war on Christmas” are foolish hyperboles that have desensitized society to the true meaning of war. The bullshit of political correctness blinds us to reality and we have become paralyzed by it.

ISIS understands war, has declared war, and is waging war successfully. We have been told in no uncertain terms by ISIS that they are coming here to kill us. They are currently infiltrating Europe through its open borders, some masquerading as refugees. ISIS has not been “contained” and they are not on the run. They are on the attack and Paris is just the beginning.

Our “leaders” have been in denial for years, refusing to even acknowledge radical Islam as a threat. This denial has given Iran time and permission to develop nuclear weapons, allowed ISIS to grow into an active invading force, and kept our border open for invasion. Europe’s denial resulted in bringing the Middle East rampage of ISIS to Paris. That carnage was brought about by only a handful of extremists rehearsing tactics that they are going to bring here on a larger scale.

Climate change (aka global warming) is not the biggest threat we currently face. That, too, is denial. We are at war whether we like it or not and our first step is to kill denial before it kills us. We’ve been losing that battle, too.

David J. Hentosh

Containment Folly

November 15, 2015

From NRO:

On the very day that President Obama declared ISIS to be “contained,” it reached hundreds of miles outside the borders of its so-called caliphate and struck the heart of Paris…This is what happens when terrorists are given safe havens, when they have time and space to recruit and train new fighters, and when they have time and funds to organize attacks…The idea that ISIS could be “contained” was folly from the beginning…A serious war requires a serious strategy, one not hamstrung by absurd rules of engagement that grant enemy fighters known safe haven, nor can it be bound by silly notions that President Obama has “ended” a war that is still burning hot…jihadists are still eager to fight, and wars do not end when one side grows tired of battle…French president François Hollande has vowed to wage “pitiless” war against ISIS. We must demonstrate the same resolve…

Read it all here: A Serious War



October 30, 2015

The recent Republican debate conducted by CNBC turned into a battle between the candidates and the biased moderators. The candidates won handily, in more ways than one.

It was established from the beginning, after Ted Cruz forcefully chastised moderators for bias, that the candidates were not going to succumb to gotcha questions or start foolish squabbling among themselves. There seemed to be a concerted effort on their part to keep the debate about issues and differences between the parties, particularly, differences with Hillary.

The moderators, on the other hand, had an agenda to embarrass the candidates, start arguments between them, and try to trip them up. Some questions were pertinent but many were hostile towards the candidates, displaying a disdain for Republicans that permeates CNBC.

After hearing much liberal media babble (wishful thinking?) about the GOP falling apart with infighting, lack of alternative solutions, and poor qualifications, the candidates displayed a unity not seen in prior debates. Serious problems facing the nation were defined and though plans presented to address those problems were different in details, they were cut from the same cloth: Government is too big, spending is out-of-control, taxes are too high, and the middle class needs a break – not more government interference.

Perhaps it was only having a common enemy, the CNBC moderators, that forced the candidates to circle the wagons, but they seemed to do just that. When Huckabee was baited with a question meant to urge him to attack Trump, he put on a show of solidarity by complimenting him instead. Chris Christie jumped onto the bandwagon by taking the moderators to task over a foolish question about fantasy football. Even Ben Carson got in a few licks that elicited applause from an audience aware of the bias.

It is often difficult to establish who really won a debate but the GOP clearly won this one. CNBC may have had good ratings for airing this debate, but it proved why its otherwise dismal ratings are warranted. Perhaps other networks will learn from this and allow a debate to be about the candidates. That would make us all winners.

David J. Hentosh

Far Left = Far Out

October 27, 2015

It gets nuttier and nuttier. The far Left sifts everything through a PC/racist filter that transforms reality into a fantasy world that would be laughable if it wasn’t taken so seriously. Unfortunately, it is taken seriously and that sucks the humor out, making it simply pathetic.

MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry scolded a guest on her show for using the word “hard-worker”, explaining: “I want us to be super careful when we use the language ‘hard worker,’ because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like”. Thank you, Melissa, for reminding us about slavery because we often forget to be obsessed with it in our daily routines and language.

She did, however, further define a hard-worker “in the context of relative privilege” (because that is the only context we should be concerned about) as “moms who don’t have health care”. It is a wonder that her “privileged” guest, Latino activist Alfonso Aguilar, didn’t break down in tears and apologize for his callous misuse of the English language – or just break down laughing.

Attempting to re-define words and ways of speaking to advance the far-left agenda has become ridiculous, especially in colleges. The University of Tennessee, bowing to the LGBT community, recently published guidelines for replacing common pronouns such as ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘him’ and ‘her’ with the strange terms ‘xe’, ‘zir’ and ‘xyr’ in order to “make the university ‘welcoming and inclusive’ and stop people feeling marginalized”.

Staff members at the school were also advised to eliminate roll calls (which somehow marginalize students) and greet each student separately, asking them to “announce their name and pronoun of preference” to be used when addressing them. With several pronouns to choose from, it seems students would have to take notes to keep it all straight lest they offend someone during the semester.

Luckily for students, there was a backlash calling these proposals ridiculous and absurd, forcing the university to “clarify” that nobody would be forced to use them. A university spokesman (spokesperson?) said, “we do not dictate speech”, but that seems to be exactly what the university’s “inclusive practices” are attempting to do. We all know that “practice makes perfect”, so it’s just a matter of time before they become mandatory.

David J. Hentosh

Myth-Making Media

October 26, 2015

Most media myths are agenda driven from the left and deliberately disseminated to mold public opinion. As a result, many people now believe, for example, that 10 to 25% of the population is homosexual, man-made global warming is a “settled” scientific fact, comprehensive immigration reform means amnesty, decriminalizing marijuana means legalizing it, and there is a war raging against women – all myths encouraged by the media. Some myths have seeped into our education system and are being presented as fact.

Even our president’s election was aided by a media myth. The media assured all, over and over again, of Obama’s “superior intelligence” while little was offered concerning his background or experience. Even after seven years in office absent any definitive display of this “superior intelligence”, the myth continues and has noticeably inflated Obama’s ego.

Although it is increasingly becoming recognized that the media no longer concerns itself with journalistic integrity, media myths remain circulating unquestioned by believers. Their influence is a major contributing factor to the widening rift in society and the political polarization in Washington – and they are dangerous.

Currently, the liberal media backs the myth that there is institutionalized racism permeating throughout our entire nation’s police force. This is fomenting wholesale rebellion against the police to the point where police officers are being murdered. Even EMTs and fire fighters are coming under attack as angry protests are evolving into outright anarchy.

The media needs to be held accountable but that presents a dilemma. In the past, we relied on the media to uncover and report lies, thereby, forcing change for the better. When the media is the perpetrator, who do we turn to? It is left up to all of us to take a stand. We need to stop supporting those in the media responsible and demand it be stopped.

David J. Hentosh

Democrat Debate, Enter Stage Left

October 15, 2015

“Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?” What the hell kind of debate question was that? Requiring an either/or answer is flat out ignorant and foolishly irresponsible. It panders to a political movement that is fomenting racial unrest and tacitly (sometimes explicitly) encouraging anarchy and the killing of police. Lives have been lost because of this movement but, apparently, those lives aren’t supposed to matter.

Jim Webb was the only candidate who courageously broke from the pack by responding: “As a President of the United States, every life in this country matters”. In fact, Webb was the only candidate not attempting to be as far left as possible. He came across as “old school” in that he seemed to have integrity, class, and reasonable responses – all sorely missing in the other candidates. He was surprisingly impressive but certainly not to the far left, so he will be raked over the coals by the media and ousted quickly. He would fit more comfortably with the GOP. The Democratic Party has no place for him.

Sanders was Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist and as such, a favorite of the far left. He told us that climate change was our greatest national security threat, a view also held by our socialist-leaning president. Social issues, of course, dominated the debate, as they are the focus of the Democratic Party and the current administration. More “free” stuff from the government was offered to entice voters. Foreign affairs and policies, Democrat’s largest failures, received little attention.

Hillary dominated the debate as expected, having little competition from the candidates on the stage. She was not seriously questioned about the scandals dragging her polling numbers down. Her e-mail fiasco was sneeringly dismissed, allowing her to treat the debate as a personal campaign rally, eliciting applause from an adoring crowd.

This debate did little more than show how far left the Democrat Party has traveled. The middle ground has been deserted in search of far left votes. So, too, has the good of the country been deserted.

David J. Hentosh

97% Bull

October 9, 2015

It is ridiculous that global warming enthusiasts continue to use the “97% scientific consensus” myth as a fact. Not only has it been thoroughly debunked, common sense tells us it is almost impossible to obtain a 97% consensus on anything. Nevertheless, the farce continues.

Recently, Ted Cruz grilled Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on climate change data and was subjected to an embarrassing repeated recitation of the 97% myth as “preponderance” of evidence for man-made global warming. It is held like a religious tenet among believers and anything to the contrary is dismissed out-of-hand. Even president Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have cited the 97% myth as fact, giving it an aura of legitimacy that fuels the belief.

When evidence began to surface challenging the validity of man-made global warming, believers changed tactics. They began calling global warming “climate change”, an indisputable occurrence on earth that cannot be denied. They still mean man-made global warming but the name change allows them to fend off some criticism while remaining self-righteous.

Dr. David Evans, an Australian climate modeler and mathematician, recently found errors in the basic climate model used in climate science. When he corrected the errors, he found the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide to be much lower than previously assumed, reducing estimated effects on global warming almost ten-fold. Errors in climate models are not unusual because the science behind the models is not “settled”. It is an ongoing process.

The media, however, has determined the matter “settled” and uses the 97% myth to deride anyone questioning that man-made global warming is occurring at a catastrophic level. It has become more a political issue than a scientific issue resulting in billions of dollars spent solving a problem that has not been scientifically validated. It does, however, fit a political agenda and that is reason enough to continue citing 97% consesus.

Politics and science do not mix well and under the umbrella of political correctness, reasonable debate on the issue has become stifled. Perhaps that’s deliberate. The progressive agenda does not like reasonable debate – about 97% of the time.


David J. Hentosh

Denying Threats

October 5, 2015

When Romney said that Russia is the U.S.’s biggest geopolitical foe during a 2012 presidential debate, Obama scoffed, saying: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Voters ignored Obama’s inexperience and naiveté and he became president with a failed policy arrogantly and egotistically treating Putin as an insignificant threat.

During a recent GOP candidate debate, Marco Rubio (accurately) predicted Putin’s current actions in Syria and he, too, was ridiculed. President Reagan was vilified for daring to call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire. Pie-in-the-sky ideology does not recognize the existence of evil-doers – unless they are Republicans.

The Left downplays or completely ignores real threats to America because recognizing them would result in taking action and that could require use of military might which they loathe. In Obama’s case, it would also mean admitting his weak foreign policies have failed, especially with regard to Russia where relations have been “re-set” by his administration. The Left picks targets that are politically correct and safe.

During Obama’s administration our troops were prematurely pulled out of Iraq; the “red line” in Syria was crossed and ignored; ISIS developed and now violently rampages in the Middle East; Iran received more time to develop a nuclear weapon unimpeded; Putin invaded the Ukraine; illegal immigrants were encouraged to and allowed to invade our country; North Korea increased threats to South Korea; and China increased expansionist activities.

The Left, meanwhile, has concentrated on threats from: Israel; Christmas and crèches; traditional marriage; FOX News; border security; profiling terrorists; decreased government spending; voter ID cards; the Tea Party; a strong military; displaying the American flag; the Washington Redskins; limits on abortion; the police; school lunches; Republicans; lower taxes; the 2nd Amendment; Confederate flags and statues; Uber; coal; the Keystone pipeline; male and female rest rooms; and even children playing tag.

Feeling Safe?

David J. Hentosh

The Worst of Obama

October 3, 2015

The Oregon school shooting brought out the worst of president Obama. Once again, he let his emotions and political agenda override what should have been a presidential demeanor and compassion in time of tragedy. Instead, he wallowed in self-righteousness and lectured America during a press conference, ignorantly urging more politics over reasonable debate.

Before facts concerning the shooting were known, Obama quickly determined that guns were responsible and began inflaming the gun controversy just as he has inflamed racism at every opportunity. He knows exactly what he is doing because politics is the only tool in his toolbox and it is his answer for everything.

He urged everyone to follow his foolish lead and turn this shooting into a political issue, as if the media hadn’t already done so. Going even further, he advocated everyone become a one-issue voter and use his agenda on gun control as a sole basis for voting. One-issue voting, of course, neglects addressing the many failures of his administration (and the Democratic Party), something Obama has become expert at doing. It is a fatuous way to vote that should be discouraged.

And what, exactly, is Obama’s agenda on gun control? In his press conference, he revealed his agenda when he praised “countries like ours”, Australia and Great Britain, which “have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings”. They have confiscated guns in those countries; countries which are not “like ours” in that we have over 350 million guns in circulation. If it is “impossible” to round up and deport 10 million illegal immigrants, how do we confiscate 350 million guns?

Trying to further his point, Obama urged news organizations to compare gun deaths with deaths from terrorists in the country, an apples-to-oranges comparison. He could also compare gun deaths (approx. 30 per day) with drug deaths (approx. 120 per day), but that would highlight the senseless “progressive” push to legalize marijuana and other drugs – a political football he’d rather not toss around.

Having to go through another year of Obama’s brand of “leadership” is depressing enough. The thought of replacing him with a policy clone brings nightmares. We can do better, and we must.

David J. Hentosh

The Demise of Greatness

September 26, 2015

Is it really surprising that a recent poll showed 72% of Americans believe this country is not as great as it once was? Greatness requires great leaders and our political atmosphere is not attracting our best.

Our brightest and most competent leaders are far too wise to subject themselves and their families to the mud slinging, dirty tricks, and media bashing that has taken over politics. Furthermore, experience and competence mean little to one-issue voters far more concerned with social issues than the country’s wellbeing.

The election of Obama, an inexperienced community organizer, for the sake of “making history” is a result, not the cause, of our declining greatness, but it has accelerated the decline. Obama caters to a society shunning the common good in favor of the individual; a society obsessed with the emotional satisfaction of legislating fairness for all, an unrealistic goal. His election legitimized political correctness, encouraging a denial of reality.

The Obama administration’s ineffective and unrealistic foreign policies produced a vacuum of leadership in the world and a loss of international respect. The White House, once a symbol of our greatness, has become a bully pulpit of pettiness and self-aggrandizement where sniping at critics and casting blame is commonplace. Social engineering is a priority and instead of sound economic policies, our floundering economy is being dealt with by rhetoric filled with a pretense of achievement. Nothing is real; nothing is true.

The building block of our nation, the family unit, is fractured and an agenda under the guise of “progress” is eradicating morality and common decency. Under this agenda, anything goes – but everything is going away. The mainstream media actively promotes this agenda, swaying public opinion toward accepting it by deceivingly “reporting” on its goodness.

If the 72% who see greatness dissolving vote wisely, this can change. Otherwise, this country’s greatness will exist only in history books – if “progress” allows history to remember it.

David J. Hentosh


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers