Drink Yuengling, wear L.L. Bean; do not buy burnt-bean Starbucks swill as it is crap

Edit: Since I wrote this Nordstrom has pulled Ivanka Trump's products from its stores, supposedly because of poor sales. I wish there were Nordstrom stores in the southeast so I could refuse to shop with them, but I will refuse to shop with them.

    Starbucks recently made a big production of opposing President Trump’s immigration policies by declaring that they would hire 10,000 economic migrants, in the process denying jobs to 10,000 Americans. Obviously they don’t need my money.
    Macy’s denounced President Trump and removed his clothing line from its stores. Shoes.com quit selling Ivanka Trump’s products as well. Budweiser has a new ad clearly designed to promote an open borders policy that will destroy our nation. Target allows grown men to go in the girl’s bathroom to spy on little girls; they say it is their right. Bellacor, Wayfair, Zulily, RueLaLa, and Stein Mart have apparently removed Trump merchandise from their stores for political reasons. Again, they don’t need my money.
    Meanwhile, the Yuengling brewery has been facing boycotts from Trotskyites upset that Trump visited the brewery during the campaign. They are also urging boycotts of L.L. Bean because one Bean family member supported Donald Trump.
    For those of you who are Trump supporters, or just decent people in general, this is where we stand:
    1. We all need to drink Yuengling beer, which comes from the oldest brewery in America.
    2. We all need to buy products from L.L. Bean;
    3. Everyone needs to boycott Starbucks bigly, which should be extremely easy since their coffee is made with burnt beans and tastes like crap;
    4. Do not shop at  Bellacor, Wayfair, Zulily, RueLaLa, and Stein Mart. Just say no. Do not shop at Target. Above all, do not shop at Macy’s;
    5. Stay tuned.

Based on the word's definition, it is Obama, Clinton and their supporters who are the fascists

    I’m not sure how many times I’ve heard Donald Trump being called a “fascist,” or even compared to Adolph Hitler over the past 12 months. Butthurt Democrats have gone into high gear since they learned voters don’t want the crap they’re peddling.
    The Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the Rockettes are scheduled to perform for Trump’s inauguration, but many of the Rockettes are being allowed to opt out (can you imagine if they refused to perform for Obama?). And Mormon choir members are free not to attend, but for one member, Jan Chamberlin, that wasn’t enough; she posted a long Facebook post explaining that she was resigning from the choir on the grounds that Trump was a “fascist.”
    In a now-private post (a copy of which can be accessed here), Chamberlin said, “I also know, looking from the outside in, it will appear that Choir is endorsing tyranny and fascism by singing for this man.” She also wrote: “I only know I could never ‘throw roses to Hitler.’ And I certainly could never sing for him.” Of course, she wasn't being asked to sing for Trump; she was welcome not to attend, but she wanted to make a big splash.
    Chamberlin is just one of thousands of people who are spouting off daily, calling Trump and his supporters “fascists.” The term is a bit nebulous, but let’s see if we can try to define it.
    I think we can all agree that a fascist is one who wants to rule dictatorially or autocratically. A fascist is prone to seize control of the military, or use it for his own ends. A fascist is one who threatens other countries without justification. Is that a reasonable definition?
    Now let’s look at the views of Donald Trump and compare them to our current president, Barack Obama, and his would-be successor, Hillary Clinton. In this way we can determine whether or not Trump is or is not a fascist.
    Donald Trump seeks to enforce our nation’s immigration laws and obey his oath of office. Barack Obama violated his oath of office by refusing to enforce our immigration laws, an autocratic, totalitarian, and fascist action. Hillary Clinton said she would do the same.
   The street thuggery we have seen this year has been organized by Clinton supporters. Violence at Trump campaigns was carefully orchestrated by volunteers and paid homeless and mentally ill people who were instructed to start fights where they would be sure to get press coverage. Trump supporters have been violently beaten throughout the nation. All of this is identical to the tactics used by Adolph Hitler’s Brown Shirts in the 1930s to intimidate political opponents. Once again, it is Hillary Clinton and her supporters who are the fascists, not Trump.
    Whatever one’s opinion on both Gulf Wars, both George Bushes only did what Congress told them to do, and acted pursuant to authorization of the U.S. Congress. In Libya, Obama sought and gained permission from the United Nations – but not the U.S. Congress – to establish a no-fly zone over eastern Libya in order to aid Al Qaeda terrorists seeking to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi (Nobody has adequately explained why our nation chose to aid Al Qaeda terrorists in a fight against a man who had become a stalwart ally in the war against terror). Obama chose, without authorization, to simply bomb all of Libya and murder Gaddafi, killing many of his children and grandchildren in the process; Libya thus became an absolutely ungovernable hellhole. Not only were his actions a violation of international law and war crimes, but Obama intentionally violated the U.S. War Powers Act by failing to get Congressional approval of his military adventure within 30 days of the commitment of American troops. Hillary Clinton supported this. This type of military adventurism, in contravention of both international and American law, is the very core of what fascism is. Trump opposes this type of military adventurism. Thus it is Obama and Clinton who are fascists, not Trump.
    I wrote more than five years ago, when I was vociferously opposing Obama’s insane Libyan massacre, that Obama was intentionally creating a regional war throughout the Mid-East that would have terrible consequences. You can read my entire blog post by clicking here, but it’s important to note that I wrote this FIVE LONG YEARS AGO, when “violence” in Syria was simply a few street protests:

There have been numerous reports that the violence in Syria has been fomented by American agents. It's also been encouraged by the NATO bombing of Libyan loyalists. Perhaps with good cause, as the Syrians have been a puppet of Iran and an enemy of the U.S., but the unrest in the Arab world has been carefully planned and calculated. Of course, when America murders Arab children – and make no mistake NATO targeted children – it's just war. When Arabs murder American children it's terrorism. I confess I don't understand the difference. Why does America want turmoil in the Mid-East?

    By supporting terrorists and intentionally causing the Syrian civil war Obama and Clinton are responsible for more than 300,000 deaths and the displacement of more than 10 million people. There is not one whit of difference in killing these people by supporting terrorists and in killing them by loading them on a train and sending them to a concentration camp. Obama and Clinton are fascists in the mold of Adolph Hitler; they are truly evil.
    All Donald Trump wants to do is to enforce our laws, bring the global corporations to heel, and seek world peace. Those who would call him a “fascist” do so only in an attempt to distract people from the thuggishness and fascism of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The behavior and belief system of Obama and Clinton is pure, crystalline fascism in its most evil form, and it is the duty of all real Americans to oppose it.
    We can start by calling these fascists and their supporters “fascists.”

Under Obama America has been a force for evil, while Putin's Russia has been force for good

    Despondent, deranged Democrats angry over the rejection of Hillary Clinton by America’s proletariat are blaming Russia for their party’s defeat at the polls. Without a shred of evidence they claim that Russia hacked various campaign servers and released truthful but damaging information about Clinton and her campaign.
    We repeatedly are reminded that Russia is our enemy. Clinton promised to start a war with Russia if elected and most Democrats, along with kooky John McCain, found that idea just peachy.
    We’re told that we should simply believe our government if it says Russia hacked Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server. This is the same government that was convinced our ambassador to Libya was murdered by a spontaneous uprising of citizens upset over a Youtube video; these people are clueless at best. As long as Clinton and Obama are anywhere near the levers of power, nothing coming out of Washington is to be believed.
    All of this Russian bear-baiting is dangerous; enough sabre-rattling can cause a war. Those who are living in the past believe Russia is our enemy. It isn’t. Russia and the United States have common interests and no reason for conflict.
    Those who think Russia our enemy should ask themselves exactly “why” Russia is our enemy. For roughly 60 years Russia was our enemy because it wasn’t so much a country as it was an ideological movement, with the mission of spreading Communism to every corner of the globe. It was the fight against Communism, and the fight against Communism alone, which made Russia our enemy.
    America won the Cold War; Russia and Communism lost. Today Russia is a nationalistic country, and that’s a good thing. Nationalistic countries act in a logical, predictable, and usually reasonable manner. Russia today seeks to advance its interests, not to export its vision.
    Over the past eight years Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have exported revolution and terror to the Middle East. They attacked our ally in the war on terror, Libya, and left that country a hornet’s nest of terrorists. They supported the overthrow of our ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, who was replaced by the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. Obama howled with rage when the Egyptian military threw the  terrorists out and held a new election in which the people chose secular leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as president; thank goodness the terrorists were thwarted.
    And then there is Syria, which is under the leadership of Bashar al-Assad, a modern, secular leader. Five years ago the CIA and Saudi Arabia funded violent street protests by Islamic Extremists against Assad that Obama and various neocon warmongers carefully fanned into a civil war, which they continued to fund. The result has been hundreds of thousands dead and an immigration crisis that is tearing Europe apart.
    My gut feeling is that Russia was not responsible for providing the accurate material that Wikileaks released which showed the Hillary Clinton and her supporters were liars and crooks. But if they did, they deserve our thanks.
    It’s time for a scorecard: Obama and the Democrats interfered with the Israeli elections. Obama traveled to Great Britain to campaign against Brexit, and threatened to treat Britain like dirt if they voted to "leave." Obama orchestrated the coup in the Ukraine which led to that country’s civil war. Obama supported terrorists throughout the Middle East, including al Qaeda, with disastrous results. If it is wrong to interfere in the affairs of other countries, why did Obama do it so much?
    In 1983 Ronald Reagan famously called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire; it was at the time. Yet today it is the United States, under the leadership of Barack Obama and various neocon warmongers, which has become the Evil Empire.
    The Democrats seem puzzled why they are unable to whip Americans into a frenzy of Russia-hatred. The reason is simple: Under Obama the United States has become a force for evil in the world, while under Vladamir Putin Russia has become a force for good. Russia is not our enemy; Obama and the Democrats are.

History's greatest statistical graphic shows fate of Hillary Clinton's no-fly zone in Syria

    Some years ago I read that Frenchman Charles Minard's graphic of Napolean's march to and retreat from Moscow was the greatest statistical graphic of all time. Seeking to impress others with my high-browness, I purchased a copy, framed it, and hung it on my den wall; an English version is provided above.
    The graphic is impressive and I actually look at it quite frequently; what impresses me the most is the way it illustrates the magnitude of Napolean's failure. I consider myself more knowledgeable than most when it comes to history and knew of Napolean's ill-fated Russian campaign, but to see the disaster in graphic form is pretty amazing to me. You can click on the graphic above to enlarge it.
    Napoleon's problem was that he had no supply line; the Russians simply retreated and scorched the earth along the way. The French, amazed that the Russians would destroy their own country, starved and froze on the way in, and then starved and froze on the way out, with the Russians chasing at their heels the whole way. The graphic above shows that Napoleon began his campaign just east of Poland, with 422,000 men and returned with 10,000, one of the greatest military fiascos of all time (some put the death toll higher, but 422,000 is the number on Minard's graphic).
    The reason I bring this up is because Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she wants to start a war with Russia by declaring a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. For reasons that are a mystery to me the Obama administration has supported Al Qaeda and other terrorists seeking to overthrow the elected, secular government of Syria, which happens to be an ally of Russia.  In fact, the United States and Saudi Arabia ginned up this civil war; the Saudis wanted to install a Sunni Wahhabi state while the U.S. wanted to rid itself of an uncooperative leader. The problem with all of this is that Russia supports its ally, as well it should, and is willing to fight on Syria's behalf.
    The result is that we have a bunch of whining and complaining about terrorists who die in Aleppo with their families, who they have chosen to use as human shields. The global-elitist warmongers demand that we go to war. Of course, I can't help but note that if these terrorists would simply lay down their weapons and be good citizens the war in Syria would end. Nobody is forcing them to be Islamic terrorists; they can be good people any time they choose.
    Should we decide to get involved in any type of conflict with Russia in the Middle East, I would proffer another map. This map shows Russia and Syria in red. Iran, which has become an ally of Syria to counter Sunni militancy, is colored in green. I've also colored Iraq in green, because Iraq supports Syria; after all, how do you think all of Iran's support has been getting there? And I've also colored Azerbaijan green since it tends to support Syria.

Click to enlarge

    In the event of an actual proxy or real war with Russia that the United States decides to wage in Syria, I'm not going to worry about how Russia supplies equipment and troops; there are several routes available. What's important to note is that the distance from Russia to Damascus is roughly the same as the distance from Miami to Raleigh, N.C. or Columbus, Ohio to Boston. In terms of geography and supply lines, in any conflict with the United States Syria might as well be a part of Russia. Any attempt to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria is almost like an invasion of Russia, and thus doomed to failure.

Click to Enlarge

    There is a final exhibit I'd like to share, and it's only an Internet "meme." It's the photo of the Russian minister of defense alongside four European ministers of defense. I think most of us understand that the Russians have a better understanding of the necessity of ruthlessness in war; it enabled them to defeat Napoleon by destroying their own cities and it will enable them to defeat the west in any defensive war. These people are not to be trifled with.
    If the United States decides to impose a "no-fly" zone in Syria -- which by its nature entails the shooting down of Russian planes -- Russia will justifiably respond by destroying any U.S. ship or plane involved in this act of aggression. Russia cannot help but win in this conflict. The only option left to the United States at that point will be retreat or the threat of nuclear war and Mutual Assured Destruction, with its appropriate acronym of MAD.
    Do we really want to start a nuclear war in order to help Islamic terrorists in Syria? Wouldn't it be easier and better if Obama and our out-of-control State Department simply stopped supporting terrorists and started supporting responsible, secular leaders like Bashar al-Assad?
    I refer you once again, dear reader, to the graph at the top of this blog post. Study it well and don't allow history to repeat itself with Hillary Clinton being allowed to play the role of Napoleon.

Now we know why teen girl said 'I deserve it' when pepper sprayed at Trump rally

    Back in late March I got a kick out of a video of a Trump protester starting a fight at a rally in Janesville, Wisc. It ends up with the girl getting pepper sprayed, and as she runs away she can be heard to say, "I deserved that." There were a number of reports on this.
     Although the video shows nothing of the kind, the 15-year-old girl starts screaming that an older man has groped her in the chest. The man backs away and denies touching her and tries to deescalate the situation, but the protester was having none of that. She finally ends up punching the elderly man in the face, at which point a Trump supporter immediately shoots her in the face with pepper spray.
    Her statement that "I deserved that" makes sense now that we know that the Clinton campaign engaged in an organized campaign to start fights at Trump rallies, using both volunteers and homeless or mentally ill people hired off the street. Sometimes they would provoke someone to hit them, but failing that they would simply fake an assault, as this girl apparently did. This girl knew she had crossed the line and was admitting it to herself, without realizing that she was being captured by cell phone video.

Injured officer, Chicago rally

    Hillary Clinton's dirty tricks campaign has not been without costs. Many people have been injured, and it's lucky no one was killed. A number of police officers have been hurt dealing with fights  at these rallies deliberately started by Clinton employees or volunteers. Innocent people have been arrested on false charges brought by Clinton's goon squads; some may have even been forced to plead guilty rather than risk a more serious conviction.
    These types of dirty tricks are far beyond anything Richard Nixon engaged in. In fact, all of Hillary Clinton's crookedness is far beyond that of Nixon; and yet she has the audacity to run for president.
    The criminal thug caught in the undercover video admitting that he helped to organize this Brownshirt brigade said Hillary Clinton was fully aware of the project and that he was working closely with her campaign. If so, this is just one more crime for which Hillary Clinton should be tried, convicted, and locked up.
    Anyone who has been injured at one of these rallies because of one of these fights needs to sue not only the Clinton campaign, but Hillary Clinton herself. Ultimately she is responsible for all of this.

Why does Hillary Clinton dress like a mass murderer?

    Pol Pot killed about 1.5 million Cambodians, or 20 percent of the population. Mao's Great Leap Forward killed 45 million Chinese, with another 20 to 30 million dying during other grand communist programs. Kim Jong-un has racked up some spectacularly brutal executions, but his overall kill rate is fairly low, since he's only been in office a few years; but his father managed to kill about 1.5 million North Koreans.
    Does it worry anyone that a clearly power-hungry candidate for president of the United States constantly dresses like these people? It's not like this style of dress is fashionable; Hillary Clinton is the only person I ever see wearing these types of clothes
    The woman scares me no matter what, but her penchant for dressing like the world's worst mass murderers scares me even more.

Reporter fails to report 'truth' about Trump in 2005 or 2015, but now wants us to believe her

    Several women stepped forward this week to say that Donald Trump made unacceptable sexual advances towards them 10 to 40 years ago. This was part of an elaborate setup involving Clinton campaign staffer Anderson Cooper and women who were willing to make up any story to harm the Trump campaign.
    Right before the second presidential debate, a recording was released of Trump talking into a hot mic with Access Hollywood host Billy Bush. Bush was encouraging him with a lot of sex talk, and Trump was going right along. It was certainly not presidential, but it was private, locker-room talk that Trump was goaded into making. As far as the Reprehensibility Meter goes, it certainly didn’t rise to the level of the many rapes and assaults that I believe Bill Clinton has committed, with Hillary Clinton serving as an accessory after the fact.
    When Clinton campaign representative Anderson Cooper kicked off the second debate with a question about sexual assault and kissing, I immediately suspected that it was already arranged for someone to step forward and make some type of claim against Trump. I was correct. What surprised me was how weak all of the claims were. Let’s examine just one of them, with more to come.
    Natasha Stoynoff is a reporter for People magazine who wrote a story about story about Donald and Melania Trump’s first wedding anniversary in 2005. Describing the alleged assault at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, she said, “We walked into that room alone, and Trump shut the door behind us. I turned around, and within seconds he was pushing me against the wall and forcing his tongue down my throat.” (It would be helpful if Stoynoff had specified exactly which room this supposedly occurred in, as several of the rooms have glass walls; of course, that may be why she was intentionally vague).
    Are we really to believe that a reporter for a national publication wouldn’t find this worthy of some type of mention in 2005? I simply can’t. I once was involved in sending a reporter to do a nice little story on Jerry Lee Lewis’ birthday party. During an interview, an inebriated Lewis chose to playfully point a pistol as our reporter a couple of times, which he found not amusing at all, and that became the most important part of the story. So instead of a nice, happy story on Jerry Lee’s birthday there was a story about how Jerry Lee is still running around drunk and unhinged these days. That’s what reporters do, and that’s what Natasha Stoynoff would have done if Trump had actually forced a kiss of this type on her. Even if she comes up with some lame excuse for not reporting the incident, it certainly was newsworthy a year ago, at the start of the presidential campaign. Why the silence until Anderson Cooper laid the trap?
    The fact that People magazine would go along with this shows that the media, for the most part, are no longer journalistic enterprises, but rather public relations outfits for the American left and the global elite. Like any good P.R. firm, they will share bad news about their product when forced to do so, but their job is one of promotion, not reporting.
    In the end there is no way for us to know whether some of these claims are true or not. In some cases there are factual inaccuracies that prove them impossible. But in other cases, such as the claim of Stoynoff, we have to just decide whether or not they are true based on their plausibility. For her claim to be true, she would have to be a really terrible reporter who chose to remain silent when her claim might have hurt Trump during the Republican primaries, but who suddenly felt the need to come forward when it was just a two-person race. Under these circumstances, I do not believe her.

    The American media simply cannot be trusted, as batch after batch of hacked DNC emails show collusion with various members of the Fourth Estate and the Clinton campaign. After the second presidential debate, NBC did a "Fact Check" on Donald Trump's claim that Hillary Clinton had "acid washed" her email server. With a graphic that said "NOPE," NBC corrected the record: "Clinton's team used an app called BleachBit; she did not use a corrosive chemical." This is not a joke. It's like saying, NOPE, she didn't murder the man with a double-barrelled shotgun; it was a single-barrelled shotgun. (For the record, sometimes "acid wash" is used as a generic term for permanently wiping a server, although dipping a server in acid will certainly do the trick, and is sometimes done).
    Perhaps someday we will again be able to turn on the television or pick up a newspaper and get truthful news coverage, but for now the Media, like the Clintons, exist only to serve the interests of the global elitists.

The sabatoge of Trump's campaign may result in two new political parties, defeat of GOP traitors

    There are accusations, which I believe, that House Speaker Paul Ryan and other top Republicans have been planning to sabatoge the presidential campaign of Donald Trump for weeks. The release of Trump's foul-mouthed tapes from years ago just hours before he was to appear at a rally with Ryan, and the coordinated response, is too convenient.
    The finger is being pointed at Dan Senor, an advisor to both Ryan and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Whether or not Senor was behind the release of the tapes, he has been active on Twitter urging journalists to use them against Trump.
    In a conference call Ryan told Republican House members that he would no longer defend Trump, although he did not "withdraw" his endorsement. He did this the day after Trump absolutely slaughtered Hillary Clinton in a debate, in an effort to make sure that his campaign wouldn't recover.
    This isn't a campaign of Republicans against Democrats. This is a campaign of Globalists against Americans, and the Globalists are doing everything they can to subjugate the American people. The GOP leadership really doesn't care which party controls government, so long as it is controlled by Globalists.
    I don't particularly like Donald Trump; he is certainly an incredibly imperfect torch-bearer for the American cause. But he's what we have, and I support him. If enough Americans stand up and fight, he can still win.
    I think several of the Republicans who were so quick to pull their endorsements from Trump are going to go down this November. I suspect McCain is toast, and I've love to see Ryan thrown out. I think New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte is a certain loser after pulling her endorsement. Good riddance!
    There is a real possibility that after this election we could see the formation of two new political parties. The left wing of the Democrat party, consisting of socialists and welfare recipients, may break off and form an American Socialist party, leaving behind only a small number of global elitists who have been in control. Trump supporters are likely to leave the Republican Party to support an anti-war, American Nationalist party, again leaving behind a group of global elitists. Perhaps what is left of the Republican and Democrat party can then merge.
    A lot of people refer to the Trump movement as a "white" Nationalist movement. This is an intentional slander. The Los Angeles Times poll shows Trump getting 15 percent of the black vote and 35 percent of the Hispanic vote, far and away more than either Romney or McCain received.
    Nationalism is merely Citizenism, the belief that a nation exists to serve its citizens, not the interests of non-citizens or illegal aliens. There is no reason why law-abiding blacks or Hispanics would want to see their rights as citizens diluted by criminals any more than whites would. Nationalism serves all citizens.
    Our duty now, as Americans, is to identify anyone who has intentionally sabotaged the campaign of Donald Trump and work towards their defeat. There really is no difference between a Globalist Republican and a Globalist Democrat, but I'd at least get some satisfaction from the defeat of Globalist Republicans.
    Goodbye McCain, Ryan, Ayotte, and assorted other Judas-types.

Baptist leader Moore goes off the tracks with heretical attacks on Donald Trump, immigration

Yazidis give us a clue to the appearance of ancient Jews.

    Neo-liberation-theologist Russell Moore, who is doing his best to turn the Southern Baptist Church into a Communist-front organization, has declared that true Christians shouldn't support Donald Trump for president. Moore is president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public-policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
    Oh, and in a New York Times article Moore declares of Trump supporters that, "A white American Christian who disregards nativist language is in for a shock. The man on the throne in heaven is a dark-skinned, Aramaic-speaking 'foreigner' who is probably not all that impressed by chants of 'Make America great again.'"
    For the record I don't consider either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to be particularly Godly people. I was, and still am, a Ted Cruz supporter, but I vote for my candidates on the basis of their political positions, not on their religion. As a strong supporter of religious liberty, I certainly thought Cruz would have been a far better candidate than Trump. But it is apparently not to be. On a personal level, I don't like Trump, but I support some of his policies.
    If you Google Moore's statements over the past couple of years, what you'll find is there isn't a leftist cause he doesn't like; this blog post doesn't allow time to refute it all, so I'll limit myself to Moore's comments on Donald Trump.
    First, Moore blasts Trump's "Nativism." The first Google definition of "nativism" is "the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants." I think a more accurate definition, particularly to describe nativist thought in the current election, is "The policy of protecting the interests of citizens against those of non-citizens or illegal aliens." Given this definition, I am a proud nativist, and I would hope most American Christians would be as well.
    Jesus is recorded in Mark 12:27 instructing that we should show fealty to our earthly sovereign: "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."
    We American's don't have a Caesar; we have no king, no emperor, no ayatollah, no pope. We The People are sovereign, and our fealty is owed to our fellow citizens, pursuant to Christ's command. Moore's assertion that favoring citizens over non-citizens is somehow wrong is in direct conflict with the instructions of Jesus Christ. It is heresy.
    Moore has repeatedly criticized Trump for his statements concerning "immigrants." Of course, when Moore says Trump has made these statements he is bearing false witness, because Trump's comments have been directed almost entirely at illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. There's a big difference.
    Let's look at some of Trump's "objectionable" statements concerning immigrants:

As has been stated continuously in the press, people are pouring across our borders unabated. Public reports routinely state great amounts of crime are being committed by illegal immigrants. This must be stopped and it must be stopped now.

We're going to bring people in, but we're going to bring people in legally.

When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. . .They're . . .sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting.

    Here are the facts: Central America, the source of the bulk of illegal immigration, used to send us their best and brightest, who were often denounced as traitors for leaving their home country. No more. We now get far more people likely to end up on welfare.  Immigrant households use welfare at twice the rate of native-born citizens, and illegal aliens with children have an even higher welfare rate. If we were getting the best and brightest, as we used to get, the immigrant welfare rate would hover around zero.
    The crime rate of illegal immigrants is a major problem, as the left-leaning Atlantic pointed out in a July 29, 2015 article. As that article reports, in 2011, there were an estimated 42,000 robberies, 70,000 sex crimes, 81,000 auto thefts, 95,000 weapons offenses, and 213,000 assaults committed by illegal aliens in this country.
    So let's get this straight. Moore bore false witness against Trump by indicating that his comments were against all immigrants and not just illegal aliens. This is a direct violation of Exodus 20:16, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
    Even worse, Moore has criticized Trump for telling the truth. And yet Jesus advocated the telling of the truth: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32). To attack trump for making a statement without first addressing the veracity of the statement is a direct, frontal assault on the teachings of Christ.
    When it comes to racial issues, Moore is no less obsessed than a Klan Kleagle in reverse. Thus we get Moore's claim that Christ "is a dark-skinned, Aramaic-speaking 'foreigner'."
    I don't believe Christ is going to have a skin color in Heaven, but I do think it's important to address the poison that Moore is spreading. We really can't know what Christ looked like; but we can make educated guesses. In all likelihood he didn't have long hair as always shown in the paintings, as men didn't wear their hair long in that time.

Bashar al-Assad

    But the people of the Middle-East are not necessarily dark in complexion. Some have light skin and deep, blue eyes, such as Syria's Bashar al-Assad (A clue, a clue!). And many Jews have blond or red hair; their skin is not particularly dark (A clue, a clue!). It is quite possible that many people who now live in the Mid-East may have dark skin due to intermarriage with other groups. I visited with a  newscaster for Al-Arabya some years ago, and in conversation he described a "true Arab" as having blond hair (his hair was not blond).
    The most endogamous group in the Middle-East is quite possibly the Yazidis, an Aramaic(!) group that lived directly to the northeast and east of the Roman-recognized state of Israel. Yazidis only marry each other, and therefore give us a clue (A clue, a clue!) as to what Jesus might have looked like. Yazidis often have fairly light skin tone and blond or reddish hair; sometimes they are darker.

Another clue as to Christ's appearance!

    With all of this said, even if Christ should have had a darker skin tone (and given exposure to the sun, he would have had a very deep tan regardless of his genetic makeup), what does it matter? Does Russell Moore really think it matters to anyone? Most of us have friends who are Lebanese, Syrian, Greek, Italian, and Hispanic. Many members of these groups have the type of darker skin that Moore is insisting that Christ had. So? Jesus is Jesus, regardless of what He looked like, so Moore just needs to stop race-baiting.
    I do agree with Moore that Donald Trump is a pretty awful person morally. I feel the same way about Hillary Clinton. As much as I dislike Trump, his political views are the most consistent with my own of the two likely major-party candidates, and I intend to vote for him if he is the Republican nominee.
    The most Christian thing any American voter can do is to vote for the candidate who will show fealty to our earthly sovereign, the citizens of the United States. I'm going to vote to elect a president who will best serve the interests of my fellow citizens, not a Sunday School teacher.

Marco Rubio gave Trump a taste of his own medicine after his silly health care comments

     I'm not complete opposed to the idea of Donald Trump as president. If my main man, Ted Cruz doesn't make it, I will likely switch my support to Trump. I don't like Trump, but I believe he and Cruz are the only two candidates who will actually do something about illegal immigration, and that's the only issue that really matters to me.
    But I do admire honest talk from political candidates, and found Trump's comments on health care during the Feb. 25 Republican debate to be intentionally dishonest or dumb beyond belief. I was glad to see Marco Rubio just absolutely mop the floor with him, as can be seen in the video, above.
    The question Trump was asked was how he planned to deal with people with pre-existing conditions if Obamacare were to be repealed. His solution was to eliminate rules that prevent insurance from being sold across state lines. That's it; just increase competition and nothing else.
    I hate Obamacare and find it to be the worst possible health care solution possible for our nation. But Trump's plan isn't going to help people with pre-existing conditions very much. Increased competition might reduce someone's insurance premium from $5,000 a month to $4,500 a month, but that really isn't going to solve the problem, is it?
    Asking insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions is like asking them to write a fire insurance policy after a house has burned down. It's a losing proposition.
    There are really only three ways to provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions:

1. Charge people with pre-existing conditions a higher rate, or charge the same price for insurance that is more highly managed;
2. Shift some of the cost to other purchasers of insurance or health care, by mandated risk pools;
3. Direct subsidies from the state or federal government; or
 4. Some combination of the above.

    I'm not asking anyone to be specific, and in fact recognize that being too specific can bring certain death to a political campaign. But I think it's wrong to essentially lie and state that the problem of covering pre-existing conditions can be solved by removing the "lines around the states."
    Some sort of subsidy is going to be required. The issue is how much subsidy, how is it going to be provided, and who is going to pay for it. It's perfectly acceptable to dodge all of these questions, but at least acknowledge that the need for the subsidy is there if pre-existing conditions are to be covered.

True American style calls for button-down collars

Seven flyaway collars and one huge tie knot

      One of the things I’ve noticed about the presidential debates is that none of the candidates wear button-down shirts.
    I know that technically a stiff collar shirt with no buttons is considered more “formal” and “dressy.” As far as I’m concerned, I actually feel physically uncomfortable when I wear a dress shirt without button-down collars. And according to the experts, button-downs are perfectly acceptable for dress and business wear, and are even considered more “American” than flyaway collars.
    An argument could be made that wearing flyaway collars is unpatriotic. From a website which describes the difference between American and European shirts, I quote the following: "While button down collars are a mainstay of American business dress, they’re a rare sight in the European workplace." In other words, flyaway collars are for cheese-eating surrender monkeys, not true Americans.
    I would guess that since 1980 I have worn a dress shirt with flyaway collars perhaps a dozen times – two dozen at the most. I just don’t like them. I think they look bad. I hate them. As I've said, I actually feel physically uncomfortable wearing them. Can I say more?
    So I hate to see all of the presidential candidates showing up with unbuttoned collars. It kind of makes the whole lot of them look untrustworthy. I always expect one of them to just fly off like the Flying Nun if a good breeze should come along.
    Now that I've had my say on collars, take a look at the knot on Jeb Bush’s tie in the above photo. I noticed this during the televised debate. Look at the knot – it’s yuge! What’s the deal with that? Did he get a five-year-old to tie that thing for him?
    I’m perfectly aware that I’ll never win any fashion awards. Given my druthers my dress wardrobe would be limited to a bunch of white button-downs, some blue-striped button-downs, a bunch of khaki pants, a couple of blue blazers, a few suits and two dozen ties. Now that I think about it, I believe I almost have my druthers, because that’s pretty much what my dress wardrobe is limited to.
    And however limited my style sense may be, I know better than to wear a tie knot the size of New Jersey. Now that Jeb Bush has some time on his hands, maybe somebody can teach him how to make a decent tie knot.

Cruz, Trump have figured out that America's struggling class wants our country to serve citizens

    I detest Donald Trump, but if Ted Cruz should falter in the presidential race Trump will have my vote for one reason, and one reason only: Cruz and Trump are the only two candidates who I believe will act to stop the tsunami of illegal aliens pouring across our Southern border.
    Illegal immigration isn’t the most important issue in the presidential campaign. As far as I’m concerned it’s the only issue; everything else pales in comparison. Without borders we cease to be a nation. America’s citizenry wants a wall and we want it now. The elites don’t understand this, and that’s why they don’t understand the appeal of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
    I have a core belief that the sole purpose of a nation is to serve its citizens. Each and every decision that is made by our government should be made on the basis of whether it will help or hurt the average citizen. Tolerating illegal immigration may help the elites, but it does not help average folks.
    I happen to support legal immigration, and lots of it. I just support immigration that is in the national interest. And that’s not what we have today. Our current system rewards poorly educated criminals who enter the country illegally and punishes highly educated, law-abiding achievers who wait their turn.
    Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are burdening our welfare system. In a recent year, 72 percent of legal immigrant households with children used welfare versus 52 percent of native-born households. The cherry on top of this toxic sundae is that illegal immigrant households with children had an 89 percent welfare participation rate. We can clean up our welfare rolls merely by deporting all of our illegal aliens.
    Each person who enters the labor pool has the effect of slightly harming those who operate at the same skill level; and those who hire them are winners. Obviously the effect of one person can’t be measured, but the effect of hundreds of thousands or millions certainly can. When rich farmers scream that their crops are “rotting in the fields” and a bunch of peasants need to be allowed into the country to pick their fruit, low-skilled workers lose and the rich farmers win. We’re often told that illegal immigrants do jobs that “Americans won’t do.” It’s not true. There are no jobs that "Americans won't do;" they are jobs that Americans won’t do at the price being offered.
    Many “stoop labor” agricultural jobs now pay about $15 per hour; they are hard work. This wage could be raised to $50 an hour with remarkably little effect on grocery prices, and Americans would show up in droves to do the work. Some of them might have to be trained to be good workers, but that’s what we do for our fellow citizens.
    Does anybody ever stop to think about how much it costs society to provide a bunch of rich fruit farmers with cheap labor? Communities have to provide their illegal alien children with free schooling at $8-12,000 per child. Hospitals have to treat their families for free, which often runs into thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars every year. It’s as if society is having to pay a direct subsidy of $20-50,000 per employee to the fat-cat farmers. I’d rather give up fruit!
   Of course, after a couple of years the fruit pickers go on to other work, leaving crops once again to rot in the field, leading to demands for more peasants from south of the border, and even higher taxes on homeowners struggling to support their schools. Wash, rinse, repeat.
    If people who hire unskilled labor win with illegal immigration – whether it be those who hire fruit pickers, nannies, construction workers, or whatever – who loses? Obviously it’s the poorest of our citizens who work at these types of jobs, since low-skilled wages remain depressed.
    What happens when we restrict immigration to only those who are believed to be highly productive. For example, what would happen if we imported a million doctors? I think we all know the incomes of doctors would go down as doctors lowered their fees to attract patients. Who wins? Low- and middle-income people who have to seek medical care and pay less for it. Who loses? Rich doctors.
    I’m not trying to pick on doctors, who have actually taken a beating with a bunch of ridiculous and costly federal regulations recently. I’m just trying to make a point. When large numbers of highly intelligent, highly productive, high-income people emigrate to the United States, it causes our rich people to become a little poorer and our poor people to become a little richer – it makes us a more egalitarian society. And in the long term the increased productivity and equality raises the standard of living and incomes for everyone. Everyone gets rich together!
    Liberals often talk about producing equality through ruinous taxation of the rich and redistribution to the poor. This merely destroys our nation’s wealth. We can use our immigration policy to increase equality amongst our citizenry merely by limiting immigration to those who are likely to earn a well-above-average income – those who are highly skilled or highly educated. The increased competition will bring the incomes of the rich down a little, at least temporarily, while enriching our poorest citizens by lowering their costs and increasing the demand for their services. In the end we will become a much wealthier, more egalitarian society in which all citizens are respected and valued.
    What America needs is a grand bargain. We need to not be afraid to embrace a few so-called "liberal" ideas (which I might expound on at some future time), such as a citizenship dividend of $700 to $1,000 a month to all adults after 21 years of citizenship (essentially eliminating welfare), and a government-funded medical voucher for every citizen that can be used either for guaranteed enrollment in Medicaid (not Medicare!) or for traditional, private insurance, much as it existed before Obamacare. We can afford these things, so long as we don’t allow any more poor people into the country and throw out those who are here illegally.
    The world has 7 billion people, and if we start handing out free money they all will try to be here; in fact, it's happening right now. For us to have a generous society that is designed to help all of our citizens we must first enshrine citizenship as something special. We have to build fences; we have to be willing to sentence people who are in our country illegally to jail and then deport them; and we have to end birthright citizenship.
    America’s elites, both Republican and Democrat, simply can’t believe that America’s working and lower middle class has figured out that as a group they are being screwed over by both parties, who seem to exist solely to serve the big banks, poverty pimps, illegal aliens, hedge fund managers, and various loud-mouthed fringe groups. The one group they do not care a whit about is the common, struggling American citizen.
    Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are the only two candidates who understand that America exists to serve its citizens, who coincidentally happen to be the voters. These citizens want a wall, and they will vote for one of these men to get it.
    The elites may not get it, but I’ve got some news for them: the price of fruit-pickers and nannies just went up.