Recent Comments
Re: “Our national emergency”
President Trump journeyed to Texas to actually listen to those who know best about maximally effective methods of border control, the Border Patrol agents and supervisors themselves. Who better to advise on the subject...go figure.
Meanwhile, self-professed border expert Charles Schumer has been busy telling us, in direct contradiction to the Border Patrol agents' views, that this is not a national emergency, despite the fact that not too long ago he was vehemently "concerned" with the illegal immigration problem and "seriously" calling for a border fence. That all suddenly changed however, when Chuck was forced to back up his lip service with action that would agree with and support Trump's views. Apparently Chuck was too busy chasing cameras for photo ops (as is his forte) to actually be concerned enough to communicate with the Border Patrol.
Ms. Towler noted that the President declared a national emergency for something that Congress had specifically voted not to give him. Of course they didn't. Like Schumer, they were all in until it came to backing up their bluster. Nothing like a border situation to reveal the true priorities of bloviating leftists...happily allowing the inflow of illegal aliens for potential conversion to future democrat entitlement voters, a policy that by its very nature would negate a border wall. And conveniently sticking it to a president they despise, national security be damned.
Re: “Trump, US challenges, and Americans voters' IQ”
"In 2016, the country had a choice, primarily, between a woman who was qualified to be president and a man who clearly was not."
Just wondering, Ms. Towler, which Clinton scandals, in your mind, most qualified Hillary Clinton to be president. Whitewater? Travelgate? Troppergate? Chinagate or Cattlegate? What about Filegate? Perhaps the Lincoln bedroom scandal. My gosh, there were so many reasons to elect her. I think my favorite was when she approved a deal to sell 20% of the USA's uranium to a Canadian corporation purchased by Russia that netted a $145 million donation to the Clinton Foundation and a $500,000 speaking gig for Bill from the Russian investment bank that set up the buyout account. Sweet! Love that Russian collusion.
Or what about when, instead of leaving her uber-philandering husband, she threatened his former mistresses to keep them quiet, and continued to ride his coattails as a means of to political power. That Hillary is one strong woman!
And that time in 2016 when she robbed Bernie Sanders of the DNC nomination by having the DNC rig the nomination process? Or knowing those debate questions in advance? Nice coup Hill. You GO girl.
Or when she and Bill used their foundation as a cover for tax evasion, hiring cronies, taking pay-for-play bribes from foreign countries while Secretary of State.
Hey, how about when she jeopardized national security with an unauthorized, unlawful, and unprotected email server which she operated from her house, containing highly classified emails which could easily have been hacked for government secrets by foreign entities. She'd definitely keep us safe as president. Good thing that Comey, Strzok, Page, and McCabe all exonerated her under a sham Obama FBI administration investigation that wrote out the final press releases before it was even completed. It didn't matter of course that she broke numerous statutes for which she could have gone to prison. Hillary walks, nobody talks. The icing on the cake though was when she, through her lawyers, hired a computer specialist to delete 33000 emails against an order of Congress which she said merely contained data about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. Of course. That's when she, through her lawyers, did what any honest forthright presidential candidate would do...she contracted with a computer specialist to Bleachbit them out of existence.
And what about her foreign policy coups? Nice touch Hill, having Gaddafi killed, thereby destabilizing Libya and creating a power vacuum which ISIS readily filled. Highly qualified woman. Did I mention Benghazi?
But it's the little soft touches that Hillary provided that get me all choked up. Like lying about running across the tarmac braving dangerous sniper fire at the Bosnia airport. Or stealing White House furniture and silverware at the very end of Bill's final term in office. One of my all time faves though was when she changed her story three different times to cover up her guilt concerning her illegal server.
Mary Anna Towler thinks that those of us who voted for Trump instead of Hillary voted out of anger, prejudice, or ignorance. Anger yes. Prejudice against corruption? I plead guilty. The only ignorance however, is that of an elitist liberal editor who casually and condescendingly dismisses folks who don't vote HER way as being prejudiced or ignorant.
Re: “Election Day 2018”
Sara McKee - "...a firestorm of ignorance ignited by Donald Trump and his fellow GOP arsonists..." WOW! Never thought of myself as an arsonist! You either erroneously misconstrued the meaning of my brief post or simply made a lame attempt to be cutely sarcastic. Obviously the latter, but remember that no one can be cuter than Cupid. (O.K. that was a bit lame too but hey, even conservatives can have a sense of humor! I know, say it ain't so). Have a good day, keep things in perspective, and remember to keep smiling.
Re: “Election Day 2018”
Highly predictable. Exactly as expected.
Re: “Pipe bombs, shootings, and Donald Trump”
Richard Corey- I am well aware of the quote in its entirety. First she states, "you CANNOT be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for..." Then, after her usual rant about republican funding by corporate interests (as if she is immune to corporate welfare - the WSJ tabulated her campaign corporate donations to be 6 times that of Trump as of the end of July 2016) in typical twisted Clintonian fashion she reverses herself, "...you CAN be civil, but you can't overcome what they intend unless you win elections." Which begs the usual question, "Which is it Hillary?" Even more laughable is Richard's insinuation that "Clearly Hillary is not advocating incivility..." Clearly? Methinks not. Clarity is not exactly this woman's strong suit; she excels at ambiguity. Here's a clue Richard: She just did.
Don't know why Richard is desperately attempting to rescue an ideological sibling who's scandal resume dwarfs the most corrupt individuals in U.S. history, is lengthy enough to fill numerous volumes, and has.
As for Trump encouraging hatred, most of that actually seems to be coming from "progressives". Republican senators, congresspeople, and administration officials being chased out of restaurants by leftist mobs is becoming the norm thanks to the likes of Maxine Waters and others of her ilk. That would be democrats, your party. Funny, I don't remember the editor even mentioning that in the above column. Interesting how her horror seems to extend strictly to President Trump. Nice try though Richard.
Re: “Pipe bombs, shootings, and Donald Trump”
Hillary Clinton calls for incivility, stating that if her party "...is fortunate enough to take back the House and/or Senate , that's when civility can start again".
Eric Holder - "When they go low, we kick "em. That's what this new democratic party is about."
Antifa - Leftist thugs beating on people and throwing rocks to intimidate legitimate invited speakers on college campuses and other events under the guise of anti-fascism. Did I mention one of their number was given a forum in City Newspaper one year ago?
Re: “Sinclair TV spreads the conservative message”
"...McPherson says Sinclair is exposing a broader audience to a conservative viewpoint using the "sheen of respectability" of a familiar news anchor. But, he says, the news may not meet basic journalistic standards of fairness, objectivity, and accuracy." Say it ain't so Jim!
Sounds like a perfectly apt description of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and countless others in the bloated media sphere of "progressive" non-objectivity. And of course no pretense exists when it comes to the total leftist programming monopoly enjoyed by all three major networks for late-night "comedy". If you ain't rippin' Trump on late-night, you just ain't hip bro. Can I get a high-five Stephen, Trevor, Jimmy K, Jimmy F, James, Samantha, Seth ? Birds of a feather, pilin' on together ya'll. Like little leftist robots, marching in lockstep. No bias there...noooooo.
Media trending RIGHT??? What planet has the esteemed professor emeritus of communications studies been living on??? I would strongly bet that the good professor, in the old days of voting machines, pulled lever A on a regular basis. BTW, I just can't escape the hilarious irony of City Newspaper running an article portraying how disconcerting media bias is when it's their very lifeblood. Just ask Tom Tomorrow.