Archive for the ‘Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ Category

Democrats are constantly complaining about Republicans suppressing the vote. Stacey Abrams isn’t the latest in a long line of Democrat complainers on the subject. AOC is the latest in that line. AOC is calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, insisting that the system is “racist.”

First, the Electoral College won’t be abolished because it would require a bunch of small states to ratify a constitutional amendment that’d render their states politically irrelevant. That’s just one of the reasons the Electoral College won’t be abolished. The other reason it won’t happen is because the odds of the constitutional amendment getting that far are tinier than slim. To send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification, the amendment must 290 votes in the House, then get 67 votes in the Senate. That’s provided that the wording in both amendments is identical. If there’s any differences, those would have to be ironed out before proceeding to the ratification phase.

Talk about microscopic odds.

Ultimately, though, what Democrats are proposing is the ultimate disenfranchisement of voters. States like Kansas, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Iowa, Idaho, Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire, to name a few, would become politically irrelevant. With campaign finances being finite, why waste money courting voters in Montana, Iowa, the Dakotas and Maine? Further, abolishing the Electoral College would mean candidates wouldn’t have to think about multiple demographic groups. Democrats could focus on East and Left Coast elitists and ignore the blue collar voters in the Rust Belt. How does that maintain the United States of America?

It’s worth noting that we have a federal government, not a national government. The federal government didn’t exist until the states created it. Democrats won’t admit that they want all power centered in Washington, DC but that’s the truth of it. The Founding Fathers, whom I consider to be the greatest collection of leaders in one place in the history of humankind, wanted the government’s power decentralized. The Tenth Amendment even went so far as to say that the responsibilities not given to the federal government by the Constitution were reserved to the states and (gasp!) the people.

Frankly, why would I trust AOC’s ramblings over the thoughtfulness of Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Washington and Madison? Rather than trusting her, Id rather instruct her to read this so she’d understand how to prevent tyranny. I’d also recommend she debate Dana Perino. Perino would slice and dice her into hundreds of tiny pieces if she just did this:

I agree with Tucker when he said that he has “no doubt” that Dana Perino would defeat any debater who accepted Dana’s challenge to debate the merits of the Electoral College. Further, I agree with Tucker’s statement that Democrats like AOC don’t want to debate the substantive issues. Democrats like AOC prefer labeling things racist, thereby eliminating the need for debate.

By eliminating the Electoral College, Democrats are proposing the biggest disenfranchisement of voters in US history. That’s shameful. It needs to stop immediately.

Saying that the Democrats have a candidate crisis this presidential election cycle is understatement. It isn’t just about the Democrats’ candidates, though that’s part of their problem. Part of their problem is that they’ve alienated their traditional base. Specifically, Democrats alienated blue collar workers and industrial unions. It’s more than interesting that Democrats have pushed aside unions like the UAW, Teamsters and United Mine Workers.

In this LTE, Rob Braun wrote “Middle America feels as if no one on the coast is taking their views and opinions seriously. The coastal liberal elites don’t want to hear that they aren’t happy with the moral and social re-engineering they promote. Or, calling Middle America bigots because they adhere to traditional sexual standards. And more importantly, the elites haven’t done a very good job at convincing middle America that their experiment in social and moral re-engineering is the best way of structuring a healthy and functional society.”

That’s certainly a significant part of why Democrats are pushing aside people of faith and rural America. When President Obama demonized people living in “small towns in Pennsylvania”, he criticized these people, saying that it isn’t “surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

That’s an invitation for rural voters to abandon Democrats. That’s what those voters did in 2016. President Trump capitalized on the situation, promising these voters that his policies would revive rural America’s economy. President Trump has delivered on that promise. Remember President Obama mocking then-Candidate Trump about promising to improve the US economy? I remember it because of this:

Longtime Democrat operative Mark Jaede responded to Braun:

It seems that the author thinks the Democratic Party should throw LGBT people and people of color under the bus in order to win votes from socially conservative rural white people.

I disagree. We won’t win by pandering to anti-gay people. We won’t win by dismissing the struggle against racism as “identity politics.” We won’t win by concerning ourselves with how many counties have GOP majorities. We will win by fielding a candidate who can offer Democrats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, and North Carolina a reason to turn out and vote.

As long as Joe Biden promises to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, as long as Bernie promises to spend $16,300,000,000,000 on his version of AOC’s Green New Deal, as long as the entire Democrat field promises to decriminalize illegal immigration and give illegal immigrants free health care, Democrats will continue losing those states cited by Prof. Jaede, with the possible exception of Pennsylvania and Virginia.

One of the links in TakeAction Minnesota’s weekly newsletter was to this article on Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal proposal. According to Kenza Hadj-Moussa, TakeAction Minnesota’s Communications Director, “Bernie Sanders rolled out a climate plan today that seems designed to terrify fossil fuel executives. And we love it.” Bernie’s plan is beyond utterly unrealistic. It’s frightening that a top Democrat presidential candidate could be this stupid. Unfortunately, Bernie’s that stupid and then some:

There are novel, meaty policy proposals that make Sanders’s proposal stand out from an already ambitious field: a cash-for-clunkers and financial assistance program to scale up electric vehicle usage, and plans to boost public transit ridership 65 percent by 2030; a requirement that the Congressional Budget Office work with the Environmental Protection Agency to give new legislation a “climate score,” like the budget scores it currently doles out; and abiding by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to ensure the free, prior, and informed consent by Indigenous peoples.

TakeAction Minnesota is part of the DFL’s labyrinth of activist outlets. TAM thinks that boosting transit ridership 65% within 10 years is achievable. No sane person thinks that. TAM, aka TakeAction Minnesota, thinks that giving Native American tribes veto power over fossil fuel projects is a fantastic thing. TAM thinks that ending “fossil fuels imports and exports” is a great idea. What type of idiot thinks that’s smart economically? These guys:

Sanders outlines an expansive system, building on the resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey in April, that would generate publicly owned clean energy and 20 million new jobs.

First, it’s insulting that they think there’s that many net new jobs to be created through the Democrats’ Green New Deal. If TAM thinks that, then they’re using illegal drugs. Either that or they’re that stupid. Next, anyone that thinks that there isn’t tons of corruption within the environmental activist community is kidding themselves. (Think Solyndra, etc.)

It’s clear that the DFL is attached to the Democrat fringe. Today’s Democrat Party has virtually nothing to do with Bill Clinton’s Democrat Party. In Detroit, presidential candidate after Democrat presidential candidate criticized President Obama’s signature accomplishment, Obamacare. Now Tina Smith wants to pretend that she’s a moderate or a centrist? I don’t think so.

As I’ve said before, a moderate Democrat is one campaigning for office. Once they’re elected, Democrats suddenly start talking about their mandate, etc.

It’s incredibly clear why Jason Lewis is running for Paul Wellstone’s former seat. According to his announcement address, we are at an inflection point in US history.

In his announcement, Lewis stated quite correctly that “Today we are at a crossroads in Minnesota and across this country not seen since the chaos and turmoil of the 1960s. Private property, religious liberty, due process, the pride of citizenship, the national anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance, even Betsy Ross’s flag, are now seen as dispensable relics to a radical political movement that appears to be gaining steam in the corridors of power.”

In his announcement statement, Jason Lewis essentially said that he’s running do-nothing Senate Democrats, the Squad and against the entire Resist Movement. People who’ve assumed that today’s Democrats are just wrong on the issues but have debated the issues in good faith are kidding themselves. This isn’t to say that people who believe that are evil or something. It’s that that’s what Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, John Breaux and Hubert Humphrey did.

Today’s Democrats are centuries different than those Democrats. Al Franken wrote a book titled “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” It’s categorized as satire. There isn’t anything in the book that proves that. Barack Obama had a phone and a pen. He didn’t give a rip about making deals with Republicans. Harry Reid was President Obama’s chief henchman. Reid prevented any bill that was passed by the Republican House from even getting a committee hearing.

Tina Smith is cut from the same cloth as Al Franken. I’ll stipulate that she doesn’t have Franken’s gruff mannerisms. Still, she’s just as close-minded and hyper-partisan as Franken. She voted against Justice Kavanaugh. She even announced that she wouldn’t vote for whoever President Trump picked before the pick was made.

Congressman Lewis isn’t afraid to debate issues. He thrives on those debates. Jason Lewis has an independent streak, too. He’s willing to break from Republicans on issues. Every newspaper in the state has pined for politicians who break from their parties on the pages of their newspapers. Now that Jason Lewis has announced his candidacy for the Senate, what are the odds that these two-faced newspapers will endorse Jason Lewis? I’d put it at almost zero percent.

Earlier, I spoke about the Resist Movement. More than AOC + 3, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, the Resist Movement is the biggest impediment to getting things done in Washington, DC. Jason Lewis and President Trump are the perfect tag-team to trounce the Swamp, aka the Resist Movement. If we want to end gridlock in DC, a vote for Tina Smith is a wasted voted. She’s proven that she’ll do whatever Chuck Schumer tells her to do.

Tina Smith a typical Democrat. Tina’s got an independent streak that’s a quarter of an inch wide and a millimeter deep. Smith is the political equivalent of a Rambler. That isn’t what Minnesotans need. Minnesotans, especially blue collar Minnesotans and entrepreneurs, need a fighter who will fight smart fights. That describes Jason Lewis perfectly. He’s the political equivalent of a championship debater. That’s what Minnesotans need.

Finally, check out this announcement video:

The first thing that’s apparent is that Jason Lewis isn’t a cookie cutter politician. He’s a policymaker who isn’t afraid to challenge the status quo or expose the flimsiness of a politician’s argument.

That’s what Minnesota needs in the US Senate. God knows we’ve sent too many buffoons to DC since 2000. The list of Democrat buffoons include Al Franken, Mark Dayton and Tina Smith.

AOC and other Democrats hate the Electoral College because they either don’t understand history or they hate the system that the Founders gave us. I suspect that it’s a little of both. Determining presidential (notice that I didn’t say national) elections based on the popular vote would turn elections on their head. I’m writing this post to expose AOC’s foolish plan to eliminate the electoral college.

Our government in DC is called the federal government, not the national government. The federation that the federal government is built from is the federation of states. That’s why our nation is called the United States of America. Each state is sovereign. Without the states’ consent, there isn’t a federal government.

The purpose of the federal government is to represent the states. It wasn’t created to represent just the people. Had the Founding Fathers wanted that, they wouldn’t have formed the states. For instance, when the colonists won the Revolutionary War, France recognized each colony as a sovereign nation.

Apparently, AOC hasn’t grasped the concept that the United States is built on the foundation of each state being sovereign. That’s why each state’s laws are unique to that state. No 2 states have identical statutes on how they pay for education or economic development or whatever the subject. Each state has different laws on what constitutes manslaughter or sexual assault.

AOC’s desire to get rid of the Electoral College is partially because she wants to win more elections but it’s also partially because she doesn’t understand the foundation that the Constitution was built on. When the Revolutionary War ended, the federal government didn’t exist. The colonies eventually created the federal government out of convenience and necessity. It was convenient in the sense that the President was authorized to negotiate treaties and trade agreements rather than each state being required to negotiate separate trade deals. It was built out of necessity in that the settlers needed someone to provide for the national defense.

The Founding Fathers wanted the states to be the “laboratories of democracy.” They wrote the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to keep as much power as close to the families as possible. Here’s the text of the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here’s the text of the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AOC’s push for electing presidents by popular vote is understandable from a partisan standpoint. Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst pointed this out:


In AOC’s mind, the Electoral College is — brace yourself — racist. Actually, it prevents some of the states who created the federal government from being represented by the federal government. That’s beyond foolish.

People pushing the national popular vote initiative aren’t interested in the US’s Heartland, aka Flyover Country. It’s time to push these idiots off the national stage. They aren’t rational human beings. Either that or they’re exceptionally despicable people.

The Electoral College isn’t outdated. It just isn’t wanted by progressive elitists who think of the men and women of America’s Heartland as unsophisticated rubes. That sounds frighteningly similar to Barack Obama when he said this:

Let’s be clear about something about this upcoming election. This is an entirely different cycle than 2018. In 2018, Democrats focused their attention on Republicans (Sen. McCain really) failed to fix health care after Democrats screwed it up in the first place. This year, Democrats have to defend Medicare-for-All and free health care for illegal aliens. That’s only part of the Democrats’ problems.

Another major problem for Democrats is defending Ilhan Omar’s and Rashida Tlaib’s outright hatred for Israel. In 2018, Republicans could talk about how crazy Democrats were. In this cycle, AOC’s, Omar’s, Tlaib’s and Pelosi’s insanity is on full display. Add to that the foolishness of Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, the Impeachment Caucus and the Democrats’ presidential candidates.

They’re all out there for the nation to see. The Democrats’ presidential candidates have done as much damage to the Democrat brand as AOC, Omar and Tlaib have done. That’s a stunning thing to say. Think about the things that the Democrats’ presidential candidates have pushed:

  1. Decriminalizing illegal immigration.
  2. Giving illegal aliens free health care.
  3. Medicare for All
  4. Eliminating border walls. (Robert Francis O’Rourke)
  5. Mandatory gun confiscation (Joe Biden)
  6. Wealth Tax (Elizabeth Warren)
  7. Green New Deal (all candidates)

There are other policy initiatives that Democrats advocate that are beyond insanity but this list gives you a lengthy list of terrible ideas from this year’s Democrats.

Let’s emphasize something I’ve repeatedly said on the pages of LFR. Bill Clinton’s Democrat Party is dead. Barack Obama’s Democrat Party is on life support and fading fast. These days, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey and JFK wouldn’t be welcome in today’s Democrat Party. They’re far too patriotic for today’s Democrats.

Too many of today’s Democrats think it’s racist to enforce laws that President Obama or President Clinton signed. That’s a stunning thought. If you think that providing free health care to illegal aliens is mainstream, that’s proof you’ve spent too much time in DC. If you think that decriminalizing illegal immigration is mainstream, it’s time for you to get out of DC. If you think that attempting to push Israel out of existence is mainstream, it’s time to cancel your membership to CAIR and to start talking with people who don’t support terrorism.

Apparently, Speaker Pelosi thinks that she’s suddenly a foreign policy expert. In actuality, she’s nothing except a loudmouth with weird foreign policy principles. During Ms. Pelosi’s interview with the AP, Pelosi said “We have a deep relationship and long-standing relationship with Israel that can withstand Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. We cannot let their weaknesses stand in the way of our ongoing relationship.” That’s beyond stunning.

Pelosi just took a shot at Israel’s duly elected Prime Minister. That’s foolishness on steroids. She did this while insisting that Israel had violated some norm when they rejected the visa applications of Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. Ms. Pelosi didn’t mind that Rep. Tlaib and Rep. Omar listed “Palestine” as their destination. This was an intentional snub on these freshmen Democrats’ behalf since they were travelling to a conference in Israel.

That’s the ultimate anti-Semitic snub, especially in light of the fact that Rep. Tlaib has stated her support for a one state solution in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute:

Before her victory in last week’s Michigan Democratic primary, Tlaib’s campaign represented her as supporting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and endorsing continuing U.S. aid to Israel. Since the primary win, Tlaib has staked out far different positions in media interviews, explicitly endorsing a one-state solution and opposing aid, a change celebrated by far-left Palestinian activists, who sharply criticized her for seeking out and receiving the J Street endorsement.

Ms. Pelosi, please explain how Bibi Netanyahu’s decision to not let a pair of terrorist-sympathizers into his country is a sign of weakness. Further, Ms. Pelosi, are you in the habit of unconditionally supporting candidates that promise one thing but then change once they’ve won the primary? That’s exactly what Rashida Tlaib did:

On Tlaib’s candidate page on the J Street PAC website, on which supporters can donate to her directly, the description states that Tlaib “believes that the U.S. should be directly involved with negotiations to reach a two-state solution. Additionally, she supports all current aid to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, particularly to fund initiatives that ‘foster peace, as well as economic and humanitarian services.’ Tlaib does not support the expansion of settlements and believes that they make it difficult to reach a sustainable two-state solution.”

Unlike Pelosi’s Democrats, Israel takes national security threats seriously. That’s why they took the extraordinary step of rejecting Tlaib’s and Omar’s visa applications.

I’d love hearing Ms. Pelosi explain why Rep. Tlaib and Rep. Omar listed Palestine as their destination when they were flying into Israel. Pelosi’s been around long enough to know that that’s a major snub of Israel.

She said the U.S. commitment to Israel isn’t dependent on either leader, a sign there may not be lasting fallout from this week’s incident, particularly in terms of foreign aid, which must be approved by Congress.

Within Pelosi’s Democrat conference, support for Israel is weakening virtually by the day. When Eliot Abrams, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein retire, Democrat support for Israel will crater. Anyone that thinks that AOC + 3 will support Israel is kidding themselves. That being said, Ms. Pelosi is delusional if she honestly thinks this:

“We have a strong relationship with Israel as well as a deep love and respect for the people of Israel. And, again, this is not going to undermine that, try as President Trump will to do that.”

According to Ms. Pelosi, President Trump is trying to undermine the US-Israeli relationship. That’s stunning. All that he’s done for Israel is recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli territory and move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Other than those things, President Trump has been virtually disinterested in Israel. NOT!

Ms. Pelosi isn’t an honest person. She’s supporting a pair of terrorist-sympathizing Democrats while undermining the Israeli Prime Minister for purely partisan political gain. What a disgusting human being Pelosi is.

For several years, Politifact has been seen by conservatives as a joke. Their ‘fact-checks’ have been more opinion than objective fact. This weekend, a controversy erupted over whether AOC had gotten her picture taken in front of an empty parking lot. This article sets the record straight.

The fact-check, titled “No, this isn’t a photo of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez crying over a parking lot,” was written by Ciara O’Rourke and Duke University student Stefanie Pousoulides. It was reviewed by several editors, Fox News is told.

Their approach didn’t pass muster among commentators Tuesday, who said the site had missed the point intentionally, for the sake of issuing a “false” rating that would help bury stories unfavorable to Ocasio-Cortez about the episode.

Politifact deserves a misleading rating. Here’s why:

Wrote humorist Frank Fleming: “‘Ha! AOC was crying over a parking lot!'” POLITIFACT: ‘False, haters, we checked a satellite image and it was an empty road.’ I might be paraphrasing @jamestaranto, but fact checks are like editorials but dumber.”

“IMPORTANT CORRECTION: @AOC Was Weeping Over an Empty Road, Not an Empty Parking Lot,” joked PJ Media’s Jim Treacher.

Whether AOC was ‘crying’ over an empty road or empty parking lot is immaterial except in the most nit-pickiest of senses. Nothing there is nothing there except in the most insignificant of details.

The story started by saying that AOC was crying over little children being kept in a cage. As usual, the initial story was intentionally fake. It was legitimately called fake news. Someone named Ivan Pierre Aguirre started the story with this tweet:


Now that you’ve seen AOC’s fiction, take a look at what AOC actually saw:

The fact that Politifact stands by their false rating against Jim Treacher’s article earns them a new name. They shouldn’t be called Politifact. They should be called PolitiFiction. Either that or they should be called another weapon in the DNC’s ministry of propaganda, aka the MSM.

One last thing: here’s how AOC laid it on thick about being heartbroken for the children:


Now that’s empathy. Caring about children that aren’t even there.

Anytime that the matchup is Rep. Dan Crenshaw vs. AOC, it’s bound to be a mismatch. Crenshaw is a rising star in the GOP. Part of that status is earned by his willingness to subject Democrats to harsh truths about the Democrats’ policies. Rep. Crenshaw unloaded on AOC and other Democrats because he’s tired of Democrats offering nothing except complaints.

AOC has now proposed a commission to study the border crisis. What genius! The house is burning to the ground. The neighbors are worried that their home is the next to go and AOC thinks that a commission that will take 3 months minimum to staff will fix anything? It isn’t as stupid as some of her other proposals but it isn’t that bright, either. A commission is the right option if you’ve got the time. It’s the worst option in a crisis.

One of the things that Republicans should run on is the do-nothing Democrat House majority. If Pelosi rattles off some partisan bills that got passed in the House but went nowhere beyond that, the people should be reminded that it only matters if the President signs the bills into laws and they actually fix things. If they don’t meet that criteria, then Democrats will have failed.

“Notice that they never come up with a solution,” Crenshaw told “Fox & Friends” Monday morning. “They talk about the over-crowded facilities. They never have a solution. They don’t have a solution for our immigration system. They say it shouldn’t be defined by the administration — well, we do have laws right now…that says you can’t illegally cross the border. That’s immigration policy set by Congress. It’s a law in place. We need to enforce it.”

Democrats like passing laws, then not enforcing those laws. Don’t pay attention to the Democrats’ words. Pay attention to their actions. Pay attention to their shifting priorities, too. What is a priority one week isn’t a priority the next, often for no good reason. Rep. Crenshaw wasn’t finished unloading both barrels. Here’s more:

“I’m worried that the Democrats like this crisis too much,” Crenshaw added. “I’m worried as I’ve seen them fight against every single, even the smallest measures to help fix our immigration problem, they fight against. They don’t want walls. They don’t want a fix to the asylum loopholes. They’re talking about decriminalizing illegal border crossings.”

Where are the Democrats’ solutions? Do the Democrats think in those terms? Thus far, I’ve seen Democrats only proposing fixing symptoms. I haven’t seen them fix the underlying problem on anything.

Rep. Crenshaw vs. AOC is a mismatch. It isn’t pretty. Then again, AOC is a dipstick.

To: Swing Voters
From: Gary Gross, uppity peasant, aka Trump supporter
Subject: Why voting for President Trump is imperative

This past week +, the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, aka the Media Wing of the Democratic Party, spilled tons of ink on the subject of President Trump’s criticism of 4 women known as the Squad, aka AOC + 3. Let’s stipulate immediately that some of the things that President Trump said shouldn’t have been said. Period. Before we move on to more important matters, however, let’s also stipulate that each of the members of the Squad said disgusting things this week.

AOC insisted that Border Patrol agents forced illegal aliens to drink water from toilets. There’s no proof of that. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib co-sponsored a resolution calling for a policy known as BDS. BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. In this instance, Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib advocate for boycotting products made in Israel. They also advocate for placing crippling sanctions on Israel.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Further, Israel is the strongest ally of the United States. Is this policy, presented by Democrats, the direction we want to take the US at this point? I’d argue that it’s never the direction we should go in.

President Trump has said things he shouldn’t have said but that’s virtually irrelevant. Here’s why:

  1. President Trump’s economic policies have produced the most prolific economy in the last century.
  2. Minority unemployment is the lowest in history
  3. Women unemployment is the lowest it’s been since WWII.
  4. President Trump is the only person who is serious about protecting the US-Mexico Border.
  5. President Trump’s regulatory policies have started rebuilding communities that the previous administrations forgot.
  6. President Trump’s corporate tax cuts have rebuilt the manufacturing sector, creating 467,000 jobs during Trump’s first 2 years in office compared with creating a paltry 73,000 manufacturing jobs in President Obama’s final 2 years in office.
  7. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, fewer minority families will get split apart, thanks to the First Step Act, which was passed in 2018.

Knowing these things and knowing that Democrat presidential candidates want to incentivize chaos at the border by decriminalizing illegal aliens, isn’t the choice exceptionally clear that the only real choice is a vote to re-elect President Trump? Further, isn’t it painfully obvious that the Democrats’ policies of a) ending employer-provided health care, b) preferential treatment of illegal aliens and c) job-killing tax increases would cripple the US economy just at the time when the economy is working for everyone from blue collar workers to small businesses to corporations?

Put differently, why would we think about voting for a Democrat in 2020? A vote for a Democrat might restore a little civility, though I doubt it. (Just ask Andy Ngo if he thinks Democrats are pro-civility. Here’s the video of Antifa Democrats attacking Andy Ngo:

American voters face a stark choice. They can vote for a president who’s accomplished more in his first 2+ years than most presidents got done in 2 terms in office. The other option is voting for the people who voted for policies that created a stagnant economy, pathetic wage growth and that crippled small town America.

True patriots should reject that second option in a heartbeat. That option isn’t a legitimate option. That’s an act of foolishness.

Do I wish President Trump’s tweets were more civil? Definitely. If given the choice, though, I’ll pick the blunt guy who’s gotten an amazing amount of things done while dealing with a fake scandal over the smooth-talking do-nothing Democrats. That isn’t a choice. That’s just common sense.