Short Takes: My Pithy, Insightful, Controversial, Blunt, and Sarcastic Rants This Week on Facebook.

Since all of us I’m sure this post election week, are responding on Facebook now to our Leftist friends, and not so friends, I thought it would be interesting to create an entire article composed of my postings on Facebook since the election. Social media dominates media in general now. This is my recognition of that reality.  It’s been a busy week.   This is how it went.

Here is an independent post I shared on various pages including my own. It got a ton of responses.

The Left is calling Trump a sexist for a ton of reasons, but one thing he never did throughout this entire campaign was condescend or patronize to Hillary because she is a woman, or hold back because she is a woman, or restrain his ads, his rhetoric, his speeches, his debate performance, or in any way treat her differently than if she were a man. Unlike Obama who was coddled and protected, before, during, and most likely after his presidency, because the Left is prejudiced and still doesn’t think a black man is up to the job of President without such protection, Hillary will always know that she was fully in, no one was holding back, and she lost, fair and square, except for the media, but not from Trump. I think this is really to Trump’s credit and goes a long way to dismiss many of the sexist slanders he has encountered this whole campaign. Name another Republican who would have treated Hillary as an exact equal, rather than as a woman, running for President. As for Obama, I feel sorry that he will have to wonder what it would have been like, if he could have stood fully on his own, without the coddling and protection of the Left saying “you are against Obama because he is black.” Trump never made an issue of Clinton being a woman. The Left did. But Trump never did. How about some credit for that!

A couple of posts promoted the idea that the Electoral College should be persuaded to vote Hillary Clinton for President. Here are two responses. A bit of duplication, but that’s how I wrote them.

This is wishful thinking by a bunch of morons who have no idea of the process. Do you really think either party would allow people to become electors if they thought for a second that those party loyalists would somehow change their minds and their pledged votes? Can you imagine the turmoil if the election meant nothing because electors could do anything they wanted? Can you imagine the bribery and corruption if electors were open to influence. We’d be a third world dictatorship in the next election.

Not worried about this in the slightest. I just think its funny how many people think this could happen. The Democrats never consider the consequences of their actions, preferring instant gratification instead. They never considered when Obama starting ruling by executive order, that the next President could erase by executive order. Same here. Electors could be swung away from a Democrat, if they can be swung away from a Republican. What everyone has failed to consider is bribery. Can you imagine the things electors would be bribed with if their votes were without any commitment. Can you imagine the threats to them also if they were open to vote as they saw fit, rather than vote as charged by the state election results.

A friend of mine asked how to respond to this Leftist whacko. Here is the original post:

“For all the people who are reminding us of how the conservative world lost its s*** after Obama won both times, I’d like to just ask you to stop right there with your false equivalence.
I don’t recall Obama saying he wanted a blanket ban of followers of any particular religion. I don’t recall Obama ever mocking disabled people. I don’t recall Obama demonizing Hispanics and calling Mexicans rapists or murderers. I don’t recall Obama being accused of sexual misconduct, or business malfeasance, or refusing to release his taxes. I don’t recall Obama promising to remove protection of law from the LGBT community.
Just stop trying to equate the two situations because they are not the same. Not even close. We aren’t making things up like saying he’s from Kenya or he’s gonna take all our guns. We are repeating what he himself said he will do in his own words.”

To which I answered:

Here is how you respond:
Nice talking points, but they have nothing to do with reality. You are repeating the lies and distortions of the Leftist media and the Clinton campaign. Since both are proven liars, your talking points are easy to dismiss, and along with it, your bogus argument.
Trump called for severe restrictions on people coming from certain terrorist countries until we could figure out who to safely let in. There was no ban on a religion.
That whole mocking of the disabled thing was an elaborate hoax of still photos and out of context video clips designed to cover for the reporter who misstated that the Washington Post had no stories on Arab Americans in New Jersey celebrating the Twin Towers coming down. They did. Trump was imitating that flustered reporter, not a disabled person.
Trump never demonized Hispanics or Mexicans. What Trump did say is that some illegal aliens coming in from Mexico are murderers and rapists, which is true. It was the media who reported that Trump said all Mexicans are murderers and rapists, which is a lie.
Trump was accused of everything you can think of including sexual misconduct. But almost every accusation has been withdrawn, recanted, or proven a lie. Those women will be sued by Trump for liable and slander, and hopefully prosecuted for perjury, false accusations, and filing false police reports.
Speaking of rapists, are you still defending Bill Clinton, or supporting his women victims?
Business malfeasance? Don’t see any charges on that.
And how is the law being removed from the LGBT community? The law applies equal to everyone. Are you asking for special privileges, or things not already in the law for everyone?
The situations between Obama and Trump are exact opposites. Obama was covered for by the press, for all his illegal executive orders, unconstitutional actions, over extension of his authority, and his complete failure to make the economy recover by any decent measure. Trump on the other hand was completely lied about, everything about him made up, and a completely false narrative sold worldwide over a corrupt media.
I can see why you are dealing with Obama, and not Clinton, who heads a worldwide bribery and corruption foundation, whose decisions are so bad that thousands of people have died all over the Middle East especially Benghazi, who has not a single significant piece of legislation to her name, nor a successful policy at the State Department.
You are arguing talking points that are all made up. That is why you lost. Now you have to deal in reality.

The 9th Circuit Court ruled in September that holders of medical marijuana cards can not buy firearms because it can make them “irrational and unpredictable.” My responses:

The right to own and carry (keep and bear) firearms is absolute and can not be touched (infringed). Smoking pot by itself does not cancel the right to own and carry, and no judge can say it does. It is only in the use of a firearm that government can intervene. Common sense laws determine which uses are illegal, and which are legal. It is only in the illegal use of a firearm, or commitment to an illegal use, where the government and law enforcement can intervene. It’s really that simple.

It is legal by any common sense, regardless of the misguided courts and legislatures that represent government, that having a marijuana card is irrelevant to owning and carrying a firearm. Using or carrying one while under the influence of marijuana, or any other mind altering substance, is another question entirely.

People have to understand that the government, especially the courts, will do anything to limit the Second Amendment, divide off any group as prohibited from owning guns, and at the same time arm themselves to the teeth and militarize the police. We have the Second Amendment in reverse.

Another posting explained that marijuana cards are not about getting high, they are about getting relief from a debilitating disease, to which the poster then asked, “Do people with diseases have to give up their right to defend themselves?”

A friend posted a highly biased story by Occupy Democrats, loosely based on a New York Times piece, saying that Trump won’t live in the White House full time, he just wants to golf and relax. The implication of the article is that Trump has no interest in being President. Then a posting on this thread stated that Trump wants to be CEO and not a General Manager of the country, and how can I prove Trump wants to do the hard work of President. To which I responded:

The President is the CEO of the Administration, subject to the Board of Directors, which is the Congress. Recognizing the constitutional limits to power is critical for both a successful President, as well as a free people. Contrast that with Obama, who declared and acted on his extra-constitutional assumed power to simply act on his own if Congress didn’t do what he wanted. That is dictatorship. Just as important as Congress acting, is Congress refusing to act. Perhaps more important as it conforms to strict delegated powers of the Constitution. Obama saw no restrictions on his power, which made him a terrible President. As for the golf and living at Trump Tower, that’s just wild guessing at this point.

I was then challenged on Obama being a constitutional law professor, and my credentials to even talk about the Constitution. It was pointed out that many are afraid of a Trump presidency. And also they challenged my reading of the article concerning Trump aides and the media. My response:

What the aides say is pretty meaningless at this point. What the media says the aides say is even less meaningful. Since the New York Times only yesterday pledged to “try” and be honest in their reporting, it’s hard to take them seriously. People are afraid not of Trump, they are afraid of the Leftist mischaracterization of Trump. If people were afraid of Trump, that would have surfaced sometime in the 40 or so years he has been in public life. Anything after he declared for President is misinformation. Obama is hardly a Constitutional Law professor. He was a lecturer who taught one class on the racial aspects of the Constitution. If he actually had any knowledge of, or respect for the Constitution, he never would have done half the things he did as President. The nice thing about the Constitution is that it was written for everyone to understand. It doesn’t need a lawyer to translate nor a judge to interpret. In fact that disaster has separated the people from the Constitution, by people now thinking they have to go through lawyers and judges to understand the Constitution and not just read it for themselves.

The Sacramento Bee had an article posted which said Trump has only one chance to prove he’s not a racist. My answer:

This from a paper that has lost any chance to prove they are objective. They don’t get it. They don’t get to make the rules. Trump doesn’t have to prove anything. They do. Americans have already decided; we voted for Trump. It’s you Leftist journalists who have to decide whether you can remain journalists, and you have only one chance to do that.

On, The Truth About Guns page on Facebook, one of the folks there was selected to be on Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition Team. They also called for suggestions for legislation and reform. My response:

Here is my bold agenda:
1. Repeal the 1968 National Firearms Act, and every agency that goes with it.
2. Withhold federal highway and education funds from any state that is not fully “constitutional carry.”
3. Arrest and prosecute any government official be they executive, judicial or legislative for any oppression of the “exercise or enjoyment” of any constitutional and civil right, which includes the absolute right to own and carry firearms without infringement, as empowered through U.S.C. Title 18, Sections 241 and 242.
4. Make it clear that the right to own and carry can not be touched (infringed) by any government entity, but only the illegal use, or commitment to illegal use, of a firearm, can be, and must be, enforced by government, laws, and law enforcement.

My favorite local radio station 1330 WEBY in Milton Florida put a meme of Martin Luther King on their Facebook page. The caption reads, “Looted Nothing. Burned Nothing. Attacked No one. Changed the World.” My response:

Said to judge not by the color of one’s skin, but by the content of one’s character. Only to have that reversed where it is government policy and propaganda to judge everything by the color of one’s skin, by an Administration that has re-segregated this great nation, and has no character. Time to get back to MLK’s vision.

It’s been an incredible week. These posts were all written after election night. They cover many issues. I haven’t made this my next posting yet, but I want to tell the Left that you are protesting yourselves with these riots. You are protesting an image of Trump created by a Leftist media and the Hillary campaign. Since that characterization of Trump is a fantasy, your protests can’t possibly accomplish anything with Trump himself. Since it is your leftist comrades that created the fantasy to use you, they aren’t going to change it for you. They are going to sit back, use your protests for their own purposes and ratings, and keep the fantasy going as long as you buy into it. The President isn’t going to stop you either or he would have said something by now. Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t want to stop you. Neither does any other prominent Democrat or Democrat media figure. But I have to ask you, what do you think can be accomplished by rioting and destroying property in Democrat controlled cities? The election is over, it’s not like we are going to hold another one just because you are protesting and rioting. Given all that, do you have any idea what you are protesting and rioting for, or is the exercise of rioting an end in itself?

I think I’ll go post that now…

Comments are closed.