How could something so simple be turned around to where the police are the enemy? This is one of many problems with liberals. The very people who they say they're protecting are the very ones being hurt because of the negative consequences of their rhetoric.
I listened to a debate regarding the policing in black communities. It was horrific the way an African American liberal treated criminals like victims and policeman like criminals. It's this type of mindset that's dangerous. These police officers aren't protecting white citizens from black criminals they're protecting blacks from other blacks. They go into their communities to pursue justice for the blacks who were victimized.
How could something so simple be turned around to where the police are the enemy? This is one of many problems with liberals. The very people who they say they're protecting are the very ones being hurt because of the negative consequences of their rhetoric.
I know it doesn't matter to Democrats because they're so shameless, but bringing in Cohen is a farce. What information are they going to get out of him that the Mueller team hasn't? Are they better investigators than the DOJ? Are they going to believe him after he's already sworn to tell the truth several times before and is going to prison for some of those lies?
If Cohen already had something on Trump, the Mueller investigation would've already been all over it. It's a sham. Instead of working on creating a surplus budget with Republicans in order to pay down the debt, they're wasting taxpayer dollars pushing Party over country.
I'm watching Cohen in the hearing this morning and can't help but think Democrats really screwed up because Cohen clearly hates Trump. If he would've come across as more apolitical and didn't want to blatantly bury Trump, then he'd come across as more credible.
It came out during the hearing that he consulted with the Democrats including Cummings and Adam Schiff before this hearing and the next one that Schiff will participate in. Wow! He admitted that although he's been calling Trump a racist that he has no proof. He was just saying that Trump's a racist because he didn't "think," Trump had enough minorities working in his companies. Let that sink in.
He said he didn't know who was paying for his attorney and the question came up that money might have been funneled to pay for his attorney through the Democrat Party and he said he didn't know. I'm not saying this happened but I certainly wouldn't doubt it.
Never before has Congress brought in as their number one witness, someone who is not only on his way to prison but also had lied to Congress the last time he was there. He has absolutely no credibility yet Democrats are treating him like a viable witness.
Democrats in Congress have hit a new low, and that's saying something. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that things that have come out like leaders of the Democrat Party prepping Cohen for the hearing won't be covered by the mainstream media and instead they'll take soundbites that trash Trump and run them 24/7. It's how they roll.
One Funny Story!
I'm watching James Spader in the classic movie: "Stargate," so it reminded me of a hilarious story he told about J.F.K. Jr. They were buddies in high school and would sometimes skip school to drink beer and smoke pot. One day they were stoned on pot and went to John's house to watch television. James had a bad case of the munchies and fortunately for him Jackie O., always kept a big bowl of pistachios on the coffee table so he ended up eating them all. Jackie walked in to ask James if he wanted to stay for dinner and he said yes.
While sitting at the table John began rocking on the back of his chair which made Jackie mad and she yelled at him to stop, that he was going to break the chair. Then all of a sudden, without warning, James threw up right in his plate because he was sick from the pistachios. John was rocking back in his chair when it happened and broke out in hysterical laughter and the chair broke and he hit the floor.
So at one side of the table there's James freaking out about what he did and on the other side, the chair was in pieces and John was rolling around laughing. Jackie was in shock looking back and forth at both of them. Then James said the thing he'll never forget is when John started pulling himself back up to the table and looked at him, and said: "That was awesome!" He told it on the Tonight Show years ago and Jay Leno was laughing so hard it took him several minutes before he could speak. I'll never forget that particular show. :)
Is There a Hate Crime Epidemic?
I normally don't write this long of a post as it will take around four minutes to read but the material couldn't be more pertinent to everyday conversations at this point. I think you'll find what I have to share from the FBI, amazing.
Hate crime definition: “A crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds.” The legal system applies this standard to stiffen penalties for various offenses. In other words, if an assault charge in Illinois carried a 2 to 5 year sentence but was committed based on the hate crime perimeters, it might add an additional two years to the convicted person’s sentence. Of course, penalties for all crimes are based on each state’s statues.
Because of the Jussie Smollett’s situation, the phrase hate crime has been thrown around a lot. Since Trump took office, Democrats have been claiming hate crimes are up substantially and it’s a direct result of his alleged hatred of people based on gender, race, and sexual orientation. Of course, there weren’t allegations throughout his life that he was racist or homophobic, only when he ran for election and way more so when he won the election.
The fact is, Trump has been great when it comes to helping women in business. He’s had women in key roles for years. His campaign manager was the first female to help win a presidential election. There’s no evidence he’s ever not hired someone because of their sexual orientation or fired them because of their sexual orientation; a little something Democrats don’t want people to know. The thing is, Trump’s greed has kept him from negatively impacting any of these protected groups. If someone could make him money, he hired them. It’s how he’s rolled for decades.
I do know in watching interviews of him back in the 70’s, that he was sexists, he had that Hugh Hefner Playboy vibe, but it was the times. Just my opinion, but I think judging people from their past behavior based on today’s political correctness baseline, isn’t fair. I know I believed things when I was a young adult from the Midwest, that I no longer believe now. It’s human nature. Anyhow, Trump has never been liked by everyone, but he didn’t become an “evil person,” until he won the presidency. If he were evil, I’m sure that all the people who are demonizing him now, wouldn’t have gone out to dinner with him or attended events with him, or asked him for money. This includes Pelosi and Schumer.
Back to hate crimes in general. I’ve heard countless times, especially over the last few weeks, that hate crimes in the U.S. are skyrocketing. The statistics that liberal political pundits are sharing make it sound like things are out of control. But are they? First, if you try to research hate crime statistics through Googling, you’re going to notice that it’s virtually impossible for a couple of reasons. One, the data hasn’t been statistically viable meaning hate crimes weren’t tracked by law enforcement agencies for years and not all police stations around the country have been turning in data. The FBI doesn’t run law enforcement across the country, so they’ve kindly asked for it and more and more places are complying.
With the above in mind, I want you to think about something that really bothers me (and it’s not just about this issue), and that is there are organizations who act like they have viable statistics and it’s these organizations that liberals are using to make the claims that they are about hate crimes being systemic across the country and on the rise significantly. One of those places is The Center for the Study of Hate located at California State University. They don’t have enough people to possibly chase down the very data that the FBI is trying to get their hands on.
I investigated it and found they only sourced information from ten cities across the entire United States yet are touting their report as national statistics on hate crimes and since it fits the liberal narrative, Democrats are using it. They’re spouting off on places line CNN and MSNBC that we have an epidemic of violence against minority groups. How many people do you think know that accurate data on hate crimes isn’t available?
So, although not perfect, there’s only one place to go for hate crime data and that’s the FBI, but even their data is tricky unless you pay attention. First let me give you some numbers directly from them. There were 8,493 victims of hate crimes in 2017 (2018 numbers aren’t in yet). The distribution of these crimes was 59.6% of victims were targeted because of their race, 20.6% percent were targeted because of their religion, 15.8% percent were victimized because of their sexual orientation, and 1.9% were victimized because of their disability. There were a few people that were in other categories (a small percent), that rounded out the 100% but almost every crime is listed above.
The next question is, what were the crimes? Were they assaulted? We’re they robbed? Were they murdered? Here you go: Of the 5,084 hate crime offenses classified as “Crimes Against Persons,” in 2017, 44.9% were for intimidation, 34.3% were for simple assault, and 19.5% were for aggravated assault. A simple assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm while an aggravated assault means actual contact. There were 23 rapes and 15 murders in 2017.
There were 3,115 hate crime offenses classified as “Crimes Against Property.” The majority of these (74.6%), were acts of destruction/damage/vandalism. Robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and other offenses accounted for the remaining 25.4%.
It would be impossible to read through the above statistics just one time to get a clear indication of the story, but this is my read on it. I’ve never been a victim of a crime so I’m sure any type crime isn’t pleasant but if you reference the data from the FBI, there’s just not a lot of serious hate crimes being committed. If we look at all crimes involved that were classified as hate, it only represents around .08% of crimes in our country. There’s absolutely no real data that supports hate crimes are systemic. Keep in mind, I’m referencing the best database out there, the FBI’s.
Now usually Democrats and these liberal political pundits in general, are staying away from FBI data unless they can take a little piece of information and spin it. I’m not doing this, that’s why I gave you the actual data. But let me give you an example of one of their sneaky tactics. Some will say that according to FBI data that hate crime is up substantially, without saying what substantially means. For a Democrat, if an issue matches their narrative, they could think that 4% means substantially.
But their biggest trick is to say hate crime is skyrocketing without mentioning that more law enforcement offices are giving the FBI data. Of course, the numbers would be up with more reporting but that doesn’t mean hate crime is up. It is what it is, and we don’t know the actual numbers. But of the data that has been collected, we know that most hate crimes are non-violent and statistically speaking, there just aren’t that many. It’s easy as comparing it in your world. How often do you hear news stories about hate crimes in your area? If you’ve had any, do you feel like it’s getting worse? My guess is no.
The bottom line is that hate crimes do exist but they’re a fraction of a fraction of a percent, of crime in our country. Of course, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay attention to it, it’s just that with limited time in our lives to address problems, we should fish where the fish are so to speak. There are way more important issues we could tackle than this issue.
I can’t say everyone who is claiming there’s a hate crime epidemic is intentionally lying, they could simply be accepting the reports where they get them because they fit their narrative, but regardless, they’re hurting our country by not performing due diligence. This is one of the reasons why the phrase "fake news," was coined. Due diligence was an ethical standard in the industry but in many cases it's no longer being applied.
Now everyone wants to be the first to get a good story out. Not only to demonstrate their relevance in a very crowded media, but also to spin the story in a way that matches the ideology of their reader/viewer base. In other words, outlets like The New York Times will definitely have a spin that fits their liberal base and Breitbart will have a conservative spin for their conservative base. Same story, yet people around the country are having it interpreted for them differently and if they don't use common sense and logic, they can often miss the true story. Both sides think they know the truth, but do they? Are we fighting over issues that have been hyped by media outlets because that's how they make their money?
It sure is the case when it comes to hate crimes. Many Democrats know the truth about the FBI statistics and they don’t care; they’re willing to divide our country for political gain. Don’t you find this scary? I hope that if the issue comes up that you’ll educate others to the false narrative being spun. We’ve got to fight the good fight. We’ve got to step up and use whatever means we have at our disposal to protect our country from those who want to shape it for one real sole purpose and that is to gain and keep themselves in power.
Transcripts of FBI Lead General Counsel James Baker, were released from his October behind closed door interview, where he testified that it was his professional opinion that Hillary Clinton should've been prosecuted for various crimes associated with her email server. As you read this, keep in mind it's a bombshell story and the mainstream media hasn't picked it up. It's the stories they don't share that really makes them fake news.
Baker told the then FBI Director James Comey, that he thought there was sufficient evidence to proceed but he was shot down. Do you remember when Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor in the country would attempt to prosecute Hillary? So he says this after his lead counsel, the smartest legal mind in the room, said there was enough evidence to indict her.
Of course many people believed this. He provided a litany of potential crimes including the sending and receiving of classified emails. Hillary lied and said they weren't classified before she received and sent them as even Comey clearly stated. Then Comey followed up with that they wouldn't be pursuing prosecution. My jaw dropped when he said that.
I thought here was another elitist getting away with something that none of us would've gotten away with in the private sector. We wouldn't have been allowed to turn over evidence (the emails), that we thought were pertinent to the investigation, the FBI would've raided our home grabbed the server and looked for themselves. Why in the world would someone turn over evidence that might convict them? Hillary and her lawyers sure did their best to scrub the emails. Why wouldn't Hillary's lawyers tell her to hold on to all her emails just in case a question came up? This is the best protection for someone who is innocent but exactly what you'd want to do if you were guilty.
I could go on and on. Democrats just got burned again because it gives credibility as to why Republicans had hearings to investigate the matter. Certain people in the FBI are and were totally corrupt. The highest law office in the land, and they acted like the mafia picking and choosing protocol based on political interest. The great news is that more and more of what they did behind the scenes is coming out. Democrats didn't want this investigation. Why don't they want transparency? The Deep State isn't a conspiracy theory, it will now become a shocking movie backed on a very true story.
Politics Over Country
I received some insight regarding what the Democrat Party is going to do that will hopefully make you livid because it's so misleading. Basically, they're willing to lie to their constituents to fire up their base and get votes.
Apparently word is getting out about the Mueller investigation and it's bad news for Democrats. They found no collusion between Trump and Russia. With this in mind, they can't get him on obstruction of justice or witness tampering because he had no motive.
The leaders of the Democrat Party are going to demand that the transcripts of the report be released to the American people. They know that Mueller can't release everything because some of it is classified as it dealt with confidential sources. It involved some CIA agents as the FBI is responsible for issues domestically but the CIA had to be involved because Russia was part of the equation. Democrats know there's no way Mueller can give them everything.
There's a lot of things that will be redacted from the report. A simple way around it is to have a confidential meeting with applicable representatives from both parties so they can share the classified information but Democrats are going to say this isn't enough that they want all Americans to know what's in the report. They're going to demand transparency knowing that for national security reasons Mueller won't be able to oblige. They know that most Democrats won't have a clue that Mueller can't provide the information by law, so they'll use their ignorance against them and our country.
So they plan on claiming there's a cover-up and are going to use this as fuel to legitimatize their own investigations. All the work that the Mueller team has done for over two years will be erased by their lies. Of course none of these disgusting tactics would be deployed if Trump were found guilty.
There has always been political discourse, but in my lifetime I've seen it become dangerous; it's now Party over country. We are in more danger when it comes to our personal lives from our very own representatives than domestic terrorists and I'd gladly debate this point with anyone.
Anyhow, this is how Democrats roll. They're already thinking ahead as to what they're going to do when Trump is cleared. They're strategizing about how to lie to their constituents to convince them they are fighting the good fight against evil.
Is Ocasio-Cortez Correct?
I downloaded part of the IRS' tax database to figure out how many people made over $10 million a year in income, to see how much money would be raised by increasing their taxes by 89% (Currently 37% up to Ocasio-Cortez's proposed 70%), and based on the actual raw data, not the lies she's spewing, it would bring in around $230 billion dollars. This tax income I've provided is higher than it would actually be because I didn't apply a marginal tax increase like she's suggesting, I applied the 70% tax to every dollar these people made. I created a huge best case scenario for her and it was still outrageous.
It would take over five times this amount to pay off student loans. It wouldn't begin to cover Medicare for All, free college tuition, free child care, etc., all of which would cost over $30 trillion dollars, more than seven times our current budget. Please let this sink in. The numbers don't even come close to adding up.
It's funny to a point because what she and others are saying is so out there, but then it gets scary that people actually believe them. Our country is in trouble when the masses are getting so dumbed down that they're being led around like sheep. The last thing politicians want is for their constituents to have common sense, logic, and critical thinking abilities as it would destroy their careers. Democrats are selling our country out through promising things they know there's not a chance in the world will occur, all for influence and power.
Should We Support Band?
Some high schools across the country have eliminated band because of the expense. Of course band members have had to work extremely hard raising funds over the years for a variety of purposes including travelling to competitions. Anyone who knows someone in band, understands how hard they work, the commitment it takes. It's not an activity you dabble in.
I wasn't in band, I played sports instead. If it weren't for dating a band member, I would've thought they were all geeks. I'm sure that some people wonder why someone would presumably waste their time playing in band because what will it do for their future? How many will end up teaching band or playing professionally somewhere for a symphony orchestra? The odds of making it are probably as bad as someone trying to play college or professional sports but there's a huge reason to support band. It's not that it's necessarily going to be a great career path for your son or daughter, but that it's character building. The life skills they learn will help them achieve other goals in life.
I certainly don't know the statistics in this case, but it's my guess that less than 1% of the prison population has ever participated in band. Is this a coincidence? Part of it is cultural but even in some disadvantaged school districts, band has survived the cut. Poor students in band in poor school districts do better than other students. Once again I ask, is this a coincidence?
Band members graduate high school. Band members make good grades. Band members aren't often seen in detention. Band members hang out with other band members giving parents more peace of mind that they're children are a bit safer when they go out. Band members are disciplined. A higher percentage of band members get advanced educations compared to other groups. There are exceptions I know. You see it's not the instruments they play that will add value to their future and ours, it's who they become playing them.
Please support band in whatever way you can because the program is producing some awesome young adults. A shoutout to a special band member in high school, she sure turned out awesome!
Prime Real Estate for Just $10!
Of course the city of Chicago can do whatever they want and they aren't known to make the best fiscal decisions, but if I were a citizen of Chicago I know I'd be livid about this particular one. The city has authorized giving The Obama Foundation around 20 acres of prime real estate near Chicago University for $10. It's going to be the location for Obama's presidential library. Keep in mind, this was an asset on the books for the citizens of Chicago but politicians are giving it away; well at least tying it up for 99 years. The city is looking towards economic growth from the library but knowing how these people operate, as a citizen I'd demand a thorough investigation as to where they got their revenue projections and jobs predictions.
There's no better place than Chicago for this presidential library and the location they picked would be prime for getting attendance, but my problem is giving away the land. It's a 99 year lease for $10, but who knows what will be happening in a century. Chicago will probably go through a bankruptcy by then and they won't have the land asset to help restructure their debt. It would be tied up in a lease and the entire time they wouldn't get a financial return from the land itself. Why in the world didn't they at least charge them $5 million for a 99 year lease? Why do the throw away money so easily? I guess because it's not theirs and they won't be around to face the consequences of their bad decisions. .
Democrats are perfectly fine with what the city is going to do. I'm sure they're concerned that if they don't cut a deal, Obama might take the library someplace else but it would be a horrific political move on his part. Library visitation would be minimal anyplace else such as in Hawaii. This is leverage the City of Chicago had in the negotiations but it appears to have been squandered.
Negotiators for Obama are basically like Amazon cutting a deal to locate their business operations. Business is business. But for me, double-standards are my pet peeve. I think when they're deployed it leads to terrible consequences. What if the city of New York gave the Trump Foundation 20 acres near Central Park for $10? Even if all the factors were the same as far as economic value for the city, New Yorkers would be livid because it's Donald Trump. I don't care who the president is, if he or she were a Republican, these cities wouldn't cut a deal. This is a double standard. Thus, my issue with the whole thing.
The National Emergencies Act of 1976
I am one of those sick people who could conduct research and write all day. I love analytics. I love to data mine. I even enjoy reading legislation and read the current budget (over a thousand pages). I only share this for one reason, I've read the National Emergencies Act and reviewed the precedent established as to when it was invoked by presidents back to Jimmy Carter, and I've got to say, it's one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever read. If I were guessing, over 90% of the time what presidents did with it had absolutely nothing to do with a national emergency.
President Obama declared a national emergency that blocked property of persons threatening the peace, security, and stability of Yemen. I don't mind trying to help out Yemen but it's crazy if a President needs to involve the National Emergencies Act to do it. How does what happens in Yemen create a national emergency for you and me? I truly don't get it. How Trump is attempting to apply it makes more sense than what I saw with its previous usage.
I think the legislation should be scrapped. If you look at the U.S. Constitution, it's very clear who controls the purse strings and that's Congress. Once a budget is established, which also means these legislators have fought tooth and nail for their districts to get the most out of various budget categories like construction projects, for a President to come in and pickpocket various budget items goes against the intent of the framers of the Constitution. It's too dangerous to give presidents this amount of power.
I don't think Trump's trying to do anything nefarious, he's attempting to apply the law as written and The Supreme Court will have the final say. But I've got to say that in my opinion, for whatever it's worth, if you hear any pundits act like they truly understand the legislation and that they know for sure what's going to happen, I wouldn't believe them. The only safe bet is to take The National Emergencies Act off the table and not allow any Democratic or Republican president the power to cherry pick where tax revenues will go.
Author: John Mann