Important headlines for November 30th:

Important headlines for November 30th:   

Bottom Line: These are the stories you don't want to miss (but probably would if I didn't find them for you)...   

Excerpt: Democrats who hope despairing Republicans will join energized independents and liberals to push Jones over the top in the race are not the guardians of morality nor do they represent the party of women. They tolerated Sen. Ted Kennedy after Chappaquiddick and through his many years of drunken groping that may have constituted assault. And after Republicans failed to believe Anita Hill and defended and confirmed Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas against her accusations of harassment, Democrats surrendered their credibility on the matter by then tolerating President Bill Clinton after several accusations of assault by Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. Later they would defend him after he had a sexual relationship with a young intern and lied under oath about it -- blaming Republicans who impeached him for their sanctimony and political overreach. It was then, in the 1990s, that Democrats officially severed governance and leadership from good character, laying the groundwork for the election of President Trump. Only now are Democrats, with Hillary Clinton no longer dominating their party, shamelessly revisiting their support for her husband, decades later. 

While there are several nits I could pick in this story, the general narrative is highly instructive. Politics Trumps all. No pun intended. Something that's not addressed but should be is the actual character of those who run for and win political office. Think about the ego that's required to credibly run for a major political office in the first place. Then think about how many people of the highest quality character and capability choose to run for these political offices. Most highly successful, high quality people I know and have known have no interest in running for political office. They'd much prefer to run a business for example. So, when you start with a subset of an already small subset we're left with candidates that often aren't of the highest quality character to begin with. And here's the thing. We as a society are generally nothing but a bunch of hypocrites if we attempt to argue to the contrary. When we really get down to brass tax who's elected really gets down to one thing. What's in it for me. There are a myriad of examples I could use to illustrate this point but none more obvious than Bill Clinton's example. If character generally mattered explain this one.  

Bill Clinton engaged in intercourse in the oval office with his intern. He point blank lied to every American about every aspect of his behavior. He left office with a 65% approval rating. Now try telling me that character really matters. And here's the thing. None of this is new. We're just more aware now. JFK was busier than Clinton while in the White House but it stayed a secret until well after it would have been an issue for him for example. So, for those who want to say that Roy Moore's candidacy can't be supported do to the allegations, as an example, are nothing more than convenient hypocrites. it's doesn't mean that he didn't do anything wrong. It doesn't mean that at a minimum he seems to have been a really creepy guy about forty years ago. But here's the thing. What's in it for me (or in the case of Alabama's voters them)? And that btw, is why Roy Moore will win the election in Alabama in a week and a half.  

This is a good example of what can quickly happen when people are actually allowed, by the government that works for them, are allowed use more of their money as opposed to the federal government. Spoiler alert. We're more effective with our money than the government.  

Excerpt: Earlier this week, Donald Trump made a joke at an event honoring the great World War II Navajo Code Talkers. He poked fun at Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who used to claim to be Cherokee despite not having any evidence to substantiate the claim. Democrats and their media footsoldiers decided it’s racist to mock someone for falsely claiming to be Native American. For example, Jim Acosta of CNN wrote: “WH press sec says ‘Pocahontas’ is not a racial slur. (Fact check: it is.)” 

Uh, fact check: no. For one thing, as Gabriel Malor said, “No, derogatorily referring to a person who falsely claimed to be a Native American as Pocahontas is not a racial slur. It demeans no racial or ethnic group.” It definitely demeans women who claim that they’re Cherokee sans evidence. 

If your friends make fun of you for falsely claiming you totally have a real, live girlfriend in Toronto and she’s really busy so that’s why they can’t meet her, that doesn’t mean they hate Canadians. If people mock you for claiming to be British royalty by unceasingly addressing you as “Her Highness,” that doesn’t mean they hate the queen. You get the idea. 

And boom goes the dynamite. Once again Mollie Hemingway at the Federalist nails it. There are two sides to stories but one side to facts. Lost in a state of hatred and disillusion is this fact. Here's the definition of slur (when used as a noun): an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation. Pocahontas is the name of a person. Not a tribe or ethnicity - this just in... 

title

Content Goes Here