Trump Ousts These Words

Are we finally getting freed from the tyranny of Leftist language? President Trump is attempting to strangle political correctness and one way to do it is to stop the politi-speech.

From The Washington Post:

The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

….“certain words” in the CDC’s budget drafts were being sent back to the agency for correction. Three words that had been flagged in these drafts were “vulnerable,” “entitlement” and “diversity.”


Whenever I hear “fetus” I am offended. It’s a baby, not a thing or body part.

Vulnerable? We’re all vulnerable. We’re all diverse, too. Evidence based and science based? Whose science, whose evidence? Washington funded professors at research universities who are told to produce evidence to push political ideas like climate change? Isn’t change already part of climate?

We have been and still are manipulated by terms of the Left’s choice. For example, being for abortion is really being pro choice. No, it’s being for the death of babies.

Add the phrases “illegal aliens” and “undocumented workers” to the list of crazy, inaccurate descriptions.

What about “progressive?” That’s tacked on ideas to make you think you’re a behind the times fuddy duddy idiot if you don’t agree with whatever crackpot theory they’ve cooked up.

I’ve also had it with smart as a prefix for anything. We can’t just have a phone anymore; it’s a smart phone; it’s a smart TV, etc. Of course no one wants a dumb phone or dumb TV.

Again, wordplay by advertisers or people pushing something.

Sad that Trump’s plain talking is so upsetting to reporters. They loved Obama never saying anything and never getting pinned down. They can’t understand comments that strip away all their newspeak. It scares them so they attack.

It’s wise of Trump to start changing a game that’s been stacked against regular Americans. Of course news media won’t follow along, but it’s a start.

Net Neutrality Axed

Good for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. Despite all the threats, protests, lamentations and lies he went forward with a vote on Net Neutrality. It has now been repealed. Let freedom ring.

I expect snowflakes will be kicking and screaming in mom and dad’s basement. They either don’t understand the concept of freedom or are more stupid than their masters degrees in Ancient Gallic Harp History studies shows.

This comparison by Jack Hellner at the American Thinker blog gives the best explanation and rebuttal I’ve seen. It may come in handy when you run into a frothing millennial.

Now that Net Neutrality has been repealed, the companies that build and maintain the infrastructure will be able to charge more to companies that demand more. What a horrible concept, basing prices on supply and demand!

It was inspiring that the net neutrality supporters were trying so hard to protect streaming companies like Netflix and Google from paying more for their increasing use and increasing demand that generates the need for more infrastructure and maintenance. Netflix only has a market value of $81 Billion and Google $730 Billion, so thank goodness consumer advocates are working so hard to protect them from paying more for their increasing share of the bandwidth.

The government takes tax dollars and builds lots of infrastructure, including toll roads. They charge vehicles based on their number of axles because bigger and heavier vehicles cause more damage. Semis, buses and campers are charged more than cars. Is that fair? Using the net neutrality concept, why should vehicles that demand more infrastructure maintenance be charged more? Why should poor or middle-class people with campers be charged more than rich people with Mercedes? Where are the consumer advocates demanding toll road neutrality?

Wealthy content providers like Facebook and Google charge less per hit for large advertisers than they do for companies that get fewer hits. Why should demand and supply or volume determine the price? Why should smaller, poorer companies be charged more per hit? We need a pay-per-click neutrality law.

Why do advertisers get charged more for advertising on Ellen, the View or the Today Show than on other lower rated shows? Consumers have to pay more for products because advertising costs so much. We need to have an advertising neutrality law on all media outlets to protect the consumers.

Why do ESPN and HBO charge more than C-SPAN for cable and satellite companies? Where are the people protesting to block this outrageous practice?

Why does Harvard charge more than other colleges when the books and subjects are the same? We need government to step in with college tuition neutrality.

Finally, we need to have the federal government establish a tax and fee neutrality law. Since government at all levels seems to raise taxes and fees on everything at will, we need to have the federal government step in to say that no city, state, or government body can have taxes higher than any other, no matter what their needs or demands are. That should work.

The sole reason for Obama and the Democrat FCC to dictatorially implement net neutrality rules was to get government control. That is the Democrats’ solution to everything. The internet has grown and provided excellent choices and competition for decades without net neutrality, so why did we need the new rule?

The U.S economy has grown to the greatest and most innovative economy in the World in 240 short years because of capitalism and free markets, not because of government control. The consumers have been well served, so why was there such a rush during Obama’s eight long years (it seemed like 100) to stack regulation on top of regulation as fast as his minions could?

The marketplace and competition will take care of the internet. Unless you get monopolies or collusion, the pricing and competition on the internet will take care of itself. If a company charges too much, other companies will step in. If not, the antitrust laws have not been repealed. I am more worried about Google, Facebook and Amazon, who seem to want to buy and control everything in sight.

Bama Bummer

Today is not the day to listen to mainstream media – or even Fox News – if you’re a conservative. The election of Democrat Jones to the Senate beating Republican Roy Moore will have anchors and commentators saying Roll Tide all day. It won’t be a crimson tide they’re applauding, but a blue one over red state Alabama.

Polls had been unreliable in this election as they are in most. Fox News poll had Jones ahead by ten points; a local poll taker on Hannity yesterday had Moore ahead by 7. You could take your pick. Others pendulumed throughout the fall as accusations of misconduct by Moore 40 years ago broke.

There have been signs of other trouble. During the primary, President Trump supported Luther Strange. What did Trump know? Reports of Moore prancing around DC as if he had already won the election disturbed many political observers. Yesterday Moore’s prancing to the poll – truly, astride a horse – reflected a narcissism that raised eyebrows.

This weekend Drudge noted that Moore didn’t appear to be campaigning in Alabama and his surrogates did interviews for him. What was up with that? Was he that confident or just lazy?

Jones’ election is a blow to Steve Bannon. He was the one who interfered in the election to push Strange aside and promote Moore. It’s unlikely he’ll have much clout in other elections now. Bannon’s move allowed the Democrats to do the divide and conquer strategy. It’s one they’ll use again and again if there is a rift between Republican groups. All they have to do is hope the weakest GOPer wins in a primary and then find a flaw or make an accusation and he loses. If it can happen in Alabama, it can happen in pink states that might vote in a Democrat.

Trump needs to send his analytics team to the RNC pronto. Jared Kushner oversaw the successful collection of date for Team Trump. They were outstanding. They can pour over counties to turn out Republicans plus help in fundraising.

Meanwhile some Republican needs to turn the tables and start attacking New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. He’s been to trial on corruption, resulting in a hung jury, but there’s a lot of material there. Funny how Gloria Allred doesn’t seem concerned about his sexual shenanigans with underaged girls. There’s plenty in his story to make Democrats cede any moral high ground they think they have maneuvered.

Expect the Dems and the media to be insufferable for a long time after this election. It will be there rallying cry. The CA, which has already promoted Phil Bredesen for Senate already, will crown him the winner against Marsha Blackburn before a vote is cast. We’ll be subjected to his accomplishments for the next 11 months.

Our party had better learn to be proactive and not reactive. There’s plenty of ammunition out there against Democrats. Let’s use it.

There is a bit of solace to be had however. The Conservative Treehouse blog compares Doug Jones to Scott Brown. He noted the parallels months ago:

One party in power.
A special election in a deeply one-sided state everyone takes for granted.
A seat formerly held by a stalwart of the party in power. (Kennedy / Sessions)
A disgruntled opposition party whose grassroots strategy is under the radar.
A generally ‘unlikable candidate‘, who spent more time in DC than campaigning in the state where it mattered.

And Jones only won by one point.

We remember what happened to Brown. In the next election – which was just two years – he lost to Democrat Elizabeth Warren. She trounced him 54 to 46.

Space to Grow

Yesterday President Trump announced that we will up our space program. He wants American astronauts to go to the moon again and then Mars.

He said, “This is a giant step toward that inspiring future and toward reclaiming America’s proud destiny in space. And space has to do with so many other applications, including a military application. So we are the leader and we’re going to stay the leader and we’re going to increase it many fold.”

I noticed at the event that a smiling Florida Senator Bill Nelson got as close to Trump as he could for photographers. He wants to take advantage of this move for growth in Florida.

Some may ask why we are doing this after Obama more or less dumped the space program. His only concern seemed to be that we get Muslims employed at NASA.

Just like the British controlled the seas to dominate and achieve their empire, we must have a command in space. That is where communications are done and probably warfare will go.

I ran across this interesting clip. It said, “Helium-3 is a very rare gas with the potential to fuel clean nuclear fusion power plants. However, one of the problems is that the nearest supply of helium-3 is on the Moon. This video by Christopher Barnatt discusses the nuclear physics, space exploration and global politics that may be involved in mining the Moon for helium-3.”

Left Recognizes They’re Losing

Our side always assumes we’re losing. Even though we have the presidency, Congress, most state governments and now newly appointed judiciary, we still fear we’re on the precipice of destruction.

If you take a look at the other side, however, many there are not feeling so victorious. Here’s Earl Ofari Hutchinson writing in the Huffington Post an article entitled: “Sadly, Trump Is Winning.”


This is one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to write and admit: Trump is winning. In the brief space of a week, he won a court fight to shove Mick Mulvaney to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mulvaney wasted no time in unhinging a spate of consumer protection rulings, regulations, and personnel hires made during the Obama years.

His SCOTUS pick, Neil Gorsuch, eagerly cast a vote to impose the Muslim travel ban. His EPA head, Scott Pruitt, delivered a couple million acres of public monument land in the West to oil, gas, and coal industry developers. Trump busily continues to pack the federal judiciary with a parade of ultra-conservative, strict, constructionist Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia clones.

He switched gears and backed alleged pedophile Alabama judge Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race, who almost certainly will win. The Republican National Committee, which had practically declared Moore a pariah, quickly jumped in and said it would back him. He got another sweet perk when Senate Democrats turned with a vengeance on Minnesota Senator Al Franken and virtually ordered him out of office. His subsequent resignation got rid of a pesky thorn for Trump. Franken had a big voice, lots of name recognition and popularity, and was not afraid to take shots at Trump.

He pooh-poohed the guilty plea of his former National Security Advisor Mike T. Flynn as no big deal while shouting “no collusion, no collusion” and got away with it.

He got his tax heist for the rich and corporations through the Senate, and as an extra bonus, brought his long-held dream of dumping the Affordable Care Act closer to reality when the Senate tacked on a provision to the bill wiping out the individual mandate. When the markets took another tick up he crowed even louder that he was the man who brought the good times rolling to America. As always, he did all this with the sheepish connivance of much of the mainstream media, which is always off to the races in giving round-the-clock coverage to his self-serving, vapid tweets as if they were the word from the Mount.

Trump’s biggest win, though, has come on three fronts. One is the GOP. It can rail and curse at him publicly and privately, but it needs Trump. He is more than the titular head of the GOP. He is the point man for GOP policy and issues and, in a perverse way, the spur to get action on them.

The second front he’s winning on is the continuing love fest that his devout base has with him. While polls show that his overall approval ratings consistently wallow under forty percent, buried in the polling fine print is the numbers that mean the most to him and the GOP. That’s Republican voters. The overwhelming majority of whom back him. Even though his approval rating has dropped among white males without a college degree and Christian evangelicals, polls show that he still gets majority approval from them. These are the voters that the GOP will need Trump to rev up in the key swing districts in 2018. They’ll look to him to do just that. This is the voter loyalty that buys a lot of support from the GOP establishment even as they flail him or shake their head in disgust at his antics.

The third winning front for Trump is his perennial ace in the hole: the media. He remains a ratings cash cow for the networks and makes stunning copy for the print media. He knew that from day one of his presidential bid and he knows it even more now. He will continue to suck the media air out of everything that the Democrats do and try to do. Take his phony war with the NFL owners over the national anthem protest by a handful of Black players. A couple of tweets from him knocking the owners for alleging caving into the players was more than enough to distract from his bumbling, inept, and dangerous handling of the North Korea nuclear threat, and his clueless saber rattle of Iran over the nuclear curtailment pact with the U.S.

This has been his patent ploy, distract and deflect. The public and networks take the bait every time. Other than in the New York Times and other liberal print publications, there is no real sobering, in-depth discussion of the dangerous and destructive consequences of his administration’s policies. But those publications are anathema to Trump devotees in the heartland and the south anyway. So the withering criticism of Trump in these publications is tantamount to a wolf howling in the wind.

During the campaign, Trump loved to shout to his adoring throngs that, with him in the Oval Office, they’d win so much they’d get tired of winning. The giveaways to the rich, the gutting of Obamacare and the coming whittling away of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security is hardly winning for many of his backers. They benefit from these programs and won’t get a dime’s more relief in their tax bill. But for Trump so far this has been a win-win, and a sad one to admit.

What Is the Left?

In reading a blog I like I ran across this comment. The person succinctly describes Leftism.

Let’s be a bit more honest. Leftwingers lie. You’re thinking that they’re like Conservatives and that they’re being straightforward about their motivations and drives, which they never are.
They hate themselves (and I mean that literally), humanity itself (they truly think less humans would be a good thing), their parents (Babyboomers were psychotic in this regard), their country (they believe everything about us is wrong), and their race, whatever that may be. They’re childish, infantile, lazy and want everything handed to them. When they see a successful person they’re filled with envy and want to figure out a way to bring that person down.

They just support anything that destroys everything life sustaining and positive.

So they literally support crime, yes, they’re literally pro-crime, pro-baby killing and pro-chaos. Who the hell else would watch BLM burning down a city and make excuses for it and support it altogether? I was horrified by the Kate Steinle verdict. Weren’t we all? Yet what was the Right’s reaction? No burning down of San Francisco. Just a federal case brought against the monster. In other words something constructive, not destructive. The Right builds, the Left just wants to tear down every institution the West has built.

You make a big mistake when you take them at their word. Their motivations are deeply dark.

Like they’re never pro-woman. They’re truly anti-man. They’re not builders, they’re destroyers. It’s a very dark philosophy. I know because like many a Conservative I’m actually a former liberal until I found out the truth about their motivations.

Another One at the Net

A poor misguided snowflake submitted a letter to the editor in the CA on net neutrality. The headline given on it was “Liberty and net neutrality for all.” So now, net neutrality = liberty? Hardly.

The writer’s screed drags in “of the people, by the people, for the people” quote and says (patriotic music here, please) “repealing net neutrality is in direct defiance of principles which are the very backbone of our country. Actions like this will only worsen the imbalance of power and widening class divide that is currently threatening our country. Americans need to be free to raise our voices! We should not be censored by those with a self serving agenda. Controlling what information its citizens have access to is a trait of totalitarian countries, not democratic ones. To those in power: if you love America and its people at all, save net neutrality.”

Except he has just made the argument for repealing net neutrality.

So many young people – I assume he is because of their love of all things tech, but don’t know that he is – have been brainwashed. They hear the term “neutrality” and assume it’s accurate and fair. They are too inexperienced to know that the liberals/democrats always name a bill or idea the exact opposite of what it is. (See Affordable Care Act)
The whole net neutrality thing is more complicated than what it appears on the surface.

Here’s a list of 7 reasons why net neutrality is idiotic, courtesy of the Daily Wire.

Net neutrality is the notion that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) shouldn’t be able to “slow down, speed up, or block data as it is routed from its content originator to end users” in order to favor particular sites. The net neutrality regulations put in place under the Obama administration involved subjecting the Internet to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, where it’s considered a public utility that is subject to the iron grip of the FCC.

The FCC is now trying to kill these regulations, and they are right do so. Here are seven reasons why.

1. The instances of ISPs slowing down or blocking data to favor certain sites over others are few and far between. Ian Tuttle notes at National Review that when the FCC first attempted net neutrality regulations in 2010, they were only able to “cite just four examples of anticompetitive behavior, all relatively minor.” Cell phone networks, which are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations, don’t engage in such anticompetitive behavior.

There’s a reason for this: such behavior doesn’t cut it in a free market. As Ben Shapiro wrote in 2014, “Consumers would dump those ISPs in favor of others” if those ISPs slowed down or blocked data as favoritism toward certain sites.

2. Under Title II, the Internet is subject to a bevy of regulations at the whim of the FCC. ISPs have to submit proposals for any “new technology or business model” to the FCC, which will severely hamper innovation.

3. The FCC can also subject ISPs to a slew of taxes under Title II. Per Tuttle, the FCC has the power to levy taxes against companies subject to Title II. Tuttle points out that “telecommunications companies are generally subject to higher state and municipal taxes than other businesses.”

4. The FCC also has the power to prevent ISPs from charging websites at rates they deem to be unfair and ends “paid priority.” This is bad economics, as Shapiro explained:

Netflix consumes a huge amount of peak traffic bandwidth. That costs ISPs money. Pornography sites consume a huge amount of bandwidth. That costs ISPs money. Were an ISP to push YouPorn to pay fees for its higher bandwidth, consumers of the ISP who did not use YouPorn would be the beneficiaries — they wouldn’t be subsidizing YouPorn. As Alexandra Petri of Washington Post writes, “To use one of those dreaded analogies, if you are constantly driving huge trucks, full of big deliveries of pornography, along a road, why shouldn’t you have to pay more for the road’s upkeep?”

Meanwhile, other ISPs could calculate that they want to absorb the costs of YouPorn in order to carry YouPorn, since YouPorn could refuse to pay the fees to the first ISP. That would be an advantage for the second ISP. In other words, market choices take place, and those can provide options to consumers. Net neutrality would ban such deals.

5. It’s a form of censorship. It’s obviously not the kind of blatant censorship that one would expect under totalitarian governments, but the FCC has a way of being subtle in how they control content, per Skorup:

Some Internet providers may initially fight or test the legal boundaries, but the FCC has ways of breaking defiant firms. The most alarming is that the agency is increasingly using license and transaction approvals to coerce various policies — like net-neutrality compliance, increasing the number of, say, public-affairs, Spanish-language, and children’s TV shows, and abandonment of editorial control of TV and radio channels — that it cannot, or will refuse to, enact via formal regulation. In the long run, Internet and technology companies, now FCC supplicants, will have to divert funds from new services and network design to fending off regulatory intrusions and negotiating with the Internet’s new zoning board.

In other words, with the FCC controlling the ISP market they can and will use their power to coerce them into providing content that’s more toward their liking.

6. It’s crony capitalism in favor of web giants like Facebook and Google. That’s why they support net neutrality, since it targets their competitors.

7. The better way to ensure net neutrality is to breathe more capitalism into the ISP market rather than government control. Instead, the FCC should be encouraging de-regulation in order bring in more competition, which is the real check against corporate abuse.

Everything the young person rails against in his letter is what net neutrality is all about.

When did education stop telling students to think for themselves?

Harold Ford Jr. Fired

This is just breaking and it’s from the HuffPost:

Former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford Jr. has been fired for misconduct by Morgan Stanley after facing a human resources investigation into allegations of misconduct, a company spokeswoman confirmed.

“He has been terminated for conduct inconsistent with our values and in violation of our policies,” a spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley told HuffPost in an email.

At least one woman, who is not a Morgan Stanley employee but interacted with Ford in a professional capacity, was interviewed by Morgan Stanley’s HR department as part of the investigation.

In two interviews with HuffPost, the woman alleged that Ford engaged in harassment, intimidation, and forcibly grabbed her one evening in Manhattan, leading her to seek aid from a building security guard. The incident took place several years ago when Ford and the woman were supposed to be meeting for professional reasons. Ford continued to contact her after the encounter until she wrote an email asking him to cease contact.

The email, which was reviewed by HuffPost, shows that the woman emailed Ford after he repeatedly asked her to drinks. She asked him not to contact her anymore, citing his inappropriate conduct the evening where he forcibly grabbed and harassed her. Ford replied to the email by apologizing and agreeing not to contact her.

HuffPost is not identifying the woman at her request but has reviewed emails that confirm her interactions with Ford and spoke to two people whom the woman confided in about the incident. One woman heard from Ford’s accuser the night of the incident and described her as “distraught, shocked, and frightened,” and said that she was concerned about any career ramifications should she report the incident.

Ford comes from a prominent political family in Tennessee. His father, Harold Ford Sr., held a congressional seat for 12 terms before retiring, leaving his son to run for the seat, a race which he won handily. Ford served in the House for nearly 10 years before deciding to run for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Republican Bill Frist. Ford lost that hotly contested 2006 race by fewer than three points to current Republican Sen. Bob Corker.

Since leaving Congress in 2007, Ford has worked for two financial services companies, first for Merrill Lynch and then Morgan Stanley, which he joined in 2011 as a managing director.

At the time Morgan Stanley announced the hire, The New York Times described Ford’s role as a rainmaker of sorts: “Mr. Ford will be responsible for ‘building business opportunities’ for clients, Morgan Stanley said. He will manage relationships with corporate directors, senior executives and institutional investors, as well as private clients.”

Ford also serves as a paid on-air political analyst for NBC/MSNBC and regularly appears on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe.”

Is anyone surprised that another Democrat was doing this? Only that he got caught.