Phil Mudd is an idiot…

DylanDoucheBag

MatchAcostaClooney

JimAcostaTheAccoster

MatchBeto

                                             The Return of Libel

Paul Krugman’s Op-Ed Return of the Blood Libel from June 21 could just as easily be entitled The Return of Libel. Libel in terms of rank misrepresentation. In his very first paragraph he claims that “in a matter of months” America is gone from a nation of values to a nation that “Tears children from their parents and puts them in cages.” Either Mr. Krugman is deliberately trying to mislead his readers, or perhaps like so many others in the media he simply chooses to ignore the instances in which children were separated from their parents during the Obama administration.

His deception continues in his next paragraph when he claims that crime committed by immigrants are “things that simply aren’t happening,” but instead are just “sick fantasies.” I would like to ask Mr. Krugman to tell that to the parents of Kate Steinle.

Mr. Krugman’s next disingenuous tactic is overused by alarmist media types who have  swastikas dancing in their eyes. Yes, he trots out the comparison of Trump to Hitler by interjecting the specter of anti-Semitism into the immigration debate.

He goes on to describe Trump's policies as a "vision of 'American carnage', of big cities overrun by violent immigrants. And this is not the case." Has Mr. Krugman ventured out of his New York city ivory tower as far as Long Island? Is he conveniently ignoring the news reports about law enforcement rounding up members of the notorious MS-13 gang?

His mention of the statistical analyses that have to do with illegal immigrants and any correlation to the rate of violent crime, as though it is as conclusive as the “settled science” of climate change, is also misleading. In an article written for the Center for American Greatness by Pedro Gonzalez, the author rationally questions the accuracy if not the actual veracity of the popular claim that illegal immigration has no correlation to a rise in violent crime. He cites that the data from the Texas Department of Public Safety used to substantiate this claim in a Cato Institute study “selectively sources data” from the TDPS. His assessment of the “authors analysis” is reinforced by the fact that, “[a]n internal Texas Department of Public Safety report revealed that between 2008 and 2014, 177,588 illegal alien defendants were “responsible for at least 611,234 individual criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,993 homicides and 7,695 sexual assaults.”

Krugman is using the crime correlation statistics as the bright shiny object to detract from the more substantive concern; that being regardless of any impact in the crime rate illegal aliens may exert, it is an unquestionable fact that the massive influx of illegal aliens is affecting aspects and systems of American society in ways that are largely going un-studied and unreported. One need look no further than overcrowded urban emergency rooms, or interview frustrated elementary school teachers to get a sense of the urgency.

Krugman doubles down on his invalid comparison of the justifiable concern about illegal immigration to anti-Semitism with the haranguing history lesson about the infamous “blood libel” accusation about Jewish sacrificial ritual. He says that anti-Semitism was always about “lurid myths, often based on deliberate fabrications.” While true, it is hardly reasonable to compare the aforementioned justifiable concerns to myths and lies.

He concludes his propagandist screed my dangling the bright shiny object in front of the readers eyes one more time and says, “There is no immigration crisis; there is no crisis of immigrant crime.” Whether or not there is a crisis of immigrant crime is questionable at best, but falsely equivocating immigrant crime with an immigrant crisis is a clever but invalid tactic. Characteristically Krugman also uses the worn out propaganda tactic of conflating “immigrant” with “illegal immigrant.”

His conclusion is no less idiosyncratic of biased propagandist persuasion. He attempts to equate justifiable concern about illegal immigration with “unreasoning hatred.” A hatred he claims that “bears no relationship to anything the victims have done.” If the illegal immigrants who violate basic immigration law are victims, it is the drug cartels and corrupt governments from whom they are fleeing who have made them victims, not Donald Trump, and certainly not the generous American people.

Hillary Clinton: A Case Study In Self-Contradiction

Hillary supporters are not critical thinkers. Either that, or they just really don't pay attention to what she says. Here are two examples in which Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a couple of sentences, and makes completely no sense whatsoever.
The first example is from the third presidential debate just the other night. Answering a question about the Supreme Court Hillary said, "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy…the Supreme Court should represent all of us…" Now, think about it. First, she says that she feels strongly that the Supreme Court needs to "stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of powerful corporations…" So, in that statement she is openly admitting, in fact endorsing the idea that the Supreme Court should favor "the American people" over corporations when they make their judicial decisions. Of course, those of us rational thinkers know that corporations are made up of people. If in fact the Supreme Court is supposed to "stand on the side of the American people," but "not on the side of "powerful corporations," how pray tell is the Supreme Court supposed to "represent all of us?" It's not possible. So, in the breath of a couple of sentences Hillary Clinton contradicts herself by saying that she wants the Supreme Court to rule cases in favor of people over corporations, while at the same time representing all of us. Does she listen to herself when she speaks? More importantly, do her supporters listen to her when she speaks?


The second example is taken from one of Hillary's testimonies before Congress about the debacle in Benghazi. Her now infamous statement was so dramatic and over-the-top that no one, especially her supporters, took the time to really analyze what she had said. Let's do that now. In her testimony she said, "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." Once again, Hillary contradicts herself within the breath of a few words. Think about her statement rationally. If it is truly "our job to figure out what happened," but she has already previously admitted that when it comes to determining the reason for the attack on the Benghazi compound, whether it was due to a protest, or "it was because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill Americans," she says, "what difference at this point does it make?"Any rational, thinking person would realize that if you really want to "figure out what happened," then one of the first steps you would take in your investigation would be to determine what was the origin of the attack. Was it a protest? Was it an organized terrorist attack? Or was it just a bunch "of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans?" Once again Hilary has made a completely nonsensical statement. If you don't care to determine the key factor leading to the attack on Benghazi, then how do you ever expect to "figure out what happened?"

Think about it, how much sense did it make when she said in the third presidential debate that limits should be placed upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms in order to protect "toddlers," while on the other hand no limits should be placed on a woman's "right" to choose even if it results in the premature termination of the gestation of millions of unborn children?

How rational is it when she says she wants to "do more to help small business," but in the next sentence says, "I want to raise the national minimum wage?" How does it help small businesses on razor thin budgets to force them to pay artificially higher wages to their employees than the actual labor market would dictate? Having never run a small business herself, it is obvious she simply does not understand that basic economic concept.
These are just a few of examples of the self-contradictory, nonsensical circular logic Hillary Clinton constantly employs in her speeches as she vainly attempts to appease her base while garnering audiences from the opposite side of the argument. Her desire please everyone results in making many of these silly, self-contradictory statements.