Briefly…

There seem to be a lot of Democrats complaining that the leader of the DNC announced there’s no room for pro-lifers in his party. Most Democrats are pro-choice, but even many of abortionists are saying that the issue is too polarizing for the party to take such a strict stance that alienates a small portion of their party. Obviously, pro-life Democrats are furious.

Why should they be? The party has made no secret of their stance on abortion in the recent past. Coming out and declaring that members of the party need to be pro-choice is not only expected but welcomed, at least by those who want to be politically honest. Being a pro-life Democrat is essentially saying, “I believe in most of what my party believes but I accept they will never do a thing I want them to when it comes to abortion.”

I wouldn’t go so far as to say a “pro-life Democrat” is an oxymoron, but there are clear contradictions. Rather than denouncing, I applaud the DNC for stating the truth about themselves, their ideology, and what they expect from members. All parties should do the same. My membership with the Federalist Party comes fully attached to a pro-life stance. The vast majority in the GOP are either pro-life or, if they happen to be pro-choice, accept that they’re not going to get their way on that issue. The Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Constitution Party have all made their stances known.

This issue is far too important to leave room for interpretation within a party. I have no love for Tom Perez or the Democrats he represents, but again I think it’s best for them to be honest to their own membership. The Democrats are the pro-choice major party. To pretend otherwise is silly.

I don’t make it a practice to comment on potential legislation before reading it. Speculation takes too much bias and rumors into account which tends to sway the reader (and author) in directions before the truth is even known. I’m making this exception because if reports that Vice President Mike Pence has negotiated a deal with the Freedom Caucus turn out to be true, it could be the best move made by the administration on health care since taking office.

Then again, it might be a big nothingburger.

The good news: limited waivers for the states. This means states have opportunities to bypass certain provisions of the AHCA that would allow them to help drive down premiums.

The bad news: essential health benefits carry over from Obamacare. This will limit the decrease (and even perpetuate increases) in premiums for the vast majority of Americans.

We’ll see how it pans out, but here’s the thing. I know many if not most Republicans are in favor of repealing and replacing Obamacare with the AHCA. It would boost morale and take away certain chunks of the oppressive economic burden that Obamacare has placed on us. However, the details are terrifying to anyone who believes in limiting government and defending the freedoms we hold dear. The original AHCA was a repackaged version of nationalized medicine that would push us further down the road towards financial oblivion and what we’ve seen of the proposed changes don’t change that. It would potentially slow down skyrocketing insurance costs, but it wouldn’t reverse them. In essence, it’s not a solution to Obamacare but a way to spread out the ill effects. We will still be paying way more than we were just a few years ago. We will still be ballooning the national debt and making little impact on our outrageously unbalanced budget.

Full repeal is the right way to go. That’s not to say that we need to return to the pre-Obamacare era. Changes need to be made, but those changes should come based upon reactions and analysis once it’s repealed rather than trying to plug all of the potential holes ahead of time. If we repeal Obamacare and allow the free market to guide the government on changes to be made, the end result will be much better. We can already plan for some of the changes such as opening up competition across state lines. We can work with charities, communities, and local governments to fill the gaps and prevent people from falling through the cracks. By repealing Obamacare fully in stages over the next 1-3 years and then watching how consumers, health insurance companies, and markets react, we can make intelligent decisions rather than speculative ones.

Of note is that the Freedom Caucus is supporting the amendments to the bill. We’ll see what that really looks like. Getting government out of health care is the only truly conservative/federalist way of fixing it. If they’re willing to negotiate, I would hope it’s because they believe in the plan and not because they’re feeling pressure from donors and the White House.

Only time will tell and speculation at this point is premature, but it will be interesting to see just how revamped Ryancare 2.0 really is. The bright spot I’ve seen in initial reports is that leftist publications like WaPo and HuffPo seem to hate the idea, so that’s good.

I know someone who is environmentally conscious, minority-empowering, and socially aware who also happens to be extremely conservative. Her “bleeding heart” has been tempered by reality. She knows there are problems that need to be addressed but she’s not so naive to believe the gut response for action is the right way to address most situations. I know all of these things because she married me a quarter century ago. I also know she’s not an anomaly.

My wife had been a lifelong Republican up until recently when she realized that the GOP is the slightly-less-big-government alternative to the Democratic Party. We both gave the Tea Party a shot and helped get as many conservatives elected as possible in recent years, but the Tea Party’s influence is waning with the Establishment solidifying its power over the party that once belonged to Coolidge and Reagan. That’s why we became Federalists.

For conservatism and/or classical liberalism to break through the stranglehold the Establishment’s Democratic-Republicans have over DC, we’ll need to embrace a more intellectual tone and understanding of several issues that are normally associated with liberals. We need more small-government-loving, freedom-defending conservatives in office and we need them there quickly, but conservatives can’t do it alone. It’s time to start recruiting people who are conservatives at heart but who believe their only option to promote the issues important to them is through the Democratic Party.

Here are three issues normally considered to be liberal beacons that conservatives can and should commandeer:

Save the environment… locally

There was some excitement among conservatives when new EPA chief Scott Pruitt started espousing Federalism in the government’s approach to the environment. In reality, he didn’t go quite far enough since he was promoting cooperative Federalism. What we really need is dual Federalism at the EPA where the state and local governments focus on their own areas while the EPA itself fades into nothingness; they should be cut to the point of only handling interstate challenges where the actions of one state have an impact on another. These cases are few and far between.

Those who believe that saving the environment is important almost always lean towards the Democratic Party. What these people don’t realize is that the environmental plans pushed forth by the Democratic Party are generally ineffective and invariably wasteful of time, money, and resources. The conservative/Federalist methodology to clean up the planet should focus on the local environment. Instead of spending billions on decrees from Paris, environmentalists should be mobilizing their local communities to promote recycling programs, clean-up initiatives of local water supplies, and energy awareness campaigns. Instead of laying down rules from DC, the states should be making decisions about what’s best for their own land, air, and bodies of water. After all, they know their own environment better than any Washington bureaucrat.

When environmentalists are shown the benefits  working within their own areas of influence rather than allowing the federal government to dictate, many of them will come to the conclusion they’re not wasteful Democrats. They’re small-government Federalists.

Empower minorities… with equality

Let’s face it. Affirmative Action is a broken notion. It may have been necessary at one point, but today the best way to empower minorities is to make sure they have equal footing. Every American citizen should be just that: an American citizen. Race should play no part in whether someone should be given government assistance for education, priority for employment mandated by DC, or special treatment through government programs.

Many in the Republican Party, in an effort to attract more minorities, are embracing ideas that support or resemble the tenets of Affirmative Action. When then-candidate Trump went after Justice Antonin Scalia for telling the truth about Affirmative Action’s effects on minorities, we saw the playbook that the future administration and his party would be using. They worry that if they don’t keep entitlements and programs that benefit minorities in place, they’ll lose elections.

As a minority, I know I’m not alone in not wanting a “helping hand” from the government because of my race. I don’t need it and to insinuate that I do is an insult. There’s a difference between fighting discrimination and elevating people based upon their race: one protects minorities while the other hampers them (even if it doesn’t seem like it at the time). Neither discrimination nor Affirmative Action have a place in this country anymore. Instead, we need to allow all races the equal footing they deserve to find success the American way.

The strategy the GOP is using to push left in regards to minorities is a losing play in the long term. Democrats will rebound with minorities in the coming elections because they’ll go even further to the left by giving primacy to minorities. The proper conservative message isn’t to say, “here’s more for you and your race.” It should be, “here’s equal footing, now go make it happen.” There will always be those who want any advantage they can get and chances are they’ll always be Democrats no matter how far left the GOP goes. What we’ve seen is that the message of true equality resonates much better with a good portion of minorities who would never be Republicans but who aren’t interested in what the Democrats are selling them.

Support social programs… through private organizations

When the topic of “social programs” is brought up, it’s common for people to divide along party lines. Democrats generally want more social programs while Republicans generally want fewer. To the Democrats, they’re essential. To the Republicans, they’re a waste. In a way, they’re both right. In another way, they’re both very wrong.

While there are some social programs that are absolutely not necessary, some are truly essential for the well-being of many Americans as the Democrats contend. On the other hand, they’re also a burden on taxpayers; many should be eliminated as the Republicans contend. The reality is that the vast majority of them should be transitioned to the public sector.

Republican politicians will argue that they’ve been saying that for some time and they’re correct. The problem is that they’ve done absolutely nothing to push this concept forward since the mid-1980s. Yes, they say it. No, they don’t do it. They don’t even try. It’s just part of their campaign spiel.

Fiscal and social conservative citizens and even a very small handful of lawmakers realize that privatizing most of these programs will have three effects: the burden will shift from taxpayers to fundraising (forced funding versus voluntary funding), community-based initiatives with centralized oversight and assistance (dual federalism in action in the private sector) will reduce corruption, and the overall effectiveness of the programs will generally improve. There will be some failures. There will be some corruption. Both will be reduced compared to what we’re seeing from DC-run social programs today.

There are more conservatives in America who don’t realize they’re conservative because they’ve fallen for the false narratives of both major parties. The Democrats keep saying “if you believe in this, you’re a liberal,” while the Republicans generally agree. If we expand upon the message that small-government Federalism is a better fit for addressing many issues associated with liberalism, we’ll find that more people realize they were conservatives all along.

In 2 months, Lord willing, our fourth child will be born. He won’t be like the previous three. He has a rare heart configuration that essentially has his aorta and pulmonary artery switched up. There’s also a hole in the wall that separates the ventricles of his heart. His is a situation for which many parents would choose abortion.

They wouldn’t necessarily be perceived by society as cruel for doing so. It’s not like they would be doing it for the frivolous reasons that so many potential parents invoke in modern America. They would be doing it to prevent the child as well as their current families from having to suffer through expensive health conditions, multiple operations, and a life restrained by circumstance. There’s something noble about sparing someone from living a hard life, right?

No. There’s nothing noble nor humane about taking a human life at any stage of development. If given the choice in retrospect, would you rather go through the new challenges of a deformed heart that hampered you, the operations that constantly put you at risk, and the burden that comes to you and your family? Or, would you rather have never been born at all?

You or I can make this hypothetical choice because we’ve already been given the opportunity to live, to learn, and to grow in this world. I would challenge any God-fearing American’s honesty if they would have chosen a life cut short over a life of hardship.

Unfortunately, many couples or individuals in our situation would believe they were doing the humane thing by preventing those challenges from encompassing another’s life. They would likely be made to feel justified by their doctors who all-too-often condone or even encourage abortions when faced with the prospects presented to us.

Our doctor is different. She’s extremely caring and hopeful. She has never pushed us in the direction of abortion though she’s acknowledged that the option was on the table. Once we made it clear that the option wasn’t on our table, she never brought it up again. Today, I’ll be going in with my wife for our monthly checkup before the next phase of ongoing testing and monitoring begins. We’ll soon know some of our options on procedures to repair the heart or redirect blood flow. These are decisions that we’ve never had to make, but by the Grace of God we’re not discouraged. This is His child. We are here to bring him forth and to help him grow.

When abortions are done for frivolous reason, the lines are clearly drawn with very little doubt on either side of the aisle. When they’re done for reasons such as rape or incest, the line can be blurred a bit for some in the pro-life movement. In situations like ours, the lines are barely visible. Pro-life parents may feel justified to abort for the sake of their families and to prevent the pain and struggle that their child is certain to experience. To those of you in similar situations, please understand that everyone regardless of situation or condition has the right to live their lives. This isn’t a question of politics. It’s a cultural battle to define the God-given right of life itself even when that life is going to be hard.

One of the strategies Speaker Paul Ryan used in attempting to sell the American Health Care Act was to include defunding Planned Parenthood as part of the deal. It was a good attempt to sugarcoat “Obamacarelite” with some conservative honey for positive press and leverage against right-wing opposition to the bill, but it obviously didn’t work. While the dust is settling from their repeal and replace debacle, now is the time to introduce a new standalone bill to get rid of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding once and for all.

It makes strategic sense for both Congress and the White House to make this happen quickly. Fingers are already pointing in every direction. They need a high-profile win and this is just the thing to do it. Defunding Planned Parenthood will reassure conservatives that the Trump and/or Ryan agenda was not derailed by their AHCA loss.

The next big battle they plan on tackling is likely tax reform. That’s going to take time. Defunding Planned Parenthood will not. Drafting it and pushing it through committees would take no time at all. They could have it on President Trump’s desk in April. They can initiate their next moves on tax reform once Planned Parenthood is defunded.

I’m not going to go into a long diatribe of why Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded from a pro-life perspective. Either you’re in favor of it or not and nothing I can say can sway you. However, if you’re in favor of defunding, then you should be in favor of doing it quickly. At over half a billion dollars a year, it’s not a drop in the proverbial bucket. The longer we wait, the more money gets used to kill unborn Americans. This should have been done already, but I can understand the perceived need to attach it to the AHCA for sales and promotional purposes even if I absolutely disagree with the action itself. Ryan’s strategy allowed more babies to be killed. This should have been a Day 1 issue.

As a Federalist, I’m not giving them this advice for political reasons. The AHCA debacles has helped interest in the new party to spike, so I’m not trying to help the GOP clean up their political mess. However, we’re talking about human lives. I’ll happily push politics aside if it means one more child being saved.

Instead of using defunding Planned Parenthood as a negotiating chip, Congress needs to bite the bullet and make it happen right now. It’s quick, easy, and would draw the attention of mainstream media. Considering the obliteration the GOP is currently receiving this news cycle, it behooves them to turn the narrative towards saving the unborn rather than internal bickering.

As I write this, the House is pushing for a floor vote on the American Health Care Act. It “hangs in the balance” as some mainstream media news outlets are saying, but that doesn’t really paint the picture properly. In reality, it hangs over the GOP’s head in two major ways.

If it passes, things get really interesting in the Senate. There, the GOP cannot afford more than a couple of internal detractors and in the current form, there are more than enough. We haven’t seen the final version, but unless major changes were made, it’s very possible it could pass the House and get shot down in the Senate.

If it doesn’t pass the House, the spotlight is on the Freedom Caucus. President Trump has allegedly threatened Congressman Mark Meadows and others with losing their seats in 2018 if they don’t vote for it. Just as in the Senate, it would take major revisions for most Freedom Caucus members to reverse their publicly stated stance that they will vote against it.

This bill in its current known form is not what conservative/Federalist voters have asked for, nor is it what they were promised. I’ve gone on record as calling it Obamacarelite, RINOcare, Ryancare, and Swampcare. Based upon the latest push by the President, I’m calling it Trumpcare. He didn’t write it, but he’s pushing for it hard. President Obama didn’t write the Affordable Care Act, but he pushed for it just as hard as Trump is pushing for the AHCA.

Here’s the thing. People weren’t dying on the streets before Obamacare. I’m not so naive as to think we can or even should go back to the previous system. In fact, I think the previous system was already too burdened by government regulations. As conservatives who believe in the free market economy, we recognize that the best way to make health care truly affordable for the masses is to get government out of the picture. They need to open it up to competition across state lines.

Some will point out that tens of millions of Americans will “lose” their health care if we don’t pass something. They’d be technically right. However, a large bulk of those “losing” their health care coverage will do so willingly, as should be their right. There are conservatives who point out that it’s not fair for people to not carry health insurance and rely on taxpayers to pay big for their emergency care when they need it, but that’s singular and very shortsighted. The cost to taxpayers to cover uninsured emergency procedures is infinitesimally small compared to the cost we pay for ACA or the cost we would pay if AHCA passes.

What about pre-existing conditions? I have some experience with that, though I won’t bore you with the details. I’ll tell you this: government should be the last line of defense only. With both ACA and AHCA, they are inserting themselves into the front lines for health care. The community, charities, family, friends, and organizations designed specifically for such things will help those who cannot get their health needs met due to not being able to get covered. In a world with GoFundMe, it’s very unlikely that anyone who needs something won’t be able to get it. For those who do, that’s when the government as the bottom safety net can come in and save the day. This level of engagement should be very rare. If there’s minimal involvement by government to simply keep people from falling all the way through the cracks once they’ve failed to receive enough help through all the other options, that’s still a fraction of the cost to taxpayers.

The net result of full repeal would be to allow the consumer-driven market to push competition and make insurance companies beholden to the people. It amuses me when people say, “But repeal will only make the health insurance executives richer!” As Trump would say… “Wrong!” They love having millions of Americans who would never willingly purchase health insurance being forced to buy it by their government overlords.

Get government out of health insurance and premiums will go down for a vast majority of Americans. Allow the free market economy and the crowdfunding power of 2017 (plus charities, family, and community) to help those who need it the most. Government’s only role should be as the absolute last resort. Just repeal it.

Update: Instalanche thanks Steve and well done JD. For those new here JD is one of our Magnificent Seven writers. So if you like what you see from our full time twice a week writers like JD Rucker (Thursday Afternoons and Sunday Evenings) Fausta Rodriguez Wertz (Wednesday and Friday Afternoons) Baldilocks (Tuesday and Saturday Evenings) Our Weekly Writers like Zilla of the Resistance (Friday Evenings) RH (NG36B) Saturday Afternoon , John (Marathon Pundit) Ruberry (Sunday afternoons) Pat Austin (Monday Afternoons) and Christopher Harper (Tuesday Afternoons) Our part Time Writers Jerry Wilson (Most Thursdays), Michigan Mick (Twice a month on Mondays), Pastor Kelly (occasional Fridays), and our monthly/substitute writes Ellen Kolb, Tech Knight and Jon Fournier (Wednesday evenings) then please consider subscribing to help me pay them.


Choose a Subscription level



Your subscription pays the writes (except the two who won’t take pay) and helps me toward my goal of not just posting daily but doing this full time again. You will also get our podcasts directed mailed to you ahead of others.

Or If you want to help with the incidental bills (like the massive hospital bills coming or the cost of the used car I need) but don’t want a monthly commitment please consider hitting daTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

And if you aren’t inclined or in a position to kick in financially, we will happily accept your prayers

Yesterday, I “helped” my second-oldest open her first credit union checking account. I say that I “helped,” but my only real contribution was telling her it’s okay if she doesn’t buy checks but keeps the 5 temporary checks she got from them as backups. “You won’t need them,” I said. “It’s 2017. Money is easier now than ever before.”

She’s still in high school but I put her one one of my credit cards to get her established. Having her as an authorized user gives her credit history while protecting her from making silly teenager mistakes. Every thing she uses it on must be approved, documented, and accounted for in the end. Now that she has a debit card, I’ll be using it to pay the expenses she accumulates on my card every month. If she’s ever short, I’ll work out a plan to cover it for her temporarily, but I anticipate she’ll never be short. So far she’s just used it for teenage essentials: gas, food, and an occasional pair of shoes when she’s worked extra hours.

As an active high school senior, she holds two jobs. I disagree with this particular choice but I support her right to make it. I wouldn’t say she’s overworked, necessarily, but it does create scheduling problems from time to time. She will learn from now until graduation one of two things: overextending herself brings challenges that she’ll want to avoid in the future or she’s capable of managing her time even when split between school, home, and work. Either way, it’s a great lesson I wish I’d have learned at her age.

Spend only what you can afford. Pay all of your bills on time. Work hard to generate enough revenue. Don’t go into debt unless absolutely necessary. These lessons are easy for a parent to teach a child, but they’ve clearly gone unlearned in Washington DC. More accurately, they’ve been ignored. The Democrats abandoned any semblance of fiscal responsibility a hundred years ago. The Republicans seem to ebb and flow in their understanding. Unfortunately, the current GOP-controlled Congress seems to have let those ideas completely fall to the wayside.

Obamacare must be fully repealed. Any replacement for it should be designed to systematically remove the federal government from the insurance business altogether. Defenders of the current plan will say that it’s a repeal that’s fixing the problem the only practical way going forward. The reality is that it’s the only way they imagine being able to pretend like they’re doing the right thing while still being economically irresponsible for the sake of votes.

One thing is guaranteed: if a Democrat were president today (God forbid), Congress would pass full repeal and either a conservative replacement or no replacement at all. Why? They’d know it would get vetoed. The fact that whatever they pass will likely be signed has forced them to reveal their real intention of continuing down the path towards big government fiscal failure just to avoid political losses in 2018.

There has never been a U.S. President like Donald Trump. It’s not his history, his ideologies, or even his style that make him completely unique. All of these traits have precedents in some form or fashion. The one thing that truly makes President Trump different from every other President before him is his ability to make mainstream media look like absolute fools.

Journalists have always had the upper hand. When they had a President they didn’t like such as George W. Bush, they could selectively pick out quotes that made him look silly while aggressively examining his missteps with a microscope. When they had a President they liked such as Barack Obama, they could just hang out with the guy and fawn over his clever quips.

With Trump, the media is tripping all over themselves, falling flat on their faces in the process. They seem to finally understand that Twitter is where they’re going to get their “sound bites” instead of directly from the mouth of the President. This is the only positive in the eyes of the media to having Trump as President. Everything else makes their jobs not only harder but potentially dangerous.

We’ve seen disinformation coming from the administration that essentially puts the media on notice. They fell hard for reports that the National Guard would be turned into a deportation force. Only after reporting the memo did the administration come out and say it was false despite attempts to verify it before the report. This was done specifically to promote the administration’s narrative that mainstream media posts fake news constantly. More recently, we saw the President himself act as a “senior administration official” to leak a story that he “envisions a bill allowing many immigrants to stay in US.” The motivation behind this one was even funnier. He wanted to get press coverage before his big speech before Congress so he’d have more eyeballs watching.

Both strategies worked wonderfully.

I mention his penchant for disinformation first because it’s not new to the office. Every President tries with various degrees of success to manipulate the narrative. Some say Obama was great at it, but let’s remember that the press were willing victims in many cases when the last administration wanted to shift perspectives. Bush43 was awful at it (though some in the administration were decent). Bill Clinton was masterful. Bush41 barely even tried. Ronald Reagan was arguably the best in modern history… until Trump.

This is part of the game that must be played in Washington DC. The press knows it. Their thirst for a scoop often supersedes their desire for the truth, so they’ve always played the game and hoped to come out on top as often as possible. With Trump, they’re quickly being taught (though likely not learning) that his administration has the upper hand.

With that important piece out of the way, let’s look at the thing that makes Trump unique.

Truly useless and bound to be replaced

Most pundits are aware that President Trump is pushing the narrative of mainstream media being loaded with fake news because he doesn’t like them. That’s only half the story. The other half is more nefarious and must be watched carefully by both sides of the political aisle.

Trump doesn’t just want the mainstream media to look bad. He wants them eliminated. He wants them replaced. The easiest way for his agenda to be successful and his next term to be secured is if he can make the people disenchanted with the press itself. He’s known this for years and has discussed manipulating the media since the 1980s. The difference today, as president, is that Trump realizes they will never be on his side. He could make Barack Obama his personal adviser and start initiating leftist policies and they still wouldn’t like him. The leftists press aren’t as concerned with his policies as much as they’re concerned with the man himself. They hate him.

As a result, he’s going to eliminate them as much as possible.

Past presidents have had contentious relationships with the media, but Trump is going to continue to push the bounds far beyond anything we’ve ever seen. He’s making the relationship personal and relying on their unhinged desire to destroy him so he can paint them as dishonest and “enemies of the American people,” as he once declared. What the press doesn’t seem to understand is that he’s winning this war. They’re still playing the game as if it’s them versus him. He’s playing the game as if it’s them versus America. Over time, he’s going to win this battle.

That’s the good news. As someone who has had an issue with mainstream media for decades, I cheer his efforts. The only thing that concerns me is that he seems to be pushing to not only eliminate them but to replace them with his own people. Anyone who thinks he has Steve Bannon so high in the administration because of Bannon’s political know-how doesn’t get it. Yes, Bannon knows politics, but he knows the media better than just about anyone.

For the sake of space, I’ll wrap it up, but there’s so much more to explore on this topic. We’ll cover it further on Thursday. In the meantime, be mindful that President Trump is going to continue his attacks on the media and there’s nothing they can do about it.

Every day, the media loses credibility. Every day, President Trump gains new sympathizers who are sick of how mainstream media paints the administration and anything associated with Trump. Even the left is starting to notice the bias. As improbable as it sounded a few months ago, Trump’s war with the press is going to pay off. Their hatred for him will demonize them in the eyes of the people.

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri has a flare for the dramatic. She’s risen on the Democratic power charts by calling out Republicans every chance she gets. It’s no surprise that she would call out Attorney General Jeff Sessions after it was revealed he met with the Russian Ambassador during campaign season last year.

That’s a pretty powerful condemnation of her former peer in light of the recent revelations. The problem is that it’s a complete and total lie. She DID have a call with a Russian Ambassador in the past.

Twitter has a long memory. Granted, it was a group call and mentioning the Russian Ambassador within the group technically means she didn’t speak with him directly, right? We also should take into account that she didn’t actually meet with the Ambassador. Phone calls are easy to forget, especially for a busy Senator.

Uh oh…

No group call this time. No call at all, in fact. She actually met with the Russian Ambassador.

Here’s the problem with leftist hypocrisy (all hypocrisy, for that matter, though it predominantly spews forth from leftists): The rhetoric can only sustain the narrative for as long as the truth remains hidden. Senator McCaskill inserted herself into a situation and thought she was throwing stones. Instead, she was throwing a boomerang that came back to hit her.

The problem here isn’t the dishonesty. It isn’t the hypocrisy. It’s that mainstream media won’t say a thing about McCaskill’s lie. They’ll cover for her just as they tried to cover for Hillary and just as they covered for President Obama for eight years. This is the reason I write about politics. The real hypocrisy comes from the storytellers more so than the subjects of their stories.

As I’m writing this, many millions of people around the world are watching the Academy Awards. I know I’m not alone in “boycotting” the Oscars, though calling it a boycott is silly. It’s simply a choice. To say it’s a boycott is to belittle the efforts made by those who actually oppose the actions of organizations in sustained and systematic fashions. Like many Americans, I’m just deciding to do something else with my time.

I’ve ranted in the past about avoiding Hollywood. I didn’t watch the Golden Globes and I’ve called for conservatives to find entertainment alternatives, but this is a little different. The Oscars are the big show. It’s the one that is viewed around the world more than any other entertainment awards event. This year, people in other countries will watch the awards and will be able to come to only one conclusion: America hates its President and is falling apart as a result.

They don’t know the situation. Because they’re not bombarded with American news the way we are, their limited exposure means they have to form their conclusions from an incomplete data set. Watching the Oscars, they won’t realize that a large portion of Americans support President Trump. They’ll watch Hollywood liberal after Hollywood liberal bash Trump. They won’t hear a single one say anything positive about the President and if by some miracle they do (I don’t think Clint Eastwood or James Woods are winning anything this year), they’d hear the crowd throw out loud boos. This is Hollywood honoring Hollywood and disgracing the nation that gave them their opportunities.

I mentioned that what many of us are doing during the Oscars should not be called a boycott. If the ratings of this Academy Awards are low (which I doubt), it won’t faze any of them. The only way that they can be made to care about the absurdity of their liberal message is for their actual dollars to drop. That means it’s up to conservatives to stop watching. Sounds hard. It will be. Heck, I’m a movie fan. I moved out to the LA area because I wanted to get into the movie business a decade ago. Things change and I’m glad I didn’t follow through with that particular goal, but one thing is now clear to me. I cannot allow my hard-earned dollars to be used to promote the leftist agenda that spews forth from the people that Hollywood supports.

That’s not to say I won’t see any movies at all. I’m just going to be very selective. I’m going to support the stories that have conservative leanings. I’ll support directors and actors, few as they may be, who are unabashedly conservative. I’ll read more books, watch less television, and spend my downtime educating myself on YouTube with conservative and/or Christian messages.

In other words, I’m done with liberal Hollywood.

Leftists in Tinseltown will continue to embarrass our nation until we let them know that enough is enough. That doesn’t mean a Tweet or a blog post. The only way they’ll listen is if we hit them in their paychecks. The only way we can hit them in their paychecks is to stop spending portions of our paychecks to support them.