Did Gillette NIck Itself? Doping The Dopes! Prager On The Wall, The Issue Of Immoral Safes And Ocasio-Cortez! No Impeachment Report?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Has Gillette cut it's own throat? (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Doping the 2020 election. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Prager on the wall.(See 3 below.)

I too have been seriously thinking about the immorality of this  wall matter and I have come to a conclusion.

If a wall is immoral then bank and jewelry store safes have to be as well?  Anything that restrains illegal activity is an affront and should be removed.

Trust and belief in humankind is the compassionate Democrat way to go and think of all the money we can save on the need to buy insurance policies.

I think I am going to send this idea to Ocasio-Cortez. Now that she is on The House Finance Committee with Maxine Waters which oversees the banking system this should be very relevant.

And:

Mueller will not  produce an impeach Trump report? (See 3a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) The Gillette Ad: The War on Men Is a War on Trump

By Helen Smith

So the cultural meme lately seems to be the general harm of "male toxicity." The APA has guidelines insinuating that male behavior is harmful, colleges are teaching male toxicity courses, and now even Gillette is getting in on the fun of bashing men:

Why are they doing it all together all of a sudden? Sure, there has been male bashing for years, but now it seems like staged propaganda -- like when JournoList put together their talking points for the liberal media during the Obama election.

It's less than two years till the next presidential election. The media and academy's big project now seems to be to show that masculinity, like Trump's presidency, is in the toilet. Being manly like Trump is bad and any man with traits like him is toxic. And now, with the popularity in the media of #MeToo, it makes sense for companies to cash in on this war on men -- which actually symbolizes the war on Trump. According to this article, going for the big bucks is exactly what Gillette is doing:

But before you praise Gillette for its courage, let's put its decision into some marketing perspective.

First, Gillette isn’t forging any new ground here. It’s riding the wave of cultural change that others have been courageously forging by speaking out against sexual harassment and assault and bullying and challenging the formerly acceptable excuse of “boys will be boys.”

The strategy is similar to the one Nike used with its controversial — and highly successful — campaign starring Colin Kaepernick, the former NFL star who put his cause before his career by kneeling to protest police brutality against African-Americans.Nike was rewarded with soaring stock value and a sales boost from its alliance with Kaepernick, proving that social awareness can sell, too. If Gillette can convince enough consumers that they're doing some good by buying its products, it could help enormously in its current battle against the rival Dollar Shave Club.

Companies know that if they act as lapdogs for the media, they can clean up. But I wonder if Gillette's ad will backfire. Men aren't women and making them feel insecure about their masculinity is not as likely to end up in sales as, say, telling women that without a certain product they will be unattractive.

But mark my words, this ad isn't even about helping women or society. It's actually a clever (or not so clever) way to make people fearful of men like Trump who epitomize masculinity without apologizing. The message of the commercial is: we need men who act like women or a woman in charge to make sure we are all safe. But the real message is a political one that trashes men in order to trash Trump.

I hope they go broke.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2)To Understand Election

2020, Watch America, Not

 the Politicians

  

By Scott Rasmussen

Election 2020 is still 22 months away, but the political world can't wait.

A decent number of Democrats have already announced their decision to enter the race, a couple of dozen others are coming and pundits are busily assessing the chances of each new candidate to win the nomination.

One of the early questions is whether Democratic voters will look for a centrist candidate with Midwestern appeal or a more ideological nominee aligned with the Trump resistance. Get ready for plenty of comparisons to the challenges Republicans faced when choosing between Tea Party and establishment candidates.

Looking to the general election, The Cook Political Report has already come out with its first ratings, showing that 232 electoral college votes are leaning toward the Democrats, 220 toward the Republicans and 86 are in the toss-up category. The list seems pretty reasonable, and it's a telling sign of shifting coalitions that Arizona is a toss-up but Ohio is not.

The Cook projections suggest that Democrats could defeat President Donald Trump by simply winning back the Midwestern states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. However, winning with a centrist candidate may not be enough for a party that has moved far to the left in recent years.

I understand the political junkie's desire to explore these topics, and I've even done a bit of it myself. ScottRasmussen.com polling found that a generic Democrat would defeat President Trump by 6 points and Mitt Romney by 12.

But while I understand it, I encourage political junkies to remember that most Americans have no idea who most of the Democratic candidates are at this time. At this time in the 2007-2008 cycle, hardly anybody expected that Barack Obama would win the nomination and become a two-term president. The odds of picking a winner at this time are even slimmer.

It doesn't really matter to me if political junkies obsess over the next election, but I do worry that all this early focus on candidates and tactics might divert our attention from the bigger factors that will actually decide the election.

The biggest, of course, is the U.S. economy. Currently, the Job Creators Network/ ScottRasmussen.com Weekly Pulse shows that 45 percent of voters rate the economy as good or excellent. That's not a bad number, but it's down significantly from the mid-50s last fall.

On top of that, our four-week rolling average now shows that 33 percent of voters believe the economy is getting worse, while the just 31 percent say it's getting better. That's the first time we've seen the negative expectations outweigh the positive totals. Perhaps it's just a temporary glitch brought on by the government shutdown and general political dysfunction. We'll figure that out in a month or two

But if it's a lasting change and we reach a point where people begin to see their own finances getting worse rather than better, the political analysis becomes much easier. It will be just about impossible for President Trump to get re-elected.

If the economy holds up, then there are a number of issues, such as immigration and health care, that pose challenges for both parties. The way those issues are addressed will also have a significant electoral impact.

So if you want to understand election 2020 today, look to what's happening in the real world rather than the political world.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) The Left, the Wall, the Truth 

By Dennis Prager

Democrats and others on the left offer three reasons for their opposition to building a wall on America's southern border.

1. A wall is ineffective.

2. A wall is too expensive.

3. A wall is immoral.

Each one is false, so false as to constitute lies. So, the only question is: Do Democrats and others on the left believe these lies?

This question has plagued me all my life. Leftism is built on lies -- and has been since Lenin. That's why he named the Communist Party's lying newspaper "Pravda" ("truth").

Did my left-wing professors at Columbia University really believe the United States and the Soviet Union were equally responsible for the Cold War? Did they really believe one of the most genocidal regimes in history -- which butchered tens of millions its own people, starved as many as 4 million Ukrainians, enslaved seven Eastern European countries under totalitarian rule and created the monstrous North Korean communist regime -- was no more responsible for the Cold War than the United States, the freest country in human history?

Did my left-wing professors really believe men and women are the same except for body parts? And do today's leftists really believe human beings with double X chromosomes, a vagina, a uterus, ovaries, menstrual periods and lactating breasts are not necessarily female?

Do leftists really believe American universities constitute "rape cultures"? If so, why does any left-wing parent send his or her child to college? Would you send your daughter to a place you believe is permeated by rape?

Do leftists really believe that the statement "There is only one race: the human race" is a racist statement? That is the official position of the University of California.

Do leftists really believe that virtually every criticism of former President Barack Obama emanated from racism, that all opposition to lowering college admission standards for blacks is racist, that all attacks on George Soros are anti-Semitic?

If leftists believe any of the above, let alone all of it, they are deluded people. And the existence of tens of millions of deluded people in a society can only portend catastrophe. If leftists do not believe those claims, they are not deluded; they lie for effect and, therefore, engage in evil. The existence of tens of millions of people consciously committed to lying means society has little hope.

Now to the wall.

Do leftists believe the country cannot afford $5.7 billion? As the Democrats have approved $1.3 billion for border security, the difference is about one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S. federal spending ($4.5 trillion). Democrats and the rest of the left make this argument. Yet they are the very people who, for more than half a century, have successfully pushed for unprecedented expansion of government spending; the very people who are overwhelmingly responsible for local, state and federal government debts of such magnitude that they cannot be paid without massive decreases in spending and the likely social disruption they entail. It is not possible these people believe America cannot afford to pay for a wall. They are, therefore, lying when they claim the price tag is too high.

California Democrats have allocated some $77 billion to pay for a high-speed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles that will be ready in 2033 at the earliest. It will undoubtedly rise to more than a hundred billion dollars. And, thanks to the left and the Democrats, California is spending this money despite being an estimated $2 trillion in debt (between debt and pensions).

The left says a wall (or steel barrier) would be "ineffective" at preventing illegal immigration. We know it doesn't believe this, because just five years ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi supported a bill that required the construction of 700 miles of border fencing. And Sen. Chuck Schumer was one among the "Gang of Eight" Republicans and Democrats who also supported 700 miles of fencing at the border. Every Senate Democrat voted for the Gang of Eight Bill, including 36 Democrats who serve in the Senate today.

Do Schumer and Pelosi and all these other Democrats regard fencing as effective but a wall as ineffective? Do Democrats deny that Israel's barrier has virtually ended Palestinian terrorism? Do they believe Turkey's just-built 500-mile wall across nearly its entire border with Syria will be ineffective? Do they know about the effective walls/barriers between the Turkish- and Greek-controlled areas in Cyprus; between Hungary and Serbia and Croatia; Morocco and Algeria; India and Pakistan; and elsewhere?

As for the Democrats and others on the left declaring a wall "immoral," it is difficult to know which is preferable: that they are living in delusion or lying. On what grounds is it "immoral"? They never say.

Is there a Democrat or leftist who regards walls or other physical barriers surrounding homes or communities as immoral? One doubts it. For one thing, many of them live behind a physical barrier. So, then, why isn't a physical barrier that protects America equally moral? The only possible answers are that these people don't really regard America as their home or they are lying about a wall being immoral.

So why all the lies?

Because lies are effective in achieving left-wing goals. There are people in every political, social and religious group who lie. And there are people within every one of those groups who are truth tellers. But -- and this is a "but" whose significance cannot be overstated -- while truth is a liberal value and truth is a conservative value, truth has never been a leftist value. For the left, there is always something more important. In this case, it is the humiliation of the president of the United States.

3a) Why Mueller Won't Produce an Impeachment Report

By Jim Daws

This past week offered some signs that Robert Mueller is finally winding down his cover-up operation with no findings of high crimes or misdemeanors against the president.  Considering the damage the political hacks in Obama's law enforcement and intelligence agencies have inflicted on the nation, let's consider the reasons we can hope so and where this sorry saga goes from here.

Last Wednesday, Rod Rosenstein announced that as soon as newly appointed attorney general William Barr takes over the reins at DOJ, he will exit stage left.  Knowing what we do about Rosenstein's defense of the Spygate conspirators, his willingness to wear a wire to record Trump, and his refusal to cooperate with investigating congressional committees, we can surmise that he's not anxious to explain his actions to the un-recused incoming A.G.

On Friday, the New York Times published a Deep State-sourced article that was headlined as a bombshell implication that Trump was a Russian agent but was really just a thinly veiled apologia for Comey & Company's illicit political surveillance.  The report was widely scorned by conservative media as justifying the FBI's attempted coup because Trump was insufficiently committed to a new Cold War with Russia.

Then came Jonathan Karl's Sunday revelation on This Week with (Clinton flack) George Stephanopoulos in which Karl quoted sources "interacting with the special counsel" who caution that Mueller's report will be "anti-climatic."  This can be interpreted as a leak that Mueller will stop short of attempting to frame Trump for collusion or obstruction.

It shouldn't be surprising that Mueller won't "produce" a report that the Democrats and NeverTrumps can use to impeach Trump.  Determining whether Trump colluded or obstructed, which was always absurd on its face, was never the purpose of this special counsel.  Mueller was brought in by Rosenstein to put the new administration on the defensive and prevent Trump from uncovering the depth and the breadth of the wrongdoing by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.  In that effort, he has largely succeeded.

No one is investigating whether the DNC was in fact hacked or if its emails were leaked internally.  The hundreds of millions collected by Clinton foundations from foreign interests while Hillary was secretary of state, and presumed 45th president, is just water under the bridge.  Whether Joseph Mifsud, Henry Greenberg, Felix Sader, and others were working for CIA head John Brennan and interacted with the Trump campaign peddling Russia-related pretexts may never be known.  These and a hundred other Spygate questions appear destined to go unanswered.

The last thing Mueller would want now is further scrutiny of this whole sordid affair that impeachment proceedings could bring.  Those proceedings might actually steel the spines of establishment Republicans to defend their party's president and maybe even go on the offense.

As a side benefit to Mueller and his band of Democrat prosecutors, they have given the president's opponents plenty of conspiracy fodder to fling against him during his 2020 re-election bid.  And with guilty pleas from associates to process crimes (pleas made to avoid financial ruin) and the indictments of shadowy Russians who will never be tried, Mueller has given the opposition media plenty of grist to continue accusing Trump of being an agent of the Kremlin.

The lasting harm Obama, Clinton, and the Deep State have done to our political discourse and this president's ability to deliver on his America First agenda is incalculable.  Voters sent Trump to Washington to secure our borders, re-balance our disastrous trade agreements, keep us out of foreign wars, and improve relations with nuclear-armed Russia.  While putting its own interests above the nation's, the swamp has done everything in its power to sabotage those efforts, and it appears that the swamp creatures may never be held to account.

While authors such as Stephen F. Cohen, Gregg Jarrett, and Dan Bongino have published well researched books arguing that we're living through the greatest political scandal of modern times, the final word on how future generations remember this affair will be produced by Hollywood.  One can imagine that those movies will take on the breathtakingly dishonest narratives of CNN and MSNBC.  It will be critical for conservative film producers to set the record straight.  In this case, both the facts and the fiction are strange, indeed.

The author hosts Right Now with Jim Daws, a video podcast of news, politics, and culture from an American nationalist++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++