Libs are poised to vent

Prepare for the annual outpouring of hatred against a man who was behind one of the most important events in world history.

Since the 500th anniversary of his epic achievement, it has become an annual event to vent upon Christopher Columbus.

This is strictly a liberal thing. Liberals hate America and, by extension, Western Civilization.

The voyages of Columbus brought Western civilization to the Western Hemisphere, along with religion and capitalism, which libs also hate.

They mock his achievement with the irrelevant information that other people had occasionally visited the North American continent. But, worse, they accuse him of crimes, rather than celebrating what his vision produced.

The manufactured charge is that he conducted genocide against people already living in what are now North and South America.

People making the charge are illiterates who know little about history or, indeed, the English language.

Merriam-Webster defines genocide as the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

After 1492, the Siberian-Americans encountered by Europeans caught diseases they were not accustomed to, and many died. (Probably not nearly as many as claimed.)

It was not a deliberate act. This is common when cultures clash and intermingle for the first time.

Furthermore, it works both ways. The Europeans contracted yellow fever and other diseases and also died.

Both sides also benefited by obtaining new customs, plants and animals. Europeans introduced the horse to the Americas, meaning the Stone Age inhabitants no longer had to walk everywhere they went.

The idea that they despoiled a civilization of peace-loving, gentle people who were at one with nature is just plain silly.

Indians fought constantly with each other, owned slaves and ravaged the land by destructive agriculture.

The noble Aztecs regularly offered human sacrifices, ripping out the hearts of still living children and adults, cutting the bodies into parts and throwing them down the steps of their temples for the crowds to collect and eat.

This is not to condemn them. They acted like people in their culture acted in the 15th century, just as Europeans did.

Only liberal fools would expect people of that time to conduct themselves the way civilized people of the 21st century do.

The voyages of Columbus opened half the world to exploration and development. Subsequent events brought about a nation that has done more good for more people than any other in history.

But because that nation has resisted efforts to turn it into the Utopia socialists claim they can produce, the nation and its founder are hated viscerally by those anti-Americans.

Stop the nonsense!

I've had it with the lame liberal argument that vouchers are bad because they take money away from the government schools.
Not true and it would be irrelevant if it were.
All vouchers do in Florida and most other states is afford low-income minority families the same educational opportunities that more affluent families have. Period.
Most families can take their children out of failing government schools where they are not getting an education and send them to private schools.
In fact, one out of every five government schoolteachers choose this option for their own children.
Vouchers go to low-income students in failing schools who are being cheated out of an education.
In most cases, struggling parents have to pay extra because the voucher does not pay the full cost, but they are willing to do so.
Is this money "taken away" from the school the child leaves?
No.
Schools are paid a certain amount per child. So every child remaining in the school still would be funded.
Here's another crucial point the greedy union bosses want you to overlook.
Everyone pays for government schools, whether they have a child in them or not. This includes people who also are paying for their child to attend a private school.
Because vouchers are for less than the cost of the child attending a government schools, this is a benefit to taxpayers.
In short, vouchers are a winning proposition for everyone. Liberals should stop lying about them and start helping poor children get an education.

The Russian connection

Although it is a threat to the republic, the "Russian collusion" fantasy that libs currently are embracing has its humorous aspects.
Early in the New Deal, a delegation of President Roosevelt's vaunted Brain Trust went to Europe. They wanted to visit with Mussolini, whom they admired. He was busy and they went on to their main destination -- Russia.
They were mightily impressed with the work of Josef Stalin, the Russian Communist dictator who had murdered millions of Russia's citizens.
In their eyes, he had made the economy of his nation thrive.
When they returned, they urged Roosevelt to emulate the methods of Stalin and Mussolini. At first, Hitler impressed them, too, but eventually they decided his methods might be a bit excessive.
Roosevelt, a novice who had never earned a profit in the business his wealthy family left him, went on to try one heavy-handed scheme after another to combat the depression. Often the methods were at odds with one another: food was destroyed while people were queuing up in breadlines. Wages were kept high while millions were unemployed.
But the effects of the trade protectionism and poor monetary policy could not be overcome with the Russian-style command and control methods. In 1937, a second Depression occurred and the economy remained in the doldrums until the war brought employment and the victory brought about recovery. In the meantime, Roosevelt had abandoned many of his wacky schemes and the courts had eliminated others.
It is all set out in The Forgotten Man by Amity Schlaes. I've read a number of books about the New Deal. This is the best, being the most well researched and even handed.
There is no Russian collusion today. There was in the 1930s and it was brought about by a politician that liberals have elevated to sainthood.

More for the asking

In refusing to attend the inauguration of Donald Trump, Democrats were merely following the tradition of their patron saint, Sir Thomas More.
More invented "Utopia," the mythical, and unattainable, state that they strive to bring about in America.
More was in good with the king until he refused to attend the coronation of Anne Boleyn as queen.
Sadly to say, Henry VIII had More beheaded for the snub. (He later had Anne's head removed, too. Henry had a thing.)
Not saying American Democrats should undergo the same remedy, but it would be worth examining the utopian idea.
The Soviet Union, by the way, honored More for his novel since it essentially was communism -- although communism turned out to be the very antithesis of the ideal life of the citizens of More's Utopia.
(Utopia is a word derived from the Greek term for "no place.")
Everyone in Utopia is a farmer. The food they grow is stored and anyone can help himself from the supply. They had free hospitals, making it apparent why liberals are drawn to this fancy.
But they also had slavery, which might be a bit awkward for Democrats.
On the other hand it is ideal in one respect: there are no lawyers.
Wives are required to confess their sins to their husbands monthly and euthanasia is practiced, again a mixed blessing for liberals.
Private property did not exist and everyone got a free basic income, which leads us back to liberal Democrats.
Once again they are pushing a "universal basic income." Mental midget Robert Reich is for it, as are politicians in France.
Enjoy your trip on the Road to Utopia.

Why not America First?

Libs like to manipulate the language. Currently, they are trying to do so as part of their never-ending effort to smear and misrepresent the president.
President Trump has declared he would put America first.
Immediately, libs linked that to the isolationist movement in America before World War II began.
But that movement began at Yale University -- hardly a hotbed of conservatism.
Also, other allies in the isolationist or “non-interventionist” cause included American Socialist party leader Norman Thomas, liberal journalist Oswald Garrison Villard, and such progressive icons Charles Beard, John Dewey, Joseph Kennedy, Bernard Baruch, and Progressive party hero Robert La Follette, according to Jonah Goldberg.
Trump made it clear that he is not advocating non-involvement in world affairs although, strangely enough, he would be on the same page as the libs, who don't want the American military used anywhere for any reason.
He is saying that when it comes to immigration policy, economic policy, or anything else, he is going to consider what is best for the American people first, and only then how it might affect other nations, such as Mexico.
He is going to ban, at least temporarily, immigration from terrorist nations such as Syria and Iran.
Makes sense to me.
At one time a company called Sandia had a program that involved inviting people from all over the world, including those nations, to come to America, tour our nuclear facilities and learn how the security systems worked there. This always seemed insane to me and I pointed it out to one U.S. senator, who promised to look into it but did nothing.
Putting Americans first does not seem to me to be the wrong thing for the president of America to do.