Archive for the ‘Always look at the bright side of Trump’ Category

by baldilocks

From a recent conversation:

Them: “I didn’t vote for President Obama either time. You know that. But I like him.”

Me: “Really?”

Them: “I can’t stand Trump! I know you’re on the Trump Team.”

The Trump Team? We’re on teams now?

Me: “I’m not on the ‘Trump Team.’ I’m on the side of our country. And President Trump has done many good things for it.”

Them (scoffs): “What has he done?”

Me: His policies have brought about lower unemployment. Black unemployment is at its lowest since …”

Them (interrupts): “NO, IT’S NOT! IT’S THE SAME AS IT WAS WHEN OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT!”

That’s when I knew I had to compose this post. But before I did, I created a page containing links to my many posts during the 2016 presidential campaign in which I expressed skepticism about Donald Trump’s intentions. In short, I thought he was playing conservatives and was in cahoots with Hillary Clinton to get her into the White House.

There are a lot of links on that page, so if you don’t have time to read them, don’t worry. But, I don’t believe in hiding my errors.

Also on that page are indications of my evolution into becoming a supporter of now President Trump.

Do I like him? It’s a question that does not matter. He’s not my friend or my boss. He’s not going to marry into my family nor will anyone in my family marry into his. I like that he is mostly good for our country, I like that he wants that which is good for it, and I like that he isn’t all talk.

I could post the many forms of beneficial action which President Trump has taken, but I want to focus on the most recent topic since the majority of my American family lives in the South and Southwest: Illegal immigration.

Yes, I’ve ranted about it before but, as I type this, we are seeing the beginning of results of this president putting Mexico’s feet to the fire.

Mexico has long been allowing MILLIONS of citizens of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to walk through its southern border and sojourn through its land en route to the United States.

And why wouldn’t Mexico allow this? Why the flock not? Hey, it’s a chance to shake down these people, rape them, rape their children and turn them into drug mules. And, just spit-balling here, it’s also a chance for Mexican banks to get their hands on monies belonging to international organizations like Pueblo Sin Fronteras (PSF). The Chicago-based PSF has been at the forefront of bringing Central Americans through Mexico to the United States since 2008.

One thing: this flood of illegal aliens has been nothing but a hindrance to the well-being of Americans who are black.  Did I mention that the person I was talking to is black?

But what really got to me was the notion of Barack Obama’s “likability.”

I didn’t want to ask why this person likes the former president because we were already past the point of reasoning together. But I tried to think of what was likable about Former President Obama versus the things that would cause a person to dislike President Trump. Of course, that didn’t take long.

One president talks in a calm, even manner. He’s youthful, slim and has close-cropped salt-and-pepper hair. He will compliment you and try to assuage your doubts.

The other president is old, a little overweight, and funny-looking; that hair, though. And he speaks bluntly and will hurt your feelings.

It would be easy to like the “likable” one, if we didn’t also know that, as a state senator, he voted against saving babies who are born following botched abortions.

… if he hadn’t said that wouldn’t “punish” one of his own daughters with a baby, if one of them had become pregnant before age 18.

… if we didn’t know about Benghazi

… if we didn’t know about Operation Fast and Furious.

… if we didn’t know what he did for Iran.

(If I listed everything that President Likable did to harm this country and its people, this post would be endless.)

But, because he fornicated us with a smile, he’s likable.

Conversely, it’s okay to dislike the one who does almost everything alleged conservatives say they want and who, among many other things, is executing effective action to secure this nation’s borders and strengthen its economy.

Fact is, most people will accept tyranny if the tyrant blows smoke up their a**es.

And will hate the harsh one with the old man hair;  the one who tries to fix things.

Even the things they care about.

Even while they are prospering.

Thinking about this, I’m glad that Jesus never told His followers to like their neighbor as themselves, since I spend a lot of time disliking my neighbors — even the ones that I love.

Even the ones who are unable to discern friend from foe or good from evil.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow her on FacebookTwitterMeWeand Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar or hit Juliette’s!

In which I solve yet another mystery

by baldilocks

The latest in the Democrat Party’s lowered expectations for People of Color™: now, they don’t even have to win an election for the party to choose him/her as its representative.

Stacey Abrams will deliver the response to President Donald Trump’s

Stacey Abrams

State of the Union address next week, giving the state’s top Democrat one of the nation’s most prominent pulpits as she considers whether to run for U.S. Senate in 2020.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday he asked Abrams to deliver the address, which will air shortly after Trump finishes his address to a joint session of Congress next week, because “she has led the charge for voting rights, which is at the root of just about everything else.”

The speech will be a pivotal moment for Abrams, who narrowly lost last year’s gubernatorial race to Republican Brian Kemp and refused to formally concede the race, citing what she said was a vote marred by irregularities and his refusal to step down as the state’s top elections official.

Why Abrams? Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Rashida Tlaib (MI-13) and Ilhan Omar (MN-5) seem like better choices on the surface – they’ve actually won elections and all three allow the party to check the same two boxes that Abrams does: not-white women. Tlaib and Omar, of course, give the added benefit of being Muslims. (In fairness, Tlaib is only kinda Muslim.)

All that precious diversity at their fingertips but they forgo it?

It’s easy to see why none of them were chosen, though: no one will be able to control what they say in front of a national audience, especially not Nancy Pelosi. It’s entertaining to imagine Tlaib or Omar sign off with “Death to that Motherf****r Trump and to America” or Ocasio-Cortez with “God bless Socialist Utopia America.” Same thing, really.

And, call it a female hunch, but I bet each of them has told the Speaker of the House to her face that she can kiss their backsides or something equivalent.

Not that Abrams wouldn’t do that, too, were she in office. But she’s not and, therefore, she is much more apt to stay on the message outlined for her by the Speaker and by Senator Schumer. They need her, but she needs them much more. So, she gets the spotlight.

I’m sure that, during the response, the strings extending from her back will be well concealed.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar or hit Juliette’s!

An interesting followup to yesterday’s post suggesting that if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 Harvey Weinstein would not today be exposed as the man he has been for years.

Two days ago just as I arrived for work Red Sox left fielder Andrew Benintendi hit a two run homer off of Astro Ace Justin Verlander making his first relief appearance ever giving the Sox a 3-2 lead in the bottom of the fifth of game 4 of their series. I walked in smiling and when I told my lead the score, at he confidently predicted an Astro win so we bet a candy bar on the result.

Yesterday I was running late and found myself, thanks to Houston’s late comeback rushing into Shaw’s in Leominster to buy the bar to pay off that bet. I found myself stuck in a line behind a woman who was visiting her daughter who had just had her first child. The conversation in the line and with the cashier was Trump vs Mexico. At this point I interjected, “Well consider this, if Donald Trump isn’t elected there is no way that Harvey Weinstein is exposed by the NYT as he was a vital ally and fund raiser for Hillary Clinton.” The cashier agreed that this was true but the woman ahead of me had a slightly different take, while she agreed with my premise she stated quite emphatically: “Still isn’t worth it.”

Given that Mr. Weinstein preyed on woman (which she was) I found that opinion interesting and as I was leaving it hit me that not only would her daughter be of the age that Weinstein would go after but there is no reason to believe that if that new grandchild of hers wanted a career in movies a Harvey Weinstein or someone like him, would in 15-18 years be making the same demands on her if she wanted to get ahead in the business.

This is how crazy the left has become, a liberal women so dislikes Trump that she would have been willing to not only let Weinstein’s crime be unexposed and unpunished but would have been OK with him being allowed to obtain new victims for the sake of keeping him Trump of the White House.

So for those who you Hate Trump but are outraged over Weinstein I have two questions for you:

Would the price of Weinstein never being exposed have been worth it to you if it meant Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump in 2016?

If the answer to the first question is yes: At what number of new women victimized by Mr. Weinstein would that price become too high?

I think these two question really give this story the perspective it deserves don’t you and I’d love to see a roving reporter asking these question to a bunch of women’s studies majors at liberal universities across the nation wouldn’t you?

I’ll give the last word to Thomas Wictor

(39) Electoral extermination is the only thing that these people will understand.

In 2018 and 2020, remember the pig-men.

— Thomas Wictor (@ThomasWictor) October 10, 2017


As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar.

Harvey Weinstein image by DAvid Shankbone via Wikipedia

An important point needs to be made concerning the continuing exposure of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual crimes and the finger pointing of leftists over the wall of silence.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected none of this would have come out.

Do you think for one moment that the NYT which had killed the Weinstein story once already would have dared to move forward knowing that a friend an ally of Mr. Weinstein was in the White House, running the justice department etc etc etc. Would they have dared to expose a story that would have crippled a Hillary Presidency?

I think not.

Every single woman who now has the courage to come forward about Weinstein owes Donald Trump the man they hate, the man they demonized, the man they did all they could to defeat, a huge thank you because without his election there is no Times story and they do not have the ability to openly say the truth about Weinstein.

And I submit and suggest that every one of us in the new media on the right should remind them of this fact every single day.

Update: 
A question for the Hollywood left and feminists: Even if it meant that Harvey Weinstein was not exposed and would still preying on women do you still wish Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 instead of Trump and why?