The responses from the left-wing media to President Trump’s address following the shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio were characterized by the word “but.”  That is a conjunction word that is used to negate everything that was stated previously.

In this case it was used in such positive statements as “Trump did call out white supremacy, but …”  “he did call these acts ‘domestic terrorism,’ but …

For the most part, Trump said everything they had hoped (with crossed fingers) he would say.  It was both a compassionate speech and one that addressed both problems and measures to be taken.  It was what we would expect of a President in such times.

The #NeverTrump media could not give up their obsession to spin all reports on Trump to the negative.  They continued with their politically biased narrative that he was the culpable culprit.  Within the bubble-encased east coast media, Trump caused, encouraged, incited, provoked, promoted the shooting in El Paso.  That is their story, and they are sticking to it.

Trump could not have used better words in his role as counselor-in chief.  He expressed the pain of the nation in well chosen words.  He was unequivocal in his condemnation of the killers, the malignant causes they proclaim and the groups who really do encourage and condone such heinous acts of violence – and he did so by name.

He offered up the first steps of resolution by ordering the FBI to increase its effort to identify and disband the hate groups that radicalize these demented individuals.  He called for greater effort in identifying the mentally ill who succumb to the violent enticement of hate groups – with measures to prevent them from obtaining a gun and expedited procedures to take guns away.

He called on the social platform industry to increase its efforts to remove those embedded sights that promote and incite hateful speech and actions.  Tangentially, he pointed a finger at the producers of bloody violent games that are an amusement for most, but a stimulant for those with sociopathic propensities.

Trump noted his administration’s past actions against gun violence which included red flag laws to get guns away from the mentally ill and his Executive Order banning the sale of bump stocks.

All of this was largely brushed aside but the reliance on “but” reporting – segueing back to the old anti-Trump narratives.  Folks like Beto O’Rourke – who has seen the tragedy in El Paso as his ticket to greater public attention – Trump is an existential threat to the nation.  America will not survive if he is elected to a second term.  That is Chicken Little on steroids.

Many reports and pundits conceded that Trump said he was open to legislative restrictions on guns – as long as they were not symbolic and would have positive results.  BUT … he was not specific.  To the biased media and the partisan Democrats, that meant he was not serious.

Trump’s lack of specificity allowed his media adversaries to continue that attack on guns, gun owners, the National Rifle Association and Republicans.  Yes, the media did say some positive things about Trump’s speech, BUT they swept all that aside by piling on with negative interpretation and old narratives.  It is no wonder that nothing gets done.

So, there ‘tis.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is releasing quarterly reports of illegal aliens who’ve been arrested after local police denied detainer requests from ICE in an attempt to underline the dangers imposed on American communities by leftist ‘sanctuary city’ policies.

Recently, ICE released its first ‘Declined Detainer Report’, which includes an exhaustive list of illegal immigrants who were arrested on criminal charges after local jail facilities refused to honor ICE detainers and released them back into local communities instead. This detainer report pertains to those issued during the second quarter of the 2018 fiscal year – between January 1st and March 31st.

In an interview with Fox News, former acting ICE Director Ron Vitiello said, “So you have murders, you have people who did property crime, spousal abuse, driving under the influence, possession of narcotics — they came into the custody of local authorities and were released after ICE filed a detainer.”

“This is a danger to those communities, and [the detainer report] highlights what happen,” he continued.

Included in the detainer report are sixteen individuals – all illegal immigrants – who were arrested for an alleged crime, but were released into the community after local jails failed to honor detainer requests by ICE officials who believed they were living in the country unlawfully.

Every one of these individuals went on to re-arrested for additional crimes. Some of those crimes included rape and murder.

In the report, ICE officials write, “Cooperation between ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies is critical to the effort to identify and arrest removable aliens and defend the nation’s security. Every day, ICE places detainers on individuals who the agency has probable cause to believe are aliens who are removable from the United States and are currently in federal, state, and local law enforcement agency custody.”

In January of 2018, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) arrested a 30-year-old Mexican national on this list for possession of a controlled substance. That same month, ICE submitted a detainer for the individual, but the request ignored by the police department. After being released back into the community, just one month later, the Mexican citizen was arrested on murder charges.

In December of 2017, the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office in California arrested a 28-year-old Mexican national for violating his terms of probation. ICE subsequently submitted a detainer for him, but the man was set free into the community after the sheriff’s department ignored it. The next month authorities arrested him on rape charges and other alleged crimes. Once again, he was able to leave jail and walk right back into the community after the ICE detainer was not honored.

President Trump’s promised “ICE raids” began over the weekend. The raids targeting scores of undocumented immigrants nationwide promised by President Trump have begun, a senior administration official told CNN.

The roundup is supposed to target 2,000 immigrants who have been ordered deported in New York, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans and San Francisco.

According to the undisclosed official, the raids actually began late Saturday night.

In an exclusive interview on “FOX & friends,” Acting ICE Director Matt Albence said while he couldn’t speak to anything specifically from an operational perspective, the overarching concern when the agency conducts any sort of enforcement operation is “the safety and security of both our officers that are conducting the operation as well as the public.”

“We are doing targeted enforcement actions against specific individuals who have had their day in immigration court and have been ordered to be removed by an immigration judge,” Albence told Fox News’ Griff Jenkins. “We are merely executing those lawfully issued judge’s orders.”

ICE Objects to Use of Term “Raid”   

Albence, then said that he objected to the term “raid,” as it does not really connote the targeted precision of his agencies operation, and only serves to spread fear.

In his Fox interview, Albence, said using the term raid does everyone “a disservice,” adding that the agency is focusing on people who had had the opportunity to make an asylum claim in front of an immigration judge and chose not to do so or didn’t appear for their first hearing. The acting director added that ICE gave those individuals the opportunity back in February to arrange for an orderly process to be removed from the country, but only 3 percent of people responded to letters that were sent out.

“At this point, we have no choice but to go out and execute those lawfully-issued removal orders from an immigration judge,” he told “FOX & friends.”

Reports of Repeat Immigrant Offenders

In addition to beginning the enforcement operation, ICE also released a report over the weekend meant to illustrate the necessity for removing those who have committed crimes.

The first of what will be quarterly “Declined Detainer Reports” details incidents from the second quarter of fiscal year 2018, where law enforcement agencies arrested undocumented immigrants, ignored ICE requests to hold them until federal authorities could pick them up, and then those individuals were arrested on new charges. The report features highlighted cases, including ones where the arrests were for rape, murder, assault, burglary, car theft, drug possession, and DUI.

In one such case, ICE said an illegal immigrant had been arrested and released 10 times by San Francisco police between February 2018 and January 2019, despite ICE issuing detainers. Each of those arrests included charges related to either burglary or a stolen vehicle.

“That individual is a one-man crime spree,” Albence said on “FOX & friends.”

Mark Morgan, acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, also appearing with Albence, told “FOX & friends” that the raids were about “enforcing and maintaining the integrity of the system.”

“This is about going after individuals here illegally,” he said. “Any city, any law enforcement agency that resists, does not cooperate, they’re actually putting those cities in higher danger.”

Administration officials have said they are targeting about 2,000 people, which would yield about 200 arrests based on previous crackdowns.

Trump has said on Twitter that his agents plan to arrest millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally.

In a recent appearance on BET Digital’s #BlackCoffeeLive, Democrat and Minnesota Congressman Ilhan Omar expressed her uncertainty of whether any of the Democratic presidential candidates have the ability to defeat President Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

When asked by Marc Lomant Hill, one of the hosts of the show, if she had endorsed any of the presidential candidates yet, Omar replied, “I have not, and I don’t intend on making an endorsement any time soon. I think it’s a little too early. There are lots of important conversations that need to be had about particular policies.”

“Everybody has ideas that are closely aligned and so it’s within the details often that you get to pick your candidate,” she added.

Omar continued, “As a policy nerd, those kinds of things really matter to me. I also think there is this question of how do we defeat the occupant of the White House? What does that process really look like? How do we not only energize our base, but also get to the soul of our country and reclaim it?”

“I don’t know if, if we have gotten that, that candidate yet,” she said.

Following the first round of debates where 20 Democratic candidates faced off against one another, a series of polls have been released which have shown a steep drop in support for former Vice President Joe Biden, with an increase of support for Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

According to a RealClearPolitics average of recent national Democratic Polls, Biden remains in the lead with 27.2 percent, Sanders in second with 14.8 percent, Harris in third with 14.7 percent, and Warren in fourth with 13.5 percent.

The 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries have shown the American people that the party hardly resembles what it was just four years ago. The party has clearly and drastically shifted to the far-left.

The party has veered so far to the left that almost all of the 20 candidates running in the primaries have outwardly expressed their support for providing taxpayer-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants for free.

That’s right. Democratic candidates want to give your hard earned money over to illegals with absolutely right to be in the county.

If you’ve been following the Democratic Party over the last year and a half, it’s clear that they care more about illegal immigrants than they do for our veterans and the vast swaths of Americans who’re dying from opioid addiction.

On Tuesday, July 12, a military jury acquitted a decorated Navy SEAL of premeditated murder Tuesday in the killing of a wounded Islamic State captive under his care in Iraq in 2017.

Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher was cleared of all charges except for posing for photos with the dead body of the captive. Gallagher reacted with “tears of joy, emotion, freedom and absolute euphoria,” defense lawyer Marc Mukasey said.

“Suffice it to say this is a huge victory,” Mukasey said outside court. “It’s a huge weight off the Gallaghers.”

The Defense held that Gallagher was framed by disgruntled platoon members who fabricated the allegations to oust their chief. They said there was no physical evidence to support the allegations.

The prosecution said Gallagher’s own text messages and photos incriminated him. They included photos of Gallagher holding the dead militant up by the hair and clutching a knife in his other hand.

A text message Gallagher sent while deployed said: “got him with my hunting knife.”

The prosecution asserted the proof of Gallagher’s guilt was in those words, which were his own, and his photos and the testimony of his fellow troops.

The defense lawyers on the other hand, called the case a “mutiny” by entitled, junior SEALs who were trying to oust a demanding chief and repeatedly told the jury that there was nobody, no forensic evidence, and no blood found on the knife.

A Rare Public Glimpse at Military Justice

The case gave a rare public view of a deep division in the insular and highly revered SEAL community. Both sides told jurors that witnesses had lied on the stand and it was their duty to push through the evidence to find the truth. Gallagher, 40, did not take the stand.

The panel of seven (as opposed to a traditional 12 member civilian jury) of five Marines and two sailors, including a SEAL, had to weigh whether Gallagher, a 19-year veteran on his eighth deployment, went off the rails and fatally stabbed the war prisoner on May 3, 2017, as a kind of trophy kill, or was the victim of allegations fabricated after the platoon returned to San Diego to stop him from getting a Silver Star and being promoted.

Under the military system, two-thirds of the tribunal panel needs to agree to convict, or in this case five of seven jurors or they must acquit. Military juries also have the option to convict on lesser charges, such as attempted murder.

More Details of the Case Against Gallagher

Gallagher had also been charged with attempted murder in the shootings of two Iraqi civilians, and four other charges that included the unlawful discharge of his firearm by shooting at noncombatants, wrongfully posing with a human casualty, impeding an investigation by discouraging platoon members from reporting his criminal actions and retaliating against those who did.

The two-week trial included the testimonies of nearly a dozen SEALs, including Special Operator Corey Scott, a medic like Gallagher, who told the court that he saw the chief stab the Islamic State militant in the neck but stunned the court when he said he was the one who ultimately killed the prisoner by plugging his breathing tube with his thumb as an act of mercy.

An Iraqi general who handed the wounded prisoner to the SEALs testified that Gallagher did not stab the boy. And Marine Staff Sgt. Giorgio Kirylo said after the militant died that he moved the body to take a “cool guy trophy” photo with it and saw no stab wounds on his neck.

All of this conflicting testimony was enough to cast sufficient doubt among the empaneled jury to not reach the 2/3^rd majority required for conviction.

After hearing that most of the charges against Gallagher were dropped, President Trump tweeted he was “glad” to help.  “Congratulations to Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher, his wonderful wife Andrea, and his entire family,” the president tweeted after hearing of the acquittal. “You have been through much together. Glad I could help!”

Politics is the profession of hypocrisy – and it was on full display during this year’s Independence Day celebration.

As is the case every Fourth of July, most Americans took off from work to join their families, friends, and neighbors in millions of mini celebrations across the nation – from grand picnics to simple backyard barbecues.  Parades moved down Main Street in virtually every community in America – with streets lined by a very diverse group of local citizens.  They watch the high school band go by – also the local Miss Something or other, the Chamber of Commerce, the veterans, firetrucks, police cars and … yes … military vehicles.

Then in the evening, millions of us gathered in public places – or in front of the television – to listen to concerts with well-known patriotic songs.  Millions sang along to “God Bless America,” “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “This land is my land.”

As darkness fell, we heard the first chords of the “1812 Overture” – the lead-in to the much-anticipated fireworks display.  Some of us may have wondered why that particular musical work has become so much part of our Independence Day celebration.  It was written by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky as a musical tribute to Russia’s defeat of Napoleon’s invading Grande Armée in 1812 – about the same time America was again engaged in another war with England.  I think it must have to do with that powerful cannonade conclusion.

So, what does all this reminiscence and history have to do with the headline subject – the Democrats?  Just setting the stage.

Democrats and their media allies have been speaking out against politicizing the Independence Day celebrations – claiming that is what Trump was planning to do.  After all, Independence Day is like all holidays in which we set aside our differences and focus on the things we have in common.  In the case of Independence Day, it is the time to focus on our civic history and our unifying culture – the things that make us all Americans, whether our lineage goes back to the colonists or we have just pledged our allegiance recently.

In the spirit of the holiday, one might expect even our politicians – especially those seeking the highest office in the land – to take a break from politics.  We should find them in their hometowns celebrating alongside their friends and neighbors.  They could be giving non-political patriotic speeches to remind we the people of our heritage and common bonds.

So, where DO we find our politicians running for President?  Are they in their hometowns celebrating alongside their constituents?  Are they giving those non-political patriotic speeches?

Nope!  We find a gaggle of presidential wannabes in Iowa giving a political speech and political interviews as fast as they can arrange them.  They are drawing polite distinctions between themselves and their Democratic contenders – and heaping President Trump, who is presiding over a non-political celebration in Washington, unrelenting harsh criticism.

Even the guy who likes to be known as “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg has abandoned his own South Bend, Indiana celebration for politicking in Iowa.

Okay, so they do not want to take a day off from the campaign trail to celebrate Independence Day among family, friends, and neighbors as part of … you know … e pluribus unum.  But why do they have to be so damn hypocritical about it.

So, there ‘tis.

Two-thirds of U.S. voters want the government to include a question about an individual’s citizenship status on the 2020 census, a new survey has revealed.

Harvard CAPS/Harris released a poll on Tuesday which revealed that 67 percent of voters reported that the question, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” should be included on the 2020 census.

The poll comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision made last week which ruled to temporarily block a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

The poll discovered that Americans from both ends of the political spectrum back a citizenship question.

Of the 67 percent of respondents who said that the citizenship question should be included, 88 percent were Republicans, 52 percent were Democrats, and 63 percent were independents.

“The public here agrees with the administration that it makes sense to ask citizenship on the census – it is a clear supermajority of Americans on this issue,” said Mark Penn, the Harvard CAPS/Harris polling director.

Jody Hice, a Republican from Georgia serving in the House of Representatives echoed this sentiment, saying “Most Americans want an accurate count of how many citizens are in our country. The citizenship question shouldn’t be a partisan issue – it’s a matter of simply knowing who is in America.”

“The Court’s disappointing ruling has stalled the process for now, but I believe the question is necessary,” she added.

In response to the court’s ruling, President Trump has considered delaying the 2020 census until the issue has been resolved.

Last week, following the Court’s decision, President Trump tweeted, “I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the Census, no matter how long, until the United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter.”

“Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, cannot ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important Census, in this case for 2020,” he added.

“I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the Census, no matter how long, until the United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter,” President Trump said.

This week the President reiterated his position, saying, “I think it’s very important to find out if somebody is a citizen as opposed to an illegal.”

The poll surveyed 2,182 registered voters from June 26^th to June 29^th.

Heading into the 2012 election season, Barack Obama appeared to be the general favorite to win the election. When Republicans chose then former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to be their candidate to oppose Obama, many Republicans believed there was no way Romney could win, and they were right.

Romney had, and still does, act more like a Democrat than a Republican as he claims to be. I believed then that the only way Republicans could have defeated Obama was to run former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, but she said she was not interested in the job.

We are now entering the 2020 election season, where President Donald Trump is running for re-election against ???????? for the Democrats. There are currently at least 24 official Democratic candidates, vying for the opportunity to face off against Trump in the election. Watching all of the Democrats licking their chops, hoping for the chance to defeat Trump reminds me of a school of hungry piranha waiting for some animal to enter the water so they can attack and devour them.

If Obama was such a certainty at this stage of his first term, then what does that say about President Trump? If you listen to the sewagestream media and Democrats, you be led to think that Trump doesn’t have a chance of winning re-election. Don’t forget that virtually all of the sewagestream media and Democrats said there is no way that Trump could beat Hillary in 2016, but guess what? They were all wrong.

Two of the key issues facing any presidential candidate or president seeking re-election are the economy and national security.

With the tensions with Iran, and after going through the same tensions with North Korea, the media and Democrats claim that Trump has been an utter failure when it comes to national security.

As for the economy, most of the leading Democratic candidates are pushing a pure socialist economic agenda based on promising the people free healthcare, free college and the forgiveness of all student loans. They are not revealing that combined, these programs will have a price tag of at least $6 trillion a YEAR. (President Trump has proposed an increased budget for 2020 of $4.746 trillion.)

So, as we begin the campaign season, how would you answer the following two questions and how do the responses from voters compare to Obama at the same time in his first term?:

1* How do you rate the way President Trump is handling economic issues?

2* How would you rate the way President Trump is handling national security issues?

Rasmussen Reports asked likely voters – Republicans, Democrats and Independents these two questions and here is what they reported:

Voters rank Donald Trump well ahead of Barack Obama in his handling of the economy at this point in their presidencies. Trump’s national security approval is at the high level his predecessor enjoyed just after the killing of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters now think Trump is doing a good or excellent job handling economic issues. That’s up from 39% in mid-2017 shortly after Trump had taken office and just short of the high of 51% last October. Thirty-three percent (33%) rate his performance as poor. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty-seven percent (47%) give the president good or excellent marks for his handling of national security issues. That’s up from 41% in January 2018 and a high for Trump to date. Thirty-nine percent (39%) rate him poorly in this area.

By comparison, in late June of his third year in office, Obama earned positive marks from just 34% when it came to his handling of economic issues. Forty-five percent (45%) rated his handling of national security as good or excellent at that time, down from a high of 52% earlier in the month, shortly after the death of bin Laden.

If Obama was already considered a shoe-in for his 2012 re-election at stage of his first term, then these results should indicate that Trump should easily defeat whomever the Democrats throw at him in the general election. However, Obama was supported by a huge number of millennials who are the products of the socialist brainwashing program instituted in many public schools and those millennials would never go against their indoctrination to vote for Trump, so regardless of the polls, which were wrong in 2016, nothing can be considered certain in 2020.

NBC News has announced who they think was the winner of Wednesday night’s first of two debates between about half of the Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls, their pick may very well surprise you.  The said the clear winner was –Donald Trump!

NBC News analyst, author and reporter Jonathan Allen declared President Trump the winner of the first Democratic presidential debate of the 2020 election cycle.

In assessing the debate, Allen “expressed surprise” that Trump emerged “largely unscathed” as the field of 10 candidates mostly avoided direct attacks on him.

Allen said the Democrats seemed more focused on positioning themselves furthest to the left to win over primary voters, rather than appealing to the swing voters that decided the 2016 election.

“For long stretches, it seemed, they completely forgot about the man who has been at the center of pretty much every discussion among Democrats for the last two-plus years — the man they’re competing to take on next year. The obvious reason, their motivation to beat each other was, on this night, more urgent than defeating Trump — a life-or-death moment for some of their campaigns. Trump was the chief beneficiary of that dynamic,” Allen wrote in his column.

Trump Not Totally Absent

Allen continued saying, “of course, he was occasionally thrust into the spotlight, such as when Washington Gov. Jay Inslee identified the President as the greatest threat to the country — a line that drew hearty applause from the crowd.

But for the most part, he was an afterthought.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., suggested that was intentional.

“You can’t just make this all about Donald Trump,” she told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in an interview after the debate. “He’s an old show that people are getting tired of.”

Instead, she said, voters want to know what Democrats plan to do with the presidency if they win it.

Allen said that Warren accomplished her pre-debate goal of delivering the message that the economic and political systems need major structural changes if lower- and middle-class Americans are to see their standing rise.

But concluded that, by largely ignoring Trump as they did, Democrats could allow the President “to exploit their divisions and position himself for re-election” and “he was one step closer to that after Wednesday’s debate.”

The sentiment was shared by MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who said it was “a missed opportunity” for Democrats to not go after frontrunner Joe Biden or President Trump.

Another MSNBC commentator, Donny Deutsch declared confidently after the debate that none of the 10 candidates on the stage could defeat Trump next year, including Warren.

The next presidential election is less than a year and half away. President Donald Trump is certain to be the Republican nomination unless something happens to him such as impeachment. If that were to happen, I would think that Vice President Mike Pence would be the GOP nominee.

For Democrats, the nominee is not all that certain, with over 20 declared candidates and about 200 others who have expressed interest. The current front runner among Democrats is supposed to be former Vice President Joe Biden, but then early polls are notoriously wrong. In fact, a recent poll from Iowa showed that Biden’s commanding lead has dwindled to the point of barely being ahead of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg. That list of four is scary enough, but there is something even scarier to consider as we approach the 2020 elections.

That scary thought really hit home when I saw a graphic that was forwarded to me in an email.

The graphic stated:

1944: 18 year olds stormed enemy beaches, parachuted behind enemy lines, and charged into German machine gun fire….

2018: 18 year olds need safe spaces, blankies, bubbles, coloring books, gun free zones, and counseling for “ptsd” caused by opposing views and offensive words…

I knew many of those 18-year-olds who fought to preserve America’s freedom. My dad was one of those, enlisting in the US Navy in 1940 at the age of 18. He signed up for 6-years active duty and was stationed in the Pacific when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the event that forced the United States to enter World War II.

Dad saw the battles at Bougainville, Saipan and the Solomon Islands. He admitted that most the young men and even the older men present at those battles were afraid, fearing for their lives, but their patriotism and sense of duty to protect America was stronger.

They were willing to rush into danger for the sake of their country. They were willing to sacrifice time away from their family and friends, along with the comforts of home. They willingly gave up their warm beds for wet and dirty foxholes. They willingly gave up mom’s home cooking for military rations, which many compared to dogfood. They willingly gave up the smiles, laughter and support at home for the grimaces, crying and discouragement of war because they loved America.

Then there are the same aged young people who in 2016, whined and cried because Hillary Clinton lost. They walked out of classrooms and sat on the lawns and sidewalks where their instructors brought them hot chocolate, crayons and chalk. This generation is lost and angry if their cell phone dies. They protest if anyone dare says anything negative about them, about their liberal idols and about their liberal ideologies.

Rather than feeling grateful for what America has to offer as those 18-year-olds who did in 1944, these 18-year-olds feel they are entitled to everything, regardless if they work for it or not. They feel that everyone owes them everything, which is why they are so gullible into believing the lying promises being made by socialist like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and most Democrats.

Instead of fighting for what’s right, they whine and cry for the right to do the opposite. In 1944, those young men fought to protect their traditional families and today’s young men fight to destroy traditional families. In 1944, those young men fought for the right to preserve the freedom of speech and religion for everyone while today’s young men fight to suppress the freedom of speech and religion of anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

The scariest part is that many of those young men and women who were 18 just a few years ago, will be voting for the first time in 2020 and you can be assured that many of them won’t be voting to protect families, freedom of speech and religion or out of patriotic duty. Instead, they’ll be voting for the socialist Democrats because they have been brainwashed by 12-years in the public education system.

Perhaps the main difference between that generation in 1944 and the one in 2018 can be summed up this way:

In 1944, those young men were rushing into harm’s way to fight against Nazism, fascism and socialism.

In 2018-20, the men are rushing to embrace and vote for socialism, communism and forms of fascism and I find that this makes the 2020 elections the scariest in American history.