The definition of those two words are as follows: “Disagreement” – a difference of opinion or dissent; “Disdain” – to look upon or treat with contempt, to despise or scorn someone or something. In politics there always will be disagreement, but in today's toxic political environment, the Democrats (and the “fake news” media) replace disagreement with disdain. The animus is so pervasive that no matter what President Trump might say or do, the Democrats will twist and turn what he says or does to make it look like he is the reincarnation of the devil.

Take the crisis at the border, any sane person with a calm and discerning disposition and half a brain, must realize that we, as a nation, cannot continue on this policy of letting hordes of illegal aliens into our country. But, what is the answer of the Democrats? They claim that President Trump has “manufactured” the crisis out of whole cloth, and that there isn't a crisis at all. Even Jeh Johnson, Obama's Homeland Security Director, has come out to declare that there really is a crisis at the border, thereby backing up what Trump and the Republicans have been saying. The Democrats have had the majority in the House of Representatives for over 120 days and still haven't come up with any legislation to address this problem, which they hypocritically claim they want to solve.

All parties, who are involved in trying to secure our border, the Border Patrol, I.C.E., and Homeland Security etc., all say that the situation at the border is out of control and must be addressed.

Because President Trump has made proposals to try to address this “invasion” of illegals, the Democrats, because of their “disdain” for the president, will not do the right thing and give the president a “win”. To the Democrats, giving the president a victory at the border would be antithetical to their attempts to impeach him or to beat him at the 2020 election. In other words, the hell what is a benefit to the United States, they must win in 2020. This is the “modus operandi” of the Democrats, using the old adage of “the end justifies the means”.

We all know that politics is a “blood sport”, and that people who indulge in politics must have a thick skin, but what has happened to President Trump over the past 2 1⁄2 years, has been a disgrace. The “main stream media”, who are really an integral part of the Democrat Party, have, on a daily basis, attacked the president and his policies unmercifully. A Harvard University research paper, found that 90% of the stories, in the media, about the president and his administration, were negative in tone and substance. Even with all this animus and vitriol, the president has presided over major policy gains that have been unprecedented. A raging upward stock market, the lowest unemployment rates in decades (3.6% in April), a GDP that in April was at 3.2%, an increase in wages for all workers, especially those in the lower income brackets, from his tax cut legislation, getting rid of those oppressive job killing business regulations, and the renegotiating of those one-sided trade deals with So. Korea, Mexico and Canada. Hopefully, China will be next. The Democrats and the media don't give him any credit at all for those accomplishments. They'd rather see Trump fail that to have the country succeed.

So, why can't the opposing politicians do the right thing and support policies that are good for our country. Should “disdain” for the president be the be all and end all for the Democrats, by being obsessively resistant to any and all policies proposed by him? So yes, disagreement with the president is okay when called for, but using disdain for him, his family, and people in his administration borders on being unpatriotic and counter productive for the good of our
country.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Those prescient words, spoken by Albert Einstein, seem to have relevance today, especially if you listen to the candidates for the Democrat nomination for president.

In order to generate votes and to appeal to the very vocal far-left base of the Democrat Party, the Democrat candidates are spouting nonsense as facts . Most all are championing many of the economic theories and principles of Socialism. An example of what these candidates are proposing include the following: latching onto the “New Green Deal”; Medicare for all; removal of all walls and fences at the U.S. border; abolishing the Electoral College; free college tuition and mass student debt forgiveness; letting imprisoned convicts vote; and, in addition, letting 16 year old's vote. It has been estimated that if all these cockamamie proposals are enacted, we would have a national debt of around $94 trillion. Outrageous !

It takes an exceptionally high degree of arrogance on the part of these Democrat candidates to believe that he/she is the one who could make a centrally planned system work by instituting a form of socialism or socialism itself. Nowhere, where socialism has been instituted, has socialism brought prosperity to that nation. In fact, the results have produced repression of individuals and abject poverty among the populace. Examples would be the now defunct U.S.S.R., Cuba, Nicaragua, and that embattled country of Venezuela, to name just a few of the economic basket cases around the world.

How could a substantial number of our population fall for this “snake oil”? One answer might be the failure of our educational system to instill the values of capitalism and free enterprise. Most of our educators (80% to 90%) in our public schools and colleges are purveyors of the socialist doctrine, who then indoctrinate their economic views in their classrooms to “heads full of mush” (their students). Most of these students graduate without a basic foundation of basic economic principles of capitalism and free enterprise. These are the voters being targeted by the left-leaning Democrat candidates in their campaigns. This might explain the rise of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Falling for the lure of getting something
for nothing and thinking that it is free.

Our Democratic Republic was founded by our founding fathers to empower the individual over the state, whereby we give everyone the opportunity to succeed in life and not the guarantee of success. Many of our citizens have flourished under that thought process, but some have not taken advantage of the opportunities available to them. The old expression of “you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink” certainly applies to many of the “losers” in our society who have become addicted to drugs, crime, and have looked upon the government for their sustenance. Unfortunately, quite a few people have come to believe that society (the government) owes them a living. That is the main cause in the rise of homelessness and
government dependence around the country. The old saying that “if you reward something, you get more of it”, certainly applies to the problems of homelessness and illegal immigration that confront us today.

So, the words of that genius Albert Einstein, had it right when he said, “If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts” is right on.

Will those politicians who promote the appeal of giving the citizens “free stuff” in order to get their votes, change their ways before it is too late? Let's hope common sense prevails so that President Trump's slogan of “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” resonates throughout the country. We want to remain an exceptional country and not become a mediocre country.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Having once been a Democrat, I started to delve into why that party has slipping into political deviance.
​
I read somewhere it is a disease having physical and mental ramification, highly contagious if exposed to CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post and New York Times if you haven't been vaccinated against 'Fake News' 

Scientists have identified it as Psychogullibilitis and are working diligently for a cure, before it becomes epidemic by the 2020 elections.

A tell tale diagnosis is hallucinations, when the victim thinks he or she is creating equality for everyone, in every way, paid for by the rich; not considering their ideas will eliminate the rich.

Conservative Commentary by George Giftos

Remember when President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, stated that the nuclear deal that they negotiated with Iran would prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon? Did those assurances by our “esteemed” leaders remind you of past appeasing agreements with rogue nations? In 1938, Neville Chamberlain, negotiated an agreement with Nazi Chancellor Adolph Hitler, which according to Chamberlain, would bring “Peace in our time”. Well, how did that agreement work out (within a year WW11 broke out)? Next, we had President Clinton negotiate a nuclear agreement in 1994 with North Korea, another rogue nation. In announcing an agreement with North Korea, Clinton made the following statement:

        “This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety              of the entire world”. He said, “The deal requires them (No. Korea) to “freeze” their existing            nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities”. He then            went on to say, “The agreement does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the              International Atomic Energy Agency”.

Well, how did that work out? Within a year or two, North Korea was testing nuclear weapons. Did that appeasing agreement sound similar to the agreement that Obama and Kerry wanted us to accept with Iran?

We were not negotiating with Mother Teresa, we were negotiating with another rogue nation, Iran, who just a week before the great announcement by Obama and Kerry, held a massive rally
condemning both the U.S.A. and Israel. In addition, the demonstrators called for the death of Americans and Israeli's. How can you negotiate with a country who has called for your death and destruction?

Leading up to that ridiculous agreement that was reached with Iran, it was stated that Iran would not purchase or test conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. In addition, we said that any agreement with Iran would include unfettered inspection of any nuclear site. Well, what happened to those assurances? Iran would be able to purchase conventional weapons after 5 years, and Iran did not have to agree to unannounced inspections anytime or anywhere.
What did we get in return for those concessions? Nada, nil, zilch, and nothing, except that Iran would agree to this toothless agreement. It seems Obama and Kerry would agree to anything just to get an agreement signed (regardless of how bad it might be), especially as it it might enhance their legacy (in their minds).

In this worthless agreement, we agreed to “unfreeze” Iranian assets that we had withheld for years, which amounted to many billions of dollars. Iran couldn't wait to get their hands on that flow of funds as it would've not only propped up their pitiful economy, but it would also be used to further their efforts to support and export terrorism around the Middle East and around the world. Did any sane person, knowing how Iran has acted in the past, believe that Iran would not
use this money to support the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah, the Yemeni Houthi rebels, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups?

One thing that can be said about this deal is that it had formed an alliance between former enemies. That alliance now includes Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Can you imagine that arch enemies in the past just a few short years ago, are now in harmony against this abomination that Obama and Kerry had agreed to with Iran? Maybe those countries knew something that Obama and Kerry didn't know, that that deal was something that we should not have accepted no matter what meaningless assurances were made by both our negotiators and Iran.

So, the answer to the headline is, YES, Obama and Kerry did think we were stupid, because that's why they accepted this appeasing document with our avowed enemy, Iran. That's why President Trump has revoked that agreement, which was not passed on by the Congress. He realized that you could not trust a rogue Muslim nation like Iran because they believed in “taqiyya” which in the Koran states that it is permitted to lie to the “infidels” (non-Muslim
believers) if it furthers the goals of the Koran. Iran follows the Koran to a tee, so we can say now that President Trump did the right thing in abrogating that Iran Nuclear Deal.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann