You might think that would be a ridiculous contest, but look around you and see what is goingon, it might not be so ridiculous after all. Ever since the election of Donald Trump, there has been a concerted effort to not only to try to undermine Pres. Trump, but to undermine the U.S. Constitution itself. Shutting down speakers on campus, rallying to ban or control guns, disseminating “fake news” as fact, and advancing the tactic of the “politics of personal destruction” are all part of the radical Alinsky agenda.

The Alinskyites, mainly liberal Democrats and Progressives, use the tactics as listed in his famous book called, “Rules for Radicals”. These tactics include the stigmatizing opponents as “racists”, “sexists”, “homophobes”, and “Islamophobes”. The radicals often pretend to be what they are not. The acolytes of Alinsky's rules lie to their opponents (fake news) and disarm them pretending to be a moderate and a main stream liberal. The Alynskyites attempt to advance their radical goals by camouflaging them by changing their style to appear to be working within the system (the U.S. Constitution). The radicals will most always champion following the Constitution to get your vote, but when they become the government it will be a different story.

The radicals are taught the art of miss-communication. They are trying to impose socialism (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren etc.) on a country whose forefathers understood that socialism destroys freedom, so they avoid the use of the word socialism and in its place they sell it as “Progressive”, “Economic Democracy”, and “Social Justice”. In other words, they will work within the system (the Constitution) until they can accumulate enough power to destroy it. The radicals (Alinskyites) will try to sell the people on change by using terms and phrases like “Audacity of Hope”, “Yes, We Can” (Obama's terms). They do this selling of radical change by proposing “moderate” changes to the Constitution and laws which will open the door to more radical changes in the future (the old foot in the door syndrome).

The radicals, make no mistake about it, are at “war”, especially against the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution. Shutting off “free speech” and religion (the 1st Amendment) and the control or banning of firearms (the 2nd Amendment) are at the forefront of their constitutional attacks. Radicals perceive opponents of their causes as enemies on a battlefield, and they set about to destroy them by demonizing and discrediting them (that's what the whole Trump “resistance” movement is all about).

So, in the battle between the United States Constitution vs, Alinsky's “Rules for Radicals”, we must not let our guard down by believing the arguments the radicals propose, because it is all a charade by them to impose their will on an unsuspecting electorate who, these elitists, feel are a bunch of naive “hayseed” morons who voted for

Donald Trump. President Trump, with all his personal “warts” and bombast, is the person to support in this quest for upholding the Constitution against the attacks by the radical Alynskyites. We do not want to become the United States of Europe.
​
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Do you think that Democrats who are against building a security border wall on the border with Mexico, could or should be called or classified as “ignominious ingrates”? The definition of those terms by Merriam-Webster is as follows. “Ignominious” – marked or characterized by disgrace or shame, despicable, and, “Ingrate” - an ungrateful person. Do those definitions describe the actions of the anti-wall Democrats and their flunky's in the main stream media?

Well, is that a fair description of the attitudes of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the majority of Democrats?

Just a few short years ago, those same Democrat leaders (including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) were in favor of building a wall, but now that President Trump is in office, the wall is now considered immoral and a complete waste of money, what has changed since then? You probably guessed it, Donald Trump is now president and they (the Democrats) don't want to give him a victory on one of his signature proposals, even if it good for the security of the country.

​All of our professionals in the field of immigration enforcement (the Border Patrol, I.C.E., the Office of Homeland Security) are all in favor of erecting a wall to deter illegal immigration, the prevention and distribution of illegal drugs, and the illegal trafficking of young boys and girls for prostitution purposes. They point out that where a wall is in place, the aforementioned illegal activities are cut down precipitously. They claim that their job would be made much easier if a wall or barrier was in place. Shouldn't we listen to the people on the front lines of trying to enhance our national security, instead of the political hacks who put party interests ahead of our national security?

In addition, most of those very same people who are against the border wall are also in favor of “sanctuary states and cities”. That's where the term “ignominious ingrates” applies or comes into play. Any sane person realizes that putting up a barrier (ex: a wall) will prevent or reduce illegal border activities by over 90% (those figures supplied by the Border Patrol). So, by totally rejecting the funding of a border wall, it shows that the nay-sayers deserve to be called “ignominious ingrates”.

How many more innocent citizens and law enforcement personnel must be injured or killed by illegal aliens before common sense kicks in?

During the previous presidential campaign, then Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton, called her opponents “a basket of deplorables”, but it should've been directed at her own supporters who were the advocates of that policy of no border wall and sanctuary states and cities.

Our national security is at stake and the sooner those “ignominious ingrates” put sane policy proposals ahead of their political party, the safer and better off our country will be. A country divided against itself is a recipe for disaster now and in the future.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Of course, that is tongue-in-the-cheek, but if you believe that the general liberal philosophy is to coddle criminals and to denigrate law enforcement, you could find some relevance in that statement. The proof is in the pudding, as the old expression goes.

Why is it when we read about some judge releasing a known criminal back into society by assessing low bail or no bail at all, the chances are great that those federal judges were appointed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, or is a jurist with obvious liberal tendencies? We have had a spate of recent cases over the past few years, especially when the subjected criminal is an illegal alien. Lenient judges and some feckless politicians have caused some of these criminals to be let go back into society where they then commit further crimes, some that have had a fatal outcome. The Kate Steinle and Mollie Tibbetts murders are unfortunate cases to point out this misguided behavior on the part of the powers-to-be. If the law was enforced the way it was intended, both of those beautiful, hapless victims would still be alive today as their murderers would not have been in our country illegally.

​How can supposedly law abiding citizens, on the liberal side of the political spectrum, condone the lenient law enforcement practices that we read about almost on a weekly basis. Compounding the problem is the instituting of “Sanctuary Cities and States” that give illegal aliens more rights than what the average U.S. Citizen gets. It's like a “get out of jail card” that makes a mockery of our laws.

How many crimes have to be committed by illegal aliens in order to bring sanity back into our criminal justice system? Any crime committed by an illegal alien against a U.S. citizen would have been prevented if the law was carried out like it should have been carried out. Some of these illegal alien criminals have been deported multiple times and were using the sanctuary cities as a safe haven to avoid prosecution by ICE.

It seems that the people of the liberal persuasion are more prone to advocate for taking it easy on enforcing the law against illegal aliens, and you could say on criminals in general.

Many of these people who tend to want to take it easy on criminals are people who have not had any bad experiences being physically hurt or personally violated by a criminal. That's why our headline, “What's a Liberal: Someone Who Hasn't Been Mugged Yet” has a certain amount of relevance. Once these “bleeding hearts” get mugged (or otherwise be the victim of a crime), they then become more inclined to look differently about our criminal justice system. The biggest problem we face today in bringing common sense back to our criminal justice system is that nefarious mindset called “political correctness”, and the constant berating of our law enforcement personnel, the people charged with protecting us from the criminal element.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Do normal people react to situations that call for immediate action by denying that there is a problem that needs to be solved? All the people and government agencies, that are responsible for our national security and our “broken” immigration policy, agree that we need a border wall, where practicable, to deter the invasion of immigrants across our porous border; to prevent the transport of illegal drugs destined to our communities across the country; and the inhuman trafficking of young boys and girls, but we have an obstinate group of politicians (the Democrats) who, because of their innate animus and hatred toward President Trump, refuse to vote to allocate money to build that much needed wall.

Do they really think that putting party above of what is right for the country, the right thing to do?

All right, we know that Democrats didn't like the outcome of the last presidential election, but to take out their angst against the best interests of their country, is the height of insanity.

The U.S. Border Patrol, I.C.E., and the Office of Homeland Security, all claim that building the wall would be a great deterrent against all those illegal activities mentioned above. Those are the professional voices that our feckless politicians should heed, not the bleeding-heart lefty loons that make up the base of the Democrat Party.

The funny thing is (really not so funny), that many of those Democrats who refuse to vote for the money requested by the president to build the wall, previously have voted for a wall before President Trump was elected. What has changed their minds? Would it be partisan politics and Trump hatred that motivates their actions by refusing to give President Trump a “win” on one of his signature promises he made during his campaign for president?

That's where insidious insanity comes into play, as you can't seem to reason with these ingrates pretending to do the country's business. They all claim that they believe in border security, but offer, when asked, nothing but empty platitudes and vague solutions to meet this
massive problem which challenges our national security. Without an enforceable border, we really don't have a country, just a way station for illegals to take advantage our good nature and generous welfare programs. When is enough, enough? The drain on our economy is real and cannot be economically sustained. It is estimated that it costs the U.S. approximately $138 billion a year to take care of the illegal aliens who contribute approximately $19 billion in government revenue in the form of taxes. Much of the money generated by the illegal aliens is earned “off the books” (non-taxable), and much of the money earned is sent back to their home countries and not spent here. President Trump's priority is to protect the citizens of our country, but he is thrown one roadblock after another by the Democrats who look upon these illegal immigrants as potential Democrat voters in the future.

This insidious insanity must end for the sake of our citizens and our country, otherwise we will be a democratic republic with a third world mentality. Do we really want to emulate another Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

One wonders where some of those liberals (a/k/a Progressives and Democrats) get their ideas or policies for our country - are they just ignorant or just stupid?

Look at what many of them say regarding these areas of debate. They are against erecting a border wall, for championing the mandating of a federal $15 per hour minimum wage, instituting a carbon emissions tax, and proposing the abolition of I.C.E. (Immigration Customs Enforcement) plus other hair-brained pronouncements put forth by the Democrats and their flunky's in the main stream media.

Let's take those areas I mentioned above one by one and try to figure out whether they are just ignorant or just stupid. As for the border wall, prominent Democrats were for it before they were against it. In 2006, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Senator Hillary Clinton were all in favor of building a border wall. You'd think that they were mouthing the words spoken today by President Donald Trump. What has changed since then, could it be that our president is now Donald Trump? Is the Pope Catholic?

Next, most of the Democrats are in favor of mandating a federal $15 per hour minimum wage, which goes against most economists who say that it would be a disaster for those workers the Democrats pretend they want to help. Many of the entry-level jobs for the inexperienced and minimally educated workers will no longer be available, as employers will cut back on their payroll costs and institute the employment of machines to take the place of workers. An idle, young, unemployed worker then will be more prone to getting involved in activities, like crime, that is a negative in our social construct.

In addition, The Democrats say that we must restrict carbon dioxide emissions, as if it was possible to control Mother Nature? They fail to tell us that carbon dioxide, instead of being a pollutant, is actually a plant and tree food that has increased food production around the world. The natural disasters that they claim “global warming” is responsible for have been with us since time began when fossil fuels were not used to any great extent. When they claim and prove that they can control Mother Nature, is the time we should listen to those hucksters.

And finally, as our country is being over run by illegal aliens, the Democrats want to abolish the very people who are sworn to protect us, the I.C.E. men and women who are in charge of enforcement of our immigration laws. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if I.C.E. was not in existence? Do you chalk that up to just plain ignorance or do you chalk it up to just plain stupidity by having a closed mind and a hatred for our president, Donald Trump?

It seems that most all those detractors are blinded to the facts by their loony liberal ideology. They seem to place party loyalty above the best interests of the country. I, therefore conclude, that their ignorance can be cured, but their actions point to them being just plain stupid.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann