Dale Hansen Hates America

 

Guest post by Drew Rellim

You may find this surprising, but I hate to write about politics. Discuss it? Yes. Give my opinion and let people know what I believe and why? Sure. But I do not like discussing and opining on things that are tough to talk about. I write for a college sports blog because it is an escape from how hard life can be for everyone. During the fall, I can have the roughest week in the world, but I look forward to Saturdays where I can take the hour drive to my college town and catch up with all friends. Black and White, Democrat and Republican, Christian or agnostic, these people are my friends and fellow alums and we all bleed the same school colors. I also have always kept my blog politics and religion-free because despite my deeply held convictions and beliefs, I want my blog to be a place of unity and not divisiveness.

However, I am deviating from that today because it is time that someone responds to a person on the left who race-baits, mocks Christian morality, and uses his time as a sportscaster to pontificate in a self righteous manner to his viewers who he looks down upon, and that man is Dale Hansen. He never lets a tragedy pass without trying to pass on some great faux wisdom from his liberal worldview. He openly mocks and attacks the President (something he would NEVER have had the courage to do in with the previous President), and honestly believes that the people who pay to listen to him cover sports give a plug nickel's worth of care about what he thinks in the social and political scene.

Was Jeff Sessions The Right Choice?

"Jeff Sessions" (CC BY-SA 2.0) by Gage Skidmore

When President Trump chose Jeff Sessions as his Attorney General, I thought he had made a relatively strong choice. Admittedly, part of the reason I liked him, however, was just because of how much Democrats and the media absolutely detested him. In fact, their outrage and autistic screeching over his nomination, was nothing short of delectable for a Trump supporter like me.

He seemed solid on immigration issues and other parts of Trump’s agenda. In fact, aside from his stance on legalizing marijuana, I agreed with him on almost all issues. He was relatively passive, in a very “un-Trump” sort of way. But my assumption was that Trump wouldn’t have chosen him if he didn’t have the balls it would take to do the job.

I admit it - I think I might have been wrong.

South Texas Flooding and the Alt-Left

"Hurricane Harvey Flood - 8/26/17 through" (CC BY 2.0) by jillccarlson

Okay liberals, so tell me, what are Antifa and Black Lives Matter doing to help the hurricane victims in south Texas?

The reason I ask, is this; I know police officers, fire fighters, and other people who liberals would consider "alt-right" or "White Nationalists" (AKA: proud Americans), who are currently using their boats and 4-wheel drive vehicles to rescue strangers from the flooding and get them to safety.

6 Sarcastic Facts From James Comey's Testimony

Today was the day everyone had been waiting for in the Trump/Russia “collusion” investigation. Democrats believed this would be the point when they finally gained real hard evidence that would justify them pursuing articles of impeachment. Republicans on the other hand, were certain that James Comey's testimony would finally put an end to the speculation of any wrongdoing on the part of Trump and his campaign.

1. We are all right; always

In the end, what did each side gain from the Testimony? We all got exactly what we wanted! We got a whole lot of nothing, which we could twist and reason and interpret to mean that our side was 100% correct and that the other side should just shut up, “because whether they like it or not, they are wrong.” We got just enough information to both back up our side and to discredit everyone else.

Truthfully, we all have selective hearing when it comes to politics. We all have the candidates or issues that are important to us, and we will make excuses for them until our dying breath if necessary, as long as we believe we are right.

Trump Fires Comey (Spoiler Alert: Democrats Are Outraged)

I sat down at my computer with the intention of writing about the firing of FBI Director, James Comey. But as I toyed around with angles to take on the topic, I realized that anything I could say had most likely already been said.

Unless you have been off the grid or in a coma for the last year or so, I'm sure you know the story of Comey's involvement in the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server, as well as the investigation into Trump's supposed collaboration with the Russian government. In fact, I have even written previously about the FBI investigation's potential impact on the election in my article "Anthony Weiner's Wiener Could Help Determine Winner Of Presidential Election".

The Real Reason Trump Fired Comey

I've heard speculation in the media that Trump's reason for firing James Comey was to "appease" the democrats after Hillary Clinton essentially stated last week that he was to blame for her loss to Trump. The liberal media is reporting that Trump is "shocked" that it didn't change anything when it was announced that Comey had been removed. They (through anonymous sources, of course) say that he believed the Democrats wanted Comey removed, so he didn't understand why they were upset, rather than being happy and grateful to him. Of course, these reports are finely-tuned to fit the liberal narrative that Trump is just an arrogant buffoon who doesn't know what is going on and is unfit to hold the office.

I disagree though. I believe that if I, a lowly blogger, can see by now that the Democrats are going to oppose any and every move Trump makes, surely Trump himself is well-aware of this too. My opinion is that he knew exactly how the liberals and the media would react. He was just waiting patiently for Clinton and the Democrats to come out with a hard stance on something (in this case, blaming Comey for Clinton's loss), only so he could make a move that would appear to be an effective response to that stance.

A Disturbing Trend Among Conservatives

Most of you who follow my page know that I am a fairly moderate, but right-leaning conservative with a Libertarian stance on many issues. However, even though I normally side with conservatives, I have always said that I am not above calling out those same conservatives when I believe they have screwed up.

Looking back at the last couple of years, it would be difficult to honestly say that Democrats are the party of free speech. They might make this claim, but the truth is, they only support free speech if it aligns with their "progressive" agenda on topics such as Feminism, Islam, LGBTQ rights, abortion, law enforcement, and Black Lives Matter.

If someone speaks out in support of any of their "approved" issues and receives any kind of backlash, even if the claim is unsubstantiated, liberals are immediately up in arms. They immediately begin demanding that the company be boycotted, or the offending employee be fired, even if the alleged offensive act did not take place while they were on the clock. They picket, protest, scream, yell, and plaster the offender's name and picture all over social media; doing their best to completely ruin their life.

Milo Leaves Breitbart

It is absolutely absurd to see how the left targets any conservative who happens to have a loyal following. However, it does certainly serve to flaunt the undeniable power they have, by-way of the liberal media, to crush and destroy those who oppose them. I'm disappointed to see Milo Yiannopoulos leave Breitbart, but pleased to hear he will continue his speaking engagements and also still intends to have his book published.

I hate seeing celebrities, politicians and other public figures cave to pressure to resign when they are attacked by the left. I hate it almost as much as I detest hearing that companies have fired or disciplined an employee after being made out as an example by the media for saying or doing the wrong thing. In the eyes of those on the left, this means they won and only gives them more power when they are intent upon ruining the next person with whom they disagree. It only serves to throw fuel on the flames of their hatred; further-amplifying the overwhelming fear people have of opposing them. Unfortunately, it also serves to feed their unquenchable egos and ravenous thirst for conservative blood.

Coming Together To Heal After An Emotional Election

Here we are, election day; only hours away from the climactic conclusion of what I would consider to be the most emotionally-charged presidential election in history (or at least in my lifetime). When this whole thing kicked off roughly 18 months ago, I think we all knew this election was going to be like nothing we had ever seen before. Thanks to social media, WikiLeaks, Project Veritas, and the overwhelmingly-biased news outlets, we were proven to be correct.

On one side, we had a Clinton, a socialist and a random smattering of a few other candidates who were mostly no-names. On the other side, we had a Bush, a neurosurgeon, a reality TV star/billionaire real estate tycoon, and enough random other slightly-above mediocre candidates to fill not one, but two debate stages. It was almost as if the Republicans decided to throw everything they had at the wall just to see what stuck.

Yes America, It's Okay To Not Accept The Results Of The Election

In the final Presidential debate last night, moderator Chris Wallace asked Donald Trump if he would “absolutely accept” the results of the election once the votes were counted. This question, of course, coming on the heels of Trump making claims throughout the campaign that the process was rigged against him.

Let me first say that aside from being forced to tag along with the Clinton campaign throughout the election, moderating a debate between these two candidates has to be one of the least desirable opportunities in media. The moderators of the previous debates, in my opinion and the opinion of many people I have spoken to, did a less-than-stellar job. Primarily, because they were all so biased against Trump. But also because they allowed their emotions show, and at times verbally attacked him on his answer to certain questions.

Although I believe Wallace did an excellent job of moderating the debate and remaining unbiased, I was a little surprised when he asked Trump if he would concede to Clinton if the results showed that he had lost the election. This of course, explained in justification of the fact that we have a tradition of a “peaceful transition of power”, so the country can come together after sometimes-heated and painful elections.

My (Mostly) Unbiased Thoughts On Last Night's First "Presidential" Debate

Photos: BU Rob13/Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons

Disclaimer: No, I'm not unbiased. Is anyone unbiased anymore? Obviously the media isn't, and if there is anyone out there who SHOULD be unbiased, it's them. Regardless, yes, I know who I'm voting for. But in this article I'm going to attempt to stay as unbiased as possible, while giving some advice to both candidates.

 

<><><>

After the debate last night, we were all inundated by various news outlets and commentators telling us who they believed "won" the battle. For the most part, the mainstream media commentators said they believed Clinton had won. Although interestingly enough, the majority of the somewhat credible polls showed Trump as the winner. No matter what the polls said though, I know that I and many others have completely lost faith in the polls since it seems that almost every aspect of this election is rigged by the biased media.

At this point in the campaign, the majority of the country has already decided who they are voting for. What I find incredible, is that more-so than any other election I can remember in my lifetime, the supporters of each candidate refuse to be swayed by anything that is said or done. It doesn't matter how illegal or how unacceptable it might be. If something negative is said about their candidate of choice, it is quickly brushed off as nothing more than a bold-faced lie, fabricated by the other side, with the sole purpose of damaging their reputation.

The Illusion of Choice; How Modern Democracy Failed Bernie Sanders

Just a few hours after it was made public that the controversial website WikiLeaks had released in excess of 19,000 emails between members of the Democratic National Committee, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned her position with the party. As I'm sure you are well aware by now, this email leak contained emails between Schultz and other DNC members, discussing how they would undermine and eliminate Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, guaranteeing that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Nominee. This release of documents comes just slightly more than two weeks after FBI Director James Comey, after reciting pages of felony-worthy infractions made by Clinton, stated that he would not recommend an indictment against her.

Although not as widely-publicized, Bernie Sanders and his supporters had already accused Schultz and the DNC of showing preferential treatment toward Hillary Clinton. Among other allegations, claiming the party limited the number of sanctioned debates between Clinton and Sanders; knowing that Clinton does not come across as a likable candidate of the people if she speaks for more than 15 consecutive seconds. Both Sanders and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, had previously asked that Schultz be replaced due to her “obvious bias” against Sanders. These requests however, were quickly dismissed. Interestingly enough, Clinton and her team never had any issues with Schultz.