There was a time when I assumed hate hoaxes were the result of people seeking personal gain by playing on concepts in the news such as Jussie Smollett’s “MAGA country” claim or Erica Thomas‘s “go back where you came from” story. As Andy Ngo pointed out in his excellent hate-hoax compilation, there are just too many instances when radical progressives are caught either making themselves look like fools or committing actual crimes just to paint the President, Republicans, conservatives, or a combination of the three as bigots.

Now, I’m not so sure it’s all about personal gain. Sure, that definitely has something to do with it as many are seeking sympathy and even reward for achieving the highest status level of radical progressivism – the status of being a victim. But I’m starting to believe it’s an addiction of sorts. It’s not physiological or even necessarily psychological. Instead, it’s like an emotional high, a dopamine rush of sorts, to be able to tell the world, “Look at me, the bigots on the right attacked me! Shower me with your love (before the truth comes out)!”

But it’s not just with hoaxes. There’s a certain knee-jerk reaction seen in many leftists, including the lawmakers who are part of “The Squad,” in which every defense of their words or actions invokes race, sex, religion, or some other component that highlights the lauded intersectionality they possess. For example, if you attack Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in any way about anything, she invokes the phrase “woman of color” in her defense of whatever it was that got attacked.

She’s a woman. She’s of non-Caucasian heritage. Therefore every attack against her latest loony idea must be an attack on a woman of color by default even if the attack was substantive and not racist or sexist in nature. That’s the mindset of too many on the left nowadays. It’s the mindset of Erica Thomas, which is why she scrambled to have a press conference to highlight the racist attack against her. What she didn’t expect is that the attacker would show up at her interview, proclaim that he’s Cuban and a Democrat, and acknowledge that he called her a “lazy b—h.”

He was also crystal clear that he did not say anything racist towards her, including the statement Thomas made that he told her to “go back where you came from.”

But Thomas is not a one-off problem for Democrats. She actually represents a large and growing batch of lawmakers at the state and national level who don’t think twice about lying if it means they can call someone else a bigot. Like I said before, I believe they’re addicted to victimhood which is why they try so hard to manufacture it.

The problem we’re seeing with this isn’t just a Democratic Party that can’t be trusted. They haven’t been able to be trusted since JFK. The bigger problem is there are actual victims of racism whose stories don’t get nearly the attention they deserve. There’s racism from the right and the left. There’s racism by Caucasians and towards Caucasians. There’s bigotry between members of the various aspects of intersectionality; feminists and LGBTQ activists have been clashing on and off for a couple of years now, for example. Sexism is rampant in both parties; when we have Democratic presidential candidates state they will only consider a Vice President who is a woman, they don’t see that this is both sexist and eliminates half the potential nominees for the second-ranking position in our government.

The playing of the race card is so rampant on the left, it’s becoming hard to distinguish between what’s real and what’s just another hate hoax. They like to say “words matter.” I am more in the camp of believing “truth matters.”

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

Call me a cynic, but I’ve been turning the prospects of Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress over and over in my head to seek a reason why Democrats would have pursued it. The one benefit to them is that it’s a brief distraction – one to three news cycles – to take attention away from the border crisis. But here’s the funny part about that: When they scheduled it, they were losing the border narrative, but over the last couple of days leading up to Mueller’s testimony, they’ve had a few stories that actually benefited them on the issue. So much for prior proper planning.

Nevertheless, tomorrow’s circus is coming to town and many eyes will be on Mueller and Congress as they exchange points and press for some sort of resolution to the two-year waste of time and dollars that has been aptly called Russiagate. What do Democrats hope to gain? What could they possibly achieve with it? If they think he’s going to sing about how bad President Trump is or how he obstructed the investigation, then this is an exercise in having someone read what they already made public. Any awareness to specific details could have been brought about through their press surrogates. There was no need to initiate the circus.

If, on the other hand, they’re going to have him elaborate on why he didn’t pursue the case, then they’re opening up a fresh can of worms when there are plenty of impeachment worms already crawling around in the Democratic Caucus. Are they going to try avoid having him essentially prompt them to pursue impeachment, or is their goal to use him as justification for going after the President?

This is the rock and the hard place many on the left have discussed, especially among Establishment Democrats in DC. They don’t want to pursue impeachment yet. It wouldn’t be popular and it would play that particular card too early in the election cycle. The best time for impeachment to be an issue, if they’re being strategic about it, is later when they’ve accumulated more information and performed more investigations. By no means am I recommending this as any further attention to the Russia hoax by the press, the people, or our representatives in DC is one of the most wasteful things they could do until the election, and that’s saying a lot considering it’s Congress we’re talking about here.

The choice they’re forcing following the Mueller testimony is whether or not to impeach the President. Unless Mueller drops a bombshell (he won’t) or opens doors to investigations that lead to bombshells (there won’t be), then this is going to exacerbate the internal debate they’re already having in the Democratic Party. It’s one of several, but second only to the overarching Pelosi-vs-Squad battle, the impeachment debate is the most contentious.

If they impeach at the request of the radicals in their party (who happened to be joined by a few dozen more moderate representatives) following Mueller’s testimony, then they risk alienating the party to many voters and playing right into the President’s hands. He’ll be able to play the victim card because they’ll make him a victim.

If Mueller testifies and they still don’t impeach, the divide between the two warring factions will only grow wider.

Mueller’s testimony will reveal some things of interest that could harm the President, but these will have short-term effects. The lasting effect will echo the sentiment that Democrats focused on a single mission – removing President Trump – when they should be trying to solve problems of the issues they’ve created for the American people, including the border crisis.

The kabuki dance of the Mueller testimony could affect the President temporarily, but the lasting effects on the unhinged Democrats in the House could be used against them in 2020.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

All things being equal, the Democrats’ proposed climate change plan, which calls for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, isn’t crazy. But things aren’t equal and the plan is going to get panned by both sides of the political aisle for one important reason: Everyone’s perspective on climate change is pushing to the extremes.

On the right, you have full-blown climate change deniers who get more attention than sensible conservatives who question the climate change industry and the pseudo-science behind it. There’s a difference between saying climate change isn’t real and appreciating that whether it’s real or not, it makes sense to move to renewable energy within a reasonable time frame.

On the left, you have the climate catastrophe ideologues who demand an end to fossil fuels yesterday. No more beef. No more air travel. It’s Green New Deal or bust for the radical progressives even though the Green New Deal has very little do with addressing climate change at all.

The “moderate” view is that we should be heading towards two things as a country: Fossil fuel independence and renewable energy technology that is cost-effective. And the 2050 number proposed by Democrats falls within the realm of “reasonable” as long as we assume science will better understand climate change in the future and technology will make renewable energy more efficiently collected and stored than it is today.

And if by around 2050 there are still climate change doubts and/or if renewable energy still isn’t as cost-effective as fossil fuels, we push that date further.

Personally, I am a very big climate change skeptic, but my biggest concern is in how the science is being manipulated for political activism and to push a progressive agenda. I’m not such a skeptic that I wouldn’t look at proper climate science data. I’ve just had a hard time seeing the actual data pointing to the cataclysm that’s allegedly a decade away.

Still, both sides are going to push back against the moderate proposal, and that includes people who are otherwise political moderates. Just as the abortion debate has turned much more polarized in recent years, so too has climate change. It’s do everything now or nothing at all, depending on one’s perspective.

Democrats are going to make climate change an issue for the 2020 elections. But they’re going to do so from a “moderate” perspective. Don’t be fooled. They will shift to the radical if ever allowed in office.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.