It's ""Hate Speech!"

Don't like criticism? Just call it “hate speech” and most of your critics will stop criticizing you. That's what some students at Georgetown University are calling ANY criticism of Sharia Law. Well, I guess I'm a “hater” then, because I will NEVER quit criticizing Sharia Law, which goes against everything America IS. We have a Constitution, and it prohibits almost everything in Sharia Law. That merits criticism, and they can call me what they want, that's FACT. And to hell with them!

“FREEDOM OF SPEECH”: College students who RIOT to prevent conservative speakers from being able to speak at their schools cite THEIR “freedom of speech: in PREVENTING that conservative speaker from exercising HIS freedom of speech. They're afraid they'll hear something that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions, and they're afraid to hear it. They then need to go to their “safe spaces” where they can suck their thumbs and whimper a little. Maybe kick their feet a little.

MAD AT NOTHING: The liberals on the Internet are all aflutter at a picture of Hillary grimacing as she reads a story about VP Pence using an AOL account for state business while he was governor of Indiana. There's no comparison, but they insist there is. They say it's a classic picture of someone who lost a job interview to someone less qualified, implying (falsely) that she is more qualified to be president than Trump. Classic “sour grapes,” if you ask me. She isn't even qualified to be a housewife.

THE DOUBLE STANDARD: The liberal media is covering the Jeff Sessions phony story much more closely than they ever did Holder's “Fast and Furious” REAL story. If that isn't a clear example of their double standard, I don't know what is. If we didn't have the “alternative media,” we wouldn't have even HEARD about Holder's “Fast and Furious.” That's how they “manage the news” in this country and CONTROL what many of us think.

“BUT NOT FOR THEE”: “Good for we, but not for thee!”Democrats want to not be questioned about any proof of the “Russian Connection” (there is none) and Trump and his people's involvement in it, but insist that, since Trump brought up the possible wiretapping of his office by OBAMA, he has to PROVE it, but they do not have to prove their allegations. They figure all they have to do is make the ACCUSATION, and that's enough. But not Trump. He has to bring his proof forward, RIGHT NOW.

JUST LIKE WATERGATE: In Watergate, Nixon people broke into the Democrat headquarters to get information that would help them win an election. Today, Obama is accused of wiretapping Trump headquarters just before an election for the same purpose. The same basic thing, but under new technology. Some say there was no court order to do it, but did he do it, anyway? Obama is known for his ignoring the law and the Constitution. Did he do it in this case? It would be very like him to ignore the law.

.