At least this time, we know where the deja vu comes from

Oh yeah, and Merry Christmas Everyone!

Did you get the feeling like you heard last summer's "Macy's Dumps Trump" story before?  Maybe this is why.

While channel surfing today, I ran across Miracle on 34th Street.

Remember how the management team at Macy's was made up of a bunch of incompetent idiots who were trying their best to get rid of Santa Claus because they feared that the things he said might somehow have a negative impact on sales?  

Although they quickly learned how wrong they were about Santa's impact on their store's image, they were the last ones to know.  Children, customers, and even the store owner, all realized that Santa was having a positive impact on sales before management figured it out. 

Well that was just a movie, but there is nothing to show that the current management at Macy's is any smarter in real life.
At least in  the movie, Macy's was smart enough to get Santa Back.
Despite what lefties would like to believe, dumping Trump did Macy's more harm than good, and they're is too stupid to try and get Trump back. 

When you think about it, what Santa was trying to do in Miracle on 34th Street for Christmas, was similar to what Trump is doing right now, for America - restore people's belief in the things that made it great.

Near the end of the movie's courtroom scene, Santa is vindicated by a show of overwhelming support, just like Trump will be next November.

Then, we will see a miracle on Pennsylvania Avenue, and as we Make America Great Again!

Something Doesn't Seem Right Here

source: Washington Post

U.S. plans raids to deport families who surged across border
The Department of Homeland Security has begun preparing for a series of raids that would target for deportation hundreds of families who have flocked to the United States since the start of last year, according to people familiar with the operation.
The nationwide campaign, to be carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as soon as early January, would be the first large-scale effort to deport families who have fled violence in Central America, those familiar with the plan said. More than 100,000 families with both adults and children have made the journey across the southwest border since last year, though this migration has largely been overshadowed by a related surge of unaccompanied minors.

After all this time, the United States government is going to start deporting  hundreds of families of illegal aliens?  Something smells fishy.  Why now?  Especially after how the Obama administration has reacted to what Trump has been saying about the situation.  What's going on?  

I have a theory.  If all goes well, and we start enforcing our laws without many problems, then I think we can safely assume that the Democrats and the Obama administration have decided that this illegal immigration mess is doing them more harm than good.  

However, if this turns out to be a fiasco, especially if it looks like it was caused sheer incompetence and stupidity on the part of the U.S. government, then I will suspect that this is a preemptive strike to turn public sentiment against enforcement of current immigration laws, including deporting illegal aliens.  If this results in fiasco, it will be caused purposely by the left to make the general public more irritated with the way the United States handles immigration and deportation than worried about how illegal immigration damages our country.

If the left could pull that off, they could turn enforcing existing immigration laws from a winning to a losing issue for the Republicans, and probably guarantee a victory for Hillary next November.

Grudge Report Update 12/21/15

It is simply amazing to me how well Trump is doing in spite of the fact that seemingly all of the conservative media is against him.  Imagine how well he'd be doing if they all supported him.

Substance, schmubstance

I swear, that if I hear one more person say that Trump's rhetoric "lacks substance", I'll scream.

We've been hearing this criticism since the start of his campaign from every one the "conservative" Trump bashers.  These people have the fewest original thoughts of any group of human beings on the planet.  They just repeat what they've heard elsewhere:
  • Trump's finished
  • Trump has plateaued 
  • Trump will implode
  • Trump is behind Carson Cruz in Iowa, he's in trouble now!

It's always the same, and so far, they have always been wrong.

"Lacks substance", who even talks like that in real life?  When was the last time in a normal conversation, you have heard anyone say something like, "You know Joe, what you just said there lacks substance."  Never heard any normal person say anything like that, have you?  Real people don't talk that way.

Real people talk like Donald Trump.  They might say something like: 

"Conservative radio talk show hosts who are trying to destroy Trump are so stupid, so stupid."


"Everyone knows that what all candidates say on the campaign trail, 'lacks substance'.  There is never time to get too specific, plus the candidate runs the risk of boring the audience with details and makes him or her more vulnerable to criticism of such details.  All candidates operate this way.  Everyone knows that.  Conservative Trump bashers are so dishonest, so dishonest."   

Here's some advice for all you "conservative" Trump bashing, morons:  Try coming up with something ORIGINAL the next time you try to run Trump down.  What do you have to lose?  You've been wrong parroting other Trump bashers every time, so far.

I'm adding Milwaukee conservative talk radio stations WISN and WTMJ to the Grudge Report.  Not just the hosts, but the entire stations.  I was listening to Dan O'Donnell, who was filling in for Vicki McKenna today, spewing the regular anti-Trump bullshit when a caller made an excellent point.

The caller pointed out that while the host had once again, made a point that Trump was not a "real conservative", the Republicans in congress had just given away the store, proving they they weren't any more conservative than Trump.

I couldn't believe the host's response.  He said that while he didn't agree with what the Republicans are doing on Capitol Hill, essentially giving money to the Democrats - Trump is every bit as bad as they are because in the past, he DONATED money to the Democrats and has a record of supporting some liberal causes.

Excuse me, Dan, but there's YUUUUUUGE difference.  Trump was donating HIS OWN MONEY.  Republicans in congress are giving away OUR MONEY.  There's no comparison between the two.  Trump can give his own money to anyone he wants to.

Furthermore, if saying that because someone supported Democrats and liberal causes in the past means that there is no possible way such a person could ever become a conservative, then why are these conservative talk show hosts even on the air?  I thought their jobs were to convince people to adopt a conservative point of view, but if their criticism of Trump is valid, that means that NO ONE who has ever held any liberal views, or supported Democrats in the past, can ever become a conservative.  If that's true, all of the conservative Trump bashers should quit their jobs right now.  What good can they possibly do?

Us realistic conservatives don't need cheerleaders.  Trump has got us fired up enough already.  How about you conservative radio talk show hosts start trying to convince some undecideds to support the Republican front runner?  Start using your heads.  If
Trump is doing so much better with Republican voters than the other Republican candidates, wouldn't it make sense that he would also do better with the undecideds?

That's the way it is here in Wisconsin.  Are conservative radio talk show hosts in other states, just as bad?

Grudge Report

Comment on any post or email me at
to have your additions posted.

National Review
Roll Call

The Club for Growth

Radio Stations
WISN - Milwaukee
WTMJ - Milwaukee


George Will
Glenn Beck
Megyn Kelly - Fox News
Bill Kristol
Karl Rove
Marc A. Thiessen - Washington Post
Jonah Goldberg - National Review
Peter Wehner - Commentary Magazine
Kevin D.Williamson - National Review
Erick Erickson - Red State
Neil Stevens - Red State
John Podhoretz - Commentary magazine
Nathan L. Gonzales - Roll Call
David Brooks - New York Times


Charlie Sykes - WTMJ Milwaukee, radio talk show host
Jay Weber - WISN Milwaukee, radio talk show host
Dan O'Donnell - WISN Milwaukee, radio talk show host


Red State
Matt Walsh

Beginning to see the light

Chris Wallace -Fox News

Major League Deja Vu

Something about this story seems so familiar.

Isn't campaign spying (even if done by one's subordinates), an offense so serious that makes an incumbent (let alone an candidate), unfit to hold the office of the presidency?

Hasn't a particular presidential candidate had problems in the past with electronic security?

source: Politico

Clinton goes for the jugular after data breach

The front-runner prepped for a policy discussion, but after the data breach, she’s ready for a different kind of debate.

Victim of Hillary Clinton's
electronic security
Bernie Sanders

In a shift of strategy hours before the third Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton’s campaign went for Bernie Sanders’ jugular, accusing his team of stealing valuable campaign data, misrepresenting what happened and inflicting “damage here that cannot be undone.”
The offensive came after the Sanders camp admitted its staffers reviewed, searched and saved data from Clinton’s voter file made accessible briefly Wednesday because of a data breach -- and it represented a complete shift of tone in the Democratic race where the hits have remained impersonal and focused on the issues.

Shouldn't this one story disqualify both of these candidates in the minds of the American people?

Do I Believe in Conspiracy Theories?

Yes, well, at least one.

Remember the story about the guy who invented the magic carburetor which would allow cars to get 100 mpg?  I remember first hearing that story back in 1973, when I was in sixth grade.  Even then, at eleven years old, my bullshit detector immediately went off, with lights a flashing and alarms blaring.  

The story was a big load of crap for so many reasons, and amazingly, it remains alive in the minds of many less intelligent Americans to this day.  Perhaps it could finally be killed off for good by asking these two questions:  "If some magic 100 mpg carburetor had actually been invented, why have the auto manufacturers spent so much time since then, trying to improve fuel economy by much more expensive and complicated means, such as electronic engine management, overdrive transmissions, improved aerodynamics, and the like?  Wouldn't it have been easier to just slap the magic carburetor on top of a 455 Rocket V8 in 1973 Olds Eighty Eight?"

Alright, let's all call the magic 100 mpg carburetor conspiracy story officially dead, and move on to an actual conspiracy.  Not one about who and how many people were involved in  shooting someone half a century ago, but something that actually affects millions of Americans, this and every year.  I'm talking about, of course...

  ...Christmas lights.

Why don't the damned things work?  They worked last year, they even worked when you tested them before you put them on the tree.  They may have even worked at that point, but after you put on the garland, after you put on the tinsel, after you put on the ornaments, and have your family's official tree lighting ceremony...  nothing!  WTF?

Why, why, why?  Why don't these evil pieces of shit work?
And while we're asking that, why does only half the string not work?  And, why are there three wires on the string?  The (non grounded) extension cord only has two wires.  The toaster chord has only two wires, come to think of it, almost everything that isn't a major appliance only has two wires.  Why do Christmas lights have three?

OK, let's get to answering these questions.

Why don't these evil pieces of shit work?  The answer is within the question.  Virtually all Christmas lights are of shockingly low quality and the manufacturer's only real concern is not having them shock someone or cause a fire.  It is actually possible to make high quality Christmas lights, but they are expensive, and that's not what the customers at Walmart or other discount retailers are interested in.  Why would they take up shelf space with products that only one percent of customers would be willing to buy?

Why does only half the string not work, and why are there three wires on the string?  The answer might surprise you.  Christmas lights are not quite as shitty as their reputation for being so, in fact their manufacturer's attempt in satisfying customers is the cause of so much our frustration.

To understand what I mean, you have to go back, back to when the world was powered by the black fuel, and the deserts sprouted great cities of pipe and steel back to when mini Christmas lights were first introduced. Rather than rewriting the whole explanation, I'm going to let the site, How Stuff Works, take it from here.

So (for those of you who were too lazy to click on and read the link), about 75% of our frustration with Christmas lights stems from the manufacturer's design that allows an entire string of lights to remain working, even though one or more bulbs may be burned out.  Each individual bulb contains a shunt, or alternative path for electrical current to flow, and here's where the conspiracy theory comes in.

The shunts within the bulbs do not always work as intended, which wouldn't be that big of a deal except, no one ever told the general public what was going on, until the advent of the internet made it impossible to keep a lid on the story any longer.

Enter: The Lightkeeper Pro

I bought one of these things a few years back, and it really pissed me off.  Not that it it didn't work.  It works great.  It does everything the manufacturer claims it will do and amazes friends and relatives who have watched me demonstrate it.

What makes me mad, is the fact that it wasn't available until just a few years ago, which coincidentally happened to be the advent of LED Christmas lights, which are destined to make the traditional incandescent Christmas lights obsolete.

The Lightkeeper Pro basically "shocks" the shunts within a string of bulbs into activation.  To do this, you simply remove one bulb, any bulb from a string of nonworking lights while they are still plugged in, insert the bulb socket into the Lightkeeper Pro, squeeze the trigger until the string lights up, then replace the bulb. It's that easy.

There is absolutely nothing new about the technology within the Lightkeeper Pro.  It's certainly as old as miniChristmas lights themselves, but it is quite apparent that both the product idea and the information about the design of traditional miniChristmas lights had been purposely withheld from the general public until manufacturers were positive that LED lights would completely replace them in the very near future.  Not that's a conspiracy!

Imagine the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of light strings, needlessly thrown away and replaced with new ones, over the decades.

Imagine the countless hours, wasted as people labored fruitlessly, checking for loose bulbs and such.

Imagine the millions of swear words uttered as cords were plugged in, only to reveal darkness, or half darkness.

It never had to happen, but imagine all the money that was made selling all those replacement light sets made by some Chinese kids working in some factory for a dollar per day.  I wonder if those Chinese kids even knew what the lights were for.

Anyhow, it's all a moot point now.  You are best off to save yourself some time and frustration by biting the bullet, and replacing all your old Christmas lights with LED's.  That is unless you're like me, cheap to the point of it costing you money and time, and you enjoy the satisfaction of beating the Christmas light devil.

Why free speech should not only be tolerated, it should be encouraged

You can tell by the fact that the left and the right are always accusing each other of it, that the general public dislikes lying.  It's a bad thing.  That's not to say that all accusations of it are well founded (in fact a large percentage of these accusations are lies themselves), but rather, they are often useful in attempting to discredit one's opponent.

Why is lying bad anyway?  It's bad, because it can cause others who have accepted false information as fact, to make incorrect judgments based upon it, often to the detriment of themselves and anyone else who may be affected by such incorrect judgments.  A  simple example would be a mechanic charging a car owner for a brake inspection without even looking at the automobile.  The car owner then drives away along with his family, with complete confidence that everything is a okay, but they all end up sailing over the edge of a 200 foot cliff.

Wouldn't it be great if we could read minds?  That way, not only could we tell when people are lying, we could know what kind of person any individual really was, and thereby avoid anyone who consciously meant us harm.  What a great asset that would be.

Now, none of us can read minds, but we can do the next best thing.  We can infer what type of person any individual is simply by paying attention to what he says and does.  Chances are, you wouldn't your let children play in the yard of someone who openly declares he is a member of a satanic cult that practices child sacrifice.

The ability to make inferences is a tremendous asset, right up there with telepathy, so why on earth would anyone in favor of inhibiting it for anyone else?  

Well, you might be in favor of it if you were, uh, I don't know, a liar.  

Check out this post at I Own the World Report.  It makes several good points about a typical lying lefty, starting with her appearance.

This is an ugly, ugly woman, inside and out. Look at her byline pic –

Linda Stasi

Now look at her in reality –
Politifact just gave her a pants-on-fire rating for her photo alone.

Now the left is always saying that we shouldn't judge women on their appearance, so why is this fat, old, liberal chick, lying to everyone about how she looks?

No one wants to admit, or have other people know that they are ugly, so I going to cut her some slack on that one.  

What I am going to take issue with is her apparent stupidity and the fact that she gets paid for what I do for free.

In case you haven't read her article, she attempted to say that one of the victims in the San Bernardino shootings was hardly any better than one of the shooters who worked with him, since he was constantly spewing right wing hatred, which caused the shooter (who otherwise would have been a lifelong good and peaceful citizen) to boil over in rage.  

So much for the lefty mantra, "Don't blame the victim", and our ugly lefty chick goes one step further by trying to excuse the shooter, in spite of her lame attempt to say she is not doing so.

Beyond the hypocrisy and lies, the worst thing our fat, ugly, lefty, news writer does is to denigrate the right to free speech.  She writes:

"Thalasinos (the victim) was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security. He asked, “IS 1. EVERY POLITICIAN IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR? 2. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A MORON? 3. EVERY POLITICIAN IS RACIST AGAINST JEWS?” He also posted screeds like, “You can stick your Muslim Million Man march up your asses,” and how “Hashem” should blow up Iran.
His Facebook page warns that “Without HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN (Democrats) would have NO SOURCE of BABIES to SACRIFICE and SELL!”

We have freedom of speech but even so, a city worker should refrain from such public bigotry. Municipal workers have been fired for spewing and posting racial and sexual slurs".
Now obviously, she doesn't think that the victim was a nice guy, but how was she ever to come to that conclusion in the first place?  Because of what he said!  Duh!

Also, how was the shooter able to get away with orchestrating his attack?  By keeping quite about it!

You see, exercising free speech isn't just good for the speaker, it's good for anyone around who might listen, especially if the speaker means them harm.

It's much easier to identify and avoid the wrath of someone who telegraphs their intentions than someone who hides them.  This ain't rocket surgery!

OK, so why would our fat, ugly, leftist chick want to put everyone in danger by curtailing the right to free speech?

Come on, you know the answer.

'Cause lefties lie, and restricting free speech just makes it that much easier for them to make sure their lies never get exposed.

Let's take a break from all the political stuff

Time for a Christmas Story

It’s strange how memories work.  I’m closing in on being 20,000 days old, and most of what happened on any of those days is long since forgotten, yet still there’s some things I’ll always remember.  I’m not talking about remembering major world events, like where you were when you first heard the news of 9/11.  I’m not even talking about major events in my own life.  I’m referring memories of days that had no special significance at all.  Random days, almost certainly were much like the forgotten days that preceded and followed, but for whatever reason, my memory preserved.

There’s one particular day that I often think of this time of year when I was around five years old.  It the late afternoon, sometime before Christmas, probably the middle of December.  My family owned a wholesale/retail greenhouse and flower shop which at that time of year, was always filled with poinsettia plants and wreaths.  The smell of evergreens filled the air.  With the last light day, I noticed that it had begun to snow quite hard.

In half an hour, it would be time to go home.  Home was only a block and a half away, but my father had already started the daily ritual of closing up shop.  He went through each of six glass greenhouses to make sure everything was alright, looking at thermometers, making sure doors were bolted shut, and feeling the heating pipes to make sure they were hot.  He then checked each of two huge boilers to make sure they were running properly.  They looked, smelled and sounded to me like locomotives.  Their incessant drone was actually comforting, signalling everything was a okay.

Last, he turned around the “Come in, We’re open!” sign to “Sorry, we’re closed” and slid the deadbolt on the front door closed.  Then we turned out all the lights and exited through the rear door.  We started walking home with me pulling my sled behind me that I had brought with me earlier that day.  We reached the end of the drive and my father turned the opposite direction of home.

“Where are we going?”, I asked.  
“I just thought you might like to see all the people’s Christmas lights.”  my dad replied.

We walked in a serpentine pattern, through the eight or ten blocks that made up our town, looking at all the displays.  They were modest by today’s standards.  Most had no more that four strings of lights with around 20 bulbs per string, but they were the big, old style, incandescent bulbs.  The ones that would easily get hot enough to burn a finger or start dry greenery on fire, so they had no problem melting even the heaviest snowfall, and what they lacked in number was more than made up for in total lumens.

The last house we walked past was the best of all.  It had two blue spruce trees, about 25 feet tall, on either side of the front walk, completely covered with snow except for hundreds of holes melted through by blue lights.  Those blue lights and their reflection against the snow on the tree and falling from the sky was one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen.

At that point, it was time to go home.  Supper would be on the table, and I would hear all about my older brother and sister's days at school while we ate.  Later on, my mom would make us all some hot chocolate.  (The real kind, made on the stove, with milk, sugar, and unsweetened Hershey’s cocoa.)

I wish I had a picture of me, pulling my sled, walking with my dad in that snowstorm, past those blue lit trees.  At that point, for me, all was right with the world.  

What's Real?

Democrats, and mainstream media would have us believe the two greatest threats America faces are:

1) Man made global warming

2) Donald Trump

There they are.  Look at them.  Scary, aren't they?  What's interesting about these two threats is how the left goes about dealing with them.  They treat these two perceived threats in completely opposite manners.

Man made global warming, they insist, is real.  Even though many predicted dates of our demise caused by it, have come and gone, it's real.  Even though much of the data that supports the entire theory of it has been proven to be faulty and fabricated, it's real.  

Trump on the other hand, they say, is not.  His poll numbers aren't real, his supporters aren't real, his knowledge isn't real, the issues he considers to be our greatest threats aren't real.

Isn't that strange?  Wouldn't you think that the two greatest threats listed by any group of people, be addressed by them, at least somewhat similarly?  What could possibly explain their two vastly different ways of looking at what they claim to be our two greatest threats?

Any of you who are regular readers of the GGN will know the answer.  

Lefties lie.

They lie about global warming.  They do not consider it to be a real threat.  How can I prove it?  Just look at how people act when they are facing what they honestly believe to be a serious oncoming threat.

Let's say you are some person living in a flood plain during a period of heavy rain with more rain predicted over the course of the next few days.  The flood waters are inching their way up to your home when suddenly the rain stops and a ray of sun breaks through the clouds.  You then hear on the radio that the weather forecasts have been in error and no rain is predicted in the immediate future.

What would you do?  Would you get up and cheer, or would you deny that the rain had stopped?  Would you be happy, or would you be upset because even though the imminent disaster you were sure was coming had not materialized, it certainly will occur some time in the future?

Normal people don't the way the left acts about global warming. The faulty computer models, the made up data, should be good news, and celebrated the way people celebrate whenever disaster is averted, but no.  The left wants this threat.  The left loves this threat and they never want it to go away.  That's why they deny the mountain of evidence that keeps piling up everyday which disputes their sacred theory.

Man made global warming isn't real, but the left wants to make it appear so, because they see it as a way to take money and freedom away from the citizens of this country via carbon taxes and increased regulation.

What about Trump?  The left is lying there too.  He's not a threat to America, he's a threat to them.  Their initial strategy of discounting him as a clown and buffoon and hoping he self destructs is quickly reaching it's expiration date.  

 Trump, his poll numbers, his supporters, and the issues he's running on, are about are all going to become real - real fast.  Then, you'll see how lefties act about a true threat.

They will insist that Trump poses them no danger, but they will celebrate and cheer even the slightest sign of Trump's popularity receding.  The exact opposite of how they react to man made global warming.

The actions and reactions of the left will plainly show to everyone what they truly believe is real.

The only climate that's changing in America is the political climate and Trump is going to be turning up the heat on the left real soon.

Did you ever notice...

...that when things get really bad, even liberal countries start doing what conservatives said what they should have been doing all along?

Which raises the question, "What caused things to get really bad in the first place?"