web
analytics
live stream trump state of the union address

LIVE STREAM of President Trump’s State of the Union Address

Tonight, Tuesday, February 28, 2017, President Donald Trump will be making a speech to congress and the American people. The speech is expected to be a combination of traditional State of the Union addresses, along with a look at president Trump’s plan for making America great again.

The speech is scheduled to begin at 9:10pm, EST. We’ll have the LIVE STREAM here at Right Smarts.

 

Photo Credit: ShutterStock

bill nye the science guy

Bill Nye-hilism: The Dangerous & Contradictory Views of the Science Guy

Bill Nye the Science Guy, host of the worthy-of-canceling-Netflix disaster Bill Nye Saves the World, is the media’s second favorite pop science educator, behind only Neil deGrasse Tyson. This is strange because, unlike Tyson, Nye’s not even an actual scientist.

Mr. Science Guy’s lack of qualifications isn’t the point of this article, however.

The point of this article is to expose a deeply-troubling problem we see not only from Bill Nye, but from a large number of current scientists and academics.

That problem? Cognitive Dissonance.

Hypocrisy By Another Name

For those unaware of what cognitive dissonance is, here’s a quick rundown from Wikipedia:

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, when performing an action that contradicts those beliefs, ideas, and values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts existing beliefs, ideas, and values.

Essentially, it’s hypocrisy, and the conflict that arises from it.

“What hypocrisy are Nye and so many scientists guilty of,” you ask.

I’ll tell you: The hypocrisy of viewing science and progress as enormously-valuable endeavors, while simultaneously viewing humanity and existence as worthless.

From Bill Nye the “Science” Guy’s 2010 speech for winning the Humanist of the Year award:

“It doesn’t take you long to then think, I really am not that different from a grain of sand. I am insignificant. If you look out at this so-called trackless ocean, if you go out there even a few nautical miles, you disappear. You have no idea where you are—am I near Delaware, am I near Papua New Guinea? You can’t really tell unless you’re very experienced. So I remember thinking, I’m just another speck of sand. And Earth, really, in the cosmic scheme of things, is another speck, and our sun—an unremarkable star, nothing special—is another speck. And the galaxy is a speck. I’m a speck on a speck orbiting a speck among other specks amongst still other specks in the middle of specklessness! I am insignificant! I suck.”

NyehilsmNotice the contradictions in Nye’s views: On one hand, humanity and Earth are insignificant specks of zero worth. On the other hand, his climate change alarmism is based on the idea of saving humanity and Earth.

We’re worthless specks of dust . . . but it’s of the utmost importance that we’re saved. You know, because worthless specks of dust are totally worth saving.

Make Science Great Again

Does someone who holds such a nihilistic, poisonous worldview have any business meddling in science?

Should someone who holds the view that Earth and life is insignificant be preaching to us about ethics?

Of course not. Yet, that doesn’t stop Nye. He continues to use the dumbed-dumb, uncritical mainstream media to spread his inconsistent, unscientific — yes, downright stupid — views.

Is Nye too ignorant to recognize his own incoherent hypocrisy, or is he so dishonest, and so self-serving, he simply does not care?

Sadly, I think we all know the answer to that question.

Science has slowly evolved from an honorable process, to little more than a Trojan horse for dishonest leftist politics.

Bill Nye’s science advocacy? Little more than leftist advocacy in a cheap tuxedo.

The question is, how can we, as honest conservatives, free science from the shackles of leftist politics?

 

Photo Credit: ShutterStock

It Happened Again: Trump Supporters Attacked While Boycotting the Oscars in Los Angeles

In news that’s sure to shock everyone, anti-Trumpers have unprovokedly attacked Trump supporters.

This most recent assault (well, as of this writing; there’ve probably been more by the time you read it) happened in the peaceful, tolerant city of Los Angeles, California.

Pro-Trump supporters, tired of the divisive, poisonous politics of Hollywood elites, decided to express their Second Amendment rights and protest the Oscars.

Get this: They actually had the audacity to wear pro-Trump clothing while they did it.

This was, of course, too much for tolerant liberals to handle. Their rebuttal? To physically and verbally attack the pro-Trump protesters.

I am told it was a very peaceful and loving beating. You don’t have to take my word for it, though; someone managed to video a part of the attack and put it on YouTube:

By repeatedly dehumanizing Trump and his supporters, while stoking irrational fear, liberals have normalized this sort of behavior. Attacking people who support Trump not only isn’t viewed as a negative, it’s viewed as a positive.

The icing on the cake is that, after encouraging this sort of violence, liberals then pretend to have taken the high road. They’re not only intolerant and violent, they’re also dishonest and delusional.

And that, my friends, is why Trump won.

When will the left step up and disavow this violent behavior? Or do they agree with it?

Things that make you go “hmm” . . .

 

Photo Credit: ShutterStock

Dear Trump Haters: When Your Cause Is Being Lead By A Terrorist, Maybe It’s Time To Think Things Over?

Another day, another example of liberals being less-than-stellar human beings.

Today’s example? The Women’s March, part two, is being lead, in part, by a convicted terrorist.

Yes, you read that correctly. No, this isn’t The Onion.

As Kyle Smith of the New York Post reports:

Instead of milling around Washington, organizers have in mind a “general strike” called the Day without a Woman. In a manifesto published in The Guardian on Feb. 6, the brains behind the movement are calling for a “new wave of militant feminist struggle.” That’s right: militant, not peaceful.

The document was co-authored by, among others, Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted terrorist. Odeh, a Palestinian, was convicted in Israel in 1970 for her part in two terrorist bombings, one of which killed two students while they were shopping for groceries. She spent 10 years in prison for her crimes.

Well, I guess that’s one way to make your movement more militant. It doesn’t get much more militant than convicted terrorist.

The two innocent students Rasmea Odeh helped slaughter can be seen below:

Of course, what we sane people realize is that this march will accomplish little more than pushing moderate liberals further to the right.

Their badly-thought-out plan is yet another gift to the right wing. And for that, we only have two words . . .

Thank You.

It’ll be interesting to see just how many anti-Trumpers stand up and object to this monster’s involvement.

My guess? Very, very few.

Prove me wrong, Trump haters.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

First MILO, Now George Takei: Video Surfaces of the Ex-Star Trek Star Laughing Over Child/Adult Sexual Encounter

A day after former Breitbart editor and alt-right superstar Milo Yiannopoulos’ took a big hit for controversial comments regarding pedophilia, a video of ex-Star Trek star George Takei making similar comments has emerged:

In the video, Takei details an affair he had with an “18 or 19”-year-old camp counselor at the age of 13. Takei seems to find nothing wrong with this, as he seems to have enjoyed the affair, and frequently laughs while telling the story.

It’ll be interesting to see how both the public and media react to Takei’s comments in comparison to how they reacted to Milo’s.

Will Takei get the Milo treatment, or will double standards be exposed?

Stay tuned . . .

 

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore, flickr

J.K. Rowling looking kind of hot.

J.K. Rowling Goes Silent After Getting Challenged To Put Her Money Where Her Mouth Is

J.K. Rowling is a very rich lady. According to Business Insider, she has a net worth of “about” one-billion dollars.

She’s put her money to good use, purchasing several large, well-guarded mansions, completely isolated from us lowly non-billionaires. In fact, she likes her privacy so much that she’s reportedly had a £1,000,000 house demolished to increase her yard (garden).

Like most ultra-rich celebrities, J.K.’s a bit detached from the everyday world. Also like most ultra-rich celebrities, she likes to flap her gums about politics which will have no effect on her daily life.

One political issue is the refugee crisis.

While most Westerners dislike the idea of allowing refugees to flood their countries, especially after seeing the disasters in Sweden and Germany, Ms. Rowling seems to take the opposite stance. She can often be found on Twitter, defending refugees, including an outright denial of their violent history, while attempting to vilify those who oppose them.

J.K. Gets Challenged

After months of her nonsense, someone has finally stepped up and challenged her to back up her beliefs.

Enter (in)famous author and political commentator Mike Cernovich. Mike has graciously offered to buy tickets for 100 refugees to live in Ms. Rowling’s mansions for a year.

Following Mike’s lead, several others have offered to contribute to the cause:

Wanting a more accurate look at how many supported his idea, Mike started a Twitter poll. As of this writing, a whopping 92% of the 27,000+ voters agree that Ms. Rowling should take him up on his offer.

The people have spoken, and the results are unanimous: J.K. Rowling should allow refugees to use her mansions.

[amazon_link asins=’1514672111,9527065925,1519652925,9527065720′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’rightsmarts-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’e3487329-f2e4-11e6-ab1f-1b08019b9a1c’]

J.K. Answers Mike Cernovich (Kind Of)

J.K. is a Twitterholic, and Mike’s challenge had spread like wildfire. There is no doubt that she had read it.

After reading Mike’s challenge to her beliefs, and seeing the enormous level of support it had, J.K. Rowlings responded with . . .

Absolutely nothing.

It was as if Mike had cast Silencing Charm on her.

When given the opportunity to prove she’s sincere in her beliefs, and that she’s willing to make personal sacrifices for refugees–exactly what she expect us non-billionaires to–J.K. Rowling has laid a big, fat goose egg.

Maybe she’ll eventually get around to addressing Mike’s challenge. Probably not. Until she does, neither I, nor thousands like me will be able to take her beliefs seriously. As the saying goes . . .

Silence speaks volumes.

The 3 Powerful Reasons All Intelligent People Know Climate Change Is Fake Science

WARNING: If you are a climate change alarmist, or merely an overbearing left-wing hack, this post could do severe damage to your pseudo-scientific worldview. Liberal discretion is advised.

Global warming. Global cooling. Climate change.

Few phrases stir up as many emotions as the combination of these two simple words. Nothing in science is more controversial than climate change. Few things in politics are, either.

Is climate change legitimate, or is it bad politics pretending to be good science?

I’ll give you three irrefutable reasons why I believe the answer is almost certainly the latter. By the end of the article, all reasonable-minded people will agree with me.

 

Reason 1: A History Of Failed Predictions Is A History Of Bad Science

While we conservatives seem to have no trouble with it, this science thing seems to be hard for liberals to grasp. I fancy myself a kind and considerate man, so let me try to explain it to them.

Science is built around predictions and testability.

You have an idea (hypothesis).

You state things you’d expect to discover, or event to take place, if your idea is true (predictions).

Then, either tests or run, or, if a time-based prediction, you wait to see whether your expectations are met.

If they are? Your idea has made a correct prediction, and is strengthened. Once it grows sufficiently strong, it gets promoted from hypothesis to a full-blown theory.

If your prediction fails? Your idea is weakened. With enough failed predictions, your idea gets demoted to failed hypothesis. It gets tossed in the trash. Better luck next time.

So, what about climate change? We’re told “the science is settled,” and that to doubt climate change is an all-out assault on science. This confidence must be the result of a long history of correct predictions, right?

Yeah . . . well . .  about that . . .

Not only is climate change lacking in correct predictions, its history is dominated by badly-missed predictions. As a smart guy (cough) once said, climate change has an accuracy rate somewhere around that of those 1-900-PSYCHICS you see advertised on late-night TV.

Do you consider Miss Cleo a scientist? If not, you probably shouldn’t consider those crazy men in labcoats telling us the end is near unless we buy overpriced green products scientists, either. Neither has proven capable of rising to science’s standards.

A Look At Climate Change’s Greatest Misses

We know climate change alarmists have a history of bad predictions, but what were those predictions, exactly?

The award-winning blog Watts Up With That has put together a large (but far from complete) list of failed climate change predictions. Some of the best (by which I mean the worst):

17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

78. January 1970 Life Magazine “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”

83. July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

86. Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”

91. April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”

That’s some super-duper science, huh?

How do climate scientists explain these enormous failures? By either denying them, or resorting to ad hoc (after the fact) reasoning which paints themselves as heroes.

All of those doom-and-gloom predictions that never came to pass? Climate change scientists, the real-life superheroes that they are, prevented them from happening. You see, those weren’t examples of the failures of climate science predictions, but examples of the success of climate science policies.

At least, that’s what climate change scientists tell us.

You don’t think they’d lie, do you?

 

Reason 2: “Do As We Say, Not As We Do.”

It’s Pop Quiz time, ladies and gentlemen (and anyone in between).

Q) You believe the fate of the planet, and all of humanity, rests on getting climate change under control by limiting our carbon footprint. Do you:

A) Live a modest, responsible lifestyle, designed to minify your carbon footprint.

B) Live a jet-flyin’, limousine-ridin’ lifestyle, with an Andre the Giant-sized carbon footprint.

If you’re a decent, moral human being, your answer would be easy: A

If you’re a climate change scientist? Well . . .

As the U.K.’s Telegraph pointed out, 2009’s Climate Change Summit in Denmark included more than 1,200 limos and 140 private jets.

This isn’t uncommon. Many of climate change’s top alarmists are wealthy, and live the lifestyle that comes with it.

Hypocrites can't be trusted, nor do they deserve respect,

Hypocrites can’t be trusted, nor do they deserve respect.

According to CBS News, one of climate change’s loudest alarmists, former vice president Al Gore, has a net worth of $200,000,000. What kind of house can one live in with that type of money? Apparently, a pretty damn big one. We’ll let CBS News tell you:

In 2007, for instance, public records revealed that the energy consumption at his Nashville home was 20 times the national average.

Clearly, Mr. Gore is someone who cares about the planet, just not enough to sacrifice his own luxuries.

Do as he says, not as he does.

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is another well-known climate change advocate. He’s on record as stating that climate change is the greatest threat to the human species.

He’s also known to live the high life of private jets, fancy cars, mansions, and rather large yachts, all creating a carbon footprint several times larger than the average person’s.

Climate change is hugely important to Leo . . . just not important enough to give up his playboy lifestyle.

Either Leo is bull*censor*ing about how strongly he believes in climate change, or (by his own standards) he’s a self-centered monster who’s damaging the planet, and endangering lives, all in return for a good time.

leonardo-di-caprio-yacht

One of Hollywood’s really big, energy-sucking yachts. Image Credit: TruthRevolt.org

What does all of this this tell us?

For one, it tells us climate charm alarmism sure does pay well.

More importantly, it tells us that these alarmists are either very stupid, or very unethical people.

So, are we dealing with egotists who pretend to care about the planet for their own wealth and power?

Are we looking at con-men who are selling snake oil under the guise of valid science?

Maybe we’re simply dealing with a whole lot of morons, who are so lacking in self-awareness that they can’t notice their inconsistent behavior?

I have a good idea the correct answer, but I’ll let you, dear reader, come to your own conclusion. I think we both know what’s correct.

 

Reason 3: “97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Climate Change!”

One of the most frequently-cited arguments of climate change defense is the claim that 97% (or a similarly-high number) of climate scientists believe in climate change.

The argument goes something like this:

“No one understands climate better than climate scientists, and since 97% believe climate change is true, climate change is definitely true. The science is settled. Only an anti-science idiot could possibly disagree.”

There are a number of errors with this argument. The most obvious is that it’s both an appeal to authority (climate scientists), and an appeal to popularity (97% acceptance).

However, I’d like to introduce a third error: Ignoring the fact that climate science is built around climate change.

A near-necessary component of being a climate scientist in the 21st century is accepting climate change as fact. It’s the magnum opus of the field.

If believing in climate change is a prerequisite for being a climate scientist, as is the case, then why should we be surprised that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists do just that?

To understand my point better, think of this example:

Claim 1: No one knows more about bigfoot than bigfoot experts.

Claim 2: 98% of bigfoot experts believe in bigfoot.

Conclusion: Since 98% of the people who know the most about bigfoot agree bigfoot is real, bigfoot is definitely real. The thoughts and opinions of bigfoot non-experts are irrelevant; they’re ignorant bigfoot denialists.

This is, essentially, the same line of reasoning that the climate change defender uses.

Now do you see the flaw?

Of course the majority of bigfoot experts believe in bigfoot! The act of being a bigfoot expert entails believing in the existence of bigfoot. Typically, people don’t become experts in that which they believe is nonexistent.

The same holds true in climate science. The act of being a climate scientist–centered on climate change, remember–entails belief in climate change.

Few people accept the claims of bigfoot experts as authoritative, because bigfoot experts aren’t considered credible. Thus, the 98% acceptance figure means nothing.

Given what we know about climate scientists, I’d argue we should take the same stance towards them. Climate scientists aren’t legitimate scientists, which means the 97% figure is little more than a bunch of fake scientists propping up a fake science.

Is that bigfoot, or is it a glacier melting due to climate change? Trick question: Neither is real. Image Credit: Flickr

Bottomline: If you accept that climate change is real because the majority of climate scientists believe it, in order to be logically consistent, you must also:

  • Accept that bigfoot is real because the majority of bigfoot experts believe in it.
  • Accept that ghosts are real because the majority of ghost experts believe in them.
  • Accept that UFOs are real because the majority of UFOlogists believe in them.
  • Accept that vampires are real because the majority of vampire experts believe in them.

I could go on . . . and on . . . and on. You get the point.

To believe in climate change, you have to believe in a lot *censored*.

Really doesn’t seem all that scientific, does it?

If you enjoyed this article, or if you really hated it, why not share it with the world on Facebook?

Have something to add? Feel free to post a comment. Have a rebuttal? I’d be happy to post it.

Until then, take care, and don’t forget to live a little, even if it means a big carbon footprint. The world probably isn’t ending anytime soon, and if it is, enjoy it while it lasts.

[amazon_link asins=’1936488493,1608320839,1935071831′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’rightsmarts-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’acf453c7-dfa5-11e6-9354-1ff985bb3955′]

13 Times Mitt Romney Was Completely Classless To President Trump

Failed 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney is lobbying to be picked as Donald Trump’s Secretary of State, so perhaps Trump’s team should review all of Romney’s undiplomatic statements from 2015 and 2016 about the future Commander in Chief.

1. Romney indicated last June he would never serve in a Trump Administration, when talking to attendees at his “Experts and Enthusiasts Summit” or “E2” meeting in Utah. The meeting took place at the resort where Romney announced his 2012 campaign for the presidency, according to the Washington Post. “Had there been a President Bush or a President [Marco] Rubio or a President [Scott] Walker, I might’ve been happy to be a part of their administration,” Romney told “hundreds of his donors and business partners,” according to CNN.

2. Romney’s infamous March 3 Trump-bashing speech at the University of Utah included a stream of vehement #NeverTrump commentary.

Let me put it plainly, if we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished … He inherited his business, he didn’t create it … A business genius he is not … What he said on “60 Minutes” about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants … I’m afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart …

Dishonesty is Donald Trump’s hallmark … His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power … Think of Donald Trump’s personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as “The Donald.” He is the only person in America to whom we have added an article before his name. It wasn’t because he had attributes we admired … a Trump nomination enables [Hillary Clinton’s] victory …

I predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. I predict that he doesn’t give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. I predict that he told the New York Times that his immigration talk is just that: talk…If I’m right, you will have all the proof you need to know that Donald Trump is a phony … Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes …

Here’s what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat. His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.

3. Romney and other NeverTrumpers attempted to recruit a third party challenger to Trump.

When asked at the American Friends of The Hebrew University awards ceremony on May 5 if he would run as an independent in the presidential race, according to the Washington Examiner, Romney replied: “No, I’m certainly going to be hoping that we find someone who I have my confidence in who becomes nominee. I don’t intend on supporting either of the major-party candidates at this point.”

4. CNN noted in June that Romney had not ruled out voting for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and that if Bill Weld had been at the top of the ticket, “…it would be very easy for me to vote for Bill Weld for president.”

5. On location at Romney’s “E2” summit in June, which hosted many NeverTrumpers, he gave an exclusive interview to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

[Wolf Blitzer]: You don’t believe he can change?

[Romney]: …I believe he can hide who he is, but I believe who he is has been revealed by his lifetime and by the words in the campaign that he has spoken to this point …

I don’t think there’s anything I’m looking for from Mr. Trump to give him my support. He’s demonstrated who he is and I’ve decided that a person of that nature should not be the one who, um, if you will, becomes the example for coming generations or the example of America to the world … Look, I don’t want to see trickle down racism. I don’t want to see a President of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following …

Trickle down racism, trickle down bigotry, trickle down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America and and and so I’m not, I’m not looking for Mr. Trump to change a policy that more aligns with my own, this is not a matter of just policy, it’s more a matter of character and integrity …  I think his comments time and again appeal to the racist tendency that exists in some people and I think that’s very dangerous.

6. The Atlantic listed Romney as one of the remaining “nays” among the NeverTrump crowd as of Nov. 6, two days before Trump won his landslide victory. In June, Romney told Blitzer that he would write in the name or a Republican other than Trump in the general election and confirmed he would not vote for Clinton.

7. Romney explained his strong convictions against Trump, despite the chance that Hillary Clinton would be elected president, in a May interview with the Wall Street Journal.

I wanted my grandkids to see that I simply couldn’t ignore what Mr. Trump was saying and doing, which revealed a character and temperament unfit for the leader of the free world … others, including myself, believe our first priority should be to stand by our principles and if those are in conflict with the nominee, the principles come first … When the grandkids ask “What did you do to stop Donald Trump?’” what are you going to say?

8. In a March 18 Facebook post, Romney wrote, “Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these.”

9. Romney became the “de-facto leader of the movement to deprive Trump of the Republican nomination—branded online as #NeverTrump,” following the March 18 Facebook post, according to the New Yorker.

10. Romney told Fox Business host Neil Cavuto following the March anti-Trump speech, “I’ll either vote for a conservative who runs or I’ll write in the name of a conservative… I cannot in good conscience vote for a person who has been as degrading, disruptive and unhinged as I’ve seen Donald Trump be.”

11. Romney did not attend the July 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, where Trump officially became the Republican Party’s nominee for President of the United States. Bob Dole was the only former Republican Party presidential nominee to attend the 2016 convention.

12. Rick Wilson, spokesman for independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin, told the Washington Examiner in October that the McMullin campaign used an email list purchased from Romney to fundraise for their candidate. McMullin pitched himself as a Trump alternative. The bottom of the fundraising email read, “Romney for President Inc.” according to the Examiner. Former 2016 candidate Jeb Bush’s superPAC Right to Rise had also previously purchased the list, but prior to the former Florida governor’s 2016 bid for the Republican presidential nomination was announced. A former Romney spokesman is on record as saying the list is available for rent to anyone.

13. Romney wrote a litany of anti-Trump Twitter posts:

This tweet from Romney on March 8 links to a video that is now private:

Romney tweeted on the day of his infamous anti-Trump speech in Utah where he called Trump a “phony” and “fraud” and called his promises “worthless” with a reference to Trump University. He called Trump supporters “suckers” and said Americans were giving him a “free ride to the White House.”

The failed 2008 presidential candidate and 2012 Republican presidential nominee also falsely claimed on March 3 that Trump as the Republican nominee would “enable” Hillary Clinton’s victory in the presidential race.

Back in February, Romney accused Trump of “coddling … bigotry.”

Romney retweeted a David Brooks post from March 18 which read, “No, Not Trump, Not Ever,” with a link to Brooks’ article for the New York Times.

Romney repeatedly joined with calls from the mainstream media and Democrats for Trump to release his tax returns as Democrats did to Romney in 2012. “They were all over me for my taxes,” said Romney according to Fox13 News Salt Lake City.

An October 26 tweet urged people to vote for down ticket races, but left out the office of President:

Trump presidential campaign spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway wrote in a November 24 Twitter post, “Receiving deluge of social media & private comms re: Romney Some Trump loyalists warn against Romney as sec of state.”

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana