Posts Tagged ‘Media’

The Enemy: We the People

Saturday, October 12th, 2019

The New Enemy: We the People

I’ve been rattling around this old world for more than one-half century. I’ve seen a lot of despicable things, and I’ve seen the media make them more despicable by their dishonest coverage. I’ve seen cabals and plots and a number of conspiracies, but I’ve never seen anything even approaching the diabolical nature of this coup d’etat against Donald Trump, the Constitution of the United States, and We, the People who had formed it.  This is one for the record-books, and it very well may succeed, because the conspirators have succeeded in doing something I knew was theoretically possible, but never expected anybody to actually undertake.  The conspirators in this plot are not only real, and not merely diabolical, but they are also smart and ruthless.  They are setting-up the most dangerous sort of trap you could imagine, and they’re going to use our constitution to achieve it.  Ladies and gentlemen, it is much worse than they’re letting on.  It’s much bigger than they’re portraying.  Both side are down-playing it as they race to that moment in which they will strike, and to whomever goes the initiative, so too will the victory belong.  The left has finally engineered their dream scenario, in which they will claim to be the patriots and the defenders of the Republic, while we, the people, are denounced and ultimately vanquished as the enemy of the United States of America.

My long-time readers will know that I’m serious, and that I’m about to make a point to which attention must be paid, but new readers may be recoiling from my thesis because it seems so…”extreme.” The climax of any scenario may seem to be extreme, particularly for those who hadn’t expected it. The finality of death may seem extreme to those who had never contemplated it.  The truth is that we now live in a time of extremes, and the question that may well confront us is whether we have the courage to face them, and in proximity to them, rise to match them.

Here’s the basic plot: Democrats and their media shield are now proceeding with their plot to overthrow the United States government in the person of Donald J. Trump. He is the duly elected president of the United States, and since his election, they have been trying to undermine and overthrow him.  The reasons are many and varied, because for the rank-and-file opponents, it is the fact of his continuance in that office against which they rebel, exerting his policy preferences on the nation, to the chagrin and disgruntlement of the leftist hordes.  For mid-level leftists, in the political establishment and the press, it is the fact that he makes bare the edifice of lies about the necessity of the whole political machinery.  He won with a fraction of the expenditures and only a tiny fraction of the number of apparatchiks customary to a modern presidential campaign.  In truth, he represents a revolution against them. For the upper-crust leftists, Trump represents another type of existential threat, made of their criminal liabilities.  This upper-crust has had its crimes white-washed, concealed, or pardoned in one fashion or another.  They’ve had their prosecutions declined, and they’ve had all their legal sins washed away, or would have, if only he hadn’t been elected.  Now, their crimes for greed and their crimes for family are too close to exposure, and worst of all, their crimes against humanity and their treason, little and large, are far too close to discovery.  For some of them, discovery would mean the effective loss of their entire lives’ toil in acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. For others, it might mean an actual loss of life, as some might even face the gallows for their crimes.

If any larger portion of this be true, then it is all the motive any collection of philosophical fellow-travelers and partners-in-crime would ever need to carry out such a plot. You can pretend to yourself that this is all too big, or that it couldn’t possibly be, but ask yourself this: If you and your spouse are now worth one-hundred-million dollars so long as the totality of your corruption can be kept secret, and your treason can be buried sufficiently, what wouldn’t you do? To what lengths wouldn’t you go? To what depths of depravity wouldn’t you descend? Which arms wouldn’t you twist?  Which debts wouldn’t you call? Very quickly, one realizes that an environment comprised of such people would shortly resemble an ecology of gangsters, every bit as lethal as any mafia the world has known.

Now you understand the motives, but now we must understand the methodology. The methodology of the left has ever been to accuse others of what it is they’ve done, or are doing. It’s a methodology that serves them well because they are in collusion with the media and the so-called “Deep-State.” In fact, it’s fair to consider them together as one contiguous, unified organism. They coordinate across levels, within levels, and across national or organizational boundaries.  They’re in everything, everywhere.  As we’ve seen, they’re in Congress, but they’re in the White House. They’re in the FBI, but they’re in NGOs(Non-Governmental Organizations.) They’re in the media, and they’re in the private sector. What binds them all together? Can you guess? Yes, it’s guilt. People like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell trade on that guilt. Strange, isn’t it? Epstein died, and almost all coverage of him has disappeared, and with it, all coverage of the guilty elites over whom he held sway, and their wrong-doings, by which he held such power.

Do you think Epstein was the only one of his kind? How many of you have even heard of the NXIVM sex-slavery cult? It was used at least in part by extortionists as a manner of extracting control, money and power over the people over which it held influence. How can it be that a thing like this exists and was prosecuted, but the bulk of Americans have never heard of it?  Don’t “google” it though. Try duckduckgo.com instead.

How can one get rid of a President like Donald J. Trump? One would have to find him guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In the seemingly unlikely event that one can’t find any legitimate grounds for impeachment and removal, one must fabricate some. This was the basis for the whole “Russia” hoax, and it has been behind every attempt to unseat him.  In the case of this latest “Ukraine” scandal, the best primer on it may come from the unlikely source, Glenn Beck. It’s not that Beck hasn’t uncovered some interesting stories over the years, but to say that most people don’t consider him hard news so much as infotainment. Fair or not, that’s how most view him, but his coverage on the Ukraine story is exhaustive and quite detailed.

Below is a short version, but on his program on BlazeTV, you can view the full version of his explanation of the Ukraine scandal. Here, in a detailed explanation of the facts, Beck lays out a fuller picture of the scandal about which you’ve only heard but a little:

I want you to notice that this was published by Beck on the 3rd of October. I am willing to bet that almost none of you had heard of former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch prior to the last couple of days, but she is a key figure in Beck’s presentation of more than a week ago.  On Friday the 11th, she was testifying before Adam Schiff’s rogue committee.  Watch Beck’s presentation, and then do the math. Beck doesn’t here guess with any specificity what might have happened to the seven billion missing dollars, but that doesn’t stop us from guessing, does it?  Clinton Foundation?  Clinton Global Initiative?  Some portion absorbed by oligarchs in payment for the money-laundering? There’s no way to say with any certainty, at this moment, but it’s certainly worth all the trouble of ditching Donald Trump.

Now Congress is carrying out a coup d’etat disguised as an impeachment.  They’re going to get rid of Trump, and you’re going to witness histrionics in the United States Senate by Republicans. They’re going to deliver the coup de grâce to Donald J. Trump. They’re going to betray the constitution of the United States, and at present, their leader is none other than Trump nemesis Willard “Mitt” Romney. He and two dozen other compromised Republican senators are going to strike the fatal blow to the Trump presidency.  At that point, you will have a choice, and that choice will come down to this:

You will either except this false procedure, and watch as the American Republic is killed in fact while a sad charade goes on ever after, or you will take up arms to stop it.

That’s your choice. The left has placed you in the position that to support the truth, and to support what is right, you will have to voluntarily choose to fulfill the role of the revolutionary.  They will portray you as the instigators of the coup d’etat.  Once they arrive at this point, their overthrow will have succeeded. Checkmate.

I’m not certain anybody on the side of the genuine patriots understand this yet.  I’m not certain everybody in Trump-land quite perceives this.  I believe what we are about to witness is either a rebirth of the genuine republic, or its final overthrow. Should you dare to rise against it, you will be portrayed as the traitors. You will face the gallows. Do you now see?  Never in American history will there have been a greater divergence of the “spirit of the law” from the letter of the law.

We are now in a race, and indeed, we have been all this time since Trump’s election. I don’t know how many of the parties involved knew they were in a race. I don’t know if it matters whether they knew. If Nancy Pelosi succeeds in carrying out her impeachment before the forces seeking actual justice can succeed in so doing, this will be the end of the United States.  I don’t know if Q is/was real or not, but I can tell you that whomever is Qanon, they knew this is a race.  Whether intended to stall, or to cover, I cannot possibly know, and only time will tell, but here’s where we stand: Trump’s forces are in a deadly race with the Deep State.  Time is short now, and I think we will be lucky to go into the new year as we entered the current one. Perhaps fittingly, the year 2020 will provide clarity.  Unfortunately, the picture we will see may be a terrible vision and a future in which justice has been thwarted.  You know what may be coming, my long-time readers, because you’re studious and because you know history. It’s up to you to prepare the rest of our population who may have no clue.  To defend the Republic, and to protect its legitimacy, oddly, patriots may need to risk being labeled rebels – to be called “enemies of the state” by the very traitors who now plot against our President, our republic, and indeed, the whole body of our people.  The framers of our constitution, and the founders of our nation knew this danger all too well, but their singularly most important historical virtue may be that they risked all for love of country. All I can say is that if President Trump calls for aid, patriots must be prepared to move.

Do as you will, but for my part, I will answer the call.

Advertisements

The Challenge We Face With Ignorance About Guns

Thursday, August 8th, 2019

Friends?

I was watching Fox and Friends on Thursday morning. Pete Hegseth was substituting for Steve Doocey, alongside regulars Ainsley Earhardt and Brian Kilmeade, and in their last hour, about nine minutes in, Pete mentioned how the discussion always turns to guns. Ainsley asked Pete what he uses a “gun like that for,” implying that an AR-15 is something odd or weird.  Pete made an explanation about his right to defend himself and so on, but he seemed unprepared for the question, and I think Ainsley was trying to ambush him a little.  Watch this video, beginning at 9:20:

Here’s the problem: Ainsley Earhardt doesn’t apparently know the first thing about firearms, and Pete Hegseth doesn’t know how to defend his position very well.

Both aspects of this small clip are discouraging to me, because I am terribly frustrated that Ms. Earhardt hasn’t taken the time to inform herself, and Mr. Hegseth, a veteran, hasn’t made himself more able to defend his position and be prepared to answer the kind of question Earhardt asked. It shouldn’t be difficult to shine a little light in this darkness.

I’d love to help them both.  First, Ms. Earhardt should be open to a little weapons education.  I’m sure with his friends and connections, Mr. Hegseth can find somebody to facilitate a little range-time and take the Fox and Friends show on the road, maybe to Ms. Earhardt’s home state of South Carolina. In that state, it should be easy to find people who’d be willing to demonstrate the difference between a select-fire AR or AK type rifle and the more run-of-the-mill auto-loading (or semi-automatic) firearms so that she could be informed.  After all, this is not difficult.  Let Ms. Earhardt fire the actual military versions, on automatic(with coaching) and then fire the semi-automatic cousins. Show that externally, the two weapons can look exactly alike, minus the selector for automatic.

Now, with respect to Mr. Hegseth, it’s a somewhat easier cure. Hegseth seems to be a reasonably intelligent guy, but based on this segment, I don’t think he’s spent much time thinking about how to defend his position in an highly politicized environment.  He should have asked Ms. Earhardt, first: “Do you know the difference between an actual so-called “assault rifle” which is the actual weapon of war, and a civilian modern sporting rifle, which however it looks, is not an “assault weapon?”

Whatever Ms. Earhardt may or may not know, it doesn’t seem she’s well-versed in firearms.  At that point, she would probably be reduced to: “No, I don’t know the difference.”  This is where education can occur.  Let me help. The two popular types, AK and AR, have several things in common.  In the main, they are gas-operated rifles that us the spent gas of one round to automatically load the next round. Where the difference between the military version and the civilian version comes in is the fact that the military versions have the ability to continue firing by simply holding the trigger. In this mode, the cyclic rate of these rifles can be extraordinary, in the case of the AR platform, obtaining a rate of 800 rounds per minute. The AKs, due to their heavier reciprocating assembly(bolt, carrier, piston, etc) are somewhat slower, attaining roughly 600 rounds per minute, but their bullets are roughly twice as heavy, carrying more energy even though they move at roughly 2/3s to 3/4s the muzzle velocity of the .223/5.56mm round used by the AR platform.

Hegseth should be well-versed in the technical differences between automatic and semiautomatic weapons. That’s not his problem.  His problem is his inability to express the need he might have of such a rifle, but more importantly the right he has to own one.  My readers are well aware of the fact that I believe machine guns ARE covered(and protected) by the Second Amendment.  Let assume, however, that we intended only to defend the right to own a semi-automatic version that is a machine-gun look-alike.  Let’s start with our right. Leftists and other anti-gun folk claim that when the 2nd Amendment was adopted, the standard service arm of the day was a musket. This is true, however, both semi-automatic and automatic arms had been invented, but were seen as too expensive for Congress to obtain in numbers sufficient to outfit their army.  However, it is important to understand that the musket was the standard of that day.  So was the feather quill pen and ink well, along with the manually set printing press.  The notion was that armed citizens ought to have and maintain the ability to resist an overbearing government, which would imply directly that the founders thought citizens ought to be at parity with the Army, at least in terms of firearms.  At the very least then, we can see that the founders’ intended object of the the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee the right to an armed resistance in case of blossoming tyranny.

Part of the problem is that Earhardt asked the question: What do you use them(“assault weapons”) for?  The great thing about the modern AR type rifle is that it works great for many things. They’re excellent all-around ranch guns, they’re excellent for self-defense in situations where the defender is outnumbered, and they are useful in hunting. (Some state prohibit some calibers for hunting, but it may be game-dependent and so on.) Of course, you can built an AR-type rifle in many calibers, and also an AK-type. At times, I’ve seen AR-15 platform rifles in at least a dozen calibers, AR-10s in several more, and AKs in at least a half-dozen, including 12 and 20 gauge shotguns.

Hegseth, caught a little flat-footed, managed to say “for personal protection,” but he should have had a laundry list: “To defend my home, to hunt, to do target practice, I compete with others, and I keep up my skills in case I’m ever called upon to return to active duty to defend my country,” or some variant of that. Instead, he came across as somebody who walked into a battle he didn’t know he was going to be called upon to fight.  I do wonder if Earhardt didn’t ambush him with that question.  She may be sincere, but I think the question was part of satisfying an agenda.  Of course, that’s fine, but Hegseth should have been ready.

Now, if Hegseth was clever, he’d make a pitch to do a remote from some place in South Carolina, perhaps he could contact the good folks at Palmetto State Armory, and maybe for the publicity, they’d be willing to host a little shoot and bring Ms. Ainsley down there to her home state and do some shooting.  I think it would be awesome. They sell both AK and AR platform rifles, and they have a great reputation.  They may even be able to get somebody who owns properly-licensed automatics to do a little demonstration.  The point is, it shouldn’t be hard for FoxNews to provide actual education to their audience, if they wanted to do so.

Let people see the differences. If pictures are worth a thousand words, then video is worth a million.  I think this is the value of having people in the gun-owning community reach out to the woefully uneducated to fill in the vacuum. People have a tendency to fill in the unknown with the bogey-man. They don’t fill in the unknown with rainbows and unicorns.  If you can alleviate the vacuum by replacing it with actual knowledge, questions like Earhardt’s will be answered and the bogey-man will be vanquished.  At the same time, somebody like Hegseth must do much more to be prepared for those kinds of questions. He should have crushed it, but he came across looking a little evasive and uncomfortable in his answer.  That’s definitely NOT what the gun community needs.

It could be that I’m picking at nits, but I think people who are going to discuss gun ownership before audiences of a million or more ought to have their acts together.  I like Hegseth, as he seems committed to assisting veterans’ organizations, and he certainly seems to have his heart in the right place. It’s not that his answer was “bad,” so much as it seemed incomplete and unprepared. Earhardt, earning the money she does working at FoxNews, ought to be able to alleviate her ignorance if she was sincere. Given her home state, it should be easy for her to discover the answers.  I think it’s fair to suggest that before one throws around terms like “assault weapons,” one ought to know what that terms is being used to describe.

Judge Jeanine Silenced By FoxNews(Updated 2x)

Monday, March 18th, 2019

Justice Finished at Fox News

Those of you who’ve been reading this blog for years will know that I’ve never been a big fan of Jeanine Pirro.  At times, I think her positions are not really so conservative, but that’s okay, because we’re all entitled to our own opinions.  If she annoyed me, I’d just change the channel, as I do with anybody else in media.  It’s called “choice,” but for some reason, leftists only enjoy non-choices disguised as choice(infanticide, for instance.)  In this case, what’s been revealed is the degree to which Fox News is becoming more and more like the other Ameriphobic news outlets.  The writing has been on the wall for several years, but viewers had reason to hope. Last Saturday, the 9th of March, on her Fox News weekly show Justice, Pirro asked about Ilhan Omar:

“Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

Here’s a clip from a Youtuber that contains the controversial clip from “Justice with Jeanine:”

Notice that the quote cited above is the quote widely cited in media, but having watched the video, in context, this question doesn’t seem extraordinary or out of place.  Given Omar’s spate of ridiculous anti-Semitic remarks in recent weeks, Pirro’s question doesn’t seem out of line.

Fox News, now apparently an Ameriphobic network like most of the rest, decided to pull the plug on Pirro’s popular Saturday evening show, bowing to pressure from Islamophiles everywhere, including in corporate management.

Apparently the opinions and sensibilities of at Fox News are those of James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch’s Ameriphobic son, who is running the network. After her question about Omar, Pirro refused to apologize, and as of this Saturday evening, she wasn’t on the air.  Justice is out at Fox News.

Annoyed, President Trump even retweeted somebody else’s complaint about it:


Of course, this was after he had tweeted extensively on the issue, seeming to demand that FoxNews buck up and defend its hosts, including Judge Jeanine. Earlier, he had tweeted this three-part tweet-storm(part 1:)

 

(part 2:)

 

(part 3:)

 


Like President Trump, I have tired of Fox News’ endless besmirching of patriotism and Americanism, particularly when it comes to their weekend lineup. I’m also tired of their incessant sucking-up to Islam. Pamela Geller was apparently banned from the network some time ago, and Geller was an unabashed critic of Islam. Her contention has been that there’s no real difference between radical Islam and Islam.  After Fox News stopped putting Pamela Geller on the network, I knew the network was headed down the path of surrender fast.

As of Sunday, it seems that Jeanine Pirro may be out entirely at FoxNews.

What’s most sickening is that after Fox News criticized Pirro, Ilhan Omar thanked the network.

As I’ve previously reported on this blog, Fox News is going to Hell.  The few conservatives on the network won’t be able to save it from its idiotic management by #Ameriphobes like James Murdoch and his gaggle of clucking Islamophiles.  I think I’m going to switch to One America News Network. I’ve been a Dish Network customer for years, but it looks like DirectTV offers OANN, so I may be headed that direction, unless ROKU offers it.  Besides, from what I’ve seen, OANN’s reporting is decidedly not Ameriphobic.  It’s time to turn the channel on Fox News. As a whole, the network has become hostile to my sensitivities, and this silencing of pro-America(n), anti-Jihadi voices must be stopped.  Now Fox News coddles an anti-Semite like Omar, while they toss overboard a host who, despite my disagreements on many issues, is an undeniable patriot.

I hate the media Nazis who seem to have need to silence voices they don’t like.

Screw Fox News.

Update: Now we learn that Fox News has rehired the disgraced Donna Brazile, who helped rig debates by providing Hillary the debate questions.

Update 2: H/T Mr. L for pointing me to this accurate and excellent article at AmericanThinker.

See also: How Donald Trump Can Save the World(or at least the Internet)

Ameriphobia

Friday, March 15th, 2019

Ameriphobia: The irrational fear and hatred of America and Americans

If you say the least little thing about Islam and its adherents, you are immediately labeled. It is said of this despicable attack on a New Zealand mosque that the killer had been motivated by Islamophobia, the irrational fear and resultant hatred of people of the Islamic tradition.  This we are told is the nature of the motive behind the maniac who undertook this attack, and as a result, they point to Donald Trump(and his supporters, and other conservatives) because he once called for a ban on some Muslim migrants. On September the 12th, 2001, elements in the media began to arise to warn us to avoid falling prey to Islamophobic sentiments. The smoke-clouds had not yet cleared, and the fires within the rubble-pile at ground zero was still burning as CNN’s website published an article telling us that hate-crimes against Muslims were on the rise in the wake of the attack. The actual death toll was still unknown, but we knew the attack had killed at least 2,500 people, mostly Americans, and CNN was worried about an alleged rise in hate-crimes.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is despicable, and what I want to know is when we are going to create a label of our own, for once and for all, to be applied equally to the 9/11 attackers and to CNN: These people who are consumed with an irrational fear and loathing of America must hereafter be known as Ameriphobes, and their affliction must be called what it is: Ameriphobia.

Ameriphobia is the irrational fear and the hatred it generates against America and Americans.  It’s been widespread through much of the world for most of the last one-hundred years, but until the last few decades, it prevailed mainly among our enemies. Now, like a cancer, it has spread into the homeland, into our culture, into academia, government, and especially the media.  Those who spew their hatred against America and Americans are responsible for the irrational fear that drives the anti-American killers. Think of it: The 9/11 attacks were carried out by people militantly radicalized against America and Americans.  The killers in San Bernandino, CA, were motivated by the same irrational fear and loathing. In 2016, this disease of Ameriphobia even led government agents to try to undermine the candidacy, and then the presidency, of the pro-American nominee in the race, attempting a bloodless coup d’etat against the legitimately elected President of the United States.

Worst of all, the Ameriphobes have now succeeded in recruiting Republican betrayers to the cause.  Driven by this same irrational fear, they now agitate in the United States Senate against the President of the United States.  Secretly, they call themselves #NeverTrumpers, because they oppose President Trump, the openly America-first President, but in truth, what they really are is #AmericaLasters. The idea of a sovereign America, with sovereign American citizens, is so frightening to them that they can conceive of no goal more important than to block open America’s borders so that Americans can be overrun and replaced. The Democrats are so consumed with Ameriphobia that they cannot conceal their hatred any longer.  They now openly agitate against resolutions condemning the idea that illegal aliens would be permitted to vote against Americans and America.

In the wake of the shooting in New Zealand, these media maniacs have become consumed with Ameriphobia. Now twenty-eight months into an unremitting hatred of President Trump,  and a fear that America will be made great again, they feel compelled to connect monstrous events that occurred half a world away in a foreign country to the President of the United States.  Think of the preposterously irrational emotions behinds such a ridiculous contrivance! What, other than pure and unadulterated Ameriphobia, could possibly drive such hatred?  Ladies, and gentlemen, we must call them out wherever and whenever we see it, and it must be plain for all to see: The irrational fear and hatred of America and Americans has gone so far that we now have self-hating Americans. Born to this country, raised in the swaddling of the liberty she provides, they have been brain-washed to perceive this gentle embrace as an attack. They are terrified. Freedom is awful, they have been convinced to believe. This is the deadly nature of Ameriphobia, and it must be defeated.  Only Americans who love lives and cherish their country will understand that fear and hatred of America and Americans is self-destructive disease of the mind.

It’s not too late. We can defeat Ameriphobia and Ameriphobes, but to do so, we will first need to acknowledge that this disease is real, dangerous. It poses an existential threat against all we love, whether its adherents are Muslims or Leftists or any other form of statist.  It doesn’t matter whether it arises abroad or upon our shores, we must combat it and reject it at every turn. It’s time to cast out Ameriphobes because we cannot bear their irrational hatred any longer, and we must not shrink from identifying it.  At every turn, we must condemn Ameriphobia.  Our survival depends on it.

See also: How Donald Trump Can Save the World(or at least the Internet)

Ilhan Omar and Her Party of Hate

Thursday, March 7th, 2019

The Hateful New Democrats’ New Leader

When the newly seated Democrat majority passed a change to House rules permitting the wearing of the hijab in the House chamber, one might have guessed that it didn’t bode well for that institution.  Incoming freshman Representative Ilhan Omar(D-MN) has been on a non-stop anti-Jew, anti-Israel tirade for all of her public life, and just as she expected Democrats to bulldoze rules to permit her to wear her headgear in the House, she expects them to let her go on with her hate without any restraint.  After a string of non-apology apologies, and after much gnashing of teeth in her party’s caucus, the answer is clear: The Democrat Party is endorsing her brand of hatred, as they launch their latest jihad against the American people.  It’s her party now, and it’s a party of hate.

In one instance after another, Omar has repeatedly played on anti-semitic stereotypes and slurs to advance her cause.  The shocking part has been that the fools in her party have accepted it.  They’ve tolerated it.  They will not sanction her for it, and they will not take responsibility for their collective refusal to act.  Instead, they’ve introduced a neutered, generic resolution condemning hate. It’s caused a split in the Democrat Party in the House, with the few remaining semi-sane Democrats insisting that the language must be stronger. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D-CA) has said the new version of the resolution will not mention Omar directly.

This is the Democrat Party of 2019: It’s a barely-restrained, hate-filled, pile of identity-politics.  They have fallen so far that they cannot even agree within their caucus about the evils of anti-semitism.  Instead, they offer platitudes about generic hate.

I have no problem with hate, because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of thought.  If people like Omar wish to express their vile and unremitting hatred of the Jewish people and the State of Israel, that’s fine, but don’t dare to tell me how the Democrat Party is a party of tolerance as they increasingly incorporate virulently anti-semitic people into their party.  People like Keith Ellison(D-MN), and Ilhan Omar(D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib(D-MI) among lesser lights are the new version of Democrat hatred, replacing their old-timey haters like Senator Byrd(D-WV,) known for his 51 years in the US Senate and his membership in the KKK. Of course, big-time politicians who were KKK members were also almost universally Democrats.  It appears that their party always needs somebody to hate.  Today, it’s the long-suffering Jewish people.  We must continue to press the Democrats to reconcile their alleged “party of inclusion” while they continue to adopt disgusting anti-semites and other racists into their midst.  In the Republican Party, the party ejects such people.  Ask Steve King.  Meanwhile, in the House, the Democrats are making plain that they are the party of hate.

Tommy Robinson’s Revenge

Saturday, March 2nd, 2019

Exposing the FakeNews in the UK

Some of you may have followed the trials and tribulations of Tommy Robinson.  He’s a highly controversial figure in the UK, and the media spends a great deal of energy pursuing him.  He’s been repeatedly jailed for his activities in opposition to the Islamification of the UK, and due to his release of a video documentary,  he’s been banned from Facebook and Instagram.  Amazon, which still sells Mein Kampf, no longer sells Robinson’s book, Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill For Islam. He’s constantly accused of “hate,” in a fashion that will be very familiar to American conservatives who find themselves endlessly painted as racists, bigots, homophobes, Islamophobes, and pretty much every other conceivable evil on the planet.  I’m not suggesting that he’s perfectly innocent, or that he’s never done a wrong thing in his life.  Even he doesn’t claim that.  This week, he published his own documentary that exposes the BBC.  In the final scene of the exposure, to see the looks on the faces of those he’s finally exposed is an absolute classic in the making.  Finally, he’s burned the biased media, in this case, BBC’s Panorama documentary program. It’s delicious in a way that only a working-class anti-hero battling the titans of the establishment can be. Whether you like him or not, this video that got him banned on social media platforms may not last long on Youtube.  It contains frequent profane language, so viewer discretion is advised.  It seems there are at least a few in the UK who haven’t yet entirely folded for the globalist agenda, after all. Here’s the video:

To Ignore, or Not To Ignore; That Is the Question

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2019

Lights on; No one home…

Many conservatives are quite concerned about the appeal and rapid rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY,) the freshman Representative from the 14th District in New York.  Others believe that the non-stop coverage she’s receiving is driving that rise. The reason there’s so much concern about arresting her growth in popularity is that for some reason, she seems to have become a sort of Messiah for the youngest activists, and it’s causing distress to those who worry about the general direction of the country.  She’s a communist, all else being equal, and she’s dangerous in the same sense as Hugo Chavez was dangerous: If she gets too much momentum, she’ll become a dictator in this country.  On the other hand, there is a school of thought that she is a creation of the media, such that if the media decides to wreck her, she’ll be finished just as quickly as she started.  There’s definitely truth in both sentiments, but should we be concerned?  My answer may not please either group, but it’s my answer nonetheless: I will treat her exactly in the same fashion as every other leftist numbskull mentioned on this site: I will lavish her with my undying, unflinching contempt.  Besides, she’s likely to be put down by the DC establishment, an event that will only enhance that “Lights on; No one home…” look in her eyes.  If they fail, and they might, we may be in more trouble than we would have dared to imagine.

She doesn’t know it yet, but the leadership in both parties in Congress is preparing to clamp down on her like a vise.  After spending a whole day last week running all over the Congressional office buildings, and throughout the Capitol and grounds hunting for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-KY,) and you can be certain the McConnell was apprised of her antics.  If you think McConnell is taking this lightly after the last two incidents in which he and his wife, Elaine Chao, (also secretary of Transportation,) then you don’t understand Mitch.  He may be a RINO, and he may hate the conservative base of his own party, but he truly hates the sorts of tactics that protestors have been using when going after him, and he’s apt to use all the power of his position to squash her like a bug.

Nancy Pelosi(D-NY) isn’t going to put up with much more, either.  The time is coming when Pelosi is going to hammer this twit, if only because Pelosi does not permit dissent within her caucus.  Any who voted against her speaker-ship will learn in short order, when committee assignments aren’t so kind to the dissenters.  It will also become evident when Ocasio-Cortez offers up a bill.  The former bartender is going to need a stiff drink.  Cortez has made the mistake of seeming to bad-mouth leadership, and Nancy, Steny, and the rest of the old bull Democrats aren’t going to sit idly by and be supplanted by this know-nothing child.  Even Chuck Schumer, over in the Senate, isn’t long going to tolerate her antics.  Together with Pelosi, Schumer may together make Ocasio-Cortez regret her early brashness.  My point is that media may be making a big deal of this poor, dumb, ignoramus, but in Congress, she’s a small fish in a huge pond, and the bigger fish are already eyeing her as supper.

There’s one reason to be concerned about Ocasio-Cortez, and it’s this:  She is being taken seriously by equally ignorant young people, (and here I use the word “ignorant” in its most precise meaning – lacking specific knowledge,) whose college educations have taught them as precious little about the real world as their heroine has apparently learned.  This is where the adults in the room can make the biggest impact, and it won’t be on a mass scale.  We need to take the time to explain to young people why Ocasio-Cortez is utterly wrong about almost everything.  She’s wrong about economics.  She’s wrong about history.  She’s wrong about climate change.  She’s just utterly, abysmally wrong.  She actually compared “climate change” to World War II, for Pete’s sake.  Part of the challenge lies in the fact that some of us have been less than diligent about educating the young people around us.  We’ve left it to the schools, so that there’s very little useful education remaining there.  We’ve left it to the institutes of higher learning, where questioning the orthodoxy is prohibited.  Worse, we have paid for the whole thing!

Part of maintaining our society that many otherwise perfectly sane adults tend to neglect is that they must exhibit and practice the same virtues in sustaining a civilized society and advanced economy that their forebears had practiced to build it.  If we fail now to steer our young well clear, and if we’ve been too late in realizing the necessity of that guidance, we will bear the cost when they join together and become the foot soldiers of this bug-eyed moron.  We will have earned the disaster she will inflict on America if she and he ilk ever rise to power.  For now, she’s an aberration, but as time passes, it’s becoming clear that she will have company, and what might have been an aberration will have become a trend.  That’s the real fear expressed in this argument as to whether Ocasio-Cortez should be ignored, or instead watched carefully:  Is this what’s coming? Is this the end?

One would like to be able to say “no” emphatically, but given the course of our nation, and the manner in which leftism has been institutionalized over the last three decades, it’s hard to say that with the certainty one might have preferred.  This may be the trend now building, but if so, there’s still time to stamp it out.  We may need another more serious talk about how that’s to be managed.  All those who ever intoned “Never again!” ought to see in all of this the signs that the old evil is rising again, in part because we failed to completely smother it, but also in part because the one most devastating frailty in human nature is the temptation of the path of least resistance, and we’re condemned to endlessly make war with this ugliest side of our primitive nature.

To ignore, or not to ignore; that is the question, but I wonder if we ask it too late.  I wonder if the time to have paid attention to Ocasio-Cortez was when we permitted the radical left to seize ownership of education, government, media, and the wider popular culture.  We should have anticipated that she and those like her would necessarily arise to fill the moral vacuum we’ve left by abandoning our institutions to the left.  This may be why I’m somewhat annoyed at the debate over how to contend with her: The fact of her existence may be all the evidence we need to know that it’s already too late to save our republic, and that to rebuild anything like the nation we had known, we’ll now need to fight a second civil war.  Yes, it is as serious as that.  We have permitted our own children to be turned against us, just as the Stalinists had done in the Soviet Union.

Another problem we face is that we’ve permitted the earning of credentials to become a viable substitute for actual knowledge.  This is part and parcel of our education system, in which credentials mean everything, but actual accomplishments are seldom achieved.  Getting a graduate degree in Women’s Studies is now more important than the question: For what is such a degree used, apart from teaching it?  Does it represent actual knowledge?  This is how we have arrived at this moment in history in which we have the glowing spectacle of a 29-year-old Representative, with a degree in economics(!) who clearly doesn’t understand the first thing about the subject.  This is how she can rail about “Climate Change,” and yet only a bare few in our culture even bother to question the legitimacy of the bodged-together “scientific consensus” that isn’t.

If you wonder how such a monument to ignorance could manage to rise so high in our society, remember that this is what the Democrats have been proposing as a virtue lo these last one-hundred years.  She is the pinnacle of their philosophy.  Now she agitates for higher taxes, socialized medicine for all, but guns for none but the moon-bats like her who will impose it all upon us.  She isn’t the sad result of the inevitable failures of socialism. She is the pinnacle of everything they believe; every pestilent nugget of their incongruous, inconsistent philosophy is spat into the public arena in the form of its perfect human representation: Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.  Fact-less, thoughtless, regurgitating statist bromides, and howling at the moon while she promises to gang-rape the progressive movement, amid promises that she could “give zero f*cks” about push-back from senior Democrats, she is the perfect representative of the mindlessness the left has always favored, and she is here to “run train” on you, too.  Don’t beg that she now be ignored.  Mourn the fact that when the rise of her ilk might still have been prevented, our “conservative” politicians did nothing, but worse, we didn’t demand it of them.  Don’t worry, however, because long before she is able to do serious harm to you, she will need to demolish Chuck and Nancy and their ilk, who are not yet apt to go quietly.  She’s banking on doing to them what Barack Obama did to Hillary Clinton in 2008.

While it is true that the media created her, and that they yet retain the power to destroy her also, you should know that the media is largely comprised of her ilk, who care nothing for facts, but only lay their concern on the side of their own propaganda, as the teenagers from Covington Catholic School learned this weekend. I don’t think we should give her more attention than she’s due, because as an individual, she’s not clever or thoughtful or even original.  She’s another clone of a type, but the fact of her rise is the more serious thing to consider.  How do we have so many young people who are so thoroughly detached from reality, logic, and the wisdom of the generations who came before them?  I say it is dereliction. Whose?  Ours.

Those who support her seem to do so with a sort of religious fervor; they’ve found their new Messiah.  This really is a substantial part of the reason why Ocasio-Cortez could so easily rise to fame despite knowing so little and having accomplished even less:  The generation in question was left in a moral vacuum, by the culture, the schools, and most importantly, their parents.  That moral vacuum is the space into which demagogues like Ocasio-Cortez are always pulled, and it’s a space they enjoy.  Watch her antics to understand that she enjoys pushing the limits.  She wants conflict. She has been able to get away with it her whole life long, posturing as a learned person while demonstrating an ignorance immediately recognized by all but her followers.

She is the future toward which we are now galloping, unless at this very late date, we vanquish the failed ideas of which she is now the clearest public representative.

 

The Deep State Wants a Crisis

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2019

Be Prepared for Disaster

The partial government “shutdown” has gone on for a month.  The Deep State is becoming impatient and angry.  Democrats are claiming the people are with them, but that’s not exactly true.  The Deep State is with them.  It is the Deep State that is most affected by this partial shutdown, but the Deep State is also opposed to border walls.  The Deep State is preparing to create a false flag or contrived crisis or a national tragedy that will be used to cause President Trump to sue for peace.  They want it to be ugly.  The Deep State is out for vengeance, and its agents, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D-CA,) have every intention of punishing the people of the United States to get their way.  Why do you think she and Adam Schiff-hole had planned to leave the country?  Safely out of the country, whatever happened to the people back home would not affect them.  The Deep State is angry now, and there’s every chance that it’s preparing to lash out.  Now is a time of danger for the country, not because Donald Trump wants to secure our border, but because the Deep State desperately opposes him.

The Democrats know they can scare the American people, thereby pushing them in the direction they need us to go.  The reason it works is because we continue to fall for it.  The specifics of the disaster the Deep State will create really don’t matter.  A terrorist attack?  A financial collapse?  A mass shooting?  A giant disturbance at the border?  Whatever it turns out to be, now that President Trump has shown that he’s not going to buckle, they’re got to find a way to drive him.  Remember that great admission of Rahm Emmanuel: “You should never let a crisis go to waste,” and the Deep State and its DC agents are more than happy to create the crisis.  The Atlantic article is just the basic preparation for this, so they can later claim “we warned you.”

This sort of stage-setting happens in media all the time.  It’s their way of trying to drive the herd.  If they get their way, they may be able to call off their plans, but more often than not, they don’t stop it.  It’s just too easy to cause harm to the American people and to drive them with fear.  Naturally, this is a big, complex, and dangerous world, so things can naturally happen without any Deep State involvement, but when I see the Atlantic running this sort of story, I know it has a point, and an audience, and the purpose is as I’ve described.  Don’t fall for it.

Pelosi could end this shutdown any time she likes.  Pelosi and her cohorts were willing to fly for a week to overseas locations while 800,000 federal employees go unpaid.  How can she and Adam Schiff-hole and the rest claim to care about the employees?  How can they claim to be negotiating?  It’s frighteningly obvious that Pelosi and her caucus aren’t willing to make a deal.  Some Democrats are getting wobbly, and for the most part, all except the most weaselly RINOs in the Republican caucus seem unusually committed (so far) to standing their ground.  This shutdown is really for all the marbles, and if President Trump doesn’t stand fast this time, he never will, and the Democrats will “run train” on him as insipid freshman Congress-commie Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez intoned early last  week.

The Democrats are becoming desperate, and with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health still in doubt, they’re apt to do anything.  I hope the Secret Service is diligent, because all that stands between a “President Pelosi” and us is the security of our president and vice president, and you know that left-wing nut-jobs seem to multiply these days.  The USSS is on the job vigilantly as their duties require, but I point out for the record that virtually all political assassins in American history were leftist nut-cases, whatever the philosophical leanings of the politician in question.  They are more than willing to overturn self-governance by assassination if they think it’s warranted, and leftist nut-jobs always think it’s warranted.  We mustn’t let them steal the presidency, whether by impeachment or by more grotesque and unlawful means.  The Deep State operators who are now beginning to face justice for their treasonous behavior.  There was no limit to what they would attempt by guile and subterfuge, but now, as the shadow of the hangman’s noose looms into view, they fear the wages of their treason, and whatever limits they might have observed are now completely irrelevant.  They need the crisis now in order to deny the justice they deserve, but if a crisis doesn’t arise on its own, they’re more than happy to provide one.

Congratulations to Donald Trump!

Wednesday, November 9th, 2016

trump_wins_ftAnalysts will study this election for years to come.  Donald Trump overcame a media and political establishment that had dismissed him from the outset of his campaign.  There’s no doubt that they believed Trump would become a footnote in political history books, and that much like they were able to politically defame and largely demolish the Tea Party, they expected to put his supporters out of their minds and simply dismiss them in the same way.  IF you remember back in 2009, and 2010, Barack Obama was dismissive of the Tea Party movement that was just erupting, and he wouldn’t even acknowledge them, instead leaving DC when they arranged for their huge march.  The left thought they would apply the same tactics to Donald Trump and his supporters, and that would do the trick for them again. Marginalized, defamed, and categorized as “racist, sexist nut-jobs,” they expected to run right over the army of Trump supporters with equal indifference.  Donald Trump was of another mind, and that certainly played a remarkable role, but having examined the election returns, I’m prepared to say what I think made the difference.  Analysts will study and fret, trying to discover some secret key to what made them lose, or miss the analysis, but they’re all missing the point.  It’s really much simpler than all of the nuance and rationalization that’s been going on in the last twelve hours.  It really isn’t rocket science, and a cursory examination of the results will bear this out: Donald Trump won the election in 2016 because too many Americans have been desperate for change for much too long, and because the current president and his administration(but also much of the Congress) have been entirely indifferent to the suffering they’ve inflicted.

Leftists never consider the impact of their policies on individuals.  Their rationalizations are always constructed under the skewed microscope of the collectivized “good” as they conceive it.  If imposing a healthcare program on the entirety of the nation results in a driving-up of costs for average Americans, while only covering a small number of additional Americans, they don’t care.  If they evaluate their program at all, their conclusion will inevitably be that they must tax more and impose larger penalties for those who refuse to participate.  Never do they hesitate to consider that for most Americans, even those not formally a part of the Obama-care program, the net effect for most Americans of the mere existence of this law has been to drive up out-of-pocket costs for every person who is a net payer, and by some dramatic proportions in many instances.  The statists simply do not care about these impacts, and won’t even consider them in their political calculus.  It is this baked-in tone-deafness of the left that makes for the sort of shock they experienced in the wee hours of this morning when they realized Donald Trump would become president.

Leftists only talk to one another.  The entire media establishment is so thoroughly rife with leftists that they cannot see any point of view but their own.  Disagreement is not tolerated, and other points of view are summarily dismissed, mocked, and otherwise defamed.  Worst of all, perhaps, they seem to exist within a sort of echo-chamber that leads them to believe things that simply aren’t so, and this blinds them to reality, again, setting them up for the sort of massive failure they experienced on Election Day 2016.

In this election, what they failed to perceive is something rather simple, and it’s been right there before them since 2009, but they’ve stubbornly ignored it, as if by ignoring it, it would simply not exist.  This ostrich-like behavior meant they would not hear the desperation in the voices of average Americans, with whom they have very little contact, and who are, in their view, simply the insignificant people of “flyover country.”

This is where Donald Trump won, but let’s be more explicit about who it was that dragged him across the finish line to victory:  In the last week of the campaign, in horror over the looming possibility of a Clinton presidency, Republicans began to “come home” as Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence had implored, but with them, a broad range of people who are largely middle, middle-class, white, and of lower educational credentials.  Contrary to the beliefs of the fools in Washington DC, and in the media generally, credentials do not alone describe one’s intelligence or lack thereof.  Credentials make no difference whatsoever to people who are starving in sight of a bounty, denied access to it only by the aggression of government.

The knot-heads in colleges and universities who believe their credentials give them some special insight, and are of the sort who have attached too much importance to their own stations in life, and too little of the situations of their fellow Americans.  This is magnified by those in the media, and those in Washington DC, all of whom have seemed to believe they are the smartest people in any room, perpetually.  Donald Trump is to be credited for recognizing it.  The challenge for Donald Trump is to avoid “blowing it” by forgetting this lesson.  The people who elected Donald Trump are largely those who have been demolished by the giant regulatory and welfare state.  They’ve lost homes and businesses, or simply now work a ridiculous number of hours simply to keep the lights on, and they’ve seen their personal aspirations and their hopes for their children squandered by government that does not care for the dreams of individual people.  This is the lesson the left would learn, if they were not so tone-deaf, and if they did not wear blinders in the presence of “inconvenient truths.”  It’s also the lesson Donald Trump must not forget, lest he squander the very awesome opportunity he’s been granted by the American people, albeit with some significant skepticism.

In simplest terms, what won this election for Donald Trump is the absolute desperation of the American people.  What put him over the top is simply a desperate appeal to the fates by those who realized, even entering the polling places, that Hillary Clinton’s America would offer them no hope, and no chance at recovery, and perhaps worst of all, no sympathy even from those who imposed this decline.  It was a last, plaintive act of self-defense for a people who have watched their lives diminished, their very liberties under constant threat of summary debasement, and their hopes for their children and grandchildren’s future foreclosed.  These are the people who have funded the welfare state, under the ever more punishing blows of government’s whips, while they’ve gone without meals and fell behind on bills and been unable to fund their kids’ education while they’ve paid for the educations of others. These are the folk who eat Macaroni and Cheese or Ramen noodles three or four times weekly, while in line at the grocery store, they stand in fuming and  smoldering, in ever more indignant anger behind the throngs of EBT card users who enjoy surf-and-turf  paid for by the folk eating bare subsistence rations. These are the people who struggle to make mortgage payments, only to find the value of their homes in steep decline as the statists in Washington DC use public housing benefits to place entitled peoples into their formerly nice neighborhoods, new but unappreciative residents who frequently make a wreckage of the nice dwellings they’ve been provided.

Imagine the veteran, who has done his duty and wishes merely to make a living and enjoy his life, but finds his rights are under constant assault by the statists.  He might have a gun or two, and he might like to hunt, or simply shoot at paper targets, only to find that he’s been lumped-together with terrorists by the likes of Hillary Clinton, who live under a shield of heavily-armed security forces, but who do not trust law-abiding citizens who arm themselves for sport, for hunting, and for self-defense.  To know that at any moment, under the auspices of some arbitrary law, one may find his guns outlawed, and his rights turned into the claim of a criminal is to know the terror of too many Americans who have become too accustomed to being ruled by a President who boast of having “a pen and a phone.”

For too long, too many Americans have watched their standard of living in sharp decline, while working harder, and taking on more difficult but also more poorly-compensated jobs, knowing that the society around them is filled with people who don’t work at all, ever, but who also manage to live at least as well as the poor slobs who work sixty, seventy, and eighty hours per week.  These are people interested in justice, who want to see hard work rewarded, and slothfulness and incompetence punished, as nature would dictate.  These are people who follow the law, no matter how much it may be to their detriment, never willing to give an excuse to those who govern them to further deprive them of liberty.  They look around and see that the system of law and justice serves only the corrupt and the criminal, while they must live in perpetual fear of the next new law in violation of which they might act, in simple ignorance. It has been long-declared and well-established that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” except that there are now so many laws that none can possibly know all that apply to their lives and endeavors.  Government bureaucrats have no sympathy for that reality, and the statists care not for the plights of individual men and women.

It is the mother who works many hours, who may or may not have a husband to help pull that wagon, and who have finally discovered that their lives and labors and their love of their children is under unflagging attack.  They live in terror of the next electric bill, an inflated grocery bill, and they don’t understand why they must pay not only for themselves and their families but the families of others whose exertions are minimal.

It is a family who sees their values and moral standards under continuous attack.  They find that they must de-propagandize their children daily upon their arrival from the public schools, that teach no values except as collectivized notions, and who most often stand at odds with the interests of the family, its children, and its parents.

All of these people and many more like them are the reasons Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016.  They were desperate.  They need relief.  They need a respite from the never-ending assaults on their lives, liberties, and wallets.  They need somebody, somewhere, to finally understand that the grand ideas conceived in Washington DC most often result in disasters for the people who live in “flyover country.”  In a final desperate act of self-defense, they decided to take a chance on Donald Trump, knowing that Hillary Clinton offered only more of the same, and perhaps represented the final nail in their individual coffins.

Donald Trump has a fantastic opportunity, and I for one wish him well, and I sincerely hope he will not squander it.  Too many politicians make a mockery of the people who’ve elected them, forgetting their promises, or remembering them while conveniently finding ways to avoid carrying them out.  Donald Trump can win re-election easily in four years if he will only do the following:

  • Secure the nation, build the wall and enforce the nation’s existing immigration law. Mexico needn’t pay for it, but it must be built
  • Re-institute justice for all, including particularly the rich and powerful
  • Cut taxes on those who work for a living – and if he really wants the favor of the working stiff, make only the first forty hours of labor taxable
  • Repeal Obamacare (but don’t replace it with some other mandatory, equally tyrannical program)
  • Get control of the exploding welfare state, from the cost side, but also from the point of view of sheer extravagance and enticement to dependency
  • Make America a place great for business again, so that people can work and prosper by their own efforts
  • Rescind Obama’s lengthy list of Executive Orders
  • Take care of our veterans and make sparing use of a rebuilt and revitalized military relieve of silly but dangerous social engineering
  • Appoint judges who will follow the explicit mandates of the US Constitution
  • Never forget the individual aspirations and dreams of individual Americans in signing(or vetoing) laws and issuing executive orders

If Donald Trump will merely do these things, I suspect he will get a forty-state(or better) win for re-election in four years, if he wants it.  This is the truth of how Donald Trump won.  He won because for too many Americans, the situation has become far too dire.  I expect that he will have a short honeymoon period with the vast bulk of the American people.  If he can make strides to substantially carry out the important parts of the agenda he’s outlined, and can merely make a credible stab at fulfilling the short but difficult list above, he will succeed like no President since at least Ronald Reagan.  He has that chance.  He has every reason to do it.  The question now remains: Will he?

Like a large number of Americans who closed the gap and pushed him over the top, I have nothing but well-wishes and the best hopes for Donald Trump’s presidency. It was a last, desperate act of self-defense for so many Americans who determined that he was an imperfect vessel, but at least there’s a chance he won’t be nearly so foul and depraved as Hillary Clinton, whatever he may have done in the past.  We voted for Donald Trump because we knew Hillary would only worsen things, and at least with Donald Trump, there’s some inkling that he might drag the country in the correct direction for a change.  It’s become as desperate as that for too many Americans.  I hope he will recognize this, if he hasn’t already, and act accordingly to secure their continuing support. He has referred to them as the “forgotten Americans.”  In his remarks after Hillary Clinton’s concession phone call, he offered a glimmer that their  hope is justified.

Congratulations and good luck to Donald Trump and Mike Pence, along with all those who supported him from the beginning.  May their fortunes rise and fall in accordance with their fidelity to the people and to the Constitution of the United States.  Therein lies the cause of Hillary’s defeat and the repudiation of Obama’s legacy.

 

 

 

 

 

The UniParty’s Trumped-up Riot

Friday, March 11th, 2016

thuglandOn Friday evening, Donald Trump was scheduled to appear at a rally in Chicago.  As the crowds gathered, so did the protesters, but there was an odd aspect to the protesters: There was no consistent aim of the protesters. It was more of an amalgam of mostly left-wing groups, from representatives of Black Lives Matter to various other ethnic groups, and anarchistic groups that look more or less like the Occu-pests of 2011-12 vintage.  La Raza and Moveon.org are involved, as are all of the other usual leftist suspects.  I’ve got news for you if you think this had been an “organic” incident, however, even as the Trump event was canceled.  Even now, Megyn Kelly is pontificating on the way Trump somehow incited, or invited it all.  Yes, there you have the proof that there’s more to this than just an organic bit of chaos.  The rent-a-mobs were ginned-up for a single purpose, and it wasn’t to confront Trump’s supporters, or even Trump himself. It was all to feed an impression that Donald Trump is unfit for the presidency, and that if he’s elected, the American people can look forward to many iterations of this same sort of scenario.  They were leading with this line of attack in the CNN debate last night, and I knew it was coming.  Why? Because the DC UniParty comprised of the Democrat and Republican parties’ establishments are trying to leave a bad taste in peoples’ mouths, and fear too, about what Donald Trump’s nomination, candidacy, and potential presidency would mean.  They’re pushing fear.  This is a manipulation.  How do I know? The protestors have admitted in interviews that they weren’t really sure why they were protesting. When you observe mindless protests, you must know that somebody, somewhere is driving them.  If this was only the leftists, it wouldn’t happen until after Trump secured the nomination.  The fact that it’s happening now is the key.  The Democrats have no interest in stopping Trump unless they’re worried they can’t beat him.  The GOP, on the other hand, has been conducting a campaign to defeat him.

You’d better become accustomed to the idea that the DC UniParty doesn’t want anybody selecting an unapproved candidate, Donald Trump or otherwise.  The whole purpose of tonight’s “riot” was to generate as much negative media around the name “Trump” as possible.  Yes folks, this is a psychological operation(a “Psy-Op”,) intended to give the other GOP candidates a chance to espouse their indignant disgust, and to attach blame to Trump while not explicitly blaming him.  Statements like “Trump isn’t to blame, of course, but he has helped create an environment…”

If you can’t see through all of this, I don’t know what to tell you. We conservatives have had some terrible games played against us, but this is one of the worst in recent memory.

Now, all of the conversation will turn to the liability that Trump bears in this whole affair.  The problem is that the GOP establishment, now fully unified with the Democrat establishment, are interested only in stopping Trump.  Twice in thirty minutes, I’ve heard mention of the Michelle Fields incident, and it’s couched in terms of Breitbart as a “pro-Trump” media outlet.  The problem with that is this:  Breitbart is owned by Robert Mercer.  He’s one of the largest single contributors to… drum roll please… a Ted Cruz SuperPac.  Mercer gave at least $10 million dollars so far this cycle.  One must therefore wonder how “pro-Trump” Breitbart will ultimately be.

Never mind that, let me be blunt about all of this:  Anybody who provokes the GOP establishment to show its true colors to this extent may or may not get my vote, but will certainly have my support in making his or her opinions known.  I’ve made no secret of the fact that I don’t appreciate Trump’s vulgar language, and I don’t like some of his stunts and rhetoric, but this is a concerted effort to shut him down, to interfere with the political advocacy of Americans, and to run a Psy-Op against the American people.  The idea here is to defame Trump by association with this “riot,” and that’s all I need to know to understand that the DC UniParty, comprised of establishment Democrats and Republicans, set this whole thing in motion to provide a chance to attack him and to try to drive people away from him.  As conservatives, we should never accept this, and we should never let our silence serve as tacit support of this infamy.  Most of all, we should recognize that this is an attempt to drive us. Who benefits?  Who is doing the driving?  Real people were undoubtedly injured in some fashion tonight, but they are the eggs being broken to make the UniParty’s omelet.  What I believe we must reject is this attempt to interfere in the open political process.  I didn’t wear my country’s uniform to come home and submit to the extortion of these leftist mobs, funded by the globalists and their cabal of DC UniParty bosses who contrived all of this.  Enough is enough.  This sort of thing is terrorism of the mildest sort, but left unopposed, it generally results in worse.

A Moment of Pause Regarding Trump’s Supporters

Monday, March 7th, 2016

trump_crowd_ftOne of the things that’s become increasingly annoying to me throughout the course of this campaign, and a thing to which I may have inadvertently contributed on an occasion or two, is the meme that’s been spread like a virus through the DC Beltway echo-chamber: “Trump’s supporters are…angry…stupid…racist…thoughtless…mean…ignorant…Kool-Aid-drinkers…” After watching the race unfold on the battlegrounds of Twitter, Facebook, and in the media at large, and having watched their portrayal in the establishment media, I am prepared to state unequivocally that this is nonsense.  The vast majority of his supporters are no more than one of those things, but more, I’d urge conservatives to ignore these media portrayals for one very important reason they may not have considered: Until recently, it had been we conservatives who had been attacked with these same portrayals.  I want you to stop and think about all the election campaigns in which the media, and the GOP establishment portrayed conservatives and Tea Party folk in the very same light.  We conservatives have a responsibility first to the truth, and the truth is that whatever we may think about Donald Trump, his supporters are now being painted with the same broad brush of infamy, and in the same broad strokes, by exactly the same people.

I know a fair number of Trump supporters, both in my circle of friends and associates, and also in my extended on-line family.  None of them fit the meme described above, except in one dimension, but it is the same dimension that has aptly described conservatives for most of a generation: They, as we, are angry with Washington and the seeming one-party establishment that is comprised of an elite media, elite Democrats, and elite Republicans who all hold any opposition in complete contempt.  I think this explains another phenomenon that is genuine, though less visible due to the media’s one-sided coverage: There are a number of Bernie Sanders’ supporters whose second choice is not Hillary Clinton, but amazingly, Donald Trump.  Why would this be?  Most of us have become so jaded about the dirty tricks in campaigns these days that it would be easy to dismiss this as more Democrat trickery.  Oddly, I don’t believe that’s actually the case here.  I believe it represents something much more fundamental, and infinitely more organic: Those who support Bernie Sanders are being undercut by the same Washington DC establishment uni-party, and they see in Trump somebody who has joined the fight against a common enemy.  When I talk to the rare Sanders supporter in my broadened local circle, what I find is that Sanders’ supporter share every bit as much of the same contempt for Hillary as conservatives feel for Mitt Romney, for instance.  This common ground with Trump supporters is an interesting, but I believe wholly organic outgrowth of an overwhelming sense of disgust in the nation with Washington DC and the two parties that together rule over us.

We conservatives have been led to believe by popular media that Trump’s support is a wholly-contrived exposition of Democrat tinkering, but while I’ve seen some evidence that this has been the case in pockets, the truth is that most Trump supporters I’ve had the chance to meet are perfectly sane, rational people who have decided something more compelling than the argument that their conservative principles ought to drive their choice.  It is their general argument that Trump represents a true outsider movement, in terms of the DC Beltway uni-party establishment.  They are prepared to temporarily lay aside their deeper convictions about the particulars of various issues in order to oust the uni-party crowd.  Despite my attachment to conservative principles, I know they have a very powerful point, and in truth, we might consider it thoroughly before rejecting it outright.

Here, I think they make an argument that is difficult to contest: As long as the DC-beltway crowd remains in singular, oligopolistic control of the narrative, the law, and the whole of our national machinery of governance, we will never reverse the direction of the country, and no conservative principles will ever be adopted in the halls of power in our nation’s capital.  Their argument is that in an emergency, you might well temporarily suspend your strictest adherence to your long-held principles in order that your principles be preserved at all.  In essence, they’re applying the legal concept of the “rule of necessity” to popular politics and political philosophy. Their argument therefore rests on the plausibility of the claim that we are in some sort of national emergency.  The question we must ask is “Are we?”

Our country is now twenty trillion dollars in operating debt.  We have unfunded liabilities of two-hundred trillion dollars.  We have a monetary system that has been corrupted to fund big government and big money on Wall Street with a cheap-money bubble that cannot and will not be sustained much longer.  Our borders are porous and present no serious impediment to criminals, terrorists, or any illegal entrants.  Our national security infrastructure is in a severe state of disrepair and neglect.  Our political elites continue to enjoy fabulous wealth largely on the basis of cronyism.  Average Americans are out of work, underemployed, or simply destitute as the people who run the DC uni-party continue to enjoy record profits on the backs of the rest of the country.  The crisis is surely real, and it is clear that their position is justified.

If their position is justified, so is their inflexible support of Donald Trump.  Their basic argument is that nobody who has been a part of the Beltway Bubble ought to be trusted in this critical moment for the Republic.  You might point to Ted Cruz as an outsider, as I have done, but let’s be blunt: Ted Cruz was a part of the team that argued on behalf of George W. Bush in the 2000 election.  Ted Cruz was a clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist. Ted Cruz may be disliked by parts or even the entire parcel of the uni-party establishment, but the case can certainly be made in earnest that he is one of them, or has long operated among them.  The argument of Trump supporters is that none who have been a part of the DC Bubble ought to be president now, and that it’s too great an emergency in terms of our national future to permit any chance that we will, at this late date, be betrayed once again.

That’s a highly patriotic position to take, among people who are quite diverse in an ideological sense, and many of them have adopted it as the basis of a movement’s justification for accepting a candidate who many of them will readily admit is an imperfect vessel for their particular views.  One of the things that Trump’s supporters fervently believe is something that is quite attractive to many voters, including this conservative: Donald Trump is the only candidate on the ballot who can explode the DC establishment. He’s the only person among all the candidates with a clear-cut motive to unmask the uni-party establishment, to expose their serial crimes, and to prosecute them.  I think this is where much of the pro-Trump fervor originates, and I also believe it is where the GOP establishment’s shrill denouncements of Trump originate.  They are terrified of him, not merely because he would wrest control from them, but that he would be in a position to unmask their deals and extensive profiteering from government operations, and then prosecute them.

That’s a powerful motivation I would concede makes a very strong argument in favor of their position.  We conservatives have known for many years that the GOP’s establishment operates in general coordination with establishment Democrats and the media, and they’ve used that coordination against us in a myriad of situations over the last three decades.  Rather than joining the DC uni-party in decrying Trump’s supporters, we might reconsider and try to see them as allies, even if we believe their chosen candidate is less than perfect as the platform for our ideas, because many of them come from among our own number, but have merely decided that defeating the DC establishment is the only way we can ever win.  On that basis, if I’ve been dismissive of Trump supporters, I’d offer an earnest apology. I had believed the general meme of the DC establishment about your character, but having come to know some of your number, or having discovered some of your number among my friends, I’ve come to understand your earnest motives.

The problem with 2016’s primary season is that it has threatened to splinter the GOP’s broadest coalition forevermore, but in truth, if I am asked whether I would prefer that conservatives keep company with Trump’s supporters or those who cleave to the GOP’s establishment in Washington DC, it’s really a no-brainer: I prefer the broad coalition of Trumpsters to the snooty, elitist Bill Kristols of the world, and I make no bones about my own enmity for the uni-party establishment in Washington DC.  The Trumpsters make a compelling argument about the importance of truly rooting out cronyism and corruption in both parties in Washington DC, long before we can ever actually implement our principled stance on any particular issue. It’s true. We conservatives should pay first respect to the truth, and we should note that the same people who have defamed conservatives in one election after the other, or masqueraded as conservatives in one election after another, are the people who are now defaming Trump’s supporters, and it should give us pause.

Note to Obama, Media: Americans Are NOT Afraid of ISIS

Monday, December 7th, 2015

Defiantly Indifferent

President Obama gave an address from the Oval Office on Sunday night in the wake of the San Bernardino terror attack. In the course of his speech, an address riddled with a wholly self-serving defense of his abysmal record on national security, and also during the media coverage thereafter, it became plain that neither the President nor the Washington beltway media “get it.” The American people aren’t cowering in fear of ISIS.  They’re not lashing out in hatred of American Muslims.  They’re not afraid of al-Qaeda, ISIS/ISIL, or any other terror group or “radicalized” elements living and operating in the United States. Instead, what the American people are is angry.  The American people are enraged.  They’re good and damned well pissed-off, and not just with the terrorists, but particularly with our political leadership and the DC beltway media.  President Obama didn’t improve things for himself on Sunday evening, indeed one could argue he worsened things.  The American people don’t trust the DC cartel to defend our nation, and it’s downright galling to average Americans.

Obama didn’t waste any time in listing a litany of actions he’s taken to fight terrorism.  What he did not do was to acknowledge the failures of his administration.  Instead, he started talking about new restrictions on gun ownership.  A ban on purchasing firearms among those who are on the terror watch-list or no-fly list will not stop such things.  The people who carried out the San Bernardino attack were not on the no-fly list.  He went on to say we need to limit the sales of so-called “assault weapons.” The fact is that no ban on such weapons would be of any value.  In France, such weapons are illegal.  In California, the laws are more restrictive than anywhere in the US. Bans don’t stop criminal from getting guns. They merely stop innocents from self-defense.

In talking about the threat we’re facing, the President couldn’t manage to link clearly, and in the same sentence, the notion of radical, militant Islamic terrorism.  He threw “radicalization” into one sentence, and “Islam” into another.  Nobody takes this seriously.  When the President can’t square-up to an enemy and name him without equivocation, there’s no way the American people will respect the President.  His tiresome, tortured excuse-making for Islamists and apologetics for Islam are no longer tolerated by the American people.

In the coverage after the speech, Senator Rubio, a lagging candidate for the GOP nomination, talked about how Americans are afraid to travel, and afraid to fly.  I’m sure there are a few hands-full of such people, but everybody I know is simply infuriated.  They don’t believe the government, either party, or the media generally. Why should they?  More, Rubio went on to insist that we needed to collect more data, but as Rand Paul pointed out, the French gather more information than the US ever has, but it did not stop the attacks in Paris.

The simple fact is that as I’ve recounted to you before, President Obama Is NOT incompetent.  He’s malevolent.  He isn’t interested in what’s good for the country or its people.  In point of fact, he’s remained steadfastly committed to punishing the American people since his first inaugural.  Obama can’t wait to tell us about how we should not push Muslims away with distrust and suspicion, but this is the same President who did everything in his power to alienate people who attended Tea Party rallies.  In the instance of Tea Party folks, or conservatives generally, he couldn’t wait to alienate, and his friends in the media couldn’t wait to paint the the Colorado theater shooter as a Tea Party guy, which of course was debunked within an hour or so of the claim first being made in the media.  No, this President has too many sympathies with the Jihadis, and more in common with them than with the bulk of his countrymen.  Barack Obama is despicable, and this address simply confirms that view of him.  Rather than supporting and defending the citizens of the United States, defending their liberties while simultaneously defending the country, Obama is more interested in protecting the feelings of Muslims while simultaneously preying upon the First and Second amendment liberties of citizens.  He’s not interested in defeating ISIS or al-Qaeda, but in defeating conservatives by any means necessary.

Governor Palin: “Stop Electing Republicans who Act Like Democrats”

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014

We must break up the GOP establishment

Governor Palin is right, and I’m inclined to act on the principle that there is nothing to be gained by compromise with the GOP establishment.  I am to the point where I’d rather have an open leftist elected to office than to see one more of these despicable, snake-in-the-grass RINOs who act like Democrats when they get to Washington DC anyway.  Here’s Governor Palin from Hannity on FNC last night:

Global Warming Voodoo on Ice

Saturday, January 4th, 2014

Slow Boil or Hot Air?

As the nation stands in the path of record cold temperatures, the media is doing its very finest to ignore the implications for “climate change” proponents. In Antarctica, an Australian team aboard a Russian research vessel became entrapped in ice, and now the Chinese icebreaker that provided helicopter rescue to the passengers of the Russian ship also needs to be rescued, itself having become trapped in the expanding ice sheet.  The media reports the entrapment, and the rescue, and now the second ship’s plight, but there are two words they have avoided in coverage of this entire debacle: “Global Warming.” The truth of the matter is that they’ve spent so much time and energy propagandizing on the issue that they dare not tell you the facts: Any measurable global warming halted more than one and one half decades ago.  Telling you this would not comport with their earlier reporting, since in all these years, global CO2(carbon dioxide) levels have continued to rise, but temperatures haven’t followed. According to their theory, global warming should come fast on the heels of any rise in CO2, but that hasn’t been the case.  All of it is predicated on their desire to control human activity, and human use of energy resources is the key.  Why?  Simply put, the global warming/climate change crowd are statists who wish to control everything, everywhere, in every case.  Accusing mankind of wrecking the climate is their sledgehammer, but the global temperatures haven’t been supporting their attack.

They won’t tell you that the very expedition the researchers had been wanting to replicate never experienced the ice levels that this new voyage has experienced.  They won’t now tell you that the purpose of the expedition had been to document shrinking Antarctic ice.  Therefore, team leader Professor Chris Turney dare not tell you that their ship became entrapped some forty miles short of the bay into which Douglas Mawson steamed in open, ice-free waters of Commonwealth Bay in 1912. Here’s video from original footage of that arrival more than a century ago:

These are the sort of inconvenient truths on which hucksters like Algore should spend a good deal of their time, but it doesn’t fit their tax-justifying agenda, so they refuse to acknowledge all contrary information.  When asked about this, Professor Turney concocted an excuse about the ice that blamed it all on global warming!  There’s more ice than in recorded history on and around Antarctica, but this fool wishes to blame “global warming” or “climate change.”  It’s as though a cosmologist would blame the accelerating expansion of the universe on the long-debunked “steady state” theory.

Sadly, most Americans don’t see the big deal with the current Antarctic ice sheet, because so many Americans don’t realize it’s not Winter, but Summer in the Southern hemisphere.  Mawson’s 1912 expedition was timed to make arrival after the Summer solstice precisely because ice ought to have been at its minimum extent.  What the “warmists” refuse to acknowledge is that there is currently more ice in Antarctica than has existed for 100,000 years.  At present, the combination of Arctic and Antarctic ice is at an all time record.  If this is the case, the global warming hypothesis looks pretty weak, and plainly wrong, but the mainstream media will not tell you this.  Instead, you are faced with having to trawl through site like climatedepot.com, which one could consider like the Drudge Report of climate science, or climatedebatedaily.com, another such site, and there are fantastic blogs like WattsUpWithThat by Anthony Watts.  The problem is that to get any contradictory information, one must venture outside the mainstream media, or risk falling into the mire of group-think that pervades the popular media culture.

I realize that among my readers, there are those who have their doubts, and who worry that perhaps humanity is indeed negatively affecting the environment, but I would suggest to them that humanity’s impact tends to be localized, but not global.  What now becomes clear is that despite all the claims of warming disasters, humanity has little if any effect upon ice in the polar regions. Despite the evidence, we have the preposterous spectacle of the ill-fated expedition’s media director, Alvin Stone, claiming that the ice in which his ship is still lodged is the direct result of global warming. You simply could not make this up.  The truth is that despite all their rationalizations, the facts of nature do not support the foolish, apocalyptic claims of climate doomsayers.

Here are some facts you ought to consider: The life of our sun is roughly nearing the half-way mark.  There is no source in our solar system that can affect climate on Earth like our sun.  As the sun consumes its hydrogen through the process of nuclear fusion, it will expand and grow hotter.  This is inevitable.  The sun will make life increasingly difficult on the Earth until life here becomes impossible.  While this outcome is millions of years away in the future, it is nevertheless an absolute fact.  The truth is that on the largest time-scale, the Earth should be warming, and the sun ought to be delivering the added heat.  When the sun begins to expand dramatically some three billion years hence, life on Earth will be at an end.  Global warming is factually inevitable, but it will have nothing to do with your SUV, or mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

If that is too distant a timescale to contemplate, consider that in a mere one and one-half million years, the star Gliese 710 will pass very close to our solar system.  Having roughly sixty percent of the mass of our sun, it will almost certainly cause gravitational perturbations in the outer regions of our solar system that may send many comets and asteroids heading toward Earth.  Should that happen, unless we’ve concocted a practical method of deflecting or destroying these massive natural missiles, life on Earth could perish.

Still too distant? In the next several decades, there are at least two known asteroids that pose a substantial risk of collision with Earth.  Should that occur, we may go the way of the dinosaur, and it will be an epic calamity that could wipe out the entire human population, and all larger species, though some microbes and slightly larger species may endure.

Is this still too far off in the future to consider? Consider then Wolf-Rayet star 104(WR-104.) This massive star is very near the end of its life. It could explode as a supernova at any moment.  In fact, it may have exploded already, but at a distance of an estimated eight-thousand light-years, the light would need to have traveled that distance (and that many years) for us to learn of it.  If WR-104 had exploded as agriculture began to spread into Europe, and the human population of Earth was around five million, we would learn of the supernova only now.  Worse, we would have no warning whatever, as the arrival of its probable gamma-ray burst would punctuate its end, but also perhaps our own.  There are many stars capable of delivering deadly gamma-ray bursts, but the proximity and orientation of WR-104 makes it more likely to have significant effects on Earth than all the others.  Supernovae that emit a gamma-ray burst do so in blasts from their poles, so that much of the energy is focused in two narrow and opposing beams racing away from the dead star at nearly the speed of light.  If Earth happens to fall within one of these relatively focused beams, and within a few thousand light-years, life might well be wiped out by the radiation.  Though there are now some questions as to WR-104’s precise orientation, such a star’s death could simply poison those exposed to the radiation, or it could strip off the atmosphere and roast us alive.  Some claim it could even vaporize the entire planet. The most energetic events in the universe are not a circumstance with which to trifle, and from our perspective, they could occur at any time.

The point of all this is to recognize the fact that life on Earth will end. There exists almost an infinite range of possibilities for how it will end, but it’s mostly a question of what gets us first, and not whether we’ll be gotten.  The climate change acolytes know this every bit as well as their skeptics, but only the discussion of anthropogenic global warming or climate change gives them an opportunity to command human behavior.  In order to control your lives, they must create some justification, and it’s nearly always couched in terms of some exigency.  I submit to you that the hypothesis of “anthropogenic global warming,” or “climate change,” is precisely that sort of ploy.  When I was a child, they spoke in dramatic terms of a coming ice age.  Then as a young adult, I was bombarded by the global warming hysteria.   In fact, the Earth goes through periodic cycles, as does our sun, and some of those cycles span many human lifetimes.  In that context, it is foolish to pretend that what mankind has done or is doing must be the cause of every fluctuation in the thermometer, never mind to attempt to control all mankind on the basis of these fluctuations. Pretending that mankind is the greatest threat to the planet permits them an excuse to regulate all humans.

When politicians spout dire warnings about global warming, or anything else of dubious human origination, we ought to take the time to politely listen, but then examine their supporting evidence, or the lack thereof.  Now we witness the ignominy of an activist professor, Chris Turney, looking for some way to explain away the fact that his ship got stuck in ice nearly fifty miles from where was once open water at this same time of year, and he absurdly claimed it is because the planet has been warming.  I cannot say with certainty that mankind is having exactly zero effects upon global temperatures, but I can say with certainty that pseudoscience won’t help us, never mind save us. We don’t need modern witch doctors propagating their voodoo to a vast but sadly, too often ignorant audience, and the best way to combat it is to lift the veil of ignorance that has descended over the eyes of our popular media culture. Our lives and our liberties, and indeed the future of mankind depends upon it.

 

 

While Boycotting A&E, You Might Consider this Intolerant Yahoo Too

Monday, December 23rd, 2013

It takes a real moron to top the idiocy of Drew Magary’s original GQ piece on the subject of Phil Robertson, but leave it to Yahoo News (a contradiction in terms if ever there’s been one) to dig up a writer who’s even more maniacally stupid than his peer at GQ.  Yahoo News posted a piece by Josh Barro, an editor at Business Insider,  proclaiming: “When you’re defending Phil Robertson, Here’s What You’re Really Defending.”  It takes approximately two minutes to read, but let me cut to the quick: It’s nonsense, like all that’s gone before, and only people detached enough from reality to get their information from Yahoo News are apt to be dumb enough to fall for his foolish premises.

He asserts the following, based on quotes from Mr. Robertson:

  1. Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there. ” I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
  2. Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn’t believe in Jesus. “A ll you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.”
  3. Robertson hates gay people. Robertson in 2010: ” Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions.  They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

“This last one is key. My inbox is full of “love the sinner, hate the sin” defenses of Robertson’s 2013 remarks. But Robertson doesn’t love gay people. He thinks they’re, well, “full of murder.” His views on gays are hateful , inasmuch as they are full of hate.”

Let us tackle these assertions one by one.  In the first instance, Mr. Robertson’s view of the pre-civil rights era of the South is his own.  He’s clearly speaking from the experiences of his own life.  Perhaps Barro could consider, even momentarily, that in Robertson’s personal experience, maybe it wasn’t quite so bad as is widely believed particularly by people like Barro (or me) who hadn’t been born as yet. For a man born in 1984 (when I was a young private in the Army) to pontificate about the implications of Mr. Robertson’s statements about the South is approximately on par with my commentary on the social benefits of prohibition.  I know only what history records, but my knowledge is hardly exhaustive.  Neither is Barro’s. Nothing about Robertson’s remark on this topic suggest he’s a racist, but that is precisely what this Harvard-grad goof-ball wants you to believe.

His second assertion is that Robertson believes Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn’t believe in Jesus.  That’s not what Robertson said, and while it stretches credulity to think he was saying that, what Barro tries to do here is to state the obvious: Japan wasn’t going to believe in Jesus in 1941, and one couldn’t imagine they would.  I think Robertson’s point was a bit more sophisticated than Barro’s tautology implies.  Robertson was merely showing that the mindset of Christians(believers in Jesus) has been rather non-violent in the last century.  The ethos of communists, Nazis, and so on have been rather less tolerant, and seemingly more inclined to violence.  Hitler’s gangs did all they could to discourage Christianity, as Barro is undoubtedly aware, and communism basically outlawed all religions.  In Islamic countries today, Christians and other non-Muslims are routinely persecuted and murdered.  This is not generally the case in modern-day countries where Christianity dominates.

He claims Robertson “hates gay people.”  He then goes on to list a litany of things Robertson said about unrepentant sinners, but present them in a way that implies he had said these things about homosexuals specifically.  Being as adulterers are in Robertson’s list of sinners, taking Barro’s view, one would suppose Robertson hates himself, having confessed to adultery in his own life.  No, this is a pathetic attempt to do what others have tried over the last several days: When Robertson is asked what are sins by Magary, he went on to list a bunch of sins, a list that looks remarkably familiar to anybody who has read 1 Corintheans.  He did not qualify them.  He listed them.

I realize I am not the most sophisticated fellow, but I am able to grasp the concept of lists.  If you ask me to list fruits, I might say “bananas, raspberries, strawberries, oranges, apples, and grapefruit.”  This doesn’t say the first thing about which I like most or least, or which I consider the worst or the best.  It’s merely a list.  If you ask me to list vegetables, it will be much the same: “Corn, carrots, peas, broccoli, green beans, cauliflower, and radishes.” From this list, you will not be able to discern much about my preference for vegetables. You won’t even know if the one I like most or least actually made the list. All you have is a list that may or may not be exhaustive or exclusive.

As if to underscore his lunacy and lack of context, Barro goes on…and on:

“As a side note, it’s remarkable how often these things come as a package. Robertson’s sincere doctrinal view about the sinfulness of homosexuality comes packaged with animus toward gays and retrograde views about blacks and non-Christians. It’s almost as though social conservatism is primarily fueled by a desire to protect the privileges of what was once a straight, white Christian in-group, rather than by sincere religious convictions.”

In any other political context, it might seem odd how this writer seems to ignore the “sincere doctrinal view” Robertson apparently holds about Communists and Nazis. Perhaps what Barro is really confessing is his personal alignment with those ideologies.  After all, Nazis all but invented the sort of propoganda Barro is spouting here, and no place more than Stalinist Russia exhibited his flair for the desire to silence dissent and create guilt by association.

“You might recall that conservatives are currently trying to figure out what to do about the fact that the Republican Party performs quite poorly with the growing share of voters who are not white, straight Christians. They think some of it has to do with economic issues. But then  they’re scratching their heads, trying to figure out how Mitt Romney lost the Asian American vote 3-to-1 even though, by Republican “maker-vs.-taker” metrics, Asian Americans are disproportionately likely to be “makers.”

I don’t believe actual conservatives have any problem figuring out what to do, although Republicans may. What Barro leaves unstated is that the Democrats have carried the Asian-American vote for generations.  Conservatism doesn’t have a problem with non-white, non-straight voters, so much as they have a problem with statist buffoons of the sort defined by Mr. Barro. He concludes with this bit of nonsense, in case you lost interest:

“Non-whites and non-Christians and gays keep getting the sense that, even setting aside policy, conservatives and Republicans just don’t care for them. The “Duck Dynasty” episode, with Ted Cruz and others rushing out to defend Robertson’s honor, is just another example of why.”

Mr. Barro, isn’t Ted Cruz non-white?  Isn’t Bobby Jindal non-white?  Isn’t Sarah Palin non-male?  Isn’t Tammy Bruce non-straight?  Haven’t all of these defended in some fashion the free speech and free religious thought of one Phil Robertson?  This asinine attack on conservatives because they defend a man for stating his sincere religious beliefs has been extended now into the preposterous scenario of a Harvard-grad, establishment-bound numb-skull professing to us what non-whites, non-males, and non-straights may think, even as they step forward to tell us that Robertson has every right to believe sins are what may be found listed in the Bible.

Any writer who so thoroughly debunks his own argument in the span of two sentences ought to be ignored, and truth be told, so should any “news outlet” that publishes his drivel.  Barro’s article drips with venom and hate, and yet he is able to imagine hatred into the heart of Phil Robertson, who actually expressed the contrary premise that he loves all people, even sinners like himself. Who’s the real hater, Mr. Barro? Apparently, I’m not the only blogger to take a dim view of Barro. That Yahoo News posts such bilge is evidence enough to click away from that site too.

Mr. L Sums Up Barack Obama in One Word

Wednesday, October 9th, 2013

On Tuesday, Mr. L had more than a few choice words for Barack “Mugabe” Obama. The nation is becoming understandably angry with Obama, and he’s more than tired  of the dirt-bag politicians who are interested in compromising with Obama and the rest of the statist left.  There’s no point to offering compromise only to be rebuffed by Obama and his henchmen.  Frankly, Rand Paul should know better.  Mr. L gets it right: No more compromise. Another excellent presentation from Mr. L:

You can check out Mr.L’s Tavern here.

Closing Oceans, Furloughing the Almighty – How to Beat the Bully

Saturday, October 5th, 2013

He’s Winning?

One of the lessons most of us managed to learn in confronting bullies early in life is that few things can overcome the power of mockery and ridicule.  The biggest, baddest schoolyard bullies are often overwhelmed when their victims band together and belittle them.  The same rule holds true in politics, and indeed, it’s a standard political approach. Catching politicians eating corn-dogs, or making a mockery of their off-the-cuff comments has been the stuff of political mockery for centuries.  It’s effective because most people like to laugh, particularly at the expense of the high and mighty.  Who on Earth is higher and mightier than a US president?  Who is more open to ridicule than the man who occupies the Oval office?  We conservatives often worry that we’re not “winning” the public opinion because we’re painted as dour or heartless or humorless.  Laugh a little.  This President is affording us every opportunity to prevail as he undertakes every extreme action to enhance the pain of the shutdown for Americans.  Yes, some of it is enraging, but it also speaks to the self-aggrandized view this man holds of himself.  If you want to defeat a despot, mock him.  Ridicule him.  Make him the joke around town.  None are more eligible for this treatment than Barack Hussein Obama.

It’s not as though we don’t have the evidence.  After five days of the government shutdown, during which conservatives have taken to the airwaves to mock and ridicule this preposterous man, questioning his every action in light of his constitutional limits, his daily tracking-poll numbers are falling like a stone.  Conventional wisdom had held that he could not be beaten, and that Republicans would take all the blame, but that hasn’t been demonstrated by the tracking polls.  With every day this goes on, and with every joke that is told, Obama is seeing his approval numbers dip to all-time lows.  If you want to know how to make a lame-duck of this President, it really comes down to credibility.  After Putin humiliated him, and after a month of haughty lectures and accusations leveled at Republicans, he’s beginning to sound like an excuse factory.  Whatever else may be true, the American people are catching on to this.  It’s having an effect on his ability to carry out his threats.  Think of the imagery of 90-year-old veterans at the WWII memorial being greeted with “Barrycades” erected by order of a president that desperate to make his political points.  It’s an open invitation to ridicule.

On Saturday comes the news that Obama has “shut down the oceans,” and people are laughing about it.  On Friday, it was made public that he’s ordered the Pentagon to shut down religious services in military chapels, and Americans emboldened by the zeitgeist begin to proclaim: “Obama is Furloughing G-d.” Now they mock his closure of Mt. Rushmore, asking if he will throw a curtain over it.  Jay Leno asked his audience if they were more scared of the shutdown, or more afraid of it opening back up to uproarious laughter.  The Obama-Reid shutdown is having precisely the opposite effect of what had been intended, and the more ludicrous the President’s actions, the more his approval drops.  He tries to inflict more pain, and Americans are disgusted by it but then go on to laugh in the face of it all.  At every turn, Americans are looking for new and more humorous ways to dismiss this president as the bullying lout he has become.

In social media, particularly on Twitter, the mockery goes on continuously.  It’s having an effect, as each time some shrill leftist makes some idiotic claim on behalf of the administration, they are met with derision and mockery.  The more this happens, the more it becomes difficult for Obama to have the impact he had hoped this shutdown opportunity would present.  Early in the shutdown, the White House insiders whispered that they thought they were winning, and now, even that comment is mocked.  Most of the Republicans in Washington don’t know how to handle this. Their heads are stuck in DC media coverage, and they don’t understand the mixed signals.  From their districts, and in social media, support when they stand firm, while the establishment press insists that they are losing.

Naturally, a few of the smarter ones have instigated or joined in the mockery.  Senator Ted Cruz has tweeted his share of appraisals of the Obama-care roll-out and the Obama-Reid shutdown, and it’s beginning to take a toll.  Republicans questioned Cruz over his strategy during a caucus lunch this week, and the weak-kneed Republicans were bothered and accusatory, suggesting Cruz had “led them into a cul-de-sac” to borrow the phrase.  What their shortsightedness reveals is how out-of-touch they are with the American people.  If they understood the dynamics of our modern culture, they would recognize as has Senator Cruz that the American people are just beginning to engage fully and that they will demand that DC listen to their complaints.  The tide has turned and the momentum is now gathering against the President, and if the surrender-set on Capitol hill would merely join the “Cruzade,” not even the establishment media would be able to rescue the Obama presidency from lame-duck status.

Given what we know about Obama’s designs and intentions, this may be the best way in which to stop him in his tracks. It may be the only way in which Obama-care is finally ejected into the ditch.  What we conservatives can do is to join in the mockery and the ridicule of the bully.  Obama wants to push old men around at the WWII memorial, and at Normandy, and anywhere else he can inflict pain.  He wants to shut down religious services on military bases, and he wants to make the shutdown as painful as possible.  We’re Americans, and we have always known throughout our history how to deal with pain.  We laugh at it when we can muster the humor.  Let us laugh in the face of this dictator-in-waiting, and show him we still know how to overcome bullies.  This man won’t build a wall on our Southern border to keep out illegals, but he’ll throw up “Barrycades” around our treasured memorials?  Such a man deserves all the contempt and ridicule we can muster.

The End of the United States of America

Friday, October 4th, 2013

Preparing to Take Over

Unsure as I am as to how much longer I will be able to maintain this blog, it is my intention to cover a few topics of significant gravity, whatever else may come next.  There are certain things a man must be willing to discuss, whatever the cost, because the cost of silence is infinitely higher. What I will address hereunder is one such subject, dire though its context may be, simply because you should be made aware of it. As you already perceive at an almost instinctual level, we are losing the United States. As many of us have feared for at least the last five years, this will be due neither to an outside attack, nor even to the creeping, rotting decay now consuming our culture. Instead, we may now lose the country to the direct predations of an attack from within, launched by those entrusted with defending it.  This attack is likely to come in the form of the final, functional abolition of our constitution.  The precedents will have been set, and the last of the remaining constitutional checks and balances will have been removed by fiat.  Barack Obama intends to seize vast unconstitutional powers, and we shall see the rise of a dictator in the full blossom of his tyrannical authority.

The final assault on the fabric of our constitution will be launched by constitutional law professors working in concert with an aggressive executive who will with crisis-born pretense impose his dicta upon this nation.  The script is already written.  The pieces are nearly in place.  “Go-time” is drawing near, because this will be his last great opportunity to finally, fundamentally transform this nation into a cesspool of totalitarianism.   Conservatives will call for his impeachment, to no avail, as the US Senate is controlled by his philosophical cohorts.  There will be no undoing this peaceably, whatever some, even those near and dear to us may claim.  I believe the probability is unusually high that we will now witness the final days of the Republic you had known, and this historic human tragedy will be visited upon the people of the United States by Barack Hussein Obama, a criminal now ensconced in the office of the United States Commander-in-Chief, who has previously hinted at his dictatorial inclinations.

Mark Levin has discussed this, even on Thursday, explaining how Barack Obama will make a claim of constitutional authority for which there is no reasonable or valid claim anywhere in its text.  Levin still clings to a thread of hope that somehow, we will at some future date reverse this disastrous, wretched attack on our Republic by restoring it through constitutional process without reference to Washington DC.  If he will have been correct, at some future date, we would find ourselves able to reverse this attack by virtue of constitutional amendments instigated by the states, but such will not be plausible, or even possible, if Barack Obama makes this lethal claim of authority.  For years, leftists have been making the claim that there lies within the fourteenth amendment the authority for a President to ignore the debt ceiling in satisfying the debts of the United States.  While such claims have no rational basis, the amendment itself stating nothing of the sort, and with a Congress composed of sufficient statesmen of both parties in both houses who would oppose it, there might be a chance.  Sadly, we no longer have such a Congress.  The President need not worry about opposition even from the House, where Republican leaders continue to plot the undermining of the country in concert with Barack Obama.

Here’s the segment of Levin’s show in which he discusses the threat posed by Obama’s anti-constitutional plot:
 

Alternative content

While many of us may have been surprised pleasantly to see Boehner and Cantor standing somewhat more firmly than in recent budget impasses, they are merely playing their assigned roles now.  If Levin’s warning is correct, they will scarcely be relevant to what is about to happen to our Republic.  Barack Obama has been talking-down the stock market, and he’s brought the captains of finance into his offices for discussions.  Wall Street wants the borrowing and printing to continue unabated.  They’re making out like bandits, robbing us blind by paying paltry sums of interest on money being dumped by the wagon-load into the markets.  They want the gravy-train to continue, and the President is willing to let them for now.   You see, like all such men of finance, they have accepted a well-worn lie about the power of capital and the efficacy of money.   They believe money is the source of all power, and that as the cliche goes, it “makes the world go ’round.”   They have certainly adopted happily the notion of the bastardized form of the Golden Rule: “He who has the gold makes the rules.”  The problem is that their thesis is wrong, and in the end, they’re going to learn it.  Money is not a cause, but merely an effect. You see, Barack Obama studied under a different philosophy, one that references directly the most ruthless of his philosophical antecedents, Mao Zedong, who in brevity offered:

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

The Wall Street types don’t understand this.  Obama understands this too well, having been mentored by radicals Ayers and Davis, who taught him the value of force, and who understood that only violence and its threat actually enforce political power.   The men of high finance are those who have learned that money can buy anything, but their lessons were corrupt.  They believe politicians are always open to bribes, and why wouldn’t they?  What they do not understand is that there exists a class of true believers, some good but many evil, who are not subject to this sort of temptation because of the strength of their beliefs.  I now believe Barack Obama may well be one such man, because his vision for America trumps any number of dollars you might offer him.  Bother now to ask yourselves what sort of historical monsters could not have been tempted from their pursuit of naked power for any amount of wealth, knowing that on their path, they will have access to all the wealth they could ever need.  Attempt to understand by asking of yourself: “How does an unarmed man in the proverbial dark alley bribe a pistol-waving mugger to take only some of his cash?”  This is the question these captains of finance and wizards of stock markets have blinded themselves from seeing.  They still think there’s something to negotiate.  Suffice it to say that by the time Obama is done with them, they will have asked themselves that question, even if much too late to matter.

Ask the Swiss bankers who folded like cheap napkins when Obama’s IRS went demanding account information on Americans.  How many potential opponents were then neutered forevermore?  What do you think that was about, anyway? What do you think Dodd-Frank is about?  Those who couldn’t wait to heap more regulations on the financial industry will soon learn the full impact of that law.  So will the average American when he learns his deposits are subject to be frozen or seized by whim of the chief executive and the Secretary of the Treasury acting at his behest.

All Obama now needs is an excuse, and the Republicans in Congress will give it to him, and he will be justified by all the lunatics who call themselves “constitutional scholars” he has brought along with him.  These will be people who do not need the arm-twisting that was used on John Roberts in order to see things the President’s way on Obama-care.  These are other true-believers.  They see their arguments as being full of the same holes you and I see, but that doesn’t matter so much as the fact that they will make them, insistently, irrespective of all facts, all standards of language, and all legal precedents.  Their only job is to buy Obama the time he will need for the controversy over his intended act(s) to die down, and for Mr. and Mrs. America to return to their football, their NASCAR, their baseball games, their “reality TV,” and the myriad other distractions that will seem more pressing and much less boring than an argument over the President’s constitutional authority or evident lack thereof.  In that moment, the Republic’s death will be imminent.

If the President can concoct any old excuse to ignore his constitutional limitations, no matter how perfectly absurd or patently unreasonable the justification, the constitution will be dead.  Absent the constitution, the Republic will no longer exist, and what you had known as the United States of America might still linger a while, even years, but its fundamental core, and its beating heart will have been stilled even if there is still a dimming signal for a while emitted by its expiring brain.  What will he do?  Clearly, all the evidence exists that he intends at some point to initiate a maneuver by which he will claim an extraordinary authority in the face of a real or concocted emergency from which he will promise to save us all, while driving the final nails in the casket of the Republic.  Worst of all, he is now and has been conspiring to create that crisis.  The time has now arrived for this nestling to take wing.

He has been talking a good deal about how Congress must pay the debts it has previously incurred, but this too is tortured language because Congress hasn’t incurred a debt until it’s borrowed the money.  What he intends is that by the “full faith and credit” clause of the fourteenth amendment, he will simply issue an executive order seizing control of the treasury.  There is some precedent for this, having been done in lesser measure by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933,  claiming the aegis of a vast emergency “almost as great as that of war,” and using the “Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917” as subsequently amended.  Obama will make the same tyrannical claim, but he is much more self-assured than even Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he intends to carry it to its logical conclusion this time.  He will ignore the legal debt ceiling, claiming the fourteenth amendment compels him to act.  Close attention to the amendment reveals that only Congress is mentioned in that amendment, and there is no mention of additional executive authority.  This is the moment of the trick.  This is where he will step across all constitutional boundaries and forevermore become a dictator, and since he will be largely unopposed, who will object?  Harry Reid?  John Boehner?

What the last week has taught the President is that he is running out of time.  The mood of the country is such that he now rightly expects that on our present course, he will not re-take the House in 2014, and he will be lucky to hold the Senate.  If he loses the Senate, his chances to take such actions will have elapsed, because Congress and the Republicans would be in a position to at least theoretically impeach and remove him from office if he threatened the Republic.  His time is dwindling, and his opportunities to take these steps are expiring as well.  Now may be his last, best hope to finally and irreversibly transform the United States to its fundamental core by wrecking the constitution that had been its beating heart, however bruised and damaged, for these last two-hundred years.  He and those who have helped him obtain office and maintain it are too close, having come too far to let it all slip away now.  Their goal is within reach.  All they need now is to grab it.

As I have explained before, the fourteenth amendment does not authorize the sorts of action Obama is now contemplating, but that some in academia are now exhorting him to exercise.   Today, Mark Levin discussed this article from the leftist Brookings Institute, arguing that the fourteenth amendment is the vehicle by which Obama can traverse all constitutional barriers.  As I wrote last year, citing the fourteenth amendment:

“As to the proposition that the 14th Amendment provides some authority for the President to circumvent Congress, this is a preposterous claim.  The relevant sections of the Fourteenth Amendment states:”

“Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”

“Notice that section 4 was intended to deal specifically with war debt accrued by the Union in fighting against the Confederacy during the civil war.  The leftists who advocate on behalf of section 4 as a proscription against a debt ceiling are lunatics.  It not only requires the setting aside of the context of the amendment, but also ignoring the subsequent section, that specifically empowers Congress to enact legislation pursuant to this amendment.”

We need  not wonder any longer as to whether this amendment provides an actual constitutional basis for the actions Obama now contemplates.  Flatly, it does not, and only the sort of tortured mind that labors in the basement of the Brookings Institute in devoted service to all things statist could imagine otherwise.

I relate this information not to frighten readers, but in order to arm them with the facts.  The media will launch endless arguments if Obama should attempt this, and they will, along with academia, conspire to provide him the needed delay.  Mark Levin still expresses the opinion that his prescription, using Article V of the US Constitution to amend it without the cooperation of Congress, and one must certainly give him all due credit for bringing that strategy to life, and we must try it, but I fear that Dr. Levin is grasping at straws in light of this development.  What evidence exist to suggest that this or any Congress would act to obey Article V of the US Constitution. (By some counts, Congress has already received sufficient petitions from states to recognize a convention of the states.) If Obama attempts this, and Congress and the courts permit him to get away with it, the constitution will be dead.  At that point, Article V is most probably moot, along with the rest of our founding document, and the supreme law of the land will have shifted indefinitely (and probably permanently) from that noble piece of aged parchment to the whim and will of Barack Hussein Obama. Game over.

You may wonder how he will justify all of this, but you need only let your imagination expand to the limits of what this malignant narcissist sees as his mandate and his authority.  He is conspiring even now to collapse the US economy, which is why he now speaks specifically of “economic collapse.” This is why he’s going out of his way to scare the fire out of Wall Street.  He and his friend Ben Bernanke have built the biggest bubble in the history of man, and he intends to burst it.  Even before Labor Day this year,  the price of gasoline had begun to fall.  It’s still falling, and in the main, this is because general demand is low as the economy remains barely above water.  To the degree the economy remains afloat at all, it is riding on an over-inflated life-preserver made up of borrowed money, leveraged assets, and consumer credit stretched to the breaking-point.  College student loans now represent trillions of dollars of debt, since the government took over the administration of Federally-Guaranteed student loans.  How hard do you really think Obama will need to work in order to explode the entire US economy by the 17th of October, when we reach the legal debt ceiling(which we’ve already actually surpassed, illegally?) That good old debt clock to which only a few Americans pay even scant attention has been frozen in place for more than four months.  Do you really believe they haven’t exceeded it?

Obama was never going to negotiate with the Republicans.  If they had passed a “clean” continuing resolution, he’d have concocted some reason to reject it with Harry Reid’s help in the Senate.  Of course, at this late date, the Republicans would be foolish to do anything but stand fast, or risk losing such credibility as circumstances have afforded them.  At this point, all they can do is press for maximum advantage, while trying to arouse popular sentiment against the President so long as they are able.  Once before in our history, the financiers conspired with a president to set us on a similar course in justification of all he would thereafter do, but now we have a president who has set them up, and he’ll be using them for his purposes in a manner that the likes of Chairman Mao would approve.

By undertaking this approach, Barack Obama is signaling that he is ready to go for it all.  In this moment of national turmoil, we will emerge either as a dictatorship with a smiley-face concealing big government’s scowl like a putrid death-mask, or we will find we had somehow prevailed and the President will become the longest serving lame duck in our nation’s history.  This will be for all the marbles.  It is at this point that we must reconsider that great intellectual benefactor of the Republic who urges us to follow the path laid down in Article V to reforge our Republic.  Dr. Levin educates as much as any in the public eye, and his breadth and depth of knowledge on the subject of constitutional law knows few bounds.  Still, in light of Obama’s presumed aggressive strategy against the Republic, one wonders if an Article V undertaking would gain any traction so long as we suffer under an Executive that willingly denies, ignores, and tramples the constitution.  What good would it be if the United States government would refuse to recognize amendments instigated by a convention of the states and subsequently ratified by them?

At long-winded last comes the danger:  If Obama undertakes this strategy as some now urge, and others now dread, our President will be in open insurrection against the Republic.  He will be acting in clear opposition to the plain language of the supreme law of the land.  At stake will be the question: “What is the supreme law of the land? The constitution, or the contrived edicts of Obama?”  If the latter is permitted to stand, the United States of America will have perished.  I have no hope that a popular majority of Americans now possess and will maintain sufficient outrage to compel a presidential retrenchment, else Obama-care would never have become law, much less seen its first days of implementation.  This begs the question I would not now ask you to answer aloud: “What are you prepared to do?”  Civil disobedience?  What?  Don’t answer this in words, but instead ponder the question, and decide for yourselves now what your answer will be when it comes to the real asking.

If Barack Obama is permitted to abscond with our constitution and its checks on his power, we might just as well bulldoze that memorial our aged heroes have visited, for its very meaning – their meaning – will have been lost along with the proposition that ours is a nation of laws but not men.  This is what Barack Obama seeks most to overturn, and with it, to bear forth that most fundamental transformation with which he’s been threatening a nation and her people.  At present, the best the American people can hope is to dissuade him from that course by open chastisement and vocal disapproval.  The time may be drawing near when we will be compelled by events to answer that most dangerous question, and with its answer, to decide in finality whether we will remain a free people or submit to a brutal despotism of historic proportions.  The choice remains yours.

For now…

Penetrating the Beltway Bubble: Republicans Should Notice They’re Winning

Thursday, October 3rd, 2013

What he really thinks…

It’s rather novel these days to see Republicans standing and fighting for the American people.  They always claim to agree with us, but over the last several years, it has seemed that they would start a fight, ask us to man the ramparts, and then sneak out through the secret passage in the back of the keep.  This time is different, and while I am wary of potential pitfalls, as should you be, I sense that the Republicans are discovering much to their happy amazement that Americans are supporting them in this battle over the continuing resolution and Obama-care.   What the House Republicans and not a few Republican Senators need is to get their heads out of the Washington DC murk.  In the nation’s capital, there’s little chance they’ll get a sense of sentiment throughout the country.  They hear and see the mainstream media memes, assuming what they’re hearing is actually representative of the country at large, but it’s not even close.  Republicans in Washington DC must recognize that by adhering to their principles and promises, they are going a long way to influence this fight, and the American people outside the DC bubble know what’s going on.  The Democrats know too, because the media is on their side, but back in their districts and states, they’re catching Hell.  If the Republicans will hang tough and simply do the right thing, the American people will join with them in greater numbers to beat back the Democrats.

The sad fact is that Democrats know too well how badly this is going against them, despite the mainstream media’s attempts to re-write facts in favor of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and the whole DC mob.  Meanwhile, Republicans do not understand that the whole media picture is being aimed at influencing them.  The beltway bubble doesn’t want to divulge what the average American thinks about Obama-care or the shutdown.  Instead, it’s all about pressuring the Republicans and creating an environment in which the Republicans feel so thoroughly set-upon that they will crumble.  Of course, we have a few bone-headed Republicans who have bought into this, but the truth is that we don’t need them anyway.  Republicans should look at what’s going on in their districts, and how the average American out here in fly-over country thinks, and then realize that Obama and Reid are merely fabricating a spectacle with the special effects of the media establishment in order to make them believe they are losing.

This is why over the last twenty-four hours, the Democrats have become so shrill.  They know they are losing, and for a change, more Republicans are seeing through the smokescreen to realize they are winning where it counts: With the American people.   As evidence mounts that Obama-care is an unmitigated catastrophe for the American people and the US economy, Democrats are doing all they can to obscure this behind a torrent of inflammatory verbiage. Naturally, as it turns out, it’s the Democrats who have been losing this debate, and now it has been revealed that the national Obama-care sign up phone number is 1-800-318-2590, or 1-800-(F)(1)(U)(C)(K)(Y)(O).  Do you believe this could have been an accident?  This president has been flipping-the-bird at the American people since he was inaugurated in 2009. How well do you suppose that will go over with the American people?  The President’s “signature legislation” and biggest program can be accessed though a phone number that tells the American people the real nature of Obama-care.  The Democrats are losing, and they know it.

Now is the time in which Republicans must discover that they’re winning by standing against this national tragedy.  They should hear the voices of their constituents, to discover how terrible are the effects of Obama-care.  We must help them understand, because inside the beltway, they’re being hammered mercilessly by Democrats and media that want them to believe that they’ll take the political black eye.  They must stand now, or be finished as a political party, and at this point, they should continue to follow the strategy of sending individual funding bills to the Senate.  If, they buckle, then they will lose, because not only will America at large abandon them, but their own base will turn away in disgust.  This is no time for capitulation.  This is the moment for which much of the country has been waiting these last five years, and if the Republicans lose sight of it now, they will lose forevermore.  The truth is that they’re winning, and all they need to do to achieve victory is to stand their ground.  Now, it’s not only the right thing to do, but the only rational alternative for weak-kneed politicians.  The Democrats are self-destructing, and the more they and their cohorts in the media lie, the more Americans now see through the lies.

 

A Video You Must Watch

Tuesday, October 1st, 2013

 Nothing to add to this video. H/T Sarah Palin:

John Cornyn Isn’t Merely a Coward – He’s a Shameless Fraud Too!

Tuesday, October 1st, 2013

I explained to fellow Texans in a note last Friday why they shouldn’t support John Cornyn.  Today comes further evidence.  In an effort to further mislead Texans, and in an attempt to pretend his cowardice hadn’t been, this deceptive politician, this un-Texan, has posted a phony poll on his website asking a question based on a false premise.  The question itself is a lie.  He asks: “Do you agree with Senator Cornyn’s vote to De-fund Obamacare?” The truth is that he didn’t vote to de-fund Obamacare. Instead, he voted to permit Harry Reid and the Democrats to prevail.  His poll is garbage.

This deception brands this man as a despicable liar.  To explain for the readers not up to speed on the trick, John Cornyn joined with Democrats to close off debate on the House continuing resolution, permitting Harry Reid to amend it.  After it had been amended, Cornyn then voted against it, along with twenty-four other sell-out Republicans.  His phony poll on this webpage(see screen-capture of site below) asks if you agree with his vote to defund Obamacare.  HE DIDN’T VOTE TO DEFUND OBAMACARE!  He voted to permit Harry Reid and the Democrats to strip the Defunding language out of the bill, so that he could vote against that amendment and pretend to have voted against Obamacare.  The cloture vote WAS the vote.  Texans aren’t stupid, whatever Cornyn may think of us, and I suspect that as the truth spreads, Senator Cornyn will be heading home for good next fall.

Here’s the sleazy, dishonest poll on his website:

This Poll is a complete scam and fraud.

A number of Senators implied or directly accused Ted Cruz of trying to use the de-funding push to raise funds.  Meanwhile, Cornyn’s phony poll is nothing less than an attempt to solicit email addresses and names so he can later solicit funds.   More, since the poll is based on a lie, he’s shamelessly misleading voters both as to his actual position and to the effect of his votes. Classic “for it before against it” nonsense! Naturally, there’s no way to answer it without seeming to support him or Obama-care.

Call Your Representative: No Surrender!

Monday, September 30th, 2013

We are at that moment when less-than-courageous politicians will think to waffle, turn back, and avoid a fight.  If we’re to prevent that outcome, it’s going to take some Hell-raising on our part.  Even now, elements within the House of Representatives, in the Republican leadership, are beginning to whisper about capitulation to Obama and Reid.  In the Senate, we already know there exists a group of GOP senators who will be only too glad to put this issue behind them.  It’s going to take a Herculean effort on our part, but we need to buck-up these politicians.  This is, after all, the hard part of their job, and if they won’t stand and be counted in the tough times, who needs them?

Go to the House website.  On that site, you can find your representative, and all the relevant contact info.  Visit their pages on Facebook.  Tweet them.  Email them.  Call them.  The more they hear from you, the more inclined they will be to fight, and the more likely they will be to stand up to leadership if they begin to crumble.  Barack Obama is trying to bully them.  In the end, their own leaders may try to bully them too.  Remind them who it is that had put them in office.  Remind them of their duty. There is no reason Harry Reid should determine what goes on in the House.  Instead of getting tough with conservatives, for a change, John Boehner should be tough on Democrats.  It’s time for them to stand up, even if we will need to hand-hold them through it.

Barack Obama’s Government Shutdown: He Wants It, He Owns It

Monday, September 30th, 2013

His way or highway…

The media won’t tell you the truth about this, so I’m going to tell you because the American people really ought to know.  Barack Obama is gambling that he will come out of any government shutdown smelling like a rose, but this is not 1995, and the same old playbook will not work.  The media is trying to pull it in that direction, but the simple fact is that Obama isn’t doing so well in opinion polls lately.  The obvious truth is that while Barack Obama is willing to talk with the Iranians, the Syrians, and any number of the world’s dictators, but he will not negotiate with Republicans.  Bill Clinton is encouraging Obama in that direction too, but there’s something different now: In 1995, the US economy was in full recovery from a recession, whereas now, the economy is still barely struggling along.  This time, the American people can sense that something is dreadfully wrong with the direction of the country, and according to a CNN Poll, at least forty-seven percent now believe Obama is acting like a petulant brat.

Naturally, part of this owes to the economy, but part of the problem for Obama and the Democrats is that the American people overwhelmingly dislike his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obama-care.  American workers are seeing their hours cut, hiring has slowed to a Carter-era rate, and job creation is simply bottoming out.  The young, now told they can remain on their parents’ healthcare until 26 years of age, are finding it impossible to find a job.  “Let’s be clear:” Harry Reid is doing Barack Obama’s bidding, and this entire thing is their contrivance.

The American people do not want government shut down, but neither do the Republicans.  The American people also don’t want Obama-care, and for the most part, neither do Republicans.  For the first time since 2010, the American people have begun to see through the dominant, statist media portrayal of events, and as Bob Woodward observed today, if the economy tanks in part due to a government shutdown or due to Obamacare, nobody will remember Senator Harry Reid or Speaker John Boehner some fifty years on. They will remember Barack Obama and his role, much as nobody remembers the Congress that was around when we fell into the great depression of the 1930s, but everybody remembers Hoover.

I believe that if Republicans find the courage to stand tough, they may get a minor black eye, but they won’t get a broken nose, bruised ribs, and cauliflower ears.  Those will belong to President Obama, and by association the Democrats. If they’re not careful, the American people may discover what is really behind Obama’s thinking.

 

Let’s Be Blunt: Lindsey Graham is a Liar

Monday, September 30th, 2013

Just a Little Lie

Let’s just get this out in the open: Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) is a liar. On Friday, when the Senate voted on whether to end debate on the House continuing resolution, that was the ball-game.  Once the number of Senators needed to amend the bill had been reduced from sixty-one to fifty-one, Reid was free to strip the de-funding language from the bill.  Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) was among the twenty-five Republican sell-outs who voted to permit Harry Reid to do so.  In tweets and in an official news release, Senator Graham subsequently claimed to have voted against funding for Obama-care, when that can be true only if you ignore the first vote for cloture.  The simple truth is that Lindsey Graham enabled Harry Reid to modify the bill.  Now he claims to be for de-funding Obama-care.  This half-truth is really a whole lie, but he will seek cover behind the latter vote.  He’s busily telling his constituents that he’s opposed to Obama-care, and that he voted to de-fund it, but he’s lying through his teeth, using the procedural nuances of the United States Senate as political camouflage.  Graham’s constituents need only ask him one direct question:

“Would Harry Reid have been able to amend the House continuing resolution without the support of Republicans, like you, Senator Graham?”

The true answer, indeed the only answer to this question is “no.”  Anything else is an attempt to obfuscate, evade, and otherwise obscure the truth.

Here had been his tweet, just moments after the vote:

 

Lindsey Graham is a despicable liar.  He’s hoping that the old formulation of being “for it before he was against it” will be enough to get him past his next re-election campaign, but voters of South Carolina should know that he’s lying to them, and that they now have an option.  Graham is being challenged in the primaries, and it’s about time somebody holds his feet to the fire.  What he’s done in the US Senate has been despicable.  His lies, misrepresentations, and his unflagging support of statism have earned him an involuntary early retirement from the US Senate.  It’s now up to the people of South Carolina to deliver it.

Lindsey Graham had hoped to do what twenty-four of his fellow Senate Republicans had hoped to do: Deceive voters with a shell-game.  Vote for cloture, permitting the bill to be amended, followed by a vote against the amendment, as the means by which to pretend he had voted to de-fund Obama-care.  The simple fact is what it is, and lying, duplicitous, back-stabbing politicians hope to trick voters with this sort of thing.  It’s really just a slightly different formulation of John Kerry’s infamous “for it before I was against it” nonsense of the 2004 campaign.  It’s always the same.  Graham isn’t listening to the people of South Carolina, and he’s gambling that most of them aren’t paying much attention, or will be fooled by this procedural dodge.

He may get away with it if the people of South Carolina don’t take the time to examine what he’s done, but he won’t get away with it here: Senator Lindsey Graham is lying when he claims to have voted to de-fund Obama-care as his previous vote enabled Harry Reid to remove the de-funding language.  This sort of behavior has become increasingly common from Senator Graham, who has supported going to war in Libya, and who has remained one of the key drivers in the Senate for the amnesty bill, leading many to refer to him simply as “Grahamnesty.” Whatever else he is, he’s neither honest, nor conservative, and it’s time he was sent home for good.  Most politicians can be found to have told a whopper or two during their careers, but Graham along with the others who are pretending to have voted against funding Obama-care after enabling it to go forward are simply liars.
Editor’s note: Senator Graham is being challenged in the GOP Senate primary by Nancy Mace, who is trying to overcome the Senator in a bid to replace him in the Senate. She may represent exactly what South Carolina needs in order to get beyond Graham’s duplicitous career in which he says one thing before voters in South Carolina, and another thing while in Washington DC. As you might guess, she has a few thoughts on Senator Graham, here.