Archive for politics

Now here’s a rant for you: Derek Hunter on Why They Hate Us. The problem is that he isn’t that far off the mark as his examples illustrate.

If you only watch network news and read the New York Times you easily could come away with the impression that last Sunday morning a conservative Christian man, draped in crosses and screaming “Make America Great Again,” walked into a gay bar and murdered 49 people on direct orders from Republican National Committee headquarters located in the basement of the National Rifle Association’s headquarters, naturally, in a space they rent from Fox News.

What kind of sick monsters blame the horrific actions of one man on their political opponents? A lot of them, it turns out.

Although the poltroon declared his reasons, unambiguously, to the police and a local news station, Democrats saw an opportunity to advance their agenda of limiting the rights of all Americans. Ignoring the truth, every branch of the progressive left simultaneously and sanctimoniously struck the same cord – it was the gun’s fault.

Pure hatred is the currency of the Democratic Party in the 21st century. Democrats try to blame their political opponents for every act of evil or terrorism committed on US soil. The media parrots these nefarious charges as gospel. The truth eventually comes out but only after the lie has taken root with many.

The ends justify the means for the political left – and always have. Motivated by hate – for opponents, the Constitution and anyone who won’t submit to their belief of moral and intellectual superiority – there is no depth to which they will not sink, no pile of bodies on which they will not dance to advance their agenda. In then end it’s sad, it’s disturbing, it’s fascistic, and it’s progressive…and we are not, which is why they hate us.

You don’t have to look far to find your own examples, unless you are one of the very many who are in denial and joining in on the irrational and harmful behavior. What are your feelings? What is behind your perceptions? Do you cut off any who raise questions about your views?

Leave a Comment

This is how it works

Mary Grabar wanted to set up a small tax exempt association “resisting the re-education of America.” She tells her story: Here’s How the IRS Treated Me Because I’m a Conservative.

We waited, long past the three-month mark. And past our opportunity to hold a 2013 year-end fundraiser. I continued to post and speak, and I published three educational guidebooks.

But over a year passed. I called my senator’s office. After several correspondences, we were told we had been assigned an agent.

On May 16, 2014, our – ahem — Cincinnati-based agent sent an “Information Request” consisting of seven multi-part objections — with a two-and-a-half week deadline to respond. I was floored. She ended up granting us several extra days.

The IRS had three types of objections to our application: minor paperwork, a financial inquest, and ideological accusations.

Remember, it was pretty much me in the basement. I described my one-woman efforts in a recent post.

We finally received approval on September 2014. They forced me to waste money and time when we should have been building on the momentum of our launch and fundraising. Other groups also lost opportunities, namely in 2012.

That’s how this IRS, this administration, works.

On the other side of such tactics, it appears that some Republican District Attorneys are telling their Democrat colleagues that going after climate skeptics also puts climate alarmists as valid targets. You can only expect the opposition to lie down and take it for so long. Grabar is now a part of a lawsuit challenging Democrats misuse of the IRS. The efforts to shut down debate about using climatology as a path to power and control are also being challenged. The efforts to use a tragedy to gain control to deny a right to self defense is being challenged with significant increases in gun sales.

In smaller associations, lawsuits and such things are usually not worth the effort. With the WBCCI, for instance, membership suffers when bullies take over. While it is a lot easier to leave a social RV club (and form your own alternative) than it is to leave a country, the parallels in behavior are worth study. Well meaning people seem ignorant of just how destructive their behavior really is and turn to denial and defense rather than introspection, examination of consequences, and intellectual integrity.

Leave a Comment

The Trump Wince

There were stories this morning about yet another Trump Wince. This one was due to a perception that Trump was accusing U.S. troops of mishandling money. That goes along with denigrating prisoners of war, accusing illegal immigrants of being a source of other crime, accusing all Muslims of being terrorists, and more. The rumor, based on polling data, is that even Trump advocates are beginning to wince when he comes up with another one.

The difficulty is that traditional politics parses words. This is often done to ‘expose’ hypocrisy, falsehoods, flip flopping, and other bad things about the politician. Trump doesn’t seem to be participating in this tradition. Words provide examples or analogies or illustration of a broader point. That point often hits feelings and values that resonate with many voters.

The Trump Wince is being used by Democrats as a weapon. It is a weapon they have often used. It is to shame and humiliate their opposition and they have gone to significant extremes in its application in the past. Trump really can’t avoid this else he becomes one of the traditional politicians that would betray his base.

It will be interesting. Democrats are playing an established game. Can Trump play another?

Leave a Comment

Self defense or wait for the cops?

The latest mass murder has the gun control fanatics out in full cry and much of that cry is rather far afield from reality. Andrew P. Napolitano speaks In defense of self-defense — “Americans have a natural right to preserve their lives with guns.”

Don’t expect to hear that argument from the gun control crowd in the government. It is the same crowd that has given us the killing zones. It is the same crowd that does not trust you to protect yourself. It is the same crowd that ignores the reality that in the post-World War II era, there is not one recorded example in the United States of a person in a restaurant or bar getting drunk and shooting his lawfully carried handgun.

We have a government here that is heedless of its obligation to protect our freedoms. We have a government that, in its lust to have us reliant upon it, has created areas in the United States where innocent folks living their lives in freedom are made defenseless prey to monsters — as vulnerable as fish in a barrel. And we have mass killings of defenseless innocents — over and over and over again.

All these mass killings have the same ending: The killer stops only when he is killed. But that requires someone else with a gun to be there. Shouldn’t that be sooner rather than later?

The question is why a political party wants to burden law abiding citizens with suspicion and to take away a fundamental right of self defense.

Leave a Comment

Who’s your friend?

Stephen Moore says The ‘Stupid Party’ keeps getting stupider — “Republicans are playing into the hands of the left by calling Trump a ‘racist’.”

What is maddening about the Clinton and Trump gaffes is the reaction by the brain trusts of their respective parties.

All of this is self-defeating on a thousand levels. First, don’t these lame-brained Republicans get it that they hang together or they hang separately. Tearing down Mr. Trump will mean thousands of political casualties down ticket. Democrats do get this.

Second, since when do we judge our candidates based on the left’s warped criteria? They seem to suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome of seeking the affection of their captors.

Finally, the Republican members of Congress would be wise to stop with the holier than thou strategy. These are the people who’ve blown a hole in the budget as big as Texas and so how are they morally superior? These are the people that can’t even defund the cronyist Export Import Bank.

Who’s your friend? It seems there are a lot of Republicans who just don’t know.

Leave a Comment

Prosecutions run amok

Here’s another one. Baltimore Six Trial – Stunning Last Minute Motion To Dismiss Due to Severe Brady Violation…. This is about trying to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit the prosecution’s efforts and that is evidence that justice is the last thing on the prosecution’s mind.

Just a few minutes ago (Wednesday Night) Judge Williams released to the public a Motion to Dismiss filed by the attorney’s of Cesar Goodson which is based on this Brady violation, and the prosecution’s failure to be honest with the court. This is the third time Mosby’s office has been caught hiding exculpatory evidence in the cases against the accused.

It seems to be a disease that is showing up a lot lately. Whether it is the EPA on watersheds, the DOJ on email security, state AG’s after climate skeptics, the IRS on several scandals, or the partisan blocking of inquiry, the effort to stymie justice seems widespread and almost pervasive and very much an accepted tool by many on the left.

Leave a Comment

Who’s in on the deal?

Michael S. Greve takes a look at Odd Legal Ethics and summarizes by concluding that both sides do it, except one hasn’t had the chance yet.

And suppose we name and shame and sanction the lawyers (and I for one do want to know their names): what then? Why, the spin machine—the same machine that “explains” the President’s Iran Policy or the Secretary of State’s email server—will inform us that a vindictive right-wing judge is seeking the ruin of reputable lawyers with impeccable Harvard Law School credentials and did you know some of them are gay and also the judge hates Dreamers, or whatever. And will those martyrs still find gainful employment? Oh, yes. It’s no impediment to skirt legal and ethical boundaries, to follow orders to that effect, and to take the fall if need be: it’s the price of admission to Hillary Clinton’s entourage.

While Mrs. Clinton is unique in having practiced this sort of “law” and politics for three-plus decades, it has also flourished under President Obama, and it would blossom under President Trump.

In his Trump conclusion he shows himself to be a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. With Clinton (and Obama) there is a track record which has resulted in Judicial censure. With Trump, it is a matter of prognostication that puts bias above reality and attempts to hide it behind a curtain of moral preening (that seems to be the concept of the week – moral preening). Greve falls into Trumpysteria and the same sort of lack of honesty and integrity that was the subject of Luboš Motl’s takedown noted in the previous post.

There is a serious problem with the DOJ and it is now on its second AG. Efforts towards accountability in Congress are being blocked by Democratic Party Solidarity. The media, the state propaganda machine (SPM), is doing its best to obfuscate and deny the scandal. That leaves the Judiciary and the Public – and a good part of that Public is in on the deal, too.

Worried, yet?

Leave a Comment

Trumpysteria exposed

Luboš Motl takes on “Terry Tao’s “axiomatization” of the cheap anti-Trump mudslinging” — Donald Trump is fit to be president. The problem is that Tao illustrates the moral preening that casts judgments on others that is based on fantasies rather than realities.

I believe that many opponents of Trump must start to see how incredibly empty most of these attacks against Trump are. I believe that even many voters of the Democratic candidates feel some compassion for Trump and they start to see that he isn’t being treated fairly. Many people may become aware of the bulldozer of the would-be “establishment” that just mindlessly runs over all inconvenient people. I can’t tell you whether Trump will be elected the U.S. president but he may very well be elected and become “officially qualified”. And he may also become a great president, perhaps similarly to Ronald Reagan who had been forecast to be a failure in rants very similar to Tao’s rant but who proved all those rants entirely wrong.

In the post, Motl provides an accurate 9 point list of why there a sufficient chunk of the electorate does consider Trump qualified. It isn’t advocacy, it is a takedown of Tao and intellectuals who wand afield from integrity and honesty in their thinking. The point is that the matter of qualifications is one of being able to convince enough people to elect you that you win, no more and no less. Even criminals can be (and have been) qualified by this process.

Leave a Comment

up the ante

It still hasn’t sunk in as its rather hard to accept that it could happen right here, in home town city. The fact is that it is happening and it is happening right here and it is as ugly as can be. Tammy Bruce hits the particulars. Anti-Trump rallies funded by the left — “The anti-Trump riots are planned and funded by the left.”

The American flag was burned, cars were attacked, people were spat upon, punched in the face, and beaten. It was a riot, but the media is still calling it a “clash,” as though it was a mutual little skirmish.

Eventually the mayor of San Jose made a statement blaming … Trump.

This is what liberals have been doing since the ‘60s. They’ve done it here, in Europe and South America. The left always resorts to violence because they cannot win on the issues. The policies of Hillary and Bernie destroy lives and the only way to keep you in line, like a batterer, is to keep you too afraid to leave them. They hope you’ll be intimidated into surrendering, or at least will be distracted to not notice that they’ve already set the nation on fire.

But it’s already too late. The Democrats and their allies simply don’t understand trying to beat us into submission reaffirms our determination to end this charade.

This is the group that complains about the corruption of campaign contributions (but only when not to them). They raise the ante and don’t seem to understand that when the stakes go up, so does the opposition. That does not bode well.

Leave a Comment

For how long will it stand? (think Venezuela vs Chile)

Bruce Walker, How the Left Is Destroying Science:

Scientism is ossified and reactionary. There are never schools of thought, for example, in scientistic regimes. Honesty and integrity cannot survive, because honest inquiry is always punished and because the atheism at the heart of regimes of this sort means that there is no moral restraint regarding experiments, observation and the presentation of other explanations for data.

All of those factors are present in leftism today; every issue is political, honesty is nonexistent, and power is everything. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, we are sliding into a new Dark Age. This grim fact is something many of us feel about modern life. Those toxins in cognition and integrity that are the heart of leftism have infected many other areas of life and are strangling science to death. That is precisely what the left wants.

When reality becomes a matter of opinion there is no basis for learning; no basis for constructive efforts. The problem is that building skyscrapers with an opinion of reality tends to build monuments that do not stand.

Leave a Comment

The real problem: blind?

Peter Dorman: The Climate Movement Needs to Get Radical, but What Does that Mean? — “A Delayed Review of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate by Naomi Klein.”

what I find diagnostic is the warm reception it received from virtually every media outlet on the English-speaking left. This suggests that Klein is moving with the political tide and not against it, and that the problems that seemed obvious to me were either invisible to her reviewers or regarded as too insignificant to bring up. The view that capitalism is a style of thinking, progress is a myth, and political contestation is irrelevant to “true” social change belongs not just to this one book but to all the commentators who found nothing to criticize. That’s the real problem.

Critical thinking? Examination of conclusions and opinions? Consideration of implications, costs, and benefits? All by the board. That is a real problem.

Leave a Comment

Imagine

Robert Tracinski takes on the ignorant idealism of the 60’s in Imagine No Possessions, Imagine Venezuela — “John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ gave us a fantasy vision of socialism. Venezuela is showing us the brutal reality.”

It began by imagining no possessions. Private property and private businesses and private profit were supposedly the source of everyone’s problems, so the Venezuelan government set out to get rid of them, with Chavez issuing a notorious set of 49 decrees in 2001 that gave him vast power over the economy. He used this power to seize private factories and expropriate foreign owners of Venezuelan firms—ensuring that no foreign investors would want to put a single dollar into the country for the foreseeable future.

There’s a lot of other baggage that comes with “idealistic” worldview of socialism. John Lennon also asked us to “imagine there’s no heaven” and “no religion.” This was not just about atheism, but about a range-of-the-moment outlook in which we were supposed to be “living for today.” Living in the present because “now is all there is” was a really big thing in the 1960s. The hippies wanted us to be like the lilies of the field and take no thought for the morrow.

That’s one thing socialism has delivered on. It’s easy to live only for today when long-term planning has become impossible and you have no idea where your next meal is coming from.

These truths about the fundamental inhumanity of socialism are old news, and we didn’t need to see any of it confirmed again in Venezuela. In fact, it had all been demonstrated over and over again before John Lennon came along. When he wrote “Imagine,” it was no longer necessary for anyone to imagine the actual real-world meaning of socialism.

What you need your imagination for is to continue to evade them.

And yet the yearning over-rides reality. Again and again the massacre and suffering is put in front of us yet still it makes no dent, stimulates no learning.

Leave a Comment

Legacies, carefully crafted

The prelude was crafting a legacy for GWB. That, it turns out, was built on lies and dishonesty. Now is the time to craft a legacy for the current president. Tammy Bruce describes the effort as Obama’s legacy: Duping America about everything is the name of the game.

To people like this, it’s funny to screw up your life. They’re bullies, plain and simple. Their contempt has no bounds, and it’s not just Mr. Obama, but a reflection of what the entire Democratic Party has become.

After all the Obama/Hillary Democrats have done to this country, they should have at least had the decency to take us out to dinner first.

Next up its another Clinton and exposure there is also being laughed away.

You know they are laughing at you, right?

Leave a Comment

Give us Barabbas!

“There is no substitute for victory. There is no substitute for the America that each and every one of us loves with all our heart, that we believe in with all our heart, and that together we will restore as a shining city on the hill for every generation to come.”

This statement of Ted Cruz seems to bother some folks. That bothers Lloyd Marcus who says Regarding Ted Cruz, You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet.

This political season, many voters threw social and moral issues out the window. … This remarkable man deserves so much better.

When our conservative gladiators enter the arena, Democrats, the Left, the GOP establishment, and mainstream media team up to stop and destroy them forever. The evil coalition launches its standard 24/7 character assassination shock-and-awe attack. Phase two includes endless absurd lies and extremely well-funded dirty tricks. Whenever one of our candidates falls short of winning due to the behemoth opposing them, our advisers and voters blame the candidate for being too this or not enough of that. Then, we throw our courage warriors on the junk heap of tainted and forever unelectable conservatives. In other words, if only our candidate would have mastered politically walking on water, we could have won or retained the seat. The disloyalty sickens me.

The bench was deep on the Republican side but the voters weren’t playing that game. It is like all of those playing Fantasy Football found out that their player choices were being put into an arena where football was not the game. The rules have changed and a ‘dark horse’ as emerged as the prominent player.

The other adage that comes to mind and the one that Lloyd Marcus seems to have in mind is about burning bridges. Trump seems aware of this in that his assault on reality and others in his game is tactical, not pathological like it is with the ‘other’ party. Trump is selling his product and runs fast and free in how he presents it. This appeases his customer base but care is needed to make sure that it doesn’t go too far. Going too far is like what the current administration is doing in regards to race relations and government scandals. In the discussion about Trump, the bridges are about party unity. To win the game, he is going to need to build a strong team with a clear focus. Ted Cruz put that focus into words. Those irritated by those words are going to need some more snake oil.

Leave a Comment

Just how far can he go

The issue is Texas v U.S. on an executive order regarding the enforcement of immigration law. Paul Mirengoff on the Oral Argument in DAPA Case Highlights the Need to Block Merrick Garland.

Thus, the possibility of some sort of “compromise” decision cannot be ruled out. In that event, expect the non-liberal Justices to do the bulk of the compromising.
..
If, as expected, it turns out that the Court’s four liberal Justices are willing to uphold DAPA on the merits, thus enabling the president effectively to make a massive change in our immigration law with the stroke of his pen, this will highlight the importance of blocking Garland Merrick’s nomination to the Supreme Court. It will also demonstrate the need to obstruct, if possible, the nominee of the next president, if that president is a Democrat.

On big ticket items such as DAPA, Justices appointed by Democrats form a voting bloc so loyal to liberal presidents and their policy preferences that it’s hard to imagine where they might draw the line. Here, President Obama said he couldn’t do executive amnesty because he isn’t a king. Then, Obama went ahead with executive amnesty, stating that he had no choice because Congress wouldn’t cooperate — i.e., do what he wanted.

What should be a concern here is the “voting bloc so loyal to liberal presidents and their policy preferences” as that is a dereliction of duty by the judges on political grounds. The fact that it is so easy to predict the decisions of most of the judges and just who is doing the “compromising” is the tell on the validity of this concern. Unless, of course, you are in favor of an oligarchy or even a dictator if you can’t get the public to go along with your ideology.

Leave a Comment

Responsible citizenship

The ranks of the entitled includes those who think they have a right to vote anywhere on anything. This cheapens the vote. Dru Kristenev explains why Membership in a political club requires action — “Sweat equity is what makes the difference in the long run, not after-the-fact mob-style anger and intimidation, or threatening the life of a party executive who was elected to his or her post.”

All the uproar over caucus protocol, which varies from state to state, only seems to become a focal point when someone believes they’ve been disenfranchised. The reaction is questionable when party function, structure and strata as a club is overlooked.

Far too many seem to think that registering as a democrat or republican and marking a ballot is where it begins and ends in the political process. However, what just occurred in Colorado and all the resulting fallout points to how important it is to view party membership as more than simple affiliation… that is, if the individuals really wants to have their voice heard.

Anyone who has been involved in a community organization, such as the PTA, area chamber of commerce or Rotary, knows that in order to have any influence in the decision-making process they have to attend the meetings. They must show-up and be vocal. The republican party requires the same kind of involvement. If a member has strong enough opinions and wants to be heard, taking an active role cannot be avoided.

Voters who never thought it necessary to attend local meetings and are now fuming that they were overlooked, forget that just casting a vote isn’t enough. The details are what most people rebel against, but it they don’t take the time to do more than go to an occasional rally they haven’t fully accessed the process and made the effort to influence it.

Sweat equity is what makes the difference in the long run, not after-the-fact mob-style anger and intimidation, or threatening the life of a party executive who was elected to his or her post.

How much an individual really wants to see positive changes is reflected in whether they are willing to attend to business on the ground floor, not whether they just want to complain and eventually vote for the lesser of two evils.

This is like the welfare state where people expect to get money without having to do anything. Life doesn’t work that way. Citizenship is earned. It is not an entitlement. Those who complain about not having a vote are like those who get on a soapbox and have no listeners. To make the vote a part of responsible citizenship means participation in the group efforts.

Leave a Comment

Persistence: new propaganda efforts

A new movie is out. Monica Crowley describes it as a part of The left’s long war against Clarence Thomas — “A new HBO drama reprises the left’s ‘high-tech lynching’.”

In its war for America, the left never rests, sometimes falters but rarely allows itself to fail. It works tirelessly to “fundamentally transform the nation” and smashes anyone and anything that gets in its way.

Consider the pitched battle it has waged against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas over the past quarter-century.

The leftists lost the battle over Justice Thomas, but they wasted little time before they regrouped and planned for future orchestrated clashes. The Thomas spectacle would presage their relentless battles against President George W. Bush, support for the fierce leftism of President Obama, and the radical activism of groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

They fight a ceaseless war against the Constitution, free-market economic principles, traditional values, limited government and individual freedom. It is a war to destroy the very pillars of American exceptionalism and replace them with those of collectivism, command economics and rule by the privileged vanguard.

Justice Thomas happened to be caught in the ideological crossfire. The fact that leftists continue to attack him reminds us that their memories are long, their political ammunition is always fresh, and their battle never ends.

The latest attack is a “dramatization” in the movie Confirmation. Of course, the actors and director don’t see the dishonesty and proclaim innocent motive. Of course.

25 years and here we go again. It is an effort to re-write history to suit a political ideology. The persistence on speaks to the separation from reality and refusal to accept it.

Leave a Comment

Prosecutorial Abuse

Silence the critics! Walter Olson reports about CEI subpoenaed over climate wrongthink.

If the forces behind this show-us-your-papers subpoena succeed in punishing (or simply inflicting prolonged legal harassment on) groups conducting supposedly wrongful advocacy, there’s every reason to think they will come after other advocacy groups later. Like yours.

In these working groups of attorneys general, legal efforts are commonly parceled out among the states in a deliberate and strategic way, with particular tasks being assigned to AGs who have comparative advantage in some respect (such as an unusually favorable state law to work with, or superior staff expertise or media access).

This is happening at a time of multiple, vigorous, sustained legal attacks on what had been accepted freedoms of advocacy and association.

The absurdity of these efforts is illustrated by David French: Yes, Let’s Prosecute Climate-Change Fraud — and Start with the Scaremongers

The attorneys general of New York and California are on the warpath. They’re fed up with dissent over the science and politics of global warming, and they’re ready to investigate the liars. … Not to be outdone, Attorney General Loretta Lynch revealed that the federal Department of Justice has “discussed” the possibility of civil suits against the fossil-fuel industry. The smell of litigation is in the air.

Some people are worried about little things like the “First Amendment,” “academic freedom,” and “scientific integrity.” Not me. I hate unscientific nonsense. So if Harris and Schneiderman are up for suing people who’ve made piles of cash peddling exaggerations and distortions, let’s roll out some test cases.

Environmental scaremongering is a lucrative business, and the evidence of exaggeration is everywhere. If Lynch, Harris, and Schneiderman file their first lawsuits now, they can file a second round by Christmas, when the season’s first snowflakes provide the next set of litigation targets — all the hysterics who predicted the end of snow.

Or maybe — just maybe — these liberal attorneys general aren’t truly interested in the truth and are instead radical ideologues hoping to shut down dissent. Perhaps they’re trying to advance their political careers by appeasing the social-justice Left and further establishing the new pagan religion of environmentalism. There is a chance that we can’t trust the government to be fair.

A nation can’t sue its way into clarity, but it can sue its way into oppression. The First Amendment still matters. Rather than settle scores, let’s extend the debate.

A more insidious part of this issue is in the a priori assumption that anyone raising any question regarding climate alarmism is scientifically illiterate and should be laughed at. The climate “deniers” are often brought up in all sorts of contexts to illustrate a horrific social problem of people who refuse reality. The people that make this analogy should look in the mirror but their belief system and hubris and group think lead them astray. They don’t realize that they illustrate their own illiteracy be poor problem definition, polar grouping, straw man building and other logical fallacies.

The problem is that it isn’t a debate but rather an argument. A debate requires intellectual integrity and careful listening to the ideas and reasoning provided. An argument is where one or both sides refuse to listen and do what they can to force their views into acceptance. What Olson illustrates is that the efforts to shut down critics is potent, creative, and persistent. French shows just how destructive such efforts can be.

Worried, yet?

Leave a Comment

Economic freedom is a core human right

Stephen Moore wonders about The lunacy of the left — “It ranges from embracing dictators to the candidates they choose.”

It wasn’t so long ago that leading Democrats — JFK, Harry Truman and even the AFL CIO — were staunch enemies of communism. Today there is no place for such beliefs within the “progressive” Democratic Party. If it involves power to the state, the left is all for it — as evidenced by the rise of Bernie Sanders.

This is the same crowd that seems to prefer the economic systems in Sweden and Greece and Cuba over America’s. They preach human rights, but they don’t seem to understand that economic freedom is a core human right.

Trying to understand this ‘biting the hand that feeds you’ phenomena requires working with paradigms and realities that are not of this world. “Lunacy” was used but is now, perhaps, to be avoided because those with the symptoms are indeed running the asylum. 

Leave a Comment

White togas and spackling the records of opponents

Clarice Feldman takes on the ‘holier than thou’ in Trump Storm Troopers Mob Sanders Rally: Force Cancellation.

Some years ago I wrote here of my contempt for conservatives who flee the forum for fear of getting their spotlessly white togas spattered with mud and blood when their colleagues are being savaged by liars and thugs. This week my White Toga award goes to Ted Cruz. As thousands of rent a mobs from Soros funded Move On, the White House approved Black Lives Matters fabulist race baiters, and Bernie Sanders fans mobbed and threatened the thousands of people who’d waited in lines for hours to attend a rally in Chicago for Donald Trump. Even Obama pal and admitted terrorist Bill Ayers, doubtless reliving his “glory days” as a Weatherman was there cheering the mayhem on

Cruz’ offering up a justification for this behavior also played into the press game of targeting Republicans while spackling the records of their opponents. Of particular amusement is this piece in the Washington Post (whose editors must be on permanent leave):

Trump is known for his massive, raucous rallies — part campaign events, part media spectacles, part populist exaltations for his most loyal supporters. But the events have also become suffused with the kind of hostility and even violence that are unknown to modern presidential campaigns. The candidate himself often seems to wink at, or even encourage, rough treatment of protesters.

What is conveniently ignored is that these demonstrations are set up by Trump’s opponents specifically to provoke tensions and fights which the press then propagandizes. By this means they hope to set him up as what he is not — a racist — to scare off supporters and drive Blacks and Hispanics to the polls to vote for his Democratic opponent.

Rather than excusing the offended or incited, it is time to hold them accountable for their own behavior. It is ugly already. It is likely to get only worse unless people are held to account. And this account can be for violations of national security to rioting while free speech should be held free.

Leave a Comment