November 26, 2016
Fidel Castro -- the pop icon of bloodthirsty killers, drowner of desperate would-be escapees from his panacea of socialized medicine, and all-around authoritarian powermongering cigar aficionado -- has finally gone to meet his...well, no one. Worms. Decay. The slow rot that eats away whatever is left of a crotchety, worthless hull of a pseudo-man who hated human freedom as much as a sane, healthy man loves it.
May he rest wherever history tosses his carcass.
This sad passing will of course be a great photo opportunity for his fans and admirers among the progressive political elite, their handmaidens in the artistic class, and their fat slob deadbeat brothers -- Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau, Oliver Stone and Steven Spielberg, and Michael Moore, respectively.
In the meantime, in honor of his passing -- and if ever a passing deserved to be honored, it's this one -- I would like to quote poet Ricardo Pau-Llosa, who fled to Florida with his parents in 1960, and writes often about the experience of Cubans living in exile. And yes, "exile" is the only correct word for it: the fate of men who wished to remain men, and were therefore left no choice but to leave their homeland, or die trying, in rebellion against the inhuman schemes of Castro, his inveterate Stalinist thug cohort Che Guevara, and the rest of his communist insects, history's most theoretically-rationalized punks.
Once they were men fully because they belonged,
And everywhere they looked and chatted and sipped
a bit of coffee, whisked away a fly with a wrist
or jolted a newspaper readably straight,
or flirted, or worried about the world and where
the damn country was going as a trolley rolled
and curtains dipped and bulged breast-like
and hid again in the proper window. They were
home and citizens of it and dared and loved
and were decent and stole and killed and loved again.
They were home.
(From "For the Cuban Dead," by Ricardo Pau-Llosa)
They were home, and then they were exiled. Or imprisoned. Or devoured by sharks they dared to face rather than live as un-men. They are almost all dead now, and during their final years they had to watch the West's political and academic class fawning over Castro's "idealism." They had to watch a million peace-loving university students donning T-shirts emblazoned with the gun-crazy Guevara's mug, as though he were a movie star, rather than a psychopath. They had to watch bootlicking leftist millionaires from the talented class (Spielberg, Sean Penn, et al) to the remedial class (Moore) playing footsie with a communism that would decimate their lives in five seconds if they actually had to live it, rather than preach it to their alleged inferiors, the great unwashed.
The Cubans in exile have died, or are dying, as the world's progressives "mourn the loss" of their fellow sociopath, who used a bad government as an excuse to impose brutal totalitarianism.
And now the cause of those men's exile, Fidel Castro, has returned from his own long exile back to his true home. For he was never a man of this human world. He rose to destructive, strangling power from the shadows of death and nothingness. And to those shadows, at last, he has receded again.
So while his fans and acolytes among our own velvet-gloved thugs, the masters of our twisted universe of (what they call) "democracy" and "progress," lament the loss of their great spiritual leader, the rest of us owe a moment's thought to the country he destroyed, and the people he left in permanent exile, or worse. From Pau-Llosa's poem again:
"There is no enough in exile. Not enough anger,
and the blanket of safety always leaves the feet bare."
Let's ward off anger at last, then, by joining all Cubans in a happy toast: "Adios, Fidel!"
Read more from Daren at www.darenjonescu.com
Wearing a green military uniform, a somber Raul Castro, 85, appeared on state television on Friday night to announce his brother's death.
"At 10.29 at night, the chief commander of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro Ruz, died," he said, without giving a cause of death.
"Ever onward, to victory," he said, using the slogan of the Cuban revolution.
Tributes came in from allies, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Venezuela's socialist President Nicolas Maduro, who said "revolutionaries of the world must follow his legacy."
Although Raul Castro always glorified his older brother, he has changed Cuba since taking over by introducing market-style economic reforms and agreeing with the United States in December 2014 to re-establish diplomatic ties and end decades of hostility.
Fox News´ Monica Crowley
being considered for White House
press secretary, report says
Donald Trump taps K.T. McFarland
as deputy national security adviser
CBS News, by Reena Flores Original Article
11/25/2016 2 :58:49 PM
President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Kathleen Troia McFarland as his deputy national security adviser, according to the Trump transition team. Before the announcement, National Security Adviser-designate Michael Flynn welcomed McFarland to the team. (Tweet) President-elect Trump said in a statement, "She has tremendous experience and innate talent that will complement the fantastic team we are assembling, which is crucial because nothing is more important than keeping our people safe.” McFarland currently works as Fox News’ national security analyst and is a contributor to FoxNews.com’s opinion page.
A NOTE FROM TIM:
Not sure how I feel about either of these choices. Both are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, meaning they are members of the Establishment and internationalists.They both come out of the Eastern Establishment nexus. This election was supposed to be about breaking the power of teh Establishment. Crowley's brother in law is Alan Comes, and McFarland worked for Henry Kissinger, an internationalist and penultimae insider. IMBD says that McFarland's favorite song is "I am woman" which means she's a feminist. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2881394/bio
I had heard that Laura Ingraham was on the short list for Press Secretary, and that would have been o.k. (although my brother Brian attended an event of hers and said she was a real bitch. - at least at that particular event.)
EXPANSION OF GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE SCHEMES
The UK is about to wield unprecedented surveillance powers — here’s what it means
The UK is about to become one of the world’s foremost surveillance states, allowing its police and intelligence agencies to spy on its own people to a degree that is unprecedented for a democracy. The UN’s privacy chief has called the situation "worse than scary." Edward Snowden says it’s simply "the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy."
Extreme surveillance' becomes UK law with barely a whimper
Investigatory Powers Act legalises range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services
Snooper's Charter spy law could be 'badly misused' by a future government expert warns
In the UK, the Investigatory Powers Bill − often dubbed the "Snoopers' Charter" – is set to become law by the end of 2016. It will give police and domestic intelligence agencies enhanced surveillance and hacking powers and essentially legalise a slew of "bulk" powers already in operation.
Caught in the net: Parliament approves mass surveillance of all Australians
Mass Government Surveillance Worldwide Made Possible By NZ Company Endace
We already knew from the Snowden leaks in 2013 that governments around the world had been spying on their citizens through the use of various technologies. We now know that at least one spy agency, GCHQ in the UK, enlisted the help of New Zealand network monitoring vendor Endace. Here’s what we know.
The company helped the GCHQ develop interception technology that allowed the agency to capture vast amounts of data at speeds of up to 100Gbps from trans-continental undersea cables that carried internet traffic. Endace had reportedly used New Zealand taxpayer money to help fund the development of this technology.
08 Nov 2016
Inquiry into freedom of speech really isn't
EFA is disappointed that the Attorney-General has ignored the major threats to freedom of expression in Australia in framing the terms of reference for the parliamentary inquiry he announced today.
The extremely narrow terms of reference for this inquiry mean that it is not ‘an inquiry into freedom of speech’ as the Attorney’s media release claims.
There are many serious threats to free expression in 21st century Australia, including our archaic and inconsistent defamation laws, section 35P of the ASIO Act, censorship of the Internet and the chilling effects of mass surveillance.
EFA Executive Officer Jon Lawrence said today, "if the Attorney wants to call his inquiry one into ‘freedom of speech’ then he needs to include the major threats to free expression in the terms of reference. The issues around section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act hardly qualify as major threats to free expression.”
British Prime Minister Theresa May and her government have passed the 'INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL', OR SNOOPERS CHARTER, as it is also known, which means the end of privacy in the UK, with the government accessing 100% knowledge of every citizen. Reference 'Technology News and Trends article 'Britain Ends All Privacy By Passing The 'Snoopers' Charter', by Zerohedge, M Armstrong, Matt Burgess dated Nov 20th 2016.
It would seem that the EU and UN Technocrats have won again. No wonder Theresa took the Prime Minister's job out of the blue, what a set-up. The Bill allows the UK to comply with the UN's Mandatory $5-5 Trillion Sustainable Development Goals/ 2030 Agenda with its 17 Goals and 169 targets, which depends on the UN and Member States monitoring the implementation of the SDGs and their progress. Remember that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has been working with the UN Creating a system that would by-pass UN Member States privacy Laws and Legislation a s a part of their Biometric ID Scheme/National Electronic ID Scheme.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics and CSIRO have been working with the UN on their 'BIG DATA GLOBAL WORKING GROUP', accessing satellites to collect UN Members Nation's Social Media Data and Mobile Phone Data, under Malcolm Turnbull and Brandis's 'MASS SURVEILLANCE SCHEME'. There have been over 60 applications in Australia asking to access the data collected. Don't forget that the Australian Federal Government has already made concessions which by-pass the Privacy Acts and hand over personal data for research and other special reasons, without Australian's knowledge and without their consent. These breaches are common and are coming strong and fast. Reference Mass Surveillance Scheme for further information.
November 25, 2016
In an essay at American Thinker Michael Curtis bemoans the failures of "populism" here and in Europe.
"However, populism is, and has been in historical experiences, more an emotional and passionate response to being neglected by the rulers than a coherent, integrated political program. Policy proposals have taken many forms, some put forward by legendary populist leaders who have abused the will of the people or played on irrational resentments. American politics were plagued by the paranoia of Senator Joseph McCarthy or Father Coughlin's Social Justice Movement."
I think this (and the argument he is using leading up to it which I did not reprint for brevity's sake) makes a number of assumptions that are not necessarily justified.
He's right about populism, in that it is not a coherent political program, but I think he fails to ask the question of what exactly constitutes populism. Populism is an imprecise term, much like the word love. I love a good steak, but I also love my wife, and love my mother, and love my country, and love my automobile. English is horrible in this regard, because these are all very different emotions and yet they all go under the same imprecise term. the Greeks, of course, had no less than 6 different words for what we lump together as love; eros, Philia, agape, ludus, philautia, and pragma, and each of these represents a different type of love. Populism is a similar term, and has little to do with anything except that it represents a rebellion against the established structure of leadership. He is correct in his assertion that it is about passion; nobody launches a rebellion who isn't hacked off.
But Joe McCarthy as a populist? McCarthy was a herald, a guy warning about Communist infiltration of our government. While he was ACCUSED of populism, of trying to win elections by scaring people with lies, in reality McCarthy was absolutely correct in his claims. This was not a populist campaign of any sort, but rather was a warning which many Americans heeded.
This had nothing to do with abusing the Will of the People or stoking resentment; it had everything to do with protecting our country. Huge difference.
Now it can be said I am not so far from Mr. Curtis's position, and perhaps that is true. But here is where I check out:
"The process of globalization, which means not only free movement of capital, people, and goods but also a lesser role for individual states, is feared because of its impact on jobs, employment, and living standards. Globalization feeds sense of injustice, and loss of cultural identity. But there is no going back to preglobalization and national economies have to be integrated into the global economy."
First, the loss of cultural identity and political autonomy are huge aspects of this, far more important than the loss of a few jobs or whatnot. In point of fact, living standards generally go up in the Globalist economy, but at a terrible price.
Look, God made the nations of this world, not men. It first occured in Genesis, where the followers of Nimrod found their languages confused. The Tower of Babel was destroyed precisely because it was an attempt to put all Mankind under a single political umbrella. Now, you may think this story is polemic, and it probably is, but it illustrates a point; we have different cultures, different traditions, and forcing us together to create a common world culture and government is not a good idea. Does anybody in this day and age think the utter destruction of Native American culture was a good thing? Are Progressives happy about that, or about the Westernization of places like India? Aren't they forever telling us how terrible it was, this cultural imperialism? And yet here we are being told that Globalization is good and should be embraced. Yet it is nothing BUT cultural imperialism, only on a world-wide scale. If it was bad for the Indians it is bad for the rest of us.
What Mr. curtis is doing is falling into the Marxist trap here. He assumes that History has a definitive purpose and is moving inexorably toward some end. Granted, Christians have always believed that too, but the end will be terrible before the Parousia, the Second Coming, and that precisely because of efforts by Man to create a human paradise. Marx adopted this idea of a purpose to history and used it to suggest to everyone the futility of opposing collectivism and globalism.
But why do we assume globalism is inevitable? No doubt the Romans thought the same thing, as did the people in Alexander's time. Inevitablility is not always so inevitable.
The reality is that History is the sum of our choices. It is no more inevitable than Hillary's victory in the election; we can choose a different path.
While the last few centuries have seen a move towards larger political and economic structures, that is hardly proof of the inevitability of globalism. Rome - a massive socio-political system, fell apart and was replaced in the West by a confederation of small hereditary states. These states often pledged fealty to one another, and some quite large structures were created as a result - such as the Holy Roman Empire. But Feudalism was always rooted in place and family. It was the union of two Iberian kingdoms - Castille and Aragon - that led to the first Nation-state, Spain. This concept produced a larger entity, and in time many of these nation-states mushroomed into huge, world girldling colonial empires. Those empires were broken up in the last century as they proved to have outlived their usefullness.
What's the point? Colonialism was no more inevitable than was Feudalism or the current globalism. It was a construct, an idea people bought into. There were Euroopean countries that never built colonial empires. Heck, there were feudal states that never joined into nation-states. There is Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Malta, San Marino, etc. Even the Vatican, which is just a few blocks in area, is an independent country. And once it owned most of Italy. Italy, along with Germany, were not nation-states until the 1879's, I might add.
So this "inevitability" of globalism is nonsense, a holdover from the Progressive/Marxist vision of world socialism.
It may well be that the nation-state is the best arrangement for human beings. Man is driven by two opposing factors, the desire for autonomy and independence and the need for security and the production of wealth. The former drive the desire for smaller and more responsive, and in bygone days gave us the Neolithic tribe, an extended family. But the need for security and food led to the agricultural revolution and the establishment of cities, and began the movement to build a stable political structure. The city state was the most obvious, and has been with us since the agricultural revolution, certainly. The classic Greek era was dominated by city-states. But in time it became necessary to build larger political structures because powerful neighbors began conquering other city-states, and so different sorts of countries were established. Most were empires, an amalgamation of different peoples bound by a common need or bound by force of arms. Empires are notoriously unstable because they just aren't responsive to the needs of the disparate groups. Sorry Hillary, but we are not necessarily stronger together. Were that true the Austro-Hungarian empire would have dominated world politics. Germany was much stronger though far younger, and that was because Rthe Germans were relatively homogenous whereas the Austrian empire was polyglut, with Austrians, Hungarians, Serbs, Croats, Czechs, Bulgars, Romanians, etc. They had too little in common.
So the Progessives want to create a world empire, with all of us tossed into a huge salad and given little choice. I believe this is a terrible idea because in the end we don't have much in common with many other groups except perhaps our inevitable hatred of the elites running this diseased system. THAT is a huge part of the "populist" rebellion. It is a desire to get back to what may well be the natural human system. It's much like Goldilocks; the city state was too small, the Empire too large, but the nation-state is just right! But instead of returning to the nation-state we are going to an uber-empire, after all the acrimony hurled at the old colonial empires. Globalism is imperialism writ large.
Look, I don't wear a size 8 shoe because it is too small, nor do I wear a 12 because it is too large. I wear a ten and if I don't have a ten I have to buy one because the others just do not allow me to move about adequately. So too may be the system of governance; the nation-state has the right mix between capabilities and responsiveness, between homogenaity and diversity. Another analogy may be the pancreas; it secrets two hormones, one which helps you get the sugar in the bloodstream into the cells and the other to tell the liver to increase the amount of sugar in the blood. In diabetes the pancreas stops making insulin, but the cells keep calling for sugar, so the blood sugar levels rise and rise and, without the artifical instroduction of insulin, the person dies. It may well be the nation state is the homeostatic state. Too little autonomy may be the equivalent of diabetes for political entities.
"All these issues will be in the forefront in the contest for the French president. Le Pen, the leader of the far-right FN, opposes free trade, globalization, immigration, and call both for protection of the French economy and for "making France great again."
Yes but again why? These things are destroying France. There are places in Paris where no Frenchman dare go because they have been turned into Islamic hell-holes by immigrants who have no intention of becoming French. I know Curtis understands this but he seems to put it out of his mind in this discussion. The reality is the globalization the elites are so fond of serves them well but ultimately is destroying the mother that has given succour to the French People In the end this is not about some vaguely directed anger but about national survival.
In the global government there will be winners and losers chosen by an elite cadre. In point of fact, the much larger Third World has an old score to settle and when they have the power to invade and ultimately destroy the West they are going to do so. Especially the Muslims, who have no intention of playing the globalists games.
This is madness.
The last few elections have seen the Republican Party ascendant across the country, and not just in Congress and the Presidency; they now control 68 of 98 state legislative chambers and they control the governorships and both houses of state legislatures in 23 states and possibly a 24th. They hold 31 governorships. If you subtract independent Bill Walker in Alaska the Dems only hold 18. The Democrats have a mere 7. Donald Trump won 3,084 of 3.141 counties in the United States.
In short, the Democrats have become nothing but a regional party. They own the west coast, New England and the other northeastern states (plus Virginia - barely - since it is close to D.C.) and have a corridore in the Rocky mountains. Oh, and thanks to their strangleehold on Chicago they control Illinois and Minnesota. But outside of those states they are not present, and in fact outside of the big cities that dominate those states they are nowhere to be found. The Democratic Party is entirely urban based.
This makes me think of an historical precedent. During the Second World War the Japanese invaded China and the Chinese government (under Chiang Kai Shek) retreated into the strongholds of the cities. Shek and his Nationalist party understood they couldn't hope to hold the countryside against the Japanese. So they abandoned it for the more secure cities.
This was a huge strategic blunder although at the time nobody realized it. Shek had the machine; a standing army, an organized government, control of the merchant class. He had too much invested in a formal infrastructure. While it served his purposes to avoid a head-to-head clash with the Japanese, it failed him utterly in the political realm.
Mao Tse-Tung and the Communists remained down on the farm.
The Communists fought the Japanese as partisans, and they did what they could to help the peasants who were suffering under Japanese domination. When the war ended and Japan withdrew the Communists were left in complete control of the countryside while the Nationalists were bottled up in the big cities. Mao had the unique position of controlling the food production, of controlling the water, of encircling his enemy, an enemy that had become complacent and lazy in the artificial worlds inside the big cities. The end result was that the Communists drove Kai-Shek and the Nationalists from the mainland and turned China into a Bolshevik state.
All because the Nationalists made their stand inside the cities and let the countryside be taken.
While the current political situation may not be absolutely analagous, I think there is enough similarity that we should take heart; the Democrats have surrendered the countryside, thinking rural folk are nothing but ignorant hicks, and they have continued to strengthen the cities, where they have these powerful political machines. But the concentrated nature of their power bases make it tricky, especially in America's electoral college system, and the increasing control of the countryside by the GOP - and at the state level - means Republicans will be able to work their will. It means redistricting will be done by the GOP and not the democrats, so their power can be watered down. It means increased funding for projects and programs to benefit the countryside and smaller communities at the expense of the cities - which means less money being laundered by the Democrats to win re-election. It means a general shift away from the traditional Dem power base. And they do not seem to have learned a thing from the last three elections.
They should have; take Huey Long, the near emperor of Louisiana and corrupt cornpone politician. Long attained that lofty heighth by going not to New Orleans or Baton Rouge but to the small towns and parishes in outstate Louisiana. He won the redneck hick vote first. While those rednecks may have been more diffused than the sophistocates in the cities they ultimately exercised more political power. They just needed a magnet to draw that power together, and Long was just such a magnet. At the time he was an aberration, because the big political machines in Chicago, in New York, in Cleveland and Detroit and St. Louis were the centers of power and generally the outstate folks had to bow and scrape to the big city machines. But Long showed it was possible to beat the big city machine, and he has perhaps given us a roadmap to how the GOP can ultimately vanquish the Progressives and Leftists of the Democratic Party.
Politics and war are different things, although they follow manyof the same rules. We now have them surrounded, and it is just starting to dawn on some of them. Many are still clueless, but in time they will have to learn from this. Certainly 8 years from now the Democrats will start an outreach to the countryside and walk back some of the things they have been doing to court the city votes. Certainly the really crazy stuff like transgenderism does not sit well with the common folks, and less pandering to the lgbtq community will be seen. They pretty much have everything they wanted anyway, so why keep up the pretense? I expect to hear more about farm subsidies, about taxing foreign agricultural or mineralogical products, about price supports, in the future.
It may work, too, but it may be too late. At least we must hope so.
November 24, 2016
Trump's Victory was truly staggering and Gateway Pundit gives us the lowdown. Trump even won the popular vote, if you subtract the three million illegal alien votes cast.
More and more we are hearing conservatives defend the Trump decision not to pursue prosecution against Hillary Rodham Clinton. The latest defense of this retreat by The Donald has been penned by Douglas Hertz at American Thinker.Read it here.
Frankly, I think it is born of a desperate desire for Trump to really be what everyone has hoped for, and now that His Hairness is starting to turn wobbly there is a sense of disbelief. It's the first stage of the five stages of grief; denial and isolation. Trump won in no small part by promising business as unusual, promising to "drain the swamp" and make the government elites live under the laws imposed on the rest of us. "Lock her up!" was not just a campaign chant; it was a real desire on the part of ordinary folks for justice, for equality under the law, for the rule of said law. Not at least looking in to prosecution is a repudiation of all of that. It's business as usual. And once again, the lawless Clintons, too big to fail, pull their greasy necks out of the hangman's noose.
Mr. Hertz gives us his rent-a-car view of this:
"Trump knows that the Clintons lost badly in the court of public opinion. He believes, rightly, that history will judge them far more harshly than any special prosecutor. For über-politicians like the Clintons, obsessed with their legacy, to leave behind such a negative impression on history is to live a pointless life.
Even more amazingly, Trump has yet again outsmarted and outmaneuvered his rivals as well as the liberal media. It's a trifecta: indebtedness from the Clintonistas, an enhanced media image, plus revenge served cold. The theme of snookering the intelligentsia while boxing out competitors has become a Trump trademark and will undoubtedly play out again during his presidency, as it has up until now.
Winston Churchill famously said, "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." Hillary Clinton has no such option. Without a trial, HRC faces death by a thousand quills through social media, which will electronically transmit the truth about her everywhere and cast her into the well deserved perdition of permanent political oblivion."
Where to begin?
The "court of public opinion" is notoriously fickle, and if memory serves Bill Clinton was actually admired for lying and obstructing justice back during his impeachment. Hillary was able to run for first the Senate then the President on the strength of the Clinton brand, a brand which logically should have gotten jeers and catcalls from the public. Bill Clinton committed a number of crimes, and in fact was found guilty by judge Susan Weber wright (a former student of Bill's) of contempt of court. He had to pay a $90,000 fine and surrender his law licence for 5 years. He was in court for sexual harassment and tried to rig the outcome. Clinton has also been credibly accused of forcible rape and of sexual assault by two separate women. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice (not sex, as the media claims) but the GOP refused to convict him, ostensibly out of fear of running against a sitting President in the next election. Clinton was under constant investigations for numerous dubious affairs, and many of his closest advisors and friends went to prison. He always managed to dodge the bullet. The public knew all this, knew about Whitewater, Cattlegate, Chinagate, Travelgate, the drug running in Arkansas, his close ties to Dixie Mafia boss Don Lasiter, etc. They just didn't CARE!
Why not? Because the media loved Clinton, and the Democrats loved the way Clinton managed to thwart the GOP. There never was a trial in "the court of public opinion" and he never lost his luster.Neither did Hillary; the Democrats nominated her while she was under criminal investigation.
History can and has been rewritten to promote Progressive ideals. I would point out that this is something that has happened numerous times. Take, for instance, the bogus notion that people thought the world was flat until Columbus. That was a lie invented in the late 19th century to promote the growing Progressivism of the times. Everyone knew the world was round; the argument with Columbus was over how large the world was; he thought it was about half as big as everyone knew it to be. In short he was a luck fool. But schools have taught this lie long enough that the public now thinks people did not believe the world was round in the Middle Ages. It is a lie.
Look at all the other lies propogated by liberals and the gatekeepers of information. Thanksgiving was a party to thank the Indians for helping them, we are told. Lie; it was to thank God for a bountiful harvest after three miserable years. The idea that the Civil War was about abolishing slaver was another lie. It was about the power and scope of the Federal government. The whole "Camelot" business where Kennedy is portrayed as a great President is a lie; he was an abject failure on almost all fronts. He was embarassed by Kruschev, screwed up the Bay of Pigs, got us into Vietnam, almost started a nuclear war over the missiles in Cuba (he could have done that diplomatically and quietly but he wanted to show how tough he was). But history has been rewritten. The Civil Rights era is likewise a lie; most people think the GOP stood in those doorways in Alabama and Mississippi, and that the Democrats were the ones who fought for the changes in laws, rather than their being the chief opponents and the Republicans the champions of black progress. Blacks are an almost monolithic voting block today because of this lie. They have rewritten the history books on Jimmy Carter, who was a complete buffoon and utter failure as President. They have most people thinking Ronald Reagan was an amiable dunce who everyone - including the media - loved. The Texas revolution was nothing but a land grab, according to popular views; nobody knows what lead up to it or why the anglos in Texas rebelled. History has been revised by the Left.
So if Mr. Hertz thinks history will judge Hillary harshly, he should think again. The public STILL blames George W. Bush for everything bad, and he certainly expected history to judge him more fairly. History is written by those with the pens. The Left was very careful to confiscate all the pens.
Hillary's legacy will be far kinder to her than at present, unless things change drastically.
And she isn't done yet; she is trying to steal this election despite having lost. Her people are intimidating Electors, trying to get them to vote for her. IF she can deny Trump the 270 votes needed it would throw the election into the House of Representatives where Republican lickspittle can be bribed or blackmailed. Oh, and the top 3 vote getters are chosen from, so Gary Johnson could theoretically become President. There is also rumor that Hillary may challenge the election results in a number of key states.
Do not forget the crocodile lurking in the marshes; Barack Hussein Obama could intervene in her favor, and he may be able to pull something very unpleasant. And remember, most of teh appelate judges are Obama appointees, so they will side with Hillary. SCOTUS is evenly split so any lower court ruling will stand. And if Mitch the Bitch McConnell closes the Senate early as he wants to do then Obama can make a recess appointment. The courts will not stop a power grab here.
It's unlikely but it could happen.
That said, it is a moot point if Trump is inaugurated, but what other unpleasantness does Hillary have? For that matter, what other unpleasantness does Mr. Obama have in store? He is likewise guilty of several crimes, because he has openly broken the law on a number of occasions, ignoring judicial orders and congressional subpeonas as well as simply ignoring laws he does not like. If Hillary is allowed to go free so much more will Obama, and both can bedevil Mr. Trump and the entire nation. As a matter of politics these are people who must be destroyed, not forgiven.
In The Godfather Part II Consigliere Tom Hagen says to the Don, Michael Corleone "You've won. Do you need to wipe out everyone?"
Michael replies "Not everyone - just my enemies". This was after having dealt a decisive blow to his rival, Hyman Roth. Michael may have been a cold blooded killer but he was right; he understood that such a dangerous fellow could still hurt him, despite being in exile. Michael had to order one of his top men to go on a suicide mission to kill Roth. See, sometimes it LOOKS like you have won but fortune is a fickle thing, and an enemy at your back could be an enemy at your front.
Nicolo Machiavelli said as much:
"Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge."
"I say that every prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel. He must, however, take care not to misuse this mercifulness"
Trump MUST eliminate Hillary as an enemy. The only way to do that is to let justice take it's course.
And that's all anyone is asking; let justice prevail. Not some sort of vengence, but justice. The Clintons have been engaged in a criminal enterprise most of their adult lives, and have always gotten away because of political pull. They are "too big to fail". Well, it's time for judgement day.
You can't drain half a swamp. Leaving Hillary in place is precisely that. If America is to be saved she must first be purged of her sickness. The Rule of Law is the penicillin of the body politic. We are not going to save America by hoping the illness goes away. We have gotten into this position because of the rule of anarchy, the ignoring of our laws, from the Constitution on down. If we restore the Cosntitution we can restore the Republic. But that will not happen if we allow the diseased elements to remain in place. Justice must be served.
If Washington is a swamp, Hillary Clinton is the Lady of the Lake there. And she will not fade away, any more than will Barack Hussein Obama (peace be upon him!) This notion held by so many that somehow this is the end for her is folly. Hillary is sort of the Morgana of the Lake, rather, and until the whole stinking cesspool is drained, and that includes far more than just the Washington politicos, America will continue to sink into the quicksand.
[New York, 3 October 1789]
By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Here is Abraham Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation:
October 3, 1863
By the President of the United States of America.
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State
In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereigne Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc. having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civill body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just and equall laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for the generall good of the Colonie unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Codd the 11. of November, in the year of the raigne of our sovereigne lord, King James, of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fiftie-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620.
* John Carver
* William Bradford
* Edward Winslow
* William Brewster
* Issac Allerton
* Myles Standish
* John Alden
* Samuel Fuller
* Christopher Martin
* William Mullins
* William White
* Richard Warren
* John Howland
* Stephen Hopkins
* Edward Tilley
* John Tilley
* Francis Cooke
* Thomas Rogers
* Thomas Tinker
* John Rigdale
* Edward Fuller
* John Turner
* Francis Eaton
* James Chilton
* John Crackston
* John Billington
* Moses Fletcher
* John Goodman
* Degory Priest
* Thomas Williams
* Gilbert Winslow
* Edmund Margeson
* Peter Browne
* Richard Britteridge
* George Soule
* Richard Clarke
* Richard Gardiner
* John Allerton
* Thomas English
* Edward Dotey
* Edward Leister
The document was created because the Pilgrims were unable to reach the mouth of Hudson Bay, where they planned to settle. So instead they decided to plant a colony at Plymouth, outside of the boundaries of the Virginia colony and far from any English aid. There was considerable rancour and the Compact was written to bind the colonists to the decision they had collectively made.
And after the intial failures of the colony, the bounty of the third year led William Bradford to issue this proclamation of Thanksgiving:
Governor Bradford of Massachusetts made this first Thanksgiving Proclamation three years after the Pilgrims settled at Plymouth:
"Inasmuch as the great Father has given us this year an abundant harvest of Indian corn, wheat, peas, beans, squashes, and garden vegetables, and has made the forests to abound with game and the sea with fish and clams, and inasmuch as He has protected us from the ravages of the savages, has spared us from pestilence and disease, has granted us freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience.
Now I, your magistrate, do proclaim that all ye Pilgrims, with your wives and ye little ones, do gather at ye meeting house, on ye hill, between the hours of 9 and 12 in the daytime, on Thursday, November 29th, of the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and twenty three and the third year since ye Pilgrims landed on ye Pilgrim Rock, there to listen to ye pastor and render thanksgiving to ye Almighty God for all His blessings."
Ye Governor of Ye Colony
READ: Final Statement of Geert Wilders at his Trial
From the Gatestone Institute, the final court statement of Freedom Party Geert Wilders: Mr. President, Members of the Court, When I decided to address you here today, by making a final statement in this trial against freedom of speech, many people reacted by telling me it is useless. That you, the court, have already written the sentencing verdict a while ago. That everything indicates that you have already convicted me. And perhaps that is true. Nevertheless, here I am. Because I never give up
A NOTE FROM JACK KEMP:
This Wilders is the real 21st Century Victor Laszlo from "Casablanca."
About time! Would not have happened if Hillary had been elected!
Pentagon to End Gun-Free Zones on Military Bases
On November 18, the Pentagon issued a Defense Department directive that will "allow Department of Defense (D0D) personnel to carry firearms and employ deadly force while performing official duties."
Why did Sec. Def. Robert Work approve this now? I suspect he's bucking to keep his job in the new administration. I hope it doesn't happen; this sort of thing proves he's a career guy, and not to be trusted.
Oh, good grief! How about all the irregularities in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014?
Clinton Campaign Looking into Challenging Outcome of Election to Undermine the Vote
During the weeks before the final day of the campaign, both the Clinton camp and the media attacked Donald Trump for refusing to say he would automatically accept the outcome of the vote on Election Day. But now Clinton’s campaign chief is taking meetings with groups urging him to do just that by considering a challenge to the final vote in several of the key states that gave Trump the White House. Reports from several sources revealed on November 22 that Clinton campaign chief John Podesta
A NOTE FROM TIM:
While most people are dismissing this as farcical I am not completely convinced they couldn't pull off a coup here. If it goes to court it will wind up before an Obama-appointed appelate judge (most likely since Bam has the lion's share of such judges) and would tie at SCOTUS, thus confirming the lower court decision. Or worse, Obama could make a recess appointment to SCOTUS (if that idiot McConnell recesses early as he wants to do) and so the Supreme Court could ratify a Hillary challenge. It IS a long shot, but if it weren't possible I doubt John Podesta and these other very sharp political guys would be trying.
If they pulled it off I suspect America would splinter in civil war.
Even if it only throws this into the House of Representatives, I am not completely convinced Trump will win. Many of these guys may be blackmailed, and many more simply don't like Trump and didn not want him. Paul Ryan, for one. An interesting point; they have to choose from the toop 3 vote getters; maybe Gary Johnson will be President!
Caddell: Trump’s Clinton Pass a ‘Mistake,’ Raises ‘Questions About Commitments’ That Got Him Elected
Pollster and strategist Pat Caddell told Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam he found President-elect Donald Trump's decision not to pursue the Clinton email scandal as a legal matter a "mistake," adding, "I wish he would revisit it.
A NOTE FROM TIM:
I agree; that would be a terrible mistake. It shows Trump as wishy-washy and a promise breaker before he's even gotten into office. And it leaves a powerful, dangerous enemy at his back. Hasn't he ever seen The Godfather Part II?
"I don't have to wipe out everyone, just my enemies" Michael Corleone to Tom Hagen.
I'm also very disappointed in Trump's two recent picks. Nikki Haley was a Tea Party conservative when it suited her purposes then she latched onto the RINO gang once in power. That bespeaks a fatal character flaw, in my view (it was why I could never support Rubio). And putting a Common Core advocate in charge of the Department of Education? Argh!
I am hoping it's Trump's plan to largely kill the Dep. Ed, so maybe he's burying this chick. I doubt it, though.
Thus far Trump's batting average is 33%. He needs to do better than that.
November 23, 2016
Sunday night a police office was http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/st-louis-police-officer-shot-hospital-43680545 ambushed and shot near my home in St. Louis. He was one of four officers nationwide shot within a couple of hours by thugs egged on by Black Lives Matter and blessed by our Community Organizer in Chief Barack Hussein Obama. (The others were in a suburb of Kansas City, in Texas, and in Florida.) The officer survived and is in good shape. He is expected to make a full recovery. The shooter, a man linked to other murders, has died of his injuries. http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/police-sgt-shot-twice-expected-to-recover/354358678
Monday night I flipped on the 7 o'clock news just before dinner and saw that there was a march assembling on Hampton Avenue, near where the shooting occurred. After quickly eating my dinner I headed off to join the crowd. I am not much of a protest marcher but I couldn't skip such a large and important event so near to home.
By the time I arrived the crowd was on the move, so I drove a few blocks north and parked in a shopping center lot and joined the march. It was a big crowd, although hard for me to estimate given the fact it was strung way out. There were lots of 20 and 30 somethings, and many had their children, primarily teens and tweens. The crowd was subdued by in good spirits and there was considerable effort to maintain order and obey all laws. Once a few people j-walked and some of the crowd didn't like it at all; this was a march to honor a fallen law enforcement officer, after all.
I had no idea where we were going, but followed along and listened to the crowd.
We marched north, past the offices of the Police Officers Association, to St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church, where there was supposed to be a prayer vigil. It was cold but everyone was willing to face it. Before arriving at Joan of Arc the crowd turned around and started back. Those in front said they were told the vigil was over and they should return to their cars. (Poor planning, but this was sort of a wing-it event.) At any rate I marched back to my car and headed home. There were no incidents or trouble.
But what was also missing were any non-white people. I saw a lot of marchers and not one, zip, nada, the null set, was black or hispanic. Not one.
Where were they? At the very least there should have been some family members of police officers. Many cops in the City of St. Louis are black, and a number are hispanic. Where were their families? Why was this march refrigerator white?
This tells me something. It suggests that black people (and perhaps hispanics) are intimidated by the rioters and thugs of Black Lives Matter to the point where they fear being involved in such a march. Remember when the rioters burned down the Quicktrip store in Ferguson? Scrawled on the wall was "snitches get stitches" and everyone was afraid to rat out the criminals who torched the place. We have now had almost two years of this, with Barack Obama largely giving his blessing, and the young black people are either in agreement with BLM terrorism (and that is a very bad sign) or, equally dangerous, they are intimidated into silence. I find it hard to believe that at least a few blacks are not willing to support a police officer who was ambushed and shot, with the intent of murder.
Do blacks now support murder? Is this where black culture has taken us? If that is the case then America is in big trouble.
Frankly I don't believe there aren't black people sympathetic to the police, even if they don't like them much. I suspect it is they are afraid, or they don't want to look like "Uncle Toms" or they just want to not be "uncool". For decades now black kids have listened to gangsta rap which glorifies violence, cop killing, rape, and vile passions. How long can you portray something as avante garde, hip, and not expect it to be adopted as a cultural norm?
Anyone remember the Payola scandals? Radio stations were being paid to play Rock and Roll music, even though many of their listeners didn't like it and some thought it was moral rot. But a determined minority pushed it anyway, and it eventually caught on and took off. The sexual revolution was inextricably tied to Rock and Roll, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB997048656767145595 (or at least it’s stepchild Rock and other spinoffs) and America's moral values declined precipitously as a result. (The term Rock and Roll was black slang for sexual intercourse.) And while medical advances (birth control pills, penicillin) played a part in the Sexual Revolution, it was also brought to fruition by cultural changes. As feminist Lonna Douglass observes:
"Movies and radio, which emerged in the 1910s and 1920s, respectively, further undermined the moral authority of church and family, enshrining in their place ideas of individual liberty in pursuit of pleasure. Traditional front-porch courtships, under the watchful eyes of family and neighbors, had prevented young lovers from going too far. Now the automobile and movie theater both encouraged, or at least permitted, clandestine sexual encounters.
Since the 1950s, mass media has increasingly bombarded young men and women with ideas about sex and sexuality, undermining constraints that earlier prevented sexual activity”
The Black Lives Matter rioters and looters are the children of this movement; the sexual revolution destroyed black families, giving rise to declining educational standards and the welfare state which in turn gave rise to the angry counter-culture, the black supremacist culture of gang violence. Barack Obama and his friends blame white racism for the problems in the black community, but it can more readily be lain at the feet of white liberals and the cultural revolution they created with rock music, with rap, with easy sexuality and a welfare state designed to "fix" the problems of illegitimacy and broken families that they themselves created.
In 1938 illegitimacy in black communities stood at 11%, an unacceptably high level. By 1994 it was nearly 72%, according to Walter E. Williams. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1261 This was the fruit of the Sexual Revolution, a catastrophe’ to the black family.
There is a deviant, diseased counter-culture in this country, and it has been steadily growing. We are reaching the point where it is in many ways the dominant culture. It involves all races, creeds, and social groups. It is promoted by television, music, movies, and virtually all the organs of information flow. It feeds most on the weak and vulnerable.
And some are more vulnerable to it than others. The black community, with high illegitimacy rates, weak employment, poor educational success, is much more dependent on this disease. Crime pays in the ghetto; it's one of the few things that actually does pay. Hard work and right living are no fun, and run counter to what the gatekeepers of American culture say we should want. So the black community is decimated by the fruits of Leftism, and the Leftists blame white racism and the police who are sent to protect black people. It's a vicious cycle, a machine of hatred that leads to a doubling-down on the very things that caused the problem in the first place.
Donald Trump was attacked as a racist bigot for discussing murderers and rapists among the trespassing Hispanic aliens. It was said he attacked Hispanics, calling them all murderers and rapists. He did nothing of the sort; he called murderers and rapists murderers and rapists. He pointed out that such people were among those coming into the U.S., and with the blessing of their home countries (who were happy to be rid of them). Somehow pointing this out made Trump the bad guy. But truth is not something fashioned in committee, and it does not depend on our assent. The outrage at Trump is illustrative of Modernity, of the Progressive view that Reality is malleable and that we, in our godlike power, may mold it to suit. In fact the invasion of illegals has not been a good thing for people murdered or raped, and neither has the scourge of "blackness", the counter-culture of hip-hop, gangsterism, drug abuse, and broken families. Black people, desperate to have something to call their own, have latched onto these open wounds, these self-inflicted injuries, as part of who they are. Well, who are they? They are Americans, people like the rest of us who happen to have ancestors from Africa rather than Europe. Black rapists and murderers are just that - rapists and murderers. There is nothing unique unto the African American about such crimes. The uniqueness lies in the embrace of this evil by a generation that has been deceived by a lie.
The real evil here is the Progressive Left and their tyranny of low expectations.
So next time there is a protest in support of the police I would hope to see at least a few black faces in the crowd. But, given this era of identity politics financed by rich revolutionaries like George Soros and officially condoned by our government, I am not holding my breath.
Especially not in public; I might turn blue, and be shot by a Black Lives Matter terrorist.
The Left loves to lecture us Philistines about what our democracy supposedly stands for -- on the need for civil discourse -- but when it comes to exercising their own civic responsibility, well, they can't even be bothered to vote in major elections.
Records obtained by RadarOnline http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/mike-pence-hamilton-scandal-cast-voting-records/ reveal that several leading cast members of the musical Hamilton -- including Brandon Dixon -- haven't voted in years.
Recall that Dixon, who plays Aaron Burr in the musical, lectured Vice President-elect Mike Pence on Friday while audience members sneered and jeered. Well, Radar reports that while it does not have access to whether Hamilton cast members voted in the 2016 election, many of the show's stars failed to vote in national elections for the last 10 years.
A NOTE FROM TIM:
You know that brings up an interesting notion. Were these actors speaking from the heart or were they reading lines given them by the producers of the show? It makes me believe the latter.
I think this whole thing was a setup.
As we all expected, the Left has come unglued as the election results solidified, and as we now know Donald Trump will be the President of the United States. Actually, it is open to question which proposition bothers the liberals more. Are they disturbed that Trump won the presidency, or are they simply crushed that Hillary lost? In either case, we knew that there would be bickering, finger-pointing, and recriminations, and these things have begun in earnest.
Last week E.J. Dionne, the noted NPR commentator, cafeteria Catholic, and Washington Post op-ed commentator took to his soapbox to vent his anger over the election results. He assured his readers that the piece was "…not a form of liberal denial” and then he promptly denied that the results meant anything. In Dionne’s view Hillary Clinton actually won the election. Like many of his liberal brethren he discounts the electoral college, which he recently called "horribly antiquated” in a different column. He says, that pointing out that Hillary actually won the popular vote is essential to building a bridge against right wing triumphalism. Boy, he is taking this pretty hard, isn’t he? He also says that this important so that we can remind "…our daughters that most Americans stood with them on Election Day.” The most up-to-date election results as of November 18th, showed Hillary Clinton with 62 million votes, comprising 47.9% of the electorate and Donald Trump with slightly under 61 million votes, comprising 47.1% of the electorate. Most analysts have suggested that there were roughly two million votes cast illegally, which almost certainly benefitted the Democratic candidate. So, Clinton and Trump ended in nearly a statistical dead heat. Even if one concedes Hillary a plurality of the popular vote any total of the results would show that adding the Green vote, the Libertarian vote, the Constitution Party vote, and all of the splinter parties to the GOP total we see that a clear majority voted against the Democratic candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Dionne next declared that "…the emerging political coalition that elected President Obama…maintained its national advantage, as the popular vote shows.” What the popular vote shows is heavy Democratic majorities in New England and the Middle Atlantic states, along with the Pacific Coast, but a GOP trouncing of the Democrats everywhere else. The final tally will show about 2,600 counties voting Republican and around 600 voting Democratic across the nation. Dionne then blames the loss on the usual suspects. He claims that "…an onslaught pf partisan congressional investigations, Russian meddling, and the last-minute political intervention of the FBI” for foiling Hillary. One supposes that Dionne believes that the aforementioned agencies should have ignored evidence of Hillary Clinton’s lawless behavior? As for Russian meddling in the US election this should be investigated, but where was Dionne when the Russians were openly working for the election of Democratic candidates back in the 1980s and 90s? Finally, the "FBI worked for Trump” narrative is ridiculous on its face. The Obama Justice Department worked extra hard to assure that Hillary Clinton lost the election? That one beggars the imagination!
Later in the piece Dionne darkly warns of "…the vast power that was arrayed behind Trump because it is the power that must be resisted over the next four years.” What power might he be referring to here? It cannot be the power of the mainstream media who were all-in for Hillary, as was expected. He could not be talking about the power of money. The Clinton cash machine raked in well over $2 billion in donations, and had many front organizations supplying soft money in uncountable totals, while their candidate, presumably with a straight face, inveighed against the power of money in politics. The power that Dionne warns against was 60 million voters, mostly working and middle class types, socially conservative and patriotic, who voted against the Washington status quo, if not all enthusiastically for Trump.
Dionne does rightly warn his fellow liberals that they will have to win back this working class. He says, "Obama’s base was made up of Americans of color, the young, and whites from large metropolitan areas.” This is true but, as he quickly notes and then forgets, the new working class white voters will not be bought off with an old-fashioned economic populism complete with a "soak the rich” rhetoric lambasting the so-called 1%, who became the liberal bogeyman of the moment. The social conservative message in terms of border security, cultural unity, counterterrorism, and general law and order themes drove up turnout in the south and the upper Midwest, and proved crucial to the GOP victory.
Mr. Dionne finishes his piece by returning to, and lobbing a few cream pies at James Comey for investigating the e-mail scandal, and bringing it back to life eleven days before the election. He also chides his fellow media types for credulously believing that this story was worthy of attention. He finishes by bashing the congressional GOP because they "…did all they could to destroy Clinton by spending 20 months pushing this issue.” The response to this accusation is quite clear. Hillary Clinton should not have violated State Department rules, and for Dionne to suggest that there should be one set of rules for mere mortals but none for Hillary Clinton shows what many found distasteful about her. Secondly, when caught red-handed in this matter Clinton should have addressed the issue calmly and truthfully, but she immediately resorted to double dealing, obfuscating, and stonewalling. In short Hillary Clinton was Hillary Clinton and was her own worst enemy.
Finally Dionne finishes with a lament that the republicans succeeded in ruing Clinton, and "…they gave us Donald Trump.” Yes, they did, and Dionne and company will have to get used to this, for at least four years. They can also ponder how they lost a sure thing, and give a thought to their terrible candidate, and maybe their flawed message.
Dear Ms. Parker,
In your Washington Post column of this week entitled "Truth And Consequences: Distrust of Journalism Is No Joking Matter" you opine that conservatives and Republicans (hardly the same animal) have forgotten that newspapers are for the purpose of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, to paraphrase Mr. Dooley. You go on to mention, "Could there be a better reason to give Donald Trump a rough ride?" Speaking as a conservative I can think of many reasons to give Donald Trump a rough ride, I, however, would feel much more at ease if you and your journalistic brethren would have given Hillary Clinton that same rough ride, and had taken off the kid gloves with which you have treated her for the last quarter-century. That would have convinced me that you all were serious about your profession, and not simply an auxiliary arm of the Democratic Party, which you have been since at least 1968.
November 22, 2016
A quick thought about Mike Pence and his unfortunate experience at the musical "Hamilton". Why, pray tell, was Pence at this idiotic play in the first place?
This is not a Rogers and Hammerstein musical; it is a rap and hip-hop pimping out of the story of the Founding Fathers, changing these thoughtful men into drug dealers and ghetto hoods. Huh?
Either Pence didn't understand this or he wanted to look "cool". He's doing what politicians always do, which is pander to the avant garde set. Wasn't the whole point of electing Donald Trump about ending this charade of politics as usual? Pence never should have been in that theatre to be booed and lectured by black hipsters.
Oh, and the cheapest seats were $200. This makes Pence look like a typical Thurston Howell Republican.
Well, Trump wasn't expecting to be invited to lunch by the enviro-wackos.
President Obama’s eight-year effort to rein in the energy and mining industries with environmental regulations will likely come to a halt under President-elect Donald Trump, who is poised to green-light key job-creating projects from the Atlantic Coast to Alaska.
Jack Kemp observes:
Thank G-d this madness will soon be over. I fully expect Obama to go on tv and claim that our cars can be run by having two squirrels over each rear wheel instead of a gasoline engine with a driveshaft and gears to turn the real wheels.
60 queries taking 18.1743 seconds, 198 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.