Weekend Open Thread

Trump wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal – at least, I hope he wrote it because if he paid someone to write it for him, then he was robbed. It is mostly just a whine about that mean, dirty, rotten Cruz and how (billionaire insider) Donald Trump will give Power to the People. I’ve had a lot to say about Trump, but now he’s just irritating me.

Related: Trump under 50% in New York?

Additional related: Trump protest in Colorado fizzles.

The lawsuit against gun makers in relation to the Sandy Hook massacre can go forward…as I said, the left will just keep going and going and going with this. Eventually they’ll find a jury to award billions to someone and then gun manufacturers will be out of business. So, do we pass a law immunizing gun makers? We already did. In 2005. But we don’t really have laws anymore – we just have whatever a judge says.

Obamacare continues its complete financial crash. It is a bad law which was stupidly written and bears no relation to reality. Democrats will go to their graves defending it.

Jonah Goldberg notes a bit of liberal silliness on the abortion issue:

The White House is asking for a lot of money to fight the Zika virus. “I think Democrats and Republicans in Congress are interested in making sure that pregnant women and unbor children in this country can be properly protected,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in February. Unborn children? Yes, both parties want to protect unborn children from disease-carrying mosquitoes. But that bipartisanship falls apart when it comes to Planned Parenthood.

I can’t see how a Democrat can justify a single penny being spent to help an unborn child and then turning around and demanding money be spent to kill an unborn child. Either the unborn child is human – and thus can’t be killed – or it isn’t, in which case no one would give a darn what happens to it. Pick one, liberals.

Related: Liberals are thinking a bill which would prevent sex-selection abortions is racist. Don’t try to follow the logic folks, there isn’t any…its just a general liberal demand that abortion never be restricted in any way, shape or form…

When the United States built the Panama Canal more than 100 years ago – back in the days when we would actually build things, you know? – one of the main things which made our effort a success where the French failed was in eradicating Yellow Fever (along with many other diseases) from Panama. Certainly, 100 years later, Yellow Fever is just gone, right? Wrong. As I wrote some years back – to the complete lack of understanding of liberals – the Age of Science is dead. We are now benighted savages and worship our Earth Mother and must propitiate our goddess with the sacrifice of our Evil Science…you know, like banning DDT and stuff. I do think that some time in the next 20 years tens of millions of people will be wiped out by what should have been an easily containable disease…and they’ll die because we simply refused to apply science to the problem.

Sanders supporters – people who want free stuff, don’t want to pay for it.

Saudi Arabia says it won’t limit oil production unless Iran does. If this goes forward, expect a rapid drop in oil prices soon.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. Cluster April 16, 2016 / 9:30 am

    Meet the left. Not the same as the old left. The current Democrat party comprised of liberals whom Bob would like us to be nicer to is on a militant bent focused on destroying this country. Here is their latest effort to destroy a company that incidentally employes tens of thousands of American families:

    The meeting—which included top officials at GreenPeace, the Working Families Party, and the Rockefeller Family Fund—took place as climate change groups have pushed for a federal criminal probe of ExxonMobil’s environmental impact, similar to the 1990s racketeering case against Big Tobacco.

    A copy of the meeting’s agenda, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, provides a rare glimpse inside the anti-ExxonMobil crusade, which has already spurred investigations into the oil giant by Democratic attorneys general in several states.

    According to the memo, the coalition’s goals are to “delegitimize [ExxonMobil] as a political actor,” “force officials to disassociate themselves from Exxon,” and “drive divestment from Exxon.” The memo also proposed “creating scandal” by using lawsuits and state prosecutors to obtain internal documents from ExxonMobil through judicial discovery.

    The secret meeting was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, but the group’s agenda was not posted in full until now.

    The agenda was drafted by Kenny Bruno, an activist with the New Venture Fund. Bruno emailed the memo to a small group of around a dozen attendees, including Naomi Ages at GreenPeace; Dan Cantor, executive director of the New York Working Families Party; Jamie Henn, co-founder at 350.org; and Rob Weissman, president at Public Citizen.

    According to the agenda, the meeting would be opened by Lee Wasserman, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund. The organization funds many environmental groups and hosted the meeting at its Manhattan office.

    “If you are receiving this message then we believe you are attending the meeting this coming Friday Jan 8 regarding Exxon,” wrote Bruno. “The meeting will take place at: Rockefeller Family Fund.”

    The email included a “DRAFT Agenda” for “Exxon: Revelations & Opportunities.”

    Under a section headlined “goals,” the agenda listed: “To establish in the public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution”; “To delegitimize them as a political actor; and “To drive Exxon & climate into center of 2016 election.”

    The agenda also outlined “the main avenues for legal actions & related campaigns,” including state attorneys general, the Department of Justice, international litigation, and tort lawsuits.

    “Which of these has the best prospects for successful action? For getting discovery? For creating scandal?” said the memo.

    The Rockefeller Family Fund did not immediately return request for comment.

    I think turn about is fair play thus I think we should be seeking “discovery” into the Clinton Global Initiative and of course the Soros Foundation and anything that Tom Steyer is involved with. In fact this is where conservatives fall short, we are just too damned nice. I think it’s time for a seek and destroy mission.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/coalition_of_climate_hysterics_meet_to_take_down_exxonmobile_by_creating_scandals.html#ixzz45zmmPRnC

  2. Cluster April 16, 2016 / 9:49 am

    And when in the hell are normally adjusted people going to stand up to the militant LGBT crowd and frame this ridiculous bathroom issue as a war on women, which it is. Do you really want some guy in a skirt going to the bathroom next to young girls? That’s what Democrats call “human rights”. Democrats support the right of some men with identity issues and a skirt to have the right to infringe upon women’s privacy in the name of “rights”. This is beyond insane and will lead to other sick men exposing themselves to women, which it already has. I don’t care how you “feel” about yourself, if you have dangly parts, you use the men’s bathroom period. Now grow the f**k up and shut the f**K up. Sorry Bob for being so mean.

    • Cluster April 16, 2016 / 11:04 am

      As usual, AT has a good piece on this insanity:

      Therein lies a real problem: the arresting of human development. If the construction of “safe places” as currently defined and increasingly enforced by the left continues, bathrooms, churches, and universities will be increasing invaded and ruled by children who insist on being like Peter Pan, who never, ever grew up. Minds will become desiccated deserts, and spirits will atrophy, as they are narrowed into increasingly confined territories. People in safe and fenced in preserves, whether of their own making or made by others, will never become adults.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/how_can_a_genderfree_society_square_with_being_human.html#ixzz460C5M3za

    • Amazona April 16, 2016 / 11:23 am

      A guy doesn’t even have to be wearing a skirt to invade a woman’s bathroom or locker room. Under the laws preferred by the sex police community, all he has to do is suddenly channel his inner female, if only for a few minutes, to be able to go relieve himself, or change his clothes, or just BE there, with women and girls. He doesn’t have to actually change clothes to hang out in a woman’s locker room, he just has to be feeling girly.

      The family restrooms and locker rooms might make him feel (gasp!) excluded !!, might bruise his girly little feelings by indicating that his current choice of gender identification might not be considered adequate to justify exposing children to his privates or letting him watch females disrobe, shower, or change.

      And, of course, officials have to just take his word for it, that he identifies with the female gender. He doesn’t have to prove it, live it, have a history of it, or anything else. He just has to feel it, at that moment in time.

      What this whole bizarre situation points out is that the concept of “choice” is extremely limited. To the Left it does not include the choice of a woman to only undress in front of other women in locker rooms, or the choice to not see a naked man in a locker room. In truth, it means only the ability of someone on the Left to engage in abhorrent or dysfunctional behavior with no consequence, and completely overrides any choices that might be made by anyone else.

    • Amazona April 16, 2016 / 11:32 am

      Several years ago I started writing about the level of public education leading to a new form of aristocracy, with only those able to become well educated on their own outside the public education system becoming the new aristocrats, as they would be the only ones with the educational foundation to lead companies, develop new ideas, etc. I suggested that the ignorant people produced by the public school system would be the drones, with no real upward mobility due to their lack of knowledge.

      That is not only looking more and more like a good prediction (look at all the burger flippers who see this kind of job not as an entry level position on the way to something better but as a lifelong occupation and thereby demanding a “living wage”) but it appears that the limitations of the new drone class will not only be lack of education (or worse, completely wrong education) but emotional immaturity. When even a career burger flipper can be shocked into paralysis by the sight of, say, a political message on a T shirt or a white person wearing dreadlocks, calling for at the very least intervention and comforting from a superior and possibly even legal action, that person is as frozen in upward mobility as any serf from the Middle Ages.

      There’s really nothing for these people to do but occupy the government plantation and line up at the trough for goodies.

      • Cluster April 16, 2016 / 11:42 am

        Exactly. The left is in the process of creating the permanent under class wholly dependent on their superiors for a “living wage” and protection from offenses, real or perceived.

    • Amazona April 16, 2016 / 11:47 am

      Speaking of dreadlocks on a white person, this new grievance of “cultural appropriation” is mind-blowing. Now, evidently, it is some kind of thought crime to engage in ANYTHING outside one’s own cultural heritage.

      Fortunately, most cultures are not so stupid, so I don’t anticipate shrieking mobs of Italians trying to drive non-Italians away from pizza places or Italian restaurants, or Chinese restaurants refusing to serve Caucasians, blacks or Latinos. read that there was a kerfluffle about a white man writing a cookbook on Mexican food, but I doubt that will last long, even though some of the mostly illegal Latino “community” is becoming as radicalized and anti-American and hysterical as black activists, but taken to its logical conclusion this kind of silliness would result in shutting down nearly every Taco Bell, etc., in the country and demand that only Latinos can cook Latin foods.

      The Latino fuss seems to be limited to Mexican food. Kroger stores in Colorado have been promoting a big Spanish food theme for the past couple of weeks, and I haven’t seen any mobs outside King Soopers demanding legal action or reparations for appropriating a different culture. It does remind me of the paella I used to make and prompts me to dig out that old cookbook. Taken to its logical extreme, this could, I suppose, escalate into the same kind of “crime” as having my own opinion on AGW.

      From Thought Police to Food Police to Culture Police to Bathroom Police, the Left does have quite a future laid out for us, don’t they?

      What the race baiters and victim pimps are really objecting to, using the term “cultural appropriation”, is what has always been called “assimilation”. What they are promoting is absolute cultural and racial segregation, and more to the point absolute control over what people think, say, eat, and do.

  3. Amazona April 16, 2016 / 11:58 am

    There have been several articles and comments on the hypocrisy of Hollywood, entertainers and others who have had wall-kicking hissy fits about the new laws in Georgia allowing people freedom of worship. People like Bruce Springsteen, who has no problem at all having concerts in countries where homosexuality is not only illegal but punishable by death but who gets the vapors at the idea of performing in a state where religious freedom is legally protected.

    This is from a particularly good article on the subject:

    “If Disney wants to throw its weight around in the political realm, it ought to at least base its opinions on a true story. Instead, Disney embraced the “creative process,” concocted a story about the bill, and proceeded to bellow with outrage. As with Pocahontas,however, the ascertainable truth contradicts Disney’s sensationalized reboot.

    Not only is Disney’s threat based on fantasy, but it also serves only to expose the company’s hypocrisy.

    Disney claims to be concerned about discrimination toward LGBT individuals—so much so that it was willing to pack up and leave Georgia once and for all if the Free Exercise Protection Act became law. One would expect that its principled stand would extend to any location where Disney movies are filmed. One would be wrong.

    In the last five years, Disney has produced or released several movies that were filmed in countries that penalize homosexual acts, with penalties ranging from fines to life imprisonment and even death.

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/11/disneys-religious-freedom-hypocrisy-exposed/

    • M. Noonan April 16, 2016 / 10:57 pm

      Someone put up a picture of Moore saying he wouldn’t allow his movies to be shown in places where they have freedom of conscience laws…and then the lower caption was, “isn’t it nice that you can refuse service to people you disagree with?”. That nutshells the stupidity of the action…what shows the hypocrisy of it is all those entertainers who don’t mind raking in money in nations where homosexuality is illegal.

      • Retired Spook April 17, 2016 / 8:53 am

        Matt Walsh had an entire column this week about this very aspect of Leftist hypocrisy.

        The boycotts are what I find especially interesting. Many companies have said they will not conduct business in states where the conscience rights of Christians are protected. PayPal, for example, announced last week that it’s canceling its plans to open an office in Charlotte due to the state’s “anti-LGBT” law. The NFL, Apple, Disney, NBC, etc., have made similar promises.

        A few days ago, Bruce Springsteen canceled a show in North Carolina, which caused great distress and disappointment to 65-year-old white dads across the state. Someone named Bryan Adams also announced he will not be performing his two songs in Mississippi. In response, thousands of confused Mississippians typed “Bryan Adams” into Wikipedia. (He’s the “Everything I Do, I Do It For You” guy, by the way, so Mississippi really dodged a bullet.)

        The irony here is so thick I might choke on it. These are people and companies choosing not to provide services to a group of people as a means of protesting a law that allows people to deny services to groups of people. They are following their conscience and boycotting to overturn a law that allows people to follow their conscience. They are exercising their First Amendment rights in order to make a statement against First Amendment rights. They are discriminating in response to “discrimination.” What’s next? Will they fly a private jet around the world to lecture people about the dangers of fossil fuel? Oh, never mind. (emphasis – mine)

  4. Amazona April 16, 2016 / 2:54 pm

    Reading Trump’s article, described as an op-ed piece but really just another Trumpertantrum, was just another distasteful foray into what passes for thought on the part of Donald Trump, just more whining and more effort to win votes not by giving a positive message but by trying to get people to hate or distrust his opponent. There is no reason to be surprised to see Leftist tactics used by a putative conservative—Trump is a Progressive only recently cloaked in an ever-more tattered disguise of conservatism.

    The best part of the piece is one of the comments at the end: “WSJ, Thank you for giving Trump the rope to hang himself. Now give Cruz an editorial on Monday and let’s compare!”

    Not that Trump spouting provable lies is going to dissuade Trumpbots from voting for him—like the Hillary people, they just don’t care. One of his loudest clunkers was this: “While I am self-funding, Mr. Cruz rakes in millions from special interests.” Maybe it is time for someone to inform Mr. Trump that the internet is not just a place to swamp with tweets, but is also a source of information, including the fact that most of this alleged “self funding” is not self funding at all, but consists of LOANS made by Trump to his campaign, which will be repaid out of federal campaign funds and/or donations if he is the nominee. So he is lying. Cruz took out loans he personally guaranteed and then gave to his campaign, not loaned but gave, so he is also to some extend self funded. And Trump is getting millions in donations he just doesn’t talk about.

    “Yet despite his financial advantage, Mr. Cruz has won only three primaries outside his home state and trails me by two million votes—” yet Trump is just playing the Algore game of using the gross number of votes, in his case dismissing delegates as Gore dismissed Electoral College votes. It’s a predictable whine—but then any whine these days, from Trump, is predictable.

    Then another Big Lie seasoned with an even bigger whine: “Mr. Cruz loses when people actually get to cast ballots. Voter disenfranchisement is not merely part of the Cruz strategy—it is the Cruz strategy.” Yet there has been NO “voter disenfranchisement”, only a Trump strategy that seems to depend not on getting votes himself but on disqualifying votes gotten by Cruz, or at least using those votes to stir up mob resentment and hysteria. His focus on this sordid tactic runs throughout his slimy little piece.

    “A planned vote had been canceled. And one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined.”
    ******************************************
    “Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials can simply cancel elections in America if they don’t like what the voters may decide.”

    Well, in Colorado no “planned vote” was “canceled”. No Republicans in Colorado were “sidelined”. No “party officials” simply “cancelled” an “election”.

    I think it is becoming clear that rather than risk losing another state to Cruz, Trump decided to let Cruz do the work and get the votes, and then just use this to attack Cruz on so many levels. I think his calculation was that he wouldn’t get a lot of delegates in Colorado anyway, and it was worth losing them all if he could spin the process in a way that would cost Cruz votes in other states with more delegates at stake. It’s a shabby way to campaign, but then it is being used by someone used to shabby ethics in business as well. He has come right and and bragged that to him campaigning is ” tough, it’s nasty, it’s mean, it’s vicious..” and then went on to say that in his mind that is “beautiful.”

    When someone with Trump’s history admitting that to him running a campaign means being nasty, mean, vicious and tough, and that he finds these traits beautiful, we shouldn’t be surprised to find a campaign that is nasty, mean and vicious or that he relishes this kind of campaigning.

    • Amazona April 17, 2016 / 5:29 pm

      BTW, Trump also ignored Wyoming, and will no doubt soon be whining about how “rigged” that state’s process is, as well.

  5. Retired Spook April 17, 2016 / 9:08 am

    More Leftist hypocrisy:

    Actor, director, and hypocrite, George Clooney made an appearance on “Meet the Press“, to talk about the Democratic primary contest. Clooney was asked about what he thought of the money involved in politics. His answer was a bit surprising. He called the money “obscene”, and in the process praised Bernie Sanders for making it an issue.

    This comes from a man who held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, in which the price tag to attend per couple was $353,000. When he arrived at the fundraiser, he got to see the people’s anger and grassroots movement in action.

    • Cluster April 17, 2016 / 4:55 pm

      The left’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. Protecting unborn female babies is a “war on women”, but allowing a guy in a skirt to use a girls bathroom is not. I don’t know how you square that one.

      • Amazona April 17, 2016 / 5:24 pm

        You keep referring to “a guy in a skirt” but it is worse than that. It is any guy at any time dressed in any way. It can be a lumberjack or a biker or a guy in a Wolf Of Wall Street pinstripe suit. It can be a teenaged boy doing it on a dare, or a seasoned sexual predator. The whole “skirt” thing indicates that the guy has at least some degree of commitment to passing as a woman, even if it is only on a day to day basis. The law, however, does not require even that much gender identity. All it requires is the willingness to say to anyone asking that at that particular moment in time he “identifies as a woman”. Didn’t ten minutes ago, won’t in half an hour, but here and now? That’s all that matters.

        And it’s worse than using a bathroom. Women’s bathrooms have stalls, and there is little if any public nudity to any degree. Locker rooms, though, are a different story, At any given time in the locker room of the gym I use there will be anywhere from six to maybe 15 women and girls in various stages of undress, often nude or very nearly so, in or out of showers, getting dressed or undressed. Here any man can walk right in, watch as much as he wants to watch, undress if he feels like it, take a shower, and not only be a voyeur but an exhibitionist. I live close to the gym so I don’t shower there, but I do use the lockers, so I know how much there is to see by someone who doesn’t have to undress but just uses a locker. And under these laws a grown man can stroll around naked in front of little girls, and be well within the law, as well as watch them and their mothers and shower and change clothes.

      • M. Noonan April 18, 2016 / 12:33 am

        To me, the leftwing desire to just grind Christian faces in it has gotten ahead of any attempt at thought.

      • Amazona April 18, 2016 / 6:13 pm

        The thing is, once a little Lib daughter comes home from her gymnastics class asking questions about men’s anatomy after seeing a nude adult male walking around in her locker room, Lib Daddy is going to come unwound. When his teenaged daughter has to put up with giggling boys in her locker room at school, this whole bathroom gender identity thing is going to have a whole different face to it. When Daddy is waiting outside a public restroom for his six year old daughter to come out and sees a burly mustachioed gent strolling out, he is not going to be happy. When nude pictures of daughters or wives or mothers show up on the internet, taken by male voyeurs allowed in restrooms and locker rooms, Lib hissy fits will be interesting. Right now a perv has to drill a hole in a bathroom wall to take a peek—wait till all he has to do is hold his cell phone under a stall divider.

        That’s one thing about Libs—they are all over general abstractions, but much less enthusiastic about reality. And they are always taken by surprise by those Unintended Consequences. The problem is, they usually don’t just go back and reverse the bad laws, but instead try to “fix” them by slapping various legislative bandaids on them, resulting in even more Unintended Consequences.

        And so it goes………….

    • Amazona April 17, 2016 / 5:28 pm

      I’m sure Clooney was astounded, completely taken aback, at the reception he got. I’m not sure these bubble people even think about the grotesque contradictions between what they say and what they do.

      Question: Why would someone whose only marketable skill is pretending to be someone he is not even be considered for a show where the questions are about the political process?

  6. Retired Spook April 17, 2016 / 10:43 am

    Color me shocked

    April 16– WASHINGTON-Hillary Clinton recently blasted the hidden financial dealings exposed in the Panama Papers, but she and her husband have multiple connections with people who have used the law firm Mossack Fonseca to establish offshore companies.

    Among them are Gabrielle Fialkoff, finance director for Hillary Clinton’s first campaign for the U.S. Senate; Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who has traveled the world with Bill Clinton; the Chagoury family, which pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative; and Chinese billionaire Ng Lap Seng, who was at the center of a Democratic fundraising scandal when Bill Clinton was president. Also using the Panamanian law firm was the company founded by the late billionaire investor Marc Rich, who was an international fugitive when Bill Clinton pardoned him in the final hours of his presidency.

  7. Amazona April 18, 2016 / 6:03 pm

    You know, Donald Trump is a great guy. You can tell, because he gives so much money to charity.

    Well, not in New York, he doesn’t. And what is responsible for donating turns out to not be his own money anyway. (emphasis mine)

    “Since the first day of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has said that he gave more than $102 million to charity in the past five years.

    To back up that claim, Trump’s campaign compiled a list of his contributions — 4,844 of them, filling 93 pages.

    But, in that massive list, one thing was missing.

    Not a single one of those donations was actually a personal gift of Trump’s own money.

    Instead, according to a Washington Post analysis, many of the gifts that Trump cited to prove his generosity were free rounds of golf, given away by his courses for charity auctions and raffles.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/04/18/trumps-charitable-new-york-values-not-visable-anywhere-in-new-york

    You know Donald Trump puts his money where his mouth is, and will not be beholden to any special interests because he is self-funding his campaign.

    Well, not really.

    It’s worth noting a couple more caveats. First, Trump’s self-financing only really picked up in the last three months of 2015. From the start of his campaign in April through October last year, individual contributions made up about 67 percent of total money raised for his campaign.

    Other media outlets who looked at this claim before the most recent FEC filings concluded that Trump’s claim was inaccurate because, at the time, most of his funding was coming from individual contributions.

    But in the last quarter, Trump gave his campaign a $10.8 million loan, turning that balance around.

    That brings us to the second caveat: The vast majority of Trump’s contributions to his own campaign — about $12.6 million — are loans rather than donations. This means he could expect to eventually recoup these funds.

    Further, of the approximately $12 million Trump’s campaign spent in 2015, about $2.7 million went toward reimbursing Trump-affiliated companies for services provided to the campaign, such as traveling in his own plane and helicopter, according to a New York Times analysis.”

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-self-funding-his-campaign-sort/

    So he is “self funding” though he is using donated money.

    So he is “self funding” though most of the money he has put in has been in the form of loans, which would be repaid out of federal election funding and donations

    And when he uses his own equipment, such as Trump planes or helicopters, he gets paid for that use—out of donated money? I wonder if he is giving himself a good rate. Somehow, I doubt it.

    And BTW, he is getting a LOT of money from those “special interests” he used to represent.

    But….but….but….he is the only one who TELLS IT LIKE IT IS !!!!

Comments are closed.