Looks like Stein might not be able to recount Pennsylvania – appears that the real deadline for contesting the vote was November 21st…she can take it to court, but even that appears to be a long, tortuous process. In my view, this proves that the whole thing was a scam from start to finish…plus an expression of someone who despises the Constitutional governance of the United States.
Star Wars is a treasured memory of my youth – the three prequels, however, sucked. I haven’t seen the latest sequel and now I never will. Can’t stand mindless Hollywood types thinking they have anything to add to the debate. Don’t these nitwits realize that the golden age of Hollywood is immediately available? We don’t have to watch the utter crap they are producing these days…
Seems even in Canada you should never go Full Social Justice Warrior.
One of the reasons the troops love General Mattis.
That terrorist attack in Ohio? It’s your fault.
Rat Bastardism is always with us – but this is a bit of Rat Bastardism that really needs to be quickly caught and then tarred and feathered.
The Iranians are getting their last licks in before Trump takes office.
Should Conservatism embrace Populism? Andrew McCarthy says, “no”. The reality is that Conservatism, properly understood, would defend Populism…because we do live in a democratic republic and that means the popular will, limited by Constitutional stricture, must rule the political day. Certainly we must preserve the Constitution…but that requires us to preserve the role of the people not just in voting on the issues but in deciding what issues will be voted on. One may not like what the people are on about, but if the people are not able to decide what issues are important, than we live in a tyranny…you may not want to debate free trade and protectionism, but if the people want to debate it, then you darn well have to have a debate over it, or there is no freedom.
Blogs For Victory 
About the profoundly silly Star Wars writers:
Both writers also changed their Twitter profile pictures to the symbol of the Rebel Alliance with a safety pin through it. The safety pin has become an anti-Trump symbol, with people wearing them to show minority groups and immigrants that they are safe with person wearing the pin.
I am glad that was explained. Otherwise we would have thought it represented a way to hold up their diapers while they suck their thumbs and play with their Play-Dough in their safe spaces.
You’d think that the lesson being taught the NFL this year with their ratings dropping badly would kind of get around the whole entertainment industry: don’t anger your audience. I guess in more and more areas, we’re just going to have to show these people that we do have other ways to spend our money. Watch a new grind-out of Star Wars, or purchase that copy of Mr. Roberts? What to do, what to do…
But Liberals just think that responses like the falling-off of NFL viewers, etc., just prove that they are right–that we ARE a racist hateful country. A movie doesn’t do well? They are not going to take responsibility for that, and if they do believe it is due to a backlash against the message of the movie they just assume this is just more proof of the divide between the higher level of understanding and intelligence they possess and the abysmally low level of the rest of us.
In other words, I don’t think that lack of support for their elitist, snotty, lecturing displays of what they believe are expressions of greater moral and intellectual vigor is going to change the way they think. It might, however, change to some extent the way they act, as greed has never trumped principle for these people.
The problem is, too much of their market loves the crap they put out. Disney movies still make bank, in spite of bastardizing every single story they incorporate into one of their PC messes. They are going from just rewriting traditional stories to make sure the hero is always a spunky young girl to now planning to make one of those spunky young girls a lesbian. But their market is young families whose parents were brainwashed by our “educational” system, who think this is just great.
Should Conservatism embrace Populism? Andrew McCarthy says, “no”. The reality is that Conservatism, properly understood, would defend Populism
I disagree. Populism is one of those hot-button words that a lot of people throw out there, but I’ll bet if you asked a random 10 people on the street what populism is, nine wouldn’t be able to give you a coherent answer. Historically, populism has been a trait of democracies, not constitutional republics such as ours. Populism tends to play on anger, fear and disregard for the rule of law, especially if it’s driven by an overwhelming sense by the citizens that they’ve been screwed by the ruling elites. Now that certainly describes the situation in which we currently find ourselves, but we put returning to the basic fundamentals of constitutional governance at serious risk if we continue down that path.
That said, one of the best definitions of populism I’ve found is this:
I think conservatism would “defend” populism insofar as it is political speech and therefore protected, but as far as embracing it, I agree with Spook. Core conservatism is not a knee-jerk spasm of anger or frustration, but an objective and rational decision about the best blueprint for governing the country.
I see populism, at least as we have seen it recently, as a continuum of laziness and an element of ignorance, of drifting into focusing on issues and not on governance and allowing emotion to rule, until the inevitable results of this lack of oversight and informed participation lead us to the mess we are in today. Then all of a sudden there is a massive spasm of outrage as people are jarred into realization and then a hyper-emotional backlash that often includes a mob mentality and a desire to just tear “it” down and start over.
Just because populism often identifies real problems does not mean it is a viable or even desirable approach to solving them. If unrestrained (not externally, but internally by the people themselves) it can destroy a republic as fast as the elements it is fighting.
Populism is a necessary function of our republic. Every time in history that populism has gained a strong enough foothold to put someone in power it was necessary in order to clean out corruption at that level. When there is no need for populism it naturally will not gain a foothold. When it does gain a foothold it is because it is needed in order to refresh our republic.
And this comes back to the need for vigilance. What you say, Doug, is true—up to a point. The problem is, populism often puts in power groups that then stay in power.
We may be lucky here. We may have had a populist movement drive the election of a populist candidate whose intent is not to establish a permanent position of power. But we have seen what happens when a populist movement elects a Hitler, for example, someone who callously uses populist sentiments to achieve and retain power and who has an agenda that goes beyond the appeals used to put him in office.
I also disagree with the idea that when a nation is in trouble only a populist can make the necessary changes. I keep hearing how only Trump could have done this or can do that, and I think any competent conservative could have won and could do what Trump says he will do. This was an election driven by two things—-the state of the nation and the nature of the Democrat candidate. I think a lot of Republicans could have been dropped into the candidacy for the GOP and won. That’s why non-political means had to be employed to get them out of the race.
I don’t see Trump as one who thinks very deeply regarding political philosophy, so I am hoping that we will find a national leader who can and will communicate to the nation the deeper truths we need to keep in mind as we move forward.
I’d put it like this – the Ruling Class only wanted us to debate how and when amnesty would be implemented…the people (Populism) very much wanted to have a debate about how many of the illegals would remain, and how we will prevent another wave of illegals from arriving. In my view, Conservatism’s business was to defend not necessarily a particular outcome in the debate (because honest Conservatives can have differing views on the matter), but that the debate must happen in the parameters decided by the people.
but that the debate must happen in the parameters decided by the people.
As long as it happens in accordance with the rules of governance (the Constitution), not by “democratic” vote, I’d agree with you. Democratic vote is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, so, for example, I would not favor putting the solution to our immigration problem up for a popular referendum.
I’m with you there – I don’t like referendums even at the State level…we have a representative for a reason! But, I want that representative doing what we want, not what he and his buddies would prefer.
I can’t remember who said it or on what show last night, but I heard an excellent description of the response of the Left to the recent election — “emotional incontinence.” It kinda sounded like something Amazona might come up with.
I mentioned in the previous thread that Rush had repeated a statement, the source of which I couldn’t remember, about Castro fighting for better conditions for the poor. I only caught bits and pieces of Rush’s show yesterday, so I thought I check the transcript for yesterday’s show on his website. His entire segment on Castro is worth a read.
I am going to put this here – enjoy
I won’t be clicking on your link on Star Wars, prefer to remain oblivious to their views for now. I have two boys and we see all the Star Wars we can get. My oldest graduated from basic training about a month ago and is at AIT and we get him back for Christmas and the first night back it’s Rogue One for him and his younger brother and I. Nothing wrong with a little Rebellion against the Empire once in awhile. By the way, they will be getting red Make America Great Again hats in their stockings – the made in the USA versions.
It’s hard when you like the entertainment values of something that also carries embedded Leftist concepts. Sometimes I enjoyed watching The Good Wife, in spite of its blatant Leftist leanings, just turning off the show when it featured Donna Brazile, for example I love NCIS but turned it off when Michelle Obama came on—-ditto for Nashville, which thank God didn’t have a Leftist message but did feature Michelle in a cameo.
I think the way to deal with this is to be aware of the subliminal (and often blatant) propaganda and if necessary talk to your children about it. It doesn’t have to be a harangue, just an amused commentary that the poor Libs must be having a hard time finding villains these days, now that it is not politically correct to identify any political philosophy as bad and now that every demographic is so hyper-sensitive that it freaks out and claims “hate” if one of them is a bad guy. Can’t have black villains, or women, or Asians, and it is harder and harder to have radical jihadists as the bad guys because that is “profiling”. It also doesn’t hurt to point out that the Empire is a metaphor for a massive Central Authority that imposes its will on others, which is an apt description of the Left.
One of the things on TV that’s really starting to turn me off is the increasing occurrence of homosexual situations, including intimate situations involving kissing and more.
I know. It’s gone from merely accepting a homosexual relationship to showing one in graphic detail. There is a big difference between the homosexual relationship on Modern Family and the extended scenes of passionate kissing leading to partial nudity and grappling shown on a new USA show, the name of which I can’t think of because I turned it off.
And no, I didn’t turn it off because of HATE. It was disgust over the slobbering pandering to the Alphabet Crowd.
I haven’t been following the South Dakota pipeline protests very closely, but this is certainly a passionate response to the protesters. Some of the comments are pretty good too.
Here’s another story on the
protestorsprofessional agitators in North DakotaThough these protesters claim to be gathered for peaceful prayer and meditation, law enforcement has been forced to arrest more than 400 in response to several unlawful incidents, including trespassing on and damaging private land, chaining themselves to equipment, burning tires and fields, damaging cars and a bridge, harassing residents of nearby farms and ranches, and killing and butchering livestock. There was even at least one reported incident where gun shots were fired at police.
The recent vandalization of graves in a Bismarck cemetery and the unconscionable graffiti marking on the North Dakota column at the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., are examples of how the protesters’ actions do not match their claims of peaceful demonstration.
http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/17/the-facts-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-that-protesters-dont-want-you-to-know
Great new bumper sticker:
Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank; Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
Kellogg Pulls Ads From Breitbart Amid Concerns About Hate Speech
http://adage.com/article/digital/kellogg-pulls-ads-breitbart-concern-hate-speech/306931/
Isn’t accusing Breitbart of various thought crimes, well, hate speech?
America’s large corporations are, by and large, run by people of Progressive mindset…it is what they are taught in college and as a very large percentage of them enter the workforce in mid-level management, they don’t get too much a chance to find out how regular folks live and think…Kellogg is going to find out that a large number of their customers actually kinda like Brietbart…far more than the number of customers who are SJW nutjobs…
Having worked with big company CEO’s I think I can tell you that their first and overriding instinct is self-preservation.
When they make decisions like this it comes from two aspects of their personality: the Harvard effect where they will initially make these strategic decisions after discussing with a handful of people that they believe are lesser because they didn’t go to Hawvard like they did. But mostly out of fear.
Only afterwards do they bother communicating with their board of directors and owners whom they reluctantly listen to out of fear of losing their position. If what they did is a mistake they learn that then and if in good standing are usually given an opportunity to walk back their mistake over a period of time.
Got an email this morning from a friend who forwarded it to me, so I don’t have a link. Too bad, because it is funny and an excellent analysis of why and how Trump won. It is more about how the elites won it for him, but it is good. You’ve got to love an article that describes Hillary Clinton as “politically luminously stupid”.
There were a couple of great lines. One was about the media slant approaching near verticality, and another was “Lord only knows what kind of President Trump will make (unless God also is wondering, which I find plausible) ,,,”
I got the same email from our mutual friend, and my first thought was, I know he’s a big Fred Reed fan, and the writing sounds an awful lot like Fred Reed.
I was right.
Two of my favorite phrases were the ones you noted, but I also loved these two:
Emphasis – mine
Excellent – I’ll only dispute “above average intelligence” and substitute, “checked off all the boxes in high school and college and thus got credentials”.
I’ve never thought of Hillary being all that bright…Obama, I think, far outpaces her in genuine intellect (though, like her, his intellect has been stuffed full of errant nonsense). Some view Obama’s “the election reflects the will of the people” as a bit of twisting the knife given the rumors that the Clintons and Obamas rather despise each other (a very plausible rumor)…and I think there is that; but I think that Obama is also realizes that Hillary really, really blew it in the election. She really had every possible advantage and made nothing of it. A Progressive was on a rant on Twitter the other day about the “unfair” media which didn’t highlight all of Hillary’s great plans for the working and middle class…and the assumption being that if the MSM had been fair about it, all those redneck morons who voted Trump would have voted Hillary. But, what were her plans? More welfare, basically…Hillary just didn’t get it that people really desire a chance to succeed, not a chance to sit on their ass, eating welfare cheetos…
This is good news. Especially for those of us in Indiana.
Great line from Monica Crowley:
Mr. Obama’s presidency was a joyride for the ruthless, well-funded left. But it’s now come to a screeching halt, thanks to the American people, who aren’t quite ready to throw in the towel on this grand experiment in human liberty.
The reelection of Pelosi and the consideration of Ellison for the DNC however suggests that the progressive elites still don’t understand the American people. Great news for us.
I keep a file of great quotes, and that one has been added to my list.
The Dems do seem to have stumbled on the formula for self destruction. As the old saying goes, “when your adversaries are engaged in self-immolation the best course of action is to hide the fire extinguishers and get out of the way.” I wish Conservatives could take credit for it, but the donkeys have done this all by themselves.
Just think about the wealth that was handed out to the well connected during Obama’s term. $10 trillion of additional debt and what did the American people get from that? New airports? New high speed rails? New freeways? Affordable healthcare? Nope. The wealth was handed out to insurance execs, federal bureaucrats, federal pensions, and folks who perpetrated the Solyndra scam among others. It was an administration that worked very well for the well connected while the middle class took it in the shorts and the lower class was given their daily stipend and told to be grateful. If Trump can improve the economy and living conditions of the black community, the Democrats wont win another election for the foreseeable future, because they still don’t get it. They think racism still sells and that transgendered bathrooms are an important issue.
Cluster, you nailed it in one short paragraph.
Gracias. So Drudge has Megan Kelly going to CNN to which I say, don’t let the door hit you on the ass. What do you think? Also, have you seen Tucker’s new show? I have always like Tucker Carlson and his new show is a must see. He dissects liberals better than almost any one.
Drudge has Megan Kelly going to CNN to which I say, don’t let the door hit you on the ass. What do you think?
I personally like Megyn Kelly, but I also hardly ever watch her. Since she’s had her own show, I’ve probably seen it in it’s entirety maybe a half dozen times. She doesn’t seem to be much of an ideologue, so I’m guessing she’ll go where she makes the most money. I’ve seen O’Reilly and Hannity maybe once or twice in the last year, and I’ll catch Judge Jeanine on the weekend once in a while. I used to watch Greta’s show a couple time a week, but have only seen Tucker a couple times. I like Tucker, but to be honest I just don’t watch opinion shows unless there’s a guest on that I find interesting. I find most of the opinion, whether it’s the host or a guest or a guest panel to be inane and a total waste of time. And that’s just Fox. Every once in a while I’ll try to watch CNN or MSNBC, and I can’t get through more than a few minutes without gagging.
I used to like Megyn, till she inserted herself in one of the primary debates. When a candidate said something about not allowing abortion she interrupted him and with a great show of horror challenged him, openly outraged, and made herself part of the debate. From that moment on I watched her more closely, and more and more I saw her showing a Leftist bias, pulling the same tricks that Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric do by making faces of disbelief or outrage when a conservative would say something she didn’t like. I got more and more disgusted with her and then her performance in the presidential debate, while subdued compared to the other, was still not objective. She makes everything about her.
I have no use for her now and haven’t watched her show or anything where she is appearing for a long time now—and never will. She and CNN will be a perfect match.
(If CNN thinks she will bring conservative viewers along with her, they haven’t been paying attention.)