Pear Harbor Day. Remember men like Dorie Miller and his skipper, Captain Mervyn Bennion.
In preparation for having a Republican Administration, the MSM is finally noticing that the jobs being created under Obama are often sub-par…no blame will be given to Obama for this, but it is believed by the MSM that this can be used against Trump starting January 20th. Look for the MSM to rediscover the homeless issue, as well. They have learned nothing from 2016 – and they’ll just go further down the Progressive rat-hole during the Trump Administration.
Progressives are reacting to Trump as Time’s Person of the Year about as you’d expect.
Story is that Trump sold his stock portfolio in June…which was a rather presumptuous action by a man who apparently thought he’d win in November.
Hillary is going to throw her big money donors a party…which is nice, except it wasn’t exactly the payoff they were expecting. I’m betting that somewhere in the back of her mind is a desire to try again in 2020. It will depend on the circumstances in late 2018, but I don’t think her ambition has been lessened by two humiliating losses.
Obama gets an underwhelming response from the troops.
Maybe Einstein was wrong? My take: who the heck knows. But anyone talking about “settled science” is probably talking nonsense.
Obama’s Defense Department – wasting $125 billion per year. That’s enough to build about 10 Ford-class aircraft carriers. Big defense budgets don’t equal military strength – if we properly used our resources, we could have a much more powerful military force at a much lower cost. The concept that eliminating waste and fraud for reducing spending is always ridiculed…but ridiculed by those who profit off the current way of doing business. My guess is that at least 1 in 3 federal dollars is wasted. I bet we could cut spending by 20% and provide better for our needs than we do now…if we just had the will to make the government do the right thing. That would be about a $700 billion reduction in spending. The 2016 deficit was just about $600 billion.
Yes, Trump can cut off funding for sanctuary cities.
Precious snowflakes are so upset about Trump winning that they cancelled their Christmas Holiday party. No, seriously – they really did.
Why are our Progressives such wimps? Andrew Klaven explains:
I mean, really, why are they such pansies?
Here’s my guess. A right-winger turns on his favorite television show and has his favorite character tell him his favorite candidate is demonic. He turns on the news and hears “journalists” edit out stories of Democrat malfeasance while emphasizing Republican corruption. He goes to the movies and has his political beliefs insulted and derided. His favorite singer hates him. His professor excoriates him. His employer would fire him if he knew what he thought…
…A leftist? He floats in a candy-cane cloud of self-congratulating self-reinforcement. Hollywood, the news media, academia, they all tell him: “You’re smart. You’re good. You’re right. You’re nice. You’re going to win the election. Anyone can see that. How could you lose? Anyone who disagrees with you is bad, stupid, mean, wicked.”
No wonder these people whine and cry when things don’t go their way. Spending their days in a pink haze of bias, how could they ever have seen it coming?
Blogs For Victory 
Love the Klaven article. As someone who still identifies with certain leftist views it saddens me to see how debased the ideology has become. Everybody on the left is still set on arguing with a fascist cartoon character of Trump. I think a good therapy for progressives would be for them to say one positive thing about Donald Trump each day. That really wouldn’t be too hard; Trump has many positive characteristics and his boilerplate political rhetoric alone should provide enough material. They would then be free to bitch and moan about other concerns and initiatives, but at least they would have a tether back to reality and cognitive hints that Hitler is not about to occupy the White House. How many progressives would be up for the task?
The true political ideology of the true Left is unchanged, it is just becoming more visible to those who are on the Left because of issues and irrational hatred of an invented Other but who don’t even know what the core ideology IS much less have an educated allegiance to it.
What has happened is that the formerly mild and diluted Leftism of most Americans, otherwise known as the Democrat Party, has shifted from agreeing with the Right on what has to be done and just arguing about how best to do it to a conviction that they want good things done and the Right doesn’t. That is a quantum shift, completely divisive, and has led to the radicalization of the formerly mainstream mildly Leftist Democrat Party.
Compare the politics of JFK to those of Barack Obama. You can see the sudden lurch onto the death spiral of the party, starting with LBJ, leveling off a little under Carter and Clinton and then picking up speed under Obama. Carter would have gone all the way but he was too incompetent, Clinton was too much of a political animal to sacrifice his image for ideology (and his ideology was always pretty sketchy anyway) but with Obama we got a hard-core ideologue steeped in radical Leftism. Playing the game of emotional manipulation better than anyone I can think of in American history, he dragged the bulk of the party down with him, till those people are the sock puppets of radical Leftist ideology even though they don’t understand it and many don’t even know it exists.
Ama, I agree in abstract theory with much of what you’re saying. But I’m really hoping for a softening of labels, particularly historical labels. I know I too refer to “progressives” and “the left” now as current identifiers. But I really hope we can start to shed these qualifiers and come together as Americans. I know that sounds sappy, but that’s what I would like to see. Frankly, I see the ball firmly on the left side of the court. They simply must dial down the vitriol and pretend we’re not a country on the verge of a Third Reich.
Rusty, my Liberal brother once finally got fed up with me for using what he called a “pejorative”—-that is, the word “Left”. He just didn’t understand that it is an objective analysis of a political philosophy. It’s not a slur or an insult.
It is simply an accurate depiction of where the political philosophy falls on the L/R spectrum, and it is a necessary distinction. No matter how we may “come together as Americans” there will always be varying opinions on the best way to govern the nation, and if you are on the left side of the spectrum there has to be a word to describe or explain that.
To me, there are widely varying degrees of movement toward the left from center, so one can be very moderately Leftist in believing for the most part in the restriction of size, scope and power of the federal government with most of the power left to the states and still fudge a little bit in thinking we need Social Security and Medicare, for example. This is obviously not as far to the Left as supporting Obamacare, or even farther, to actual communism, which I put on the far left end of the scale. But they all promote and support federal powers greater than that outlined in the Constitution.
I have a problem with the term “far Right” because to me once you are on the right end of that scale, of restricting federal power strictly to what is delegated, that is it. What I see is the use of various social issues to describe what should be solely political in nature, when talking about the Right, so we have all sorts of non-political stances or beliefs being used to support terms like “far Right”.
But “Left” is another matter, because there ARE degrees of federal assumption of powers beyond those delegated, and to me those degrees determine how terms like “Leftist” and “far Left” should be used. These are not issue-based, but pure ideology. While it is true that some issues tend to be more accepted by some political groups or philosophies, this is not a given. Many of my personal positions on issues are compatible with those held by many on the Left. Many who identify as Democrats, which is a de facto admission of Leftism as the current incarnation of that party is definitely far to the left of center on that scale, also hold positions on some issues that are associated with conservatives, or the Right. Our difference is not in what is important to achieve but in how to achieve it.
There will always be political differences. It is unavoidable. I think what we need to do is, first and possibly most important, learn the definition of politics. I believe that if we can get away from Issues Politics and Identity Politics and get down to the basics, which is determining the best blueprint for governing the nation, the rancor and divisiveness will fade considerably. And we can “come together as Americans” while disagreeing on those beliefs.
“….and pretend we’re not a country on the verge of a Third Reich…”
If this is a reference to the common though terribly wrong belief that the Reich was Right-wing, this is the kind of thing that can only be believed if one is ignorant of basic political philosophy. The Third Reich was inherently, inarguably, Leftist. The governing body was the National Socialist Party, for which “Nazi” was a slang term. The party was tight with its sister party, the Communist Party, until Hitler turned on the communists and Stalin had to come up with a term for German politics to differentiate Germany from Russia politically—it was too hard to explain why two nations with the same politics were at war—-and fascism was also a Leftist construct, being based on an all-powerful Central Authority. The differences are like the options on a car—-one may have a stick shift and one be an automatic, one may have power windows and another has a nav system, but they are all Fords. So one party owned the means of production, another coordinated the means of production with the government, and so on, but they all shared the common construction of all power being held by a Central Authority with little or no control at the local level or with the people.
It’s hard to try to use political terms that apply to the differences in political structure in one country to those of another country, because there might not be a lot of common ground. For example, in 1930s Germany there was no Constitution stating that the central government was restricted as to size, scope and power with most authority left to the regional governments or to the people, so we can’t apply our own definition of “Right” or “Right-wing” to that country. But we can use the terms “Left” and “Leftist” and “Left wing” because governance by an all powerful Central Authority is the basic definition of the term(s). It’s easy to get tangled up because of differences. The American Founders were radicals in their day, and now adhering to the Constitution they wrote means we are conservatives and those who want to subvert it or just ignore it are the radicals. That’s why it is so important to have a good understanding of the core principals and basic definitions.
“If this is a reference to the common though terribly wrong belief that the Reich was Right-wing, this is the kind of thing that can only be believed if one is ignorant of basic political philosophy.”
No, I meant it as a reference to Nazi Germany, as in “the left is pretending we’re on the verge of Nazi Germany”, that’s all.
I get what you’re saying about labels and I think we generally agree. Although we must use some type of labels from time to time as descriptors I sometimes bristle at their overuse and misuse, and it’s important to keep in mind that the meaning of groups and labels change over time, so any attempt to brand a modern day lefty or righty with the sins or glory of the past is often misguided.
No big deal, I was just spouting. And it’s undoubtedly true that Progressives are the ones misusing labels the most these days. Heck, as we’ve seen in other blogs recently, just tarring someone with a label (most often “racist”, although there are a whole lot of other “-sits” and “-isms” they’re fond of using) is confused with winning an argument.
I meant “-ists”, not “-sits”
Rusty, thanks for clarifying that “Third Reich” comment.
After posting, it occurred to me that in my own mind I use the term “Left” for people I think of as either ideologues or activists or just plain obnoxious about their perceived political positions, and “Liberal” for the run-of-the-mill just-votes-Dem kind of person who doesn’t study politics and doesn’t like to discuss politics and just makes decisions based on what feels good.
I describe my former self as an “unexamined Liberal” because I just went along with my peers and accepted the conventional wisdom of my group and demographic, but never bothered to do any reading or investigating or, if I want to be completely honest, thinking. I just “knew” a bunch of stuff, and because I was on the virtue side of any issue by having the right opinion on it, I was by definition a better person than anyone on the other side, though I never knew what “the other side” really was. Was it “I don’t care about helping the poor” or was it just “I care as much as you do about helping the poor but I just have a different opinion about how best to do it”.
My shift came when I started spending a lot of time driving for my job and listening to a talk radio show host in Denver. He would get irate calls from Liberals, or Lefties, and I would listen closely because they believed the same things I believed but I didn’t know why I believed those things, so I would wait for a better-informed caller to explain it all to me. And it finally struck me that none of them could. None of them. Ever.
A question would never be met with a simple declarative statement of fact. It would be met with another question, an effort to shift the discourse to something else. After this happened a few dozen times, I started to wonder why the host could explain his position clearly and succinctly, with historical and contemporaneous references and citations, and the Libs could only offer free-standing statements (though they would offer them with great passion and emphasis and often outrage) but could never back any of them up. That started to bug me. The effort to distract by trying to change the subject ended up making me suspicious. The constant evasion of specifics made me even more suspicious.
Only then did I start to really pay attention to what the host said, realizing he was not just mean to Liberals but could actually back up what he believed, and only then did I start doing some research on my own. And here I am.
Research into facts made it impossible to be a Liberal.
I am more tolerant of the average run-of-the-mill “unexamined Liberal” than many I know, because I was there. I was one of them. I know how it feels, and I empathize. I am impatient, because my revelation came before the prevalence of the internet, so I was not exposed to as much information as people are today. I was not resistant to facts that contradicted my positions, I was just not exposed to many. Today I think you have to work harder to stay in the bubble, and I am less patient with those who work so hard to stay there. I also think the bubble is more toxic and hateful than it was, and I wonder at those who are so comfortable with that level of negativity.
Here you go, Mark—-an article on banksters.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/12/18109/
All very good. But do you know where a great deal of the profit for consumer lenders comes from? Late fees. I mean, it is a gigantic portion of their profits. They count on it. Without late fees, a lot of consumer lending operations (you know, Visa and Mastercard issuers) would likely go under. Unless there’s a steady supply of people making mistakes on handling that credit card bill, financial ruin ensues.
But what cost is there to a bank if a person pays a couple days late? None. They are already charging interest on the loan and thus their proper recompense for the time value of money is achieved. But, tack the late fee on there. Sure, some will complain – and most banks these days, if you ask, will waive the late fees as it’s easier to wave it and get you off the phone than have you hanging on the phone, calling back, writing letters and so forth. But, most people don’t call…they just suck it up and pay. But, is this really an honorable way of doing business? That is a matter which should be discussed – but isn’t. At all.
But it also illustrates the underlying mindset of the financial industry – not to grease the wheels of economic activity and make a good return on it, but to squeeze every last penny out of the quarterly profit. Banking needs to change – it needs to become the means by which we grease those wheels and make the economy hum…but that takes bankers who are in it for the right reasons; it means bankers who don’t view profit as the first and last consideration.
Klaven’s article reminds me of an encounter with a Lib. I was staying at a nice hotel and dining alone, and a woman at the next table was also alone. We struck up a conversation and she joined me. She was from Seattle (or Portland, pretty much the same difference, politically) and obviously a Lib, but after we established our political credentials we went on to talk about many other things, mostly just about our lives.
After we covered animal rescue (I do) and animal communication (I believe in it and have worked with people who do it) and recycling (I do) and several other topics on which we were in accord, she looked at me in kind of a bewildered way and said “I just can’t believe you are a conservative”. I just laughed and said something like “You Liberals think you own virtue, but in fact most people on the Right do the same good kind generous things—we just do it with our own time and our own money.”
She was absolutely baffled by the concept. Fortunately this happened right about the time dessert came, so she was able to make a quick but tactful escape.
I was amused.
No LOL is loud enough. Not even LOLFOFWWLTMHH (Laughing out loud falling on floor weeping with laughter till my hair hurts) is enough for this gem:
About the recount in Wisconsin:
Trump has lost 302 votes.
Trump has gained 386 votes.
Trump net vote gain by Day 5: 84 votes
Clinton has lost 293 votes.
Clinton has gained 351 votes.
Clinton net vote gain by Day 5: 58 votes
Trump total net gain: 26 votes
And then, at the end of the article, Captain Obvious finishes with a quick trip to the Department of Redundancy Department:
If the results for those two (other states where she is demanding a recount) are like Wisconsin, then Stein will have wasted millions of dollars for no solid reason. Well, DUH! She IS a Leftist, after all. That is like a definition.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/06/millions-of-wasted-dollars-later-trump-gains-votes-during-recount-in-wisconsin/
Why do we allow government officials to cherry-pick the laws, picking and choosing those with which they agree and ignoring or even violating others? Obama is at the top of the list of government officials who blatantly invent laws as they go along and blatantly ignore others, but it happens all around the country.
The existence of “sanctuary cities” is the most egregious example of this.
The governor of Texas and its state legislature are in favor of following immigration laws but some cities simply choose to ignore them all.
Sally Hernandez, the Democratic sheriff-elect in Travis County, home to the liberal state capital of Austin, ran on a platformopposing cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when it seeks to deport illegal immigrants held in the county jail.
In Harris County, where Houston is located, Sheriff-elect Ed Gonzalez, a Democrat, campaigned on ending his county’s participation in an ICE program known as 287(g).
http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/08/in-texas-republicans-fight-new-sanctuary-cities-in-wake-of-trump-victory
I’ve spoken before about the need to put some teeth into oaths of office. As I have commented in the past, a law without a penalty is exactly the same as no law at all. So an oath of office right now is merely a symbolic but essentially meaningless little ritual that may add a note of official ratification of appointment or election but which is really just a few words which can be ignored after the ceremony. And, as we have seen, many oaths of office are completely dismissed once the ceremony is over, whether in the Oval Office or in various government departments, federal and state and county, all around the country.
Oath of office for one Texas city
Every officer of the city shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe to the following oath of affirmation to be filed and kept in the office of the city secretary.
“I, ________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office ________________, of ____________, State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of this State and the Charter and Ordinances of this city; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment as a reward for the giving or withholding a vote at the election at which I was elected, or if the office is one of appointment, to secure my appointment. So help me God.”
I suspect that Sally Hernandez swore to such an oath, or will if she has not yet taken office. Ditto for Ed Gonzalez.
I think a priority of the new broom in this country which has promised to sweep clean should be a law stating that the oath of office is binding, and anyone proven to violate it must immediately be removed from that office. That would extend from the White House throughout the entire federal government. And I think every state legislature should pass a similar law. The oath I cited only requires that the person making it …to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of this State and the Charter and Ordinances of this city;.. If there were also a law prohibiting any city from passing a charter or ordinances which are not consistent with the law of the state and/or federal government, any elected or appointed official would simply be required, under penalty of losing that job, to follow the law.
Why shouldn’t that be a criterion for holding the job in the first place? Especially for a law enforcement officer?
This is an interesting chronology of efforts in Texas to—-well, if you read it you can decide for yourself what the state was trying to do, regarding oaths of office. The author seems to think the state was constantly watering down the oath itself and how binding it might be, and his article is centered on whether an official can take any official act prior to taking whatever oath is required, but I found it interesting reading. It shows that every now and then someone realizes that an oath of office is important, whether to force officials to obey the laws or to provide loopholes for them.
But even these efforts, as many as there have been and as well chronicled as they are in this article, all fail to impose any penalty for violation.
Click to access chapter-72.pdf
The article also points out the need for eternal vigilance on the part of the citizenry, as without such vigilance, without knowing the law, it can be violated and the consequences can be extreme. The examples stated in this article seem focused on judicial rulings made without first signing whatever statements are required and prior to taking an oath of office, but it seems that any act taken without the official endorsement of the country or state, which is conveyed by the taking of an oath of office and possibly other requirements, would be invalid.
Citizenship, if done right, is hard work.
Another great piece from Ben Crystal.
Forgive me if you’ve covered this, I haven’t read every single post here, but how do you all square sanctuary cities with state’s rights? I’ve traditionally leaned toward a robust centralized government and am against sanctuary cities. Seems like most, perhaps all here are in favor of greater powers to the states; if that is so, what’s the argument against a state or a city declaring itself a sanctuary for illegal immigrants?
States’ Rights are crucial to a successful Republic…but wantonly ignoring the law when it is clearly a federal matter, as in immigration policy, isn’t States’ Rights…it’s neo-Confederate.
I don’t recall that we have covered it, Rusty. I’m not an immigration lawyer, but I have read the Constitution at least a few dozen times. One of the enumerated powers of the federal government is the power to “establish uniform rules of naturalization” which appears in Article I, section 8. I don’t know if the term “naturalization” in 1789 was limited to the naturalization process as it related to immigrants who wanted to become American citizens, or whether it encompassed the broader topic of immigration in general. As long as I can remember immigration has always been a federal matter. I think the original intent was that states and municipalities could not pass laws that contradicted federal law, but we’re seen lots of examples where this has happened, often, as in the case of gun laws and marijuana laws, with no consequences.
I can’t speak for others, but I’m not necessarily in favor of “greater powers” to the states so much as I’m in favor the states having any and all powers except those powers specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution, as stated in the 10th Amendment.
Rusty, I identify myself as a “Tenther” as I believe the Tenth Amendment summarizes the core intent of the entire Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Key to this, related to your question, is the phrase “… nor prohibited by it to the States…”
As Spook pointed out, immigration is a national issue. It’s not as if someone from another country can gain citizenship of single state. No state can issue a visa to a foreigner to visit the United States. Citizenship is national, and legislation of immigration and naturalization are federal duties, delegated in the Constitution.
“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).
The founding fathers had good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.
The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.
Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag “Anti-Federalists.”
The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.
It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.
When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.
Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization.”
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/about/about-the-tenth-amendment
I’m curious about why you think that a “robust centralized government is a better blueprint for governing the nation than the system set up by the Founders, which keeps power distributed throughout the country and closer to the people.
Whoops, sorry Ama, posted my last before your post but referenced you anyway! Pinky promise! Yeah, I’m down with the tenth and appreciate your scholarship there but my liberal pedigree still calls out for some type of (tempered) centralized structure. To be frank, it’s an issue to which I’ve not devoted much time.
No problem, Rusty. Seventeen enumerated duties delegated to the federal government means a pretty “robust” central authority, just one restricted as to size, scope and power. Declaring war, international diplomacy, collecting taxes, involvement in interstate commerce—there is plenty to do to keep the feds busy, and all of this demands a pretty solid central structure. Just immigration alone ought to be enough on the federal plate for a while.
We need to remember that we fought a long, bloody and costly war to free ourselves from the concept and the reality of government by a powerful Central Authority, and the entire process of creating a new nation and a new document to define and govern it was focused on doing absolutely everything within the power of these men to make sure the new nation never COULD be governed by a powerful Central Authority. The entire concept of the United States of America was a nation with an umbrella of governance that was designed only to define the new nation and protect it and its citizens, while leaving most of the decisions of how to live being made at the state or local level.
That concept was the inspiration, the commitment and the foundation of the entire country.
I remember hearing a prominent Christian pastor stating that the federal government, as envisioned and set up by the Founders, had nothing at all to do with virtue. That was to be left to the states. Or the People.
Not to nag, but I am genuinely curious about your reasons for preferring “robust centralized government”.
Thanks for that answer Spook and Mark, pretty much in line with my thinking. Immigration is a federal issue, makes perfect sense to me.
Interesting stuff Spook. And I’ve read some of Ama’s opinions on the 10th, and have even agreed with a bit of it!
Interesting stuff Spook. And I’ve read some of Ama’s opinions on the 10th, and have even agreed with a bit of it!
And yet, if you don’t, that OK too. The Conservatives here don’t always agree with each other, but it’s still nice to have a Liberal here who can disagree without being disagreeable.
I personally doubt that we’re ever going to get back to the vision the Founders had, certainly not in our lifetime, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. The Constitution has been under assault by various factions since almost before the ink was dry. It’s just human nature to want to change things. I do think it’s rather sad that the Founders put a change mechanism in the Constitution that has been used 27 times, but the illegal changes that have been made along the way dwarf the legal changes in terms of their impact on society. The lion’s share of the problem lies in the fact that one side sees the Constitution as a sacred compact and the best governing document ever devised by man, while the other side sees it as a set of suggestions to be modified as needed to respond to micro-scale movements and events. It is kind of nice to finally see some push back, but I have no illusions that the damage that’s been done by the Progressive agenda over the last century will be undone any time soon. I just hope we can gradually swing the pendulum back the other way without resorting to killing each other.
I have an observation and a question regarding your recent metamorphosis from, as Amazona refers to it, “an unexamined Liberal” to, at the very least, an examined Liberal or an honest, thinking Liberal — maybe even some elements of Classic Liberalism that the Progressive movement bastardized back in the 1930’s. It would seem to me that something triggered your change, something relating to certain universal principles that the Left has largely abandoned. Is that correct, or is there something else?
“It would seem to me that something triggered your change, something relating to certain universal principles that the Left has largely abandoned. Is that correct, or is there something else?”
You’re correct in general. Free speech has always been a fundamental for me. Free thought, free ideas. Seems to me that the Left is the group that’s veering away from those principles. A related issue is identity politics. I’m firmly against the racist, divisive tactics of the modern Left. I’m a classic MLK Leftist–judging people on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Modern progressives seem to be employing the opposite approach. Hillary’s ‘deplorables’ comment was a decisive game changer and not just for me, I think it lost her the election.
On the flip side of that, my move from being a supporter of the Capitalist model to the Distributist was impelled by a dawning realization that a great deal of the “captains of industry” are simply not on the side of free markets…and not on the side of the United States, either. They seem to be more than happy to make their money via sweated labor in China and government subsidies here at home…no real effort at innovation or winning market share. Someone will eventually be sharp enough to realize that if its $10 more per unit but it lasts 10 years longer than the substandard Chinese crap we’re buying, then the people will buy it…and perhaps a bull in the china shop like Trump is just what’s needed to shake them up a bit? We’ll see.
One of the strangest aspects of the new push to the radical Left is the black community’s abandonment of that old MLK dream, and the fact that it is now only believed in and supported by the Right. The Right, and probably a lot of the Casual Left, still think this dream is an ideal, and understand that it has been, for the most part, realized. I went into a very upscale national chain store today and noticed that many of the big poster-sized ads featured people of color. Nordstrom’s wouldn’t do this if they feared that their upscale clientele would be offended, if they thought it would cost them money. National ad campaigns not only feature people of color, they feature mixed-race couples and families.
Nobody blinks. Nobody cares, It is the new normal. The only ones demanding racism are some black people (more than we might think, based on comments from well-to-do members of Rev. Wright’s church and others) and the manipulative Left using them as political cannon fodder.
Couldn’t agree with you more Mark. I’ve long thought that in order to set things right our economy might have to go through a bit of adjustment. Pay a bit more for a head of lettuce because illegals are no longer doing the picking? Fine with me. Adjust the economy up and down the chain. There’ll be some growing pains but we should be better off as a nation in the long run.
Ama, needless to say I also agree with your positions. I feel we actually have achieved MLK’s dream….if we want it. All races are equally protected under law. Minorities are still benefiting from aggressive affirmative action programs. To be identified as racist toward a minority group is practical career suicide. America would be the desirable post racial environment MLK envisioned it to be if only the race hustlers and the professional victim lobbies would get out of the way.
There’s a piece circulating on the Internet that’s presented as being from Maureen Dowd at the NYT. Snopes says it was actually written by Kevin, Maureen’s Conservative, Republican brother (Thanksgiving dinner must be interesting at their house). It came to me in an email with no permalink, so I’ll just reprint the whole thing here.
He did have one error, which I corrected. He left Iowa and its 6 electoral votes out when he commented on the Midwest states that Trump flipped, make the total electoral votes added in the Midwest 50 rather than 44. Overall I think he nailed it.
Excellent article. I think he nailed it too and it’s nice to know that the Dowd family has one rational member. To be fair though I remember reading an article from Maureen shortly before the election where she was warning the Democrats about ignoring the working class. The trans issue should give everyone a good idea how far in the wilderness the Democrats have gone. The trans population is probably what? One tenth of 1%? Yet the Democrats want to force all business’s across the country to accommodate them with their own bathroom? That is literally insane, not to mention an open invitation to perverted men with bad intent. Instead of being a unifier, Obama decided to take a hard left turn and in the process alienated millions of Americans, particularly the white working class in the rust belt, and as a result the Democrat party is on life support.
The big problem with the “trans” bathroom fuss is that it is absolutely profoundly utterly STUPID. And based on a lie.
If a woman is truly transgendered, thinks of herself as a man and wants to live as a man, she will most likely dress like a man and act somewhat manly and be able to enter a men’s restroom without anyone knowing she is not a man. Ditto for the male who thinks of himself as a woman, and wants to live as a woman. He will be dressing as a woman even if he has not yet gone through hormone therapy or surgery. He will NOT be wearing jeans and a plaid flannel shirt and work boots AND A BEARD.
I’ve seen lots of women who don’t fall into a category of what might be thought of as typically “feminine” who routinely use women’s restrooms. I’ve been in locker rooms where some women prefer to use private changing booths, and I haven’t wondered why. I’ve seen, and known, many men who appear somewhat feminine, who could with a tiny bit of effort pass as women, who use men’s rooms without a thought and who don’t seem to stir up any concern from the other men. BUT…these women are either women who are truly women or men who think of themselves as women and truly try to appear womanly, and these men prove to me that a woman who truly thinks of herself a a man and dresses and acts as much as possible, like a man, isn’t going to be questioned.
The objection is not and never has been about people with confused sexual identities who see themselves and try to live as people of the opposite sex. It is and always has been about people who very clearly have not made this effort, who are using the law to allow them to be perverts.
Basically, it comes down to the understanding that “trans” people choose to live, act and look like their chosen genders, and those who don’t aren’t really “trans”.
This is going to make even more Leftist heads explode.
UPDATE: Trump transition is neither confirming or denying the Tillerson nomination. Formal announcement not until next week.
It doesn’t do me any good, either. We had John Bolton lined up—a man with experience in the field and impeccable credentials, highly praised and promoted by many people close to Trump, and he picked——who? A CEO? Whose international experience in statecraft is that his company does business in many countries?
Oh, well, no one expected Trump to bat 1000. But this, at least so far, does not please me.
Am I missing something?
I’ve heard rumors from several different sources that Bolton will be nominated for Deputy SOS.
Bolton is so much better than second string. I have to wonder what underlies this strange choice by Trump.
My own update: I hope this is just another one of those bizarre leaks or pseudo-leaks the Trump Team loves to throw out there. Personally, if it came from a Trump source I am getting tired of it. We should be past the mind games/head fakes and starting to act like adults doing serious work.
And Exxon CEO Tillerson for SOS, now on Drudge. I am really intrigued by this choice. One thing Tillerson brings to the table is being on a first name basis with most world leaders through his many years at Exxon and along with an outsiders perspective on foreign policy and with Bolton advising him – this could work out really well.
I hope it does. I always hope Trump knows what he is doing. It’s just not always easy.
Trump should leak plans to have oil drilling powered by the blood of Northern Spotted Owls…
Remember when the Jesuits were the hard-ass warriors of the Catholic Church, the analytical thinkers, the tough guys? Wow, was that ever a long LONG time ago!
Now Loyola University, a Jesuit school, is home not only to fragile little snowflakes but at least one Loony Lib “teacher” who is also clearly unaware of the concept or definition of irony.
A student who is also a police officer was running late and didn’t have time to go home and change before class, so he went in uniform. A police officer’s uniform includes his service weapon.
A student became so distraught he or she ran to the professor to complain about being “uncomfortable” at having an armed police officer in the room. Neither the student nor the professor had the integrity to discuss this with the police officer/student. As he said, they just talked about him behind his back.
Okay, that’s the fragile snowflake-needs-a-whup-upside-the-head-and-told-to grow-up part of the story.
The irony comes in when the professor called the police to come take care of the threat of having a policeman in the room. While the police dispatcher made the obvious decision and pointed out that no crime was being committed, one does wish the call had been handled by having a dozen or so armed police officers flood the room and stand around for an hour or so, talking about the “problem”. After which the janitor could clean up a very messy floor.
They should have offered to have armed police officers stationed at the school to make sure armed police officers weren’t scaring the students.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/09/college-professor-calls-cops-because-student-wearing-police-uniform-made-classmates-uncomfortable/
The Jesuits ain’t what they used to be – on the good news, there’s a younger crop of them rising who will return the order to its earlier traditions.
My early gift to you all, via Matt Walsh.
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/trigger-warning-today-i-was-traumatized-by-a-racist-sexist-transphobic-mall-santa/
Seriously, you gotta see this. Just his reason for going into the mall had me cracked up. But the funniest part is some of the comments.
God I hope that’s a parody. If not, I am not sure how many safety pins will be required to comfort his pain. And the Jews were weeping!!!
Oh it’s parody alright — great parody, and it ought to get sent to every Liberal we know.
The funny thing is about half the commenters thought it was serious, which tells you just how deep the pile of sh*t is that we’re in. This guy got it exactly right:
Yes, Cluster, the Jews were weeping. And the Muslims would have been so happy to see someone dressed as Mohammed.
Right about the shopping for a “generalist non-heteronormative non-holiday specific gift for my non-binary three-year old” I started to laugh, and by the time he got to the part of looking for a “beige polka-dot cardigan for a toddler” I was losing it. After that the hits just kept on coming. The anguish of the Native Americans because Santa wears red, the “lactose-intolerant community”, it was sheer genius.
But Spook’s quote is right, no doubt there is someone out there praising Matt Walsh for speaking truth to power.
I’ve really enjoyed reading Matt Walsh’s stuff but had no idea he is such a great comedic actor.
It is so good to laugh again.
I’m voting for Matt Walsh as Trump’s new press secretary. Just imagine the press corps trying to figure out if he is gooning them, and why, and how, and how much.
“Hillary is going to throw her big money donors a party..”
Wow. I’ll bet that is going to be one fun fiesta. And who’s going to pay for it? The donors?