I have to say, the sycophancy I’ve seen on the left regarding Obama’s exit has been nauseating – someone once called the MSMers protecting Obama “throne sniffers”…that is what, apparently, most Obama backers are these days. My goodness, I remember when Reagan left office – I was a little sad to see him go, but I didn’t get maudlin about it, nor write hagiographies about him…these Obama-bots are just being pathetic.
There is now a 12-Step program which will de-racist you – preventing you from thinking Ungood thoughts and allow yourself to easily slip into the mental world the Progressive leadership has planned for you. Totalitarians gotta Totalitarian, I guess.
The DOJ says that Chicago’s police force – run entirely by Democrats for decades – uses excessive force. Clearly, reforms are needed – just as clearly, the people of Chicago will re-elect the same Democrats who created this problem.
Representative John Lewis (D-GA) says he doesn’t consider Trump to be a legitimate President. Lewis, in the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement was an American hero – these days, he’s just a partisan hack.
Gay Patriot provides an example of the tolerant left.
I’ve long felt that the underlying reason for the left being the left is a desire to rationalize refusal to do one’s duty by others. This, to be sure, is a bit differentiated from your standard liberal out there – I’m talking about the real far out leftists: the sort of people who, say, clearly and definitively state their opposition to such things as the traditional family. These are people who, for a variety of reasons just don’t dig doing that boring stuff which happens to preserve civilization. People who become leftists just don’t want to do such things, and so they cook up theories about how their refusal to do the job makes them more worthy than those who do. This post by Robert Stacy McCain tends to confirm my view.
A German court has ruled that any Jew or Jewish structure wandering around Germany is an Israeli agent and may be attacked on the pretext of opposing Israeli policy in the West Bank. This isn’t law; this isn’t justice – this is just a refusal to accept facts. In their rush to not be judgemental, the Europeans are turning their nations into Orwellian nightmares.
RELATED: Secretary of State (until noon on Friday, that is) John Kerry is going to Paris to defend Israel. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you…
Kellyanne Conway will speak at the March for Life. Another reason to be glad you voted for Trump…
Only 146 hours and 35 minutes before this 8-year-long nightmare is over,
My goodness, I remember when Reagan left office – I was a little sad to see him go, but I didn’t get maudlin about it, nor write hagiographies about him…these Obama-bots are just being pathetic.
When Reagan left office one of the most common responses you heard from people was that he made them feel proud to be Americans. I’d venture to say you wouldn’t get that response from 1 in a 1,000 about Obama. And that’s sad.
Obama’s legacy is shame for being an American. That is even sadder.
Most progressives have the emotional maturity of a tree squirrel so their tearful goodbyes to “The One They Have All Been Waiting For” it is not entirely surprising, but I do agree that is beyond nauseating. If they had even a scintilla of self awareness they would realize that their unfounded hysterical outbursts are a big reason why they lost and why so many Americans have voted them out of County, State, and Federal offices over the last 9 years. Did you see Elizabeth Warren query Ben Carson the other day? It was the most juvenile and embarrassing line of questioning at a confirmation hearing that I have ever heard. Her obsession with Trump’s private ventures is comical and her angry grandmother schtick is really getting old.
I saw Bernie Sanders on MSNBC the other day and his comment is worth repeating if only for the laughs. In his never ending cape crusade to protect the downtrodden, he said and I quote, “I will never compromise on bigotry”. Good for you Bernie. Stay strong.
I see the hysteria over Obama’s departure as less fawning over him and more a tone of self-congratulation. They are really making a big deal out of how wonderful they were to vote for him, support him and. yes, love him. How can they feel wonderful if the guy they put in office is not wonderful? Gee, if he is seen as a bad president, how can THEY feel special? So the more special he is, the more special they are, and they are all about being special.
Ergo, spectacles of worship for him and his specialness.
To put it bluntly, it is just emotional masturbation, and it’s creepy.
You’re spot on with pointing out the emotional immaturity and self-congratulations of the left. It’s all about virtue signaling these days. Your average prog thinks they’re a Mississippi freedom worker because they voted for the black guy. Obama’s actual record is of little concern, it doesn’t matter how badly he screwed up foreign policy or how many bombs he dropped in the Middle East; the mere act of casting one’s ballot for him is a surrogate for one’s moral purity.
I personally saw the same phenomena with Hillary. By all reasonable standards she should have been a hold-your-nose candidate for liberals, but I know plenty of people who were acting like Joan of Arc had just been burnt at the stake when she lost. A woman had been denied the White House. Identity politics holds much sway with these people.
The good news is they’re paving the way for Trump’s second term by doubling down. Anybody been paying attention to The Women’s March on Washington for example? They’ve released their official policy platform and it’s just the type of pablum you’d expect. Their top priorities are far from most people’s. This nugget in particular sends a chill down the spine:
“Rooted in the promise of America’s call for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, we believe in immigrant and refugee rights regardless of status or country of origin….We recognize that the call to action to love our neighbor is not limited to the United States, because there is a global migration crisis. We believe migration is a human right and that no human being is illegal.”
No borders, no nations, everybody has a RIGHT to waltz right in to any country they please, which means of course welcoming the third world to abandon their failed states and make themselves at home in our more successful Western countries, costs and customs be damned. I for one am glad they are stating this stuff out in the open. You think this is what your average American wants?
Click to access WMW+Guiding+Vision+%26+Definition+of+Principles.pdf
A typical mutilation of Christian doctrine – which is pretty usual for the Progressives. We are to welcome the stranger: both Old and New Testaments command us. But I don’t think welcoming the stranger means importing strangers in gigantic batches and then changing our ways to match theirs…nor, I think, does it mean we ignore what is going on in their home countries.
It is getting creepy, isn’t it – there was a video clip circulating around where people for the Tonight Show (I think) we’re recording tearful goodbyes to Michelle Obama and then the big “thing” about is was Michelle Obama emerging from behind the curtains while they were recording. This is just gross – on both ends of it; the person making a tearful goodbye and the First Lady lending herself to such un-American claptrap.
Rusty, the next time one of your former philosophical allies talks about open borders, in any context, ask him if he locks his house when he leaves. If he locks his car when he parks it. If he leaves the windows down and his cell phone and laptop on the seat when he goes into Starbucks.
It takes about 10 seconds for the narrative to shift from “these people just want a better _________ and it is inhumane to not let them have it” to justification for protecting private property.
Hey, if they just want a better life, your house would be a start. Maybe they just want a better ride—leave your keys in the ignition. That new iPhone 7s is an upgrade from the old 6 Uncle Sam gave the guy, so why shouldn’t he be able to just use yours?
Once things are pulled out of the ether, out of the abstract, and brought home, perspectives change.
Ama, Yep, I sometimes use the house analogy when this comes up; it’s actually quite a good one when talking about immigration. Strange all these open border humanitarians don’t throw open their personal doors to the homeless. Strange they don’t advocate resettling third world “refugees” specifically in their own inner city neighborhoods and their children’s schools. It’s easy for them to welcome “refugees” when they know they’ll be plopped into some small rural Christian community in Montana that they’ll never visit. Cheap grace.
How funny when the media tries to portray Trump’s supposed inability to get industry entertainers to perform at the inauguration parties, as an indication of people’s dislike for him and for the American public to realize this is yet “another” failure of some sort, even before he takes office.
Admittedly, I am not an entertainment junkie, so it’s easier for me to say this, but my reaction is to just step away from these people and their products.
When Michelle Obama was constantly appearing on shows I normally like, such as NCIS or Nashville, I would just change the channel. Immediately. And it often took weeks for me to go back to those shows. When “blackish” started whining about how mean white people/cops are to blacks, I stopped watching, though I thought the show had some good qualities. I’ll never see another Meryl Streep movie, because I can’t get that smug self satisfied smirk out of my mind and it will be overlaid on her face in every scene no matter how good an actress she is. I have a visceral almost-vomiting reaction when I am channel surfing and run across Alec Baldwin.
If half the nation, the Deplorables who voted for Trump and those who did not but who are disgusted with the antics of the Temper Tantrum crowd, were to do the same thing, the pursuit of fame and the almighty dollar would shut a lot of these people up pronto.
A good place to start would be to stop watching awards shows. All of them. Just never turn one on. These are the pulpits and platforms for the smug lecturing of the entertainment classes, and we could very easily deprive them of them.
You had to love Trump’s (non)reaction to the Dem temper tantrum squeals of so many Congresscritters refusing to attend the inauguration—-“Can we have your tickets?”
The funny thing is, these people think they will be missed.
As for the entertainers, I have two words for them: “Dixie Chicks”.
I’ve long felt that the underlying reason for the left being the left is a desire to rationalize refusal to do one’s duty by others.
I’ve thought that for a long time now. The most glaring example is the promotion of abortion. Abortion defenders not only don’t want to take responsibility for their own pursuit of pleasure, they are determined to get as many people as possible to agree with them (using the coy phrasing of “pro-CHOICE” ) to have numbers they think will validate their position. They are so determined to have the ability to avoid being ethical and moral human beings, because they just don’t want to, they have generated an entire movement with its own deceptive language to support their lack of courage. The more people they can suck into the belief that abortion is just about a woman’s control over her own body, the more they have to hide behind.
Life often demands hard choices and hard work. People who know they will never be able to meet those demands are out there saying those demands are wrong, or not necessary. They drive around with bumper stickers saying “War Is Not The Answer” because they know they are not the kinds of people willing to stand up and defend their country, or probably even for their families, so they try to shift their lack of courage or commitment to a philosophy that is built on those things. They pretend that weakness is really just principle.
People who aren’t willing to perform acts of charity on their own are the first to claim that charity is a function of the government, so other people will have their property confiscated for redistribution. The first people to deride religion are those who simply lack the strength of character to comply with the discipline of a religion, or the consequences of their actions.
I think that’s a great summation of the left.
“Some Clinton campaign workers say they’ve lost their bearings because they’re so rattled by the differences in Trump’s values from those represented by Obama and Clinton.”
And THIS, my friends, makes the whole campaign worth it.
Somebody (Trump and half the nation) poked a hole in the balloon that held the rarified air in which these people floated, isolated from reality by their arrogance and their derision of an invented Other, smug in their self-perceived specialness and rightness. And now they are realizing that the world is not what they had been told it is. And they are scared, and confused, and many are angry.
And I think many are having Don Quixote moments, in which they are finally seeing themselves as we see them, and realizing it ain’t pretty. No, we never did admire them or the fact that they are “intellectuals”, as we always understood what Thomas Sowell said, that the only things produced by intellectuals are ideas and they don’t even have to be right, what Hugh Hewitt said last week when he commented that when a contractor makes a mistake a door falls off but when an intellectual makes a mistake he gets tenure. They thought we were admiring them, awed by their specialness, and they are realizing we always thought they were smug clueless idiots.
These new and scary “values” that have them so unmoored are alien concepts, such as responsibility, hard work, love of country, love of family, respect for the rule of law applied to all equally, and other “values” that were never part of their insular little world. It’s a world where respect is given to people who EARN, people who, as Mark says, make, mine or grow, and where the products of their own “values” are laughed at as “snowflakes”.
As much as I agree with your sentiments I think you’re overestimating the number of lefties doing any serious self-reflection. I see more of the doubling down I described above. The armor of self-percieved righteousness is strong and can withstand many slings and arrows of reality. Believe me, the vast majority of them still think we’re irredeemable deplorables. Viva Deplorables!
It will take a while, and it will be incremental, but every now and then a Lib will get tired of being identified with the loser/loony group and start doing some thinking. You did. I did. As wonderful as we are, I don’t think we are or will be the only ones.
An entry in the “Draining the Swamp” category, subfolder “Federal Agencies Run Amok”
This is a really important article. You don’t have to be a rancher or have a dog in this hunt to see the problems in the way the BLM targeted this one family, and the legal corruption that ensued.
The part of the article that baffles me is this:
Well, it DID “get even more ugly.” This was the controversy that sparked the stand-off last year at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. If people in MY community were part of an effort to take my land and send two members of my family to prison for 5 years for something as innocuous as setting a backfire, I believe I’d be a little more bitter than Mrs. Hammond.
If they’ve been fighting this for 5 years and the jail sentence was 5 years, shouldn’t they be out by now, especially if giving consideration for good behavior?
Read the entire article. The judge originally thought the recommended minimum sentence was grossly out of line with the offense and sentenced both to a few months — which they served. The government appealed, and the two were sent back to prison to serve the remainder of the 5 years.
“…The government appealed…” And here we have the crux of the matter, the example of the weaponization of government agencies.
In a similar vein we might ask, again, why so many government agencies need to be so heavily armed? When the BLM and even Social Security are buying weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition, it makes you wonder. And then when you see a government agency, supposedly a pretty benign one created to manage federal lands, turning into bullies with the backing of the federal government and targeting citizens, it SHOULD make a lot of us start asking questions.
This is something I would like the Trump administration to take a hard look at. And I would love to see one of his first acts a full pardon for all of these people and restitution for the costs they incurred to fight these bogus charges.
Well I sure hope this happens:
Silicon Valley billionaire and Trump supporter Peter Thiel ‘is planning to run for California governor’
Californians could use a break from one party rule.
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Have you noticed the now-mandatory modifier “billionaire” attached to any wealthy person who supported Trump or is being named by him to any post? Every article on Betsy DeVos starts with “Billionaire Betsy DeVos”.
I keep repeating, because it is important—-we need to be alert to these “dog whistles”. The Left loved to use this term, but they counted on us being too stupid to realize what they were doing. and apply it to their own tactics. Why does the financial status of anyone matter? Why, to fuel the class warfare meme of the Left, that’s why.
Lest anyone still have doubts that the Left has devolved into something that borders on inhuman, here is who the Left really is.
Notice how all media outlets are saying Trump is “attacking” Rep. John Lewis? They said the same thing when Trump was lambasted by the Gold Star Kahn family, and many others who harshly criticized him. If one’s responding to a smear from someone, shouldn’t that be characterized as “responding to” or “defending himself”, not “attacking”? I guess I’d be fine with the term “attacking” if they used it for both sides, but Trump’s adversaries are always depicted as “criticizing” or “calling out” Trump, while Trump is always characterized as “attacking”. I don’t think most people realize this verbal ploy is in play.
You are exactly right. The media and many politicians still don’t understand what happened last November 9.
Happy MLK day and I will remind John Lewis that MLK was a Republican and his surviving niece voted for Trump, because the content of character matters a hell of a lot more than color of skin.
I’ve always admired MLK. A flawed man, but a fearless fighter. What grace and dedication he showed at a time when blacks had legitimate reasons to complain. I don’t usually like to play the “If so and so were alive today he’d be…” game, but it’s hard to imagine King endorsing today’s BLM.
The only way King could endorse BLM if he were alive today would be to walk back every single statement he had made prior to BLM. BLM and the entire narrative of black activists and a sizable number of the general black population believe the exact opposite of King’s message. Today his dream is one held by white people, and its opposite is a black dream.
As for MLK Day, I wonder if there will be an acknowledgment that this has become a de facto white holiday, as millions of black people have rejected King’s message and not only decided that any of us should be judged solely on the color of our skin, they have decided that white skin is a crime and possibly even a capital crime.
I wish we had a spokesperson who could and would watch the self-serving pontification of black “celebrities” and politicians posturing as honoring King and then compare these speeches with what they have said about whites, and in support of racist movements like BLM.
The only place these people are called out for their hypocrisy is on blogs like this one.
While I can appreciate MLK’s work, I have a problem with a federal holiday honoring a single man for work and efforts done by numerous groups and individuals. Why can’t we call it something more encompassing like “Civil Rights Day”, so that it may serve to recognize everyone’s efforts in this deed?
I believe it was Biloxi where they had, for years, celebrated this day as “Great Americans Day” and this year got shouted down till they went back to MLK Day. In the story, I think there was a comment that some other places also use this name.
What strikes me is the hypocrisy of black people who are now either active in a movement or silently allowing it to represent them, that is overtly racist, overtly focused solely on skin color, and in general a complete contradiction to the dream of Dr. King. But they posture as respecting him.
A particularly glaring example of this is a recent occurrence where a journalist was knocked down by black thugs, kicked and beaten, till one of the thugs realized that this guy wasn’t white, he was Asian. Whereopen said thugs stopped their attack, helped him to his feet, and apologized to him.
As far as I am concerned, black people have abdicated any “ownership” of Martin Luther King Day.
Rusty, merely publicizing emails was considered an “attack” even though no one ever argued with the content of those emails.
Truth is toxic to Liberals, which is why speaking the truth is taken as an attack on them.
Ama, You’re behind on your talking points. Publicizing emails wasn’t merely an attack, it fatally compromised the election and made Trump an illegitimate president elect.
I know. What I want to know is why conservative voices are not commenting on the fact that if Russia really did want us to elect a man who could not be bought instead of a woman who practically posted her fee schedule online, they were smart enough to know that the best way to defeat her was to let Americans know the truth about her.
Rocky Mountain PBS had an ad yesterday touting its new series on the KKK in Colorado. I went to their web site to see if I could find the text of the ad, and all I found was this:
From the Grand Dragon to known KKK appointees in the police, mayor and governor offices, Colorado once had the 2nd largest Ku Klux Klan membership in the United States. Discover the sordid history of the KKK in Colorado and the impact they had on Catholics, Jews and African Americans in early 1920s, and the courageous individuals who fought against their establishment.
So far, so good, right? Except the ad made a very big point of saying that the KKK was made up of people from both parties, which was OK though a little defensive, and then went on to say that it was formed to fight corruption and “drain the swamp”.
Am I the only one who sees this as (1) an effort to drag Republicans into being associated with the KKK, and (2) and most important trying to link it to Trump?
It’s this kind of insidious propaganda that we have to start rooting out.
I just invented (I think) a new word. I wrote to Rocky Mountain PBS about the dog whistle content in their promo for their KKK series, and when I replied to the response of the executive producer, who said the piece is relevant because the rhetoric of 100 years ago (the populist rhetoric that led to the creation of the KKK) is much like that of today, blah blah blah, I suggested that her response was a little Streepy. Another form of the word—Streepish.
That is, smug conviction of absolute rightness and entitlement to lecture others who are less endowed with such specialness. I didn’t use this definition for the executive producer, but that is how I thought of it, and I would love to see the word, in all its variations, used a lot.
Portraying Streep as a Left-wing Church Lady, pursing her lips and looking simultaneously smug, superior and disdainful, or Streepy, would be funny.
From my letter:
Your comment that ” In many ways the rhetoric sounds the same as it did 100 years ago…” is particularly alarming, as your show will evidently show that the rhetoric of 100 years ago resulted in the formation of the KKK, and that, linked with the use of what has become a buzzword for President-Elect Trump’s agenda as well as a rallying cry of his supporters, is a disturbing connection. Radical activists today are working very hard to convince the nation that President-Elect Trump and his supporters are, if not actually members of the KKK today, at least in sympathy with that organization. When a PBS station airs a series which associates the rhetoric of 100 years ago with the rhetoric of today and then goes on to associate the formation of the KKK with the older rhetoric, it is in effect linking the rhetoric of today with the KKK. It is a straightforward connection, as stated in your own letter.
To illustrate a logical conclusion to your comments to me, to paraphrase: The rhetoric of 100 years ago is much the same as the rhetoric of today. The rhetoric of 100 years ago was responsible for the creation and rise of the KKK. Therefore, as a logical conclusion, the rhetoric of today must have a similar if not identical outcome. That is, those who accept and believe today’s rhetoric are people who would have supported the KKK 100 years and today would support the KKK and/or a similar philosophy.
I submit that someone with a different filter for information would easily be able to use the same basic foundation—that “In many ways the rhetoric sounds the same as it did 100 years ago……”—-and then point out that in today’s world the outcome has been very different, that in today’s world that rhetoric has resulted in electing a president with an agenda of inclusiveness, racial equality, respect for the right to worship, and fighting corruption. It could be pointed out that in today’s world this similar-sounding rhetoric led Americans in a significantly different direction, an effort to resolve problems by establishing a better government rather than developing a movement outside of government. It should be pointed out that this effort has been met with opposition using the same tactics used 100 years ago by the KKK. Somehow I doubt that these messages will be part of your show.
Later I said her letter had an element of Streepiness, but now I am thinking that word needs an “h”–Streepishness.
It also has a verb form: To Streep, or Streeping. Just another word for virtue signaling but with an homage to the Hollywood elite.