Open Thread

Everyone chime in – so, what married man out there is ever going to say to his wife, “hey, I’m having dinner, alone, with another woman. You ok with that?”.

That is pretty much was Vice President Pence said, and our Progressives are going nuts over it. To me, it is just Common Sense 101. This is all part of the Left’s war against normalcy. A normal man who wants to keep his marital vows (which is a normal thing to desire) takes a few, simple steps to help things along. He doesn’t go out and get boozed up with “the guys”. He doesn’t hang around single women one-on-one. He doesn’t do these things because he’s particularly worried that something will happen, but he figures that they are really simple things to do which will help to keep on the straight and narrow.

You might recall the Duke lacrosse case as well as that of Natalee Holloway. One thing about both cases was never brought up: a little exercise of judgement would have prevented both things from ever happening. In the Duke case, the bottom line is that the boys should not have been having parties like that. If they hadn’t, then nothing like that could have happened, or even be accused of happening. For Ms Holloway, the judgement should have been exercised by her parents; sending an 18 year old woman to a foreign place where drunken parties are the rule is not wise. Had she not been there, the predator(s) who did her in wouldn’t have had the opportunity. I’m always reminded that when I was an 18 year old man and out on liberty in the Navy, the Shore Patrol was there…not to protect the townsfolk from me and my shipmates, but to protect us from them. You send 200 young men into a liberty port after weeks at sea, things are going to happen…better to have someone there who’s sober to keep an eye on things and make sure no one gets too crazy. The Navy is, apparently, smarter than a lot of people.

Pence is just being a normal, decent man – and he’s hated for it. The left hates what is normal and decent and so ridicules it. That is the lesson here.

So, some MSMers are reporting that Michael Flynn has “flipped” on Trump…and all the little Progressives (and asinine Never Trump Conservatives) are all rubbing their hands with glee. Almost hate to point out to them that, even if true, there is nothing for Flynn to “flip” about regarding Trump. But, I guess we’re too far down this rabbit hole – the left is convinced that Russia gamed the system to benefit Trump and that is what they expect an investigation will find. To the left, Flynn is going to turn States’ evidence and show how ol’ Vlad managed to flip PA and MI for Trump, or something. It is just stupid. I doubt much that Flynn has requested immunity and further doubt that a GOP-headed Congressional committee would provide him such immunity…but if it has happened, it is just to prevent Flynn from getting caught up in a Scooter Libby situation.

It is a crime in California to record undercover video while being Republican – that is the only way this case can be viewed. This is what the left really wants for us: the criminalization of our actions. Secretly record, say, Mitt Romney and you’re a leftwing hero…secretly record Planned Parenthood and you’re a criminal.

Hillary had three people working for two months to create her campaign logo. Yes, that logo – the “H” with the arrow in it. But, sure, it was Putin who got Trump elected…

Secretary Price says that TrumpCare is still going forward. I believe it is. We’ll see.

The Kids are All Right – and so is Roger Daltry, who likes Brexit.

24 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. Retired Spook March 30, 2017 / 10:44 pm

    Pence is just being a normal, decent man – and he’s hated for it. The left hates what is normal and decent and so ridicules it. That is the lesson here.

    And he’s exactly the kind of Republican the Left loves to smear, given the chance. He’s not giving them the chance.

  2. Cluster March 31, 2017 / 8:19 am

    The left is proving every day how disconnected from America they really are. Morning Joe has wall to wall coverage of the Russia story and they hyperventilate every morning over the meaningless optics of the issue without addressing one bit of the substance. And just to show you how clueless they are, as well as showing how few people watch Morning Joe, Evelyn Farkas revealed the Obama administrations surveillance of the Trump transition right on Morning Joe:

    Meanwhile, some good things for America are actually happening – the keystone pipeline is moving forward, more companies have announced plans to expand and employ, the opiod epidemic is finally getting some attention, illegal immigration is being addressed, a hiring freeze at the federal level is in place, our military is now taking the fight to ISIS, and it’s been less than 90 days since Trump took over. But don’t tell the liberal media, they’re too busy talking to themselves and ignoring the rest of the country.

    • Retired Spook March 31, 2017 / 8:59 am

      And just to show you how clueless they are, as well as showing how few people watch Morning Joe, Evelyn Farkas revealed the Obama administrations surveillance of the Trump transition right on Morning Joe:

      Rush was talking about this yesterday, and The Five on Fox News picked it up last night, although they didn’t seem to realize just how serious it is. I think this whole mess is beginning to unravel. There are rumors this morning that Flynn has been offered immunity to testify, although his representative is denying it.

      I have this gut feeling that there are more shoes to drop, and this is just going to get more and more interesting — and bizzare. The Russians are pros at disinformation, but they can’t hold a candle to the disinformation campaign the Democrats are currently waging.

      • Cluster March 31, 2017 / 10:27 am

        The Russians are pros at disinformation, but they can’t hold a candle to the disinformation campaign the Democrats are currently waging.

        LOL, how true. In other words, the Democrats make the Russians look honest.

      • Amazona April 1, 2017 / 8:10 pm

        The Russians are pros at disinformation, but they can’t hold a candle to the disinformation campaign the Democrats are currently waging.

        That is because the tactics of the Left in the United States are the very same tactics used by the Left in Russia and all over the world.

        I have to laugh at the new posturing of Democrats as they express horror at the very idea of colluding with Russia, when they have been actively colluding with Communism, in Russia and Cuba and Venezuela and anywhere else it has reared its ugly head. They didn’t seem upset at the idea that Bernie Sanders might have a special place in his heart for Russia—after all, he went there on his honeymoon!—-and they ate up Hillary’s awkward butt-kissing RESET button fiasco. They’ve never met a Communist/Socialist they didn’t love—-they even flaunt their adoration of Communist thug/murderer/assassin Che Guervera by wearing clothing with his face on it and hanging Che posters. They were fine with Hillary and Harry turning over most of the uranium in Nevada to Russia. They never blinked at overhearing Obama refer to Putin as “Vlad” and promising to cozy up to him once the election was behind him. They desperately wanted to elect yet another president who adored Alinksy–Obama was not enough, they wanted Hillary, who wrote her thesis on Saul and his wonderful ideas.

        And now that they think they can smear Trump by associating him with their old buddies, Russia is suddenly bad and suspect.

    • M. Noonan April 1, 2017 / 12:26 am

      I’m pretty sure, at this point, that some time in 2015, Obama’s people started surveillance of Trump – and likely all the major GOP contenders. Remember, these are the guys who weaponized the IRS against their opponents…not the sort of people who would go, “you know, we really shouldn’t use the power of the federal government against our political opponents”. The reason for the surveillance would be, simply, to try and find some useful dirt on them for use in the general election, as well as finding out how they planned to run the general election. This might well be illegal, but there would be plenty of plausible deniability. After all, it would stand to reason that there would be need for some sorts of surveillance on the major GOP contenders…to protect them from threats, so that the Secret Service can start to build up a body on info on them and their closest aides in advance of the SS having to start regular protection activities; that sort of thing. Of course, surveillance where you are trying to protect is a bit different from surveillance where you are trying to get dirt/campaign tactics – but the one could easily be confused with the other, if exposed; and especially as Obama and Team would know the MSM would do their best to cover for them.

      Where the really bad criminal acts come in is when, towards, the end of the Obama Administration, the intelligence gathered during the surveillance was disseminated far and wide in the Administration with the most likely reason for this being that it would be leaked…and leaked in a manner designed to be most harmful to Trump. Whether or not they hope to actually forced Trump out of office is immaterial (though I bet they had at least some hope it would): the fact that they were leaking information about then-private citizens on whom they had no warrant is a criminal act.

      I don’t know why Obama’s people would go that route of folly – the surveillance during the campaign, while wrong, is sensible…to leak the information after it was clear that Trump would be President and that it would be his Attorney General (and a Republican Congress) who would be looking into such matters was stupid. These people, in their hatred of Trump, has opened themselves up to serious legal jeopardy and the earliest they can get a Democrat President to rescue them is January 20th, 2021. That’s a long time – plenty of time for indictment, trial, conviction and exhaustion of appeals. As the old saw goes, “when you shoot at the king, you’d better not miss” is about to be illustrated here.

      • Amazona April 1, 2017 / 11:49 am

        I think the Left’s Plan B, if Trump were to be elected, was to try to delegitimize his presidency, hound and harass him and make his life miserable and reinforce the insanity of the True Believers and plant questions in the minds of everyone else. They were, and are, so confident of their control over the Complicit Agenda Media, and by extension that control over the minds of America. I don’t think they ever worried about being targeted themselves. They figure they can spin this, as well—-and just watch, that is exactly what they will try to do when their in-place agents start to lose their jobs and/or come under investigation.

        If Trump and the GOP can figure out how to work together and become effective, I am not too worried about 2020, especially if the Left continues in its death spiral of violence and insanity. But they need to get insurance companies geared up and issuing policies that are affordable and functional, they need to get the tax code modified—or better yet, replaced with something like the Fair Tax or even the Flat Tax, which would have the double benefit of defanging the IRS once and for all and nearly eliminating it—and they need to do some serious housecleaning.

        By that I mean passing a lot of boring bills that will still have a huge impact on the way the nation is run. That should include a bill to make an oath of office binding, so anyone who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law will lose his or her job and pension if that oath is violated. That move alone will take care of a lot of the sanctuary city nonsense.

        And I keep coming back to the need for an attractive, appealing, likable voice to quickly address the insanity of the Left. And until we do, they will chip away at us, a piece at a time, while we are constantly on the back foot, retreating and/or defending ourselves and always letting the Left pick our battles and our battlegrounds.

      • Retired Spook April 1, 2017 / 12:14 pm

        That should include a bill to make an oath of office binding, so anyone who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law will lose his or her job and pension if that oath is violated.

        As far-thinking as the Founders were, I’m kind of surprised they didn’t include some kind of enforcement/punishment for violation of the oath. It would seem to me that would require a Constitutional amendment that would establish the enforcement mechanism. It has to be something more than some politician saying “so and so violated his/her oath and should be arrested.” Assume the Justice Dept. is responsible for enforcement. What if the AG (think Eric Holder) violates his oath (as Holder did numerous times). Who prosecutes him? In fact, no matter who or what agency is responsible for enforcement, the question of who prosecutes the enforcer who violates his oath remains.

        I’m not disagreeing with you, but I also don’t think it as simple as it sounds on the surface. My new Congressman is also a personal friend, and I intend to ask him this question the first time he gives out Tea Party group a legislative update.

      • Amazona April 1, 2017 / 1:26 pm

        Spook, you are right. This kind of thing would be open to abuse, and there are ways some cities and states could get around it, at those levels, by merely rephrasing their oaths of office or eliminating them altogether.

        Let’s start at the federal level, and let’s start with the judicial system. This means that every single judge appointed will know that his or her rulings can and probably will be held up to a couple of fairly rigid standards. Right now the only way a judge can be held accountable is if (1) he or she commits blatant judicial misconduct, (2) if there is someone willing to take on the system to prosecute this, and (3) there is a judge in the system willing to go against a fellow judge. This means that the bar is set so high —–judicial misconduct being dismissed as mere judicial discretion as a defense, and/or the judicial community protecting its own—-judges basically rule with impunity. And in this case I use the term “rule” in a regal sense, not the sense of of a judicial ruling.

        A binding oath of office might end up being mostly symbolic, but it would be a constant reminder that egregious violations can and even do have serious consequences. Right now a rogue judge, even if hit with a judicial misconduct charge that sticks, is still a lifetime appointee. He is playing with our money. If a judge knows that he or she can be removed from office during the duration of a investigation into violation of the Constitution, or violation of an oath to administer the law faithfully and without bias, removed without pay in the interim and with the possibility of permanent dismissal, those rulings that might have seemed like a chance to advance a personal agenda will be a little more dangerous. It would also put the enforcement end of the equation outside the judicial community itself by making the judge answer to an independent panel.

        I think just the existence of such a law would have a chilling effect on a lot of the overreach of the judicial system.

        It is easier when you get to law enforcement. A law is enforced, or it is not. The sanctuary city issue is a good example. It is not that hard to show compelling evidence that an attorney general, or a district attorney, or a police department, is not enforcing the law. A lot of minor infractions will fall through the cracks, but the big ones—-such as a police chief telling his or her officers they are not allowed to ask questions about legal status—-will not.

        Agency heads, up to and including offices such as Secretary of State, would put their very jobs and pensions at risk if they do things like Clinton did, not only selling American influence to the highest bidder but putting American national security at risk in her effort to hide what she was doing. The “selling” part is harder to prove, but the law regarding handling of secure information is pretty clear. And violation of that law leading to loss of position and accompanying pension benefits is a pretty big deterrent. The EPA, given its unbounded authority by Obama’s Executive Order, obviously bypassed several levels of Constitutional protections such as due process, as did the BLM when it was working to advance interests other than those of the citizens. And, of course, there is the IRS…….

        I didn’t say it would be easy, or free of potential abuses, but I keep coming back to the belief that a law without a penalty is exactly like having no law at all, and an oath without a penalty for violation is nothing but window dressing.

        I also think a law like this would be a message to the people that the administration is very serious about holding the elites to the same standards the people have to apply in their own jobs and lives.

      • Amazona April 1, 2017 / 1:32 pm

        But this, and so many other necessary reforms, can and will be demagogued by the Left, without a rather charismatic and effective spokesperson explaining what is happening, and why.

        For example, the early stages of prosecuting violations of oaths of office would appear pretty heavy-handed and could be seen as the beginning of massive government control. It would need to be presented as a necessary step in eventually reducing government power and authority and getting more control back into the hands of the people.

        Right now the Right has no such voice. I don’t even think those at the top in the Right even see a need for such a voice. They are so used to the Left calling the shots and responding with “but….but….but…….” and staying on defense, it has never occurred to them to take the offensive in the war for the heart and minds of the public.

      • Amazona April 1, 2017 / 1:37 pm

        BTW, Spook, when you say “….It has to be something more than some politician saying “so and so violated his/her oath and should be arrested..” I am not talking about “arrests”. I am talking about a process where an accusation is reviewed by a board or panel, and if it appears to be valid and well supported the person in question is simply removed from office until the issue has been researched and proved. At that point there is still no arrest, just permanent removal from office and ending of all office-related benefits, including pensions.

        So the judge who has made an overreaching ruling would have to testify in his own defense, citing the Constitutional or legal foundation for his ruling. The mere reality of having to justify a ruling would have a chilling effect on judicial overreach, especially with the prospect of being removed from office hanging over his head.

    • Amazona April 1, 2017 / 11:56 am

      Grassley said former Secretary of State John Kerry ignored his queries in 2015 and 2016.

      Queries, that is, about Hillary Clinton and some of her aides retaining access to State Department information. Here is a great opportunity to have a big hearing with a net that would be large enough to cover top Obama officials.

      Tip to Congress: If they have hearings, don’t let anyone on either side of the aisle use the camera time to lecture, posture or otherwise engage in the kind of grandstanding that we always see in Congressional hearings. Trey Gowdy can give lessons.

  3. rustybrown2014 April 1, 2017 / 4:26 pm

    Not sure if you all have seen this or not but here’s a really good article that you can share with anyone wondering why the ‘national question’ is so important to Trump voters such as ourselves. It’s really a sort of primer; a sturdy nail for us to hang our MAGA hats on in the face of so many accusations of racism and selfishness. With no hyperbole, the path this article is pointing to is forward thinking; what type of country are we forming with our current policies? How do we try to insure that our country remains strong and prosperous which would not only benefit her citizens (our progeny) but also be the best way we could benefit the rest of the world, especially the emerging third world?

    Also, don’t forget to check under your bed thoroughly for Russians before you sleep; my Democrat friends tell me they’re EVERYWHERE.

    • Retired Spook April 1, 2017 / 5:23 pm

      Excellent article, Rusty.

    • Amazona April 1, 2017 / 8:01 pm

      The article touches on several aspects of the illegal immigration issue, but I think we need to drill down even farther into the data. It discusses lax enforcement of laws, failure to assimilate, the cost to the nation of the mass influx of unskilled workers, etc. but it doesn’t address the core of negative feeling held by so many millions of Americans, and that is the unfairness of our system.

      At the heart of traditional Americanism is the basic concept that anyone can prosper if he works hard enough—if he EARNS prosperity, What middle America is seeing now is a complete lack of even the concept of earning what illegal immigrants are getting. We are seeing hardworking people who, for the most part, are getting by, but they work damned hard to do so. And there is resentment of the fact that illegals are such a drain on our economy. It has nothing to do with race, or ethnicity—it is all about who earns what he gets and who is getting a free ride, and who is paying for it. And to get free ride while at the same time thumbing his nose at not only our laws but our entire culture is going to stir up a lot of negativity toward the illegal alien.

      Another aspect is not just the idea of lax enforcement of laws, it is growing fury at the establishment of different laws for different groups of people, which is the antithesis of the American ideal. An American citizen driving drunk, without a license or insurance, is likely to go to jail. An illegal alien driving drunk and without a license is likely to skate without even a ticket.

      While the Left is building up a huge wave of hostility toward Americans who resent the impacts of illegal immigration, they need to acknowledge the fact that they, themselves, are creating a lot of that resentment by setting up different laws and standards for illegals, by dissing American culture and saying it has no value and should not be encouraged as something immigrants should adopt, and telling us that we are horrible people for looking at the problems objectively.

  4. Amazona April 1, 2017 / 8:38 pm

    Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said this week that Gorsuch has not met with them, despite their requests to do so. Subsequently, people quickly drew dots and accused Gorsuch of being racist and sexist because he allegedly wasn’t meeting with women of color.

    Except, surprise surprise, these disgusting wastes of skin were lying. Gee, who knew Democrat Senators would lie to smear a Trump nominee? No one, except for, well, everyone. Didn’t I point out that they are Democrat Senators? Tammy and Kammy are known liars, while Cathy is eager to join the club.

    While Gorsuch is being accused of refusing to meet with women senators of color, a Gorsuch spokesperson told Politico that Gorsuch’s team has reached out to Cortez Masto’s office to schedule a meeting and has presumably done the same for Duckworth and Harris.
    Instead of “refusing” to meet with Cortez Masto, Gorsuch spokesman Ron Bonjean told Politico that both camps have been working together to find a date that works for both Gorsuch and Cortez Masto.

    “In early February, the White House nominations team reached out to Senator Cortez Masto requesting that a meeting be scheduled,” Borjean said. “The judge was more than willing to meet with the senator and both sides have been trying to find a mutually agreeable date that would work.”

    Racist and sexist, oh my! We need words to define discrimination against the stupid and dishonest, so we can have accurate explanations for why some people get ignored. Not that these braindead Twinkies were being ignored, but if they had been, being biased against stupid liars would be a perfectly good reason. I’d love to hear someone respond with “No, I’m a dumbist and a lyist. That means I don’t associate with stupid people or liars.”

    • Amazona April 2, 2017 / 4:24 pm

      Did you notice the poll in the middle of the article?

      Poll: Russia’s Influence in the Presidential Election
      Do you think Russia’s attempts to influence the presidential election using cyber-attacks helped Donald Trump or helped Hillary Clinton, or do you think they had no real effect?

      With “friends” like this, who needs enemies? Even some presumed to be on the Right are parroting the lie that there were Russian cyber-attacks and they were “attempts to influence the presidential election”.


  5. Cluster April 2, 2017 / 5:25 pm

    Cities run by Democrats. Sad:

    • Retired Spook April 2, 2017 / 6:12 pm

      Can you imagine how high the bodies will be stacked in areas like Oakland if there’s some kind of catastrophic societal upheaval? Glad I live out in the sticks.

      • Cluster April 3, 2017 / 8:07 am

        My wife showed me this video and I felt compelled to post it. Unbelievable isn’t it? The inmates are running the asylums in liberal cities all because of those who worship at the alter of political correctness.

  6. jdge1 April 3, 2017 / 6:13 pm

    Hope I did this correct.

    This is an interesting article.

Comments are closed.