Open Thread

It appears that Comey was prepared to let Hillary off the hook before the investigation was completed. Of course, we all knew that, already – but it is nice to have some confirmation on it. Why do we have Trump? Well, lots of reasons – but one of them is that those who are powerful get special deals.

What this ultimately means to me is that it is past time for President Trump to shut down Mueller…essentially, the whole Trump/Russia thing came out of the Obama Administration and this revelation about Comey indicates that the FBI and Justice were corrupted by political influence under the Obama Administration (but, once again, you already knew that). Given that Obama Administration fingerprints are all over the Trump/Russia issue, there is no way that any investigation based upon anything that happened prior to 1/20/17 will be seen as legitimate. So, end it. If someone comes up with some solid information which was never seen or heard by anyone in the Obama Administration, then we can start it up again. But, for now, we should have done with it – especially as Mueller is trying to get the New York AG to go after Trump people…because he’s got nothing he can charge in federal court (likely) and, additionally, Trump can’t pardon on State crimes. End it. It is a farce.

Rumor is that Trump will end – or severely curtail – DACA tomorrow. We’ll see. It would set liberal heads exploding across the fruited plain. But it is also the right thing to do. As I’ve said, I’m in favor of amnesty – but not via Executive fiat. I do understand the problem of kids brought in illegally by their parents…but what we are ultimately to do about them has to be done according to law, not Presidential whim.

A Memphis theater is cancelling a showing of Gone With the Wind. They are cancelling it because Progressive snowflakes are complaining. I’d rather they cancelled it because it is just a silly movie with an entirely un-historical plot. Personally, I can’t watch the movie – it is too degrading a mindset, in my view.

Hollywood: stuck in the past – V the K at Gay Patriot:

…here we are, 44 years later, and Hollywood is still churning out overpopulation movies. Even though current demographic trends in the Western world point to population decline, not overpopulation. And if we could get Africans to use birth control, then we pretty much would have global population decline.

So, why is Hollywood still beating this old drum? Well, for one thing, liberal (in the leftist, not classical sense) culture has ossified around the concerns of the hippie baby-boomers who defined the modern left. If it was a big deal in 1972, then to them it’s a big deal in 2017; which is why we’re stuck with all this ridiculous race obsession, and why Hollywood makes stupid movies about overpopulation. But I think another part of it is that overpopulation provides a rationale for abortion, and we all know how much Hollywood loves abortion.

The most common charge leveled against witches in the Middle Ages was that they prevented the birth of children. Oddly enough, have found out that one of the social leaders of the Progressive set is, in fact, into witchcraft and such.

Rhambo says Chicago will tackle climate change – which is actually easier than tackling a skyrocketing murder rate, I guess.

Allegedly violent leftist looking at a long prison sentence claims he’s the victim.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. Cluster September 1, 2017 / 11:50 am

    Princeton Professor and regular MSNBC contributor Eddie Glaude:

    The American white republic must answer, once and for all, the question that haunts it: why do you need “niggers” in the first place?

    The “white” republic. What about the Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians? Or is it just up to the white people?

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/20485/princeton-prof-american-white-republic-must-answer-robert-kraychik?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

  2. Amazona September 1, 2017 / 2:42 pm

    As I watch the Left obsess about what it perceives as wrongs in the past (while refusing to learn the lessons of history) I am reminded of the words of that great American philosopher, LL Cool J–or at least the words of his character on TV: “Only a fool trips over what is behind him”.

    As to this moron, I would reply that America, the America of all colors, has no need for “niggers” at all. We do have a need for black people who are Americans, who have dignity, who are part of the social and legal fabric of the country. Sadly, what we too often get is “niggers”—to use HIS word, not mine.

    And no, we don’t need them.

    • Cluster September 1, 2017 / 3:47 pm

      Great answer along with the funniest line I have read in a long time:

      …..great American philosopher, LL Cool J

      Too funny. Question, what does the LL stand for?

      Ladies Love Cool J

  3. Retired Spook September 2, 2017 / 11:24 am

    The people of south east Texas, many of whom have lost everything, are in my prayers. If I were physically able, I’d be on my way there to do whatever I could to help. That said, many disasters like Harvey are exacerbated by humans believing they can defeat the forces of nature. The following arrived in my in-box this morning (no url or permalink so I’m reprinting the whole thing.)

    While the loss of life and property and other pain they create are gut-wrenching, disasters like Hurricane Harvey can be great teachers. But we must first be ready to accept the lessons for what they are — good and bad.

    The devastating flood in Houston is a man-caused disaster, as are most modern-day U.S. floods. Now you ask, “Bob, are you saying climate change is responsible?” No, I’m not. Climate change — if there is any — is not caused by man and does not create hurricanes or floods. Nor are storms in and of themselves any more or less destructive today than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 100 years ago.

    But man’s hubris and his dependence upon government are very much to blame for the damage, destruction and suffering that result from storms like Harvey.

    Man long ago decided that his ingenuity would enable him to overcome the laws of nature and he began building cities in flood plains. So he razed the land and stripped it of its topsoil and vegetation. He removed the hills and filled in the valleys. And he covered the land in concrete and asphalt. He built levees to “control” the water.

    His cities became large and expansive and attracted more and more people to live, which led to more expansion, more buildings, more concrete and asphalt and levees.

    This disrupted the natural flow of water. When rain falls from the sky it is absorbed into the earth until the earth becomes saturated. Only then does it begin to flow to the lowest point it can find.
    Buildings, concrete and asphalt do not absorb water. So the rain immediately becomes runoff, which turns into streams, which — when it falls at rates like those seen last week (50 inches in a matter of days) — turn into rivers which wash away everything in their path; even the concrete structures man built.

    Houston’s plight was foretold in July 1998 with the release of a report by National Wildlife Federation. Titled, “Higher Ground,” the report pushed for reform of the National Flood Insurance Program and pointed out that Houston had more than half of America’s “repetitive loss properties” (properties that had been rebuilt a number of times by the flood insurance program after flooding). One home mentioned had flooded 16 times in 18 years, netting the owners $800,000 to rebuild or repair their home valued at less than $115,000.

    “Houston, we have a problem,” declared the report’s author, David Conrad. The repetitive losses from even modest floods, he warned, were a harbinger of a costly and potentially deadly future. “We haven’t seen the worst of this yet,” Conrad said.

    Nor is the Harvey flood the only one to ravage Houston.

    Politico notes that in 2001, Tropical Storm Allison dumped more than two feet of rain on the city, causing about $5 billion in damages. Two relatively modest storms that hit Houston in 2015 and 2016 — so small they didn’t get names — did so much property damage they made the list of the 15 highest-priced floods in U.S. history.

    And as Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D., notes, Houston has had many flood events in its history. In 1935 there was a downtown flood that saw the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou top out at 54.4 feet. In 1979 Tropical Storm Claudette dumped 43 inches of rain on Houston in 24 hours. That’s almost as much water as Harvey, but in a much shorter time.

    Yet for 19 years after Conrad made his declaration, Houston continued to develop in flood-prone areas and the buyers came knowing they could pay modest premiums into the flood insurance program and not worry about future losses. Now, the National Flood Insurance Program is $25 billion in the red.

    And Houston is not alone. New Orleans led the program in repetitive losses in the eight years before Hurricane Katrina. Cities along the Mississippi River fall into the same trap.

    The National Flood Insurance Program, by the way, expires September 30 and there appears to be little appetite in Congress for major reforms — especially with Houston under water.

    “It’s basically lather, rinse, repeat,” Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense told Politico. “The fundamental responsibility of government is to protect people, but this program keeps encouraging people to build in harm’s way.”

    The Flood Insurance Program is a perfect example of they way government intervention distorts the normal order — just like when artificially low interest rates create bubbles and malinvestment.

    Man’s dependence upon government creates hardships on those in the affected areas. Rather than store food, water and other essentials for emergencies so they can survive in case of disaster, people remain in some kind of false comfort zone of normalcy bias, believing that because the things they need have always been there, they will always be there — and that government will save them. But FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) didn’t pluck anyone off of a roof.
    Yet in the run-up to the storm, grocery shelves were laid bare and needed items generators, plywood, boards, tape, etc., for boarding up and protecting homes were gone, leaving many who waited too late without. This left people for days without food and water, and left their homes unprotected.

    We have long told our readers that the time to prepare for a disaster — whether man-caused or natural — is now because tomorrow could be too late. Everyone should keep on hand a minimum of three days of food and water and preferably enough for three or more weeks. And everyone should consider the possible disasters that may strike and collect everything they would need to survive the crisis.

    But Harvey also provided us with good lessons and reminders. The globalists are funding and the mainstream media are promoting race wars and division in America in an attempt to bring her down. But the heartwarming images of people helping people — first it was Houstonians helping their neighbors, and then it was people who got there as fast as they could from all over the country — with rescues, food and shelter show that Americans are the best people on earth.
    It’s not the government, which is not America and is as corrupt and dysfunctional as any, that represents America. It is her people. Government — the federal government, especially — is not a first responder. It can’t be depended upon to provide the necessities during and in the immediate aftermath of the storm.

    It’s the local people first helping each other, and the local first responders next. And America’s people have shown once again they are good, and that gives me hope.

    Yours for the truth,

    Bob Livingston
    Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

    • Amazona September 2, 2017 / 5:44 pm

      Spook, thank you for this post. While I have the greatest empathy for those suffering from the floods, I am not very sympathetic with the amazement and surprise constantly exhibited by the reporting. All I can say is “Duh”. I had the same reaction to the Katrina flooding. Sad, yes. Personal tragedies, yes. But a surprise? Hardly. When you live below sea level in the historical path of hurricanes, how can you be surprised when you are flooded in a hurricane?

      Sure, people can choose to live in areas that are likely to be flooded. It’s a free country. But to make that choice and then demand help from others when flooding occurs is irrational. Well, I guess in a nation increasingly dependent on government handouts and the charity of others it may not seem reckless, but to people who make decisions to avoid predictable natural disasters it sure looks that way.

      It’s like building a house in an avalanche chute, and then expecting people to step in and risk their lives to rescue you if your house is caught in an avalanche—and then pay to rebuild it, so it can be destroyed again. A few years ago a community near Castle Rock, Colorado, wanted help because they were afraid of boulders breaking loose in heavy rains and rolling down onto their houses. They had looked at a steep slope studded with huge boulders, they had looked at huge boulders littering the lower parts of that slope where they had landed after being dislodged by erosion, and then chose to build expensive houses below remaining boulders higher up on the slope.

      I always wonder why people build critical structures, such as refineries, in such disaster-prone areas. Surely they could be built father inland, with pipelines of finished products to the ports where they can be shipped out. It just seems to make more sense to have pipelines that can be shut down during a hurricane, while having the refineries well inland and less vulnerable, than to think they have to be close to ports.

      When it’s my turn to be in charge, things will be done a lot differently. For example, all microwaves will work the same way, so you don’t have to feel like an idiot if you can’t heat up a cup of coffee. 🙂

  4. Amazona September 3, 2017 / 11:58 am

    Finally, an article pinning the infantile development level of college-age children where it belongs, on the parents, while pointing out that what were once halls of learning are supporting and encouraging it. emphasis mine

    …..students arrive with little moral ballast bequeathed by parents who thought their role was, Furedi says, less to transmit values than to validate their children’s feelings and attitudes:

    “This emphasis on validation runs in tandem with a risk-averse regime of child-rearing, the (unintended) consequence of which has been to limit opportunities for the cultivation of independence and to extend the phase of dependence of young people on adult society.” The therapeutic university’s language — students are ‘vulnerable’ to routine stresses and difficulties that are defined as ‘traumas’ — becomes self-fulfilling. The therapeutic university’s language — students are “vulnerable” to routine stresses and difficulties that are defined as “traumas” — also becomes self-fulfilling. As a result, students experience a diminished sense of capacity for moral agency — for self-determination. This can make them simultaneously passive, immersing themselves into groupthink, and volatile, like the mobs at Middlebury College; Claremont McKenna College; University of California, Berkeley; and other schools that disrupt uncongenial speakers. Hence universities provide “trigger warnings” that facilitate flights into “safe spaces.” Furedi quotes an Oberlin College student who says: “There’s something to be said about exposing yourself to ideas other than your own,” but “I’ve had enough of that.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450985/yale-statue-removal-higher-education-indoctrination?

  5. Cluster September 5, 2017 / 4:01 pm

    Re: DACA

    Mexico’s deputy foreign minister, Carlos Sada, said the Trump’s decision created “anxiety, anguish and fear.” The change could affect some 625,000 Mexican nationals, a majority of the nearly 800,000 young men and women who were brought into the United States illegally as children and are protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

    Someone needs to tell Mr. Sada that if Mexico were better governed and less corrupt, we wouldn’t have this problem. The anxiety, anguish and fear starts in Mexico Mr. Sada causing your citizens to flee from you and your country.

  6. Amazona September 5, 2017 / 6:33 pm

    How much fear? We need to have this statement quantified. As much fear as that generated by seeing a statue? As much fear as being confronted by a banana peel? Is it as bad as the abject terror experienced by knowing that a conservative is making a speech three miles away?

    Don’t get me wrong—-I agree, being forced to live in Mexico should generate a sense of fear. But, as Cluster says, let’s put the source of that fear where it belongs—not on a country determined to be governed by laws, but on the reality of a corrupt government leading to a toxic stew of permanent poverty and lawlessness in which drug gangs rule.

    And it’s not as if native-born Americans don’t have to live in fear, themselves. They sometimes have to leave their safe spaces and their coloring books to venture out into a harsh and fearsome world in which some people have different opinions!

  7. Cluster September 6, 2017 / 8:11 am

    We are either a nation governed by laws, or a nation governed by men. Our founders designed this country to be governed by laws, but it is obvious that the propagandists at MSNBC are either completely unfamiliar with the machinations of a representative republic, or they in fact do want a country governed by men. Knowing they let Obama get away with one unconstitutional move after another, it makes perfect sense. And this is where the chasm between conservatives and progressives begins.

    Re: Jonah Goldberg. I like Jonah. He seems like a nice guy and I always agree with his opinions but yesterday he showed us all why the conservative cause has been so unsupported and ineffective over the last decade or two. Jonah laid out the case why DACA is destructive, unconstitutional and should end, and why it needs to be legislated in Congress. Fantastic. Point made. BUT, Jonah then proceeded to make every weak political excuse of why Trump should not have done it, and that right there is our problem. Just like Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry, Paul Ryan, John McCain, etc., etc., we have too many conservatives who will not “walk the walk”. They talk a good game, but when the moment of truth arrives, they cower.

  8. Retired Spook September 6, 2017 / 10:40 am

    Saw a headline somewhere this morning that referenced people who support killing children, right up until the second they’re born (and on rare occasions, even after) not having a legitimate say in whether “Dreamers” stay or go. I have to say this is one of the most glaring disconnects of left-thinking people.

    • Cluster September 6, 2017 / 11:23 am

      Well you know just like only some black lives matter, dreams are the same. Only progressive dreams matter, that is if they allow that dreamer to make it out of the womb.

      Democrats are not honorable or principled people. They lie as easily as they breathe and intentionally so to foam up their under educated, over emotional base and to personally denigrate their opponents. Yesterday, several MSNBC propagandists were saying that Trump’s actions on DACA is a “white supremacist agenda”. And they were serious.

      • Retired Spook September 6, 2017 / 11:27 am

        several MSNBC propagandists were saying that Trump’s actions on DACA is a “white supremacist agenda”. And they were serious.

        In spite of the fact that Trump was only undoing something that Obama said he had no constitutional power to do — and did anyway. I don’t know how you even begin to deal with that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

      • Amazona September 6, 2017 / 12:20 pm

        In my interactions with Liberals—–fewer and fewer as time goes by, as we have discussed—-I find that most don’t know what the Constitution says and of those who do there is a feeling that it should be “flexible”. So the very concept of a president being bound by the actual wording of the Constitution is simply not part of their mindset. And this makes them vulnerable to the nonsense that any action taken to correct an abuse of Constitutional authority has a different, malignant, intent.

        The last time I tried to peel back a Liberal argument to a simple discussion of how best to govern the nation, I was told that socialism is a great way to govern the country. When I asked her to name a single socialist country that has been successful, I got the standard reply of “Sweden”. At that point I just stopped, because at that point we had spun back into emotion-based factually inaccurate Liberal nonsense and it was clear it could go no farther. (Sweden, as most of us know, is NOT a “socialist” country, but has a capitalist economic system. It’s just that along with its capitalism it is a welfare state, increasingly ruled by Leftist dogma, and because of this is failing so rapidly the velocity of its death spiral is increasing as we speak, exacerbated by its welcome of Muslim “refugees”.)

Comments are closed.