Out and About on a Tuesday

Chancellor Merkel is having one heck of a hard time forming a government – not entirely surprising for a party leader who only got 33% of the vote (the lowest vote for her CDU in the post-WWII era). She won’t work with populist AfD, and the classic-liberal FDP couldn’t go with Merkel’s immigration and economic policies. Latest is she’s trying to work out a deal with the socialist SPD…and that a supposedly Conservative party would want to work with the SPD is all anyone needs to know about how corrupt politics is these days (earlier, she was trying to work with the downright fascist Greens to form a government). It has got me thinking: Germany is nothing but a mistake.

I know, kinda harsh. But, really, what is Germany? It was a mere geographic expression until Bismarck dragooned most of it (less Austria and a couple other bits and pieces) into joining Prussia in the misbegotten German Empire in 1870. Prussia, itself, wasn’t much to write home about – like all German States, it was really no more than the personal property of one family – in this case, the Hohenzollern’s, who started out as the Margrave of Brandenburg, and managed to get their estate raised to the dignity of a Kingdom in 1701. It had no organic connection to, say, Bavaria or Baden…heck, even the type of German spoken in Prussia was different from that spoken in Bavaria. And Bavaria and Baden had vastly more culturally in common with France and Austria than they did with Prussia. But, the deed was done – and it was fused together by Prussian militarism and Bismarck’s bleakly amoral Realpolitik. In hindsight, the proper policy to pursue after the monster was slain in 1918 was to re-break up Germany. All we did by allowing it to survive is to give Hitler his chance – and since the defeat of Hitler, what we’ve got in the center of Europe is a still powerful entity which doesn’t even know what it is or what it wants. Unified Germany has been a bane to rational policy in Europe for 147 years. I feel for a people who can’t be patriotic because to be a German patriot would mean either honoring the Kaiser or the Fuhrer – broken up into constituent parts, a Bavarian or Saxon patriot would have something to talk about. What is to become of it, I don’t know – but as long as Merkel is in charge, it’ll just go from bad to worse.

Legal Insurrection points out that the Mueller investigation looks more and more like the revenge of James Comey, and I can’t find much to disagree with on that. On the other hand, some observers I’ve come across figure that Mueller might have switch to the pro-Trump side and is actually setting up a massive attack against the Deep State – there is some sense in that. After all, we all look at is as bad that a whole bunch of Obama- and Clinton-bots were brought in by Mueller but, think about it: these people are no longer at Justice or the FBI and thus can’t gum up the works there. I’m still in favor of firing Mueller and bringing this charade to an end – but I guess Trump has his reasons for holding fire. I can’t believe that it is fear – the man clearly doesn’t fear what his opponents will say about him over any particular action he takes.

Snowflakes demand we stop calling them snowflakes because this hurts their feelz. I’m sure all of you will accord this demand all the respect you can muster for snowflake whines.

The Bake the Cake court case has caused a lot of social media argument. My view: no one should be compelled to work they don’t want to do. Unless the public safety requires it, everyone should be free to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason…or none at all.

Most of those we deport are sweet, well-meaning Dreamers who just want to help terrible criminals we don’t want in our country. I know, you’re totally shocked.

Our tax-loving liberals are displeased they’ll have to actually pay their taxes. Advocating for high taxes is merest virtue-signalling…most often done by people who are rich enough to pay the freight/canny enough to hide their income.

Conyers has called it quits – and endorsed his son to replace him. Funny, I thought we tossed out monarchy in 1776.

Interesting observation from a comment over at Instapundit:

Did the prosecution tell Flynn’s lawyer that their main witness against him was removed for bias? Since Strzok led the interview and his testimony would be needed to establish untruthfulness, he is a critical witness not just a prosecutor. If not disclosed, would this not be a Giglio violation? This is the kind of misconduct that can get a case dismissed and a lawyer disbarred. It is a Constitutional violation. This has bothered me since I heard about it.

It does seem odd to me – the whole case seems to hinge on the word of a man who is clearly on the side of Hillary and opposed to Trump.

61 thoughts on “Out and About on a Tuesday

  1. Cluster December 6, 2017 / 8:02 am

    Strzok not only led the Flynn interview, he also interviewed Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin and strangely found no discrepancies in their testimony. He then influenced Comey to characterize Hillary’s actions as “extremely careless” rather than the higher and more prosecutable offense of “gross negligence” so to say that this is a witch hunt is a YUGE understatement.

    HOWEVER, MSNBC and Mika just learned that Donald Trump Jr met with a Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. NO KIDDING, THEY JUST REPORTED THAT AGAIN. As if it were relevant and of course over looking the fact that Hillary DID meet with foreign entities and DID pay for dirt on Donald Trump. They all look like the fools they are.

    And it’s just not Germany that’s screwed up, all of Europe is facing a potential crisis of YUGE proportions. Unchecked immigration and the importation of refugees all in the name of political correctness has resulted in the dissolution of a shared and sovereign culture to a community of tribes and no assimilation. It’s gotten so bad that Johnny Depp had to leave France and move back to America.

  2. Cluster December 6, 2017 / 8:32 am

    Two bedrock conservatives; Peggy Noonan and George Will are on MSNBC right now bashing Trump over his Jerusalem position, proving once again that conservatives like them only talk the talk, and NEVER walk the walk. They are worried of course that Trump will “anger the Palestinians” – imagine that! And of course Chris Matthews was there to lecture the audience on the Palestinians sole desire to just have a peaceful home and a legitimate capital. That’s all they want. But of course if there is bloodshed stemming from this announcement, then it is all Trump’s fault. See how that works? Palestinians just want peace, but if they don’t get 100% of their demands, then it is not their fault if there is violence. Makes perfect sense.

  3. Amazona December 6, 2017 / 10:15 am

    It is apparently just fine to pay a foreign nation, or its agents, to concoct fake information about an opponent to influence an American election.

    It is apparently an unforgivable CRIME to ask a foreign nation, or its agents, if they happen to have any existing accurate information about the opposition, to use in an American election.

    That is, working with a foreign nation, or its agents, to mislead and manipulate the American public is acceptable, but trying to find the truth about an opponent from a foreign nation, or its agents, is not.

    It is apparently just fine to lie to the American public by passing off known untruths as fact, in an effort to win an election.

    It is apparently an unforgivable ethical lapse, if not an outright crime, to expose the truth about an opponent in an election.

    That is, winning an election by lying to the public is acceptable, but winning an election by telling the truth about an opponent is not only unacceptable but an impeachable offense.

    Apparently, lying to the FBI about something that is not even illegal is, in and of itself, a crime, if you are a Republican. But lying to the FBI to cover up a crime is OK, if you are a Democrat.

    “Innocent until proven guilty” is no longer a legal or moral standard. If you are a Democrat, this is recast as “innocent even after proven guilty” while for Republicans it is “never innocent and forget the ‘proving’ part”.

    • Retired Spook December 6, 2017 / 10:29 am

      Amazona, you have an excellent grasp of the current state of American politics.

      • Amazona December 6, 2017 / 11:51 am

        I don’t LIKE having a a good grasp of the current state of American politics, because it means I have to deal with some really serious issues that I think threaten our very nation as it was conceived, designed and created. I despise the constant fluctuations of perceptions that now form the basis for nearly every idea and decision made in this country.

        Take the Roy Moore mess. Yes, he evidently acted, some forty years ago, in ways that are, to 21st Century sensibilities, kind of distasteful. What bothers me is the huge leaps made by people from a fact over here to an invention over there, as if there is a logical progression.

        I have been told that during the time Moore was Assistant DA in this little town in Alabama, state law allowed girls as young as 14 to marry. I haven’t checked that out, but I do know that in many Southern states this was allowed. While you and I and many others may find this distasteful, it was part of the culture of the time and place. Also, it was not a big deal for older men to date young girls. Again, we might find it kind of creepy, but in that time and in that place a 17-year-old going out with a man 20 years older than she was not that big a deal. We can sit here, 40 or 50 years later, in a time and culture so far removed from that of Deep South small towns in the 60s and 70s and wrinkle our noses and say “ick” but that is not what matters. What matters is whether or not, in that time and place, in that culture, what Roy Moore did was considered wrong.

        I say that regarding going out with a much younger woman, the answer is “no”. He was single, she was of the age of consent, they evidently did go out in public together so it wasn’t like a dark dirty secret, and I consider it no big deal. I haven’t heard anything about how this relationship, whatever it may have been, was seen by her parents, for example. By her siblings.By his peers. By her peers. By the town. By HER. Did SHE think she was doing something wrong and immoral? All I’ve heard is what a bunch of rabidly Liberal hypocrites think of it, nearly half a century later, with no more information that the ages of the people involved. I haven’t seen the term “dating” described in detail—a movie and on another date a hamburger at the diner, or weekends away in the city together? ?????

        As for the other accusations, they have not been proved, and I am deeply concerned as well as offended by the acceptance of assumptions built upon other assumptions built upon other assumptions based on allegations based on unproved accusations. The whole yearbook pseudo-scandal has been pretty much debunked. Now I hear things like “he ripped the clothes off a 14-year-old girl”. Really? Who, where, when and in what circumstances? And how would this constitute “pedophilia” when a 14-year-old girl in that time and place had clearly reached puberty and was legally allowed to marry?

        I resent not being able to evaluate Roy Moore’s character because so much of what I am told is so clearly distorted by agenda-driven media. I resent being told that if I am willing to accept, as a Senator, a man whose actions nearly half a century ago were within the social and moral boundaries of the time and place but would not be acceptable today that means I am condoning rape or sexual molestation. I resent being told that if I insist on sorting fact from speculation from outright lies I am morally deficient.

        And I am starting to see an element of discrimination, a snobby snotty looking-down-the-nose attitude toward the small town cultures I have described, an elitist sneering at rubes and hicks and good old boys and the way they lived and maybe still do live. I see many disturbing elements in the Roy Moore saga, elements such as snobbery, political hatchet jobs, media manipulation, cultural ignorance, eagerness to destroy a man’s reputation to gain political advantage, Republicans piling on without any more real information than the Liberals are using in their witch hunt, etc. I can’t think of a single reference to Moore, by a Liberal or by a so-called Conservative, that has shown an objective evaluation of ALL the facts known and a healthy skepticism of those merely alleged but not proved or even not very likely.

        And this is just a tiny aspect of 21st Century American politics.

      • Cluster December 6, 2017 / 12:55 pm

        I resent being told that if I am willing to accept, as a Senator, a man whose actions nearly half a century ago were within the social and moral boundaries of the time and place but would not be acceptable today that means I am condoning rape or sexual molestation.

        Here is a prime example:

      • Retired Spook December 6, 2017 / 1:47 pm


        There’s 14 minutes and 29 seconds I’ll never get back. I had a hard time getting through the entire clip without putting my fist through the computer monitor.

      • Retired Spook December 6, 2017 / 2:43 pm

        State-by-State Teen Marriage License Laws

        Alabama: If either of you are under eighteen (18), you will need a certified copy of your birth certificate. Both parents must be present with identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court order and identification.

        The state requires a $200 bond to be executed, payable to the State of Alabama. If one or both parents are deceased, proper evidence of such must be provided. Individuals under the age of 14 may not marry.

      • Cluster December 6, 2017 / 3:48 pm

        Spook – LOL could you believe how Willie Geist would NOT leave the issue alone and kept asking Corey if he supported a pedophile – unbelievable

      • Retired Spook December 6, 2017 / 4:24 pm


        As I said a while back, if Conservatives are going to put themselves in the position that Corey did, they need to have the guts and presence of mind to question the premise of the outrageous crap thrown at them. For example, I would have answered Willie Geist with, “I’m not a big Roy Moore fan, but what facts do you have that support calling him a pedophile?”

      • Amazona December 6, 2017 / 9:17 pm

        Spook, I found several sites purporting to have information on legal ages of marriage in various states, and many of them contradicted each other. Here are three sources. emphasis mine

        Alabama The age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent, parties can marry at age fourteen. However, this parental consent is not required if the minor has already been married.
        Alaska The age of consent is sixteen. Parties can marry at a younger age, also with parental consent.
        California The age of consent is eighteen. With parental consent, there are no age limits regarding the minimum age for a couple to marry. (Other statutory laws apply.)
        Hawaii The age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, parties can marry at age fifteen.
        Massachusetts The age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, males can marry at fourteen years of age and females can marry at the age of twelve.
        New Hampshire The age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent and the consent of the judge, males can marry at age fourteen and females can marry at age thirteen.
        Texas The age of consent is seventeen. With parental and judicial consent, parties can marry but not below the age of fourteen for males and thirteen for females

        By Christopher Harress
        This story is a part of Ask Alabama, a weekly interaction with our readers, where you ask the questions, you vote to decide which questions we answer, and then we investigate. One reader asks, “Alabama ranks number 4 in states with the most child marriages, often to adults. Why is it legal for children to marry?”

        Back in May 2001, a bill was introduced into the Alabama Senate that sought to raise the age a person can marry from 14 years-old to 16. But during a late night filibuster, the bill failed to pass. Lawmakers did not want to raise the age, according to an Associated Press reportfrom the time.

        “I couldn’t believe there was so much opposition to it,” said former Alabama representative John Hilliard (D-Birmingham), who introduced the bill after discovering that children from neighboring states were coming into Alabama to get married. “How can it be that a child as young as that was being promised out by their parents? And almost nobody at the time was able to tell me why it was okay for it to continue.”

        It would be another two years before the state increased the minimum age to 16. “That’s still a child,” Hilliard pointed out when he spoke to AL.com.

        States that permit marriage at age 14 with parental and/or judicial consent:

        • California: No minimum age with parental consent AND approval of a superior court judge
        • Massachusetts: Consent can be just judicial, but is normally both parental AND judicial. In the absence of any statutory minimum age, one opinion is that the traditional minimum common law marriageable age of 12 for girls and 14 for boys may still be in effect. Without parental and judicial consent, the minimum age is 18.
        • New Hampshire: 13 for females, 14 for males in cases of “special cause” with parental consent AND court permission.
        • New York: 14 with parental AND judicial consent.
        • North Carolina: No minimum in case of pregnancy or birth of child with parental consent.
        • Pennsylvania: 14 in case of pregnancy AND with the approval of a Judge of the Orphans Court.
        • Texas: Judicial consent is required for age 15 and under; there is no minimum age to get married with judicial consent.
        • Washington: The minimum age of 17 may be waived by superior court judge.
        • West Virginia: No minimum with both parental AND judicial consent

        So evidently my information was correct (I have been told that during the time Moore was Assistant DA in this little town in Alabama, state law allowed girls as young as 14 to marry… ) and back then a girl could marry at the age of 14. Still can, according to this source, and if she is already married then evidently parental approval is no longer necessary.

        Also, a girl who was 17 had reached the age of consent.

        I have read that the parents of girls Moore dated knew of the dating and had no problems with it.

        So the actions that can be proved were also accepted in that time and place by all concerned. And the other allegations have yet to be proved, with at least one rather thoroughly debunked, or are just downright silly, such as trying to attach some sinister meaning to Moore signing a graduation card.

      • M. Noonan December 6, 2017 / 10:09 pm

        Back 40 years ago, it was much more prevalent than today…and the further back you go, the younger you find the brides. The historian Will Durant, certainly no criminal, married his wife, Ariel Durant, when she was 15…and was his student! No one batted an eye at it…and, let’s face some facts, people were a lot more morally straight laced back in 1913…but that was only a little more than 100 years ago. It is a cultural thing, though all cultures seem to figure that 12 is the bare minimum age. In Roman times, the ideal ages for marriage were 30 for a man, 15 for a woman…which made sense, when you think about it: by 30, a man will have proved himself worth marrying, or not; and at 15, a woman is fully capable of having children and, if so, why not have them with a man who is well-established? So went the Roman thinking.

        There’s a reason Jews have their Bar Mitzvah’s at 13, and Catholics go through confirmation at that age – at that age, a person is considered capable of knowing what is right and what is wrong; ie, they are capable of making decisions. It is only fairly recently that we started thinking of 13 year olds as mere children. Certainly, a 13 year old is not to be trusted to go it alone – but they aren’t incapable of doing lots of things for themselves. History is littered with teenagers who took an adult’s role in the world. Galusha Pennypacker joined the Union army at the age of 16 in the Civil War and by his 20th birthday was a Brigadier general. Napoleon was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant at the age of 16. Part of what is going on here is the progressive sheltering of young people…we allow childhood to go on far longer than we should.

      • Amazona December 6, 2017 / 9:26 pm

        Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.


        Definition of PEDOPHILIA
        : sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child


        I haven’t heard of any accusations of Moore engaging in inappropriate behavior with a 12 or 13 year old child, yet the Lying Left (sorry about the redundancy) has latched onto that word and gleefully repeats it every chance it gets.

        But you are right, Spook—if these people don’t have their ducks in a row, and are ready and able to deal with the machine-gun fire of lies, accusations and character attacks they shouldn’t be in those “interviews”.

  4. Retired Spook December 6, 2017 / 4:17 pm

    Great article at Oath Keepers today about the Mueller investigation and just how putrid the swamp really is.

    Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who was removed from the Russia collusion investigation back in July over anti-Trump text messages, was heavily involved with the Clinton email investigation. And now shockingly, it has been revealed that he also oversaw the bureau’s interviews of embattled former national security advisor Michael Flynn. According to Circa News’ Sara Carter, “Strzok is one of two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn, which took place on Jan. 24, at the White House.”

    He interviewed Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016, and found she did nothing wrong. Same guy interviewed Michael Flynn six months later and came away with a perjury charge. Flynn is now facing jail time for mis-remembering details of his phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which the feds were listening in on. He was improperly unmasked and his name illegally leaked to the press even though nothing was found to be improper about his discussions with the Russian ambassador.

    “which the feds were listening in on”

    Why were they listening in on Flynn’s conversations? By whose authority? Based on what evidence? Was the evidence the “dossier” provided by Fusion GPS, which has been shown to be bogus?

    If they listened in on Flynn’s conversations, then they knew what was discussed verbatim. They also knew he had done nothing wrong in those conversations. Why did they need to ask him about them? Were they setting him up? I dare anyone to repeat, verbatim, a conversation on the phone, especially if it was of any length.

    FBI agent Strzok interviewed Hillary Clinton about her emails on her private server, yet found no lies in her statements, though it has been shown that she has lied on many occasions. Strzok gave her a free pass.

    • Amazona December 6, 2017 / 9:28 pm

      Why were they listening in on Flynn’s conversations? By whose authority? Based on what evidence? Was the evidence the “dossier” provided by Fusion GPS, which has been shown to be bogus?

      This has been skipped over by the Left and its minions, the Complicit Agenda Media, because this is a minefield for the Obama administration and they know it. We know it, too, but lack any but a few conservative voices to talk about it.

  5. Amazona December 7, 2017 / 12:40 am

    re: the snowflake link.

    The figures also show that young people are more likely to have experienced stress, anxiety and depression in the last year…

    Well, YEAH!!! When they become quivering masses of tearful terror at the sight of a banana peel and feel physically threatened by the terrifying specter of someone with a different opinion actually speaking within three miles of them, OF COURSE the poor darlings are going to feel stress, anxiety and depression! And the conflicts in every moment of every day—-can’t go blonde because that would be cultural appropriation of Nordic heritage, can’t wear hoop earrings, can’t go to a Chinese restaurant if they’re not Chinese, have to deal with the decision of whether to study math to get a decent degree or walk out on math class because math is inherently racist—–it simply never ends.

    There is a great phrase in the article: …hyperemotional performative outrage…

  6. Cluster December 7, 2017 / 8:23 am

    Has everyone noticed that the “Russia collusion” story which never did have any merit to it, is now morphing into “Russia corruption”? That’s the new narrative on MSNBC now. They are abandoning the collusion angle and now focused on the actions of Flynn following the inauguration and his conversations with Kislyak. This is not an investigation into how Russia influenced our election process. This is now a fishing expedition to find anything they can use to ultimately impeach Trump. This is Deep State BULLSH*T that is breathlessly promoted by the complicit media and Democrats and poses more of a danger to this country than any outside force ever could.

    We have enemies of the state amongst us actively working against the American people.

    • Amazona December 8, 2017 / 11:18 pm

      What? WHAT? WHAT ???? Corruption in RUSSIA?

      Oh, say it ain’t so! I am stunned. This is me, looking for a fainting couch and clutching my pearls in shock and horror.

      But kudos to MSNBC for getting out in front of this breaking news.

      • M. Noonan December 8, 2017 / 11:29 pm

        LOL – Russia has always been run on bribes. So has China. In some cultures, it is just the way things are…you’ve got to grease the palm to get things done.

      • Amazona December 9, 2017 / 10:40 am

        After the fall of the Soviet Union, the nation became a hotbed of criminal behavior that eclipsed the worst of the mob wars of the 1930s in the United States. Corruption in Russia has gone far beyond simple bribery, to include extortion, torture and murder. The Russian Mafia, as it has come to be known, has also infiltrated the United States, and is known to be ruthless and brutal.

  7. Cluster December 7, 2017 / 8:49 am

    So Steve Schmidt just claimed that Trump was slurring his words during the speech yesterday and that that is clear evidence that he is not physically well and mentally unfit for the office, This is the same Steve Schmidt who claimed that Hillary may be the most qualified candidate to ever run for POTUS. This is the same Steve Schmidt who managed John McCain’s VERY UNSUCCESSFUL run for POTUS.

    We should start treating people like Steve Schmidt as unlawful enemy combatants.

    • Retired Spook December 7, 2017 / 10:13 am

      I’m less concerned about a SHTF scenario than I was a couple years ago, but if things do go south, the people like Steve Schmidt who have stirred this pot are going to have a hard time finding a hiding place.

    • Cluster December 7, 2017 / 12:55 pm

      And here is an article about what transpired on Morning Joe this morning:

      The panel on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” suggested Thursday that President Trump is suffering from diminished mental capacity after he delivered a speech and slurred some of his words toward the end.

      Republican strategist and MSNBC contributor Steve Schmidt, a regular on the show, said Trump appeared to have an “impairment” and called it “chilling” to watch.


      • Amazona December 7, 2017 / 2:36 pm

        Just a couple of questions:

        1. Can anyone, these days, simply self-identify without question? I mean, if someone born with a penis can self-identify as a woman, if a woman born to two Caucasian parents of long-established Caucasian ancestry can self-identify as a black woman, if an individual can self-identify as several people and demand special pronouns indicating multiple people, does it automatically follow that a Liberal can simply call himself a Republican and never be challenged?

        To me, calling Steve Schmidt a “Republican strategist” is kind of like calling Dwight Eisenhower a “Nazi strategist” —we are, after all, talking about a man whose history has been to erode and undermine the very essence of what the Republican Party supposedly represents. Usually a subversive mole planted within an organization works in secret, but in our current political environment it seems that one may work out in the open, as long as he has a label to provide him with a cover story.

        I can understand why opponents of the party, and all it purports to represent, are quite happy to refer to its enemies as insiders of the party, but I think we need to start pushing back against that.

        2. I wonder if Mr. Schmidt, or any of his fellow travelers. fretted about the mental condition of President uh, ahh, uhhhhhh, ahhhh, oh, uhhhh Obama and his inability to put together a coherent sentence without being able to read in on a teleprompter—and sometimes even WITH the aid of a script to follow, if the teleprompter were to act up and just keep repeating a sentence over and over.

      • Cluster December 7, 2017 / 3:18 pm

        Or mispronounce corpsman, or cite the 57 states, or saying that Iran and Cuba are not dangerous because they are small countries …..

  8. Cluster December 7, 2017 / 1:07 pm

    I will leave this here:

  9. Amazona December 7, 2017 / 2:24 pm

    Which poses the greater danger to (1) the Republican Party and (2) our democratic process?

    A. Having another Senator who has acted inappropriately in the past, though not for the last 40 years, or
    B. Having a system in which a candidate can be eliminated merely by presenting unsubstantiated allegations against him

    I suggest that the party, and the nation, can handle yet another member of Congress whose past may have some shady aspects (even if the allegations are true) as long as the alleged misdeeds are not recent, are not ongoing, and do not show a consistent significant pattern of character defects.

    I also suggest that our entire system of representative government is at risk if any potential public servant can be summarily dismissed on the basis of allegations of decades-old unprovable transgressions. To me, this is a serious danger to our entire system, on many levels, ranging from the core of our judicial system (innocent until proven guilty) to ease of manipulation of the electoral process.

    I don’t have to like Roy Moore to think this way. I don’t have to believe that, in my personal opinion, it isn’t a little creepy to see a man who has consistently sought to date high-school aged girls half his age. I don’t have to admire him. I don’t have to want to excuse anything he may have done. That is not the point.

    The point is, when our party is so easily stampeded into abandoning our candidates on so little evidence, probably because the candidate in question isn’t very likable as a person, we are handing the opposition a blueprint for how to destroy us. I don’t care if the reasons are virtue signaling, pandering to a demographic, personal bias against a certain personality, or any other reason that might exist. What I care about is having a party with a backbone.

    To me, a party with a backbone would be a party which would stand by an accused person until a reasonable process of evaluating accusations has been completed. It could virtue signal by demanding such a process, it could accelerate such a process, there are several paths it might reasonably take. But to dance to the tune of an opposition known to lie, cheat and manipulate without any serious effort to follow even the most basic rules of fairness, jurisprudence or due process signals, to me, a weak party without a moral or intellectual compass.

  10. Retired Spook December 7, 2017 / 3:37 pm

    Ryan Anderson at NRO makes a great point about the Masterpiece Cakeshop SCOTUS case that I had completely forgotten.

    A big part of the problem is that sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws are now being used to “punish the wicked,” in the words of Tim Gill, their biggest financial backer (to the tune of $500 million). But anti-discrimination policies should serve as shields, not swords. They are meant to shield people from unjust discrimination that might prevent them from flourishing in society. They aren’t supposed to be swords used to punish people for acting on their reasonable beliefs. You can see this when considering the history of Colorado’s law. Within a two-year span, Colorado citizens voted to define marriage as the union of husband and wife and to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many other states, too, simultaneously enacted sexual-orientation non-discrimination policies while insisting that the traditional understanding of marriage is not discriminatory. Justice Samuel Alito pointed to this reality during oral arguments. At the time that Jack Phillips declined to bake a same-sex wedding cake, Colorado wouldn’t even recognize — let alone issue — same-sex marriage licenses. So the same-sex couple couldn’t get the state of Colorado to recognize their relationship as a marriage. “And yet when he goes to this bake shop, and he says I want a wedding cake, and the baker says, no, I won’t do it, in part because same-sex marriage was not allowed in Colorado at the time, he’s created a grave wrong,” Alito stated. “How does that all that fit together?” Indeed. Colorado should have never declared Phillips to be guilty of discrimination in the first place. (emphasis – mine)

  11. Cluster December 8, 2017 / 8:54 am

    So Democrats want a permanent fix to DACA now and are blaming “anti immigrant” Trump for not acting. For those of us who have retention abilities longer than 72 hours, can recall Obama’s 2008 & 2012 campaign promises to “reform immigration” (because they care), only to see the Democrats kick the can down the road once again with a temporary executive order…… not exactly a “profile in leadership”. But now, Democrats INSIST on getting something done or they will hold the country hostage and are blaming the GOP.

    This is proof positive of just how mind numbingly stupid the Democrat base is.


  12. Retired Spook December 8, 2017 / 2:23 pm

    Excellent video.

    Nice to see someone is pushing back and teaching others how to do so.

  13. Retired Spook December 8, 2017 / 2:29 pm

    I know it’s wishful thinking, but if and when the whole truth comes out about the CFPB there ought to be more than a few people doing the perp walk.

    A consultant who worked with the highly politicized Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) claims the organization funneled a large portion of over $5 billion in collected penalties to “community organizers aligned with Democrats” as part of a giant slush fund, the Post reports.

    • Cluster December 8, 2017 / 3:44 pm

      No question about it – the CFPB was designed to funnel money to progressive causes without having to dip into the general fund, donors, or other sources. It has nothing to do with consumer protection.

    • M. Noonan December 8, 2017 / 10:51 pm

      The whole thing was a slush fund for the Democrats and other Progressive groups. Matt and I got into a bit of this in Worst President…but, even now, more stuff is dribbling out (as an aside, Matt is working a solo project on this sort of subject: keep your eyes peeled for another great book from him…and, of course, my novel is up to 50,000+ words!).

  14. Retired Spook December 8, 2017 / 3:43 pm

    Boo frickin’ hoo!

    A new survey by insurance firm Aviva found that 72 percent of 16 to 24-year-olds believe the term “snowflake” is unfairly applied to millennials. 74 percent of respondents took it a step farther, arguing that they believe the use of the label could have a negative effect on young people’s mental health.

    I have a proposition for the ultra-sensitive generation; you stop calling us Nazis and Fascists, and we’ll stop calling you snowflakes.

    • Cluster December 8, 2017 / 3:46 pm

      Stop calling us racists, stop blaming everyone else for your plight, get a job, and live within your means ….. then maybe we will start calling you an adult.

      • Amazona December 8, 2017 / 4:10 pm

        And stop melting down into blubbering lumps of quivering fear whenever something happens that you don’t agree with, such as a different opinion. If you actually feel in physical danger if someone with a different political opinion is speaking three miles away from you, how can you be called anything BUT a “snowflake”? (Hint: the term is a conscious choice as an alternative to much stronger language that you would REALLY find objectionable.) Stop whimpering about “triggers” and “dog whistles” and grow up a little. Stop nosing around every single thing in search of something to define as a threat or an insult—-a piece of litter such as a banana peel thoughtfully picked up and put where no one can step on it is NOT “terrifying” and no reasonable person would fall apart at seeing it, so naturally your hysteria is not respected.

        Learn a little history so when you toss around words you choose because you know they are hateful and ugly at least you are aware that they do not accurately describe the people you are trying to insult and that you are making yourself look like a hateful bigoted fool.

        And think about this, you delicate little creatures—-if a word like “snowflake” can affect your mental health, you have just admitted you are a snowflake.

  15. Amazona December 8, 2017 / 4:23 pm

    Baby steps, just tiny little baby steps, but hey, it’s better than nothing.

    NeverTrumper Erick Erickson just managed to choke out an admission that clearly hurt him, and had to be cloaked in some snarling bile, but as I said, “baby steps”. (emphasis mine)

    And all the while Donald Trump is in the White House, a man who cheated on multiple wives and bragged about how celebrities can grab women by their genitals. I have listened to that tape again and it is clear he wasn’t talking about himself in particular (though how else would he know), but was talking about celebrity men in general. It turns out that is true.

    Yeah, he had to insert that snarky “…though how else would he know…” but at least he finally had the integrity to actually LISTEN to the tape, and realize that Trump was talking about a phenomenon, not about anything he had actually done himself. Yeah, he had to editorialize by claiming this comment was “bragging”. Yeah, it clearly hurt him to admit that one of the slurs against Trump is not true. But he did.

    In spite of all the insertions of personal bias, he did manage to dig down to a basic truth—-Donald Trump was not saying he had grabbed anyone by the genitals. And that is progress, meager as it is.

    As for “how else would he know..” well, as a woman of a certain age living in Flyover Country, with absolutely NO personal experience in the world of groupies or any other kind or level of prostitution, even I know that when a woman makes herself available to a man because of his status, whether that is due to his fame or his wealth or whatever, she does not demand or even expect to be treated with respect.

    The walls may not be crumbling yet, but there are cracks.

    • Cluster December 8, 2017 / 6:41 pm

      That’s a great way to put it. There are definitely cracks in the wall and how could there not be? Trump is proving to be the most conservative president since Reagan, and might even get more accomplished, possibly changing the Supreme Court for at least another generation in the process.

    • M. Noonan December 8, 2017 / 10:47 pm

      I admit to getting more enthusiastic. Here’s just one small thing that most people missed in the crush of events:

      The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overrule a 40-year-old precedent that allows compelling public employees to pay some fees to unions that represent them, an important tool for the U.S. labor movement.

      It was another dramatic reversal in a high-profile case before the high court, and at least the third time since President Trump’s inauguration that the Justice Department has renounced its past positions, some held for decades.

      It puts the administration squarely on the side of conservative legal activists, who have complained for years that the requirement violates the free-speech rights of those who don’t want to join the union or pay fees to it.

      This is crucially important stuff for anyone who wants to limit the power of government – because government employee unions are really no more than ATM’s for the Democrat party, which uses their money to advance into power people who want to increase the size of government. Not only is this important, it is a move I doubt any other GOPer (save, perhaps, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul) would have had even the desire to make…or the guts to make it. This cuts at the heart of Progressive power. Now, we’ll see how the Court rules, but at least Trump is trying…

      And that is the thing: he’s trying. The rest of the GOP mostly gave us mere failure-theater. I like the man, he fights.

      • Amazona December 8, 2017 / 11:11 pm

        I think the Left has gotten away with so much because they, with the help of the Complicit Agenda Media, have been able to keep so much of it below the radar of the average American. Trump is dragging it all out in the open by working to overthrow it, which means the Left has to either let him get away with it or try to defend it. And when what you want is basically indefensible, it’s a tough spot to be in.

        The entertainment value comes in when the indefensible is defended, to use the word loosely, by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders, who can’t string an idea together between the two of them and come across like a cruel parody of over-the-hill legislators.

      • M. Noonan December 8, 2017 / 11:27 pm

        Yep – but not just with our Prog’s indefensible stuff…remember, it was both GOPers and Dems who created and maintained the “Hush Fund” for harassment claims in Congress.

        I’m still convinced that all this harassment stuff came out because Trump nudged it into the open – his revenge for the Access Hollywood tape. I’m thinking he figured, “ok, you want to F with me? Fine. I know where a lot of bodies are buried”.

        And doesn’t it astonish the number of Trump critics who have been destroyed, or have destroyed themselves? Trump is no Tribune of honor, guys…but whatever he was doing, I think he kept it just this side of legal and moral. But his critics, cocooned by their own and with their non-Trump opponents simply afraid to attack, seem to have gone on a bender of immorality and illegality over the past couple decades.

        In this, I’m going to have to blame W – he had his chance to stick the knife in after 9/11 and decided not to. What the Clinton Admin did which allowed 9/11 to happen should have been exposed. In an excess desire for national unity, W let it all slide…and that’s when these people seem to have started to think themselves bullet proof.

      • Amazona December 9, 2017 / 10:58 am

        Mark, I agree—-a lot of people evidently did not recognize the pugilistic element of Trump’s personality. The Left in particular got used to a squishy Right that didn’t fight back, and if it did it did it so weakly and ineffectively it was pathetic. Now they are up against someone who has been fighting the often brutal elements of big-time national and international real estate development, finance and construction, who got where he is by not letting people get away with pushing him around, and they are stunned. Stunned, I tell you.

  16. Amazona December 8, 2017 / 11:07 pm

    Here’s an idea about Roy Moore.

    As you may know, I am a staunch states’ rights person. That means, to me, that if Alabama wants to elect a jerk they get to elect a jerk. While I still cling to that old concept of “innocent till proven guilty” and don’t think it’s right to pillory a man whose actions, when they can be proved, were within the legal and moral boundaries of the time and place—-no matter how we Northerners might feel about it, no matter what people think 40 years later—–that doesn’t mean I like the man. From what I can tell, he is at best a dinosaur and at worst a creep, probably somewhere in between.

    BUT…he’s Alabama’s dinosaur/creep/jerk. He is a product of the culture in that state at that time. I’ve tried to avoid cliches about the South but the fact is, back then it was pretty much a different world. And the South has a history of pushing back when told by the feds or carpetbaggers about how to run the South. Evidently, in this case, even being willing to poke themselves in the eye to do it. And Alabama Republicans are in the unenviable position of having a really awful Dem in the wings if they cut Moore loose. It’s a tiger by the tail situation for them.

    What happens if Moore is elected? I am guessing he can then be pressured to resign, once the seat is safe, and if Kay Ivey is still governor, and still a Republican, she can appoint a better man and we can all stop gasping in horror and clutching our pearls. Or the GOP can engage in an orgy of virtue signaling and get rid of him, though I would still fall back on the arguments I made in my first paragraph.

    The thing is, we have had people in Congress who are far far worse than Roy Moore. We’ve had people in the White House who were and are far far worse than Roy Moore. No Republican outside of Alabama should have weighed in, and we should have just let it play out.

    • Cluster December 9, 2017 / 9:46 am

      Roy Moore certainly cones off as a creepy dinosaur, The pervy uncle that girls complain about at family gatherings, BUT the allegations are weak, people are innocent until proven guilty, and it’s the choice of the people of Alabama so I really don’t understand the obsession the rest of the country has over this man. For crying out loud, we had a married President who got a BJ in the oval office from a young intern, and that was evidently acceptable by the same people now aghast over Roy Moore, so forgive me if I don’t buy into the hysteria.

      It also seems that by today’s standards though – every man since the beginning of time is guilty of something.

      • Amazona December 9, 2017 / 10:52 am

        I just want Moore dealt with fairly, not sacrificed to a howling mob (which, sadly, includes some Republicans). Mob rule scares me a lot more than a man whose former behavior, four or five decades ago, might offend contemporary sensibilities but which has unfortunately exposed him to extravagant claims of exaggerated offenses for political reasons.

        And yes, each of us, women included, can look back on things in our past for which we would not want to be judged today.

  17. Cluster December 9, 2017 / 9:34 am

    Let’s let the Democrats and Republicans fight over what minority was offended and by whom, which donor class receives the most benefits, and which special interest is more deserving than others.

    I am with Trump – “pro family, pro police, pro worker, and 100% pro American”

  18. Cluster December 9, 2017 / 9:58 am

    Nikki Haley needs to be recognized for doing an OUTSTANDING JOB !!! One of the best UN Ambassadors this country has ever had

  19. Cluster December 9, 2017 / 12:03 pm

    I have seen a lot of Facebook memes lately re: guns, all from liberals of course, claiming that automatic weapons were not around when the 2nd amendment was written so naturally it’s an antiquated amendment that needs to be revisited.

    This line of thinking completely misses the intent of the 2nd amendment. The question that needs to be asked is “what does the government have in terms of weapons”, because the citizenry needs the same and that is the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

    • Amazona December 9, 2017 / 1:11 pm

      Fine. “Revisit” the 2nd Amendment and amend it to say that fully automatic weapons may not be owned by citizens without federal licensing.

      That ought to do it. //sarc off

  20. Cluster December 9, 2017 / 12:13 pm

    It’s hilarious being lectured to about Roy Moore from the same people who supported Bill Clinton.

  21. Cluster December 9, 2017 / 12:21 pm

    So MSNBC is waxing nostalgic for space exploration:

    We leave you for the week with Jon Meacham on our last mission to the moon, Apollo 17, and the importance of human exploration.

    um…….Obama all but shut down NASA folks, Just FYI.


  22. Amazona December 9, 2017 / 8:13 pm

    We are finally catching on to the fact that the best way to deal with radical Leftist hysterics is just to laugh at them and make fun of them.

    An article in the Blaze today was about a whine regarding a cartoon cow logo for an ice cream shop. A radical Liberal Lesbian feminist had a cow about it, so to speak, squealing in indignation about it being too “sexualized” blah blah blah. In her rant she referred to it as a “female cow”

    Several of the comments pointed out that cows are female, bulls are male, except for one moron who explained that cows are cows, and the females are all heifers while the males are all bulls. We’ll just let that go. I think he is from New York.

    Anyway, I loved this comment and thought I would share it. So good on so many levels……

    All cows are NOT female! Open your mind, hater. #transCow #notallcowshaveudders

  23. Cluster December 10, 2017 / 9:20 am

    I just received the following inspiring message from Facebook on my Facebook page:

    A Day for Unity
    We believe that support for dignity and respect can make a difference in our communities. Join us in observing Human Rights Day and spreading hope for equality around the world.

    Just curious – are “Trump supporters” to be included in the whole “dignity and respect” thing?

    • Amazona December 10, 2017 / 12:12 pm

      Trump supporters, Christians, unborn children—there’s a pretty long list that I would hope would be included in this smarmy appeal for “human rights”.

Comments are closed.