The Obama/Trump Contrast

Victor Davis Hanson, as usual, has something interesting to say regarding the stark contrast between Barack Obama and Donald Trump:

…The nation did not suddenly become liberal in 2008 or conservative in 2016. Rather, in both years it rejected blasé centrism — first trying out a left-wing deviation from establishmentarianism, then in frustration turning to a right-wing antidote to both the failed medicine and the original diseased status quo.

Antidote One, of unapologetic progressivism under Obama, did not lead to an economically robust and growing America, one safer abroad in a more secure world, and more cohesive, united, and stable at home — at least if that truly was the leftist agenda rather than the more hushed opposite goal of more equal but poorer Americans, America as just another nation among many, and a cultural revolution aimed at accentuating rather than assimilating race, class, and gender identities.

We shall see if the subsequent Antidote Two, of unregretful conservatism under Trump, will provide what conservatism has always promised: greater prosperity, security, and unity…

We shall see, indeed.

I don’t really know what to make of President Trump. Like most of you, I backed someone (anyone!) else in the GOP primaries. I resigned myself – after flirting with Never Trump – to voting for Trump as the only viable alternative to the absolute horror-show that a second Clinton Administration would be. I expected, in the unlikely event of his victory, that he’d do a few Conservative things, but also do a few liberal things…all in the name of a bi-partisan effort to “Make America Great Again”. And I expected the Conservative things to mostly be about cutting taxes and building up the military…I expected a slew of squishes to be appointed to the Courts and some flings with liberal social issues. I never expected Donald Trump – Donald Freaking Trump, Manhattan billionaire and one-time Playboy – to adhere to such a strictly Conservative line on all issues. Even in his expressed opinions on dope and same sex marriage, it really comes down to a defensibly Conservative principle of deferring to States’ Rights on such matters. For a Conservative, there is nothing in Trump’s first year to be upset with – second year does seem to promise some sort of infrastructure bill…but even there, I’m getting the distinct impression that if we’re going to flash the cash at such, Trump will make sure its used for things that will be useful to the nation…unlike Obama’s stimulus bill, we might get a bridge, a dam and a Moon shot out of Trump’s deficit spending. Not Conservative, but at least not something as stupid as bike paths or “cash for clunkers”, right?

Is Donald Trump a Conservative? He might be. Remember, his wife’s Catholic…and maybe, third time’s the charm, he’s actually learned the lesson all wise men eventually learn: do what your wife tells you to do. Sure, Melania Trump has a bit of a past…but anyone who knows Catholics (or any real Christians of any sort) knows that this is no hang up: all saints have a past, all sinners have a future. Maybe she’s moving him towards the right on social issues while his natural, businessman inclinations, are towards the right on economic matters? Who can know? All I do know is that I’m getting more Conservatism than I’ve had since January 20th, 1989. I like it.

And as Hanson points out, we’re getting a fair test: after eight years of Obama, we’re going to get four to eight years of Trump…and if we Conservatives are even half right in our ideals, then the Trump years will blow the Obama years out of the water. It’ll be undeniable, if it works (of course it will) that the proper way to go is low tax, low regulation, States Rights, individual liberty…we won’t have to struggle against a false, Progressive Narrative anymore because everyone will know that what we say is the way to go. And I think, deep down, this is what the Progressives and the overall Establishment fear the most…that it will be shown that we do better with less intrusive government and free markets. That we don’t need an Obama to lecture us on “who we are”. And that will simply kill them…they’ll hate living in a world where we don’t need them, or even so much as care what they think.

70 thoughts on “The Obama/Trump Contrast

  1. Cluster January 6, 2018 / 9:41 am

    I am growing tired of the labels conservative vs liberal. In my opinion that implies that each cares equally about the country with just a slightly different prescription for it’s future but I am not all convinced that many on the left have the best interests of this country at heart. Trump’s agenda is 100% American – strong national defense, securing the border, expanding economic opportunity, giving power back to the states and people, nullifying executive orders and forcing Congress to do their job, working with Congress on resolving immigration and DACA, etc., and there is absolutely no reason why everyone should not support these efforts. But many on the left do not support this agenda, why? VDH nailed it in his article:

    … least if that truly was the leftist agenda rather than the more hushed opposite goal of more equal but poorer Americans, America as just another nation among many, and a cultural revolution aimed at accentuating rather than assimilating race, class, and gender identities.

    And let’s not kid ourselves – that is the leftist Democrat agenda. In all honesty, we do not share a common goal for this country with Democrats so let’s stop pretending we do. Obama has said it repeatedly that he believes that America is just one of many countries and our exceptionalism is no different than any other countries. It also needs to be exposed that if Democrats win, one of their more influential leaders is Black Separatist and Muslim Keith Ellison who has openly advocated for segregation and a “black state”. Look at what California has recently done – become a sanctuary state welcoming low skilled labor at the expense of their own citizens. While homelessness grows and the cost of living sky rockets for Californians, the government is showering illegal immigrants with financial assistance, free schooling, and protection in direct violation of federal law.

    As an aside, I just saw a picture of tabloid author Michael Wolf and he looks like a run of the mill Democrat complete with a hint of downs syndrome.

  2. Retired Spook January 6, 2018 / 11:07 am

    And that will simply kill them…they’ll hate living in a world where we don’t need them, or even so much as care what they think.

    I’ve been at that “don’t need, don’t care” point for a while now. Maybe they’ll commit mass suicide. Win-win; we get rid of a malignancy and save a lot of ammunition.

  3. Retired Spook January 6, 2018 / 11:55 am

    The former navy guy who organized the infiltration of several of the radical Leftist groups bent on disrupting the inauguration last year had a post at the Oath Keepers site on New Year’s Day that is missed. Coupled with several internal links, it covers the efforts and organization of the Deep State pretty well.

  4. Retired Spook January 6, 2018 / 12:29 pm

    The Bunkerville Standoff trial in Nevada is finally coming to a head on Monday, January 8th. These 4 articles will bring anyone interested up to date WRT the egregious behavior of the federal prosecution in this case.

    I though Amazona in particular would find this statement in the last article especially interesting:

    The Judicial Doctrine of Immunity states that “Immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly”…”Judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice,” the Supreme Court said in its opinion in Mireles v. Waco. The opinion went on to explain; “… judges lose their immunity only in two circumstances: when they are sued for a ‘nonjudicial action,’ like a personnel decision, or when they are sued for an action that, ‘though judicial in nature,’ was ‘taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.’” (emphasis – mine)

    However, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to block impeachment of a judge through the U. S. House of Representatives, an avenue that Washington D.C. attorney Larry Klayman may be taking with the complaint he has filed.

    • Amazona January 6, 2018 / 12:59 pm

      Thanks, Spook. And here we have an essential defect in our system. When an entire class of people is declared above the law, with no consequences for even egregious misconduct and/or blatant violation of the basic rules of jurisprudence, we have set ourselves on a path to tyranny. When that elite class also has the immense power of the judiciary the descent into tyranny is accelerated.

      BTW, this observation goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, in this case allowing justices who have their own backsides to protect hand down rulings that protect them as well as every judge in the land. That’s kind of like letting Willie Nelson rule on how to handle pot smokers.

      This is why I keep saying we should make the oaths of office binding. If any judge who took an oath to obey and uphold the law and defend the Constitution were to lose his or her job if it was proved that he or she violated that oath, lose the job and its accumulated benefits, we would have judges examining their behavior and their rulings very carefully to be sure they comply with the law and with the Constitution.

      And really, would that be asking too much? Why would it be outrageous to demand that judges, and our other officials, be bound by the laws of the land?

      • Amazona January 6, 2018 / 1:11 pm

        I looked it up and Stevens dissented, with Scalia and Kennedy saying the case should never have been heard in the first place. Stevens’ dissent, I thought, blew the ruling out of the water. But he was not in the majority.

        I understand the argument that judges should not have to worry about being sued by people who are just upset by a ruling. But going back to the saying absolute power corrupts absolutely we have to be careful about removing all checks and balances from any agency of power and authority.

        One of the problems in the ruling is that it was overly broad, as it stated that judges have absolute immunity even if they commit judicial misconduct, act with malice, etc. But the fine print at the end of the ruling agrees that judges are not immune “… from a suit for prospective injunctive relief, ” So it is possible that much of the ruling was based on the demand for monetary damages. And “The Court, however, has recognized that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability” which is an effort to remove the stigma of giving absolute power to an unelected political appointee placed in a position of power over the lives of others. Weak,. but still…….

        I was surprised to see that evidently Thomas and White agreed with the majority decision. Not surprised that O’Connor, Blackmun. Rhenquist and Souter did.

        Again, massively important decisions affecting the lives of all Americans lying in the hands of, in this case, one local judge and six other appointees to the bench. I find it scary as hell.

      • Retired Spook January 6, 2018 / 6:19 pm

        This is why I keep saying we should make the oaths of office binding. If any judge who took an oath to obey and uphold the law and defend the Constitution were to lose his or her job if it was proved that he or she violated that oath, lose the job and its accumulated benefits, we would have judges examining their behavior and their rulings very carefully to be sure they comply with the law and with the Constitution.

        Who would do the proving? Let’s say we simultaneously have a Congressman, a Judge and an Attorney General who all willfully violate their oath in a way that is evident to even a casual observer. Who or what body brings charges against them? How are they prosecuted? Who or what body administers the punishment. I don’t disagree with your premise, but there needs to be a mechanism (besides a Star Chamber) for prosecuting oath violations, and currently I don’t believe we have one. Which is why so many engage in such behavior with impunity. Perhaps we should start with a Constitutional Amendment that expands the oath of office for Federal offices to include the punishment you describe.

      • M. Noonan January 6, 2018 / 11:46 pm

        It is tricky, but it simply must be done – Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) puts it as getting them to have some skin in the game. Especially where it comes to their ability to put someone in jail or take their property, they must pay a price when they screw up either through outright corruption or gross negligence. We hear very regularly of people getting out of jail after serving twenty years when either new evidence proving their innocence comes up or evidence which was suppressed by the DA is found. The latter is a far more serious offense, of course, but it is still just awful that any innocent person can be railroaded into jail. What we never hear about is the DA who sent the guy up the river paying any price (we taxpayers do, of course: in settlement money for the released man). The standard of guilt is “beyond a reasonable doubt”…that should also be the standard of indictment, as far as I’m concerned. I’d tell the DA’s: Be certain. If you aren’t certain you’ve got the guilty man, then better to let him go…better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished. Truly guilty people will eventually do enough to ensure prosecution…an innocent man once caught in a bind will likely never be heard from again.

        As for the mechanism – some years back I suggested a Citizens Review Board…to remind, it would be akin to a Grand Jury. Made up of randomly selected citizens who would serve for a full year with substantial compensation (and guarantee that their job will remain when their term is up, as far as that can be assured). The number to be selected would be rather arbitrary: I suggest 11 or 13. Any citizen can submit a complaint against the action of any government official. If a majority of the Board agrees, the citizen making the complaint would be allowed to come in and state their case to the whole Board. No lawyers! Just one citizen speaking his or her piece to 11 or 13 other citizens. I’d have a judge assigned to monitor the Board and advise on law – but not to issue instructions on what to do. If the Board votes unanimously to investigate the matter further, an investigator is hired from outside the jurisdiction to investigate and, if warranted, bring charges (so, for instance, the Reno Citizens Review Board would, maybe, hire a retired detective from Las Vegas to investigate…the Nevada Board would perhaps hire a former DA from Utah…this to limit any potential conflict of interest). The mere existence of such a board – uncontrolled by elected officials and not subject to public employee union pressure – would curb wrong action on the part of government officials…and the people would always feel that they’ve at least got a shot at going up against government, even if they don’t have a cent to their name.

      • Retired Spook January 7, 2018 / 11:17 am

        I was kind of thinking along the same lines of civilian review boards, but there still has to be a Constitutional penalty for breaking the oath of office. And who will screen and select the civilian review boards? If the people doing the selecting are corrupt, it’s likely they’re going to select corrupt people (or corruptable people) to serve.

        I also thought someone else has probably been asking the same questions, and, sure enough, they have

        The key words here are “shall be bound by oath or affirmation.” Bound how and by whom with what penalty for violation? The problem is that all of these officials are bound solely by their conscience, with no statutory mandate for living up to their oaths.

        The only exception in federal law regulating oath of office by government officials pertains to treason. Two executive orders and four statutes define that narrow exception, the upshot of which is this: unless an official is found guilty of treason for advocating the overthrow of the United States government, he is free from any statutory obligation to abide by his oath.

      • Amazona January 7, 2018 / 1:32 pm

        Spook, I respect your opinions and usually find them very well founded, so please explain why we would need a Constitutional amendment to add a penalty for failure to abide by the terms of an oath of office.

        I can see a lot of obstacles to making oaths of office binding, the biggest of which would be the limitations on federal power. But a good start would be states doing this on a state by state basis. So Colorado legislators could pass such legislation, and establish Citizen Review Board or whatever kind of process they choose, with the law applicable to all government employees at any level other than the federal level. So it would cover police officers, sheriffs, district court judges, mayors, etc.

        A claimed violation would first be screened, probably by a lawyer or a judge, to determine if the claim has any standing or application. I think if the claims are made public even a judge would feel obligated to be pretty objective, especially as he himself is subject to the same law.

        So let’s say I file a complaint saying that Judge Bozo violated my right to due process and in so doing did not support and defend the Constitution. This would go through a preliminary review, in which a legal team would look at what Judge Bozo did, or did not do, and determine if this justifies going to the review board. At this point a frivolous complaint would be sorted out, and I think the specter of frivolous complaints based on sour grapes is probably the biggest concern when we talk about this kind of legislation. If the complaint is not obviously frivolous then it would go to a review board and the judge in question would be required to defend his actions.

        But this is a matter of record. It is public. It is published. So if the preliminary review board does not do its job and covers for the judge, at the very least the public can see its bias.

        Let’s say the judge can convince the review board that he did in fact comply with the Constitution and the complainant did have due process. Good. The complainant might still be ticked off, and might not agree, and the review might even be flawed—bu the judge had to explain and defend what he did, in public, and go on record with his defense. And the review board’s decision, and its foundation, is a matter of public record, so it will be held up to public scrutiny.

        I am not saying that any such system could be perfect, and in fact after a couple of years I doubt that many would lose their jobs and benefits because of it. But I think the reality of knowing that a judge’s actions, to take one example, would not be hidden behind the cloak of immunity but that he might have to stand up in front of the public and his peers and defend what he did would make that judge be very careful about his rulings and his actions in court.

        I think such a law would be easy to apply to people such as mayors of sanctuary cities, who blatantly refuse to follow the law. They are on record and admit to making the decision to flout the law. Ditto for governors, agency heads, etc.

        I would expect such a law to follow the trajectory of all such laws which impose laws and penalties, and become more complicated and more corrupt until it is counterproductive, and when that happens the whole thing is scrapped.

        My idea is not so much to put a group of people completely in charge of overseeing the actions of others, though that would pay a part in the whole thing, but to make the entire process transparent, bringing in the public in the cases of judicial misconduct to hold the judge up to the scrutiny of the people and to establish consequences for other officials who simply have none—-I’m thinking of mayors and governors of sanctuary cities as prime examples. One group, including judges, operates behind closed doors so to speak with the implied protection of all the courts all the way up to the top, so it never has to justify its actions, and another is blatant but confident because it faces no penalties.

        Think of it this way—an oath of office is a contract. It is a commitment to follow certain rules in exchange for having a certain position. In basic contract law, if one party violates the terms of the contract the contract can be declared void and everything that is based on that contract is vacated. I am only looking for a mechanism to follow up on violation of the contract.

      • Amazona January 7, 2018 / 1:48 pm

        Here is an example. Basic contract law says that a contract says what it says, and does not say what it does not say. So let’s say a judge rules that he finds for a party which is demanding something that was not part of the contract. His oath is to uphold the law. Contract law is clear on the subject of what a contract does and does not cover. A basic preliminary review would look at the contract and determine only that no, the contract did not contain the provision the judge arbitrarily inserted by his ruling. At this point the review only looks at the words on the page. Then the case goes to whatever review board is established, and the judge can either reverse his ruling or he can defend it and explain why he thought the contract covered what he ruled it covered.

        My belief is that once a judge has had to go through this he will take another moment in any ruling to ponder the consequences of his actions, and make an informed decision about whether he is confident that he is in fact doing the right thing, performing his job according to the demands that he follow the law and administer it. He can try to make the argument that he feels he should be able to interpret the law, but that isn’t something most judges want to have to do in public even if that is the way they see their authority.

        I see it as the difference between speeding in an area where you know there are no patrols and speeding when your radar detector has gone off. You’re a lot more likely to take your chances if you know there probably won’t be a penalty than if you know you will be passing one or more police officers looking for speeders. You can still drive, you just have to do it within the confines of the law.

      • Amazona January 7, 2018 / 1:57 pm

        Mark, I think most violations would a matter of record. A judge inserted his own preference for how a contract should be interpreted rather than ruling on the actual content of the contract. A sheriff refuses to follow the law regarding reporting of illegal aliens who have been picked up. A mayor announces that he is going to ignore the law and declares his city a sanctuary city. A judge declares someone guilty of a crime without any of the elements of due process and there is no record of an accusation being filed or a trial or hearing being held. Most of the offenses are blatant and public, because why not? What’s the penalty for ignoring the law and doing what you want to do, wielding your power or authority as you wish?

        A law without a penalty is exactly the same thing as no law at all. And no law at all is anarchy and the tyranny of the powerful. We give people authority and then have no control over how they wield it. The system works OK for a while and then starts to fall apart, as we have judges making laws instead of ruling on the law, we have law enforcement officials picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore, and basically we pick up velocity on the spiral into chaos.

      • Retired Spook January 7, 2018 / 5:36 pm

        Spook, I respect your opinions and usually find them very well founded, so please explain why we would need a Constitutional amendment to add a penalty for failure to abide by the terms of an oath of office.

        The respect is mutual, so I’ll start by repeating your words from a subsequent comment:

        “A law without a penalty is exactly the same thing as no law at all. And no law at all is anarchy and the tyranny of the powerful.”

        Since we’re talking about the violation of a Constitutional Oath, what better venue to spell out the consequences of violating that oath than in the Constitution itself. The Article V Convention of States movement is making a great deal of progress, and that, IMO, would be the ideal vehicle to pass such an amendment, free from the influence of corrupt Congressmen, Senators and Presidents. Would you trust Congress, which contains too many oath breakers to count, to legislate such a penalty? I wouldn’t. Plus, a law legislated by Congress could be repealed by a subsequent Congress. A Constitutional Amendment can only be repealed by a vote of 3/4 of the states. The Founders, while they were virtually all men of honor, none-the-less recognized that public service would attract dishonorable people, and that the larger and more powerful government became, the more dishonorable people it would attract. And unless something is done, it’s only going to get worse.

        I like the idea of citizen review boards, randomly selected the same way juries are selected. I would limit them to people who have never been convicted of a crime. I also like your idea of an initial screening of a complaint by a lawyer or judge, although I would make it a panel of lawyers or judges, something like a FISA Court for corruption. Because we’re talking about human beings, though, it will be impossible to eliminate corruption within such a system, but it would still be light years better than what we have now.

      • Amazona January 8, 2018 / 12:13 pm

        Thank you, Spook. I had completely spaced out the fact that oaths of office are in fact in the Constitution. As usual, you nudge me into actually learning something.

        From: Constitution, Article 6 – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths (emphasis mine)

        The history of the Oath for Federal employees can be traced to the Constitution, where Article II includes the specific oath the President takes – to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Article VI requires an oath by all other government officials from all three branches, the military, and the States.


        The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

        While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.

        In 1789, the 1st United States Congress created a fourteen-word oath to fulfill the constitutional requirement:

        “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
        It also passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established an additional oath taken by federal judges:

        “I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

        I include these quotes (not in the order in which they appear in the article) because the article addresses the fact that various Congresses have dealt with the Act by imposing different oaths, sometimes for different reasons, such as the “Test Oath” following the Civil War, …signed into law on July 2, 1862, (which) required that…”every person elected or appointed to any office … under the Government of the United States … excepting the President of the United States” to swear or affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct. This was after In April 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath.

        However, In 1884, a new generation of lawmakers quietly repealed the first section of the Test Oath, leaving intact the current affirmation of constitutional allegiance.

        This all leads me to believe that just as the Constitutional requirement for an oath of office exists, there are repeated precedents established by Congress allowing Congress to dictate terms of such oaths as long as the oaths themselves remain true to the original intent of the Founders.

        An interesting legal question, and I thank you for bringing the Constitutional aspect to my attention. I would argue that establishing a penalty for violation of an oath of office does not amend the original Constitutional requirement for taking such an oath, but only clarifies it by, logically, attaching a consequence for its violation.

        I think it is clear that the oath itself is a condition of holding the position, so therefore a logical conclusion is that violation of the oath makes the person ineligible to hold the position. If you can’t accept or hold the position without taking the oath, it stands to reason that you can’t continue to hold it if you violate the oath. Therefore, I don’t think that clarifying the consequence significantly alters the original wording or intent.

  5. Retired Spook January 6, 2018 / 12:36 pm

    This article should make the hair on everyone’s neck stand up.

    • Cluster January 6, 2018 / 12:45 pm

      Yep. The extremism of Keith Ellison needs to be exposed.

      • Amazona January 6, 2018 / 1:26 pm

        It has been. And the Dems don’t care. At least those in power don’t, and their more radical followers and enablers.

        One of the problems of the Right is failure to communicate. We might point out that Ellison is a radical Muslim in a position of power and authority, but we stop there. We need a public voice to paint a more complete picture.

        For example, now that the Dems have set Russia up as the evil enemy to be feared, we could/should point out that there is a contingent of Dem legislators maintaining close ties with Communists and supporting Communist ideology and regimes. As a stand-alone comment, pointing out the connection between the Progressive Caucus and Communist ideology and agendas doesn’t really have much impact, because the rank and file of the Dem party are the rank and file of the Dem party because they don’t think.

        It is the Left that carries on relentlessly about the invented “wall between Church and State” that they use to denigrate Christianity and block or tear down anything with even a remotely Christian message, ranging from crosses along the sides of roads honoring those who died in crashes on those spots to Christmas decorations and the use of the word itself. We vaguely touch on the Islamic demand that the government dictate religious belief, but we never fill in the blanks and go on to point out the hypocrisy of supporting a religion that not only has no wall between Church and State but which demands that they be one and the same.

        There was a time when we sought out enemies of our state and tried to weed them out—Alger Hiss being a good example. Now we openly elect them to office, put them in positions of authority, give them access to our state secrets and ignore their open associations with philosophies and agendas that openly advocate the murder of nearly all of us.

        This man, a US Congressman, openly supported and advocated the agenda of a movement committed to violent subversion and overthrow of our government—-and no one cares. It is like the Bad Old Days when our national Attorney General overlooked a movement offering to pay people to kill someone. because the criminal offer came from an organization with which he felt common cause.

        Here in two post subjects we have touched upon two major threats to our nation and our way of life, two different but similar approaches to allowing the erosion of the rule of law and the ascendancy of the rule of might.

    • M. Noonan January 7, 2018 / 12:19 am

      I’m going to start recommending to everyone that they read The Spanish Civil War. One of the things which was remarkable about the run up to that war is how both sides played with fire for several years…and played with fire so much that when it started, it was greeted with delight by most of Spain. Everyone had been talking about blood flowing, and it seemed that the wish became the father of the action. Make no mistake about it: right and left, when they went at it, went at it with gusto. There were no regrets; no thinking it over; no attempts at compromise…it was a fight to the death from day one. Observers of the conflict were impressed, early on, at the absolute disdain for death shown by combatants on both sides…and also nauseated about how both sides treated the enemy when such came into their hands. The Nationalists ended up butchering more, but only because they won…had the Republicans won, they would have at least soaked Spain in as much blood, if not more (especially as towards the end, the Communists did become entirely dominant in Republican Spain…and the Commies who did were hard core Stalinists). The Republicans thought nothing of shooting priests and raping nuns…while the Nationlists would often just round up everyone who had been in a worker’s union and massacre them all. The bottom line is that everyone was enjoying the heck out of killing – and were proud of how well everyone on both sides were fighting (once when some Italians sent over by Mussolini got their asses handed to them by the Republicans, the Nationalist Spaniards started taunting the Italians, saying “Spaniards, even when Red, have balls!”).

      The point here is that if you keep stirring the pot of hatred, you’ll just build up hatred to a fever pitch…and the left is stirring the pot. And I’m starting to see some on the right commence with “come at me, bro”, attitudes. This does not lead to a good thing…but we might not be able to avoid it, unless the left recovers some semblance of sanity.

      • Amazona January 7, 2018 / 2:26 pm

        I think the belligerents on the Right are a minority and for the most part are also blowhards. A few might look forward to a shooting war, but talk is cheap.

        My observation of the Right and Left in this country is that the most verbal on each side are far more focused on the details of the competing ideologies, while those on the Left don’t even know there ARE ideologies and are just emotionally invested in one issue or another and most on the Right have a clearer idea of what matters to them, a more objective understanding of the underlying concept, but are still caught up in lot of emotional BS. (When I went to a Paul Ryan rally in 2012 I was appalled by about half of the crowd, and didn’t want to be associated with them at all. They were as freaking nuts as so many on the Left,)

        Anyway, I think that the Left is trying to stir up a lot of hatred, playing “Let’s You And Him Fight” while planning to slink off as soon as bottles, or bullets, start flying, and we have seen how their puppets tend to start whining and complaining when the rubber meets the road with them. On the Right, the belligerents are not as likely to curl up and whimper—their attitude is “you start it, we’ll finish it, so be careful what you wish for”.

        In Spain, the two sides were much more closely matched regarding motive and ferocity, and both sides shared a fairly recent history of violent solutions to disputes. We have no such history and no such equality of determination or violence.

        When I look at the Left and its more violent components, I see the Occupy weenies who are pretty proud of being able to throw bottles and poop on cars, but who depend on their masters to feed them, house them, arm them and transport them to one temper tantrum site after another. I truly don’t see any of them standing up to a contingent of armed and pissed off people who have guns and know how to shoot them. I look at the black gangs and violent movements and think that a few at the top might be more dangerous, but there are few of them. A race war would certainly end in a lot of bloodshed as long as the victims are outnumbered unarmed urbanites, but I’ll put up a hunter against a baggy-pants thug holding his gun sideways any day, any time. Once this got out of the inner city it would be over very quickly. The rest of the Left is, as I see them, comprised of Boulderites and Berkeleyites and San Franciscans and Seattle hippies and I don’t see them arming themselves with anything more scary than vagina costumes and nasty bumper stickers. They might be seething with hatred, but I think it is impotent and based on issues more than on ideology, and few will fight for an issue.

        The big issues have been addressed. We have, in spite of the rhetoric, resolved the resolveable race issues. Now anyone who is willing to play by the rules—-speak the language well, get some level of education, dress like the rest of us, come to work on time, do the job—-can be part of American society. That includes white people, black people, Hispanics, Asians, women, gays, and pretty much any demographic you can think of. And those who aren’t willing to play by the rules are out of the game, and that includes whites people, black people, Hispanics, Asians, women, gays and pretty much any demographic you can think of. The institutional obstacles have, for the most part, been removed, and those formed the basis for the serious issues that might have justified violence. Now any obstacles are the choices made by people who don’t want to meet the criteria for succeeding in this country, and most of the hatred is based on furious resentment of those criteria, not on actual institutional problems.

        That is the kind of hatred and rage that creates a lot of heat and light, but doesn’t go very deep. I don’t think it goes deeply enough to push people into staring down gun barrels or gleefully butchering people in the streets.

      • M. Noonan January 8, 2018 / 1:31 am

        To be sure, I’m not thinking that any resort to violence would last all that long – unlike in Spain, no one has to obtain weapons on our side (even the Nationalists, who had a majority of the active Army with them, were short on arms and ammunition to start). I tend to agree that the loudmouths on our side have thus far been just that – a few loudmouths. But I’m starting to see more and more calm, reasonable people on the right express a willingness to fight it out, if that is what the left wants. People like Schlichter still warn strongly against it, on both sides: nations which descend into Civil War always have a rough time of it. I, myself, would never dream of going to such extremes…but I can also see the powder kegs being loaded.

      • Retired Spook January 8, 2018 / 8:05 am

        I, myself, would never dream of going to such extremes…but I can also see the powder kegs being loaded.

        To be sure, many on the right are locked and loaded. But they’re waiting patiently for the Left to fire the first shot. I honestly don’t know what will happen if someone on the Left is stupid and short-sighted enough to do that. It could end up in one bloody, isolated incident, or it could end up in an all out purge of Leftist nonsense. I know quite a few who think that is the only way we will ever get rid of the radical political Left, that absent killing every last one of them, they will just keep coming, always pushing the cultural and economic envelope, and periodically openly promising to do it more rapidly and more violently as we saw early last year.

        My sense is, when it comes right down to it, most on the Left are cowards, and it won’t take violent force to keep them at bay, but just know that Progressivism is, or at least has been, a patient, incremental, multi-generational movement. They are never going to quit, and there are many in that movement if, given the power, would like nothing better than to lock you and me and everyone who shares our views up in a re-education camp. And that’s the best case scenario. If it comes down to I kill them before they kill me, you’d better believe I will take as many of them with me as is humanly possible, my own individual survival be damned. I will protect my family and my friends until my last breath. And there are tens of millions of Americans who feel the same way — who don’t want to live in a society governed and controlled by the radical Left. As long as those tens of millions exercise their right to vote, the Left cannot win at the ballot box, because they don’t represent more than about 20% of the population.

        Thus endeth my rant for a snowy Monday morning.

      • jdge1 January 8, 2018 / 2:05 pm

        “I honestly don’t know what will happen if someone on the Left is stupid and short-sighted enough to do that.”

        IF this were to happen, I’m guessing it would be started by someone or group in an elevated position who knows how to create a frenzy within their base, without being seen as the initiator. They will make it look like the it all started with the base, so when the right time comes they can take control (prop themselves up) and push for new levels of regulation that ultimately benefit the establishment.

        Seems this is largely how evil works – divide, create dissention on all sides, from the shadows initiate a spark for hatred followed by violence, let the violence fester and build, then step in to save the day with greater rules & regulations to control everyone else while at the same time give evil greater power, rinse & repeat.

        Spook states; “And there are tens of millions of Americans who feel the same way — who don’t want to live in a society governed and controlled by the radical Left.” One of the ways evil creeps into our lives is in bits and pieces so as give the general population the sense these bits are the norm. How or why would you protest what is perceived as normal?

        One thing I tell my children who used to wonder why I’m very uninclined to negotiate and compromise with political change initiated (instigated) by the left is because that supposed compromise is almost ALWAYS a line that continuously moves against moral people and the good of society. I explained that much of what evil is trying to compromise on now was put in play years ago just waiting for the right time to spring forward. And at the same time, new ideas are put in place today, unbeknownst by most others, to utilize in the future – camel’s nose in the tent. It’s rarely about some real inequity or true injustice that needs to be addressed. In fact, the distinctions between justice and injustice, moral and immoral have been distorted beyond recognition by far too many. Well intentioned people believing they are arguing or fighting for the good can’t even see they’re sacrificial pawns working against their own best interest.

        The answer I give my children to guard against being duped into such is; 1.) Stay informed at some level of what’s happening. Get your information from places other than traditional media, challenge and discuss what is said. 2.) Participate in the fix – vote in political elections, school elections, know what your town board and local government are doing. 3.) Lead moral lives and by example. I’ve shown them multiple times where, what you do in everyday life almost always influences others, most times without us knowing who is influenced or how. 4.) Most importantly -pray. Never underestimate the power and importance of prayer and a positive frame of mind.

        Evil happens and one of the ways it succeeds is to make the negative appear overwhelming. People attempt to protect themselves by trying to ignore it or down play it. Or even worse yet, fall into a state of despair and hopelessness. People in this state are the most ripe for playing the pawn. They are often the same ones complaining that all “their” problems are created by someone or something outside of their control. Seeing other people in a calm & happy state, in spite of things that surround them working to disrupt that peace, can be a real catalyst for positive change.

        One of the things I believe that needs to happen to “set things straight” is to start prosecuting and penalizing people and organizations who so blatantly and willfully brake major laws. Without this, civil unrest cannot be quelled. Some good examples on dealing with oath breakers has been mentioned here but there are many others.

      • M. Noonan January 9, 2018 / 2:10 am

        A small Twitter discussion tonight and I pointed out that a free society can only exist as long as there is a generally shared set of morals (“values” being the preferred word…because, as Belloc pointed out, we live in an age which values imprecision in language as much as we value precision in measurement). Right now, we don’t have that – the right and the left don’t agree about what is right and what is wrong. The broad mass of the people, of course, are disinterested and only move when their personal lives are shaken in some way. But it is always minorities who move the mass, in the end.

        This past Sunday, probably in the neighborhood of 40 million people attended Catholic Mass – about 19 million watched the Golden Globes on Sunday night. But what were we talking about on Monday? The Golden Globes. But that is a bizarre twisting of the facts…far more people cared that Christ was present in the Eucharist than what some dimwits in Hollywood were doing. The conflict is ultimately between those who went to Mass (along with their fellows who genuinely attended to religious duties over the weekend) and those who actually care who wins what trashy award. To be sure, there is some cross-over in the audiences…but just being there isn’t as important as what is believed…and the two sides don’t believe the same things. Eventually, however, they must broadly believe the same things. There is a necessity for tolerance and diversity really is a good thing…but not everything is tolerable, nor are all diversities worthy of being preserved. We must and will, as a people, decide which is which. The last time we couldn’t decide peaceably and we resorted to war. I hope we don’t have to again…but we will have to decide.

    • jdge1 January 7, 2018 / 3:28 pm

      I’m going to guess the criminal activity is far worse than what the video suggest. But I still wonder about what I asked in the previous post.

      What’s everyone’s guess as to whether most (any) high level political criminals (Bill / Hillary, Obama, etc…) will ever be prosecuted for their crimes (see jail time and pay substantial $$$) ? Are things happening in the background (conservative judgeships being filled, investigations, accumulation of evidence, nailing down incriminating evidence, etc…) waiting for the ideal time to initiate proceedings against them? If the second part is thought to be happening, any opinions as to when it will occur or what would trigger justice to prevail?

      • Cluster January 7, 2018 / 4:29 pm

        I think there is zero chance any one of them will be prosecuted, there just isn’t the will to do it amongst the establishment, but what I do hope comes from it is transparency of how the Democrat party has entrenched itself with career bureaucrats in the Fourth branch and how corrosively partisan that Deep State has become, to the point of actually covering up criminal activity on behalf of the Democrat Party.

      • Amazona January 8, 2018 / 9:14 pm

        I think it could be done, if prefaced by the repeated observations that one of the greatest threats to a Republic is allowing elites to live by a different set of rules than the rest of the people. This is something that would resonate very deeply among people of all political persuasions. The Left loves to tout itself as being for the “little people” and about “equality” and all that, and if deftly handled investigations and prosecutions of Leftist icons could be phrased to support those ideals.

        The problem is that this would allow the Left to drag in things that are not criminal but which have been portrayed as criminal, even as treasonous, to muddy the waters, and the result would be a mud wrestling mess. Again, with a strong referee imposing rules it could be done—but not without a strong mainstream media presence. That is, a network station with a certain set amount of time devoted to explaining the law and covering actual trials. The government could buy an hour a night, rotating among the alphabet networks, when necessary. It would require something of a tutorial, explaining what is illegal and what is not, defining certain terms such as “treason” and laying out and explaining ground rules.

        There would have to be constant references to things like “equality under the law” and there would have to be a web site where people could go to see for themselves the wording of laws, the history of others being convicted for similar offenses, even the actual documents signed by Hillary Clinton agreeing to use prudence and approved methods of communication as First Lady, Senator and then Secretary of State. It couldn’t just be an “investigation” standing on its own but a definitive clearly described and defined movement toward leveling the legal playing field and holding everyone to the same legal standard.

        Coupled with Congressional legislation imposing penalties for violation of oaths of office (even though, as Spook pointed out, such legislation COULD be overturned by later Congresses, in spite of the blowback of essentially saying the new Congress thought it would be OK to go back to letting office holders violate the law) the overriding message, if handled properly, would be that we are determined to hold everyone accountable, and treat everyone equally.

        I think an underlying complaint of the American public, when they think about it, is that we feel impotent and uninvolved in the running of our country. I think a massive undertaking to make people feel they can actually have a voice would be very empowering and go a long way toward easing some of the divisiveness that has been promulgated by the Left. So I would, after penalties for violation of oaths were imposed, establish bureaus in each state where people could file complaints about various violations of such oaths. I think most would be about judges. These bureaus could not act on things that took place before the new law went into effect, but they could categorize the kinds of offenses ordinary people have had to endure, and in so doing give these people a forum, with the stated intent of being able to then determine which kinds of offenses had been most prevalent in the past. I think if ordinary people could feel that they had a voice in calling out injustice from the powerful, and could see that the powerful were going to be held accountable from that day forward, there might be more acceptance of seeing some of these elite and powerful brought to justice.

        Of course, I think there might be fairies in my garden, feeding the unicorns……

  6. Cluster January 7, 2018 / 10:20 am

    So Michael Wolf is now on Meet the DePressed, and he just said, and I paraphrase:

    “Steve Bannon was without question the reason why Donald Trump won the Presidency, and he left the White House because he is a man of principle.”

    Wolf is definitely a fiction writer.

    • Retired Spook January 7, 2018 / 5:18 pm

      One of my favorite lines in the interview is – Miller: “He (Trump) tapped into a reality that is not reported by your network.” Just went right over Tapper’s head like a puff of smoke.

    • Amazona January 8, 2018 / 8:50 pm

      I don’t watch CNN or any of the other crap vendors on TV or in the print medium. Life is too short. They are preaching to the choir, and all they have to do is constantly validate the hatred that drives their teeny tiny base. So I have never seen Jake Tapper in action. And after this, I don’t need to see him again.

      What a pissy little whiner he is! He is so transparently a tool, so transparently terrified of anything being said that contradicts his narrative, and so determined to be a bully, I can’t imagine him ever having any audience other than the previously indoctrinated mouth breathers who prop him up. He did everything but put his hands over his ears and yell LALALALALALALA to try to drown out Miller, and he telegraphed the points that he found most threatening by rudely talking over Miller when he touched on them.

      Basically Tapper conceded the floor to Miller, admitting that on his show he does’t have to give any air time to the truth. He did it in typical blustery fashion, acting as if Miller was just beneath his consideration and had nothing of value to say, but he couldn’t carry it off, and Miller took the bout not just on points but a TKO.

      I loved seeing Miller call out Tapper, and CNN, for being the anti-Trump bigots they are, peddling fake news and trying to shut down opposing points of view. So the hotshot stars of the Left are Tapper, Scarborough and Bimbo Mika? Ooooh—scary!

      • Amazona January 8, 2018 / 9:44 pm

        Tapper then called in backup to deal with Miller. Poor baby, when Miller allegedly “refused to leave the set” I’ll bet it was soo scawwy! Based on the look of borderline panic on Tapper’s face when he cut Miller off, I have a feeling he just wanted the set cleared so he could go change his panties.

        I notice that the Blaze manage to phrase the exchange in CNN terms. I didn’t find Miller refusing to answer legitimate questions, just coy gotcha pseudo-questions designed to elicit an answer which could then be cut off so it would appear to say something not intended. This is the M.O. of hacks like Tapper he he met his match in Miller.

        For most of the 12-minute interview, Miller bashed CNN and praised Trump, refusing to directly answer Tapper’s questions.

    • casper3031 January 9, 2018 / 2:47 am

      I would say that Stephen Miller is the perfect spoke person fo the president. He should be doing it full time.

  7. Cluster January 8, 2018 / 8:02 am

    Question – how long do you think Morning Joe and the rest of the destructive media can keep selling the “Trump is mentally unfit” narrative?

    Mike just declaratively said that Trump is “destroying the country”. One might say that she and Joe are also destroying the country.

    • Amazona January 9, 2018 / 4:33 pm

      Mika is really saying that Trump is working to destroy the fundamentally transformed country that she and her fellow travelers have been trying to create out of the shreds of Constitutional America they are trying to peel off. And she is right. And this is what makes Trump so popular.

      The fact that so many Americans realize this, and support him, is what has her so frantic that she blurts out insanities like this one. It’s what has Nancy Pelosi screeching about “Armageddon” and some college professor declaiming that Trump will be the end of all human life on the planet. It’s what has the Left squealing at top volume that a Trump presidency means untold thousands (millions?) will die DIE DIE !!! I tell you !!!

      They are scared. For decades they have been able to worm their way into the structure and fabric of America by using soft emotive words—“equality, fairness, justice” and promising warm understanding of the world’s problems and easy solutions to all of them. They offered the easy path—no thinking, no analysis, no education, no understanding of history, no real effort, just picking a villain or two to blame and then dumping tons of OPM on whatever they are bleating about. And it worked, The intellectually lazy, the easy led, those already inclined to worship victimhood wherever it could be found or invented, all flocked to the Left. Totally ignorant, of course, of the evil underlying ideology they were enabling. Very few Democrats voted for Barack Obama because they wanted to shift the United States into a totalitarian form of government in which a few elites have immense power and the People have little, in which the State is in control of nearly everything from what our children are taught (including in the home) to health care to transportation to how they heat their homes to how much of what they earn they can keep to what they can eat to what they have as entertainment to how far they can go in their choice of how to worship, and so on. No, they think they voted for him to fight racism, to support gay marriage, for one issue after another.

      Donald Trump is ripping away the disguises of the Left, stripping away the illusions of a truthful and objective and fair press, showing the corruption of its most beloved elites, eroding the Deep State power that has been slowly embedded into the very structure of our government, making an open case for an unbiased judiciary, and in general not going along with the polite fiction that the Left is just like us, except for a couple of minor policy disagreements. The more he points out that the Left is NOT like us, the less like us the Left becomes, and the more strident they become in their panic, and the wider the gulf between the Left and reality becomes.

      So people are going to hear poor frantic Mika shrieking like the melting Wicked Witch and looking around them going: “Hmmm. More money in my paycheck. Less money going to support deadbeats who won’t work. Kicking out violent illegals. Starting to hold elites to the same laws that govern the rest of us. Exposing high level corruption. Clearing out costly unproductive deadwood in our agencies. Telling the world they can’t humiliate us and kick us around any more and standing up to the U.N. Record setting stock markets. Companies telling us they are so much more confident of success under Trump they are expanding and hiring more people. Unemployment at a record low. Black unemployment figures plummeting. ISIS severely damaged, possibly destroyed. More ability to choose better schools for our kids. Allies finally able to count on our support. If this is what being destroyed looks like, bring it on.”

      No wonder the poor bleating mouthpieces of the Left think they have to screech louder and louder, and up the ante regarding the disasters facing us to the point of claiming extinction of the human race and destruction of the planet. Poor babies. It used to suck to be on the Left because it essentially branded one as an intellectual easily led lightweight, but now it is so much worse because it means staking out territory like “it’s so cold because of global warming” and “tax cuts will hurt the people who will be keeping more of their money” and “Obamacare really does help people get affordable health care” and other delusions that are increasingly open to ridicule. They have completely abandoned Dr. King and his dream in favor of segregation and the biggest possible divide between black and white Americans. They have abandoned any pretense to dignity, with their women strutting around dressed as vaginas and cheering speeches describing them as “dirty girls”. They have turned their backs on the concept of defending the rule of law and equality under the law, demanding that different demographics be held to different laws and different (always lower) standards.

      They have laid claim to Ugly Loserville, and now they are whining that we don’t pretend they have the Higher Moral Ground for doing so.

  8. Cluster January 8, 2018 / 8:17 am

    HAHAHA Democrats are at it again:

    Renovation costs for the brand new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau headquarters have skyrocketed, posting 25 percent in cost overruns — significantly above the original budget set by the General Services Administration, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

    Original cost estimates for the CFPB’s renovation were estimated at $55 million, but the bureau ran up the proposed cost to $216 million. The Federal Reserve Inspector General rejected the proposal in 2014, saying there was no “sound basis” for the figure.

    And proving beyond any doubt that CFPB is a money laundering (where have you heard that refrain?) outfit ….. there is this:

    When Obama and and then Treasury Department official Elizabeth Warren founded the CFPB in 2011, they instituted many protections to insulate the bureau from congressional oversight, including congressional budget authority over expenditures.

    They accomplished it by creating the bureau under the Dodd-Frank Act. The legislation housed the bureau within the Federal Reserve System, which operates independently of the executive branch. The legislative move allowed the CFPB to operate without any congressional oversight or accountability.

    hmmmmmmm …… “without any congressional oversight”!! I wonder why that is?

    This is a great article but you won’t see it in the news:

    • Amazona January 8, 2018 / 12:23 pm

      So another $216 million has been dumped into this quasi-legal bureau, so carefully established to operate outside of normal government channels. As it was established without Congressional debate and vote, but depends on federal funding, I think it is obvious that was improperly (what one might almost call “illegally”) established, and should be immediately dismantled and subjected a stringent audit.

      And here we come back to this oath of office thing. The president and Warren were both legally obligated to work withing the confines of the Constitution. But here they did not.

      • Cluster January 8, 2018 / 2:45 pm

        It is remarkable ……

  9. Cluster January 8, 2018 / 8:40 am

    Some really really brave women took the stage last night:

    The highly anticipated wear-black protest at the Golden Globes got off to an early start Sunday on the red carpet with Hollywood A-listers including Meryl Streep and Michelle Williams arriving with gender and racial justice activists as their guests. Streep, nominated for her role in The Post, walked the red carpet hand-in-hand with justice activist Ai-jen Po as the stars protested sexual harassment in Hollywood and across the world. Michelle Williams arrived in an embellished off-the-shoulder look with ‘Me Too’ founder Tarana Burke at her side. Turning the Globes dark on the fashion front had been anticipated for days after a call for massive reform following the downfall of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein and numerous others in Hollywood, media, fashion, tech, publishing and other industries.

    No mention of the numerous sexual assaults on high school boys from their female teachers. But if we can hopefully save just one Hollywood Diva. On the plus side, Oprah may run for President.

    • Amazona January 8, 2018 / 12:26 pm

      I am perfectly happy to have the Hollyweird glitterati posturing and virtue signaling about something within their tiny orbit. This is their world, and I think it is fine for them to act out their various little plays within it. I much prefer this to their efforts to impose their silliness upon the way our nation is governed, or other things far far beyond their levels of competence or intellect.

      • Amazona January 9, 2018 / 4:36 pm

        I really miss you……

  10. Cluster January 9, 2018 / 8:19 am

    Is everyone following the current media narrative that Trump didn’t expect to win and was shocked when he won? That Melania was crying when they won? That the campaign was just a front to solicit more business? Have you heard that?

    Yet on the same hand, the media is also trying to convince us that Trump colluded with Russia to win the Presidency.

    And you may also notice that the broader media narrative is now morphing from one of collusion to “early signs of dementia”.

    So many false narratives, so much desperation

    • Amazona January 9, 2018 / 5:04 pm

      Good call, Cluster. He didn’t want to win so he spent a year trying to win. He didn’t want to win, so he colluded with a foreign nation to ensure that he would win. He was so desperate to solicit more business that he diverted millions of dollars and, much more relevant, all of his time and energy pretending to pretend to pursue a goal he didn’t really want, instead of investing this time and energy on the business he wanted to expand. He decided that the best way to grow his business was to alienate half of the country and many of its most wealthy citizens and foreign friends, instead of just being an unaffiliated businessman staying out of politics.

      And don’t forget, this was all in the interest of “laundering” ill-gotten gains in a nation where that money was made with the help and participation of the government the criminals were then trying to deceive by hiding the source of that money from the same government that made it possible. (Has anyone explained the process by which this money was allegedly “laundered” ? Or is just enough to throw out that volatile word to get the ignorant masses to form howling mobs?)

      • M. Noonan January 10, 2018 / 12:08 am

        The whole thing gets more absurd by the day – and people are starting to forget that the genesis of this, really, was the claim that Trump won via Hillary votes switched to Trump by Russians who “hacked the election”.

      • Amazona January 10, 2018 / 12:01 pm

        And this confusion is intentional. They started out with the claim that “Russians hacked the election” and then waited till some of the befuddled masses ran with the theme “hacked” and tied it in with the old Bush-era claim that voting machines could be “hacked” from within the voting booths themselves, that a voter could manipulate his machine to get into the mainframe and change the votes that had been cast. (This was the inherent defect in these Republican-controlled machines that gave Bush the election, though it miraculously disappeared when Obama won.) Then there was a little tossing out of tidbits until it was shown that the meme that got the most traction was that of Russian hacking of our entire election machinery so THEY could alter the votes, giving the election to Trump. This tied in with the Dem claim that Russians had hacked into the DNC computers, though this information came from their own hired guns who had examined the computers and then told the FBI what they decided had happened. That was supposed to explain the leak of the DNC data, though everyone who knew anything about that insisted that this data did not come from an electronic hack but from a real live person who copied information and delivered it by hand to its destination. By that time the word “hack” was all that was needed to send the dithering masses into fresh spasms of hysteria.

        When that started to die down the next stage of Russian influence surfaced, with “collusion” replacing “hacked” as the Word Of The Day. As lap dog Mueller is coming up dry, they are trying out “money laundering” as the next meme, but that whole concept is too complicated for the mouth breathing base so it isn’t gaining much ground. Even they realize they couldn’t answer basic questions such as “Who?” “What money”? and “How?” In spite of the relentless promotions by Joey and the Bimbo, the mouthbreathers just say “Huh?” (Hillary says “You mean, like with a cloth?”)

        That’s why they have decided to work on the “mentally deficient” theme. It’s vague enough to work with the dithering masses, It’s a phrase with which they have much personal experience and to which they can relate, it opens up vast avenues of lowbrow personal insults and sniping, and it keeps them happy. They are working this as a foundation for 2020 when it will come out howling, and every single syllable of Trump’s will be held up as “proof”.

  11. Cluster January 9, 2018 / 8:22 am

    Joe and Mika are in full scale fear mongering hysteria mode this morning. Joe just warned all Americans that “the bill will come due for us trading in our values for a lower tax rate”

    What a wise man

    • Amazona January 9, 2018 / 4:55 pm

      Of course there is no one there to ask him which values have been “traded in”. The real threat to the Left is a populace which is involved in its governance, which thinks it has the right to be involved in its governance, and which is increasingly less dependent on the State. This latter is what has the Left so freaked out by the tax bill. It is a step, a big step and clearly only one of the first, in reducing the control of the State, by reminding people that the money they earn is theirs, not the State’s, that the State is not “giving” them any of the money represented by their increased paychecks but that it was theirs all along and that less of it was taken by the State.

      These are radical concepts and deeply threatening to the Left.

  12. Cluster January 10, 2018 / 7:52 pm

    Progressive Government in Action:

    New Mexico Health Connections, one of the four remaining nonprofit Obamacare Co-ops, did not inform its customers in June that it was insolvent and its entire board had resigned……….All 12 of the nonprofit’s top staff received six-figure salaries, according to its tax filing. Joining Hickey was Chief Medical Officer Dr. Mark Epstein who received an annual salary of $413,000, Chief Operating Officer Anne Sapon who received $342,000, and Primary Care staffer Frances Torres who received $318,000.

    • Amazona January 11, 2018 / 1:24 pm

      I wonder if anyone is tallying up the many many billions of dollars funneled out of the Treasury into the pockets of scam artists, Friends of Barack and other shady characters. “Loans” to companies that never produced and went bankrupt and which were never repaid, payments to incompetent IT people who happened to be close to Michelle to allegedly build a web site for Obamacare that were never returned when another firm had to step in to do the job, billions of overruns at the VA hospital in Colorado which is still not finished, years behind schedule and costing into the trillions, and how many state officials pulling in close to half a million a year while doing nothing. Fifty-seven states, that’s a lot of overpaid incompetence and payoffs to supporters.

      This doesn’t include the billions spent on the Royal Promenades, as the Obamas and hundreds of courtiers pranced around the world like the Sun King on the taxpayers’ dime.

  13. Cluster January 11, 2018 / 8:21 am

    President Trump is now living permanently in the heads of Joe and Mika on Morning Joe. They have lost all semblance of objectivity, are obsessed with his every move and tweet, continue to embellish false narratives about him, and the show now has the feel of a high school cafeteria gossip session.

    And right on queue – just as I finished typing, Joe just said that Trump is trying to take away the licenses of TV networks who criticize him. Are all of you aware of this? Have you seen this concerted efforts on behalf of the President? Yea, neither have I. But that is the current irrational fear swimming around in Joey’s head.

    • Amazona January 11, 2018 / 1:18 pm

      “…. that is the current irrational fear swimming around in Joey’s head” where it is no doubt bumping up against the panic induced by Trump’s revocation of all safety regulations imposed after the BP incident, thereby exposing our oceans to total and utter destruction in order to pander to Big Oil–panic equally inexplicable by fact, but capable of bringing the Left to its knees in sobbing hysteria and FEAR FOR THE PLANET.

      Cluster, if I had your need for masochism-fueled pain I would just poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick and get it over with, not undergo the hours you spend immersed in the insanity of the Rabidly Radical Left and their trained parrots.

      We don’t need to know what they say. IT DOESN’T MATTER. When I quit watching all TV news (except for brief exposure so I can see what the weather is doing) and all political opinion shows, my life became brighter. Just put the remote down and walk away…………

      • Cluster January 11, 2018 / 5:25 pm

        LOL !!!!!!!! It’s like a train wreck, I can’t look away.

        Actually, I am an early riser so I spend from about 4:30a to 6a getting emails out, answering agent questions, etc. with a cup of coffee and this is by far my favorite time of day. And so I have Morning Joe playing in the background and knowing that it is all mindless pap, I can focus on the my work but there are aways a few lines mentioned that perk my ears up so I pay attention for a little while and the things that are said on that show are mind numbing. It’s as if the last 9 years never happened,

  14. Cluster January 11, 2018 / 8:55 am

    So Mike Barnicle on MSNBC just said that Trump is a “cult of personality” and not a President and it’s ruining the country.

    hmmmmm, can anyone think of a recent President that may have been propelled solely by his skin color and personality?? And ADORED by the media??

    • Amazona January 11, 2018 / 1:10 pm

      Do you mean The One We Have All Been Waiting For? The Black Messiah? The one who had a woman swooning in near-religious ecstasy at every rally, always seated front and center? The one who got a Nobel Prize just for BEING?

      THAT recent president?

      The one who convinced the Barnicles of the world that “being a president” meant ruling from a throne in the Oval Office, not bothering with the petty business of actually going through Congress? THAT definition of “being a president”?

      • Cluster January 11, 2018 / 5:18 pm

        That’s THE ONE. Thanks for the reminder.

      • Amazona January 11, 2018 / 7:53 pm

        You guys might not remember the acceptance speech Obama gave at the Denver convention back in 2008. He spoke in front of these huge columns that reminded me of nothing more than the backgrounds created for Hitler’s speeches. As a matter of fact, when I saw the speech I commented that when Obama saw that the Pepsi Center was on Speer Boulevard, he thought it was ALBERT Speer Boulevard, as Albert Speer was Hitler’s favorite architect who also designed the massive backdrops we see in so many of the speeches of the era. These columns looked old and majestic and massive. The lighting was dramatic, dark with Obama in a kind of halo, and the voice was run through so much reverb it could have been dubbed into a movie about God speaking from on high. It was high camp, and cultish to the max. And the Dems swooned in fanboi adoration.

        BTW, the columns were styrofoam and were rented from a special effects company. But the cult aspect never died down.

  15. Cluster January 11, 2018 / 9:09 am


    Haitian activists protested outside … the Clinton Foundation in New York over the loss of “billions of dollars” that was meant to help rebuild after the devastating 2010 earthquake. The activists are claiming [that] the money was stolen through the Haiti Reconstruction Commission that was headed by Bill Clinton. In January 2015, the Clinton Foundation was the target of protests for wasting more than $10 billion and awarding contracts to non-Haitian companies. The activists also said Haiti is a cover for foreign governments to funnel kickbacks of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. They believe that this was done for favors that Hillary was doing for the foreign governments while she was [s]ecretary of [s]tate. “We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti,” said Dhoud Andre of the Committee Against Dictatorship in Haiti.

    And most current “journalists” have no interest in this story.

    • Amazona January 11, 2018 / 1:05 pm

      What….what….what? Are you talking about (gasp!) MONEY LAUNDERING ?!

      Call Jake Tapper. I’m sure he will want to look into this. And it will no doubt show up on the Joey and The Bimbo show.

      • Cluster January 11, 2018 / 5:09 pm

        The Joey and Bimbo Show ……….. too funny. I am stealing this one.

      • Amazona January 11, 2018 / 7:55 pm

        No, get it right—–it’s Joey and The Bimbo. It’s got to sound more like a cheesy old movie or TV show.

  16. Cluster January 11, 2018 / 9:53 am

    I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction. The Bob Mueller investigation into collusion will conclude on either:

    January 21, 2021


    January 21, 2025

    And the conclusion will be that there was no collusion. Nothing to see here folks.

    • Retired Spook January 11, 2018 / 11:03 am

      But Mueller will eventually indict a couple more peripheral individuals on mis-remembering what they said in an email that the investigation acquired in a highly unethical, if not outright illegal manner.

      • Amazona January 11, 2018 / 1:03 pm

        If you look up the definition of perjury, you will see that it covers lying under oath about something relevant to the case at hand. So you can lie under oath about your age, your weight, your online browsing history, whatever, as long as you are not lying about anything relevant to the actual proceeding.

        What these people are doing is conflating “perjury” with a separate crime of lying to a law enforcement officer, and I have to wonder which of these crimes takes precedence over the other. If I don’t want to admit to bingeing on The Real Housewives Of New Jersey and instead say I was watching a 12-part PBS special on the migration of the Monarch Butterfly, why should that be a crime if I am testifying in an investigation into bank fraud allegedly committed by someone who is in my car pool?

        The absurd lengths to which this bogus investigation is going to find something—-ANYTHING—to feed to the howling masses as a “crime” is spiraling into a criminal act of its own, and it should be stopped.

  17. Amazona January 11, 2018 / 12:57 pm

    From an interview with Horace Cooper, identified as a “black activist” about claims of lower unemployment among blacks.

    The former [president], Obama, make these claims. It was very surprising because from 2009 to 2015, black America’s unemployment rate turned to the worst numbers that we have seen as a community. It was the very policies that he pushed that caused this disparity.

    Here’s the thing: Black American unemployment typically is somewhere between 40 percent and even 100 percent higher than white America’s unemployment. When this [black unemployment rate] number in 2018 reached 6.8 percent, that was the narrowest gap we’ve ever seen. We saw nothing like that during the Obama administration.

    And it didn’t surprise me, because the policies of President Obama were more focused on handing out food stamps, and assistance, and government handouts, rather than seeing to it that the most important civil rights of all, your right to be independent, your right to be self-sufficient, [were] being honored with policies of limited government. That’s not Obama’s plan.

    I wonder if Mr. Cooper is part of that cult of identity that is a new meme of the Left. Sounds to me like he’s looking at facts, not just recycling toxic emotions

    • Cluster January 11, 2018 / 5:17 pm

      I LOVE the line – “the right to be independent and self sufficient” – we need to talk more about these concepts.

      And you’re right, this is a fact based analysis from this gentleman and that must drive the liberals nuts. If Trump passes immigration reform, and someone please tell Ann Coulter to just stop, breathe and calm the F**K down, and improves the economy for minority and lower wage scale folks, Trump will win 2020 in a landslide and that fact has the Democrats TERRIFIED.

  18. Amazona January 11, 2018 / 7:04 pm

    As a Catholic of a certain age(hint: Latin Mass) I remember when the Jesuits were considered the intellectuals of the Church as well as the hard-asses. So it is hard for me to get used to the New Jezzie Review, as I see Catholic Media pumping out lame Lefty whines and bizarre analyses and conclusions. This one is an example:

    Oh, give me a break!

    • jdge1 January 11, 2018 / 11:01 pm

      Great article.

Comments are closed.