I got a Parler account. It advertises itself as the alternative to the left social media giants – we’ll see how it goes; a few teething problems as masses of people sign up, but it works pretty well and may do fine.
As more information comes out about the Mueller Report, it seems clear to me that it is a pack of malicious lies. I noted before it came out that it would be as lurid as possible, but also wouldn’t have anything on Trump, and that is proving correct. What is amazing, though, is how badly they constructed the lurid lies: they’re being easily knocked down, one after another. Ace – and others – have theorized that the report, itself, was meant as no more than a hook to hang Trump on. Make the report; turn it in; make it difficult for Barr to release it quickly and then selectively leak the lurid bits to build a public case that Trump has to go. Barr stopped that cold with his summary pointing out that there was no collusion or obstruction.
As for Barr, I suspect he’s further along in his efforts to find out what really happened than we think. What will come of it? I don’t know: it could be that some of the worst players in all this kept their hands legally clean…and to really unravel it we would need people willing to testify against their co-conspirators in return for reduced sentences…but, if the big boys kept their act together, we might only be able to go after some small fry who won’t be able to explain the totality of the coup attempt. I do hope that a lot of people wind up in jail over this – but I’m not sure it will be possible.
There’s a poll out which asserts Americans are more worried about Fake News than terrorism – which is a correct assessment. Terrorists can kill, but the lies in our MSM could trigger a nation-destroying civil war. 100% of the credit for people really waking up to how dishonest the MSM is goes to Trump…without him relentlessly hammering the MSM for their lies, they’d still largely be getting away with them.
RSM notes an anti-lesbian hate crime in Tennessee which, for some bizarre reason, hasn’t become a national news story. Watch the video, and you’ll see why.
Here’s a poll which is part of the Democrats’ battle space prep for 2020: allegedly shows Biden beating Trump in Texas by four percentage points. Trump beat Hillary by nine percentage points in 2016. Ask yourself: is there one thing – one thing, at all – which has Trump has done since 2016 which would make Texans sour on him to the point that the Texas vote for the Democrat would go from 43% to 48%? Of course there is no such thing – and the Texas economy is booming. There is zero – and I mean absolutely zero – chance that any Democrat beats Trump in Texas in 2020. And everyone involved in politics knows this. But, here’s the poll…and Democrats will tout it and GOPers in Texas (some, anyways) will wring their hands…but it is a garbage poll designed to deflate GOP spirits; that is all it is.
New York City is, like Los Angeles, developing a very bad rat problem. All part of the Progressive program to bring back bubonic plagues.
AOC asserts that Manafort should be released rather than kept in solitary at Rikers. Tip of the hat to the Commie on this one: she’s better, at least here, than most of her fellow Progressives. The bottom line is that Manafort was transferred to Rikers to pressure him. The Democrats need someone – anyone – to testify under oath that Trump broke a law. Treating Manafort like he’s some sort of crazed killer is an excellent way to break him. Trump should pardon Manafort (of course, another theory put out there is that they’ve done this to get Trump to issue a pardon so they can say “aha! That’s why Manfort didn’t talk!”. Even so: pardon him).
Blogs For Victory 
Pardon Manafort and tell the Democrats to F**K OFF in that order. Let’s stop playing games.
Pelosi stated that she wants to see Trump not impeached but in prison. And these are the people were suppose to be nice to, listen to, and cooperate with? I don’t think so. I would be a horrible politician because I would publicly be telling old, decrepit and botox laden Nancy just exactly what I thought of her and it would not be kind and most likely laced with expletives.
CNN this morning is gushing over the polls showing Biden beating Trump in red states. Soon they will be giving Biden a 92% chance to win. They never learn
Christopher Steele will be talking to investigators so stay tuned. There was never any reason for the investigation to begin in the first place and why the FBI never consulted with Trump is highly suspicious. Also, we all need to know what Obama knew, and when did he know it.
I’m not a big Manafort fan, but what they’re doing to him is criminal in and of itself.
Any polls showing Biden or anyone else beating Trump at this point are beyond meaningless, and designed only to discourage Trump supporters. It’s not working.
Please — anyone, explain to me the conundrum represented by these two statements by Robert Mueller in his public statement last week:
I think what Mueller was saying was … “I can not not say that Trump did, or did not commit crime but if I thought that he did or did not commit a crime, I would have said so, or not.”
I hope that clears it up.
And here’s a good article:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/in_all_the_mueller_talk_dont_forget_the_embarrassing_jerrold_nadler.html
He couldn’t have been any clearer: Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty, unless he is Donald Trump, in which case he is presumed guilty even if we don’t have confidence that he clearly is not.
I bolded “clearly” because it is a weasel word, purposely inserted to provide cover for the slimy despicable tactic of innuendo. It will let him weasel his way around criticism for his comment by saying that the absolute lack of any evidence of a crime was not the same as CLEARLY proving that there was none. He just didn’t have absolute utter inviolable concrete beyond any possible doubt proof that no crime of any sort clearly beyond any shadow of any doubt existed in spite of no real evidence that it did. And he is right.
Of course, you could say that about any person in nearly any circumstance.
What is funny, in a non-haha kind of way, is that there IS evidence, mounting evidence, of crimes committed by Mueller, not just vague hunches or wishful thinking based on his personality or political affiliation.
I’d like to see a flurry of comments such as …if we had had confidence that Robert Mueller (Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissman, et al) clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. It would be funny as hell to see this meme explode, on radio and TV shows and the Internet. Expand upon it.
IF WE HAD CONFIDENCE THAT ROBERT MUELLER WAS NOT THE ZODIAK KILLER, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO
IF WE HAD CONFIDENCE THAT ROBERT MUELLER DOES NOT THROW LIVING PUPPIES INTO A WOOD CHIPPER, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO
And so on. Point out the absurdity and inherent dishonesty of the comment, as well as the sliminess
Mark, I got into this article because of the early statement: If you had asked me before the financial crisis, I would have told you what we did on Wall Street, was what I felt was benign.
But after the crisis, I felt basically it was no longer benign. What I was doing was not necessarily benign. It was harmful. I was frustrated that us bankers seemed to not change our views on the world after what happened.
Knowing your attitude toward banksters, I thought the article might offer some insight into what, exactly, about the world of finance is not benign. However, he didn’t go into details about this, instead going into what he learned when he started going into marginalized, stigmatized, societies. He is a Liberal and proud of it and seems dedicated to it, yet when he steps away from describing himself and instead talks about his conclusions as he delved into this alternate world he doesn’t sound like he is promoting Liberal agendas. It’s an interesting evolution, one which I don’t think he has processed, as he seems intent on keeping Liberalism and what he learned on the same shelf, so to speak, without admitting the contradictions that should have made him make a choice.
He did, however, evolve on the subject of faith. I think that part of the interview is the most interesting, though his take on race is also good. As a former atheist firmly committed to his atheism, his experiences took him here:
And kind of the ego and the arrogance of atheism just kind of strikes you as kind of being exactly that, the arrogance that somehow you have it all figured out.
I’d add that you could substitute “Liberalism” for “atheism” and that comment would still make sense.
I also noted that while he tried to defend his like of Hillary, it was based on his perception of her motives, not on her policies or her history. In other words, Identity Politics. He tiptoes up to the edge of understanding Trump’s appeal in understanding why people voted for him, contrasting Trump’s appeal to the tone-deaf attitude of the Left and what he calls the “front row” Republicans as well, but can’t quite make himself take the next step to acknowledge that Trump didn’t just mouth the words “I hear you” to appeal to people, he then went on to act on those words.
Oh well. Baby steps.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/06/this-liberal-wall-street-trader-predicted-trumps-victory-heres-what-he-learned-visiting-towns-across-us
This is too funny not to reflect back on. Evan Thomas on Obama:
Evan Thomas with Newsweek hoped the Democrat would surpass Ronald Reagan’s iconic 1984 address commemorating the 40th anniversary of the battle: “Reagan was all about America….Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”
And they wonder why we don’t take them seriously.
Can anyone tell me how many shelters George Soros has funded at the border to keep families safe? I know he and the rest of the Left care deeply about the poor families and their struggle for a better life, so surely they are lending a helping hand. Right?
Good stuff:
The citizenry can ascertain who among the populace are prospective despots by disregarding any utopian promises and empty rhetoric and instead focusing on their seven self-revealing strategies. None of which, it will be noted, describe the tactics and mindset of Donald Trump and rank and file conservatives. These seven stratagems are:
1. Keep the public in a state of constant turmoil. Pre-identify groups by race, gender, economic status or religion and through constant repetition by their allies in the media and entertainment cabal establish that any perceived disadvantage within one group is the fault of another pre-identified and isolated group.
2. Never concede that there may be some good in your political enemy. State loudly and often that they are a permanent adversary because they are determined to oppress the favored groups identified in 1) above as well as being racist, avaricious, misogynistic etc. (i.e. the worst people on earth).
3. Never miss the opportunity to repeatedly and loudly blame one’s political enemy for anything that goes wrong regardless of how inane or unreasonable. Thus, any natural disaster or a mass killing must be blamed, however tenuously, on the other side.
4. Never acknowledge or concede that your side is at fault or wrong regardless of the situation or issue.
5. Always maintain the assertion as being irrefutable that government, in the hands of the enlightened, can resolve any issue and make life better and, above all, never upon any circumstances leave room for alternatives.
6. Never fail to utilize the ultimate tactic in promoting dogma or denigrating one’s opponent: The Big Lie. People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if it is repeated frequently enough, people will sooner or later accept it as the truth. Whether it is the fabricated dire consequences of so-called climate change; Donald Trump colluding with Russia; the myth of rampant white nationalism and that this is a virulently racist nation; the examples over the years are legion.
7. Underlying all these tactics is a profound disrespect for the dignity of human life which is a necessity in order to view all citizens as pawns of the state. This mindset, over time, inevitably and rapidly descends into the abyss of malevolence and the indiscriminate taking of the life of anyone deemed an enemy of the state. Unfettered abortion at any stage of gestation or immediately upon birth as well as the acceptance of unrestrained euthanasia are the first steps in the evolution of this mindset.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/the_seven_selfserving_stratagems_of_the_despotic_left.html#ixzz5q5Aps5e3
Quote of the Day:
Did everyone see this:
“A potential compromise would include Mexico deploying 6,000 troops to its border with Guatemala to stem the flow of Central American migrants,”
This has to really piss off George Soros, Democrats and the media because enforcing borders is … well racist of course. But I was glad to see the little progressives admit that higher taxes on corporations results in higher prices for consumers. That’s a first.
Trump 2020
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2019/06/06/cbs-nbc-forced-admit-tariff-threats-causing-mexico-take
OK this is too funny … MSNBC is lamenting the “spectacle” of Trump criticizing Pelosi and Mueller on “hallowed ground” screaming “it’s unpresidential” “it’s beneath the office” “it’s undignified”
hahahahahahahaha
Donny Deutsch just said – “we can’t normalize this” It’s ok I guess to normalize homeless people defecating on public streets as in Nancy’s district but to criticize that on foreign soil is just beyond the pale.
LMAO
Poor pathetic Donny, trying so desperately to find or invent something negative about Trump’s Normandy visit.
Trump’s speech was praised even by his political enemies:
CNN and MSNBC praised the president’s speech following its conclusion.
Jim Acosta said, of the speech, ”… he said the right thing at Normandy. He did the right thing at Normandy…
“But honestly, I think you have to put that (the Ingraham interview) to the side and recognize this was just a really captivating, stirring remarkable moment for the entire world to witness,” Acosta added. “As politics was just put aside, washed aside, as we remember the bravery and courage of the men today.”
MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough echoed that sentiment on his show Thursday morning.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/06/cnn-msnbc-normandy-donald-trump-d-day/
CNN, being CNN and all, had to try to put a negative spin on it, but what else could we expect from CNN? Its praise was mandatory but you could tell it hurt to say anything nice, so Dana Bash tried to tone down the praise, implying that the speech was calculated and not sincere: CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash offered similar praise, stating that Trump’s speech “was different … he moved people, and he did so by understanding exactly what he was supposed to do.”
The unhinged screeching about Trump making comments on “hallowed ground” reminded me of the Left’s freakout after Cheney told Leahy to F off after Leahy scurried after Cheney as they were leaving the room in the Senate where Leahy had slandered and viciously attacked Cheney for the cameras before trying to suck up to him when the cameras were off. Oh, the pious wailings of grief and outrage—-Cheney said this ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE !!!!
Well, yes, they men were actually walking across the floor and it was in the Senate, but once the Senate was not in session it was no longer “the floor of the Senate”. If the floor of that room were truly sacred, the Left would not tolerate it being used as the stage for character assassination and slander.
Yes, to some extent the coastline of Normandy IS “hallowed ground”. I know. I was just there. And it is a powerful experience, to stand there and ponder what it was like 75 years ago. But that is only in the context of what happened there, and outside that context it is a place where people eat ice cream cones and throw Frisbees for their dogs. It is not frozen in time as only a memorial. It is a place where people live their lives.
Donny’s howls of transparently manufactured outrage are just proof of the success of Trump’s speech and the inability of the Left to successfully demonize it, no matter how hard some have tried.
Sucks to be them these days
For all of us distressed about the new support for “socialism” this interview with Scott Rasmussen should cheer us up a little. (I put “socialism” in quotes because he confirms my own suspicions, upon which I have commented, that most who say they support socialism really support something that is not socialism at all.)
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, so because I have a hammer that is a desperate need for a Right that can communicate Rasmussen’s comments as being lined up like a series of nails. He says that most who say they support socialism also think we need less, and smaller, government. He says that most who say they support socialism also think we need to let states, not the federal government, address issues like minimum wages. He says that most who say they support socialism don’t think it would lead to higher taxes and a bigger government. He says that most who say they support socialism also support free markets.
In other words, when you get past semantics and dig down to real philosophies, you find conservatives. You find people who believe in state sovereignty, a smaller federal government, economic freedom and lower taxes. So what I want to know is whether anyone on the Right can grasp this and build on it, or if we will continue to fuss over Identity Politics and follow the strings the Left drags in front of us to distract us from developing, articulating and delivering a coherent message.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/07/scott-rasmussen-explains-pollsters-flaws-on-trump-socialism
One thing Rasmussen says that I don’t agree with is that people don’t see socialism as an economic structure. I think they see it as solely economic, and not political. That is, as a means to solve some problems with money, and not as an overriding political structure that controls every aspect of life.
What I would like is a series of coordinated messages delivered by every single conservative invited to participate in every single television panel and interview, a series of speeches made at every opportunity, and a laserlike focus on every talk radio show about the harsh reality of socialism—that it is not just a happy feel-good easy way to solve some problems by redistributing money but is a strong, serious and dominating political force that takes away choices, free markets and personal liberty, that tramples on states’ rights.
And I think referencing the surge in so many states to seriously limit abortions as not just a human rights issue, which it is, but a pushback against the Central Authority concept of the Left, a statement that states get to make their own rules. We need to reframe the hysteria about limiting abortions as statements of state sovereignty and the right of THE PEOPLE to decided their own laws at the state level.
We need to remember that the Left defines, and the redefines, terms as it sees necessary, and stop letting them control the narrative by controlling the language. One problem is the confusion surrounding terms that describe Leftism. Communism, Socialism and Fascism are all kind of muddled together, with some differences but not really that many, once you get past the superficial. I think it would be productive to start shifting commentary away from using those terms to simply referring to The Left, which can more easily be described and defined as a belief in a massively powerful Central Authority with power kept at the top and very little left to the states or to the people. It is a lot harder to cloak sinister agendas in verbiage when you take away the clutter of Identity Politics and stick to structure and bare bones definitions.
Quote of the Day:
Didn’t take much pressure from his fellow Democrats to force Joe Biden to change a decades-long position on the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the federal funding of abortions. I continue to marvel at the skill of Democrats to maintain the support of minorities while, at the same time, committing genocide of their descendants.
Their technique is to focus the attention of their sheeple on the many, varied and unforgivable sins and defects of the Invented Other—that is, the Right, as portrayed by the Left.
You seldom find a Leftist FOR much of anything, other than the murder of babies and the confiscation of OPM. Mostly, their appeal is AGAINST the Right—and not against the actual policies and politics of the Right but against the PEOPLE of the Right.
Hypnosis is used to control pain. It does not block or change or alleviate the pain, but teaches the subject how to focus on a different sensation, such as heat or cold or tingling or something the subject can easily envision, because the body can’t process more than one stimulus at a time. This is how the Left works—it finds a stimulus to which the subject is vulnerable—–hate, rage, racial prejudice, guilt, ego—-and then trains that subject to focus on that stimulus, to the exclusion of being able to simultaneously focus on the evils of the Left. If the focus on the stimulus is relentless and strong enough, the subject can’t shift attention away from it enough to analyze facts.
As for Biden changing his position, that is easy to explain. He is a political whore, for sale to whatever might profit him the most. We’ve seen the same backtracking from most of the other hopefuls as well.
I have to wonder how the Left will finesse the destruction of Title 9 and support for women’s sports by the acceptance of men competing against women.
This is going to be interesting. A new buzzword is “intersection” and here we have the intersection of the Women’s Movement/feminism with the agenda of multi-genderism (I just made that word up but it seems to fit) with actual science.
The Left’s efforts to fragment American society by pushing gender conflict worked for a while, as they encouraged a lot of women to become anti-male, but that was fading a little. Then they decided to up the ante by having more than one gender in conflict, creating a seething mass of fury and resentment and outrage out of, basically, nothing. Rage junkies rushed into the fray, while sane people just stood back and watched, knowing the fragments were inherently in conflict with each other and not with society in general and predicting anger turned toward each other.
The Left is still doing a good job with race, though. They never succeeded in turning a lot of whites against blacks, but they have manipulated enough black hatred of whites to make up for it.
You may have thought you made up the word “intersection,” but the social justice crowd is way ahead of you.
while sane people just stood back and watched
That’s exactly what we’re doing, in spite of the best efforts of the Left to suck us into the “fray.” With any luck, they’re succeed in destroying each other.
No, I said I might have made up the word “multi-genderism” —but because it is nonsensical there is a good chance the Left did beat me to it.
They did.
Well, I’ll be dipped. So they did. Thanks for the info. I should know better than to try to outstupid the Left.
It’s definitely getting harder to keep up.
It looks like time for the Right to defend Title 9
Remember when Hillary and other Democrats were worried that Trump would not accept the results of the election saying that that would be “extremely dangerous for our democracy”??
Well not only did Hillary recently mention that the election was “stolen” from her, this morning, the MSNBC panel has spent the last hour claiming that trump is an illegitimate, and criminal President.
Time to turn up the dial on these people. Let’s see how much they can handle before they completely lose their minds. They’re close.
I know how we could do it …. Democrats love Europe right? UK, France, Denmark, etc. all of them much better than the US according to Democrats right? Well let’s follow the Euro model then and make the Trumps as America’s Royal family.
How would that be received?
OR…..we could just kill ’em all and let God sort it out.
I like your plan Spook
Here is an example of winning:
https://www.state.gov/u-s-mexico-joint-declaration/
RedState finally got around to asking “what crime?” Finally someone is asking the Left to specify a crime, any real crime, allegedly committed by Trump.
Hopefully it is the beginning of a trend.
It is welcome news that the US Department of Human Service (HHS) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced they will not renew a major contract to fund research using the body parts of aborted babies.
https://www.lifeissues.org/2019/06/trafficking-in-body-parts-defunded/
This is good news indeed. Kind of makes one wonder what the heck they were using them to begin with but we all know how the left feels about the subject. Which makes one wonder how the heck are any of them in a position of power? I guess it doesn’t take much to sell your soul or fool you into believing you’re doing good when in fact committing to the left leads to failure and evil.
I agree. I was reading where they used the babies body parts to inject into people with medical problems, but it done more harm than good. This one boy they used fetal tissue to put in his back, and big tumors grew on his back. Then another patient had body parts growing inside of them.
They have ventured into forbidden territory. Because they have taken the life of an innocent, murdered an unborn human being. That was their first mistake, and then use then used the tissue from that murdered child to try to fix a problem. They tried to use that then as an excuse for murdering the children. It then all boils down to the love of money. Which then goes into Democrat candidates pockets to grow their influence and political power.
Just like you said, evil. Evil to the core.
Had to post this. Just heard on MSNBC:
“the inhumanity of Donald Trump is rippling across the world”
hahahahahahahaha
I love the sound of progressive fear, hate, and panic in the morning.
No matter how often we comment on the lack of self awareness of the Left, they continue to outdo their last efforts.
From this breathless reporting of the “inhumanity” of Trump “rippling across the world” you would think he was out there promoting the spread of abortion, promoting the murder of innocent babies in the womb (or freshly out of it) even after they can feel pain, trying to get funding to push this human rights atrocity on developing nations to account for even more millions of unnecessary and inexcusable deaths.
I can’t imagine anything that President Trump has done or could do that would be as inhuman as puncturing the brain stem of a full-term baby that’s halfway out of the birth canal, or even worse, tossing it in the trash AFTER it’s born.
I wonder what the world will think of this era in history looking back many hundreds of years from now (if we get that far)? We’ve all read, learned or heard about barbaric civilizations from the past but how will they compare against today’s willful destruction of one’s own pre / post born children? If a woman can so easily destroy her own child, I see no depth of evil that people cannot succumb to.
This morning I happened upon an article and links within it to another, and discovered a very interesting debate that is thoughtful and well stated. I don’t have the time this morning to engage my mind in it very deeply, but I am sure it will stick with me.
The first is an extremely well-written and rather dense but thoughtful piece on the errors of what the author calls “David Frenchism”. I haven’t followed French enough to have an opinion on him, but found the article interesting and thought-provoking, And it includes this, which I thought a good summary of Leftism:
,,,,,libertines take the logic of maximal autonomy—the one French shares—to its logical terminus. They say, in effect: For us to feel fully autonomous, you must positively affirm our sexual choices, our transgression, our power to disfigure our natural bodies and redefine what it means to be human, lest your disapprobation make us feel less than fully autonomous.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/05/against-david-french-ism
The article responding to this is also very thoughtful:
Classical liberalism privileges individual liberty, correctly understood as freedom from coercion and aggression, by championing things like free expression, due process, and the relatively unencumbered movement of goods and people. The ascendant progressivism, on the other hand, has no qualms about infringing people’s liberty in order to advance its own moral agenda. Socialists seek to command people’s behavior in the economic sphere, while social justice warriors try to impose rightthink on matters of culture. It’s not enough that same-sex and opposite-sex couples receive equal treatment under the law, the left now says; the state must compel Christian business owners to participate in gay weddings or be driven from the marketplace.
Ahmari also wishes to use government power to constrain people’s freedom. Thus, he is advocating an illiberal conservatism—a rejection of the right’s longstanding fusion of social traditionalism with staunch respect for individual rights.
https://reason.com/2019/06/03/the-new-theocrats-are-neither-conservative-nor-christian/
The author of the second article I quote seems to be making the same point I often make when “conservatives” argue for using the power of the State to impose policies they happen to like—that expanding the scope and authority of the federal government is not a conservative position even if it appears to support a conservative preference.
It’s debates like this that make me wish I could find a group of people wanting to discuss and debate without getting combative and angry, because I see so much of value on both sides. Not to mention that I loved seeing articles so well written.
There is so much to digest in both the FirstThings essay and Stephanie Slade’s response in Reason.com, and my brain is in usual Monday morning, half-speed mode, even after a couple cups of strong, black coffee. The portion that had the most impact on me (from Slade’s response) was this:
While I have empathy for those in our society who, by virtue of their choice of avocation or active involvement in the socio-political scene, have painted a target on their backs for the intolerant haters to snipe at or simply attack in the public square or in the courts, I have a difficult time relating to their plight. As all the regulars here know, I’m kind of a live and let live, roll with the punches kind of guy. Back when there was a regular Leftist troll presence here, I was called all sorts of names, which not only rolled off me like water off a duck’s back, but also was admittance on their part that they’d lost the argument.
While there are many on the Left, and not an insignificant number on the Right who wish to use the power of government to lead our society in a certain direction, we’re not yet at the point where it’s happening on a large scale, particularly out in flyover country where I live. I have an easier time envisioning the Left attempting to impose its view through authoritarian means that I do with Conservatives doing the same simply because the vast majority of Conservatives mind their own business and just want to be left alone. With any luck I can live out the limited number of years I have left on this planet as an observer and commentator, and leave resolution of the problem to a future generation.
An article in the Daily Signal addresses something I have posted on here; the lack of understanding of “socialism” by most Americans, who see it as a minor economic tweak that will result in leveling economic differences.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/02/why-conservatives-should-take-heart-despite-socialist-upsurge
As it turns out, Americans define “socialism” in quite different ways. Traditionally, socialism has meant government ownership of the means of production—businesses, factories, etc. But today, only 17% of Americans hold that definition, according to Gallup. Meanwhile, 23% equate socialism with vague notions of social equality. Another 23% have no opinion on the matter.
So, the public meaning of “socialism” today is indeterminate, meaning that public opinion toward “socialism” doesn’t tell us very much about people’s policy preferences.
……………….
Today’s fight over socialism is in large part a branding war. The left constantly rebrands itself. In the mid-20th century, progressives decided to adopt the word “liberal,” since “progressive” had fallen into disrepute. The same thing eventually happened to the word “liberal,” so now, they’re back to the word “progressive.”
We see this with socialism, too. America’s avowed socialists know the word “socialism” is radioactive in America, so they’ve championed their policies in terms of “fairness” and “equality” while allowing socialist ideology to color those terms.
I’d like to see the right fight back more like this article, that strongly impacts the left financially and sends a clear message that there will be harsh repercussion for their idiotic policies and actions. Of course, to be most effective we need conservative judges on the bench. Though most people don’t fully appreciate this aspect of Trump’s presidency, judicial appointments will part of his lasting legacy.
Of course the response to the jury verdict from the college
is on par with liberal thinking by trying to shift the blame to someone or something else for problems they created.
I suggest that when we talk about needing more conservative judges on the bench we add a sentence or two to explain that a conservative judge will rule based on the law and nothing else, while a Liberal judge tends to rule based on his or her personal or political agenda even when this does not strictly comply with the law.
I say this because most on the Left simply lack the awareness that there is a different way of approaching legal decisions other than using them to advance or impede political agendas. When you say simply that you want more conservative judges, they assume this means you want more judges that will rule against the Left because of political bias. Again, it’s the team mentality—–they assume that everyone plays by the same rules with the outcome dependent on which team is in control, and they are happy with that. It is simplistic and basic and undemanding of any intellectual considerations.
We have a steep learning curve we have to start following, starting with basic education. That is, “what does it mean to be a conservative?”
Case in point: The Left is still outraged by the comment by Rush that we should do everything we could to block the Obama agenda. To them, this was just petty team defense, nothing deeper than a petty nasty desire to personally harm Obama’s legacy. When you try to explain that this was based on an objective analysis of the Obama political philosophy and the objective belief that this was harmful to the nation because of its strong Leftism and contradiction to the Constitution, you get the same blank look you would get if you explained this to a basset hound. It simply does not compute. THEY don’t base their actions or goals on objective analysis of whether or not a policy complies with the Constitution, but merely on which team proposes it. Their team: They’re for it. Our team: They’re against it. Trying to explain that we don’t think that way just bounces off their bubbles.
So they project this into everything the Right says and does, with the assumption that the Right makes its decisions based on the same shallow personality and team identities that drive them. This is why when we just say we need more conservative judges they automatically think that is because we want to rig the system, completely oblivious to the fact that we want more conservative judges to end or at least curtail rigging the system.
I’ve been saying for years that we need to start doing things like this. The Left can act with impunity because there is seldom if ever a consequence for their misdeeds and lies.
So if someone goes to vote and learns that someone else has voted in his name, and been able to do so because of a refusal to demand a photo ID, that person should sue every single person, individually, who blocked voter ID laws plus every government agency even remotely involved.
When a student is graduated from high school while being functionally illiterate and believing that Christopher Columbus was a genocidal psycho who scoured the Earth looking for innocent civilizations to plunder and destroy, those parents and that student should sue the board of education, the school principal, and everyone remotely connected with the poor curriculum and bad teaching.
When a white or Asian student with a 4.0 GPA is passed up for college admittance in favor of a black student with a 3.0 GPA, because of Affirmative Action or racial quotas, this should prompt major lawsuits. When a heterosexual Christian is abused or in any way subjected to harassment or bad treatment on those grounds, this should prompt massive lawsuits for discrimination and violation of civil rights.
Little Bobby comes home from kindergarten freaked out because his friend Billy was the star of a school program where it was announced that Billy is now a girl and has nightmares about this happening to him, sue that school and get that teacher fired.
The Left has been able to act without limits, because no one on the Right has stood up to them and used their own tactics against them.
The muddled sheeple who don’t pay attention will start to, when their own school districts are suddenly paying huge settlements for incompetence, bigotry and various abuses of people based on their lack of Leftist cred.
Unreal
https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2019/06/09/a-michigan-hotel-wants-to-help-out-of-state-women-get-abortions/