Open Thread

I got blocked by Glenda Gilmore on Twitter. Who is she? Well, I honestly didn’t know until after I was blocked. She had made a statement about how Trump’s desire to beautify Federal buildings was his way of ushering Fascism into the United States…Trump likes Greek columns and you know who else liked Greek columns, right? Well, Obama, actually…but, anyways; I made a comment to her Tweet saying along the lines of “maybe its just that people don’t like ugly-a** architecture”; and I was blocked.

She, is however, a person with quite impressive credentials and is currently a professor of history at Harvard – she’s top of the Elite. Looking at her credentials, I’m not sure if she just doesn’t know anything, or knows it all and simply chooses to believe stupid things. In the end, it doesn’t matter: out of ignorance or malice, she’s yet another person running our culture determined on the destruction of civilization. The barbarians are not at the gates: they are within the walls and destroying everything they touch. Mark my words – if we don’t have a very swift reaction against barbarism, in 100 years people will be trying to cure cancer with poultices and goat entrails.

Biden in finished for all intents and purposes – but you wonder what cruelty keeps his handlers from telling him to get out? The latest bit:

On Sunday, Joe Biden snapped at a voter in New Hampshire, calling him a “lying, dog-faced pony soldier.”

The dust-up came after the voter asked Biden, “How do you explain the performance in Iowa and why should the voters believe that you can win a national election?”

“You ever been to a caucus?” Biden replied.

After the voter said she indeed had attended a caucus, Biden shot back: “No you haven’t. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier.”

I’m getting embarrassed for the guy: he’s a very old man clearly of declining physical and mental capacity – he should be in a retirement home, not on the campaign trail.

The Coronavirus continues to spread as China’s government cracks down on Chinese trying to talk about it. Once again: if it just a flu, why be particularly concerned about it? People will get sick, some few will die, most will get better in a week or two. Is this just the Chinese government being stupidly over-cautious, or is this disease far more infectious and deadly than anyone is letting on? I guess only time will tell.

In New Orleans, apparently for years, the DA issued fake subpoenas. The people hit with these fakes are now suing – and the prosecutors are running to the courts claiming they have immunity as government officials. Trouble is, they are probably right thanks to some monstrously stupid Supreme Court rulings in the past. A huge part of criminal justice reform must be making prosecutors fully responsible for their actions – if they fake or hide evidence; if they knowingly send innocent people to jail, they’ve got to pay high criminal and civil penalties. Those we give the authority to send people to jail or to the executioner must be held to an extremely high standard.

A Leftist psycho rammed his van into GOPers registering voters and the news about it has been completely blacked out by the MSM. If you still needed proof that the MSM are mere DNC propagandists, here you are.

RSM notes that Populism is popular – and, increasingly, effective. The story he notes specifically is how President Duterte of the Philippines has cleaned up his country – his linked article tells of Filipinos who live in crime-free neighborhoods where business is good and no one lives in fear. You know: just like all normal people want to live. Contrast this with the Globalist Elite which wants us all to live in sh**-strewn streets where criminals roam free…all done to punish us for not being up to Globalist Elite standards. What is happening is the rebellion of the normal – mom and pop got pissed and started voting against the Elite…and mom and pop, kind as they are, really don’t mind if criminals and bums are given rough treatment.

26 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. Amazona February 10, 2020 / 9:44 am

    Gotta love Kurt Schlicter:

    Impeachment turned out to be a Swalwellian toot and it’s done.

    • Retired Spook February 10, 2020 / 11:24 am

      Kurt has definitely refined the Alinsky tactic of ridicule into an art form.

    • jdge1 February 11, 2020 / 6:14 pm

      How I wished that Obama would have been put through similar investigations that the dems put Trump through. I’m still hopeful that a number of leftist politicians get exposed and punished for crimes we already have significant evidence of. I’m even more hopeful that once the indictments start, plea bargaining will open the flood gates exposing the illegal activity of people who think they’re protected, resulting in harsh penalties and jail time. Short of that, those hell bent on destroying the US will attempt a comeback with a vengeance most of us have not seen. These politicians and people in positions of authority are in many was more dangerous than what we call terrorist cells, as they operate with the protection, power and money confiscated from the very people they’re entrusted to protect.

      • Amazona February 11, 2020 / 11:24 pm

        It’s too late to hold Obama accountable for his transgressions in office, but I still think that a PAC would be wildly successful asking for donations to fund an hourly prime time network show (don’t need sponsors, though the NRA might step up) that has a new theme every week, a new revelation of something hidden by the Agenda Media or an explanation of a Constitutional law, etc. It would pull in a huge market share. Put it opposite Will and Grace and pull 70%. Conservatives would watch it because we need something like this. “Independents” would watch it because they just can’t make up their minds, due 90% to lack of information and 10% to lack of spine. And a lot of Libs would watch it out of masochism and/or a hope of finding something else to trigger them so they can wallow in yet more meltdowns.

        Don’t know if you were around then, but Mark and Matt delved deep into the misdeeds of Obama, wrote a great book about why he was the worst president ever, and probably stand as the nation’s top experts on Obama’s sins, crimes and goofs.

      • jdge1 February 12, 2020 / 12:40 pm

        ” It’s too late to hold Obama accountable for his transgressions in office…”

        Not necessarily. If it comes to light that he was involved in any of a number of significant crimes, he could still be held accountable. While chances of that happening at this point seem slim, I can still see a number of ways for it to happen, especially if those in the know get put in the frying pan with the prospect of spend a significant portion of their behind bars hoping for a plea deal.

  2. Amazona February 11, 2020 / 11:32 pm

    (Hillary) “…can’t afford to miss out on what is likely her last chance to get to the White House, even if it’s for VP.

    MacKinnon wrote, “I am assured that Clinton is on every shortlist for that position,” and that she “might enter the arena.” He added, “Given her ego, would Hillary Clinton settle for being vice president when she twice was within striking distance of being president? The answer is an emphatic yes.”

    Yeah, nice posturing for now, but really—who would want Hillary as his or her VP? Talk about having a target on your back!

  3. Amazona February 12, 2020 / 12:28 am

    As much as I disliked Obama and his policies and despised Hillary, I could still kind of see why some people liked them.

    This group? Not a clue. I have the TV on in the other room and am hearing wild hysterical cheering for Sanders, and I repeat—?????

    I simply do not get it. I simply do not understand how ANYONE could support him or Warren, much less be excited by them. Mayor Pete at least can appeal to the Howdy Doody camp (seriously, folks, am I the only one who sees it? It’s the curly mouth, and the eyes…) and he probably seems safe, at least compared to the others, but still—there’s no there there. Mediocre, marginally successful mayor at best and that is generous, of a small Midwestern city, and utterly clueless. I heard him pronounce his opinion that the SCOTUS has to be “balanced between conservative and Liberal” and I thought “what an utter doofus! Literally not a clue as to the true purpose of the Court, but an admission that he sees it as a form of legislation. True, the politically illiterate seem to share that belief, but they’re not running for the presidency. His only skill, as far as I can see, is making absolutely absurd pronouncements in a very calm way that makes them seem, at least on the surface, for a moment or two, sound almost reasonable.

    I can’t picture Bernie in a conference with another world leader—it just does not compute. As for Liz, absolutely no way. I don’t think Mayor Pete could go half an hour without a reference to his sexual orientation and beloved husband. Aside from politics and policies, at least I could imagine Klobuchar or even Gabbard being able to talk to world leaders without splattering them with spittle or making their ears bleed with the shrill Warren voice, I don’t think that is enough.

    What I see in the Dem lineup is a bunch of Participation Trophy hopefuls. Isn’t it TIME FOR a woman, or an aged Communist, or a gay guy, or an aged never-been? Who has time to consider qualifications, or skills? It’s time for somebody, who represents the “right” demographic, to have his or her turn.

    • Cluster February 12, 2020 / 12:23 pm

      I don’t get it either … at all. Bernie is a half senile and angry socialist, Programmed Pete is nothing but a polished cliche machine propped up by the establishment, Warren is an angry grandmother, and Klobuchar has as much warmth as a January afternoon in Minnesota. Also, the only thing most of these Democrats seem to be running on is “who can beat Trump” and that’s not a winning message. Bernie at least has a message as loathsome as it is but at least it’s a message. Programmed Pete offers nothing other than establishment poll tested catch phrases in his effort to become the next Deep State puppet, something of which Warren, Klobuchar and Biden are all also vying for.

  4. jdge1 February 12, 2020 / 7:05 pm

    Maybe a good place to start in bringing down the left is to go after their lawyers and leftist prosecutors. Then, when the rats in the swamp start to jump ship, they’ll have little choice but to turn on each other.

  5. jdge1 February 12, 2020 / 7:24 pm

    By a matter of substantial screw-ups by the dems, Trump basically won the Democrats Iowa caucus a few days ago. Now, Trump Smashes Incumbent President Primary Record in NH. It’s worth noting that Trump lost NH by .04% in 2016. While the results this time around should be encouraging, I wouldn’t put anything past the dems to steal the election.

  6. Cluster February 13, 2020 / 10:18 am

    I think these next 9 months will be interesting. Trump has begun “draining the swamp” in earnest now following the the two attempted coups and the bureaucratic partisans are not going down quietly. On top of that there are still Congress critters looking to ramp up impeachment again on anything they can spin into having the appearance of an “egregious infraction”. Meanwhile Trump is actively going after sanctuary cities, immigration, and healthcare … in other words the three Holy Grails for Democrats. The battle lines are drawn and the fight has ensued in manner we haven’t seen before. These times are much more contentious than even Reagan’s tenure.

    With Bernie leading the Dem primary, it feels like we are headed towards a political crescendo in November which I hope happens. Americans will either vote for Bernie and a complete socialist revolution with statist bureaucrats making important decisions for our lives, or we stay the course of individual autonomy and capitalism and keep the levers of government in the hands of the people. The vast majority of the media champions the DC elite and their daily emotional whines will only get louder in the next few months while the squishy Never Trump Republicans will be wringing their hands in despair. 2020 is promising to be a pivotal moment for our country …

    • jdge1 February 13, 2020 / 12:12 pm

      The media and the left are crying (yet again) about Trump standing up to their destructive antics, something we’ve rarely seen with positive results from previous conservative / republican politicians.

      If there is a “norm” or “rule” that requires us to look away and ignore when liberals twist and pervert the power of their positions to pursue politically motivated vendettas, then such “norms” and “rules” should not just be broken. They should be shattered.

    • Amazona February 13, 2020 / 1:02 pm

      Good analysis, as usual, Cluster.

      What I sense is that we are at a tipping point in this country, a crucial point that will decide our future. You call it a “crescendo” which is accurate, but that does not convey the sense of decision-making, of a possible shift in perceptions or change of direction, the sense of a fork in the road.

      My concern is that the Right is going to blow it, is going to just keep going down this road and contributing to the widening of the gap between the two Americas. I think we have an amazing opportunity here.

      If I had any influence at all, I would urge all Republicans to unite not so much as a party as as a concept, and stick to that concept for the next 9 months. That is, to throw the Dems off balance and get the attention of the nation by doing something dramatic and unexpected, and then follow a very different path.

      Two backgrounds here: One is my experience as a horsewoman. I learned a long time ago that if I want to lead a horse in a certain direction and he doesn’t want to go, I can’t force him to go that way. But if I step off to the side I can always get him to turn and go in that direction, and then I can angle back to the direction I wanted to go in the first place. The key is to get his feet moving, and to unblock that thing in his head that says “I won’t go that way”. The other is that if I, a complete political junkie, am so tired of political wrangling I just don’t want to hear it any more, I think most of the nation feels the same way. This kind of fatigue leads to shutting down and not letting anything through any more.

      The conservative talking heads are just regurgitating the same old same old, day in and day out, because nothing new is happening. Every now and then a new fact emerges, but it is presented as part of the Same Old Same Old, and it has all become irritating background noise. On the Left, the only way they can try to keep some energy going is to continually escalate the insanity, with more and more outrageous hyperbole.

      So—I think the political version of changing the direction as I said about the horse would be to announce that we HAVE reached this point, and it is a time to stop, reflect, and change direction. That there is still a lot that has to be done regarding the events that have gotten us to this point, but they should not be in the realm of politics. These are and should remain in the realm of law enforcement, and politics should leave law enforcement to do their jobs and start to focus on what politics is SUPPOSED to be about, which is how best to govern the nation.

      In other words, slam the door on existing conflicts. If something new and interesting and important pops up, address it, but put the Hannitys and Ingrahams and even Rush to work not rehashing the same events, arguments and facts but openly dedicating themselves to a new direction. That is, taking one element of government at a time and dissecting how it has become corrupted, and the negative impacts of that corruption on society, commerce, etc. Not as a dry lecture, but in the context of the real reason the Left is so dedicated to destroying Trump.

      Which leads me to something I think is vitally important, and which has only been touched on peripherally. That is, while the sheeple and easily manipulated and the foot soldiers like Schiff are motivated by hate, the leadership of the left doesn’t hate Trump: THEY FEAR HIM. If all the conservative commentators and talking heads were to shift their focus from the Left hating Trump to the Left FEARING him, it would set the stage for analysis of the insidious infiltration of radical Leftist agendas throughout our government and the threat to this strategy posed by Trump. This is fairly new ground, offering a lot of opportunity for the talking heads to get away from the media circus they have allowed to distract them and get down to the nitty-gritty of why the Left is so panicked by Trump and what he has been doing to stir up that panic.

      My message would be “See where Identity Politics has gotten us? See the anger, division, distrust, disgust and even fear that permeate our political discourse now? And what we need to realize is that none of this—-NONE OF THIS—-reflects our core beliefs in how best to govern the nation, but is due to picking sides, as if the vital need to commit to a structure of government is really nothing more than a popularity contest. We’ve got to stop doing this. It is tearing the country apart. We have to step back from the Identity Politics and start acting like adults with a serious problem to solve.”

      And then lay out a commitment to do just that. The problem is, Trump wouldn’t do it—he’s not going to stop his insults and stupid name calling. I wish he would. I think if he were to address the nation with an analysis of the emotional content of the existing chaos and turmoil, the hatred and combativeness that distract us from what we are really supposed to be doing, it would be powerful and would appeal to the millions who probably got to the Political Fatigue place a long time before I did.

      This is the chance to set a new tone, to move to a whole new level of true leadership. I truly believe that if Donald Trump were to make a speech in which he could joke, could get that twinkle in his eye and say something like “You all know I like to come up with nicknames for the opposition, and they aren’t very nice nicknames. But it is time to move past that, and my promise to you is that in this election cycle I am not going to do that any more. We’re all tired of the bickering, the wrangling, the personal attacks, the political maneuvering. It’s gotten out of hand. We need to move past bickering and name calling to the very very serious business of fixing the problems in our political process and the problems in how we manage our government. And this is what I am going to do: I am going to ask my fellow Republicans to make a similar commitment. That doesn’t mean never saying anything negative about an opponent, but it does mean focusing on the defects in our opponents’ proposals and ideas, not on their personalities or even on many of their actions. There are plenty of those, enough to keep us busy. So what we, as a party, are going to do is rise above the bickering, approach our American fellow citizens with respect for your intelligence and your love of this nation, and explain the structure, the bare bones of the foundations, the philosophy and the agenda, of the two opposing political systems and ask you to make decisions based on which of them you think will lead to a better United States of America. This is the most important decision any of us will ever make, regarding the fate of our nation, and we have to get serious about it. This is not a decision to be made based on what you think of someone’s hair, or sense of humor, or even personality. Loyalty to a person is great, I’m not knocking it and I am eternally grateful to those who feel loyalty to Donald Trump, but I think it is more important to support me because I represent the political structure you think is the best way to govern our nation.”

      I’ve done this. I am realizing I am a political evangelist. Just yesterday I was in a restaurant and the woman at the next table struck up a conversation with me and soon asked if she could join me. She brought up politics and I let her guide the direction of the conversation and she quickly got to the point of saying she thought Trump supporters were kind of bullies because they are so dismissive and harsh toward anyone who doesn’t agree with them. I did not argue. What I did do was quote Thomas Sowell, when he said that the Right thinks the Left are stupid but the Left think the Right are evil, which nudged the conversation away from an argument along the lines of “we are NOT bullies”.

      She got to the Zelensky conversation and said she thought Trump was wrong when he asked the other president to do him a favor. “Oh, my” I thought, “you poor woman. You have no idea who you are talking to.” And I very nicely told her that the statement was “do US a favor” and that it was not about the Bidens but early in the conversation and about the Ukrainian interference in our election. I used the phrase I have used here—that the reference to Crowdstrike was the spark that lit the fuse that led to the explosion. This was totally new information for her. Totally. Crowdstrike? DNC not really hacked by Russia? Ukrainian involvement in election interference? We ended up closing the restaurant down (it’s a lunch place only—no, we were not there all day ) and she asked for my contact information because she wants to learn more about what Trump has been doing to bring federal agencies back closer to compliance, for one thing. It was a very cordial conversation, she was genuinely interested and I just kept telling her not to just accept everything I said but check it out. I was excited about it, because I got to test my theory.

      That is, the first thing I did was dismiss the personality aspect—–if I am going to call myself a Christian I have to live like one, meaning belief in redemption, salvation and forgiveness, leading to dismissing personality as a factor in political decisions. I got to test my theory that when we refuse to discuss personality and stick to objective facts people are much more likely to pay attention—partly because this lacks the irritation factor of bickering, partly because it eliminates the offense/defense dynamic and partly because people are, whether they know it or not, hungry for facts not tainted by emotion.

      So—if you want a real “BOMBSHELL” you have a national address by the president in which he states that the election is too important, the outcome too vital to the fate of our nation, to let our political discourse continually be dominated by and even defined by personality, identity politics and bickering. Starting with the statement “We can all see where Identity Politics has gotten us—-to a nation so divided people are comparing it to a civil war, to a damaging and dangerous progression of the abuse of power by some our most trusted federal agencies in efforts to support one political party over another, to a press that no longer even pretends to be objective observers
      and reporters of events but acts as an agent of one party to direct events through propaganda and selective reporting, to a place where blind hatred dominates so many people that the nation has been put through a series of expensive, divisive and hyper-emotional attacks not just on the person elected to be president but on the many millions who voted for me. We are seeing people shot at, mowed down by vehicles, beaten up on the streets, assaulted in restaurants, denied service, spit on, called names, threatened with death, had their children threatened and worse, simply for having a certain political belief. We are seeing the nation plunging into a death spiral of Thought Crimes and Thought Police, reminiscent of the worst parts of world history in which people were punished, imprisoned, tortured and even killed for what they thought or believed.

      This has to stop. This is why the Republican Party is going to try to move away from Identity Politics. This is so deeply ingrained in our approach to politics I can’t promise we will be 100% successful, but our goal is to reject the tribalism of current American politics and to talk to our fellow Americans as intelligent people honestly looking for answers, not to just try to appeal to their emotions.” …and so on.

      • Cluster February 13, 2020 / 2:00 pm


        This is the chance to set a new tone, to move to a whole new level of true leadership.

        I agree 100%. Trump has a YUGE opportunity right now to dial down his tone and be more “presidential”. His policy successes speak for themselves and the current chaos in the Dem primary has a lot of people wondering what to do. I am thinking that if Trump were to conduct himself more presidential, which he is capable of, he would gain the support of A LOT of moderate Dems … Reagan democrats as they were once called, and 2020 would be landslide.

      • jdge1 February 14, 2020 / 9:08 am

        Amazona, I can appreciate the example you gave where you were able to steer the conversation into a positive, shifting the dialogue where you were able to persuade a person with opposing points a view to consider where they may be wrong when given facts and reality as they are, not as they were perceived, however they came by that false info. That however is very different from dealing with an opposition that is hell bent on destroying you thru most any means possible, in order to acquire the power and control they desperately seek. Those people cannot be reasoned with, or persuaded with to change their mind, or bargained with in a good faith effort for the common good of the country. I think if Trump came to the table with a statement like you suggested, all that would do is embolden the opposition to think of ways to trap him into saying something, anything where they can then tell the world that Trump reneged on his word and therefor cannot be trusted.

        I often wondered when I was much younger how and why opposing politicians displayed a level of civility when addressing each other, even if only on the surface. They used terms like; the distinguished gentleman from xyz, or my esteemed collogue from xyz. Even if they harbored internal animosity against that person, for the most part there was enough civil discourse where they could compromise on legislation and move things forward. But back then there was also a respect for God and family that is very lacking in today’s leftist ideology. When we can’t even find common ground in things that are guaranteed by the constitution, where there is utter contempt for the law, where they will use significant illegal means to destroy anyone who stands in their way to power, especially when the vast majority of the media is complicit, then I don’t see how we have much choice by to stand firm and push back hard.

        Make no mistake, we are most definitely fighting a war where the enemy is fully intent on destroying things we hold dear. Things like love and respect for God and family, personal freedoms and associated responsibilities. Communism by its very nature demands the elimination of God as our savior, and the lose of freedoms where most every aspect of our lives are controlled by a few tyrants. I simply don’t see how those who push hard for the destructive ways of socialism can be reasoned with, or even respected. They will take every attempt of an olive branch as a sign of weakness to be exploited.

        That’s not to say you and I as individuals can’t attempt to find common ground with our fellow citizens by means of honest persuasion and truth. This is certainly a worthwhile endeavor, even if often tiring or it seems fruitless as we’ve likely encountered such conversations the quickly went south for a variety of reasons. But those conversations must still happen. If only a few of the women who go to abortion clinics to terminate their pregnancies can display a change of heart, then the extensive efforts of those who plead by the gates are not in vain. But we must also realize, the power of persuasion does not come directly from our efforts but rather through the graces of the Holy Spirit. If we proceed with God’s will in mind, then He will use our efforts in ways that fits His design. That however can be tricky when dealing with people who are interested in truth and justice and believe they are following God’s will but are moving forward with false information. Those are the very people we are most likely to help if the right approach is used. I see your words above almost as a plea to approach our fellow humans with a level compassion and understanding that God has often shown us when we make mistakes. Kindness and respect extended in conversation will allow for more open communication and hopefully move us away from the destructive path we seem to be speeding down now. The dialogue we use needs to depend on who we’re dealing with. Sometimes the only thing they understand is forceful confrontation. We need to realize not every conversation should be a clash of words or worse, but that the most likely change of tide in clarity will only come with some level of thoughtfulness. Pray to God we know which approach to use and when.

      • Amazona February 14, 2020 / 1:21 pm

        Thank you, JDGE1, for your thoughtful response to what I said. Going back to your first paragraph, I agree with you while disagreeing with you.

        You point out, quite rightly, that “That however is very different from dealing with an opposition that is hell bent on destroying you thru most any means possible, in order to acquire the power and control they desperately seek. “ Here I agree. But I don’t waste time on those people, for two reasons. One is that it would be a futile and frustrating effort and one is that this group, while being the most vocal and energetic and visible, is also quite small.

        We don’t need to convert those people, and it would be a waste of time to try. They are so strongly motivated, either by ideology or hatred or some other strong persuasion that unless we adopt Cluster’s desire to just “put them down” we should just ignore them.

        In the last election where a Democrat was elected to the presidency, the difference between winning and losing was almost exactly 5 million votes, or a 3.9 % difference. I think it far more productive to not look at the almost 66 million who voted for Obama as a monolithic voting bloc motivated by the same motives. Of that number, I believe the number of true ideologues is a very small percentage, and the number of rabid haters blinded by their emotions is, while larger, still not massive.

        But go back to that percentage difference. It tells us that we did not need to gain almost an additional 4% of the vote, but just 2% (by a very rough and unsophisticated calculation) to make the election a virtual tie. That is, if we took 2% away from Obama’s 51.1 % and added it to Romney’s 49.2% we would have seen a shift to Obama at 49.1% and Romney at 49.2%. How many people is that? Again, quite roughly, in the ballpark of 2.5 million, given the 5 million differential.

        That’s not a lot. That is a much easier goal than looking at the 66 million, lumping them all into the same category as hardheaded committed ideologues, and feeling overwhelmed by that figure.

        So set a goal of changing 4 million votes, to accomplish a shift large enough to put conservatives in charge of government. This is super-primitive calculating, I know. There are so many other factors, such as voter turnout and population shifts and so on. It’s just a basic sketch of the breakdown of votes.

        We already know, from personal experience, from talking to people, that most who vote Dem do not do so out of any ideological commitment. As a matter of fact, very few even understand the political structure they are supporting with their votes. About 20 years ago, on this blog, I first asked a Lib to explain his political philosophy, and he couldn’t. Oh, he thought he had one, but when asked to define it he sounded like a Miss America contestant: “Well, I am, like, you know, in favor of equality, and fairness, and, uh, uh, stuff like that.” Over the decades I had one, and only ONE, understand the question and explain a coherent political philosophy, and he was a Marxist who had studied Marx and been convinced. So I started asking people I knew to be Liberals to explain the political system they found so compelling, and always got the same look I would have gotten if I had asked my poodle. ??????

        Many if not most who vote Dem don’t even know what we MEAN by “Leftist”. I have had a Lib get angry at me for using the word, claiming it was just a “pejorative” used to insult him, and I have read in several Comments sections of different web sites similar complaints—that “Left” is a meaningless word. That is our fault for failing to define it.

        No, we have to start with the understanding that most who vote for Dems do so for a couple of reasons. One, which is more and more prevalent these days, is that they are not voting FOR something as much as voting AGAINST what they have been schooled to distrust and hate: that is, evil racist Republicans and most of all evil racist Donald Trump. The Left has positioned itself in the minds of the public as the representative of virtue. As a former Liberal, I have often commented that being a Liberal is just a shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground. The other prevailing reason comes down to ISSUES. I am trying to type that word with the sneer I feel when I think of the word.

        Both of these “reasons” are shallow, superficial, emotion-based and easily addressed.—-if we do it the right way. I don’t even mess with the first one, other than casually commenting that associating a belief in Constitutional governance with hatred of people because of skin color just strikes me as very foolish and poorly thought out and I simply cannot understand how or why anyone thinks it makes sense—and move on, Because the key is ISSUES.

        The problem with the way the Right has been dealing—or, rather, not dealing—with ISSUES is to argue, you’ve got it, ISSUES How stupid. Issues are what people feel strongly about, and trying to change their minds and convince them they are wrong is not only a waste of time, it just irritates them and makes them dig in even more. No, what we should be doing is educating people about the fact that they don’t have to give up on the things that have the most emotional meaning for them to vote for Republicans, because they would really only be voting for a system that moves the decisions on those issues out of the federal arena and closer to home, where they have more control and more oversight.

        The Left excels at emotional appeal and emotional manipulation, and we need to leave that to them and work on educating people so they are less likely to fall for the manipulation.

        “Why did you vote for Obama? Well, I just believe gay people should be allowed to marry.” Perfect. We have just identified two very important things—– that the person is emotion-driven as well as politically illiterate. And at this point, whether the ISSUE is gay marriage or abortion or any other hot-button topic, all we have to do is point out that the real point we need to address is not the issue itself but where, in the structure of government, it should be decided. That is, a government in which the federal government is restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority left to the states, or a massively powerful federal government with most authority in the hands of a few, with little left to the states or to the people. We need to focus on the dangers of consolidating power in the hands of a few elites—language people can understand, without emotion-prompting labels.

        When you can get to the point of discussing the pros and cons of local or state decisions rather than decisions being made thousands of miles away by politicians who know nothing about local needs, often in response to lobbying by people with different agendas than yours. voting in one-size-fits-all programs and policies and then bleeding off a lot of the money allocated to fund them by federal agencies before a dollar gets to the states, you have a basis for rational discourse.

        These are not people passionately dedicated to a party, much less a political ideology. Most who vote for Dems do so because the Left is brilliant at propaganda and emotional manipulation, and equally brilliant at hiding their true political philosophy and agendas behind a smoke screen of emotionally appealing ISSUES.

        This is why I believe that a national campaign, shored up by coordinated state and local campaigns with the same messaging, all focused on pointing out the tyrannical nature of Leftist governance and that the Constitution is at heart a very libertarian form of government would shift a lot of that unexamined conviction that a pet ISSUE has to, or should, be addressed at the federal level.

        I believe that a coherent, coordinated campaign to explain that the Constitution provides vast freedoms for the people themselves, at the state and local levels, to make their own decisions and have far more oversight and control than they can have over nationwide programs that impose the same restrictions as well as benefits on everyone, would appeal to a lot of people. Most people don’t understand that the purpose of the federal government is just to provide a protective umbrella under which state and local authorities are free to govern themselves, and its sole duties are to provide a national identity, national defense and a very few other things that only a national government can. Personally, I have found most people interested in this concept, which is—sadly–usually quite new to them.

        As for the “…opposition that is hell bent on destroying you thru most any means possible, in order to acquire the power and control they desperately seek…” why waste time on them? They depend on the foundation of millions of uneducated compliant sheeple who blindly accept what they are told, who vote them into office and in so doing give them their power. Bleeding off a significant amount of that support will topple the structure that gives these people their power.

        I envision a pyramid, with several layers, or levels, or tiers, dividing it horizontally from bottom to top. The very top is the true leadership of the Left, the managers and manipulators and even the money men of the International Left, with its core ideology and clearly defined agenda. The next two or three tiers down are the politicians who may or may not share the ideology, may or may not even know there IS one more complex than hating an invented Other but still with the powers of elected office. Below them, and often including them, are the pathological haters. The farther down the pyramid you go, the less focused and dedicated are those who inhabit each level. These are the levels that support, and make possible, the tiers closer to the top, and these are the levels we should be approaching and talking to. Ignore the upper tiers. They are smaller in number, are dependent on the tiers below them, and are intimidating only because of their loudness and shrillness and the (temporary) power given to them by the base of the pyramid. But it is the broadest part of the base that is the least political, the least dedicated, the least motivated and the most accessible to reasonable and respectful discourse.

        These are also the people most turned off by the bickering and name calling, which is why I think we should officially, loudly and with coordination across all political offices and conservative voices, agree with this distaste and announce that it is time to change our discourse to the real matters at hand—how best to govern our nation. Now is when the president should state, in a formal address, before the House gets ramped up again, “We have just lived through the nightmare that uncontrolled Identity Politics leads to, and we as a nation have to make a commitment to step away from it and focus on the true meaning of politics. That is, on the best way to govern our nation. We need to step away from asking people to make the most important decisions citizens can make based on personality, or feelings, on demonization of one side or another, on liking or not liking someone for reasons that have nothing to do with competence but more importantly nothing to with compliance with our Constitutional rule of law. THESE are what we should be looking at.”

        I think this would firmly establish Trump as a true leader, make it harder for the Dems to continue their attacks, appeal to millions who are looking for reasons to make political decisions and now feel trapped between a thoroughly distasteful Democrat Party and Orange Man Bad, and start to nudge the nation out of its collective hysteria.

  7. Cluster February 13, 2020 / 12:01 pm

    My opinion is that this country is full of emotionally under developed people who at the same time have enormous egos. John Kelly is the most recent inclusion:

    Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, said that Vindman is blameless and was simply following the training he’d received as a soldier; migrants are “overwhelmingly good people” and “not all rapists”; and Trump’s decision to condition military aid to Ukraine on an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden upended long-standing U.S. policy…

    • jdge1 February 13, 2020 / 12:24 pm

      How I’d love to ask Kelly how he’d react to a soldier under his command committing insubordination and see if he could answer with a straight face, “that soldier is blameless and was simply following the training he’d received.”

    • Amazona February 13, 2020 / 1:17 pm

      Kelly’s comment is total BS. No soldier’s training instructs him to ignore the chain of command. On the contrary, chain of command is essential to all military teaching and discipline. Vindman did not only violate this sacrosanct rule of all military training when he ran to a fellow subversive with an account of the Zelensky conversation, he also violated his oath to protect the confidentiality of information available to him due to his security clearance.

      (1) He did not go to his military superior, which is what his “training” said he had to do
      (2) He did not follow the rules regarding who is and who is not cleared to receive sensitive information, such as the contents of a call between two heads of state
      (3) He misrepresented the content of the call (what we call :lying”) in an effort to undermine the authority and even position of his Commander in Chief, making him not just part of a subversive effort to damage or even unseat the president but the foundation for it. This alone should have him in the brig.
      (4) Prior to that he had violated who knows how many laws when he went behind the president’s back and personally approached Ukrainian officials and told them, basically, to ignore the President of the United States because he did not represent true American foreign policy.

      As for the rest: No one ever said all illegal aliens, much less all migrants (note the careful manipulation of the language to insinuate an even more malignant tone, trying to lump all migrants in with illegals) are rapists and the president did not make, imply or allude to a “…decision to condition military aid to Ukraine on an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden …”. And even if he had, this would be the opposite of “…upend(ing) long-standing U.S. policy…” because long-standing U.S. policy has been to try to ensure that U.S. aid does not go to nations which are corrupt and likely to misuse those funds.

      Kelly is worse than a moron. Kelly is a malignant liar openly spreading lies and seditious statements about the president, who is still his Commander in Chief—that is, if retired officers are still considered to be reserve officers.

      • Amazona February 13, 2020 / 1:48 pm

        In addition to the active units of the Army, there are retired reserve and inactive reserve units composed of service members who have left the military but may be called back to duty under certain circumstances.

        Inactive Reserve
        The inactive reserve is more combat-ready than the retired reserve. Members are not active duty but may still receive pay for other obligations they fulfill, such as being committed to be called up for muster duty or submitting to annual physical and medical evaluations. Membership is irrespective of age or experience as opposed to the retired reserve. Members may also continue to undergo inactive duty training and may eventually change their status to retired reserve.

        Retired Reserve
        The retired reserve contains the military’s retired members who have put in at least 20 years of active duty service. These members are not discharged and, as such, may be called back to active service under certain circumstances, such as war or national emergency. Only retired reserve members who have not yet reached age 60 and receive pay can be called up.

        A commissioned officer, retired for reasons other than for failure of promotion to the senior grade, may (1) if an officer of the Regular Corps or an officer of the Reserve Corps entitled to retired pay under subsection (a), be involuntarily recalled to active duty during such times as the Commissioned Corps constitutes a branch of the land or naval forces of the United States, and (2) if an officer of either the Regular or Reserve Corps, be recalled to active duty at any time with his consent.

        It turns out there is a lot of case law regarding the legal status of retired military officers, and when you mingle legal gobbeldygook with military linguistic complexity it is not easy to untangle. However, I think there is evidence that Kelly is still considered part of the military, therefore President Trump is still his Commander in Chief, therefore publicly attacking his Commander in Chief and lying about him in an effort to undermine his authority and contribute to his removal as president would seem to be under the general regulatory authority of the military.

        A general on active duty doing this could be court martialed. I think a retired general who is probably still considered a reserve office probably has some similar restrictions on what he can and cannot do. It seems that a lot of the arguments about the status of retired military personnel deal with civil crimes—-can a retired office convicted of drug use be court-martialed?—but subverting the authority of the Commander in Chief might be a different matter.

    • Cluster February 13, 2020 / 2:19 pm

      Well and how about the comment “migrants are over whelmingly good people” What does that have to do with anything? Other than to imply that Trump is not. The question isn’t whether “migrants are good people” the question is how did they get here? Legally or illegally? And will be they be constructive citizens who contribute to our country or just take from it?

      Kelly is a highly decorated moron

      • Amazona February 13, 2020 / 5:10 pm

        I think Kelly was trying to build on the claim that when Trump commented on Mexico sending us criminals he said all were criminals, by implying that Trump had called not just all illegal immigrants but all immigrants, period, rapists. It’s a typical Leftist weasel move, which when challenged is always met with something like “I didn’t SAY that, what is wrong with YOU?”

  8. Cluster February 13, 2020 / 2:16 pm

    “Post Impeachment Retribution Tour” (as it was characterized on MSNBC) = Draining the Swamp. Long over due and more to go. Ignore Democrat squeals …. they will only get louder.

    • Amazona February 13, 2020 / 5:19 pm

      But what we are NOT doing is explaining how the swamp is being drained—–such as reducing the size of many federal agencies as well as reducing their authority. I don’t know why—maybe because he wants to keep those actions under the radar a little longer, and not call attention to them. It might be a strategy, to keep the focus on the law enforcement aspect while Trump is quietly, with little attention, gutting some federal agencies and diluting their power and influence.

      It seems that it would be easy to say that our Constitution says our laws have to be made by our legislatures, not by political appointees, so he is moving that authority back to Congress where it belongs.

      I haven’t seen any conservative comments on what seems obvious to me, about the motive for moving agency headquarters out of D.C., like putting the BLM in Grand Junction, Colorado. All I’ve seen is the explanation that no one should object because the cost of living is so much lower, but I see it as making corruption harder.

      Which, by the way, is an argument even most Libs can understand—if you concentrate all the power in one place, such as Washington D.C., it means that power brokers and corruption just have to settle there. But if we follow the 10th Amendment and make states vote on and administer their own programs and policies, then the power brokers would have to decide where to go—Albany, Sacramento, Austin. etc.

  9. Cluster February 13, 2020 / 4:57 pm

    Remember, when your opponent is involved in self immolation … get out of the way.

    Former Clinton strategist James Carville ripped into Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday, further escalating the ongoing feud between the two. Carville recently told MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ that he had serious concerns about the future if the Democratic Party nominated a Socialist like Britain’s Jeremy Corbyn, saying that “It’s going to be the end of days.” He went on to say that many Democrat voters were not interested in socialism.

    Sanders responded to Carville’s comments in kind during an appearance on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” calling Carville “a political hack” who “said very terrible things when he was working for Clinton against Barack Obama.” The Vermont Senator added that his campaign was taking the fight to “Carville and the Democratic establishment.”

    Pass the friggin popcorn

Comments are closed.