Archive for the ‘President Reject Clinton’ category

Briefing the Electoral College on ‘Russian hacks’

December 14, 2016

Briefing the Electoral College on ‘Russian hacks’, American ThinkerDavid Zukerman, December 14, 2016

Last week, writing for this blog about a faithless elector, I cited the passage from Federalist No. 68 (attributed to Alexander Hamilton) noting that the members of the Electoral College were bound by the Constitution to meet in their individual states. I had no idea that that very limitation would be relevant to the curious call by some electors for an intelligence briefing, a call endorsed by John Podesta, Clinton campaign chairman — as I learned from the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal, December 13.

For present purpose, I would call to the attention of Mr. Podesta and all Anti- and Never-Trumpers wherever they might be, the opening line of the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President….” Federalist No. 68 makes it clear that the aim of the Founders was to keep the lid on “tumult and disorder” at a convocation of the Electoral College. But a section of Federalist No. 68 that I did not think required quoting, previously, also makes it clear that the aim of the Founders, in keeping the members of the Electoral College confined to their separate states, was to reduce as much as humanly possible “cabal, intrigue, and corruption,” described in No. 68 as “[t]hese most deadly adversaries of republican government….”

How, then, would the proponents of intelligence briefings for the electors propose such briefings take place? Clearly, the spirit of the Twelfth Amendment would prevent an Electoral College briefing for all electors meeting in one place. Should there, then be briefings in the separate states, plus the District of Columbia? Who would conduct the briefings? Would intelligence briefings under the auspices of the national government be consistent with the state basis of the Electoral College? And wouldn’t all electors need to have security clearances for intelligence briefings? Surely, the briefings could not be held under the lax rules approach of the HIllary Clinton e-mails. Or would the briefings solely consist of readings from vague and unsubstantiated articles published in the Trump-resisting New York Times?

The moral I infer from all the commotion about the alleged (fake news?) shadow cast by Russia over the recent presidential campaign is simply this: never underestimate the left’s penchant for what Federalist No. 68 called “cabal, intrigue, and corruption” for purpose of undoing “republican [lower-case ‘r’] government.”

There is, also, an observation in Federalist No. 41 (attributed to James Madison) that seems worth noting in the present context: “A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself.”

 

Michelle Malkin DESTROYS The World’s Foremost FAKE NEWS Provider Hillary Clinton 12/10/16

December 10, 2016

Michelle Malkin DESTROYS The World’s Foremost FAKE NEWS Provider Hillary Clinton 12/10/16, Fox News via YouTube, December 10, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKa1CSlbYVs

Requiem for a Narrative

December 9, 2016

Requiem for a Narrative, Washington Free Beacon, , December 9, 2016

President Barack Obama gestures during a U.S. counterterrorism strategy speech at MacDill Air Force Base Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in Tampa, Fla. (AP Photo/Chris O'Meara)

President Barack Obama gestures during a U.S. counterterrorism strategy speech at MacDill Air Force Base Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in Tampa, Fla. (AP Photo/Chris O’Meara)

At a dinner in Washington earlier this week—one packed with well-meaning folks who really, really wanted this year’s election to have gone the other way—I heard a speaker cite Elizabeth Bishop’s One Art by way of consoling the audience. “The art of losing isn’t hard to master,” the poem famously begins. The speaker hastened to remind the room that, later in the poem, we are informed numerous times that losing “is no disaster.” With that in mind, those who didn’t like the election’s result should buck up and dive back into the fight, and so forth.

It didn’t seem like the time or place for me to point out that the poem’s declarations that losing isn’t a disaster are clearly ironic. It also didn’t seem the time to note that among the most important reasons why so many people supported Trump was that they were conscious of a series of painful disasters, the existence of which the Obama administration, abetted by a friendly press, refused to acknowledge. The nature of our politics today—and perhaps immemorially—is that every ambitious mayor or governor of a state feels the need to create a narrative of success: build a stadium or bridge that he can slap his name on, massage the crime statistics to show civic healing, and call it good.

If the reality matches the narrative, so much the better—but you won’t find too many politicians admitting that things haven’t improved, or that they have actually grown worse. Obama and his aides certainly weren’t big on admitting shortcomings, and after the electoral wipeout they have just suffered, it looks like their most lasting impact will be to have discredited the word “narrative” among a large portion of Americans. That’s something, I guess.

For years, Americans were told that after the financial panic in 2008, the president’s policies had put us on a steady course to a strong economy. But in much of the country, people looked around them and thought, That just doesn’t seem right. Especially in those parts of the country hit the hardest by the transition from the Industrial Era to the Information Age, people asked a number of questions. If the economy is doing so great, why are my adult children not moving out? If the unemployment rate is declining, why are so many prime-age males not working? And doesn’t it matter that the quality of jobs for non-college graduates is so obviously worse than it was a generation ago? Why, instead of working, are so many people dependent on public benefits and falling prey to addiction?

All of these questions had answers—but looking to the Obama White House for clarity about the uncomfortable tradeoffs their policies involved was a fool’s errand. Take, as an example, the crusade against coal, pushed by activists and coastal liberals for whom shutting down these companies was a clear and uncomplicated good deed on behalf of Mother Earth, of which the only real victims would be the greedy energy executives. The miners could retrain, or get “green jobs,” or something.

Well, a lot of the coal companies did shut down, or all but shut down. Many of the owners cut their losses and moved on—capital may be inconvenienced, but it generally does not suffer. The workers just lost their jobs. The economy in places like southeastern Ohio wasn’t exactly ready to absorb them, and as for retraining—well, you give that a try when you’re 45 years old. The availability of welfare and disability payments is a bitter replacement for the dignity of an honest, decently paid job. The only good news in some of these regions for much of the last eight years was the fracking revolution, a phenomenon that generally occurred in spite of the president’s best efforts.

We were also told, again and again, that things were going well abroad. The tide of war was receding. Afghans and Iraqis were taking the lead. Osama bin Laden was dead, and al Qaeda was on the run. And people again thought, That just doesn’t seem right. As recently as this Tuesday, President Obama was still at it, telling troops assembled at MacDill Air Force Base (side note: polls suggest that a plurality in that room must have voted for Donald Trump) that, a few bumps in the road notwithstanding, things were going pretty well out there.

Characteristic of the head scratchers in Obama’s speech was this howler: “No foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland.” Elsewhere in the speech the president cited the “homegrown and largely isolated individuals” who killed Americans in Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston, and Fort Hood, and who were “radicalized online.” Never mind the fact that the Fort Hood terrorist exchanged a dozen or so emails with Anwar al-Awlaki, the American cleric who worked so hard to encourage American Muslims to murder their fellow citizens, or that al Qaeda and ISIS were actively calling for such attacks, and providing instructions for how to carry them out in their online magazines.

People listen to this sort of hairsplitting, and they think, that just doesn’t seem right. One hears the president, during the same speech, praise the campaign against the Islamic State as “sustainable,” and one can’t help but wonder, since when did we want a military effort against a trumped up gang of women-beating thugs like this to be “sustainable”? Swift, yes; crushing, sure; but “sustainable?” How about “victorious”? How about “over”?

“Fake news” is becoming a catch-all explanation for Democrats to explain Hillary Clinton’s loss. Voters didn’t trust Hillary, and didn’t appreciate the great deal they were getting from Obama, because of right-wing lies. The problem with this explanation is that it was hardly necessary for Russian troll farms to sow distrust about the Obama administration, when the administration (not to mention the Clinton campaign!) was itself such a relentless and strategic purveyor of half-truths and convenient omissions. For eight years, the word from the top just didn’t seem right—and the lack of trust such habitual semi-honesty engendered is why the left is very much the author of its own disaster.

CNN documentary: Republicans are racists for opposing Obama

December 8, 2016

CNN documentary: Republicans are racists for opposing Obama, Washington TimesBradford Richardson, December 8, 2016

(Why certainly! Just like Hillary lost because everyone who voted for Trump — a racist, misogynist antisemite who hates women and Hispanics  — is anti-feminist and anti-everything else good. Despite the vileness of Trump’s election, no Democrat would even consider demanding recounts or otherwise challenging the legitimacy of Trump’s terrible un-democratic election or erecting obstacles to his absurd agenda. — DM)

obama-jpeg-3ad0d_c0-229-5472-3419_s885x516President Barack Obama during a U.S. counterterrorism strategy speech at MacDill Air Force Base Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in Tampa, Fla. (AP Photo/Chris O’Meara)

A new CNN documentary about President Obama speculates that Republican opposition to the first black president’s big-government program was rooted in racial animus.

True to Mr. Obama’s legacy, “The Legacy of Barack Obama” finds plenty of time to bash Republicans.

“Did race play a role in the brick wall of Republican resistance to Barack Obama?” former Obama adviser and CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria asks at the outset of the documentary, which aired on Wednesday.

The two-hour primetime exposé, first reported by NewsBusters, features a who’s who of liberal pundits – many of them former Obama White House officials – who wholeheartedly agree that racism was a driving force behind Republican resistance to the president’s efforts to grow the size of government and centralize power in Washington, D.C.

After delving into Mr. Obama’s upbringing, the documentary cuts to a joyous scene at the president’s 2008 acceptance speech.

“It seemed like a fairy tale beginning but at precisely the moment the first couple began swaying on the dance floor, the central crisis of the Obama presidency was already taking shape,” Mr. Zakaria narrates.

“Within half a mile of where Obama and Michelle are dancing and celebrating their great victory, his Republican opponents are wining and dining and plotting his downfall,” says The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, adding that “15 of the most powerful Republicans in Washington made a pact that night” to undermine Mr. Obama at every turn.

“It’s indisputable that there was a ferocity to the opposition and a lack of respect to him that was a function of race,” says David Axelrod, a CNN political commentator and former chief strategist to the president.

And CNN political commentator Van Jones, a former top environmental official in the Obama administration, says he can’t think of a single thing congressional Republicans and Mr. Obama agreed on over eight years. But he can think of one thing – and only one thing – that explains the discord.

“You have to have an extraordinary explanation for this level of obstruction,” Mr. Jones says, evidently not referring to philosophical disagreement between liberalism and conservatism about the size and scope of government.

Although the documentary hints at racism around every corner of the bicameral legislature, it does not actually accuse any lawmakers of being racists.

“David Axelrod says, at least one powerful Republican was personally disrespectful to Obama,” Mr. Zakaria feebly alleges at one point.

Bringing the evening to a race-baiting crescendo, Mr. Zakaria recalls an incident in which Mr. Obama said a police officer “acted stupidly” by arresting a black Harvard professor who tried to force his way into his home after finding the door jammed.

The CNN anchor notes that the timing of the controversy coincided with fierce Republican opposition to Obamacare, which passed without a single GOP vote.

Suddenly, Mr. Zakaria remarks, “Rage over ObamaCare was turning to race.”

The collapse of the political left

December 8, 2016

The collapse of the political left, Washington ExaminerMichael Barone, December 7, 2016

Trump’s victory means the left can’t jam its policies down on the whole nation—and gives it the incentive to develop policies acceptable not only to its own base but with voters among whom it fell agonizingly short this year.

********************

It’s been a tough decade for the political left. Eight years ago a Time magazine cover portrayed Barack Obama as Franklin Roosevelt, complete with cigarette and holder and a cover line proclaiming “The New New Deal.” A Newsweek cover announced  “We Are All Socialists Now.”

Now the cover story is different. Time has just announced, inevitably though a bit begrudgingly, that its Person of the Year for 2016 is Donald Trump. No mention of New Deals or socialism.

It’s not surprising that newsmagazine editors expected a move to the left. The history they’d been taught by New Deal admirers, influenced by the doctrines of Karl Marx, was that economic distress moves voters to demand a larger and more active government.

There was some empirical evidence in that direction as well. The recession triggered by the financial crisis of 2007-08 was the deepest experienced by anyone not old enough to remember the 1930s. Barack Obama was elected with 53 percent of the popular vote—more than any candidate since the 1980s—and Democrats had won congressional elections with similar majorities in 2006 and 2008.

Things look different now, and not just because Donald Trump was elected president. It has been clear that most voters have been rejecting big government policies, and not just in the United States but in most democratic nations around the world.

Leftist politicians supposed that ordinary voters with modest incomes facing hard times would believe that regulation and redistribution would help them. Evidently most don’t.

The rejection was apparent in the 2010 and subsequent House elections; Republicans have now won House majorities in ten of the last 12 elections, leaving 2006 and 2008 as temporary aberrations. You didn’t hear Hillary Clinton campaign on the glories of Obamacare or the Iran nuclear deal, and her attack on “Trumped-up, trickle-down economics” didn’t strike any chords in the modest-income Midwest.

Republican success has been even greater in governor and state legislature elections, to the point that Democrats hold governorships and legislative control only in California, Hawaii, Delaware and Rhode Island. After eight years of the Obama presidency, Democrats hold fewer elective offices than at any time since the 1920s.

Things look similar abroad. Britain’s Conservatives, returned to government in 2010, are in a commanding position over a left-lurching Labour party. France’s Socialist president, with single-digit approval, declined to run for a second term. European social democratic parties have been hemorrhaging votes, and got walloped in Sunday’s Italian referendum. In Latin America and Asia, the left is declining or on the defensive.

Overall history is not bending toward happy acceptance of ever-larger government at home. Nor toward submersion of national powers and identities into large and inherently undemocratic international organizations. The nation-state remains the focus of most peoples’ loyalties, and in a time of economic and cultural diffusion, as Yuval Levin argues in his recent book The Fractured Republic, big government policies designed for an age of centralization have become increasingly dysfunctional.

Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have noticed this, at least until some time between nine and ten o’clock election night. Shrewder center-left politicians who have shown they know how to win elections have. Bill Clinton urged his wife’s campaign managers to put her out in rural areas speaking to voters’ concerns. The thirty-something geniuses she installed in her trendy Brooklyn headquarters knew better.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking in Washington this week, said, “We have to pay attention to culture and identity,” and argued that in response to Islamist extremism, “Political correctness can’t get in the way.”

Such advice suggests that a sharp shift in current leftist strategy, which includes “identity politics” appeals to minorities at home and obeisance to the wisdom of supranational entities like the Paris climate changeconference and the European Union.

What’s missing in that is a concentration on the interests of one’s own citizenry. To the left that smacks of nationalism, which some seem to regard as only a baby step away from Nazism.

It’s not. The United States Constitution was designed to provide a framework in which rights are guaranteed and voters in states can choose policies in line with their different backgrounds and beliefs.

Trump’s victory means the left can’t jam its policies down on the whole nation—and gives it the incentive to develop policies acceptable not only to its own base but with voters among whom it fell agonizingly short this year.

Why Are Leftists Such Pansies?

December 7, 2016

Why Are Leftists Such Pansies?, PJ Media, Andrew Klavan, December 6, 2016

Never mind the college snowflakes who can’t even hear an idea they disagree with without retreating to a safe space. What about the adults? The New York Times, a former newspaper, now reads like a 12-year-old girls’ sleepover after a mouse got in. It’s embarrassing. “How to Cope With Trump?” “Trump’s Threat to the Constitution?” “Trump’s Agents of Idiocracy!”

I have no problem with the left making its case. But the whining! The weakness! The hysteria! It’s like being stuck on an airplane with a crying baby. Grow up. Or at least stick your thumb in your mouth and keep it down. You’re making so much noise it’s hard for me to enjoy your suffering.

******************************

Many times we accuse our political opponents of crimes of which we ourselves are equally guilty. Neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on dishonesty, hypocrisy, or hyperbole. But there is at least one unpleasant trait that seems to reside almost exclusively in the hearts of leftists: a puling hysterical weakness in the face of setbacks and defeat.

I think President Barack Obama is the worst president of my lifetime: an incompetent ideologue who made the world and the country worse. The economy is not as bad as it was directly after the crash, but it is much, much worse than it would have been had it not been weighted down with Dodd-Frank regulation and the anvil of Obamacare. Racial tension is worse, the national spirit is worse, the wars in the Middle East are worse, our nation’s place in the world is worse, our federal institutions are more politicized and corrupt — all because Obama simply did not know how reality worked and would not change his mind.

I knew all this was true or would be true by 2012, and when Obama was reelected over Mitt Romney, a much wiser, more adult, and steadier hand, I was dismayed. I was saddened. I was even distraught.

But I did not become a sniveling, whiny, self-obsessed pansy. I did not, that is to say, behave like leftists are behaving now.

I did not cry. I did not protest. I did not demand a recount. I did not urge electors to betray the voters. I did not say Obama was not my president. I respected the will of the people, even though I found it hard to respect the people whose will it was.

But the left? Never mind the college snowflakes who can’t even hear an idea they disagree with without retreating to a safe space. What about the adults? The New York Times, a former newspaper, now reads like a 12-year-old girls’ sleepover after a mouse got in. It’s embarrassing. “How to Cope With Trump?” “Trump’s Threat to the Constitution?” “Trump’s Agents of Idiocracy!”

The guy hasn’t even done anything yet!

In the Washington Post, Stephanie Land writes a piece headlined, “Trump’s Election Stole My Desire to Look for a Partner.”

Once it was clear that Donald Trump would be president instead of Hillary Clinton, I felt sick to my stomach. I wanted to gather my children in bed with me and cling to them like we would if thunder and lightning were raging outside, with winds high enough that they power might go out. The world felt that precarious to me.

Crikey. What a weakling. What a wimp.

Everything Trump does, every move he makes, is greeted with cries of despair or panic. He’s supposed to ask China’s permission before he takes a call from Taiwan? For crying out loud, have some respect for your country if you can’t have some respect for yourself.

And how about California Democrat Congress-weenie Zoe Lofgren, who held a forum to discuss the possibility of replacing the Electoral College during which she said, “Rational people, not the fringe, are now talking about whether states could be separated from the U.S…”

Honey-bear, you’re a California congresswoman. You don’t know any rational people.

The Electoral College must be gotten rid of. The news must be censored. The election must be overturned.

I mean, really, why are they such pansies?

Here’s my guess. A right-winger turns on his favorite television show and has his favorite character tell him his favorite candidate is demonic. He turns on the news and hears “journalists” edit out stories of Democrat malfeasance while emphasizing Republican corruption. He goes to the movies and has his political beliefs insulted and derided. His favorite singer hates him. His professor excoriates him. His employer would fire him if he knew what he thought.

It makes you tough. It makes you smart. It makes you educate yourself as to why you believe what you believe and what the arguments for and against it are.

A leftist? He floats in a candy-cane cloud of self-congratulating self-reinforcement. Hollywood, the news media, academia, they all tell him: “You’re smart. You’re good. You’re right. You’re nice. You’re going to win the election. Anyone can see that. How could you lose? Anyone who disagrees with you is bad, stupid, mean, wicked.”

No wonder these people whine and cry when things don’t go their way. Spending their days in a pink haze of bias, how could they ever have seen it coming?

I have no problem with there being two sides to an argument. I have no problem with the left making its case. But the whining! The weakness! The hysteria! It’s like being stuck on an airplane with a crying baby. Grow up. Or at least stick your thumb in your mouth and keep it down. You’re making so much noise it’s hard for me to enjoy your suffering.

Okay, it’s not that hard.

California Dreaming?

December 4, 2016

California Dreaming?, Power LineSteven Hayward, December 4, 2016

(Can the rest of us take up a collection to speed California on its way? — DM)

It’s hard to single out the most delicious example of the post-Trump liberal freak out, but the din about California secession has to rank high on the list. Among other obvious things, California provided Hillary Clinton with her entire margin of victory in the popular vote—without California, Trump wins the popular vote in the other 49 states handily. (Without California and the five boroughs of Manhattan, Trump’s popular vote victory starts to approach a landslide.)

ca-sucession

California certainly is out of step with the rest of the nation (especially the fact that, with about 13 percent of the nation’s population, it has over 20 percent of the nation’s total welfare caseload. Progressive government that works!) Last week in Washington I ran into California’s GOP party chairman, Jim Brulte, who is trying to rebuild the GOP from the ground up, working to elect Republicans to local offices around the state with some success. But he admitted that California must now be regarded as a center-left state (at best). I asked Jim if he thought Proposition 13 would still pass today? He admitted, “I’m not sure.”

There’s talk of a ballot initiative to propel the idea of California’s secession. I’m all for it. If California left the union, Republicans would essentially run the nation forever. Like South Carolina, et al. in 1860, California can’t secede of it own will; it will require the consent of the other 49 states, either through Constitutional amendment or an act of Congress (I’m not at all clear on this question, but haven’t had time to study the matter closely).

Quite aside from the constitutional question, I wonder whether the secessionist hotheads have pondered a few basic questions:

  • The other 49 states will not consent to California seceding unless California assumes its proportionate share of the national debt. Are Californians up for assuming roughly $2.5 trillion in sovereign debt? And just how would that debt be transferred? Will the foreign holders of U.S. sovereign debt accept a swap for California’s obligation? Which leads to the next question.
  • Will California have its own currency and central bank? Or will it use the dollar? Or peg the California Peso to the dollar somehow? (By the way, if you’ve ever driven into California, you know that it has border inspection stations for agriculture in place, so the infrastructure for trade and border control is already in place! (/sarc alert)
  • Will California maintain its own army, navy and air force? If so, I imagine the other 49 states will want California to pay for the federal military bases and equipment that it wants to keep for itself—add another $1 trillion to the secession tab. They could skip this expense by having a mutual defense treaty with the U.S. Or perhaps they’ll enter into a mutual defense treaty with Mexico. (More /sarc alert.)

But hey, California, we’re constantly told, is the sixth largest economy in the world. Should be easy, no? On second thought, I’ll bet some California liberals will reconsider, and come up with a slogan like, “Stronger Together.” Oh, wait. . .

I’m Fighting the Left’s Culture War One Bagel at a Time

December 4, 2016

I’m Fighting the Left’s Culture War One Bagel at a Time, American ThinkerClarice Feldman, December 4, 2016

Their movements are never about what they say they are. They are about gaining power for themselves and destroying any who stand in their way. Those who refuse to comply with their ever-changing and ever more ridiculously unreal versions of nature and humanity must be the objects of never-ending warfare.

*********************

At first I dismissed the Democrats’ subsidized street riots and vandalism, moronic election recount demands, and perfervid attacks on Trump and his supporters in the press as a demonstration of their juvenile, narcissistic refusal to accept defeat. Then I read the brilliant essay by Angelo Codevilla

It’s a bit long and I know your Sundays are busy but if you can’t read it all at once, I’ll summarize what I think are the most significant points in the hope that if the topic is of interest you’ll read it all. He traces the notion of political correctness from the 1930 Communist movement through Antonio Gramsci’s “cultural hegemony” configuration to the modern Democratic Party and finds in them a familiar strain:

[A]ll progressives, Communists included, claim to be about creating new human realities, they are perpetually at war against nature’s laws and limits. But since reality does not yield, progressives end up pretending that they themselves embody those new realities. Hence, any progressive movement’s nominal goal eventually ends up being subordinated to the urgent, all-important question of the movement’s own power. Because that power is insecure as long as others are able to question the truth of what the progressives say about themselves and the world, progressive movements end up struggling not so much to create the promised new realities as to force people to speak and act as if these were real: as if what is correct politically — i.e., what thoughts serve the party’s interest — were correct factually.

Communist states furnish only the most prominent examples of such attempted groupthink. Progressive parties everywhere have sought to monopolize educational and cultural institutions in order to force those under their thumbs to sing their tunes or to shut up. But having brought about the opposite of the prosperity, health, wisdom, or happiness that their ideology advertised, they have been unable to force folks to ignore the gap between political correctness and reality.

He argues that this effort is bound to fail and progressives everywhere have had the same reaction “to this failure by becoming their own reason for being.” Their movements are never about what they say they are. They are about gaining power for themselves and destroying any who stand in their way. Those who refuse to comply with their ever-changing and ever more ridiculously unreal versions of nature and humanity must be the objects of never-ending warfare.

Unlike the Machiavellian Gramscian model of attaining power through cultural hegemony and coopting the institutions which might oppose them, the American left has chosen to go even further and pick “fights with the common sense of people it cannot wholly control.”  American schools of education taught a version of America in which this country “was born tainted by Western original sins — racism, sexism, greed and genocide against natives and the environment all wrapped in religious obscurantism and on the basis of hypocritical promises of freedom and equality.” These teachers created “a uniform class” which “now presides over nearly all federal and state, government bureaucracies, over the media, the educational establishment, and major corporations.”

Why does the American Left demand ever-new P.C. obeisances? In 2012 no one would have thought that defining marriage between one man and one woman, as enshrined in U.S. law, would brand those who do so as motivated by a culpable psychopathology called “homophobia,” subject to fines and near-outlaw status. Not until 2015-16 did it occur to anyone that requiring persons with male personal plumbing to use public bathrooms reserved for men was a sign of the same pathology. Why had not these become part of the P.C. demands previously? Why is there no canon of P.C. that, once filled, would require no further additions?

Because the point of P.C. is not and has never been merely about any of the items that it imposes, but about the imposition itself. Much less is it about creating a definable common culture or achieving some definable good. On the retail level, it is about the American’s ruling class’s felt need to squeeze the last drops of voter participation out of the Democratic Party’s habitual constituencies. On the wholesale level, it is a war on civilization waged to indulge identity politics.

Hurting dissenters has become, he argues, “an addictive pleasure” because they really have no priorities beyond aggrandizing their own power.

The end result of this insult to voters was the election of Trump and the rejection, almost entirely, of the Democratic Party.

As if to underscore that the flailing left hasn’t got the message and insists it has the right to silence those who hold different opinions we have three examples this week: Kellogg’s attack on Breitbart, BuzzFeed’s attack on the Gaineses and the boycott of Goldberg’s Bagels in Baltimore. They are all on a different scale of course, but all reflect the common leftist conceit that they are the fonts of all that is good and true and the rest of us must comply with whatever is this day’s fashions — from “global warming” to men in girls’ bathrooms, to ignoring Planned Parenthood’s sale of fetal body parts.

Kellogg’s

To most of us, Kellogg’s Cereal is breakfast fare (cereal, Pop-Tarts). What is less well-known is that its non-profit arm, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, funds and supports a dogs’ breakfast of unsavory leftwing operations — from Soros’ Open Society to the odious foundation money-laundering outfit, the Tides Center.

This week, it flounced its skirts and announced it was pulling its advertising from the highly effective Breitbart site: “We regularly work with our media-buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that are not aligned with our values as a company,” said Kris Charles, a spokeswoman for Kellogg’s. “We recently reviewed the list of sites where our ads can be placed and decided to discontinue advertising on Breitbart.com. We are working to remove our ads from that site.”

Breitbart regularly having challenged the orthodoxy of the mainstream media and the uniparty, every good leftist — and I count Kellogg’s management in that category — must do all it can to demonize it, despite the unrealistic and untrue charges against the site and Steve Bannon who was its former executive chair and now is chief strategist for president-elect Trump. (In the same manner, at a Harvard Symposium this week, the losing Clinton advisors attacked the Trump campaign for “racist dog whistles” to win the election. I suppose that’s easier than conceding they ran a dreadful campaign for a candidate who called those who opposed her “deplorables” and offered no policy reasons — only her sex and time [poorly] served in elective office. They ought to read Codevilla for a clue.)

Chip and Joanna Gaines

Democratic candidates pay election-year homage to religious beliefs (Clinton, for example, talked about her “Methodist beliefs” forming her views). They are coopting religious organizations, inter alia, Mussolini-style by means of lavishly funding the “faith-based” NGOs which are paid per head to place unskilled, unvetted Moslem refugees on the U.S. welfare rolls in exchange for which they lobby for more such immigration. At the same it is no secret that the ruling elites make every effort to undermine Judeo-Christian beliefs and attack believers.

This week’s designated target is HGTV’s “Fixer Upper couple Chip and Joanna Gaines”. In a particularly odious witch-hunting move, BuzzFeed posted that they attended a church whose pastor believes the Bible — that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.

Why anyone, other than the author of this piece, cares was a mystery to even the Washington Post, but if so, it’s because the Post’s writers haven’t been paying attention to the earlier successful anti-religious PC campaigns forcing wedding cake bakers and florists to serve at gay weddings or nuns to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees.

Ace of Spades Headquarters could not resist a response:

HGTV has a remodeling show “Fixer Upper” featuring Chip & Joanna Gaines. I’ve seen it a few times. They appear to be nice couple and seem to do a good job. No religious overtones that I’ve seen.

One problem, the Gaines belong to a church where SSM is not accepted. The Gaines’ have kept their mouths shut but are under pressure to state their beliefs.

So Christians who stay true to their beliefs are fair game? Right? Well, if Christians are to be held accountable for their beliefs. What about Muslims?

So if the Gaines’ church and pastor can lead to their suspension and/or termination. (Stay tuned) What about a Muslim congressman?

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) hasn’t come out publicly for the exclusion of SSM. But it appears that his Imam has.

“It’s not within our paradigm, really, to change the word of God,” said Imam Makram El-Amin, leader of Masjid Al-Nur in Minneapolis. “Our religion is clear about this matter. It’s not a lifestyle that we accept as being part of the natural way of things for human beings. When it comes to that, that’s my position, and that’s Islam’s position. And this incident as tragic and terrible as it is that does not change that,” he said.

Until Congressman Ellison comes forth and denounces his Imam, his mosque and anti-homosexuality Keith Ellison is not in a position to run the DNC. Hell, he shouldn’t even be a congressman. We won’t even get into his Anti-Semitism and his ties to the Nation of Islam.

If we can’t have a Christian couple star in a 30 minute cable show about home fixer uppers, certainly we can’t have an anti-homosexual bigot run the DNC.

But when it comes to the hypocrites left we know which religion is acceptable, don’t we?

Goldberg’s Bagels

Goldberg’s Bagels is a small kosher bakery in Baltimore,

When a customer attacked pro-Trump supporters outside his store, claiming Trump was a rapist and racist, the shop owner tried to quell the disturbance by asking the woman to leave. She further insulted Trump and then his supporters. This prompted Mr. Drebin, the shop owner, to express his own support for Trump, after which his Facebook page was filled with insults suggesting Drebin approved of “anti-Semitism, misogyny, xenophobia and alt-right leanings.” The entire PC shtick.

His business dropped by 15%.

Keep this stuff up and someday there won’t be a Democratic Party. In the meantime, I note that Goldberg’s Bagels has a website, and you can order by mail. They’re very delicious, (So is Chik-fil-A, by the way.)

Let the left play the P.C. card all they want, I will fight to trump them every time.

 

Clinton, Trump advisors get into nasty fight at Harvard

December 2, 2016

Clinton, Trump advisors get into nasty fight at HarvardSperoNews via YouTube, December 1, 2016

According to the blurb beneath the video,

During an election ritual every four years at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, opposing teams from the presidential campaigns answer questions together from the media and from each other. This year, Clinton’s advisors attacked Trump’s campaign team on racism charges, saying “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did.” But the Trump team didn’t take it laying down.

‘Panic in Progressive Park’ — What If Trump Is Actually Good?

December 2, 2016

‘Panic in Progressive Park’ — What If Trump Is Actually Good?, Roger L Simon, December 1, 2016

If you thought Trump Derangement Syndrome was a tad excessive, as they say, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.  To channel an old Pacino flick, opening now for Oscar season, it’s “Panic in Progressive Park.”

Reason for the panic — the dawning realization, repressed and often unrecognized though it may be, that Donald Trump may even a be a good president, possibly a great one.

Then what?

If anything could cause panic among liberals, progressives, and the media (apologies for the redundancy), that’s it.

And Trump has certainly hit the ground running with more “vigah” — this time to channel an old Kennedy phrase — than we have seen in a long while.  And not just because of the Carrier deal, though that clearly caught America’s attention, as it should.

It also caught the attention of the media, which rushed to denigrate it — and demonstrate their “profound knowledge” of deal-making — by reminding us that Donald’s agreement did not keep all the Carrier jobs in America, just most of them.  And they actually had to bargain with the directors of Carrier — imagine that!

For comic relief, the now completely ignored (as he should be) Bernie Sanders rushed to remind us of the same thing, as if anything of that sort (or any sort) could have been done under a Sanders presidency.

Indeed, Trump seems to be firing on all engines to a degree I have never seen in an American president, before he has even been inaugurated. His transition, once said to be confused, is rocketing along with a palpable sense of excitement that Trump and his team are deliberately sharing with the public, by-passing the media when necessary.

The Democrats, who have been floundering to an extent equally never before seen, are participating in a juvenile and over-priced recount while reelecting the terminally botoxed Nancy Pelosi to the House minority leadership even though that same chamber hemorrhaged Democrat members like a hemophilia victim under her rule. Topping that off, they’re considering Keith Ellison to helm the DNC, a man who, according to a recent report, “met with a radical Muslim cleric who endorsed killing U.S. soldiers and with the president of a bank used to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers” on a trip to Saudi Arabia organized by an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Talk about a party on a suicide run.

Meanwhile, the thing that Democrats, and many Republicans too, don’t get about Trump is that Donald is an upper.  He’s a real optimist in a world of cynics.  That’s a yuuuge part of his attraction, as that should be, and the catalyst that helps him get things done.  The reaction to Trump is something of a Rorschach test — those who have a positive (even excited) view of the future tend to go for him.  Those that don’t, don’t.

His victory speech in Cincinnati Thursday night — and the reaction to it — was an illustration of that.  Watching the postmortem on Tucker Carlson’s excellent new show (prediction: it will soon be outstripping The Kelly File, if it hasn’t already), the optimistic Tucker himself was wildly positive about Trump’s speech.  His two guests — Caitlin Huey-Burns of RealClearPolitics and Shelby Holliday of the Wall Street Journal — were much more  cautious in their somewhat fearful approaches.  While obviously intelligent women, the conventional wisdom they imparted was pessimistic by nature and unwittingly a minor part of the swamp that Trump seeks to drain.  Perhaps they sensed that.

Most of the media doesn’t just sense it. They know it.  They are at war with Trump and at this moment they are losing, badly.  A wise person would change their tactics.  But the media is not filled with wise people.  These days they’re filled with wounded, entitled people who seem already to have forgotten the rest of us have read WikiLeaks.  We know who they are even if they don’t know themselves.

Look for “Panic in Progressive Park” to run for a long time. It will, however, be more amusing than the original Pacino version.