Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock and SNL take the mickey out of white progressives for their reaction to the 2016 election. Enjoy.
Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock and SNL take the mickey out of white progressives for their reaction to the 2016 election. Enjoy.
What I did not expect were all of the down ballot victories. For the first time since 1928, Republicans will control all three elected branches of government. In addition to the Presidency, Republicans retained control of the House by a wide margin, losing only 6 seats — they were expected to lose 12 at a minimum. And in a very big surprise, with a number of seats up, Republicans maintained control of the Senate, losing only 1 seat. And to add to all of that is a gain of three more governors.
To celebrate, how about a bit of schadenfreude.
Sigh . . . if only I could harvest their tears for my next batch of mead.
I’m still in my self-imposed news blackout. That does not mean that I do not care what’s going on. For those who have not yet cast their vote, here are a few things you might want to think about as you decide upon your chosen presidential candidate:
Which candidate is more likely to protect your free speech?
Which candidate is more likely to protect your free exercise of your religion?
Which candidate is more likely to protect your right to peaceable assembly?
Which candidate is more likely to protect your right to petition the government for redress?
Which candidate is more likely to support your right to keep and bear arms?
Which candidate is more likely to place upon the Supreme Court justices who respect the Constitution?
Which candidate is more likely to respect your right to live in a safe society, one in which those police officers who respect the rules are in turn respected and allowed to do their job?
Which candidate is more likely to limit immigration to legal immigrants (who are part of America’s life blood) and not illegal immigrants (who breach America’s sovereignty and destroy the rule of law)?
Which candidate is more likely to respect scientific fact, rather than repeatedly disproven scientific theories, ranging from anthropogenic climate change to gender theory?
Which candidate is more likely to be a friend to Israel?
Which candidate is less likely to Balkanize America by subdividing it into victim classes fighting for government spoils?
Which candidate is more likely to act aggressively to protect Americans and, indeed, Western civilization from the depredations of radical Islamists?
Which candidate cheats less than the other?
What candidate has so completely coopted the media that it has become impossible to trust the American media for truthful, balanced reporting?
This is it: the countdown to learning whether Obama will have been successful in fundamentally changing America or whether we can still resurrect something from the wreckage. This is an umbrella post with a variety of articles that touch upon the election, America’s culture wars, politics generally, the Middle East, and other interesting things. The only thing I don’t have here, because Assange keeps promising but not delivering, is a single smoking-gun document that hands Hillary her “go directly to jail” card. Instead, each Wikileak tranche, while confirming Hillary’s and the Democrat’s core corruption and self-interest, fails to be the jail card.
The #NeverTrumpers still have time to reconsider. Some of the people I admire most are #NeverTrumpers. I don’t understand them on the issue and they don’t understand me, but it’s ultimately a good thing that we’re not Democrat herd animals but, instead, have independent minds. Still. . . . Roger Simon makes what seems to me to be a very compelling argument that, no matter how flawed Trump is (and he is very flawed), Hillary will be infinitely worse. We’ll be plagued by a corrupt media, the culture wars on steroids, a level of corruption unimagined in American politics, the constitutional risks of a president under FBI investigation, and the horrors of Hillary’s manifest incompetence.
Trump offers a return to “normalcy.” Peter Thiel, whose gayness the Gay “Baby, I was born this way” Mafia now denies because he supports Trump, made an important point, which is that Trump represents a return to the norm. What the Left offers is no longer even remotely normal. We’ve spent the last eight years in Looking Glass Land, and people are turning to Trump to back away from Progressive insanity.
Hillary’s terrible incompetence. One of the things that’s come through loud and clear with the Wikileaks is that Hillary and Company are the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. They’re terrible at what they do, and they get away with it only because they have a media infrastructure that vouches for them (“She has a vagina so, leave Hillary alone!!“). And of course, because that are the bridge connecting money (no matter how dirty or anti-American) to American power and assets.
This is almost certainly untrue, un-sourced rumor, but I couldn’t pass it up. Please keep my caveat in mind: There is no reason to believe that this post, which has the NYPD saying that the Weiner dox are much worse than anyone imagined, is true. However, I can’t resist linking to it to the extent it claims to represent unnamed sources in the NYPD and alleges this kind of stuff:
Each of the linked articles in this post has something interesting to say about the upcoming election. If you’re interested in what’s going on, you could do worse than spending some time reading them or just glancing through them.
My take: At worst, Trump is not a very nice person — and that opinion depends to whom you speak.
On the other hand, Hillary, at best, is an unpleasant person and a deeply corrupt politician — and you’re not dependent on different people’s opinions for that. The objective facts speak for themselves. That Hillary is not already in prison doesn’t mean she’s innocent of the things the facts prove; it just means that she is the prime beneficiary of a corrupt system that has abandoned the rule of law, which is reason enough to keep her out of the White House.
As the stench from Hillary grows, #NeverTrumpers stand down. Even before the FBI’s announcement radically changed the game, Derek Hunter had already concluded that Hillary must go, not just because of her issues, but because her election further empowers a media that’s run amok:
Bias has always been a factor in journalism. It’s nearly impossible to remove. Humans have their thoughts, and keeping them out of your work is difficult. But 2016 saw the remaining veneer of credibility, thin as it was, stripped away and set on fire.
More than anything, I can’t sit idly by and allow these perpetrators of fraud to celebrate and leak tears of joy like they did when they helped elect Barack Obama in 2008. I have to know I weighed in not only in writing but in the voting booth.
The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won’t do it, it’s something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don’t want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.
It’s not just the media or the Supreme Court that follow Hillary into office. Deroy Murdock reminds us that, from the top down, Hillary will take the agencies that Obama has already turned into partisan monsters, and reinforce their worst, most crooked, most bullying instincts:
A President Hillary Clinton would nominate hundreds of people to top positions that require Senate approval. She would hire hundreds of thousands of others and unleash them to perpetrate Hillaryism — a toxic blend of lies, elitist nannyism, secretive paranoia, and snarling contempt for the law. These people would enjoy police powers, fat salaries, mouth-watering benefits, and bullet-proof job security — at taxpayer expense.
Is Comey a good guy or a bad guy? Was he a bad guy in July but he’s a good guy now? Or is it the other way around? Scott Adams suggests that Comey is a good guy:
You know what the most interesting thing about the #Dickileaks revelation is? The fact that social media has effectively managed to stifle it. Although the topics have changed in both Facebook and Twitter since I started looking at them last Friday, the one thing that hasn’t changed is that both sites’ trending feeds ignore the fact that the FBI — while looking at the computers seized from “Weiner the Pederast,” who is the estranged husband of “Huma the Muslim Brotherhood Scion,” who has long been surgically attached to “Hillary the Corrupt” — found a trove of political emails of the type Hillary was supposed to have turned over to the FBI and to Congress.
Here, see for yourself, by looking at screen grabs from this morning — there’s absolutely nothing about Hillary, Comey, Weiner, Abedin, or emails:
This eerie silence is not because no one is talking about those stories. Indeed, for about one hour on Saturday, Facebook included in its “Trending” bar a reference to 1 million people talking about Comey, which is a lot of people, but that trend quickly vanished and has not return. The inescapable conclusion is that this news void reflects the social media companies’ effort to ensure that they are not responsible for even more people talking about the inevitable result of Hillary’s self-serving behavior while Secretary of State.
Social Media shenanigans would be meaningless were modern Americans, who have more access to more data than any humans at any time in history, actually capable of sitting down and doing the heavy mental lifting required to understand just how appalling, illegal, and morally corrupt Hillary’s conduct has been. The sad reality, though, is that our new media’s financial incentives discourage deep analysis. Even those people who are trying to pay attention are getting hit by what one writer labels the “TL;DR” factor.
That “TL;DR” acronym stands for “too long; didn’t read,” which could be the motto for much of the internet. Chris Byrne explains how our culturally short attention span has worsened thanks to the internet’s economic incentive for low-word count (i.e., minimally analytical) articles with screaming headlines. This leaves Americans incapable of understanding, or even being interested in, complex issues (such as Hillary’s shenanigans):
You may have watched in dismay, as some of your favorite online writers published work, suddenly went from a few good posts a week, to 20 posts a day, most of it nothing but clickbait or damn near it?
Well… now you know why.
Their editors and publishers are making them write to maximize clicks and views and shares. Who cares about accuracy, depth, or insight… most people never read past the headline or first paragraph anyway right?
Long form news, analysis, essays, editorials, and commentary (and related background historical, scientific, and other detailed information and exposition pieces) have largely been replaced with tweets, teaser videos, memes, 200-350 word skim pieces; and lots and lots of 50 to 150 word bare blurbs, with inflammatory or otherwise emotionally manipulative …if not outright false… headlines, and lots of links to monetizing partner sites.
Basically, clickbait makes money, and everything else loses money, unless they have alternate monetization.
People have become accustomed to reading headlines and blurbs, and maybe at most 350 or 500 word pieces, no matter how important or complex the topic.
This in turn, has made readers unwilling to actually take the time and effort necessary, to read longer pieces, and properly inform themselves about even the most important issues, including those that impact them directly. 350 to 500 word pieces are thought “long” and 1000 word pieces get nothing but TL;DR.
1000 words is nothing. No subject of any import or complexity can be properly explained in 1000 words… and in today’s online market, 1000 words is considered a VERY LONG piece… With the norm having devolved all the way down to 500 words… and on many sites 350 words… or less.
As an example of this problem, I know that the SEO facilitator on my WordPress routinely denies me readability points because my posts constantly exceed 300 words — and I’m a dilettante and a gadfly when it comes to knowledgeable in-depth analysis. (This post, by the way, scored an “F” from the SEO facilitator because of its length.)
The end result the fact that people get bite-sized nuggets of often misleading information is sort-of reputable sites that give astonishingly ignorant articles pride of place. One example appears on a Boston public radio website: “The FBI’s Nothing Burger.” One would think that publicly funded public radio would have some minimal standards of factual integrity, but one would be wrong. I hope you’ll pardon me for “going long” here, but WBUR staff member Steve Almond’s post is such a pile-up of ignorance it deserves to be addressed.
Almond’s basic premise is that Hillary did nothing wrong — and anybody who claims she did is just trying to rig the election. Incidentally, he’s not just talking about Friday’s #Dickileaks revelations. He’s talking about everything, practically going back to Hillary’s infancy. This kind of radical ignorance, which plays well to the crowd that relies for news on headlines, tweets, and first paragraphs, is pernicious and needs to be called out and destroyed. So, a fisk.
Almond manages to get the first paragraph right:
As most Americans will have heard by now (perhaps as many as 167 times), FBI Director James Comey released a letter on Friday noting that the agency had located emails that might have something to do with his closed investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Good for him. One really can’t deny that #Dickileaks is actually a thing. Unfortunately, Almond goes downhill quickly after that:
Given the climate of hysterical insinuation that hovers above Hillary Clinton at all times — a climate created by political opponents and cable stars desperate to gin up her bureaucratic blunderings into capital offenses — you might assume that a guy like Comey, with a paid staff of thousands, would actually take the time to have these emails examined, and to figure out if they include any damning information about Clinton, before releasing such a vague letter.
How’s that for reductionism? Hillary’s decision while Secretary of State to violate explicit U.S. law by routing all of her electronic correspondence through an unsecured private server and then attempting to destroy documents when Congress reminded her that those records belong to the people of the United States is just “bureaucratic blundering.” (Even without all the other bad things she did, spoliation is itself a grave offense.)
I assume that when Almond uses the phrase “bureaucratic blundering,” he’s also referring to the fact that recovered records, when combined with Wikileaks revelations, show that Hillary ran the State Department as an elaborate “pay for play” racket. Individuals and nations that wanted access to or favors from the State Department were assured of getting their needs met if they made huge donations to the Clinton Foundation, hired Bill to give short speeches for big bucks, or gave Bill well-funded sinecures.
Am I right, Mr. Almond? Are those the “bureaucratic blunderings” to which you refer?
Because think about it: we’re barely a week from the election. If these emails do include info that would lead him to reopen his investigation of Clinton, then the public should know that. And if they don’t include anything that would lead him to reopen that investigation, there is no justification for making this investigative fishing expedition public.
Ah, right on time, Mr. Almond regurgitates Hillary’s disingenuous demand that Comey make public everything he’s got. If you’re wondering why the demand is disingenuous, let me explain:
First, if Hillary wants it to go public, she has access to Huma and to Weiner, and can ask them “What the heck is on your computers (other than pederast porn)?” And then, once she knows, she can tell us, the American people.
Second, Hillary knows perfectly well, and someone writing for a media outlet should know, that the FBI cannot make public the information in an ongoing investigation.
Third, to the extent this is very likely classified information, the FBI cannot make it public without clearing the contents with other government agencies and either not referring to the material at all or heavily redacting it or referring to it only in the vaguest terms — all options that take time to coordinate.
And fourth, as seems to have come out now, although the betting is good that the FBI has good cause to believe it stumbled across a treasure trove, it doesn’t officially have a search warrant for emails that don’t involve Weiner’s weiner. That will come in time — unless the judge from whom the FBI seeks the warrant is a Clinton appointee. But let’s see what Almond has to say.
Comey has taken a third path. He is conducting himself like a Fox News anchor. I mean by this that he is throwing out the possibility of wrongdoing with absolutely no evidence.
That paragraph takes a little bit of work to unpack. Here’s what’s almost certainly going on: We now know that Comey ran a batsh*t crazy investigation. He swore agents to permanent silence; he handed out witness immunity like candy on Halloween; he allowed Cheryl Mills, an actor in Hillary’s private server scheme, to function as Hillary’s attorney; he never put Hillary under oath and interviewed her for mere hours, not the days this investigation required; he had his agents promise to destroy computers subpoenaed for the investigation (a promise FBI agents have yet to fulfill); and, after spending 14 minutes describing conduct that manifestly violated national security statutes, he helped keep Loretta Lynch above the fray by announcing in the 15th minute that he had unilaterally made the decision that Hillary’s intentional, illegal conduct did not require prosecution.
We also know that in the time since then, FBI agents have been unhappy. They feel bad about the agency’s having done a terrible job, they feel worse about the fact that the agency’s reputation may take years to recovery assuming it ever does, and they’re deeply unhappy that corrupt procedures allowed a blatant law-breaker to walk.
The New York investigation gave these distressed FBI agents a second bite. This time around, the primary investigation didn’t come from Comey, but from a New York prosecutor who had jurisdiction to investigate whether Weiner’s last round of texts to a minor were sent over state lines, which would make it a federal, as well as a state, crime. It was this less politicized FBI office that discovered thousands of emails that the reviewing agents must instantly have realized, without even in-depth analysis, were of the type that Hillary was supposed to have turned over to Congress and the FBI, but didn’t.
Comey’s problem was that he couldn’t control the New York office and that he was losing control of the Washington office. This information was going to come out sooner or later. At a minimum, it would show that Huma Abedin, who would certainly have been appointed Hillary’s Chief of Staff (a) violated security protocols by putting State Department documents on an unsecured computer (one, moreover, owned by an unstable satyriac) and (b) violated subpoenas when she failed to turn that information over. At worst, this is the treasure trove that contains the 33,000 “wedding and yoga” emails that Hillary, working through people without security clearance, unilaterally decided to delete. And you know what, I’m thinking that “wedding and yoga” might be code words for things like Soros, pay-for-play, Benghazi, et cetera.
All of which leads to Comey’s decision to speak now: If Hillary doesn’t get elected her power base is gone and, as long as he has a food taster and his body guard, he’s probably home free. If Hillary does get elected, the investigation vanishes and, subject to the same conditions (food taster, etc.), Comey can also hope for a fairly peaceful retirement because Hillary will not want to stir things up. Meanwhile, he can squelch a rebellion in the ranks that could reach as high as exposing President Clinton to the public as someone with a disdain equal to Hillary’s when it comes to American laws. We can’t have that.
However, if this information had first surfaced after the election, no matter the candidate Comey would have been in trouble. If Hillary won, it would taint the integrity of her electoral victory, causing a constitutional crisis. And if Trump won, Comey would have been forced to retire in disgrace. With a pack of yipping, rebellious FBI agents at his heels, going public was therefore Comey’s best choice.
Now, back to Almond, who has turned on the drive-by media. (Yes, you read that right.)
Which is what the media has been doing to Hillary Clinton for her entire public life. It’s the reason so many Americans say they don’t trust her. Not because she’s done anything wrong. But because she’s been accused of doing so many things wrong.
Not one of these fake scandals — from Whitewater to Benghazi to her emails — has panned out. There’s been no proof that Clinton did anything illegal or even unethical in most cases. It’s just been one long, blaring, baseless, paranoid Republican fever dream.
It’s funny to hear Almond malign the media as the author of Hillary’s ills, given that the media, especially in this campaign, has gone to exceptional lengths to cover for her. Open any paper before this past Friday and you would have discovered only negative articles about Trump and only positive articles about Hillary. America’s mainstream media has made no effort to cover the campaign. If it had, it might have made noises about the minuscule crowds showing up for Clinton’s increasingly infrequent public appearances. It might have pointed out that Hillary and her husband accumulated well over $100 million dollars providing nothing but political access to people who could afford to pay. And of course, it might have delved more deeply into Benghazi and Hillary’s email set-up.
Almond’s contention is laughable, and the American public knows it. After all, a plurality of Americans (which must include Progressives) thinks that the media is trying to throw the election to Hillary.
What’s less laughable is Almond’s contention that because Hillary has never been pronounced guilty in a court of law, she must be innocent of wrongdoing while in government. This is the same reasoning that allows Lefties I know to point to Obama’s presidency as the only scandal-free presidency ever. They note that, when it comes to the weaponized IRS that admitted to violating the law; the weaponzied EPA that destroyed a river in Colorado, the ransom Obama manifestly paid to Iran; the weaponized Justice Department that has fomented racial disharmony — no one has been fired. To my friends, the absence of firings is proof positive of administration integrity. The actual facts on the ground, all of which prove corruption, are irrelevant.
The reality is that, as with Obama’s chronic malfeasance, three things have protected Hillary: (1) the media’s unwillingness to go after her as they go after Trump or went after Nixon; (2) the Democrats’ invariable circling of the wagons, which allows them, in good conscience to protect even such extreme behaviors as rape (that would be Bill) or manslaughter (Teddy, of course), for the good of the party; and (3) the D.C. Republicans’ “go along to get along” fecklessness.
Take Benghazi, for example, which highlighted so many Hillary problems: she was a bad manager; she was incapable of handling a crisis because she was absent in the beginning and making purely political decisions at the end; and she lied compulsively about everything after the fact. What Hillary did wasn’t criminal, but it was leadership malfeasance of the highest order that should have seen her resign or get fired. In Japan, she would have committed seppuku. In America, her party and the media (but I repeat myself) made sure to keep her from suffering any consequences for her heinous actions.
There’s also no doubt that Hillary grossly violated the law when it came to her State Department communications, and that she did so to hide pay for play (another violation of the law). The Clinton Foundation’s operations are almost certainly fraudulent, since the bulk of its money goes to fund the family’s lifestyle — which is another thing that the weaponized IRS and DOJ won’t pursue (unless, perhaps, they get a change of attitude under President Trump).
I could go on, but this post would then last for days. You can go here for a partial (but still long) list of all her wrongdoing, from the time she was fired during Watergate for violating procedure right up until Friday.
Now, back to Almond:
You’d think that, after 30 years of serving up these nothing burgers, the self-respecting members of the Fourth Estate might finally grow a conscience and stop trafficking in conspiracy theories.
Again, I find it tremendously amusing that, when the drive-by media is finally forced by events to report the facts (with no opinion, one might add, unlike the way in which they report “facts” regarding Trump), Almond turns on the messenger.
Heck, at this stage in the campaign, they might even talk about the candidates’ policies and how those policies would effect the future of our democracy.
Aw, but that’s stuff’s too boring!
The reality is that the media is focusing obsessively on anything but policies for one very specific reason: on the policies, the majority of American voters consistently favor Trump. A media that was trying to create an educated electorate would report what Trump said in his speeches rather than giving every two-bit, female, Democrat operative attention-whore a chance to say that at some point in the past, Trump insulted her or touched her or looked at her funny. (And you do realize that most of these claims are the same claims that university women are leveling at our sons on campus and then contend constitute “rape” or “sexual assault.”) When it comes to the false allegations about Trump the “sexual predator,” based upon the now infamous Billy Bush video, I urge you to watch this video, which actually looks at the underlying video and finds the truth — which is that Trump did nothing wrong.
So, no the media is scared of issues and, ironically enough, after having demanded that the election should be about issues, Almond instantly goes to sex and racism as his anti-Trump cards:
Especially when they’ve got an election to sell, one that was getting pretty lopsided, thanks to one candidate being a proudly ignorant bigot, with a side career in sexual predation. The anchors needed another “October surprise” to gin up the action. After all, a fake scandal serves the essential purpose of our corporate media, which isn’t to inform or enlighten the electorate, to but to inflame them.
So here’s your headline heading into the homestretch, America:
Clinton Mishandles E-mails. Trump Manhandles Women. You Decide.
How pathetic that we have to watch videos of Trump and his minions crowing about this.
I’ve pointed above to the fact that the “Trump is a sexist” arguments are predicated on a falsely interpreted video (which most people didn’t take the time to watch) and on the claims of a lot of people who have incentives to lie. I’m perfectly willing to believe that Trump, a child of the 1960s who was a famous person for decades, has gotten touchy with women, with their active or passive agreement. If you really want “handy” though, check out that arch creep, Biden, whom the Left has never castigated for the same or worse behaviors repeatedly caught on camera.
As for me, I am tired of saying Trump is not a racist. The speeches that got the media all excited had him saying that we get too many Mexican criminals (real criminals: rapists, drug dealers, pedophiles, drunk drivers, etc.) who wouldn’t come in if they had to come legally. That is correct and Americans know it. The other thing he said is that, until we’ve got same way to protect ourselves from blithely allowing murderous Islamists into the country, we need to put a stay on the Obama administration’s decision to let them come pouring in — another thing with which most Americans agree.
For the media to say these are racist statements is to say that America may no longer have any border policy because anything that interferes in any way with the free flow of people into America is inherently racist, no matter whether those people are dangerous or economically burdensome to America. By using those pejoratives, therefore, the media effectively destroys American sovereignty.
And then Almond swings back to his lede:
Could Trump even explain what Clinton supposedly did wrong and how it endangered Americans?
Heck, could you? Is there a single person in America who can explain why Clinton’s use of a private email server is criminal? Seriously. Can you?
How about all you Trump supporters?
Why don’t you do us all a favor and explain, in simple and direct language, precisely what laws Clinton has broken. Not what laws she might have broken, or that you wish she’d broken. Enough with the smoke. Give us the statutes.
I do believe that I explained above, in simple and direct language, what laws Clinton broke. But if you limit yourself to tweets, trending Facebook links, and headlines, as Almond manifestly does, I can understand why you’d be bewildered.
Oh, by the way, did I mention that the average Trump supporter is much better informed than the average Clinton supporter? Almond’s ignorance is consistent with his party affiliation.
So yes, I bet you can find an average supporter who, while not being able to cite chapter and verse in the federal code, can explain what Hillary did and why it was grossly illegal. Indeed, you’ll find innumerable examples among people in the military and, presumably, those who once served. After all, it’s their lives on the line when a Secretary of State, to facilitate illegal conduct, fails to protect national security information.
Just to emphasize his ignorance, Almond harks back to the false claim that Trump asked Russia to hack America.
And when you’re done with that project, please explain why Trump calling for Russia to hack the emails of American citizens is okay with you. And why — given your deeply principled concerns about transparency — you’re just fine with Trump hiding his tax returns from the American people.
Those statements prove that Almond reads headlines, but not the actual story — again making him consistent with the “TL:DR” readers who bring money into the internet, and who think they’re informed when they’re manifestly not. Anybody who was paying attention (as I was) knows that Trump did not invite Russia to infiltrate the government’s data.
What Trump did do was point out that, thanks to Hillary’s carelessness and the fact that we know that carelessness resulted in her account being hacked (which is how we learned about the private server in the first place), Russia almost certainly already has, and has had for years, the 30,000 emails Hillary illegally deleted. Thus, his joke, a manifest joke, was to ask Russia to search through the documents it already hacked to see if it could find Hillary’s missing emails. Almond, like most Lefties, has no sense of humor.
The rest of Almond’s article is a rehash of what I deconstructed above.
Oh, wait! There is one new argument Almond throws in. He insists that the reason the media attacks Hillary (yes, that’s what he contends) is because she’s a woman. How dare she show ambition!!
If it were up to me, Bernie Sanders would have been the Democratic nominee for president. So my defense of Clinton isn’t about some slavish loyalty. But it’s been despicable to watch the media vilify her for what amount to wonky misdemeanors. All along, she’s been held to a different ethical standard than her opponent. That’s part of how we punish women for ambition.
Almond’s post perfectly illustrates what happens when you marry paranoia with the kind of “informed ignorance” that the internet encourages, especially amongst the Lefties out there. They have opinions, but their opinions are utterly meaningless because they have no facts. The internet has left them with a micro-thin veneer of data which, to them, constitutes the entire universe of information.
This election is what it is, in significant part, because financial incentives on the internet encourage the dumbing down of information which then results in a seriously dumbed down population. It’s ironic, isn’t it, that at a time when Americans have more access to more information than ever before, they’re just getting more ignorant? As Almond’s angry, opinionated, and mostly wrong post shows, this disconnect between what Americans think they know what they actually do know has become very dangerous to the functioning of our democracy.
Photo by x61.com.ar
When it comes to Progressives, even if they’ve been forced to back down on all other issues, they will take their stand and die on the hill of unlimited, legal abortion. As Nancy Pelosi said of late-term abortions — the ones done on a viable, sentient fetus — the fact that she is a practicing Catholic gives her the right to say that such abortions are “sacred ground.” On the Left, unlimited abortion is a right so inviolable that nothing should derail its legality — including God.
One priest, the Very Rev. John Lankeit, has had the courage to stand up and say what all faithful Catholics know intuitively: abortion is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine and morally wrong. Furthermore, once you accept this doctrinal truth, you have to accept that you cannot vote for the political party and the presidential candidate who will not only preserve abortion but will expand it and make taxpayers fund it.
Father Lankeit does more than just invoke God’s Word. This is important because it means he reaches out to those who are not Catholic, or Christian, or even believers. He tackles the arguments that pro-abortion people routinely raise against those who oppose abortion and shows how hypocritical and shallow their arguments are. These are words that everyone should hear. And once having heard them, people (Catholic or not) need to decide whether they accept that Father Lankeit is speaking the truth. And if they decide he is speaking the truth, they need to ask themselves whether they can still support the Democrat party and the Democrat candidate:
This purports to be an AP story, yet I don’t see it gaining traction. If true, though, that the Amish are handing Pennsylvania to Trump, it’s a “yuge” story:
History was made today in Columbus, Ohio when more than 3 million Amish poured into the city to see the American Amish Brotherhood (AAB), an organization which acts as an informal governing body for the Amish community, endorse Donald Trump for president. That number represents a significant portion of the total Amish population, which the United States Census Bureau says numbers more than 20 million men and women nationwide all pledging their vote to Trump for President. With the full force of the Amish community behind him, Donald Trump is now mathematically guaranteed to win the presidency in November.
Is this a hoax? Is it not really AP? Is no one noticing? What’s the story about this story?
UPDATE: It’s a hoax — darn!
Photo by Ted Van Pelt
Pat Condell places American politics in the larger context of European versus American style governance. As he says, Obama has already pushed America very close to the European model, whether one looks at economic issues, social issues, national security issues, or immigration policy. Condell’s clarity is enormously helpful in understanding what I’ve been pushing: This is not a Hillary versus Donald election: This is a “European one-world government” versus “Constitutional America” election. Again, I recommend not only watching this video but also sharing it if you can:
I’m serious. I think this may really be the best campaign video I’ve ever seen:
Charles Krauthammer wrote a magnificent indictment of Hillary Clinton, only to finish up by saying, “I hate Trump too, so I’m sitting this one out.” What Dr. Krauthammer seems to have missed is that, in a world of binary choices, there is no sitting things out. If you don’t put your weight behind Choice A you’ve inevitably given more weight to those who support Choice B.
Speaking of choices, Wolf Howling has a few choice words on the subject of those “principled” #NeverTrumpers:
I am starting to become truly angry with those on the right who are staking out a purist position in the upcoming election, vowing not to vote, or to vote for someone with no chance of winning so that they can never be accused of voting for Trump. Krauthammer (see link, above) and Goldberg (G-file) are the latest today, I believe. In essence, they are ceding the field to Hillary, irrespective of the permanent, probably mortal, damage that would do to this nation.
One of the things that is becoming clearer to me is that these people are, in their own way, cowards. They want to sleep with a clear conscience rather than to deal with the world as it is. Up to this point in time, I thought that this was a characterization that defined only the progressive Left, a group that lives to claim the moral high ground, irrespective of consequence, leaving it up to the rest of us to deal with the world they leave in their wake. We’ve seen the results of that, from the destruction of African American families to a national security posture that is worse than anything we experienced since the 1930’s.
I hope these people don’t expect me to pay them any sort of respect, nor to count their opinions as of being of any value, when all of this is said and done. When they leave it to us to shoulder the burden of dealing with reality while they sleep in good conscience, they are as bad, as worthless, and as cowardly as the progressives. I hope that they are treated as such, regardless of how this plays out.
I’ll add that what makes the most prominent #NeverTrumpers’ position especially disreputable is that they live in such Blue states that their votes do not matter (e.g., New York). If you’re engaging in a purely symbolic act that has no real world consequences, you can do whatever the heck you want and justify your actions as existing on some higher moral plane.
The problem is that the #NeverTrumpers, rather than justifying their geographic ability to stand on the sidelines without getting their hands dirty, are vigorously and aggressively attempting to sway people who live in swing states, where the votes do matter. As to those voters, the outcome within their states matters greatly and is entirely binary: It’s Hillary or Donald. Or to put it another way, corrupt, incompetent, and anti-American versus vulgar, competent, and respectful of America’s virtues, strengths and traditions. Swing state voters who take these uber-moral #NeverTrumpers seriously are the ones who will propel Hillary to the White House.
The American media suddenly discovers antisemitism in America. You know it’s not a coincidence when several mainstream media outlets that every non-conservative Jew reads suddenly announce that Donald Trump’s supporters are crazed antisemites. These are, of course, the same media outlets that have been silent for years about the antisemitism at the heart of the Democrat base. My friend JoshuaPundit has written an excellent post highlighting the Left’s despicable and manipulative hypocrisy when it comes to Jew hatred. He left out only one point, which I’ll illustrate with a poster:
In sum, a small, disfavored fringe of Trump voters are loathsome antisemites. Hillary’s antisemitism problem, however, starts at the top with the lady herself, and drips on down to the campuses, the Black Lives Matter activists, and the Muslims who are central to her constituency.
Is this a race between a crook and a monster? Scott Adams says that the race has been framed as one between a crook (Hillary) and a monster (Trump). Dropping for a moment his mask of complete neutrality, though, he points out that, while there is convincing evidence that Hillary is a crook, there’s no evidence that Trump is a monster — a not-very-nice-businessman, perhaps, but not a monster.
Hillary reiterates the Left’s assault on Free Speech. Kevin Williamson points out something that every American should fear: Hillary Clinton’s straightforward assault on free speech. Except that it’s only straightforward if you’re informed about the issues, something the Democrats avoid at all cost. You can change that as to yourself and any open-minded friends you have by reading, and having them read, Williamson’s article.
I confess: I once again skipped watching the debate. It’s not going to change my vote and I hate listening to either of the candidates speak. Instead, I went out with a bunch of friends and we had an excellent and cheerful time. I’m trying to remember that I am not personally responsible for the election outcome. That is, things will not change if I miss the debate.
Did you watch the debate? And if you did, what did you think?
As for me, I will be blogging today, but I’m working on a project that got me all fired up. Fired up is good, because once my brain gets busy, it can multitask, switching me between project and politics.
Hillary is a sex fiend who sleeps with anything that moves. You may want to bleach your eyeballs after reading the following words, but here they are:
Hillary Clinton is a secret sex freak who paid fixers to set up illicit romps with both men AND women!
That’s the blockbuster revelation from a former Clinton family operative who is sensationally breaking ranks with his one-time bosses to speak to The National ENQUIRER in a bombshell 9-page cover story — on newsstands Wednesday.
What’s more, it wasn’t just Hillary’s flings with women that the shadowy Mr. Fix It helped to orchestrate!
Hillary’s former bagman finally confessed to The ENQUIRER just how he helped her to cover up her affair with married lover VinceFoster, too!
The shadowy figure — who provided PROOF of his employment for the Clintons — also revealed 12 fixes he covered-up, including:
+ How Hillary secretly plotted to a counter-attack on Bill’s mistress Monica Lewinsky — via a document buried for two decades!
+ What crooked reporters were on the take from the Clinton camp!
+ How he covered up Bill’s seedy romp with hookers!
+ Which A-list celebrity had a secret affair with Bill during his presidency!
Read the rest here. Maybe the National Enquirer has the noise and heft to break through the Dome of Silence the media has built around Hillary. It’s managed to suppress the Wikimedia revelations that Hillary is a criminal and that the media has colluded with her. Perhaps, though, the sex scandal will finally capture America’s attention and force the media to report on her.
And now back to my regularly scheduled blogging:
I’m convinced of the point these political posters make. I wonder, though, whether undecideds, if they saw these posters, would be convinced too. What do you think?