Impressions of the Democrat Party debate

Democrat debateHaving watched the Republican debate on Tuesday, I decided that it behooved me to watch the Democrat debate today. A few things before I begin. First, I did not take notes, so I’m riffing here a bit without any specific road map. Second, I tried to watch the debate through two filters: a sane conservative filter and a unicorns and fairies Progressive filter. Third, barring short video clips, I hadn’t seen Hillary talk at length in years and I hadn’t seen Bernie talk at all. As for O’Malley (is that his name?), I’d never seen him talk at all. (I prefer reading to watching videos.)  With those parameters in mind, here goes:

I’ll start with the voices. As I commented with regard to the Republican debate, voices matter to me. Ten minutes into the debate, I knew precisely whom — or, should I say, what — each candidate brought mind. This is Hillary:

What an incredibly grating, hectoring attack dog she is.

This is Bernie:

[Read more…]

If you read one thing today . . . read about the Democrats’ new totalitarianism

Democrats totalitariansIf you have time today to read only one thing, you must read Kevin Williamson’s The Democrats’ Theme for 2016 Is Totalitarianism. I’ll get you started, and then you have to click on the link to finish:

At the beginning of December, Rolling Stone writer Jeff Goodell asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether Charles and David Koch, two libertarian political activists, should be considered — his remarkable words — “an enemy of the state.” He posed the same question about Exxon, and John Kerry, who could have been president of these United States, said that he looked forward to the seizure of Exxon’s assets for the crime of “proselytizing” impermissibly about the question of global warming.

An enemy of the state? That’s the Democrats’ theme for the New Year: totalitarianism.

Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.

On the college campuses, they shout down unpopular ideas or simply forbid nonconforming views from being heard there in the first place. They have declared academic freedom an “outdated concept” and have gone the full Orwell, declaring that freedom is oppressive and that they should not be expected to tolerate ideas that they do not share. They are demanding mandatory ideological indoctrination sessions for nonconforming students. They have violently assaulted students studying in libraries and assaulted student journalists documenting their activities. They have staged dozens of phony hate crimes and sexual assaults as a pretext for persecuting unpopular organizations and people.

What they cannot achieve by legislation or litigation, they seek to achieve by simple violence, left-wing activists having smashed, looted, and burned portions of Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, where Koreans and other Asian minorities were specifically targeted. As on college campuses, they have made a point of assaulting journalists documenting their violence. They have rioted in Philadelphia and in other cities.

They are not backing away from that. Hillary Rodham Clinton may do her vice-principal shtick, but Bernie Sanders is calling for “revolution,” and by “revolution” he means crushing the economic and political rights of opponents in order to prevent them from having a say in political debate. Sounding oddly like Henry Ford, he seethes as he talks about scheming foreigners and international bankers working nefariously behind the scenes to undermine American interests, while his admirers brandish such traditional symbols of totalitarianism as the hammer-and-sickle flag.

Read the rest here.

Democrat paralysis in the face of radical Islam

ISIS drowning prisonersThe Obama administration and the current crop of Democrat presidential candidates have backbones of steel when it comes to their refusal to finger “radical Islam” as the perpetrator of violent terrorism around the world. If England and America had practiced that same policy back in 1939 and 1942, we would all be speaking German right now, and the Muslims (staunch Hitler allies) would be enjoying the wonders of a Jew-free world.

What the Democrats will not acknowledge is that when evil comes calling, only three things can happen: You oppose it, you join it, or you die from it. Their silence means that Democrats are not opposing it, forcing America to be complicit with it or die from it. Sensible Americans are appalled by this policy approach. Progressives, however, know their candidates are doing what needs to be done.

Thus, Progressives are convinced that, if we just throw enough “love bombs” at Islam, the radical Islamists will be charmed by what deeply spiritual and kind people we are, throw down their guns, and return their home-made explosives to their original purpose as fertilizer. One wonders how in the world the Progressives got it into their collective heads that people who auction off prepubescent girls and boys as sex slaves, crucify children, toss gays off of off the tops of buildings so as to stone them at the bottom, and glory in decapitating, drowning, burning, and blowing up Christians and prisoners of war are likely to be beguiled into harmlessness because an old hippie croons “I still love you.”

In a must-read article, Caroline Glick nails everything that’s wrong with the Leftist approach to radical Islam, all of which starts with its insistence that there is no such thing as radical Islam:

[Read more…]

Morning after take on the Democrat debate

democratic-candidates-debate-cnnAlthough I missed the Democrat debate, a friend of mine watched it and sent his observations.  It says a lot that, despite my attending an opera, which is one of my least favorite forms of entertainment, after reading what my friend wrote I actually feel that I had the better evening than those stuck staring at the boob tube (a term that’s come into its own again thanks to last night’s evil clown show).  Here they are — my friend’s real-time notes and observations:

There was no substantive debate of anything, really, which seemed intentional and driven by the format. There was far more substantive debate at the Republican debates with 10-11 people on stage than with 5 on stage (4 if you discount Webb, who was rarely called on) at this debate. The questions came lightening fast and there were few if any follow ups.

Everyone of them but Webb tried to get to the left of Saunders. Hillary tried to get both to left and right of Saunders simultaneously by claiming a nonspecific nuance in most of her answers. Neat trick.

Webb was the only adult in the room. He did not pander to the base and, indeed, virtually every answer he gave would likely find support on the right, some a majority of support. Expect his non-existent polling numbers to go negative by tomorrow.

Saunders should be running for President of Sweden. What I am about to say is not an overstatement: It became apparent during the debate that what he is calling for is a worker’s revolution, irrespective of votes. He is not merely far left, he is a true Marxist drunk on the crowds coming to his rallies.

Not a single one of them went after Hillary on the emails. It was pathetic. And there was no mention of the possibility of her facing prosecution. Nor was there a single question or comment raised about the quid pro quo’s between her, the Clinton Foundation, and third parties while in office, nor her lack of compliance with the conflicts of interest agreement she made with the White House. It was Hillary and four Pajama Boys on stage. Only Hillary and Anderson showed the slightest hint of testosterone.

While Clinton generated by far the most applause, the biggest sustained applause of the night came when Saunders said quite forcefully to get off the e-mail issue. My understanding is his campaign has already put out a campaign donation mailer featuring that YouTube moment.

Webb’s answers were pretty much greeted with silence. He has no business being on that stage. Whatever his view of the Democrat Party is, it is a view that reality passed by at least two decades ago.

Hildabeast’s voice is nails on a chalkboard.

My notes are below, with the questions in caps.

[Read more…]

[VIDEO] Bill Whittle on guns, sons, missing dads, and Pajama Boy fads — plus commentary about narcissistic societies

Burning earthBill Whittle is always good.  A furious Bill Whittle is even better — and Bill Whittle is mighty angry as he looks at illiberal “liberals” who blame guns for the societal diseases they’ve created, diseases whose outbreaks take the form of angry, vindictive, fatherless boys who need desperately to make all men in the world finally pay attention to them.  These are boys and young men, moreover, who are constantly being told that their innate manly virtues, things such as physicality, energy, and loyalty, are disgraceful flaws that lead to rape and murder, and that must therefore be eradicated so as to create the next generation of purer, more womanly man.  (I, of course, believe those virtues must be channeled into becoming sheepdogs who protect society.)

Please watch the video (and share it if you can).  Then, when you’re done, stick with me for a few more thoughts I have on the subject:

I’ll begin with adding a few more common denominators to the shooters, other than physically or emotionally absent fathers:  First, when one removes from the equation (a) Muslims, (b) the Roseberg shooter who was apparently a registered independent, and (c) the Charleston shooter who was unaffiliated, for almost 20 years now the shooters either have been Democrats or have come from homes that were strongly Democrat. The lesson to be drawn, of course, is that Democrats should be banned from having guns.

Second, it appears that, with the exception of the Muslim shooters, all or most of the shooters them have been on some form of drug, whether they were self-administering illegal drugs or getting treated with a cocktail of ADHD and depression drugs. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the drugs themselves are the problem. It may indicate, however, that these troubled young men should have been taken off the streets, rather than stuffed with pills and moved through the system.

Third, because the shooters who weren’t Democrats, unaffiliated, or Independents have all been Muslims, the gun grabbers might want to tailor their grabs so that, in addition to Democrats being denied guns, Muslims are denied them too. Just saying….

[Read more…]

Giving the Civil War veteran the last word on Democrats

I’m not certain that this man served during the Civil War, but he may well have — or, at the very least, he was in the military during the lead-up to war. (I’ve been thinking about the Civil War a lot since our recent trip to Civil War battlefields.) Lt. Grigsby’s eternal message falls into the category of “some things never change”:

Anti-Democrat tombstone

Hat tip: Wolf Howling

The Bookworm Beat 6-3-15 — the “cluttered life” edition and open thread

Woman-writing-300x265I’ve been on the go since 7:30 this morning, and this is my first chance at the computer. Lots of good stuff:

How Leftists think

One of the my Leftist Facebook friends was outraged that the Republican-controlled House repealed a law requiring meat to have a country-of-origin label. He and his friends instantly started talking about evil Republicans trying to poison Americans. They were taken aback when I pointed out that the article makes clear that (a) the existing law was about to be gutted anyway by the World Trade Organization; (b) that the problem involved the WTO’s claim that the existing law was unfair to Mexico and Canada; and (c) that this wasn’t a repeal but was simply a committee vote, with all but six Democrats on board.

What really confused my Facebook friend, though, was when I suggested that the market could handle this one without the government. Thus, I said, meat suppliers that are targeting people who care about meat’s origin will label their product voluntarily as part of their effort to sell the product. This whole voluntary thing, especially when tied with the wisdom of the marketplace thing, just didn’t compute.

Bruce Jenner may not end up as happy as he hopes

Although Bruce Jenner has opted to leave his mini Bruce alone, he’s certainly had a boob job and who knows what else (lower rib removal?) to make himself look more feminine. I really couldn’t care less what Bruce does (that is, I’m neither for or against his journey), but I do wonder how happy he’ll actually be.

[Read more…]

“Go Left, young man!” Or the Left is doing what it does best.

Left turn arrowIt’s always worth remembering that the Left’s default setting is . . . Left

In 2008, whenever I pointed out that candidate Barack Obama came from the far Left of the political spectrum, a liberal I know would invariably tell me that this was just a campaign pose to inspire the more fanatic members of his base, and that, once elected, Obama govern as a centrist. Of course, it wasn’t just a campaign pose and Obama has governed from a harder Left position than any other candidate in American history — all while he and his people assiduously deny that there’s any Left about it.

Nevertheless, my liberal acquaintance is perfectly happy with Obama’s policies and continuously tells me that I’m the political extremist, while denying that he has any discernible ideology at all. Jonah Goldberg ably captures this Leftist denialism:

For the last 20 years, give or take another 50, one of the most cherished baubles of Beltway conventional wisdom has been that the Republican party has moved too far to the right.

We’ll come back to that in a moment.

Another beloved trinket in the nest of notions that make up elite groupthink is that liberals not only haven’t moved left, but they aren’t even liberals at all. A week doesn’t go by without Barack Obama insisting that he’s merely a pragmatist and problem-solver, with nary an ideological ax to grind. Shortly after he was re-elected, Obama told David Gregory, then the host of Meet the Press, the obvious takeaway of his presidency is that, “I’m not driven by some ideological agenda. I’m a pretty practical guy and I just want to make sure that things work.” A few weeks later, he gave the most ideologically left-wing State of the Union address of any president since FDR.

[snip]

There’s something almost Soviet in this compulsion to follow a party line so disconnected to the reality it allegedly describes.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Beltway establishment, particularly political journalists, believes these talking points, largely because they, too, are committed liberals who think they are mere non-ideological arbiters of the facts.

So, what’s a hardcore Leftist denialist to do when Leftism doesn’t work and he needs to woo the voters? He pulls Left, even harder, all the while denying that he’s doing so. Sean Trende explains that this is what Hillary’s doing in her effort to lock in the Obama coalition, while Richard Fernandez points out that these same denialists are responding to the world’s crises by pulling ever harder to the left — and, by doing so, they’re only making things much, much worse.

Regarding Hillary’s campaign, Lincoln presciently summed it up: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” I just hope that the American people have finally reached the third clause in that aphorism.  For the last two elections, we seem to have been stuck in the second clause.

When it comes to the panicked stampede to the Left from those whose policies are so signally failing in every area, from national security, to the economy, to the management of Democrat (mostly minority) enclaves, we can turn to Einstein for the appropriate aphorism:  “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” (Ironically, I remember that the Clintons loved to recite that quotation during their 1992 campaign from a His and Her presidency.)

If you read one thing about the Baltimore riots today, read this

baltimore-riotI have nothing useful to add to the discussion about the Baltimore riots. I think, though, that Kevin D. Williamson, who has been on fire for the past many months, has the most pertinent, and enjoyably written, commentary to date:

American cities are by and large Democratic-party monopolies, monopolies generally dominated by the so-called progressive wing of the party. The results have been catastrophic, and not only in poor black cities such as Baltimore and Detroit. Money can paper over some of the defects of progressivism in rich, white cities such as Portland and San Francisco, but those are pretty awful places to be non-white and non-rich, too: Blacks make up barely 9 percent of the population in San Francisco, but they represent 40 percent of those arrested for murder, and they are arrested for drug offenses at ten times their share of the population. Criminals make their own choices, sure, but you want to take a look at the racial disparity in educational outcomes and tell me that those low-income nine-year-olds in Wisconsin just need to buck up and bootstrap it?

Black urban communities face institutional failure across the board every day. There are people who should be made to answer for that: What has Martin O’Malley to say for himself? What can Ed Rendell say for himself other than that he secured a great deal of investment for the richest square mile in Philadelphia? What has Nancy Pelosi done about the radical racial divide in San Francisco?

[snip]

The evidence suggests very strongly that the left-wing, Democratic claques that run a great many American cities — particularly the poor and black cities — are not capable of running a school system or a police department. They are incompetent, they are corrupt, and they are breathtakingly arrogant. Cleveland, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore — this is what Democrats do.

Definitely read the whole thing.

[VIDEO] Why are Jews still voting for Democrats?

Kippah for ObamaProbably the question asked of me most frequently, both on my blog and by conservatives here in the Bay Area, is “Why do Jews keep voting for Democrats, when Democrats are increasingly hostile to Jews and Israel?” There are two answers. The first is the one grounded in history, the one that saw naive Jews thinking that the uniting workers of the world would stand side-by-side with Jews against the slights and pogroms and poverty. For far too many Jews, voting Left (and, in America, that means Democrat) is simply an unthinking historic tradition.

The second answer is that Jews in America have supplanted the Torah with the Democrat Party platform.  It’s this second answer that Ben Shapiro expands upon in this excellent video:

[Read more…]

[VIDEO] You’ve got to hear this: A rant on black culture and Democrats that ought to go viral

This gal identifies herself as “Honestly Speaking” and, boy, does she speak honestly. She tells “her people” that she’s not a “race traitor” for demanding that black people listen to their best angels, rather than their worst demons. She also explains, with great detail, why she’s a Republican. I wish there where millions of this lady all across America:

Hat tip: Navy One