I have been remiss, as I have not reminded you lately that WOW! Magazine, the collaborative effort from the Watcher’s Council is an excellent resource for domestic and international political analysis, social observations, top-rate Second Amendment commentary, and just generally good stuff. If you were to go there now, you’d see all of these articles:
One of the things that maddens me about my children is how they refuse to take advantage of the cornucopia of information so readily available on the internet. In my day, I actually had to get out of my chair, go to my Dad’s office, get the encyclopedia off the shelf, riffle endlessly through the pages to find the correct entry, and then read that tiny, tiny print.
It was Hell, I tell you! Hell!
Now, all that the kids need to do is to activate their omnipresent smart phone or laptop, type in a few words and — badaboom, badabing — the world’s knowledge is at their fingertips. And still . . . they won’t do it.
Instead, they ask me to answer their questions, something they invariably regret. I either tell them to look it up themselves or, worse, I answer their question in my inimitable Mom style: “So you want to know about the revolution in Cuba and why Castro was such a terribly evil human being? As with all things, if you really want to understand it, we need to start with the Romans.”
In my narrations, everything starts with the Romans, unless I’m feeling particularly cruel and move further back to the Abraham, Moses, Pharaoh, etc. From ancient history, I move on to the early Christians who tried voluntary communal living, to the rise of the feudal state, to the Black Death and its effect on the European economy and peasant rights. That, of course, leads to Renaissance monarchies and, of course, to the Enlightenment, with its two pivotal revolutions (the American revolution, which focused on individual liberty; and the French revolution, which developed the modern idea of the commune); and only then do I really get going.
Most of these conversations end with me saying, “Why are you walking away? I haven’t finished answering your question yet!”
I’m not going to do that to all of you. Instead, I’ll just tip you off to some wonderful things I found on the internet and think you might enjoy. After that, you’re on your own!
The exquisite cognitive dissonance on the Left. I’ll just leave this Yahoo squiblet out here. I don’t need to add anything, do I?
If you’re interested, you can read more about this cruelly irony-unaware initiative here.
When my mother died, I inherited a family friend who is very old, very lonely, and quite sweet. He is also a hard-core, unrepentant Leftist, who found the election shattering and is placing all his faith in the recount. Rather than picking a fight with a frail nonagenarian, I suggested that, as we can’t change what’s happening, we may as well sit back and enjoy the show. This round-up is about the marvelous spectacle of Leftist meltdown, which sees them swinging wildly between recount euphoria, anger and recriminations, and pink-hatted foolishness.
Is Hillary painting a target on her back? Many conservatives, myself included, were chagrined when Donald Trump intimated that he was willing to let Hillary’s illegalities go in the spirit of moving on from the election. As far as I could tell, the Progressives would spit on this gesture — as they would on anything from Trump — rather than seeing it as a peace offering. Also, to the extent it’s manifest that Hillary committed real crimes, any investigation and indictment would not be about politics but about ensuring that the rule of law still means something in America. Nevertheless, Trump tried for the olive branch . . .
. . . And Hillary seems to be doing her darndest to ensure that she really does spend her last years in a jail cell. At least that’s what Roger L. Simon thinks:
Hillary has everything to lose. I mean everything. And almost nothing to gain, considering the nearly insurmountable odds of the election being overturned. Three states are in play with voting differentials ranging from just over ten thousand to over seventy thousand. She would have to win all three. Al Gore couldn’t win one when the differential was a measly 572 votes.
But, astoundingly, after receiving what many are calling a “Get Out of Jail Free” card, Clinton joined forces with Stein in her crusade. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a dopier, more self-destructive example of “poking the lion,” especially since there are so many areas in which she could be liable from a mere obstruction of justice charge on to a full RICO investigation the could literally implicate dozens of members of her already-reeling political party.
Hillary has never struck me as being even half as smart as she and her followers think she is. Instead, she is the perfect combination of a mundane mind, a narrowly programmed fund of knowledge, and hubris.
When I grew up as Jewish girl in a Merry Christmas society, I said Merry Christmas right back. I’ve always loved Christmas in America. I love the songs, the lights, the colors, the good cheer, and I’ve always been grateful that I live in a country that happily and generously shares its celebration with me rather than punishing me for not joining in.
Also, as soon as I had a little historic knowledge under my belt, I knew that I was living in a country that sent its young men to die so that others could live free — and that includes being free in the public square to recognize a major religious holiday without being forced to participate in it.
But why am I blathering on when Dennis Prager’s already done the heavy lifting?
A genuinely curious Progressive asked me to address this breathless article claiming that Russia actively interfered with the American election:
In assessing Donald Trump’s presidential victory, Americans continue to look away from this election’s most alarming story: the successful effort by a hostile foreign power to manipulate public opinion before the vote.
U.S. intelligence agencies determined that the Russian government actively interfered in our elections. Russian state propaganda gave little doubt that this was done to support President-elect Trump, who repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and excused the Russian president’s foreign aggression and domestic repression. Most significantly, U.S. intelligence agencies have affirmed that the Russian government directed the illegal hacking of private email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and prominent individuals. The emails were then released by WikiLeaks, which has benefited financially from a Russian state propaganda arm, used Russian operatives for security and made clear an intent to harm the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
Of the top of my head, I was able to come up with several “don’t worry” arguments, but I did want to tap all of you for further arguments. Here’s what I’ve come up with:
I think I’ve come up with a universal theory of voter fraud, one that explains Obama’s (to me) inexplicable victory in 2012 as well as (to the Progressives and #NeverTrumpers) Trump’s equally inexplicable victory in 2016. This theory is not to be taken seriously, but I still like how comprehensive it is.
We start with the fact that Obama won in 2012. This was rather amazing considering that the economy was dormant, unemployment was still high, the Benghazi attack showed a resurgent Al Qaeda, the public was becoming aware of the extent of Obama’s and the Dems’ lies when it came to Obamacare, the War in Afghanistan was escalating, Syria was devolving into the worst kind of civil war while Obama quibbled about red lines, Obama had promised Putin more “flexibility,” and racial hatred was flaring in ways not seen since the Civil Rights Movement.
And yet Obama won. The polls, which cannot be trusted, claim that it’s just because voters like Obama. I don’t see it, so there must be another explanation for his victory, especially given the resurgence of the Republican brand outside of the White House.
Part One of my universal theory is that Obama won in 2012 because he had two advantages over Romney: (1) a superb “get out the vote” infrastructure in urban areas and (2) in those same urban areas, a superb “get out the illegal vote” infrastructure. This second machine reached out to all the urban illegal immigrants, dead voters, felons, and unregistered or irresponsible millennials — that is, all the people who make up the Democrat cohort and who would vote heavily in urban pockets during federal elections, if they could vote legally, if they weren’t dead, or if they weren’t sitting around in a pot haze and clinging to their safe spaces.
The Progressives’ current outrage about the Electoral College is only the latest example of the world of lies with which they surround themselves. This post examines a few of the more egregious lies that underpin Progressive demands for policy changes to bring America more closely in line with a Marxist paradise.
Before I begin, though, I’d like to set out my three favorite quotations about facts, as opposed to lies:
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” — John Adams, during the summation when he represented British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial.
“Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.” — Bernard Baruch
“When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.” — Legal adage
Progressives do an awful lot of table pounding.
Electoral College lies: The Electoral College has been a fixture in American elections since the beginning. Michael Ramirez perfectly explains why its proportionate representation is necessary:
In order to avoid a situation in which the most populous states have a choke hold on the presidency, the Founders determined that, once a candidate achieves a majority in a given state, the weight given to that candidate is a fixed number of votes in the electoral college. It’s irrelevant if the candidate won with 50.1 percent of the votes or 100 percent of the votes. It’s also irrelevant whether the number of votes over 50.1 percent is vast or small. That last point is especially important, because it means that highly populous states cannot run away with the election (see cartoon above). The same holds true, of course, for state representation in the House.
Faced with these unpalatable facts in an election played according to long-standing rules with which the Progressives, including Hillary, were completely familiar, the Progressives have managed to dig up a “constitutional” law professor who announces that the sole purpose behind the Electoral College is to serve as a racist instrument of Southern oppression. Only a Yale legal scholar could argue this type of historic crapola with a straight face:
My apologies for my silence over the past 24 hours. The fact is that I find myself without much to say today.
Perhaps contentment renders me mute. I’m still incredibly grateful that Hillary did not win the election and, with each of Trump’s appointments, I’m happier that he won. When Trump speaks, he’s constantly giving wiggle room, but the reality is that his appointees gladden conservative hearts. I also trust that he’ll let his people manage with his constant interference — which, given the caliber of person he’s appointing, means a great deal.
I’m going off to read more and think more. Then, as soon as I have something to say, I promise that I’ll be back.
On this Thanksgiving, in addition to being thankful for all the blessings in my life — everything from a Hillary-less White House to my comfortable home, my wonderful children, and my supportive community (just don’t talk politics) — I’m also grateful that, almost four hundred years ago, the Pilgrims abandoned communism in favor of private ownership and free enterprise:
During the primaries, Progressives pushed Donald Trump’s candidacy with a vengeance, convinced that he was the one candidate Hillary could surely beat. Moreover, if Trump did win the Republican primary, these same Progressives had a plan — which they carried out enthusiastically — to destroy Trump utterly through every Progressive outlet available, from the news media, to social media, to useful idiots in Hollywood, to the equally useful idiots not in Hollywood. As it happened, the Progressives were correct about their ability to raise Trump up and wrong about their ability to control and destroy him once he’d served their goals.
I for one, am extremely grateful that the Left succeeded in the first phase of their plan to pervert the election process. While Trump was never my first choice for President, Hillary was always my last choice, and I’m not sure any candidate other than Trump could have beaten Hillary’s Democrat machinery. She was ready for a conventional campaign, not an unconventional one. Schadenfreude can be an awfully great feeling when a rabid partisan media and a dangerously corrupt candidate are so arrogant they cannot imagine defeat (although they’ll cheat to ensure victory) and then fail spectacularly.
That I’m pleased with how the Progressive scheme backfired with Trump, given that it benefited me, I’m very worried that the Progressive decision to repeat the same pattern with neo-Nazi Richard Spencer that it used with Trump, may follow the same pattern as the anti-Trump scheme, to both America’s and the world’s detriment. You’d think that the Progressives would have figured out that it’s a huge gamble to build up someone they find objectionable for a short-term benefit and assume that, once that benefit is achieved, they can destroy what they created. And yet . . . the Progressives never learn.
What’s that definition of insanity? Ah, I remember: Doing the same thing over and over, but always expecting a different result. That pretty much defines the Progressive party and everything it does, but with special emphasis today on the dangerous “Richard Spencer game” that the Progressives are playing.