When it’s Joe Biden announcing his candidacy for president, the memes just write themselves. No wonder I’ve got a huge collection of Biden memes for you.
When it’s Joe Biden announcing his candidacy for president, the memes just write themselves. No wonder I’ve got a huge collection of Biden memes for you.
Watching the Democrat primary candidates emerge on the debate stage will be like watching a clown car disgorge its contents. Currently, they’re a joke.
I’ve been looking at the roster of current candidates for the Democrat primary and I have to ask — are any of them normal? Please understand that I’m not talking about qualifications. I’m really just talking about normalcy, as Warren G. Harding would have said. And for the ones who are normal, they are so undistinguished it’s almost breathtaking.
Just think about this roster of announced or thinking-about-announcing Dem presidential candidates. They make Jeb! look like a normal dynamo. Indeed, they make every Republican candidate ever look normal, scintillating, and highly qualified: [Read more…]
When it comes to illustrated editions, thanks to Leftists, Beto, Terrorism, academic fraud, attacks on the 2nd Amendment, etc., I never run out of fodder.
There’s no one theme tying together this Bookworm Beat. Instead, I serve up myriad interesting articles about all sorts of things.
Victor Davis Hanson’s must-read this week is about the corruption in federal law enforcement. I’m a big believer in the rule of law, which is what separates a civil country from a totalitarian or anarchic hell hole. Sadly, our federal law enforcement leaders are not believers in the rule of law. VDH spells out chapter and verse.
And if you’re in a VDH mood, you may also want to enjoy his excellent article detailing how much the American Left despises each one of you.
When it comes to Jeff Sessions, the media lies by omission.If you make a big deal about accusing someone of something, and then slink away without telling anyone that the accusation was a hollow sham, you’ve committed a lie of omission. That’s what the media did with Jeff Sessions and the nasty Methodist attack against him.
The Chinese respect Trump. While our media indulges in a non-stop Trump Derangement temper tantrum, people in China, groaning under their totalitarian leadership, call him “Powerful Grandpa Trump.”
And speaking of China, do I need to tell you that Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy on her staff for years? The only reason I ask that question is because, while the media can’t get enough of the Trump / Russia narrative, despite the absence of useful evidence, it’s been remarkably silent about DiFi’s little problem. Again, those lies of omission….
Speaking of Trump Derangement Syndrome, I’m glad I’m not flying into LAX anytime soon:
Welcome to L.A.!
— Larry Elder (@larryelder) August 7, 2018
No matter how stupid Bernie Sanders is, his even more stupid followers lap it up. That Bernie Sanders is a stupid man is a given. After all, anyone who supports socialism is — I’m sorry, but I’m going to be blunt here — an idiot. Nevertheless, it’s disheartening to learn that his videos have been seen almost a billion times. [Read more…]
The Mueller indictments show that no American conspired with the Russians — and that the Russians successfully acted to “sow discord” in the U.S. political system.
After suffering through a year of hysteria and the disruption of our national politics by our neo-Marxist progs trying to undo the election, Americans deserve the entire truth about what happened. We received some of it yesterday when the Special Counsel delivered his first series of indictments against thirteen Russian nationals, working through two Russian front corporations, for crimes relating to interference with the 2016 election.
The indictments go a long way, though not all the way, to clearing the Trump campaign of conspiring with the Russians. They put the Russian efforts into context — their operation was small. The facts definitively establish that Russian support of Trump was a by-product, not an end goal of the operation. Equally important, Rod Rosenstein explicitly stated that no American citizen, let alone anyone in the Trump campaign, was knowingly complicit in the actions described in the indictment.
One of the striking things to come out of the indictment was how small the Russian operation was. In terms of money and manpower, it was an operation involving 13 named defendants and several hundred employees working through two Russian corporate entities, all on a combined budget of no more than $2 million a month from 2014 through the end of 2016 (Indictment, ¶¶ 10-11). To put that into perspective, during 2016 campaign, candidates on both sides, along with their supporters and PACs, spent hundreds of millions during the primaries; then they spent $2.65 billion during the four+ month general election season. It does not seem possible that such limited scale Russian activities would have made the slightest difference to the outcome of the 2016 election. And indeed, Rod Rosenstein, in announcing the indictments, explicitly stated that there is nothing in the indictment to suggest that the activities of the Russians had any impact on the outcome of the 2016 elections. [Read more…]
Insiders and observers are giving good advice to the Democrat party, but it all avoids the obvious: Democrats cannot tell the truth about their goals.
Several articles in the news recently combine to highlight a salient point about today’s Democrat party. The first is from Dan Balz, at Wapo, the title of which succinctly states Balz’s points: “Beyond opposing Trump, the Democrats are still searching for a message.” Balz identifies what is slowly becoming obvious to Progressivs — after four special election losses, while opposing Trump is enough for them, it is not enough for everyone else, including people who voted for Trump in 2016. You’d think they would have been quicker to realize that constantly telling voters “I hate you and everything you stand for” is not persuasive. Still, it’s a sign that Progressives can learn that, as Balz notes, at least some are calling for an emphasis on the economy.
For those looking to make a sale to Trump voters and undecided voters, though, a Democrat party emphasis on the economy is going to be a hard sell. It’s only the base that’s honest enough to admit that, from the top down, the only economic goal the modern Democrat party has is full frontal socialism:
For progressives, the answer to this problem is clear: a boldly liberal message that attacks big corporations and Wall Street and calls for a significant increase in government’s role in reducing income and wealth inequality. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been aggressive in promoting exactly that, as he did during the 2016 campaign, with calls for a big investment in infrastructure and free college tuition at public colleges and universities. He has said he intends to introduce legislation he calls “Medicare for All.”
The other article, which comes from The Hill, notes that some Dems, seemingly those not on the hard Left, are pushing their congresscritters to stop talking about Russia all of the time.
Taking these two articles in conjunction, there is little doubt that, subject to a small (and easily ignored) subset of semi-sane Democrats, Progressives (aka the Democrat Party) see talking about Russia as far more edifying than the economy. One can’t help but be fascinated by what the Democrat Party power brokers mean to do if they “turn towards the economy.” How does one push socialist ideas while denying their socialism, even as the base is screaming “We love you, Karl Marx”?
The hard reality that the Progressives face is that Obama pulled us hard Left, with higher taxes and a tsunami of regulations, and he did so with the Democrat Party’s enthusiastic support. At the end of the day, of course, nothing that the Dems did “created jobs.” Indeed, the Dems are currently hoping that nobody notices that, in just the first five months of his presidency, the Trump effect elevated black employment to heights not seen for the last 17 years. So what exactly would their turn to the economy be? [Read more…]
One of the categories I long ago set up for articles I’m saving to include in a round-up was called “politics as usual.” I’ve since changed it to “there’s nothing usual about politics.” The fusion of the Trump presidency, the collective Progressive mental breakdown, and the culture wars means that just about everything I read lately comes as a surprise. I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten no Christmas cards yet this year (a variation from the norm) because my Progressive friends are too depressed. They’re feeling like that gay couple in LA that canceled their celebratory Christmas party.
I am feeling celebratory — for the first time in eight years. I feel like the Americans at Yorktown when the British surrendered in 1781, as their band played The World Turned Upside Down. There’s still a lot of fighting to be done, as the links below show, but we’re gaining traction.
No, you don’t get to change the rules after you lose the game. The Lefties are desperately trying to undo the Electoral College (or, indeed, to do anything else they can think of to undermine a fair election the outcome of which they dislike). What Lefties don’t understand is that, had there been no Electoral College, Trump would simply have run a different campaign, getting more votes out in red states. What Lefties do understand is that the Electoral College stands in the way of the entire United States becoming a colony of California, which Michael Barone explains marches to the beat of a different drummer:
[F]or the first time in the nation’s history the most populous state was a political outlier, voting at one extreme in the national political spectrum.
The trend is recent — and clear. California was 14 points more Democratic than the nation this year, versus 10 points in 2012, 9 points in 2008, 6 points in 2004 and 2000. In the nine elections before that and after California passed New York to become the most populous state in 1963, the average of California’s Democratic and Republican percentages was never more than 5 points off the national figures. In four of the five elections between 1964 and 1980 (the exception was the McGovern year, 1972) it actually voted more Republican than the nation as a whole.
The case against abolition is one suggested by the Framers’ fears that voters in one large but highly atypical state could impose their will on a contrary-minded nation. That largest state in 1787 was Virginia, home of four of the first five presidents. New York and California, by remaining closely in line with national opinion up through 1996, made the issue moot.
California’s 21st century veer to the left makes it a live issue again. In a popular vote system, the voters of this geographically distant and culturally distinct state, whose contempt for heartland Christians resembles imperial London’s disdain for the “lesser breeds” it governed, could impose something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation. Sounds exactly like what the Framers strove to prevent.
Barone’s is an interesting, but somewhat abstract, analysis. A look at how the votes played out in real time in New York helps explain in concrete terms how doing away with the Electoral College means that the United States will be governed by the hard-Left coastal cities, plus Chicago:
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
And California’s arrogance to the contrary, while it would probably be fine for America if California left (as many are now threatening to do), it’s doubtful whether it would be good for California.
Rumors are circulating that the Democrats are frantically looking for a way to displace Hillary from the top of their ticket. That assumes, of course, that it’s even possible to do so at this late date, with states already having locked in the primary winners. The obvious people to fill Hillary’s spot are Joe Biden (feckless), Bernie Sanders (hypocritical), and Tim Kaine (a hard-Left nonentity), with Sanders being the only one who has some legitimacy, given his second place finish in the primaries. Sanders, because of his rabid base, and Biden and Kaine, because of their lack of scandals, all have the ability to defeat Trump.
What concerns me is that if the Democrats succeed in their machinations, Sanders, thanks to his rabid base, and Biden and Kaine, because of their lack of scandals, all have the ability to defeat Trump. Hillary, however, may forever have lost that ability — at least that’s what the prescient Scott Adams thinks. In addition, Hillary is hampered by the mounting evidence of Borgia-esque corruption and the constant threat that Wikileaks or some other entity will release embarrassing material.
Once I started thinking about Hillary replacements who may be more successful than Hillary, I arrived at a surprising conclusion: I no longer just want Hillary to lose; I want Trump to win. Having adjusted to Trump, and having seen his remarkably quick learning curve and his willingness to cater to hot-button conservative issues (e.g., Supreme Court, radical Islam, illegal immigration), I’m beginning to think that he might be a decent president.
One of the main reasons I’m almost craving a Trump presidency is because of his catch-line on The Apprentice:
“You’re fired” — powerful words and words that career politicians avoid like the plague.
As the old Hollywood musicals liked to remind us, the only things free in this world are the sun, the moon, the stars, and other pretty, and not so pretty, things Nature provides, totally free of charge. Everything else comes at a cost, and sooner or later someone has to pay. Bernie’s current promise is “free education,” meaning college education. Bill Whittle explains why Bernie’s promise is nonsensical:
It used to be, a long time ago, that some state colleges were supported only by taxpayer funds, without students having to pay tuition. Now, of course, they’re all funded, not just by state taxpayers, but also federal taxpayers, in-state students, out-of-state students who pay more, and the treasured international students who pay even more than that.
If you look back on that halcyon time of taxpayer-only funded education, you discover that colleges and universities had very small administrative divisions. Now, someone’s got to pay for an administrative stratum that often boasts more people than are in the actual faculty teaching the students. After all, every assistant to the assistant of the vice chair of a politically correct department needs full salary and benefits….
I found this on a friend’s Facebook feed. When I finally stopped laughing, I had to share it:
Hillary’s swift “descent” can only be topped by Bernie’s problem with “dementia(l).” That “agricultural perspective” comment, by the way, refers to Hillary’s claimed ties to Monsanto.
This is a good, long post. Mix a martini or make yourself some hot chocolate, find a quiet place, settle back, and read away!
Trump woos conservatives. The big news today is Donald Trump’s list of proposed Supreme Court nominees, all of whom of are, in John Yoo’s words “outstanding conservatives.” As regular readers know, this list means a lot to me. I have four hot-button issues which drive my candidate choices and Supreme Court nominees are my top concern.
Although I was a Ted Cruz gal, and truly believed I was a #NeverTrump voter, once Trump became the presumptive nominee, I rediscovered my motto that “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” That notion forced me to look at Hillary and conclude that, on the issues nearest to my heart, she will cause lasting, possibly irreparable damage.
These key issues are: (1) The Supreme Court, which Hillary will pack with Leftists; (2) our Second Amendment rights, which she has vowed to destroy (with the help of a Leftist Supreme Court); (3) Israel, which mirrors our own security situation and which Hillary will destroy; and (4) Islamic terrorism, something that Hillary will probably treat in the same way Obama does, given her history of making nice to people with terrorist connections (e.g., Huma, her Muslim Brotherhood gal pal; Yassir and Suha Arafat; and the Saudis).
On each of those issues, Trump promises the possibility of something better. And no, I’m not a fool. I know that Trump promises everything to everybody but, as I said, he still had the possibility of doing better than Hillary.
With today’s list of Supreme Court nominees, Trump assuaged my concerns on both Issue 1 (Supreme Court makeup) and Issue 2 (Second Amendment). I recognize that Trump can still do a bait-and-switch (something that the pundits to whom I’ve linked also fear), but he might not — unlike Hillary, who will definitely seek more Sotomayors, Ginsburgs, and Kagans.
Anyway, in addition to the Yoo reaction to Donald’s list, linked above, here are more reactions:
This fascinating video is not for any candidate or any party. It is a pure and perfect homage to the American dream and the American people.
Captain Clay Higgins reminds us that we are and always have been a people “driven by imperfect men with perfect intent.” We’ve fought wars for freedom the world over, fed the hungry, and raised people out of poverty.
The Washington establishment, however, has driven us so deep into debt that it will take generations to put the nation on a sound financial footing, something that weakens us in every regard. Fear not, though. America is more than her politicians and her debt; she is her people.
Clearly, this is an inspiring video and one worth watching as we head into the most bizarre political season ever. On the Democrat side, we see an incompetent, corrupt and self-serving career Leftist battling it out with an old dangerously naive (or truly) evil career communist. And on the Republican side, as of yesterday evening, a brilliant constitutionalist was forced aside by a man who is, like Alice’s Red Queen, the personification of rage.
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) May 4, 2016
A few points:
1. I think that, henceforth, we will no longer speak of “black swans” (i.e., utterly unforeseeable events that alter an otherwise predictable trajectory), but instead we will speak of “orange swans.”
2. Trump is a media creation. (UPDATE: And the media, having used him to drive others from the Republican field, will now destroy him.)
3. Just like the bizarre energy force in Star Trek’s “Day of the Dove,” Trump feeds on anger and other violent emotions.
4. Trump’s rise was inevitable once states created open primaries (which I rage against here in the context of Trump’s rise). Those who thought open primaries would drive states to the center were fools. Trump appealed to a coalition of angry, entirely disaffected liberals who have been furious at the way RINOs have subordinated conservativism to hard Left values (never mind that Trump espouses many of those same values) and to Democrats who agree with Trump about everything, including his racism. (And one doesn’t have to be racist to oppose our open border — but Trump’s Democrats seem to feed on the ugly racism Trump too often espouses.)
5. I’m tempted to vote for Bernie in the California primary, because if we’re going to Hell — meaning a nation that is no longer a free-market, constitutional entity — I’d like it to be a fast trip down. Sometimes it’s easier to recover from a sudden plunge than from a slow slide. Hillary will be a slow slide, as will Trump. [UPDATE: John Hindraker, in addition to saying that Trump won a definitive victory, is an anyone but Hillary voter. I would agree if I were certain the Trump would nominate hardcore conservatives to the Supreme Court. For me, the jury is still out on that one. After Trump suggested his sister, an ardent Leftist judge, for the Supreme Court, I got very, very worried.]
6. Ted Cruz fought one of the most brilliant rear-guard political actions I’ve ever seen. In four years, he’ll be a formidable opponent and, I hope, take the White House in time to get our country back on a Constitutional track.
UPDATE: I find it very hard not to agree with everything Larry Correia says.
I regularly like to tell anyone who will listen that Bernie Sanders is a good diagnostician but that his proposed treatments will kill the patient — the patient in this case being the United States economy. Bernie is absolutely correct that America has a problem with the too-tight nexus between the government and corporations.
Where Bernie goes wrong is with his insistence that the cure for this ailment \is to give the government an even bigger role in managing or taking over American business. That’s exactly bass ackwards. Crony capitalism damages the economy and hurts consumers because it creates an incredible concentration of wealth, forcibly removed from taxpayers) that is not subject to the rigors of the free market. This money pool, which is bought and sold in political backrooms, is a breeding ground for inefficiency and corruption:
The answer to America’s crony capitalism problem (and it’s a very real problem, as Solyndra and other green energy fails show), isn’t to hand more of the economy over to the U.S. government. The government is inherently inept and taxpayer money is a treasure trove for every kind of crook and grifter.
Instead, the answer is to get the government and its money out of business, so that the free market allows good ideas to succeed and bad ideas to fail. As Daniel Webster famously said, “There’s always room at the top.”
My take on the decision to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 in place of Andrew Jackson? I find all this change and revisionism both silly and expensive but, having said that, here’s my position: They’re replacing the racist, slave-supporting, Indian-killing founder of the Democrat party with a gun-toting, Republican black woman — what’s to dislike? I think it’s great. And now on to the collected news of the day.
Blame Democrats for today’s nasty politics. Politics has always been a rough-and-tumble business. After all, the people playing aren’t just winning cupcakes; they’re winning power. Nevertheless, for most of America’s history, there’s been a tacit agreement to conduct politics in a civil manner — fight hard, but attack your opponent’s politics, not his person. This year, that unwritten rule has vanished. One can point fingers at specifically nasty politicians, but the real story isn’t that nasty people do nasty things; instead, it’s that the American public is willing to accept that behavior. Andrew Klavan blames the Left for this cultural degradation:
As a proud right-winger, I’m appalled and disgusted by Donald Trump. Nonetheless, I feel a certain schadenfreudean glee at watching leftists reel in horror at his unbridled incivility. They truly don’t seem to realize: he is only the loud and manifest avatar of their own silent and invisible nastiness. In a veiled reference to Trump at a recent lunch on Capitol Hill, President Obama declared he was “dismayed” at the “vulgar and divisive rhetoric” being heard on the campaign trail. “In America, there is no law that says we have to be nice to each other, or courteous, or treat each other with respect,” the president said. “But there are norms. There are customs.”
Are there? When I hear this sort of thing from Obama and his fellow leftists, what I wonder is: Have they not listened to themselves for the past 50 years? Do they really have no idea how vicious, how low, how cruel, and how dishonest their attacks on the Right have been?
No, they haven’t; and, no, they don’t. The Democrat-monopolized media, which explodes with rage at any minor unmannerliness on the right, falls so silent at the Left’s almost ceaseless acrimony that leftists are never forced to confront what despicable little Trumps they often are.
American immobility. I’ve commented multiple times about the fact that Americans are less willing to relocate than they once were. The entire essence of America for several hundred years was people’s willingness to leave their homes, whether in the old country or the new, and to head south, east, north, or west in search of better opportunities.
Today, though, the combination of being weighted down by possessions (even the poor today own more than all but the rich owned in the past) and having welfare to turn to (no matter how minimal that welfare is) means that people in economically dead areas can stick around. It’s not a nice life, but it’s the life they know, and they can always make themselves feel better about things with a bit of meth or heroin.
Kevin Williamson got a lot of flak for saying that we as a nation need to stop expending energy and money on dying communities and should, instead, focus on the vital communities. Obviously, I agree. Now, Williamson, in the face of that flak, has doubled down and I still agree:
My answer is that if there’s nothing for you in Garbutt but penury, dysfunction, and addiction, then get the hell out. If that means that communities in upstate New York or eastern Kentucky or west Texas die, so what? If that’s all they have to offer, then they have it coming.
Mixed in with that common sense you’ll find some hard-hitting attacks on those who challenged Williamson. And I still agree with him.
The bottom line is that,while dying towns are sad and forcing people to leave their roots is sad too, at a societal level, that’s not a reason to keep functionally dead towns on taxpayer-funded life support.
(Incidentally, the same goes for Europe, which in its effort to preserve its past has calcified, making it less of a charming place, and more of a bizarre and frequently unpleasant place. I totally understood what Robert Avrech’s friend was talking about when he said that Eastern Europe, even without the Soviets, is “oppressive.”)