Bookworm Room

Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.

Fisking a risible argument that Leftists, not conservatives, are reality-based

by 6 Comments

After explaining how the Left invented a detachment from reality, Kurt Andersen makes the laughable argument that the Left, not the Right, is reality-based.

Kurt Andersen Reality-Based

A shining example of Andersen’s Leftist “reality-based” community.

A Leftist friend of mine told me that novelist Kurt Andersen’s article in The Atlantic, entitled How America Lost Its Mind : The nation’s current post-truth moment is the ultimate expression of mind-sets that have made America exceptional throughout its history, is a “must read.” Although the article is ostensibly about a movement that began in the 1960s, one that saw America abandon facts in favor of emotions and magical thinking, the article is really a very, very, very, very long effort to say that Trump voters are credulous and irrational.

Because I am a nice person, I will not ask you to read the article — unless, of course, you are a glutton for punishment and have endless amounts of time. Instead, I’ve worked my way through this magnum opus to distill the essential points in each paragraph. To save you the time of even reading my summation — which, while long, is still shorter than Andersen’s article — here’s a quick summing up of what he says:

During the 1960s and 1970s, America went crazy. It was mostly the Left that went crazy, especially in academia, where our colleges abandoned truth and, instead, settled for moral and cultural relativism, navel gazing, and Foucault’s “everybody makes it up as they go along” theory. This madness swept the land.

Fortunately, by the 1980s, the Left managed to distill only the purest and truest thought from this insanity. Conservatives, meanwhile, embraced the crazy because they believed in God and distrusted both Big Government and the media. They were aided by the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which allowed the crazies to hit the airwaves. First Rush and then the internet convinced conservatives that there is a God, and that both Big Government and the media deserve to be distrusted.

And that’s how we got Trump.

Andersen’s turgid, long, frequently ignorant, invariably condescending, and very nasty essay boils down to a variation of the saying that “Fascism is always descending on America, but landing on Europe.” According to Andersen, “An unprincipled retreat from reality is always bubbling and burgeoning on the Left, but only reveals itself on amongst conservatives.”

That’s really what Andersen takes 117 paragraphs to say. I know, because I read all of them and, as noted above, I’ve set out below a precis of his wordiness, along with my interlineated comments: [Read more…]

How we got here, what Trump must do, and why we forgive Trump his sins

by 18 Comments

Although academia has been seeding American Leftism for 70 years, Trump, despite his many foibles, is the weapon that will destroy that system.

Donald Trump at CPAC 2016This is going to be a slightly more discursive post than usual, simply because I’m trying to tie together three disparate thoughts. Thought One is how we got here, by which I really mean how the Left got where it is and managed to completely cow conservatives, especially those ostensible conservatives elected to Congress. Thought Two is to remind you to read a stellar post telling Trump how to handle Mueller. And Thought Three is another stellar post explaining precisely why Trump’s support is unwavering, no matter the hue and cry from the Left.

How we got here

We got here because of academia. When Marxism first hit America, it hit at the worker and union level. In America, at least, the workers of the world really were trying to unite. Unfortunately for their initial success, their unity took forms that were antithetical to most Americans.

To begin with, many of the workers were foreign, highlighting the fact that Marxism too was foreign. To Americans who still read the Constitution, Marxism was scarily alien. It’s values were too unlike ours and they resisted it strenuously.

Another problem with early Marxism in America was that many of its early supporters openly espoused violence, which most Americans found frightening. Back in pre-WWII America, nobody on the Marxist side of the equation had the wits to come up with something called Marxophobia and then to try to make Americans feel guilty about it. Americans felt no guilt when they feared the violence and totalitarianism that Marxism promised.

Lastly, Marxists back in the day insisted on talking like Marxists, with all sorts of ridiculous words and phrases such as “dialectic” and “come the Revolution,” and an insistence on talking about the “proletariat” and the “bourgeoisie.” It was, quite simply, off-putting.

What the Marxists figured out during WWII, thanks in no small part to the Left’s huge push to bring America to the aid of the Soviet Union once Hitler invaded Russia, was that, while Americans were not amenable to hard Marxism, they could be totally swayed by soft Marxism. This idea landed hardest and best in America’s colleges and universities. There, mild-mannered professors in rumpled, tweedy suits carefully indoctrinated their students in a whole new way of thinking about America’s liberties.

Mostly, these academics inculcated in their middle-class students a sense of guilt about America’s bounty — never mind that the bounty resulted from hard work and innovation. To the Leftists, America’s wealth, no matter that it was earned, not inherited, was evil, and young people had to pay for their countries’ sins. Moreover, when students protested against this indoctrination (and yes, back in the day, some did), the same Marxists hid behind the Constitution’s protections.

This was a brilliant strategy. If you’ve got the college students, you’ve got the next generation of elementary and high school teachers, and the next generation of news people, and the next generation of screenwriters, and the next generation of women’s magazine writers, and the next generation of college professors. And with each iteration, with each generation that passes through, you can dig in the message harder and deeper, until you end up with the insanity of intersectionality, cultural appropriation, safe spaces, triggers, political correctness, and all the other tropes that work as vehicles for intellectual tyranny.

If you read Helen MacInnes, who wrote during the height of the Cold War, you see everything already spelled out in her books. She had the number of that first generation of indoctrinators. This is most apparent in one of her lesser known books, Neither Five Nor Three, which she published in 1951. [Read more…]

With Trump’s presidency, unfalsifiable Progressive delusions thrive

by 23 Comments

The banal news that Donald Trump Jr tried to get dirt on Hillary exposes Progressive delusions as a collective dementia unresponsive to actual facts.

Progressive Hysteria, Mass Delusions, War of the Worlds Orson WellesIn 1848, Charles Mackay published Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The preface to his first edition explains the idea behind the title:

THE OBJECT OF THE AUTHOR in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes.

Four years later, when a second edition came out, Mackay expanded upon the notion of collective delusions:

IN READING THE HISTORY OF NATIONS, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities; their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.

Having established his predicate, Mackay described some of history’s best known mass delusions, including “The Mississippi Scheme,” “The South Sea Bubble,” and “The Tulipomania.” Had Mackay  lived long enough, he would undoubtedly have written about Florida’s land boom in the 1920s or Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds’ broadcast. I like to think, too, that had he lived into the 21st century, he would have written about Climate Change madness and, most recently, the Progressives’ Russia hysteria.

Before I delve more deeply into this subject, I need to make clear that I’m talking about genuine delusions, rather than mistakes, misunderstandings, or bias. A delusion is when an alternate reality occupies the brain and refuses to be displaced.

For example, whenever my mother was in the hospital, she suffered from “sundowning,” a common problem for elderly people in hospitals. (It’s also a regular problem for people with Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia.) For those who are hospitalized, starting as they are from a point of illness and, usually, fear, their older brains have a hard time processing the hospital environment.

Not only is the hospital an unfamiliar place, its rhythms are antithetical to natural biorhythms. Lights are on all the time, food appears at random times, patients are woken up at all hours of the day and night and, of course, there are drugs, lots of drugs. The elderly tend to hold things together during the day but, at night, their brains rebel and they start having serious hallucinations.

One of my mother’s hallucinations was that two German physicians came into her room to examine her. When they heard me coming, though, they quickly left through the other door so that they would not have to interact with me.

From my point of view, the beauty of this delusion was that it was provably wrong. The room had only one door. The “other door” to which she referred was a window that looked out over three stories. In this, the hallucination differed from some of her others, which involved nurses locking her in dungeons overnight or aliens taking over my body during the night. I truly thought that, armed with this indisputable fact, I could put to rest her fear that those German doctors were going to harm her.

What both fascinated and frustrated me was that no proof could dissuade my mother that the German doctors hadn’t been in her room and then left through a third floor window. It was as if a part of her brain had been hijacked by the delusion and was incapable of accepting countervailing data. For her, there was no mistake, misunderstanding, or bad dream. There was only a fact — an utterly wrong, easily falsifiable fact — but in her brain it lived and there it would stay, frightening her a great deal, until the day she died.

Is there any difference between my mother’s delusion and the Progressives’ Russia delusions when it comes to Donald Trump? I don’t think so. [Read more…]

China Kills US Intel Assets In 2010; NYT Ignores The Obvious Question About Hillary

by 3 Comments

Although the New York Times has lots of guesses about how China identified CIA assets, it ignores the role Hillary’s server may have played.

Sherlock Holmes China kills assets Hillary's RoleIn a move that crippled US intel, China, between 2010 and 2012, somehow became aware of the identities of people cooperating with the CIA in China.  And yet, the NYT seems to be deliberately ignoring the 800 lbs gorilla in the room as it reports on this intelligence disaster.

This from the NYT:

The Chinese government systematically dismantled C.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.

Current and former American officials described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades. It set off a scramble in Washington’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies to contain the fallout, but investigators were bitterly divided over the cause. Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources. Years later, that debate remains unresolved.

But there was no disagreement about the damage. From the final weeks of 2010 through the end of 2012, according to former American officials, the Chinese killed at least a dozen of the C.I.A.’s sources. . . .

Still others were put in jail. All told, the Chinese killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 of the C.I.A.’s sources in China, according to two former senior American officials, effectively unraveling a network that had taken years to build.

Assessing the fallout from an exposed spy operation can be difficult, but the episode was considered particularly damaging. The number of American assets lost in China, officials said, rivaled those lost in the Soviet Union and Russia during the betrayals of both Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, formerly of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., who divulged intelligence operations to Moscow for years. . . .

By 2013, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. concluded that China’s success in identifying C.I.A. agents had been blunted — it is not clear how — but the damage had been done.

2010 to 2012 were the final two years of Hillary’s four year term as Sec. of State.  Throughout that period, she was involved in diplomacy with China and surrounding countries on numerous occasions.  Her daily access to our nation’s secrets ended by 2013.

It wasn’t until 2016 that we learned that Hillary had used a private email server to conduct all of her business as Sec. of State.  We know that she placed on her private server, or otherwise discussed in email chains appearing on her private server, thousands of bits of information classified Secret, and at least fourteen bits which were classified Top Secret by our intelligence agencies.  Did any relate to China, and if so, could Chinese intelligence have used that information to identify our intel assets?

Moreover, we know for certain at least one of Hillary’s email chains outright contained the identities of some highly placed intel assets.  We do not know if this was associated with China.  And lastly, we know that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, refused in 2016 to conduct a damage assessment of the likely hacked information on Hillary’s private server, even though such an assessment was required by law.

Bottom line, given the timing of this Chinese intelligence coup coincident with Hillary’s use of a private server to store our nation’s secrets, it seems that one of the very first questions a barely competent investigative reporter should be asking is whether any of the information Hillary placed on her private server could have been a source of China’s counterintelligence?  Amazingly enough, the NYT makes no mention of Hillary in its article.  Go figure.

To those fearing impeachment, snap out of it! Not going to happen.

by 23 Comments

Impeachment is a Progressive, GOP, #NeverTrump pipe dream. On known facts, there’s no basis, so here’s a slap in the face to snap you out of your fear.

Slap in Face Impeachment fear snap out of itI see it all over my Facebook feed: triumphant Leftists, certain that we’re on the verge of impeaching Trump and weak-kneed conservatives, egged on by ever-hostile #NeverTrumpers, certain that the Progressives are correct and that it’s all over now. Well it’s not all over.

The only reason Progressives think they’re in the catbird seat is that Trump voters are allowing the media to live in their heads. As for #NeverTrumpers, I suspect that they imagine a halcyon future in which a dignified, refined President Pence presides over a dignified, refined Republican golden age. As if!

I don’t care how wonderful Pence is (and I think he’s awesome). The reality is that, if the Democrats can bring Trump down, no Republican will ever again be allowed to occupy the White House. If Trump goes on the shoddy, fake grounds currently asserted, so goes our republic.

Russia? So what if people, including Trump people, talked to Russia? Russia may be a geopolitical foe in the larger sense, something that’s theoretically true for every nation in the world, but during the entire Obama administration, Russia was not the enemy. Remember this? [Read more…]

The craven cowards at the FBI, starting at the top with Comey

by 27 Comments

Comey pretended that his moral cowardice was a virtue, a dangerous attitude that empowers weak people and that permeates the entire FBI.

FBI Comey J. Edgar Hoover Building Federal Bureau of Investigation
As Comey’s firing as FBI director continues to roil the Left, all sorts of interesting things are emerging. For example, it was Comey who gave Bill Clinton a pass in 2002 following an investigation into Clinton’s Marc Rich pardon. Having been one of the Whitewater investigators, you’d think Comey would have figured out early that, where there’s a Clinton, there’s a rat to be smelled, but somehow . . . he didn’t.

Comey was also the one who authorized the FBI to spend $100,000 investigating Dinesh D’Souza’s $20,000 illegal campaign finance donation. One could say that keeping elections clean is so important that money is no object, but that’s not what the FBI and other government branches had said before they got D’Souza — a prominent Obama and Democrat Party critic — in their sights. Previously (and since then), for small dollar campaign finance violations, the government had handed out small punishments.

Kimberly Strassel has written a scathing article detailing Comey’s ongoing corrupt practices, made all the more damning by the fact that she pretends to take Comey at his word — namely, that he sees himself as a model of virtue and rectitude constantly saving the day: [Read more…]

Comey deserved to be fired for manifestly abusing his power at the FBI

by 21 Comments

Comey has been playing fast and loose with his powers as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, making it entirely appropriate for Trump to fire him.

James ComeyJames Comey deserved the boot and I’m only sorry that he did not get fired on Trump’s first day in office. Despite being the top law enforcement officer in the land, Comey played fast and loose with every precept of law enforcement. He handed out immunity like candy, destroyed evidence, failed properly to question witnesses (including Hillary), and then did his bizarre dog-and-pony show on July 5, 2016, in which he laid out facts manifestly indicting Hillary, only to effectively usurp the Attorney General’s power by announcing that everything Hillary had done did not amount to an indictable offense.

Having set the bar so low, Comey sank even lower when he did nothing about the corrupt Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton airplane meeting, re-opened the whole Hillary matter days before the election, and then closed the whole Hillary matter days before the election. Lately, Comey has been playing the drama queen before Congress, including the drama queen’s habit of exaggeration, which resulted in his claim that Huma had loaded her sex-predator husband’s laptop with hundreds of thousands of documents. I have wondered in the last couple of days if we’ve been watching Comey’s slo-mo psychotic break play out on live TV.

The most scathing indictment of all regarding Comey came from Tucker Carlson:

Pay attention to the damning language at the end of Carlson’s riff:

Just how powerful was James Comey? Let’s put it this way: He was feared in a way that no appointed bureaucrat should ever be feared in a free society. Time and again, elected lawmakers on both sides came on this show and expressed worry and concern about his behavior. But they did so only during commercial breaks with the camera off. Why? Because they were terrified of the prospect of criticizing him in public. They certainly don’t have that fear the sitting President of the United States and that tells you everything you need to know about Jim Comey.

It was not Comey’s job to thread the political needle. It’s never been his job to thread the political needle. His job, always, has been to conduct clean, honest investigations into such things as Hillary’s national security violations (which Comey himself established she committed, despite a shoddy investigation) and the allegations regarding Trump’s Russian contacts (which, to date, are proving to be a whole lot of nothing). Everything else he did was gratuitous and improper.

What Comey revealed himself to be was a 6’8″ tall tube of ego and hubris. The Russian investigation will continue, because Trump’s got nothing to hide, and the Democrat kerfuffle and furor will go away in a matter of days when Trump does something else to trigger their horror antennae.

Meanwhile, the Comey affair has generated a vast number of amusing and smart tweets, a few of which I’ve gathered here: [Read more…]

Highlighting how ridiculous the first hundred days concept really is

by 5 Comments

The first hundred days concept is ridiculous as shown both by objective analysis and by a media swoon over Hillary’s first hundred days as “not-President.”

Trump's first hundred daysPravda . . . um, I mean the mainstream media has been tremendously excited about what it characterizes as the failure that is President Trump’s first hundred days. A few stalwart conservatives have pushed back, and God bless ’em for doing so, but the reality is that most Americans who only passively absorb headlines are thinking “Hmmm. Maybe Donald Trump is a failed president.”

What’s great about Scott Adams is that he’s sidestepped the whole debate and pointed out how perfectly stupid the entire first hundred days concept is:

In science, you don’t have much of an experiment unless you have a control case for comparison. For example, you can’t know if a drug helped with a particular disease unless you study the people who didn’t take the drug at the same time as those who did.

But the pro-science people forget this concept when thinking about politics. Where is the control case for Trump’s first 100 days?

Is it George Washington’s first 100 days?

Is it Jimmy Carter’s first 100 days?

And which prior president came to office in 2017 with identical problems and the most polarized political environment in history?

And just how long is it supposed to take to revise Obamacare? Do we compare it to the time Abe Lincoln repealed and replaced Obamacare? Or how about the time those other presidents repealed and replaced Obamacare in the year 2017?

Only after making that objectively intelligent point does Adams discuss the subjectivity of the analysis. After all, we conservatives are thrilled by Neil Gorsuch, an appointment that the drive-by media sees as a disaster.

[Read more…]

What Donald Trump has done (and is still doing) to fight antisemitism

by 3 Comments

Donald Trump Netanyahu no antisemitismAmerican Jewish groups (the majority of which ally with the Democrat Party) are once again claiming to be concerned about Donald Trump and antisemitism — that is, they’re implying that Trump is a KKK puppet. Of course they are wrong but, as is often the case with a slur that brings together a world of assumptions in a single false word or sentence, there are a lot of facts and ideas that need to be unpacked to explain precisely why it is a slur — that is, an unsupported insult. This post aims to do that unpacking.

First, a little background about the reason Jewish groups (which are almost invariably Leftist) are again trying to make the “Trump is worrisomely close to Hitler” argument, this time by claiming that he’s doing nothing to stop antisemitism and, worse, that when asked he goes insane. This latest attack started with questions from Israeli and Jewish reporters:

Jewish groups called “worrisome,” “puzzling” and “mind-boggling” President Trump’s answers in two days’ worth of press conferences about rising anti-Semitic incidents in the United States.

During Wednesday’s press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an Israeli reporter asked Trump how he planned to address the hike in anti-Semitic incidents, and what he’d say to people around the world “who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones.”

[snip]

At his marathon press conference in the East Room on Thursday, an event added to the president’s schedule at the last minute, Trump said he wanted to call on a “friendly” reporter and picked Jake Turx, a reporter for Ami, an orthodox Jewish magazine published in New York and Israel.

“I haven’t seen anyone in my community accuse you or anyone on your staff of being anti-Semitic. We understand that you have Jewish grandchildren, you are their zayde,” Turx said. “What we haven’t really heard being addressed is an uptick in anti-Semitism and how the government is planning to take care of it.”

[snip]

Another reporter followed up soon afterward, though, noting that it wasn’t a question about Trump’s personal beliefs but anti-Semitic incidents happening across the country, “some of it by supporters in your name.” The New York Police Department, for instance, reported last week that while the rate for several crimes such as murder have fallen this year, the number of hate crimes in the city had doubled in 2017 compared to the same period last year, with anti-Semitic incidents leading the increase.

Trump, who is narcissistic in the classic sense of the word (extremely self-centered) rather than in the psychiatric sense of the word (a low-grade sociopath), heard the questions as an attack against him. Looking back on the campaign, I have to say that, even if Trump were not a classic narcissist, it would be reasonable for him to respond as he did.

For the entirety of his campaign, despite his beloved Jewish family members and long-standing support for Israel (recently evidenced again in Netanyahu’s rapturous meeting with him), the Progressives and the media (but I repeat myself) attacked Trump non-stop for antisemitism because white nationalist groups fell in behind him. (As an aside, the same media and Progressive organizations were utterly and completely silent about the openly, violently, antisemitic Muslims, blacks, and Leftists who occupied a main car in the Obama train, rather than chasing after the caboose. I’ll explain more about that in this post.)

[Read more…]

Google lies that “fascism” is “right-wing” when it’s really “Big Government”

by 5 Comments

Trump fascist fascism Google misdefines

It’s serious business when Google — with its unimaginable reach and control over people’s understanding of their world — does what every single Leftie since WWII has done: conflate “fascism” with “right-wing.” I’ve been banging this gong for years. Rather than do yet another lengthy post, I’ll confine myself to a few brief remarks and then provide links to just a few in the laundry-list of posts I have on the subject.

A few words from fascism’s creator, Benito Mussolini:

The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

Fascism is a religion. The twentieth century will be known in history as the century of Fascism.

Both fascism and communism are subsets of socialism. Fascism allows ostensibly private ownership, provided that this ownership, like everything else within the fascist state, is subject to state control. Communism simply does away entirely with the illusion of private ownership.

The fascist fight against communism in the 1930s (which led many British and American people who were scared of communism to embrace fascism) was not, as people then thought, a fight between communism and its opposite. It was an internecine battle between two closely related authoritarian ideologies.

[Read more…]

Hillary adulation continues unabated in a post-truth America

by 10 Comments

An extreme bit of Hillary adulation showed up on my Facebook feed today:


In case the “see more” button on the post doesn’t work, this is what Andrew Mayzak had to say:

Can we talk about this for a minute?

This is a Yale-educated law professor, First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State who:

-Endured 25 years of smear campaigns
-Lost the Electoral College by 80,000 votes
-Won the popular vote by 3 million votes
-Attended her opponent’s inauguration
-Received no handshake from Trump
-Was booed by the crowd when she appeared

And goddammit… LOOK at her. Polished and confident, wearing white for the Suffragettes, her husband taking *her* arm instead of the other way around.

Symbolism matters.

Perseverance matters.

She matters.

This is the godmother of New America, a rational, pragmatic, imperfect human being who was born 50 years too early for her gender to be a non-issue in an election.

While she missed the presidency, she arrived just in time to show us all, in unflinching terms, the deep undercurrent of sexist double standards in our society.

And in doing so, she taught generations of girls and women that yes, you DO matter and yes, you CAN do anything.

From my viewpoint, that Hillary adulation is appalling, not just because it’s slobbering sycophancy that should embarrass anyone over the age of seven, but because so much of it is untrue. Underlying all the untruths is a disturbing refusal to recognize that even that best person occasionally has feet of clay. For example, even those of us who support Trump acknowledge his foibles. I’m putting my faith in his presidency being the necessary corrective to the last 8 years and, indeed, the last 25 years, but I’d be a fool if I didn’t acknowledge that he’s vulgar, self-absorbed, and manipulative. As for his relationship to the truth, I see him guilty mostly of puffery (i.e., exaggeration) than out-and-out dishonesty — which is not virtuous, but it’s not a cardinal sin.

[Read more…]

Bookworm Beat 12/21/16 — the “election that never ends” edition

by 2 Comments

Donald Trump Election 2017Yes, the Electoral College has spoken on the election, but the Progressives’ weeping, wailing, beating of breasts, and rending of garments continues unabated. That’s why you’ll find these articles pertinent, interesting, amusing and, sometimes, frightening.

Don’t attack people from whom you want something. Hillary wanted votes from Americans but she couldn’t help herself. Speaking to a sympathetic audience, she had to attack vast swaths of America’s citizens as a “basket of deplorables,” guilty of a variety of moral sins. She may have graduated from Yale Law but she apparently never learned there the first rule of making your case to a jury: “Don’t attack people from whom you want something.”

Hillary’s most ardent followers haven’t learned that lesson either. They’re so busy pointing at Comey (never mind that he got on the case because Hillary broke the law), Russians (never mind that the DNC and Podesta practically gave their information away), and anyone or anything else that attracts their angry, short attention span, that they’re missing the main lesson: You don’t win by hating voters.

Over at the San Francisco Chronicle, columnist Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez looked at the numbers after the election and decided that an entire section of the City is irredeemable — and darn if he isn’t calling them out on it:

[Read more…]

More tales from the front lines of the Democrat crack-up

by 14 Comments

Weeping Woman 1937 by Pablo Picasso 1881-1973The ongoing Democrat crack-up is definitely the best show in town — and no, I don’t feel bad at all at laughing at people who are showing their emotional immaturity or appalling lack of judgment or intelligence. There was something about being called evil, bigoted, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and stupid that burned off any vestigial conscience I might have about pointing and laughing when incredibly arrogant people are exposed for the pathetic faux-intellectuals they are and always have been.

With that in mind, I’m happy to share with you three opinion pieces that came across my radar, all of which either lambaste Trump or laud Hillary (or do both).

The first unintentionally reinforces something I’ve come to believe, which is that Trump has the potential be one of the greatest presidents ever. He’s a paradigm buster. He figured out two things about the old rules: (1) they didn’t serve Republicans and (2) they didn’t serve America. He’s rewriting the playbook.

One of the ways in which Trump is re-writing the playbook is by speaking directly to the American people via his tweets. For example, after his planned phone call with the President of Taiwan, Trump tweeted out brief, substantive messages:

The media reprinted those tweets verbatim — to attack them. The problem for the Left, though, is that many Americans no longer take the media seriously because they understand that the Left has become unhinged and, therefore, unreliable when reporting on Trump. Indeed, Trump tweeted that out too:

All that the media is managing to do is to relay the tweets to whose don’t follow Twitter.

The other problem for the Left is that Trump’s dense, data- and thought-rich tweets flummox them. Their counter-attacks are inept. Nothing proves this more beautifully than the viral tweets a man named Danielle Muscato sent out in the wake of the little tweet war Trump set up with Saturday Night Live.

[Read more…]

The unintentionally funny anguish of the distraught feminist Hillary voter *UPDATED*

by 12 Comments

Weeping Woman 1937 by Pablo Picasso 1881-1973I want to share with you one of the funniest feminist posts I’ve ever read, although the humor this anguished feminist infuses in her post is entirely accidental. The whole thing reminds me of nothing so much as the Oscar Wilde’s quotation about The Old Curiosity Shop: “One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing.”

Unlike Dickens, the post to which I refer is not literature but — Oh. My. God. — it did make me laugh. Self-described “comedy writer” Eirene Donohoe confesses through a veil of tears that she is still unable to recover from Hillary’s loss. If she’s a comedy writer, this post is the tears of a clown.

The post opens with Donohoe describing her valiant efforts to live her life as if nothing has changed since that fatal day in November. Then, overcome by emotion, Donohoe finally admits that she can no longer pretend that life is still normal or, indeed, that her life or the lives of any women in America still matter:

I’m a comedy writer, but suddenly I was thinking up stories about post-apocalyptic worlds where women revolt and take over the planet. I started thinking about writing a song. Something that captured everything I was feeling. A love song, a fight song. Something to show the world that I was still with Her.

I am her. The words flashed through my head. And suddenly, there on the 101 freeway, I was down the hole again. Tears streaming, sobs choking, heart breaking. The realization hitting me. I am Her.

Yes, this young comedy writer in Los Angeles, with her three-year-old child, is identical to a 69-year-old woman who has built an entire career based upon her willingness to stand by her husband, a man repeatedly and credibly accused of raping and otherwise sexually assaulting women. Moreover, Donohoe’s woes aside, if one looks back over Hillary’s career, one can see that, up until her tenure as Secretary of State, she accomplished nothing other than being her husband’s wife — and, moreover, a wife who strongly felt he and the rest of the Democrat party owed her for her unswerving fealty to covering up his (and her) financial and sexual peccadilloes.

[Read more…]