After last night’s SOTU, Americans instantly proved their innovation, creativity, intelligence, and can-do spirit by putting out great memes. USA! USA!
I didn’t care that the State of the Union speech went long. It was great: patriotic, optimistic, and filled with classic American values and common sense.
My response? I loved it. It went on too long and I didn’t agree with all of Trump’s promises, primarily because I think some of the things he promised aren’t the federal government’s job, but I loved it.
“Americans are Dreamers too.” The relentless celebrating of a unified American people of all races, colors, creeds, etc., and of the American spirit. Sour-faced black caucus members when Trump boasted about historically low black unemployment. Nancy Pelosi sucking her tongue as if it were a sour lemon lozenge. Democrats desperately trying to decide whether their base would like or more or less if they applauded when Trump praised the American people, America itself, freedom, and government’s role as the people’s servant, not its master.
Judging by the responses from Progressives on my Facebook page, those Democrats fared best who applauded least.
Unfortunately, I’m working on deadline and can’t write more. But I hope some of you can. What did you think?
It’s increasingly clear Durbin lied about the alleged shithole remark, but it that doesn’t mean the jokes and homes truths that followed aren’t great.
2018 is rife with possibility, so the Watcher’s Council took a crack at New Year’s predictions. In this post, I offer both pessimistic and optimistic views.
As the old year dies away, and the New Year comes in with a bang, at WOW! Magazine, the Watcher’s Council’s site, a few of us had some predictions to offer for 2018. They are informed, thoughtful, and amusing. Here’s my contribution:
I have two sets of predictions, depending on whether I’m in an optimistic mood or not. I’ll start with the pessimistic predictions, so that I can end on a cheerful note with the optimistic ones:
Pessimistic possibilities in 2018 and beyond:
Mueller manages to pull together a package showing that Trump (who Wolff claims in Fire and Fury didn’t even want to win the presidency) nevertheless colluded with Russia and then engaged in obstruction of justice to hide this fact. Despite the complete absence of evidence to support either charge, the media, which remains peculiarly powerful despite open its bias and insanity, manages to convince the bulk of the American people that Trump is not fit to be president, forcing a Nixonian resignation.
The moment Pence steps into Trump’s shoes, the Progressive Wolff pack begins a sustained attack against him, alleging that his hostility to gays shows that he is mentally ill and must be pushed out of office.
With the unending chaos surrounding the Oval Office, the American people attempt to clean house by handing both the House and the Senate to the hard-Left, Progressive wing of the Democrat party. If the timing on this works out well, Pence’s being pushed out of office coincides with Nancy Pelosi having retaken her position as Speaker of the House. She is now President Pelosi.
At this point, two things can happen. First, flush with power, Pelosi clings to her new position like a tick embedded in a pig’s ear. Alternatively, having ascended to the White House, she appoints Michelle Obama as her Vice President and promptly resigns. Michelle Obama is now president of the United States and, for the first time, is really, really proud of her country. [I wrote this before the Golden Globes. since the Golden Globes, it’s clear that Oprah will give Michelle a run for her money in this dystopian fantasy. [Read more…]
I’m sitting here in a glorious post-SOTU haze, thinking about the crazy world in which we live and hoping that Trump can find the path to fix it.
I’m working on a project that will, I hope, come as a pleasant surprise to many of you. In the meantime, here’s a quick round-up of cool links with facts that are useful in our bright new world, just one day after President Trump gave that stellar, even Reagan-esque State of the Union address.
A few last words about that wonderful SOTU. I was going to quote my favorite lines — and then I realized that I liked so many, there would be no room left for anything else in this post. I’ll just say again that it was a really wonderful speech — and the Progressives on my real-me Facebook feed have been left gratifyingly speechless. Since I cannot reduce my admiration to a manageable size, I simply recommend that you read Daniel Greenfield’s admiration.
As for me, rather than comment on a specific line or policy, I’d like to piggy-back on Greenfield’s point about hope’s return. Obama ran on “hope,” but all he offered was divisiveness and disdain. Trump truly loves this country and loves Americans — and people are picking up on that.
Trump is not only a patriot and an optimist, he’s also a futurist, in the old-fashioned Disney mold. Walt Disney, despite the Cold War, was incredibly optimistic about America’s boundless future, something I wrote about here. Trump reminded me of that. Here are a couple of videos for those of you who aren’t familiar with Disney’s Carousel of Progress animatronic show which is, to my mind, the most tangible representation of Disney’s awe about America’s past and faith in her future.
Creating a Chelsea Clinton. I’ve sort of been boycotting Commentary Magazine since John Podhoretz, the editor in chief, shot far beyond condescending #NeverTrump and landed squarely in nasty, vicious #NeverTrump. The other Commentary writers followed his #NeverTrump lead, although they never got aggressive about it.
Still, now that the dust is settling, there are still good things to be found at this venerable, thoughtful conservative magazine. For example, Noah Rothman has written a simply splendid take-down of the vapid, spoiled, meaninglessly ambitious Chelsea Clinton. If you want a good laugh, even if you worry that the Clinton tentacles might still have some life left in them, do read it.
What’s the sign that President Trump’s great speech trolled the Progressives? The Left fell headlong into vulgarity and rudeness to show their disdain. (That vulgarity earns this post a NSFW warning.)
First of all, it was a GREAT speech. Don’t believe me? This is from Trump-Haters CNN:
- 78% of those polled saw last night’s speech as somewhat or very positive.
- 7 in 10 Speech-Watchers Say Trump Boosted Optimism.
- CNN commentator Van Jones (who was forced to resign from The Obama Administration for calling Republicans “assholes”) tweeted about the speech: “He became President of the United States in that moment, period.“
Guess he won Hollywood back, huh? Not really…
- The credible and measured Charlie Sheen tweeted: “suck a bag of soiled dicks, you FASCIST, legally retarded, DESPOTIC IMBECILE!”
- The habitually unfunny comedian, Sarah Silverman was at least more succinct. She merely tweeted her classy “go-to” word: cunt.
- Rosie O’Donnell, who was protesting out front, turns out to be way better at linguistics than legality. She told a reporter: “Te amo immigrants mucho. Yo estudia espanol en escuela. La personas esta aqui viva en la ustados unitos todas personas es Americanos.” The English translation is, “I love you very much, immigrants. I studied Spanish in school. The people living here in the United States are all Americans.” (No, Rosie. Only the ones who came here LEGALLY and were willing to abide by our laws to become citizens are AMERICANS).
Have you listened to Netanyahu’s speech yet? It was a masterful speech (and I wish American conservatives would listen and learn from it). In clear, elegant, often clever English, Bibi explained precisely why Obama’s proposed deal with Iran is an awful deal, one that paves the way for Iran to have a nuclear weapon system on the sly in the near future or completely legally in a decade. Bibi reminded his audience that Iran isn’t just any state — it is now, and has been for 36 years — the largest single terrorism sponsor in the world.
If you haven’t heard it yet, here’s the video:
Or, if you prefer reading to listening, here’s the transcript.
Bibi made a point that every sane person understands: Rewarding a bad actor does not make him less bad, it makes him more bad.
Along the way, Bibi addressed a point that has troubled some conservatives: Israel is much more worried about Iran than it is about ISIS, while the American people are more worried about ISIS than Iran. I really think that part of the speech gets to the heart of what should be every civilized person’s concern about what’s happening in the Middle East and around the world:
Nancy Pelosi, before she drank too deep of the Kook-Aid:
It’s a reminder, of course, that the Democrats don’t have any fixed principles that they routinely apply to all situations. Their sole, naked goal, is total victory and control.
Hat tip: Sadie
George Orwell, 1984:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Nancy Pelosi, on the unreasonableness of the democratic legislature process:
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.
Barack Obama, on the occasion of his 2nd inauguration:
Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.
Mommy! I’m scared!
A friend wrote to me quite appropriately outraged about the fact that Nancy Pelosi is saying that, if there was a security failure in Benghazi, blame belongs to the Republicans:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on CNN Tuesday attempted to shift the blame for the disastrous handling of the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya from the Obama administration onto Republican lawmakers, arguing they withheld $300 million in funding that could have provided much-needed security at the consulate.
Appearing on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show, Pelosi also said calls coming from the GOP to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi are likely politically motivated.
“So, are you saying this is political from their perspective,” Blitzer asked the congresswoman.
“One might suspect that,” she replied.
Read the rest here.
So, if I understand Pelosi’s reasoning, the State Department, which is responsible for embassy security and which is entirely under Democrat control, said no to multiple requests for increased security in Benghazi because Republicans wouldn’t hand over $300 million? Yeah, right. This from an administration that, without even blinking, spent several trillion dollars we don’t even have on green boondoggles, socialized car manufacturing, and other exciting Democrat initiatives?
Even someone without a sense of smell can recognize that this doesn’t pass the smell test. As my friend says, the reason there was no security in Benghazi is that the administration wanted “no boots on the ground.” They didn’t want it to appear that U.S. forces were “invading” another country. A shallow administration had a shallow reason for putting American lives at risk.
On the one hand, what Pelosi says is absolutely maddening. After all, given her access to the legacy media, she has a bully pulpit to spin these fantastical tales to the American people. On the other hand, though, that bully pulpit leads to hubris, which leads to stupidity — and, eventually, stupidity is hard to hide.
What I’m about to say appears like a digression, but it’s not: Another friend told me that he heard two gals in a suburban coffee shop, both obviously stereotypical liberal soccer mom types. Except that one said to the other something along the lines of “I don’t know. It seems like the news never reports anything critical about Obama. All they say is good stuff about him and bad stuff about Romney.”
I mention this because even the most biased and disinterested Americans might be figuring out that people like Nancy Pelosi are full to the brim with hubris and fecal matter. (Setting a good example for my kids, I don’t swear.)
Of course, that coffee shop gal might have been like me — a stealth agent politely trying to open liberals’ eyes to the fact that they live in a bubble, and an increasingly dangerous one at that. Part of my stealth tactic comes about because I’m not a big fan of direct confrontation. Part of it, though, comes about because I believe that, when a person’s ideology is being challenged, it’s much more effective to infiltrate from behind than to engage in a full frontal attack. Using the dumb blonde strategy is an effective way to get people to think without making them feel threatened.
Anyway, I’m almost pleased when Nancy Pelosi says such insanely, intuitively stupid things because it gives me great openings to suggest to my blindly liberal friends that their leaders have mouse-sized brains and rat-sized personalities.
I’m with American Crossroads, which believes that Joe Biden is just what the Democrat ticket needs:
Gravitas! (Giggle, giggle.)
I’m suspect, though, that the Democrats themselves are becoming disenchanted with Good Old Joe. Apparently they cast around for the Hillary alternative, only to get a resounding “No!” from a woman who neither wanted to be on a winning nor a losing Democrat ticket, because she thought both would be bad for her career. You can always trust the Clintons to keep their eyes on the main chance.
So who’s next? I’m voting for a “Draft Elizabeth Warren” movement.
Think about it for a moment: while the Republican party has more young guns than it can count, who does the Democrat party have? Jesse Jackson, Jr.? No. Poor guy has a bipolar disorder. I wish him well, but no one wishes him on the ticket. Rahm Emanuel? Nope. You don’t go from Chief of Staff, to Mayor of a corrupt, crime-ridden city, to second on the presidential ticket. Raddled old Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? Big NO there. Debbie What’s-her-name Schlemeil? I think Baghdad Debbie has had her dishonest day.
I didn’t think so.
The only “young” gun they’ve got is Elizabeth Warren. She’s struggling to stay above water in Massachusetts, but Democrats might see her as someone who can revive the base if she’s on the presidential ticket. After all, when it comes to “You didn’t build that,” she and Obama are two minds with but a single thought. Better an exciting candidate on the presidential ticket than a struggling candidate for a senate seat that’s already filled by a fairly popular, attractive RINO.
My best guess today is that, in a week or so, poor old Joe is going to get very sick and need to retire abruptly. And stalwart Progressive Elizabeth Warren will valiantly step up to fill Joe’s shoes.
What do you think?
Writing a couple of years ago about the streets of San Francisco, in a post I called “Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco,” I had this to say:
Last week, I had occasion to make four separate trips to the City. Each was unpleasant.
The first trip, I got a flat tire from broken glass in the street. I know that can happen anywhere, but it’s more likely along the Market Street stretch I had to travel.
The second trip, I found myself at a corner that boasted both a stop sign and a red light. This was ludicrous, confusing and, therefore, dangerous. This is manic control run amok.
The third trip, I almost got a ticket when I parked at what appeared to be a non-metered space. Half the block had parking meters; half the block, the part where I was parking, didn’t. It was only because a nice pedestrian warned me that I learned that there was an electronic kiosk about 25 feet away from my car that sold parking passes for the car’s dashboard. Other than that word of mouth tip, there were no signs at all warning that, while half the block had old-fashioned meters, the other half had switched to a computer system.
The fourth trip, my husband and I were walking down Gough Street towards the Opera House at dusk. Between the failing light and the broken and dimmed street lights, it was impossible to avoid the hazards of pitted, jagged, broken uneven sidewalk. It was only because we’re in good shape, with decent balance, that the two of us avoided a painful tumble. I won’t even describe the smell of urine and sewage that kept wafting up towards us as we walked along.
Welcome to Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco.
Well, San Francisco has made this disgrace official, by naming a street after Nancy Pelosi.
Proving, as he so often does, that a picture is worth a thousand words, Michael Ramirez has nailed this most recent San Francisco development.
Newt made a very good point about his earlier support for an individual mandate when it came to health care: The Heritage Foundation, as reputable a conservative think tank as one can find, actually thought the idea was a good one. Then, as Newt did, it backed off when it realized the ramifications:
Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma: “Mr. Speaker, you speak passionately about first principles and small government — smaller government, yet you supported individual mandates for health insurance….Why should limited government conservatives like me trust that a President Gingrich will not advance these sorts of big government approaches when you are president?”
Newt Gingrich: “Well…the original individual mandate originally was developed by [the] Heritage Foundation and others as a method to block Hillarycare in 1993, and virtually all of us who were conservatives came to the conclusion that, in fact, it was more dangerous and more difficult to implement, and guaranteed that politics and politicians would define health care. And that’s why virtually every conservative has, in fact, left that kind of a model.”
Speaking of Newt, was I the only one who was delighted with his response when Nancy Pelosi threatened to reveal secrets? Rather than cowering, he said (a) bring it on and (b) I’m going to ream you for violating ethics rules. And then she backed down. This is why conservatives like Newt. He’s not afraid of the establishment. He may be a fruitcake, but he’s our warrior fruitcake!
David Axelrod’s talk yesterday included a shout-out to the lovable Nancy Pelosi, whom he feels is unfairly maligned by the Rushes of this world. Per David, Nancy is not an effete San Francisco liberal. Instead, she’s a tough political operative — for all the right, i.e., Progressive, reasons, of course — who was trained in her Dad’s old-fashioned, rough-and-tumble ward rooms. He described with affection Nancy ramming her finger repeatedly in his chest when she felt he’d failed to deliver on something or other.
What a charmer.
I can readily believe Axelrod’s talk about Nancy’s toughness and finger strikes. The “principled” part, though, is a little harder. Isn’t this the woman who recently castigated Catholics for having “this conscience thing“? Hmmm…. Conscience? Principles? They kind of seem like a matched set to me.
Just the other day, Pelosi again stumbled on her principles when she complained that Bishops who object to forcing Catholics to subsidize things that they think are morally evil (abortions, for example) are “lobbyists.” The Anchoress has more on this one. When I think of Nancy Pelosi and principles, I keep getting a mental image of Jon Lovitz doing his compulsive liar shtick. “Yeah, principles. That’s the ticket!”