As we give thanks this Veteran’s Day for our vets both past and present, please remember too that we on the home front must preserve what they fought for.
As we give thanks this Veteran’s Day for our vets both past and present, please remember too that we on the home front must preserve what they fought for.
I’m still vibrating from the excitement of an evening hearing Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, and Steve Hayward, something I try to share in this post.
Thanks to a kind friend, last night I once again had the inestimable pleasure of attending PRI’s annual gala. This year, Mark Steyn was the keynote speaker, Victor Davis Hanson received the Sir Antony Fisher Freedom Award, and Steven Hayward was the master of ceremonies. Honestly, for someone who is a political junkie and a total fan girl when it comes to good writing and effortless erudition, it doesn’t get better than that.
I hadn’t planned on taking notes because I always flatter myself that I’ll remember what was said. By the time that Hayward had made several hysterical jokes about San Francisco politics and Hanson had made a brief, but powerful, acceptance speech when he received the Sir Antony Fisher Freedom Award, I realized that, if I wanted to share anything with you, I’d better start writing things down. This belated realization is why I can only dredge up a few of the funny, pertinent things Hayward and Hanson said, but can give you fairly complete rundown of Steyn’s speech.
Naturally, because I’d convinced myself my memory was enough, I hadn’t brought any paper to the gala. I therefore ended up scribbling my notes on the little folded name cards PRI put by each place setting at the table.
Even notes, though, are inadequate to conveying the evening’s intellectual content. I can only liken what the three men said to a continuous cascade of verbal diamonds, with me trying to reach in and grab the most pertinent or funny. Given the number and velocity of those falling diamonds, I know that I missed more diamonds than I captured. I hope, though, that the following gives you some idea about being in the same room as three of the best political writers and thinkers working today.
Steven Hayward opened the evening by talking about the political insanity that characterizes San Francisco. Those were some fast falling diamonds, and I wasn’t yet taking notes, so I only caught two to share with you. The first was that “San Francisco is well on its way to making itself a work free drug place.” If you’re like me, and just about everyone else in the audience, it took you a beat before you realized that, not only was Hayward describing accurately San Francisco’s political trajectory, he was having fun with the mantra that employees are in a “drug free work place.”
The second Hayward joke that I caught was his statement that, when he’s in San Francisco, he feels like “bringing a Smith & Wesson to a Smith & Hawken’s city.” What I found especially funny about that joke is that the foo-foo, high falutin’ Smith & Hawkens, which once sent out catalogs that were the gardening equivalent of a J. Peterman Company catalog, now markets itself through Target. I’ll get back to you when I figure out whether that’s a “how the mighty have fallen” thing or a “wow, talk about profitable broad-based marketing” thing.
Victor Davis Hanson was up next, but he spoke with such brevity that by the time I got my brain in gear to grab those verbal diamonds, he’d already finished speaking. VDH mostly wanted to remind us about the importance of Sir Anthony Fisher’s institutions, which are all over the world acting as advocacy centers for free markets and free thinking. He did say, however, that California is becoming a dangerously bifurcated state economically and politically, a point that cropped up again throughout the evening. [Read more…]
Just because election fraud is a time-honored Democrat Party tradition doesn’t mean Martha McSally is going down without a fight — and you can help.
Regarding Arizona, I find it hard to believe that a state under siege by illegal aliens, including drug runners and murderers, would vote for a candidate representing the Open Borders party. I also find it hard to believe that Arizonans would vote for a candidate who thinks they’re disgusting (although I’m sure that the drive-by media did everything it could to keep that information from voters).
Most of all, I find it hard to believe that, whenever there’s a tight race, in the race’s aftermath, ballots magically appear, all completely coincidentally favoring the Democrat candidate. I therefore would like to pass on to you Martha McSally’s plea for financial help in her fight against possible election fraud:
Supporters, the other night was a long one – but this race is still too close to call.
This is what we’re dealing with: Sinema and the Democrats have prepared millions of dollars to sue me in court to bend the rules and exploit loopholes in her favor.
The Democrat Machine will do whatever it takes to change the results of this election.
Our general election campaign took everything we had, and with our coffers seriously drained, I need your help to secure the resources to maintain the integrity of the election and secure our victory.
We need to be prepared to take this fight all the way. WE CANNOT LOSE!
Paid for by McSally for Senate, Inc.
And here’s a bonus video, because the Democrats’ conduct in Florida and Arizona reminds me of the events leading up to the Battle of Athens:
They do say Republicans know how to meme, and this post-election edition, with some bonus Jim Acosta and Jeff Sessions stuff thrown in, proves it’s true.
Expect the opening salvo of proggie House overreach to come over making Trump’s tax returns public. They can’t do it, but it will be fun to watch them try.
The progs are obsessed with revealing Trump’s tax returns. It is a fishing expedition reminiscent of a quote by Stalin’s Chief of the Secret Police, Lavrentiy Beria: “Show me the man(‘s tax return); I’ll find you the crime.”
As a proggie at Politico wrote not long ago:
For the past two years, the search for Donald Trump’s unseen tax returns has been something of a quest for the Holy Grail, an elusive trophy that could unlock the mysteries of our political universe. Lacking real proof as to what the president’s tax documents might show, the imagination swells with possibility: Russia ties? Massive personal debts? A wealth substantially lower than his self-reported $10 billion fortune? Something nefarious?
Well the proggies now have the promised land in sight. Reads an article in the Daily Wire:
Trying to convince myself that, while a Democrat-majority House will be very, very bad, Trump will not abandon the American people and may still win 2020.
1. We kept the Senate, which matters when it comes to the judiciary (phew!) and Trump’s ability to get his people appointed.
2. Trump can continue to dismantled the regulatory state, which is huge.
3. Trump still has a free hand with foreign policy and I like his approach to foreign policy.
4. The Democrats will use their hold on the House to escalate their open border policy, but I think (hope) Trump as the executive still has the stronger hand on this. I also hope (think) that the American people will not appreciate an open border, especially minorities who are always on the front line when it comes to illegal immigrants taking jobs and introducing new crime into a region.
5. What’s going to come out of the House in the upcoming years will be, literally, insane. Sarah Hoyt is very worried that Trump, who is committed to deal-making, will cave or, to use a Bill Clintonesque term from 1994, “triangulate”:
Trump is by nature a deal maker. After the first two government shut downs, he’ll meet them halfway. This will wreck our economy and yep his presidency with it. As they did with Bush in 2006, they now have a chance to wreck the economy and have it blamed on the sitting president.
Hoyt’s legitimately worried about a lot of other things. If you want the pessimist’s view of the next two years, be sure to read what she has to say.
Even Don Surber, the man who has been my compass for optimism for the past three years, is not happy. He bats aside attempts at optimism from his readers and from Glenn Reynolds, who’s hoping for a Reagan-era “coming together.” With a Democrat-majority House — or rather, with this 21st Century style Democrat-majority House — that’s not going to happen says Surber:
He just doesn’t get it. These Democrats don’t care. Infrastructure?
These Democrats let people poop in the streets of Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco. These Democrats let the homeless line pup tents along the boulevards of Maxine Waters’s Los Angeles. These Democrats let gangbangers turn Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago into a shooting gallery.
All they care about is power. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Imagine now what happens when you give power to the already corrupted.
The 2018 midterms are in the history books. Republicans will pick up somewhere between +2 and +4 Senate Seats while Democrats are expected to pick up approx. 33 seats in the House. To put this into perspective, “since 1862, the president’s party has lost an average of 32 House seats during the midterms.” Obama’s first midterm resulted in a Democrat loss of 6 Senate seats and 63 House seats. So this is bad, but it could have been worse.
In about 24 hours from now, the first polls will close in the midterm elections. About four to five hours after that, we will know whether there was the predicted blue wave, a barely noticeable whitecap, or a surprise red wave. Time for you to prognosticate.
There is an old joke: In heaven, the government is British, the French are the cooks, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Italians are the police. In hell, the British are the cooks, the French run the government, the Italians are the mechanics and the Germans are the police. I’ll put an American spin on that. Hell is where Crazy Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, Low IQ Maxine Waters runs the Financial Services Committee, and Adam Schiff for Brains runs the Intelligence Committee. Unfortunately for our country, that is a real possibility, not a punch line.
All other things being equal, the history of midterm elections is that whichever party holds the Presidency will lose seats. As it stands today:
Current: Republicans hold a 4 seat majority, 52 to 48.
To Change the Majority: Dem’s will need a net pick up of 3 seats.
Elections this cycle: There are 26 Democratic seats and 9 Republican seats up for election in 2018. The map is horrid for Democrats as 10 of the Dems up for reelection are in states won by Trump in 2016.
Current: Republicans hold 235 seats to 193 for Democrats. 218 seats are need for a majority.
To Change the Majority: Democrats will need a net pick up of 25 seats.
Elections the cycle: Every two years, all 435 voting seats are up for election.
This awesome illustrated edition is filled with wit and wisdom about elections, #Blexit and #WalkAway, immigration issues, the Second Amendment and more.
Today is Guy Fawkes Day, when the English celebrate the survival of a really terrible king who never bathed and the brutal torture and execution of a crazed religious fanatic. Who doesn’t love a holiday like that?
And what better way to celebrate than with a huge bolus of posters covering everything from the upcoming election, to #WalkAway and #Blexit, to immigration, to Trump, to the usual Leftist insanity. I know you’ll enjoy these:
Everything about the language and history of the 14th Amendment reveals that it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to illegal aliens.
Trump set off a furor when he said he would use an executive order to end birthright citizenship. With that, the Left suddenly rediscovered the Constitution, because they said Section 1 of the 14th Amendment mandates birthright citizenship.
Here’s what Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 in response to laws in Southern states that discriminated against blacks and ensured their disenfranchisement. For that reason, its language explicitly rebuts the language and theories found in the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, because decision gave legal merit to those anti-black statutes.
For those pulling a blank when they hear the phrase “Dred Scott decision,” it was in that case that Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney explained at great length that, because slaves were not considered fully human anywhere in the world both when the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence or when they ratified the Constitution, the Founders could not have intended imported slaves or their descendants to be “men,” “citizens,” or “people of the United States,” as any of those words or phrases were contemplated in either document.
After the war, a Republican Congress tried addressing the Dred Scott decision through legislation in the form of an 1866 Civil Rights Act (which was really a partial civil rights act), but the Dred Scott decision always hung like a grim specter over effectuating the act’s intended purpose of ensuring that blacks received equal treatment under the law and the full benefit of civil rights and due processes set out in the Constitution.
So it was that, by 1868, rather than trying to explain that the Taney Court’s constitutional analysis was in error, Congress simply ratified the Constitution to wipe out completely the Taney court’s analysis. Henceforth, under the Constitution “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In the context of giving citizenship and civil rights protection to formerly enslaved people, whether they were enslaved in states or territories, the above-quoted language is perfectly clear and its intent and effect cannot be challenged. Congress was thinking about former slaves, not immigration, whether legal or illegal, when it
ratified drafted the 14th Amendment. Indeed, it could not have been thinking about immigration, because, before 1882, the wide open, primarily agrarian, income-tax free, and welfare free United States had no immigration laws. [Read more…]
When it comes to the soft bigotry of the Progressive elite, an old post of mine reveals that everything old is new again (or just as bad as always).
Today marked the second time in less than a week that I worked for hours on a post, decided it was garbage, and dumped it. I hate the wasted time, but it’s better to do that than to embarrass myself in front of you guys. As for other blogging, I have to admit to a sense of deja vu when it comes to my writing. Lately when issues have arisen, I’ve thought, “Well, I already blogged on that.” This post is an example of that sense of “been there, done that” that sometimes afflicts me.
I was listening to Dan Bongino today and, starting at about 25 minutes in, he referred to an excellent David French article, The Democrats Have A Rich White Progressives Problem, about the racism that drives Leftist thinking among the white elite Progressives who finance today’s Leftism:
As the white Democratic elite stampedes towards secular progressivism, it’s even moved to the left of black Democrats on key racial issues. As Thomas Edsall notes in the New York Times, white liberals are more likely to believe that racism is responsible for racial inequality than black Americans. For example, 79 percent of white liberals believe “racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days” versus 60 percent of African Americans.
A significant 32 percent of African Americans agreed with the statement, “Blacks who can’t get ahead in this country are mostly responsible for their own condition.” Only 18 percent of white liberals shared that view.
In other words, although they couch it in nice, pretty terms, white Democrats today think exactly as white Democrats in the Jim Crow south thought — blacks and other minorities are inherently inferior based on the color of their skin.
As it turns out, I’d figured out years ago that elite white Progressives hold this view. Indeed, I blogged about it almost exactly seven years ago.
Mr. Bookworm is a very nice person but neither he nor I are the Democrats we were when we met. I’ve become a conservative; he’s become a Progressive. Moreover, the corporation in which he works is a Progressive stronghold, so he’s imbibed its attitudes. Already then that elite Progressive attitude couldn’t conceive of minorities competing on equal terms with white people.
This way of thinking showed up in a conversation we had with the kids way back in 2011. I’m going to reprint the entire post below, because I think it’s as relevant today as it was in 2011, especially in light of David French’s article and Dan Bongino’s podcast: [Read more…]
This Bookworm Beat shows that, on Halloween, there’s nothing scarier than Leftist politics and the consequent racist, anti-American shenanigans.
For Halloween we now have two racially approved costumes. If you’re still struggling to think of a costume for yourself or your child, I am happy to report that the Black Panther creators and the gal who voices Moana have both stated explicitly that all races are allowed to use their costumes. Whew! The only thing sad about these two linked stories is that we live in a world in which people of various races need permission to dress up as wildly popular fictional characters whom they admire.
As the election nears, the Left escalates its Hitler comparisons. I was listen to today’s Dan Bongino show, and he dedicates the first few minutes to discussing the escalating Trump = Hitler rhetoric from the Left and from the NeverTrumpers who, like true converts and zealots, outdo their new political travelers when it comes to heated rhetoric. Bongino played audio of the various talking heads fighting to come up with the most extreme Trump = Hitler (or ISIS) analogy (I’ve queued the audio to the point at which the Trump = Hitler tape begins):
TV media is not alone. This is a recent headline from the WaPo:
An alternative headline for that same opinion piece could have been “Hitler was an honest leader.”
Even that hardcore socialist (and pedophile supporter) Pope Francis gets into the Hitler comparison act, comparing “populists” who oppose mass Muslim migration to Hitler. His use of the word “populist” interests me, because it’s a reminder that, to the elites, it’s inconceivable that the masses might have a good idea. If the masses want it, it must automatically be bad. Frankly, I don’t see anything bad about Europeans resisting an influx of people who subscribe to an ideology that is the antithesis of everything the West has struggled to achieve over the centuries in terms of civil rights, individual liberty, respect for different races and faiths, etc. The Pope is insulated from this influx behind is walls, but the Europeans being murdered, raped, stabbed, blown up, and evicted by the new immigrants have skin in this game.
For some good push back against this type of rhetorical madness, I recommend Sarah Hoyt’s Don’t Let The Media and Democrats Get Away With It. I especially liked her conclusion, although I do recommend reading the whole thing:
Whenever the left is meeting with opposition they retreat into this condemnation of our lack of civility.
They are right, you know? If we shut up and let them beat us, attack us and call for guillotines to kill us, without protest, it’s all very civil. Or at least, there isn’t a fight.
Are you going to do that? Are you going into cowering and apologizing mode because the left is hanging a multiply-convicted felon with an incoherent hodgepodge of beliefs around your necks? Are you going to let them get away with it AGAIN?
Or are you going to answer this the only way you can? With humor? “Oh, please, if he were a real Republican he’d know how to build bombs that go boom. We’re competent.” Or “Yeah? Hey, he hates Monsanto. Weren’t you yelling about Monsanto last week?” Or “Did I hear you beating your chest and apologizing for the shooting of Scalize? The beating of Rand Paul? No? Then take my answer as the same.” Or “You know if you guys didn’t keep felons out of jail this stuff wouldn’t happen.” Or my favorite “Not my circus, not my monkeys. We know you’re a hive mind, but we’re individuals. None of us know this nut.”
Keep calm and “no sale”the left’s bullshit.
And vote. Vote like your life depends on it. With the calls for guillotines and Antifa on the loose it very well might.
The EU continues its bow to sharia law. Speaking of the effect of the elite-approved Muslim invasion of Europe, you probably already read that an EU court in Austria held that the EU’s promise of free expression does not extend to insulting Mohammed: [Read more…]
The horrific shooting at the Pittsburgh Synagogue suggests that America, by being a peaceful haven for American Jewry, is actually helping to destroy it.
I haven’t commented about the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. I actually don’t think there’s much to say about the shooting itself. A rabid anti-Semite acted on his rage and did what anti-Semites have done since the Middle Ages: he killed Jews. He’ll face judgment in this life and, I’m quite sure, an infinitely worse judgment in the next. The End.
In this post, I want to blog about something else I noticed. Something everyone must have noticed: All of the congregants who died (may their memories be a blessing) were oldish to really old:
Joyce Fienberg, 75, of Oakland; Richard Gottfried, 65, of Ross Township; Rose Mallinger, 97, of Squirrel Hill; Jerry Rabinowitz, 66, of Edgewood; Cecil Rosenthal, 59, of Squirrel Hill; David Rosenthal, 54, of Squirrel Hill; Bernice Simon, 84, of Wilkinsburg; Sylvan Simon, 86, of Wilkinsburg; Daniel Stein, 71, of Squirrel Hill; Melvin Wax, 88, of Squirrel Hill, and Irving Youngner, 69, of Mount Washington.
According to reports I read, Saturday morning service was always the synagogue’s busiest day each week and the shooter had 20-30 minutes alone in that room before the police finally entered. (Shades of Parkland School there….) While oldish and really old people are obviously going to be the least agile in scattering and hiding, one would think that a busy service and a gunman with a lot of time on his hands would have resulted in a broader age spectrum of victims. The fact that it didn’t suggests that Tree of Life has an aging congregation. That got me thinking.
I went and looked at the synagogue’s website and saw that it offers two slightly different descriptions of itself. Here’s the first, on the home page:
Tree of Life * Or L’Simcha Congregation is a traditional, progressive and egalitarian congregation based in Pittsburgh’s Squirrel Hill neighborhood.
We offer a warm and welcoming environment where even the oldest Jewish traditions become relevant to the way our members live today. From engaging services, social events, family-friendly activities and learning opportunities to support in times of illness or sorrow, we match the old with the new to deliver conservative Jewish tradition that’s accessible, warm and progressive.
And here’s the second, which substitutes “conservative” for “traditional”:
Tree of Life Congregation was founded more than 150 years ago, Or L’Simcha about 5 years ago. In 2010, the two Pittsburgh congregations merged to form Tree of Life*Or L’Simcha. As a conservative Jewish congregation, Tree of Life*Or L’Simcha remains true to traditional teachings, yet is also progressive and relevant to the way we live today. From our warm, inviting and intellectually stimulating atmosphere to our fun adult, children and family programs, it’s the perfect environment to grow a strong faith rooted in tradition.
For those of you wondering about the importance of the words “conservative” and “traditional,” let me explain as best as I can. Although I was raised without a synagogue, I’m Jewish enough in orientation to have picked up a few things. [Read more…]
I’ve spent some time trawling across the internet for the best posters about the invasion, stupid Leftists, elections, #Blexit, and much more. Have fun!
I was working on a long post that made perfect sense when I woke up at 3 am thinking about it. By the time I’d worked on it for more than an hour, though, I realized that it did not make perfect sense. It made no sense. That sent me on a mental flash back to my high school German class. I hated that class, which meant I studied as little as possible. One day, though, I went into an exam very confident, because I had a dream in which I knew all the answers. When I took the test, I drew on the dream for my test responses — and got an F.
I keep getting reminded that dreams have their own logic, one that doesn’t work well in the waking world. So instead of a silly dreamscape post, you get an illustrated edition.
The eugenics debate from a century ago bears striking similarities to the climate change debate today, while Leftists try to bring racism to old statuary.
I’ve actually been doing paid legal work all day long, with a short deadline, which makes blogging difficult if not impossible. Nevertheless, I wanted to raise two quick points that impinged on my consciousness in the past few days.
Eugenics and climate change. The first point comes about because over the past couple of nights I watched a fairly good PBS documentary about eugenics. While it didn’t mention Margaret Sanger’s racism, it did touch upon a lot of other interesting points about the eugenic craze in America:
If those factors remind you of something, then I’ve successfully made my point, which is that the whole eugenics foofaraw is like a template for climate change hysteria. Just think about the fact that the climate change craze: