Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Laura Ingraham is one of the five most poisonous public figures in post-America today

Yesterday on her show, she got a call from someone - I wonder how many such callers there are who don't get through - who basically asked how she can overlook Squirrel Hair's seemingly infinite demonstrations of moral squalor.

Her lame response? That Reagan was divorced and that Lincoln "had flaws."

Allahpundit at Hot Air parses the full flimsiness of this position:

Lincoln suspended habeas in the middle of a Civil War, Reagan got divorced, and Trump — well, Trump’s going to end globalism. When you’re judging whether he’s fit for office, what more do you need to know?
What you’re hearing here is a variation on the argument Trump fans have been making to conservative Trump skeptics in many contexts lately: He’s a difference in degree, not in kind. That was Katrina Pierson’s and Mike Huckabee’s point last week in grumbling at #NeverTrumpers for refusing to back the nominee. Grassroots conservatives held their noses and voted for McCain and Romney, right? Well, time to repay the favor by voting for Trump. He’s different — but only in degree, not in kind. Meanwhile, when they’re not pitching him to skeptics, every breath they spend praising him is devoted to the idea that he is different in kind, not just degree. It’s a “takeover” of the party. It’s a “new” GOP. It’s a revolution! We’re a nationalist party now! Read this new WaPo analysis and ask yourself whether Trump is a difference in degree or in kind. And if he’s a difference in kind, if he really has formed a new party, what duty to him do people who belong to a fundamentally different party owe?
In order to believe that Trump is “conservative,” you need to believe that taking a hard right-wing line on one policy question, immigration, is sufficient to qualify. And in order to believe that Trump’s character is no more disqualifying than Reagan’s, you need to believe that any single moral failing is no less damning than a multitude of them. This is conservatism now, I guess.
I realize she's not stupid. She clerked at SCOTUS for Justice Thomas. And she claims to be a devout Christian, although on this latter point, I think she's mouthing by rote what she was before she sold her soul.

Oh, and perhaps the question is arising as to who the other four are. Well, now, that makes for an interesting parlor game doesn't it? Lots of candidates to choose from in these dark times.




Monday, May 9, 2016

Pat McCrory's hero moment

In a world of phonies and cowards, not to mention totalitarians and deranged people, you can still find someone who has solid principles, the right principles, and consistently adheres to them.

Exhibit A: North Carolina governor Pat McCrory:

Gov. Pat McCrory addressed the controversial North Carolina bathroom law at a press conference Monday afternoon, explaining why he has decided to sue the federal government for trying to block it. 
Just five days ago, he related, the Justice Department sent letters to his office that insisted their law requiring government employees use public restrooms that correspond to their birth certificates is in conflict with federal policy and violates the Civil Rights Act. McCrory had a limited time to respond before the agency threatened to strip his state of federal funding.
“This was a substantial request and they gave us three business days to respond to this letter,” McCrory explained. 
His administration asked for additional time, but they refused unless he go on record agreeing with their interpretation of the law. He could not do that – choosing instead to file a lawsuit. 
He now wants a federal court to clarify what the law actually is.
“This is not just a North Carolina issue, this is a national issue,” he said, for it imposes a new law on every private sector in the country.
“I think it’s time for the U.S. Congress to bring clarity to our national anti-discrimination provisions under Title VII and Title IX.”
Right now, he continued, the Obama administration is “bypassing Congress” to set bathroom policies for public and private employers across the country.
It has taken lest than ten years for post-America to mainstream the tiny, tiny fraction of the population that so resents the DNA it was born with that it will carve up its crotches and stuff itself full of hormones other than the ones nature - and nature's God - set it up with.

And now we have the stinking DoJ codifying it at the point of a gun.

But God has blessed us with good people in the right places who will say, "Not here."

Sunday, May 8, 2016

The bots will have a field day with this

Squirrel-Hair's slavish devotees have foisted this term "globalist" on the post-American cattle-masses as if it encompassed anyone who doesn't put immigration policy front and center among the nation's most pressing issues, as in dwarfing all others.

Then along comes a real globalist like Secretary Global-Test who, in the course of remarks primarily about the unseriousness of Squirrel-Hair (and watch for a lot more of those; in recent days, we've been subjected to the Most Equal Comrade's "this-is-a-hard-job-it's-not-entertainment" preening. Quite rich coming from he of the selfie stick video and the rush back out to the golf course after brief, perfunctory remarks about James Foley) had this to say:


Kerry also seemed to dismiss the importance of national borders, and said technology has reshaped the world into one that the U.S. must engage at the risk of being left behind. He said Trump and others who want to look inward are making a mistake, even in the face of rising tension and violence in the world.

"For some people, that is all they need simply to climb under the sheets, close their eyes and push the world away," Kerry said. "And shockingly, we even see this attitude from some who think they ought to be entrusted with the job of managing international affairs."
"The future demands from us something more than a nostalgia for some rose-tinted version of the past that did not really exist in any case," he said. "You're about to graduate into a complex and borderless world."
The all-caps droolers found in the comment threads of - well, just about anything these days, not to mention those with a microphone and their own following like the vile Laura Ingraham, will have jumped all over this by this time tomorrow, lumping conservatives who have not abandon their principles right in with hard-left figures like Global-Test.

And thus do the clear and actual lines between coherent world views get further obscured.


Why I am glad I am no longer a Republican - today's edition

I don't have to defend the likes of Squirrel-Hair's remarks at his Eugene Oregon rally.

An unrestrained Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton an "unbelievably nasty, mean enabler" who "destroyed" the lives of her husband's mistresses during a rally in Oregon on Friday night. 
The comments, made during an evening rally in Eugene, Ore., marked the sharpest tone he's taken against the Democratic frontrunner since becoming his party's presumptive nominee, and the first time he's been so direct in referencing Bill Clinton's affairs in months. 
"She's been the total enabler. She would go after these women and destroy their lives," Trump said. "She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler, and what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful."
His comments came as part of a defense against recent attacks from Democrats focused on his controversial comments and stances on women's issues. Trump told the crowd "nobody respects women more than me," but in contrast, "nobody in this country, and maybe in the history of the country politically, was worse than Bill Clinton with women." 
"Have you ever read what Hillary Clinton did to the women that Bill Clinton had affairs with? And they're going after me with women?" he added, incredulously, without citing any specific examples or sources. 
While it was his most caustic attack against the presumptive Democratic nominee on Friday night, it was by no means the only line of attack he opened against Clinton. He charged that she would be "sleeping" when national security crises hit at odd hours, tied her to NAFTA, and called her a "tool of Wall Street." He also said he was the "last person she wants to run against…because my attitude is, I don't care."
Trump also took sharp aim at Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the liberal darling who's been the subject of vice-presidential chatter in recent weeks, with whom Trump's opened up a feud over social media in recent days.
In front of a crowd of thousands on Friday night, Trump unveiled a new nickname for the Massachusetts senator: "Goofus."
Clinton's "got this goofy friend Elizabeth Warren, she's on a Twitter rant, she's a goofus," he said. 
"This woman, she's a basketcase. By the way, she's done nothing in the United States. She's done nothing." 

Now, there's a couple of ways the Clinton camp can play this. It can take an above-the-fray stance, clearing its throat and standing off to the side and pointing out, when it's appropriate, that this is the other choice besides the candidate who does not stoop to that level.

Or it can bring to the fore such Squirrel-Hair memorable moments as this:

Donald Trump almost sounded envious in his admiration for Epstein in 2002. 
"I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy, He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
In 2010, Epstein pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked by a lawyer representing one of Epstein's victims about his relationship with Donald Trump:
Q: Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?
A. What do you mean by "personal relationship," sir?
Q. Have you socialized with him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?
A: Though I'd like to answer that question, at least today I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.
Of course, that one raises the risk of implicating Billy Jeff the Zipper, since he was Epstein's pal as well.

But this quote might quote in handy for them.

Here's Trump in his 1997 book, The Art of the Deal:
Often, I will tell friends whose wives are constantly nagging them about this or that that they're better off leaving and cutting their losses.  I'm not a great believer in always trying to work things out, because it just doesn't happen that way.  For a man to be successful he needs support at home, just like my father had from my mother, not someone who is always griping and b*******.  When a man has to endure a woman who is not supportive and complains constantly about his not being home enough or not being attentive enough, he will not be very successful unless he is able to cut the cord.
But the whole thing is not my problem. It's the Republicans' problem, and that's not who I am. Not after last week.

 
 

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Then again . . .

Mark Antonio Wright at NRO and Steve Hayes at the Weekly Standard make cogent cases for the position that the people to whom I extended graciousness in the face of their sudden turnabouts on Squirrel-Hair are dangerously wrong;

Wright:

What possible purpose does this serve?
First, pure short-term political calculation would warrant tapping the breaks on a Trump endorsement. A third-party or independent candidate could emerge in the next few weeks. (Or maybe not.) Trump could do or say something truly disqualifying — I’m not holding my breath, but this is possible. (Or maybe not.) Trump could be floundering so badly in the polls by mid July — Trump is down six and a half points against Hillary Clinton in the RealClearPoliticsaverage as of today — that the goose is cooked and no plausible political advantage could be gained by an endorsement. (Or maybe he’ll be neck and neck with Hillary by then.) Hillary could get indicted, leaving Trump — if no third-party alternative emerges — alone on the field. (Or maybe she won’t be.)

The point is no Republican politician needs to make a decision now — unless, that is, they’re angling for the chance to be Trump’s running mate. The facts on the ground can change between early May and late July. If you’re an out-of-office Republican like Perry or Jindal, a Republican not up for reelection like Scott Walker or Greg Abbott, or even a Republican on the ballot this November like Mike Pence or Kelly Ayotte: What’s the rush? 
Why not at least give it a few days or weeks? Why not see where we stand when the dust settles? Why not see if there are better alternatives out there in a month? Second, any Republican looking farther down the road than this November’s general election should think hard about how they want to be remembered.
But his final point is the one that is his most important:

Finally: When in doubt, do the right thing. Life is too short to sell out your principles. Life is too short to not fight the good fight — even if you know defeat is likely. An endorsement of Donald Trump should shake you to your core. One electoral defeat or electoral victory is not worth the abandonment of your principles. If you really believed Donald Trump was bad for America before Tuesday, what’s changed?
Hayes:

If nothing changes, this will be the choice presented to Americans in November. An ignorant, unstable conspiracy theorist with no core principles versus an inveterate liar dedicated to ever-expanding government. Clinton and Trump are the least popular major-party candidates in the history of polling. Hillary Clinton is viewed "very unfavorably" by 37 percent of Americans; Trump is viewed "very unfavorably" by a staggering 53 percent.

Senator Ben Sasse, a newly elected Republican from Nebraska, is one of only a few elected conservatives to demonstrate any political courage. In an open letter to Americans "who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward," Sasse argued against defeatism and complacency.
"There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two 'leaders.' With Clinton and Trump, the fix is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose. Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That's what we do. Remember: our Founders didn't want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice?"

Yes, why? 
Valid points. In any case, those of us who find Donald Trump unfit to be president or hold any public office will continue to be relentlessly vocal about saying so.

How to view those conservatives you had admired who are now endorsing Squirrel-Hair

Guy Benson at Townhall has a reasoned, balanced, mature way of looking at such figures as Governors Haley, Ricketts and Pence, former veep Dick Cheney, and former governors Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal:

As someone who will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in November, I don't share the view of some fellow conservative anti-trumpers who seek to ostracize and shun any Republican who is now jumping on the bandwagon. I understand all of the sound reasons to back the party's standard-bearer, as I always have up to this point. To my surprise, it turns out there is a line I won't cross in the service of party loyalty, and Donald Trump is it. Others' line either doesn't exist, or lies elsewhere. Though I stand by my reasoning, I don't think it's productive for #NeverTrump to view the large majority of Team Red that will rally behind the nominee as the enemy. While I will not forget those who actively helped him secure the nomination during the primary process when he could have been stopped, the case for General Election coalescence is understandable.  But I'm not sure I follow Noonan's derisive barb about re-making the GOP as a 'slash-the-entitlements' party in a post-Trump era. Dealing with the dangerous, destructive national debt is a mathematical proposition, about which only one party has been remotely serious. Paul Ryan has worked tirelessly to fashion an innovative and desperately-needed reform program that was politically palatable to the general public. He worked hard to sell his party on it, then proceeded to demonstrate that it wasn't electoral anathema. Donald Trump is in denial about the problem, and opposes real solutions. His latest proposal to deal with the debt is truly reckless and ludicrous; it would be savaged and ridiculed mercilessly by conservatives if a prominent liberal floated anything like it. Is Noonan suddenly so comfortable with Nominee Crazy Man (her words) that she's willing to blithely nudge the Republican Party into joining the Democrats in Debt Fantasyland?

But we who are still in the #NeverTrump camp would appreciate a return of the courtesy from the likes of Newt Gingrich and Laura Ingraham. They really need to shut their mouths about how destructive we are to "party unity" by not coming around. "Party unity" is not on our list of priorities at this point.

Friday, May 6, 2016

Friday afternoon roundup

Illegal alien flood redux: between the beginning of October and the end of March, 27,754 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the Mexican border. How many ore slid through?

On a related note, the Most Equal Comrade's regime has deported less than 1 percent of visa overstays.

Squirrel-Hair's Cinco de Mayo edition of Boneheaded Tweet of the Day: It sports a photo of him sitting at his desk, about to dig into a taco bowl. It says: "Happy Cinco de Mayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Cafe. I love Hispanics!"

Wall Street had expected a 203,000-new-job gain in April, but the actual number was 160,000. And 94 million post-Americans are not in the work force.










A simple litmus test

If you side with Speaker Ryan on this, you still embrace conservative principles to at least some degree. If you side with former Speaker Gingrich, you're an idiot who still thinks there's a viable Republican party.

Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized current House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) for his lack of endorsement of likely presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump earlier in the day in an interview with CNN.
Gingrich told host Sean Hannity it was a “big mistake” and that it sets the wrong tone for the rest of the Republican Party.
“[I]n the case of Paul Ryan he made a big mistake today and he needs to understand this,” Gingrich said. “He is the Speaker of the House. He has an obligation to unify the party. He has an obligation to reach out. Obviously he and Donald Trump are going to have disagreements. Some of them will work out and some of them they won’t. That’s fine. Our constitution provides that speakers and presidents can fight, but I think he sends the wrong signal and a signal which I think endangers the House Republicans and endangers the Senate Republicans.”
“I much prefer what Mitch McConnell did, what John McCain did –they both said, ‘OK game’s over, we have a nominee. I’m for him,'” he continued. “And I think Paul Ryan has some obligation institutionally to be responsive to the fact that the people of the party he belongs to have chosen a nominee. And frankly in the long history of American politics, Donald Trump is not outrageously outside the norm. This kind of vitriol you get does not reflect accurately people who have been nominated for president over the last 200 years.

Grim junctures like our present one do have the attribute of being clarifying. 2016 is a wheat-from-chaff time for  those of us who really love freedom, God, and the United States of America.

Europe coddles its conquerors

Germany was once the most serious nation on earth. That was true throughout the 19th century, as it pioneered such academic fields as sociology, and as it led in contributions to music and literature. It has been a leader in scientific inquiry and engineering achievement. Even when it went rogue, it was a fearsome enemy to be reckoned with.

Now, it's just plain ridiculous:

You might recall that appalling "educational" video recently released by the Finnish government which teaches women how to ward off migrant-rapists (for fun, we included it above). Well, there's now a suitable companion video subsidized by German taxpayers. 
The latest educational video features scenes from a new workshop offered to asylum seekers on how to flirt with German women...without raping them. BareNakedIslam provides background: 
On April 27, 2016 (BR)-Bayerischer Rundfunk (Bavaria Broadcasting) broadcasted the sequel of such a course in their article: Workshop für Flüchtlinge – So ticken westliche Frauen“. (Workshop for Refugees – How Western women think and act).
In the workshop offered at Jugendzentrum Eichstätt (Youth Center Eichstätt), young German women act as “prey” while aliens from different cultures practice their pick-up lines on them.
These courses are arranged by an organization called Pro Familia, well known for issuing advisory notes to abortion.
Among other valuable lessons on how best to integrate with German society, refugees are taught that "no means no" and that "ficki, ficki," or mass sexual assault, is probably not the best approach to romancing Western women. 
File under: Reason #20,232 why Europe is doomed. 
And Squirrel-Hair thinks this is a continent in any position to do more to defend the West?


Why I'm glad I'm no longer a Republican

Because there's no point in it.

Imagine how embarrassing this would be if the GOP were still a conservative party instead of an independent center-left nationalist program under the Republican label.
“Given more than twice as much” is a kind way of putting it, actually. According to the Washington Examiner, fully 85 percent of this guy’s contributions has gone blue. Alternate headline: “Democrat appoints Democrat to top campaign position.”
Although Mnuchin has given to Republicans, his financial ties to the Democratic Party and liberal causes appear to be significantly deeper. Overall, Mnuchin has given more than $125,000 since 1998 to candidates and committees that disclose their donors — more than half of which went to Democrats, according to FEC records.
He contributed to Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Chris Dodd in the 2008 presidential election cycle. He also gave to Obama and Clinton’s Senate campaigns, and supported Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee…
Beyond his contributions, Mnuchin’s past employers don’t fall in line with Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail. Mnuchin is a former Goldman Sachs partner and worked for liberal mega-donor George Soros’s hedge fund.
He also contributed to a group called America Coming Together, which was largely funded by Soros and unions.
Remember that heckler in Indiana on Monday who taunted Cruz by asking him where’s his “Goldman Sachs jacket”? Not only did Mnuchin work at GS, the FEC database shows that he donated thousands to the Goldman Sachs PAC. He gave $2,000 to Hillary for her 2005 Senate run, then gave her another $2,300 during the Democratic presidential primary in 2007. But he gave to Romney/Ryan too, so despite his grossly anti-populist hedge fund pedigree and his relationship to Soros, you know what the moronic spin will be. As it was with Trump himself, this’ll be dismissed as Mnuchin simply trying to buy influence according to the rules of our “rigged system” — notwithstanding his lopsided support for one party. Trust President Trump to reform that system, even though he and his rich friends have profited spectacularly from it for decades.

I'm not interested in having truck with fools and phonies.


Thursday, May 5, 2016

The ghost of Walt calls, "Not at my company!"

The nature-distortion jackboots will stop at nothing:

If you have a small child, you have been subjected to the tyranny of Queen Elsa of Arendelle, a lonely queen who froze over her kingdom in an emotional outburst on her coronation day. The movie Frozenfollows the story of Elsa and her younger sister, Anna, as they come to grips with the strange magic within the queen and learn the power of love. Elsa gains a newfound confidence in herself and opens the gates to both her kingdom and her heart, allowing people in after a lifetime of isolation.
Also, the song “Let It Go” happens once in the movie and one billion times in your home afterward.
Because of the success of Frozen, naturally the forces of social justice want in.
(CNN)– “Frozen” fans would like to see something special in the film’s sequel.
A campaign to #GiveElsaAGirlfriend has gone viral.
It all began when teen Alexis Isabel recently tweeted “I hope Disney makes Elsa a lesbian princess imagine how iconic that would be.” She followed that by tweeting “Dear @Disney, #GiveElsaAGirlfriend.”
The idea took off and now fans are clamoring for “Frozen 2″ to be used as a vehicle to raise LGBT awareness.
Elsa of Arendelle is a powerful woman who is supposed to be strong and lead her nation. What the LGBT crowd wants to do is make her dependent on someone else, and let the movie revolve Elsa once again being too weak to do anything without someone in her life. There is no way to just casually throw a relationship in, especially in a Disney movie.
What they want to do is take a sequel to a children’s movie, create a character for the plot to revolve around, and tell your children that, hey, if Elsa can do it, you can, too! There is a difference between education and indoctrination, and the former is not something that interests the LGBT movement.
A culture this rotten is why it's no surprise we have such a desolate political landscape.


Putting post-America in mortal peril in order to seal his legacy as the unicorns-and-rainbows visionary

Next time some Freedom-Hater tries to point to the Iran "agreement" as some kind of major accomplishment for the Most Equal Comrade, point this out:

A new piece in The New York Times Magazine
reveals confirms that the Obama administration knowingly misled the public to pass the Iranian nuclear deal. Our president knew full well that Iranian leadership had not adopted “moderate” policies, but the notion was a politically useful one.
When Hassan Rouhani was selected as the new president of Iran, he was heralded as a more tolerant kind of leader. TIME magazine referred to him as a “moderate politician” when he was voted runner up for 2015’s Person of the Year. (This is why that title deserves to be in quotes.) 
Yet, as the NYT piece notes, the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran began well before President Rouhani and his advisors assumed leadership. 
National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes knew the narrative was more important than the truth. The NYT describes how this “storyteller” flowered the facts to gain public support.
The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making.
The administration’s presentation of the Iran deal, the Timesconcludes, was largely “manufactured” for the purpose of selling the deal . . .  

President Obama and his advisors ignored the warnings of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and foreign policy experts when pushing through his nuclear agreement. Iran has no interest in playing by the rules, they argued. Since the deal has been signed, we've had plenty of proof. In February, Iranians took 10 American sailors hostage and paraded their capture. Then, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini denounced the U.S. for being too hostile and for trying to halt Iran's missile production, which he argued they use for defense purposes. So much for the peaceful relationship Obama promised the deal would produce.
And now our choice for a president to succeed this scumbag is between tow equally heinous scumbags.


The vilest kind of swindler

Allahpundit at Hot Air takes a look at the claim Rush Limbaugh made on his program yesterday that, based on his "gut feeling," Squirrel-Hair is going to beat Hillionaire handily in November.

Here at LITD, we've discussed many times the fecklessness of a pundit or talk-show host taking the I'm-just-objectively-analyzing-this-unpreecedented-phenomenon stance regarding S-H. Hell, these people are i the opining business. They make a living taking strong positions. And now they go all Edward R. Murrow over the most cartoonish public figure in their lifetimes.

Anyway, Allahpundit excerpts a great deal of Rush's tortured (and that's another thing that kills me, the way he starts one of these interminable parsings with "It's very simple, folks") examination of his reasons for his hunch.

Then he grants the possibility, given that the next seven months are not likely to proceed in a linear fashion, that S-H could pull out a narrow win, but feels that Rush is, well, going way overboard here.

And then he excerpts from Ross Douhthat's fine, albeit grim, NYT column about what has happened, and then offers just a bit of his own thoughts on a key point of Douthat's:

I can imagine all sorts of scenarios — the Hillary landslide, the barely-hanging-on narrow Hillary win (which I think is most likely), the narrow Trump win, but … the Trump landslide is a toughie. I could even understand it if Rush was counting on some deus ex machina to upend the electoral table, whether an economic crash, a terrorist attack, or a string of very ill-advised protests-turned-riots by SJWs that drive voters towards Trump’s authoritarian message. (If you’re a Trump critic, read Sean Trende’s argument for why the 2020 cycle and the heightened risk it brings of black-swan disasters is when you should start really worrying about a populist-nationalist candidate’s chances.) Rush isn’t predicting that something extraordinary will happen to shift liberals towards Trump, though. All he’s saying is that in a populist climate, an underwhelming oligarch like Hillary Clinton will surely end up the target for a broad-based revolt among most of the electorate. It’d be some neat trick for the candidate who embodies “identity politics for white people” to peel off enough members of the Democrats’ racially diverse coalition to win (never mind Trump overcoming his problems with women voters), but a day after the Trumpocalypse, anything seems possible, I guess. Vaguely.
Incidentally, isn’t there a bigger story out there today than whether Trump can pull off a win against Hillary this fall? The conservative-media belief that a strong “true conservative” candidate would be unstoppable in the primaries has now been conclusively disproved. Ross Douthat:
Trump proved that movement conservative ideas and litmus tests don’t really have any purchase on millions of Republican voters. Again and again, Cruz and the other G.O.P. candidates stressed that Trump wasn’t really a conservative; they listed his heresies, cataloged his deviations, dug up his barely buried liberal past. No doubt this case resonated with many Republicans. But not with nearly enough of them to make Cruz the nominee.
Trump proved that many evangelical voters, supposedly the heart of a True Conservative coalition, are actually not really values voters or religious conservatives after all, and that the less frequently evangelicals go to church, the more likely they are to vote for a philandering sybarite instead of a pastor’s son. Cruz would probably be on his way to the Republican nomination if he had simply carried the Deep South. But unless voters were in church every Sunday, Trump’s identity politics had more appeal than Cruz’s theological-political correctness…
Finally, Trump proved that many professional True Conservatives, many of the same people who flayed RINOs and demanded purity throughout the Obama era, were actually just playing a convenient part. From Fox News’ 10 p.m. hour to talk radio to the ranks of lesser pundits, a long list of people who should have been all-in for Cruz on ideological grounds either flirted with Trump, affected neutrality or threw down their cloaks for the Donald to stomp over to the nomination. Cruz thought he would have a movement behind him, but part of that movement was actually a racket, and Trumpistas were simply better marks.
Conservative talk-radio hosts who “affected neutrality” between Trump and Cruz? I can’t think of anyone like that. Can you?

I'll put it this way, straight up: the only ostensible conservative opener you can trust is one who is forthrightly and vehemently opposed to Donald J. Trump. Oh, and equally opposed to Hillary Clinton.

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

On at least one issue, at least one regime official gets it - and it's not the Most Equal Comrade

SecDef Ash Carter is so alarmed by Russia's recent machinations that he's speaking out about it and taking action:

There’s a certain quality of leadership that people appreciate — a blunt recognition of reality, and a reorienting of policy toward national and international interests. Usually people look to the Oval Office for that quality, but these days the only apparent source comes from the Pentagon. While the White House blathers about safety issues after Russian provocations, President Defense Secretary Ash Carter minces no words about the threat Vladimir Putin represents and Russia’s return to nuclear brinksmanship against the West:
Defense Secretary Ash Carter is criticizing Russia for aggression in Europe and is promising to continue a military buildup to deter war on NATO’s eastern flank.
In remarks Tuesday at a ceremony installing a new commander of U.S. Forces in Europe, Carter said he is particularly troubled by what he called Russian “nuclear saber-rattling.”
Carter plans to put his money where his mouth is. He discussed a new rotating deployment of up to 4,000 troops in the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, NATO members who have become unnerved about Russian aggression. Carter envisions four battalions of troops, adding to 4200 US forces who have already been deployed to the region.
 Good on him.


The very last glimmer of twilight

I just came across one of those columns that I want to excerpt from, but feel so strongly that you ought to read the whole thing that it will be difficult to resist the temptation to reprint it in its entirety.

It's the latest from Dennis Prager. I'll give you the first few paragraphs in which he lays out his overall point:

As of tonight, we may know if Donald Trump will be the Republican presidential candidate. And, barring unforeseeable events, it is certain that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Those are two reasons -- of many, unfortunately -- why, other than the first years of the Civil War, when the survival of the United States as one country was in jeopardy, there has never been a darker time in American history.

The various major wars -- the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam wars -- were worse in terms of American lives lost.

The Great Depression was worse in economic terms.

There were more riots during the Vietnam War era.

But at no other time has there been as much pessimism -- valid pessimism, moreover -- about America's future as there is today.

He then enumerates his reasons - beyond what increasingly appears to be our choices for president - and I'll summarize most of them, letting Prager take the stage for a couple I feel to be of paramount importance.

He mentions the antics of the speech police.

This one, I think, is at the core of post-America's present darkness:

According to a series of Harvard University polls, about 47 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 believe that food, shelter and health care "are a right that government should provide to those unable to afford them." That means that nearly half our young believe they have a legitimate claim on the labor and earnings of others for life's basic necessities. 
He talks about how the nation's young don't give a rip about the Founding Fathers, mainly thinking of them as privileged white guys. And

And maybe their distorted view of what rights are stems from something else Prager mentions: their condescending dismissal of the assertion that rights come from God.

The next one also merits its full reprinting:

The view that male and female are distinctive identities -- one of the few unquestioned foundational views of every society in history -- is being obliterated. Simply saying that one believes (all things being equal) a child does best starting out life with a married father and mother will ensure they'll be considered a "hater."
He then points out that many university campuses are lacking an American flag.

I'm going to reprint the next several:

Religious institutions, which, for most of American history, have been the most important institutions in everyday American life, are being rendered irrelevant. And a larger number of Americans, many more than ever before, do not identify with any religion.

The traditional family has become nothing more than one of many options open to Americans. For the first time in American history there are more unmarried women than married women. The number of adults age 34 and under who have never been married is nearing 50 percent. In recent years, data showed just 20 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 are wedded, compared to nearly 60 percent in 1960. Additionally, more than 40 percent of American births are to unmarried women. Among Hispanic women the percent is over 53, and among black women the rate is over 71 percent.
Universities (outside the natural sciences and mathematics), are intellectual frauds. In terms of ability to think clearly, they actually make most students dumber than before they entered college. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens wrote recently, "American academia is, by and large, idiotic." 
National, state and city governments have no doubt largely engaged in Ponzi-scheme-like practices, racking up levels of debt that will crush the economy of the country sooner or later.

The size of the federal government, and its far-reaching meddling in and control over Americans' lives, is the very thing America was founded to avoid.
The arts are as fraudulent as academia. Artistic standards have been destroyed. In music, art and architecture, nonsense and ugliness have replaced the pursuit of meaning, edification and beauty. The scatological have replaced the noble.
So it is no surprise that the ultimate political products of a culture so rotten would be Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

I write this blog from Indiana, the state that is the focus of all eyes today. If a miracle delivering us from the final extinguishing of the last ray of the setting sun of God's blessing is to occur, it must be in this state by 6 o'clock this evening.

It's a long shot, as everyone by now acknowledges.

I'm not optimistic, and neither is Pager. His qualification of his pessimism, though, is the same as mine:

I will not end on a happy note because there isn't one; but neither will I despair.

One doesn't fight only when one is optimistic. One fights because it is the right thing to do, and because America remains, as Lincoln said, "the last best hope of earth."
You never surrender your breastplate and armor. Not if you love that which is good and true and right.


 

Sunday, May 1, 2016

The impossible cost of regarding government as an agent of amelioration for the impact of sickness and old age

Robert Tracinski at The Federalist succinctly looks at the effects of imbuing government with functions beyond those specific in the Constitution:

In response to my speculation that we’re going to end up reforming Social Security by letting it break, several people told me—disapprovingly, which is good for them—that politicians will just fill the gap the way they always have, by borrowing more money.
Well, here’s the thing about that. They can try borrowing their way out of this, but by the time Social Security breaks down for good, 19 years from now, they might find it a bit difficult.
Why? Because borrowing endless sums of money is how we’re alreadypapering over the fiscal unsustainability of the middle-class welfare state.
It’s middle-class welfare that drives the budget. That’s my answer to people who tell me we can deal with the problem by cutting “corporate welfare” or foreign aid or NASA space missions. Look at the federal budget. Aside from national defense—the only really big federal expenditure that’s actually mandated in the Constitution—federal spending is absolutely dominated by Social Security and Medicare. Even welfare to the poor—like food stamps or Social Security Disability, which has become de facto welfare for the long-term unemployed—is secondary. Everything else is loose change.

Except for one other big expenditure: interest on the national debt, which is becoming bigger and bigger. By the time the next president completes two terms—based on the choice we’re about to make—interest on the national debt will be the third-largest item in the federal budget. Shortly before Social Security uses up all of its nominal reserves in 2035, interest on the debt will be the second-largest expenditure. A few years after that, it becomes the single-largest expenditure. We will be taking the lion’s share of government revenues and using them just to keep up the minimum payments on all the money we’ve borrowed for decades in the past. So don’t think we’ll just be able to go back to that well and borrow even more to save another failing government program.
These projections depend on the assumption that we do nothing to avert the problem. And that’s exactly what we’re doing.
But, of course, at this late date in post-America, rather than face it squarely, a large swath of the cattle-masses are falling for the straw men Squirrel Hair and his disgusting cheerleaders - and Bernie and his slavish devotees
 have set before us:

 
We still want the middle-class welfare state to work. When it doesn’t work, a whole lot of us don’t want to deal with the hard choices or question the basic ideas behind it. We want to find scapegoats like Chinese factories or Mexican immigrants (on the Right), or Wall Street and “billionaires” and the Koch brothers (on the Left).
This is what drives us conservatives up the wall. Our prescription - getting government out of the business of providing services - would work, and immediately. But that would require free individuals taking charge of their destinies.