Gay Patriot Header Image

The Left Actively Seeks Violence

It’s last year’s news, but worth remembering. George Soros, Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid (and probably still pay) protestors, not only to turn out and carry signs or chant slogans, but also to instigate violence.

YouTube Preview Image

Via Rush.

It’s on people’s radar in the last day or so because The Washington Post now says, who cares if these left-wing protestors are paid shills? So, what? Which is a shift: the Controlled Media used to simply deny that these left-wing protestors were paid shills.

The Very Deep Thoughts of Chelsea Clinton

Posted by V the K at 9:59 am - April 28, 2017.
Filed under: Hillary Clinton

Sentences… with… ellipses… are… really… annoying… and… fey.

For those who don’t know, DPRK is a parody account. Chelsea Clinton’s tweet is real, though, AFAIK.

Honest Question: Is Chelsea Clinton genuinely this vapid, or is this the level she has to talk at to communicate with her Democrat voting base? (i.e. single/divorced middle-aged women who aren’t nearly as intelligent as they think themselves to be.)

What Deceit and Malice Look Like

First, some stuff that sounds almost reasonable (if a bit histrionic). From Hillary’s Twitter stream on Oct. 24, 2016:

Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election. That’s a direct threat to our democracy.

Per the Daily Caller link above, she went on to say:

That’s not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage [ed: like herself]…

[Trump is] denigrating—he’s talking down our democracy. I for one am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our major two parties would take that kind of position.

And this is from Hillary’s concession speech on Nov 9, 2016:

Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans…

We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought. But I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead…

…if we stand together and work together with respect for our differences, strength in our convictions and love for this nation, our best days are still ahead of us.

So far so good, right? But now from the new book “Shattered”:

That strategy [of blaming Russia, thus de-legitimizing the election – or trying to] had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

I added the emphasis – so that those who have eyes, may see.

Whoa…Hillary had a clue?

More from the new book, “Shattered”.

Hillary to an aide during the general: “I know I engender bad reactions from people.” And during the primaries: “I don’t understand what’s happening in the country.”

She was right. But maybe she only had that one clue. Because there’s this: “She has blamed [FBI Director] Comey for…his decision during the campaign’s final weeks to re-open a probe into her email use as secretary of state…”

A clueful Hillary would, instead, thank Comey for misleading people on her behalf and holding back her strongly-deserved indictments.

Classic

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 6:12 pm - April 18, 2017.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election,Hillary Clinton

The Hill is dribbling out more of the book, “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign.”

…members of the Clinton campaign reached out to [Bernie] Sanders aides in late September to share a script of an ad they wanted the Vermont senator to record.

In the ad, Sanders would tout Clinton for her education, healthcare and minimum wage proposals…

At the end of the script were the words: “I’m with her.”
“It’s so phony!” Sanders said. “I don’t want to say that.”

Sanders did not use the slogan in the ad.

…The ad was not used on television, but some of the shorter takes of Sanders were used online.

I’d love to see the full ad. I keep hearing that Hillary lost because Sanders voters stayed home (or some even went Trump).

Now we know what Trump is

A lot has happened in the last few weeks, to let us know what kind of president Trump is going to be.

He isn’t the new Hitler. And he isn’t the new Ronald Reagan. He’s Obama-Lite, or roughly what President Obama would have been if were saner and more authentically masculine and pro-American. (Like Obama, President Trump often talks about his own good intentions/hopes as if they were accomplishments.
They aren’t.) “The Swamp” and/or Deep State will stay in business for quite awhile yet. I suspect that Trump has cut some sort of deal with several of its important factions.

That still makes him 100 times better than Hillary.

Hillary would have done none of the above. On his own, Trump is not all that hot. But when compared to Hillary, he still is.

Conspiracy Theory Expert Weighs in on “Perfidious Russia Stole the Election for Trump”

Posted by V the K at 11:24 pm - April 16, 2017.
Filed under: Hillary Clinton,Unhinged Liberals

When a guy who professes to believe that Sarah Palin is not Trig Palin’s real mother and the whole pregnancy was faked tells you that “Russians hacked the election” is a stupid Conspiracy Theory, maybe you should give him a listen. Andrew Sullivan is now pointing out that the Democrats’ desperate thrashing of the Red Menace is just a tactic for Democrats to avoid any critical self-examination of their party or its policies.

It wasn’t Clinton’s fault, we’re told. It never is. It was the voters’ — those ungrateful, deplorable know-nothings! Their sexism defeated her (despite a majority of white women voting for Trump). A wave of misogyny defeated her (ditto). James Comey is to blame. Bernie Sanders’s campaign — because it highlighted her enmeshment with Wall Street, her brain-dead interventionism and her rapacious money-grubbing since she left the State Department — was the problem. Millennial feminists were guilty as well, for not seeing what an amazing crusader for their cause this candidate was. And this, of course, is how Clinton sees it as well: She wasn’t responsible for her own campaign — her staffers were.

Judging from responses, Democrats aren’t handling the harsh reality check very well.

Really @NYMag, We have had enough of this crap!!#HillaryClinton lost because of sexism, racism, and #Russia.

They were so close to having everything. They thought the eight years of bullying and persecuting all the people they hated (Christians, Conservatives, southerners, white men) were going to become permanent. They thought America would become a one-party leftist state like California. The election of Trump put these plans on hold, for a little while anyway. And now they are deranged.

Trump Nailed It, Hillary Is a Nasty Woman

Posted by V the K at 10:45 pm - April 12, 2017.
Filed under: Hillary Clinton

Campaign book is coming out. Pretty much what we already knew. Hillary was a nasty-tempered harridan who abused, berated, and belittled her staff constantly and blamed them for every campaign shortcoming. (Before she moved on to blaming Russia and Misogyny.) Bill also comes across as a d–k.

Hillary’s severe, controlled voice crackled through the line first. It carried the sound of a disappointed teacher or mother delivering a lecture before a whipping. That back end was left to Bill, who lashed out with abandon. Eyes cast downward, stomachs turning — both from the scare tactics and from their own revulsion at being chastised for Hillary’s failures — Hillary’s talented and accomplished team of professionals and loyalists simply took it. There was no arguing with Bill Clinton

You haven’t buried this thing, the ruddy-cheeked former president rasped. You haven’t figured out how to get Hillary’s core message to the voters. This has been dragging on for months, he thundered, and nothing you’ve done has made a damn bit of difference. Voters want to hear about Hillary’s plans for the economy, and you’re not making that happen. Now, do your damn jobs.

“Russia hacked our election”: False, on so many levels

V just nailed it, in another post:

“Those ignorant bitter-clinger hicks in flyover rust belt states hate women and are so stupid they fell for Russia’s tricks,” is the essence of [the Left’s explanation for the 2016 election].

In other words, saying “Russia hacked our election”…

  1. …is an insult – to the American people. That’s one thing wrong with it. But, there’s more.
  2. No one ever disputes that the DNC and Podesta e-mails that came out, were genuine. In other words: the hacking/leaking gave the voters true and relevant information about a major candidate’s wrong-doing and shady dealings.

    When I was a kid, we had the original “-gate” scandal. It was this thing called Watergate. One of Watergate’s lessons, supposedly, was that if a major politician is up to no good, it doesn’t matter how the information comes out. It’s only important that it comes out. So that the voters will know.

    Whoever leaked the DNC and Podesta emails didn’t “attack” or “harm” or “undermine” our democracy. They enhanced it. *Because* the information was 100% true and relevant in this case, the hackers/leakers did our democracy a big favor. Whoever they were.

  3. And, if we are supposed to worry about interference in our elections/democracy, then…
    • What about Hillary’s dependence on Saudi Arabian money? Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-gay and anti-woman countries on Earth. Can we talk about how Saudi Arabia has hacked our democracy?
    • Why don’t we talk about Bill and Hillary hacking our democracy, with their massive pay-for-play corruption and scandals? Or Hillary’s cheating in the debates? (part of what the e-mails exposed)
    • Why don’t we talk about the Controlled Media hacking our democracy, with their tyranny of Fake News?

      Remember the endless drumbeat about how Hillary is up in the polls, Hillary has it locked, Hillary is 95% sure to win. All that was Fake News intended to depress non-Hillary voters. That is: To suppress voter turnout!

      Hey, why don’t we talk about the known, active collusion in 2016 between the Controlled Media and Hillary campaign operatives?

    • Why don’t we talk about George Soros and the Left hacking our democracy, with all their paid/staged protests, violence, trolls and astro-turfing?
    • Why don’t we talk about U.S. interference in other countries’ elections? The CIA has interfered in German media and every German election since the end of World War II. Is Angela Merkel, then, illegitimate?
  4. Last but not least, let’s cover the reasons why Russia could easily NOT have had any part in the DNC or Podesta e-mail hacking/leaking.

If I missed another good reason, please add it in the comments.

My evolution on the topic of “war”

Just speaking for myself. After 9-11, I supported the war in Afghanistan because:

  • Killing al Qaeda terrorists seemed like a good idea, and the Taliban was harboring them.
  • It was only one war.
  • It was legal. (Congress authorized it. As did the United Nations, explicitly.)

A couple years later, I supported the Iraq war because:

  • Killing al Qaeda terrorists seemed like a good idea, and Saddam had begun to harbor some who had just fled from Afghanistan, like Zarqawi.
  • Whether or not Saddam Hussein had ready-to-go WMD, getting him and his thugs off the world stage seemed like a good idea.
  • It was only a second war.
  • It was legal. (Congress authorized it. As did the United Nations, more or less.)

By 2008, both wars seemed almost to be won. Their endings were in sight. But then a strange thing happened.

America elected a feckless socialist (Barack Obama) as President. He promised indeed to end the above two wars. But he didn’t. He messed up our winning positions; meaning the wars dragged on.

Even worse, he started more wars. All were illegal (not authorized beforehand by Congress). All were disastrous.

  • His (and Hillary’s) Libya war destabilized all of northern Africa and eventually drowned Europe in “migrants”.
  • His Ukraine coup (and the war/tensions that followed) was an unprecedented and deliberate rattling of the Russian bear’s cage, re-opening the Cold War that had been won in the 1980s and settled in the 1990s.
  • His Syria war fueled the rise of ISIS in Iraq. (Since ISIS and the Syrian rebels overlap quite a bit, aid to the Syrian rebels quickly becomes ‘de facto’ aid to ISIS.)
  • His Saudi friends’ war in Yemen is no help to anyone.

For the first time in U.S. history, we were at war every single day of someone’s 8-year presidency. And his preferred successor (Hillary Clinton) wanted to extend those wars. The U.S. has “achieved” an Orwellian state of Continuous War. That’s bad.

Ever read Thucydides? Athens – the progressive, open, commercial-democratic society of that era – failed. Basically, she over-extended herself in too many wars. She couldn’t afford them – whether financially, militarily, politically or morally. I don’t think we can, either.

Sometimes it’s better to retreat and retrench, and patriotic to advocate for it. If you catch me striking a different tone on our wars than I did 5-10 years ago, that’s why.

We should shore up our borders and defenses, our infrastructure, our industry, our national finances, our energy independence, and our commitment to liberty, here at home. We can probably still keep our commitments to Europe, Japan, Korea and Israel (which means I’m no isolationist). But, apart from the historical commitments just mentioned, we should accept a multi-polar world order and NOT look for wars to get into.

In my opinion. Please feel free to criticize or to state yours, in the comments.

It’s Not the Patriarchy, Stupids

Posted by V the K at 8:43 am - March 9, 2017.
Filed under: Donald Trump,Hillary Clinton

There is a conceit on the Left that Hillary lost because she’s a woman; and not because she is a corrupt, decrepit, dishonest left-wing politician with the charm of an IRS audit, the engaging demeanor of a Soviet bureaucrat, and the sincerity of a used car salesman who furthermore represented a continuation of the failed, warmed over socialism policies of Barack Obama.

So, as an experiment intended to demonstrate that Hillary was biased against on account of her sex, an NYU professor decided to restage a Hillary-Trump presidential debate with a woman reciting Trump’s lines and a man reciting Hillary’s. This would demonstrate, so the designers of the experiment thought, that the audience was biased to give Trump (as a man) more credit than Hillary (as a woman).

In fact, it demonstrated the opposite.

Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in (the actor playing Male Hillary) what they had admired in Hillary Clinton–or that (the actress playing female Donald Trump)’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered…

We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened” — meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman–that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.

No matter who said Hillary’s lines, they came across as robotic, prepackaged, pablum.  (Because they were.) Whereas Trump’s lines came across as sharp. It was not because she was a woman.

Conservatives have never had trouble with women politicians. Margaret Thatcher was a conservative hero. But conservatives don’t embrace the idea that someone deserves to win just because she is a woman. Leftists believe that. And they believe you’re a misogynist for not also believing that.

Who Knew Donald Trump Was Once a Pretty Little Girl?

Posted by V the K at 9:04 am - January 20, 2017.
Filed under: Hillary Clinton

Someone dug this up today.

untitledb

The 2016 Election in Three Memes

Last Tuesday, Obama gave his “farewell” address, which prompted all sorts of ridiculous, weepy posts from Obama supporters about how “classy” he was and how much they would miss him, and how his administration was “scandal-free.” Needless to say, these folks will remain clueless as to why Trump won in November as long as they put Obama on a pedestal. Most of us don’t remember the last eight years with any fondness at all. Instead, we remember a thin-skinned, spiteful, petty man who always had his mind set on one thing, and that was advancing his own power and his party’s grip on power.

Back in October 2013, I wrote a post where I called Obama’s administration the Dawn Davenport Presidency, and it has remained as true in the intervening years as it was then. At the time, I used the website meme creator to create a meme which I considered using to illustrate that post, but I didn’t post it at the time. Now that there are only five days remaining in Obama’s second term, I am bringing it back, because it provides one explanation for what happened with the voters in 2016.

Of course, this election was also about Hillary Clinton.

In the past week, there has been a lot of buzz about Meryl Streep’s harangue at the Golden Globe Awards. Over the summer, though, Streep also attracted attention for two things, her film about Florence Foster Jenkins, and her deranged appearance during her speech at the Democrat National Convention in August. The Jenkins film was what interested me, though, because it seemed to offer a perfect metaphor for Clinton’s political career. Florence Foster Jenkins was famous for having a tin ear and little talent in her chosen field. She benefited largely from her husband’s connections.

Last February at ZeroHedge, I saw a great post outlining Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign Policy Catastrophes where a commenter named Elliott Eldrich memorably declared: “Hillary’s greatest ability is her uncanny talent for producing the most wretched results imaginable, and then loudly claiming how amazing her accomplishments are. I believe it’s because she somehow manages to convince herself of this first, which makes selling it to others all the easier. She’s the Florence Foster Jenkins of statecraft.”
(more…)

What Happens When Influence Peddlers Have No More Influence to Peddle

Posted by V the K at 11:54 am - January 15, 2017.
Filed under: Hillary Clinton

The Clinton Global Initiative Money Laundering operation has started laying off employees.

Clinton Global Initiative will be closing and discharging 22 employees 4/15/2017.

74 employees were previously let go at the end of December, according to other WARN filings.

The Clinton Global Initiative is like a company whose one product it had to sell (access to a Hillary Clinton presidency) has turned all Zune-New Coke-yogurt shampoo on them.

I don’t remember a single leftist being upset about the Clintons selling access and political favors through the CGI, do you? Nor do I recall any leftists being upset that the ‘charity’ was used by Hillary Clinton as a tax dodge. Say what you will about Donald Trump, you can’t say that the Right has been reluctant to criticize him.

HotAir says directly what I was merely implying: If the Clinton’s Foundation is a legitimate charity devoted to good causes, then why shut it down now? Presumably, whatever good they claimed they were doing still needs to be done, so why not continue?

And while we’re on the topic of corruption and Democrats being totes okay as long as it benefits them.

A consortium whose lead firm is controlled by Richard Blum, husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, was awarded a nearly billion-dollar contract for the construction of the first phase of the so-called high-speed rail line to link San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Thank You Forever, Vladimir Putin*

Kurt Schlichter describes the alternate reality in which we’d be saying ‘Madame President.”

Hillary announced an ambitious agenda for her first 100 days. There was the new law designed to circumvent Citizen’s United; Hillary fully expected her 5-4 liberal Supreme Court to uphold the provision imposing a two-year prison sentence on those making movies critical of progressive politicians. Similarly, Hillary was confident that the new high court would find another exception to the First Amendment to uphold the “Stop Hate Speech Act.” In conjunction with her “Fairness Doctrine” executive order, it promised to eliminate the unregulated cacophony of disruptive voices on radio, cable and on the internet in favor of a reasonable, gatekept consensus. It would also prevent people from writing books that spread dissent.

Then there was the fracking and oil drilling ban; the Saudis who had helped fund her campaign were delighted that America would turn its back on its hard-won energy independence. Noting that this would devastate Texas and other red states, John Podesta wrote, “That will show those yokels they best get in the Clinton Caboose next time.”

Hillary even had some Republican support. “I just adore Ms. Clinton and she can count on my loyalty and help,” said a smiling Lindsay Graham. “The key to a successful Republican opposition is cooperation and flexibility in our positions. I’m particularly excited about my new comprehensive immigration reform bill to bring these poor, innocent undocumented workers out of the shadows and into the voting booth!”

* Sarcasm

Watching Hillary Lose for the Fourth Time

Today’s electoral vote marks the fourth time Hillary Clinton has been defeated in her lifelong quest for ultimate power; the 2008 Primary (where she actually got more votes than Obama),  The Presidential Election of 2016, the recount of 2016, and now this.

Funny part is… because the Washington State Electors are certifiable goofballs…. she may end up with more faithless electors than the Trumpster.

WA Electoral college presidential results: 8 votes Hillary Clinton, 3 votes Colin Powell, 1 “Faith Spotted Eagle”

WA Electoral College Vice Presidential results: 8 Votes Tim Kaine, 1 vote Elizabeth Warren, 1 Maria Cantwell, 1 Susan Collins, 1 Winona Duke

The Russians must have gotten to them.

Update: Another Hillary elector defects. I guess a pledge to support Hillary means about as much as a pledge to leave the country, or a pledge not to contest the election results.

Update: And another.

Funny how the faithless Trump elector (and con artist) Chris Suprun is a hero on CNN and in the NY Times, but these faithless Hillary electors are of no media interest.

Update: Two Trump defectors from Texas; one being the con artist. Still, fewer than Hillary. And a lot fewer than the left was claiming they had a week ago.

Update:  Trump wins. Democrats react with their customary level of class and maturity.

“Climate of Hate” update again

I hope future readers (if any) realize that the title is ironic. Left-liberals claim that we’re living in a climate of hate. If we are: It’s the hatred that is spewed by America’s Left.

First: Yesterday, President Obama clarified that he will NOT call off the anti-Trump protestors.

“I would not advise people who feel strongly or are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised over the course of the campaign, I would not advise them to be silent,” Obama said during a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Obama said protests are just something Trump would have to get used to as the leader of the free world.

“I’ve been the subject of protests during the course of my eight years,” he said. “And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests.”

…Obama [said] that the right of free speech should be exercised…

Let’s be clear: This is beyond baloney. Obama never faced protests where conservatives smashed windows, set fires, and physically attacked his supporters in the streets. Destroying property and people isn’t “free speech”.

As lefties told everyone last spring, when the Left’s paid agitators were trying to foment violence at Trump rallies: The leader’s duty to denounce the violence and insist on peaceful speech/protest from his supporters. That is Obama’s duty, now. Once more, the clown Obama disgraces America and himself.

And by the way: Obama didn’t face protestors in any number, until long after he was sworn in and did some (bad) things. While we’re at it, Merkel’s Germany does not let German citizens have free speech. The article describes Germans who were threatened with jail for criticizing Germany’s refugee influx on social media. Pathetic!

Some other items:

Hillary Clinton Seems to Have Fired Her Stylist

Posted by V the K at 8:43 am - November 18, 2016.
Filed under: Hillary Clinton

3a76131200000578-3945330-image-a-6_1479385756940

Yikes.

Perhaps, it is a bit petty and sexist to pick on her looks. I’m not really thinking about that.

I’m thinking about the immense effort and expense it took the Hillary campaign to make her look like something she isn’t; to make her look more attractive, more presentable, more relatable. And how the façade was utterly dropped the moment the campaign was over.

What I’m saying is, there’s a metaphor in there somewhere.

Caution: The real election is yet to come

The U.S. has an Electoral College system and, playing under those rules, President-Elect Trump on Nov. 8 won a majority of electors who are pledged to vote for him.

The operative word is, “pledged”. Keeping the pledge is voluntary. [Update/correction: In some states. Commentors pointed out that it’s mandatory in others.] The real election for President happens now through December 19, with the votes counted on January 6. And for many lefties, It’s Still Awn.

Per BuzzFeed, Anti-Trump Protesters Post Personal Information Of Electoral College Members. With an intent, naturally, to defeat Trump / elect Hillary.

The #NotMyPresident Alliance, a national anti-Donald Trump protest group, has released the personal information of dozens of Electoral College members in states that voted Republican. [ed: Note, only the Republicans]

…The group hopes that its members and citizens around the country will contact electors and persuade them to change their vote from Donald Trump to another candidate… [ed: which could only mean Hillary, though the group tries to deny it]

So far as I know, an elector can legally vote for whomever she wants; voting for her pledged candidate is only customary. [Update/correction: In some states. Commentors pointed out that it’s mandatory in others.] I don’t think Hillary’s chances of success are great; but Trump is a fool, if he thinks Hillary has zero chance and he fails to take this seriously.

As to the anti-Trump protests: The article hints at some lefties hoping the protests will sway electors away from Trump. On that point, they’re probably wrong. But, could it explain why President Obama, Hillary Clinton and even Bernie Sanders have said so little to stop the protests?

Do You Think This Is True?

Posted by V the K at 6:54 pm - November 15, 2016.
Filed under: Hillary Clinton

I hope it isn’t because I hate to think that someone like this was thisclose to ultimate political power.

Sources have told The American Spectator that on Tuesday night, after Hillary realized she had lost, she went into a rage. Secret Service officers told at least one source that she began yelling, screaming obscenities, and pounding furniture. She picked up objects and threw them at attendants and staff. She was in an uncontrollable rage. Her aides could not allow her to come out in public. It would take her hours to calm down. As has been reported for years, her violent temper got the best of her. Talk about having a temperament ill-suited for having access to the atomic bomb.

Also, Hillary’s people are determined to learn nothing from this disaster. This is how one supporter is rationalizing why Hillary did not get more of the women’s vote, and it has nothing to do with women voters rationally assessing Hillary Clinton’s corruption, dishonesty, and long history of pursuing disastrous policies.

“Internalized misogyny is a real thing and it’s something we have to be talking about,” McIntosh answered. “The president said it the best during this whole campaign. We as a society react poorly to women seeking positions of power.”