The Democrat Media Complex will always be in the tank for whoever the Democrat nominee is; but given the scope and depth of Hillary’s corruption, this year, they have to be wearing scuba gear.
The best part about this ABC News interview with Milo is watching their “correspondent” constantly clutch at his pearls at the “mean” and “outrageous” things Milo has to say. Like, how dare he suggest that Leslie Jones isn’t attractive and Amy Schumer isn’t funny.
The pretentious intro is a hoot, as Asian reporter Tricia Takanawa intones, with a mix of anger and purpose, “Tonight, we confront… the Dark Side of Social Media.”
Apparently, confronting the Dark Side of Social media consists of sitting on a park bench talking to a gay guy.
So, judging by what I caught on CNN this morning:
- An Olympic swimmer having a run-in with the Rio constabulary is a Major Story.
- Donald Trump apologizing for stuff he said is a Major Story.
- Hillary Clinton running the State Department as a Pay-for-Play operation, on the other hand, is *Not* a major story.
- Barack Obama paying off the Iranians is also *Not* a major story.
If Trump wins, expect to find him decorating the Oval Office with Hillary Clinton’s taxidermied head – and expect to find me breaking rocks in a Trumpian labor and re-education camp along with all the rest of America’s journalists, its intellectuals, non-Christians, immigrants and people of color.
You know there’s a Dem in the WH when he golfs in MV as Louisiana’s flooded by historic rain, & MSM is excited Justin Bieber quit Instagram.
— Razor (@hale_razor) August 17, 2016
Since the MFM are giving Donald Trump grief for his assertion that Barack Obama founded ISIS, I thought it might be a fun exercise to go through a few things Democrats have posited over the years:
- George W. Bush sent Hurricane Katrina to kill black people.
- George W. Bush was responsible for the terror attacks on 9-11.
- George W. Bush invaded Iraq to steal its oil.
- George H. W. Bush gave Saddam Hussein the go-ahead to invade Kuwait so he could invade it right back and take the oil.
- George H.W. Bush flew to Iran to delay the release of hostages and help Ronald Reagan win the presidency.
- Ronald Reagan caused the AIDS epidemic.
- Ronald Reagan deliberately spread crack into the Inner Cities.
I trust you’re all with me that this media-little-girl-hysteria that “Trump threatened to assassinate Hillary” is a complete load, right?
Today at a press conference, a
Democrat Media Operative reporter was pestering Donald Trump that he should feel bad about joking that the Russians should release the rest of Hillary’s emails. He shut her up by saying, “Be quiet. I know you want to save her.”
He’s right you know. The news media is part of the left, and they always have been.
You can start the timeline as far back as the World War II era. In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt told the country that if Republicans were returned to power, “even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of fascism here at home.” The press nodded along.
In 1964, CBS News’s Daniel Schorr claimed that Barry Goldwater’s planned post-convention vacation in Europe was really an effort to coordinate with “right-wing Germans” in “Hitler’s one-time stomping ground.”
Although I’ve only been a lurker and occasional commenter at GayPatriot over the past two and a half years (between working full-time, earning another degree, and making a move, I haven’t felt like I had much time for blogging), I still check in regularly to see what’s going on and what people are talking about. From comments V the K, ColoradoPatriot and the other contributors have made here, I gather I’m in the minority among the blog contributors–but in sync with many readers and commenters–in my willingness to support Trump in this election.
Trump was definitely not my first choice: I would have originally put him somewhere near the middle of the pack of 17 declared candidates, and, among the final four candidates, I would definitely have preferred Cruz. As someone who considers himself a constitutional conservative, I would have preferred a nominee with a clear record of supporting such principles, but now that Trump is the Republican nominee, I am willing to back him.
My willingness does not come from blind party loyalty, but instead, from a clear understanding of my priorities and what is at stake in this election. While I am more than conversant with Trump’s faults, as I will explain below, even some of his faults provide good reasons for backing him rather than voting in a way that would–directly or indirectly–lead to a victory for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
Although I could begin by outlining my points of agreement with Trump and then detailing and responding to various points of concern, others have done so already elsewhere, and for the sake of my particular argument, at this point, it is more useful to say a few words about my philosophy of voting. While many people hew to an idealistic vision of voting whereby you are supposed to vote for the person who shares most of your views or principles, anyone who has been voting very long quickly realizes that such a vision rarely squares with reality. So what to do? One can vote, as the saying usually goes, for “the lesser of two evils,” which is how many of the people I know think about voting in presidential races, or one can approach it in some other way. Some people say they vote for issues rather than parties or candidates, others say they vote for the person and not the party, and still others have other approaches.
Many people’s views on voting evolve over their lifetimes. During Bill Clinton’s first term, it became evident to me that voting on character was in many respects more important than voting on issues because I’d rather vote for a person of character who will try to do what he says he will do, than for a slippery, dishonest snake who will lie and “triangulate” and poll-test all of his positions just for the sake of holding on to power. I reasoned that even when I disagree with the person of character, I can act on that disagreement to oppose policies or proposals that I disagree with.
But what happens when all of the candidates seem to have objectionable characters in some respect or another, and no candidate adequately represents your views on the issues? One response is to throw up your hands and say you won’t be part of the process, and many say they are going to do that this year. My response is to say that in such a situation, one has to vote strategically in order to best achieve one’s objectives.
Anyone who has ever taken a class in strategy or game theory will have come across topics such as decision trees, Nash equilibriums, and games such as the prisoner’s dilemma. Without going into too much detail, what one learns from studying such matters is that often the best strategic choice is not necessarily the choice that appears to be in one’s best interest at first glance. Sometimes the best strategic choice involves taking risks that one wouldn’t ordinarily decide to choose.
In this election, as a constitutional conservative, I believe that in a contest between Trump, Clinton, and a variety of third-party candidates, voting for Trump offers the best strategic choice for advancing constitutional conservative principles. I say that while fully recognizing that Trump is more of an opportunist than he is a conservative.
But let’s examine the situation. We know that Hillary Clinton is no constitutional conservative. We also know that Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, an opportunist willing to “triangulate” for the sake of power. Hillary is a committed leftist who is proud to think of Republicans as “enemies.” That’s not hyperbole, but Hillary’s own words from one of the debates. She views herself as a “progressive…who can get things done.”
During her time in the Senate, Hillary had tried to craft an image as a somewhat “moderate” Democrat, but that didn’t help her against the leftist Obama in 2008, who not only appealed more to their party’s leftist base, but, as a relative unknown, had none of Hillary’s baggage and the added bonus of more melanin. When she became Secretary of State, however, she quickly reverted to the kinds of behaviors that had earned her so much distrust during her husband’s time as president. And with the Clinton Foundation, she and her husband had found a new way to enrich themselves through their so-called “public service.”
So what would a Hillary Clinton presidency look like? This excellent piece written a few months back by the always worthwhile Daniel Greenfield offers a persuasive preview:
The national debt will go up. So will your taxes. Hillary Clinton is promising a trillion dollar tax hike. And that’s during her campaign. Imagine how much she will really raise taxes once she’s actually in office.
Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy will likely leave office on her watch. That’s in addition to Scalia’s empty seat which she will fill resulting in an ideological switch for the court. Additionally, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was a swing vote. Hillary’s appointee won’t be swinging anywhere. The Supreme Court will once again become a reliable left-wing bastion.
Even if the Democrats never manage to retake Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own terms without facing any real challenges.
And they will use it. Your life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only accelerate.
You will have less free speech. You will pay more for everything. Your children and grandchildren will be taught to hate you twice as hard. Local democracy will continue being eroded. Your community, your school, your town, your city and your state will be run out of D.C. You will live under the shadow of being arrested for violating some regulation that you never even heard of before.
Every day you will notice basic aspects of life that you took for granted just vanishing while a carefully selected multicultural audience cheers on television.
Hillary Clinton had a man sent to jail for uploading a video about Mohammed. What do you think she’ll do to even more vocal critics of Islam? How long will it be until a new Supreme Court decides that a Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not protected by the Constitution?
I wish I could say Greenfield is exaggerating, but I know that he is not. As Glenn Reynolds always says, read the whole thing.
And I haven’t even touched on the reckless dishonesty and unquestionable corruption of the Clintons. As Fred Barnes noted in a recent piece, “Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to get this close to becoming president of the United States.” Barnes notes:
Is there any public figure who lies as routinely as Clinton? Not in my lifetime in Washington. Not Richard Nixon. Not LBJ. Not Donald Trump. Not even Bill Clinton. She skillfully, though probably unconsciously, spreads out her lies to lessen the impact. But when you pack them together, as Rep. Trey Gowdy did while questioning FBI director James Comey at a House hearing, they’re shocking.
And in that case, he is just talking about the e-mail scandal. The Clinton Foundation is another story completely, and an even more appalling one on its face.
The Clintons are so unscrupulous in their quest to gain and hold on to power while enriching themselves that they could teach a graduate-level course on political corruption and political machines that might shock the denizens of Tammany Hall.
For those reasons and many more, my political position this year has always been one of “Never Hillary.” Hillary Clinton must not become president. If she does at this point in time, the damage she will be able to do to the country will be irreversible.
So then, why Donald Trump? Honestly the main reason, the most basic reason, is that Hillary is a guaranteed disaster, and Trump is admittedly a gamble, but in a desperate situation a gamble is the best choice.
I’m more than sufficiently aware of the case people make against Trump: he’s a narcissist, he’s dishonest, he’s impetuous, he’s unscrupulous, he’s not a “true conservative,” and, last but not least, he displays authoritarian tendencies in many of the things he says.
Of those, the most significant complaint is that he may have authoritarian tendencies, and that may appear to be the most challenging concern to reconcile with my claim that I consider myself a constitutional conservative. How can one vote for a candidate who may be tempted to act like an authoritarian after taking office?
For me, the answer to that question is one of faith, not in Trump, but in the genius of our constitutional system. Ever since it became evident that Trump would be the nominee, my thinking about this issue has remained the same: Trump may try for unconstitutional power grabs, but Congress and the courts can and will block him along the way.
The size of the U.S. deficit isn’t the only thing they lie about. Unemployment is another.
Last week, The New York Times trumpeted, Jobs Roar Back With Gain of 287,000 in June, Easing Worry, with the official unemployment rate at 4.9%. Isn’t it wonderful?
“Wow, this one takes my breath away,” said Diane Swonk, an independent economist in Chicago.
Ooh, she’s “independent” – that makes her reaction valid! But here’s the real story.
- The same jobs report has downward-revised the previous months’ numbers (from bad to horrible).
- In the Bush years, the media would treat a jobs number in the 200k range as a crisis.
- The Obama so-called “recovery” is the Weakest. On. Record.
- Most of the jobs created in the Obama years, including the recent jobs report, are part-time and low-paying.
- In the Obama years, tens of millions of Americans have given up even hoping for a job. “Labor force participation” has plummeted to lows not seen since the 1970s.
- If we use the participation rate from early 2009 when Obama took office, the unemployment rate is 11%. (And that’s ignoring under-employment / the part-time jobs.)
- And no, the declining participation isn’t because “the Baby Boomers are retiring”. They’re not retiring. Under Obama, they can’t afford it. They’ve been coming out of retirement, to take those low-paying, part-time Obamajobs from young people.
- Young people face a crisis; many can’t get an entry-level job.
Perhaps this is why President Obama has the highest U.S. suicide rate in 30 years.
This quote is brilliant:
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
It’s usually attributed to Thomas Jefferson. It pops up on well-meaning Internet sites which favor liberty and sound money. Recent example here.
Unfortunately, Jefferson scholars say it’s a fake.
The first part of the quotation…has not been found anywhere in Thomas Jefferson’s writings…the words “inflation” and “deflation” are not documented until after Jefferson’s lifetime.
[The second and third parts are loose paraphrases of Jefferson...] The first known occurrence in print of the spurious first part with the two other quotations is in 1948…
Chalk it up to “Things that Jefferson should and probably would say, if he could see us now.” And always Google your quotes from dead people; especially if they’re too good to be true.
Addendum: Even though the Community Conservatives article linked above used a fake Jefferson quote, it had a number of other good things to say. For just one, it is the first place where I have seen the phrase “political/financial complex” to describe the elites who (mostly) rule us today.
I myself use (and I had the experience of coining) the phrase “Big Government / Big Banking complex.” Saying “political/financial complex” conveys the same idea – in fewer words. (But the same number of syllables. Odd.)
UPDATE and shifting topic, since this is sort of a Random Thoughts post: Here’s anti-Brexit harpie Christiane Amanpour trying to play ‘gotcha’ with Daniel Hannan of the pro-Brexit campaign, for nine minutes.
It’s a bit tragic. Hannan is clearly telling the truth and making good points. But Amanpour’s thinking is so cliched, so stuck, so “canalized” on her You Are All Racists narrative, that she can hardly let him talk, and ends up interviewing herself. She must have felt that she was scoring points on Hannan; others of us shake our heads at her foolishness and incompetence.
A Media Operative who covered the Democrats’ Gun Control Tantrum on the floor of the House of Representatives now says he feels like a ‘Stooge’ for letting the Democrats use him to promote their agenda, and now he feels dirty about it.
USA Today’s Washington correspondent Paul Singer is calling himself a “stooge” for covering the House Democrats’ anti-gun sit-in last week, saying the moment that representatives cheered the press for its coverage of the “stunt” was one of the most embarrassing moments of his journalism career.
The lawmakers then turned to the galleries and thanked the visitors for their support, and everybody cheered some more. That was another no-no — lawmakers are prohibited from acknowledging the galleries from the floor,” Mr. Singer wrote.
“And then, my moment of shame,” he continued. “Someone on the floor called out thanks to the press, saying our reporting had spread the word and fueled their protest. The 100-or-so Members of Congress on the floor and the several hundred partisans in the gallery cheered for us. My colleagues and I were mortified.”
Mr. Singer said he didn’t want any credit for “helping Democrats perpetrate what Republicans correctly labeled a ‘stunt.’”
It’s just now sinking into this “professional journalist” that the Democrat Party is just using him? Maybe the twenty-dollar bill Democrat politicians leave on his dresser after an ‘interview’ should have clued him in a long time ago.
The MSM is shameless. For example, when some gay Democrat radical Muslim slaughters LGBT clubgoers and then Anderson Cooper attacks the (Republican) Florida attorney general for not being sufficiently open to same sex marriage, it’s pretty clear whose team CNN is on.
Obama wants him some gun control and to distract the public from the fact that his PC-obsessed Government is not just failing to protect Americans from terrorists but actually adding to our peril, so the Democrat Media Operatives of the American Press are doing whatever they can to put Democrat propaganda out in the guise of “journalism.”
- A CBS News Democrat Media Operative reports that buying an AR-15 is as easy as buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Or it would be, if Starbucks required multiple forms of ID, passing a Federal background check, and filling out multiple federal forms.
- A Democrat Media Operative pulled the same cunning stunt in Philadelphia, again, succeeding only in proving that you can’t buy an AR-15 without multiple forms of ID, a lot of paperwork, and a criminal background check. Once she jumped through the hoops and received her weapon, the poor silly bint didn’t even know what to do with it.
- Gersh Kuntzman (which is apparently his real name) a Democrat Media Operative for the dying New York Daily News performed his cunning stunt by going to a range and firing an AR-15, and then reported on the experience using these exact words.
People who actually know something about guns are skeptical of his account, especially since even little girls can fire off AR-15′s with no problem:
The Gay Left Hype Machine eagerly hyped an incident at a Barbecue joint in New York City as “gay bash hate crime” because…. well, you know… playing the victim is very politically valuable to the Gay Left. But, as usual, another piece of evidence that Cis-Normative America is a nightmarish miasma of anti-gay violence has crumbled to dust in their dainty, well-manicured hands.
A Bronx man bashed a gay couple over the head with a chair inside a Chelsea BBQ joint after one of the men smacked him in the face with his purse, prosecutors said Tuesday at his Manhattan assault trial.
Yeah, only one problem… the accused gay basher “not only is gay but has been active in the LGBT community for more than 19 years.”
So, the “Hate Crime” turns out to be nothing but a drunken bar brawl between over-emotive drama queens.
The left will go on hating America (but not leaving), because they don’t really need evidence that their hatred is justified. They just need a Narrative with a lot of drama in which they are victims and everyone who disagrees with them is evil.
ICYMI, Sports Illustrated — a sports themed left-wing social propaganda publication — is going to put an old naked transsexual on its cover.
Caitlyn Jenner will appear on a summer cover of Sports Illustrated wearing “nothing but an American flag and her Olympic medal,” a source reveals in the latest issue of Us Weekly.
Because society (at least the left-wing elites who run the media) are so detached from reality that they think a 66-year-old with a penis is a beautiful woman.
It looks like Donald Trump made a smart move skipping the debate, since FoxNews had prepared a couple of ambush questions. One was from an illegal immigrant whose name translates as “Sweet Candy.” It says a lot about how deep we have sunk into Idiocracy that someone with the stripper name “Sweet Candy” is asking questions in a presidential debate.
The other ambush question was from an Islamist Bernie Sanders supporter. Why is an Islamist Bernie Sanders supporter asking questions during a Republican debate? FoxNews was trying *way* too hard to prove “See, we’re not in the tank for Republicans. Look how tough we can be.” Anyway, the Islamist said that the USA was a “culture of hatred,” and asked “As president, what would you do to address this toxic climate and promote increased tolerance in the United States?” Jeb Bush, at whom the question was directed, accepted the “Culture of Hatred” premise totally. If the USA were really that hateful toward Mohammedans 1. they wouldn’t be coming here and 2. There would have been Mohammedan blood in the streets after any of several Islamic massacres against Americans. So far, nada. Jews are the subject of three times as many “hate crimes” in the USA as Mohammedans.
Also, and I am sure this is just a coincidence, the owners and operators at FoxNews have donated millions to pro-illegal immigration/open borders groups.
If a Conservative publication published a cartoon depicting Obama’s children as monkeys, the Washington Post would probably be pretty outraged about that. On the other hand, a cartoon depicting Republican Ted Cruz’s children as monkeys… completely okay.
Can I just add something else? That cartoon is incredibly lame. There’s no humor, no irony, no cleverness. Just a hack cartoonist depicting the children of someone she disagrees with as monkeys. Is this what passes for insightful commentary at the Washington Post?