Gay Patriot Header Image

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.

Thought for the day

A sign seen at the recent Berkeley riots:

Hate speech IS Free speech

My thoughts on the above:

The Left tries to criminalize “hate speech” because, as Milo likes to point out, the Left wants to justify their own physical violence. Defining offensive speech as a crime will blur the line between speech and actions. Then lefties can claim that their many crimes of physical assault, vandalism, robbery, murder, etc., are self-defense, or justified by the victim’s beliefs/speech that are so offensive. Muslims try to pull the same trick.

I believe in keeping a strong line between speech and actions. For example, I believe that someone’s taunting (words) or alleged political-social beliefs or drawings of Mohammed can never justify your throwing the first punch at them.

The world does have some hateful people in it and genuine occurrences of “hate speech” – and I don’t like them. But that’s what my own right of free speech is for: to refute others’ dumb/wrong speech. And my right to free association, also: so that I may avoid people I don’t like, kick them out of my own house at least, and so on.

In this dim and confused world, any truthful speech will offend somebody, somewhere. The right to speak your conscience freely is the same as the right to say things that will offend others and hurt their feelings. The two are inseparable.

From the comments: A pointer to the Neal Boortz quote,

Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

UPDATE: On April 20 and as if on cue, Howard Dean said “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.” Wrong, Mr. Dean. Threats and “fighting words” may not be protected, but Ann Coulter’s political speech (what you choose to call “hate speech”) is protected. And should be.

More conspiracy theories become fact – partly, sort of

On April 8, Cernovich Media claimed that National Security Advisor “H. R. McMaster [is] Manipulating Intelligence Reports to Trump, Wants 150,000 Ground Soldiers in Syria”.

Today, Eli Lake at Bloomberg confirms that McMaster wants to send up to 50,000 ground troops to Syria. And “has been quietly pressing his colleagues to question the underlying assumptions of a draft war plan against the Islamic State that would maintain only a light U.S. ground troop presence in Syria…to facilitate a better interagency process to develop Trump’s new strategy to defeat [ISIS].”

The real news is that Trump has said no to McMaster – at least for the time being. Kudos to those GP commenters who advised me, more or less, that Trump is his own man and wouldn’ t automatically go with McMaster.

As to the rest: it sounds like Cernovich dropped the nuances and exaggerated what was left, but still got much of the essence. And ahead of Bloomberg. Here’s a similar example, this one with Judge Napolitano.

In March, Napolitano claimed that, in spying on Trump, Obama went around U.S. laws that would restrict such spying by having a British intelligence agency access the U.S. NSA surveillance databases, then pass along findings. Obama and the British denied it vehemently.

Today, CNN confirms that “British intelligence passed Trump associates’ communications with Russians on to US counterparts.” CNN suggests that the British did the surveilling themselves, a difference from Napolitano’s story. Still, the British did it under intelligence-sharing agreements and to me, it sounds like Napolitano was in the ballpark.

The real news is that CNN still has no substantive Russian collusion to report against Trump.

Democrats’ Psychotic Desire for War with Russia

I never thought I’d live in a world where Democrats – having been “peace loving” shills for the old Soviet Union, for so many decades – are eager for bellicose confrontation with Russia. But, here we are.

When Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D – HI), an Iraq war veteran, cautioned her fellow Democrats to slow down and remember the Iraq-WMD situation (such as the Left remembers it), Howard Dean called her a “disgrace” who “should not be in Congress”. So much for the Democrats’ brrrrave fight against misogyny.

Or, as Tucker Carlson put it last night:

Democrats are now the reflexive party of war — all wars, except those with an obvious benefit to us here in the United States. If there is a humanitarian quagmire on the other side of the globe, they are all for committing troops. And you better be for it, too, or they will denounce you.

One of Tucker’s guests was a Democrat strategist, Alfred Mottur. Video, some here and some here. After Mottur claims to be “heartened” by the rising tensions and that Russia “undoubtedly” or “aggressively” “interfered with our elections”, this exchange:

[Carlson] In what sense does this confrontation with Russia now ongoing make our country safer or more prosperous?

[Mottur] With respect to our elections, it makes us safer in our democratic processes to make sure that their integrity is preserved.

Got it? We must destroy American democracy in a potentially-nuclear conflict with Russia, in order to save it.

But note that when China, Saudi Arabia, or our own Deep State “interfere with our elections”, we don’t need to be confrontational with them. Or even talk about them. Oh no, don’t talk about their interference! Only Russia.

Some Democrats’ desire for war with Russia is as bad as some Republicans’ desire for war in Syria (that would likely lead to war with Russia).

The sad irony is that, as I posted a few days ago, Russia didn’t interfere with anything.

  1. Whoever hacked the DNC and Podesta e-mails did us all a favor. (Given that it resulted in 100% true and relevant information coming to the voters.)
  2. Plus, it probably wasn’t Russia. (See the links in that post.)

It seems that today’s Democrats are such psychotic babies that they would rather take us into confrontation with Russia than admit that they lost the 2016 election fairly, after they ran an awful candidate.

And IMO, it appears also as though Deep State’s “intelligence” leaks – all those NothingBurgers meant to make people think that Russia attacked our election, Russia colluded with President Trump who is Putin’s agent, etc. – could have been intentional War propaganda.

NB: I just corrected the spelling of Mottur’s name and improved the video links & transcript.

AP says: the United Nations runs child sex rings

Via the Toronto Star.

By Paisley Dodds
The Associated Press
Wed., April 12, 2017

In the ruins of a tropical hideaway…abandoned children tried to make a life for themselves…they never could scrape together enough to beat back the hunger, until the UN peacekeepers moved in a few blocks away.

The men who came from a far-away place and spoke a strange language offered the Haitian children cookies and other snacks. Sometimes they gave them a few dollars. But the price was high: The Sri Lankan peacekeepers wanted sex from girls and boys as young as 12.

…An Associated Press investigation of UN missions during the past 12 years found nearly 2,000 allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers and other personnel around the world — signalling the crisis is much larger than previously known. More than 300 of the allegations involved children, the AP found, but only a fraction of the alleged perpetrators served jail time.

…Here in Haiti, at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers exploited nine children in a sex ring from 2004 to 2007, according to an internal UN report obtained by the AP.

RTWT.

My thoughts:

  • These were OFFICIAL U.N. PEACEKEEPERS. “Blue helmets”
  • We’ve had rumors about U.N. pedophilia and child trafficking, for years.
  • The Controlled Media usually either ignores/buries this story, or goes out of its way to discredit the people saying it. So, the rumors have been mostly “fringe”.
  • If the Controlled Media is reporting on it now as a legitimate topic… Whoa. Could this be a one-off story? Or will it grow?
  • Hmm, Haiti. Is there anyone in U.S. politics who visited Haiti a lot in the 2000s to “help the kids”? Anyone famous and corrupt, who might have overlooked a few things at the least? But I don’t want to name names. Especially no names involving “pizza”, a cluster-F of a story if there ever was one.

“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.

The Tyranny of Fake News

I was advised to google “Syria hoax footage” and see what comes up. A lot comes up. For one thing, here’s video from November 2016 of Syrian “White Helmets” (a pro-rebel group; thus pro-Islamist) carefully STAGING a scene of man whose legs were supposedly crushed in a government attack.

YouTube Preview Image

They all scream on cue, at about 0:22. Afterward, the man – that is, the actor – looks cheerful and takes a photo with his fellow actors. Click here and scroll down to see.

CNN lately has been hitting the “Won’t somebody PLEEEZ think of the children??!” button extra hard, with its clips of Bana, an adorable, wide-eyed Syrian 7-year old who pleads for the freedom to play and go to school.

Here, CNN throws Bana into the face of a rather sensible Congressperson, starting around 1:50.

YouTube Preview Image

It turns out, of course, that each of Bana’s performances and Tweets are scripted and staged by her politically-motivated mother.

Note to CNN: A seven-year old isn’t a U.S. foreign policy expert. Her opinion, even if unscripted, would still be Fake News in the sense that it simply isn’t news. And oh yeah, if we did invade Syria (or bomb it further), it would become even harder for Bana to play or go to school. Tell her that.

The U.S. Intelligence and foreign policy bureaucrats (Deep State) wanted Hillary because, for some reason or other, they want a war in Syria at the least; if not a full-on war with Russia. Along with a few billionaires – like Carlos Slim (New York Times) and Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) and Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild (Economist magazine) and some others (Time-Warner / CNN) – the Deep State controls the proverbial Controlled Media, which spews War propaganda on command.

That’s reality. That is the world we live in: A tyranny in which relatively non-accountable, secretive bureaucrats manipulate the media – and have the media, in turn, manipulate us with FAKE NEWS.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that the recent Syria chemical attack was a hoax or a false flag. But it means that we’re right to wonder. We’re right to ask our leaders for caution. We’re right to question “the narrative.”


Guess what else? We just got a little more information on how it could have been the murdered DNC-insider Seth Rich, and not the Russians, who hacked/leaked the DNC emails in the 2016 election.

“The consensus of 17 intelligence agencies is that the Russians did it!!1!” was always a shaky story. For one thing, the DNC didn’t even allow the FBI in to look at the alleged crime scene for a couple of weeks after it happened.

Its investigation hampered, the FBI then relied mostly on a report of Russian hacking from CrowdStrike, a Democrat-funded company. And CrowdStrike’s report/story has been more or less debunked. The other 16 agencies then relied on the FBI. I say, phooey. This isn’t the first time the proverbial “17 intelligence agencies!” have gotten it wrong – or even tried to deceive us.

UPDATE: On further reflection, the GatewayPundit link above (after “Guess what else?”) is a NothingBurger. As such, I apologize for having brought up that link.

Nonetheless, Julian Assange of Wikileaks has strongly denied Russian involvement in the DNC leaks (try here) and implied that Seth Rich was his source (try here). That continues to be my hypothesis.

UPDATE: On the other side of the spectrum, Cernovich goes on a limb, claims that McMaster has been lying to Trump in an effort to get 150,000 boots on the ground in Syria. If true: it’s a bad moment for America. And if false: it’s a bad moment for Cernovich – who has been shaky on some things, and astoundingly right on some other things.

Lindsey Graham is insane

YouTube Preview Image

In the clip above: Senator Lindsey Graham (R – SC) takes the position that we should now fight ISIS plus every major faction in Syria at the same time plus the Russians if they should dare to oppose us, with ground troops and “advisers” to do nation-building in Syria, which somehow isn’t nation-building because it’s letting the “Syrians take care of Assad”, and all of which is directly needed to protect “the homeland” because it would have prevented 9-11 (a strike over here by Saudi terrorists) if only we had done it 16 years ago in Afghanistan. Also, it will save us money.

Even the intelligent Tucker Carlson can’t make sense of it.

Graham’s tone is so deadpan – so authentically uncaring about the lives involved, whether U.S. troops or Syrian locals or even U.S. taxpayers – that it gave me the creeps, once my head stopped spinning.

At the end of the clip, Carlson notes that articles in the Democrat-leaning New York Times and Washington Post have declared that anyone who would OPPOSE the U.S. bombing the brown people of Syria is somehow a “white nationalist”. Anyone who would oppose the Establishment’s new war plans is somehow – did you see this coming? – “racist, anti-Semitic and sexist”.

Do you need more evidence that, by now in 2017, America is in the grip of a war-mongering, out-of-control Deep State? Which opposed Trump fiercely – until a few days ago, when apparently he caved? And that what we have been calling “the mainstream/liberal media” and “the party Establishments” all this time are really the Deep State’s servants?

“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:

“Climate of Hate” update

Let’s catch up on how the left-wingers’ feared Climate of Hate is doing. Most of this is via Instapundit.

And, to give credit where it’s due: Tom Hanks Breaks from Hollywood Pack and Says He Hopes Trump Does Well.

“This is the United States of America. We’ll go on. There’s great like-minded people out there who are Americans first and Republicans or Democrats second,” Hanks told THR. “I hope the president-elect does such a great job that I vote for his re-election in four years.”

UPDATE: Good read from J.C. Bourke, Why All The Hippies Morphed Into Campus Fascists.

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?

CEO makes a death threat; is then shocked by death threats

Your Left at work:

YouTube Preview Image

The idiot made a detailed death threat against President-Elect Trump, on social media.

He was then surprised that it got out to society. You know, surprised that people on social media would be social with it.

He tried to plead that it was a joke, that it was alcohol-fueled, and that it was only meant to be private (i.e., he’s sorry he got caught). But those excuses didn’t stop his getting some death threats in return.

Surely those threats were also jokes, alcohol-fueled, and only meant to be private. Even so, when it was done to him, he was shocked – and for some reason he felt a need to go into hiding.

His former company, to its good credit, has gotten rid of him. And he has apologized; God bless him, for that. Hat tip HotAir.

UPDATE: Your Left at work, again. The Left’s New Hot Meme has arrived. Lefties will be labelling all news/opinion sites that dare challenge them as “Fake News”.

We can foresee what comes after: The Left will eventually get its “Fake News”-labelled sites to be banned or boycotted by Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, CNN.com, and so on. In this way, the Left will once again control all discussions and get the peasants to conform. Google has started going there.

UPDATE – Climate of Hate: Daisy Luther on how Obama, Clinton, and Sanders Could Stop the Riots But They Just Watch.

Leftism can make you suicidal

According to The Hill, Suicide hotlines receive record number of calls after Trump win.

Phones have been ringing off the hook at suicide hotlines since Donald Trump was named president-elect Tuesday.

According to multiple reports, many of those calling or texting into hotlines are members of the LGBTQ community, minorities and victims of sexual assault who are worried about Trump’s victory…

The article, to its credit, at least attempts to mention real-world facts that could be relevant:

On the campaign trail, Trump told Fox News that he hoped to put Supreme Court judges on the bench who could “change things” in regards to current rulings on same-sex marriage, adding that he wished the ruling “was done by state.”

Trump’s multiple accusations of sexual assault have also been triggers for women, as well as the lewd 2005 tape recording of Trump in which he makes light of sexual assault saying, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

But notice the bad job it does: the hysterical framing. For example, the repeated and vague use of the term “sexual assault” to imply great danger to women.

Fact: Trump does not condone rape and, unlike Bill Clinton, Trump has never been accused of rape. From what I remember of Trump’s comments, at worst, he condoned leaning in for a kiss or proposition after the other party had signaled her interest. And yes, that could be bad – because mistakes could be made; advances could be unwanted; cheating or diseases or painful regrets could happen if things did consensually go farther. Even so, sane people must admit that Trump does not rise to the level of “Bill Clinton bad”.

So, why this hysteria of feeling unsafe or “triggered” with Trump elected and not, say, with Bill Clinton around? Or with a prospect of Hillary Clinton being elected – given that she allegedly devastated the lives of women in helping to cover up her husband’s alleged raping? By any objective standard, the Clintons endanger women more than Trump does.

As to the gay-marriage aspect: The Supreme Court decision to make it nationwide was only last year. For thousands of years, gay men, women and teenagers have survived without that particular U.S. court decision. Believing that gay marriage should be decided by the States is hardly a dangerous position. Again, why the hysteria – among some people?

I believe the answer is this. Leftism harms you. As a philosophy, leftism discourages personal responsibility – and is objectively unrealistic. Therefore, it makes you less able to think clearly about your life; more mentally and emotionally vulnerable. Plus, in the specific case of 2016 and the Hillary Clinton campaign, leftism exposes you to manipulation via many untruths and exaggerations.

To anyone who may be genuinely suicidal over Trump’s election victory: You have my pity. Yes, that’s the correct word.

pit·y
noun
1. the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others.

Because your suffering, at least in regard to Trump, is unnecessary.

To be clear: I did not support Trump for President. And I have my doubts about what will happen now, with him. But I’m not suicidal about him. Neither was I suicidal about Obama. Why not? Because, at a fairly young age, I made a conscious choice to value my own life, to make it better no matter what, and to develop common sense and my ability to think about reality clearly.

To all sufferers of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome): There is still time for you to make good choices to improve your mental health and your life. I hope and pray that you will.

Could these things be connected?

Item 1: Over 2 Million Hillary Supporters Sign Petition To Overturn Election Results. This is spectacular hypocrisy and as well, unawareness of American civic practices (or how American democracy is supposed to work).

Item 2: In October, John Podesta (Hillary campaign chair) had a lot of his emails exposed. In one, his associate oddly mentions how they all “conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry”.

Seeming to refer to the decades-long dumbing-down of America, Podesta’s associate said:

And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.

(Emphasis added) Could these 2 developments be connected?

A study in contrasts

Two black women support LEGAL immigration (as do I), border security and Donald Trump. About a year ago they felt angry – and expressed themselves peacefully. (h/t CrayCrayPatriot for telling me about them)

YouTube Preview Image

That’s good.

Now for the contrast: Shamefully, two black men this week beat up a (perceived? real or imagined?) Trump voter. (h/t Zero Hedge and InfoWars)

That’s a disgrace.

The difference here isn’t race. Isn’t era. Isn’t oppression-privilege “experience” or dynamics. Isn’t anger level. Probably isn’t even gender, all that much (since some women do fight, and many men don’t).

The key difference is IDEAS – and MORAL CHARACTER.

As Aristotle is supposed to have said:

Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.

Exit question: Are Hillary or President Obama out there, telling people in no uncertain terms to calm down and accept the election’s outcome? (If yes: I’m glad, and feel free to post the link in the comments.)

UPDATE: Via ZH, a high school girl is attacked (by another high school girl) for supporting Trump. Pathetic!

YouTube Preview Image

Hillary: Held back by men?

How could Hillary of the House Clinton, First of her Name, Queen of the Little People and the Media, Protector of the Sixty States – have not been crowned?

Answer is below the fold. (more…)

Post-Trump

Good article from David Harsanyi, Democrats Have Only Themselves To Blame For Trump. A taste:

In all their vast coverage of agitated right-wingers, it may have escaped the attention of many in the media that over the past eight years the Democratic Party has moved dramatically to the left on an array of issues. It’s now a party of cultural imperialists and economic technocrats who want to rule through fiat. It is a party more comfortable coercing Americans who see the world differently than in convincing them. It is a movement propelled by a liberal punditry that’s stopped debating and resorted to smearing millions they disagree with.

And now, I’ll venture two predictions.

First, Hillary is done. You could say she’s young enough to run again. I say that she’s been hiding serious health issues (perhaps a contributing reason for the 10-hour delay in her concession speech). And under President Trump, she’ll be facing investigation for her long-standing corruption. Her balance of incentives will have shifted: it will be better for her to try to gain public sympathy, by playing the Brave Victim of Harrowing Illness. Which, shock of shocks, might even be somewhat truthful of her.

Next, media coverage of the economy will turn very negative. The economy has been quite poor for the last 8 years. The real unemployment rate, for example, is over 11%; not 4.9% as reported officially. The discrepancy arises from the MASSIVE drop in “labor force participation”, under President Obama. During his 8 years, tens of millions of Americans have given up even looking for a job. And once they stop looking, yup, they no longer count as unemployed.

That’s a scandal. And the media had zero interest in looking into it, because the answers would have reflected badly on Obama and Hillary. But, because (and only because) Trump will be President, the media will now discover this scandal and change their tune.

Another example: The economists and statisticians, I predict, will discover that the U.S. economy is in a recession. Not because the economy gets so much worse under Trump (although it might at first, if the current market-bubbles pop). Rather, because the economy has already been in a recession or close to it; and in order to nail President Trump, government-funded statisticians and talkers will now want to emphasize the bad. (Where before, they wanted to mask it.)

Mind you, these predictions might not happen tomorrow. Give me, say, up to a year.

Your predictions?

UPDATE – Made me laugh: John Ziegler of Mediaite thinks the reason Hillary lost is… because the media wasn’t enough on her side as they should have been. Yup. That’s what his stupid non-argument boils down to.

“Let Them Eat Cake 2016”

Posted by V the K at 8:57 am - October 24, 2016.
Filed under: National Politics

A leftist Hillary supporter at Bloomberg offers his advice to the political class on how to deal with the millions of Americans who will vote for Donald Trump because of their declining economic circumstances (driven by deliberate Government policy choices) and their sense that the Government has grown corrupt and indifferent: Ignore them.

Come Election Day, we should vote as though this election matters more than others. Fundamental political structures and moralityreally are at stake. And on Nov. 9, we should go back to pretending it never happened, and that in the words of Sinclair Lewis, it can’t happen here.

There’s a little bit of condescending lip-service in the piece of “Let’s sort of pretend Trump voters aren’t really ‘deplorables,’ for the sake of the country,” but overall the message is that the political class should just treat this as a brief national tantrum and move on with the progressive experiment.

I am pretty sure pretending Trump never happened and the concerns of his voters were illegitimate was what the Political Class was planning to do anyway: Hillary will propose policies and continue the Obama scheme of simply imposing them by executive fiat. Republicans will pretend to oppose some of these policies, but will fund them completely and do little to stop them while the parties and the Democrat Media Complex distract us with a circus of “investigations” that go nowhere and accomplish nothing.

These Are Things That Are Happening

Posted by V the K at 2:08 pm - October 17, 2016.
Filed under: National Politics

 A Republican Campaign Headquarters in North Carolina was firebombed over the weekend. I’m sure Obama’s FBI will be all over this. According to CNN, this is Trump’s fault.  Democrats are trying to do PR by donating money to the Republican Party so that the offices can be rebuilt… after the election, of course. They are giving the media cover to give the DNC positive press on this. However, the DNC has been encouraging violence against the Trump campaign.

That video, by the way, shows supposedly independent PAC operatives admitting that they coordinate with the DNC in violation of Federal Law. I’m sure Obama’s FBI will investigate thoroughly, right?

Guess what else the Democrat Left has in common with the Mohammedan Left? A shared belief that they are above the law.

The Director of the Dallas Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Mustafa Carroll, made a surprising and shocking statement during a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas. He firmly believes that the message of the Qur’an is supreme over the United States constitution. He said, “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.”

Also, the bitter old queens who run The Advocate still hate gay bazillionaire Peter Theil. They also declare that the laws in North Carolina and Mississippi that require people to use the restroom that corresponds to their genital plumbing are “devastating?” Really? Devastating? If you are such a delicate snowflake that using the right bathroom is “devastating,” you have issues, princess.

 

A Constitutional Conservative Case for Backing Trump in November

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.

(more…)