Morning Joe suffers from (EMS)elite media syndrome

Joe Scarborough may be a media guy and household name, but he appears to have choked on some coffee beans on this one.

Line up, Joe, and take a crack at the central question of the year: try to explain the phenomena of Trump’s candidacy and popularity? But 10 to 1 you get it wrong.
Washington Post April 26 (excerpts)

It is also about the humiliating defeat suffered by an increasingly isolated political and media class who still do not understand the causes and scope of Trump’s populist revolt. /

Time and again over the past year, Washington insiders and media moguls misread the mood of working-class voters and their attraction to the populist message championed by Trump./

So why did these “narrow elites” miss the mark so badly when the topic turned to Trump? Because most of them are hopelessly isolated from the other 300 million or so Americans who inconveniently share their country.

Read at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/26/trumps-sweep-is-another-humiliating-defeat-for-media-and-political-elites/

Seems Joe doesn’t know that much about the 300 million people either, or any more than the media elites he is criticizing do. What an egghead. The only part he got completely right is that media elite misread the mood of the people. Not that they care anyway.

Scarborough seems to delve into cliche explanations to make his case, never realizing how they undermined one another. He blames the media, moguls and concentrated elite, for not taking down Trump either earlier or at all. Well that is a stinging indictment of the media, of which he himself is a part. Right on, Joe. Then he blames Trump’s popularity as a celebrity for his political success. Talk about misreading.

He goes on to compare Donald’s TV stardom to Reagan’s popularity and success from his radio show. Then he drops this:

50 years later, that revolution is being undone by another TV star who has been underestimated by elites while being elevated by working-class voters.

So now Trump has single-handily undone the Reagan revolution as the complicit media watched. But Joe himself was a creature of the politics that got us to this stage, stomping on Reagan’s legacy. Now he blames Trump for undoing the Reagan revolution. Come on Joe, to hell with smelling the java, tell us what you’re smoking?

Joe thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. Though there is a Yuge disconnect between both the media and establishment with the sediment of the people. So it’s no surprise how wrong they can be in diagnosing the mood of the people.

You cannot just blame Joe. He based it on the theory of a book. He just had to twist reality to make it fit. Does he not realize that, at this point with media’s credibility, the more they tried to take down Trump the more it failed? But try they did. You can’t blame them for not trying.(and it was not just media)

First of all. Trump won every county in those states. That’s called sweeping. But to have Joe write this off as some stupid popularity from a reality show is really disingenuous. Joe never impressed me as a political prophet.

Cruz and Lucifer critique haunts Ted

At a speech at Standford, John Boehner was asked what he thought of Ted Cruz.
Might as well teed that up on a par one for him.

“Lucifer in the flesh,” Boehner said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”

“I never worked with John Boehner. Truth is, I don’t know him that well,” Cruz said in his revocation of John Boehner standing next to his new running mate, Carly Fiorina.

Cruz never worked with him. Ted was his lawyer back in the 90’s. Cruz even won a case getting Boehner a million dollars for legal fees. Ted must have a selective memory.

KKK endorsed Hillary Clinton

Guess who endorses Hillary Clinton, the KKK.

Klan Officially Endorses Hillary Clinton, Donates $20,000 To Her Campaign

By Robert Gehl | The Federalist Papers

The Ku Klux Klan is officially endorsing Hillary Clinton, a move one of the group’s leaders says is totally logical, since they’ve “always been a Democratic organization.”

During a “cross-lighting ceremony” in Georgia, a documentary film crew sat down with Will Quigg, one of the racist group’s leaders. He said that Clinton is “our choice” and that the KKK has anonymously donated $20,000 to her campaign, Vocativ is reporting.

“She is friends with the Klan,” Quigg said. “A lot of people don’t realize that. She’s friends with Senator (Robert) Byrd. He’s been an Exulted Cyclops in the Klan. He’s been King Kleagle.” (King Kleagle is another KKK title for the leader of an entire “realm,” or state. Quigg is the King Kleagle for California.) Quigg was referring to the late U.S. senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia, who organized and served as the leader of a West Virginia Klan chapter in the 1940s. In 2005, Byrd publicly disavowed the Klan and called his involvement “wrong.” Upon the senator’s death in 2010, Hillary Clinton called Byrd a “friend and mentor.”

Quigg said he and his group have collected $20,000 and donated it anonymously to the Clinton campaign.

More: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/klan-officially-endorses-hillary-clinton-donates-20000-to-her-campaign

Nothoing to see here Move On.

Movement politics

Much is made that these are extraordinary times and politics these days. I would agree with an exception. The thing is if we are just comparing it to what was ordinary in the last 20 years or so, then, yes, they are. Pretty much that is a good thing.

It is about time that we finally focused on both the ugliness and the importance of politics. I don’t need to tell anyone how divisive it all is. But maybe it’s time America has told them, the ruling class elites.

Things have evolved into what I call movement politics. That is separate from the classism and identity politics that have been standard fare of Democrats for decades. I doubt that these identity merchants, tacticians and strategists ever thought we would move past these time-tested mechanisms. Though we may be seeing just that.

I know that the identity memes have been the flavor of the day, even now. Though the people are rising up with ideas of their own, and they aren’t all about identity anymore. More than that they are concerned about the identity of the country. They are concerned about the condition of the US and losing our identity with freedom, prosperity and our posterity. Sure there are still identity merchants as there are grievance merchants.But they are being surrounded and outnumbered by others.

The only math the old-school establishment politicians know is the numbers of identities and the way they can pander to them. Estabos other math is the calculation of special interest dollars in their campaign coffers. That is the equivalent of their common core math. And not much else matters.

However, something interesting happened with the rise of Bernie Sanders on the Left. It undermined Hillary’s base and consolidated the Left wing of America much the way Move On and George Soros did since the Clintons. Its ranks swelled and cut across cultural and identity lines, much to the aghast fears of the political elites and the identity merchants.

Probably one of the pivotal moments was when Sanders’ rally was nearly shutdown by the BLM movement. It revealed the clash therein. But the strange thing is that the Bern came back around to encompass and co-opt the Black Lives Matter crowd.

Then Hillary has proved the other thing about politics. On the Left, they gravitate and rally to the furthermost Left in the spotlight. Elizabeth Warren demonstrated it and Obama proved it. Bernie extorted that theory. Of course on the Right it has been almost the opposite. They sanitize the politics until it becomes invalid. Mediocrity is now King. This is just as a matter of comparison. So what you have is more marginalization happening on the Right and less to none on the Left.(even on the fringes) On the Left, they won’t cast off fringes; they embrace them and devour them. Hillary must swim against the current and, wherever she can, graft on the hard left’s dogma and carry their banner.

On the Right

Enter Trump on the Republican side. Sure there are all those quibbles over what he is, or what he is not. But what he has done on the right is to mobilize and rally people from across demographics — usual stereotypical onse. Some thought Trump supporters were just a marginal group of identities on the right. Yet identity pigeonholes have been disproved throughout primaries. He increased turnouts and interest in the whole process.

While Cruz, if anything, has stuck himself into a margin. He played heavy on the Evangelicals. The theory being if he could just activate them, he could overcome all comers with a lock on that bloc. A funny thing happened in South Carolina, crossing the lines.

[Politico]“It was amazing how similar Texans and South Carolinians are. I’d never thought of that until seeing the bus. They’re Southerners, they’re evangelicals, they’re military veterans, they’re gun owners. There’s just a feeling that is similar. They feel like Texans.” — Cruz said of S Carolina.

Indeed, Evangelicals also turned out for Trump. Even a few Evangelical leaders endorsed Trump. That was pooh-poohed and they were wackos that don’t know what they are doing. Yet even while everyone is demonized for supporting or endorsing Trump, it didn’t kill off his support. They had said he could not break 30%, then they said he couldn’t get 40%. And it is still actually early as to final tallies but if the primaries are any indication, he’s bringing in higher numbers.

Politicians and the establishment have long criticized the people for being disconnected from events, or being behind the times, or failing to understand political reality. Except now it is a different story. The establishment is at a loss to understand comprehend the new political reality. At first they dismiss it, then they ridicule it, then they go tot war with it. Remember that just five years ago we saw almost the exact opposite. Town hall meetings were the target of voters looking to hold politicians accountable for their failures. All that was done without much concrete leadership, certainly not a single leader in charge. That may have been the first indications of an actual movement afoot.

Summarizing Trumpism and the movement politics on the Right

Now all the talk is that Trump is bringing in old political hands and Washington insiders, hence hurting his freestyle, outsider brand. Well, you cannot change the DNA of a movement like that. It must co-opt the establishment. And Donald understands it, correctly, as a movement not a political campaign. He may be running a campaign but his base is a movement.The question is will it be embraced as the base in the RNC as well?

RightRing | Bullright

The irrelevance of the West

Finally, from the bowels of Townhall, an explanation of criticism for the West.
The indictment of anti-West philosophy

Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization

Dennis Prager| Apr 26, 2016 | Townhall

This month, Stanford University students voted on a campus resolution that would have their college require a course on Western civilization, as it did until the 1980s.

Stanford students rejected the proposal 1,992 to 347. A columnist at the Stanford Daily explained why: Teaching Western civilization means “upholding white supremacy, capitalism and colonialism, and all other oppressive systems that flow from Western civilizations.”

The vote — and the column — encapsulated the left’s view: In Europe, Latin America and America, it loathes Western civilization.

Wherever there is conflict between the West — identified as white, capitalist or of European roots — and the non-West, the left portrays the West as the villain.

I am referring to the left, not to liberals. The latter generally venerates Western civilization. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, frequently spoke of defending “Christian civilization.” Today, the left would likely revile any Westerner who used such language as xenophobic, racist, and fascist. […/]

More at Townhall.com

What happened to pride in Western Civilization? What happened to its defense and lonely apologetic? Why the need to apologize for it instead and where did the shame and embarrassment begin, where shall it end? Progressivism take a bow. From the people that brought us mourning in America.

Best of both worlds

Ted Cruz, in his standard stump speech says:

“And if you want to see the economy take off you lift the boot of the federal government off the back of the neck of small businesses. If I am elected president:

  • We will repeal every word of Obamacare.
  • We’ll pass common sense healthcare reform that makes health insurance personal and portable and affordable, and keeps government from getting in between us and our doctors.
  • We will pass a simple flat tax.
  • We will rein in the federal regulators who have descended like locusts on small businesses, killing jobs all across this country.
  • We’re going to stop amnesty, secure the border, end sanctuary cities, and end welfare benefits for those here illegally.

I have a suggestion that should make everyone happy. If you like Cruz, you can have your Cruz. If you like Trump, you can have your Trump. How is that?

Well, we could elect Donald Trump president, and Cruz can continue his term in the Senate. In fact, reelect Ted again when he runs in two years.

So we have Trump President and Ted Cruz can continue his agenda and do all the things he said: repeal Obamacare, pass healthcare reform and pass tax reform. We do that and we have our cake and eat it too.

Captain Iggy Bliss ©

Allow me to introduce myself

Hi, my name is Iggy Bliss, and I’ve been asked by the blog owner to do a few posts. At least until he tells me to STFU. You’ll hear from me occasionally.

That’s Iggy to most of you, which stands for ignorant – proudly. I’ve been called blissfully ignorant and that is a good moniker. So here I am, Captain Iggy Bliss, at your service.

By that description, I am just happily ignorant. And I plan on sharing some of that wisdom with people here. If you are a Trump supporter, you may have been called ignorant at some point. If not, you will.

Now you might but I don’t consider it satire, since I don’t really know what that is. I plan to cover a limited and selective amount of subjects here because, after all, I’m blissfully ignorant. That won’t stop me from applying my talent wherever I can.

I’m also driven by animal spirits because the same source has called me an animal and a miscreant. So you never know what I might say or do traced to that animal nature.

Just as a primer, I came across this:

Excuse me, but doesn’t Ted Cruz want an open convention? Isn’t he basing his hopes on that — a ballot after the first ballot? I guess that is what makes me ignorant.

Captain Iggy Bliss ™©

Senator – Detour – Cruz vs. Hannity

Sean questions Cruz and gets talking point- Cruz bothered. Then Sean gives him an earful. [takes place on Tuesday, April 19]

See what happens when he asks him a “process question”. He really doesn’t like the question. Cruz pulls his “Trumpsters” are whining card. Sean: “it’s not a Trump question”.

Sen-talking points-Ted complains that voters don’t care about the delegate debacle, only “Trumpsters do, and calls the controversy incessant whining. He called Trump’s campaign a “Kim Kardashian reality show.” Talk about talking points?

The voice really tells the tale, on the radio. Confrontational even hostile, sounds like a real uniter.

Because….inquiring minds want know.

It’s personal – note of discontent…. aka “friends”

On hurling invective, insults …and shooting the moon.

It has become personal now. Politics has become personal, very personal.

Brainy Quotes:

“When people start hurling insults at you, you know their minds are closed and there’s no point in debating. You disengage yourself as quickly as possible from the situation.” — Judith Martin

That is usually good advice. However, there are times you cannot just ignore it.

Normally that is the case, but these are not normal times. Nor are the politics normal. As for the people, let’s see how “normal” they are? Who knew how abnormal it can get?

Prelude

A good friend and blogger was recently the target of a drive by that made little sense to me. At first, I chalked it up to spilling vindictive insults at someone for the sake of it. The question was why? This is not a tedious back and forth but a street level synopsis. I don’t often go into personal matters but one must make exceptions when necessary.

Though when someone uses you as an example of their perceived problem with the political climate, it warrants your attention. First, a couple things to keep in mind: what is said on a blog post and what is said in comments and conversation are different. IOW, when someone makes a person or group of people the target of their wrath in a post, singling you out, it is on a higher level. When comments include their wrath it is a lesser degree. That’s how I quantify it anyway.

I’ve said before “on this blog I don’t claim “no bias” and do not provide or guarantee a politics free or politically correct zone.” So there is no hypersensitivity about a person’s feelings, including mine. Sometimes in criticizing others it reflects on our own shortfalls.

Friends, to example….to straw men

From the piece found here at Pesky Truth.

“This is just one example of how the rift between Trump supporters and Cruz supporters has come between people who used to be friends. We all called ourselves “conservatives” and supposedly believed in the same smaller government, lower taxes, strong military and so on. But then the 2016 presidential election intruded. People chose sides. That’s normally not a big deal, but this time it’s different – very different.”

Choosing political sides is one thing choosing friends another. Choosing is the operative word. We define ourselves. Like Cruz’s lines,”Donald said” this or that and “this is who Donald is.” But who is Ted? That’s the problem. Who knew it was controversial?

What drew me to the article on a blog I occasionally read in the first place was the title. It was about “what happened to people who USED to be our friends?” So there I am ignorantly reading an article when it references a good friend of mine sort of indirectly, at first. I expected from the title maybe it was a self-reflective thing. It was anything but. It was a slash and burn (IMO) about certain people he personally called into question.

People talk about “feeling the Bern,” but I was really feeling the burn.

The author was someone I even associated with as a contributor at another site. I thought I’d call him a friend, as others. That’s where it gets dicey… ‘I thought.’ I allow that rarely people agree on everything. Sometimes, as the quote above says, you just disassociate with others. So there are times when we should back away from the keyboards; and then there are times when we should take to the keyboard.

So it was to my surprise when I read the piece that skewered a friend as his “example,” along with her associates and participants, as “farm animals”. Later in one one of his comments he labeled them, presumably myself included, as flawed.

Here are some selected excerpts to his piece.

“The Trumpanzees have taken on the demeanor of Donald Trump. They lie, disparage, insult and ridicule Cruz supporters as if we were *ignorant rubes who couldn’t tie shoes without help.” – [*remember that, it returns]

Straw men have invaded the internet, everywhere, even among “friends”.

“I just happened to stop by one of the blogs that I used to think of as a “friendly” site. I thought that we were friends and I can recall commiserating with her when her husband passed away….

…but some of the miscreants that she’s gathered around her look like a Who’s Who of the Animal Farm.”

So we are called names. Trumpanzees: or anyone not digesting Cruz, as delivered. Then the farm animal reference. And we’re flawed, according to his comments. Might as well say flawed farm animals.

“Why would someone show only a reference to Cruz having made only ONE truthful statement?”

His piece was complete with a pasted part of her article and the date. Then he took issue with it and said

“You’ll also note that they provide no LINK to the PolitiFact site (so you can’t immediately verify the statement).”

He went on about her post without linking to it. So he put obvious links to his referred content but couldn’t bother to link or pingback the article he based an entire piece on.
Fair? I digress. This would notify the person that: one, he used their material; two that he did a subsequent attack. One set of ethics for others, another for him.

Then he took issue with what she put up.

“ the point here is that you shouldn’t use something like this unless a comparison to your candidate comes off looking good. “ / “Isn’t it only FAIR to COMPARE the two gentlemen?” / “Why would someone show only a reference to Cruz having made only ONE truthful statement?”

See, the thing about a blog is the author writes or includes what they want, it’s that simple. Unless he is trying to employ some “fairness doctrine.” He is citing a fairness standard?

I didn’t plan on going into the political nuance of what the author had in mind. The insult and invective was my focus here. You might note his title started with “what happened to people who USED to be our friends?” What of them?

Finally, in closing he refers to the ignorance of us, and or, Trump supporters. Apparently, it is open season, who knew. I’ll have to check the regulations.

“The most satisfying thing about this is that the readers of Pesky Truth know the TRUTH, those that frequent that other blog don’t. They’re so pumped full of Trump’s lies they’re oblivious to the truth – let’s let them stay that way – after all, “ignorance is bliss,” so they’ll remain blissful in their ignorance.
Garnet92.”

Again, I am not parsing politics. I’ll do my own politics in other posts. The personal assault was the subject. So we’re flawed, weak, miscreants, farm animals, and chimpanzees crossbred with Trump supporters. So add ignorant or ignorance to the list.

BTW: the same guy did one of his lengthy trademark satires, if you are so inclined. I did wonder exactly who he had in mind in the hog farm, redneck, hillbilly saga?

Links to politi-fact sites but he can’t bother to ping his central source.

And what of the friends part? I guess not. No problem.

RightRing | Bullright

To change or not change…rules

What’s a little rule change between friends? (okay, enemies)

Come one, come all, come and see the show.

RNC rules official warns lack of transparency could ‘blow up the convention’

Washington Examiner
By Daniel Chaitin • 4/16/16

A lack of transparency in the nomination process threatens to have dire consequences for the party, a member of the Republican National Committee’s committee warned Saturday.

Days after Donald Trump called the GOP nomination “rigged” after Ted Cruz swept the entirety of Colorado’s 34 delegates, two members of the RNC’s rules committee debated whether the party should change the delegate rules.

While members of the RNC rules committee meet this week to debate delegate rules, Randy Evans, a national committeeman from Georgia, told CNN’s Michal Smerconish that its too late in the game to start changing the rules.

“There is a sense in the committee that we really shouldn’t change any rules this late in the process,” said Evans.”

///

“We’re operating in a supercharged political environment. We could blow up the convention as well as the Republican Party,” Yue said.

Though he didn’t mention any particular examples, Yue said another threat to the party is Chairman Reince Priebus making decisions on his own without consulting the majority of the delegates.

See video

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rnc-rules-official-warns-lack-of-transparency-could-blow-up-the-convention/article/2588749

Blow up the Party? Hmmm seems the GOPe demolition experts have already done a bang-up job of that. Wow, they better watch that incendiary language.

Chaos in Cleveland redux: deja vu all over again

This article is a good reminder worth a read. Circa 1912 — dang how history warns.

Rules of the GOP Fraternal Order

A lesson from the 1912 Taft-TR Convention.

By Jeffrey Lord – 4.15.16 | American Spectator

Rule One: Don’t question the rules.

Rule Two: Unless you want to change the rules to preserve the Ruling Order.

The other day, a surely very nice guy who was identified as a former Colorado Republican Party Chairman appeared on CNN to discuss the latest state of play in the Trump-RNC dust-up. Among other things he dismissed concern over Colorado’s rules for selecting delegates by saying that they had been in place since… 1912.

Uh-oh. In saying this the ex-chairman clearly unwittingly opened a door that makes Donald Trump’s point about GOP Establishment-types monkeying with the rules, and makes it more or less exactly. Why? Well, hop into the time traveling machine and come with me back to, yes, 1912.

The Republican Party is in absolute turmoil. President William Howard Taft is in the White House, the protégé of his predecessor and old friend President Theodore Roosevelt having won the White House four years earlier after TR declined to run for a third term. But now? Teddy Roosevelt is upset with his old friend. It seems Will Taft has turned out to be a tad more conservative than the trust-busting TR approved. OK, actually a lot more conservative. And so TR, more than furious, has plunged headlong into the presidential race, directly challenging Taft for the GOP nomination. Also in the race was a third candidate: the liberal Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette.

They battle across the country, with Roosevelt winning 9 of 12 states that had primaries. But the rest of the then-48 states had no primaries. And as the Chicago Convention approached, the delegate numbers stood this way: …/

Continue reading: http://spectator.org/articles/66052/rules-gop-fraternal-order

Well, it did happen before. Oops, what was that Teddy called it?
“We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.”
Them are pretty inflammatory words.

What sticks in my craw is that they all accused Trump of issuing threats for predicting or stating that there very well could be trouble at the convention. But countless other people, even Cruz, are apparently free to speak about the coming chaos in Cleveland. . However threat accusations come only as Trump talks about pending pandemonium.

(The Hill) “Any time you hear someone talking about a brokered convention, it is the Washington establishment in a fevered frenzy, they are really frustrated because all their chosen candidates, their golden children, the voters keep rejecting,

So they seize on this plan of a brokered convention, and the D.C. power brokers will drop someone in who is exactly to the liking of the Washington establishment. If that would happen, we would have a manifest revolt on our hands all across this country.” — Cruz to CPAC

Even the media has alluded to problems. In fact, media has talked about the ensuing Convention turmoil as good for their business. Trump warns about problems and they accuse him of inciting violence. At this point, it would be hard to believe there would not be problems at the convention. I mean I wonder what Vegas odds are predicting?

Of course to talk about the desperate Party apparatus and fed up voters is now construed as a threat. Meanwhile, GOPe have contemplated running an independent candidate. No, let us focus on predictions and warnings as threats.

On the Oath of Litmus Tests

April 16, 2016

Something happened on the way to 2016. It became a lesson in contradictions.

For years the Democrats have turned Roe into a litmus test for nominees, particularly for the Supreme Court. By now that is just a sigh to Americans. So they force people to swear on the ‘altar of abortion,’ or Roe v Wade. There are no exceptions for Leftists.

Then the Republicans have allowed and went along with the absurd Roe litmus test, and accepted it as the way it is. The new inhumane “normal.” Over the years, it has been the central tenant in Liberals’ nomination orthodoxy. Roe is “settled law” – litmus that.

Now there is a new litmus test. In Democrats’ NY debate, Hillary announced that she would only consider a SCOTUS nominee if he/she supported abortion as settled law, and that he/she believes in overturning Citizens United. Note the contradiction in those. At any rate, they have yet another litmus test — debate is over, opposition is irrelevant.

So now, reading between the lines, they have set up another mythical litmus test.(the authority on litmus) But now one must swear that Citizens United is not “settled law.” Another sacred altar has been errected. Ignore the contradiction. On one hand, the settled law is what SCOTUS said. On the other, how wrong the High Court’s decision is. We now have a litmus test against the Court’s decision, rendering it anything but “settled law.”

I have to hand it to Hillary for making this all crystal clear. She once declared, even on the anniversary of Roe, which liberals celebrate as sacred tradition, that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Gasp, it was the last part that caused tremors through liberaldom. How could she dare say something so offensively outrageous as “rare”?

Now we find out how unsettled law really is in Liberaldom. It must depend on the meaning of is. Even worse is how unsettled liberals seem to be on a SCOTUS decision, when it doesn’t suit their agenda. Many have become squeamish about Citizens United, but the alternative is limiting free speech. Some are more comfortable with the latter.

Hypersensitivities are reserved for Citizens United, not Roe. Liberals have the same visceral reaction to the Heller decision. Roe remains sacred orthodoxy — the golden calf, worshiped in perpetuity and sacrificed to nothing – while others are expendable.

RightRing | Bullright

Cruz: ‘we’ll take money from anyone’

In an interview with CNBC, Ted Cruz declared “we’ll take money from anyone.”

( Politico By Nick Gass )

Ted Cruz doesn’t care where the money comes from.

Even as his campaign has pushed a populist message and he has railed against Wall Street “crony capitalism” repeatedly, the Texas senator indicated Friday that he is not beneath accepting donations from anyone, including from members of the financial industry, which has already contributed $12 million to his campaign.

Appearing on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Friday, Cruz again referred to the Dodd-Frank Act as benefiting large banks at the expense of the “little guy,” or smaller community banks. Co-anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin then pressed the candidate about his “rivals” criticizing him for soliciting donations from the same people whose industry has spoken out on the campaign trail.

“Look, we’ll take money from anyone. In fact, Andrew, I would love a check right now. It’s $2,700, or you could go to TedCruz.org,” Cruz said.

Tea Party.org

Read: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/ted-cruz-campaign-contributions-222008#sthash.GPnjZ099.dpuf

George Will the Team Player

I’ve occasionally been tempted to take a spirited personal issue with someone. Temptation won out in this case. It has been festering a while.

George Will is the quintesental lemon in a basket of oranges. No one knows exactly what it is doing there, and everyone is at a loss to explain the problem with it.

Will has an obsession with baseball often littering his columns with analogies to bring home his point. Sometimes it’s a strike and sometimes it’s a ball. But the man has a cultish crush on it as much as his lust for words.

He uses his high-brow style, occasionally citing ‘inside baseball’ factoids that co-opt his pros adding a sports flair to the editorial page. He short circuits his intelligence with vignettes proving baseball has been very good to George will.

Here is where the pine tar gets a little thick

His elite inside politics overdubbing of Washingtonian issues lends itself to criticism as ivory-tower academia crossbred with elitism. His writing is condescending to the masses he hopes to cleanse by his rhetorical palate. We are not as intelligent as he is.

So the irony is thick here in that today the tables have turned and Washington’s “inside baseball” politics is now the chief problem, not the anecdote to it.

It was not long ago that he declared the anger of people was off base. It was more like frustration, as far as the Dr Good-Will diagnosed it. We are having a childish pout.

I’m sure in certain sections of snobsville his critiques fit like a well-worn ball glove, but in other places they fall on deaf ears — bored as much with his rhetoric as with a rain delay at Wrigley Field, or by sipping watered-down Gatorade during a no-hitter.

I don’t suppose George would see the waste deep irony in his soliloquy. He has bashed inferior folks of rural America as “incapable of cognitive thought or rational argument.” He insisted people may only come into the Republican Party “on our terms, not theirs.” He referred to the grown-ups in the conservative movement, himself among them.

There’s that inside baseball mantra again that they just don’t understand how the game is played. Barring that problem would render their co-opting strategy unnecessary.

Birds of the feathered nest

Who could forget Obama’s words:

“It’s not surprising. Americans get bitter. They cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or their anti immigrant sentiment (racists) … as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Though dripping in arrogance, it is water drawn from the same trough Will drinks from.

So what this really comes down to is George Will is a poster child for the elite-ruling class establishment. He exemplifies everything that is wrong with it, while demonstrating how little is right about it. If not for their media-accommodated, cushy chairs of news punditry — covering the very DC cesspool they are immersed to their eyeballs in — they would lead hum drum but far less lucrative lives. Rather they’ve become self-anointed adherents in ‘lifestyles of the affluent and influential.’


The Last Refuge:

“…the John Birch society tapped into something, George Wallace tapped into something, and it was up to the grown-ups in the labor movement in the late 1940’s, and the grown-ups in the conservative movement in the 1960’s to read those elements the riot act, and say: come back in, but come back in on our terms because we are not going down the road you want to go”…

And George Will tapped into something, as noted, plugged in and then hard wired his worldview into it. He’s been running on that straight juice, with an occasional baseball analogy to break up the arrogance. In 2015, Will said “there is no frontrunner. There won’t be a Republican race to speak of until this course and vulgar man, who is at the center of this argument, is marginalized.” No frontrunner?

RightRing | Bullright

Classified squared

According to Obama, “there is classified and then there is classified” information.

Mao Obama told Chris Wallace on Fox Sunday:

“And what I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are — there’s classified, and then there’s classified. There’s stuff that is really top-secret, top-secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source. …

And then there is Obama’s super-secret records. So secret and sealed that no one can even see them except Obama. Get that, Obama handles a lot of “classified information”. Probably…. considering only he has access to it. Stuff he can’t have “on the transom.”

Something going on, always

I looked back on a couple highlight posts from last year and it hit me like never before.

Look back at a couple incidents from the past year and see what I mean. That was then this is now. Those incidents were then, there are new ones now. It has just been a cycle, a continuous cycle. We literally go from one crisis to another. Sometimes a new one happens in the middle of a current one.

With our government and pols, it has been one thing after another. Boehner left, Paul Ryan in. Same thing happens. With the takeover of new Congress in 2015, it continues like no change. Terrorist acts, surges of illegals, murders by illegals. criminals caught and released. Pols lie, scandals and no government accountability. 2016 like 2015. Nothing changes.

What I am really wondering about now is what effect this pattern is having on us? Are we just caught up in the minute, are we in survival mode, are we into the fight or flight stage? I think it is serious and bound to have some effect. I mean we can say it is the new way things are but we see it every day and get tired of it. In and out a continued pattern of incidents, threaded and strung together like a chain. Well, that is how it feels when I look back. Then terrorists do what they want to do, terrorize people.

That’s all I’m going to say, people know what I’m talking about. Any ideas or suggestions anyone has, about it or anything, I’d love to hear them.

RightRing | Bullright

Mexico lashes out at US, Obama hears voices

Mexico does what they do best, complain — or bitch in layman’s terms. Let’s see, besides wanting a third of our country, they continually harbor inflammatory sentiments that really tick me off.

Mexico replaces top US diplomats, citing hostile climate

April 6, 2016 | AOL

(Reuters)

“We have been warning that our citizens have begun to feel a more hostile climate,” Foreign Minister Claudia Ruiz Massieu told local radio after the announcement.

“This (anti-Mexican) rhetoric has made it clear that we have to act in a different way so that this tendency being generated doesn’t damage the bilateral relationship,” she added.

More: http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/06/mexico-replaces-top-u-s-diplomats-citing-hostile-climate/21339608/

No wonder people champion building a wall or, gasp, enforcing the law and borders. If Mexico officials were really listening, which we have to assume they are, then you’d think they’d be willing to consider what they can do for us since we do so much for them?

But they do and say this stuff just to intentionally frustrate Americans’ efforts. Is it any wonder Americans are fed up? “Bilateral relationship”… is that a good joke?

Then Obama recently said he consistently hears complaints from people around the world about rhetoric etc. Maybe, if he were listening, he’d hear all the reasons they question us or distrust our actions. Nah, he’s busy blaming the Republicans that have not been in charge of administration policy. Call me sick and tired of this horse manure.

Is Obama listening when terrorism goes epidemic, or when refugees create a hostile atmosphere across Europe? Or when our citizens are attacked by illegal immigrants — “just here to work for a better life?” Who only knows what all the voices in Obama’s head are telling him? Maybe Obama ought to consider listening to the people in our own country fed up with abusive power, corruption, tone deafness and his third-world leadership? (not to mention running and spending this country into the ground)

Sorry for the little rant. Yeah, Mexico, stick it in your ear since you’re such a great example of integrity. This is precisely what calls for no demands a person like Trump to call a spade a spade. The more public the better, the harder the better. If Mexico is trying to convince us of the necessity of a wall, or border control and enforcement, then they are doing a great job.

Speaking of voices Obama is listening to:

Wa Post

Now the Trump critique is coming with increasing frequency and ease. Asked Tuesday whether Trump’s proposals were already damaging U.S. relations, Obama answered unequivocally: “Yes.”

“I am getting questions constantly from foreign leaders about some of the wackier suggestions that are being made,” Obama said. “They don’t expect half-baked notions coming out of the White House. We can’t afford that.”

The Democratic National Committee quickly circulated video of Obama’s remarks, arguing they illustrated how Trump “simply doesn’t have the temperament necessary to be commander in chief.”

Seems Mexico is worried about what it characterizes as attacks on Mexico when America has actually been under attack by Mexico for years.

Earlier Obama had called Trump’s plan for Mexico to pay for the wall and other proposals on border plans half-baked.

“People expect the President of the United States and the elected officials in this country to treat these problems seriously, to put forward policies that have been examined, analyzed are effective, where unintended consequences are taken into account. They don’t expect half-baked notions coming out of the White House. We can’t afford that,” Obama said in his press conference.

Since “half-baked” is the subject, I imagine all the ways that applies to Obama. How about the failed Libya policy, the ‘failed state’ result, or meddling in Egypt and alliance with Muslim Brotherhood? Or how about that red line in Syria, or calling ISIS a JV team? Or refusing to attack ISIS oil lines financing the Caliphate, or maybe refusing to call ISIS and terrorists Islamic terrorism, or the denial that they are Islamic? Or maybe the dissing of France after the terrorist attacks? No shortage on half-baked irresponsibility there.

Talk about pushing “policies…examined, analyzed [as] effective, where unintended consequences are taken into account,” really?

How about calling Climate Change the greater threat to world and national security? Going for the trifecta, pushing a video cause for the attack of terrorism in Libya. Like labeling the Fort Hood Islamic terrorism attack as “workplace violence.” Like executive amnesty in the face of an invasion. Calling the problems on our borders a perception problem. Or like saying there is not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.

Half-baked assertions or… fully cooked up lies? But there is a whole bowl full of consequences — some would argue about how unintentional they really are.

“Death to America” is not news

Chilling Video: Muslims Screaming “Death to America” in This US City: Media Silent

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 | Before It’s News

Need proof the mainstream media is controlled by global elites pushing the narrative they want, versus providing the American people with ACTUAL news they need of what is REALLY going on? Here it is. It’s been almost a month since the Trump rally in Chicago, and this is the first I’ve seen of this video of a massive protest in Chicago chanting, “Death to America,” “Free Palestine,” and “Death to Israel!” Just like the armed tensions that erupted over the weekend between Black Panthers and Muslims protesting outside a Mosque, the media buried the story.

In the case of the Trump rally, they didn’t bury the story, they flat out lied. We now know it wasn’t Trump supporters that were out of control, but rather it was a group of PAID infiltrators sent by George Soros specifically to wreak havoc. [see]

More http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2016/04/chilling-video-muslims-screaming-death-to-america-in-this-us-city-media-silent-2792999.html

Good old silent media, always looking for a good story to ignore.
Media is not silent, more like complicit.

The Question of 2016 Elections

Here’s the 64 thousand-dollar question. How is socialist Bernie Sanders the only one who beats every Republican in the polls? (Real Clear Politics)

Is there some kind of law that says the socialist must win?

In the 60s, they blacklisted commies. Today they want to elect them President.

Then again, how can Obama have a 48% approval and yet 67% of people believe the country is on the wrong track?

Inquiring minds would like to know.