Saving Sanity: a noble cause

Is a once a week rant too much to ask or expect for a blog? Yes, as a matter of fact it is. The problem is not the lack of material but rather the sheer volume of it.

That also can lead to things like burnout, exhaustion, even suffocation in a sea of mud. Just saying. So silence is not golden but may at times be the only viable option.

Something has bugged me though ever since I have been doing this blog. It is the amount of humor we use and whether it is appropriate? I mean these are serious times, and does the humor contribute to the coarsening of culture? I’m not sure.

Well, blah blah. I remember a past Bible study over whether humor is bad thing or acceptable? See, there was a belief at one time that Christians should refrain from humor, certainly in Church settings. I think that might have fallen by the wayside, but was once a real issue. The point was humor diminished Christianity.

It took away the seriousness of issues. It was seen to some as an insult. We know some people, for many reasons, do not appreciate humor anyway. But on serious matters it was frowned on. It was thought a type of mockery that didn’t belong in serious debate or dialogue. Using it diminished one’s credibility.

Someone finally wrote a book explaining that humor was not wrong and listed examples of humor in the Old and New Testament. So one cannot ban humor in theory.

My issue with all this is how can you look around today and not have a sense of humor about things? That doesn’t mean you take issues less seriously….or does it? This is where rationality and sanity come in. A rational person is aware of the serious nature yet can still poke fun at the condition of society. It doesn’t diminish one’s sincerity, or an issue itself.

Sometimes humor is the only way — or one of the ways — people can cope or deal with a given situation. It can cover pain, or masque all kinds of personal emotion.

It is similar with some violence these days. You see random murders and people killed for no visible reason. One struggles with trying to understand why? As if we need to know why to make sense of it. Humor is different. Humor makes sense in a funny way. But we are struck at a murder that had no rational reason for it. That it keeps on happening adds to all those questions. We don’t know and may never know. Sometimes even the killer had no reason. This is where rational thought has a problem. We almost need to see why. And some people today are uncomfortable with just calling it evil. It bothers us and it should. We don’t want to lay a blanket excuse over it just to try to explain it. An excuse that may or not be true. And explaining evil may be excusing it.

Humor can punctuate events without tainting them — or at least intending to.

Does using humor on serious issues take away seriousness from them? Maybe it can; though attributing false explanations also takes away from them. We almost expect those. I question fairness in a lot circumstances and think of humor as a great equalizer. Is that wrong? I don’t think so. Sometimes humor points out the absurdity. Sometimes nothing short of a punch line does it justice. (no matter how bad the event) I think we know that doesn’t mean the thing was funny or a joke. We don’t mean it is not serious.

Late night comics in recent years have gone to a whole different level. In fact, their humor has become the absurdity — and maybe even the thing that drives any of their jokes. And less, their jokes don’t seem to be funny anymore but their absurdity is obvious. Then for these intended jokes to be taken as fact or for mainstream political dialogue is another matter. Their absurd humor replaces political thought. It becomes mainstream opinion. This has been validated over and over since Trump took office.

Defamation of character?

They have basically turned Trump, or what he is about, into a joke. I get the joke part and we make jokes about Hillary. But that is different, no one loses sight of the seriousness of the threat she represents. We still understand all her real flaws. Still we use humor to poke fun at or take the edge off the hyper-serious nature — seriousness she imbues on herself. We don’t lose sight of the greater issue. The fears and concern so big that humor can be a coping mechanism because we cannot see or visualize the whole extent. It is beyond simple description — and breaks all past comparisons. So you see there is a difference. Their political objective is to reduce Trump to an absurd caricature

But these days the joke is the entire issue. The left turns the joke into reality, instead of vice versa. Humor is used as ridicule, and the left does ridicule as a political weapon well. In fact, the purpose of it is to bury or lose sight of the truth and reality.

See there is a proper purpose for humor as hyperbole. It is also a tool. It points out the error through exaggeration. Again, that is not to lose sight of the truth. It is not to try to turn hyperbole into literal reality. The Bible uses hyperbole for emphasis. The object is not to make hyperbole a fact. We are also supposed to know and see the difference.

But then when Trump uses hyperbole or exaggerates something, the truth slayers run out to correct any errors. Yet they have accepted their fictional character of Trump as reality. Trump, off the cuff, uses a lot of rhetorical tools. That is why the left likes it, they busy themselves pointing out any perceived inaccuracies. Funny how they don’t “factcheck” themselves or their depiction of Trump and coverage.

We are in an era when reality has no value to the left. Into that void they have put narrative, and perception has become their only reality. So when humor is applied, it is taken as perception — which it is — but then taken as fact or reality. The narrative rules and protecting that narrative becomes their chief mission. Humor is not humor, it is now reality. That narrative drives their politics, even moreso than they drive the narrative.

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

Leave it to left to define Roseanne

After throwing his own family under the bus, as the typical Trump -supporting, racist-type family, this NYT columnist says about Roseanne’s show and Trump-supporters:

Read here.

“The dark underbelly of the white, working-class, the intolerance that permeates so much of their lives, is completely absent, and that absence can serve a dangerous purpose: to reinforce the delusion that they’re actually supporting somebody like Donald Trump for honorable reasons.”

But this deserves commentary. It seems so easy for them to try to shove (no pound) Trump supporters into some stereotype but it doesn’t work. That’s probably what frustrates them. It is a delusion, he says, and nothing about their support is honorable.

Rather their view is some distilled elite, deceptive, liberal projection of people that no one in the world should like. Or that is the hope. ‘Who could like these despicable people?’

Maybe he should look in the mirror and face the kind of world view he and his Liberal ilk represents. It is they who are so far off the mainstream of any political alignment with reality, much less the electorate — and proudly bigoted about it.

In truth, as Sterling might say in Twilight Zone, “he seems to have turned into a caricature of himself.” And speaking of dysfunction, how functional could these Leftists be in their families or community? It is also a ruling-class elitist mindset that asserts only they know better how to fix or run your lives. If you only follow their plantation politics.

Maybe I will do a satire on the kind of people Liberals would like to see portrayed to represent their politically correct, leftist view of how a typical family should be and live.

So says the misinformed Lefty antagonist. Trumpism, whatever you term that to be, is not an ideology. You sure missed every lesson offered in 2016.

McCabe muddies the swamp water

McCabe pens an editorial in the Washington Post. This man is sick like his mentor.

Just as disgusting as the leadership and things he was party to is this excuse of a self-defense, using the entire FBI to make it.

In totally political hubris, he broadens the case against him as one against the entire FBI. Not so. He leans heavily on the rest of the FBI to bolster him as a great leader. Not so.

“I was drawn to the FBI by nothing more complicated than a desire to do good. In 1994, I submitted a special-agent application, dreaming about what life as a criminal investigator would be like. I devoured every book I could find, and binged on news coverage of FBI investigations.”

Spare us the self-flattering noble intentions. Anyway, it is entirely possible to have noble intentions, 21 years ago, and end up as a dirty cop. That is the matter we should deal with: what happens when that person, you insist you were, turns into the one who deserved to be fired? That is the lesson or example recruits and FBI agents should heed.

“True to form, our agents, analysts and professional staff reacted as FBI people always do. They continued to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution despite the political winds — and the unprecedented attacks on us by the president and other partisans — that buffeted us.”

They continued, despite yours and Comey’s misguided malfeasance and leadership, to do their jobs. Interesting though not unexpected. That is of course what respectable people do. A government agency has to be much larger than its lone leader(s).

So then he launches into a recruitment theme on how we need good young people. Again, nothing to do with the subject of his own conduct or malfeasance.

“…to protect and defend them, honestly, justly and fairly. There is no greater responsibility, but there is no greater reward. We cannot afford for young people to be dissuaded from lives of public service by the divisive politics and partisan attacks that now so characterize our national discourse and that, I believe, played a major role in the end of my FBI career.

Apparently you are just as much of a narcissist as Comey. It is not all about you. They won’t all make their decisions based on you or Comey. But possibly in spite of you.

“Divisive politics and partisan attacks?” You and Comey dragged politics and dvissive attacks into the FBI. And then you attempt to use the cover of honor, integrity and leadership to justify it. Those qualities don’t justify what you did, they contradict it.

Ah oh… it seems it was your own corrupted political influences and motives which caused your downfall — not the political motives of others for your firing.

“There is nothing like having the opportunity to be a part of the greatest law-enforcement organization in the world, working every day for goals that you respect and cherish. It is the best job you will ever have. Even if a president decides to attack you and your family. Even if you get fired on a Friday night, one day from your retirement.”

Maybe you should have appreciated and then respected the organization more than your personal objectives or desires. Your actions were disrespectful to the organization you led and now claim to defend. In truth, you are really only defending yourself by using the integrity of the agency — not representing it.

And guess what, Andrew-lack of candor-McCabe, you aren’t the victim here. We are.

Right Ring | Bullright

Talking vs. listening to God: who you going to believe?

This is a post I wanted to write and didn’t want to write. Wanted to because I think it is important, but didn’t want to because I know people roll their eyes or get turned off talking about faith or Christianity. Still here goes.

A few weeks ago Joy Beyhar made a comment on the View attacking Pence for his Christian beliefs. Then she was forced to apologize by Disney. But Pence, in his kind way, accepted it and urged her to make a public apology to the millions of Christians she offended. Finally, she did make a public apology on TV.

Yes, regardless of the apology, it is still worthy of discussion. IOW, that is not the end of it.

What she said was the subject of the matter.

“It’s one thing to talk to Jesus. It’s another thing when Jesus talks to you. That’s called mental illness, if I’m not correct, hearing voices.”

Never mind the grammatical faux pas, she referred to it as mental illness. Great job offending ignorant Christians who just don’t know better. Her apology did not make it go away. She was just voicing a common misconception about Christians.

Apology — “I was raised to respect everyone’s religious faith and I fell short of that,” the comedian said. “I sincerely apologize for what I said.”

The crux of the matter is listening to God. That is the big offense here. Apparently talking to God is fine but listening to God is not. That, in a nutshell, is a common liberal opinion out there. In othe words, it would take a Christian to be offended at that because most other people would not be. No wonder we are where we are in society.

Listening to God, can it be possible that is a chief offense? Is it really the stuff of loony tunes and crazies? Nonsense, but it makes for a good sound bite.

However, it is completely backwards or reversed from Christian tradition. We talk an awful lot to God. Some people pray regularly. Funny that listening would be the problem. We do have an awesome God who not only hears but knows our hearts and intentions. You don’t fool God. Yes, we are not above error. Much of the problem is not listening.

One of the things we are taught, or learn, is the patience and discipline to listen to God. Call it waiting on Him. Remember He has the ability to speak any way He wants, whether by events or natural means or through people. But God’s message will come through if He wants it to. So then it becomes a matter of us being receptive or listening for it.

Discerning

I would actually say that the easier part is for us to talk, the harder part is to listen. If it were only us talking, it is a one way conversation. You talk to your friends, but you don’t do all the talking.(or you might not have the friend for long) And we don’t have all the answers, which is often why we turn to God. We are seeking something from Him.

God desires a personal relationship with his people. How do you have a relationship without doing some listening? In 2 Chronicles 7:14, it tells us “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

That also means we are heard. It says “seek my face.” Well, seeking is also listening, and following. Through the scriptures, prayer talking to others, we seek. Often we are seeking answers, or solutions. Shouldn’t we be open to answers, even expect them? James 1:22 — “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”

Or we could try acting like one of the pundits on TV who talks over the other person blocking out their voice. How can they be listening when they shout down the other person? They ignore other people’s answers. Liberals like that method.

So talking to God is fine, but listening is not.

Just imagine how you would teach your kids then. Tell them “we want you to talk to God, pray. Just don’t ever listen to Him. See, that’s where you get into trouble.” Just like if you told your kids: “if you need help, come and talk to me. Just never listen to me or follow me. So, kids, no listening now….don’t embarrass me.” It is the same message.

This is what we get from society. Joy got a lot of laughs, seemed the crowd was with her. That’s what I expect from the secularists today. Sure they preach their religion, but when it comes to Christians? Well, just laugh at them. Okay, so I forgive her. That is the mentality though and she is not alone. They just have it exactly backwards.

Our bodies are gifts as well as our limbs. It is how we use them that matters. Reasoning is a gift and so is our conscience. It’s another way God talks to us. If we don’t listen to our conscience it would cause a problem. You would never tell someone to stop listening to their conscience. But the world and society might. Maybe peer pressure tells kids to ignore their conscience. Do we tell kids to do that? And the world thinks we’re crazy?

 

Flashback of another famous ‘comedian’: (Christmas day)

Right Ring | Bullright

Old theories on Dems validated

This requires some contextual background. Conservatives have tossed out various psycho-theories about the left and what drives Democrats. I have considered them dysfunctionally deficient, making reasoning impossible. You could have a formal debate with numbers and statistics but it would mean nothing. They can ignore inconvenient facts as easily as they ignore the results. It does frustrate people.

Take a major issue as an example. The wall and border security, not even going into the entire problems. If you sat down to reason or convince Democrats, it wouldn’t work. So if the left has such aversion to a wall, numbers or facts don’t work. What is it, you might wonder why? If it were economics, you could make that argument. But you would be wasting your time and sincere efforts.

That is because it is philosophical to them. They are philosophically opposed, no matter what the facts or what you say. They will invent excuses, just make things up, call you names, or twist whatever you say. You see how vehemently they are opposed. It also includes ideology and emotion. Don’t expect them to care about the consequences of not building a wall either. They don’t care. They can’t be forced to care about something they have already made up their mind is not important.

They only care about other things much more: like sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, amnesty, stopping ICE from doing its job, protecting illegals. Almost anything else. They’ll give you the state’s rights argument. They don’t care about that. They’ve been fighting against state’s rights for years and opposing the will of the people.

So how else can one explain it? What is behind it. If it is a mental deficiency, what is it? Well, I found something interesting to help explain it. Just consider the source.

Sooner or later you will come across this story, if you haven’t already — because it is being shoveled out especially by media. I took the time to read it. I will link the article, not as a personal endorsement, but this was my takeaway nugget from it.

“I wanted to know why the Lib Dems sucked at winning elections when they used to run the country up to the end of the 19th century,” Wylie explains. “And I began looking at consumer and demographic data to see what united Lib Dem voters, because apart from bits of Wales and the Shetlands it’s weird, disparate regions. And what I found is there were no strong correlations. There was no signal in the data.

“And then I came across a paper about how personality traits could be a precursor to political behaviour, and it suddenly made sense. Liberalism is correlated with high openness and low conscientiousness, and when you think of Lib Dems they’re absent-minded professors and hippies. They’re the early adopters… they’re highly open to new ideas. And it just clicked all of a sudden.”

Now some of this data is from varied places. But it still would apply across borders.

This high openness, to belief and apparently progressive ideas would help explain it. Couple that with low conscientiousness and you have a volatile cocktail. A vehicle. I knew they were conscience-challenged but there it is. Do you think they would care about turning on a dime, contradicting themselves or hypocrisy? No, all that only matters if they care.

That’s why they beat conservatives over the head about double standards of hypocrisy. That works. To the left there are no double standards, only the now standard. Past is not prologue, it becomes irrelevant. All the matters is the immediate situation and need — whatever it takes.

Now that makes sense too, because they don’t care about the future, really, or the consequences of what they do. And it’s also why they continually apply the same failing policies. So there is a plausible, real validation that is measurable.

Explains a lot about Obama, Clintons and the DNC. So if you have people open to a radical agenda and ideas, with low conscientious objections, you have a pretty influential bunch that can be led (molded). Throw some white guilt on that bonfire. And all this, linked to the established plantation and identity politics, is an incorrigible force with only one uniting thing, ideology and control. Add in the anti-God agenda and what do you expect?

Right Ring | Bullright

Orwellian Antifa in perspective

An op-ed describes the proper perspective of Antifa terrorists running rampant across America. From American Majority. Orwellian.

Op-Ed: The real threat to our republic is the Orwellian Antifa

August 30, 2017 — By Ned Ryun — in The Hill

Over the past few months, we have finally entered the fully realized historical revisionism promised in George Orwell’s “1984,” in which the motto, “Who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past controls the future,” was central to shaping the book’s dystopian world. In the book, history was continually being rewritten and re-promulgated to meet the political necessities of the moment. There was no history to be remembered, let alone lessons to be learned.

For all the talk of Trumpian bluster or exaggeration, there is only one group that seeks to systematically and violently achieve its goals here in the United States on a broad scale: the so-called “anti-fascist” movement, now commonly called “Antifa.” And the goal? It’s not “anti-fascist” or “anti-racist” as they attempt to portray themselves. It’s the systematic elimination of free speech, free assembly, and free thought via any means necessary, including violent protest, the media and Orwellian revisionism.

It is the imposition of a perverse type of intolerance based on Marxist and Chinese communist values that, it turns out, is far more welcome and pervasive within the Democrat Party of Sens. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) than neo-Nazis, the KKK and white supremacists are in the Republican Party. The gunman, James Hodgkinson, who shot Rep. Steve Scalise and four others in Alexandria was a habitual Antifa website visitor and advocate and Sanders volunteer. Even Democrat vice presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-Va.) son has been identified as an Antifa activist.

Yet, the media would have us believe that it is the white supremacist movement that is the real threat to our republic. Consider that most media estimates put the Antifa movement, largely built out of the “Occupy” movement of 2008-2010, at more than 200,000 members. The Southern Poverty Law Center, on the other hand, puts the number of Klu Klux Klan members at about 6,000 KKK …in a country of almost 330 million. But actions speak volumes compared to mere numbers.

The vandalized statue of Christopher Columbus? Antifa. The statue torn down in Durham, N.C.? Antifa. The violence in Charlottesville? Antifa. The violence in Seattle? Antifa. Not excusing the vile nature of the white supremacist protest, but it was a licensed march that remained comparatively nonviolent, albeit troubling, until, as one eyewitness described it, “It started raining balloons filled with urine, feces, paint, burning chemicals & boards with nails driven into them.” …/

Read the entire op-ed: The Hill

Source: American Majority https://americanmajority.org/blog-2/op-ed-the-real-threat-to-our-republic-is-the-orwellian-antifa/

Charlie Daniels getting it right again

Charlie Daniels

By Charlie Daniels | August 7, 2017 — CNS News

 

Politics is no longer public service. It is a jaded, high stakes game, played by power drunk career politicians who have only two priorities in their lives, and the prosperity and security of the United States is not one of them. Reelection and power have taken the place of patriotism and honor in an atmosphere where betrayal is acceptable and common sense is as scarce as unicorns.

Why did members of Congress try to make their voters believe that they felt the pain caused by Obamacare? Why did they lead us to believe it was “We’re all in this together,” knowing full well that 70 percent of their cost was subsidized, so they could buy the very best coverage with the lowest deductibles at a fraction of the cost that an ordinary citizen would pay for a high deductible, low coverage plan?

Folks, the reason is simple, those folks, with very few exceptions, don’t give a d— about us or the country. All they care about is winning, and they’d sell your whole generation down the drain if it meant they could keep their ivory towers for another season.

In fact, they’ve already done it. /…….

Continue at: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/charlie-daniels-politics-no-longer-public-service/

Despite all the talk from the critters in the swamp — breathing swamp gas — the last thing on earth they ever want is “a level playing field” with the people. Nope, they need the deck staked in every way against us: from campaign financing to legislating over not by the people. As Ted Poe of Texas always says, “and that’s just the way it is.”

The problem is not only that self-serving estabos of Swampland declared war on the people; but the greater problem is that, until Trump, no one was really fighting back. We weren’t getting anywhere in the battle. It always came up with the gains to them. Funny.

Now they are mad that we went a different way in 2016, against their severe protests and everything they could throw in our way. They’re expert obstructionists of the Swamp.

After the latest Senate failure, Mitch McConnell informs voters it is only our perception things are moving too slowly and aren’t getting done. We don’t understand the ebb and flow in the swamp ecosystem. Then he blames it on Trump’s inexperience. Where is his experience and what’s it worth? What happened to his “one-term” goal in ’09?

The Intellectual Idiot

I resisted the temptation to title it Intellectualized idiot.

Here’s a really interesting piece I only read recently. It may be a bit general and comes from a very accredited thinker/writer. I guess it was quite popular but I just discovered it.

He also requires anyone sharing it do so in full crediting it as extracted from his larger “Skin in the Game”. I only post the article, there are some updates to it at the link below.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot

View story at Medium.com
Nassim Nicholas Taleb

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their image-oriented minds scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types — those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior — much of what they would classify as “rational” or “irrational” (or some such categories indicating deviation from a desired or prescribed protocol) comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in most countries, the government’s role is between five and ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialized outlets, think tanks, the media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.

Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.

The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools and PhDs as these are needed in the club.

More socially, the IYI subscribes to The New Yorker. He never curses on twitter. He speaks of “equality of races” and “economic equality” but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver (again, no real skin in the game as the concept is foreign to the IYI). Those in the U.K. have been taken for a ride by Tony Blair. The modern IYI has attended more than one TEDx talks in person or watched more than two TED talks on Youtube. Not only did he vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable and some such circular reasoning, but holds that anyone who doesn’t do so is mentally ill.

The IYI has a copy of the first hardback edition of The Black Swan on his shelves, but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence. He believes that GMOs are “science”, that the “technology” is not different from conventional breeding as a result of his readiness to confuse science with scientism.

Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).

The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right.

The IYI is member of a club to get traveling privileges; if social scientist he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general); when in the UK, he goes to literary festivals; he drinks red wine with steak (never white); he used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed; he takes statins because his doctor told him to do so; he fails to understand ergodicity and when explained to him, he forgets about it soon later; he doesn’t use Yiddish words even when talking business; he studies grammar before speaking a language; he has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen; he has never read Frederic Dard, Libanius Antiochus, Michael Oakeshot, John Gray, Amianus Marcellinus, Ibn Battuta, Saadiah Gaon, or Joseph De Maistre; he has never gotten drunk with Russians; he never drank to the point when one starts breaking glasses (or, preferably, chairs); he doesn’t even know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba (which in Brooklynese is “can’t tell sh**t from shinola”); he doesn’t know that there is no difference between “pseudointellectual” and “intellectual” in the absence of skin in the game; has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past five years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics.

He knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation.

But a much easier marker: he doesn’t even deadlift.

The Blind and the Very Blind

Let’s suspend the satirical for a minute.

IYIs fail to distinguish between the letter and the spirit of things. They are so blinded by verbalistic notions such as science, education, democracy, racism, equality, evidence, rationality and similar buzzwords that they can be easily taken for a ride. They can thus cause monstrous iatrogenics[1] without even feeling a shade of a guilt, because they are convinced that they mean well and that they can be thus justified to ignore the deep effect on reality. You would laugh at the doctor who nearly kills his patient yet argues about the effectiveness of his efforts because he lowered the latter’s cholesterol, missing that a metric that correlates to health is not quite health –it took a long time for medicine to convince its practitioners that health was what they needed to work on, not the exercise of what they thought was “science”, hence doing nothing was quite often preferable (via negativa). But yet, in a different domain, say foreign policy, a neo-con who doesn’t realize he has this mental defect would never feel any guilt for blowing up a country such as Libya, Iraq, or Syria, for the sake of “democracy”. I’ve tried to explain via negativa to a neocon: it was like trying to describe colors to someone born blind.

IYIs can be feel satisfied giving their money to a group aimed at “saving the children” who will spend most of it making powerpoint presentation and organizing conferences on how to save the children and completely miss the inconsistency.

Likewise an IYI routinely fails to make a distinction between an institution (say formal university setting and credentialization) and what its true aim is (knowledge, rigor in reasoning) –I’ve even seen a French academic arguing against a mathematician who had great (and useful) contributions because the former “didn’t go to a good school” when he was eighteen or so.

The propensity to this mental disability may be shared by all humans, and it has to be an ingrained defect, except that it disappears under skin in the game.

[1] Harm done by the healer.

See Original page source

Sneak attacks from Paris Accord train

I read this op-ed in the NYT, preferred toilet tissue for those in the know. However, it does pay to see what they say once in a while, even with a jaundice eye and flexing eyebrows.

The Times Editorial Board describes Trump’s jump off the Paris Accord train as “America in Retreat.” But then it does it while a terrorist attack goes down in London. See there is no time that is not a good time to attack Trump. And that is all it was.

You would think it might be laced with the benefits of staying in the Paris Accord. No, it was only a criticism for leaving it. How dare you. But it failed to mention any benefits that we would get out of it.

Sure, we know the world gains from US being in it. They want our money. Another Globul scheme that we will chiefly fund. Excuse me, aren’t we having those problems in other world organizations? So no painful losses for us bailing out of the latest Globul scheme.

Their biggest point was that we are shirking, or ceding, our leadership by fleeing from it. That’s the big problem, and that is reprehensible to their ideological view.

We just got rid of a president who believed in leading from behind, who was all for this agreement, but somehow we are foregoing our leadership by withdrawing? In all his twisted foreign policy failures, Obama never once put America first and certainly did not prove his theory correct. He gained nothing from all the apologies he spouted from Cairo to Russia. Yet now we are abandoning our leadership position? Even at home he did not put the will of the people or our priorities first. Instead, he set his priorities of green energy first at the expense of everything else, and wasted countless millions on programs that didn’t work or went belly up, along with our money. Then he branded it a success.

(NYT) Still, Mr. Trump and his team, embroiled in controversy over Russia and other matters, have shown no inclination, much less skill, to do the hard thinking that must precede any decision to alter America’s role in the world.

So right on the heels of having given the world a tragedy of an Iran deal, which benefited Iran, Obama headed straight down his homestretch to get into a Paris Deal that offered nothing but another giant expense for us. That, he claimed, was leadership. Setting up any global slush fund is now called leadership — the bigger the better.

But we were always supposed to be cautious of foreign entanglements that threaten our sovereignty. That is exactly why Obama and the left like to dabble in them so much.

Perfect example: it didn’t take long, when Trump was contemplating the withdraw from the Paris accord, for media and press to ramp up means that you would not have thought possible. Yes, they insisted that to withdraw from the Paris treaty — can we now at least call it that — was, in fact, a threat to our sovereignty. Oh yes they did! Every reason we gave for withdrawing they tried to reverse to make it a reason we should stay in it.

The exact opposite of their rhetoric was true. It was a treaty masquerading as an executive order. If it was so popular they would have had no problem getting Senate approval, which they wouldn’t do because it would not pass. It was the same Constitutional principle they avoided on the Iran deal. Yet they went ahead and did it anyway.

Now they claim we are giving up our sovereignty by withdrawing. But no one explains why that is true, just like they don’t explain all the benefits of staying in. Other countries had to do nothing. So they, namely the left, are angry because there is no replacement for our funding. Their claim is that without us in the treaty everyone else is going to reap the benefits now. But they were the ones who were going to benefit anyway.

It is just one more deal which doesn’t consider America’s priorities. Yet they lie and say getting out does not preserve our priorities, it threatens them. Then there is Democrats’ universal closing argument for everything that “people are going to die.”

Ironically, the only thing that seems to usurp media’s attacks on Trump are intermittent terrorist attacks that the world has no immediate answers to. So maybe if their Paris plan was framed as a terrorist plot, would they finally see the error in it — or at least the drawbacks? Or probably not even that would alter their Globul perspective. It’s futile.

RightRing | Bullright

The Left: hypocrisy is thy name

I always stand prepared to be outraged at the depth of hypocrisy on the left. Then I am not really. But this issue is deeper than that. I’ve come to believe there are two kinds of hypocrisy at work. There is a standard blatant hypocrisy and then there is a more sinister, fundamental hypocrisy. The latter is what I see more and more of.

The election highlighted it. During the debates before the election, there were all the calls of Trump to accept the results of the election. All those now discredited polls had showed Trump losing and Hillary the unchallenged winner. It was obvious they said. Media had pointed out daily that there was no chance for Trump to win. They asserted that the election was not based on a popular vote, whether you like it or not, but on the electoral system. That system favors Clinton, they said. They told us it was all about getting over 270 in the electoral college.Again, that would put Hillary in the White House and makes it albeit impossible for Trump to meet that daunting uphill task.

Then there was Larry Sabato going from network to network telling us there really was no way for Trump to win. He would not say zero chance but he gave him very little chance. There were all those polls, which never seem to put Hillary down by much. They mostly had her with around a six point lead in states. Closer to election it was 3 or 4 points. (I know I am generalizing but it doesn’t matter — they gave her a heavy advantage)

So everywhere they could, they were looking for concessions from Trump. “Will you accept the results of election” system? Trump just refused to play their submission game. Hillary even said she was outraged saying that, for the first time in history, we have someone unwilling to say he would accept the results. At the time, I thought it would be ironic if he won and Dems refused to accept the results. But they kept repeating it was Trump who would not accept results and the rules, as they were laid out.

Then we had the election and people were surprised. First, surprised by the results; then by the denial and refusal to accept the results as they happened. Media did report it because they really had no choice. When AP declared the winner, they could not disagree. But almost immediately it became about the popular vote.

Democrats said we don’t know the final tally of the popular vote, and it went from there. They became obsessed with the popular vote count. Before the election, they said that regardless of popular vote count the results would be determined by the electoral college. So much for that.

Now that we have the results, this fits with all their other hypocrisy. They really don’t care about that; it doesn’t bother them. However, when you notice how rooted hypocrisy is in their DNA, you see the bigger problem. It is who they are, say one thing do another.

They make a big issue about something — digging in their heels — until it is inconvenient for them to hold that position. Then they turn on a dime to support the opposite position. That’s just the way it is with the left. They are always prepared to be hypocrites because it doesn’t matter to them. Their blatant hypocrisy means nothing to them because it is a fundamental tenant of their ideology, politics rules to the left. They will do and say anything to justify their political position at the time. (subject to revision)

This is the same type of fundamental hypocrisy we see in their foreign policy positioning. They were against warring mentality. Democrats stood for Libyan intervention and then Benghazi, right up to the minute they had to take responsibility for it. Then they were AWOL about it.

All along, Democrats played with the notion of Russian involvement and sorted ties to Russia. We heard these claims from everywhere. Hillary supporter. and confident, Mike Morell took to the editorial page calling Trump an unwitting agent of the Russia federation. Charges were fierce. They even accused Trump of encouraging espionage.

“It’s pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race,” Clinton said to Trump at the third presidential debate in October. — Politifact

Putin had also blamed Hillary for intervening in their election and stirring dissent afterward, a subject completely lost in the media. Yet Obama and his cohorts had been dabbling in other countries’ elections throughout both his terms, even in Israeli.

They went all-in behind the rise of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. Has Obama even visited Egypt since the coupe stabilized the situation? No, sort of odd considering he started out his apology tour with a Cairo speech.

Here starts the big story: blame Russia for the election results. Which is really funny because Dems claim Russians’ objective was to influence the election and undermine the integrity of our system. Mission accomplished. Democrats certify that Russia did influence the outcome, despite lack of proof. Since the election is over, given the results, Dems claim our electoral college system is not so great. Undermine the integrity of our election? Mission accomplished. How many ways can one challenge an election?

The very thing Dems accused Russia of trying to do, they willingly did themselves. No one can undermine our process as well as Democrats, when they set their minds to it. They embarked on a recount program and questioned the legitimacy of the electoral college. They tried to undermine that system by influencing the electorates, to get them to switch allegiance from Trump.

But Obama previously mocked the Russian geopolitical threat. Obama promised Russia and Putin he would be more “flexible” after his last election. Putin is still collecting.

If all Russia was trying to do was undermine the integrity of the process, then count Democrats in for that. But earlier they stood on the platform of integrity, declaring our example to the world of peaceful power transfer and our long established history of accepting election results — whether we like them or not. Scratch that!

First NYT reported:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

The statement came as liberal opponents of Donald J. Trump, some citing fears of vote hacking, are seeking recounts in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where his margin of victory was extremely thin.

In its statement, the administration said, “The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian government-directed compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”

But wait, Democrats were all about undermining the legitimacy of Trump even as a candidate. It was a personal thing to Obama, who declared Trump was unqualified from the presidential podium. Hillary and her operatives questioned Trump on nuclear codes.

“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” it added.

They “stand behind the results?” Well, that is until they don’t. Democrats started a hashtag #AuditTheVote. Which is it, they stand behind the resuts or they don’t?

Independent Journal Review

Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco told reporters on Friday:

“We may have crossed into a new threshold and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned.”

Added White House spokesman Eric Schultz at the daily press briefing:

“This will be a review that is both broad and deep at the same time.”

“Obviously, you can imagine a report like this is gonna contain highly, you know, sensitive and even classified information….[We’ll] make public as much as we can.”

So now they aren’t sure they will disclose the results. But isn’t doing an investigation an attempt to reassure the public and restore credibility in our system? Yet they let it be known, beforehand, that they are going to selectively report the results. Uh?

First Obama had claimed that he did not want to get involved in presidential election politics. Now he goes all in to investigate presidential election, questioning foreign involvement in our election process. See how this Hypocrisy thing works? First Obama lectured, and mocked, Trump on questioning our rigged system or the outcome of our election as ridiculous. Now he is the chief tin-foil hat in the process questioning the integrity of our election.

But then this is the same president who is claiming his administration is scandal free, too. I guess there is time enough to start one more scandal over the results of the election.

Funny how before the election, who cared? But we had how many hackings all over our government. One report is anyone who ever worked in government has had their personal information stolen. Did we hear Obama’s outrage about that? How about Democrats’ outrage calling for us to do something about it? We do know nothing stopped Obama, who could have taken action on any one of these hacks. But yet, he hasn’t. (at least that we know of, and we probably would know if they did)

Obama now tees up a Russia conflict for Trump, when he would do nothing on cyber warfare before. And he now warns Trump about the immediate “near term” North Korea threat. So all problems become elevated to red alert when Trump is sworn in. Media to follow suite. But hypocrisy? — Not a problem.

RightRing | Bullright

The Pundit’s Paradox: Matt Lewis’ dangerous allegory

Normally, I reserve my tit for tat arguments for political elites. In this case, I’ll make an exception. It started with a Matt Lewis article that is getting lots of play on CNN and the lamestream express.

Oh, remember the days of Matt Lewis on Townhall and conservative circles? Anyway, he writes a Moonbat-bait piece and Libs compliment his intellectual acumen for daring to raise all the pertinent questions. They love that.

See the article hereShould You be Afraid of President Trump?

For the first time in my lifetime, however, people seem to be wondering if the system is self-destructing.

This debate was on full display today on Morning Joe when Anand Giridharadas squared off against Joe Scarborough. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Donald Trump’s election and subsequent rhetoric (his baseless suggestion that voter fraud cost him the popular vote, his attacks on media figures and outlets, and his recent suggestion that the penalty for flag burning should be jail or loss of citizenship) has alarmed people like Giridharadas who worry he has the kind of authoritarian tendencies that might flout the rule of law. /…

In the past, there have essentially been two things stopping American leaders from dictatorial powers: Character and the system. Ideally, we would elect the kind of people who would, like Washington, serve two terms and then (voluntarily) go back to the farm. But in the event this did not occur, our system would prevent the seizure of power (anyone who tried would fail miserably—and go down in history as an ignominious figure). It’s worth considering whether (A) Donald Trump’s character or (B) the ability of the system to contain him are adequate safeguards?

Lewis goes on in his intellectual quandary. Though I grant his questions may be real ones, his manner of handling, or explaining, the paradox is not. What I mean is he references Joe Scarborough who intimated ‘checks and balances’ should be enough to deter Trump — or anyone for that matter. Understandable. But Matt fears that may not be enough.

That is the beauty of our whole system; or at least it always was until Barack Obama blew it up and proved otherwise. (…he had a little help) Lewis adds:

These fears are not entirely irrational. According to a study reported in today’s New York Times, “signs of democratic deconsolidation in the United States and many other liberal democracies are now similar to those in Venezuela before its crisis.” For example, “researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule would be a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.”

More sanguine observers, such as Joe Scarborough, assure us that the American system (with its balance of powers, federalism, and checks and balances) pits ambition against ambition, thus containing the ambitions of any one strongman.

See, Lewis’ problem predates Trump the politician. But in some ways Trump is made to order for our predicament. Like Joe, Libs refer to checks and balances. (Cue those cartoons for the filibuster.) What about checks to the power? We are lectured on the three branches of government. Matt worries about how anyone can hold Trump accountable? But that is the same problem we already have, unaccountable power.

How have these 3 divided branches or checks dealt with the abuse of power thus far? Now therein is the problem. We finally got down to the ‘who gives a damn?‘ stage in our self-government evolution. We proved that we can allow abuses to go on, in some cases without a whimper of protest. We have the first unimpeachable president in history.

Then we showed Obama that Congress would stand as no opposition to him. The Court did basically the same. Should we rerack the tape of the High Court rewriting and passing Obamacare? Where were all the fretful liberals and nail biters then…or abusees?

The point is profound: we the people found there was no check and balance to Obama. Our greatest hope or guarantee was the two-term limit as the sole check and balance. And we can’t say Republicans did not have a majority to do anything, They did. The one time we stood up to face a government shutdown, we blinked and basically gave Obama what he wanted anyway. And Obama was adept at using those circumstances to his benefit.

To Lewis’ assertion on military power, respect, or possible coupe: well, what would you expect? I mean look what we’ve been through. The trust of the Congress is MIA. This is not the people’s fault. We tried every other means to rein in the power. In fact, it was widely accepted that this was our last chance to right the ship, at the ballot box.

So the fact that Military or police — which he claims are both associated with the right — are considered more credible with the people than our government is not so out of the ordinary. Note that the press/media is on the discredited list as well.

Then came Trump who is no fix-it man. However, he is the best disrupter we could have. The first step to correction must be to break this symbiotic relationship that has avoided any accountability thus far. They worry about accountability now? Where were these people? “Trust and verify,” they say? Nothing with Obama was verified… except that he lied to us often. (Obamacare) After we all knew it, still it meant nothing.

It was not working; people were not held accountable, no one was fired, no one went to jail. We had no active checks and balances to out of control power. At least with the military there are some repercussions for actions. Police have accountability. So the point is this system was busted from we the people’s perspective. We don’t see that in the military.

And it was not a case of party politics. That played a role but is not the enabler. We had institutional breakdown. IRS ran amok in politics and abused its power to target political enemies. No one stopped it or held them accountable. The checks and balances went unchecked and unbalanced. Dep of Justice operated as the Injustice Department.

Now I have no fear that Trump would be granted the same latitude Obama had. That’s not going to happen. Press will not do latrine detail for Trump as they did for Obama. So this is better than what we had. But we got something more, even better. We now have someone who voices the concerns of people. Someone who is on the side of the people — a fighter. (he carried their message through the election) Someone as fed up as they are with status quo. We didn’t have that before. The people had no voice. That matters.

In the end, Matt Lewis postulates that he personally believes democracy is preciously fragile enough that one must presume it could be lost. Well, it doesn’t hurt to be vigilant but it requires action, not hyperbole and inaction. In other words, deeds matter more than theory which is exactly why we elected Trump.

Trump is no savior, but at least he is willing and able to do what others wouldn’t or couldn’t. Yet the critics, overwhelmed by fear, are more worried about what he will do than the cause that brought him to bear and made him essential to our cause.

(Note: Lewis’ book Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots) was published in January 2016)

RightRing | Bullright

The Central Factor is Time

Looking across the spectrum of all these problems today, the one common denominator and leading factor in all of our issues or problems seems to be time.

How many songs have been written about time? It’s the one known factor and one thing we have no control over. And time is pressing.

Plug time into anything and it gives you the known variables. How much time do we have? How much time does it take to fix it? How much time is necessary to get the desired results? How much time is being wasted by ignoring the problems? How much time is wasted for all sorts of reasons? In the end, does the clock have enough time available to turn the situation(s) around?

So many people may be looking for a new clock by now. Some may be resigned that it is not even possible anymore. Some are just complacent that it even matters — with so many other concerns upon them. But then, time alone will not fix things either. It can only make the problems a little older.

Just a few general thoughts about the general factor in all our issues, time. We don’t have much left in this election.

Yet there is one other thing that I noticed, politically. Democrats have this habit of overreaching. Of course that is only a byproduct of their politics. They are constantly trying to push the outer limits on everything — whatever it is — as far as they can go. So the natural extension of that is to overreach.

The problem is that it does not seem to bite them more often, if at all. They are now floating the idea of not just beating Trump and getting the White House, but that this could even be a wave election for them in Congress. See what I mean about overreaching? It never ends with Libs, progressives, socialists, whatever they call themselves.

RightRing | Bullright

Media doesn’t like On Line polls

Fox News threw out this disclaimer denouncing online polls. In part:

Politico reports on Fox memo.

“As most of the publications themselves clearly state, the sample obviously can’t be representative of the electorate because they only reflect the views of those Internet users who have chosen to participate,” Dana Blanton, Fox News’s vice president of public-opinion research, wrote in the memo to the channel’s politics team.”

But then it is filled with irony. The MSM (which Fox is now flirting with) cannot fairly represent or reflect the electorate’s opinion on anything, because they are so far removed from public opinion. The self-serving media echo chamber thinks it supposedly represents public opinion.(same as politicians) It’s a non-stop editorial page.

It went on to say:

“News networks and other organizations go to great effort and rigor to conduct scientific polls — for good reason.”

“They know quick vote items posted on the web are nonsense, not true measures of public opinion.”

But there are no disclaimers about it. They assert that their news is unbiased when nothing is further from the truth. They don’t care and are quite proud of their bias. In other words, they substitute their editorial bias for public opinion and claim to speak for it.

Still, they all love to pick on and bash on line polls for their participation. Yet their own polls are hardly better. And their coverage is far from scientific method. The message, then, is “trust our certified bullshit. We work very hard at distorting and slanting the news.

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

Trump and the heavyweight title

I’m always open for a good comparison and I found a one. What Muhammad Ali was to HBO in the seventies is what Donald Trump is to politics, or the GOP, today.

Back in the seventies the invention of Home Box Office, HBO, was limping along with its popularity nowhere near peaking. Then came the Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frasier fight, part 3, with the hyped “Thrilla in Manila”. Ali himself a great promoter. It attracted viewers like nothing before pushing HBO off to bigger things and greater popularity.

Our biggest problem in politics, according to some has always been the lack of participation When you can look around and see other 2nd-rate countries with greater participation in the voting process than the US, it always sparks the question “why?” If only people were more active and part of the system maybe we could get better results? And the chief complaint when things go wrong was always that not enough people pay attention and get actively involved.

Then along came Trump. He was the Thrilla in Manila to GOP politics. We always said Dems had all the attractions to their politics but people weren’t interested, or invested, in GOP politics. Why couldn’t GOP draw people? Once in a while it takes that something or someone to come along and launch an event or thing to a whole new level.

Like him or not, and many don’t, that is what Trump did. And for the first time in my memory Democrats didn’t know who to attack. Remember they started on Jeb Bush, assuming he’d be the anointed front runner? For the first time they couldn’t predict the next GOP move. That must have driven the Democrats nuts. But hatred came with it.

Now that we have him, they all love to hate him. He’s become the target, the object of whatever they want to depict him as. Yet it is the American people, those fed-up voters and members of the public extraordinaire, who are the object of their mockery. It was us all along who wanted to bring more interest, excitement and commitment to an important process. And now we’ve become the enemy and target of their wrath.

Or in the words of Muhammad Ali, “I don’t have to be what you want me to be.

HBO’s legacy since has become the place where people go when they’ve arrived. It’s the big stage not a backstage.But the springboard was Ali and Thrilla in Manila. So often everyone is busy rushing to and looking for the next big thing that they haven’t exploited the potential in the basics we have.

That’s also the problem with politics. We’re kept focused on one election after the last but with nothing much in between. When something comes up that commands people’s attention and action, we’re told wait for next election. It’ll get the hype it deserves. But after years of playing that old parlor game, we finally reached that “next election.”

And when the people now say they want something different than that spoon-fed agenda, with the same results, the establishment balks at them. So the outcome is a Donald Trump for president. What do they want to do, attack the messenger and all his supporters? “That’ll learn ’em.” This was a long time coming.

It’s not much a surprise that we’re being told to sit down and shut up or we’ll lose the election. There’s always a danger of taking comparisons too far. This one is interesting.
The sit down and shut up really doesn’t fit either case.

Related: Force, safety, Trump and foreign policy

RightRing | Bullright

GOP suicide or rebirth — Pat Buchanan

Suicide of the GOP — or Rebirth?

Patrick J. Buchanan | Friday Mar 18, 2016 | Human Events

“If his poll numbers hold, Trump will be there six months from now when the Sweet 16 is cut to the Final Four, and he will likely be in the finals.”

My prediction, in July of 2015, looks pretty good right now.

Herewith, a second prediction. Republican wailing over his prospective nomination aside, Donald Trump could beat Hillary Clinton like a drum in November.

Indeed, only the fear that Trump can win explains the hysteria in this city. Here is The Washington Post of March 18: “As a moral question it is straightforward. The mission of any responsible Republican should be to block a Trump nomination and election.”

The Orwellian headline over that editorial: “To defend our democracy, the GOP must aim for a brokered convention.”

Beautiful. Defending democracy requires Republicans to cancel the democratic decision of the largest voter turnout of any primaries in American history. And this is now a moral imperative for Republicans.

Like the Third World leaders it lectures, the Post celebrates democracy — so long as the voters get it right.

Whatever one may think of the Donald, he has exposed not only how far out of touch our political elites are, but how insular is the audience that listens to our media elite.

Understandably, Trump’s rivals were hesitant to take him on, seeing the number he did on “little Marco,” “low energy” Jeb and “Lyin’ Ted.”

But the Big Media — the Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times — have been relentless and ruthless.

Yet Trump’s strength with voters seemed to grow, pari passu, with the savagery of their attacks. As for National Review, The Weekly Standard and the accredited conservative columnists of the big op-ed pages, their hostility to Trump seems to rise, commensurate with Trump’s rising polls.

As the Wizard of Oz was exposed as a little man behind a curtain with a big megaphone, our media establishment is unlikely ever again to be seen as formidable as it once was.

And the GOP?

Those Republicans who assert that a Trump nomination would be a moral stain, a scarlet letter, the death of the party, they are most likely describing what a Trump nomination would mean to their own ideologies and interests.

Barry Goldwater lost 44 states in 1964, and the GOP fell to less than a third of Congress. “The Republican Party is dead,” wailed the Rockefeller wing. Actually, it wasn’t. Only the Rockefeller wing was dead.

After the great Yellowstone fire in the summer of ’88, the spring of ’89 produced astonishing green growth everywhere. 1964 was the Yellowstone fire of the GOP, burning up a million acres of dead wood, preparing the path for party renewal. Renewal often follows rebellion.

Republican strength today, on Capitol Hill and in state offices, is at levels unseen since Calvin Coolidge. Turnout in the GOP primaries has been running at levels unseen in American history, while turnout in the Democratic primaries is below what it was in the Obama-Clinton race of 2008.

This opportunity for Republicans should be a cause for rejoicing, not all this weeping and gnashing of teeth. If the party in Cleveland can bring together the Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich forces, the White House, Supreme Court and Congress are all within reach.

Consider. Clinton was beaten by Bernie Sanders in Michigan, and pressed in Ohio and Illinois, on her support for NAFTA and the trade deals of the Clinton-Bush-Obama era that eviscerated American manufacturing and led to the loss of millions of factory jobs and the stagnation of wages.

Sanders’ issues are Trump’s issues.

A Trump campaign across the industrial Midwest, Pennsylvania and New Jersey featuring attacks on Hillary Clinton’s support for NAFTA, the WTO, MFN for China — and her backing of amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants, and for the Iraq and Libyan debacles — is a winning hand.

Lately, 116 architects and subcontractors of the Bush I and II foreign policy took their own version of the Oxford Oath. They will not vote for, nor serve in a Trump administration.

Talking heads are bobbing up on cable TV to declare that if Trump is nominee, they will not vote for him and may vote for Clinton.

This is not unwelcome news. Let them go.

Their departure testifies that Trump is offering something new and different from the foreign policy failures this crowd did so much to produce.

The worst mistake Trump could make would be to tailor his winning positions on trade, immigration and intervention — to court such losers.

While Trump should reach out to the defeated establishment of the party, he cannot compromise the issues that brought him where he is, or embrace the failed policies that establishment produced. This would be throwing away his aces.

The Trump campaign is not a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. It is a rebellion of shareholders who are voting to throw out the corporate officers and board of directors that ran the company into the ground.

Only the company here is our country.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, The Death of the West, The Great Betrayal, A Republic, Not an Empire,Where the Right Went Wrong, and most recently Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

Originally posted at: http://humanevents.com/2016/03/18/suicide-of-the-gop-or-rebirth/

Trump is not just an anomaly. He proves how out of touch the other candidates and establishment GOP really are. He champions what others refuse to see. It shows they would all rather play insider baseball than go play the game on the field.

See also by Pat: http://humanevents.com/2016/03/14/the-sea-island-conspiracy-2/

Hillary: Breaking the law

Finally someone does an astute comparison of the Hillary Clinton email ordeal to General Petraeus and gives it more than passing reference. Ken Cuccunelli, former AG of Virginia, writes the stunning piece detailing the breach of conduct, in what I call egregious offenses to break the law.

Yes, Hillary Clinton broke the law

By Ken Cuccinelli | September 27, 2015 | Op-ed NY Post

Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.

[excerpt]

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

Read at: http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/

The big question, once this is established by the very investigation she is taunting, is would the justice department prosecute? What grounds would they use to ignore or refuse to? She could need a pardon, which by accepting it requires the basic admission that one did something wrong. No wonder Bill is out characterizing it as a little nothing.

Conservative poster boy, scape goat

There was an old Helen Reddy song “You and me against the world.”

You and me against the world,
Sometimes it feels like you and me against the world,
When all the others turn their backs and walk away,
You can count on me to stay.

Remember when the circus came to town
And you were frightened by the clown,
Wasn’t it nice to be around someone that you knew,
Someone who was big and strong and looking out for

You and me against the world, …/

 
That’s certainly what it feels like now. Trump rolled out his campaign and it seemed to take on an awareness. However, what it really showed is how far we have to go, and how much establishment really is against (opposed)  to conservatives. You can say what you want how conservative Trump really is or not but he took on the face of conservatism and drew the fire — right or wrong

It only proved what an agenda they have against conservatives or only reminded you, either way. As if all anyone had to do was mention illegals and crimes to light everyone on the left on fire.  All the advocacy groups sneered — media, liberals (is there really any difference), establishment, even some corporate concerns. The outrage was swift and fierce. Much of those real problems are directly a result of Obama’s policies, but who cared about that? They wanted Trump to pay for such statements. Contracts were shredded, endorsements held hostage, deals lost, boycotts and all the rest ensued. Media balked.

Sometimes our memories will have to get us through.

Case in point this race. As much as things change, politically and otherwise, one realizes how much they remain the same. This is as much an us vs. them paradigm as it is a disagreement on issues. It’s an institutional one, the establishment verses the people or voters. It really is that basic. They’ll have us believe that it is only on this issue or that one, but it’s a far bigger problem. And that is what they want us to do, get bogged down saying we are wrong or “out of touch” on a particular position. The default is to support the establishment, across the board, on all these issues. That will eliminate problems.

George Will recently has been making the case all by himself on what the establishment thinks of Trump. They want him gone. But they want all that noisy support of his gone too. Will called himself and his fellow cohorts the adults in the room. Anti-establishment, dissenter types are welcome in the Party, he says, but that it needs to be on their terms. As far as I’m concerned, Will can go back to ABC now.

Beyond comparing Trump to George Wallace and saying that he does not belong near the nuclear football, and his supporters are Birchers and nuts, he also let fly:

Mediaite:

Will also compared Trump to primal scream therapy, a fad from the ’60s in which patients just yelled to make themselves feel better. “He’s a one-trick pony. ‘I’m rich, everybody who disagrees with me is stupid, and all our problems are simple. Put me in power.’”

“One trick pony [pot meet kettle] and everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, and all the problems are simple,” sounds like the elitist establishment GOP. Yet we are the ones called angry?? How has that establishment GOP been working for you? Not. One trick pony: ‘you must support McCain or doomsday’, “you must elect Romney, he’s the only one…’. Soon to be you must support Jeb Bush and the dynasty or lose.

Sounds like a lot of someones need to have a serious Pogo moment. Aka: “We have met the enemy and they are ours”. This is from an article in the Canada Free Press
(H/T to Pepp for the article).

There is an astounding amount of groupthink among the Washington set – the journalists, pundits, lobbyists, consultants, politicians, and dealmakers. These types of folks – the George Wills and the Steve Schmidts and the Karl Roves and the rest – don’t like new ideas. They don’t want anybody rocking the boat. As a result, anyone who threatens to do so, who seek to inject fresh perspectives into the ossified mold of Washington political society, will be viewed with fear and mistrust, and will be demonized and ostracized. This is especially the case when the ideas being injected happen to be popular with the masses (such as ending illegal immigration) but unpopular with the “elites.”

But then it went further than just ridiculing and attacking Trump, they had to go straight at his supporters, or anyone unwilling to join the attack against him. This is the typical establishment style and M/O. It’s herding the cattle into one chute, as opposed to a renegade chute that may stray from the ranch.

So tell me again, how it’s “you and me against the world.” This is a concept Christian conservatives are very familiar with. They understand, at least, that we are in the world but not of the world. We are to be salt and light in the world. A very different thing than being owned by the world or, in this case, by the GOP establishment elites.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary trails on campaign trail

This should make hillary spew her morning coffee. Oh, should but like Obama she’s too arrogant and in denial. Perhaps if her voters, the ones who don’t trust her either, wake up to say this is not what we were promised and what we signed on for?

Poll: Hillary Clinton in trouble in three key swing states

By Kelly Cohen – 7/22/15 | Washington Examiner

Hillary Clinton is trailing three leading Republican candidates in three key swing states.

In Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, the former secretary of state trails former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in hypothetical general election matchups, according to new Quinnipiac University polls released Wednesday.

Against Bush, Clinton trails 36 percent to 41 percent in Colorado, 36 percent to 42 percent in Iowa and 39 percent to 42 percent in Virginia.

more Washington Examiner

Commentary from the gallery

What we need with Hillary is something like the misery index for the economy. My theory was the Dems didn’t care about the trust factor. They vote for them anyway, almost in spite of it — maybe because of it. So I don’t hold my breath for distrust to take her down, alone. Must be more.

The Dems must be made to feel as depressed and pathetic as they really are for the country to get anywhere. But it is quite hard to give people a conscience when they have none. If they can just see the pile of manure they put in the middle of the room, and take in the aroma, maybe just maybe we can get some reaction out of them.

This is sort of like chem trails on planes. You can make all kinds of explanations or theories about them but one cannot deny seeing them with their own eyes. Seeing Hillary flounder in the polls is obvious to us. Can Dems make a good enough explanation for the cause to shake their confidence? Trustability does come to bear, but there is much more with Hillary. She is as polarizing and disconnected from normal, working class people as possible. It’s obvious. But she tries to mock CEOS and all while she is virtually in bed with them.

Will Soros pull the plug on Heiress Hillary at some point? Will he leave her to whither in the vine? Will the very support she is tied to finally say Basta Hillary, enough?

A case against her run.

Another question on Hillary remains. Why would she really want to run anyway? I’m being serious. She and Bubba — the Tookie of the charity world — have a pretty good racket er operation. Why does she really need to run? The answer of course is, you know, power and influence. The influence racket requires the power center to really have massive affect.

It worked great when she was Sec of State. If not for running for president, and her aspirations for the White House, they could be very comfortable. No hassles, raking in their piles of doe from all their connections. It is the influential political connection they need. But they still have that, Bubba has proved hugely popular, so is Hill for that matter. They could do well outside, like most institutionally connected liberals. And they would/do make it a family business. It crosses political lines. So why not just be happy in that high life they’ve extorted and built on the backs of America and its politics? (or the little people)

It’s a very lucrative racket for the grifters.

They also have their media connections and influence. What is lacking? Not much. No, the only possible reason — take altruism out — is that she wants access to the reins of power to get the greatest possible bang for the bucks. She really doesn’t care about people or anyone else. She thinks as long as she (or they) are at the center, then everyone else will be happy. Or as long as she is eating on the right side of the mushroom — like Alice in Wonderland — everything else automatically falls in place. Life will be good, people happy, the world comfortable in its chaotic bliss. Long as they benefit personally, what’s not to like?

Trump a go-go

Whether you like Trump or not, there are a few things that are hard to deny about him. I just wish the other candidates could learn and use some of the same stuff Trump uses. I don’t have a lot of confidence in that happening but it would be a good place to start.

Trump is not politically correct, and in a good way. They could all take a page from that book. He is not beholden to special interests. Well, few might be able to finance their own election but they could start with not pandering to the politically correct crowd. America has some respect for not getting bogged down. Run like the anti-politician or insurgent.

But then there is the final point or lesson from Trump. One needs to play to win. That seems like a moot point, but is it? After John McCain, and after Mitt Romney. We certainly know the Clintons, and Hillary particularly, play to win. Haven’t we come a long way to have to remind the candidate to play to win? It seems funny to have to say it.

Sure Trump has an ego, so what? Hillary doesn’t? It is not enough to run to place. No, I am not asking the candidates to turn themselves into a bombastic Lance Armstrong hybrid. But can’t they really want to win and defeat the opponent?

Not like we don’t have enough ammunition to use against Hillary, or Democrats for that matter. Why not run like you mean it? If they don’t believe in themselves, how is the rest of the country going to get behind them? It’s fundraising, cha ching.

The arguments are: ‘let’s not turn this into a sideshow.’ You mean it isn’t already? After Obama disgraced the office and after our pols let all this happen under their watch. ‘Let’s be serious and smart about this election.’ Let’s be smart enough to know what doesn’t work. And stop listening to Dems in choosing a candidate.

‘You cannot go out and offend people.’ No, that is not the objective. But this is the presidency, and under the circumstances we are strapped in. Face it, you are going to offend some people. Get over it. Some people are naturally offended… particularly the establishment type RNC or DNC and their kingmakers. Who among us is not offended by everything hoisted on us in the last 6-8 years, especially by Obama? The truth can be offensive.

RightRing | Bullright