Fundamentally Transforming Gender in BOistan

White House stands up for transgender students - POLITICO:

The Education and Justice Departments this morning sent a Dear Colleague letter to every public school district in the country reaffirming the administration’s interpretation of sweeping protections for transgender students under Title IX — including a transgender student’s right to use a bathroom or locker room that aligns with his or her gender identity.

Got that? The "fundamental transformation" of "America" into "BOistan" has just taken another giant step. While I suppose the gays were not included, I can't think of a High School male that didn't have recurrent dreams of the scenic beauty of the girls locker room and shower! Now, all it takes is having the balls to "get confused" for a day and you have the FEDERAL RIGHT!

I'm sure kids are WAY more "mature" these days, but I can only imagine the "I dare you" on both sides of the genders. I'm pretty sure there would have been a handful of girls in our HS that would have really enjoyed a few showers with the boys. Or from the male side, you want to see a girl you find to be especially attractive naked? All you need to know is when her gym class is and "get confused", simple.

The irony of this new "right" being found under the  imaginary "privacy clause" of the Constitution is simply too much. Privacy? Oh, we HAD to have gay "marriage" so the government wasn't "peeking in your bedroom"! Yup, consistency is definitely not an issue.

Can this be Trumped????

'via Blog this'

NY Times, NOT Pimpin4Paradise786

Corrections: May 10, 2016 - The New York Times:



That is a heck of an editing error! Does that handle for an imam give a NY Times editor pause? Apparently not!

Because of an editing error, an article on Monday about a theological battle being fought by Muslim imams and scholars in the West against the Islamic State misstated the Snapchat handle used by Suhaib Webb, one of the Muslim leaders speaking out. It is imamsuhaibwebb, not Pimpin4Paradise786.

'via Blog this'

Jobs, Reality Distortion, Dilbert, Trump

Donald Trump will win in a landslide. *The mind behind ‘Dilbert’ explains why. - The Washington Post:

I think Scott Adams has as good a handle on the Trump phenomenon as anyone, the whole article is worth a read.

Steve Jobs famously aimed to create “reality distortion fields” to meet his needs and achieve his ends. Trump employs similar techniques, and apparently can be similarly thin-skinned when his “reality” is challenged. “The Master Persuader will warp reality until he gets what he wants,” writes Adams, noting that Trump is “halfway done” already.

I once worked with a guy that had one of those fields. When you were in the room with him you REALLY believed that the stuff he was talking about was extremely possible to do, AND, you believed that YOU could do it! When he left the room, everyone looked at each other and said "What the hell did we just sign up to do?.  The problem, as I often point out is that we are NOT rational, but rather we are rationalizing entities! Emotion drives our decisions -- science now knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you lose your emotional sense, you can't decide what to have for dinner, what to wear, or ANYTHING. If you have ever dealt with depression or someone that is depressed, you have gotten a tiny bit of insight to this -- "nothing sounds good to me", "what difference does it make?".

“The most important thing when you study hypnosis is that you learn that humans are irrational,” Adams tells Comic Riffs. “Until you understand that, hypnosis is hard to do. … For me, it was this great awakening to understand that humans are deeply irrational, and it’s probably the greatest influence on me in terms of my writing.”

Guess what, Trump understands this, but Hillary does not. It is kind of surprising, since Slick Willie certainly DOES understand it as well -- but then it is never really clear to me that he actually wants Hildebeast to win the presidency.

I don't watch much Fox, but I noticed the Meghan Kelly hairstyle change and wondered what was up (I didn't like the new one, I guess I like the WRONG kind of hair style in a woman!)

“Do you think it is a coincidence that Trump called Megyn Kelly a bimbo and then she got a non-bimbo haircut that is … well, Trumpian?” Adams writes. “It doesn’t look like a coincidence to this trained persuader.”

The summary is pretty much here -- and I think Adams is on to something. I can't imagine a SINGLE "Alpha Male" voting for Hildebeast ... nor any that even have a "dream" of being alpha anything. The symbol for Hildebeast has always been pretty clear!

Writes Adams: “Identity is always the strongest level of persuasion. The only way to beat it is with dirty tricks or a stronger identity play. … [And] Trump is well on his way to owning the identities of American, Alpha Males, and Women Who Like Alpha Males. Clinton is well on her way to owning the identities of angry women, beta males, immigrants, and disenfranchised minorities.

The key will be the dead and virtual vote. "The Party" has a LOCK in those areas, and they are NOT affected by emotion or even "hypnotism" ... but if it is a "landslide", they can only stuff the ballot box so much and get away with it.

'via Blog this'

Wife Cheated, Dating Hooker

The earthquake and the aftermath: Charles Krauthammer:

Charles, like many, is in a real quandry trying to understand the Trump victory.

More fundamentally, Trump has no affinity whatsoever for the central thrust of modern conservatism — a return to less and smaller government. If the establishment has insufficiently resisted Obama’s Big Government policies, the beneficiary should logically have been the most consistent, indeed most radical, anti-government conservative of the bunch, Ted Cruz.

So some guy marries the "good girl". She turns out to not be all that "good" and sleeps around. News at 11, he complains about her and starts dating a hooker.

HW Bush, W Bush, the Republican congress from 2000-2006, and then the House from 2010-2016 and Senate from 2014-2016 -- they ALL "slept around" with "big government", more regulation, not standing up to BO, raising taxes, etc, BIG TIME!

So if the very core of your supposedly "virtuous conservative party" is corrupt, and make no mistake, the core of the Republican party hated Cruz worse than Trump, then why does anyone believe you ought to cozy up to them YET AGAIN if you are a "conservative"?

Maybe "conservative" DOES mean "stupid"!

Cruz being embraced by Walker, and VERY tentatively by the R "establishment" during and especially after winning Wisconsin is what I believe was the kiss of death for him. It had me tentatively thinking that he was done -- but he wasn't.

When you prefer another candidate, it is VERY easy to imagine that things are going to turn out your way.

When you DON'T like a candidate -- like Charles here, it is really easy to fall into thinking that everyone that does like him is "stupid".




'via Blog this'

34707 Island View Lane, Emmetsburg, IA 50536

That is the address of the lake place.

If you have the Google Maps application on at least Mac and type that address in, it will give you the satellite view of the IA property as of summer of 2014. You can see the neighbors house south of our lot with big "U" dock with lift and cover in center, our dock is in, and the brother in law's camper is on our lot and their is a camper on the lot to the north of us.  It looks MUCH different now, with a shed taking up the northern third of the lot!

For some reason, Google Earth and the web version seem to have older shots, so properties out in our area of the development don't show up everywhere.













If you have the right browser or IP camera viewer you can go to 69.66.197.8:83, enter "guest" for ID and "guest" for password, and you ought to see something like the following if everything works right. It's a little wet down there now and there seems to be some drops on the camera lens. This cam is a "temp", I'm playing with a higher resolution model that has zoom and remote panning to allow different things to be viewed. HOPE to get that installed the end of the week.

The place is MUCH more fun this year with the dock already in (thanks to the IA Bruellmans for getting that done!) and of course the shed operational from the summer get go.

Argument With My Sowell

An Unmitigated Disaster - Thomas Sowell:

Regular readers know that there are few men whose wisdom I respect more that Thomas Sowell, but then you also know I'm something of an iconoclast, so disagreement is to be expected!

Generally, I agree with him that Trump vs Clinton is some level of "disaster", but where I differ is that electing BO TWICE was already a level of disaster that makes future disasters pale in comparison. America WAS an optimistic forward looking nation for all but a brief time in the late '70s when Jimmuh put on his sweater and told us that the world was too short on energy to have Christmas lights!

BO did him one better -- he convinced most Americans that we were no longer exceptional, and to focus on "security", "fairness" and Global Warming as our main concerns.To the extent we have "mood' now, it is resignation, feeling

If nations cannot have confidence in American commitments and American leadership, we are not likely to get their cooperation. And the stakes are life and death.

Sowell argues that Trump might cost us this, but one can't lose what is already lost. BO has MORE than proven that the US is untrustworthy and useless as an ally. Iraq, the deal with Iran, the Chinese building bases in the South China Sea,  his failures in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe being stark examples. It is "possible" that a Trump or Clinton could hurt our standing more, but the horse has left the barn ... anybody that trusts us today is a fool.

It is just barely possible that Trump is crazy like a fox on places like South Korea. If they want to be defended, they can damned well pay a hefty price -- if we don't at least THREATEN to leave them on their own, we likely can't get much of a deal. I can believe that Trump is looking to make a deal with S Korea and other places, and that is fine with me!

Oh, and we ought not to elect Trump because they might use him against us for a long time? Hell, they are still using Hoover, McCarthy, Nixon and now W against us and I don't expect them to stop. They are even still out trying to cement that case that Reagan was senile in his second term and did all sorts of supposed "damage".

If Republicans start worrying about what the Democrats will make up / hold against us, we may as well just give up right now. I can GUARANTEE that NOTHING will turn out to be BO's fault if you listen to the media, nor will ANY Democrat, past nor future be expected to shoulder and blame. That is what the media believes that Republicans are for!




'via Blog this'

NY Times Reports Iran Nuke Deal A Sham

The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru - The New York Times:

The linked article is not a bad read. The punchline is that America's foreign policy is being run  by a wanna be novelist who has mind melded with a community organizer and are purposely misleading everyone else about what they are up to.

It opens with the drama of said novelist (Rhodes) trying to manipulate the press on the day of BO's SOTU address when  "our friends" the Iranians have taken a couple patrol boats and ten sailors.

"Now, from the flat screens, a challenge to that narrative arises: Iran has seized two small boats containing 10 American sailors. Rhodes found out about the Iranian action earlier that morning but was trying to keep it out of the news until after the president’s speech. “They can’t keep a secret for two hours,” Rhodes says, with a tone of mild exasperation at the break in message discipline."

If we lived in a real world everyone would know what is obvious -- the idea of "hard liners" and "moderates" in Iran is complete fiction. Here is Leon Panetta, who served as both CIA director and Secretary of defense under BO when asked about said fiction:

“No,” Panetta answers. “There was not much question that the Quds Force and the supreme leader ran that country with a strong arm, and there was not much question that this kind of opposing view could somehow gain any traction.”

We won't go into the "background" our chief of foreign policy has other than a Masters Degree in Fiction and smoking a lot of weed -- just like our President.  But at least according to this NY Times writer, he DOES have power!

On the largest and smallest questions alike, the voice in which America speaks to the world is that of Ben Rhodes.

If you ever wondered about the veracity of the Iraq Study Group and 9/11 Commission, wonder no more ... FICTION! He did fiction well, so he was a great person to work with BO -- the fictional leader! 

“The idea of someone with a masters in fiction who had also co-authored the Iraq Study Group and 9/11 Commission reports seemed perfect for a candidate who put so much emphasis on storytelling.”

Readers of this blog already know the following paragraph, but now the NY Times concurs: 

The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false. Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency. 

So Congress, Israel, the UN and the American people were purposely misled by the BO administration, and now the NY Times is even willing to report it! Still, it seems that nobody cares. 

So when Panetta talked to Israel about the nuclear deal, here is what they wondered if BO could be trusted to stop a nuke from being produced. He after all as SAID that he would take action many times. It is one of his "red lines", and we KNOW how much he can be trusted on those!  

“They were both interested in the answer to the question, ‘Is the president serious?’ ” Panetta recalls. “And you know my view, talking with the president, was: If brought to the point where we had evidence that they’re developing an atomic weapon, I think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen.”
Panetta stops. 

“But would you make that same assessment now?” I ask him. 

“Would I make that same assessment now?” he asks. “Probably not.”

So Leon Panetta, past head of CIA and SECDEF and lifelong Democrat does not believe that BO would act to stop an Iranian nuke and the freaking NY Times is willing to print it! And STILL, nobody cares! 

Iraq is his one-word answer to any and all criticism. I was against the Iraq war from the beginning, I tell Rhodes, so I understand why he perpetually returns to it. I also understand why Obama pulled the plug on America’s engagement with the Middle East, I say, but it was also true as a result that more people are dying there on his watch than died during the Bush presidency, even if very few of them are Americans. What I don’t understand is why, if America is getting out of the Middle East, we are apparently spending so much time and energy trying to strong-arm Syrian rebels into surrendering to the dictator who murdered their families, or why it is so important for Iran to maintain its supply lines to Hezbollah. He mutters something about John Kerry, and then goes off the record, to suggest, in effect, that the world of the Sunni Arabs that the American establishment built has collapsed. The buck stops with the establishment, not with Obama, who was left to clean up their mess.

 See, BO was all about "Hope and Change", and he was an "outsider" before Trump came along. If it wasn't for BO, Trump would be horribly inexperienced. Compared to BO, Trump with his years running business as an executive is a model of solid experience! Compared to Slick Willie, and even Hildebeast, Trump is a pretty much a paragon of virtue. 

One thing we are certain of, NOTHING is BO's fault! With BO, the buck NEVER stops! All of this was known in general (not the details) by anyone paying attention. What is new is that the MSM is apparently a TINY bit concerned that they too were played for patsies -- although not all that concerned. They have loved the stench of BO from the start.


'via Blog this'

Left Republican Apocalypse Analysis

The Four Horsemen of the Republican Apocalypse - Bloomberg View:

I cover this one for a couple quick reasons:

1. Again, we discuss the "demise of the Republican Party" ... we certainly did after Goldwater and after Nixon as well. The Republicans have been a minority party since FDR. I too believe that at some point "The Party" (D) may succeed in wiping out the minority opposition, but it will be due to first amendment issues -- "campaign finance", "coordination", "fairness doctrine" types of attacks as we have seen in Wisconsin, not who they nominate. 
2. He points out that Trump is a "celebrity candidate" -- he doesn't mention that Arnold and Jessie both WON against all the pundits assuring us it could not happen. 
3. He never mentions Republicans making lots of promises if they got both houses, and then disappointing tremendously. 
4. The dream of Rubio was stillborn due to his "gang of eight" mistake. It may have simply been a rookie mistake, but it was a bad one, especially as he was snookered by Chuck Schumer who is well known as one of the most slithery of snakes in the leftist swamp. 

The theory that if "the right guys had got out quicker" Trump would have been prevented, is shaky at best. An "outsider" candidate was likely to win the R nomination this year because the party pissed off the base so badly. When the "establishment" tepidly embraced Cruz after WI it did more to enhance the appeal of Trump to the elements of the base energized in anger.

The people who have run the Republican Party into the ditch are John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and John McCain. Trump is a symptom, not a cause!

'via Blog this'

Responding To Senator Ben Sasse's Open Letter

Ben Sasse - AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJORITY AMERICA TO: Those who...:

Senator Sasse,

First of all, thanks for writing the letter. As we see in the protestors at Trump rallies, in Black Lives Matter, and many other places in this country, we are approaching the time of violence being seen as a solution. If we don't start talking, violence will almost certainly be one of the answers to our crisis.

I'm a 59 year old Christian father of two boys, blessed grandfather of one beautiful granddaughter, married for 31 years, 34 year career in computer software, raised on a dairy farm, now retired and trying hard to write about what I believe matters in my blog and pieces of a book.

You mention the political parties, Washington DC, and what a third party candidate might look like. I believe that American problems always start with IDEAS. We are a country based on ideas, not territory, race, or cultural origin.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I believe the origin of our current problems are in that sentence:

These truths -- What is truth? Possibly the majority of people today think of "truth" as either empirical, the scientific "truth" of numbers and experiment, or as power. The "might is right" of the ballot box or bullet. Many believe that there is no such thing as truth.

created equal -- Our founders thought equality of OPPORTUNITY was the obvious meaning of that term. Today, possibly more than half our nation thinks it is equality of OUTCOME, and even believes that it is the responsibility of government to define and insure that equality of outcome.

endowed by their Creator -- We were founded on TRANSCENDENT values. Not "situational", not "whatever polls say".  "Ideas Have Consequences"  is a book that every educated American ought to understand, because it provides the definition of transcendent truth and the consequences of not having it. The phrase makes clear what our founders knew about our nation, best stated by John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other".

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -- A nation that has slaughtered 60 million babies in their mothers wombs has certainly abandoned the protection of life. We could talk of the loss of liberty forever, but the simple fact that everyone talks about "what is happening in DC" vs what THEY are doing in their families, community, churches and states tells the tale.

Sadly, I believe that our founders made a grave mistake in adding "the pursuit of Happiness" to the Declaration. Happiness is a side effect of meaning, and without maturity and meaning, it is not possible. As with most of "my thoughts", this too is stolen, the book that makes it most clear and concise in my experience is "Happiness Is a Serious Problem"

Our nation lost it's way long ago. In recent times, the failure to remove Bill Clinton from office showed that the presidency could be held by a person of no moral character. The election of Barak Obama showed that the office could be held by someone who had no demonstrated competence in leadership or executive function. Being able to campaign and win became the only qualification for leading the area of North America founded on ideas that are no longer known or understood.

George W Bush was the last president of "The United States of America". What we are now is unknown -- and either Trump or Hillary clearly meet the "standard" of "no standards".

We don't need a "candidate to campaign 24/7", we need A NATION! Right now, we don't have one, because the one we had was founded on IDEAS, which our people no longer understand, let alone believe, and a Constitution, which apparently we will demonstrate yet again that we do not follow, with the case of the North Carolina law that specifies males and females using the proper bathroom.

We need a "Movement", a "Revival", a return of the spirit that was America to sweep the land and restore the bulk of our heritage, and yes, maybe correct a few glaring errors like "pursuing happiness". I fervently believe that such a revival may happen -- it may well form a new nation rather than the old one. It may well be that the coasts demand a centralized government, massive dependency, open borders, the exclusion of God from the public square -- in short what is seen as "progressive" by many today.

Most of all, we need to understand what it is that we once were, and what it is that we are seeking to be! Protecting this broken immoral shell of a once great nation from Jihad, getting the books balanced, restoring education, and putting fresh politicians in DC seems a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I have made a personal shot on arriving at what an agenda for restoration might look like here.

Again, thank you for the seed of dialogue. Somehow, we must save at least a remnant of the light that was America, even if it is a new nation made up of what is today "Red America". We need humble ourselves and pray mightily while following the words of Churchill in England's finest hour and Never, Never, Never giving up!

'via Blog this'

NY Times Confesses Liberal Bias

A Confession of Liberal Intolerance - NYTimes.com:



Well, not at the paper, that would be a BIT much! But at universities.

I’ve been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.

“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false,” said Carmi. 

“The truth has a liberal slant,” wrote Michelle. 

“Why stop there?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?” 

To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.

The article is a worthwhile read only because it is a "progressive" from the NY Times making many of the same obvious observations that myself and a number of conservatives have been making for DECADES. At the end he seems to believe that liberals will simply realize that having percentages of conservatives in the single digits in the university is just unacceptable for finding "truth".



Readers of this blog know there are a few issues with his analysis:

1. In an empirical universe (matter is all there is), then "truth" is at the very most provisional (inductive) and limited to items that data can be gathered on. Moral "right and wrong" are purely "convention" and can be changed at any time. 
2. In such a universe, Christians, believers in the Constitution, and most conservatives certainly ARE "wrong". EMPIRICAL "truth" DOES have a "liberal slant", because liberalism assumes that "man is the measure of all things" and Science is the closest we get to "ultimate knowledge". 
3. In an empirical universe where moral issues are decided by "might makes right", any level of discussion of such things is VERY frightening to those who hold the faith that "God is Dead" is "settled Science" (or at least settled thought). If you keep "idiots" on your faculty who dare disagree, it is going to confuse some impressionable young minds! As NPR points out, not supporting a woman's "right to choose" just isn't negotiable -- so you you really can't have a practicing Christian out of the closet on your faculty! 

The fact that such an article can appear in the NY Times is however surprising and a positive sign! 

'via Blog this'

Unresolveable Super Heroes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/05/08/captain-america-civil-war-directors-explain-the-movies-political-meaning/

Western civilization used to have Theologians and Philosophers. Even in the time of Plato there were at least "provisional answers" to the big questions of life. People that cared at least knew the form of the argument and what it meant to choose one sort of answer vs another.

These days we are looking at such questions in the context of imaginary superheroes and deciding them to be "unresolvable".  Are we to take this as "progress" from our multi-thousand year history of religion and philosophy?

“We wanted the movie to raise questions — political questions,” Joe Russo says. “They’re unanswerable questions. We certainly don’t want to provide any answers in the movie. And Cap and Tony — you could absolutely say that they represent different political points of view [on] … the question of security vs. individual freedom.” 

“Which is unresolvable,” interjects Anthony Russo ...

Ok, so when "unresolvable" questions come up how do they get "resolved"? Or have we turned superhero movies into and exercise in navel gazing?  

“Because you’re using power, somebody is going to feel disempowered. And there’s going to be a reaction.”

Ah, our old friend "power" -- "the great resolver", once you no longer have HIGHER powers! If there is a "reaction", is the "resolution" based on who has the most power? It pretty much is in movies is it not?

When you give up transcendence, then the only arbiter is POWER! Brute force is just one brand ... being more clever, trickier, able to get more people on your side, etc are all just other forms of power.

There is no way to convince others peacefully unless there is a higher standard that you can both agree on and point out how various actions are moral or immoral relative to that standard INDEPENDENT of who has the most power.

In the world we live in, people don't realize that however, so we may as well discuss theology and philosophy in the context of superheros!

Clinton Cash, Who's Got The Goods

How the Clintons Get Away With It - WSJ:

I'm not going to run out and buy this book -- I've seen enough articles and even heard enough through NPR and the NY Times to know that the basics are certainly true. The Clinton's STATED net worth is in the $110+ Million range, and the Clinton Foundation BROUGHT IN $214 Million in 2012, followed by $262 M and $223 M in 2013 and 2015 (Wiki skipped 2014 for some reason ...).

On the up and up, the "Foundation" can can cover any "expenses" the Clinton's might have that aren't covered by Slick being and ex-president, various people providing them "services" as part of their relationship, etc. Remember when the $300M wealth of Mitt Romney was such a HUGE issue? That of course being 8 years after the $800 M wealth of John Kerry was a complete NON issue. People that have any level of memory and lack complete and total trust for the media machine might wonder just a bit about some "small" differences in the ways these things are treated!

From 2001 through 2012 Bill collected $105.5 million for speeches and raised hundreds of millions for the foundation. When she was nominated, Hillary said she saw no conflict. President Obama pressed for a memorandum of understanding in which the Clintons would agree to submit speeches to State’s ethics office, disclose the names of major donors to the foundation, and seek administration approval before accepting direct contributions to the foundation from foreign governments. The Clintons accepted the agreement and violated it “almost immediately.” Revealingly, they amassed wealth primarily by operating “at the fringes of the developed world.” Their “most lucrative transactions” did not involve countries like Germany and Britain, where modern ethical rules and procedures are in force, but emerging nations, where regulations are lax.

It's good to be Queen. The only way I can parse the fact that the Clinton's are given a pass is that "The Party" (TP-D) is now the closest thing to a "religion" that something around half of pagan Americans have. As such, the leaders of TP are like Popes and Cardinals used to be  -- "infallible", so they can simply do what they want.

With the rise of the NSA and data gathering the past 10-15 years, I keep wondering, "who's got the goods"?  The ability to run down Denny Hastert over drawing too much money out of a bank is likely just the VERY tip of the iceberg. How many people does TP have in their pocket over everything from sexual matters, financial dealings, substance abuse, having once held some now unpopular position, etc, etc. Owners of the New York Times? Washington Post? virtually every media outlet there is? It makes me wonder.

With Trump running, will he be able to act as the "whistle blower" for half of the American population and defeat the Queen? It will be an interesting thing to watch.

'via Blog this'

WaPo Resorts to God Against Trump

Hillary Clinton is walking into Donald Trump’s trap - The Washington Post:

When the WaPo invokes the almighty, you know they are VERY worried!

America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!

GOD? You mean there is a power above "The Party" (TP-D) and it's minion the WaPo? SOULS? You mean like the "eternal kind"? Does the WaPo wonder when those might show up in a baby in it's mothers womb these days? Perhaps only women have them?

But wait! There is MORE!

America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control
Thy liberty in law!

LAW? You mean like the Constitution? The kind you used to have to do an AMENDMENT to in order to create new "rights" like gay "marriage" and "transgender" whatever the hell THAT is out of thin air. Really? The WaPo thinks there is something ABOVE pure popularity and tricky rhetorical schemes?

I know, CONSISTENCY IS NOT AN ISSUE, but this is pretty breathtaking.

They certainly are WORKING HARD for their candidate. How is it again that anyone is supposed to understand this kind of "coverage" from a major US paper as being "news" as opposed to campaign strategy being printed as "news"? What exactly is supposed to be the "difference" between TP itself and the WaPo? Or is Tump enough of a "crisis" that we have dispensed with that fiction?

Yup, she sounds like the wicked witch of the west and pretty much anybody who is a man or cares about men is completely aware she would like to cut the balls off all men that don't bow to her. Seems like a good reason to keep the AR to me!

Consider her slogan, “Fighting for us.” For many men, this slogan would have to be experienced as emasculating. A woman fighting for them? Rightly or wrongly, the slogan rubs the wrong way in relation to traditional notions of masculinity. Her slogan itself reveals a limited conception of who she seeks to represent. This is a potentially fatal flaw in Clinton’s campaign.

That and she is a known felon, a serial liar and has failed miserably at everything she has ever attempted ... anyone notice that our socialized medicine isn't called "Hillarycare"? We must have done a "reset" on that one!

'via Blog this'

Trump, The Right Goes Might Equal Right

The Newly Emboldened American Racist:

With the more or less official naming of Trump as the Republican Nominee, we have entered a whole new level in the art of name calling.

I live in a political bubble. A lovely, liberal, northeastern bubble. The majority of my friends and family are Clinton supporters, and the rest favor Bernie. One or two Republicans I’m close to voted for Kasich in the primaries. I’m pretty sure there are a few closet Trump supporters in my life — and on my Facebook friends list — but as long as they stay in the closet, we’re good.

 "Thou shalt think as I think and I demand that you do or at least hide what you think, lest I cast you out of my "lovely liberal bubble". "Diversity" is a word I define, it does not include your views!" Thus saith the author of the column.

The rest of the article is the expected list of comments from some site that are racist. We need not ask if the writer has gone over to the fever swamps of MoveOn, DailyKos or many others to get similarly nasty quotes relative to Christians, conservatives, less educated, gun owners, etc, etc. If you want to read a snippet of the litany, you can go here.

As I said yesterday, Trump pretty much does as a candidate what "The Party", TP-D surrogates in media and entertainment regularly do for TP. The linked column is one of ZILLIONS of examples! NPR was working hard on anti-Trump output today -- Trump takes on the nasty surrogates directly, something no candidate on the left needs to do, and something no previous candidate at least somewhat from the "right" (from anti-establishment outer space?) has ever attempted.

The natural state of man is Tribalism. My tribe calls your tribe names. We are good, you are evil. We hurl nasty looks, words, votes, fists, rocks and eventually bullets at each other to establish our power to be dominant. Right = might. Without a something beyond raw power that is recognized by all as transcendent, some form of power contest is the ONLY way to "settle things". If the transcendence is earthly, then the "Ubermench" is required -- and you hope he is not named Adolph!

TP has been the mostly settled might=right power since FDR. Sure, "Republicans" existed, but they were largely "me too", TP lite. Goldwater was a failed attempt, Reagan was a successful "semi-alternative" (treated much the same way as Trump by the left), Newt was another shock to the TP system -- again, treated as "Lucifer in the flesh" by the left and many "traditional Republicans". As the column author points out -- as long as the R's recognized TP as dominant and shut up when they were told, TP people were willing to keep a few around AS LONG AS THEY WERE QUIET!

W, McCain and Romney were all "TP lite" -- essentially a "bigger tent TP" that allowed Christians and the slightly less government oriented to kid themselves that they still had a voice. No person of Christian / conservative / "classical liberal" (meaning allows diversity of thought) leaning has been able to "live in a bubble" like the columnist since at least the '60s. We KNOW what the "dominant cultural position" is, and we KNOW they we are supposed to SHUT THE F**K UP! ... lest we be cast our from associations with family, friends, community, job (see Curt Schilling), etc.

Religion and agreed transcendent principles once allowed larger groups of humans to operate as super-organisms similar to bees, ants and termites, but with vastly more intelligence. They explored the world, built giant cities, went to the moon -- that was Western civilization that allowed freedom of thought and therefore actual intellectual diversity and therefore actual innovative progress that was more than just farther application of leftward control.

Without transcendence, the only mechanism to hold groups together is POWER. The left has been exiting transcendence since at least the 50's ("God and Man at Yale") is a good marker. BO was their first "no transcendence" president. Trump is the first attempt from the right to have a candidate that operates from the position of no rules beyond power.

What the author of the column feels is a harbinger what many "Christians / classical liberals / conservatives" have been living with for half a century or so. Abortion, BOcare, open borders, gay "marriage", transgender, Black Lives Matter (and NOT others!), 2nd amendment attacks, massive drug/alcohol abuse + suicides, increases in welfare/dependency,  and what appears to be a permanent declining economy have brought home to more and more that the ONLY slim remaining hope is to FIGHT! If Trump wins, "the liberals in their bubbles" would get a SMALL taste of what it means to be "on the right" in America, but it would be FAR less, because the dominate culture would still be TP for the foreseeable future. It would have just suffered another tactical defeat in the Reagan tradition -- decades away from a total rout, where the tepid forces of "conservatism" start talking like the linked column writer.

The time when "the remnant" of transcendent thought can "hide out" like the "closet Trump supporters" in the authors circle went past during the BO years. The actions of BO proved that the Constitution that was designed to insure respect for actual diversity of thought has fully failed.

As we increasingly see, "conservative" views are no longer acceptable. There can be no god but TP, and ALL WILL  worship TP JOYFULLY! Trump challenges the dominion of TP and therefore, the powers of TP will attack him with their full might and vigor. #nevertrump people are the "radically lukewarm" of the right  -- they believe that they can bend enough to TP to stay somehow in the graces of the increasingly dominant  and smug TP ... they are willing to continue to "give ground".

As we saw in the '60s, when values are discarded and open warfare ensues, it becomes messy. We see it in BLM now as well as in the anti-Trump forces. In the US, open violence has been the purview of only the left for over half a century. The Trump support is the first small hint of violence from the right --- what the media went berserk over trying to conjure out of the Tea Party movement.

Naturally, the bulk of the people that actually become violent on either side are the less thoughtful and more action oriented. That is always "the wild card". It appears that the left has ignored the unions for long enough that the blue collar masses have realized that they have been had. That is the quarter from which "the bubble liberals" of TP need to fear retribution. If Trump can peel away the "Nixon and Reagan Democrats" -- the "silent majority", they may become a howling answer to BLM, "Occupy Wall Street", "Code Pink", etc.

Then the bubblers of TP actually have something to fear -- rather than just having to disown some Trump supporting friends or family members. One thing about allegiance to TP -- thou shalt have no other gods before TP, for TP is a JEALOUS god!

'via Blog this'

Embracing Trump, His Own Media

Donald Trump and His Supporters:

An excellent column by Victor Davis Hanson, well worth reading it all.

Since last night and sitting in the surgery waiting room waiting for my Dad with MSNBC on, I realize that MSNBC, NBC, NPR, the Comedy channel, late night TV, etc do what Trump does. They do the name calling, derision, personal attacks, etc -- day, after day, drip, drip, rip rip. -- But of course they do it ONLY to Republicans, Trump does it to EVERYONE!

Think Sarah Palin -- everything from her clothes, to her family, her downs syndrome child, pictures of her in her high school B-ball outfit, was "out" front and center. The "gotcha questions" flowed, Saturday Night Live was all over her. She was made into a laughing stock.

We could go on forever W, Reagan, Dan Quayle, McCain-- case after case. THE MEDIA **IS** DONALD TRUMP from the left! They deride, demean, they RIDICULE! Perhaps Trump read "Rules for Radicals"?

...  I love the 5th rule -- "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule." I strongly suspect that many of our media friends are well aware of this one. Immediately during the Bush administration from the media to the late night talk shows, the ridicule of Bush and Cheney became universal. Sometimes it had some basis in truth, most times it was simply a caricature that was used to denigrate them. It worked extremely well with 80%+ of the population, the dark side IS very strong at a minimum.

Consider this paragraph from the linked article.

Tomorrow Trump could declare there to be 57 states, or address vets as Corpse-men or tell his legions to bring a gun to a knife fight — and none of his supporters would find him clueless, half-educated, or incendiary. If Trump brought one of his wheeler-dealer Manhattan real-estate cronies to a rally and the man’s court-ordered ankle bracelet went off, no one would bat an eye.

Some may read it and not realize that ALL of those are Obama -- and in general, few know and nobody cares. So the next paragraph has a double meaning. As I've said a few times, Trump is NOT "new" -- BO is also a "post truth, post rules, post wisdom, post values" -- he is ANOTHER version of NO RULES!

In other words, Trump is a postmodern creation, for whom traditional and time-tested rules do not apply. He is neither brilliant nor unhinged, neither ecumenical nor just a polarizer, not a wrecker and not a savior of the Republican party, but something else altogether. He does not defy conventional wisdom. There simply is no convention and no wisdom applicable to Donald J. Trump. For years postmodernists have lectured us that there is no truth, no absolutes, no timeless protocols worthy of reverence; Trump is their Nemesis, who reifies their theories that truth is simply a narrative whose veracity is established by the degree of power and persuasion behind it.

("reifies" - makes real) The lawlessness, disrespect of any truth, absolutes, history, etc is the same for BO ... and Hillary or Bernie for that matter. No rules means no rules. "The Party" (TP-Democrat), being dominant in media, entertainment, law, education, and most of all in the massive government unionized bureaucracy, completely expects that they will be able to continue to destroy civilization step by step. Respect for life (abortion), Christianity, Patriotism, Marriage, Private Property and Gender have all been heavily damaged already.

When truth and value are so damaged that very few even consider them real, and a single political voice (TP) is so powerful that the majority of people assume that TP is itself "truth", there is really no "rational" option to combat the decline other than to select a champion like Trump that can manipulate the media directly and GET COVERAGE!

The media treat him like a cobra rising from a basket — terrified that if at any moment they stop their music, the smiling serpent might strike and bite them in the nose.

The media treats Trump like they treat a mass shooting. They believe their world view is so dominant that the nation MUST rally to their side if they just "report the facts". So far, the result of their Trump coverage is pretty much the same as the results of their mass shooting coverage. The public support for both Trump and gun rights goes up as the media continue to report what they are certain MUST have the other result.

There may be a limit to fooling "all of the people all of the time" after all. The economy sucks, the position of the US is tumbling, the future looks at least completely uncertain if not horrible -- and for a huge swath of people, the answer to "are you better off" is a LARGE and PAINFUL NO!!!

Is it a majority of the electorate? That remains to be seen and many twists and turns are possible. In some ways, a 3 or even 4 way race between Hildebeast, Trump, "Some establishment Republican" and Sanders might be the "most representative" of the choices that 20-30% segments of the population want.

So far, the biggest loser is the conventional wisdom.

'via Blog this'