Category: Left Wing Idiocy

History Did Not Start in 2009

Over the weekend, a number began circulating in liberal circles in an attempt to justify the Democrats’ effort to filibuster Neil Gorsuch. The number was that there have been 148 cloture votes on judicial nominees in our entire history … and 79 of them took place under Obama.

The number instantly triggered my BS alarm and rightly so. As Ed Whelan details, this number is garbage. It turns out that Harry Reid routinely filed cloture motions on bills and nominations even when there was no filibuster or no threat of one (most likely to try to evade debate on Obama’s nominations and proposals).

By my quick count, the cloture motions that Reid filed on some 39 of the 79 nominees were withdrawn or mooted, and the motions on 28 others were successful, many with strong Republican support. (Only twelve of the 28 received more than 30 negative votes, and eleven of them had fewer than twenty negative votes.) All of those nominees were confirmed.

Of the eleven cloture motions that were defeated, three of the nominations were confirmed after some delay, and four others were confirmed after Democrats abolished the filibuster.

In sum, even under a very liberal account of what “blocked by filibusters” might plausibly mean, it is difficult to see how anyone could contend that more than eleven of Obama’s nominees were “blocked by filibusters.”

By contrast, 14 of Bush’s nominees were blocked by filibusters. Only 16 times has the Senate rejected cloture on a judicial nomination. Ten of those were in the 108th Congress when the Democrats were basically filibustering every Bush nomination they could, hoping he would be unelected in 2004. The only reason no SCOTUS nominee was blocked was because Bush didn’t nominate any justices in his first term (a time when Schumer was threatening to filibuster SCOTUS nominees for all four years). The Democrats tried to filibuster Roberts but failed. In the meantime, the Republicans brought up and voted on two of Obama’s SCOTUS nominees.

(The CRS report is here and it really blows away this talking point. Gorsuch’s nomination was only the fifth time cloture was even attempted with a SCOTUS nominee. All five were Republicans nominees. Only seven cabinet nominations have needed cloture votes — five were under Bush. Reid’s office has been citing only two pages of the report, conveniently eliding the other damning parts. Politifact, in proclaiming the “79 of 148″ number true, couldn’t be bothered to look at the full report and just took Reid’s excerpt as gospel. I include that last tidbit just in case you were wondering if Politifact is still full of it.)

Any filibuster of a nominee is wrong, in my opinion. I wasn’t happy when the Republicans did it and I didn’t agree with their sitting on Garland’s nomination. But this business did not start under Obama. It’s been building for years, really all the way back to Bork.

But it goes way beyond that. For eight years, all we heard that was that Republicans were “obstructing” Obama (obstructing, in this sense, meaning a co-equal branch of government not enacting his agenda because they thought it was a bad idea). But that followed on eight years of … Democrats “obstructing” everything Bush wanted to do. If anything, it was worse under Bush. Democrats not only opposed things Bush wanted that they opposed (privatizing Social Security, cutting spending, etc.) but even things they wanted like Medicare’s drug program, Medicaid expansion and massive spending hikes.

And, of course, now that Trump is in power, the Democrats are rediscovering how much fun opposition is. The very same people who cried “obstruction!” for eight years are now crying “obstruction, yes!” as Republicans try to repeal Obamacare, put judges on the bench, enact regulatory reform and … well, anything else. Hell, if Trump proposed single payer healthcare, I am convinced that Democrats would oppose just for the bloody hell of it.

Look, I’m in favor of obstruction. I like it that our government is set up with all kinds of checks and balances that are designed to slow, if not completely stop, bad ideas. But I’ve always been in favor of it. I won’t bash Democrats an “obstructionist” for opposing laws or nominations if they think they are bad ideas. But I will bash them when they claim some kind of factually-challenged moral superiority in doing so.

Yes, the Republicans have been engaging in some shady things. But that’s politics. They only time the Democrats don’t use the same tactics is when they literally can’t. They’ll scream the heavens down about gerrymandering; then they’ll gerrymander the hell out of Maryland. They’ll shout about voter disenfranchisement; but the only reason they want to enfranchise felons is because felons vote Democrat. They scream about Republican special interests; while bankrupting their states in obedience to SEIU. They scream about Garland; and they forget about Estrada.

The Great Liberal Myth is their belief in their own reasonableness and adherence to cold fact. But, as we’ve seen many times, Democrats can be as unreasonable and full of it as anyone. Don’t buy this business that the Garland-Gorsuch thing is a new low. We got there years ago.

Just Say No

Look, I’ve said this before. I don’t like political dynasties. We’ve seen enough of them. So no more Bushes. No more Daleys. No more Cuomos. No more Rockefellers. Certainly no more God-damned Kennedys.

And no … no more Clintons. I don’t think Chelsea even wants to be in politics. This is just some weird fetish that’s developed on the Left.

Bill Clinton was a decent President. Since then, the Clintons have brought nothing but ruin and strife to the party. Stop treating them like they’re a royal family or something.

Bad for America? Maybe. The “Cure” Would Be Worse

So this happened:

Veteran TV journalist Ted Koppel analyzed the media’s role in the political divide in Trump-era America on “CBS Sunday Morning” — and had a pointed moment interviewing Fox News host Sean Hannity.

“We have to give some credit to the American people that they are somewhat intelligent and that they know the difference between an opinion show and a news show,” Hannity told Koppel on camera, registering the veteran newsman’s doubt. “You’re cynical. … You think we’re bad for America? You think I’m bad for America?”

“Yep,” Koppel replied. “In the long haul, I think that all these opinion shows…”

“Really?” Hannity asked. “That’s sad, Ted.”

Koppel explained: “You know why? Because you’re very good at what you did and because you have attracted … people who have determined that ideology is more important than facts.”

I’m not a fan of Koppel and I think the cause he went on to blame for this problem — the demise of the Fairness Doctrine — is horribly misguided. But I think he has a point on Hannity and talk radio/TV in general.

Last year, Conor Friedersdorf wrote a great article on how talk radio precipitated the rise of Donald Trump:

Here are some of the cues and signals that even anti-Trump members of “the party” have sent to voters, over many years, that made the rise of a populist demagogue possible if not likely, and that Trump voters absorbed into their world views:

  • Career politicians cannot be trusted. This widespread conceit in “the party” has effectively made it impossible for candidates with governing records and public sector experience to be accepted by large swaths of GOP primary voters.
  • When the base doesn’t get what it wants, it is because of betrayal by party elites, never because a majority of Americans disagree with what the base wants.
  • Rhetorical stridency is a better heuristic for loyalty than core principles or governing record—and there is nothing disqualifying about extreme incivility (hence, for example, a buttoned up think tank giving a statesmanship award to Rush Limbaugh, a gleeful purveyor of bombastic insults).
  • Complaints about racism and sexism are always cynical fabrications, intended be used as cudgels against conservatives.
    Political correctness in governance is one of the biggest problems facing America.
  • Illegal immigration poses an existential threat to America.
  • President Obama has deliberately made bad deals with foreign countries to weaken America.

If any movement conservatives in the #NeverTrump crowd doubt that “the party” has sent all of those signals or cues, I’ll gladly expound on any of them. Taken together, it’s easy to see why a majority of an electorate that bought into those premises would be more attracted to Trump than to anyone else in the GOP field.

I would add to that list the claim that global warming is a hoax, unemployment numbers are faked, there’s a War on Cops, that opposing anti-terror policies is siding with the terrorists, that tax cuts pay for themselves, etc., etc. When people said “Trump says what no one else says” or “Trump tells it like it is” this is what they mean: that Trump reiterates the (often false) doomsday rhetoric of the conservative echoshere.

And now we’re reaping the results of this. Last week, we saw the utter immolation of Republican efforts to replace Obamacare. There are many authors of that disaster but a big one, as Josh Barro argues, was that Republicans spent years misleading the voters on Obamacare and pretending that healthcare reform was easy.

For years, Republicans promised lower premiums, lower deductibles, lower co-payments, lower taxes, lower government expenditure, more choice, the restoration of the $700 billion that President Barack Obama heartlessly cut out of Medicare because he hated old people, and (in the particular case of the Republican who recently became president) “insurance for everybody” that is “much less expensive and much better” than what they have today.

They were lying. Over and over and over and over, Republicans lied to the American public about healthcare.

To be fair, many Republican politicians understood there would be trade-offs and crafted policies around those. But those policies were never implemented because the Republican base believed that Obamacare had to be repealed instantly, replacement or no replacement. Friedersdorf lays the blame for that on the commentariat:

Still, even the insight that Republicans spent years willfully obscuring the tradeoffs involved in health-care policy doesn’t fully explain the last week. Focusing on GOP officials leaves out yet another important actor in this debacle: the right-wing media. By that, I do not mean every right-leaning writer or publication. Over the last eight years, lots of responsibly written critiques of Obamacare have been published in numerous publications, and folks reading the aforementioned wonks, or Peter Suderman at Reason, or Yuval Levin, or Megan McArdle at Bloomberg, stayed reasonably grounded in actual shortcomings of Obamacare.

In contrast, Fox News viewers who watched entertainers like Glenn Beck, talk-radio listeners who tuned into hosts like Rush Limbaugh, and consumers of web journalism who turned to sites like Breitbart weren’t merely misled about health-care tradeoffs.

They were told a bunch of crazy nonsense.

He lists hysterical claim after hysterical claim. Death panels, forced fat camps, depression, slavery, the end of individual liberty. There were and are plenty of problems with Obamacare. But claiming it was the end of America was ridiculous.

The problem is not conservatives nor conservatism. The problem is faux conservatives like Hannity and Limbaugh and every other joker out there who has no solutions, no answers, no philosophy, no ideas … just acres of doom and gloom and anger. Conor talks about his grandmother, who spent her last years terrified by what she was hearing from right wing hacks like Hannity. I see it in my Trump-supporting relatives, who hear a constant deluge from Fox News about how doomed America is and how awful the Democrats are. It’s incredible disheartening. And it angers me to think of these jokers making millions by convincing millions of Americans that the end is nigh.

I don’t mean to downplay real concerns, which are legion. We are in a lot of debt. Obamacare is staggering around, avoiding a death spiral only because of subsidies. Crime appears to have spiked, especially in certain cities. Rural areas are hurting badly (see my earlier post on the opioid epidemic).

But lately the conservative commentariat has no ideas for how to deal with these problems. Only a steady diet of doom and gloom, blame-storming and uncompromising rhetoric. And yes, this is bad for country. It makes people fearful who have no need to be and it instills an us-vs-them mentality, turning people we disagree with into hideous villains who hate America.

It was not always so. Friedersdorf is a bit too young to remember but in the 90’s, there’s no question in my mind that talk radio hosts like Hannity and Limbaugh were a good thing. They served as a critical counter-weight to a very liberal media. Their broadcasts played a big role in the Republican revolution of 1994, the subsequent balancing of the budget, the passing of NAFTA and the destruction of numerous corrupt politicians.

However, something changed in the aughts. I’m not sure why exactly — I suspect it was 9/11. But the tone of conservative commentary began to be less positive and more negative. Liberals stopped being mocked and started being demonized. I stopped listening to Limbaugh because his show, which has always left me feeling upbeat and inspired, became a huge downer. Everything was awful. America was going to hell. Compromise was a bad word. And now we’re at the apotheosis of this: a Republican party that can’t get anything done because they can’t approach issues in any kind of a realistic way.

That’s not to let liberals off the hook here. It wasn’t conservatives who called half the country “deplorables”. It’s not conservatives who are writing off half the electorate as evil racist sexist monsters for having voted Trump. But liberal idiocy does not make conservative idiocy OK. No matter how bad the commentary on the Left gets, that does not excuse Hannity for being a demagogue who has worsened the debate.

I don’t know that there’s a fix for this. My gut feeling is that we are in the grip of a national fever of partisanship that has yet to exhaust itself. But I do want address one supposed “cure”, which I referenced above, because it’s becoming a bigger liberal talking point these days.

Koppel blamed talk radio on the end of the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC policy that Reagan killed in 1987 that had previously forced television and radio stations to present “both sides” of an issue.

Put bluntly, the Fairness Doctrine was an awful policy and it should stay dead. The only reason we should ever dig it up is to put a stake through its heart and make sure it stays dead. Consider:

  • The Fairness Doctrine was blatantly unconstitutional piece of garbage, no matter what the Supreme Court said. Having the government dictate what constitutes “fairness” in commentary is an invitation to abuse. And indeed, Limbaugh, in one of his books, noted several times where politicians — including Nixon — used the Fairness Doctrine to bludgeon commentators into shutting up about issues the politicians didn’t want discussed.
  • This is why Fairness Doctrines have long been rejected for newspapers and print media, despite the long history of partisan commentary therein (Thomas Paine was not known for his “Fairness”). The justification for the Fairness Doctrine the last time it was upheld was that radio and TV media are limited to only so many channels. So the government has to ensure that all views are represented. This view is nonsense, of course. Most cities have one, maybe two newspapers, both of which are liberal. By contrast, TV has innumerable stations, some of which — MSNBC, for example — are decisively liberal. In that light, the Fairness Doctrine is one of the most liberal of things: a solution running around in search of a problem.
  • People who want government to do things never seem to consider that the powers they give government could be turned against them. Let me ask you something, Fairness Doctrine-supporting liberals: do you really want to give that kind of censorship power to Donald Fucking Trump?! Does it never occur to you that he might decide that “Fairness” dictates that Samantha Bee needs to make more jokes about Democrats or SNL needs to mock Nancy Pelosi more? Can you, for once, consider what government power will look like in the hands of people you don’t like?
  • The Fairness Doctrine is not going to magically create a more skeptical and reasonable populace. This is an appeal to government policy as magic.

Ultimately, the Fairness Doctrine plugs into the Ultimate Progressive Conceit: progressives’ firm belief that they are the only reasonable people in the room; and that if people disagree with them it’s only because they’ve been brainwashed by nefarious forces. This is an outgrowth of the Marxism that underpins much of liberal thought. The Marxists maintained that Marxism was as scientifically proven as the Law of Gravity and, if anyone disagreed, it was because they were mentally ill or had been brainwashed by bourgeoisie interests.

But that is never the case. People disagree with Progressive ideas because they disagree with them. Sometimes it’s because the progressives have the facts wrong. Sometimes it’s because progressives’ logic is poor. Sometimes it’s because progressives are being irrational and stupid. And sometimes — most often — it’s because people disagree with progressives on values (e.g., progressives think it’s “fair” to take money from rich people and give it to power people; many conservatives think that’s the definition of unfair).

I am very concerned about the nihilist direction conservatism has taken. And I think that Sean Hannity and his ilk have played a large role in that and, yes, I think he’s been bad for the country in some ways. One can not behold the election of Trump and not be concerned with the direction we’re going.

But getting government more involved is not the answer. If you really think Trump is fascist, why on Earth would you give him the tools to implement fascism?

All that wolf crying…

Is not really going to go anywhere, and that is because as many of us that saw the hysteria sans any evidence pointed out: it was all bullshit. There is no way that if this story even had an inkling of a chance of being true – based on evidence, that is, not the pipe dreams of a bunch of idiots with an agenda to deflect from the real issues – that we wouldn’t have been given the facts by now. The democrats play dirty. They care not a damn if they destroy the country if it keeps them in power, so if they had proof, that proof would already have been released by their operatives in the deep state bureaucracy.

This Russia thing was started as a distraction from the revelations of how corrupt the DNC and the Clinton campaign were, and it got legs after the people in the Obama administration that tapped the Trump campaign – to find dirt no doubt – started pretending there was something going on there. We now know that the democrat delusion and their knee jerk reaction after losing an election they felt certain they had already stolen, was all bullshit. Oh sure, they are still talking about Trump being a Russian stooge, despite the fact that unlike them he has been though with Russia and is pro fracking – something that impacts the economy of Russia which is mostly centered around the sale of oil and natural gas far more than anything we could do otherwise in a real negative way – because the objective here has from the start been to deligitimize his election in the eyes of the low information voter. The usual dnc operatives with bylines were more than happy to go along with the bullshit because they too wanted some magical event to give them president Hillary. After the attempts to coerce the electoral college, convince people that we should suddenly look at the popular vote and not the legal election, and a bunch of other madness (remember this doozy?) all went nowhere and the left was left unable to steal the election, they decided that they needed to undermine the presidency.

As I pointed out before, only to have our resident trolls all go batshit on me for daring to say so: nothing will hurt the left more than Trump being successful at rolling back the nanny state, firing up the economy, and doing foreign policy different than the cock suckery of the Obama years. Any success is damaging to that moron Obama’s legacy (and those that defended it), and more importantly, to the left’s dogma. The left wants to believe they are the experts. The only ones that know what is right and how to make things work. Note I said want to believe, because any observation quickly should dissuade anyone but the most partisan or stupid person from any such delusion. Hence that Krugnuts prediction about economic doom turns into real stories like this, this, and this. The people that grow wealth all feel that things are going to get better. Even the ones that spout idiotic leftist shit all the time.

And do you remember Obama telling us we couldn’t drill ourselves out of high gas prices? Well, despite his administration’s best efforts, it is precisely the drilling – well, fracking – done in the US and Canada, that has driven down the price of oil, while preventing hostile countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and even that leftist tropical paradise of Venezuela from making like bandits at our expense. What about all that bullshit bracket filling during March madness? I sure as hell don’t miss that crap. And so on.

Anyway, back on topic. The left is desperate to make you believe only they are qualified to be in charge. hence this idiotic play to deligitimize the Trump presidency, of course for many of us it feels more like this. Me, I hope these morons keep at it. Be hysterical idiots. Throw tantrums and act all bitchy. Cry wolf. Sure low information voters might fall for it now, but more and more people are realizing what’s going on. The fact that the dnc operatives with bylines destroyed any credibility they might have had left alone is a major victory for freedom loving people. But the left refusing to accept their fantasy world has run into the real one, is priceless. This is gonna be great to watch. Pass the popcorn please.

Faster please!

Trump’s new proposed budget leaves no doubt he is reprioritizing government and downsizing it, which can’t happen fast enough for me, but has the chattering class and the nanny staters all in a tizzy, is out.

President Trump’s budget proposal this week would shake the federal government to its core if enacted, culling back numerous programs and expediting a historic contraction of the federal workforce.

This would be the first time the government has executed cuts of this magnitude — and all at once — since the drawdown following World War II, economists and budget analysts said.

The spending budget Trump is set to release Thursday will offer the clearest snapshot of his vision for the size and role of government. Aides say that the president sees a new Washington emerging from the budget process, one that prioritizes the military and homeland security while slashing many other areas, including housing, foreign assistance, environmental programs, public broadcasting and research. Simply put, government would be smaller and less involved in regulating life in America, with private companies and states playing a much bigger role.

The cuts Trump plans to propose this week are also expected to lead to layoffs among federal workers, changes that would be felt sharply in the Washington area. According to an economic analysis by Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, the reductions outlined so far by Trump’s advisers would reduce employment in the region by 1.8 percent and personal income by 3.5 percent, and lower home prices by 1.9 percent.

“These are not the kind of cuts that you can accommodate by tightening the belt one notch, by shaving a little bit off of a program, or by downsizing a few staff here or there,” said Robert Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “These are cuts that would require a wholesale triage of a vast array of federal activities.”

All I hear is that he plans to roll back Leviathan, and then focus on government doing the things it is told are its responsibility in the constitution, but I am sure that the usual members of the vote-buying credentialed elite class, seeing their own lucrative scheme come under attack, will be howling in anger that this is happening. of course, I suspect – as the article points out – that Trump’s biggest challenge to get this done will come from the biggest bunch of freeloaders out there – congress:

Still, budget experts said it was unclear what the precise impact on many agencies might be because the departments could choose to implement reductions in a variety of ways.

Administration officials have also stressed that discussions are ongoing between budget officials and agencies, and that the size of the budget cuts remains fluid. Moreover, the cuts cannot take effect unless they are authorized by Congress, which could prove difficult. Lawmakers routinely rebuffed budget requests from President Barack Obama, leading instead to protracted negotiations between both sides.

Already, Democrats have vowed to fight Trump’s proposals, and some Republicans have also expressed unease at the size of the reductions.

The White House declined to comment publicly, but administration officials have signaled for weeks that large cuts will be part of the budget.

That the democrats – which have never seen either a government entity that is large enough or pisses away too much of the tax payer’s money on crap that adds no value but buy democrat politicians votes – would react to this plan like vampires would to holy water, holy symbols, or sunlight, was expected. But the added bonus here is that it will expose the democrat-light nanny staters in the republican establishment, for what they are. These politicians on the republican side need to stop acting like they care about fiscal responsibility and small government when they are no better than the democrats, and we need to know who they are so we can vote them out as well.

I hope he wins this fight and forces congress to show its hand. And I hope every budget that follows this one repeats the cycle. The best thing to prevent the current tyranny of the nanny state is a small government with little power outside of the duties the constitution allows it. A lot of our problems will fix themselves when you don’t have the political class, and an entire political party, selling favors with other people’s money.

BTW, for the people all confused by why suddenly after the democrats lost the election things like employment, consumer confidence, and future economic outlook are off the charts in positive territory, it is things like this that are driving that. People want less intrusive and abusive government, and most of us definitely want government out of the business of picking winners and losers.

Hawking says that without world government tech will destroy us!

That’s the claim he makes <a href=’http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/stephen-hawking-world-government-stop-technology-destroy-humankind-th-a7618021.html” target=”_new”>in this article. Meh, globalists are getting desperate and even people that are supposed to be intelligent are now talking out of their asses. I find it not just naive but ridiculous to put faith in an entity that couldn’t do the job even at the micro level of states. What, incompetent credentialed bureaucrats like the ones running the EU or the UN will suddenly discover the secret to doing things right? Talk about being delusional. Shit, if the tools that will be running the global government don’t kill us outright themselves, they will use this tech to enslave us. Maybe Hawking thinks that is preferable to his imagined alternative, but I don’t.

Tech won’t doom humanity. Idiots thinking that only they are qualified and know what is best in charge of tech is what will doom humanity, and you are far more likely to get that with a global government than you are without. You want a bunch of social engineering idiots that think their will can bend the laws of nature, humanity, and physics to be in charge? Shit, Obama had the intelligence people spying on everyone, including his personal and political enemies. The Eu is a bunch of unaccountable douchebags that have been screwing over the people of Europe while they live a high life. And the UN, well that is one of the world’s biggest criminal organizations ever. Why the fuck would anyone trust an even larger and more intrusive government to do anything but make things worse for us?

I guess this “cri de coeure” by Hawking is just another desperate attempt at replacing the panic inducing shit other pro-globalization types push, like AGW, to sell their shit sandwich. The globalists are freaking out that their dream is dying, but I see it as a great thing that it is. Credentialed tools should not be calling the shot based on the horrible performance they have produced so far. That’s the real threat to humanity.

DWS Out, Perez In

I have no idea if Tom Perez will be an effective leader of the DNC. I suspect he will continue to lead the Democrats on their path of condescending ineffectual liberalism. But it would be hard for him to do worse than his predecessor, Debbie-Wasserman Schultz. Known in these parts as Ms. Verbal Diarrhea, DWS became a punchline of conservative blogs for her frequent idiotic and smug statements. With a popular two-term President at her side, she led the Democrats to electoral disaster after electoral disaster, culminating in a humiliating defeat to a semi-sentient yam who lost the popular vote. She put her thumb on the scale to favor one of the worst Presidential candidates in American history, alienating half her party in the process. She was really good at raising money from special interests. And really terrible at translating that into a functional opposition.

I have little hope that the Democrats will turn aside from the big government path they’ve been on since … forever. But maybe they can become a functional opposition party instead of an hysterical incoherent mass of demands.

Update: Walter Olson throws some cold water on the idea that Perez is a moderate:

Perez didn’t give off much of an impression of moderation in the Obama cabinet, however, where he was a leading symbol of regulatory lawlessness, hauled up repeatedly by the courts for trampling employers’ rights. See, for example, Gate Guard (Fifth Circuit describes conduct of DoL as “vindictive,” “indefensible,” “bad faith”), the we-know-where-you-live “persuader” rule (blasted by ABA, enjoined by judge), and of course mid-level overtime (enjoined by judge). More: Dan McLaughlin (Perez’s manipulation of fair housing litigation); John Fund (hiring practices at DoJ civil rights division).

I’ve written about the DoL’s terrible overtime rule before.

If you had any doubts..

That they are basically dnc operatives with bylines, then here is the confirmation from one of them that got candid. Then again, this is PMS-NBC, and this sort of stuff is pretty standard with these progressive agents of the state that think us unwashed masses are too stupid to do our own thinking, primarily, because we will very likely not buy the bullshit these tools are selling for their nanny state credentialed elite top men.

I admit that while I am gleeful to see the dnc operatives with bylines that pass themselves of as unbiased media terminating any credibility they might have left with extreme prejudice and just lap it all up, that part of me is concerned that the damage they are doing affects all media. Feeling generous I will make the premise that while a healthy dose of skepticism is something leftist only seem to have when the issue in question challenges their dogma – with the caveat that the call for safe spaces and limit on speech & thought that has become the deciding driver behind the left’s current tantrum, proving that far too many of them refuse to engage or allow any sort of thinking period – I am worried that the other side will also be lulled into complacency.

I get a good laugh when the usual suspects on the left that allowed Obama to out-Boosh Boosh for 8 long years – in every area they complained and called for criminal charges be brought against the Booshies for before – and then, simply because he was their guy, now want to make the case that support for Trump is just more of the same, instead of seeing that is happening specifically because people have been turned off by the clear hysteria and the constant sabotage from them. heck, they been attacking the guy, doing a 180 from the very things they ignored or defended Obama on, and making up shit since even before the guy took the oath! The media has destroyed their credibility trying to support the sabotage from the left and the establishment, which hate the fact they and their beliefs that progress is them ruling over the idiot masses, has been upended. And they are getting more desperate with every failed pooh flinging attempt that serves to not only entrench people on the other side but turn off those that are not blood drinking radical leftists.

My concern is that if we can’t trust and believe anything from anyone, and are left only listening to whatever echo chambers validate our own beliefs (and before any of you leftist pretend that problem is with the other side, I refer you again to which side is really calling for the control of thought and speech, and it definitely is not Trump or his people), we are going to have problems. While I don’t expect the left to ever be able to do anything but that – if they leave the echo chamber and actually have to really think things through, they are no longer going to be able to stay on that reservation without losing their grip on reality – I worry that if Trump really ends up unaccountable, we will get trouble. of course, the fact that it is their very sabotage and hysteria that takes us there will never sink in with the progressive shit flinger crowd.

Taking on the education cartel just as dangerous as taking on the drug cartels

If you still have doubts about which side not only has gone completely off the rails but actually resorts to tactics and acts of violence against those they furiously and feverishly accuse of being the next coming of Hitler, just look at stories like this one, or this one.

The first story is about Betsy DeVos, whom was the most hotly contested Trump nominee bar non. It’s also no wonder that she now needs security, because we are talking about one of the most corrupt and criminal money laundering entities that the democratic party counts on for money: the educational cartel. DeVos’ crime is that she threatens the left’s monopoly on indoctrination and the democratic party’s most lucrative protection racket by wanting to give parents – and especially parents of minority children, whom are the ones worst served by the failure prone educational cartel’s monopoly – choices. The democrats can’t either have the upstarts leaving the plantation nor risking that massive money pool that this racket allows them to collect, and they will go to any lengths to undermine her efforts to reform a failed system.

Look no system that tries to force produce equality of outcome will ever produce anything but misery and failure. This whole fixation with creating equality of outcome for the plebes – because the progressive elite certainly believe they have a dispensation from this requirement due to their exalted status- referred by those that know that in order to sell their nonsense they need to couch their agenda in pretty language as “Social justice”, is the central tenet of a quasi-religious movement of credentialed idiots that is lapped up by idiots that are pissed shit isn’t just given to them because of the simple fact that they feel they deserve it more than the people that actually have earned, always by nefarious means unless said people hold the right sort of progressive beliefs, whatever it is. And no where is it more obvious than in failed public education machine of the US, where the system constantly tries to produce that impossible equality of outcome by hamstringing the gifted and hard working, and pushing the less qualified into situations where failure is all but assured. And it does so while pissing away massive amounts of money that serve to feed a democrat beholden administration heavy machine and democrat owned teacher’s union, but doesn’t do much for most students or good teachers.

DeVos is one of the most scary things that the democrats see coming from the Trump WH, because she targets a fundamental cog in the indoctrination & money making machine that the left had up until now thought invulnerable to any real reform. Anything that would undermine their ability to brainwash kids and produce piles of money for democrat politicians, is anathema to the people that demand the public school system remain untouched, while sending their own to private schools. School choice – the main platform of DeVos – is a death knell to the stranglehold the left has on both the money and the choice of educational subjects (a.k.a what the idiots get told to believe). While kids being given the opportunity of going to schools that no longer are beholden to the bureaucratic rules of the public education system, designed to maintain the monopoly of democratic party’s twin pillars of generating proggy drones and generating money for their campaign coffers, is horrifying, the real fear is that of that being a success.

As I already pointed out before, only to have our resident lefty trolls eager to hide the obvious jump on me for here: the most frightening thing to the left is that someone actually is successful and shows that the things the left believes in, and more importantly does, simply are just recipes for failure and disaster. From Trump succeeding, especially after the crap the left produced during the 8 years of abject failures under Obama, to DeVos fixing a system we are told can only be fixed by doubling down on the same idiotic rules, bloating the bureaucracy even more than it is, and giving unions more money to give to democrat politician by the very people that have a vested interest in keeping the system exactly how it is, the children of the plebs being provided a disservice be damned, we are dealing with a viscous and visceral reaction by people that would rather burn it all down than allow their grip on power to be threatened.

The left, after deeply drinking its own kool-aid about the death of any opposition to the progressive agenda, weaponizing government for the coming of Hillary whom was to basically clean slate after Obama, suddenly finds itself on the potential receiving end of the very machine they thought would allow them to kill off the other side. More frightening yet, that Machiavellian machine is now directed by a guy that plays by their rules – and is a champ at doing to them what they have spent 50 years doing to idiots that actually thought doing battle on the merits of their arguments and playing fair would be enough to overcome the machinations of what amounts to a deceitful and criminal entity – and is running circles around their operatives with bylines and their political crime syndicate. Hence the constant and more hysterical escalation of lies, insanity, and finally, resort to violence.

These fuckers burning down can’t happen fast enough for me, and I suspect, for a world that should be hoping for a faith other than the soft tyranny – but tyranny that will devolve in misery for all but a few – promised by the ideology that thinks the elite are the only ones that know what is right and good for the dumb ass plebes.