Get Back In The Trenches

So much for the New Year thing on not getting sick, though to be fair, what struck me was just mild sinus/with earache (and seems to be resolving itself.) Younger son, OTOH woke up on the first day of the year with what I hope – knock on wood (there are indications that way) – is a 24h bug and not norovirus.  The main indication that way is that none of the rest of us seem affected and we do live in each other’s pockets.  Also, he was getting better by the evening.

Of course, this is an example of a resolution you can’t keep as such – you can endeavor to live a healthy life, but you can’t keep the bugs from infecting you.  So, on with the endeavoring.  And meanwhile, I had the weirdest nightmare.

First of all, I dreamed I was running for political office – which, while not impossible, is highly unlikely – and second I dreamed someone had data mined my blog and everywhere, including on bill boards on the side of the road was “Sarah A. Hoyt thinks the Earth is flat.”  This was based on half a sentence, taken grossly out of context.  No one reading the actual post I’d written could think I believed that.  In fact, no one reading the first part of the sentence could think I believed that since the first half was something like “I looked out the window and saw a pig flying by, so I think…”  However, all the blogs were full of it, and all the billboards and all the radio stations, and jokes were being made about the science fiction writer who thought the Earth was flat.

Which made me realize something.

The big power of the industrial media complex right now is the power to destroy.  They no longer have the power to burnish the image of their darlings, or to make us believe counterfactuals.  I’ve said this before, and I mean it.  If they had the same sort of control over the streams of information/entertainment that they had back in the 40s they would have pulled off their stated goal of making this administration the second coming of FDR.  In fact, the more we learn about FDRs effect on the economy of the nation, the more that seems distressingly likely.  If they’d had even the type of control over the media that they had back in the early 90s, we would too believe this first lady is a beauty queen, instead of rolling our eyes at the covers proclaiming this.  (No?  We did believe that Hilary was efficient and intelligent, which considering she advanced in life the old fashioned way – by marrying a man who did – was quite a rasper.)

They can no longer do that.  And either they caught on that their “Summer of recovery 1 and 2 and 3 and 4” was becoming a fodder for giggles, or they’re losing heart.  Yes, we all know people who believe that this administration halved the deficit (to be fair most of those people believe in unicorns, too) and we all know people who believe that the economy is getting better and that there is no inflation (those usually require advanced degrees, because no one can believe that much nonsense without training up).  But influence the general opinion, they do not, and they keep getting smaller and smaller bang for their buck.

Those are the good news.

The bad news is that there is something that they can still do and do quite handily. Heinlein observed in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress that it’s much easier to make people hate than love.  Our media has lost the ability to make us dote on their darlings, but they can still turn public opinion against anyone they choose.

It’s not very rational; it’s not very sane; they don’t even try to make it plausible.  Instead they tell a big huge whopper – Sarah Palin made rape victims pay for the rape kit, say – and then keep repeating it, making jokes about it, using it as a throw away line by late-night comedians you know “Oh, well, of course she’d have cut the deficit.  The American people would need to pay for its own rape kit.”

And suddenly it’s everywhere.  Part of it is coordination, of course, and part of it is the willingness of marginally attached left groups to jump in on the buzzword of the day, which happens not through conspiracy but through the fact that these people desperately want to be cool and be like the cool people they see on TV.  The right – and certainly the libertarian right – has nothing like it, since most of us by the time we arrived at our opinions had decided that we had to stand against cool and societal approval, but that some things were more important.

Witness the whole “Binders full of women” they deployed to prove that Romney was against women.  The incident is likely to make your head hurt.  What he was saying, of course – and the expression isn’t even that infelicitous just a verbal short cut – is that he’d asked to be brought the files of women who’d not been promoted, and got whole binders full.  (It serves him right, for trying to create his own affirmative action instead of JUST aiming for meritocracy, but never mind.)  Next thing you know this phrase “binders full of women” was being deployed to show he was “anti-woman” and the idiots of code pink were marching in circles wearing binders.  And most of the people who just heard the phrase “binders full of women” never had any clue of the context and were convinced he was either keeping women in binders (!) or thought women’s resumes should be kept in binders and not considered.

It was in fact the exact opposite of what he’d said and it was all accomplished by never explaining, never saying anything, just repeating “binders full of women.”

Meanwhile the DNC was running with “We all belong to the government” a phrase that would genuinely skiv the average American voter, but since it was never mentioned, nor was the convention shown in its pale and old glory, but the media assured people that it was diverse and there were tons of “people of color” (as opposed to transparent people, I guess) the public believed without having seen.  Which might make them blessed, but certainly DOES make them stupid and blinkered – as they’re finding out.

The power-to-destroy is being deployed earlier and earlier.  For instance, I noted an accusation of plagiarism against Rand Paul which, when traced down, amounts to “he didn’t use proper citing procedure” – which, pardon me, these days keeps changing and even I am not sure I can use it right even though I have a literature degree.

The end result of this is to drop the people who would even marginally be interesting to the base (Paul is saying he won’t run and I’m not sure I blame him) leaving us with the one the left fears less.  That one they spare until the general election and then they unload on him.  At any rate, not much is needed since the base is usually cringing.

Mind you, it’s never really bad stuff – like, say Clinton’s serial record as a sex offender WELL before he ran for president, or Elizabeth Warren’s using of racial preferences to which she’s not even remotely entitled, or … any of that – It’s stuff like “binders full of women” or using the word “niggardly” or something else into which they can read penumbras and emanations of a hatred for women or other races or another designated Marxist victim group.

They are aided in this by the right’s – and for the purposes of this Libertarians are very much the right – wish to distance itself from anything that might sound even vaguely off.

Look, the left doesn’t do this.  Point out to them that Elizabeth Warren is Faux-a-hontas and first you get the “well, she truly believed it” then you get the “there is no proof she used it to advance” and then you get “she did much to raise consciousness…” and then they reset and are back to “you’re racist because she’s a Native American.”

The right, OTOH would jump away from everything like that, like a shot, and then start piling on and driving the person out of the party.

I have a theory that this is a leftover cold war reflex.  During the cold war the left managed to paint the right as being for the rich, because it was against the distribution of wealth.  (Instead of the distribution of wealth ipso facto favoring a large government and an “upper class” that gives bennies to the benighted, just like in feudal times.  In fact the whole concept of redistribution IS feudal. Why would the government give YOUR money to anyone else, unless all money belongs to them and “we all belong to the government”?)  From this came painting the right as anti-other-races (completely airbrushing the fact it was the left who endorsed slavery – same as it ever was, I guess) and all the other image of the stodgy/old fashioned right.  It took them forever and near monopoly of the information/entertainment complex to build that image.

And now the right reacts to it as if it were ever true.  So faced with a politician who is less than perfect (ah!) the right recoils and piles on, to prove they’re not like that.

Which reinforces the left’s sole remaining ability – the ability to destroy.

There is also the fact that we have very little ability to fight against it.  The “accusations” themselves are the sort of thing you can’t fight against.  Trying to explain that Sarah Palin never said she could see Russia from her house puts you in the position of trying to explain a joke.  “A horse couldn’t have walked into a bar.  The doors aren’t wide enough.”  It doesn’t work.  In fact, the more stupid and widespread the accusation, the harder it is to counter.

Even the Tea Party, as a widespread phenomenon that most people know someone who belongs to, has got the tarnish job.  It took them forever, but by dint of repeating the “ignorant” and “fanatic” they’ve got most people believing it or half believing it.  (A couple of false flag operations helped that along.)  And part of it is that the right willingly goes along with it, again.

So what to do?  Well… The only thing I can think of other than stop jumping every time they make jokes about someone being a frog is to fight fire with fire.  Is there a stupid meme out saying that so and so said something totally out of context?  Find the stupidest things Obama has said (And I don’t mean corpse- man, most people don’t care about mispronounciations.  Unless your target is college professors.  But “you didn’t build that” is pretty damn dumb, as are his recent scolds on “inequality” while he flies around in private jets to glam vacations) and make a meme, and flood the net.  And when they push their meme at you, push right back.  Just a sentence.  No, it doesn’t need to be impeccably sourced, no it doesn’t need to make sense, even.  It just needs to be catchy.

Will it work?  I don’t know.  But it’s worth trying.  It’s worth trying because in the last two elections the left has used their power to make people hate and cringe to select their opponent.  And if they do that again in 16 it will be enough.  It will do for us.

I know I keep saying to be not afraid and that in the end we win they lose.  I still think that is true.  But I also believe our country (and by extension civilization) can go down for a one or two generation count, and we can live our great-grandkids such a mess to rebuild that what we have right now will seem like a golden age.

Just because tech and history will eventually go our way is no reason to put down our weapons.  Just because they control most of the channels that can be used for propaganda doesn’t mean we can’t counter it.

Be not afraid.  But keep fighting.

164 thoughts on “Get Back In The Trenches

  1. Ah, OK. NEW New Year’s resolution.

    Every stupid thing a Democrat says goes on a list. Repeat out loud the most pertinent three whenever in company running down a Republican or Libertarian.

    (1) You didn’t build that
    (2) You can keep your doctor

    1. Thankfully, their next annointed has already provided an all-purpose Leatherman tool rebuttal for ANY claim, argument or assertion that they attempt: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

      1. Hmmm… can we turn that around? So when they bring up slavery, or wage inequality or (heaven help us) government shutdowns can we just say “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

      2. I watched the video as she jumped up and down in her seat and said that. While watching I said to myself, thank God I do not work for that woman. She’s giving off the body language of all the worst bosses I have ever had.

    2. Hmm, this isn’t my forte, but how about “the free market has never worked” (when someone’s bragging about their cool new toys) or “government is just another name for what we do together” (at the DMV)

          1. “…[S]o if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

              1. There are a few half-hearted attempts to defend her, saying that it used to be true. Well, stripper clips, while nominally expendable, are still reloadable. Or are we talking belt-fed? Box magazines (the point of legislation) by design…

                The larger point, as most here know, is that the demonstrated expertise on the subject calls in to question the fitness to rule on said subject.

                1. For a moment there, when I first read that, I was hoping against hope that caseless was finally perfected…


                  1. Various folks are still working on it. I’ve seen some interesting stuff, and keep hoping for success.

              1. Not only does she know all 57 states, she can recite them as a song! (Technically, He actually referred to 58, since there was one more to go to in the original quote)

              2. “Will the Mars Rover be able to show the flag the astronauts planted there before?” ~ Sheila Jackson Lee (D) Texas

                No, the (D) does not (necessarily) stand for “Dumb.”

                1. Enter purt near ANY urban Democrat politician in your search engine, followed by the word “quotes” and be prepared to wipe your monitor.


                  The results with Maxine Waters (ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, sure to become its chairperson if the House turns D) are at least as appalling. Remember:

                  “If sequestration takes place, that’s going to be a great setback. We don’t need to be having something like sequestration that’s going to cause these job losses — over 170 million jobs that could be lost.”

                  1. “We have martial law. What that means – and my colleagues know what it means – is that you can put a bill on in just minutes.”

                    I wonder how many of her colleagues are scratching their heads and going, “Huh?”

                1. Which reminds me of two things written about World War II. George Orwell observed it taught the British geography; he cited Guadalcanal as one.

                  On the other hand, when a government official met with an army officer, he mentioned he had gone to the shrine to pray for the success of their forces on Guadalcanal. The army officer had never heard of it. Army/Navy rivalries were big in Japan.

        1. Oleg Atbashian’s take was, “A dog in every pot, and no cars to chase”
          (over the cutest picture of a puppy in a saucepan)

    1. Yeah, funny. Rush has a bigger audience than Treacher, and he does this kind of thing – The Brother That Lives in a Hut. Obama could double his half-brother’s annual income by sending him 20 bucks every Christmas, but he doesn’t.

      Repeating that could help. We need more, though.

  2. I swear, I am going to search out one of Obama’s frowny pictures, and do it up with the motto “The beatings will continue until morale improves” and start putting it in various places on blogs…

  3. Note the results of the “Mainstream” effort to defenestrate Phil Robertson. Consider the “Paul Ryan wants to shove granny’s wheelchair over the cliff” meme’s crash and burn. Look at all their charges up Limbaugh Hill.

    Look closely at how feebly their attack on “academics who receive corporate subsidies are corrupt” went down. They’re thrashing about, desperate to change the subject, and failing. The Old Guard is sclerotic and peripatetic, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    1. ^^^ These examples are (part of) the reason for my (fervent hope) belief that the progs have overplayed. In a culture so enamored of celebrity mockery, there is push-back.

      We’ve got a long tradition of tearing down those who would rule/lead. I think it’s a good tradition, personally. Humbling the folks who think they ought to stand in front of the pack is vital, not for them (they’re not going to notice) but for the rest of us. The Light-bringer’s externally enforced Teflon coating has been noticed, and the divergence from the norm gets attention. Add to that the inevitable reality that this morass of government is gonna kick everybody in the teeth, except for those who think they ought to stand in front…

      People are noticing. And, increasingly, they are displeased with what has been done with their complicity. Now, it’s a matter of ensuring that enough catch on fast enough to make a difference. Catch and ride that wave.

      For every attack on Ted Cruz: Why do you hate Hispanics?

      1. For every attack on Ted Cruz: Why do you hate Canadians?

        Coming soon to a gun shop near you: Duck Dynasty branded, Mossberg made shotguns.

        The family-owned business featured on hit reality television show “Duck Dynasty” has partnered with Mossberg manufacturers to make its own line of shotguns.

        The Duck Commander company will produce with Mossberg nine different firearms, including two semiautomatic shotguns and a semiautomatic handgun, CNNreported.

        Mossberg has already started shipping shotguns to distributors, gauging interest and drumming up business, said company spokeswoman Lisa Powell. She declined to tell which retailers had expressed interest so far, according to CNN.


        The pistol and one of the planned rifles will mirror military design and hold high-capacity magazines of 25 rounds or more. The .22-caliber pistol is “perfect for small game, plinking, target shooting — or clearing cottonmouths out of your duck blind,” Mossberg said.

        1. “… [M]irror military design,” is it now? Because pistols are suddenly more than fashion accessories to most of the US military? And .22, with the (significant) absence of that trailing 3, is a military caliber? Struggle, struggle mightily dearest CNN, for the relevance of the narrative.

          To the larger point: I love a good backfire.

          1. And reading the link (after the fact) I discover I’ve maligned CNN unfairly. On this particular point. This one tiny point. *sigh*

            1. While I am doubtful that CNN can be maligned unfairly, the environment of egregious errors is so target rich that gigging them for an item they inadvertently got right* does more harm to you (or me) than to them.

              *Due acknowledgement that they are more likely to get inadvertently right those things which align with their biases. Due acknowledgement, as well, that “getting things right” is not a primary (or even secondary) goal of their corporate mission statement.

        2. “Why do you hate Canadians?” would play into the “He’s not eligible to run” strategy they’re going* to use on Cruz, so that one’s out.

          * Assuming he runs, which I hope he does.

          1. Nyah – is first part of the trick. Once they get onto that strategy you pull the rug out from under by reminding that he was born to an American (of age) mother and raised in the United States, therefore he was Canadian only by virtue of a quirk in the rules.

            Of course, the reason they hate Canadians is clear: the Canucks have repudiated Trudeau-style Liberalism in favor of government policies that actually work to protect citizens’ liberty.

            1. I understand that Trudeau’s son is running, and according to the liberal Canadian I know, the man is, “so dreamy”.
              Ah, to elevate a man of such breadth of experience. He taught drama in British Columbia for 30 year, and even taught math. My question is, has he read Stanislavski?

        3. Anyone got the skinny on this new Phil Robertson quote they are getting their panties in a bunch about? Something about “getting them young”? I haven’t seen much, nor a link to the original, but I suspect it’s being seriously misrepresented.

          1. I suspect yes and no — it’s apparently a joke he often tells. The operative thing is that they’re close to the same age. I actually have a post about that, that’s mostly questions (when to marry or which is best.)

                    1. I’d actually read it as more ammo against the Left, since I know you.

                      I can remember in high school where somehow the topic of a kid killed in a car accident came up– long story short, the kid was either 13 or 14, her 35 year old “boyfriend” was driving a van that wasn’t licensed but did have an elaborate embroidered interior ceiling, and a wide array of drugs were involved with high speed.
                      And we were supposed to be outraged about the drunk driving.

                      Digression, maybe that’s why so much internet stuff is misinterpreted– because there ARE folks who are going around being total asses, and no good way to tell them apart from honest folks.

                    2. Woody Allen is not an “adult” — he is a talented and important artiste and should not be held to bourgeois standards.

                      As for Polanski, that little tramp shouldn’t have been at a Hollywood party if she wasn’t willing to get drugged and raped. Besides, it isn’t as if it were “rape-rape.” She didn’t even need to “put a little ice on that.”

        4. Notice that CNN confused “Duck Dynasty” trademark which A&E owns with “Duck Commander” trademark that the Robertsons own. Its the Duck Commander brand that is licensed to Mossberg. A&E would have a corporate wide fainting spell if they licensed “Duck Dynasty” to a firearms manufacturer.

  4. If you like your plan you can keep it.

    They lied, our people died.

    Remember the IRS.

    He can see Russia from the White House.


    The problem with this administration is that they are comically inept, which would be hideously funny, if people weren’t getting killed because of it.

  5. It is truly depressing to see how the media deploys to annihilate any potential threat. At least with alternative media, we have the ability to wage guerilla warfare against it.

    1. The period in which your statement is true is rapidly coming to an end.

      Time was, I could reference something I read in the New York Times, and most people would nod sagely, and say or think, “Well, if they printed it, it must be true…”.

      I no longer reference the New York Times, except in the same sense that intelligence summaries used to quote Pravda and Isvestia–In order to describe and understand what the sources imply by what lies or distortions they’re telling.

      And, if I were to quote the NYT organs for anything other than raw information that can be verified elsewhere, discerning people are no longer nodding sagely. They are, in fact, pointing at me and laughing, hooting with great derision.

      I predict that the New York Times is going to go bankrupt sometime in the next generation or two, and that business schools will be teaching about the manner in which it went bankrupt at the hands of Pinch Sulzberger. It might be saved, were someone else to take it over and run it differently, but so long as Sulzberger is running it, the only fate it has is the same one that Newsweek met.

      1. The NY Times owns some very significant property in downtown Manhattan, property which will underwrite much silliness of the progressive party organ* published in its name. That will prevent bankruptcy for so long as Manhattan real estate holds its value.

        Yes, the irony of the party organ pushing policies punishing
        practices and industries propping up Manhattan property values does not escape me.

        Readers of the NY Post back in the period immediately post-9/11 (back when that paper featured a regular column by some guy named J. Ringo) may recall the Post’s editorials about the Times editorializing against rebuilding the fallen office space representing a conflict of interest, coming as the NYT was in the midst of constructing a mid-town “Times Tower” which was struggling to fill its occupancy.

        *Just which organ is left for debate. I am torn between the spleen and the dick but am willing to entertain alternatives.

  6. “First your doctor, then your nurse—But don’t worry, it can’t get worse.” {with a picture of Pel0si or Biden smiling}

    “You passed it, we’ve read it – Show [incumbent name] the Door in Ten and Four.”

  7. As RES has said before and since, anything Billary decries (or for that matter, praises) should be met with the clip: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    Healthcare reform: Clip.
    Income inequality: Clip.
    New pantsuit: Clip.
    Racial unrest: Clip.
    Concession speech: Entire Benghazi testimony.

  8. I get those nasty sinus infections in the winter– doesn’t even have to be a bug (cold or virus) around to get one. So I am doing a lot of nasal rinses –every day if I can. It keeps me from getting the headaches. (or at least the bad ones.)

  9. Two things that make me crazy:

    1.) Liberals complaining about the “conservative media, as if there was such a thing.

    2.) Liberals who claim that “liberal media” is just codewords for “Jews”. No, trust me, we mean liberals.

    I want to bang my head against the wall and howl obscenities in the street when I hear this crap.

  10. I like this. It’s a plan. Something to move things forward among the not-already convinced. Don’t get me wrong, I love the blog, but how many people do you think would read something like this if they didn’t agree with it? Honestly?

    OTOH, something like this gives us ammunition in the public sphere among people who are open to be convinced. There are some people who will never be converted because they refuse to see the truth. I can respect the conviction while questioning the intelligence of their position but that’s the way it is. There are others out there who will be willing to listen. Polar opposites are at work in this country, but there is plenty of room between the poles. We need to find the “in-betweeners” and bring them over to our side. This sounds like a good lead-in to doing that. Why? Well, for two reasons.

    The first is that the majority of people in this country see us going down the toilet. There are open to criticism of Our Fearless leader (TM) at a level that they haven’t been before. He has also said a ton of stupid things. It’s time to beat him and all of his allies over the head with them.

    The other is that it presents things to people in ways that they’re used to. When one herds sheep with a dog and the sheep get used to having their heels nipped when they don’t go in the right direction that’s what they expect. Simply asking them to go in the desired direction with no dog anymore. You can show them a better pasture with more clover. You can demonstate a lack of wolves. They still won’t go if they’re not herded properly. This strikes me as being an effective herding technique.

  11. The Left’s Alinsky tactics work because they can find a “standard” that their opponents want to at least try to live up to. By accusing a specific opponent of some outlandish violation, they can get his (should-be) allies to disown him — even join in the attack. It doesn’t work well in reverse because the Left, by and large, doesn’t really have standards, except the belief that they should be in charge. They don’t care if their allies violate some leftish “principle” as long as they remain allies. “No enemies to the left!” Reagan tried something similar with his “eleventh commandment” but that didn’t last long. The non-leftist parties (Establishment Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, ….) are separated by their beliefs and are more philosophically threatened by the beliefs of their putative allies than by the valueless Left. I will watch and hope your tactic works; the metric is whether or not other Leftists join in. If it is just us vs them, the center doesn’t move.

    1. There are a few accusations that will make all but the most hard-core among them back down: Racism, Sexism, Arrogance. Accusing them of Othering, or denying the Personhood of some body/group, usually strikes home.

      The best tactic is probably the one most discussed in responses to this post: ridicule. The Progs are as touchy of their superiority as any cat is of its dignity. They view laughing at, mocking of others as their prerogative and get all huffy when they and theirs become the joke’s butt. (Consider screams of “racism” in response to any and all jokes about the Lite Bringer.)

      1. Sorry, but I’ve seen lefties spew some of the foulest racism, behave in unbelievably sexist ways (Clinton and Gore and Weiner and Kennedy and…), and show more arrogance than anyone who had actually accomplished anything, and it NEVER hurts their standing.Their politics insulates them from anything but openly committed criminal acts, and discourages digging into what they commit behind closed doors.

        1. That is because they are rarely called on their racism, because the Left doesn’t attack their own and the Right doesn’t accuse people of racism. Which is why your typical Lefty sputters into apoplectic speechlessness when your response to one of their assertions is a quiet observation “that is appallingly racist.”

          Mind, for any of their political leaders it generally requires something at the level of Robert Byrd’s “White N-word” remark. But it is an amusing rebuttal to their assertions that the reason we oppose Obama is rooted in racism (because we loved it when Hillary proposed it) to observe that they are engaging in racism by holding that a Black man should not be held accountable for his acts, thus dehumanizing by denying agency.

          1. EXCEPT…

            I have made it a policy to call lefties on their bigotry, particularly their (misguided) elitism. They do not react. It does not sting them.

            Not because it’s not true, but because they don’t give a rat’s behind. Partly because it’s all excuse by their faith, partly because it’s what really motivates them.

  12. Unfortunately, your advice won’t work for me. Every time I’ve asked a Liberal to think, I got told that I was trying to indoctrinate them. Or, that I didn’t understand how badly they had been hurt by my request that they use reason and that I was a Racist as well. I’ve told them where to go and quit posting me. Therefore, I have no connections with Liberals left to rebut at. The peace of solitude I’ve gained is worth far more than I used to think it would.

    1. You have to understand — if they THOUGHT, they wouldn’t be leftists, it causes them actual physical pain to apply Reason, and they apparently assume that whatever “Race” they belong to is incapable of either.

      You asked them to throw off their mental chains; for them those chains are a security blanket.

      1. They are Rationalists, oftimes. This means they worship Reason and regard it as far too sacred to actually, like, use.

        1. The problem is that what they call “reason” is nothing more than a steaming pile of unwarranted assumptions, logical fallacies, and inchoate emoting.

          1. I haven’t found one that could quote a reason. In the above, I was speaking of family; no reunions to go in the future either, thank you cousin. Strangers are fair game and lots of fun to embarrass. However, this article reminded me of something: Heinlein once made the statement like “I don’t believe the human race will continue because the Christian believes in Heaven, nor do I believe it is because the Atheist believes they can create Heaven on earth. No, it is because man is just too ornery to quit.” I think that collates with “Get back in the trenches!”

  13. Global warming aka climate change: remember the Christmas Turkey expedition?

    (unfortunate name for that professor, I’ve seen it written as Turkey instead of Turney more than a couple of times now and without any indication that it was more than a typing mishap, or possibly an autocorrect problem)

        1. NO one takes the p*ss like Australians. And the ditty one of them posted “I thaw ice ship come failing in on Christmas day, on Christmas day” made me splursh all over the monitor.

          1. I read about that, and suddenly a piece of satire burst fully formed into my consciousness…

            “Atheist Climate Change scientists get religion, pray their theory is proven right (and soon!)”

            It’s too horrible for words. *chuckles madly*

  14. “The only thing I can think of other than stop jumping every time they make jokes about someone being a frog is to fight fire with fire.”

    It’s bad to stoop down to the democrats’ and media’s level, and it won’t work. The left-wingers control 90+ percent of the mainstream media. The catchy memes won’t make it to the evening news. A catchy anti-dem meme on the internet will spread like wildfire–on right-wing and libertarian blogs. The left-wing blogs will bury it. Most internet surfers don’t read any political blogs, so the meme wouldn’t do much even if it surfaced on left-wing blogs.

    The long-standing lie that the left-wingers are for “the little people” and the right-wingers are for “the rich and the businessmen” means that the majority votes, in federal elections, for left-wingers (Democrats) by default. It takes a disaster caused by the left-wingers or a military crisis to convince enough people to switch and vote Republican. Catchy anti-dem memes will never be enough.

    1. a) the MSM and the industrial media complex no longer have the power they once did.
      b) how do you know it wouldn’t work? The right ALWAYS plays by Marquess de Queensbury rules (or for PTerry fans, Marquess the Fantailer rules.)

            1. One person who commented (may still comment for all I know) on Ace of Spades, when he heard that Breitbart had died, decided to BE Breitbart, and told a young co-worker wearing a Che T-shirt what a poor choice of attire said co-worker had made. This started a sequence of events that led to him getting a promotion and a girlfriend:

              1) Che-boy keyed Commenter’s car and slashed his tires. (Fortunately, Commenter had anticipated this behavior and started driving his beat-up old car to work instead of the nice car he usually drove, so it was the old junky car that was vandalized).
              2) Commenter reported this fact to management (saying “some unknown person” had slashed his tires since he suspected but had no proof).
              3) Management assigned him a young rent-a-cop guy as a sort of bodyguard while he went to and from the parking lot. (He worked at a mid- to high-level financial institution, so they took that sort of thing quite seriously).
              4) Young rent-a-cop guy at one point saw some of Che-boy’s friends heading towards Commenter’s car with spray paint, confronted them, and ended up getting hurt in ensuing fight. Nothing serious, but he was taken to the local hospital for X-rays just to be certain.
              5) Commenter heard about this, went to hospital, and (nicely) chewed out young rent-a-cop guy for being foolish. “My car is replaceable. You are not.”
              6) Commenter ended up becoming friends with young rent-a-cop guy and inviting him over to Commenter’s apartment. Rent-a-cop guy brought his girlfriend along, and girlfriend’s redheaded sister, then single, came along to meet this guy (Commenter) that she’d heard so much about from her sister’s boyfriend.
              7) Commenter and Redhead hit it off almost right away, and pretty soon she started posting on Ace of Spades HQ as well. For awhile her IP address was different from Commenter’s, but pretty soon she was posting from the same IP as Commenter. (Ace of Spades turns every commenter’s IP address into a five-character hash code, so that trolls and sockpuppets can be more easily identified. For a few weeks, Redhead’s hash code was different from Commenter’s, but eventually both of them started posting with the same hash code as each other.)
              8) In unrelated events, Commenter was noticed by management for his good work (including the fact that although he had been involved in a bit of office drama, his productivity hadn’t faltered the whole time) and got a promotion.

              I happened to catch this sequence of events in an overnight open thread around the time of event #3, and I watched it unfold almost in real-time. (I went back and caught up on the threads that had events 1 and 2 in them). All of this was reported by Commenter, so some people expressed skepticism, but his response was always consistent: “I don’t have the creativity to make up this kind of story.” And the internal details were always consistent, which points to either a HIGHLY skilled storyteller, or else real events. Personally, I believe that the whole thing really happened just as Commenter told it.

              (Pseudonyms have been used throughout, and said pseudonyms are NOT the same as those on the Ace of Spades account, because Commenter repeatedly expressed a worry that his work would find the story, somehow figure out that it was him despite the pseudonyms he was using, and fire him. Nothing of the sort happened, but I don’t want to get him in trouble a couple years later, so I’m also using pseudonyms.)

      1. And yet again, Terry Pratchett nails it, in Interesting Times:

        ‘I know about people who talk about suffering for the common good. It’s never bloody them! When you hear a man shouting “Forward, brave comrades!” you’ll see he’s the one behind the bloody big rock and wearing the only really arrow-proof helmet!’

        There’s another one, where he asks the leaders of the proto-revolution who’s going to be in charge afterwards — “It’s you, isn’t it?” being the gist of what he says — but I can’t find the quote just now. It’s an utterly damning quote, though, regarding the tendency of ruling classes to be “more equal than others”. I’m sure someone knows which quote I’m trying to remember.

        1. Found it.

          ‘Look,’ he said, rubbing his forehead. ‘All those people out in the fields,
          the water buffalo people… If you have a revolution it’ll all be better
          for them, will it?’
          ‘Of course,’ said Butterfly. ‘They will no longer be subject to the cruel
          and capricious whims of the Forbidden City.’
          ‘Oh, that’s good,’ said Rincewind. ‘So they’ll sort of be in charge of
          themselves, will they?’
          ‘Indeed,’ said Lotus Blossom.
          ‘By means of the People’s Committee,’ said Butter-fly.
          Rincewind pressed both hands to his head.
          ‘My word,’ he said. ‘I don’t know why, but I had this predictive flash!’
          They looked impressed.’I had this sudden feeling,’ he went on, ‘that there won’t be all that
          many water buffalo string holders on the People’s Committee. In fact… I get this kind of… voice telling me that a lot of the People’s
          Committee, correct me if I’m wrong, are standing in front of me right
          Initially, of course,’ said Butterfly. ‘The peasants can’t even read and
          ‘I expect they don’t even know how to farm properly,’ said Rincewind,
          gloomily. ‘Not after doing it for only three or four thousand years.’
          ‘We certainly believe that there are many improvements that could be
          made, yes,’ said Butterfly. ‘If we act collectively.’
          ‘I bet they’ll be really glad when you show them,’ said Rincewind.

          There’s a reason why Pratchett is so good: he understands human nature.

          1. Sorry about the lines there. I should have checked before blindly trusting in copy-and-paste to format the text properly.

            1. Which book is that from? I’ve got a lot of the Diskworld books, but I don’t recall that bit of dialog from any of them.

              1. That one’s also from Interesting Times. It’s around the point in the book where Rincewind and the People’s Committee are escaping from prison. Immediately after that conversation is the part where they find everything set up for them to assassinate the Emperor. (And Rincewind is the only one to see the logical next step: “… and take the fall for it.”)

              2. While I’m thinking about it, I’ll also adjust the formatting of that quote:

                ‘Look,’ he said, rubbing his forehead. ‘All those people out in the fields, the water buffalo people… If you have a revolution it’ll all be better for them, will it?’
                ‘Of course,’ said Butterfly. ‘They will no longer be subject to the cruel and capricious whims of the Forbidden City.’
                ‘Oh, that’s good,’ said Rincewind. ‘So they’ll sort of be in charge of themselves, will they?’
                ‘Indeed,’ said Lotus Blossom.
                ‘By means of the People’s Committee,’ said Butterfly.
                Rincewind pressed both hands to his head.
                ‘My word,’ he said. ‘I don’t know why, but I had this predictive flash!’
                They looked impressed. ‘I had this sudden feeling,’ he went on, ‘that there won’t be all that many water buffalo string holders on the People’s Committee. In fact… I get this kind of… voice telling me that a lot of the People’s Committee, correct me if I’m wrong, are standing in front of me right now?’
                Initially, of course,’ said Butterfly. ‘The peasants can’t even read and write.’
                ‘I expect they don’t even know how to farm properly,’ said Rincewind, gloomily. ‘Not after doing it for only three or four thousand years.’
                ‘We certainly believe that there are many improvements that could be made, yes,’ said Butterfly. ‘If we act collectively.’
                ‘I bet they’ll be really glad when you show them,’ said Rincewind.

  15. The trouble with the Tea Party (which I identify with) is that it has become more and more infiltrated by social conservatives*, who are clouding the original popular and resonant Tea Party message of limited government and fiscal restraint.

    I need to find a better phrase here than “social conservatives”, a name that distinguishes people who want to live moral lives from those who want the government enforcing their particular morality at gunpoint. I like “moral socialists”, but no one understands what I mean when I say that. But just as government can’t make men equal, neither can it make them good.

    1. So you’re complaining that the motivated, energetic people are getting involved?

      I have my own set of beefs with the social conservatives, but… let’s be frank, they’re not likely to ever get their complete wishlist passed. Right now it looks like the fascists WILL.

      Would it be so bad to ally with social cons against the fascists?

      1. Only in that it makes the alliance including the social conservatives much less electable and increases the odds of a statist victory.

        1. Which means you need an alliance/coalition of these groups that gets together and says “Hey, we ALL want to be left alone, and have agreed to leave these issues behind us in order to prevent these other assholes from being able to do as they wish. We therefore pledge to leave these dividing issues alone, in the name of personal liberty. We don’t agree on them, but we do agree that we all have the right to make up our own minds on them…”.

          1. Problem being that they actually have to do it, instead of jumping ship to help stab their “allies” in the back at first opportunity.

              1. Well, we either learn to build coalitions with the like-minded, or we’re going to be defeated in detail.

                If nobody’s noticed, the left wing has been spectacularly successful in separating the various parts of the right’s existing coalition from each other. One could regard at least a portion of their overall strategy to exist solely to do that. These people talk out both sides of their mouths, and the hypocrisy is palpable.

                Case in point–Right now, the “left” supports legalization of cannabis. To a degree, they own that issue. I think it’s a tactical move, because it is in direct conflict with their control-freak natures. Witness what’s been done with tobacco, as the counter-example: Now, there’s what they really want to be able to do, which is micromanage and control other people’s lives. As soon as they get all the use out of the marijuana users, I can just about guarantee the same nanny-impulses are going to cause them to move against the pot smokers the way they went after tobacco.

                What needs to happen is for those of us who just want to be left alone to start working together. I honestly can’t support the idea of a simultaneous ban on recreational drug use, and saying at the same time that the Catholic Church has a similar right to not support birth control. So, the recreational drug users (and, I include tobacco and caffeine) need to recognize that they have similar interests with the Church, as does the Church with the drug users. If we allow ourselves to be fractionated into tiny little groups of the like-minded, we will be crushed in detail.

                What we need, on the other hand, is an over-arcing movement to tell the rest of these micro-managing idiots to stay the hell out of our lives, period. If we can’t figure out how to do that, liberty is done. They’ve been too damn successful with this work they’ve done to separate us.

                1. It would also be useful to remember scale, particularly in federal elections. It is not necessary (or particularly efficacious) to pursue every agenda at the national level.

                  If each faction holds politicians to ideological consistency with their platform across national, state and local issues…nobody qualifies and we get bland soup in an attempt to appease everyone.

                  Better, I would think, to hold candidates seeking federal office to a conservative platform agreed to by a national alliance and leave the smaller regional issues to regional alliances, wherein agreement and compromise are more likely.

                2. I honestly can’t support the idea of a simultaneous ban on recreational drug use, and saying at the same time that the Catholic Church has a similar right to not support birth control.

                  And that is why the Left wins.

                  Rather than being able to say “I oppose forcing people to buy product they believe is immoral,” and just leaving them to hang on their own when it comes to opposing the “anything I want to do with my body upto and including suicide is A-OK” you have to say “well, this AND that thing.”

                  I think it’s a side-effect of the Right having more of the coherent philosophy folks and/or not being big on believing mutually contradictory things when it’s useful.

                  I like coherency, but it means that we can’t assume that people who happen to agree on a set point will all fight together until we look at why they support it. Example: crazy-level feminists not hitting Clinton for being a serial sex offender of whatever level you believe, because they made common ground on abortion; it didn’t matter that the former supported it because it lets women behave like cads and they believe cads are the highest level of empowerment while the latter supported it because he is a cad and that minimizes the costs to him.

                3. Oh, yeah, in CO they’re already taxing pot at exorbitant rates. It doesn’t affect me. I’m not a pot user. BUT I can see it’s stupid. And now they’re pursuing “illegal pot” twice as hard. But hey, the measure to legalize got the potheads to the polls to vote for Obama….

                  1. Yep. Opening the market with a tax that holds the price of the white-market alternative equivalent to the black-market product is — entirely consistent with nanny-stater’s understanding of market dynamics.

                    “We’ve made giant changes to keep everything the same! You should vote for us, we’re well marketed as your friends!”

                  2. The psycho-active effects of pot help ensure a cohort of compliant voters dependent upon the state. It is the drug equivalent of allowing the states to run numbers rackets. (And as one old enough to remember the arguments used to introduce state lotteries, I see many of the same arguments being mined again.)

                4. In the immortal words of J. Wellington Wimpy, “Let’s You and Him Fight!” — while Wimpy, ever the courteous gentleman, agrees to hold the coats.

                  This is a tactic long employed by the Leftists (along with “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a policy today.”) and deployed with great effectiveness, as demonstrated by the introduction of the “Birth Control Question” in the 2012 Republican debates. It is also the reason for Gingrich’s success in those debates — his preparation and ability to turn the question around and attack the interrogator; ALL GOP candidate training should focus on this ability (see also: Prof’s advice to Manny in Moon on handling reporters) — and is a reason the GOP MUST ensure that their primary debates are not conducted by the Left.

                  The GOP needs to focus on the principle of subsidiarity and always turn awkward issues into arguments for local decision-making.

                  1. Along with this, we should consider the tactic of relentlessly mocking any GOP candidate who allows him/herself to be interviewed by a Leftist reporter as a drooling moron, to get them to either drop out or act like their base matters to them.

    2. If you are not an anarchist, you want the government enforcing your particular morality at gunpoint. This does not change just because you don’t call your morality morality.

      1. Where this technicality tends to obfuscate the issue is, commonly people who reference “legislating morality” are referencing malum prohibitum laws in contrast to malum in se. While malum in se also requires a moral understanding, in much larger part malum in se laws can be held to an objective standard of harm to another.

        So, stating that outside the anarchists everyone wants the government to enforce their particular morality at gunpoint is a bit…inflammatory, perhaps? The ideal, whether or not people are consistent in their philosophy, is that the force of the government is used to prevent one party from taking physical advantage of another. It is the partial granting of the defender’s right to use violence on behalf of his person to the government in order to form civil relations. From that philosophical standpoint, since the ‘defender’ has no right to dictate moral attributes that do not impact him personally, neither does the government.

        Legislating morality has become an imprecise catchphrase to embody a complex point of political philosophy. As such it’s often manhandled and misused. That morality and ethics, and the origins of government authority are not concrete concepts doesn’t help.

  16. Part of the Liberal game is to neuter masculinity and femininity. Just stand up for who you are and act like men and women. Real men and women. As far from pajama boy as you can get. You will earn respect from open minded people by firmly and simply standing for what you believe in. Never, never get down in the weeds with the other side. People caught in the middle are watching and judging now, as things are totally screwed up, as far as they are concerned. They are looking for answers, and remember that 80% of communication is non-verbal. They are looking for ideas and people to follow. You don’t need to be Breitbart or Limbaugh. If you need help, just imagine “what would Clint Eastwood do?” The stare, the silence. Non verbal. Let the other side open his mouth and say foolish things. You win the 80% of the argument right there, if not 100%. Act like a leader and people will follow.

  17. It’s soft tyranny. They can’t criminalize the opposition (at least not yet), but they can use virtually every media outlet to make things miserable for them.

    1. “They can’t criminalize the opposition…”

      Just harass them to the point they can do nothing but deal with government paperwork.

  18. Another bit of ammunition whenever a liberal claims “it’s complicated” is the Feynman “quote:” “If you cannot explain it to a college freshman, you don’t really understand it.”

  19. Preach it, Sister. The left will vote for anyone- warts and all- just because he’s on “their side”. No matter what they’ve done, they can justify it. The right runs screaming away from anyone who wears the wrong kind of underwear. The Media and the socialist indoctrination syste.. er, public school system have done it’s job of dividing us into parties of one, each of us has our own ‘Perfect” candidate and if you vote for whoever the nominee is you’re “Selling out” or you’re “buying into the lie” and the only lie that matters is “If I vote for Romney/gingrich/whomever he’s JUST AS BAD AS OBAMA”. No, he’s not. Running home with your vote because the only guy you got to vote for is not 100% what you want has resulted in where we are now.

    The lesson the left teaches us if we are smart enough to learn, is vote for your guy no matter how much you hate him, because once we make “Our guys” the norm we can change their course, and incrementalism is the way it’s done. We didn’t go from Reagan to Wingnuthead in a generation because everyone got stupid all of a sudden, the left made stupid people, a little at a time, and taught the right to stay home unless they were perfectly satisfied, and boy, did we learn that lesson.

    1. This is the argument that ran me away from ProteinWisdom. Love a lot of the guys over there, but they became Paultards, screeching that Romney was no better than Obama.

      If you’re never satisfied with anything but perfection, you’ll never be satisfied. The whole point of Becks’ “Overton Window” discussion was that we cannot win with a Big Bang — it has to be by incrementalism.

    2. Romney would have been a better president. I voted for him. Though I did not, and would not, have expected him to actively work to get Obamacare repealed.

      On the other hand if we had elected John McCain in 2008, the US would probably have gotten about 75% of the damage Obama has caused, but it would be “bipartisan” and thus get blamed exclusively on the Republicans. Oh, and we’d be in a ground war in Syria right now, too.

      1. Yeah, but we also wouldn’t have pissed away Iraq or Afghanistan, either.

        Syria, on the other hand, might well have gone a lot differently, along with the rest of the “Arab Spring”, which was managed so ineptly as to make someone want to cry. Bush was trying, ever so hard, for something like that. Had the Iranian unrest been nurtured into a real opposition to the mullahs, as I suspect a McCain administration would have at least tried for, it’s probable that Assad would have read the handwriting on the wall, and gone into exile. As is, with the Iranians still able to support him, he had options. Imagine if the Iranians were no longer run by the mullahs, or if they were too busy dealing with their own internal issues? Different results.

        I didn’t vote for McCain (although, I might have voted for Palin…), and I didn’t vote for Romney, either. I voted for “Not Obama”, more than anything else. That man, and more importantly, the people he brought into office, along with those who backed him, was and is an utter disaster for this country.

        We were decades digging out after Carter screwed up the Middle East, and we’ll be decades digging out after this pack of fools.

        On the bright side? Coming up in 2016, you can almost count on a literal metric butt-load of Saudi and other Arab money coming in to this country to counter the de-facto Iranian coup we’re living under. Fact of life, folks. Watch for it, because it’s going to happen.

        Of course, the Saudis may just decide to leave well enough alone–After all, it was their sponsorship and money that got Carter into office in ’76. I suspect that they wish they had the Shah back, these days. He, at least, could be negotiated with.

  20. Christie is far from ideal, but he’s still closer than Wingnuthead. Though I might actually prefer the cankled basilisk for one term to Christie for two.

      1. I don’t think Christie owed Romney anything, and his “promotion” of Obama was not the decisive factor some would have you believe — I doubt it mattered nearly so much as did voter fraud.

        I have severe problems with Christie and would not support him in a primary. But in the general election?? H-E-Double Toothpicks YES!!!!

        Because with Christie instead of Hillary you get an entirely different group of people in the rooms where policies get made. You get a much more conservative cabinet, a very different DOJ (one that does not, for example, equate Voter ID with Voter Suppression), a seriously different DOD. You get judges appointed by different standards at lower and Supreme courts, as well. You also get a president raising funds and speaking out for conservative candidates down the ticket.

        Christie does not have to be the third coming of Coolidge to win my support, as his likely opponent would be the fifth coming of Wilson, at best. It seems to me that a Hillary* administration is certain to be well Left of any Christie Admin, and far more likely to act directly to suppress American Conservatives. Offered a choice between an Administration openly hostile to actual conservatives versus one content to treat us like mushrooms** I will choose the latter without hesitation.

        *Or worse, a Warren administration.

        **The Christie worst case scenario — more likely is appointment of people like Jindal and Walker to cabinet posts while at least listening to conservatives.

  21. Two of the most dangerous lies the Progressive Left ever sold;

    1) That civility in Politics has ever been the norm, unless dissent was being effectively suppressed.

    2) That unbiased reporting is desirable, or even possible.

  22. For a long time I’ve been arguing that instead of addressing these stupid Leftist lies, we need to go after the liars themselves. Don’t engage them, don’t fact-check them: destroy them.

    Hire detectives to dig up dirt — or just make up plausible dirt which isn’t easy to disprove — then pass it along to other ambitious leftists who would benefit from a “Klingon promotion.” If you can get up-and-coming liberal comedians making jokes about the “Jon Stewart scandal” because they want his seat on the Daily Show, you’ve just won the battle.

    I’d be willing to put up some of my own money for this. Does anyone have some reliable but discreet media contacts?

    1. I like the idea, but…

      There are unpredictable second- and third-order effects that will occur. Get rid of Jon Stewart via some third-party whispering campaign, and have it blow up as a “right wing conspiracy”? Baby, you’ve just guaranteed Stewarts job, and enhanced his credibility, not to mention antagonized him into doing God-knows-what.

      Better to win by doing the right thing. By all means, investigate and broadcast what you find. They already do it, but you’d best be sure of your facts, or you’re going to have that idea blow up in your (and, our…) face.

      1. Trouble is, if you’re open . . . then you get the same treatment they give all conservative voices: you’re disregarded, mocked, and insulted. Look at the way they constantly deride Fox News. No, it has to be faceless, anonymous. No neck to chop.

  23. Should work. Didn’t we take a lot of the sting out of something Reid was saying last year with this kind of turned-on-him parody? (Always use obvious humor and mockery, nothing that can really be taken as a meant-it-seriously whispering campaign.)

  24. It’s a good suggestion, spreading these stories.

    But if we want to win in 2016, we must correct the one bit of wrong wisdom that GOP and even Conservatives like Rush spread. That is that the Conservative base did not come out and vote for McCain and Romney because they did not articulate Conservatism.

    Conservatives DID turn out. Palin rallies were huge, so were Ryan/Romney ones. It was loosely-affiliated GOP that didn’t come out. Why? Because of Dems ginning up the hate: “Get in their faces!” “I want people angry!” “Punish your enemies!” Public sector unions were paying people to protest wherever Romney spoke – idiot chicks in binders, plus more. What was that?! Protesting free speech, straight up and on the public dime.

    This only encouraged turnout by informed Conservatives. We’d have voted for a hatrack over a Democrat.

    But it suppressed people who vote GOP only out of habit or family tradition. Why invite the hate? Especially when McCain assured us his opponent would make a fine president, and Romney said his opponent was a nice man who was a tad misguided.

    We need a candidate who articulates as Reagan did. Who inspires with Conservatism, and fires people up about disappearing freedoms due to encroaching government. THAT’s what brings in the loosely affiliated and even the Reagan Democrats.

    In short, a moderate Republican can get the Conservatives, but not the moderates. Spread THAT, and to the people who agree with you about politics.

  25. As far as I can tell, the Other Side’s ability to drum up hate is limited to people who would hate Sarah Palin (or whoever) anyway.

    I suspect the 2012 election might have hinged on the fact that Romney represented the Old Enemy of Democrats; he was a financier. Opposing Big Finance (at least nominally) has been one of the few constants of the Democratic Party. We must also recall that the swing vote consists of people who would have voted a straight Democratic ticket back in the days of FDR. They returned to their roots once their buttons were pushed.

    1. Sarah Palin was a hugely popular governor. She took on the corrupt Alaska GOP and beat them. Democrats there never cuddled up, but they respected her, and they laughed at the old GOP guard. (Remember when she sold the governor’s private jet? Think she used e-bay. Let the chef at the governor’s mansion go, too – said her family could still get along with her meatloaf.)

      No, the hatred for Palin and her children was drummed up by the Chicago mob with the elitist Beltway media microphone. And with great success! A guy shot his TV when Bristol won a round of Dancing With the Stars, for crying out loud.

      The campaign was so fierce it dripped over into weakly affiliated Republicans, partly because GOP media like Peggy Noonan helped it along. “Okay, I agree that PALIN is a nut, but don’t you think…”

      Old enemy? Old playbook. Pols don’t hate financiers – they need finance too much. It’s just it’s easier to drum up hate against a cartoon, the Monopoly guy in the top-hat. Could have been laughed away with Goldman Sachs jokes: Wall Street votes Dem.

      FDR, the penultimate Jim Crow prez. Created the Department of Labor to help the all-white unions keep blacks out of mines, factories, and construction sites. (Closed Shop meant No Blacks; scab = n-word) Blacks were shunted to boy-jobs – busboy, bellboy, shoeshine boy. Jim Crow was nation-wide, and Ike & Nixon broke it.

      The hatred the Dems were selling in the 20s and 30s – the appeal to skin color – got us the New Deal. Now it’s being used on blacks, and it’s got them huge unemployment rates. The Dems always seek to divide with hate – it’s just the targets change. Blacks to Jews to Catholics to gays to Christers to Mormons.

      And the thing that beats hate on the trail is Conservatism, well articulated. Don’t vote to punish people! Vote to lift yourself and the country.

Comments are closed.