The Shadow President—Another Liberal Hit Job – By Amanda S. Green

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt
hands-2606959_1920
Follow the Authors into an alternate reality where you shouldn’t trust your lying eyes – SAH

The Shadow President—Another Liberal Hit Job – By Amanda S. Green

Well, I’m at it again. This time, I’ve chosen the recently released “The Shadow President” by Michael D’Antonio and Peter Eisner. Now, the subtitle to the book tells us everything we really need to know. “The Truth About Mike Pence”. Well, perhaps it should be “The Truth As We Want You to Believe” but I’ll let you decide. I’ll also be honest. I don’t know if I will be able to get all the way through this. The authors make no attempt to hide their bias. But maybe I’m just cranky.

Let’s take care of a couple of things before we get started. I am reading this as an e-book. All quotes below, come from the first chapter of the book. That chapter’s title? “The Sycophant.” Yeah, they aren’t biased at all.

As for the authors, D’Antonio wrote, among others, “The Truth About Trump” and “A Consequential President: The Legacy of Barack Obama”. Eisner, on the other hand, has mainly written books about World Word II until now. At least he doesn’t, on the surface, have a political score to settle with Trump.

And now for the book.

From the beginning, the authors make it clear their disdain not only for Trump but for Pence himself. Yes, much of this first chapter is spent taking jabs at the president. That doesn’t surprise me. But, damn, these guys have a hard-on for Pence. At least they begin on Inauguration Day. Apparently, if we had been paying close enough attention, we’d have seen just how dangerous Mike Pence is to the nation. The first clue came when he stepped forward to take his Oath of Office.

What was that clue, you ask? Pence chose Clarence Thomas, “one of the most conservative Supreme Court justices in U. S. history,” to administer the oath of office. But, just in case we missed it, the authors say the “symbolism was complete” when Pence placed his hand on Ronald Reagan’s Bible as part of the oath. I guess it’s a sin or something in the eyes of liberals to have a Conservative administer an oath of any sort and we all know touching anything that was Reagan’s is evil. (Yes,yes, my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek and I am rolling my eyes so hard there’s a danger they’ll roll out of my skull, across the floor and outside.)

But it gets better. After taking the oath, Pence did what every other new vice-president has done since the beginning of our country. He hugged his family, shook hands with those present and then stepped back to wait as the president-elect took his own oath of office. Except the authors couldn’t leave it at that. “Pence struck his humility pose—brow furrowed, mouth downturned, eyes focused on some distant point—as he had on countless public occasions.” What? Would they prefer he puff out his chest, ala Superman, and stand, hands on hips, jaw thrust out?

It would be easy to simply quote each paragraph of the chapter and take it apart. However, I don’t have the stomach for it. Besides, at least for this first chapter, it all comes down to this: Pence is evil because he male, white, Conservative and Christian.

According to the authors, Pence’s “self-declared identity revealed both his priorities and the source of his power.”

What were these priorities and the so-called “source of his power”?

It seems Pence spent 30 years leading the party into a close relationship with those members of the clergy who wanted to take evangelical Christianity into a “political crusade that engaged in a culture war against nonbelievers”. While the authors don’t say—yet—that Pence’s goal was to defeat abortion laws, remove protections for gays and “prepare the nation for the Second Coming of Christ”, they strongly allude to it.

Note also how it is wrong for evangelicals Christians to have strong beliefs and feel those beliefs have a place in politics and yet there is not even a passing nod to Sharia law, etc., all of which liberals seem to have no problem letting into our way of life.

But they don’t stop at the Christian aspect of their condemnation of Pence. They, like so many “good” liberals, have to go for the money (read evil, rich white men) aspect as well.

“Pence’s allies in his war included hugely wealthy donors who, despite their vast wealth, accumulated at a time of historic inequality, also posed as victims. As libertarians in the mold of Ayn Rand’s cardboard characters they felt inhibited by in the pursuit of even greater riches by a government that imposed foolish regulations and would redistribute their wealth to the supposedly indolent poor.”

This, the authors claim, led to the denial of science aimed at “environmental protection”—their fancy way of saying climate change, or global warming or maybe even the Al Gore effect. Oooh, and these evil libertarian rich folks, the Ayn Rand cardboard cutouts, demanded tax cuts to protect themselves. Evil, evil rich men who demanded “massive reductions” in all those programs that served anyone who wasn’t rich.

Are you getting the picture yet?

“The victimhood claimed by both the libertarians and the Christian Right permitted the construction of an alternate reality that denied their own power and masked their ambition to make politics and culture conform to an ideology that included white Christian supremacy and predatory Capitalism. It also denied the progress they had made in their construction of their own political might.”

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. “Alternate reality”? Really?

But the authors can’t leave it at that. They once again have to get back to their digs at Trump as well. This time, they return to Inauguration Day and the end of Trump’s speech. The authors pull the widely reported quote from George W. Bush. You remember that quote. “That was some weird shit.” But it isn’t enough to just report what the former president said. The authors have to continue with their editorializing. “Weird was the mildest word one could attach to the forty-fifth president of the United States as he launched an administration.”

So what was Pence supposed to do in this new administration? According to the authors, he faced the so-called historic and “daunting” challenge of “dealing with an erratic and undisciplined commander in chief.” It was a role where he would, from the beginning, “seek to be a stabilizing force in a government rocked by presidential whims and mood swings.”

Then, just to be sure we don’t forget just how troubled—and troubling—the current Administration is, we have the mandatory dig at Pence regarding the Mueller probe:

“What did Pence himself know of the Russian scandal and all the efforts made by the president to stop the investigation? Was he one of Mueller’s targets? Could Pence survive scrutiny if a scandal or crime forced Trump out?”

All valid questions, but then comes the innuendo this chapter and, I assume this book, is filled with. After all, you can’t do a hatchet job without it if there are not facts to back you up. “Within weeks of Mueller’s appointment, Pence hired a criminal defense lawyer to represent him in the probe.” Ooh, bad Pence. He must be guilty or have guilty knowledge because he hired a lawyer.

In one of those topical jumps that seem to be inherent in books like this, we are suddenly back to Pence and his faith. This time, we have an anonymous source—don’t you just love those? In this particular instance, an unnamed aide, someone the authors call one of the vice-president’s “closest aides”, said Pence believed he could bring Trump to Jesus and was ready to do whatever it took to save Trump’s soul. They go on to contrast Luther’s theology and the belief that their (conservative Christians) faith made their actions righteous to Aristotle’s belief that “good deeds make a good man.” Of course, falls in line with their stance that Pence basically believes in predestination and how that means God intended for Trump to be elected. Pence’s role, according to the authors, is to play “Daniel” to Trump’s “king of Babylon.”

“As the pastor of Pence’s church back home in Indiana once explained, the wily Daniel occupied a place ‘like the vice presidency’ and served both God and the king of Babylon. As the king, Trump could be dangerous and disturbing, but the threat was less frightening with Daniel, or rather Mike, by his side.”

Finally, we get back to that “pose of humility” they started with. “Humble superiority had been Pence’s default setting during his twelve years in Congress and four as Indiana’s governor….” And bad Pence, he’d alienated some of his fellow Republicans because of his attitude. He could be harsh in how he treated his opponents. Golly gee whiz, he’s stubborn and he actually believes in something instead of just saying he does and then proving the opposite. How dare he have principles he holds dear.

The authors then spend what seems like a great deal of time comparing Pence to Joe Biden. Biden who, you know, reassured everyone that he was the leveling and steadying hand behind Obama. Except, of course, when he was groping the nearest woman. But Pence, with his strong Christian values, wasn’t nearly as good of an influence as Biden because he hadn’t sponsored all those bills in Congress like Biden had. Pence, you see, is a power-hungry Christian, more focused on climbing the ladder than being a good politician like Biden. Oh, and let’s not forget how wonderful it was that Biden was “an openly emotional man who made his feelings plain at every occasion” (remember all those photos of him groping women?) as opposed to the always composed and distant Pence (who is smart enough not to be alone with a woman who isn’t his wife in this age of #MeToo!).

Oh, and Pence is bad because in one political race—ONE—he supposedly “smeared” his Democratic opponent and, according to the authors “used his campaign’s checkbook to pay his own personal bills.” Wow, as if no other candidate, and no Democrat, had ever done anything like that before. I don’t know about you, but I can name any number of candidates, especially Dems, who have smeared their opponents or misappropriated funds.

Here’s where I wanted to finally plant the tablet against the wall. The so-called telling moment about Pence and his character came for the authors when he “claimed Charles Colson as his mentor.” For those of us old enough to remember Watergate, Colson is a familiar name. What the authors never do, at least not in this context, is say when and where Pence said this about Colson. Oh, they do finally admit that Pence might have seen Colson as a “dear friend and mentor” once he became a born-again Christian, but the disdain and disrespect is there for all to see. The footnote they finally give close to a page of condemnation of Pence for his so-called association with Colson is ‘For Christian supremacy, see Jeremy Scahill, “Mike Pence Will Be the Most Powerful Christian Supremacist in U.S. History,’” with the appropriate links, etc. Sounds like a nice, unbiased report to me. Doesn’t it to you?

If you guys want, I’ll continue with the book. But the call is yours. Who knows? The authors might surprise me and actually cite a few facts to back their claims about Pence. Shall we see? Or would you rather me move on to something else? (If so, what?)

For now, I need coffee and some mental bleach to get this dreck out of my head. Until later!

(Help Amanda drink enough to keep snarking the unbelievable twaddle that passes for deep political thought these days.  We’ll collect for her liver transplant later. Hit her Pourboir jar now! – SAH)

233 thoughts on “The Shadow President—Another Liberal Hit Job – By Amanda S. Green”

  1. Wow, those guys are projecting more than a 12 screen Multiplex. Did they say where, aside from the Naval Observatory, one could go to locate members of the elusive “Christian Supremacist” group anyway? I’ve always sort of wanted to actually meet one of these rare Protestants who thinks their denomination* could, and should, take over the world.

    *Since most Protestants can’t even agree if we all come from Luther, Calvin, Hus, Menno Simons, of Henry VIII, how are we supposed to work together long enough to take over the entire planet?

    1. Any church without a rainbow flag flying in front of it. Their definition of supremicist is “won’t ,kneel and tug his forelock in presence of his masters fast enough”

    2. No kidding! It’s a miracle of faith itself if people in different denominations agree that the others can be saved, seeing as how fundamentally wrong they are about everything. Heck, my brand of Lutheran doesn’t even think that other Lutherans are saved.

      And we’re supposed to be worried about the implimentation of a theocracy?

      And yeah, the shadowy “dominionists”… would be interesting to meet one.

      1. Apparently, those dominionists do exist but like you, I’ve never met one.

        But IMO much of the talk about them is “Elders Of Zion” territory. 😡

        1. As far as I can tell the Domionists are slightly less common than card carrying KKK members. They’re the bogey man of the left especially the most radical feminists. This fever dream is where things like Ms. Atwoods The Handmaids Tale and its ridiculous TV spawn come from.

            1. That’s the thing. Every last flipping thing the progressive left is against is a strawman created out of their own sick heads and slapped with the label of some fringe right wing organization. And I’m overly generous using the term organization, more like a collection of easily led nuts and fearmongers.

    3. Give my Scottish Presbyterian granny a drink or two and she could talk for hours about how papists wanted to take over the world, no mention of other Protestant sects having similar aims tho.

      1. I was just watching something related to this on Robert Godfrey’s church history DVDs from Ligonier. Puritans started out as a fringe religious movement with the Reformed Church, or something like that, and then acquired a political affiliation. Opposition to the power of kings. With the Catholics taking the opposite side. So whenever a Catholic supports unlimited power of the state, Catholic conspiracy to rule the world. Whenever a Protestant opposes unlimited power of the state, Protestant conspiracy to rule the world.

      2. At least with Catholics it makes SOME sense– we actually HAVE a chain of command, and we all agree on the non-negotiables. (Which are limited enough, and far less numerous than a lot of folks realize…. But at least it’s better than absolute contradiction on major things!)

        Still not likely to happen unless the world is destroyed and the system of Church serves as a framework for civil society to grow on top of with all the ups and downs involved in that… again.

        1. Well, I’m not very enamored with the current Catholic chain of command. IMO, there’s a few good priests, and maybe a handful of halfway decent bishops, but the rest seem to be a bunch of hypocrites.

          1. Eh, I’d put the hypocrite number at much lower, but would agree there seem to be a lot of folks who’ve judged the wrong balance between recognizing everyone fails and causing scandal in others.

          2. Remember that Lord Acton’s admonition about power was originally aimed at the Church’s chain of command. (Specifically came up during the arguments about the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.)

            1. Which—just as a point of order—is a specific doctrine that has to be invoked. The Pope is not always infallible, though of course Catholics consider him to have a better idea than anyone else. If the Pope invokes infallibility (which has been done all of twice IIRC), it’s doctrine.

          3. Do you not know what the scripture says about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” But what is God’s response to him? “I have left for myself seven thousand men who have not knelt to Baal.”

      3. My Scottish Presbyterian grandfather could do the same without drinks. Except he was really mostly English… Amazing what you find out when you do serious family tree research. BTW, he married a good Irish Catholic. At her Catholic funeral- specified in her will it was to be Catholic, the Methodist Minister of the Church she had attended for decades mentioned in his eulogy that she was the best Catholic member the Methodist Women’s Sewing Circle ever had.

        Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Quaker, my mother’s side of the family probably covers every Protestant denomination there is. Complete with ordained ministers in each one.

        And I have no idea what a sewing circle does… but I do know they were once quite common.

              1. Those of us involved in producing prayer shawls have found that there is no end to it. There is always something to do.

                1. Oooh, that reminds me of a sweet blessing for those who make items for hospitals– baptism clothes for ill infants. Especially for those whose children didn’t come home, it might offer healing by comforting others.

                  I can’t even make a washcloth that holds its form, so just passing forward.

                  For those who aren’t religious, I have and cherish one of the pillow cases that the folks for Shriner’s, one for every time a kid goes in for a stay.
                  Yes, it sounds a little silly, and wow were a lot of them really wild colors, but my nephew loved them almost as much as the stuffed animals and I think of my sister ever time I see one of the pillows with his case on them. (It’s a really brilliant teal blue with an inverted paisley pattern and then some sort of free form faded purple.)

                  1. I made younger son’s baptismal outfit embroidered in pearls and I have a ton of Victorian patterns.
                    I WAS an emergency baptism. (so sometimes it turns out all right.)
                    I could totally do these.
                    I lost enough pregnancies…

                    1. None of my babies had really fancy baptism clothes– partly because of how nuts American priests are about baptism. (in a bad way)

                      But none of them were where *I* thought that they were going to die, either. And I still cherish the silly little knit hat that Princess was given.

              2. Nah. If you run out of family, and friends, and charity cases in the neighbor, you can send them to charities!

          2. Actually the Sewing Circle at the church I grew up with Quilted. Gorgeous things. We had a summer fair and they had a booth where they’d take orders for quilts. I helped my grandmother as a young man at the booth so I happen to know a double wedding ring for a queen bed was $450 in the early 70’s, delivery 8-12 months, half down to order, the rest paid at delivery. Money was mostly used for support of missionaries of the denomination (UCC). Can’t imagine they have many missionaries now. It’s like the old joke, What do you get when you cross a UCC minister and a Fuller Brush salesman? Someone that goes door to door for no apparent reason… Sewing circle disappeared as I was at college as the skilled sewers (Like my Grandma) were all slowly shuffling off this mortal coil and there were no replacements.

        2. “And I have no idea what a sewing circle does… but I do know they were once quite common.”

          Code for gossip center. Anyone not there, was center of the topic …

          Sometimes quilts got made, embroidery occurred, …

            1. You can have gossip show up with basic “Wait, WHY are they doing that?” and at least one person who has some sort of a clue on why the specific situation might be.

              It doesn’t sound like normal gossip, though. More like a National Geographic special.

            2. True, you didn’t NEED sewing circles for gossip. The sewing circle was acceptable “discussion”. Current sewing circles have moved beyond this, They are no longer a village gathering while the men go off and discuss business. Now they form because of art forms or civic needs. Like making quilts or infant hats for the NICU, or Shriner’s hospital blankets for children; etc.

          2. In the past much of America was rural and was far more isolated to their home places with all the necessary work it took to just to keep the things going.  The sewing circle (bring whatever you are working on, often mending) or a quilting bee allowed women some time to visit, but necessary work still was done.

            1. Yes.

              Didn’t say “Gossip” was bad. Modern context definition of gossip is bad. But technically discussing anything about someone who is present or not, just to keep up with news, is gossip.

              A lot of sewing circles now & in the past did do a lot of work.

        3. How remiss of me.  Of course I should have mentioned, from 1776:

          ABIGAIL, singing:
          Compliments of the Concord Ladies’ Coffee Club,
          And the Sisterhood of the Truro Synagogue,
          Ant the Friday Evening Baptist Sewing Circle,
          And the Holy Christian Sisters of Saint Clare —
          All for you, John!
          I am, as I ever was, and ever shall be …
          Yours …
          Yours …
          Yours … 
          Yours —

          JOHN, speaking:
          Just a moment, Abigail — what’s in those kegs?

          ABIGAIL, singing triumphantly:
          Saltpetre, John! 

          During times of necessity these gatherings rolled bandages, produced knitted goods, wrote letters, packed goodie boxes and produced needed items for the cause.

    4. What’s the old saying? When two or more Southern Baptist are gathered together, you’ll have a split.

      1. Actually, the one I heard went “two Baptists, three theologies”. 😉

        Mind you, we may have gotten that one from the Jews. 😀

        1. The color of the new carpet in the chapel is X.
          -We’ll be having none of that. We’ll go start our own church over at Betty’s house.
          –We will _not_ be going over to Betty’s, her chairs are hard. The rest of us will be meeting in Mike’s basement.

        2. Only three theologies? I think you underestimate 🙂 (As a practicing member of an evangelical baptist church I assure you you underestimate …)

          1. I denounce Bob the Fool as probably a heretic. I denounce Bob the Fool as being too ignorant of theology to articulate that case for heresy.

  2. Hopefully the tablet is secured to something for its own sake. I have a sneaking suspicion that it’ll be pure innuendo and sliming.

    1. Fortunately, I like my iPad and use it for more than reading. So I won’t wall it–even if the temptation is great as it is with this book.

  3. At least they make it clear they’re highly politicized bigots who are scared of conservatism, peaceful Christianity, intact families, other people having something they want…..

    Basically, their desires are the default, and anything else is an evil threat.

    How dull.

  4. Amanda, why do you hate yourself so much? Admittedly, it’s kind of amusing from this end of the keyboard to watch you read the rantings of deranged idiots, but it can’t be good for you in the long run.

    On the subject of the post, I was amused by this bit:

    “They go on to contrast Luther’s theology and the belief that their (conservative Christians) faith made their actions righteous to Aristotle’s belief that ‘good deeds make a good man.’”

    Gee that doesn’t sound at all like the Leftists who insist that because the intentions of their policies (welfare, affirmative action, gun control, etc.) are allegedly good, that means that the policies themselves are thus good, and anyone who opposes them is worse than Hitler.

    1. Think it is more referring to the idea that because something was done in faith, even if bad intentions it’s ok. As opposed to intentions matter, and if things don’t go as intended its because you didn’t wish hard enough

      1. They just can’t grok “Unintended Consequences”.
        Consider how much money is spent on the environment trying to undo the damages of a previous generation’s environmental spending.

    2. The sheer level of self flagellation Amanda puts herself through is mind boggling. Time to send her an other greenish-grey picture of President Jackson.

    3. LOL. I really don’t hate myself and I’m really not a masochist. My folks raised me to read just about anything I could place my hands on and, if it is drivel like this, explain why. Hell, even my Dad, who was a “never vote Republican”, would be pointing and laughing at this hatchet job that is masquerading as a book. (The only time Dad voted Republican was when he couldn’t bring himself to vote for McGovern for President. We never heard the end of that.)

      1. I know a gent who wrote in a neighbors yellow Labrador for president, then voted (D) for the state and local offices. No, he was NOT pleased with the candidate the (D)s were running that year. But he couldn’t bring himself to vote (R), either.

  5. I can see exactly where those “bring Trump to Jesus” anonymous quotes came from. It would be directly from people challenging and demanding of Pence to explain and justify how he, A Christian!, could possibly work for that morally despicable man. But nothing about any mainstream Christian faith says that any Christian should only deal with others more godly than themselves. Business partners or spouses? Probably not the best idea, but associates and coworkers and whatever? Yeah, you’re *supposed* to be light and salt (or whatever it is) and be in the world to influence it. This is not any sort of Big Deal evangelism. No matter how many unbelievers were demanding that all Christians leap back and shout while clutching their pearls “Get behind me Satan” every time Trump was mentioned.

    1. The Anabaptists are totally the mainstream of Christian faith. All other denominations are Heretical. XD.

      1. If you really loved your neighbors, you would follow the lead of the Anabaptists, the Calvinists, and the Aztecs. Shun the insufficiently pious elect, execute the reprobate, and burn the Pope.

    3. “By their fruits shall you know them.” So far, President Trump has followed through on many of his campaign promises. That’s why they hate him so. He’s setting an example they cannot, and will not, follow. How dare he? Doesn’t he know he’s not supposed to do that? He’s not supposed to set a good example, he’s not supposed to see legislation through that satisfy his campaign promises, he’s not supposed to make things better, and he CERTAINLY isn’t supposed to do something that makes Democrats look bad. Everything done by the Democrats since Trump was first nominated has been done to “prove” Trump is crazy, the people who work for him are horrible, and everything he does will “destroy America”. Lies are just as good (perhaps better) to prove Trump is deranged as is the truth, and easier to get across.

      We are seeing the self-destruction of the Democrat party, and it’s not pretty.

      1. No, because the socialists rising out of the ashes are pretty unattractive (stealing stuff from people you house-sit for? Ick), and their policies are worse.

      2. They really want to discourage him being carefully rude– they can deal with actual careless rudeness, and with folks being polite, but someone who is willing to be strategically rude? And is GOOD at it?

        That’s dangerous.

        He’s playing them like a flute.

      2. Heh. Rather break the tax collectors and eat the bread.

        2000+ years later and still nobody can stand the wealth collectors of the State.

      3. That Man had no idea about proper appearances. You failed to mention the sinners who were there, there were certainly complaints about that as well. He even talked at length with women, including those with questionable backgrounds and histories.

        1. Yep. If He were our president, the press would talk forever about a loose cannon and how undignified He was and how he should be removed for mental health reasons.

          OT found the knitting books that are no use at all to me, and will (HOPEFULLY) be mailing them this week.

    6. T’other day someone pointed out that as a youth, Trump attended a church led by one Norman Vincent Peale. Methinks he has whatever clues are required.

  6. George Soros is a very poor man who occasionally, maybe once in a decade, scrapes together a few pennies to donate to a worthy Democrat. Nothing LIKE those PENCE supporters.

      1. I’m still anxiously awaiting Antifa to do something truly stupid. Maybe November, maybe November 2020…

          1. I mean something stupid enough for them to actually get declared a terrorist organization, formally. Then Soros loses every nickle dime and penny he had because he’s ‘funding terrorism’.

            1. [evil grin]
              That’d be nice, but rough on who they do it too . . . unless we can get a twofer. They get their asses handed to them AND get declared a terrorist org (and really, they already qualify for it)

  7. Amanda, don’t continue to read this pile-of-sh*t on account of me.

    I don’t think I can stomach hearing anything more about this pile-of-sh*t.

    Oh by the way, I didn’t press the “like button” but that’s not an insult to you.

    I just can’t stomach “giving a like” to anything related to that pile-of-sh*t.

    1. Same here, really. If I read about another “anonymous source” hit job on Trump, Pence, any conservative politician, it will be too damn soon.

      1. A few weeks ago, I was skipping through the forest, and an anonymous giant sloth informed me that HUD had issued the RFPs relating to Trump’s program of internal slaughter. Because of their extreme haste, they are going to need to issue an additional RFP for an Eichmannlike contractor to actually make what is described actually work. Which will be difficult, as the existing RFPs will probably tie up everyone alive with ten years or more experience conducting genocide or mass murder. Work to begin FY2035.

        My Pulitzer arrived in the mail yesterday.

        1. If the RFPs are out the gubmint has already done sufficient research and testing to generate a baseline estimate to compare the received proposals against, so all the source board needs to do is compare submitted proposals against that baseline and make a selection based on which best satisfies requirements, with most efficiency, and at least cost.
          While complying with all requirements as laid out in the Federal Acquisition Requirements document of course.
          I’d almost be willing to come out of retirement to sit on that board. The government estimate and various proposal alternate solutions would be most illuminating.

    2. Count me in the “Amanda has done enough” camp in regards to this book.
      I would call it “red meat” for Leftist, but that doesn’t really fit- “blue tofu” perhaps? Anyway, it’s background music for the echo chamber, a sermon for the choir.
      Trash it and move on.

    3. I think something less upsetting and destructive might be in order. How about the Necronomicon? [VBEG]

      1. I will join my voice in saying, no more … this cannot be good for your heart/liver/blood pressure.

        I also do not recommend that particular tome … gave me nightmares and one of the few books I voluntarily threw out of its genre.

        1. Oh, didn’t realize a version made it to Very dead tree. I was thinking of the original by Abdul Alhazred. I don’t want to think what it might have been written on. 🙂

    5. Concur: No need to continue, I think the impression thus far will likely be continued without pause for however many pages the publisher demanded to justify a print run, endlessly repeating in the same minor key, on and on and on, until it fizzles out without conclusion, as it never really went anywhere.

      So I vote for you to put this minor work behind you and move onward and upward.

    6. Thanks, everyone. So, recommendations? Do I try for Omarosa’s book? Or–gag–Michelle O’s book (is it out yet?). Oooh, I know, I could find something by the “Great One”, our former president and do a long, long series of articles on it. After all, it might save all of us from the evils of libertarianism and conservatism. VBEG

      1. Would a really deep analysis of Dwight Swain’s Techniques be too much work?

        The political books dropping are only going to have less and less lasting credibility as we approach the midterms.

        You something like seven weekly slots for reviews before the election. That’s maybe a possible two in depth reviews that could reveal to us more about subtle details of the political dynamic that we have over looked, and that bear on the election.

        Such overlooked details do exist. I’ve recently noticed an interesting wrinkle in the feminism as cultic practices model. But are you going to find them studying the like of Biden’s Promise Me, Father? Or would such an approach in what remains before the election instead be like wading through a cesspool panning for gold?

        I think we are already aware of the importance of the next election.

        I think there are more lasting books you could look at.

        But maybe I’m sick as a dog, and turning up my nose at even comfort reads.

      3. are you reading these on kindle, or physical copies? cause i have a good use for physical copies.

    7. When Amanda took on Thomas Sowell we didn’t do too much commenting.  We seem to engage more when there is snark and attack in which to indulge.

  8. Re: Biden: “Except, of course, when he was groping the nearest woman.”
    No… Except when he was groping the nearest little girl.
    There I fixed it for you.

      1. There is a picture circulating of Biden feeling up the leg of a male cop seated next to him.

        Biden walks the walk of equal opportunistic perv-ing.

  9. Pence is bad because he didn’t sponsor a lot of bills in Congress, but he’s power-hungry?!
    *blink*

    Please don’t torture yourself on my behalf, Amanda.

    1. What Patrick said.

      Must add, however, be sure to apologize to your Kindle for loading this filth on it.

    2. Actually, I’ve probably learned more about what Pence didn’t do in the past 5 minutes than in the past 5 years. Since he doesn’t seem all that hellbent on becoming the next Junior Stalin, I really haven’t paid that much attention to him!

  10. Almost any WWII movie that mentions Hitler mentions his whims and mood swings. I guess that goes with the territory if you’re supposed to be literally Hitler like all non prog polititians. Donald you really have to stop making all those speeches in German and waving your hands around like a madman. You’re starting to scare people. PS. lose the cheesy mustache it’ so 1930s.

    1. Hitler had an OCD-level of focus on what he wanted, which was the creation of the Greater German Empire and grabbing as much territory for it as he could.

      He wasn’t just successful; other than a few bobbles when he was getting started, things went his way with hardly any effort, He went against the expert diplomats, generals, and other experts, and was proven right virtually every time. He was on the rocket sled to absolute success.

      Then things started to come apart. Most texts deal with the bad military decisions he made, but those started about the time his doctors started giving him “vitamin” injections that included cocaine and strychnine. (why strychnine? “German medicine” was as whack-a-doodle as “German science” and racial theories…) That’s when the placid evenings of long dinners, movies, and discussion of the latest Reich victories turned into shrieking fits of rage, nervous tics, paranoia, etc.

      We know of cocaine, strychnine, heroin, B-vitamins, and some other stuff from odd comments here and there; nobody really knows what was in those hypodermics.

      The guys who saved Western civilization from the Reich might well be Doctors Brandt and Morrell…

        1. Pervitin, sometimes called “Panzer Chocolate”. Methamphetamine by any other name….

          “Panzer” manning “armored” (vehicles or vehicle forces, the latter in this case)

          It was used by some (most?) of the assault forces to allow them to go further on less rest. It works, for a while anyway.

          “Go pills” are a modern military version.

          If you call the tune of “pep pills”, you are eventually going to have to pay the piper, big time….

            1. Methadone was one of the things they gave him.
              Fun fact, the Govt gives it to Heroine addicts to “help” with the addiction. Physically you are over heroine in 3 days. 3 days of DTs and if you’ve the mind for it you never need another fix.
              Methadone takes 3 weeks or more of the DTs to get over it.
              I knew someone who got mad and quit gov’t methadone cold turkey, and managed to work her normal normal customer load as a beautician without any of her customers realizing she was going through the withdrawals,
              Also some think methadone causes more physical harm over time. Her neurologist thought it might have contributed to her suffering (eventually dying) from MS.

          2. Even caffeine and chewing tobacco are only going to get you so far. And the number of former military guys I’ve seen go through throat cancer and oral and throat reconstruction surgery because of chew habits is ghastly.

      2. While the doctors no doubt helped, Hitler would have failed anyway. He *had* to attack the USSR. That was where his Reich was going to get its “living space”. It was going to happen with or without the medical quackery. And if he hadn’t attacked Stalin, Stalin likely would have turned on him a few years later.

        1. I have seen more than one recent analysis that says months if not weeks. And German intelligence services knew about Russian preps for it.

          The dime that leftists in the United States went from being anti-war to pro-war was worn out by the spin following the German attack on the CCCP.

          1. At the time of the German attack, the Russian army was gathering at the border. Yet the German attack was a surprise. If you gather your forces where you do not expect an attack. . . .

            1. Where else were the Soviets going to put their armies?

              While I’m not familiar with the arguments suggesting that the Soviets would attack that quickly, I’ll note two arguments against. The first is that the Soviets were about to upgrade their tank units with two brand new tanks. The first was the KV-1, which was effectively impossible for the Germans to destroy with anything short of an 88, or a plane. The second was the T-34, which was probably the single most revolutionary tank of the war. Both finally began reaching the Red Army late in the year. Meanwhile, German tank development was largely stagnent.

              The second argument was the time of year. Barbarossa got launched later than planned (it was delayed due to the need to send troops to Greece). And we all know what famously happened when the weather turned bad. The Soviets were likely even more conscious of the weather than the Germans (they would have needed to move their supplies through it over lousy Russian roads even if the fighting was in Eastern Europe). So I find it highly unlikely that the Soviets would have launched a massive offensive against their militarily powerful neighbor before the late Spring of 1942.

              2. Please recall… Russia East of the Urals is about the size of the US (give or take, depending on exactly where you draw the line). Siberia is, itself, about half again as large as the US. Combined, they’re rather like Alaska looking at the rest of the states who are bragging about their land mass and going ‘that’s cute’. And the Soviet Union was appreciably bigger. They had PLENTY of places they could be putting their soldiers. They also like pilling up ‘normal bases’ and ‘local troops’ anywhere they expect trouble or might get an opportunity to invade.

        2. Which reminds me, suggestion box: American Betrayal, by Diana West. Saw her video about it, haven’t read it. I vaguely recall (if I’m connecting the right video with this thought) her starting premise was that Stalin set Hitler up to fail so the Soviets could overrun Europe — and it almost worked. And then how we got the Great Infiltration and Cold War.

          1. OTOH, helping to develop test software for that, er, stuff kept me gainfully (and lucratively) employed for 10 months when we really needed that cash.

      4. To use and abuse a poker analogy.
        Ever notice how a novice poker player can clean up during his first time at the table? Hitler won a lot of the early hands by bluffing- the other players just couldn’t believe that someone could bet like that without an impressive hand to back it up. When the other players stopped folding and called his play in France, he had a genuinely good hand- he drew on an inside straight and got it.
        After that, his lack of knowledge of the game began to show, and he started playing stupidly by betting on every hand if it was garbage or not.

        1. I have often wondered if Francisco Franco’s disinclination to cast in with the Axis — after they had helped him to the max in the Spanish Civil War — was his reading of Hitler as a lucky military amateur, and saying to himself – ‘Thanks but no thanks. Y’all are on your own in this.’
          Well, that – and Franco was in it for the good of Spain, as he saw it, not to advantage some international/multinational cause.
          Often thought also – that the reason that the US went lightly on Franco’s Spain after WWII (although all kinds of international lib activists were furious for decades about American inaction in this regard) was that we were grateful that Franco didn’t cast in with the Axis when he might have.

          1. My read is that Franco was a Spaniard first, an anticommunist second, and a fascist because it gave him the means to do the second. I haven’t read on the lead-up to the Spanish Civil War, but I have read that even “uniting” against Franco wasn’t enough to stop the “Republicans” from attempting brutal purges against each other.

            1. Nod, Franco had “fascists” supporters but made sure that the most “radical” of them kept their minds on fighting the Communists (and not purging their allied).

              The “Republic” forces kept “purging” people fighting on “their side” against Franco.

              Oh, Franco found a good use for his “radical supporters”.

              When Hitler asked him for Spanish forces to fight on the “Russian Front”, Franco sent Hitler his most radical fascist forces. IE The ones that might have cause him problems.

              Side note, those Spanish forces got high praise from Germans. IE They knew what they were doing in a fight. 😉

  11. I read somewhere that it was Pence’s idea for Trump to promise to appoint judges from list put together by Federalist Society.

    I don’t understand how progressives think it good idea to impeach Trump and remove him from power, Pence is way more conservative than his boss and Repubs in Congress like Pence where they have mixed emotion about President.

    1. Look at the indiana rfra. They are pretty sure they can roll him when needed. Never mind the root of a chunk of the animosity is because he isn’t part of the political club.

      In addition I suspect he is more amenable to importing democrat voters.

    2. > Federalist Society

      They’ll have to get in line behind the Bilderbergers, the Trilaterals, the Illuminati, Skull and Crossbones, Tailhook, “Wall Street”, the Zionists, the Freemasons, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, the Knights of Pythias, and…

    3. Why do they seek to impeach Trump?

      1) To prove they can.

      2) To ensure they can do so again as needed.

      3) To serve as a warning to any serious opposition in the future.

      Heads, Dems win. Tails…. Nope, that was actually Heads.

      1. It’s the absolute blindness to the concept of “what goes around comes around” that blows my mind the most.

        But then “false equivalency” these days is nothing more than based on the subject being a completely different person. Trump is Trump, any Democrat ever going forward is not Trump so therefore any new rules set up will never ever apply to them.

        I think it’s heads or tails and *everyone* loses.

        1. They really think everyone agrees with them and those who say they don’t are just lying out of pure evil.

          2. And/or the people have been “fooled” by the Great Enemy of the Moment.

            IE They always have an “Emmanuel Goldstein” working against them. 😦

        2. Absolute blindness to both unintended consequences and opportunity cost is a defining characteristic of those turkeys.

  12. As seen at the confirmation hearings, we got Dems dressed like The Handmaid’s Tale, wearing the supposed head covers conservatives “want” them to wear, while a woman wearing a head cover required by her religion, and actively works to put every woman in one, is protesting with them.
    But that’s different, because Shut Up!

    2. From what I’ve heard & read of the hearings, they keep trying to find some “gotchya” moment (when they aren’t pulling stunts that make Battle Creek in a blizzard look not-so-flaky) and K keeps reminding them of this thing called the Constitution and what it says and means. I’d say that must drive ’em nuts, but as the guide says, “You have arrived at your destination.” It’s not even a short trip.

      1. I think it is more of a manufacture a gotchya, because they know he is too clean.
        Why, he’s so far out there, Kagan gave him a job. Left wing law groups say he is eminently suitable for the position.
        Why I bet he likes puppies and kittens . . . the beast!

        1. One of my DC friends posted an article whose big “Aha!” was apparently that Kavanaugh put season tickets for the Nationals on his credit card… *rollseyes*

          1. The horror.
            I’ve a Brother-in-law who is a contractor.
            He puts everything on a credit card that builds points at Cabella’s.
            He and my sister have all sorts of neat things, like Ruger LCPs and Stand-up Paddle boards. “How much was it?”
            “Don’t know, paid for it with points.”
            iirc Kavanaugh bought several and is reimbursed for some of them by the friends he goes to the games with.
            The Horror!

          2. Yeah, I saw that too– “went into debt” and they tried to make it sound like he was buying friends and influencing people with that.

            It must be really hard to demonize a bleepin’ soccer dad.

  13. Having been around Christians a LOT (but not being one), the aghast report that Pence believed he would “bring Trump to Jesus” just made me smile. Those wacky Christians! Always wanting everyone else to have the same peace they have.

    That’s not to say I trust Christians any more than I trust anyone else. People are people, no tag, title, race, or religion on earth changes that. Some people are good, some people are bad. Trust has to be earned.

    1. Most of the time, you say no and the Christian will pray for you. Some will be retributive but pretty sure minority.

      Say no to the statists and you’re kneeling beside the roadside pit in worst case. At best they send men with guns to take money from you to do what you said no to.

      But they do it for good reasons so it is ok.

      1. Most of the time, you say no and the Christian will pray for you.

        Exactly, and hey, maybe it even helps. Who am I to say? Some of my more-devout (extreme?) Pagan (and other) friends are shocked when I (honestly) thank Christians who offer to pray for me. What they don’t understand is, in my belief system conceit is a sin, and believing that my belief is the truth, and someone else’s isn’t, is the height of conceit. (sorry if this seems like proselytizing. It isn’t meant to be. proselytizing would also be a form of conceit.)

        As for the other. Having been on the receiving end, and watched friends be on the receiving end (far worse than I was), “retributive” is a particularly good word for it. Just the right connotations.

        1. I figure that if you don’t think you’re right, then why bother? But being pretty sure that you’ve got it right isn’t the same thing as being unwilling to consider that your understanding is human and flawed, either.

          1. See, you get it. To be human is to be flawed. So I choose to let others believe what they will. My way works for me, but ultimately it’s a set of beliefs compiled by a flawed man, out of nothing more than his own flawed experience. So who am I to denegrate another’s beliefs?

    2. I’ll take rule by Christians over rule by Muslims any day of the week. Sharia makes the Old Testament look tame.

      1. For very good reason– Islam is a pretty decent formalization of what the Old Testament was reforming, which was as far from the Old Testament as Jesus’ Christian reformation was from the Old Testament.

        I sometimes wonder if Israel is able to survive so effectively because Jewish philosophy isn’t at the root far enough away to blind them…. they can still “see” what their ancestors were reformed from, as the Chosen People, like how the Jews make sense to Christians while still being different.

        1. Interesting view. Almost like the evolution of religion as a civilizing influence. Only in the case of Islam, it reverted and flourished because that was the better way to survive and thrive the cultural-political-physical environment of the Arabian Peninsula circa-600+.

          1. New barbarian invasion every generation….

            FWIW, I get it from the idea that God has been working very hard to clean up enough of the mess that we made so we have a chance to make things closer to how He meant it to be in the first place. Civilization is just what we call it. 😀

            The barbarian way is generally better…short term.
            It’s almost funny… The ME has all these folks who are individually sprinting ahead like crazy, but since it’s by throwing folks behind them, nobody makes much progress. No wonder they get so pissed at folks over here where we don’t do that, mostly, and we tend to punish those who do– and the whole group keeps moving forward…..

            1. We don’t throw folks behind us. But we also don’t care to drag dead weight with us either. You want to swim close enough to draft off the leaders, that’s fine. Hooking on to them for a free ride ain’t.

      2. But that’s okay, according to the liberals. They really don’t want to apply Sharia law to everyone. Really, they don’t. Riiiight.

        1. It has be some time since the news of the first identified honor killing occurred in our area. A father had killed his daughter for wanting to date, not only wanting to date, but to date people outside their faith. At first it was all over the press. Everyone was shocked and horrified. The action was roundly condemned as murder most fowl. Ultimately it was dismissed as an outlying case.

          Then came the husband who beheaded his wife. It was reported that he was quite happy to have her income, had become obsessed with the idea that she was might be unfaithful. Again there was outrage, and people were beginning to question whether such actions were anomalies.

          After I noticed that the reports in the news began to carefully omit any possible connection between a certain faith and domestic violence.

          1. I always thought Sir Charles James Napier had the right of it for this kind of thing in his handling of sati/suttee in the Raj:

            Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

            The left doesn’t like that answer…

          2. Yeah. We see the same thing here. The “silence” started after a father killed his two teenaged daughters in honor killings and then disappeared. How did he disappear? Because the authorities waited so long to actually charge him even though the evidence was there. After all, how were they supposed to handle a religion based killing? Since then, it honor killing or even the possibility of it isn’t mentioned in the media.

        2. In the past I’ve been close enough to many of the rank and file in media, mostly newspaper and radio. I was told that there are any number of gentlemen’s agreements on what does and does not get reported.
          Never report on the defensive use of a firearm by a minor, it gives other kids the wrong idea.
          Never report the minor indiscretions of public officials (if they’re our guys). Why jeopardize their many good works just because they liked to drive drunk or diddle someone else’s wife after all.
          And several other, all back in the ’60s and ’70s so some things have changed. They’ve had to throw a few sacrificial lambs to the wolves over blatant indiscretions that could not be kept under wraps, and these days any reference to a criminal’s ethnicity or immigrant status is buried well below the fold if not left out completely.

          1. And yet Uncle Sugar wants ALL the ethnicities, races, religions, etc. precisely enumerated on the Census every 10 years.

  14. …Clarence Thomas, ‘one of the most conservative Supreme Court justices in U. S. history,”…

    The plea to historical ignorance continues.  I am not sure who it reflects most poorly upon, the authors, the editors, the publisher, reviewers who approve, or anyone reading such assertions who accepts them as valid.

    Who then were the likes of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney who presided over such monumental cases as Scott  v. Sanford (decided 7-2) or Chief Justice Melville Fuller who presided over Plessy v. Ferguson (decided 7-1)? 

    By the way, for those who are arguing in regard to the present hearings that precedence should take precedence –> both of these precedence have later been discarded.  

    1. The personification of “activist judges.”
      The parallels between Scott v. Sanford and Roe v. Wade are legion, but the most obvious one is that both were meant to settle an extraordinarily controversial issue, and both had the exact opposite effect.

  15. Please, spare us and yourself. This is drivel, and not especially clever or interesting drivel. The only differnce between these twerps and the Birch John Society is the name on the can of vacuum packed conspiracy. And the fact that a substantial portion of the Left takes them seriously, wheras the Birchers were always fringe types.

    1. Birchers, from what I can tell, of the majors schools of thought wrt Communism were least wrong. Still seem to have missed a lot of what we can now be pretty certain about.

    2. It has been years since I read the Birch Society’s “Blue Book”. A history teacher gave it to me as a class assignment when she realized my grades were dropping because I was bored. Yes, it was like reading McCarthy’s private diary, but at least it didn’t try to act like it was anything but what it was–unlike this book.

    3. Yanno, I’d always heard how the John Birch Society was all terrible reactionaries that would return us to the era of the Puritans, yet when I arsed myself to actually look into ’em…

      https://www.jbs.org/about-jbs/core-principles

      See anything there you’d argue with? I don’t. Nor do I see much to complain about from their quick takes on “Issues”.

      And from their FAQ page:
      “There will always be those who oppose any constitutional organization and attempt to discredit its legitimacy. The smear attacks originated in Moscow, USSR, and started with a relentless campaign in the February 25, 1961 issue of People’s World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party on the West Coast. The smear campaign was subsequently picked up by Time magazine and the rest of the mainstream media later in 1961. Most of the present-day smears on The John Birch Society stem from the misinformation included in those 1961 attacks.”

      Sounds familiar, somehow. Never forget, McCarthy was not only right, he severely underestimated the depth and breadth of the infiltration (which subsequently facilitated the current infiltration of Muslim principles). See Yuri Bezmenov et al.

      1. Or rather, McCarthy and the JBS were both wrong. That degree of underestimation left them illprepared to really grapple with the socialists.

    1. I had a snarky suggestion planned of endorsing further reading of this, closely, with a side by side textual analysis of several other books no Hun wishes to read. But on further reflection, what she said.

      I don’t have any actual good suggestions, because I’m mostly reading technical non-fiction these days, and I’m not sure if there is much interest in the subject matter.

      1. I’m reading an excellent synopsis of the problem of Mecca in history (short version: it isn’t there before the 700s. _The Mecca Mystery_), but Sarah really does NOT want the sort of traffic – virtual and otherwise – that would draw.

        1. Aliens, Lovecraft knew the real truth and was killed to cover it up, bacon for every meal protects against alien mind control parasites, free Tibet!

        3. Look up Jay Smith’s lectures on Youtube for a good historical analysis. Can’t think of the other guy’s name who’s done a boatload of research into the “Did it even exist at the time?” problem, but Smith mentions him. Short form: Nope, it’s an origin myth codified by a caliphate of a couple centuries later, about the same time as when all the competing myths were gathered up and burned. And the origin dude appears to have been an amalgam of myth and one or more disgruntled highwaymen, but probably not an individual as such.

        4. I thought the Mecha Mystery was why anime militaries can use advanced technology to make giant combat robots that are nearly unstoppable war machines, but can’t seem to use that technology on existing vehicle forms that aren’t such giant targets, like fighters and tanks.

          1. Because of institutionalized racism against tank culture in Japan.

            More seriously, I like mecha, despite the nonsense, when included with a good story. I’ve even been watching Gundam Build Divers. The fraction of people involved in making anime who have serious engineering chops and understand the realities of military hardware is probably very small.

            1. For a magic sword, you only need magic. For mecha, you need a bucket of “nothing to see here, move along”. The same technology would build you a tank or airplane that’d swat your mecha like a mosquito.

  18. I’m kind of in a bad head space today, so my suggestion would be to stop now while still sane. I started a headache after taking some new meds this morning. Combine that with the traffic SNAFU caused by Trump’s visit to town today and I’m on the edge of lashing out at people. Check back tomorrow, I might be better, or I might need bail money.

    1. Presidents should never go anywhere, I figure. I don’t remember who visited So. Cal. when we lived there… maybe Clinton? No wait, before that. But traffic was a disaster for three straight days because they had to *practice*.

      1. Clinton was the one who shut down a large swath of CA and adjacent air space so he could get his hair styled while on Air Force One. [insert rude words here]. I almost had a mess because of Al Gore making a campaign stop, but the Air Traffic Controllers were willing to let me slide in using a legal-but-rarely invoked instrument procedure (“contact approach” for those wondering. Not that common in the places where I did most of my flying.)

        1. When I lived in San Jose, I’d do Friday night bike rides from work in north San Jose to Palo Alto, then home. Whenever Bill would go hit the Silicon Valley Cash Machine, he’d land at Moffett Field, and nobody could be on the frontage road between US 101 and the perimeter fence. Not that I could hide a Stinger in my bike panniers…

        2. Obama came to my neck of the woods when the BP Oil Spill was going on. Made very concerned looking photo ops at black tar balls on the beach, which was dutifully reported by the media. He then preceded to royally jack up traffic by making an unplanned stop for dinner at a local restaurant that serves locally caught seafood and somehow did not die from eating said food that came straight from the oil-riddled Gulf of Mexico. That, of course, was NOT reported on by the media.

        3. He’d fly into Little Rock every now and then to pounce about. My wife was working at a company that was inside the airport perimeter. One day I was waiting in the parking lot to pick her up and got jacked up by a Secret Service guy; sunglasses, coil wire to the earbud, and all.

          He seemed put out when I made him show me his government ID *and* his driver’s license before I’d answer any of his questions…

        4. I hate when the politicians come to town. Dallas lost a cop when Hillary was here on a campaign stop during her campaign against Obama (iirc). Traffic always comes to a standstill when a president, vice-president or former office holder comes to town, no matter which airport they fly into. I propose we banish them to DC and never let them out.

      2. Concur. Maybe we should install a time clock in the Oval Office…

        Though it seems to be fully supported by both Parties, I vehemently object to incumbent Presidents campaigning for other Party members on *my* time. He can do it on weekends, or it cam come out of his vacation time.

        He’s my *employee*. He’s working for the country, not the Party. And though it might come as a huge surprise to some of the Beltway termites, they’re not the same thing.

        1. The main reason I don’t object is that it would give too much advantage to the folks willing to cheat– what’s the phrase in general law, something about an attractive nuisance?

      3. For a while we had regular visits from the President and Vice President and the main road into town from the airport was kept in pristine condition.
        ,
        The Daughter wasn’t too happy when because the President was speaking at the central bus station, the bus service was suspended for the day. She was aware of this because she used the bus to get between the two universities where she was taking classes at the time. While she could make other arrangements she realized this was not the case of people who were dependent on the bus service to get around. This added to her litany of complaints about the then President that for all he talked about the necessity of caring for the little people he demonstrated the opposite.

    2. Having gone through Obama, three times but at a distance, and gone through Trump, right through the bleepin’ heart– I’ll take Trump.

      I don’t know if he hired folks that pay attention to it, or if he just listened to the folks in Salt Lake City, but when he flew in there I SHOULD have been in stand-still traffic…but it was slow but OK. With quite literally 10% of the entire population of the county that he was taking out of national whatever the frick status busing into the city.

      Vs getting stuck in traffic and when I turned on the radio I found out Obama had hopped into town.

      1. One of our Sgts was in the meetings and said the Secret Service guys for this visit were different than they guys from the prior visit, and started out by trying to re-invent the wheel. Apparently one of the Fargo PD guys spoke and said something to the effect of “This is the way we did it last time, and it worked fairly well.” Still screws up traffic

      2. Heavens to Betsy, read it stone cold sober in the AM?
        You’re a better man than I Gunga-Din…

        1. Better in the AM and have it over and done with than have the specter of it hanging over you the entire day.

  21. This text seems to lack any hope of being entertaining, but is instead simply a screed and simply wrong. Be done with it. Going further is to be tap-dancing in a minefield; it’s just asking for disaster.

    Dim the lights. Put on some pleasant music. Pour yourself some good scotch. And think about reading something that smells better than a freshly spread field.

      1. While I still like the idea of looking at Wibberly’s Mouse books, perhaps something a bit more recent, such as Stephen Hayward’s The Age of Reagan?

          1. Aye, tis. And while perhaps the Mouse on the Moon might seem dated, it’s still rather good (“An African monkey. They’re smaller.”) and The Mouse That Roared might well be timeless. The Mouse on Wall Street might be rather.. innocent, but the economics aren’t askew, or they are, well, Grand Fenwick handles things far, far better than current-day Venezuela – which seems bound and determined to make itself as livable as the planet Venus, though they are going about it all rather slowly. Some earth-dweller might even be able to salvage it.

  22. Seeing as this coming Tuesday brings yet one more obnoxious and highly publicized tome about how terrible Trump is (seriously, Bob Woodward, no one asked for your opinion), I nominate something both topical and absolutely irreverent to blow off some steam – The Monologues by Greg Gutfeld. Each chapter is, naturally, a monologue from his show The Five, and they’re quick, easy, laugh-out-loud funny, and taking the piss out of all of this nonsense going on today. Minor warning, I guess, for Gutfeld’s raunchy humor, but other than that, some laughs would be good.

          1. Step 0: Wait for Woodward’s book to bargain-binned/dollar-stored
            Step 1: Acquire physical copy of Woodward’s book.
            Step 2: Acquire LARGE CALIBER firearm.
            Step 3: Take both to range.
            Step 4: Relieve stress.

            NOTE: Placing the book in downtown $BIG-CITY and using a uranium-gun device is apt to be considered just a wee bit excessive. Or insufficient. A fission-fusion-fission device might be more desirable for some infestations.

  23. Some one should tell Amanda to stop rolling her eyes so hard they fall out of her head. When you do that they always come up ‘snake eyes’.

  25. So, being curious about these loons’ other work, I hied myself to Amazon, and was treated to a page of titles of fictional works, frex:

    Trumped!: The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump—His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall

    House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia

    …appropriately capped off by…

    Dancing with Elephants: Mindfulness Training For Those Living With Dementia, Chronic Illness or an Aging Brain

    Ah. All is explained!

    On Thursday I had the pleasure of attending our local Trump rally. Outside the fence were seen a couple dozen scruffy paid protesters, while inside the venue, several fine gentlemen, including the leader of the free world, spoke to a well-mannered crowd of about 6000 patriots…. who also miraculously managed to sing the Anthem more or less on key.

    1. > who also miraculously managed to sing the Anthem more or
      > less on key.
      Why Francis Scott Keye’s words got set to a notoriously hard to sing bar song (To Anacreon in Heaven) and 100 years or so later became our national anthem escapes me. The poetry is gorgeous (especially the latter verses) but the range is a stretch even for a fairly skilled amateur tenor like myself. Start in the wrong key (too high) and all hell is going to break out by “The Rockets Red Glare”. And whatever the default key is it starts too low in my range.

      (V4)
      O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
      Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
      Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
      Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
      Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
      And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
      And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
      O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

      Chew on that SJW’s 🙂

    2. Singing that damned Anthem on key is no small feat. It wanders over a wide vocal range that most people can’t encompass.

      Unsurprsingly, the tune was taken from a drinking song. “To Anacreon in Heaven”.

      1. Some hear it and find it odd it doesn’t end with “Play ball!”
        Other’s hear it and find it odd it doesn’t end with “Start your engines.”
        I hear it and think, “It’ not the end of the broadcast day.”

        (Yes, I had that reaction when it was played before a ballgame on a TV broadcast. Yes, I know this reveals my being both Ancient and somewhat Nocturnal.)

  26. So predictable. I don’t think it is worth your sanity (what is left of it 😉 ) to continue. It is not like anything they say will be surprising or have facts.

Comments are closed.