David Sirota must be trying to shred this one. His love article for Venezuela socialism

I thought about sending him and email, but he’s a socialist leftie and by definition cannot learn from their mistakes.  It’s sad to watch what may be a modern Walter Duranty try to smooth over what was a failing state even back in 2013.  But fail it did, with horrifying results.

By morning, three newborns were already dead.

The day had begun with the usual hazards: chronic shortages of antibiotics, intravenous solutions, even food. Then a blackout swept over the city, shutting down the respirators in the maternity ward.

Doctors kept ailing infants alive by pumping air into their lungs by hand for hours. By nightfall, four more newborns had died.

“The death of a baby is our daily bread,” said Dr. Osleidy Camejo, a surgeon in the nation’s capital, Caracas, referring to the toll from Venezuela’s collapsing hospitals.


At the University of the Andes Hospital in the mountain city of Mérida, there was not enough water to wash blood from the operating table. Doctors preparing for surgery cleaned their hands with bottles of seltzer water.

“It is like something from the 19th century,” said Dr. Christian Pino, a surgeon at the hospital.

The figures are devastating. The rate of death among babies under a month old increased more than a hundredfold in public hospitals run by the Health Ministry, to just over 2 percent in 2015 from 0.02 percent in 2012, according to a government report provided by lawmakers.

The rate of death among new mothers in those hospitals increased by almost five times in the same period, according to the report.


Here in the Caribbean port town of Barcelona, two premature infants died recently on the way to the main public clinic because the ambulance had no oxygen tanks. The hospital has no fully functioning X-ray or kidney dialysis machines because they broke long ago. And because there are no open beds, some patients lie on the floor in pools of their blood.

It is a battlefield clinic in a country where there is no war.

“Some come here healthy, and they leave dead,” Dr. Leandro Pérez said, standing in the emergency room of Luis Razetti Hospital, which serves the town.

We forget here in America how fragile society really is, and how quickly it can succumb to outside forces.  In a hurricane, we see looting and people hungry because nobody prepares for it.  But that is mitigated by our nation’s ability to provide food and security and care to those trapped within the region affected.   But what if the whole nation goes under at the same time?   And what if the leader of that nation is a flaming retard socialist is more than just a little nuts?

Remember, Marduro is a flaming moron BEFORE Chavez picked him as a successor, and Chavez wasn’t all that bright or stable either. Both have managed to squander over a trillion dollars in a nation where a few dollars can go a long way.

Part of it was on his racing teams.

Pastor Maldonado burns up his brakes. Much like his nation’s economy, he’s skidding to a stop.


But let’s get to how much Sirota sounds like Duranty.

For the last decade in American politics, Hugo Chavez became a potent political weapon – within a few years of his ascent, he was transformed from just a leader of a neighboring nation into a boogeyman synonymous with extremism. Regularly invoked in over-the-top political rhetoric, Chavez’s name became a decontextualized epithet to try to attach to a political opponent so as to make that opponent look like a radical. Because of this, America barely flinched upon hearing the news that the Bush administration tried to orchestrate a coup against the democratically elected Venezuelan leader.

Just to get it out of the way, I’ll state the obvious: with respect to many policies, Chavez was no saint. He, for instance, amassed a troubling record when it came to protecting human rights and basic democratic freedoms (though as Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy notes, “Venezuela is recognized by many scholars to be more democratic than it was in the pre-Chávez era”). His rein also coincided with a boom in violent crime.

That said, these serious problems, while certainly worthy of harsh criticism, were not the primary reason Chavez became the favorite effigy of American politicians and pundits. In an age marked by America’s drone assaults, civil liberties abuses, and war on voting, it is not as if this nation’s political establishment sees an assault on democratic freedoms as deplorable. Likewise, that same political establishment is more than friendly with leaders of countries like Mexico and Colombia – countries which are also periodically hotbeds of violent crime.

No, Chavez became the bugaboo of American politics because his full-throated advocacy of socialism and redistributionism at once represented a fundamental critique of neoliberal economics, and also delivered some indisputably positive results. Indeed, as shown by some of the most significant indicators, Chavez racked up an economic record that a legacy-obsessed American president could only dream of achieving.

Actually, no he didn’t. What he did was nationalize industries and on the back of a trillion dollars over a decade simply spent his way into popularity.   He used oil money (ewww, oil money! lefties hate it!) to fund is crazy socialist experiment without actually providing for his nation’s future.  And then his successor doubled down on this madness until all the money is gone.   Venezuela is so broke it doesn’t have the money to print money!  It’s over, done, gone.  And it did so in fifteen years.

Sirota may be a dummy who doesn’t understand basic economics.  Most liberals don’t.  Kind of like the chimpanzee riding on the Soviet rocket.  He’s just there for the view, not to actually pilot the thing.


How socialists are linked to the real world. They are on the ride, but don’t know how to pilot the craft.

Even back in 2013 the writing was on the wall for anyone with more than a sixth grade education and basic understanding of economics.  However, Sirota seemed to have neither as he concludes is article with this;

To start, that means asking important questions.

For example, the United States has adamantly rejected the concept of nationalization and instead pursued a bailout/subsidy strategy when it comes to rapacious banks and oil companies – and those firms have often gone on to wreak economic havoc. Are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s decision to avoid that subsidization route and instead pursue full-on nationalization?

Likewise, in a United States whose poverty rate is skyrocketing, are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s policies that so rapidly reduced poverty?

And in a United States that has become more unequal than many Latin American nations, are there any constructive lessons to be learned from Chavez’s grand experiment with more aggressive redistribution?

Lessons to be learned, as children die in hospitals, people starve and the nation is on the verge of a civil war?


Socialism is a bad idea, every time it is tried and everywhere its done. I mean, duh. Margaret Thatcher is famously remembered as saying  socialism works until you run out of everybody else’s money.

She was right then, she is right now.

Jeez, David, pick up a book.

Bad being saluted by worse.






Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Laura Ingraham speaks as a Trumpite. Trump is a matter of degrees.

Single issue supporters blind themselves to the fact their guy is lying to them, and will betray them.  How do we know? Because they betrayed everybody else and  they aren’t that special.

To defend Trump’s warts, Ingraham tries to equate him, in degrees, to other leaders.  Lincoln suspended habeas corpus,  Reagan divorced his first wife.  So, Trump’s total disregard of the constitution and limits of federal power and his serial cheating are basically the same thing, right?

A little mint on the pillow before bedtime on the east coast via Mediaite. “This clip is incredible,” says Philip Klein, “for anybody who listened to conservative talk radio during the Clinton era.” Indeed. Imagine being a Clintonista, worried that the sheer mass of Hillary’s sleaziness might sink her this fall, and discovering that your old enemies in the ranks of conservative polemicists now agree that character doesn’t matter when the policy stakes are high enough. To quote Ann Coulter:

I don’t care if wants to perform abortions in White House after this immigration policy paper.

Lincoln suspended habeas in the middle of a Civil War, Reagan got divorced, and Trump — well, Trump’s going to end globalism. When you’re judging whether he’s fit for office, what more do you need to know?

Truth is Lincoln was not alone in the act.  Congress agreed in order to maintain control during our nation’s meltdown. As soon as the war was over, so was the act.  So, the truth is EVERYBODY did what they had to do- right or wrong- and ended it when the need was gone- unlike today’s Congress that didn’t sunset the Patriot Act (for example).

The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, 12 Stat. 755 (1863), entitled An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in Certain Cases, was an Act of Congress that authorized the president of the United States to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in response to the United States Civil War and provided for the release of political prisoners. It began in the House of Representatives as an indemnity bill, introduced on December 5, 1862, releasing the president and his subordinates from any liability for having suspended habeas corpus without congressional approval.[1] The Senate amended the House’s bill,[2] and the compromise reported out of the conference committee altered it to qualify the indemnity and to suspend habeas corpus on Congress’s own authority.[3] Abraham Lincoln signed the bill into law on March 3, 1863, and suspended habeas corpus under the authority it granted him six months later. The suspension was lifted with the issuance of Proclamation 148 by Andrew Johnson,[4] and the Act became inoperative with the end of the Civil War. The exceptions to his Proclamation 148 were the States of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona.

The difference between Lincoln and Trump is as wide as the ocean between  America and England. Lincoln had a long history of thinking about the nation, the Constitution and how the two worked together.  You could disagree with what he did, but be assured he did it after a lot of thought, reflection and sadness that he had to betray the founding fathers.

I’m willing to bet Trump never picked up a single book on the history of how the Constitution was created and all the thought put into the reasons why it was designed the way it was.  It is of no interest to him, or HRC for that matter.  As Beck pointed out, the nation- and it’s citizens- are different now.

As for Reagan and his divorce vs Trump and his multiple women and serial cheating, that’s just dumb.  I’d smoke Laura in about five seconds if she tried to equate the two.  Reagan found his soulmate and loved and respected her for the rest of their lives together.  Divorce is reality, and often used to correct a youthful error.  Trump used it to dump one woman after cheating on her with often the other new potential wife, TWICE! And boasted about banging all kinds of chicks, married or not, just to please himself.  The two, Reagan and Trump, have NOTHING in common here.  Laura’s just being silly.

But seriously, you can’t make it up.  If at some point you find yourself defending a person to the point you end up being the fool.  Stop.

Just stop.

BTW-  When Ingraham was complaining years ago about illegal immigration,  a valid issue that has to be dealt with, she was also boasting how great her new house she was building was coming along.  When I heard that I actually shot her an email and told her to check out who is ON the construction crew.  I was willing to bet half were illegals- and doing a good job.

Did she? Nope. Because apparently to her and her buddy Trump, principles are fluid.


Posted in politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Where Rush and the rest get it wrong- Facebook manipulation IS a conspiracy.

I’m sure you’ve heard.  Facebook manipulates what you see in an effort to influence how you think. Is that new? No, of course not- ask the New York Times and the Washington Post about their biased reported for generations.  Heck, go a little farther back and  you’ll run into this Communist sympathizer and cover up expert who wrote for them.

What is different is the sales pitch that is an outright lie.  No longer are the progressive feeling it necessary to hide their lies.  Ben Rhodes is the latest example.  The “watcha gonna do anyway?” attitude is the sign the Left/Progressive think they have the world by the balls and won’t let go.

And of course, being arrogant and ignorant of history, they are scarily wrong.

Facebook has been manipulating news and opinion and frankly the minds of its viewers since it started. Which is why I don’t support or participate in it, period.

Zuckerberg is that new young arrogant geek that thinks he’s conquered the world.  He has done a great deal, but conquered?  He has little history behind that conclusion.

Seriously, is this guy a world conqueror? Or more an useful idiot hoping to be protected by the elites when things go sideways?

World conqueror? Heck he doesn’t shave but once a week!

What works for him isn’t his skill but his timing. The world has changed in the last sixty years.  Progressives have been successful changing the minds of many young people, who have grown up and have no clue how they got here and how their world was created.

Rush Limbaugh commented about this issue today. Rush stated that the people setting the news on Facebook were not part of a greater conspiracy, but more of a set of like minded people who just came to the same conclusion because of their liberal bias.  That flies in the face of the facts.

A Gizmodo report delves into the world of journalists hired by Mark Zuckerberg and entrenched into Facebook headquarters’ basement to decide what trends on hundreds of millions of users’ news feeds each week.

Zuckerberg instructs his “news curators” to each pick a topic, write a headline, give a short synopsis of the story and attach a photo or Facebook video. These anonymous curators that talked to Gizmodo said they were given a list of “preferred” sites:

They were also told to select articles from a list of preferred media outlets that included sites like the New York Times, Time, Variety, and other traditional outlets. They would regularly avoid sites like World Star Hip Hop, The Blaze, and Breitbart, but were never explicitly told to suppress those outlets.

The people deciding what should be trending news on Facebook are millennial graduates of mostly Ivy League schools that previously held jobs at MSNBC, Bloomberg, and the Guardian. Not only did they have the power to choose the news trends, they were also given the authority to “blacklist” any topic for any reason.

According to Gizmodo’s report, the curators were to refrain from mentioning that they work at Facebook and keep it off of resumes and their public profiles. They also signed non-disclosure agreements:

One reason Facebook might want to keep the trending news operation faceless is that it wants to foster the illusion of a bias-free news ranking process—a network that sorts and selects news stories like an entirely apolitical machine. After all, the company’s entire media division, which is run by Facebook’s managing editor Benjamin Wagner, depends on people’s trust in the platform as a conduit for information.

If an editorial team is deliberating over trending topics—just like a newspaper staff would talk about front-page news—Facebook risks losing its image as a non-partisan player in the media industry, a neutral pipeline for distributing content, rather than a selective and inherently flawed curator.

To ensure the preferred news was making the rounds, Zuckerberg entered into contracts with Buzzfeed and The New York Times to regularly post live videos on the site. These “bias-free” relationships are noted as “a mutually beneficial landlord-tenant partnership.”

You can write this up anyway you want, it is a conspiracy of like minded people aiming at a common goal, using their positions of influence to block their clients ability to learn the truth. If Facebook had made an effort to hire Pat Buchanan fans or Rush Limbaugh followers they could make the argument they are trying to be balanced. But they aren’t.

That’s the facts.

Facebook is a private company which lures people into their orbit by offering some very good features.  People join by choice, most of the time.   I’ve seen some websites, even conservative ones,  link to Facebook as a way to have their readers comment. So in a way, if you want to be heard, you have to join.  Hotair is one, Breitbart is another.  You’d think they would not do it, but…

So I am surprised?  No.  Zuckerberg was caught talking to former (maybe?) communist Angela Merkel about Muslim migrant crimes being reported on Facebook and Zuckerberg agreeing to shut them down.   You’d think that would be enough for Europeans to find another forum to communicate on, a “new” Facebook format. But then again, if they did how long before their governments came and shut it down and arrested citizens for making comments about the actual crimes Muslim immigrants have committed, who are, ironically,  often NOT getting arrested for them.  The irony is so palpable I’m looking to see if a large white rabbit holding a watch is going to run by shouting “I’m late, I’m late!”

But if the “racist comments” about Muslims are stories of crimes those same immigrants commit against Europeans, that the government is suppressing the knowledge of, then where would a company that claims to be the free source of ideas stand?   In “no borders” Zuckerberg’s opinion- as he hides behind his security and private home–  those stories should be suppressed.

In October 2014, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg paid more than $100 million for 750 acres of secluded land on the North Shore of Kauai. The purchase included two separate parcels: the Kahu’aina Plantation, a 357-acre former sugarcane plantation, and Pila’a Beach, a 393-acre property with bright white sand.

The property is large enough for a set of villas or even a resort. But Zuckerberg apparently plans to only build one home: an ultra-private island hideaway for himself and his inner circle. “When the whole thing is said and done, he might be approaching $200 million on total purchase price,” Steve Hunt, a tax manager for Kauai County, said to the Pacific Business News. “This is someone who can afford to buy whatever he wants to buy and he’ll pay the price he needs to get, and privacy is a bigger issue to him than anything else.”

Zuckerberg’s desire to sequester his family is understandable, given Silicon Valley’s generally stifling atmosphere, and, more specifically, a recent lawsuit involving his home in Palo Alto. The suit, filed by developer Mircea Voskerician in May 2014, centers around Zuckerberg’s 2013 purchase of four houses adjacent to his home in Palo Alto’s Crescent Park neighborhood.

At the time, it seemed like an odd splurge, and many wondered if Zuckerberg was trying to assemble a compound of sorts. But there was a reason behind the purchase. Voskerician had reportedly told Zuckerberg that he planned to build a large, 9,600-square-foot house on one of the lots behind his property. The home, Voskerician allegedly said, would have a direct view into the master bedroom shared by Zuckerberg and wife Priscilla Chan.

Zuckerberg is trying to control the environment around him. To control who lives there and what those people can and cannot do.  And he feels comfortable with it.  Which is sad, because he’s the same guy who prevents others from voicing their complaint that they are being prevented from moving freely in their environment.

After being beaten and mugged by migrants, a student alleges the Austrian police blamed her “blonde hair and sexy clothing” for the brutal attack.

Police officers reportedly told the woman that to avoid such attacks, which they warned are now a daily fact of life in Vienna, she should stay indoors after 8pm in future, and dye her blonde hair.

The 20 year old, speaking to Heute only as “Sabina”, recalled that she was waiting to catch a train at the Austrian capital’s Westbahnhof Station when a man came up and spoke to her in a foreign language. After he told her there were hardly any blonde women where he grew up, and started to touch her hair, she told the man to go away.

Judging by his language and appearance the woman believed the man was from Afghanistan. Although he left after being told to go away, the man soon returned with three friends.

After snatching her designer handbag, which contained her purse and credit cards, the foreign appearance men attacked Sabina, hurled her to the floor and fled.

Experiencing pain in her shoulder, elbow, spine, and hip doctors later told the epileptic drama student that she’d suffered a contusion to the skull and a probable seizure because of the attack.

The drama student told the newspaper she plans to avoid crowds in future, and as a result is putting off plans to attend the Danube Island Festival but that now, more than fear, she feels anger as a result of her conversation with the police. Telling her that migrant muggings are now routine and will likely get worse, they said she should dye her hair dark and avoid going out alone after 8pm.

What if Zuckerberg had complained that his future neighbor was planning to look into his wife’s bedroom window and the answer to the complaint would have been “keep your curtains closed”.  How would that sit with him?  Apparently not well as he continues to create more and more remote locations he can control and feel safe within.

Zuckerberg is rich enough to change his environment.  The girl is not.  Which is something Zuckerberg should think about as he wages his world conquering effort through his Facebook company.

Or not.  And suffer the same fate as all those others throughout history who believed they too could rule the world.

The world’s ash heap is filled with them.


Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The singular data point that explains it all- Bill Clinton’s last move

As it has been reported Donald Trump received a call a month before he decided to run from Hillary Clinton’s husband Bill.  Bill encouraged Trump to run and change the way of the Republican Party- for decades to come.

Bill Clinton is a genius.  Dying of heart disease, keeping a mistress on the side and putting up with HRC’s paranoid madness, he STILL is able to read the political ground better than anyone.   In time we’ll discover just how much of Trump’s plan is Bill’s idea.  Or did he just understand the country, knew Trump’s personality and decided to put the two together and light the match.

Now his friend is running “against” his wife.  The singular data point is Bill.   Did Bill know the confusion he’d cause?  Was the plan to undermine HRC? Or guarantee her victory?  Where did Cruz fit in? Because it is obvious to all the “establishment”- which Bill, Hill, Trump and others like Boehner and McConnell belong- wanted Cruz out.  Kasich giving up right after Cruz bowed out is a clear indication his job was to cripple Cruz- not Trump.

The Republican Party, which had been united ideologically since Ronald Reagan left office, is now splintered. It might go the way of the Whig Party and be replaced altogether by a new party with a different name. Or, it might continue on as a populist and nationalist party that has the same name but is not ideologically recognizable as the Republican Party that existed before Donald Trump.

The case for a new center/right party has been made by Eliot A. Cohen, a former Defense and State Department official in the Bush 41 and Bush 43 administrations. Cohen summarizes the plight facing many Republicans today:

It’s over. Donald Trump, a man utterly unfit for the position by temperament, values and policy preferences, will be the Republican nominee for president. He will run against Hillary Clinton, who is easily the lesser evil but is trailed by clouds of scandal and misconduct and whose party’s left wing poses its own threats to liberties of speech, religion, enterprise and association. … A Trump candidacy is a disgrace and has indeed already damaged us at home and abroad, but the longer-term question is larger than one demagogue, dangerous though he is. It is whether the cause of free, limited and constitutional government will have someone to speak for it and to represent it now and for decades to come.Many will challenge Cohen’s belief that Clinton is the lesser evil. A case can be made that she indeed is the greater evil, because she will have to be responsive to her party which has moved ever leftward. She needs to be careful not to alienate Sanders supporters, or groups like Black Lives Matter. She is most likely to pander to them on domestic issues, since her base will pressure her and then support whatever ill-advised policy she comes out with when she is in the White House. This is particularly the case on economic and environmental policies — such as her desire to ban fracking — where she tends to be far left.

Some have given up.  Over at Powerlineblog we’ve been told to get on board.  Not because it makes the Hinderaker happy, it doesn’t, but HRC worries him more than Trump.

I am not happy with Trump as the Republican nominee. I have expressed my concerns about him, beginning with the fact that he is not a conservative, repeatedly. I think it would have been far better if Republican primary voters and caucus goers had selected someone else. But they didn’t. My preferred candidates lost. In the past, supporters of winning candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain have expected the party to unify behind the nominee. However much I dislike Trump as the nominee, I don’t think it is unreasonable for his supporters to expect the same from us.

So I think talk of refusing to accept Trump as the Republican nominee and entering a third candidate in the race is unhelpful. I won’t work actively for Trump, but I will vote for him, because the alternative is Hillary Clinton.

And I don’t think Trump’s victory means that the sky is falling for either conservatives or Republicans. Conservatives of various stripes are doing very well at the state and local levels, and, for the most part, in Congressional races. 2016 may turn out to be a setback, but if so, I see no reason to expect it to be a permanent one.

The fact that there won’t be a conservative in the presidential race reflects the reality that America is no longer a center-right country, at least at the national level. But I think this has been apparent for some time. If the fact is now starkly clear to everyone, maybe that is a good thing. Maybe it will spur conservatives to do a better job of convincing voters that our policies are best for America.

Okay, at a national level- maybe.  It’s more of a small percentage of the establishment that is not center-right. They CONTROL the rest of America.  NO Trump voter voted for Trump because they think he will further weaken America.  No union loving Democrat is going to vote for Hillary- especially in West Virginia!-  and many will vote for the guy who says America is great and we are going to win.  Even though they will witness Trump turn LEFT almost immediately.  Sure he is going to lie to them, the question is will it make a difference against a woman who is a walking pants suit wearing pack of lies?



Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Celebrity worship” isn’t limited to just Hollywood or politics, it can involve bad laws.

And the growing acceptance that because it is a law, even a bad one, we should submit to the invasion of our privacy.

Over the last seven years, most states have banned texting by drivers, and public service campaigns have tried an array of tactics — “It can wait,” among them — to persuade people to put down their phones when they are behind the wheel.

Yet the problem, by just about any measure, appears to be getting worse. Americans confess in surveys that they are still texting while driving, as well as using Facebook and Snapchat and taking selfies. Road fatalities, which had fallen for years, are now rising sharply, up roughly 8 percent in 2015 over the previous year, according to preliminary estimates.

That is partly because people are driving more, but Mark Rosekind, the chief of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said distracted driving was “only increasing, unfortunately.”

“Radical change requires radical ideas,” he said in a speech last month, referring broadly to the need to improve road safety.

So to try to change a distinctly modern behavior, legislators and public health experts are reaching back to an old strategy: They want to treat distracted driving like drunken driving.

Harvard’s School of Public Health, for example, is developing a new push based on the effective designated driver campaign it orchestrated in the United States beginning in the late 1980s. Candace Lightner, the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, has helped found a new group this year,Partnership for Distraction-Free Driving, which is circulating a petition to pressure social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to discourage multitasking by drivers, in the same way that Ms. Lightner pushed beer and liquor companies to discourage drunken driving.

The most provocative idea, from lawmakers in New York, is to give police officers a new device that is the digital equivalent of the Breathalyzer — a roadside test called the Textalyzer.

It would work like this: An officer arriving at the scene of a crash could ask for the phones of any drivers involved and use the Textalyzer to tap into the operating system to check for recent activity.

The technology could determine whether a driver had used the phone to text, email or do anything else that is forbidden under New York’s hands-free driving laws, which prohibit drivers from holding phones to their ear. Failure to hand over a phone could lead to the suspension of a driver’s license, similar to the consequences for refusing a Breathalyzer.

Now before we go “Ahhh, what’s the harm?”  remember how we got here.

First, distracted driving doesn’t mean texting.  It means ALL distracted driving.  Even a website supporting the ending of distracted driving states that only less than four thousand people are killed doing it.  That is out of over thirty-two thousand.  And that is those occurred during a time when there are 104 million male drivers averaging 16,000 miles a year, and 105 million women drivers averaging over 10,000 miles a years. That’s a lot of driving! So, statistically, texting while driving is relatively safe.

Now we all know there is this liberal/progressive urge to remove all risk from our lives- at a cost of bigger government and bigger taxes.  It’s a fools errand, but generally that can be descriptive of much of the PC Left agenda.  Dangerous, but foolish.  But how is that that less than four thousand deaths justify seven states, mountains of laws and now a desire to search private property at a whim?  Because it is a celebrity law.

Today, most “crisis” cycles go like this.  First there is an incident, then there is a news cycle  filling 24 hours of TV and Internet that makes the incident seem like a crisis.  Because the bureaucrats and politician want to be “relevant” they respond to the now crisis with a comment- which creates another cycle.  Then the news demand “something be done”, it’s a crisis after all, and the politicians respond by doing something- like pass a stupid law or a new regulation.   Now at the same time, real crisis- like illegals coming across the border unvetted, many criminal, uneducated and often infected with serious diseases are not addressed.  They should be, but that’s not glamorous or PC.   Those thorny issues are not low hanging fruit for idiot politicians to grab for the next news cycle.  So they stick to the easy things.

Take the zika virus for example.  Exactly what is the risk to the general population?  Only one person has died, and it sounds like from other complications.  There is a risk to pregnant women, but in general that risk is low.  But what dominates the news cycle and is driving the political talk? That’s right, a low risk disease linked to mosquitoes.  But what is ignored? The large number of illegals with diseases we haven’t seen in generations like TB, whooping cough, flu and other third world diseases that we long ago eliminated from our nation. These are diseases far more dangerous and far more lethal, but nothing but crickets. Right?

Is this really what constitutes governing now?  A news cycle, a press release, another news cycle and an ill thought out law?

How will the general public respond to a demand by police- without PC or even reasonable suspicion to seize and search your personal items? Based on what?  There will be no odor of “texting” on your breath or blurry eyes, nowhere is the long accepted legal foundation to allow for the search? And the fact it isn’t a deep search doesn’t matter.  It’s a search.  To do a search you need probable cause, not a celebrity crisis of the moment.

Simple doesn’t translate to Constitutional.

But as we’ve seen, the “law” driven by a more and more intrusive administrative state does not adhere to the constitutional limits as before.  Look for the states to enact laws saying driving is a privilege and that if you drive, you are giving up your right to have your cellphone activity remain private.

The proper way to do this is to develop probable cause for a search warrant and then have the police dump the cell records of the suspect to prove a case in court.  That way, it is extra effort on the behalf of the police- and being basically as lazy as anyone- they will opt to not do it all the time, and only when the crash itself dictates it.  Oh, on that note, don’t let anyone fool you.  It may start out as only in crashes, but this is all about controlling your behavior AND taxing it.  Just like speeding tickets, the coming texting tickets will be “texting taxes”.  They won’t stop you, they’ll just fine you for doing that behavior.

Enough is enough.  Life is a risk.  Driving is a risk.  But that should not equal putting the constitution at risk.  Don’t let lazy politicians destroy even more of your privacy to satisfy and equally lazy media and public.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

If they want Trump to win, this is how it will happen. Trump jumps the fence.

First of all, I’m not a Trump supporter- at all!  He’s a Trojan Horse in my mind.

Second, Trump has to learn that if you kick a hornet’s nest, you will get stung.  His attacks on illegals, in a country full of illegals, was his choice.  He has to realize he is part of this mess.

But all that said, if the illegals want to make sure the guy who has basically started a war with them wins the White House, this is how you get it done.

BURLINGAME (CBS SF) – The California Republican Party convention kicked off in Burlingame Friday, as a large group of protesters gathered outside ahead of a planned lunch banquet with presidential frontrunner Donald Trump.

PHOTOS: Donald Trump Welcomed By Protesters In Burlingame

Trump arrived at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport at 1333 Old Bayshore Highway in Burlingame shortly after noon. CHP officers pulled off the side of Highway 101. The candidate hopped a fence and entered through the back of the hotel.


How does this get Trump elected?  All he has to do is link these violent protests and this sign and flag image to HRC and every white, black, legal citizen of this nation will vote for him and against her, especially if he links job loss to the illegal wave of Hispanics.

Why? Because this is America, and under all the forced PC globalism is a nation of Americans who don’t take kindly to  this kind of foolishness.  UK dailymail has more.

This pandering:


Attached to this reality:

PC is a cancer, and at some point, even victims of cancer refuse to submit.




Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The unending desire to find the “end of history” stays unfulfilled. Putin’s Russia sticks a fork in it.

The one thing about humans is they have a unending ability to hope for peace and and equally if not superior ability to screw up any chance of it.  Ying/Yang I guess.

For decades after the USSR fell, there was a belief that we had finally reached the “end of history” as far as the two competing superpowers and the threat of nuclear war.   Sadly, as we have observed in the last 16 years, that is not going to be the case.  Over at the American Interest website a pretty detailed article was written to address this very issue, human’s stubborn greed for power and their place in history causing “the end of history” to be delayed again, if not put off forever.

The new Eastern Europe, which includes Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova, is sliding back into the Russian sphere of influence, while the belt of countries from the Baltics through Poland to Romania and the Balkans are at a risk of becoming a contested space yet again—“lands in-between.” With the next NATO summit in Warsaw just three months away, an increasingly militarized fault line dividing Russia from the West is in place, running along the eastern frontier of the Baltic States, Poland’s border along the Bug River boundary, and farther south along the frontier of the Black Sea NATO allies. And there are reasons to believe that the process of a further geostrategic readjustment in Europe has barely begun.The key factor contributing to the reordering of Europe’s security landscape has been the resurgence of Russia under Vladimir Putin’s leadership. Today Russia is unequivocally a revisionist power. Putin seeks to undo the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union, which he has called the “greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century,” and Europe is his primary target. Hence, the United States is facing in Europe an aggressive and revanchist Russian regime that is determined to pursue its objectives not just through economic and political means but also through its increasingly modern military.

Putin has a plan, and it’s a good one, especially with the leadership we have here and in Europe.

Putin’s two principal goals in Europe have been: to hollow out the existing security regime by undermining NATO’s ability to act collectively in a crisis; and to exploit the current crisis in the EU, especially the MENA migration crisis, in order to paralyze European Union institutions to a point where business is transacted predominantly on a national basis.NATO has responded to a resurgent Russia but with enough hedging—no permanent bases along the northeastern flank—to keep Putin’s opportunistic momentum going. Since Russian power was significantly degraded in the 1990s, Putin has played from a position of relative weakness. Nonetheless, before the collapse of energy prices, he managed to capitalize on Russia’s energy resources to consolidate state power and to modernize the military. Putin’s decision to launch that ten-year military modernization program—at a time when Europe has effectively disarmed and the United States has withdrawn assets from Europe—has significantly altered the balance of power along NATO’s northeastern flank. Russian deployments in Kaliningrad and more recently in Crimea constitute a direct challenge to NATO’s ability to operate in the Baltic and the Black Sea (and following the Russian military campaign in Syria, also in parts of the Mediterranean). This changing strategic landscape poses a direct threat to the United States, our European allies, and, increasingly, Turkey.In the near term, by increasing military pressure along NATO’s periphery, Putin expects to break the allied ability to mount a unified response in a crisis, to force the lifting of economic sanctions, and ultimately to bring key European states into an accommodation with Russia on his terms. The Baltics may become the principal area of Russian-American competition, but Russian pressure and influence are also increasing in Moldova and in the Balkans. Moreover, Putin’s strategy reaches beyond Europe, challenging U.S. interests in MENA and the Pacific, where Russia has positioned itself in opposition to the United States and aligned itself with its competitors and adversaries, even as it presents itself as a status quo power.

Do not think for a second that Turkey’s allowing Syrians to cross its borders into Europe, and Russia’s continuous war in Syria are not related to his overall plan.  Turkey has its own reasons,  but it is more than willing to bollix up Europe’s stable economy and political structure in order to allow Putin to seize more territory. And the Russians will be tickled pink that the migrant issue will tie up nations and prompt the belief that there will be war again.

There is a belief that the EU is a temporary thing. It added to its eventual demise by including nations that could not stay up with the big three economies.  Plus, and I believe this to be true, there is no “end of history” to be had.  No utopia of nations and people merging as one.  The EU desperately wants to duplicate the concept of our United Nations, but cannot because they are not from the same stock or from the same history.  In truth, they are an amalgamation of separate peoples, and will always be that. As we speak, there is a movement to separate the nations back to their national borders. The immigration crisis accelerated the problem.  In fact, the article addresses this too.

One of the key questions confronting the European Union is how Brussels, Berlin, and Paris will respond to the surge of national assertiveness in Europe, especially that which has marked the coming of age of the first generation born into freedom in the postcommunist states. In Poland in particular, but also in Hungary and increasingly in Slovakia, the notional idea of Central Europe has merged with the political project of building a regional grouping around the core of the Visegrad Four: Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia. So recompiled, this Central European project could accelerate the process of the regionalization of security within NATO, anticipating a change in Central Europe’s foundational relationship with Germany, with the burden of historical legacies potentially resurfacing and putting more daylight between Berlin and the region. The revisiting of the Visegrad idea can serve to strengthen security cooperation in Central Europe, but it also carries a risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Greater regional cooperation within a larger NATO umbrella is a welcome development, but regionalization that generates more distance between the allies will weaken the already tenuous consensus on allied solidarity. If the regionalization of security in Europe puts more distance between the “old” and the “new” Europe, it risks transforming today’sMitteleuropa into another incarnation of Zwischeneuropa, making it more vulnerable to Russian pressure.

My inclination is to go “Blah, blah, blah” and wave my hands because all the talk about being civilized from the elites of Europe will not translate to the people in the towns and villages across the continent.  I spoke to a very bright Italian who moved to America to get away from the madness that is enveloping Europe.  Aside from his fear that we are following the path to suicidal socialism that Europe has taken, his other point is the EU is a farce.  There is no more an acceptance of Europeans believing they are EU citizens rather than natives of a nation, than you would expect to see from Obama on the right to bear arms.  When I see Obama say “Let’s grab up some guns, there is a sale at the Basspro!” then I’ll believe the individuals in Europe have stopped seeing themselves as national citizens.

The gentleman from Italy put it best.  “We hate the French, the French hate the Spanish, nobody like the Germans, and the Greeks are just a pain in everybody’s ass.” Sounds like a recipe for success doesn’t it?!

And Putin is a great reader of situations and other leaders. So you will be seeing this again.

Russian tanks in Ukraine



Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

In one story we see the link and the why Trump may be a plant.

Look, Donald is Donald.  An ego the size of New York, and the people who know Donald know how to stroke it.  One of those people is Bill Clinton.  According to multiple reports, Bill Clinton talked with Donald Trump and encouraged him to run as a Republican to influence the GOP.

Now, if CRUZ had received this call, the Trumpite sites like theconservativetreehouse.com and Breitbart would literally explode with headlines about betrayal! But when Trump does it, all we get a “meh…” .

Read this and see what you think.

“…Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.

Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape. …”

“…Trump took the call from his office in Trump Tower in New York, according to the four allies, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. The call came as Trump was making a final decision about whether to run, and he was candid about his political ambitions and his potential interest in seeking the White House during the talk, these allies said.

The 42nd president listened intently and then analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the GOP base, the Trump allies said.

The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said. Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.

One person with knowledge of Clinton’s end of the call said the former president was upbeat and encouraging during the conversation, which occurred as Trump was speaking out about GOP politics and his prescriptions for the nation. ..”

Trump took the call…. . Which means Clinton reached out as his wife was running for President and encouraged Donald J Trump to run for the Republican side, knowing full well the unstable, ego driven, personality Trump exhibits publicly.  Now Trump is a narcissist.  A former two time President, whom he likes, tells him HE can be President too, and Trump is all over the idea. Trump is easily manipulated because he has no moral core.  Clinton, if nothing else, is a master manipulator.

But did Clinton want Trump to really win? Or just undermine the Republican effort to beat his wife?

Either way, this campaign is shaping up to this simple fact; Out of three hundred and twenty million people in our nation, a hundred million able to run for the White House we are down to Bill Clinton’s friend  running against Bill Clinton’s wife for President.

And nobody seems to think that’s a bit odd, especially the Trumpite who see nothing but the opportunity for revenge.

And that alone says so much about the condition of our nation.


Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Whittle reminds the BLM and SJW whose backs they stand on.

What drives me crazy is the fact that the same people who claim whites as the scrouge of the earth drive to the protests in cars, running on gas, while tweeting on their new Iphones.  Worse, they live a long time, in a healthy world, often overfed and well clothed. All of which would not have occurred without the Western civilization and white people.

Bill Whittle once again points this out with flair.

I get they want fairness. But nothing occurs in a vacuum.  Nothing.

I’ve always been in favor of taking the loudest mouth and air dropping him/her into the worst nation I can think of and let them survive there for awhile.

Then we’ll see how much they hate America.


Posted in politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is Trump even trying to win? Cruz works the system for more delegates.

From Legal Insurrection.

Ted Cruz racked up another big delegate win, this time in Wyoming.

CNN reports:

Cruz won 14 of 14 Republican National Convention delegates up for grabs at the Wyoming state convention here Saturday.

The crowd here was clearly in Cruz’s corner, as the Texas senator was the only candidate to make the trip to Casper — ahead of a major snowstorm — and Sarah Palin, scheduled to speak for Trump, previously canceled.

“If you don’t want to see Donald Trump as the nominee, if you don’t want to hand the general (election) to Hillary Clinton, which is what a Trump nomination does, then I ask you to please support the men and women on this slate,” Cruz said, holding up a piece of paper of 14 recommended delegates.

Twelve members of that slate won. They are bound to the senator on the first ballot and have also made a non-binding pledge to stick with him as long as things go in Cleveland.

The key here is just how unprepared to win Trump was, and still is.  He is just now sending people into states where the caucuses and primaries are close.  Cruz’s people had been there for months, shoring up support and arguing his case.

I am more and more convinced Trump is the true Trojan Horse, regardless if he realizes or not.  His amateurishness and self-victimization is undermining the GOP in a bad way.  They need to change, but Trump isn’t offering that, just more whining and confusion.  The establishment may not like him  and worry about the threat to the system, but more I think they just dislike his manner- a man-child bully who whines at the slightest hint of abuse, real or not.

Over at Hotair, they highlight an op-ed “written” by Trump complaining about how unfair he’s been treated.  In another link, they point out the system actually treated him quite fairly in other situations- and he never made a peep.

The problem with this, as Dan Foster says, is that whoever ghost-wrote it doesn’t even try to sound like Trump. And how could they? How could you capture the classic Trumpian stream-of-consciousness rant on the page? The first half of the column would be spent on how great you’re doing in the polls, the second half would be spent on banalities about how unfairly everyone treats you, and before you knew it you’d have eight words left to say what you want to say. All politicians use ghost-writers but that’s no sweat for the average pol since their public persona and their written voice aren’t conspicuously different. In this case it’s night and day, so much so that Foster compares the disjunction to “breaking the fourth wall.” The author sounds so little like the man he purports to be that it yanks you out of the narrative and gets you thinking about the fact that it really is just a narrative. Which is a bad thing to have your reader thinking when you’re making a supposedly heartfelt pitch about un-rigging the system.

Here’s how I think this went down. Someone, probably Stephen Miller, wrote this up under his own byline but Team Trump realized that no one would notice an op-ed by Miller. Solution: Put Trump’s name on it instead. Everyone will notice that. Which is true — except they declined to tweak it to make it sound more like Trump, so the main way it’s being noticed today is people asking, “Um, who wrote this?” What they should have done is run it under Ivanka’s byline. Everyone likes her. It would have gotten plenty of attention. And unlike with dad, readers would have believed that she really can string together a series of calm, cogent thoughts in support of a larger thesis.

I read the piece, or as much as I could, because I realized early on he didn’t write it.  Whoever did was far too smart, far too educated and far too cogent to be Trump.  So it’s another lie he put his name to.


Instead of investing the time AND THE MONEY to focus on beating Cruz inside the rules everybody knows, Trump is running ego boasting rally tour where he can run around the nation, spout oddities that people like, and stand up on the podium saying things like “You love me, you really love me!” like an Oscar winning actress.

or maybe more accurately…


But go ahead and read his WSJ piece and ask yourself if this is the guy you want in a battle to save the soul of America and secure her shores.





Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment