Phyllis Schlafly the most important woman in American politics of the previous century has died at age ninety-two, from American Power:
Phyllis Schlafly, whose grass-roots campaigns against Communism, abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment galvanized conservatives for almost two generations and helped reshape American politics, died on Monday. She was 92.
In her time, Mrs. Schlafly was one of the most polarizing figures in American public life, a self-described housewife who displayed a moral ferocity reminiscent of the ax-wielding prohibitionist Carry Nation. Richard Viguerie, who masterminded the use of direct mail to finance right-wing causes, called her “the first lady of the conservative movement.”
Mrs. Schlafly killed the Equal Rights Amendment. By the time she got done the ERA was farther away from ratification than when she started.
The women running for President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief, is so incompetent that she would not be qualified to serve as junior level officer in the military. The woman has no clue on how to handle classified information and is too brain damaged as even remember being trained on it. I have not held a security clearance since 1989, yet I know more about handing and protecting classified information than does Mrs. Clinton, from Ashe Schow, Observer:
This woman, touted by many in the media and by Democratic politicians like President Barack Obama as the “most qualified” person to ever run for president, thought the “(C)” on her emails—which denotes classified material—referred to… paragraphs marked in alphabetical order. Yes, this allegedly competent woman thought people put paragraphs in alphabetical order and that, for some reason, only the third—or “C”—paragraph needed to be marked.
Clinton also couldn’t give the FBI “an example of how classification of a document was determined,” according to FBI notes. She said she didn’t remember “receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system.” Oh, and she also could not recall receiving training on how to treat classified material.
I doubt that a single McDonald’s franchisee holder would be willing to hire any person as incompetent as Mrs. Clinton to manage on of their restaurants. Would you?
?Billy Beck points up a quote last week…
“In my lifetime, we will see pedophiles protected by law, likely under the Americans With Disabilities Act.”
(Karen DeCoster Campbell)
Says Billy; ” do you doubt it?”
I don’t for several reasons. I’d like to get into a few of them here but first let’s look closely at the historical trend on this kind of thing.
I respond with a quote of my own to Billy.
“We have all had a moment when all of a sudden we looked around and thought: The world is changing, I am seeing it change. This is for me the moment when the new America began: I was at a graduation ceremony at a public high school in New Jersey. It was 1971 or 1972. One by one a stream of black-robed students walked across the stage and received their diplomas. And a pretty young girl with red hair, big under her graduation gown, walked up to receive hers. The auditorium stood up and applauded. I looked at my sister: “She’s going to have a baby.”
The girl was eight months pregnant and had the courage to go through with her pregnancy and take her finals and finish school despite society’s disapproval.
But: Society wasn’t disapproving. It was applauding. Applause is a right and generous response for a young girl with grit and heart. And yet, in the sound of that applause I heard a wall falling, a thousand-year wall, a wall of sanctions that said: We as a society do not approve of teenaged unwed motherhood because it is not good for the child, not good for the mother and not good for us.
The old America had a delicate sense of the difference between the general (“We disapprove”) and the particular (Let’s go help her”). We had the moral self-confidence to sustain the paradox, to sustain the distance between “official” disapproval and “unofficial” succor. The old America would not have applauded the girl in the big graduation gown, but some of its individuals would have helped her not only materially but with some measure of emotional support. We don’t so much anymore. For all our tolerance and talk we don’t show much love to what used to be called girls in trouble. As we’ve gotten more open-minded we’ve gotten more closed-hearted.
Message to society: What you applaud, you encourage. And: Watch out what you celebrate.”
The upshot here is this….
As a matter of political discussion and as a matter of trying to find our bearings, we ask ourselves ” At what point did things get out of control?”
Most certainly the answer to that question is not the most recent societal change, the most recent time when we gave up our values our principles, Who We Are.
It is however the first time. Long ago.
And we, some of us, laughed at those who in that long ago time, warned us that this would happen…. that it would steamroll out of control and ruin us in the process.
I dare to suggest you that one of the reasons that we’ve failed so miserably in keeping our definitions of what is wrong, is that we have failed so miserably in keeping our definitions of what is right. And why?
It’s difficult to stand up for what is right… Facing ridicule from those that are wrong. We don’t want to be seen as out of touch or cruel are old fashioned mean, or what have you.
In letting that happen, we let evil in.
It’s now to the point where there is no act, no behavior, that you can’t find some politician, or some professor somewhere to trot out and defend that behavior and say with great passion that the behavior, however vile or criminal and anti societal is perfectly normal and that we shouldn’t judge the people that do it because it’s perfectly normal. One example.
But, where did this come from?
Consider G K Chesterton…
But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.
Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself.
He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it.
As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.’ (G.K. Chesterton,Orthodoxy, 1909)
Now, of course Chesterton is talking about the Russian Revolution.. but look closely and you’ll see many Americans doing precisely what he describes here, and unsurprisingly, many of them for the same reasons.
Now, ask yourself will Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump even make a dent in this problem? Because frankly, that’s the biggest problem we face.
The process of attaching professor to one’s name, only indicates an employment status, either current or past, but is no indication of actually subject mastery, from Watts up with That:
Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.
Reax, from Mr. Watts:
Just look at these people. The class is taught by professors in Genetic engineering, English (with old cooking recipe collections), and Sociology/Social Justice.
This three professor collectively barely reach the Bill Nye level. Professor Haggren’s specially is genetic engineering in yeast. Professor Laroche is an English professor and Professor Skahill is sociology professor.
Whereas Steven Crowder is but a comedian, but he brings more facts to bear than the three professors, and unlike the ladies is not looking to shut down any who might disagree with him, video:
Comedian 3, lady professors from University of Colorado 0.
Little Finger, a/k/a Little Donny, b/k/a Donald Trump went to Mexico, in somewhat of a surprise Little Finger did not stub is big toe, from Red State:
[Trump] stood, podium beside podium with a world leader. Indeed, a world leader with whom Trump has been at odds, in a country that he has roundly attacked and said was not America’s friend. He stood beside him as they each gave measured statements. Trump talked about his deep affection for Mexico, for Mexican Americans, and for President Nieto. It was, in the small, diplomatic. For Trump, on the Trump grading curve, it was almost presidential.
It is not quite a Neal Armstrong sized step, but for Little Donny, all steps, forward, are big steps. And unlike Big Thigh, b/k/a Mrs. B.J. Clinton, at least Donny can walk.
Buddy, I’ve got a real news flash for you. Did you notice Mitch McConnell celebrating on the floor of the convention because his entire State delegation went all in for Trump?
Have you noticed how as serially Trump flip flops on his positions they start looking more like what Jeb Bush originally proposed when the establishment was backing him?
I’ll tell you what happened. The GOP establishment is now breathing a sigh of relief because they managed to sidestep conservatism and conservatives again. They used Donald Trump as a foil against conservatives. Now that he’s got the nomination the real deal is coming out and it’s looking more and more like the establishment.
Donald Trump is the establishment. He is the establishment candidate. The one we warned you about.
The Reverend Jesse Jackson, a house nigger for the democrat black plantation, does not want black voters to vote for Little Finger, a/k/a Little Donny, b/k/a Donald Trump, and Jackson so state in the Chicago Sun-Times:
Trump’s personal history of racial bigotry includes a federal housing discrimination lawsuit; an ad calling for the death penalty of innocent young black males in the Central Park Five rape case; an attempt to discredit Obama’s presidency with the “birther” issue;
It was not until April 2008, at the height of the intensely bitter Democratic presidential primary process, that the touch paper was properly lit.
An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii
Birther theory thy mother is Mrs. Clinton:
innuendo suggesting Obama became editor of Harvard’s Law Review because of his race; a campaign demanding Obama’s educational transcripts, implying his admission to colleges rested on something other than intellectual merit;
Barack Obama’s supposed intellectual acumen is an urban myth with no evidence to suggest otherwise.
complaints that a judge was unable to treat him fairly in court because of his Hispanic heritage; and promoting false and stereotypical information about the black community.
What do blacks have to lose by electing Trump? He will appoint Supreme Court justices who do not support black interests.
Supporting black interests would involve ending the Obama and Clinton open door immigration policy which flooding black cities, like Chicago, with Mexican drug gangs.
He will support racially discriminatory voting laws like North Carolina’s. He will not fix the damage done by the Shelby court decision to the Voting Rights Act. And he will not support a $15 minimum wage.
How is raising the minimum wage going increase demand for black employees? The minimum wage is a job killer, and black unemployment is already too high.
?I keep hearing that the difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is that Donald Trump says bad things and Hillary Clinton does them.
What that little campaign slogan doesn’t say is that there’s a reason for that. As yet Donald Trump hasn’t had the power of government behind him. In fact, that’s the only difference between them. Is there anybody that seriously imagines is that what comes out of Donald’s mouth won’t come out of his pen once he has the power of government in his hands?
The power of government can corrupt the most straight-laced individual on Earth, the ones most dedicated to the proposition that our Founders put forth.
Putting people into positions of power that don’t share those views and in Trump’s case clearly don’t understand those views is equally dangerous to putting somebody into office that we know is under criminal influence an investigation.
That’s what we’re facing here.
Social Justice Warriors need to get over their delusions that everybody else should echo their particular preferences, from Nina Revoyr, Los Angeles Times:
Last month, two friends and I backpacked for a week in the Sierra Nevada. We hiked through meadows dotted with wildflowers, slept beneath snow-draped peaks and met plenty of other hikers: the dad and son whose Green Bay Packers caps sparked a conversation about our mutual ties to Wisconsin; scientists from UC Santa Cruz studying flowers and rock formations; five recent college grads from Kentucky who were hiking the John Muir Trail before they scattered to begin their adult lives.
This near-total absence of people of color — which I’ve noticed on past trips as well — was particularly striking because it was such a contrast to my everyday life. I live and work in Los Angeles. The majority of people in my working life are Latino, African American or Asian, and the people in my personal life, including my Mexican American spouse, are reflective of the city’s population. And yet, a few hours’ drive from Los Angeles, there was hardly a person of color to be found. We were on public lands — including Kings Canyon National Park — but the people enjoying them weren’t representative of the public.
Racism is making assumptions based on race. Nina Revoyr is a racist. She assumes that as persons of pallor like to hike therefore so should persons of color. Revoyr should look closer to her home for answers. I live outside, just barely, Rochester, NY, a city with a significant population of color and oh by the way, a mayor of color.
You can have a diverse population in the same park, but they are not engaged in the same activities. Hiking it helps to be exposed to, but if is not in your nature to hike you won’t. I hike with plenty of grandparents you expose their grandchildren to hiking but fail to get them interesting in the activity.
I see plenty of blacks, especially in our more urban parks, but I see very few on the hiking trails. I take as an indication that while blacks are perfectly willing to do to particular park, they not inclined to go for a hike.
Revoyr should not take his a sign of some nefarious oppression but rather as evidence that free people are free do make their own choices, even if Revoyr doesn’t particularly care for them.
I’ve been asked several times now by Trump supporters why I’m spending so much time attacking Donald Trump and not so much time attacking Hillary Clinton.
There are two answers to this, both of which are very relevant.
The first being there’s no person in this country who does not understand the depth of the charges against Hillary Clinton. I know she is evil, we ALL know.. Constantly preaching about that isn’t going to move the meter at all. Her supporters simply don’t care. Preaching to me about how evil Hillary Clinton is, isn’t going to sell me on anything. Isn’t going to tell anybody else either.
The second part is a little more direct.
Because for all of her lying, at least she’s not falsely claiming to be representing the conservative Viewpoint as Donald Trump is.
If you an old fart, such as myself, you might remember the house scientist for the Tonight Show, the late, famous but not great, Carl Sagan, a theoretical astronomer. Sagan would come on the show and babble, give his opinion, about everything and then expect all his various opinions to treated as if they were scientific.
In response, I developed what I called the Sagan Principle, which holds that a person’s expertise is inversely proportion to his opinion’s distance from his core competency. Sagan was an theoretical astronomer. His opinions on astronomy were well formed. Sadly for Dr. Sagan is did not restrict his pontifications to astronomy. He gave his opinion on everything, which typically amounted to mere babble. from Collapsed Wave Function:
The so called “Sagan effect” is the belief that contact with the public is inversely proportional to academic achievement – those who have risen to the top of the “ivory tower” of academia wouldn’t need to speak with the public. Therefore, if a scientist is spending time popularizing science he must not be a real scientist.
Since Sagan’s passing, other have stepped up to mantle of spreading organic fertilizer and calling it scientific wisdom, and among these we have Neil deGrasse Tyson and one William Nye, Phd,Scripd:
- Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, License # 21531Cornell University, Ithaca NY 1977
- PhD Honoris Causa, Doctor of Humane Letters, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD 2000
- Honorary PhD, Goucher College, Washington DC 2008
- Honorary PhD, Rensselaer Polytechnic, Troy NY 1999
Bill Nye: Climate change is the reason for the Louisiana floods, and it is going to happen again
No shat Sherlock. The problem is not that the state of Louisiana is a freeping flood plain. The problem that idiots, like Dr. Nye, build a city in an historic flood plain. Without flooding there would be Louisiana. With idiots like Dr. Nye, there would be no New Orleans.
Reax from Real Science:
The entire Gulf Coast was built from sediments deposited by floods on the Mississippi River and other rivers. Louisiana wouldn’t exist without regular flooding. That is why they call it a flood plain.
Maybe, just maybe, if Dr. Nye had actually studied and earned his only one of his three PhD’s he might know more about geological science than say Al Gore.
Hat tip: Ace
?2016 let’s face it is a disaster for the Republican Party. There’s no two ways to slice that one. The cowardice of the Republican Party , (a phrase I don’t use lightly)…is why.
All the GOP had to be was conservative. In short, they had one job, and screwed it up. All they had to do was Embrace a real conservative instead of spending millions and millions of dollars on the erstwhile candidacy of Jeb Bush. Instead of being fearful about actually being conservative, embrace it and run with it. Learn the lessons that Reagan taught.
But no, as we have discussed, the one thing that the GOP is more fearful of than anything else is actually being conservative. They are still stuck in the 1964 mentality. This is among other things at its base a long term failure of leadership.
Meanwhile, we have yet to see any ideas whatsoever about how the GOP is going to overcome the 12 million Democrat voters that crossed over and put Trump at the top of their ticket.
( A little history lesson. This is precisely what happened with John McCain. We know how that one worked out.)
Now, in the case of Trump what did we end up with? Someone who is a terrible fundraiser, has 70% negative ratings or higher in every demographic…( a place from which nobody has ever attained the office of president before and in all likelihood never will).. and has in every real sense fractured the party.
Long bereft of a party leadership that would not respond to its wishes, the majority of the party rank-and-file has gone their separate ways. Which has in turn led to the ones that are left, getting behind somebody who is decidedly not conservative, repeatedly… Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and now Donald Trump.
The sad part of it is that when Trump’s policies fail because they are not conservative, the conservatives will get the blame… Despite conservatives having nothing whatsoever to do with putting him in office and the fact that Donald Trump is not a conservative himself…. and hell will freeze over before we as conservatives get another chance to save the country by putting an actual conservative in the White House and implementing conservative policies.
As for the idea that if we don’t vote for Donald Trump Clinton will get the presidency, that ship already sailed. The fact is that there is no way save Hillary’s actual imprisonment that Donald Trump is going to win the White House. None.
In fact at this point I’d say Gary Johnson who I’m not tremendously excited about either, probably has a better chance at it.
But that point aside, I am deeply concerned about the damage that would be done by a Trump presidency.
Ponder this one carefully please. If the party of Reagan has to become the party of Obama to win the White House, what have we gained?
And let’s say for the sake of argument that Donald Trump manages to attain the White House. How will the GOP establishment react? Considering the election of Donald Trump a victory, they will repeat the process in the next cycle, thereby guaranteeing yet again that we will have an unacceptable candidate.
But we’re being told that party unity in the thing. Not only has the Republican Party stabbed conservatives in the back once again, they are now demanding that we celebrate the act. Why is anyone surprised when we refuse to fall in line?
That is not a game I intend to play. Moreover, I would ask others to seriously consider not playing at the, either.
The reluctance to submit to a Hillary Clinton presidency is completely justifiable. I share it. Yet, let’s be honest here. We have been playing this game with the establishment GOP for Generations. We’ve been told repeatedly that if we didn’t vote for the unacceptable Republican candidate the unacceptable Democrat would get power. Well, how’s that one worked out for us? Not very well at the end. Nobody has ever successfully explainef to us why we have to give up our conservative principles to elect somebody who isn’t conservative.
As it stands right now the majority of Republicans have a gag reflex going, partcularly the conservatives.
Yes, I note the move of selecting Mike Pence as vice-president…. clearly a sop to the conservative wing of the party who he has spent the last six months alienating. Yeah, that’s going to work.
The fact is that Mike Pence is not going to have any policy say so. Therefore it comes down to being a meaningless gesture.
At this point we are looking forward to serious pain being inflicted on the American people by the American government no matter who wins this upcoming election. The way I see it, we have but one means of any gain out of this. That is to throttle the GOP establishment by rejecting the candidate that they have forced on the American people by means of their ineptitude and cowardice.
The only way I know to stop the GOP establishment from offering up unacceptable candidates along the lines of a Donald Trump is to not vote for them. It is thus you remove the power from them.
Again I say, this country is headed for some seriously hard times and frankly I’d just as soon the conservatives didn’t get the blame for it by way of Association.
Just say no.
Anyone who’s read this website for any length of time at all knows full well that I am no fan of W. He was sufficiently better than the alternative at the time to trigger my endorsements, something that Donald Trump will never do.
That said, both David and myself have often pointed out the unfairness and the political nature of the attacks on him following the Katrina disaster. So you can imagine the smile that came over my face this morning whilst perusing The Hill…
If ever there was a contrast to make around “then-and-now” media coverage of a Republican and Democratic president put in similar situations and their respective reactions to it, this one definitely makes the Top 5.
A very simple question, if George W. Bush was president right now and playing golf with celebrities in one of the richest zip codes in the country, would the headlines again be everywhere that portray him as insensitive, out-of-touch, even a racist president be the same now as they were 2005? Of course they would.
Instead, President Obama continues his vacation that includes fundraising events for Democratic nominee and the relative silence is deafening.
Understand, there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of the attention being paid the golf games of King Barry… mostly by the Trump zombies… are political in nature. But inherent in that observation is the equally damning observation that most of the attacks on W back in the day were purely political as well…. and that’s something the Press of today refuses to acknowledge.
Obama mocked the Bush Administration in 2005 for its “unconscionable ineptitude” after Katrina hit. He even visited the area to report what he witnessed.
But the headlines this morning are all about Paul Manafort’s resignation, Trump’s alleged pivot, U.S. swimmers up to no good in Rio, and the $400 million payment to Iran that the administration still insists wasn’t ransom to free American hostages.
There is also one more headline: How funny it is that the president played golf with the guy who played on Saturday Night Live in the form of Larry David.
Like I said, a goodly chunk of what’s going on here is attacks on Obama from the Trump zombies. But will the Obama Bots admit they did the same thing back in the day?
We both know better.
Eric rambled about the unintended effects of the ethanol mandate.
Given that not all environmentalists, at least those not named Al Gore, are not stupid and the effects of using food stuffs for motor fuel were quite obvious, and environmental wackos hate people anyhow, was any of this an “accident?” From Forbes:
In 2007, the global price of corn doubled as a result of an explosion in ethanol production in the U.S. Because corn is the most common animal feed and has many other uses in the food industry, the price of milk, cheese, eggs, meat, corn-based sweeteners and cereals increased as well. World grain reserves dwindled to less than two months, the lowest level in over 30 years.
From Activist Post:
According to the Royal Society, “the world’s human population, coupled with unprecedented levels of consumption present profound challenges to human health and well being, and the natural environment.”
This group of Eco-fascists believes that securitizing the resources of third world countries, combined with reducing their consumption globally will stabilize the planet’s failing environment.
Just for whom do this social justice warriors want to save the world, a world devoid of people.
Using food stuffs for motor fuels is downright stupid. Mandating its use is just plain immoral. We can not eat petroleum. So why should we use corn to fuel our cars?
further, if ethanol is do darned good, for our economy and our environment, why we mandate that only domestic corn be used to produce it? From Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association:
But critics say the ethanol requirements are a sop to the agriculture industry that skew the free market and do not help the environment.
“This is the government using corporate welfare to shower money on a favored industry and then send the bill to the general public,” Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said in February, when he unveiled legislation to repeal the corn ethanol provision in the RFS.
He was joined by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, who said the ethanol requirement drives up the cost of food and gas, damages car engines and hurts the environment.
Ethanol is grain alcohol and as any drunk can tell you, the cheapest vodka, grain alcohol and water, is made from potatoes. Yet we mandate out ethanol for use as motor fuel be made from corn. Why?