davidl on January 24th, 2020

When you call yourself a Socialist, are running for the highest office in the land, your paid stuff includes self described Bolsheviks, the staffing of your professional campaign staff become an item of legitimate national concern. So how does the man who wants to be our next President respond to such questions? In Bernie Sanders’, a/k/a Comrade Bernie, he responds by acting like a Bolshevik, from Daily Wire:

Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in South Carolina contacted law enforcement officials on Thursday after undercover journalists with James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas pressed the campaign to answer questions about violent remarks made by a paid Sanders campaign staffer.

The move by the Sanders campaign to call the police on reporters for asking them tough questions comes after Project Veritas released video earlier this week that allegedly showed Sanders field organizer Martin Weissgerber saying he wanted to kill wealthy people and throw Republicans into camps.

Comrade Bernie, by virtue of an either corrupt or seeming inexperienced democrat field, as risen to either near or to the top of the polls. The Bolshevik idea of a fair election is “One man, one vote, one time.” What assurances, if any, can the democrats and the media allies give us that a vote for Comrade Bernie on November Third will not be our last?

Eric Florack on January 22nd, 2020

Oh, boy…

Matt at PJM:

On Tuesday, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) told quite the whopper by claiming Republicans have been spreading a “weird conspiracy theory” that Democrats wanted to impeach Donald Trump since he was inaugurated.

“What I found astounding was they’re still saying that we were out to get the president from day one, some sort of a weird conspiracy theory that I have to say, even [Supreme Court Justice Brett] Kavanaugh brought up,” Hirono said on MSNBC.

Andy Warhol once said that everyone has their 30 seconds of Fame. After watching the Democrats rewriting history like this, it becomes apparent that the reason that fame is limited to 30 seconds each is because that’s the attention span of the people that were surrounding Andy Warhol at the time.

That level of reality detachment is the only way they’d be getting by with spinning this one out now… Particularly given the history that Margolis details.

By the way, if you’re not reading Matt Margolis on a daily basis, you should be


There is of course far more in the way of pictures of the crowds down there, but these are probably never going to show up in the mainstream media, after all the worry about white supremacy dominating the scene down there. I don’t know about you but the way I read it, this was the worst white supremacy support in history. But as David often says, if it doesn’t fit the narrative, it never happened as far as the media is concerned.

I notice Governor Blackface decided to try and claim that he had diffused the situation… And that’s why there wasn’t any violence. However, the only way that he was going to be able to do that was to call off the antifa attack dogs. Of course he’ll never admit that even if he did it, which to me seems relatively likely.

The comparisons to Charlottesville fell flat as well.

The governor tried comparing this to Charlottesville, but he seems to forget that the protest in Charlottesville was peaceful until such time as Antifa and Black Lives Matter showed up. And so that claim by the governor falls flat on its face as well. He certainly not going to admit that regardless of whether he did it or not.

And remember friends, I was in the Charlottesville at the time. (One of these days I’m going to have to dig up the photographs I took of the rather bedraggled looking protesters staggering up US 29.)

Why did the governor’s misplaced comparison fall flat? Because clearly the violence was a setup from, once again, Antifa.

Oh… and here’s a message to the state house in Virginia. If you have to declare a state of emergency to protect your government from a number of law-abiding gun owners, it’s just possible that you’re a tyrant.

davidl on January 21st, 2020

I am quite curious what Kate and her band of merry trolls will have to say about this, from Rachel Elbaum, NBCNews:

LONDON — Prince Harry arrived in Canada on Monday evening to begin a new life away from the royal family after a tumultuous few weeks in London, where he and his wife, Meghan, announced their intent to step back from their roles.

The prince, a grandson of Queen Elizabeth II and sixth in line to the throne, was shown arriving on Vancouver Island by Sky News after he left the United Kingdom to join his wife and son. Meghan and the couple’s eight-month-old, Archie, have been staying on the island since she left the U.K. a week and a half ago.

I am also curious what a certain former Rochester Amerk has to say.

davidl on January 21st, 2020

Jerry Nadler appeared on “Face the Nation.”  He did not do his cause any good, from PJ Media:

“Well, I’m[Jerry Nadler] saying that Hunter Biden has no knowledge of the accusations against the president,” Nadler replied. “Did the president, as we said—as the evidence shows that he did—betray his country by conspiring with a foreign country to—to try to rig the election? Hunter Biden has nothing to say about that. Their—their asking for Hunter Biden is just more of a smear of Hunter Biden that the president’s trying to get the Ukraine to do.”

GWU Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley believes that Nadler is suggesting that “if a trade is needed to secure House witnesses, the managers will not agree to any witnesses if Hunter Biden is part of the deal.”

“If true, is the House prepared to give up on proving its case to protect the Bidens from the ignoble moment of answering questions about the Ukraine contract? That is a considerable price to pay to protect Joe Biden,” Turley added.

What Turley is suggesting is that while Nadler feels the President is guilty of treason, and should be removed from office, he rather give up his case than call Hunter Biden as a witness.  So who has Nadler by his short hairs?

Eric Florack on January 21st, 2020

On this day in 2017, the American people were celebrating that Hillary Clinton was not inaugurated as president of the United States.

A year from today they will still be celebrating, as the festivities from the second inauguration of Donald Trump begin winding down.

So after all the back and forth on this, and all the efforts by the liberal gun grabbers, it turns out that the second amendment rally in Richmond was totally peaceful. Of course, a major reason is that Antifa didn’t bother showing up. Seems reasonable to assume that the reason they didn’t show up is most of the 2A supporters we’re armed. (Which strikes me as one of the best reasons to support the second amendment… Keeping evil at Bay)

The gun grabbers tried to turn this into another Charlottesville, including undercover efforts to incite violence and make the pro 2nd amendment crowd look like the bad guys.

It didn’t work.

John Hinderaker observes the situation and says:

Virginia’s Democrats are unabashedly in favor of gun confiscation. Why is it that when Democrats take control of a legislative body, they instinctively move to confiscate legally-owned firearms from law-abiding citizens, in violation of the Second Amendment? It would take a psychiatrist to answer that question. Certainly a student of crime statistics wouldn’t be able to explain it. Whatever the cause, the Democrats’ move against the citizens’ constitutional rights is manna from Heaven for Republicans, many of whom mingled with the demonstrators and endorsed their cause.

Look, that’s invariably the way these things fall out. Hasn’t anybody noticed that the biggest single problem the Democrats have with the American people is that they have too much freedom?

Eric Florack on January 21st, 2020

The Federalist:

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren struggled to understand Sunday how the American people could ever support a presidential candidate with a checkered history of telling the truth.

“How could the American people want someone who lies to them?” Warren passionately asked in response to a question on whether dishonesty was a disqualifying trait in a presidential candidate.

That’s the thing about writing a blog about politics, particularly when it comes to leftist candidates. The comedy tends to write itself.

Eric Florack on January 17th, 2020

Over at PJM, Ed Driscoll quotes mega-moron Joe Scarborough:

SCARBOROUGH: We don’t know how this ends in the Senate. These shameless Trumpsters will remain shameless Trumpsters. But we do know how the story ends. We do know how history writes this. We know that everyone who defends Donald Trump right now will be exposed. We know Mike Pence will be exposed for what he is. We know that Barr will be exposed for what he is. We know that all of these characters, Rudy Giuliani, will be exposed for what he is. History, it will be bleak. And their families, their children, their grandchildren—everyone who has their last name—will carry that around with them, if they decide to continue lying for a failed reality TV host who will show them no loyalty.

Ed responds:

“Among the most shocking of North Korea’s human rights abuses is the ‘three generations of punishment’ rule. If one person is found guilty of a crime and sent to a prison camp, so too will their entire family, and the subsequent two generations born at the camp must remain there for life.”

(Or former Trump supporters can simply renounce their “crimes,” make the rounds and shed a few tears on Oprah-style chat show, and declare themselves newly reborn “Progressive” true believers, and —whammo! — instant redemption by the DNC-MSM. Just ask the governor of Virginia and the prime minister of Canada.)

And here’s the thing, it’s precisely as I’ve been saying for over 2 years now…

For all the focusing on Trump, it’s not about Trump and never has been.

Postulate a Ted Cruz presidency. Does anybody truly believe that the reaction to Cruz would be any different than it has been with Donald Trump?

Here it is..Far from being about Donald Trump per se’, this reaction is about anything to the right of Fidel Castro. Anything without the Democrat name in front of it, and without socialist policy attached to it.

Re-read the last sentence on that again, them, go and re-read Ed’s reference to the Socialist Wonderland in North Korea and their three generation punishment scheme. Now, reread the Joe Scarborough quote.

All that accomplished, you will perhaps begin to understand that this has become the standard play for the far left that outright runs the Democrat Party today, and has serious controls on the GOP establishment, as well.

All of this about Trump?
It’s never been about Trump. It’s about any opposition to the socialist mantra, whence comes all of the power for the establishment of both parties.

davidl on January 16th, 2020

File under it takes one to follow one. Bernie Sanders, a/k/a Comrade Bernie, is quite simply naïve. Bernie believe that socialism leads to utopia, rather than bread lines. Bernie backers, the Bernie Bros, are a naïve as their leaders. These clodhoppers believed that CNN was a news network, from American Spectator:

The Left’s reaction to CNN’s hostility toward Sen. Bernie Sanders during Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate inevitably evokes that classic Casablanca scene in which Renault indignantly declares, “I’m shocked — shocked — to find that gambling is going on in here!” Renault isn’t actually surprised, of course. He’s smart enough to know exactly what’s been happening at Rick’s. The same cannot be said for Sanders supporters and what’s been going on at CNN. They credulously watched for three years as its “journalists” accused President Trump, without a scrap of evidence, of colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election and still believed the cable network was in the news business.

Even more amusing, and revealing, is that CNN is getting hit from the left, from Matt Tarri, Rolling Stone:

This time, the whole network tossed the mud. Over a 24-hour period before, during, and after the debate, CNN bid farewell to what remained of its reputation as a nonpolitical actor via a remarkable stretch of factually dubious reporting, bent commentary, and heavy-handed messaging.

The cycle began with a “bombshell” exposé by CNN reporter MJ Lee. Released on the eve of the debate, Lee reported Warren’s claim that Sanders told her a woman couldn’t win in a December 2018 meeting.

Lee treated the story as fact, using constructions such as, “Sanders responded that he did not think a woman could win,” and “the revelation that Sanders expressed skepticism that Warren could win.”

More, at this alleged meeting there were one two people in the room, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The latter alleged the former made a particular statement. A statement Sanders denied. This is what is called a he said/she said. But not case for full-blown idiot CNN quest:

Then [Jess] McIntosh said this: I think what Bernie forgot was that this isn’t a he said/she said story. This is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking. So, to have him just flat-out say no, I think wasn’t — wasn’t nearly enough to address that for the women watching.

Aside to McIntosh, there were two people in the room, one of whom is an habitual liar. No many time Warren tell the story and how many times it get passed on is still all Shiff, he said/she said, and rumor.

From the Washington Times:

A Project Veritas video released Tuesday showed a man identified as a campaign organizer for Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, saying “cities burn” if President Trump wins reelection and predicting violence against police at the 2020 Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee.

Asked what would happen if Mr. Trump is reelected, the man described as Sanders campaign field organizer Kyle Jurek said, “F–ing cities burn,” adding, “I mean, we don’t have a lot of time left, we have to save f–ing human civilization.”

In the undercover video, the first in the Project Veritas #Expose2020 series, he also expressed support for reeducating Trump voters and compared them to Nazis; praised Soviet-style gulags, and predicted police would be “beaten” in riots at the party convention.

The left-wing zealots who have been snuggling up with these ghastly morons for the last 40 years ultimately have had no idea who it is they were dealing with.

More alarming however is the reference to beating up on cops. Alarming because there are a large number of supposed libertarians who has been angling for precisely that. It’s becoming clear to me that they have no clue who they’re aligning with, either. Radley Balko call your office.

davidl on January 14th, 2020

Fauxasqawa b/k/a Elizabeth Warren is floundering. Comrade Bernardo b/k/a Bernie Sanders looks gaining traction. So what does the Clinton News Network do, via Conservative Treehouse:

(Via CNN) [Warren and Sanders] discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters. Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.

The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.

That evening, Sanders expressed frustration at what he saw as a growing focus among Democrats on identity politics, according to one of the people familiar with the conversation. Warren told Sanders she disagreed with his assessment that a woman could not win, three of the four sources said.

Sanders denied the characterization of the meeting in a statement to CNN.

CNN’s account of the Sanders/Warren meeting was based on the accounts of four people who were not there. That is a textbook play from Adam Schiff.

In a better world, Comrade Bernie would recognize the same Schiff Play was used to attack him and the President. Alas, I suspect while Bernie will be irate, he will not recognize, or acknowledge the pattern.

Addendum, Eric

You knew that the participants were going to start attacking each other eventually, so I suppose it should be no surprise. But the reason for attacking Bernie Sanders just now? Rather simple really. Fauxcahontas is tanking. Tucker Carlson addressed this one in his opening monologue last night.

David’s quite right here. Bernie Sanders may not recognize the pattern. Then again, if he’s wise about this, he isn’t going to respond. Simply put …he doesn’t have to. Elizabeth Warren will implode on her own very nicely and that’s already begun.

Eric Florack on January 13th, 2020

To the surprise of just about nobody, Cory Booker has fallen on his sword: (upi)

“I will be doing everything in my power to elect the eventual Democratic nominee for president, whomever that may be,” Booker said

Well, Spartacus, you were doing everything in your power to get yourself elected, no?

And despite those efforts, you weren’t even able to make it to Iowa… and those who simply would not vote for you are members of your own party.

You may need to face the fact that you’re not all that powerful.

And by the way, Booker and his quite intentional association with the name Spartacus is actually telling. Consider the Wikipedia entry on Spartacus:

In modern times, Spartacus became an icon for communists and socialists. Karl Marx listed Spartacus as one of his heroes and described him as “the most splendid fellow in the whole of ancient history” and a “great general, noble character, real representative of the ancient proletariat”. Spartacus has been a great inspiration to left-wing revolutionaries, most notably the German Spartacus League (1915–18), a forerunner of the Communist Party of Germany. A January 1919 uprising by communists in Germany was called the Spartacist uprising. Spartacus Books, one of the longest running collectively-run leftist book stores in North America, is also named in his honour.

So, it should be no surprise whatsoever that an extreme left-wing presidential candidate like Booker identifies with this mostly mythical socialist hero.

Of course, as Booker is doing his swan song, the Democrats are pointing fingers at each other complaining loudly that there are no more non-whites running for president. It’s not precisely true of course, but it’s interesting that we are now witness to the Democrats being hoisted on their own racist standards. But that’s another post.

davidl on January 12th, 2020

How many times have you heard the plea, but if it only saves one life, along with the lefts next proposed ban. How many pleas have heard the plea to ban all assault weapons, despite the fact only circa three hundred people a year are murdered by all long guns?

The next ban, from CBD Ace of Spades:

This state senator is a Democrat who is pro gun-rights, although this is Vermont, which may be the nuttiest state in the union, so it’s not surprising.

Bill would ban cellphone use for those under 21

The case for banning cell phones:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Drivers distracted by talking or texting on cell phones killed an estimated 16,000 people from 2001 to 2007, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.

Looks to me like Joel Kotkin has this one mostly nailed down:

Until just a few years ago, the need for economic growth to sustain societies was almost universally acknowledged. This was not just gospel on the free-market Right. Whatever its failings, 20th century socialism was growth-oriented and espoused the notion, however poorly realized, that greater material progress was critical to expanding working-class wealth.

Now political leaders in France, Iceland, as well as the European Commission increasingly believe, along with influential economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, that growing the economic pie should be supplanted by such goals as better health care, less inequality, and fighting climate change.

Many, particularly on the environmental Left, go even further and advocate “de-growth,” essentially urging societies to consciously reduce their economic wealth. This agenda requires that energy, housing, food, and other consumption costs steadily increase, or be legally prohibited, so that ordinary people will be unable to eat meat regularly, use more energy, live in larger spaces, and travel freely. There’s even a quaint notion that we need to return to a more primitive state of existence, essentially cancelling out the progress of the last few centuries. America’s Green Party, for example, would seek to limit long-distance trade entirely in favor of a feudal economy that is “largely self-sufficient in the production of its necessities.”

Even in the United States, where growth has long been an unquestioned priority, virtually none of the leading Democratic candidates for President even mentions the word. Vice-President Joe Biden, the leading “moderate” in the Democratic party primaries, has explicitly stated that he would wipe out fossil fuel employment in the country to pursue a green agenda.

The American Left’s abandonment of economic growth marks a dramatic shift from the approach of Bill Clinton, or even Barack Obama. In the 1990s, progressives still believed that economic growth was indispensable for improving the lives of the middle- and working-class families. Now, rather than seek to outperform the somewhat more robust economy and modest uptick in blue collar jobs under President Trump, progressives focus mostly on identity issues, environmental piety, and income redistribution.

Fundamentally abandoning growth means the effective end of the old social democratic program. Many self-defined socialists—typically academics and media personalities rather than industrial union leaders—reject the fundamental Marxian emphasis on “materialism” in favor of low growth “sustainability.”

The clue of course is that the people pushing for these destructive policies never seem to live within the restraints they want to place on everyone else. Witness for example the mansions occupied by Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders.

the fact has always been that these people are about the destruction of the middle class. That’s why their policies always seem to end up with that destruction as a direct result.

the thing is, the working class has started to catch on to this including a lot of rank-and-file Democrats which in turn precisely explains the rise of people outside the political establishment of both parties, such as, but not limited to, Donald Trump.

Which in turn explains the resistance to anyone operating outside the political establishment. The rabid, foaming at the mouth attempt to remove a duly elected president for example.