Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Dec 13, 2015, 08:12 AM
Number of posts: 5,524

Journal Archives

2019 Hunk Calendar

Democrats so far in 2019

Victor Davis Hanson: Trump Is 'Chemotherapy' to Fight 'Political Class'

Hanson added, “Contrary to the so-called Never Trumpers who said Trump would govern as a liberal, or the left that said he would be so chaotic that government would all but collapse, if you look at all of the rubrics that we assess presidents by — unemployment, GDP, oil and gas production, regulations, judicial appointments, foreign policy — he’s probably had the most successful two years … that we’ve seen in 25 or 30 years, maybe even longer.”

Trump is driving a political realignment and forcing reevaluations of deeply entrenched institutions, said Hanson.

“Henry Kissinger said in an Atlantic interview, every once in awhile, a guy like Trump comes along and shakes everything up, and makes us reexamine whether all these institutions — I guess he was talking about NAFTA and NATO and EU — are still doing what they were designed to do,” said Hanson. “Or maybe there’s no need for them, at least in their present iterations. I think he was very valuable.”

Hanson likened Trump to “chemotherapy” used to treat the “cancer” of America’s “permanent political class.”

“He’s sort of like chemotherapy,” stated Hanson. “Chemotherapy is a very toxic drug and it can kill the host — that’s us — but it’s not as bad as the cancer, and the cancer is this permanent political class of people who have contempt for people geographically … in between the two coasts, but also in class terms. I think he really hit something.”

Just discovered I can change my life

I saw a commercial for Tommy John underwear and if I buy them I will get underwear that stretchs in 16 directions ( how that works was not explained) and amazingly if I buy their undies it will CHANGE MY LIFE. Yes. CHANGE MY LIFE.

I don’t know about anyone else but if I can change my life by buying overpriced undies I may go for it.

Anyone experienced life changing event by slipping on different undies?

My New Vagina Wont Make Me Happy

Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months. Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain. This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to. That shouldn’t disqualify me from getting it.

I like to say that being trans is the second-worst thing that ever happened to me. (The worst was being born a boy.) Dysphoria is notoriously difficult to describe to those who haven’t experienced it, like a flavor. Its official definition — the distress some transgender people feel at the incongruence between the gender they express and the gender they’ve been socially assigned — does little justice to the feeling.

But in my experience, at least: Dysphoria feels like being unable to get warm, no matter how many layers you put on. It feels like hunger without appetite. It feels like getting on an airplane to fly home, only to realize mid-flight that this is it: You’re going to spend the rest of your life on an airplane. It feels like grieving. It feels like having nothing to grieve.

Many conservatives call this crazy. A popular right-wing narrative holds that gender dysphoria is a clinical delusion; hence, feeding that delusion with hormones and surgeries constitutes a violation of medical ethics. Just ask the Heritage Foundation fellow Ryan T. Anderson, whose book “When Harry Became Sally” draws heavily on the work of Dr. Paul McHugh, the psychiatrist who shut down the gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins in 1979 on the grounds that trans-affirmative care meant “cooperating with a mental illness.” Mr. Anderson writes, “We must avoid adding to the pain experienced by people with gender dysphoria, while we present them with alternatives to transitioning.”


After reading this I am more convinced than even this should be treated only as a mental illness. The medical community should stop pandering to make believe rights.

Who and What Threaten the Constitution?

Donald Trump on occasion can talk recklessly. He is certainly trying to “fundamentally transform” the United States in exactly the opposite direction from which Barack Obama promised to do the same sort of massive recalibration. According to polls (such as they are), half the country fears Trump. The media despises him. Yet Trump poses no threat to the U.S. Constitution. Those who since 2016 have tried to destroy his candidacy and then his presidency most certainly do.

When, and if, we ever lose our freedoms, it will not likely be due to a boisterous Donald Trump, damning “fake news” at popular rallies, or even by being greeted with jarring “lock her up” chants—Trump, whom the popular culture loves to hate and whose every gesture and, indeed, every inch of his body, is now analyzed, critiqued, caricatured, and damned on the national news.

In general, free societies more often become unfree with a whimper, not a bang—and usually due to self-righteous pious movements that always claim the higher moral ground, and justify their extreme means by their self-sacrificing struggle for supposedly noble ends of social justice, equality, and fairness.

Media darlings, not media ogres, receive a veritable free pass to ignore constitutional norms. Champions of bipartisan consensus, “the people,” and the power of big government to do the “right” thing and advance social justice are the more dangerous to watch, not those championing the rights of the individual, and small and less intrusive government. Hillary Clinton, with a $1 billion war chest, a court media, and an array of highly paid pros, not the fly-by-night, improvised Trump campaign, was the expression of big media, big politics, big government, and big money eager to have one of their compliant own in the White House.

Philip II and his idea of Greek ecumenicalism, followed by his son Alexander and his “brotherhood of man,” ended the free Greek polis. The “healer” and consensus builder Augustus did away with the Roman Republic. Hitler claimed he was the good kind of socialist and only wished total power to redress the injustices of Versailles, and, besides, he was an environmentalist, vegetarian, non-smoker, animal lover, and opera buff to boot. Lenin promised an end to czarist oppression and asked only enough force to bring fairness for the little guy. Mao Zedong claimed he only wished to have the clout to end foreign contamination, landed oppression, and Mandarism and selflessly would do it all for the proverbial people. All of these revolutionaries believed in violating past norms of accepted lawful custom and practice to “save” the country.

Today’s most destructive totalitarians in Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, and Venezuela are adored by a toady press and are said to do their all for “the people.” Such revolutionaries do not oppose the power of the permanent administrative state, but seek to weaponize and collude with it.

The point is not that Trump is a saint, or that Obama, for example, a sinner. Rather, when the media become unctuous and complicit with those whom they are supposed to audit and cross-examine, then politicians and political movements—especially those voicing utopian bromides—grow ever more emboldened, empowered and occasionally quite dangerous. No mainstream media talking head has yet declared Trump a “God” or praised his pant creases. For all Trump’s bluster and ego, he has not reacted in kind promising, as some sort of deity, to reduce the planet’s temperature and lower its seas.

Try a thought experiment. What if Donald Trump tomorrow was caught ordering Attorney General Jeff Sessions to monitor the electronic footprints of Associated Press reporters, or to surveille CNN’s Jim Acosta and his grandparents?

What if Trump had just jailed a videomaker on trumped up charges of violating parole for making a left-wing internet video that he found an obstacle to his fabricated government version of a disaster overseas?

What exactly would the New York Times do if it were found out that George Soros and the Steyer brothers were being hounded by a right-wing version of Lois Lerner and a politicized ring at the IRS?

What would our media—92 percent negative in its current coverage of Trump—say if the Trump FBI, Justice Department, and CIA, were collectively actively working with the Trump 2020 campaign to monitor (as in the notion of “insurance”) rumors that a Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren was allegedly colluding with the Iranians, Chinese, or other foreign nationals to alter the upcoming election—or so they would allege?

Imagine a Trump-supporting Justice Department official meeting with a Trump-supporting FBI agent to craft strategies for how to spread a Trump-financed opposition-research smear dossier on Harris, with help of a Trump-supporting CIA head and Trump-supporting State Department. What exactly then would the New York Times or NBC News do—claim that Trump was only legitimately acting preemptively on “legitimate” worries that Harris was working with the Iranians or the Chinese to get an edge in the 2020 election?

Would the New York Times have printed the anti-Obama op-ed of a “resistance” member, who vowed that he/she and scores of others were actively at work inside the Obama White House, in apparent illegal fashion, to subvert Obama’s administration, on the rationale that he was dangerous both to the country and Democratic Party values? More likely, a Times editor would have turned over any such deep-state, self-confessed obstructionist of Obama to the FBI, and then boasted of the paper’s loyalty to the administration.

During Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, we saw just how fragile a 231-year-long American institution of due process actually was when it was seen as an obstacle to social justice, the anti-Trump forces, the #MeToo movement, and the general progressive agenda.

We recently came within a few hours of establishing a dangerous precedent that the hallowed U.S. Senate could destroy a nominee for high government service on hearsay reports of assault 36 years in his past, without requiring a shred of physical evidence, without a single witness, without one collaborating testimony, without a sole detail of where and when and how the alleged crime took place. Instead, a sympathetic media redefined right thinking and empathy as believability and, with it, credibility. The resulting fact-free “credibility,” of course, then equated to Kavanaugh’s guilt and the frenzied psychodramas to follow.

The Senate just about established a precedent that the motive of the accuser should not be questioned because it was a priori noble, at least if the ideology and sex of the accuser fit predetermined approved categories. In the most disturbing downturn of the entire Kavanaugh circus, the media and Senate Democrats lauded Christine Blasey Ford as courageous and brave for at first sending an anonymous letter with all sorts of unsubstantiated charges and quite misleading accusations—as if that act was any more ethical than at least coming forward to try to pursue her efforts to destroy Brett Kavanaugh.

In 2009, the blue wall was praised as the good ole Electoral College bulwark of Obama and his new Democrats against the forces of Republican illiberalism. We were lectured that Republicans had “lost” the Electoral College for good, when there was certainty that big electoral-vote states like California, Illinois, and New York were already forfeited before Election Day.

In 2009, the Senate’s Democratic supermajority was also a fine and noble thing, and came about because correct-thinking senators from tiny states, like Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reid of Rhode Island, were given the power to more than offset odious right-wing big-state Texas senators.

It was also considered a good thing that since 1869 law, custom, and precedent had settled on a nine-justice Supreme Court. The Earl Warren years proved that reality well enough, which had withstood the anger of indignant conservatives whining that the court was making rather than interpreting laws. Indeed, in the liberal mindset, even when a Republican president picked conservative jurists, if they were at least intelligent—a Justice Blackmun, Brennan, Kennedy, O’Connor, Souter, Stevens, Stewart—they would inevitably embrace the truth, drift leftward, and do the right thing.

Yet in a second, our sober and judicious politicos and elites, many of them with Ivy league law degrees and years of government service, are now dreaming of abolishing the Electoral College, to amend the Constitution to turn the Senate into something akin to the popular House of Representatives, and to pack the Supreme Court in the manner that a demagogic Franklin Roosevelt had sought but failed to do—and all because the institutions reflect current and always volatile political trends that are not especially pro-progressive in the present age.

The tactics of the grassroots mobs now are articulated and amplified by progressives in government and the media. Senator Cory Booker is now channeling Barack Obama, calling openly for progressive shock troops to get into the faces of his opponents.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) wants the mob to hunt down the anti-progressives in restaurants and gas stations. Hillary Clinton claims that her party can only be civil when back in power. Former Attorney General Eric Holder talks of metaphorically (?) kicking his opponents.

The concrete manifestation of such advocacy is something like downtown Portland where Antifa mobs storm intersections to hound drivers suspected of being counterrevolutionaries, or getting in the faces of Senators in elevators and on the way to work or scratching at the locked doors of the Supreme Court. Apparently, the rhetoricians of hate have assumed that James Hodkinson, the Bernie Sanders volunteer who shot down Rep. Steve Scalise, and tried to kill many more Republican representatives, had never existed. If any celebrity, has-been or not, had voiced the sort of violent hatred toward Obama that a Johnny Depp, Robert De Niro, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Peter Fonda, or Snoop Dogg has expressed toward Trump, they would be on a FBI watchlist.

So as a general rule, beware of any political movement that is in rank collusion with the media, that talks seriously about altering the ancient Constitution to achieve current political advantage, that enlists as an ally, and thus weaponizes and warps, the permanent bureaucracy of government to ignore the law, if it just hounds the right people, that both contextualizes and in turn is empowered by mob tactics, and that assumes its superior moral agendas and sophisticated and enlightened thinking should justify any mean necessary to achieve its ends—and thereby save humanity from its deplorable and irredeemable self.

The Charges Against Judge Kavanaugh Should Be Ignored

It is almost impossible to overstate the damage done to America's moral compass by taking the charges leveled against Judge Brett Kavanaugh seriously.

It undermines foundational moral principles of any decent society.

Those who claim the charges against Judge Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford are important and worth investigating, and that they ultimately, if believed, invalidate his candidacy for the U.S. Supreme Court are stating that:

a) What a middle-aged adult did in high school is all we need to know to evaluate an individual's character -- even when his entire adult life has been impeccable.

b) No matter how good and moral a life one has led for 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years, it is nullified by a sin committed as teenager.


Get in the groove and be gay --Honeymooners Grateful Dead Dancing

A Vicious Cycle: Air Conditioners Making Global Warming Worse, Warns Study

Ok all believers in global warming turn off your air conditioners now to save humanity. Do it for the children

MADISON, Wisc. — As summertime wears on and the mercury rises across America, many will surely crank the air conditioning to full blast — and place the blame on climate change. Turns out those A/Cs may be contributing to the problem: A new study shows that their increased use actually makes warming worse.

Researchers from the University of Wisconsin say air conditioners further degrade air quality and generally compound the toll on human health created by air pollution. According to the study, as many as a thousand additional deaths will occur every year in the Eastern United States alone due to the increased use of fossil fuels to cool steadily warming buildings where people live and work.

Air conditioners outside windows
Researchers from the University of Wisconsin say air conditioners further degrade air quality and generally compound the toll on human health created by air pollution
“What we found is that air pollution will get worse,” explains study lead author David Abel, a graduate student at the school, in a statement. “There are consequences for adapting to future climate change.”

The study combines data from five different models and predictions to forecast higher summer energy use.

With summertime temperatures expected to get hotter across the globe every year, there’s no doubt that increased use of air conditioning will save lives; but, with the good comes the bad too. “We’re trading problems. Heat waves are increasing and increasing in intensity. We will have more cooling demand requiring more electricity,” argues senior author and environmental studies professor Jonathan Patz. “But if our nation continues to rely on coal-fired power plants for some of our electricity, each time we turn on the air conditioning we’ll be fouling the air, causing more sickness and even deaths.”

Overall, the climate model forecasts an additional 13,000 deaths annually caused by higher levels of fine, particulate matter in the air. Researchers say another 3,000 will caused by ozone in the eastern U.S. by 2050. The vast majority of those deaths will likely occur because of atmospheric conditions, but about 1,000 of them are predicted to be caused by increased fossil fuel use for air conditioners.

“Climate change is here and we’re going to need to adapt,” says Abel. “But air conditioning and the way we use energy is going to provide a feedback that will exacerbate air pollution as temperatures continue to get warmer.”


After the assassination attempt on Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and other Republican members of Congress, I wrote that “the caustic and toxic gasoline of hate speech”

was inviting someone “to light the match that will ignite a bond fire of political assassinations…”

A year later the rhetoric and actions of the left have gotten worse and borders on incitement to violence against those who implement and support the Trump agenda. Unfortunately, it is encouraged by little condemnation and therefore tacit approval of much of the Democratic and mainstream media leadership.

A few examples: Entertainer Samantha Bee calling the President’s daughter a “c***; actor Robert De Nero bringing a Tony Award audience to its feet applauding his “f***” Trump tirade; actor Peter Fonda calling for putting the president’s young son in a cage with pedophiles, wanting White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’ children to be kidnapped and Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to be “put in a cage… naked whipped … while being filmed…”

As if these hateful comments were not enough, the anti-Trump crowd has turned up the heat with in-your-face public confrontations of Trump officials: • Protesters invaded a Washington, D.C. restaurant to harass Secretary Nielsen. They were within feet of her table while her security detail appeared helpless — anyone in the mob could have taken a shot. They also protested at her home.

• Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a Lexington, Virginia, restaurant. Now, she and her family will get Secret Service protection at their home. • Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was harassed and subjected to profanity-laced verbal assaults at a movie theatre in Tampa.

• Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and her husband Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-Ky.) were harassed leaving a Georgetown University event.

The icing on the political hate-cake was Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Ca.) urging people to harass Trump officials and “tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere…”

Waters’ rant was a bit over the line even for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and several other Democrats who were forced to condemn her message.

However, Schumer, Pelosi and their Democrat colleagues have not, that I have seen or heard, gotten around to condemning the “Nazi mania” of some of their colleagues and journalist friends who have compared the president’s policies on dealing with the Southern border with Hitler’s concentration camps.

MSNBC pundit Donny Deutsch went so far as to say that anyone who voted for Donald Trump was a “Nazi.”

In an article entitled “Trump’s Critics Desecrate the Holocaust,” writer Jay Winik wrote that the “comparison to the Holocaust is an obscene lie.”

He quoted MSNBC host Joe Scarborough who said that “just like the Nazis said that they were taking people to the showers and then they never came back.”

Not to be outdone, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden tweeted a photo of railroad tracks leading to the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp.

Hats off to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, who lost family at the death camp, for challenging Hayden on his comparison: “As bad as the policy may be, it is not Auschwitz.”

We have heard few, if any, words condemning such rhetoric from Democrat leaders, liberal media commentators, or Jewish organizations such as the AntiDefamation League of B’nai B’rith.

Deutsch, Scarborough and others so in love with the Holocaust-border comparison should read Winik’s article. It graphically described the horror of cattle car like trains packed with Jews arriving at Auschwitz after a harrowing two-to-three day trip “with little air or light, no food and virtually no water.”

He described the “…chaos, confusion and horror…the odor of burning human flesh and hair” where prisoners “didn’t know that most of them would be ash within hours.”

Things are so toxic that many Democrats, liberal pundits, and leftists are comparing those who perpetrated such horrors to Trump voters and the men and women of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — 40 percent of whom are Hispanic — and making them targets.

As reported in The Daily Caller, the radical violent group Antifa tweeted out a list of over “1,500 ICE agents’ identities.” There’s even a growing “Occupy Ice” movement spreading throughout the nation calling for the abolition of ICE, closing down ICE facilities, and, in some cases, calling for the killing of ICE agents.

Several members of Congress have jumped aboard the “ICE is evil” express train advocating the abolition of ICE. The newest passenger is presidential “wannabe” Senator Kamala Harris (D-Ca.)

who now wants to tear ICE down and “start from scratch.”

Talk about hypocritical exploitation of an issue for political gain, just a few months ago in March, Harris told MSNBC that “ICE has a purpose,” “ICE has a role,” “ICE should exist…”

And let’s not omit those late-night talkshow hosts who further pollute the septic tank political environment by their vicious, vitriolic, not-so-funny personal attacks on Trump and, recently, Sarah Sanders.

These name callers, protesters, and their enabling supporters in Washington, Hollywood — and the major media — should not be surprised if the consequences of their anti-Trump rhetoric inspires one of their crazed leftist disciples to assassinate one of those against whom they so soundly spew hate. They should not be surprised if there is retribution.

It is only a matter of time. The only question is who the victim or victims will be.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »