Liberals Have An “IST” Addiction

Scanning the headlines over the past few days shows a liberal addiction to slapping an “ist” accusation on virtually every article, statement or action which runs counter to their progressive mindset.

At times amusing, often confusing, always irritating, liberals have taken this label typecasting to a true art form. Which is only fair, since they’ve been toiling at their craft for close to seven decades.

In fact it’s been so long, the very first “ist” is no longer in vogue. A groundbreaking label,  “chauvinist” has long since been shelved, but “chauvinist” truly performed yeoman’s work for some time.

Liberals realized the necessity of labeling via “ist” as the laziness of the mainstream media became more and more obvious over time. Their ability to control the press grew as their “ist” vocabulary increased, and over time it became a labeling arms race. The 24/7 cable news habitually fell into labeling overuse, which obviously created diminishing returns, thereby necessitating newer and more creative “ist”.

Now there are your run-of-the-mill “ist” practitioners, and then there are the Hall of Famers. Hillary Clinton is the quintessential Babe Ruthian icon, being established as such early in her public presence. She has certainly had a long and distinguished finger pointing career.

But to be fair, she was led into it and was mentored by the transcendent Lord Voldemort of buck passing, the cigar wielding Arkansan Lotherio, Bubba Bill Clinton himself. In his prime, He Who Must Not Be Named could run circles around Republicans, not to mention his own cabinet and White House interns.

Subsequent to the latest president election, liberal brooding has shown they cannot be monogamous in their labeling affairs. Nope, in fact given the briefest of chances, they seem to have a fondness for serial multiple labeling.

If you are male and voted against Hilary, then you are a sexist. If age was a factor, then you are an ageist. If you were Herman Cain, then you are a racist, and if you are a lady who voted for Trump, then you must be antifeminist. Basically, a vote against Hillary was proof you’re an “ist”.

But wait, there’s more. Last this week, the defense for Sen. Bob Menendez trotted out the dubious legal theory that the prosecution was persecuting him for being Hispanic. Bam. Racist. Not a corrupt politician, just a victim of governmental racism.

Lets not forget the current labeling craze, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Antifa organization. According to them, if you’re not Antifa, you’re a fascist. Which is evidently bad, notwithstanding many notable fascist have been quite adept at making the trains run on time.

We can’t ignore former president Obama. If you ever doubted our former president’s birthplace, or wondered about his hidden college transcripts, or questioned his choice of jeans, then you are a fringe theorist. Now that’s a scary one, get that label hung on you and you might was well go out and buy industrial strength tin foil. You’ve been “ist” labeled, or to quote Bill Engvale “Here’s your sign”.

 

What Obama’s Paris Climate Accord Could Teach Donald Trump

President Trump dismantled yet another part of President Obama’s legacy this week, by removing the United States from the Paris climate accord. Obama’s legacy, largely consisting of executive overreach, cut corners, and half fixes, is once again proving easy to erase. 

When the Paris climate agreement was signed at the United Nations in April 2016, the Obama Administration heralded it as “the most ambitious climate change agreement in history.” The accord is often cited as one of the most important acts of his second term. Prominent presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin listed it as a key feature of his legacy. While the agreement was still being discussed, the New York Times went as far as to claim that Obama’s legacy was at stake if the negotiations proved unsuccessful.

If his domestic regulations and a Paris accord withstand efforts to gut them, “climate change will become the heart and soul of his presidency” [Rice University presidential historian Douglas] Brinkley told the New York Times.

Indeed, the Paris climate accord is now gutted and left for dead.

But my purpose is not to discuss climate change, the merits of the Paris agreement, or the fallout of America’s withdrawal.

I am here to lead the funeral procession for Barack Obama’s pen and phone, and to let their demise serve as a warning to Donald Trump.

During his second term, fed up with Congress, Obama decided that negotiating with the Republicans was too difficult. There was little common ground between the White House and legislature, and Obama had an ambitious agenda he wished to implement.

We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and a phone,” Obama said in early 2014.

That would be a common refrain from Obama for the balance of his presidency. With said pen and with said phone, Obama flexed the power of the administrative state to push his liberal agenda in education, gay rights, immigration, foreign policy, and the environment. Some initiatives were stymied by successful lawsuits, but Obama was largely successful in weaponizing the federal bureaucracy to bypass Congress as much as possible.

One of the most difficult parts of the presidency, particularly during polarized times such as these, is to go about the difficult slog of governing. Developing relationships with congressional leaders, whipping up votes, wading into the weeds on complex policy, making tough decisions to come to a majority consensus: these are the difficult, unseen, and unglamorous parts of governing a nation. The legislative process takes a tremendous amount of deliberation and consensus, as the founders intended.

Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, both former governors, managed to achieve legislative accomplishments by working with a hostile Congress. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House throughout the 1980s, once called Reagan the most ignorant man to ever inhabit the White House, and “Herbert Hoover with a smile.” Of course, Clinton and former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich never had anything but disdain for each other.

Yet Reagan and O’Neill still managed to pass legislation on tax reform, national defense, gun rights, voting rights, and immigration. Clinton and Gingrich managed to address welfare reform, gay marriage, and taxes.

Unlike Clinton and Reagan, President Obama was a political amateur. He came to office on a tide of speeches and platitudes, but with no real governing experience. His only signature legislative achievements occurred in the first year of his presidency when he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

When the going got tough, Obama resorted to his pen and phone. This was the easy way out. It paid short term dividends, allowing him to make more speeches as he implemented one vacuous policy after another. His supporters claimed victory in the name of progress, while the other half of the country became hopelessly convinced everyday that they were losing their country and there was nothing Congress could do about it. Their only hope to stop the march of progressive tyranny through the administrative state was to win the White House.

In their desperation, they elected another political amateur, Donald Trump. Like Obama, he has no governing experience. He, too, came to power on a tide of speeches and platitudes.

To the extent that Trump was voted into the presidency to undo Obama’s flimsy legacy, the Paris climate agreement is the latest is a string of achievements. Trump has reversed course on transgender bathrooms, immigration enforcement, and other executive actions. With each new measure, Trump, like his predecessor before him, takes a victory lap in the name of progress for his supporters.

The day is coming, however, when Trump will not be in office. A Democrat will eventually be elected, and he or she will be free to reverse (or re-reverse!) every executive action taken by Trump.

The only way to form a lasting legacy is to engage in the difficult work of lawmaking. To set the country on a conservative trajectory for decades to come, Trump and Congressional Republicans must pass major legislation. Thus far, Trump has proven lackluster in his attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare, the only real legislative achievement on which Obama’s legacy can rely. Other efforts, such as tax reform, are struggling to get off the ground.

Almost all legislation will require a few Democratic senators to overcome a filibuster. That will be tough, but it was difficult for Reagan and Clinton too. Partisanship and polarization are not new.

With every new executive action, Trump is shoveling more dirt into the grave of Obama’s pen and phone legacy. He would be wise to assure his successor can’t do the same.

 

Comey Chameleon

James Comey has joined a rather exclusive club:  FBI directors who have been fired by the President of the United States.  Up until yesterday, only one other director has held that distinction–William Sessions, who was fired by Bill Clinton back in 1993 when allegations were raised that Sessions had abused his office.

For those of you who were around in those days, you’ll recall that the Clinton administration–much like the Trump administration now–was dealing with its share of legal headaches that were being investigated by the FBI.  In Clinton’s case, the trouble stemmed from a shady real estate deal known as Whitewater that happened when the future president was Arkansas attorney general in the late 70’s.  The particulars of it were pretty convoluted, but it involved a fair sum of money, a collapsed savings & loan, shredded documents and culminated in the suicide of Clinton confidante Vince Foster.  Sessions, a holdover from the previous Bush administration, was in the middle of investigating Whitewater when Bill Clinton fired him.

Republicans naturally howled over the move, and suggested that the firing had less to do Sessions’ wrongdoing and more to do with covering up Clinton’s.  Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole even called it a “potentially worrisome precedent” that could put the FBI’s independence in doubt.  If all that sounds familiar, it’s because Democrats are using almost exactly the same language to throw shade on President Trump’s decision to fire James Comey amid the FBI’s proble into supposed ties between members of the current administration and Russia.  History is known for repeating itself, but rarely this verbatim.

So does the opposition have a point?  Sure.  In Bob Dole’s case, he was certainly correct to point out that the timing of Session’s firing looked bad.  But it’s also true that politicians tend to cast the other guy’s actions in the worst possible light, while glossing over all the valid reasons that action was taken.  There was credible evidence that Sessions had misused Bureau resources, which included billing the FBI for personal expenses–like a $10,000 fence around his house–and having agents act as personal chauffeurs for his wife.  Sessions also had a key card made so that his wife, who did not have any clearance, could access his office without escort any time she liked.  This was a flagrant violation of security protocols, and by itself was enough to get Sessions in a lot of trouble.  Clinton was more than justified in firing him.

The same, however, goes for James Comey.  Yes, the optics of firing him during an active probe into Russia/White House ties are pretty bad, and I would fully expect Democrats to seize on that–politics ain’t beanbag, after all.  At the same time, there were plenty of valid reasons to sack Comey, chief among them the way he asserted the authority to not prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information–a decision that was not his to make–and his bungling of the testimony he gave to Congress last week.  Comey has undermined public faith in the FBI, and if I had to guess I would also say that he has lost the confidence of a lot of the FBI agents he was supposed to lead.  It was President Trump’s prerogative to fire him, well within his authority–and justification.

What’s really stuning, though, is how quickly all of the pundits who called for Comey’s head last October after he reopened Hillary’s email investigation are now holding him up as a model public servant.  As I recall, nobody in the media attempted such a radical transformation for Bill Sessions when he got the boot.  They were just happy to see him fizzle, like so many of the bimbo eruptions that dogged Slick Willy on his way to the White House.  But I would imagine that by the time the media are done with him, Comey will morph, chameleon-like, into whatever they need him to be–so long as they can use him to inflict maximum damage on Trump.

And if that means forgetting all about Hillary’s accusations that he cost her the election?  Well, that’s just a price she’s going to have to pay, isn’t it?  The narrative was only useful so long as it maintained the illusion of a stolen election, and distracted the Democrat rank-and-file from realizing how terrible a candidate Hillary really was.  But if the Democrats think they have something better now, does anybody doubt they’ll sacrifice Hillary to get it?

If I were her, I’d start working on some new excuses.  I have the feeling she’s going to need them.

Simple Talk

Regardless of your political affiliations or leanings, there are lessons to be learnt from the election of Donald Trump. This isn’t a high falutin’, educated analysis of complicated exit poll data, Nope, this is just simple talk. Because, in the end, it was simple talk that won the election.

Donald Trump is a billionaire with a degree from The Wharton School (of Business) of the University of Pennsylvania. It’s a really, really good school. Wharton is generally ranked a Top Five Business school. We don’t know if Trump was a great student or not, but then, you don’t know if your doctor was top of the class either. What do you call the guy who graduated last in his class in medical school? Doctor, of course. You can switch doctor and lawyer if you wish. The point is, Trump isn’t a dummy whether you like his stances on issues or not. He can talk very uppity if he wanted to, but he doesn’t. He talks to us.

By “us”, I don’t mean you. You are the top of the societal rankings of your community. All your friends think you are super smart. You can solve a Rubik’s Cube in 45 seconds or start a BMW with no key in the ignition. I’m talking about the rest of us who didn’t graduate from the top echelon schools. Trump talks to us. I don’t mean this ugly at all, but he makes it simple. Do you ever have a hard time understanding what he said? No. Sure, you might disagree with him as the words come out of his mouth, but it’s obvious what he said. His words are so direct, so succinct, that he doesn’t ever use a word like succinct. It’s been reported that he speaks on a 5th grade level, and usually those news reports are written with a mean tone. Like the 5th grade is a bad thing.

Have you seen the average reading comprehension of Americans? It’s not good. Sure, you hang around similarly smart people so you think people are smart, because they are about as smart as you. But there is a vast swath of this country that doesn’t have a great literacy rate. They don’t have trouble understanding Trump. But they couldn’t understand Hillary Clinton. She’s a Yale educated lawyer with a fantastic vocabulary. She had speech writers with similar qualifications. It didn’t matter. Unless you can talk to the people you want to see things your way, it simply doesn’t matter what you say.

Her husband, Bill “Bubba” Clinton, was masterful at “feeling your pain” and people believed him. When your nickname is Bubba, you can talk to the folks. He had the same Yale Law School diploma, but he related to people then and now. He would have won again were it not for that silly 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Oh, you think that we should aspire to more? To a higher, more aspirational future? You think we shouldn’t “dumb things down” just to win votes? Guess what, you just lost. Whether it’s an election or convincing a jury to vote for your client, if you can’t relate to the folks, you won’t win. Unless the other combatant is worse than you, but guess what? You are probably misjudging the other guy and he (or she) is scoring knockout punches but you are too confident to understand that you are losing.

I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t aspire for more. We should. Vocabulary comprehension is the single biggest determinant of success in my opinion. Understanding biology helps you become a doctor. Understanding physics helps you be a mechanical engineer. Understanding human nature helps you be a psychologist. But understanding people helps you be President. It’s that simple.

Kellyanne Conway BANNED From Multiple MSNBC And CNN Shows

As of Wednesday morning, Kellyanne Conway is no longer welcome on the MSNBC Morning Joe show. Hosted by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, (daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski – Counselor to President Johnson/National Security Advisor to President Carter) the two co-host banned Ms. Conway from appearing on their show.

As the Washington Post  reports this morning, Mika wasn’t reticent about her reason’s for blackballing Kellyanne: (via WaPo)

“We know for a fact she tries to book herself on this show,” Brzezinski said. “I won’t do it, ‘cuz I don’t believe in fake news or information that is not true. And that is — every time I’ve ever seen her on television, something’s askew, off or incorrect.”

Joe Scarborough didn’t hesitate to pile on, seemingly echoing the recent SNL Jake Tapper/Kellyanne sketch:

“Without making an explicit reference, Brzezinski and Scarborough offered a description of Conway that recalled her character on the latest episode of “Saturday Night Live. In the sketch, Conway (Kate McKinnon) stalks CNN anchor Jake Tapper (Beck Bennett) and holds a knife to his throat until he agrees to let her back on television. “She’s in none of the key meetings,” Scarborough said. “She goes out and books herself often. … I don’t even think she’s saying something that she knows to be untrue. She’s just saying things, just to get in front of the TV set and prove her relevance because behind the scenes — behind the scenes, she’s not in these meetings.”

You really have to hand it to Joe, he knows what side his bread is buttered on, and he is fanning the flames for the far left fringe. This morning he furthered his attack on fake news and lying as he drew a straight line from the Clinton White House lies to Congress about selling sensitive missile technology to China combined with his lies about the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, to President Trump and his administration. This is how he compared his time in Congress, and the reaction Representatives in the House had to Clinton and today’s White House:

“…we’ve heard you talking about this stuff for six years, and pretty soon they just stop paying attention, and it took something as base as what happened in the Oval Office with an intern; thats the only thing people would pay attention to. And we actually said, a lot of us sat there going, ‘Seriously, you’re worried about this when you didn’t give a damn about sensitive missile technology being sold by the top contributor to the DNC to China? And thats whats happening here, they lie so much in this White House, that pretty soon people just grow numb to it.” (emphasis mine)

Hyperbole is one thing, but this is incredible.  Comparing this nascent administration to perhaps the greatest liar ever to inhabit the White House strains credulity.

The fact that these conversations at the Morning Joe table take place without ever mentioning Susan Rice, who went on five Sunday talk shows and deliberately blatantly lied about Benghazi, is galling to the extreme. Not to mention Hillary Clinton’s lack of familiarity with truth, to say nothing of President Obama’s team regarding Fast and Furious, Solyndra scandal, or the mountain of lies we’ve had to endure with the secret Iran deal (side agreements, hostage ransom payments, secret funds to Iran).

The famous theologian and minister Charles Spurgeon once said: “Sincerity makes the very least person to be of more value than the most talented hypocrite.”

The guys at Morning Joe certainly are very talented, but their attempts at sincerity are laughable. The long knives are out, and the MSM is complicit in their open partnership with the Democratic Party. You have to wonder how long Republicans, and in particular Trump supporters will stand for this assault before they start fighting back.

The End of the Clintons

“Clinton style politics hasn’t been tried by the Democrats since 1996.”

Van Jones has declared the Clinton era of politics over. He’s right, but I think he is wrong about when it happened.

It did not happen with the defeat of Hillary Clinton, but with Al Gore running in 2000.

In 2000, if you will recall, Al Gore’s team made a conscious decision to sideline Bill Clinton. They were afraid he would taint Gore’s campaign because of the Lewinsky matter and impeachment. Never mind that Clinton was popular, Gore not only did not campaign with Clinton, but he also distanced himself from Clinton’s centrism.

Fast forward to 2016. We know that Bill Clinton insisted his wife’s campaign make a play for blue collar voters and that they amp up criticism of Obamacare. We also know that the skinny jeans wearing metrosexuals in the Brooklyn office refused. In fact, several people who were close to the campaign told me that if Bill Clinton said to stand, the campaign was likely to sit.

One of the reasons Clinton lost, and there were many, is because Hillary Clinton’s campaign team decided the Clinton era of politics was over. They were “with her,” not with the Clintons.

Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but he has one of the keenest minds in American politics and he has great empathy for and a connection with a lot of blue collar voters. Had he been on the ballot in 2016, he’d have been a formidable opponent to either Barack Obama or Donald Trump.

But Hillary Clinton’s campaign wanted nothing to do with his advice.

A friend of mine pointed out the other day that the “Clinton era” really hasn’t been operative since 2000 and Clinton style politics hasn’t been tried by the Democrats since 1996. But it worked pretty good for George W. Bush in 2004 and Donald Trump in 2016.

If Democrats go far left, as they appear to be doing for 2020, it’ll only ensure another Trump term in office. Why? Because the farther left the Democrats go, the more openly hostile they are to the American way of life. Just look at their open hostility to religion — something Van Jones has been critical of within his own party. Also look at their forced homogeneity on abortion, transgenderism, etc. There is far more diversity of opinion within the GOP on those issues and a willingness to let them play out at the state level instead of mandating them from Washington. Put that together in a Presidential package in 2020 and Trump can coast to victory, barring an economic catastrophe (see e.g. tariffs and trade war).

Does Clinton Inc. Have its own Dictionary?

The Clintons’ tendency to redefine words is hardly a shock to political observers. However, recently revealed information regarding unreported foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation suggests that an English to Clinton dictionary is a critical addition to our libraries…but those definitions are secrets Hillary actually cares to safeguard…

Sec. Clinton’s ethics agreement with the Obama Administration stipulated that they would be notified if a new foreign government donated to the Foundation, or if an existing donor wished to materially increase their support. Since the Wikileaks emails have shown significant amounts of foreign contributions, Clinton Inc. has latched on to the definition of “Materially increase” as their saving grace.

“Materially increase” is a vague phrase but one that I think we might find some general agreement on. If a donor increases their overall funding by, say 25%, perhaps that would be a material increase. Or if they initiated a significant one-time gift, that wasn’t part of a long-term giving strategy. Well, the Clintons’ dictionary defines that phrase a bit differently, so you’d be wrong.

We know this because Foundation and Campaign operatives have said that neither the $1 Million unreported donation from Qatar or the nearly 300% increase in funding from the British Government meet that critical reporting threshold.

Perhaps I’m alone in this, but the idea that neither $1 Million nor a 300% donation boost rises to the definition of “material increase,” is quite baffling.

Even further, it’s now clear that at least 8 foreign countries gave unreported first-time contributions or increased their donations. While the Clintons may be able to get mileage from stretching the definition of “material increase,” it’s a bit harder to say that a first-time donor isn’t a new donor…

While Campaign and Foundation lackeys have run to microphones to claim the “material increase” clause is their stay-out-of-jail-card, all attempts at identifying what they believe that term to mean have been met with silence.

At least when President Clinton challenged the definition of “is,” he was willing to offer an alternative explanation, however dubious…Hillary, on the other hand, doesn’t even trust these secrets to her faithful server!

The FBI Is Investigating the Clinton Foundation

James Comey may have been the Democrats’ hero in July, but he’s the enemy now. The Democrats are preparing to go, at least metaphorically, Fort Marcy Park on him. Why? In addition to notifying Congress of potential new emails under investigation, the FBI has been looking into the Clinton Foundation as well.

What is most notable is that the political appointees in the Justice Department and FBI have been trying to stymie the career FBI agents. The career FBI agents have pushed back and continued their investigation. Now the Democrats are left in the intellectually dishonest position of attacking James Comey only a few months after praising his professionalism. They will not let honesty stand in the way of protecting their precious.

Another interesting aspect of this investigation is that the Loretta Lynch Justice Department has actively worked to block the FBI probe.

Anticorruption prosecutors at the Justice Department told the FBI at the meeting they wouldn’t authorize more aggressive investigative techniques, such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way, these people said.

For all the talk Democrats give about Donald Trump undermining the election with his rhetoric, the Democrats are doing the same thing now. They’re not claiming Comey is trying to throw the election. They’re now claiming the process is rigged. They are now undermining the republic by turning the search for truth and justice into a partisan witch hunt.