Friday, October 30, 2020

There's Something Happening Out There The Elite Refuses To See

Okay, I know what the media polls say…they say exactly what the media wants them to say. I also know that the non-media polls, and literally every other indicator, say that Donald Trump is going to win in six days. And one reason is the excitement for the president that is bubbling up out there. I‘ve never felt excitement like this about a presidential election, and I was literally at Ronald Reagan’s final campaign appearance ever in 1984 (November 5th, Mission Valley, San Diego).

Okay, if you want to despise millennials even more than you ever thought possible, watch this nightmare.

Also, doesn’t it seem kind of weird that the biggest corruption scandal in American history is entirely AWOL from the mainstream media? No? Exactly. I’m not surprised either and that may be the scariest thing about this unprecedented flex toward soft totalitarianism.

The Excitement Is All For Trump

I’m sitting with Irina at a diner in the heart of Ted Lieu’s district, munching on a patty melt after an evening out with the genius behind this soon-to-be-a-classic classic anti-Badfinger ad, and these cars and trucks waving Trump flags start going by. They’re honking, I’m pumping my fist, and some lumpy tuber who looks like a CNN anchor starts whining and it’s awesome. Then a dude in a Porsche Cayenne rolls up and steps out with a MAGA hat. And just down the road, a couple thousand people gathered for a rally – with no Trump or Pence or anyone in sight.

Again: Ted Lieu’s district.

You can tell me about polls and the electorate make-up and all that stuff, but even in deep blue Cali people are coming out for Trump. And this does not undermine the “shy Trump” theory. A lot of these out Trump folks work for themselves, or are not married to shrews, or are otherwise invulnerable to anti-Trump retaliation by the wokestapo. The fact is, people are pumped.

But you look at Hoover’s baby’s baby-daddy’s daddy and he couldn’t attract a crowd if they were pouring free Mad Dog on skid row. Kamala is doing her awkward booty-shaking on stage before spare audiences and it’s cringe central (while Trump’s perky two-step to YMCA is hilarious and joyful). They airdropped Obama into Philly to pester a few passersby with a bullhorn and it’s pathetic.

My anecdotal experience – and right now, I trust that over all the MSNBCNN polls in the world showing Biden +37 – is that 1) a lot of folks who did not go for Trump in 2016 are coming around, and 2) almost no people are migrating from Trump to Biden. Now, the non-Trumpers in 2016 might have disliked him, or gone for McMuffin, or didn’t vote at all. Some are like a rapper known, for some reason I don’t want to know, as “Lil Pump,” who tweeted Trump hate in 2016 and in 2020 tweeted a foul vid expressing his support for Trump’s tax policies in impolite terms. I’ll not bother linking. But in short, there are lots of reasons more people are moving to Trump. As for those moving to Biden? That brings us to our next topic…

What The Hell Is Wrong With These People?

What is the thought process that leads you to not only hassle your dying dad about who he is voting for but to post a video about it with this look on your mug like you are expecting a pat on the head?

This lunatic’s father is terminal, and he was a Trump voter. So, nightmare daughter decides to pester him to the point where he finally tells he her voted for Biden. I hope he lied to shut her up. But the really horrifying thing is that this hellspawn thinks this was OK.

Basically, like many Democrats, she considers emotional blackmail and intimidation to be just fine. Think about that. She can’t win an argument. She can’t convince him. No, she basically has to tell him to do as she commands or he can die alone.

That’s not sick. Sick people can’t help it. That’s evil. And evil is a choice.

Like I said, I hope he lied.

Let’s Just Not Do The News

Here’s the strangest part of the unanimous mainstream media blackout of the outrages of the Biden Crime Clan. It’s that we aren’t more shocked. Imagine ten years ago if someone told you that all the mainstream media outlets would give a full and complete pass to a presidential candidate in October whose brat was there in black and white hustling influence and dollars from foreigners (let’s not even get into what’s there in full and atrocious color). We all knew the media was garbage back then, but if someone told us that the media outlets would conspire and consciously decide to jointly to refuse to report on it (except in the vaguest “GOP Pounces!” terms) we would think he was nuts. Why, they would be all over it.

Fast forward to 2020 and that’s exactly what has happened (aided by giant corporations who own the social media platforms) and we’re like “Oh, yeah, figures.” And that Twitter has shut down a newspaper’s account (The NY Post) because it is reporting things Twitter does not think you should hear, and that the entire mainstream media support this corporate censorship of the press, likewise gets a shrug if not applause.

This should shock the hell out of us. But no one is surprised.

Yeah, I’m sure the short-term advantage in this election gained at the cost of any remaining shreds of credibility will be totally worth it for the media in the long run. When that mean old Trump is gone, things will totally go back to normal.


Look, I hate the mainstream media and would detonate it like Eniwetok Atoll given the chance, but nothing I could ever do could even approach inflicting the damage upon it that the mainstream media has inflicted upon itself.

The clock is ticking. Support great conservative candidates who can win back purple seats, like Sean Parnell in Pennsylvania and Michelle Steele in California. They can do it if you help!

Which Way Will John Roberts Move?

John Roberts has a decision to make: right or left?

Roberts, our nation’s chief justice, now presides over a 6-3 sort-of-conservative Supreme Court majority

The Court’s liberal wing now has just three justices: Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. By themselves, these three are powerless to decide cases. But for a time, they, along with their fellow liberal justice, the now-deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were able to cobble together a majority in numerous high-profile cases by virtue of Chief Justice Roberts’s willingness to move leftward and join them.

Constitutional conservatives were disappointed to say the least, because they’d seen this movie before. Since 1970, Republican presidents have appointed a whopping 15 of our nation’s 19 Supreme Court justices. The only ones appointed by Democrats during the past half-century? Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. That’s it. Heck, if one counts Nixon appointee and Roe v. Wade majority opinion author Harry Blackmun, Ford appointee and Second Amendment opponent John Paul Stevens, Reagan centrists Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, George H.W. Bush disaster David Souter, and now Roberts, Republican presidents have appointed more liberal justices than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama combined.

And for those Democrats inclined to whine about this being Donald Trump’s third nominee in a single term, consider this: William Howard Taft seated five justices in a single term, and Warren Harding seated four in just two years before dying in office.

Regarding the leftward swing of Roberts in recent years, even Vice President Mike Pence, the most gentlemanly of Christian gentlemen, has seen enough. “We have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Pence said in August, “but Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives, whether it be the ObamaCare decision or whether it be a spate of recent decisions all the way through Calvary Chapel.”

Why Roberts did this, it’s hard to say, but maybe he’ll write a book one day. Conventional wisdom is that he feels an obligation as chief justice — a duty, even — to protect the reputation of the Court by ensuring that his side doesn’t run roughshod over the other. As of yet, though, we’re unable to lay our finger upon that section and clause within Article III that addresses roughshod running.

Another theory is that Roberts simply hates Donald Trump, and that he can’t pass up an opportunity to poke a stick in the president’s eye. This would explain the idiotic opinion he authored to preserve Barack Obama’s unconstitutional DACA diktat, as well as his 2019 decision against adding a simple and helpful citizenship question to the Census. But what about siding against a Nevada church and in favor of COVID restrictions? What about his overreach on workplace discrimination laws, and his striking down of a Louisiana law that put modest restrictions on abortion providers?

Still another theory is that the chief justice has an acute case of Swamp Fever and he’s gotten too used to being a darling of the Beltway cocktail scene. Perhaps it’s a bit of all of these.

In any case, the days of Roberts meaningfully siding with the Court’s liberal wing are over. He’s no longer the swing vote, no longer the new Anthony Kennedy. And that’s a good thing for those who love and respect our Constitution.

And so, Mr. Chief Justice: right or left? Let’s hope he isn’t listening to lefty columnist Dana Milbank of The Washington Post. “Whether the court regains its independence or cements itself as a third partisan branch of government is now largely up to Chief Justice John Roberts,” opined Milbank. “If he does not act, and fast, to mitigate the court’s politicization, Democrats will be fully justified in expanding the court’s membership to restore balance — and indeed will face a public outcry if they don’t.”

This is court-packing blackmail, of course, but Milbank doesn’t care. In fact, he goes on to suggest how Roberts can rescue his Court from its five duly seated conservative justices. First, he says, Barrett must recuse herself from any cases arising out of the election. Then the Court must uphold ObamaCare and put an end to all those pesky constitutional challenges to it. It must side with same-sex couples and against Catholic Social Services in an upcoming adoption case. Milbank had some additional demands, but we’ll stop there.

Our Harold Hutchison is more of a realist than Milbank, and he suggests that the new 6-3 Court may actually pull Roberts back to the right. How? By appealing to his desire to either write majority opinions or assign them, which he can do only when he’s part of the majority. So there’s hope.

Speaking of hope, in 1990, long before he ascended to the High Court, John Roberts wrote a brief on Roe v. Wade that stated, “The court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”

Would it be too much trouble to ask for that John Roberts to reappear?

The Democrat Party of Division and Hate

The Democrats' primary political strategy has been, and remains, to foment division, creating fear, anger, and hate.

If Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and their socialist Democrat cadre take control of our national government, at least we’ll have First Amendment protection from our Supreme Court to continue our advocacy of Liberty and Freedom.

That is, protection to continue until the Biden-Harris leftists pack the Court on their way to packing the Senate with statehood for Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico, while simultaneously abolishing the Electoral College. As a reminder, achieving the latter would give the people of Los Angeles County alone (population 10,040,000) more voice than those of 41 states with fewer people.

Should the oppression of our constitutional rights be accelerated, we will defend Liberty more vigorously than ever, side by side with tens of millions of grassroots Patriots, by whatever constitutional means necessary.

If my concerns about the Biden-Harris threat sound too strident, let me say that in context, my perspective is based on the leftist progression of three Democrat presidential administrations since I was first able to vote: those of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. In each of those administrations, the surge toward statist socialism was arithmetic, measurable by significant magnitudes. After Carter, Ronald Reagan turned back the tide, but neither Bush (41) nor Bush (43) did anything more than hold the line.

However, a Harris-Pelosi administration, once Biden has resigned, will take an exponential leap to the left, supported by a growing populist movement.
Looking back over almost 25 years of my political and policy analysis for The Patriot Post, advocacy firmly rooted in the previous 220 years forming our national legacy of American Liberty, one common denominator about the Democrat Party and its protagonists emerges: Invariably, over the years, their primary political strategy has been, and remains, to foment division along identity lines, creating fear and anger, the outcome of which irrevocably devolves into hatred.

They then collude with their powerful Leftmedia and social media propagandists and influencers who ensure that division metastasizes.

Imagine, if you will, what the American political landscape would look like if the mass and social media platforms were actually politically neutral. That landscape would take a seismic shift to the right.

Ironically, Joe Biden visited Gettysburg this past week, where he channeled Abraham Lincoln’s famous address, declaring, “A house divided could not stand. That is a great and timeless truth. Today, once again, we are a house divided.” Biden was thus feigning a call for unity, but note the irony: If not for the Democrats’ perennial success at dividing the nation into political-identity constituencies, they would be powerless.

The Democrat Party is, in fact, the party of division and hate — and demonstrably so.

It is not Donald Trump supporters and young conservatives who form the violent BLM and so-called “antifa” fascist movements. These are not the “deplorables” for whom Hillary Clinton harbors so much arrogant disdain — or, likewise, those Trump supporters whom Biden calls “chumps.”

The leftists who were burning, looting, and murdering in urban centers all summer long are haters who have acted with the tacit approval of Biden and Harris and the rest of the Democrat Party.

To be clear: I’m not saying that all Democrats “feel” that hatred, though many are besieged by fear and anger — but hatred is the driving motivation for the protagonists, both those elected at all levels of government and the social activists who are funded by the Archenemies of Liberty — George Soros, Tom Steyer, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg.

Most of the suburban “white privilege” Democrats would like to believe they simply belong to a woke party, a progressive party of inclusion and peace. But it doesn’t take much to pull back the elitist facade far enough to expose the underlying fear and anger.

This is particularly true of Democrat women, who Demo strategists consider to be emotionally incontinent dupes. The Democrat Party is completely dependent on female voters — majorities of whom have elected every Democrat president since 1960 and have been a major force in midterm elections. In 2016, Trump won 52% of votes cast by men but only 41% of those cast by women, and that 11% gender gap was the largest in four decades of presidential elections. While that gap is understandable given Trump’s “style,” it cost him two years of a legislative agenda and an impeachment charade.

One thing common to almost all urban and suburban Democrat women: Few have ever been obliged to “support and defend” our Constitution at risk of blood and life, which in part explains the gender gap.

To keep women voters in line, Democrats create division primarily along two lines: gender and race. The latter line of division is also critical to co-opting the second most important Demo constituency, black voters.

The most prevalent division in this presidential campaign cycle has been, of course, race.

The Democrats have institutionalized “systemic disunity” in the name of “systemic racism,” giving rise to leftist mob rule while ignoring the pandemic of black-on-black murders nationwide.

Arguably, Democrats are the racist party, which is why racists are backing Biden. Unfortunately, urban and suburban Demo voters won’t consider the evidence supporting claims that are diametrically opposed to their perception of their Democrat Party.

Demonstrably, that party is loaded with constituents who are “obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.” That is also the definition of a bigot.

I asked our Patriot editors to list a few of the ways they see Democrat Party hate manifest itself. They responded: Demos demonstrate hate in their opposition to freedom of faith, traditional families, free and fair elections, freedom of speech, diversity of viewpoints on campus, school choice, and a rejection of ideas that do not comport with their own views. They demonstrate hatred with their embrace of censorship, so-called “critical race theory,” cancel culture, Big Tech blackouts, and genocidal abortion on demand. Only haters would divide the nation on so many lines. Only haters would politicize a pandemic only to then foment race riots as the nation suffered. And the Democrats’ hatred of our Constitution and Rule of Law was on full display with their treatment of the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett.

As for their unmitigated and unhinged hatred of Trump, this often manifests as hatred of and contempt for Trump supporters.

Trump, of course, did not create the hate, he exposed it — though admittedly he has, unfortunately, widened the gap. But the fact is, the Trump administration’s long list of accomplishments cross political lines — which is the Democrats’ greatest fear. For that reason, they have obstructed his path to reelection with their bulk-mail-ballot fraud.

As for where we find ourselves today, fellow Patriots, recall the words of George Washington in 1777, when the obstacles to American Liberty seemed insurmountable: “We should never despair, our situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new exertions and proportion our efforts to the exigency of the times.”

Fear not.

Coronavirus: Sad side-effect is our meek acceptance of Premiers’ power grab

And so the recovery begins. Lily-white Victorians are emerging from their homes, their forearms shielding themselves from the sun as they take tentative steps. Young children are discovering there is another world outside their five kilometres radius.

Cafés and restaurants on Carlton’s Lygon Street are chockers, families amble through the botanical gardens, crowds flock to St Kilda beach, and in the city’s south-east region marauding gangs will once again commit home invasions and carjackings.

Normality will not be restored overnight, however. Paradoxically, the absence of circling police drones will keep many awake who are accustomed to hearing their sound. Likewise, it will be a disconcerting experience for motorists to drive without stopping at checkpoints to produce papers. People will chat with their neighbours over the fence as opposed to reporting them to the authorities. East Germany made the transition, and surely Victoria can. Assuming of course there is no third wave.

Artists, musicians, and poets are probably writing peans for the Andrews government. You can expect soon to hear actor Magda Szubanski will be narrating the upcoming production “Dan, the Musical” in honour of the Victorian Premier.

The official Victorian version of the state’s recovery will make for amusing reading.

Yesterday Health Minister Martin Foley claimed the state’s contact tracing system had withstood the “stress test of the real world”; while Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton maintained it was the best in the country. Spare us. This is the same department which only two months ago was using spreadsheets, pen, paper, and fax machines for contact tracing.

It would be premature to talk of Australia having beaten COVID-19, but not so to talk about the virus’ legacy. Sadly, it is a depressing one overall. To begin with, it has shown how ill-suited a federation is to deal with the crisis. Unlike New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who presides over a unitary system of government, the preferred approach of Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his cabinet largely meant naught when it came to the issue of a co-ordinated response.

Even calling our country a federation is a stretch. We are at best a confederation. Apart from NSW, the states have become fiefdoms. Almost overnight, being an Australian meant nothing if you attempted to cross a state border. South Australia, for example, at one stage was denying entry to Victorians in border towns who needed lifesaving medical treatment in Adelaide, while at the same time making plans to fly in 800 foreign students to its three universities.

Tasmanian Premier Peter Gutwein even ordered all non-Tasmanians to leave the island in March, declaring “I make no apologies for working hard to keep Tasmanians safe”.

Presumably he does not plan to expel GST allocation, which makes up 40 per cent of the state’s revenue.

A panicked response that leads to an arbitrary closure is one thing. But premiers playing to populist sentiment in closing their borders is another, as demonstrated by Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in her re-election campaign. As someone with a reputation as a vacillator and a mere figurehead, she seized on the virus to portray herself as a resolute leader. In doing so she shut out far north NSW residents, many of whom are dependent on Queensland hospitals for treatment.

In his maiden speech to Western Australia’s Parliament in 1996, a young Mark McGowan made much of his background as an officer in the Royal Australian Navy, a role in which presumably he put aside provincial yearnings. “It was Labor that successfully led this nation through the darkest days of both World Wars,” he said, lauding in particular the leadership of Prime Minister John Curtin.

As leaders, both Curtin and McGowan shared a couple of traits. Both were elected by the citizens of WA, but neither was born or raised in that state. That is where the similarity ends. Curtin was a principled man who unified the country under his leadership. Conversely, McGowan has opportunistically used the greatest threat to Australia since World War II to pick a fight with the rest of the country, having closed WA’s borders since March, even to residents from states and territories that have long recorded no cases of community transmission of the virus.

McGowan has insisted he is acting on health advice. But being a parochial braggart, he gave himself away earlier this month with his audacious declaration that opening WA to South Australia and the Northern Territory would bring no economic benefit. “All we would do is lose jobs, were we to open to those states,” he said. “They’re only saying all this for very self-interested reasons because we have higher incomes and people who are more used to travelling and therefore we will have more tourists from West Australians go to the east.”

As they say, if you wish to ascertain a man’s character, give him power.

Every Australian has a constitutional right to cross state borders, but that means little if the federal government does not act against those who would infringe it.

By and large, the Morrison government has only made token efforts to defend this right, instead relying on a proxy, that being mining billionaire Clive Palmer, who has initiated proceedings in the High Court against the WA Government.

According to Attorney-General Christian Porter, the Commonwealth simply wanted to realise “moderate middle ground” when it intervened when the matter was before the Federal Court, but he later withdrew from proceedings. It was both pusillanimous and disheartening. As such, any subsequent protest by Morrison against state closures merely emphasises his government’s impotence.

But only a fool would leave it to governments to protect civil rights, and this is an area where Australians have let themselves down badly. This virus has proved the anti-authoritarian element no longer exists in the Australian psyche. We have largely accepted questionable restrictions on our liberty but have condemned journalists who have insisted leaders account for these decisions. As evident in polling regarding support for border closures, premiers such as McGowan and Palaszczuk have delighted in our malleability.

And it is not just the politicians who increasingly exercise control over our lives. Thanks to the creeping effect we largely accept that officials in the form of anti-discrimination tribunes and human rights commissioners will regulate our behaviour. Now the virus has accelerated the rise of the bureaucratic class. Who could forget Queensland’s chief health officer Jeannette Young, who, having blocked interstate relatives from attending funerals, decided to admit Hollywood actor Tom Hanks because “entertainment and film bring a lot of money into this state”. Excuse me?

That is not to say that everything that follows this virus is bad. For example, it is refreshing to see people have little time for the climate change evangelists and rent-seekers. Yes, I am talking to you, Zali Steggall, the federal MP and self-proclaimed “climate leader” who is desperately seeking relevance. And for us OCD types, it is joyful to see the proliferation of automatic soap dispensers.

But perhaps the most evident legacy is the burgeoning government debt, which is expected to rise to $1.5 trillion by the end of the decade. We simply cannot continue this taxpayer-funded largesse. Instead we need innovative ideas to instigate an economic recovery.

On that note, it is vital when deciding that issue to utilise those parts of industry that have been dormant because of the virus. My big idea is to lobby Parliament to allow the deportations of non-citizens in cases when the person commits an offence that results in six months or more imprisonment (currently the minimum is 12 months).

This could be the answer to Qantas and Virgin’s recovery. Just think: we would need to commission an entire fleet of planes for the trans-Tasman route alone. I am not sure what is the most attractive proposition: the recovery of our airline industry or the thought of Jacinda losing it. What is your big idea?




No comments: