Posse Incitatus

In Defense of Marianne Williamson

A lot of conservatives are picking apart the aphorisms of Democrat presidential hopeful Marianne Williamson and though I initially joined in the laughter, I've since come to conclude that it's poor form.

Whether you like self-help gurus or not, a lot of what she says is good to hear and worth repeating.

It's interesting that the Catholic Conservatives on Twitter are frantically retweeting many of her items about God and spirituality (particularly forgiveness) and they seem to be doing it in an unironic way, adding positive commentary.

Of course, there's also a little fun going on here, since I'm sure she considers traditionalist right-to-lifers to be her mortal...adversaries, or something.  Maybe enemies.  She doesn't like Trump, that's for sure.

At any rate, her qualities as a motivator may be debatable but her qualifications for executive power are not.  There is no indication that her skillset is suitable to navigate the twisted Machiavellian world of international relations. 

The funny thing is I think Trump could charm the socks off her.  A debate between them would simply be him admitting that all the things she thinks are correct and that he too wants a better world. 

Contra the Quisling Never Trumpers, one of the things that attracts evangelical and other Christians to Trump is his lack of pretension regarding morality.  He doesn't judge and doesn't claim to be holier than anyone else.  He seems genuinely in awe of observant religious people.

He's also the first president in decades to take the Right to Life movement seriously and speak openly about what abortion is in practical terms.  He's taken concrete action as well to defend religious freedoms, which cannot be overlooked.

We may admire saints, but they do not always make the best practical leaders.  Gandhi was a very spiritual man (albeit with a number of seldom-discussed oddities) but in terms of politics, he was a disaster and the party he led became a sink of crony corruption.

A less spiritually enlightened man might have served India (and Pakistan and Bangladesh) much better.

Trump visits North Korea

The critics will say the meeting was only symbolic, but that's the point.

Symbols exist because they mean something.  The left is obsessed with symbolism and much of their time seems consumed with inventing honors to bestow on one another.  Actual positive results?

Not so much.

Where this goes, no one can say, but it's clear that Trump is driving a wedge between North Korea and China.  As in so many other areas, he's refused to play the game he was offered because doing so was a sucker's bet.  Instead he's flipped the table and is doing his own thing.

Just as with the debate over immigrant, tariffs and abortion, Trump refuses to accept the old rules where conservatives play the role of noble losers while the Democrats stack the deck at every turn.

I don't even need to look, but I'm sure Max  Boot, Bill Kristol and the rest of the neocon warmongers are besides themselves with rage.  Why Trump is giving away the farm!  Kim doesn't deserve this level of respect!

Of course if Trump was full of bluster and following the same failed policies they touted for decades, they'd be insisting he was a madman bent on starting World War III, so there's a reason why such people are properly ignored.

In terms of the event itself, there is an upper limit to "firsts" in terms of breakthrough diplomacy.  On the one hand, this may all play out and stall, leaving no real change.  This is the risk Trump is running.

But the potential gain is considerable.  North Korea is built on a cult of personality.  Without the reverential awe the Kim family holds, all the security forces in the world would be useless.  He can only shake hands and embrace so many times before his people violently try to take the peaceful payoff he's dangling before them.

This might have been part of the discussion he had with his Chinese masters: put simply, he can't hold on indefinitely.  Unless China's willing to put aside the fiction of independence and send thousands of troops into to reinforce Kim's rule, there will eventually be an uprising by people tired of starving and willing to risk death for the prosperity they've been assured is already on the way.

That's the thing.  Rebellions rarely happen when things are getting worse; it's usually because there is an immediate hope that things can get better.  Seeing their leader greet the American leader and promise peace is like dangling the carrot before the proverbial mule.  It buys time for a while, but eventually the animal will need to eat.

I expect things to continue to move incrementally, lest the North Koreans lose control.  That's why there is this start-stop dynamic.  No one wants to see a border rush ala Germany.

In any event, we are witnessing historic events, even if the media would rather focus on weirdos claiming a non-rape rape in a dressing room a quarter century ago.

Exposing the Buffoonery

Some conservatives have criticized President Trump or questioned his judgment for agreeing to spend time with media hacks like George Stephanopoulos and F. Chuck Todd. Why should he, they ask, when it’s impossible to get a fair shake from these left-wing journalists. This is just another opportunity for the hacks and their networks to take potshots at the president; to hit him with loaded questions; to do selective editing and the usual quoting out of context.

But, the truth is, Trump knows that he can toy with these clowns. Without putting forth much effort, he can humiliate them and expose their shallowness for all the world to see. In the case of Todd, who during a recent interview badgered, interrupted and frequently attempted to talk over the president's answers, Trump basically allowed the buffoon to show his true colors. Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

There is zero chance the vertically challenged Todd (5' 2") or Stephanopoulos (5'5") would have interrupted or frequently challenged Barack Obama if they'd been inside the Oval Office while he was president. Quite the contrary: They would have been lap dogs, tossing softballs left and right and shamelessly buttering up their savior.

By now, anyone who hasn’t been living like a hermit knows that the Trumpster marches to his own beat. His frequent tweeting is unprecedented, but highly effective. His unfiltered, sometimes outlandish statements are often provocative, but totally refreshing in an era of phony, scripted pols who talk out of both sides of their mouths and ooze with egotism and narcissism.

One of the most underused and unneeded jobs on planet earth would be that of advisor or "handler" to Donald J. Trump. You could coach & cajole him all you want, plead with him, urge him, implore him, and he'll just go out there and let it rip. He has no qualms about meeting with the media unprepared and spouting things straight off the top of his head. Sometimes he's inaccurate or stretches the truth. (Translation: lies). Occasionally he's offensive or off-color. But you'll always know where he stands .... unless .... unless he's playing a head game and trying to get people to think one thing so he can end up doing something completely different. (Isn't there something about that in "The Art of War"?)

Never a dull moment with Donald Trump. But he's doing a lot of things right, and that's what counts. At this juncture, polls showing Democrat candidates who could beat him in November 2020 are about as useful as a weather forecast for Nov. 3, 2020. It's his election to lose. And despite the vitriol and contempt so many in the Fourth Estate have for him, he will undoubtedly continue to, metaphorically speaking, give them enough rope to hang themselves.

 

 

 

Economic Illiterates

One of many criticisms I have had about Democrats for years is their extreme illiteracy when it comes to basic economics. This applies to everything from raising the minimum wage to unsustainable levels, to guaranteeing mortgages for unqualified people with bad credit records, to promising exorbitant pension benefits to public employees.

Many of these policies have wrecked public sector budgets (leading to rising taxes and in some cases, municipal bankruptcies) and put crushing burdens on small businesses, forcing some of them to lay off workers or just close their doors forever. In recent years, higher education has become another illustration of the folly of liberal spending policies.

For the first time in history, student loan debt (over $1.5 trillion) exceeds credit card debt and auto loan debt. Compound interest causes debt levels to continue rising even after graduates are out in the real world (hopefully making good money, but too often earning miserable wages because their degrees are useless). The Brookings Institute estimates that up to 40 percent of current college students will default on their student loan debt.

Now presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is proposing that all student loan debt be canceled (one-upping rival Elizabeth Warren, who proposed canceling $640 billion of the debt). Both propose making all undergraduate programs at public colleges and universities free.

One of the reasons universities have been jacking up tuition rates annually is the fact these institutions often stray from their key educational mission into social justice, diversity programs, environmental initiatives and the like. Diversity consultants, counselors to coddle wimpy students with Play Doh when their safe spaces have been invaded, and glitzy marketing programs all contribute to rising costs, as does the building boom. True, construction of new arenas, art museums and cultural centers often comes from money given by wealthy alumni. But it still takes university dollars to staff these facilities, maintain them and and pay for utility bills. 

Higher enrollment -- i.e., demand outpacing supply of professors and classrooms --  than 20 or 30 years ago is another contributor to academic inflation. Many students really don't belong in college, but they've been brainwashed that a college degree is their ticket to success. Not enough are made aware of the good careers they could pursue by attending a vocational/technical school at a fraction of the cost of earning a bachelor's degree. Okay, maybe it's not glamorous to be an HVAC technician, construction manager, plumber, welder or dental hygienist. But these are good jobs -- much better than preparing lattes in the coffee shop for $9 or $10 an hour, like so many hapless college grads who are $40K in debt with nothing to show but a useless degree in sociology, psychology or gender studies.

Aside from the reasons I've mentioned, a huge reason for out-of-control escalating tuition costs is Uncle Sam's decision to become a major player in the student loan arena which, not coincidentally, has greatly increased the pool of available funds. In many cases, the U.S. Department of Education pays the interest on a loan until at least six months after a student graduates. It's easy to rack up debt and delude yourself into thinking you'll be able to handle it after you graduate and get a "real job," but often the interest proves devastating, and that elusive good-paying job is a lot harder to get than you had imagined if you pursued a non-STEM academic path.

Quite simply, more student loan money is the gasoline poured on the fire of rising tuition rates. Kind of like the "nature abhors a vacuum" principle. Academia abhors unused federal dollars, and goes after student loan money like a junkie going after heroin.

There are probably other reasons for escalating tuition that I have not even cited. And I am neither an economist, an accountant nor a financial advisor. I'm simply someone who takes the time to be informed, and a person with economic common sense. The "gimmie-ism" of today's Democrat Party is for simple-minded people who are, quite frankly, behaving like four-year-olds. As my father's generation so wisely proclaimed, "There is no free lunch."

The scores of naive people who fall for the snake oil salesmen of the Democrat Party such as Sanders and Warren and their impractical, unrealistic ideas reaffirm in my mind that ignorance of Economics 101 is off the charts. Ignorance -- of economics, history, and the U.S. Constitution -- is so rampant, that it's highly disheartening when "get out the vote" campaigns only care about numbers of voters, and not about individuals' ability to think critically and put forth the effort to read about the issues and do some research. Get those ignorant hordes out there to vote for anyone with a "D" beside his/her name!

The dumbing down of the voting process is something I ranted about a few months ago. Economic illiteracy is a big part of this fiasco, and it seems to be getting worse.

 

The Conservative Counter-Reformation

The intra-conservative debate over David French-ism has abated.  If anything, the anti-French-ist forces are building newer and more powerful arguments to assert their position.

These are moving beyond the realm of tactics and into the weeds of the entire philosophical basis of conservatism and the fundamental weakness at the core of classical liberalism.

In a nutshell, liberalism has failed because it places individual autonomy at the highest plane, making moral considerations secondary at best.

Thus, David French's claim that "sincere religious belief" has to be respect must necessarily collapse when said religion hurts someone else's feelings.  Their "right" to be free of offense supersedes someone else's "right to hate."

Indeed, we're seeing this argument already being deployed by the left.  Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel recently said that religious beliefs cannot justify "hate," and of course she's the one who gets to decide which beliefs are acceptable.

In a sense, this debate somewhat mirrors the old Catholic vs Protestant split, with non-conformists being deeply distrustful of state power and therefore blind to discrimination by non-state actors.

Senator Josh Hawley's bill requiring online platforms to be certified as non-discriminatory as a condition for legal immunity from defamation lawsuits is a great example of this split.  The French-ist wing claims that the left will abuse this regulatory authority should they gain power - ignoring that the left already has de facto power over the marketplace.

The left can also (and has) twisted its regulatory power without provocation, so they don't require a precedent in order to abuse their authority.

It is an open question on how much of this debate is really corporate shills earning paychecks to defend their sugar daddies.  Jonah Goldberg in particular seems to argue almost entirely from a dishonest position and seems to spend his time picking - and losing - Twitter fights with actual conservatives. 

Tellingly, he's the first to make personal attacks and when they are reciprocated, runs around asking for backup against his target.  Amusingly, the reinforcements almost always accrue to whoever he's fighting.

Trump's Persian dance

The question of how the US should respond to Iran’s increasing provocations has two components: strategic and political.

From a strategic perspective, the US holds almost all the cards.  Iran’s economy is collapsing, its people seethe with rebellion and its military might is incapable of causing significant harm to the US homeland.  A series of terrorist strikes would – at – simply enrage the American people to the point of delivering even more devastation on Iran.

The only way Iran can prevail would be to provoke a US ground invasion ala Iraq in 2003.  This is the one option American planners are determined to avoid.

With this option off the table, the Iranians can only resort to constricting oil traffic through the Persian Gulf.  Here again, though, the damage will primarily land on everyone but the United States.

The US is far less dependent on Arab oil than it was only a few years ago.  At the same time, China is much more dependent, thus Iran’s closure of oil traffic would inflict the greatest harm on the strategic rival of Iran’s enemy. 

Even the Mad Mullahs would have to think twice about inflicting more pain on “the enemy of their enemy” than the do on their enemy.

This brings us to the political question.  The Democrats are totally at a loss on this.  Having started disastrous wars in Libya and Syria while achieving nothing but a bloody stalemate in Afghanistan, they’re in no position to play the “give peace a chance” card.

The Obama administration’s rapprochement was also a highly publicized failure.  Americans have an instinctive hatred of paying tribute and the Dems arguing that the US should bend the knee and beg for Iran’s forgiveness is a non-starter.

Yesterday Trump was poised to launch a retaliatory strike, but very publicly claimed to have an 11-th hour change of heart.

This is not – as the Quisling Never Trump Warmongers would have us believe – proof that the president is irresolute.

Far from it, the highly publicized nature of this decision makes it clear that it was a psy-op, designed to scare the Iranians, as well as other potential adversaries.

The Trump strategy team is highly capable and understands the interrelatedness of diplomatic moves.  When the US retreats against Iran, it looks weak everywhere else. 

This is in direct contrast with the neoliberal perspective, which divides each nation or region into a discrete and separate theater of operations.

We saw this early on, when Trump ordered a missile strike on Syria while having dessert with the Chinese Premier.  The president as simply making an object lesson.

That’s exactly what’s going on here.  As the US continues delicate trade negotiations with China, Trump is letting the world know that next time he might push the button all the way down – and blow up their economies in the process.

Thus the Dems are either damning Trump for almost launching a strike while curing the bad luck that he didn’t.

At the same time, they worry that he might undertake a short, successful punitive strike that will boost him in the polls.

This puzzle is particularly problematic for front-runner Slow Joe Biden, who voted for the Iraq War, claimed it was a success, and of course was involved in the Libya and ISIS fiascoes.

This is why Trump held his fire.  He can keep all of his enemies twisting in the wind while still putting the screws to Iran.

The Dems and Neocons screaming “Iran called his bluff!” can easily be shut down by asking how many dead Americans they want to see in this new shiny war they advocate.

Once again, Trump calls the tune and everyone dances.

Iran's Wag the Dog Moment

Things are not going well in Iran. Its people, better educated and more informed that most citizens of the Middle East, are well aware their government is a fraud and it lies constantly about the "Great Satan" America. Despite a police state, massive surveillance and the threat of torture and execution, millions of Iranians have protested on the streets in recent years, and Iranian women often flout the seventh century clothing restrictions of the geriatric Islamofascists in charge.

The nasty mullahs in Tehran know they're sitting on a powder keg, and high inflation, rampant joblessness and a huge population of resentful youth make for a tense situation. What better time for them to "wag the dog," as the expression goes, to take pressure off the regime?

In the past couple of months, Iran has engaged in numerous antagonistic activities. Besides last week's merchant ship attacks, Iran has sent missiles into Saudi Arabia, while Hezbollah, its Islamofascist proxy in Lebanon, has attacked Israel with missiles. Earlier this week, the Iranians shot down a U.S. drone over the Strait of Hormuz.

Orange Julius is not the crazy, testosterone-charged warmonger his critics make him out to be. He's refrained from military confrontation with North Korea, and withdrew troops from Syria and Afghanistan. It would not be a bad idea to lob a few missiles at the Iranian air base that is responsible for some of the recent attacks. Who could forget when the Trumpster dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on  and ISIS target in Afghanistan? Iran may be next.

Trump is a realist. He harbors no naïve hopes of the Iranians behaving in a civilized manner and agreeing to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. He will not give them billions of dollars in hopes they use it productively. The idealistic lightworker who occupied the Oval Office for eight years has already tried playing nicey-nice with Iran, and they pretty much spit in his face.

Trump will not kowtow to the mullahs while they lie about their nuclear ambitions, support terrorists throughout the world and align themselves with pariahs such as Bolivarian thug Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.

As I type, Trump and his top military advisors are considering taking action against Iran. It might be a good thing to kick 'em in the shins. I highly doubt there's much risk of it escalating into a major conflict. Iran is like a typical bully: Punch back, and they'll cower. It's a paper tiger, and the rest of the world is damned sick of their garbage.

 

 

 

 

 

Big Government Vs. Big Tech

Those of us who are Michigan State Spartans fans have a dilemma when two arch-enemies -- both known for their arrogance and both of which used to dominate the Spartans in football -- play against each other. When the University of Michigan locked horns with Notre Dame, some Spartan fans would joke that it's like Hitler Vs. Satan. Or Hitler Vs. Stalin. 

Granted, that's an over-the-top analogy. But it's the type of clash that comes to mind when I hear the federal government rattling sabers about cracking down on large Silicon Valley tech companies for their abuses, mistakes and recklessness.

Distrust of big tech comes from both the Left and the Right. Both sides have grave reservations about Amazon.com, which has been a retail mega-bully, pummeling competitors from coast to coast, emptying out shopping malls, squashing department stores and making it difficult for mom-n-pop concerns to compete in the brick-and-mortar world of Main Street and malls.

Leftists are most upset about data breaches and misuse of users' personal information, e.g., tech companies packaging and selling user preferences to marketing companies and retailers. Lax security protocols lead to credit card numbers, social security numbers, email addresses, demographics, income information and other data being exposed on the dark web. The Left is also concerned about fake news and automated "bots" that they foolishly believe cost Hillary Clinton the election in 2016.

Conservatives, on the other hand, while upset with the frequent abuse of personal information and data breaches that have let loose millions of social security numbers over the years, are primarily concerned with the ideological biases of social media companies and search engines.

It's been pretty well established that Google's algorithms tend to produce left-leaning search results and suppress conservative websites and publications. Twitter, Facebook and other social media companies have been uneven in their crackdowns on users who show strong ideological leanings. Conservatives are far more likely to be kicked off a platform for so-called "hate speech" than are liberals.  (Editor's Note: To leftists, "hate speech" is candid, conservative commentary that is in direct opposition to the leftist narrative and treats with contempt the politically correct way of doing things.)

In general, large organizations, whether the federal government, corporations, labor unions or the Catholic Church, tend to rot from within. Integrity and accountability are hard to come by when an organization becomes gigantic. Put simply, there are just too many people and lots of moving parts, not to mention untold variables that are impossible to predict. 

A part of me will be glad if Uncle Sam cracks down on big tech. They've got it coming. Just like the execrable Wells Fargo, which has been called on the carpet innumerable times for its crooked activities and gross incompetence, I will be glad to see the feds kick some butt. (Full disclosure: I made the huge mistake of getting our home refinanced by Wells Fargo more than 10 years ago. This corporation is total garbage, and I'll forever regret my failure to conduct due diligence.)

However, with that being said, there are untold examples of the feds lording it over the private sector and worsening an already bad situation. With the intent of helping consumers, Uncle Sam often makes things worse. What better example than Obamacare? This ham-handed legislation ended up enriching insurance companies and forcing millions of consumers to pay for services and coverage they don't need and would never purchase willingly if given a choice (OB-GYN care for men, for example.) It also forced millions of families to have to shell out many thousands of dollars for premiums, AND have huge deductibles.

If Obama had been able to get his way, he would have rammed green energy down our throats, replacing fossil fuels with windmills and solar panels, and the idiotic cap-and-trade system would have reamed consumers. "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Hey, at least he was honest for a change.

I'd feel a lot better about big government cracking down on big tech, IF I thought we'd be better off because of it. The problem is, past experience does not instill confidence.

Shoeless Joe Jackson; Spineless Joe Biden

My headline was just a feeble attempt at alliteration ... I'll tell you why "Sleepy Joe," as the Trumpster calls him, is spineless, but first let me digress a bit on Joe Jackson --- two of 'em, as a matter of fact.

First, there's the British musician named Joe Jackson who had several hits in the late 1970s / early 1980s, including "Is She Really Going Out With Him" and "Steppin' Out." He's a talented composer, pianist and producer. But other than his name, he has little in common with the other two Joe's I'm writing about.

As for "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, you have to go back six or seven decades prior to the musician's heyday. In the early 1900's SJJ was a star outfielder for the Chicago White Sox. He got his nickname when, while playing in a game in his native South Carolina, he removed a pair of cleats that were giving his feet blisters, and went to bat in his socks. He got a hit and ran the base paths in his socks. According to Wikipedia, a fan shouted out, "You shoeless son of a gun, you!" and the name stuck.

SJJ was associated with the infamous Chicago Black Sox scandal in which Jackson and seven other White Sox players were accused of accepting bribes to throw the 1919 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. Although a jury acquitted the eight players two years later, the commissioner of baseball banned them from ever playing again.

So there's my daily dose of digression... Now on to Spineless Joe Biden, a hack who has had his own shameful moments and foolish gaffes over the years. So many, in fact, that I'm not going to regurgitate them, except to say that it still gives me a good belly laugh whenever I watch that video of Sleepy Joe acknowledging a man in a wheelchair and asking him to stand up and be recognized. "Oh, what am I doing," Joe chided himself. "God love ya, man! Let's everybody stand up and give Chuck a hand..."

In recent months, Biden has positioned himself as a moderate Democrat -- the one out of the two dozen or so contestants who has a legitimate chance of beating Trump in 2020. Without coming out and saying it, his messaging seems to be implying what former Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill said during the 2018 election (she lost): "I'm not one of those crazy Democrats."

But one thing has been a liability to Biden in his bid to secure the Democrat nomination (one thing, that is, discounting the fact he's an old white guy in a skin pigmentation-obsessed party): His longtime support for the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits use of federal funds to pay for abortions (with exceptions being to save the mother's life or if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest).

So, sure as clockwork, Biden folded like a cheap suit. He came out a few weeks ago and did an about-face, saying he was wrong to support the Hyde Amendment all of those years. "I can't justify leaving millions of women without access to the care they need and the ability to exercise their constitutionally protected right," he said, hoping to get back in the good graces of his party's significant left flank.

But I strongly suspect Biden will lose more prospective voters than he'll gain from this gutless, spineless move. Lunch Pail Joe loves to boast about the fact he grew up in working class Scranton, Pa., and is a so-called devout Roman Catholic. Twenty or 30 years ago -- long before the craziness of transgendered identity politics and fantasies about abolishing fossil fuels overtook his party --  Biden attracted blue collar, working class voters who traditionally had supported Democrats.

But now, many of those folks are in Trump's camp. They're fed up with radicalism and unsettling cultural changes being shoved down their throats. They deeply resent being labeled bitter clingers and deplorables by millions of smug, elitist Democrats who think they're smarter than the rest of us and whose contempt for flyover country knows no limits.

What Biden did in casting aside the Hyde amendment is similar to what many RINOs have done in recent years when they decided to abandon their previous pro-life positions and become "pro-choice" in hopes they could peel off more independent voters and moderate Republicans from their Democrat opponents. Yes, they may attract a few more of those suburban soccer moms and RINO Republicans, but they will also lose plenty of conservatives who will either vote for a third party candidate or won't vote at all in that election because they rightfully consider abortion to be a heinous act. It's happened time and time again.

What the heck: It's Saturday and I've already started off by rambling about a musician and a baseball player. Why not throw in a crude analogy about Joe: He's like a divorced 40-year-old woman, emotionally scarred, yet still somewhat attractive, and milling about the singles bar competing against babes half her age. Looking for Cougar opportunities, she's hiked up her skirt, put on tons of makeup and  lipstick, downed a few drinks to eliminate whatever shred of modesty and inhibition she once had, and basically advertised herself as willing to go home and put out for the first (non-slug) guy who asks her. In other words, Biden has zero principles, and it's painfully obvious.

The corrupt media has been replete with polls showing how Biden could beat Trump in the general election, and here in Michigan, they're saying Sleepy Joe leads Orange Julius by 11 points. Ah, but lest we forget, Hillary was favored over Crazy Bernie Sanders by 20 points in Michigan's May 2016 Democrat primary, and the old Marxist beat her. Polls are about as reliable as forecasts from economists and weathermen. In other words, not very accurate.

Which enables me to segue into another thought:

HAD ENOUGH ABUSE? I have been one of many conservatives asking for years why the African American community doesn't wake up and stop blindly giving 90-95 percent support to Democrats in presidential elections. I am encouraged that thanks to articulate, intelligent black spokespeople such as Candace Owens and Allen West, more and more blacks are realizing that the Democrats' opposition to school choice, open borders immigration policies, support of gay marriage and transgendered identity politics, and advocacy of Planned Parenthood are positions that are destroying large swaths of the African American community. Because of these issues and the healthy economy, I'd be willing to bet that black support for Trump will shock the dimwits of the corrupt and inept media. It might be surprisingly high -- maybe in the 20-30 percent range. Another group that needs to wake up and smell the coffee is Jewish Americans, who have traditionally supported Democrats. The anti-semitism among Democrats is raging like a wildfire, and the cowardly Democrat House couldn't even bring itself to pass a strongly worded resolution denouncing anti-Semitic bigot Rep. Ilhan Omar for her anti-Jewish remarks. Expect a fair number of these Democrats to either vote for Trump or simply sit out the 2020 presidential election. Bad news for Democrats, but they're so off-the-charts egotistical and narcissistic, I doubt they even realize it.

 

 

 

 

 

Oberlin college gets smacked for $44 million in defamation suit

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

Folks who haven't been following the case closely  may not know that Ohio's ultra-liberal Oberlin College got in to a bit of hot water when its administration decided to weaponize the students against a local bakery.

Legal Insurrection has provided exhaustive coverage, which I will not bother repeating.  

What's significant is that a liberal-dominated institution did its usual thing: insult and try to destroy honest, hard-working people with an onslaught of lies.  When it failed, they figured they could just walk away.

The jurors disagreed.

For too long the people who style themselves the elites have treated individual reputations like toilet paper - something to be smeared with feces and then flushed away.

Part of the problem is that the US Supreme Court gravely weakened libel law, making it hard for the little guy to defend himself.

All that seems to be changing, and the ruling class has no one to blame but themselves.  Read through the link I gave and ponder the combination of arrogance and incompetence at work here.  These people should be asking if you want a shot of whipped cream on your latte, not boasting of their academic achievement.  It is a mark of the terminal decline of higher education that these people somehow achieved positions of prominence.

I'll be watching the Covington Kids cases with great interest, because here too, the rich and powerful will finally find themselves held to account by the commoners.