You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Democratic Party’ tag.

The 2020 Nevada caucus took place on Saturday, February 22.

The results were clear for President Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Republican caucus

On Friday, February 21, President Trump ended a whirlwind tour of Western states with a noonday rally in Las Vegas:

Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale has been tabulating the demographic make-up of those attending the president’s 2020 rallies. These were the results for the Nevada rally, attendance at which was not limited to Nevada residents. Out of state Trump supporters also attended:

The next day, the result was overwhelming for the incumbent:

According to these tweets, Parscale will continue to examine and target Nevada’s demographics in the run-up to November:

Democrat caucus

Bernie Sanders’s victory brought out naysayers on the Left, two of whom suggested that their much-despised — by them — incumbent would be a better choice than the socialist from Vermont. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said, ‘Perhaps Trump would be better’:

Let’s remind ourselves that President Trump is not a natural Republican:

But, I digress.

Sanders’s win was declared on Saturday evening, when it was still a projection:

As with the Iowa caucus, final results emerged two days later, because of the same issues that beset the Democrats in Iowa:

Sanders won 40.5% of the final (second round) Nevada caucus votes, with Joe Biden on 18.9% and Pete Buttigieg on 17.3%. Bernie walked away with 24 Nevada delegates, Biden nine and Buttigieg three.

Former Democrat US Senator Harry Reid now thinks the state should have a primary rather than a caucus:

Interestingly, before the caucus, Reid said he would not endorse the winner:

Another interesting development was a drop in the number of minorities taking part:

Is Sanders a viable candidate?

It’s hard to say at the moment whether Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate in the long run.

The United States has 47 primaries to follow. (The New Hampshire primary was held after the Iowa caucus.) Super Tuesday, when a number of states will conduct their primaries on March 3, should prove decisive for Democrats who are struggling to secure delegates. One-third of delegates will be in play that day.

Sanders wasted no time after his time in Nevada to push forward his admiration of socialism, namely that of Fidel Castro.

Obama, along with other prominent Democrats, has condemned Sanders’s brand of left-wing politics. This is somewhat hypocritical.

Remember this?

Their condemnation comes because Sanders’s vision for America is theirs, but, contrary to him, they want to progress more slowly, e.g. according to the boiling frog analogy. They want Americans to sleepwalk into it, by which time it would be too late to extract themselves from it.

Sanders is unlikely to win many delegates in South Carolina (seen to be Biden country) or Florida (resolutely anti-Castro). However, more urban- and university-focussed states could see him continue his success.

As President Trump said on Sunday, February 23:

Well, I think it was a great win for Bernie Sanders. We’ll see how it all turns out. They’ve got a lot of winning to do. I hope they treat him fairly. Frankly, I don’t care who I run against. I just hope they treat him fairly. I hope it’s not going to be a rigged deal because there’s a lot of bad things going on. And I hope it’s not going to be one of those. So we’ll see what happens.

But I congratulate Bernie Sanders. And if it’s going to be him, he certainly has a substantial lead. We’ll see what happens.

Indeed. The Democratic National Convention this summer will be telling. Will Sanders be denied once again, as he was in 2016?

The Iowa caucuses, both Republican and Democrat, took place on Monday, February 3, 2020.

They truly were a tale of two parties.

The Iowa caucus is the first presidential candidate — and delegate — selection during a general election year in the US.

On the eve of the Nevada caucus on Saturday, February 22, it’s worth revisiting.

Republican caucus

Not all of the Republican Iowa caucuses have gone smoothly in recent years.

This year’s did, and so did 2008‘s.

However, 2012‘s was very tight between Rick Santorum who finished narrowly in first place with 24.6% of the vote and Mitt Romney, in second with a nail-biting 24.5%.

In 2016, Ted Cruz was still at the top of his game, finishing first with 27.6%, and Donald Trump in second on 24.3%. Yet, that was the year that Cruz’s campaign workers spread false rumours to Ben Carson’s supporters that the good doctor had dropped out of the race. A lie! However, Carson’s paltry 9.7% ensured that he did drop out soon afterwards. Terrible!

That was how Donald Trump was able to attach the word ‘Lying’ to ‘Ted’ in a tweet with photos of both their wives. The Telegraph has more on the story.

Trump never let up on Cruz, either. Cruz folded in tears a couple of months later. Marco Rubio dropped out a day or two later, leaving candidate Trump the last man standing.

This year, Trump, the incumbent, had two minor rivals and ‘other’. William ‘Bill’ Weld, a former Massachusetts governor, garnered 1.3% of the vote and one delegate. Joe Walsh, a former Congressman for Illinois, came in third place with 1.1% of the vote and no delegates.

President Trump received 31,464 votes and 39 delegates.

There was a record turnout for an incumbent president, breaking Obama’s record of 25,000:

It was like a mini-rally in places:

Democrat caucus

The Democrat caucus resulted in confusion, much like 2016’s.

The 2016 caucus was held on February 1 that year. The Des Moines Register asked, ‘Iowa’s nightmare revisited: Was correct winner called?’

‘Nightmare revisited’ refers to the Republican result in 2012. As the newspaper reported in 2016:

This time it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Four years ago, the top Democrat candidates were Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (emphases mine):

Even as Hillary Clinton trumpeted her Iowa win in New Hampshire on Tuesday, aides for Bernie Sanders said the eyelash-thin margin raised questions and called for a review. The chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party rejected that notion, saying the results are final

At 2:30 a.m. Tuesday, Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Andy McGuire announced that Clinton had eked out a slim victory, based on results from 1,682 of 1,683 precincts.

Voters from the final missing Democratic precinct tracked down party officials Tuesday morning to report their results. Sanders won that precinct, Des Moines precinct No. 42, by two delegate equivalents over Clinton.

The Iowa Democratic Party said the updated final tally of delegate equivalents for all the precincts statewide was:

Clinton: 700.59

Sanders: 696.82.

That’s a 3.77-count margin between Clinton, the powerful establishment favorite who early on in the Democratic race was expected to win in a virtual coronation, and Sanders, a democratic socialist who few in Iowa knew much about a year ago.

Incredible.

In 2020, the result was also contested. Bernie Sanders came in a very close second to Pete Buttigieg:

– Bernie won the popular vote: 45,831 to 43,273, or 26.5% to 25.1%;

State delegate equivalents were as close as they were four years previously. Mayor Pete ended up with 563.2 and Bernie with 563.1.

Good grief.

Turnout was also low:

So, why, then, was it so difficult for the media to get the results?

This is what happened at CNN:

Bernie, understandably, was not best pleased as Buttigieg announced victory:

Two theories abound as to what happened this year.

One blames the fiasco on a new app that the Democrats were using. Another pins it on incompetence.

Here is a good summary of both:

The new app

Those who blame it on the new app point out that some high-profile people working on the campaign of Mayor Pete — dubbed Mayor Cheat after the caucus — knew the developers:

Questions also arose over ACRONYM:

Here’s more on that:

Shadow’s app looks as if it is/was set to be used in Nevada, too:

One hopes the bugs get ironed out by tomorrow, the 22nd, otherwise, it could look like another case of:

Incompetence

A week later, Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi wrote an excellent article about what he saw: ‘The Iowa Caucus Was Waterloo for Democrats’.

If you enjoy politics, you’ll want to read about his experience and about the Democrats he met on and before February 3.

Taibbi discounts the app as having been a factor in the caucus vote meltdown. He adopts the British philosophy of ‘cock-up before conspiracy’.

Excerpts follow.

There were problems with unauthorised precinct captains. The night before the caucus:

a 36-year-old Minnesotan named Chris Storey called a number he’d been given, for a woman who was chair of the Waukee 4 district. Thanks to a new rule allowing out-of-state volunteers to be precinct captains, he was set to represent the Sanders campaign there.

“We got along, it was great,” he recalls. “She told me she was looking forward to seeing me the next day.”

The next day, caucus day, Storey showed up at Shuler Elementary School in Clive, Iowa. The same official he’d spoken with the night before met him at the door. “It was like two different people,” he recalls. “I was told there was a written directive from the county chair that nonresidents could not be precinct captains.”

Sanders had to get a last-minute replacement captain in Waukee 4, someone not formally aligned with the campaign. He fell short of viability there by five votes. County chair Bryce Smith, who made the decision, said he was responding to a late directive from the Iowa Democratic Party that said they would allow one nonresident captain per campaign, per precinct, but “the discretion of the chair is what goes,” i.e., this ultimately was a judgment call for county chairs. Smith said he didn’t like the change to the long-standing rule — “What’s stopping a campaign from hiring professional persuaders and high-profile people?” he asked — and decided to bar nonresident captains. The IDP has not yet commented.

As a result, some would-be captains from multiple different campaigns in Dallas County were pulled off the job (Smith said he got “five, six, eight” calls to complain). Meanwhile, in other districts, nonresident captains were common

There were other issues:

Caucus participants later in the week would offer an eyebrow-raising number of other issues: bad head counts, misreported results, misreads of rules, wrong numbers, telecommunications errors, and other problems.

Taibbi says this should have been a straightforward caucus:

The basics of the caucus aren’t hard. You enter a building that is poorly ventilated, too small, and surrounded by mud puddles — usually a school gym. You join other people who plan on voting your way, gathering around the “precinct captain” for your candidate. If your pile of people comprises 15% of the room or more on the first count, your candidate is deemed “viable” and you must stay in that group. If your group doesn’t reach 15%, you must move to a new group or declare yourself undecided. There is a second count, and it should be done.

The caucus results, such as they were, continued to cause confusion the rest of the week:

What happened over the five days after the caucus was a mind-boggling display of fecklessness and ineptitude. Delay after inexplicable delay halted the process, to the point where it began to feel like the caucus had not really taken place. Results were released in chunks, turning what should have been a single news story into many, often with Buttigieg “in the lead.”

He explains that, although it looked as if Sanders actually won on paper, there was cause to call the win for Buttigieg:

Though Sanders won the popular vote by a fair margin, both in terms of initial preference (6,000 votes) and final preference (2,000), for most of the week Mayor Pete’s lead with “state delegate equivalents” — the number used to calculate how many national delegates are sent to the Democratic convention — made him the technical winner in the eyes of most. By the end of the week, however, Sanders had regained so much ground, to within 1.5 state delegate equivalents, that news organizations like the AP were despairing at calling a winner. 

This wasn’t necessarily incorrect. The awarding of delegates in a state like Iowa is inherently somewhat random. If there’s a tie in votes in a district awarding five delegates, a preposterous system of coin flips is used to break the odd number. The geographical calculation for state delegate equivalents is also uneven, weighted toward the rural. A wide popular-vote winner can surely lose.

Returning to the aforementioned Chris Storey from Minnesota, who was ultimately turned down as precinct chairman:

Is it incompetence or corruption? That’s the big question,” asked Storey. “I’m not sure it matters. It could be both.”

Conclusion

Whatever went wrong with the Democrat caucus, President Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale had this to say:

Democrats should hope for a more carefully conducted caucus in Nevada on Saturday.

Yesterday’s post on Democrat support for abortion featured Pete Buttigieg and a Fordham University bioethics professor who was so distraught by the mayor’s pro-choice stance that he resigned from the board of Democrats for Life.

Last week, the Revd Franklin Graham was astonished to hear Bernie Sanders say that being ‘pro-choice’ — supporting abortion — was part and parcel of being a Democrat:

The son of the late Billy Graham rightly wondered where the ‘outcry’ was against such a stance.

The Breitbart article of February 12 linked in the tweet tells us that Graham sent a sharp warning about socialism before urging Christians to ‘wake up’ (emphases mine):

The evangelical leader went on to urge Christians to wake up to what is happening in the Democrat party and to take to heart their civic duty to vote.

“This is an example of why it is so important for people of faith to research who you vote for in every election and understand where they stand on issues that are important to you,” he said.

I urge Christians to pray for our nation, our leaders, and the upcoming elections, from local to national. Make sure that you are registered to vote, otherwise we will lose our country,” he warned.

True.

This November, Republicans, the supporters of the rights of the unborn — and, yes, as God’s creation, the unborn do have rights — need to win back the House of Representatives and maintain, if not increase, their majority in the Senate.

I despair of notional Christians, including clergy, who are lukewarm on the subject of abortion. They laud the Democrats as the only politicians with ethics. The way it looks to many of us, even overseas, is that most Democrat politicians lack ethics, pure and simple. I am struggling to think of any in the House or Senate who deal honestly and fairly.

One thing is for sure: most Democrats no longer support life in the womb.

Where do Democrats stand in defending the rights of the unborn? Sadly, nowhere.

Yet, it has taken several years for this truth to dawn on lifetime Democrat voters.

It is unfortunate that Pete ‘Mayor Pete’ Buttigieg (pron. ‘Budd-uh-judge’) of South Bend, Indiana, is an Episcopalian. He puts the denomination to shame in his support of late-term abortion. Yet, many other Episcopalians — also Democrats — do, too:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at least one Catholic Democrat saw the light, as Mayor Pete defended abortion until the bitter end. Interestingly, Mayor Pete’s dad was a left-wing professor at the University of Notre Dame who was a co-founder and past president of the International Gramsci Society. Who can make sense out of that? But I digress.

LifeSite News reported that the professor who termed Mayor Pete’s views as ‘the straw that broke this camel’s back’ is:

Charles Camosy, an associate professor of Theology at Fordham University, has also resigned from the board of Democrats for Life. 

Camosy, who specializes in biomedical ethics, explained his reasons for his decision in an op ed he wrote for Thursday’s New York Post: the Democrats’ complete disregard for the unborn child.  

Also (emphases mine):

it was same-sex married Pete Buttigieg’s attitude to late-term abortion, aired last week on The View, that convinced Camosy that pro-life Democrats are “fighting a losing battle” in convincing their party to respect their position. Buttigieg had indicated that he didn’t think the government should have any say regarding late-term abortion or post-birth infanticide

“The straw that broke this camel’s back was Pete Buttigieg’s extremism,” Camosy wrote. 

“Here was a mainstream Democratic candidate suggesting, at one point, that abortion is OK up to the point the baby draws her first breath.” 

He concluded that if the party was “willing to go all-in on the most volatile issue of our time with a position held by only 13 percent of the population, it was time to take no for an answer.”

Camosy also predicted that, thanks to its pro-abortion “extremism,” the Democratic Party will lose the next election

We can but hope. If they win, they will have cheated; of that, I’m sure.

Dr Camosy does not think he will be able to vote Republican, though:

My broader values mean I can’t vote Republican, however, and this makes me one of many millions of Americans for whom our political duopoly doesn’t work,” he wrote.

That’s too bad. Opening up other minor yet established parties does not work, either. The British proved that in their December 12, 2019 election.

LifeSite News has more of what Camosy wrote for the New York Post, all of it worthwhile reading. It also quotes Mayor Pete’s views for The View.

In closing, this is what Camosy had to say in his op-ed about the Democrats’ stance on late-term abortion:

Camosy asked them to participate in a thought experiment in which they suppose that “hundreds of thousands of children are being killed each year in horrific ways,” either because they have Down syndrome, or because their grandparents think their parents are too young, or because an abusive partner demands it.

And then suppose a political party claimed this killing was a social good. Just another kind of health care. Something to shout about with pride,” the ethicist asked.

“This party, it should go without saying, would be unsupportable,” he concluded.

Just so.

Sounds a lot like eugenics, doesn’t it?

More will follow on the Democrats’ views on abortion.

When I saw the title of the video below that Catholic commentator Michael Voris made, I thought, ‘Uh-huh’.

Whilst I agree that President Trump is fighting a battle of Good v Evil, I’m a bit weary of seeing it online every day, as if it were something new.

In the end, I gave in and watched it.

This is one of the best videos you will see on Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court and anti-Trumpers. It’s only seven-and-a-half minutes long:

Voris begins by discussing the pro-life convictions of Evangelical Protestant clergy in the United States, whom, he says, defend life in the womb wholeheartedly. By contrast, he points out that Catholic bishops are silent on the subject and promote causes like climate change and social justice instead.

Yes!

How is it that more Catholics have not yet become Protestants? Surely, the past decade or so has seen the gravest crisis the Church has faced since the Reformation. Perhaps they are afraid. Catholics — and I was one — are told from the time they are small children that they must never become Protestant because they will go to hell. I have friends and family who still believe this, even though they no longer attend Mass.

Then we have Francis in the Vatican, the pontiff who cannot muster a Christian blessing any more.

Gloria.tv has the story, complete with video:

Francis again refused to give a Papal blessing during a November 30 audience for a summit of 3,500 children of the international environmental World Summit “I can.”

At the end of the audience he asked to silently pray for one another.

Then Francis added to “ask God to bless us all. Amen.” He did not invoke God, nor speak as a priest in his name, nor make a sign of the cross …

That man is spiritually sick.

But I digress.

Back now to Michael Voris’s video.

Michael Voris says that the Democrats want to impeach Trump primarily because they fear that, if he stays in office, the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade. He says that this is the reason the Left talk so much about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If she goes, the next Supreme Court Justice is likely to be a young (relatively speaking) conservative.

Therefore, according to Democrat thinking, Trump has to go now before he can make that eventual nomination. If he remains in office — which, I think we all agree he will, even Michael Voris — and gets a new conservative Justice to replace Ginsburg when the time comes, then, the chances are likely that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v Wade.

Voris says that, if such a vote took place now, Justice Roberts would have the deciding vote, and he would be unlikely to want to be in that position. (Roberts can be rather wet when his is the deciding vote.)

However, should there be another conservative Justice, then Roberts could vote against Roe v Wade more easily.

Voris then explores the sacrifice of children via abortion, saying that the Left are in league with Satan.

When you hear him explain it and watch the graphics, it sounds very plausible.

He ends by pointing out the irony of an ex-playboy billionaire being the most pro-life American president in living memory.

I couldn’t agree more.

It has long been an belief of mine that if you’ve never failed, you haven’t done much in life.

Anyone who is successful will have had at least one, if not more, spectacular failures. Donald Trump’s big professional failure was his casino closures in the early 1990s. We had to read and hear all about them again in 2016 presidential campaign. On a personal level, his first two marriages failed, causing a lot of hurt at the time.

Did the casino failures stop Donald Trump in the 1990s? Certainly not!

Therefore, my belief is that we need to take calculated risks such that, even if we fail, we have the mettle to dust ourselves off and keep going. In retrospect, failure looks stupid, but if the moves made sense at the time, we have to look for the next big success.

A friend of mine has a real problem with that concept, but, so be it.

On that subject, a month ago, I read an excellent post about learning how to deal with failure. One of my readers, Daughn, wrote ‘Why Are The Dems So Angry? Version 2.0’, which starts with the appalling reactions the Democrats have towards now-President Donald Trump, then explores how average citizens go into overdrive against others when they themselves fail (emphases mine below):

Worried about Trump becoming too popular because of his successes, attack him and his family personally
Worried about the country rejecting socialism/communism, re electing Trump, impeach him.
Don’t have enough votes for impeachment, then change the rules for a “hybrid Impeachment Inquiry”
Rather impeach Trump than resolve immigration.
Rather hire outside counsel, change the rules of the House, establish a mini-DOJ within the Congress, to defend Obamacare wherever it is challenged — than put together a good healthcare plan for the country …

And then it drifts down into culture,
Don’t get promoted? Sue the company for discrimination.
Don’t like your male boss, accuse him of sexual advances.
Don’t check out fast enough in line, can’t afford an item in a dept store = steal it.
Don’t want to take the time to work out problems with your spouse —>>> divorce.

To our kids:
Don’t get a cookie, scream until you do.
Don’t make the cheerleading squad, sue the school or spread false rumors about those who do
Not popular in school —->>>> kill your classmates.

It’s about never learning how to accept failure (Hillary Clinton is a perfect example).
If we cannot accept a failure, we’re stuck. Time stops. We cannot move forward to LEARN from the mistake, and grow, develop into a wise old man, change our tactics, and be a productive member of society.
Again, Hillary is a perfect example of someone who is “stuck”.

If we blame our failures on others, that’s a dangerous place to be.

We need to own our failures, learn from them AND MOVE ON.

The lady who wrote the post about Democrat and everyday anger related a personal anecdote about herself. She learned to deal with failure, thanks to her father, a Marine. He told her that if she never failed, she hadn’t done much in life (emphasis in the original):

When I was young, I worked on a case that I knew would make me successful and wealthy. I was so sure I was going to make a name for myself. Ahhhh, we’re all blind when we’re young. I worked on it for two years, and I did everything right. Every detail of the case was covered. I was so sure I would put the plan in motion, I even shopped for new homes. I knew the house I was going to buy. Suddenly, from left field, a competitor appeared. His plan was not as good, he was not offering nearly what my firm could, but he was older and the law firm was more comfortable with him than me. As I headed into a final meeting, where I feared I would learn the bad news, I called……….. Dad. I needed advice.

My Dad loved me. Surely, he would be empathetic or give me something magical to say or do to save the client. Instead, I got a swift kick in the a$$…. from my own Dad.

Dad was familiar with the case, of course, I talked about it endlessly for two years. Instead, Dad said, paraphrasing, “You’ve lost this one. Accept the beating and move on. You put all your eggs into one basket, and it’s a classic mistake. If you had 10 law firms- medium size, instead of going after the biggest one in the southeast, you wouldn’t be in this position. Yes, all the other guys in the office will make fun of you. This is your comeuppance. It’s going to happen. You failed to bring it home…… “

I was feeling like an old crusty barnacle on the bottom of a boat, whining a little bit (Gosh, I really thought Dad would have something magical. Dad hated it when I whined and he was getting impatient with me) when Dad continued, “…… but here’s the thing….. If you’re not failing, you’re not fu$king doing anything. If you never fail, that means you never tried. You want to be on the field of play, then expect to get fu$king hit. You’ll figure out how to win….. next time. You’re way too stubborn to stay down on the mat for too long…..”

My Dad was a Marine until the day he died and a very successful exec. I was 24 when that conversation happened and in 24yrs, I never heard him curse. Never. Not once. For Dad to drop the F bomb was a big deal. It meant two things. He was serious, and he was treating me like an adult, not a daughter. Mixed blessing. Lose a huge client, but in Daddy’s eyes, I was all grown up. Yeah, grown up enough to fail, …..miserably. And like all daughters seeking their father’s respect, Dad was much more important to me than any client. I was working on that “respect” thing…..but I was getting there.

I took my medicine from the client, and they were kind of surprised by how quickly I walked away. My competitor got a slot on Good Morning America…. and the sight of his face made me irritated for years. Salt in the wound. Yet strangely, I was walking a little taller. Yeah, I could figure it out. There would be many more failures to come. I embraced them and each time, the sting hurt a little less. Each failure taught me more, make me stronger. And no, staying “down on the mat” would have been easier, but was never a comfortable place to be.

Lying about it, selling out, compromising ethics was never an option. Can’t get respect that way….. at least not from my Dad.

I hope that makes us feel a bit better about personal failures, those big enough to attract ridicule or criticism.

Look at the people who focus on others’ failures. How much have they themselves done in life? Not much. They took the safe, secure way. They lived without taking the ‘What if?’ risk.

Better to have lived it large, taking that calculated risk and failing, rather than never have tried at all.

Failure is no bad thing. Failure teaches us lessons.

Above all, failure should teach us to keep reaching for the stars.

Yesterday, I ran across four articles of interest.

The coup

The starting point is James Howard Kunstler’s October 15 essay, ‘Wait For It’, which is about the ongoing American coup, the latest development being President Trump’s conversation with the president of Ukraine and the Democrats’ ‘whistleblower’ (emphases mine):

For one thing, he-she-it is not a “whistleblower” at all; was only labeled that via legalistic legerdemain to avoid revealing the origin of this affair as a CIA cover-your-ass operation. Did Mr. Schiff actually think he could conceal this figure’s identity in a senate impeachment trial, when it came to that — for what else is impeachment aimed at? Anonymous sources are not admissible under American due process of law. Mr. Schiff must have missed that class in law school.

All of this hocus-pocus suggests to me that there is no “whistleblower,” that it is a phantom confabulation of gossip threads that unraveled the moment Mr. Trump released the transcript of his phone call to Ukraine’s president Zelensky, aborting Mr. Schiff’s game plan. The ensuing weeks of congressional Keystone Kops buffoonery since then appears to conceal a futile effort by Mr. Schiff and his confederates to find some fall guy willing to pretend that he-she-it is the “whistleblower”

One marvels at Rep. Schiff’s tactical idiocy. But just imagine the panicked consternation it must be triggering among his Democratic colleagues. Notice that Mrs. Pelosi has been hiding out during this latest phase of the action. She may sense that there is nothing left to do but allow Mr. Schiff to twist slowly slowly in the wind, as he has hung himself out to dry. She should have known better since every previous declaration of conclusive evidence by Mr. Schiff over the past three years has proved to be false, knowingly and mendaciously so.

One also clearly senses that all the smoke-and-mirrors are a desperate attempt to divert attention from a soon-to-drop DOJ Inspector General’s report which, by the way, will only be an overture to much more damaging action likely to come from Mr. Barr’s proceeding. After all, IG Horowitz was not allowed under the rules to compel the testimony of persons outside the Department of Justice, which would now include Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and many others at the center of the RussiaGate prank

That lame admission will not avail to protect him or the CIA, an agency that is behind the administrative civil war. It has been a rogue agency for a long long time, but may have finally overplayed its hand, along with the newer adjunct agencies that have been stitched onto it since 9/11/01 — the dark network that goes by the name Intelligence Community. So many shoes are ready to drop on them that the din might drown out all the John Philip Sousa marches ever played in the lobby at Langley, let alone the thin trilling of a fake whistleblower.

Apart from these fateful developments the prize for the week’s most transparently disingenuous bit of media agitprop goes to Saturday’s New York Times puff piece on former FBI Director Jim Comey, which actually sets him up for federal indictment on something like sedition or treason.

Did you notice that the photo-caption states: James Comey plans to spend the next 13 months working to drive President Trump from power. Oh, really? By what means, exactly? Single-handedly or with whom? And how did the strategy he kicked off in 2016 work out? In case Mr. Barr is looking for some way to attribute motive to the actions that he’s investigating, he may need to seek no further. Also, consider that The New York Times and its editor-in-chief Dean Baquet, and publisher A.G. Sulzberger may be named as unindicted co-conspirators in the three-year campaign of sedition (freedom of the press, of course). Alert the shareholders.

I should emphasise that Jim Kunstler is not a Trump supporter, but even the Democrats’ continuing attempts at getting a legitimately elected president out of office have been making him think a bit more about the coup.

The ‘revolution in reverse’

The comments to Kunstler’s article were as wide-ranging and fascinating as ever.

Someone linked to an October 10 essay on Tzarism.com called ‘The Hi-Tech Traditionalist: A Revolution In Reverse: The Uprising Of The American Elites Against The American People’. The author, Dr Baruch Pletner, is a polyglot:

The Hi-Tech Traditionalist – Baruch Pletner is an entrepreneur, a scientist, an inventor, and a private pilot. He is passionate about education, the outdoors, and the war on globalism. Baruch holds a PhD degree from the Technion in Haifa, Israel and an MBA from Northeastern University in Boston.

He points out that the leftist revolution taking place in the United States is the inverse of what usually happens in an uprising:

The great Bolshevik revolutions of the last century in Russia, in China, and in Cuba all followed a familiar pattern: a group of young, energetic, endlessly corruptible, but not yet corrupt outsiders take on, in the name of the people, a tired corrupt establishment. A civil war ensues in which the people side with the revolutionaries because they (mistakenly) think that things can never be worse. Revolutionaries win, slaughter the establishment elites, and proceed to rob and enslave the people in even more outrageous fashion. Soon enough the old guard revolutionaries become every bit as corrupt as the ones they have replaced if not more so and the cycle repeats itself.

In America, the situation is rather farcically backwards. In America, the corrupt establishment elites have decided to stage a Bolshevik coup against the American people rather than the other way around. A Tsar fully in command of his own kingdom staging a coup against his own people is a bizarre development to say the least, and yet, here we are in 2019 America. Like always, there are reasons. First and foremost among them is the sheer scope of the nepotism and corruption of the American elites in business, government, technology, and the intelligence services. This scope has very likely far exceeded anything previously known in human history. Had the dimensions of the robbery perpetrated by the American ruling classes against the American people become widely known earlier, America could well have experienced a more typical revolution, one by the people against the elites.

There are other reasons, he says, which date from the late 1980s. Continuing on from the previous paragraph, he tells us:

Well aware of the possibility if not probability of such an outcome, the people who run America put in place a plan to make it all but impossible. The plan involved the gradually escalating erosion of the limits on government powers put in place by the Constitution with a parallel erosion in the God-given rights guaranteed every American by the same document. This was a fully bipartisan effort, put in place immediately after president Reagan departed office. It is sufficient to observe the exponential increase in government versus private sector employment in America from 1988 to 2019 to fully grasp this point. Stopping immigration from countries that have (or at least used to have) a tradition of personal freedom and limited government while throwing open the spigots for immigration from countries that have neither was the second part of the same plan. The destruction of family values and Christianity in America was the third.

Then there were the social, guilt-inducing conditioning of the majority of the American populace, who have no control over their skin colour. As such:

Americans allowed themselves to become squeezed out of well-paying jobs by the elites-induced trifecta of low and high-skilled immigration and automation, with nary a whisper in protest.

Then, he says, along came Donald Trump. In the eyes of the elite, President Trump must be stopped:

Trying to pin on Trump their own sins of sexual corruption, nepotism, embezzlement, etc. has not been a well-thought out strategy on the part of the American power elites simply because it enabled him to begin educating the American public as to the breathtaking scope of their own criminality. Now, on the verge of Trump’s inevitable reelection, they are left with only one option: a coup d’etat against the American people, the American Constitution, and the American Republic itself.

Since the elites still very much permeate every hall of power in America, this is a one-off deal in which the rulers of a country set out to violently overthrow the very political structure of the country they are ruling, but, as they say, it is what it is. The cover may be different, but the playbook is the same, so we are already being exposed to the oldies but goodies of escalating agitprop (weaponized lies and propaganda), suppression of unwanted elements (cancel culture), and paid snitching (whistleblowing). Now we are entering into a new phase, that of secret trials with a predetermined outcome.

He means impeachment hearings, which he goes on to discuss, adding:

… what follows next will not be pretty. Having obtained an illegal impeachment that has no chance in the Senate, the powers that be in America will use this “impeachment” to force Trump off the 2020 ballot by any means possible, including things that now sound crazy like setting up a parallel Supreme Court having declared the Constitution illegitimate because it was written by white males some of whom supported slavery and ratified without African American and other minority votes.

Needless to say, such actions may well precipitate an armed conflict we know of as civil war, but that would not be an unexpected outcome for the elites. We know now that the American intelligence services all work for the elites and not for the people. They will fight on their side in the coming war. What we don’t know is to what degree the armed forces have been infiltrated, especially the mid-level officer corps.

That is my concern, too.

The New York Times and Carlos Slim’s fortune

Someone else responding to Kunstler’s piece posted a 2015 Ann Coulter article for Townhall, ‘Carlos Slim: The New York Times’ Sugar Daddy’.

Ann Coulter observed the editorial shift in the New York Times since Carlos Slim rescued the failing newspaper in 2008.

Back in 2004—before the Times became Slim’s pimp—a Times article stated: “Clearly . . . the nation’s southern border is under siege.”2 But that was before Carlos Slim saved the Times from bankruptcy. Ten years later, with a border crisis even worse than in 2004, and Latin Americans pouring across the border, the Times indignantly demanded that Obama “go big” on immigration and give “millions of immigrants permission to stay.”

And, going back further to the Clinton administration, the NYT used to point out porous border problems:

In 1997—the pre-Slim days—the Times had editorialized: “Fighting illegal immigration is a difficult and important job. But Congress should do it in a way that will deter illegal entry at the border.”39 Another editorial that year complained that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had “done a poor job of keeping out illegal aliens, deporting criminals [and] processing requests for asylum.” This wasn’t even Bush-bashing—Clinton was president!

Coulter explains how Slim makes his money off the American taxpayer, which involves much more than enlightened citizens buying copies of the New York Times:

One of the ways Slim makes money off of illegal immigration in the United States is by overcharging Mexicans to call home, especially during World Cup soccer season. Slim takes a percentage of all cell phone calls into Mexico—and Telmex’s “interconnection rates” are astronomical. International roaming rates are 37 percent higher in Mexico than the average of all OECD countries.

But the main way illegal immigrants benefit Slim is through their remissions. Monopolistic pricing is of little value in a poor country. A monopoly on air in Burundi would not produce the world’s richest man. Luckily for Slim, Mexico is located right next to one of the wealthiest nations in the world. The OECD estimates that Slim’s suffocating telecommunications monopoly costs Mexican consumers $26 billion a year, with more than half of that coming from Slim gouging his customers. They would have $20 billion less to spend without 40 million Mexicans living in the United States.

According to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Mexican immigrants or those of Mexican descent send at least $20 billion out of America back to their relatives in Mexico each year.29 No wonder immigrants are so reliant on welfare—they’re sending so much of it out of the country! Twenty billion dollars is significantly more—about a quarter more—than the amount of money the United States sends to Mexico in direct foreign aid. The $20 billion being sent to immigrants’ grandmothers in Chiapas is forever eliminated from the American economy—unavailable for investment in American companies, the purchase of American products, or hiring American workers. That’s a cost of immigration that Americans are never told about.

These billions of dollars being drained out of the U.S. economy every year would be bad enough if the money were coming exclusively from cheap-labor employers like Sheldon Adelson. But it’s worse than that. It comes from American taxpayers. Not only do taxpayers have to support Americans who lose their jobs to low-wage immigrant laborers, taxpayers support the immigrants, too. Seventy-five percent of immigrant families from Mexico are on government assistance.

Putting two and two together, we can more easily understand the New York Times‘s editorial line under Slim and the billionaire’s desire to see more Mexicans enter the United States illegally:

That’s why, in 2014, Slim was exhorting Mexican youth to cross illegally into the United States for jobs. The stated purpose of Obama’s open defiance of American immigration laws was to avoid punishing “children” who were brought to the United States by their parents. Slim didn’t care about that. (Then again, neither did Obama.) He just wanted more Mexicans working in America and sending dollars back to him. As the CEO of the “Carlos Slim Foundation” explained, “[O]ur goal is to reduce the access barriers for them to reach this potential . . . to build not just them but their families, so they’re able to contribute to the economy”—i.e., the Mexican economy owned by Carlos Slim.

The ‘invisible government’

Truthdig has an article by the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, ‘Our Invisible Government’, which is, in part, a book review of Stephen Kinzer’s new book, Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control.

I will not be excerpting Hedges’s article except for this:

Kinzer builds his book around Sidney Gottlieb, an elusive, quirky and powerful operative in the CIA who in his quest for mind control—something he and others in the CIA had convinced themselves the Soviets had mastered—oversaw medical experiments that had been originated by his German and Japanese collaborators. These experiments were coded-named Bluebird and later Artichoke, which Kinzer calls “one of the most violently abusive projects ever sponsored by an agency of the United States government.” The torture sessions often permanently shattered the minds of his subjects. Victims were kidnapped (later this would be called “extraordinary rendition”) and sent to clandestine centers around the globe—now known as “black sites”—or were picked from the prison population abroad and at home. Those forced into taking part in these experiments included impoverished African Americans at the Addiction Research Center in Lexington, Ky. Many of the victims were labeled “expendables,” meaning they could be murdered after the experiments and disappeared. The corpses were usually burned. Anyone who was powerless, or could be made powerless, was a potential target. Mentally handicapped children at the Walter E. Fernald State School in Massachusetts, for example, were fed cereal laced with uranium and radioactive calcium and their induced sicknesses were monitored. Gottlieb oversaw the administering of LSD and other drugs to induce psychotic states at the federal prison in Atlanta and a youth correctional facility in Bordentown, N.J. None of his subjects consented to being a human guinea pig, and many ended up psychologically impaired for life. The Boston gangster James “Whitey” Bulger, being held in the Atlanta penitentiary, was told he would be part of an experiment on curing schizophrenia but then was surreptitiously given LSD nearly every day for 15 months. CIA scientists also conducted experiments on terminally ill patients at an annex of Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Gottlieb searched for years for a cocktail of drugs that, in Kinzer’s words, would draw “prisoners away from their identities, induce them to reveal secrets, and perhaps even program them to commit acts against their will.” It was a vain quest. But with each failure he and the CIA became ever more zealous, working closely with former German Gen. Walter Schreiber, the onetime surgeon general of the Nazi army who had “approved experiments at the Auschwitz, Ravensbrück, and Dachau concentration camps in which inmates were frozen, injected with mescaline and other drugs, and cut open so the progress of gangrene on their bones could be monitored.” Kinzer adds that according to one American researcher, the experiments “usually resulted in a slow and agonizing death.”

Gottlieb had a habit of secretly lacing the drinks of colleagues with LSD to see their reaction. Some never recovered. One of his victims was Frank Olson, a CIA scientist who was appalled by the brutal interrogations he witnessed and planned to resign from the CIA. Gottlieb and his secretive group of torturers and assassins were terrified Olson would go public. Olson was found dead in 1953 on a sidewalk in Manhattan after allegedly diving through a hotel window. His son Eric had his father’s body exhumed in 1994 and turned over to James Starrs, a forensic pathologist at George Washington University in the District of Columbia. “Starrs had found no glass shards on the victim’s head or neck, as might be expected if he had dived through a window,” Kinzer writes. “Most intriguingly, although Olson had reportedly landed on his back, the skull above his left eye was disfigured.”

“I would venture to say that this hematoma is singular evidence of the possibility that Dr. Olson was struck a stunning blow to the head by some person or instrument prior to his exiting through the window of room 1018A,” Starrs concluded.

Starrs was later more emphatic: “I think Frank Olson was intentionally, deliberately, with malice aforethought, thrown out of that window.”

As awful as that is, the rest of the article has details of even more gruesome and demonic ‘experiments’, which those interested may read at their leisure.

Conclusion

We have much to pray for in the coming months: the safety of Donald Trump and his family, the thwarting of evil deeds from our notional betters and the return of a moral society, which is the only way to conserve the freedoms we know in the West. Those, too, must be restored, with Big Government — the malicious Nanny State — being thrown out.

Also, please spare a prayer for Brexit. What has been going on in Parliament and the upper courts of law since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister has been chilling, to say the least.

Most of us thought that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was safe from allegations once he was confirmed and sworn in to office nearly a year ago.

We were wrong.

On Saturday, September 14, 2019, a New York Times article raised the allegations from 2018 once more, calling for Justice Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

The paper invited the two authors of a book about the Kavanaugh accusations, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation, to write a column about them. Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly wrote the book and the article. Part of the article (paywall) has to do with one of last year’s accusers Deborah Ramirez and a classmate, Max Stier, who are said to have witnessed Kavanaugh, a university freshman, at a dorm party. Breitbart has the excerpt of the supposed episode.

Those familiar with Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s book have said one must read it until the end to find this gem:

… critics pointed out: “Not only does the alleged victim not confirm the story, she is reported to be denying it.”

Nevertheless, Democrats have been on the attack, including presidential candidate and US Senator, Kamala Harris, from California:

Breitbart‘s article states:

Harris did not mention, or did not know, that the authors’ own book refutes the allegation, which the alleged victim reportedly does not recall. The accuser [Max Stier] — not the victim — also represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment …

During Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, Harris — who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee — was criticized for tweeting a deceptively edited video that made it appear as though he argued against women’s access to birth control.

Some Twitter users, including a co-author of a book on the subject, remember this story from an article in the New Yorker at the time and how it collapsed under scrutiny:

The story of Christine Blasey Ford, the most memorable of Kavanaugh’s accusers, was also resurrected — but earlier, around September 8, before the NYT article appeared.

Here’s the short version:

On September 8, Newsweek reported, in part:

A video circulating on social media shows Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney telling attendees at a feminist conference that her client’s testimony against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a politically motivated move to protect Roe v. Wade.

Conservatives are railing against comments attorney Debra Katz made in April in her keynote address at the University of Baltimore’s Feminist Legal Theory Conference regarding Kavanaugh’s controversial Supreme Court confirmation process. Katz represented Ford, who testified at a public hearing and accused Trump’s nominee, at the time a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, of sexually assaulting her 36 years prior while the two were in high school. Katz’s comments at the conference appeared to confirm many conservatives’ accusations that Ford’s testimony was intended in part to protect the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established abortion access as a constitutional right.

Speaking on the theme of “Applied Feminism and #MeToo” earlier this year, Katz told attendees: “In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court.”

The self-proclaimed “women’s rights and social justice activist” continued: “We were going to have a conservative [justice] … Elections have consequences, but he will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

American Lawyer Magazine reporter Ryan Lovelace authored a book released last week entitled, Search and Destroy: Inside the Campaign against Brett Kavanaugh, portraying Katz as a partisan, politically-motivated feminist who encouraged Ford to smear Kavanaugh.

Another Democrat candidate for president, Amy Klobuchar, US Senator for Minnesota, tweeted her support for Blasey Ford:

Yet, one of Blasey Ford’s oldest friends doubted the veracity of the accusation against Kavanaugh.

This is also in Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s book. They were the ones who wrote the recent NYT article.

On Sunday, September 15, The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway tweeted:

Interestingly, that same day, the NYT issued a correction to their article. One wonders how many people saw the correction and how many millions more spent time at the weekend listening or reading extensive coverage of the efforts to impeach Kavanaugh:

The correction states:

Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

Something must be done about the media in general:

This scurrilous tactic of smearing Kavanaugh again and again, now with the goal of impeaching him, could backfire on Dems in 2020.

This is what a sampling of Americans said on Twitter:

One had a message for Kamala Harris:

So why are these accusations and calls for impeachment being raised now?

Here is another reason why. The Senate is appointing dozens of Trump nominees to US federal courts:

Citizen journalist Tracy Beanz, gives us the perspective of another citizen journalist, Harold Finch. The following thread explains that the Democrats are afraid of losing more of their cases in the higher courts. In retaliation, the Dems could try to discredit decisions from those courts — including the Supreme Court — and ignore them. Dangerous:

There it is — plain as day.

This is just one more reason NOT to vote for Democrats in 2020.

September 18 is National Cheeseburger Day in the United States.

Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris would like to see this great American food innovation banned:

Absolutely!

Before we celebrate, however, Kamala Harris is embarrassed to say she enjoys a cheeseburger. However, she is NOT embarrassed to say she smoked dope!

Compare and contrast:

Okay, that’s enough Kamala Harris for one day.

Let’s return now to the glorious cheeseburger.

When I was in school, the nuns teaching science class told us that, once we leave home, we might not always have the time or money for a nutritious meal. How right they were. They advised us to choose pizza first, if possible. It has a better combination of the four food groups, because there are vegetables. In second place was the cheeseburger, for the meat and dairy combination.

What sensible person can resist this?

Don’t forget the straw:

Sadly, Theresa May’s government banned the plastic straw. They will no longer be on sale come March 2020. That’s from Conservative Party MPs! But I digress.

Let us further celebrate the cheeseburger:

Mark your diary for September 18 …

… and enjoy!

On September 5, I posted ‘Today’s Democrats aren’t those your grandparents admired’.

One of my readers, H E, has given me permission to repost his comment, which is worthy of its own entry:

Very good writeup about the current ideology and tactics of the Democrat party. The Democrat party has been taken over completely by Marxist radicals, now calling themselves “Progressives” . The party is a monolith, there are no “Conservative Democrats” or “Centrist Democrats” represented in it. As you said, the current Democrat Party is not the party of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy.

As a 62 year old American, I can look back and see that many of the actions of the today’s “Progressives” are not new, they go back 50 years to the late 1960s. At that time, radical groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society and the Black Panthers murdered policemen and blew up government buildings. But back then, there were countervailing forces in society that pushed back against the radicals and stopped them. In response, the radicals changed tactics. They infiltrated society in order to gain control of the levers of power and to neutralize any entities that might oppose them. Today we can see that they have mostly succeeded in this regard: the administrative and judicial branches of government are dominated by radicals, and the mass media, academia, mainstream religious organizations, and labor unions now serve the Progressive agenda.

In response to the Trump presidency, Progressives have dropped their façade and come into the open about their policies and goals.

One can no longer deny the following facts about American society:

-There is an entity which can be referred to as the Deep State comprised of unelected government officials, businessmen, and military officials who secretly manipulate and direct national policy in accords with the Progressive agenda.

-The Democrat Party is the political arm of the Deep State.

-There is little effective difference in the agendas of the establishment Democrat and Republican parties. Both parties serve the interests of the Deep State.

-The mass media is the propaganda arm of the Deep State. Its purpose is to broadcast the Deep State’s narrative of events and to shut down public discussions that go against the narrative.

-Academia and the education bureaucracy indoctrinate the youth into the values of the Deep State.

I could not agree more.

I am close to H E’s age and clearly remember the notional Progressives’ antics from 50 years ago. Who could have imagined that they would be at the forefront of American politics today with even more madness?

The one element I would add to this list is the infiltration of the Church by these people. That started over a century ago in the US with Walter Rauschenbusch’s social gospel and continued in the 20th century with the Communist Party’s ‘honeyed words to the church people’.

Decades earlier, in 1840, an Italian Jesuit coined the term ‘social justice’. In the 20th century and today, using Antonio Gramsci’s passive revolution tactics, a number of theologians and professors, such as the late Joseph Buttigieg — Democrat candidate Pete Buttigieg’s father — pushed for ‘social justice’ and ‘change’ in the Catholic Church.

There were secret agents in the clergy, too, in the decades preceding Vatican II.

Today, many Democrats — Catholic and Protestant — are working to help illegals via church agencies. Even the Salvation Army is at it, intimidating an Epoch Times reporter who was at the border earlier this year.

The Democrats are bad news.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,422 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

March 2020
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,575,794 hits