The Fix

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Trump has only been President four weeks and already, inflation is out of control.  Higher than it’s been during the entire last term of President Obama’s administration. 

That . . . or the Obama administration faked the numbers and only now are the true numbers coming out.  Nobody wants bad economic news; but I’d rather have real bad news than fake good news.  But that’s not the real meaning of this story, here’s the deeper meaning:

The Federal Reserve during most of 2016 refrained from raising rates too quickly for fear of interrupting a fragile recovery but has taken a different view of the likely course of monetary policy in 2017, citing “uncertainty” as any expansionary fiscal policies from President Donald Trump have yet to take shape.

In other words, the Deep State and Quasi-Government wonks are Liberals who held down rates when they thought it would benefit Democrats in the election, but now intend to torpedo Trump any way they can.  One of the easiest is to “discover” rampant inflation so they can jack up interest rates to fight the rampant inflation they’ve suddenly discovered. 

Higher interest rates will panic consumers, kill housing, stifle growth, and mushroom debt service on The Light Bringer’s 20-Trillion Debt.  Shifting dollars to debt service will kill the possibility of a realistic budget and doom The Wall.

Liberals and Never-Trumpers will then proclaim it’s all Trump’s fault, except for the parts that are Bush’s fault.

Joe Doakes

There’s a reason the Establishmet is, well, established.

Yelling And Breaking Things

I’ve been writing this blog for fifteen years.    In that time, I’ve written something like 20,000 posts.    I’ve written about a lot of topics, of course – but there’ve been some recurring themes.

Liberalism is bad for children and other living things.  The right to keep and bear arms is key among the things that separates citizens from subjects.  The less centralized authority is, the better.  The justification for “elites” being “elite” fades rapidly over intellectual generations.

And the Star/Tribune editorial board is a bunch of out-of-touch upper-middle-class patricians with little comprehension of the political world since Walter Mondale left office.

And I’m unlikely to change that any time soon.

But like the proverbial blind squirrel, they get one right once in a while, in their piece giving grudging support – the same grudging support I give – to increasing the penalties for blocking freeways during protests:

Blocking a freeway or a train track goes beyond peaceful protest. Those are inherently aggressive acts, designed to trigger a confrontation with law enforcement. They pose an immediate hazard to the protesters and motorists, as well as law enforcement.

The Legislature must be mindful of the right to peaceful protest, and of the danger in ignoring the concerns of those who feel aggrieved. But protesters must recognize they do not have a right to jeopardize the safety of others.

They’re pretty close, here.   Earlier in the piece, they say:

Any law that seeks to restrict the right to protest must strike a careful balance that preserves public safety, without trammeling on the right to speak against perceived injustice.

As Walter Hudson points out, there is no “balance” between freedom and criminal behavior.

If this particular reform doesn’t pass, though, I’d like to propose a further, different reform.  Currently, the “right” to block freeways is entirely contingent on a group’s level of favor with Betsy Hodges’ and Chris Coleman’s administrations.  Both need to stay cuddled up to the far left – so Black Lives Matter has carte blanche.  

So I say go ahead – let people protest on the freeways.  But require a permit, same as any other protest that impacts the public – not to censor the event, but to allow people notice.  And require them to be issued to everyone.

No.  Everyone.

So if the pro-lifers think they’d draw attention to their cause by protesting on the main arterials leading into Kenwood, Crocus Hill, Nicollet Island and Edina, keeping the DFL’s grandées from getting from their non-profits to their feminist drum circle meetings, they’d be able to do it, too.   They can check their Urban Liberal Privilege!

It’s a plan B.

Answers

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

I’m glad the women had fun marching, nice weather for it. But I remain unclear on what it’s all about or why I should care.
Votes for women? Already have them but don’t bother to use them, which is why Trump won.
Equality? So, what, end affirmative action for women in education and employment? I’m okay with that.
Abortion on demand, no-fault divorce, presumption of custody, mandatory child support, homosexual marriage, vigorous prosecution of sexual assault and domestic abuse . . . already have all that.
Look, I’m all in favor of ending oppression but you’ve got to give me a hint, here. How, exactly, are American women oppressed and what, specifically, must be done to end it? Mansplain it to me, please. I seriously want to know: what do women want?
Joe Doakes

My hunch – and it’s just a hunch?  It’s the Democrat party trying to whip up support / hysteria as a hedge against complete electoral catastrophe in 2018, and beyond that to gin up support for a field likely to be led by another geriatric white ultraliberal in 2020.

When Narratives Collapse

Donald Trump, as I’ve noted on my show more than a few times, is not only more gay-friendly than any of the Republicans in the 2016 field, but was in fact more consistently pro-gay longer than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were:

On gay-related issues, the news media couldn’t have picked a Republican president more in sync with their views than Donald Trump.

But the country isn’t dealing with a rational press right now.

The GOP was stuck on gay stuff until a New Yorker came along and cleared the field for them by saying he was not only “fine” with same-sex marriage but also by actively embracing gays in a bigger way than President Obama did.

Meanwhile, Trump, having grown up in the most diverse city in the world, is an outcast among the gay-supporting national media.
In a cover piece for Newsweek in 2012, Andrew Sullivan dubbed Obama “the first gay president.”

He also choked up on national television, calling Obama a “father figure” because he said he supported gay marriage.

Obama’s main claim to gay celebrity was changing his mind on marriage. He opposed same-sex marriage before he was first elected in 2008 and then he came to support it before his second term. (By the way, the Supreme Court handled the dirty work, Obama simply nodded in approval.)

Trump was not the first to support gay marriage, but he did a lot. After the mass terror shooting on the Orlando gay nightclub in June, he did what no other Republican would have ever done. He called it an attack on “the members of Orlando’s LGBTQ community” and said the tragedy was done “in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation.”

In July, Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal and a big Trump supporter, was the first person ever to declare on stage at the Republican National Convention that he’s “proud to be gay.”

Further proof that the left’s narrative is:

  1. Entirely left over from 2006, down to the last specious “Hitler” reference.
  2. Aimed at gullible non-critical thinkers – whose votes, let’s never forget, count just as much as those of smart, curious people with functioning BS detectors.

I’m amazed it didn’t work last November.

Narrative Today

Compare and contrast the left’s modern mores.

Exhibit A:   Brave, courageous, strong, powerful people who are exercising their First Amendment rights, and must never be addressed disapprovingly, in any way, because they are freedom fighters and must not, ever, in any way, be “slut shamed” – indeed, “slut shaming” is, itself, sexist and misogynistic and probably racist, too.

I’m sorry. I truly am.  But as a journalist, I have to unflinchingly tackle the dirty jobs so you don’t have to.   Except for the redhead, third from the left in the front row – the one that looks like a ginger Sarah Chalke.  No shame in my game there.

Exhibit B:  Slut!  Slut!  Slut!   Immoral!  Threat to society!

HEY! HEY! DID YOU KNOW SHE WAS THE FIRST FIRST LADY TO POSE NUDE?

Any questions?

The Right Women

One of my favorite sociopolitical tales is that of Alan Dershowitz, the not-remotely-conservative legal scholar who once castigated the faculty of Harvard Law School for seeing diversity as “someone with different color skin, than you, or wearing a skirt, who thinks exactly the same as you do”.

As predicted, the “Womens March” over the weekend, in DC and Saint Paul, was precisely that.

Continue reading

Open Letter To Those Who Just Don’t Get It Yet

To:  Some Of You Trump Opponents Out There
From:  Mitch Berg, Ornery Peasant
Re:  Terminology

Dear Hollywood and New York Showbiz and Media “Elites”

As we come up on inauguration day, some of you are still sore about Donald Trump.  I get it.  I mean, I didn’t vote for him, either.

You’d like to pretend he’s not your president.  Yadda yadda.  Whatever.  Gotcha.  It’s a free country (and will stay that way, so quit  your whining), so you can say what you want, and I can mock you for it.  But relax; I’m not mocking you for that.  Not now.

No, this is worse.

It’s come to my attention that some of you Hollywood types are calling yourselves “the Resistance”.

Stop.  Now.

You are among the wealthiest, most privileged, most untouchable residents in one of hte wealthiest, most privileged parts of the wealthiest and free-est society in the world.   You lost an election.  In four years, you’ll get a rematch (although the way you all are going at this point, most of you will stroke out by mid-terms).  And you will get the rematch; there’ll be no dictatorships, no camps, no nothing.  Why, I bet a President Trump won’t even jabber about siccing the Federal Elections on your blogs, or turn a politicized IRS and DHS loose on your political movements, the way Obama did for eight years.  Our democratic process, imperfect as it is, will go on, and if you don’t go full-blown Joan Crawford on us, you might have a shot, again, someday, God help us all.

So stop using – I believe the term these days is “Appropriating” – the term “Resistance”.  That’s a term used by people who had actual skin in the game; the Jews who, as disarmed as you want us all to be, fought back against the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto; the Norwegians who overcame the impossible and destroyed the Nazi nuke program; the Polish fighters who rose and took Warsaw, only to be betrayed by one dictator and hunted down like rats by another; the Danes who, the risk of a summary execution hanging over their heads, snuck their nation’s Jews out to safety; people who, with all hope extinguished, still pulled together and rose up and, mostly, died, but gave their tormentors and murders and bloody nose and, in a few cases, against higher odds than Michael Moore winning the NYC Marathon, survived the war to witness against their captors.

Real people, who left behind whatever hadn’t been taken from them, and fought a real enemy who promised to kill them and their families if they failed.

Not overpaid, plushbottom Hollywood prima-donnas upset that they can’t install their choice of president by coup now that the hoi polloi have rejected their candidate.

Here’s my promise to you; call yourselves “the resistance” to my face, and I will spit in yours.

That is all.

Does Harvard Give Refunds?

Rachel Maddow – not the most overrated “public intellectual” in the leftymedia, but pretty dang close – threw out some hilarioiusly historicalliy-ignorant red meat organic gruel for her audience of ill-informed wannabe intellects.

Over the past year I’ve been reading a lot about what it was like when Hitler first became chancellor. I am gravitating toward moments in history for subliminal reference in terms of cultures that have unexpectedly veered into dark places, because I think that’s possibly where we are

Well, there’s a “subliminal reference” there, but not the one Maddow is thinking of.

Let’s look back on when Hitler became Chancellor.

It was a decade when political parties kept private armies that roamed the streets beating, stabbing and sometimes shooting their opponents. There were more than a few massacres, of both commies and Nazis.   The left has some groups that might, with a little more derangement, become “private armies”, but I’ll be charitable and assume thats not where we’re going, at least on purpose.  

Germany had a parliamentary system that gave a president – superannuated General Von Hindenburg – the power to dissolve the government – something easily used by a crafty plurality to stage what amounted to a bloodless consensual coup.   That’d be hard to do, at least legally, within the US’s constitutional system.  Of course, the left has spent the past eight weeks floating ideas to circumvent or avoid the constitution – but again, let’s just chalk that up to the whining of spoiled, entitled children of all ages.

It was a place deeply fractured among extremist parties that hated each other and often acted on that hate. OK – the left might be giving us that equivalence.

Otherwise? Shut up, Rachel, and make me a f****ng sandwich.

Unexpected!

Last summer, when the people of the UK voted to leave the EU in the fabled “Brexit”, the same pundits who routinely Americans for “voting against their best interests” took a time out to chide Brits for voting…against their “best interests”.   The Brit economy was going to tank, returning the UK, if not to the Third World, at least into an impemetrable economic fog.

The landed punditry hasn’t been doing so well this year:

Business activity hit a 17-month high last month, meaning that the economy grew by 2.2 per cent last year — more than the six other leading nations, including the US, Germany and Japan.

Far from slowing after the referendum in June, as predicted by the Treasury and Bank of England, [and a rogue’s gallery of American pundits with portfolio – Ed.] growth appeared to have improved. GDP grew at 0.3 per cent and 0.6 per cent in the first two quarters of last year, compared with 0.6 per cent and an estimated 0.5 per cent in the final period.

On the one hand, time will tell.

On the other hand, our departing president wishes he’d had two consecutive quarters as good as that particular “failed experiment”.

Heather Martens, Whitesplainer

Behold the spokeswoman for Minnesota’s minority community.

Voice of Minnesota “minorities”, Heather Martens, exploiting a dead woman to no avail back in 2013.

It’s Heather Martens, longtime “executive director” and, for most of the decade, pretty much sole “member” of “Protect” Minnesota, a criminal-safety group famous for its comic ineptitude.

She left “Protect” Minnesota a while ago; word has it that MIchael Bloomberg realized that he’d be throwing even more money away if he was filtering it through her; Minnesota’s Criminal Safety movement is essentially run from New York today (the Reverend Nancy Nord Bence notwithstanding).

Given that she isn’t formally involved in the Criminal Safety movement anymore, I’m not sure why the Strib is giving her free space to recite her chanting points.

But give her space, they did, last Friday.   The op-ed was titled “Story on ‘gun rush’ by minorities lacked evidence”.   And I’ll had Martens this much; she’s an expert at “lack of evidence”; she makes Jesse Ventura look like Alan Dershowitz.

I was disappointed in the Star Tribune’s article “New fear bolsters gun rush in state” (Jan. 1), which amounted to a grossly misleading advertisement for the gun industry.

If Andrew Rothman ordered a pizza in the woods, and Heather Martens wasn’t there to hear it, would he still be “advertising for the gun industry?”

The subheading, “Worried for their safety, minorities have increased applications since Nov.,” is not supported by any information in the article. The article itself states, “There is no data on the number of Muslim-Americans buying guns, and permit application records don’t reveal demographic information beyond the age, gender and the county of the applicant.”

One suspects Heather would recoil in horror at the notion of registering Muslims for any other reason – but she wouldn’t mind making the rest of us walk around with yellow “gun” shapes sewed to our shirts.

The only evidence of a “rush” on guns by Somalis and other minorities is the word of gun lobbyist Andrew Rothman and the existence of one minority gun group.

Well, yeah – and a lot of anecdotal evidence from an awful lot of other people, minority and gay and liberal.   Perhaps Ms. Martens believes NBC and the BBC are also emissaries of the “Gun Lobby”.

There may or may not have been any such rush on guns.

Which may or may not undercut the entire stated point of this op-ed.

You’ve got to hand it to Rothman, however. He scored, with no proof, a front-page story normalizing gun carrying for a market the gun lobby has been unsuccessfully pursuing for years.

And since Ms. Martens is putatively concerned about “evidence”, we’ll await her proof that the surge, if any (heh heh), is in any way related to “gun lobby” marketing efforts, rather than minorities, gays and liberals discovering what Second Amendment supporters of all races (including Dr. Martin Luther King) have always known.

Now for the reality. Gallup’s research shows that American household gun ownership reached a near-historic low of 37 percent in 2014, compared with 57 percent in 1977. According to the General Social Survey, overall household gun ownership has dropped fairly steadily for decades (though a small number of people continue to increase their already large collections, keeping the gun industry profitable).

And, as pointed out in this space, the Gallup Poll was a fairly risible effort – a telephone poll of a “minority” in this country, before the last election, when gun owners were legitimately reticent about talking.   Thin evidence?  Perhaps – but then, given Gallup’s performance in the last presidential election, not as bad as I might have once admitted.

Speaking of thin evience, it’s the point of the article where Ms. Martens drops a series of unsupported-to-fictional statements in hopes of gulling the gullible – a practice I call “Heathering”.

There are many reasons most Americans, including minorities, aren’t behaving the way the gun lobby wants.

So while neither Martens nor (for sake of argument) Rothman “has any evidence”, Martens states this as a conclusive fact?

Huh?

First, bringing a gun into the home puts the family at greater risk of injury or death. The Annals of Internal Medicine reported in a 2014 meta-analysis that a gun in the home doubles the risk of homicide and triples the risk of suicide. Unsecured guns also pose a lethal threat to young children.

And without context, that sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it?

Of course, the study doesn’t control for who it is doing the shooting; is the gun “in the house” of a felon?  A gang member?

As usual, Martens seems to think that simple hardware corrupts people.

The push to market guns to people of color is particularly ironic in light of the gun industry’s history of championing an extreme white supremacist agenda.

As has been noted in the past, this is a complete fiction.  The National Rifle Association armed Martin Luther King’s bodyguards, and allowed them to train at their range in Virginia – one of very very few integrated facilities in the DC area in 1960.

In 1977, extremists took over the formerly moderate National Rifle Association. In the post-civil rights movement era, the NRA found it advantageous to play on white Americans’ fear of people of color, and the organization has now become a platform for racist rhetoric from white supremacists…

WHOAH!

OK!  Strap yourselves in!   She’s going for the big claim here!

Here comes the “Evidence” she was talking about!  Here’s where she’s going to deliver on her claims!

Wait for it…wait for it…

….like board member Ted Nugent.

Oh.

Ted Nugent.

An over the hill rocker and loose rhetorical cannon who’s said some deeply stupid things.

But “supremacist?”

Feel free to pony up the evidence, Heather.  You’re verging on defamation, here.

Still – her claim about Nugent – devoid of fact as it is – is about as close as she’ll get to a fact in the rest of her wrticle.

In 2003, when [shall-issue carry] was being debated here in Minnesota, proponents dismissed all predictions of political intimidation with guns. But such intimidation is now commonplace. Men (it is almost entirely men) now openly carry loaded weapons to legislative hearings about guns at the State Capitol and to other government meetings and political events.

Intimidation?  With guns?

Why, that’s illegal!

Surely there were complaints filed, police called, a paper trail created?

No.  There was not.  What happened was a group of people, following the law to the letter, did something they were legally entitled to do.  The Capitol Police say, openly, that the carriers were among the most diligently law-abiding people in the building.

There was no “intimidation”.

Ms. Martens – feeling “intimidated” by law-abiding people doing things that are perfectly legal is your prerogative.  Whining about it puts you on par with people who don’t like being in rooms with black people.

A gun-toting group took over a national wildlife refuge in Oregon, with no legal consequences.

Ms. Martens is apparently as ignorant about the Fifth Amendment as she is of the Second; there were legal consequences.  There were arrests, arraignments, a trial…

…and an acquittal.   That, Ms. Martens,  is a legal consquence.

Following a shooting last year in Minneapolis at a demonstration led by people of color, one man whom a prosecutor identified as a “white supremacist” is soon to be tried on charges of shooting and wounding peaceful demonstrators.

Well, wait, Ms. Martens – there’s going to be a trial.  At issue was whether the protesters were peaceful, or in fact a legitimate threat of death or great bodily harm, potentially leading to a self-defense claim.   Until then, the suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

Now, this blog has made great sport of pointing out, debunking, and roundly mocking Ms. Martens’ endless parade of lies – all the while scampering away from any engagement from those who know better.

And it’s all been good clean political fun, as these things go, so far.

But next, Martens slides over the edge, from being a befuddled ninny to complete moral depravity.

Gun carry laws don’t go far enough for those who want to return to the “good old days” when it was easier for white men to kill black men with impunity.

We carry guns because we want to kill black people?

Wow.  And Martens thought Rothman made a claim with no evidence.

It seems I’ve been giving Martens too much credit all these years; where I used to think she was just a gabbling ninny, it seems she’s really something much, much less innocent.

That’s why the gun lobby invented “Stand Your Ground” or “Shoot First” laws, which allow a person to shoot and kill, in public, anyone they deem threatening — and people of color are well aware who that means.

Well, no – that’s not how “stand your ground” works.

But “people of color” are aware of what the law means; they use “Stand Your Ground” in self-defense cases twice as much per capita as white shooters.

In Heather Martens’ weird little world, where black people are nothing but hapless victims, I’m sure that comes as a shock.

So let’s recap:  in a column where Heather Martens accuses Andrew Rothman of presenting no evidence to support his claim, she presents…at best no evidence to support any claim, and at worst, evidence that debunks her and, finally, marks her as a fairly toxic little person.

Dear Minnesota Minorities:  you might want to specifically terminate Ms. Martens as your official spokesperson.

The Problem With Liberal Media Talking About “Fake News”

The left-leaning mainstream media – which has in the life of this blog:

…is wondering why people don’t trust it.

Perhaps because of paragraphs like this (emphasis added by me):

“What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy,” said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a liberal group that polices the news media for bias. “Therefore, by applying that term to credible outlets, it becomes much more believable.”

Media Matters is a Soros-funded propaganda mill.  It is a “media watchdog” only to the extent that an attack-PR firm is a watchdog of anything; relentlessly scouring media for congruence with liberal chanting points with all the grace of a German funk band.

Others see a larger effort to slander the basic journalistic function of fact-checking. Nonpartisan websites like Snopes and Factcheck.org have found themselves maligned when they have disproved stories that had been flattering to conservatives.

Neither is non-partisan.

While I think good reporting is essential to a representative Republic, I think our current mainstream media will not be the ones to perform any kind of “good reporting”.   The sooner it goes out of business, the better for democracy.

Get The Sad Trombone

Gun-control melodrama Miss Sloane has bombed at the box office.

Well, no.  That understates it.  Howard the Duck and Ishtar bombed.  Miss Sloane was dropped from a single B-29, and like that iconic single bomb, has a decent shot at helping to bring a war to an end.

After lavish television advertising – Miss Sloane had a bigger TV budget than the inescapable Rogue One – and fawning reviews from liberal critics and media, the movie earned $3.2 million dollars.  Which, divided by the number of screens and a $10 ticket price, meant an average of around ten people attending each showing.

And it wasn’t for lack of trying to get people to show up. Out of the 200 highest-grossing movies of 2016, only ten exceeded the $15.9 million television advertising budget of Miss Sloane, and seven of those did so by very small amounts. Miss Sloane spent more than the Star Wars spinoff Rogue One, Star Trek, Pete’s Dragon, Arrival, Doctor Strange, and Hacksaw Ridge. It had twice the advertising budget of such hits as Sully, The Girl on the Train, and The Secret Life of Pets. For every dollar spent on advertising, Miss Sloane brought in just 21 cents in ticket sales. By this measure, it came in dead last out of the 200 top-grossing movies in 2016. No one else was even close. Coming in second-to-last was Collateral Beauty, which made 53 cents per advertising dollar. The average movie made almost $2 for each dollar spent on advertising.

Of course, the movie’s core conceit – that gun grabbers are a bunch of plucky, underfunded underdogs, duking it out with a “gun lobby” that is floating in money – is a preposterous fiction.  Michael Bloomberg and other anti-gun plutocrats fund the “safe criminal” movement lavishly.

For example, here in Minnesota during the 2016 campaign, groups affiliated with the safe criminal lobby spent well over a million dollars – easily ten times as much as the Human Rights movement did – and employed at least four full-time paid staffers.   Not a single person in Minnesota is paid to lobby the legislature or organize the community; the movement is entirely volunteers, working on their own time out of pure devotion to the Bill of Rights.   In other states – Nevada, Washington, Maine – the spending ratio was closer to 30 to 1.

I suspect most Americans can tell the movie doesn’t pass the stink test;  Sloane’s premise reeks like a full pea-soup diaper on a dog day in the bayou.

And its failure is of a piece with the collapse, over the past fifteen years, of nearly every single Hollywood anti-war movie.

When I saw the trailer – during one of my ever-so-brief episodes of watching broadcast TV – I heard the trailer in the background.  I think it was the normally-excellent Sam Waterson, playing one of the “gun lobby” bad guys.  I think I envisioned a character wearing a black cape and top hat, twisting a painstakingly-maintained handlebar mustache as he tied Ms. Chastain…er, Sloane to the tracks.  I actually laughed out loud.

But hey, Hollywood; keep ’em coming.

Official

Today’s the day that the Electoral College will meet and, despite six weeks of demonstrations, threats and magical thinking, elect Donald Trump as president.

The Electoral College – which, back in the days when Hillary was considered inevitable, was above reproach – like so much in our federal system, is designed to protect the huge, diverse minority from the majority.

And it worked.  And that doesn’t sit well with our left:

Donald Trump’s election is difficult for many Americans to accept, but there is no good reason to question its democratic legitimacy. For better or worse, Trump won the presidency by constitutional and sensible democratic rules that guided both campaigns and were known to any politically conscious citizen. He also won the national popular vote cast outside of the single state of California. Moreover, Clinton won all of California’s 55 electoral votes despite the fact that 4.3 million of the state’s voters voted for Trump. That big winner-take-all advantage for California’s Democrats and Clinton was certainly felt, but it wasn’t enough to override her losses in many other states.

Under our electoral vote system, American voters elected a national president, not California’s choice. It is in the nation’s interest for Democratic Party’s leaders and for Clinton voters to fully recognize the legitimacy of the election as they had urged Trump to do after the third presidential debate.

I say this:  if you want to abolish the Electoral College, and make this nation a pure majority-rule state – i.e. ruled by California and New York – go for it.

But then, remove all impediments to secession.

UPDATE:  There’s one “faithless elector” so far.  It’s a Democrat, naturally – and, of course, from Minnesota:

Of course it was a Minnesota Democrat.

No word on whether Jill Stein is going to demand a recount.

UPDATE 2:  Democrat demonstrators outside the State Capitol urging Minnesota’s electors meeting therein to “vote their conscience”…:

Downtown St Paul

Posted by Deb Brown on Monday, December 19, 2016

…notwithstanding that, per state law, they were bound to vote HIllary.

UPDATE 3:   1:54PM ET:  Trump goes past 270 electoral votes.

1:55PM ET:  Democrats:  “Well?  Why isn’t America great again?  Huh?  Huh? Huh?”

This Changes EVERYTHING!

Celebrities – among the left’s most vital constituencies – are now asking for 37 electors to vote against Trump.

Don’t want to watch the whole video?  OK – the “highlight” is probably Martin Sheen, who preaches:

Sheen pledges that anyone who votes his or her way will go “down in the books as an American hero,” and others say those electors will “have my respect.”

Violating state election laws and party rules, and getting Martin Sheen’s “respect?”

Good News, Bad News

Good News:  After five years of “economic growth” under Obama, the economy might actually take off again.

The US economy will grow by 2.3 percent in 2017 and 3.0 percent in 2018, said the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, revising its earlier forecast.

That compares to gross domestic product growth of 1.5 percent this year, according to the OECD.

Bad News:  Because Keynesianism:

The Republican property tycoon’s team has said he will devote $550 billion to rebuilding decrepit infrastructure.

Really Bad News:  And that’s all presuming the Democrats don’t call in their markers with Janet Yellen.

Stardom

Speaking for myself, I’m not going to participate in the left’s jabbering about “the Alt-Right” – which is to this cycle what “Vast Rightwing Conspiracy” was to 1996, and “War on Women” was to 2012; a mass smear attempting to tie the entire American “right” to the most noxious people who can possibly be linked to it.

In this case, some “Klan” leaders who nobody has heard of (there are bowling leagues with more members and political clout than the KKK has these days) who were thrust into instant, utterly temporary, undeserved prominence by dint of “endorsing” or “heiling” Trump.

However, Trump has refudiated his ‘supporters’ on the “alt-right”.

Suppose that’ll get any headlines?

So Let Me See If I Got This Straight

Democrat operatives, November 7, 2016:  “Our electoral system is rock solid, there is no election fraud, the results we get are impeccable, and failing to accept its results is paranoia and maybe treason.

Democrat operatives, November 26, 2016:  “We can not accept the results of the election in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, because our election system is rife with fraud and easily hacked by…Russians”.

Make no mistake, this isn’t about trying to get Hillary into the White House; it’s about trying to delay three large states’ electoral vote totals long enough to throw the election to the Congress, thereby giving Democrats leverage to try to illegitimize President-Elect Trump, give the demented Democrat chanting classes a bloody shirt to wave at the ignorant for the next 4-8 years, and set up a narrative in which Hillary – among the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world – is a victim.

It’s The Message, Stupid

One campaign-season cliche we can retire:  “money buys elections”.

Trump won is election very much on the cheap:

Of course, the battlefield was already littered with candidates from both parties that outspent their opponents, only to lose. Meg Whitman, John Corzine, Linda McMahon and a host of other famous and unfamous names outspent their opponents on the way to defeat in previous years. But Trump may put all of those elections to shame when it comes to disparity of resources.

Consider that Hillary Clinton’s campaign outspent Trump by more than two-to-one. Pro-Clinton ads outnumbered pro-Trump ads by three-to-one. Independent groups (the “super PACs”) supporting Clinton outspent independent groups supporting Trump by three-to-one. The average contribution to Trump was smaller than the average contribution to Clinton. And on and on it goes.

Which, in a reasonable world, would put a hard kibosh on the idea of campaign finance “Reform”:

We’re told by campaign finance “reformers” that we must restrict spending in politics so that “people” can have their voices heard. But voters in 2016 ultimately chose the candidate without even a “real” super PAC to speak of.

This tells us two things: First, that money is simply the facilitator by which candidates speak to voters, but that voters will make up their own minds. Second, it shows us that money simply can’t make up for a message that people aren’t interested in. After his defeat, the man in charge of Jeb Bush’s $100 million super PAC remarked of the voters: “They just weren’t buying what we were selling.”

Let’s hope the same goes for tired tropes on money in politics.

Look for the Democrats to push a bill establishing minimum spending.

Liberal Logic

Near as I can figure, it’s:

Step 1:  Run around waving signs, chanting chants, burning things and looting things and attacking people and vandalizing dissenters’ property (actually property dissenters rent…):

Anti-Trumpkins vandalized the GOP headquarters... ...no. They vandalized the building where the GOP rents space for its headquarters. The property owners will now have to remove the vandalism or get a ticket from the city. Not the GOP. The vandals.

Anti-Trumpkins vandalized the GOP headquarters…
…no. They vandalized the building where the GOP rents space for its headquarters.
The property owners will now have to remove the vandalism or get a ticket from the city.
Not the GOP. The property’s owners.

…and block highways.

Step 2:  Trump resigns.

Dear protesters:  please keep it up.  The GOP will gain seats in the mid-terms.

Rigged

Get out and vote today.

Assuming it matters.  George Soros has been spending big bucks to control the system.  And he’s just getting started:

The documents reveal that the Soros campaign fueled litigation attacking election integrity measures, such as citizenship verification and voter ID. It funded long-term efforts to fundamentally transform election administration — including the creation of databases that were marketed to state governments for use in voter verification. It propped up left-leaning media to attack reports of voter fraud, and conducted racially and ideologically targeted voter registration drives.

The racially targeted voter registration drives were executed at the same time Soros dollars were funding other public relations efforts to polarize racial minority groups by scaring them about the loss of voting rights and the dangers of police officers.

The Soros documents reveal hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into the effort to transform the legal and media environment touching on elections. One document notes that poverty-alleviation programs are being de-emphasized for this new effort. It states: “George Soros has authorized U.S. Programs to propose a budget of $320 million over two years, with the understanding that the annual budget for U.S. Programs will be $150 million beginning in 2013.”

To have a functional democracy, it’s important for people to trust their fellow citizens’ motives.

I don’t know that there’s any way to trust the motives of people who are floating on a raft of Sorosbucks.

Three Reasons Not To Vote For Angie Craig

Reason #1:  She lied about her business background.   Her ads make her sound like some kind of entrepreneur.  In fact, she’s a “Human Resources” executive.  Now, God love all you HR people in the audience, but Human Resources is the exact opposite of entrepreneurship.  Fully-implemented HR processes are a leash around business’ neck, ready for government to yank.  And while I’m sure none of you HR people in my audience are like this, far too many are utterly worthless.

Reason #2:  She’s a lying pigand voting for her would validate all that is slimy and stupid about American politics.  A vote against Craig – no matter who the opponent – is a vote against the basest, most rotten aspects of politics today.

Reason #3:  Her opponent is the father of modern Minnesota conservatism.  Jason Lewis has a 30 year record of putting his principles out there; walking back from ’em would be very, very hard – and, I suspect, anathema to him.  Add to that the fact – which I’ve already mentioned, but bears repeating as often as possible between now and election day – that Angie Craig is a lying pig who represents everything that is vile and pustulent about American politics today – and the choice is clear.

UPDATE:  Did I mention Angie Craig is a lying pig?

Berg’s Seventh Law Is Eternal And Omnipresent

Know how I knew there was a Democrat plan to use physical violence on pro-Trump and pro-GOP rallies?

Because the media has been spending so much time talking about the “threat” of GOP violence against Democrats.

When I heard NPR last week solemnly intoning about the “threat” of “people in open-carry states standing around polling stations with guns”, doing whatever it is they were supposed to be doing, it was obvious to me; attention needed to be turned away from “progressive” thugs.

When you hear these things, always, always remember Berg’s Seventh Law:

When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character, humanity or respect for liberty or the truth, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds.

Because it truly does explain everything:

Democratic Party operative Robert Creamer used terror to wage war on honesty. Until forced to resign his post as a “consultant” with a Democratic Party-aligned organization named Americans United for Change, Creamer ran what amounts to a domestic U.S. political terror and propaganda operation dedicated to undermining the 2016 U.S. presidential election—“rigging the election,” to use the current term.

Yes, Creamer’s operation uses terror—and three investigative videos recently released by Project Veritas contain information supporting my assessment.

(“Rigging The Election,” Part OnePart Two and Part Three, released October 24).

Creamer resigned as an official consultant because Part One and Part Two exposed him. His operation, however, remains active and continues to do damage. The election rigging scheme he commanded relies on street thuggery. That means physical fear—terror—is a core component of Americans United for Change’s crooked enterprise. Street thuggery is very low-level terrorism, but it is a type of terrorism nonetheless and it is wrong to call it otherwise.

The thing about terrorists is that their goal is to destroy moderation; to make the center untenable; you’re either with them 100%, or against them 100%.  That’s intentional; the chaos in between creates opportunity for those willing to exploit it.

Which the GOP – still focusing on all of that “Constitution” and “economy” and “Democracy” stuff – never really is, for better or worse.