Author: Poetrooper

Several conservative news sources, including Breitbart, have recently reported a story that the liberal media is apparently ignoring because it clearly reflects negatively on the Democrats: a lawsuit that has been filed against the DNC by one of the former candidates to lead that entity. A fellow named Vincent Tolliver, who hails from Arkansas, had recently declared his intent to be one of the ten competing candidates for the job of DNC chair. Unfortunately for Mr. Tolliver, he chose to do something that is highly risky in any Democrat power play: he spoke the truth, a bit of cheeky foolishness that got him quickly and quietly bounced from the competition by current chair, Donna Brazile, another Dem who has had her own problems with truth issues, but for the opposite reason.

Whether Tolliver believed that his own minority status might offer him some freedom to point out a major problem with another minority candidate, we can’t know. But point out he did when he reminded fellow Democrats that their full acceptance of and total support for the LGBT community is a bit out of sync with support for Representative Keith Ellison, a Muslim, to replace Brazile. Tolliver noted that homosexuality is not widely tolerated in Muslim countries and in many can warrant a death penalty. That Tolliver legitimately pointed out a quite logical contradiction in the current Democrat orthodoxy meant nothing to Commissar Brazile, who called for his political defenestration for his religious intolerance, and out the window he went. Tolliver’s intolerable intolerance of a currently coveted religious minority earned him immediate political banishment, if not to the far reaches of Siberia, at least to the eastern reaches of Arkansas, which, for coastal, elitist liberals, is far worse.

The question here is whether this heretical upstart is being banished for what is merely an audacious assault on the usual, widely practiced Democrat hypocrisy, usually a cherished, endearing trait in that party’s candidates, or could it be that he made the far more serious mistake of blaspheming against the party’s increasingly utilized and far more sinister doublethink that George Orwell introduced to the world in his dystopian novel, 1984? Orwell describes that concept:

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.

Can you possibly read that paragraph without seeing similarities to the increasingly bizarre behaviors of Democrats in recent years? That description so describes their conduct that it should be included in their party platform. It certainly explains how Tolliver’s offensive observation was so intolerable to such a militantly tolerant and inclusive organization, does it not? Or how universities are bastions of free speech unless you try to practice actual free speech on a campus? Or how Democrats can scream charges of fascism and totalitarianism at Republican politicians who are merely mimicking Democrats’ previous actions? In fact, it even explains their fanatic insistence on calamitous climate change sans evidence, and globetrotting in private jets to protest the use of fossil fuels. For certain, it shows how they can empower the Muslim faith within the party leadership while simultaneously waving their gay rainbow banners.

If I were Tolliver, I wouldn’t file my suit in a blue state – liberal insanity may be recognized there as a legitimate legal gambit. Call it the Doublethink Defense.

Crossposted at American Thinker

As most of you should know, a Seattle federal district judge, James Robart, has issued a stay against the Trump administration immigration ban on travel from seven countries that pose a threat of terrorist infiltration. That this same judge recently decreed in his court that “black lives matter” couldn’t possibly lead one to consider that there just might be some liberal politics at play in a Seattle judge’s decision, now, could it? That’s almost like saying “California judge” or “New York judge” – know what I mean?

But here we have a federal district judge with no access to any of the classified intelligence that likely went into implementing the ban decision, yet he considers himself supremely qualified to overrule the commander-in-chief of our armed forces on this national security matter. That, folks, is precisely the kind of judicial overreach and judicial activism that we elected Donald Trump to do away with, because we, the people who have to live with the real-life consequences of such a unicorn judiciary, are sick of it and want our nation to be free of it.

That this judge is a George Bush appointee just adds to the argument that none of these turkeys needs to be appointed for life, because their comfortable lifetime sinecures lead many of them to come to see themselves as beneficent dispensers of broad social justice remedies rather than the civil and criminal matters they are appointed to deal with. The old argument that appointing federal judges for life puts them beyond the reach of temptation or undue influence is horse puckey. The list of corrupt federal judges may not be long, but there damned sure is one.

But what is worse is the socio-political corruption that occurs with too many supposedly conservative federal judges after they have become accustomed to looking down on the world from their lofty, high-minded perches. They become comfortable with the idea that they have the power and authority to change society itself.

Hey, it’s fine to hear and rule on civil rights cases, but to issue nationwide stays directly challenging national security policies of the sitting administration is purely and simply judicial overreach. We need to be done with it.

Crossposted at American Thinker

For decades, I’ve watched unions, both private-sector and public-service, collude with the Democratic Party to boost salaries, benefits, and pensions to levels unattainable to the average non-union American worker, all the time wondering, “How the hell are they ever going to keep that going?” For years, when we encountered one of those big, lumbering, quarter-million-dollar motor homes, my wife and I would joke, “There goes another retired lawyer or doctor.” These days, based on publicly available data, our speculation is that it’s likely a retired cop or fireman.

We visited old college friends a couple of years ago at their very nice home on a lush fairway in the desert southwest. He’s a retired public utility worker and union official, while she’s a school administrator. While he was showing me the yard, I spotted a two-story Spanish Colonial-style mansion across the fairway and observed, “Looks like you have some very well-to-do neighbors.” His response was, “That? Nah, he’s a retired fireman.” Today I spoke with my brother in California about this situation, and he informed me that he has seen on open public records that retired fire department captains in his home town are drawing $130,000 per year from the public trough.

Are you beginning to see my concern?

You don’t have to be an actuary to calculate that the American dream many of these generously retired union workers, especially those from the public-service unions, are living is completely unsustainable, assuredly for coming generations, but most likely for current retirees as well. And that’s despite all the desperate attempts by the unions’ Democrat cronies to raise taxes, tolls, and public fees to fund the exorbitant salaries, benefits, and pensions of public-service employees and to pressure unionized industries into equally lucrative contracts for their blue-collar workers.

Look at almost any major municipality in the so-called blue states, especially those cities that have been under Democrat control for decades, and you’ll likely find a looming pension crisis; ditto for private sector unions in those same states. But don’t even think about suggesting a reasonable reduction in those salaries, benefits, and pensions to either the totally intransigent unions or their Democrat cronies, who will assure you they have some magical way to accomplish the impossible. There’s a deepening reservoir of impossible-to-keep retirement commitments in those blue states being held back by a dam of desperate and disingenuous Democrat denial.

And now comes what may be a small leak portending that pension dam disaster, which, when it breaks, is going to sweep away generations of American dreams in the fiscal waves and torrents of all that pent up political cronyism and greed. The Washington Post just reported that an ironworkers union in Ohio is doing the unthinkable: reducing benefits to its current pensioners, some by as much as 60%, to prevent the fund from sinking into insolvency as soon as 2024. According to the Post, these ironworkers make up only a tiny slice of the more than a million private-sector workers and retirees whose pension funds are predicted to be insolvent within twenty years. One of the largest, the Central States Pension Fund, which represents some 300,000 truckers, has already tried to reduce pensions but has been stymied in that effort by the federal government, which says the proposed cuts are insufficient to save the fund from insolvency.

It’s a good bet that Chicago will be the first major Democrat stronghold to default on its public-service union retirement commitments, but it’s a sure bet that it is the entire State of California that is sitting on the nuclear incident of pension plan insolvencies, and when that Democrat unicorn reactor ultimately goes critical and melts down, as it most assuredly is going to do, it will shake this nation. We can hope it shakes some sense into Democrats and makes unions think twice about getting too greedy, but based on current attitudes, it’s not likely.

It will be interesting to see if all those retirees who get their fat pensions drastically reduced will still be voting slavishly Democrat when basic math wrapped around the hard fist of reality smacks them hard in the kisser.

The word tuckered is taking on a whole new meaning with the advent of the new FOX News prime-time (9:00pm ET) hit featuring Tucker Carlson as host and interrogator nonpareil. The show should probably carry a viewers’ warning that if you are disturbed by the sight of smug, smarmy liberals getting dissected live on camera, then perhaps you should just buck it up, bucko, for one viewing, and you will soon learn the pure joy of watching an accomplished and prepared professional at work.

Actually, squeamishness isn’t a widely recognized characteristic among those flocking to view the dissections if viewer numbers being reported are accurate. In fact, according to The Hill, among others, Carlson has almost doubled the viewers in the key 25-54 demographic from the slot’s previous occupant, Megyn Kelly, now preparing her debut at NBC.

One of the most frequent criticisms conservatives voice regarding liberals is the dripping condescension with which they deign to engage their opponents in political discourse. It’s like a directional speech defect – liberals don’t talk to, but rather talk down when speaking to conservatives, and if you possibly miss the scornful contempt in their word and tone, it’s usually accompanied by a visible backup cue, a knowing little smile of superiority that’s there to make it perfectly clear, bubba, that you are one dumb, misinformed, knuckle-dragging primitive. That derisive smile is always there when they are listening, usually moving from side-to-side as the head is being shaken slightly to convey the sneering certainty that you’re just simply never going to get this, bumpkin. It’s beyond your flag-worshiping, gun-loving, Bible-thumping flyover yokel comprehension.

…until they get Tuckered, in the new meaning of that word. Armed with the knowledge of what his liberal guests have publicly pronounced most recently, as well as in their pasts, Tucker Carlson proceeds to hold them to task for their words, hitting them with cogent questions, demanding, repeatedly if necessary, that they answer the questions he asks, not the ones they want to answer with their smug liberal talking points. Throughout, Carlson’s like a polite, smiling pit bull with lockjaw, and when he finally says, in that rapid-fire delivery of his, “Thanks for coming on,” you can almost hear an audible sigh of relief from his guests, most of whom seem to have lost their contemptuous smiles for the moment, leaving the viewer wondering if the guest is wondering, “What on Earth made me subject myself to such public humiliation?” A few retain their smug attitude to the bitter end, but the viewers know that those libs are leaving the studio with some deep Tucker tooth marks in their contemptuous backsides.

Carlson’s not new, having previously hosted other shows on other networks, but this time he’s different – someone at FOX wisely decided to drop the leash and let him tree a bunch of those squirrely, self-righteous liberals. He does so doggedly well.

If you have ever had the thought, “Man, I’d love to sic my dog on that smug SOB,” this is your chance. Tune in and watch an assortment of liberals get plumb Tuckered out.

Crossposted at American Thinker

VN Express and other news sources are reporting that Jean Fraud Kerry has returned to the Mekong Delta, ostensibly on a trade mission (yeah right with only days remaining in office), but far more likely to revisit the scene of the war crime he tried to perpetrate against the American people when the criminal Democrats nominated him as their presidential candidate in 2004.

Landing in Hanoi late Thursday, Kerry begins his official two-day visit on Friday. He will meet with Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc and other senior Vietnamese officials in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. On Saturday he will also tour the Mekong Delta, where he served as a commander of an American patrol boat during the Vietnam War.

Personally, I’m thinking about emailing that premier whose name is pronounced Win Wan Phuc and telling him,

“On behalf of the American veterans community, you Win Wan; you can Kiep Dys Phuc.”

A while back I wrote here about a New York Daily news reporter, aptly-named, Gersh Kuntzmann, who castrated himself with a very dull keyboard while writing a largely fictional account of his misadventures with an AR-15 rifle, a tale he foolishly tried to pass off as an authentic recounting of his trip to a firing range. Gentle Gersh, a liberal pioneer in the fake news movement, came under heavy fire from genuine, knowledgeable gun owners for his patently dishonest article and under heavy ridicule from manly men everywhere for his inadvertent, yet very public self-emasculation. Writing my critique of Kuntzmann’s feckless self-gelding, I had no idea that we would have another confession from another liberal eunuch quite so quickly. Boy was I wrong.

Brent Scher over at Washington Free Beacon reports that ThinkProgress senior editor, Ned Resnikoff, posted another one of these online orchidectomies on his Facebook page back in November wherein he describes in almost tremulous tones his onset of phobias upon inviting a plumber, a white male with a southern accent and a likely Trump voter into his apartment to unclog a drain right after the election.

Here’s the screenshot:

This afternoon had aplumber (sic) over to my apartment to fix a clogged drain. He was a perfectly nice guy and a consummate professional. But he was also a middle aged white man with a southern accent who seemed unperturbed by this week’s news. And while I had him in the apartment, I couldn’t stop thinking about whether he voted for Trump, whether he knew my last name is Jewish, and how that knowledge might change the interaction we were having inside my own home. I have no real reason to believe he was a Trump supporter or an anti-Semite, but in my uncertainty I couldn’t shake the sense of potential danger. I was rattled for some time after he left.

I’m very privileged insofar as this sense of danger is unfamiliar to me. And I know I feel it much less acutely than a lot of other people right now. I’m still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile. Plus my first name is pretty WASP-y.

But today was a reminder that ambiguous social interactions now feel unsafe and unpredictable in a way that they never did before. And even if Trump is gone in four years, I don’t expect to ever reclaim that feeling of security. That’s just one more thing you voted for if you voted for him.

Aside from the fact that most American housewives can unclog a drain, I think Neddy’s reassurance to himself that he’s still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile is rendered a bit feeble by the inclusion of that rather tentative still. And rather than being concerned about passing for gentile, perhaps Ned should be more concerned about passing for a real guy, especially with that revelation that he was still rattled after the other guy, a possible (gasp!) Trump voter, was long gone. I must tell you, that rings just a tad too effete for comfort to this old Trump-voting, straight southerner. As for the plumber, the poor guy was probably rattled by the suspicion of furtive glances at his white, male, southern, Trump-voting, plumber’s butt crack by a sensitive, circumcised, Semitic phenotype who can easily pass for a flaming Hillary LGBTQ social justice warrior. Mind you, we’re not saying any of our suspicions about you are true, Ned, they’re just assumptions, just like those you made about your plumber.

See how all those profiling suspicions and assumptions can cut both ways, young Mr. Resnikoff?

Crossposted at American Thinker

On the Sean Hannity show recently, guest Larry Elder recalled an iconic American entertainer, Alan Funt, creator of the long-running, hit television show, Candid Camera. Funt’s genius was in setting up situations in which unsuspecting, ordinary humans were captured on camera just being themselves when an unexpected intrusion resulted in embarrassingly hilarious results. As Elder noted, that is precisely what this whole brouhaha about Russian interference in our recent election is all about; just like Funt’s unwary subjects, in 2016 Democrats were caught, “Just being themselves,” by an unexpected intrusion.

Consider for a moment that the likeliest largest repository of recorded scandalous behavior by American politicians is in a cavernous edifice somewhere in the Moscow environs with a close second site being Beijing, although it’s not irrational to think it could be Tel Aviv. Our NSA is far from being the only agency in the world with the capability of monitoring the daily activities of targeted individuals around the world and you can bet the farm that Russian, Chinese, Israeli and many other agencies with missions similar to the NSA are fully engaged in the process. If you think that America is not the primary target of such intelligence gathering by all of these programs then you apparently have little clue as to the realities of this world. Or you could be a Democrat.

It is a given that this process must necessarily be focused on the individuals and organizations who make up the political entities that control the behaviors of this nation towards the rest of the world. That you, if you are one of those individuals and a participant in those organizations, should be aware that you are very likely to be targeted and monitored intermittently or even constantly, depending on your level of access and importance, by one or more of these intelligence gathering programs, is also a given. Once again, if you are blissfully unaware of such attentions, you are likely to be a liberal Democrat who has no clue as to what those designations of Confidential, Secret, Top Secret or even more arcane lettered designations on your correspondence might mean to national security. With so little regard for such long-established security protocols, who knows, you just might be brazen enough to set up your own unsecured network server in a completely insecure and unsafe location, or perhaps choose “Password” as your password even though you have most surely been repeatedly briefed by security specialists that doing so invites cyber-invasion.

That you would then apply the same lack of security concern to almost all your domestic, intra-party, intra-campaign communications is not surprising; that the stealthy cyber vacuums of the great cyber powers would be sucking in all the dirt you scatter about you in your devious political dealings is no surprise either. And suck they did, you can be assured. But then one of them, just like in an episode of Candid Camera, chose to dump your political garbage smack on the front lawn of the American presidential campaign where its stench of overripe corruption, rotten back room dealings and bloody backstabbing couldn’t be ignored by ordinary Americans. Whether or not it changed many minds , we’ll never know but what we do know is that Elder was right: You Democrats wailing about Russian influence in the election amounts to nothing more than the simple truth that you got caught in the act of being yourselves, an embarrassing moment of truth that may have cost you an election.

Crossposted at American Thinker