A Word to the Wiseacres

Trump5by Brad Nelson11/10/16
You backed the winning horse. Good for you. Congratulations. But despite all the nutty things you think about anyone who has any questions about Trump — either before or after his winning the election — I can assure you we are not globalist pigs who simply want to overrun America with illegal aliens. We are concerned citizens, many of us conservatives and Christians, who have been fooled before and are not prone to drinking anyone’s kool-aid.

The contest has been decided. We see it as small-minded that many Trumpkins not only are doing a victory lap (understandable) but also have the expectation that winning one election means we must ignore our legitimate concerns about Trump — or any politician — and drink the same kool-aid.

The fact is, it was the influence of sober conservatives and Republicans that was crucial in dragging this man-child across the finish line (including Kellyanne Conway). But he is indeed across and now is the time to borrow a word from the Left and announce “forward.”

Let’s help president-elect Trump in any way we can. Let’s hold him to high standards but not be too quick to find fault. Let’s remember what we have had recently (eight years of a Marxist community organizer) or could have had (Hillary Clinton). No reasonable person expects Trump to morph into Ronald Reagan overnight or ever, for that matter. But we do expect him to act the part of the adult, to get beyond his impulsiveness and pettiness and do the job he was elected to do: drain the swamp.

But we conservatives, despite the bizarre and zealous delusions of many Trumpkins, are not part of the swamp. In fact, many of us were there knee-deep in alligators long before most of you became “politically active” and certainly before and while Donald Trump himself was an active contributor to the Democrat Party.

Our job as good American citizens is to be encouraging when appropriate, but we do not coronate kings. We elect public servants. Trump is our servant. He is not your ongoing instrument to prop up your apparently fragile self-image. He is (or soon will be) the 45th president of the greatest nation on this earth. That honor and responsibility requires moving past your pettiness and it requires all conservatives to give the man a fair chance, not to be too quick with criticism, and to not (for his and our own good) drink the kool-aid of some of his obsequious followers.

It is our duty to let him know when he has broken a promise or gone completely off the rails. And it will be our duty and pleasure to acknowledge the things he hopefully does right.


Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (2494 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.

This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to A Word to the Wiseacres

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    You is reading my mind again.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I do believe your mind has put a few of these thoughts in my own head per a telephone conversation or two. 🙂

      I like passion in politics. Passions enlivens many things and gives them meaning. I can’t imagine living a bland life of vanilla even-keeledness. But I was reminded just now why not being a kook, a mob, or one of the angry “masses” is so important. Apparently yutes-of-color (and others) are rioting in front of Trump Tower in New York, up to and including pulling some white guy from his car and beating him because the mob thought he might be a Trump voter.

      Can you Trumpsters out there distinguish between passion (and it will require a healthy dose of it to overtake the status quote) and mindless zealotry? But then they get this from their boss who, even in victory during the primaries, was nasty and vindictive against those vanquished. Something has to change.

      Payback ought not to be a political platform. We have many things to reform. And we (I assume “we”…despite Trump’s inherent Progressivism) need to articulate a different vision of America from the one of dependency and victimhood. And with so many Trumpsters acting like grievance-filled victims — even in victory — please can anyone tell me how this is going to solve anything.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        There’s also the key difference between passion and a personality cult. The danger of the celebrity candidate (such as Obama or Trump) is that personality cults develop very easily.

      • David Ray says:

        The news is breathlessly reporting minorities being attacked by people wearing “Trump” hats! One vandalized a building and spray-painted “vote Trump” on it.

        Gotta love these liberal trash perpetuating these hoax crimes so relentlessly.
        You would think the WikiLeaks disclosures would have embarrassed them into laying low for awhile, but then again when one has the press on their side . . .

  2. David Ray says:

    Trump had so better honor that list of Supreme Court nominees. BTW: that means he’ll have to actually fight like hell for them. After all, Harry Reid gave us the “nuclear” option, so we oughta use it, damn it! (Only timid ones like Michael Medved are offended using that option after it’s been established against us.)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Put that in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” category. And it’s only fair to point out some of the awful nominations offered by conservatives or your typical “moderate” Republican through the years.

      But if Trump wants to apprentice as president, he ought to hold himself to the same standards that he did for those on his reality TV show. Job #1 is finding someone who will interpret the words of the Constitution as written and intended, not as some narrow Marxist political doctrine requires. Pass or fail. It’s up to Trump. This is an easy one. Either keep your promise on this point or you will very quickly be a one-term president.

      Whatever the case may be, the dynamic of “the mob” out there will be that Trump could nominate Squeaky Fromme for the Supreme Court and they’d be telling us what a great choice she is. Sorry to be so cynical, but they have this coming. The burden of proof is on them that Trump is a serious person.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Getting rid of the filibuster is up to the Senate. I think they should, since it’s clear that the Demagogues will as soon as they’re back on control and find filibusters inconvenient. There’s no reason to let them use a weapon they’ll never again let the GOP use.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Agreed, Timothy. Again, although Trump’s political philosophy is arguably unknown (until he actually makes some decisions as president…this is where the rubber hits the road), Republicans in the House and Senate could learn something from his brass balls. And I’m so glad that Trump has mainstreamed the word, “pussy,” because far too many of these GOP Senators and Congressmen are just that.

        They need to wield power and not be afraid of what the worst elements of the New York Times says about them. In this regard, I very much admire Mr. Trump. He’s like a Black-and-Decker power tool compared to the multi-colored peacock feather dusters of the effete Establishment Republicans.

        You’ve got power. Use it. In case you need a history lesson, look at how badly you pussies effed up (Trump hasn’t quite yet got around to legitimizing this word in public conversation) the last time you had power and yet still acted like hostages to the New York Times.

        Note that yours truly did not complain even once that Trump bitch-slapped Senator McCain during the campaign. McCain is an arrogant, doddering old fool who could use a dressing down a time or two. Nor will you ever (or have you ever) hear from my mouth admonitions for Trump to “moderate” his language lest it hurt the fragile egos of the Progressive Pansies. (My older brother heard on the radio that some major college was offering stuffed animals and a “safe space” for those kids traumatized by Trump’s election.)

        You will not find in your kindly and dear Editor the kind of pansy so abundant in the Ruling Class who (at least on the right) value style to a very high degree more than substance. I don’t care if Trump, in LBJ fashion, takes out his Little Trumpster and pees on the carpet during a press conference if the press conference is about the bill he just signed that is about ending the practice of looking the other way at illegal immigration.

        It should be interesting. From the standpoint of just sheer drama, there is no doubt it will be very interesting indeed.

  3. David Ray says:

    Have Whoopie, Samuel, Cher, Lena, Babs & Miley packed their bags yet!?? (Maybe THIS time Barbara will actually do it.)

    I can see how celebrities gave us the term “Drama Queen”. They’re such emotional creatures.

    • Rosalys says:

      Maybe we should take up a collection, buy them tickets, pack their bags, and drive them to the airport. They have more money than I do, and don’t deserve the free ride, but if it would really encourage them to leave, it just might be worth it!

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Sounds good, but I’m not sure I can afford to pay the costs for where Cher wants to go.

        I say that we vanquish emotional immaturity. Although a president can certainly adversely affect our lives, we are not quite yet looking at a Stalin or Lenin (or Hitler or Mao or whomever). The body politic might be killed by the death of a thousand cuts. Everyone from Woodrow Wilson on down as thrust a knife or two in the body. Trump will likely add a few more. He might also heal a few wounds. Time will tell how we “net” in regards to his presidency.

        But it’s way past time for people to grow up and stop acting like children. If you don’t like Trump, work for causes and candidates that offer a different vision and different policies.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Hoping for celebrities to grow up (if they haven’t already) is a pipe dream. But I’d be willing to help them leave provided they formally expatriate themselves — and add, for good measure, “Don’t let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.” This also works nicely (and I recommend it as public policy) for blacks seeking reparations — let them have the average wealth of a citizen of wherever they come from and whatever movable property they can take with them, but they have to switch their citizenship to that country.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            We’re really in the situation of the “the pot calling the kettle black.” These celebrities think their word is important because they are celebrities (aka “better than the rabble”). Trump’s words were given credence because he is a celebrity.

            My real desire is for no one to leave the planet (unless they’re on a NASA mission to Mars). I want them to grow up and stop acting like spoiled children. More than that, I want something other than mere celebrity to be held as a value upon which our culture can be based.

            But I won’t hold my breath.

  4. Steve Lancaster says:

    “It is our duty to let him know when he has broken a promise or gone completely off the rails. And it will be our duty and pleasure to acknowledge the things he hopefully does right.”

    That is the essence of our constitution G-d bless the USA

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Lancaster, I have entire fleets of mobile rocket launchers filled with “I told you so’s” regarding Trump just waiting to be launched. Whether I sign onto the Paris Peace Accords and agree to mutual disarmament with the obnoxious Trumpsters is still in negotiation.

      But it seems inevitable that Trump will not fulfill many of his promises and that the “Trump will be Trump” factor will cause him to figuratively shoot himself in the foot a time or two. But, honestly, I hold no grudge. What was anyone supposed to do, vote in Hillary? Ding dong, the witch is exiled.

  5. Rosalys says:

    I’ve been wondering why Hillary didn’t/couldn’t address her supporters on lose-the-election night. I suspected she was having a colossally, major meltdown. Apparently my suspicions were right.

    https://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/ed-klein-hillary-clinton-crying-election/2016/11/09/id/758084/

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I would have thought of her as more of a rager than a crier. Apparently another meltdown occurred, although I side with the Clinton power brokers on this one. Supposedly someone confronted interim party chair, Donna Brazile, and said, among other things:

      “You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

      You see the quandary this presents me? Whose nuttier, the person who backed Hillary Clinton or the person who thinks his life will be cut short by “climate change”?

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      Even with all of this does anyone doubt that the cash at the foundation is going to disappear over the next two months, all in blind accounts with phony names. If you want to see real tears, wait until they are indited, orange jumpsuits for all.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        With Trump on record wanting to put Hillary in jail, and with Obama with the power of pardon, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during their first meeting to see if the subject of Hillary came up. At some point it must. I don’t know if Obama wants the bad (or good?) publicity of pardoning Hillary but I think he would if he thought Trump would indeed pursue throwing her in jail.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Trump may actually win the popular vote, according to this article.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Later reports indicate that this was some sort of error, and that the Fire Witch will probably very narrowly win the popular vote. (Would this be a good time for me to send in my “The Vote Fraud Army” parody?)

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      When I heard she was ahead by only 2-300,000, I knew Trump had truly won the popular vote.

      “How so?”, you may ask.

      Between the 60,000 felonious voters which the Virginia governor enfranchised with the stroke of a pen, to the voting dead, (that would make a TV program) to the illegal aliens who are able to obtain driver’s licenses in Democrat controlled states across the nation, you can bet there were hell of a lot of phony Hillary votes. More than 2 0r 300,000, for sure.

      • Rosalys says:

        Correct. I tend to discount any “Hillary won the popular vote” crap. With all the vote fraud and illegal voting – some of which has been proven – plus some states allowing convicted felons the vote, it is just another lie.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Correct. I tend to discount any “Hillary won the popular vote” crap.

          At the end of the day, there will be a vote tally in regards to the popular vote. For me it’s just another interesting factoid. Whether the tally should be one way or another due to corruption is another factoid (a potentially important one). But I’m not of the mind of “heads I win, tails you lose.” If Hillary wins the popular vote (or Trump, for that matter), that would be an interesting take-away from the election. I’m not just going to sit here and discount it one way or another because it puts a nice gloss on one candidate or another.

          If someone can do a popular vote total minus dead people and felons, that would be interesting. But until we have that, what we have are the totals as reported to us by the states as they are counted.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            If someone can do a popular vote total minus dead people and felons, that would be interesting. But until we have that, what we have are the totals as reported to us by the states as they are counted.

            True, but I am not going to let that interesting factoid be abused and mis-used by the Left in their never-ending attempt to psychologically nullify any victory against them.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Oh, at another site I frequent, one of the liberals there already brought up the “But she won the popular vote” thing. Yes, I get that. And my answer is “We play by the rules that are in place at the time.” A novel concept to liberals, I know.

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The link is to an article about how the NFL is considering how to stop the bleeding in viewership. In listing the reasons for this drop, they do not once mention Colin Kaepernick and other football players refusing to stand for the national anthem.

    This is another sign that they, either do not have any idea of what is happening in this country or they refuse to ease up on the cultural propaganda which they shovel down our throats every day.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/sports/football/nfl-tv-ratings-shorter-games-fewer-commercials.html

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Heheheheh. I read that (or an article like that) this morning as well. Yep, no mention of the Black Separatist (which is what he really is) shitting on our flag and nation. To the best of my understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong), there is a strong correlation between the time of his “protest” and the ratings drop.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        there is a strong correlation between the time of his “protest” and the ratings drop.

        No, no, no! Just because there is a positive correlation there does not indicate causation.

        Just like an ounce of lead deposited in the brain is not definitive proof as to cause of death. It could and been a heart attack, you know.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I was assuming there was a correlation, but wasn’t sure, and asking if there was. I understand the particulars regarding correlation/causation. So…did the ratings drop occur (or spike) around the time of the Colin protest?

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            As I recall, Colin let it be known that he would not stand for the National Anthem before the start of the season. So there might be some argument that the drop was already going to happen and his actions are just incidental.

            But…

            There have been some polls taken and I believe something like 55% of the respondents said that the players refusal to stand for the Anthem was the main reason they stopped watching.

  8. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    I think your call is perfectly fair and reasonable, Brad. For my part, I won’t make excuses for Trump if (and most probably when, for I have no illusions about the man) he screws up. I would say you might be a little too generous with certain alleged “conservatives” who have revealed that they are indeed “globalist pigs who want to overrun America with aliens,” legal or illegal. Trump’s candidacy ripped a few masks off of “Conservative” poseurs, but that is a subject for a different time and place.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Nik, I think the reality of the situation requires us to grade Trump on a curve. Stats I read today say that 61% of voters didn’t think he was qualified to be president. But, of course, many voted for him anyone, probably only because Hillary was such a dour alternative.

      Given the nature of politics in normal times (where candidates make promises and then get into office and forget much of what they said), I think it’s reasonable to believe this holds double for Trump.

      But we’ll wait and see. And because he’s the right’s “affirmative action” candidate, we will, and should, grade on a lower curve. Expectations should be low. We have some specifics such as nominating a conservative Supreme Court justice and “building a wall,” but mostly he talked in broad generalities, with power (his power) being explained as the solutions to all problems.

      We have a new ship-of-state, a supposed ice-breaker, cutting through the Establishment, with a large hose to reach the tundra swamps and drain them. Supposedly this ship will stay on course due to a conservative strategically placed here and there — perhaps twisting the rudder when needed.

      Trump’s candidacy ripped a few masks off of “Conservative” poseurs, but that is a subject for a different time and place.

      All of that is meaningless (unless you mean Hannity, Coulter, et al). That said, I was so disgusted with what passed for conservative commentary that I started by own site — only to find, in the end, conservatism was an identity, at best, or at least a club for selling books (or maybe just a place for poseur pointless bitching and intellectual pontificating). The political/social reality that continued to shape all things was power and Big Government while Big Entertainment shaped most other attitudes — especially including the conservative press.

      At the end of the day, Trump is president-elect and he might just shoot a few useful arrows at the target. The trick will be his advisors and confidantes keeping the target in front of him.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Pat told me about this cartoon when he and his lovely wife (and intelligent…she has fantastic intelligence) dropped by today. He has it posted on his Facebook page and some humorous Trumpkins did not appreciate it. Almost makes you long for the good, old-fashioned humorless liberals. Seems it isn’t conservative who will spend 40 years in the desert but people with a healthy sense of humor.

    Just Testing

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Not belly-laugh funny, but humorous.

      If someone is offended by this they must have some personal issues. We must never stop making fun of politicians.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        That requires not making a personality cult around a politician. A lot of Trump devotees did (yet another similarity between him and Obama).

  10. Stuart Whitman Stuart Whitman says:

    To me it’s largely financial. The culture wars will never end, but DC must be restructured and refinanced. On that front, Trump will be inconsequential. He’ll get the economy going (after a recession) but will increase spending (military), without entitlement reform, leaving us where we are now.

    But he has already accomplished enough for me by running the Clinton’s out of town. Perhaps now we can have an honest debate about our spending priorities (and limits) because the rebuilding of the democratic party will require voices of fiscal responsibility. My only expectation is that the next four years are going to be entertaining as hell.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Stuart, you show unique insight. With the economy having been somewhat carefully managed (particularly via low interest rates), my slim understanding of economics (and Trump) leads me to believe that, yes, the economy could see un upturn (thanks to Trump’s hopefully free-market nature, possible tariffs aside) along with the seemingly natural remoras that come along for the ride: recession and inflation.

      I hate to turn the life of our nation into a could-blooded spectator sport, but at some time there will be a president in office when the proverbial excrement hits the fan in terms of paying the dues for the debt we’ve wrung up, including the problem of unfunded socialist entitlements.

      There will someday also be enormous social dues that will have to be paid as well. We see the thin edge of the wedge in the riots. But consider that bastardy, along with rampant juvenilism, is creating legions of little undisciplined monsters, there is a piper who will be paid. Perhaps payment will be made, as it was in France a few years ago, in burning cars.

      Agreed. Running the Clintons out of town was a definite pubic service by Trump (by the voters, we should say).

      • Timothy Lane says:

        As King Louis XV said (and proved to be right), “Après moi le deluge.” I just hope I don’t have to witness it — and with my age and health, I probably won’t.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          My brother was just playing a clip of Trump saying something like, “You never see ‘Merry Christmas’ anymore. That’s something that is going to change when I’m president.”

          And I got a big “Eff yeah” from my brother when I said, “Instead of those stupid rainbow lights on the White House, I hope this season Trump puts a fifty foot statue of Baby Jesus on the White House front lawn.”

          I’ll take a flood of stuff like that.

      • Stuart Whitman Stuart Whitman says:

        By unique insight I assume you refer to the admission that the Democrats will be back. Or perhaps the means. A Strong Delusion, Star Trek, and What About Bob all make the same point. They’re not gone. They’re never gone!

        But it’s more about birth and rebirth. And the day of reckoning statement. My contrarian voice tells me the fight is never won. But perhaps it would be wise so stop fighting for preservation of something that can’t be preserved and rebuild from the ashes. Actually that voice was Ms. Rand’s. (That will no doubt require clarification.)

        And let’s give credit where credit is due. If not for James Comey, Team Donald would be in the streets recounting ballots. We are a nation of laws after all. And who better to beat them at their own game than those sworn to uphold it. Brilliantly played.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Stuart, I have to chuckle when I hear declarations of the final and complete vanquishing of the Democrats when the Republicans win one election. There is reason to cheer that Hillary lost. There is reason to cheer that Republicans hold the House and Senate along with a majority of state houses and governships (what they actually do with this power is another story, one still to be written for the most part).

          It’s the same chuckle I have when some team wins the Super Bowl and the press declares “Surely this is a football dynasty that will reign for years now.” Anyone remember if the great Chicago Bears team of Ditka ever made it back? And I’d love a Seahawks dynasty, but that hasn’t happened quite yet either. Only the Steelers, 49ers, and Patriots could be called anything like a dynasty. One could certainly call Linda Evans a dynasty.

          You are right that the fight is never won. This fight is particularly difficult because people of good will have been corrupted by generally stupid and superficial doctrines and are daily fed misinformation by a colluding media.

  11. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This article shows why Trump has to do little to “release” American energy resources. In fact, Trump will be “releasing” nothing. Drilling for oil and gas dropped off because of prices, not government regulations.

    The drilling companies have become so good at what they do that even at today’s low prices, they are making money. They will only get better at what they do. This should help keep prices for oil and gas lower than would have been the case just a few years ago. And when prices do go up, the industry will make a lot of money which will trickle down to support industries.

    If Trump wants to help American energy, he should focus on the coal industry and electrical power generation which uses coal.

    http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article114931993.html

  12. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    If this is true, I find it a good sign on the part of Trump’s transition team.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/16/pence-removing-lobbyists-from-trump-transition-team.html

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Town Hall also reported this. Apparently the lobbyists were appointed to the team by Christie, along with a lot of other Establishment types.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      One cautionary note: We must be careful of the language game. I’m a lobbyist (unpaid) for constitutional, limited government. There’s nothing inherently wrong with a lobbyist. Everyone has an interest. Everyone wants something.

      The same regarding “Establishment.” Trumpbots (and we conservatives have played our part in the demagoguery) have been prone to call anyone who opposes Trump part of the “establishment.” Again, there’s nothing inherently wrong with an establishment. It just depends what they are establishing. I’m an establishment constitutionalist.

      Same with words such as “freedom,” “equality,” etc. I swear, I think this site could be a huge service to the public if it dod nothing but publish flashcard-like article with simple explanations of what words mean, and mean to different people.

      It’s natural to have misunderstandings, as well as for words to have many legitimate meanings. But our society is full now of weasel words and it gives the weasels enormous room in which to operate.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        One cautionary note: We must be careful of the language game. I’m a lobbyist (unpaid) for constitutional, limited government. There’s nothing inherently wrong with a lobbyist. Everyone has an interest. Everyone wants something.

        But you were not appointed to Trump’s transition team by a rather obnoxious RINO politico who is beginning to look more and more a liability. And I don’t believe those released from the transition team where lobbying for themselves as individuals. They were “paid guns” looking to get the combination to the safe.

        While everyone has the right to “lobby” (the term comes from people buttonholing MP’s in the lobby of the Houses of Parliament) we must be on the lookout for the natural corruption which creeps into our society when particular interests put up huge sums of money to influence governmental policy. This is especially the case now government has become so large as to effect all facets of life. Given the revolving door between government employees and business/other interests, I believe we must be constantly on our guard.

        So far, it appears that Trump’s appointment of Pence as head of the transition team is having the positive effect I had hoped for. It is still early days, but if things keep moving in this direction I will be pleased.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Yes, one must differentiate between “lobbyist” and “paid lobbyist” and “professional lobbyist”. One must also note that many of the special interests lobbying government do so defensively, as a protection against government going after them as a foe (as happened frequently under Obama). It can be hard to tell whether business is bribing government or government is blackmailing business.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          It’s amazing how corrupt things became when these political charlatans began repeating the mantra, “Not even the appearance of corruption.”

          We’re coming off several decades now of weasel-words from the Republicans. They would say one thing, giving the general impression of being a reformer, ticking off the right buzzwords. But the words were only surface-level marketing to bamboozle a populace (and perhaps even themselves) who wanted to believe (and still wants to believe) they can get something for nothing.

          Somewhere there is a dial spinning like mad, showing the millions a day (if not minute) we add to the debt while some politician in DC makes a big show of “Not even the appearance of corruption.” If all we had was corruption to worry about, we’d have nearly no problems at all.

          Our antenna ought to be very finely tuned so that we don’t mistake the vapid gestures for people actually doing something. It’s too early to tell. But the last thing I’m worried about is lobbyists. What, Trump doesn’t trust himself not to be bought and sold?

  13. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    But the last thing I’m worried about is lobbyists.

    Really? Do you not think that lobbyists were involved “big time” with the lifting of Iranian sanctions? How about the LBGTQWWTAI lobby which gushes money for the furtherance of their perverted schemes? Then there is the Chamber of Commerce, cheap labor lobby which works with the La Raza types to make sure the border is never closed tight. The Clinton Foundation is not much more than a criminal lobbying institute.

    I could go on and on and on. The incestuous relationship between our representatives and lobbyists is also full of nepotism. How many Senators and Representatives have family working for lobbyists? How many aides are influenced by lobbyists? Many.

    Come on. We can chew gum and walk at the same time. We should be able to attack several governmental problems at the same time as well. By the way, if you have some time, watch this video of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff discussing how the system works.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jack+abramoff&&view=detail&mid=8C2F66FE368EE7E89D508C2F66FE368EE7E89D50&FORM=VRDGAR

    I can’t find another video which I saw some years back, also on C-Span. It was quite shocking.

    The man gives clear suggestions as to how to clean up the system and of course, Congress has fought against such ideas for decades.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The lobbyists are an example of the political class in and around Versailles-on-the-Potomac who get rich off the rest of us. Nearly ever bad policy has someone who benefits from it, and uses lobbyists to get what he wants.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        As I have said before, present day lobbyists, those who use them, media and think-tank types i.e. the political class are the equivalent of those courtiers who fawned over Louis XIV, the difference being that today’s courtiers are able to become much richer than in the days of Louis.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          One reason there are so many lobbyists is because, as Timothy noted, there is a protection racket being run in Washington by the politicians. We are rope-a-doping ourselves if we take the eye off the ball and do not mention that the core problem is Washington having too much power and having too much money to launder. To fixate on the lobbyists is to miss the point.

          For Pence and company, this is yet another well-established Establishment Republican way to do things that look good on paper (and in the press) but simply act to wallpaper over the real problem.

          Wouldn’t you rather have a public official admit the obvious that the real problem is too much power and money concentrated in Washington? I know I would. And then I might have some trust in someone. But when they dole out this boilerplate baloney (Trump, for instance, said he could fix entitlements by cutting out “waste and fraud”), you ought to start smelling the con.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            One reason there are so many lobbyists is because, as Timothy noted, there is a protection racket being run in Washington by the politicians.

            The main reason there are so many lobbyists is because government has become so large. The theme that government is too large is one we have been playing for years. Of course we want it to shrink, but that does not preclude the desire to cut off one more possibility for politicos and others to make money off government. Even small steps in the right direction help to reach one’s destination.

            It is fine to be skeptical of all of them, but don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              It is fine to be skeptical of all of them, but don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

              I have a catch in the sink that will momentarily intercept the baby before the automatic garbage disposal comes on. It’s set for a 3-second delay, so you have to be fast.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              This is one of the advantages the Plunderbund has. Their politicians get elected to maximize government influence, and by golly, they work on that every day. The GOP is elected to keep government control and spending at more reasonable levels, but they find it convenient to ignore that all too often.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Probably the most effective “lobbyist” is the typical American citizen who is running this country into the ground, accruing enormous debt in order to force someone else to pay for their lives.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      If the Trump administration doesn’t trust itself enough, then by all means get rid of all lobbyists and “special interests.” My point is twofold:

      1) Lobbyists don’t have a vote in Congress nor can they write an Executive Order. Last time we had serious “campaign finance reform,” it was basically (as Rush noted) the “incumbency retention act”. Politicians can say no if, and only if, we hold them accountable (or if they just wish to do the right thing). Let’s not let Pence or anyone else rope-a-dope us with the usual spin.

      2) Everyone is a special interest. Everyone wants something. Lobbyists (such as the Small Business Association) lobby to make sure small businesses like my own don’t get steamrolled. In theory, of course.

      Regarding Iran, who knows what went into that? But at the end of the day, this was Obama’s baby. It’s laughable to think that a lobbyist could sway this ideologue, although there seems little doubt that Hillary Clinton would make a bidding war of policy if she were president.

      Let’s please though not get rope-a-doped by the usual weasel words. Let’s see where the beef is, if any.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One thing that helps corrupt politicians is the cynical view that “thety all do it”. It may indeed be true, or at least that they’re inclined to (though some start out honestly). But punishing the guilty will persuade at least some of the others to behave honestly (more or less, which is all one expects from politicians) rather than risk being thrown out or even jailed.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          One thing I won’t do, Timothy, is swallow down the usual stale morsels that the establishment throws us peasants. For me, reigning in the lobbyists is of the same three-day-old bread as the politician who promises to cut “waste and fraud.” Who can be against cutting waste and fraud? Who can be against the undo influence of lobbyists?

          One reason I’ve gone to these new reality-based rules regarding political article submissions is because what we’ve been doing the last thirty years (at least) is having two realities. One is the reality of the ever-bloating Federal government. They talk of the “soaring” Federal budget, but this beast couldn’t get off the ground any more than if you put wings on a hippopotamus. Reality gets lost in words, empty gestures, and clever marketing. While the beast fattens, politicians (of both parties) try putting lipstick on themselves (lipstick on the pig…you get it) as they push themselves up to the trough.

          The other reality is the one the floats above, mostly disconnected. We can exist talking, analyzing, and gesturing in the airless space above the pig reality as a permanent satellite of rhetoric that never touches the ground but sure bounces around a lot of signals. Not me. Not going to fall for it. Nor should anyone else.

          I’m not reaming Mr. Kung. I’m just saying we should beware of having the usual crumbs thrown at us. We dare not call it the first course of a feast or they have us.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I’m just saying we should beware of having the usual crumbs thrown at us. We dare not call it the first course of a feast or they have us.

            So far, it appears that Trump’s appointment of Pence as head of the transition team is having the positive effect I had hoped for. It is still early days, but if things keep moving in this direction I will be pleased

            You will note my remark is conditional. I am by no means a believer, yet. But we should not close our minds to the possibility that Trump might, as unlikely as it may seem, do something positive. As the Germans say, “even a blind chicken finds a seed now and then.”

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Regarding Iran, who knows what went into that? But at the end of the day, this was Obama’s baby. It’s laughable to think that a lobbyist could sway this ideologue

        Perhaps, but do not have any doubt that this deal was lobbied in a big way and helped smooth the path for him. European governments lobbied for it in a big way. You don’t think that helped him? And these governments were lobbied consistently by big business.

        Government is about power and money.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          At the end of the day, “waste and fraud” and “lobbyists” is about managing the status quo, not overturning it. I’ll admit there’s a certain amount of tea reading in this. But our job here, such as it is (I’m not gettin’ paid, are you?) is to sharpen people’s bullshit detector.

          I don’t want people to be cynical. And we have to have some reasonableness about what we can expect from any elected official in a republican form of government. Had we a Caesar, we could think big. But what we tend to get is Big Rhetoric and just small increments. To a large extent, that is the nature of our constraining form of government.

          It may constrain, but a boa constrictor can squeeze the life out of its prey will little increments. That’s what it seems like regarding the Federal government. We actually need a benevolent Caesar. And the president does have enormous power. But we shouldn’t expect too much. But I don’t think there’s any way for Americans to apply pressure until they have an A-grade bullshit detector.

          Regarding Iran, when was the last time a national leader mentioned that Iran doesn’t need nuclear power because it’s sitting on a shit load of oil? The nuclear is for powering televisions. It’s for building weapons in order only to threaten its enemies and extending its power. Let’s just cut through all this lobbyist stuff. This isn’t about lobbyists. This is about a sick Leftist worldview whereby who are *we* to say some nutjob country such as Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons.

          If there are lobbyists involved here it is the many teachers, professors, and “journalists” who have forwarded the idea of multiculturalism.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            There’s nothing Trump or anyone else can do (legally) to get rid of the multiculturalists, unfortunately. This will continue to leave the West vulnerable to future rape epidemics (indeed, the existing one shows no signs of abating) from Muslim invaders.

            Getting rid of the lobbyists is a common reform proposal, and usually doesn’t last long. (This is what happened under Obama — and who knows, maybe he actually meant it originally, though I doubt it.) As to what the professional lobbyists can do to us, I can only mention a site I previously recommended here — thekronies.com, with its parody of crony capitalism. If Trump’s moves are the beginning of a move away from the influence of K Street, then, good. But we should be cautious about believing it will actually happen.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I would sincerely love it if Mr. Smith went to Washington with the desire to do right by his own district and the Constitution instead of just enriching himself and selling his vote to the highest bidder. Sign me up if this is what Trump is doing, putting good principle over momentary pragmatic power and money.

              The problem as I see it is that Trump doesn’t appear to have much of a guiding political philosophy. It will then always be difficult to distinguish between a plan and mere pandering.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                TCM had Mr. Smith Goes to Washington a few nights ago. But where is Jimmy Stewart now that we need him?

                And note that control of the news media by the corrupt boss plays a significant role in the smear campaign against Jefferson Smith. Nice foreshadowing.

  14. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    But where is Jimmy Stewart now that we need him?

    Making some previous bone-headed political mistakes as well as his father being connected with the assassination of JFK.

    In his latest article, Dr. Sowell recommends Ted Cruz to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. I concur. It will likely never happen because payback (especially against hated conservatives…real ones) trumps what’s best for the country.

    People looking for principle over power (such as myself) were amazed at the gadflies who flocked to the bug-zapping allure of Trump’s green (well, orange) glow. I hope Trump surprises us all and is at least a mediocre president.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Mediocre would be a big improvement over any Democrat, and no worse than any post-Reagan president.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        May we keep our intellect and emotions in balance.

        I think Kipling said that. If he didn’t, he should have, although he would have made it sound a lot better.

        Watching my mother’s reason drain away via dementia is a stunning reminder of what our culture seems to be going through. Oh, dear reason, we don’t have much left to guide ourselves when it is gone.

        And this isn’t a rebuke of Trump. His honeymoon lasts at least through February. It’s not even a rebuke of the rioters. Both are symptoms of a longer-term cultural dementia.

        If I had three guiding principles for this site, they would be:

        1) Keep of good humor.

        2) Remember, remember, remember.

        3) Combine creativity with thoughtfulness.

        If there was a number four it would be, “I’m sure Perry Mason could solve this by the 54 minute mark.”

  15. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Given Trump’s campaigning against the business threat that is China, I found the following article interesting.

    http://english.caixin.com/2016-11-21/101009772.html

    Anyone who has been following China knows that their population is aging rapidly thus the info in this piece is not a surprise. Sounds like China has some of the same types of problems we have in the States and in Europe.

  16. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I was pleased to hear that Trump has requested the bust of Churchill, which adorned the Oval Office during W’s term and which the Obamanation had returned to the British Embassy, be returned to the Oval Office.

    It may only be a symbolic gesture, but high politics is very often about symbolism and I think this “symbolic gesture” sends the right message to the U.S.A., Great Britain and, indeed, the world.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Speaking of busts, here’s a very well written NRO take-down of Obama’s enormously horrible closing statement on his presidency.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Nice piece. I especially like the closing.

        And for a man who rose to national attention on the basis of his oratory, he has said relatively little that is memorable. That is because he has relatively little to say, being a man who brought no new ideas or insights to the office, only a pointlessly grandiose sense of his own specialness. He is a man who stood astride History muttering “You’re welcome, you ingrates.”

        I couldn’t agree more. I recall the first time I saw this creature speak. It was at the 2004 Democratic convention. After listening to him for a few minutes, I asked my wife to come to the TV room and said, “you have to listen to this guy. He says nothing better than anyone I have ever seen. I don’t know who he is, but the Dems are going to run him for president. I wonder who is behind him?”

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I have long suspected that most of Slick Barry’s reputation for great oratory comes from liberals who based their conclusion on his race, not his oratory.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          That is a good part. The part that also caught my eye was:

          …,an undercurrent of bitterness communicating his unshakeable belief that the American people just simply are not up to the task of fully appreciating History’s unique gift to them in the person of Barack Obama.

          Great megalomaniacal leaders (such as Hitler) tend to blame the people. We’ll see in the coming years if Trump follows suit. The latest charges against him are likely at least partially fabricated. But I love this joke I found amongst the comments, and I paraphrase: What’s the difference between a chickpea and a garbanzo bean? Answer: Trump has never had a garbanzo bean on him.

  17. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    A former head of the American Conservative Union has apparently come to the same conclusion some of us at ST have reached:

    “too many conservatives have knowingly and willingly surrendered key movement principles in return for political power and victory” over Democrats.

    I read this quote in an article about that loud mouth Milo who, for some inexplicable reason, has become a fair-haired-boy for some in the right. That an obnoxious in-your-face deviant could ever gain such a place in the conservative movement is abhorrent to anyone who is truly conservative and intellectually honest.

    Why the CPAC would have invited this guy to be a key-note speaker is beyond me. But I am pleased that he was dis-invited.

    If we are not careful, Trump’s win will be a Pyrrhic Victory for conservatism in this country. We must be vigilant.

    Now if they would only invite someone who has actually lived a conservative life and has ideas as to how conservatism can be advanced by methods which are not simply “flash”, as the Brits might say.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Milo enrages liberals (not because of his hebephilia, of course, which liberals are happy to accept from their own), which led to the riot at Berkeley. That’s why he was invited. He’s actually more of a libertarian than a conservative, and more of a professional troll than a libertarian.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I read this quote in an article about that loud mouth Milo who, for some inexplicable reason, has become a fair-haired-boy for some in the right. That an obnoxious in-your-face deviant could ever gain such a place in the conservative movement is abhorrent to anyone who is truly conservative and intellectually honest.

      Trevor Thomas has a good article on that subject…a rarity for American Thinker (but not for Trevor who seems to have a sensible head on his shoulders).

      In essence, libertarianism (libertinism/liberalism…in practice) has proved enticing for conservatives, often rationalized as doing what you need to do to go after the yute vote.

      Well, right or wrong, I consider conservatism to go hand-in-hand with being an instructional adult. It’s not our job to pander to yute but to try to form these young heathens into something better. The guiding light of many of these yutes, including Milo, seems to be that the height of liberty is to follow any and every impulse, to sate every appetite. The un-lobbed f-bomb is, to their mind, a stifling thing.

      Although Trevor does not say so explicitly, his use of a good Edmond Burke quote in his article gets right to the heart of the matter: It is the nature of conservatism to put rational, reasonable, and wise limits on things…including government and one’s own behavior.

      Unless one is willing to acknowledge the inherent aspect of conservatism, which is to draw a line in the sand and speak of restraints, then any so-called advocate such as Milo are merely avenues or rationalizations for caving into the Little Monsters. We should not be emulating and trying to normalize these vulgar, uncouth, undisciplined Little Monsters. We should be trying to form them into something wise, noble, and better.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        That sounds like a good working definition of conservatism. The idea is to be aware that all good things have costs, and to balance them. This also means a certain amount of moderation in desires — which includes moral restraint. Unfortunately, the latter if always very unpopular, and many conservatives are more concerned about being popular than doing the right thing.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Trevor Thomas’ article is on point. I was encouraged to read others, besides the ST crowd, see Milo exactly for what he is. There is still a modicum of sanity resident amongst conservatives.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Ben Shapiro actually has an excellent article on this subject. Although Ben has been caught a time or two hyperventilating about the “alt right” by seeing such things as anti-Semitism in a Sheriff’s badge (remember that episode?), I think he’s spot-on when he writes:

          Unfortunately, many conservatives have embraced this sort of binary thinking: If it angers the Left, it must be virtuous. Undoubtedly, that’s a crude shorthand for political thinking. It means you never have to check the ideas of the speaker, you merely have to check how people respond to him.

          This is no doubt why there was a lot of support for trolls such as Milo and goes a long way to explaining support for Trump from otherwise level-headed conservatives. I expect there to be a balance of “good things/bad things” in terms of the material acts of Trump. It won’t be all good. It won’t be all bad. It’s much like letting a bull loose in a China shop. There is certain old inventory that needs to be smashed, but please leave the Ming vases alone. But will the bull care to know the difference?

          I suspect that post-Trump, conservatism will be left in a totally scrambled state (as I believe it is now) because of this “the enemy of my enemy must be my friend” type of thinking. It requires discernment and integrity to separate out the mere personality-driven media opportunists from the George Washingtons. And I realize there are few even quasi-George-Washingtons these days. Maybe none. But we should still at least judge by that standard.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            This is basically the tribal ethic that is already dominant among liberals, and obviously increasingly among conservatives as well. One can enjoy the response of liberals to trolls as entertainment, but agreement should be based on shared principles. We do share some with Milo, but we differ on others (such as his toleration of hebephilia).

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Even Jonah Goldberg fell prey to the evolutionary answer to tribalism. All such speculations are little better than pseudo-science. He wrote:

              Evolutionary psychologist John Tooby recently wrote that if he could explain one scientific concept to the public, it would be the “coalitional instinct.” In our natural habitat, to be alone was to be vulnerable. If “you had no coalition, you were nakedly at the mercy of everyone else, so the instinct to belong to a coalition has urgency, pre-existing and superseding any policy-driven basis for membership,” Tooby wrote on Edge.org. “This is why group beliefs are free to be so weird.”

              I’m going to assert the Mr. Kung Rule: Life is complicated.

              To try to explain what’s going on now in terms of the mere propensity to join into tribes answers nothing. We know that man joins sides for various reasons and then is blinded to all other considerations of right-and-wrong that have a grounding in something other than what is good (or flattering) for one’s tribe. Man thus can easily become lost and corrupted.

              What needs to be explained is not tribalism but why we have clung to *bad* tribes instead of good ones.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                What needs to be explained is not tribalism but why we have clung to *bad* tribes instead of good ones.

                Particularly in light of the fact that the conditions which Toobey describe no longer exist and haven’t existed for a long long time.

                Today, one can chose to be more or less “alone” depending on one’s disposition. Why then do so many chose to join base communities?

                I don’t think it has much to do with fear of physical vulnerability. I think it probably has more to do with internal spiritual and emotional voids.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Not only can one choose to be alone, or at least not to join any sort of tribe, but many do. And it’s perfectly possible to join a group without treating it as a tribe in the ethical sense.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Mr. Kung, I do think you’re onto something.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Last week I gave a link to an interesting article about outliers in the East and West and how they get where they are.

        One quote from the piece was:

        East Asia values discipline, concentration, long years of practice and utter mastery; with an exceptional head start and rare talent, ….. The West values offhandedness, improvisation, luck and self-made celebrity, the qualities that make Milos Yiannopoulos a figure of admiration….

        Well, I guess we can see which values are solid and which are hollow, and which are more valuable over the long term. Of course, Andy Warhol was on to something when he said everyone would have their 15 minutes of fame.

        Funny how quickly Milo self-destructed after that original article came out.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, 15 minutes isn’t very long. And it may have passed for Milo. We shall see.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Mr. Kung, I’m actually okay with the standard American conception of the rugged individual, the one who takes chances, who isn’t necessarily constrained by consensus thinking, who is creative and imaginative, and might even rub a few people wrong in the process. That standard, however, has generally been applied in the context of those who actually produce something, whether a new steel mill or a farm built out on the prairie from scratch.

          When applied to the thin atmosphere of media celebrity, there is absolutely nothing to commend the agent provocateur who people (and himself) may think daring for simply being crude, vulgar, impolite, anti-social, and entertainingly ignorant. You might agree that another otherwise decent American value has been re-defined and ruined by the Left and the unschooled liberaltarian hordes.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            The concept of “celebrity” is one of the more pernicious developments to arise over the last century.

            The idea of being famous for being famous has reached its logical conclusion in the Kardasians (spelling?)

            Apparently millions are enthralled with the doings of this clan, which makes a fortune for doing….???

            It is a type of sickness.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              It’s to your credit that you don’t automatically know how to spell “Kardashians.”

              I agree with what you say. And this is also why I consider “social media” another avenue of this celebrity sickness. It is the individual’s attempt to seek celebrity, if to a limited extent. (Why else the fixation on “Likes”?)

              I, too, have fallen prey to this phenomenon a time or two. And perhaps you’ll understand why I take it easy on messing up this site with an over-emphasis on “Likes” and such, although there was general agreement by the writers that they wanted to see how many views their article had. Nothing wrong with positive feedback.

              But I think Facebook, like most text messaging, basically amounts to “positive feedback for the sake of positive feedback.” I’m not against social interaction and all that. But Facebook has clearly shown how conducive it is to taking this to an extreme.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I’ve seen it suggested that, to a great extent, David Crockett (he did NOT use “Davy”) was the first celebrity in the modern sense that he was famous for being famous. But Crockett was a significant person, far more so than the Kardashians (who may be nice enough people, but so are millions of others that no one has heard of).

              Perhaps their greatest significance today is that the Kardashian mother is (or was?) married to Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Someone told me that Kim Kardashian gained notoriety through a sex tape. Given the degeneration of our society, I can believe such a thing would attract (be praiseworthy or something to emulate for) many mindless people. The important thing is to draw attention to oneself!

              • pst4usa says:

                Dennis Prager likes to say “the famous are rarely significant, and the significant are rarely famous.” I put quotes around that but it may be a paraphrase.

  18. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I don’t think it has much to do with fear of physical vulnerability. I think it probably has more to do with internal spiritual and emotional voids.

    One of the things that also occurs to me, Mr. Kung, is that when you’re highest form of identity is a narrow one (such as race, sex, etc.), there is less room for noble ideas that transcend such boundaries. Such ideas (all men are created equal) are actually hostile to the subgroups people have divided themselves into.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A good point. I’ve read that Washington began to turn against slavery as a result of the rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence. Part of this no doubt was the influence of Hamilton, who was oriented toward the mercantile rather than the agricultural class. He freed his slaves in his will (unlike Jefferson, who couldn’t afford to free his — except for the Hemings family).

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      when you’re highest form of identity is a narrow one (such as race, sex, etc.), there is less room for noble ideas that transcend such boundaries.

      An important piece of that thought is that such narrowness leads to overly emotional, perhaps hysterical, behavior when that identity is called into question.
      And I would maintain that such narrowness manifests itself more in the Left than in conservatism. Perhaps this is the basis of the idea that Leftism is a mental disorder.

  19. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I don’t know where to put the below link.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/chelsea-manning-posts-photo-revealing-woman/story?id=47490580

    This is the traitor who Obama released and whose sex-change operation we paid for. As I understand it, this traitorous fool will now stay in the army and receive benefits. I hope I am wrong in my understanding.

    Can any nation long survive which promotes such garbage?

    Trump or no Trump, this country is screwed.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Unfortunately, it seems to be true. He’s appealing his conviction, and until this is resolved, he’s in the Army. Why this hasn’t been resolved by now, I don’t know. It should be possible to give him a dishonorable discharge, but I don’t know what the legal steps involved in that are now. But if it can be done, it should be — and should have happened already.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *