More Democratic Loser-isms

Oh my Friends, the Democrats are not a serious political party. They are an assembly of fools leading the hypersensitive to the promised land of intolerance. And because of that, none of them have the brains God gave them.

● Desist: Like a windup dummy that is slowly being w-w-w-w-wou-wouuu-woundup, Hillary is in the midsts of a slow motion comeback. She’s now caught up to where the rest of the left was about a week after the election. Give her a year and she’ll be caught up to the present.

Anyways, this time, she told her “supporters” to “resist, insist, persist, and enlist” in the fight against Trump. // rolls eyes

You know, a couple bands did that and it was cool. They used white cardboard with the words written out. Jesse Jackass used to do that verbally, though he often struggled to find rhymes. When Hillary does it, it’s like an assh*le teacher trying to be hip as she reads off a cue card. So let me suggest that she desist as an activist or a lyricist, and just exist on history’s list of those who won’t be missed, because she’s just a cist that needs to be diminished. Go away.

● Deranged: Showing that the Democrats are not a serious party, they are pushing to investigate Treasury Secretary Mnuchin for joking that people should go see The Lego Movie. Democrat Ron Wyden ran his swishy little ass to the ethics office when Mnuchin said this and filed a complaint that Mnuchin was trying to use his public office to enrich himself. What a bizarre and twisted little b*tch Wyden is.

● Is That Good Or Bad?: So Trump is putting together an effort to fight opioid addiction, the medical issue du jour. I will be curious how the left will spin this into a bad thing. I’m sure they’ll find something.

● Is That Good Or Bad II: Michael Moore is claiming that Trump will cause the extinction of the human race. So he’s an environmentalist? I thought a world free of the scourge of humanity was the goal of environmentalists?

● Interesting Article: Saw another interesting article this week. In it, a leftist Politico reporter talks about how the Democrats were blindsided by working class whites because their polling during the election just didn’t seem to be able to find these people. There is speculation that these whites told pollsters what they wanted to hear (there is some evidence for this as robo-polls proved more accurate by about 6% than human-read polls). There is also speculation that these people just couldn’t be reached because they refused to talk to the Democrats. That’s pretty much the extent of the article’s point, but I see a couple other interesting thoughts that arise from this.

First, the Democrats have always deluded themselves into thinking that the public at large is more liberal than likely voters are because polls of the public skew to the left of polls of likely voters. This suggests that what is really happening is that leftists are just more likely to speak to pollsters. That means we have no idea what America really looks like politically, except that it’s further right than they expected – and it’s already rather far right. At the very least, the idea that “the public” is further left than voters has been proven false.

Secondly, I think this confirms the racial shift throughout America. Starting in the 1980s, the South slowly turned Republican. The Rustbelt States never did, but now they are. This suggests to me that whites are nearly fully onboard with the GOP at this point. With the Democrat’s hoped-for demographic shift not happening, this bodes very poorly for the Democrats as the kids of the current generation of immigrants become more conservative.

Third, it’s pretty clear from this that the Democrats have lost their old base -- blue-collar whites.

Finally, I don’t think that figuring this out will help the Democrats in the least. They seem obsessed with process. To them “not polling” these whites is the problem rather than “not reaching” those whites. I just don’t see them offering anything to appeal to those people.

Voluntary Euthanasia On The Rise

Remember in the runup to passing Obamacare, there was all this talk about "death panels" and such? With the easing of laws allowing for voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, the rate of people deciding to end their life is rising. This isn't the standard "pulling the plug" on a patient who is unconscious and only being kept alive on machines.

Just recently a story hit the media about Norma Bauerschmidt, a 91 year old Michigan woman who opted to forgo cancer treatment for her uterine cancer to travel the country with her son. It is an inspiring story of facing reality and making the best of what time one has left - LINK. This is rationally deciding to forgo painful, and often very expensive treatment for a terminal disease for which there is really no hope of survival. And then there is the decision to actively to end your life with the assistance of medical professionals for the same reason as on young woman did who was diagnosed with late-stage terminal cancer.

But other stories I have read over the years are disturbing for the opposite reason. One includes a woman who's baby was born with only a brain stem and not a full brain. The brain stem allowed the the heart to pump to keep the organs functioning with the help of machines, but nothing else. The mother insisted beyond all reason to keep her child "alive" for 5 years in a bed in a hospital convinced that her child was responding to her even though the child did not have a brain for which to do that and no doctor could convince her otherwise. By the way, all the bills were paid courtesy of Medicaid. I feel for this mother, however this flies in the face of all reality.

I am not opposed to ending the life of hopeless cases like this. We humans have a very unhealthy relationship with death. Sometimes we keep our family members alive on machines because we cannot face the grieving and possible guilt of letting them go. I come from a family of doctors who are confronted with this issue on a daily basis and it is frustrating.

However, around the same time Mrs. Bauerschmidt's story hit the boards, this story was making the media rounds. A Dutch doctor along with the family, decided it was just too much trouble to deal with Grandma's advanced dementia. She was in an appropriate care facility, but has become increasingly "hard to handle", so the good Doc decided it was time to drug her morning coffee and euthanize elderly woman. Unfortunately the Doc miscalculated the knock-out dose in her coffee and the woman woke up mid-euthanization. The doctor then asked family members to help hold her down as she was screaming she didn't want to die, while the Doc administered the lethal dose - Dutch Doctor "Euthanized Elderly Dementia Patient. The doctor was cleared (LINK), because the woman had made it clear in her more lucid moments, she would not want to live with dementia.

Just so you know, the Netherlands legalized voluntary euthanasia in 1984 with strict guidelines. Since that time, over 5,500 people have volunteered for various reasons to end their lives. There is process one must go through including medical verification and certification, but there it is. As a matter of fact, the Netherlands has become the #1 leader in "euthanasia-tourism" in Europe. Add that Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, oncologist, architect of the ACA and brother of Rahm, published an article in Atlantic Magazine LINK in 2014 advocating for voluntary euthanasia once one reaches the age of 75 years old because one is no longer of any use to society after that age. And since the time of Dr. Kavorkian, the US has softened it's stance on voluntary euthanasia, but this is a very slippery slope the world is going down. Are we really moving down the road where we are devaluing human life to the point we are going to decide who gets to live and who will die because they are just an inconvenience?

Does anyone remember the movie "Logan's Run" from 1976 where no one was allowed to live past the age of 30? Yeah, is that where we're headed? I know that in the Hippie days of the '60's, it was famously declared that no should trust anyone over 30, but let's not go there.

Comments?

As an endnote: I know that death is an uncomfortable subject, but it is the one thing that we all have in common - rich or poor - that we will all throw off this mortal coil. It is the one thing that truly makes us equal. And as a public service, I admonish all to make your end of life wishes known in writing and/or by having honest, open conversations with your family. Don't leave it to a Dutch doctor to drug your coffee because you become an inconvenience or (as I have often threatened my parents) if you oversleep one day. Certainly don't leave this as an unanswered question to grieving family members.

Good Grief

Tonight is a thought more than anything: when did so many people lose their sense of perspective.

● Some asinine woman (a gun control nut) complains that an airline enforcing a dress code for employees getting free travel, preventing a 10 year old girl from wearing skin-tight leggings, is "sexualizing children." Isn't it sexualizing children to dress the girl like a hoochie in the first place?

● Donald Trump fails in his first pass at repealing Obamacare and now everyone in the political system says that the law is permanent and Trump has failed. Idiots are whining that they lost faith in Trump and that he "betrayed" them. Seriously? What keeps Trump from trying again? Did none of you think of that? And how did he betray anyone by trying and failing? Did he vote against it? How is this betrayal in any way?

● The Oakland Raiders are moving to Las Vegas and suddenly the on-again-off-again puritans in the press are worrying that this will expose the NFL and its players to the manipulation of gamblers. Really? So those same gamblers couldn't find the players in New York or Dallas or Miami, but now that there will be a team in Las Vegas they can suddenly find them? Are we stupid enough to believe that?

● The British police are incapable of figuring out the motive of the "terrorist" who drove the car across the bridge apparently. So let's see... the guy is a Muslim who went to Saudi Arabia where he studied under radical jihadist imams. He comes back to Britain and uses a truck to kill people just as an ISIS manual suggests, and then stabs to death a cop. Yep, no idea what could possibly be his motive.

● Some Nigerian woman offended trannies (and the easily offended) when she said that trans-women do not share the suffering of real women. Whoops. She's now come out and doubled down on that point, but in doing so, she did "admit" that "in no way is a trans-woman not a real woman." Really? No way? How about genetically? How about in musculature? How about in the non-functioning prop-only sex organs? Gee, imagine this... a lot of those men who wanted to "become" (read: look like) women are entering women's sports and blowing away their records. How did that happen?

The world seems to get dumber every day, doesn't it?

Budget Cut Open Thread

Trump submitted his proposed budget to Congress last week and in his budget he has many proposed cuts. Some of these cuts include defunding the NEA, NEH, and NPR. Now, the defunding of the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) is actually one that I have been advocated since the Jesse Helms/Andres Serrano-Piss Christ episode in the late '80s/early 90s. But not for the reason you might think.

Now I don't know what you may or may not have thought of "Piss Christ" for which the taxpayers paid $20,000, but whether it is art is immaterial. I believe that no artist or arts group should take money from any entity that demands to tell an artist or arts group what they must or can produce. No artist should put themselves in that position. I am also a firm believer if you make it, they will come and give you money if if what you are doing is of value.

So, what do you think about this or anything else that strikes you fancy.

Modern Feminism Is Click-Bait

The more I watch, the more it seems that modern feminism is merging with snowflakism. They've really gone from being about whatever twisted version of women's rights they were pushing at the moment to just being about whatever makes one of them upset enough to write about it. There's really no regard for there being a women's angle except anymore that it's a woman upset or a woman involved. To put a finer point on it, modern feminism (like snowflakism) has devolved into click-bait.

Here are some examples of what modern feminism has become:

"Woman deftly puts 'BBC Dad' to shame"
"Why this woman was fired will outrage you"
"Teen made best shirt to fight dress code injustice"
"Hillary Just Tweeted the Subtlest 'I Told You So' - and It's Glorious!"
"Curvy Model Sends Powerful Message With Photo"

These are all real headlines of various issues du jour being pushed by feminist/snowflake rags to their hopeless little followers. Notice the patterns. First, you have intensely minor issues -- no sense of perspective. Feminism isn't about legal oppression, genuine violence against women, denial of rights, denial of life-saving benefits or opportunities, or anything else that matters to the creation of a just society. It is about feeling bad. It is about not getting your way in minor ways. "That meanie principal stopped me from dressing like a slut! He's worse than Hitler!"

Look at their causes: some woman claims that her life sucks worse than this one guy who made the news, and that makes her a hero... woman was refused a job for her poor choices, "how dare I be held accountable, I am a woman!"... tasteless teen writes nonsense on t-shirt... failed fat corrupt politician sends meaningless tweet at winner... fat model takes doctored selfie... Wow. Aim high, ladies. Those issues will change the world!

Secondly, notice how bitchy and catty it all is. The celebration of a "snarky comeback". The celebration of "shaming" a man who never said anything about woman trying to shame him... keep in mind too that "shaming" is a human rights violation to feminists now too, unless you shame a bully except when the bully was bullied as a child for being fat or too beautiful. This is gossip column bitch-speak used by little OCD gay men who like to criticize women and nasty women who wanted to be celebrities but never made it and decided to spread gossip about them instead. This is the kind of catty language women use to make their frienemies feel insecure. And now... now this is the language of feminism.

Third, notice the delusional hyperbole to boost self-esteem. The headlines crawl with words like "perfect", "powerful", "courageous" and "strong", all things these women are not. Indeed, let me remind you of the old saying: when you need to tell the world you are something... then you aren't. And these women can't stop describing pointless, failed and nonsensical whining-events as "perfect", "powerful", "courageous" and "strong", when the more appropriate words are "useless", "loser-speak" and "pathetic."

When did feminism stop being about laws and actions that affect women and become about whatever annoys bitchy gossip columnist wannabes? I kid you not, this was the never-true cliche of womanhood that thrived in sexist jokes pre-1970s. When did this become the reality? How utterly pathetic!

Thoughts?

Whoops, So He's Not A Russian Agent?

Saw an interesting article today. This article basically says that the whole "Trump is a Russian agent" thing is BS. What's more, the article worries that it may be too late for the Democrats to save their credibility on this. Here's the link to the article: LINK.

The article in question is written by a leftist and it's surprisingly insightful... and honest. The article begins by mentioning something I've been saying all along: unless there is real proof that Trump worked with the Russians to hack the Democrats, then this issue will never resonate with the public. Yep. Foreign affairs simply don't matter to the public, nor does it make any sense that somehow it was wrong for Trump to talk to the Russians. Don't we want our presidents talking to foreign countries? Didn't Obama famously do this himself to media acclaim? This theory never made sense as scaremongering.

Anyways, the article then notes that no proof has been uncovered to support this claim. There is NO evidence at all. Indeed, despite everyone on the left (and many on the right) looking for anything to support this theory, "there is no fire at all. There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it."

This creates a problem for the left. As the article puts it,

"so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies ... that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed."

Yep. Sound familiar?

According to the article, the Democrats are getting worried that these people will never accept the truth. They worry that these morons have reached the phase of conspiracy thinking where the very lack of evidence becomes evidence of the conspiracy. So what the Democrats are doing now is trying to lay the foundation for people to understand there simply is no evidence of a connection. This is being pushed by liberal newspapers, liberal politicians and other liberal hacks. Even CIA Chief Michael Morell, whom the article suggests knowingly lied to push this theory during the campaign, are now trying to defuse the tards.

Good luck with that.

Personally, I think this is a failed mission from the get-go. The politicized fringe portion of the American public has become so paranoid, retarded and steeped in conspiracy thinking that they simple cannot accept when their cherished theories fail. They just keep adding their disappointments to their theories. And it strikes me that this issue has becoming a ticking time bomb waiting for some Democrat to try to tell the truth and that will spark the next phase of the revolt, where the sitting members will be deemed unpure heretics and they will be put up against the wall in the name of the real TRUTH.

This is the problem with obsession. First, it blinds you. Then it causes you to lose all but your closest your friends. Finally, it makes you turn on those who are left.

Thoughts?

Obamacare II

Just a quick thought for a Friday, but sadly not a good thought. The more I look at the Trumpcare game being played the more I really think our political class is retarded. They mistake ignorance for intelligence, dogma for wisdom, and they keep repeating the exact same steps and expecting different results. Einstein called that insanity. My thoughts.

● The GOP: The bill being pushed by Paul Ryan and the boys is the worst kind of dogma. It is a collection of bumperstick thoughts ("buy across state lines!") without any thought put into it, mixed with giveaways to lobbyists. The solutions offered don't even address the issues at hand and where they do somehow overlap, they don't actually work. In fact, "buy across state lines" really has only one benefit, and that is to lead to a single payer monster insurance company.

● Trump: Trump is doing exactly what Obama did. He's punted to Congress and he's letting them decide. I am admittedly saddened by this. Up to now, Trump has hired experts and told them to come up with a fix. This time he's letting Congress take the lead, and they have proven themselves incompetent. As with Obama, this is a lost opportunity to make some real repairs to improve the system.

● The Right Flank: As usual, the right flank is full of retards jerking themselves off over how pure they are. Talk radio is trying to whip up its audience by making generalized attacks without offering any solution and smothering those attacks in paranoia. This is the same idiotic crap they did which sent their followers off into stupid land and has kept them there.

● The Democrats: The Democrats continue to play their game of smearing the GOP for everything rather than trying to work with them to solve some problem. Their mantra is attack, smear, worship inertia. Even when they were in power, their only goal seems to have been to stop anything from being fixed.

● The "Moderates": The self-anointed moderates continue to act as the smug morons they are. They oppose everything and support nothing until it is merged and neutered in some random form. It is compromise for the sake of appearing moderate rather than actually doing anything right.

● Continued Failure: There are two "industries" in the US that remain in perpetual failure: the healthcare system and the K-12 education system. Both systems are the most heavily regulated and are basically controlled at minute levels by government regulation. Until someone has the nerve to shatter these systems and start them from scratch, they will continue to fail. Sadly, no one has the nerve.

Oh, No, He Didn't Just Take My Preet!

For the last few years I have been regaling you with the exploits of our kick-ass US Attorney in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) Preet Bharara. He took down current convicted criminal/former long-time NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos. Both are going to jail pending their respective appeals. He was currently investigating and had just interviewed NYC Mayor Bill Deblasio for his own alleged corruption a few weeks ago, and was working his way up to NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

But in a sweep to get rid of all Obama US Attorney appointees in the DOJ, Trump and AG Jeff Sessions asked 43 US Attorneys to resign last Friday. Bharara refused to resign, so Trump fired him. I get it, this happens. But not to my Preet! I realize that the pending indictments for Deblasio and maybe Cuomo, may still be in the works, but now they get backburnered and both corrupt politicians get to pop the champagne corks and continue on their merry, corrupt way.

Okay, I wrote that on Saturday, but now I have had time to think about it and here is where I am now...

So, all weekend the news media and pundit class has been going crazy especially about Preet Bharara. At first he refused to resign, so Trump fired him. Interestingly no mention of any other US Attorney that got the ax. And of course there were the many "stepping on the rake" moments where the liberal media slammed Trump and AG Session for daring to fire 43 US Attorneys in one sweep only to reminded over and over that other Presidents have done just this and, moreover, Clinton and AG Reno fired 93 at one time in 1993...oops.

But most of the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth has been over how Trump had specifically sought out Bharara out right after the election to ask him to stay on as US Attorney in the SDNY. They even had very public Trump Tower private meeting to discuss him staying on. Now, I am wondering what they actually discussed in the meeting.

Now stay with me here while I go all "Alex Jones" (but in a good way). It has not escaped anyone's notice here in NY that Bharara has been much more public in the last few years with his crusade to take down unethical politicians in the state of NY. It was apparent that he was trying to get his name out there for a possible political career and his crusade has made him very popular with the NY public. And it just so happens that both Gov. Andrew Cuomo and NYC Mayor Bill Deblasio are up for reelection in the next years - the very unpopular Deblasio is going for his 2nd term this November with no apparent challengers so far, and the tepidly-liked Cuomo will be up to bat next year. What if that is one of the issues that Trump and Bharara discussed? What better way to get a kickstart to his political career than to have Trump "fire" him with ALL the publicity that goes with it?

For the record, I would be thrilled to have Bharara as Mayor of New York. He is the Dem's answer to Rudy Giuliani as far as being a crusader for the rule of law and ethical behavior in government. For all of Giuliani's personal issues, he was a great mayor and really cleaned the city up in all of the best ways. And even more deliciously, Hillary Clinton is still making noise about a possible mayoral run herself...

Anyway, I will leave that for discussion.

Trump Taxes Fallout

Oh boy. So the left got their way, sort of, and Trump's "taxes" were released. And it's blown up on them. Here are my thoughts on the issue.

(1) The left, the anti-Trump right and the establishment have been pushing hard to make Trump release his taxes. They've been obsessed with it. The left hoped to prove he paid no taxes, something Hillary claimed several times. The establishment wanted to keep the requirement alive because they obsess about procedures. The anti-Trumps hoped to prove he wasn't a billionaire. None got their wish.

(2) The left has been foaming about the tax returns before and since the election. They thought the issue would resonate and would weaken Trump. Some even called it an impeachable offense. The problem is the public really didn't care. The reaction since the release not only wiped out their hysterical claim about taxes, but it revealed that few do care.

(3) The tax returns themselves are from 2005 and show about $150 million in income with $38 million paid. This countered everything the left claimed in their paranoia. It shows that he did pay taxes -- at higher rates than any Democrat (e.g. Obama, Clinton). He showed that he was likely a billionaire too, based on the income. There was nothing suspicious in them either. Wa wa wa wahhhh!!

(4) Rachel Maddow is the one who produced the tax returns. She immediately found herself on the defensive for basically breaking the law to get his taxes. Trump has now called it "fake news," which resonates given that nothing the left claimed would be there has been found. As a result of this, the tax returns wiped the anti-Trumpcare headlines from the front pages. Some places, like CNBC are attacking MSNBC over this. Ha ha.

(5) There are now suggestions that Trump leaked the taxes himself, which would be hilarious. Probably true. Personally, I also think Trump cherry-picked his best year to leak, and there's probably "better" stuff in other years that weren't released, but now the chance to force him to release those is blown politically. So rounding this up, Maddow made herself look like a criminal to satisfy a leftist obsession. In so doing, she seems to have utterly diffused the issue and proven the left obsessed and Trump right, all while wiping bad GOP press off the headlines. That's kind of funny. Basically, I think Trump used Maddow. LOL!

------

As an unrelated aside, we had an interesting incident yesterday. Apparently, at the middle school my daughters attend, one sixth grade boy got dumped in a garbage can by another. As he got dumped, he punched the boy who did it and loosened a tooth. Sounds like a pretty good fight. What were they fighting over? My sixth grade daughter. Arg. Dad mode engaged.... time to buy a gun and a shovel.

UPDATE: Shia LeBeouf and other stuff

A few weeks ago I reported that poor dear Hollywood actor Shia LeBeouf has become so unhinged since Trump was elected that he talked the Museum of the Moving Image in Queens, NYC to allow him to set up a political protest performance aahht installation called "He Will Not Divide Us", which was comprised of a 24/7 video feed available for anyone to shout "HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US! over and over. As you may remember, it didn't go well so he had to move it to New Mexico [UPDATED from Arizona]. Well that didn't go well either, so he moved it to some "undisclosed location". The live video feed only showed his big black and white flag hailing "HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US!" waving in the wind and bit of sky so no one could find it and ruin his masterpiece of protest.

Okay, so apparently there are lots of people who just don't have enough to do, so they went on what is the best "Capture The Flag" adventure ever! This is the funniest thing I have seen lately.

Trolls, 1. Shia LaBeouf, 0. pic.twitter.com/JHm44ZobYv

— Page Six (@PageSix) March 10, 2017

Now some "stuff":
My brand of "feminism" is more "Lysistrata" and less "Playboy". So, what is wrong with young actress these day who think they are empowering themselves and other women by getting naked or nearly naked? And when called on it, they get offended when it is pointed out that maybe getting naked or nearly naked is (sorry, guys) exactly what men have always wanted women to do! How being fooled by the "evil patriarchy" is that? "Yey! Naked Boobs! We WIN AGAIN!".

So "bless her heart"*, Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame who is opening Friday in yet another version of "Beauty And The Beast" the fairytale to Disney cartoon to Disney live-action Broadway Musical to Disney live-action movie musical (with the extra hook of a gay character...who cares). So as part of the publicity blitz, Ms. Watson, a vocal womyn's rights activist, did a spread for Vanity Fair magazine where she appears all but topless. To her great surprise and confusion, "Feminists" criticized her for objectifying women by getting nearly naked! I understand her confusion. As she explains when criticized:

“Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with. It’s about freedom, it’s about liberation, it’s about equality. I really don’t know what my tits have to do with it. It’s very confusing."

I understand her confusion. Yes, it is about "choice". It has always been about "choice". But the "choice" that women have been fighting for is to be taken seriously for their minds and capabilities and not the sum total of their body parts. The whole "body parts" thing is, to quote a line from "Beauty And The Beast, "a tale as old as time".

The floor is open.

*Just for the record, when a Southern women use "Bless your heart", we mean something entirely different.

Snicker snicker

"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." - Princess Leah.

One of the things that always gives me hope about the human race is that all current "powers-that-be" try to control the public, yet there are always people ready to mock their ideology and expose their failures, and the "powers-that-be" are helpless before them. This is why I have to laugh really hard about the following crude picture.

The statue you see is called the "Fearless Girl"... a symbol of supposed feminine empowerment. She's fearless in the sense that loser woman self-identify as "strong women." Basically, she's an expression of a false reality with the hope that if we all just say that something is true then it will be true. But as the picture has exposed, this is a pipe dream. Let me offer some thoughts:

1. First, the idea of this statue is that women are empowered as seen by the girl not being afraid of the charging Wall Street bull statue. You go girl! But hold on. The bull represents bull markets... i.e. good economic times. Indeed, a bull market is a good thing. It represents economic expansion, jobs for all, money to go around for everyone. The goal of every ideology from communism to capitalism is as many bull markets as they can get. So why would anyone be afraid of that? Did feminists not realize that? This "Fearless Girl" statue is as stupid as putting up a statue declaring that you won't be intimidated by charity or hope. Morons.

2. Ok. So the very idea behind the statue exposes the utter lack of knowledge of the chickies claiming empowerment. Next question: why a girl? Aren't we told that women should be viewed as the equivalent of men, and that even calling them "girls" infantilizes them and is derogatory? Yet, here we have a little girl representing the women of Wall Street, and she's even called "Fearless Girl." Did no one think of the signal this sent?

3. Third, so now we have the women of Wall Street infantalized to little girls who aren't terrified of good times (you go girl!) and along comes some nameless, probably drunk guy who mocks their statue... and the world of empowered women has a meltdown and thereby proves that they are not fearless or capable of handling the rough and tumble real world. Pathetic. He mocked their monument to their claimed strength, and millions of women broke down into impotence exposing the lie of their empowerment. Even the chickie who took the photo and rushed out to whine about it comes across as pathetic beyond pathetic:

"There were people there talking about empowering children and women and for then to have this 20-something showing his entitlement, defiling the statute... it was utterly revolting."

OMG, did he wave his "entitlement" in your face? How long was it?

Seriously, when you don't know the difference between good and bad things, when you claim to be empowered and then pick everything you claim is an insult as your symbol, and when you have an emotional breakdown at the first person to mock your cause, you shouldn't really consider yourself "empowered." That's more like "sheltered," snowflake.

So kudos to The Revolter for making a mockery of this crap with his mighty entitlement.

Thoughts?

Today's Article

Sorry for the delayed post. Without women around, I didn’t know how to write an article or post it. Here are some thoughts:

● So the Womyn’s March is today and unless you know to look for it, there’s no evidence of it. You know, the danger with withholding your services is that people often find out how little you actually add to the equation. Careful, losers.

● I find it interesting that the two things the left remains obsessed with Trump over are his tax returns and his ties to Russia, neither of which matter to anyone. So much for him creating rape America... rounding up gays... reinstituting slavery... you get the picture. The other thing the left/media is doing now is writing these theoretical articles that are ridiculous. Today’s warned us that “The Air Could Become More Smoggy Under Trump!” The other day it was “What will happen if health insurance becomes unaffordable?!” Uh, when did it become affordable? Basically, they are going issue by issue and speculating that everything could get worse. What a joke.

● With Obama seemingly fleeing from his return to politics, Hillary of all people is now talking about returning. This says a lot about the lack of talent the Democrats have. But seriously, who else is there right now? Jerry Brown? Joe Biden? Pelosi? The Ghost of Tip O'Neal?

● So apparently, Ivanka Trump’s fashion line has reported record sales, increasing 346%. That’s hilarious! So much for the power of the left to boycott. Shame on you Nordstroms. Starbucks, meanwhile, has lost sales since thumbing its nose at Trump over the travel ban.

● Unemployment has fallen to 4.7%. Let’s see if Trump can do what Obama could not do... but every other President could... and get it to 3%!

● Did you notice that Trump re-issued the Horribly Racist Anti-Muslim Executive Order... and no one really seemed to care this time? So what does that make the outrage the first time? Oh yeah... fake.

● The Democrats are trying to copy the GOP’s structure now, which I find interesting. First, wasn’t the GOP this evil chaotic thing always on the verge of civil war? Doesn't that make copying it a bit like recreating the government of Liberia? Even more to the point, the GOP structure has really not been successful. The GOP is a mess. The only things keeping them afloat are (1) their ideology appeals at the state level, (2) gerrymandering in the House, and (3) the unpalatability of the Democrats nationally.

● Finally, back on this Coffee Klatch Day thing. I’m already seeing several article on the left that worry this will backfire. They note that striking is very unpopular in the US and this is a strike. They noted that schools closed in the DC/NoVA/MD area and this is will piss off parents. They worry that nurses might not show up or airlines could be grounded if women don’t show up, all of which “will cause chaos” -- actually, it will cause chaos for a small, but very angry high-profile group of people. They worry that no one really knows why they are doing this either, and that makes the whole thing kind of a farce.

Those are good points. I think the bigger problem is this... to be blunt... these women are whining. They are whining that they don’t like their jobs and want more than they are getting. They are whining that their first world lives aren’t fulfilling and that people don’t shower them with respect and attention. And they are taking the day off to whine about it. Those are bad optics. It’s selfish. It’s entitled. It’s out of touch.

It's also a mistake. It will highlight just how little these people actually matter when life doesn't stop or turn to chaos. When people realize, huh, that missing chick didn't really keep our office going, did she?... or they start to ask questions like, why is my kid's teacher out playing around when they schools suck of badly?... that's when people change their minds about your worth, and not in a good way.

In fact, there is no possibility of positive momentum from this. Their numbers will be much smaller than before, so it will feel like a fading movement. Their demands have gotten less clear if anything, so they will feel like a movement devolving. And look for the enduring publicity to be a series of articles about womyn who got fired for attending, making it seem like society had issued its verdict. If you're going to do a show of power... you better have some to show.

How To Prepare For "A Day Without Women" -

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Wednesday, March 8 is the official "A Day Without Women" General Strike in conjunction with the International Women's Day. All of the women of the world who have nothing better to do, will stop doing whatever it is that they do, to not do what they would be doing (or something like that). The DC schools have announced that they will be closing, so the teachers can strike. No word yet about what our female elected officials in Congress will be doing or not doing.

I have read much of the website and it is full of lots of soaring rhetoric about saving the women from the evils of the world. But other than staging a general strike, there really is no list of solid, workable solutions or policies to present. But there is a very clear list of what your womenfolk will and won't be doing...

Copied from the website [I added my own commentary]:

- Women to refrain from paid and unpaid work.
[Unless you do not have the option, then you can go to work, but complain all day about how bad you have it]

- We ask all people to refrain from shopping in stores or online. Exceptions include local small businesses and women-owned businesses that support us. (#GrabYourWallet has a list of corporations we do not support throughout the year.)
[Really, "shopping"? Isn't it kind of sexist to assume women can't go a day without shopping? Also, that GrabYOurWallet "list" is not a list to boycott businesses that treat women badly. It is an exclusive "boycott business related to Trump" list. Hypocritically, many on the list are Ivanka Trump-related...a woman. Therefore, not all women should be supported.]

- Wear red in solidarity with the strike.
[Red will work nicely with that pink hat that they knitted for the Million Women March in January. Just 'cause a woman is striking, doesn't mean her colors should clash!]

- We ask that our male allies lean into care giving on March 8th, and use the day to call out decision-makers at the workplace and in the government to extend equal pay and adequate paid family leave for women.
[Yeah...do something!]

You poor, incompetant men who do nothing and otherwise cannot live without women doing your bidding all day long will just have to suck it up and spend your money all on your own. So what will you need to do to survive?

I am really worried that this is going to devolve into something catastrophic like that Y2K fiasco! Remember when the planes fell out of the sky? No? Well, it could've happened. So just to be on the safe side, let's make a "Honey Do" list for you guys. I will start you off:

1. Wake yourself up!
2. If something falls on the floor, pick it up. This includes yourself.
3. Eat something from that big cold metal box in the food area of your dwelling. WARNING: Do not eat from anything with a picture of a skull and crossbones or a rat on it, or anything that looks weird or fuzzy. You could die! Oh, and just eat over the sink because there will be no woman around to wash that plate for you.
4. Call your boss who is obviously a man and tell him you can't come to work because you don't have a woman around to tell you how.
5. Go back to bed because you can't figure out how to dress yourself.

Okay, what will you be doing to prepare...


Disclaimer: Let me be clear before the real feminists take away my "Woman" card. I am not opposed to women standing up for their rights at all and taking to the streets in solidarity. Women need to stand up for themselves. We are vital to humanity. And some men need to show their appreciation better. But that's not what this "Day" is about. It's just another organized "Rail Against Trump" day.

Good Luck With That

Rumor has it Obama wants to get back into the political game. According to the left: "OMG! Obama is coming back! Obama is coming back to politics! He's so smart and sexy and he's going to fight for me! Now he'll free us from this troublesome Trump!" Said differently, they say that since their savor "earned" $60 million in a book deal (read: payolla), Obama is now (read: still) rich and no longer needs to worry about anything, so his goal is to force Trump to resign or to be impeached before his term is up. The problem is, this is a horrible idea. Here's why:

(1) A country can only have one ruler, and Americans in particular expect Presidents to leave office and age gracefully. They don't want them staying in politics. Violate this rule at your peril.

(2) In fact, only two violated this to a degree in recent history. Jimmy Carter took shots from the sidelines and tried to interfere with foreign policy. He was basically ignored or treated as a joke. Bill Clinton took forays into politics to help his wife, and tarnished the hell out of his image. He was smeared as a racist in 2008 and he was smeared as a fool by his wife's campaign in 2008 and 2012. Now he's gone from "two-time winner" to "hurdle that helped his wife become a two-time loser." Obama seems much more likely to fall into the Clinton example. Why? Read on...

(3) Bill Clinton was never a great politician. He won the White House in plurality votes (never coming near 50%) because H. Ross Perot was determined to destroy Bush and then thought he might win against an unpopular Clinton and the terrible Bob Dole. Clinton did win, true, but he also managed to end a near Century of Democratic control over the House and only slightly less control over the Senate. He lost the South finally for the Democrats and he failed to keep the Democrats from drifting into the land of Identity Politics, which have doomed them now (that was actually his goal coming to power). In short, winning was the only thing he did right and he only did that because other people beat his opponents.

Nevertheless, Clinton was celebrated by the MSM-left as a genius because the left wanted him to be a genius. His friends in Hollywood made movies about him and gave him celebrity status everywhere. The MSM hired away all of his staffers and filled their ranks with his supporters, who then talked about his communication genius and his brilliant ability to reach the public. In other words, they invented a myth. Suddenly, his two victories were triumphs rather than squeakers. In fact, consider this. The genius, at the height of his popularity, couldn't help Al Gore beat an unqualified ex-drunken moron. His failure was excused as being about a stolen election and wooden candidate, but Bill failed to deliver. Then 2008 and 2012 exposed just how bad a politician he really was. Not only could he not reach a skeptical public, but his own supporters were embarrassed by him.

Enter Obama.

The media had a crush on Obama. He was the perfect black man of their dreams... "clean", progressive but sounded like he could appeal to middle America, "no negro dialect", educated, OMG's he's amazing! Consequently, they decided he was an amazing candidate too. Then he beat the mental-case version of Yosemite Sam and Reality-Trash Palin, and the left knew he was genius! In fact, he's the greatest politician of all time! He even won re-election against the Mitt 'Bologna Sandwich' Romney to prove it. He's dreamy! makes googly eyes and sighs wistfully

Um no. Obama relied on his opponents falling apart and offered one selling point: "I will tell black America to stop being a bunch of race-obsessed whiners." That's it. Oh, and he read well from the teleprompter. He lacked Clinton's ability to reach normal voters. He lacked Clinton's ear for the issues that mattered. He lacked Clinton's desire to do something worthwhile.

All of this became increasingly obvious as his failures piled up. He did nothing to build a consensus that would let him lead. He couldn't even build a consensus with his own party. He failed to support the Democrats and took them from the point of absolute power in the US to their worst position since the start of the 1900's. He was never able to work with any foreign leaders, to sway the public on any issue, to identify issues that mattered, to control the public agenda, to pass laws, to pass regulations, or to put his ideas into play in any way. He lost millions of votes in his re-election bid (something that's never happened before). He wasn't even able to help make his own voters turn out to either keep Hillary from winning the primaries or help her win the general election.

Like "Bill Clinton, Brilliant Politician and Most Popular Man Ever," Obama as a brilliant politician is a myth. Objectively, the man is a total failure, whose only skill was that the GOP ran two awful candidates against him. Getting back into politics will only prove this as Obama lacks the wit, drive and interest in politics to deal with Trump, who will not bend over and let Obama kick him. Moreover...

(4) Obama will be shocked by how little support he will have. The most fundamental problem Obama faces is that he will stand in the way of the other Democrats. Right now, the Democrats are in a civil war to decide how to re-allign themselves in a post Obama world. Who will lead them, who will control the voice and wallet of the party, etc. Obama sticking his nose back in will crowd out those who are fighting for these spots. He will not be welcome. And since he brings nothing to the table except memories of an unpopular presidency, look for this to go wrong fast.

So hey, bring him on! Unfortunately, if Obama has proven one thing over time, it is that he is lazy. I don't see him bothering.

Thoughts?

PSA - March4Trump

This is a public service announcement for those of you who may be interested: March 4 Trump on Saturday, March 4 in DC and around the country - Local Marches.

With all of the other marches, rallies, and riots being staged against Trump since the election, it will be interesting to see how well these are attended. It seems a little last minute, but maybe that is a wise choice considering the anarchists have been ready to cause trouble when there's a lot of pre-planning. I am not advocating one way or another about attending, but just giving out information.

Anyway, the floor is open for whatever discussions or topics you may want to start.

The Left Is Falling Apart

There's an article you should all check out: Resistance Report: As Trump Wins Praise, Activists Try Not To Get Discouraged. This thing is mucho fascinating for a number of reasons.

This article is written by a leftist for Yahoo and it's basically an attempt to cheerlead the left to keep them from collapsing in light of everything going wrong for them. The problem is that it's ridiculous. Here are my thoughts.

● My first thought is that this article confirms what I'm seeing: the left has fallen apart. For all their anger and marches and vague ideas of what they wanted at first, reality has sunk in they aren't realizing they won't get the instant gratification they wanted. So they're quitting. Compare this with the Tea Party people who were busy organizing and plotting at this point as the establishment mocked them and wrote them off.

● The article says this:

“They have the House. They have the Senate. The [sic] have state legislatures. They have the governorships. They have Fox News. They have Russian hackers. They have the Oval Office,” he said. “Not for long!” someone in the crowd cried out. He continued: “But not for long! Because we have three things that make all those things seem this small. We have the truth. We have the Constitution. And we have the large majority of the American people.”

Wow. First, when the public gives your enemies every lever of power at the state and federal level, that's not insignificant. That means something about you. Secondly, when did Fox News become the only news source? Wouldn't having CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, all the newspapers, Hollywood, almost all magazines and all colleges outweigh Fox News? Third, the left wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the ass. They don't care about the Constitution either -- in fact, they've been openly trying to violate it. Finally, the idea they have a large majority of the American people is laughable. Any voter gap is less than 1/3 of 1%.

● Later in the article, they look for solace in the idea that the ratings for Trump's speech were lower than Obama's. I can't imagine a more pathetic basis to conclude that the public is with you... "Gee, not as many people watched him as did Obama's first speech! We're winners!"

● Then they looked for solace in two elections. They lost in a Connecticut state Senate race 56-44. But hey, this 12% loss is the best they've done there in a long time. Really? Or how's this, a Democrat in Minnesota lost by only 500 votes in a Republican district in a state house race. I would be embarrassed even to mention these. Two blue states. Following an overkill Republican sweep. Supposedly energized liberals. And they score two loses, one a blowout, and yet these are supposed to shoe growing Democratic strength? Ha!

● Then they crow that leftists annoyed Marco Rubio's landlord and got his month-to-month lease terminated. Gee. That's going to shift the balance... of something. Next they might order pizzas to his house! Take that fascist pig!

● Finally, it's interesting to me that there seems to be no actually purpose here. Try as I might, all I can find as a reason for the Trump Resistance is to resist Trump. There's nothing that specifically bothers them except the man himself. Basically, they didn't like losing and that's all this is about... a tantrum.

Even beyond this, consider the following.

● The Oscars are the heart of the anti-Trump movement: Hollywood. They were political. They were nasty. They were smug. They bragged about being able to bait Trump. Yet, Trump blew them off and acted presidential. Even worse, at the same time, the Oscars came to look like a clusterfudge. They invited a guest to show how "every man" Hollywood really is and he went viral... until it came out he's a convicted rapist. Meryl Streep feuded with a fashion designer. They couldn't get the biggest award of the night right, and they're still pointing fingers over this. Part of the stage even collapsed.

● Then Trump gave his speech. A handful of Democrats showed up in white, covered in pins and ribbons, to show their support for anything they could think of. The problem was the white was hardly universal and it made them look like a tiny minority even within the Democrats. Then when Trump praised the dead navy Seal, a moment Obama agitator Van Jones said "made him President," the Democrats acted rudely... insulting her. They then went out and whined about the widow being a prop. Sour grapes galore. What's more, the speech was inclusive, widely popular (some polls say 70%+) and yet the Democrats are trying to sell it as "out of touch," even as their own people say they liked it. So who's out of touch?

● With nothing else to smear, the left is again going after Melina and Ivanka. Specifically, they are attacking their clothes and style. This is both catty and nasty, and comes across that way. And is that really what political movements are based on.. catty sniping at the First Lady?

Things just aren't going well for the left. I predicted that they would run out of steam by June, but it looks like it's happening a couple months early.