• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

It Is America Who Is Lucky, with DONALD J. TRUMP AS PRESIDENT!

WILL THE CRAZY LEFT RE-ELECT TRUMP?

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Donald Trump is a lucky man. First he got to run for president against an almost unbelievably bad candidate, Hillary Clinton, who couldn’t win despite having the FBI and CIA laboring on her behalf. Now it appears that he will run for re-election against the nominee of a party wholly in thrall to its most extreme and juvenile elements.

The New York Post headlines a piece by Mary Kay Linge: “Why young, left-wing radicals could help re-elect President Trump.” Linge notes a new book by Robby Soave of Reason.com, Panic Attack: Young Radicals In the Age of Trump:

Angry and anguished over Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, the Zillennials — leftist millennial and Generation Z activists — continue to fuel the anti-Trump resistance.

And they just might get him re-elected in 2020.

That’s because their ideology of intersectionality, and its full-frontal attack on moderation and compromise in American politics, “is a gift to Trump and those who continue to support him,” writes Robby Soave….

Today’s young radicals, like those of the 1960s, are openly anti-American. The difference is that the radicals of decades ago didn’t seriously think they could win a national election. Another difference is that today’s young radicals are crazy.

“[Intersectionalisty is] a tyranny of the most victimized,” Soave said. “The more categories of oppression you can claim, the more authority you have.”

It also spells trouble for every one of the Democrats’ 24 declared candidates, because the very qualities that could allow them to appeal to a broad swath of voters in the general election make a politician anathema to the intersectional left.

Relatively mainstream Democratic candidates like Joe Biden and Kirsten Gillibrand are falling over themselves trying to talk the intersectional language of 2019, but doing so only exposes them to ridicule. Meanwhile, the craziness marches on:

A willingness to tolerate those with differing views, once seen as a positive good in all corners of American society, is condemned by the Zillennial left. Many of the activists Soave interviewed believe that speech that offends them should be — or already is — illegal.

Juvenile leftists have largely managed to suppress free speech on college campuses, which, as has truly been said, are islands of repression in a sea of freedom. But they will not have such easy sailing when they try to impose their bizarre ideologies on the world at large.

[D]espite their widening influence, Zillennial activists are not a majority within the millennial and Gen Z cohorts.

“In fact, it’s striking how few they are but how large the effect they are having on our cultural and political dialogue,” Soave said. “They are very good at making it seem like they speak for everyone; very good at representing their demands as universal.

“They are a radical fringe, but they’re getting their way with their ability to control the conversation.”

Do they control the conversation? Only if you assume that the conversation takes place primarily on Twitter and in the pages of the New York Times. But these are vanishingly small slices of the real conversations that go on in the context of a presidential election.

And if Zillennials can’t get the candidate they want? They may not turn out to vote at all. “Biden and other moderate Dems’ … lack of progressive bona fides make them just another sad symptom of everything that’s wrong with the world,” Soave said. “Most Democratic candidates are seen as “not so much better than Trump that it’s worth the effort.”

In other words, Zillennials would rather risk a second Trump term than compromise the intersectional principles they hold so dear.

Of course, as already pointed out, there aren’t actually that many Zillenials. So will their staying home throw the election to President Trump? No, but what more likely will happen is that all of the Democratic candidates will be pushed into such silly positions by the ignorant left that whoever wins the nomination will be repudiated by the voters.

As I have said before, I think the jury verdict against Oberlin College shows what normal people think of “intersectionality” when they encounter it. My guess is that fewer than 10% of Americans have any idea what “intersectionality” refers to. But when they find out that it means that you can’t arrest a shoplifter because he is black, and it is not just acceptable but commendable for the shoplifter and his confederates to assault the guy who caught them for the same reason, they will be unhappy. And most will vote against anyone who is associated with such unjust and unAmerican principles.

Fascism Alive and Active in today’s Comrade Dem, Jerry Nadler’s House Judiciary Committee!

New York’s  Comrade  Dem, Jerry Nadler,  starred as a fascist leading his fellow Red Dems on a multi houred assault on  honorable  William Barr, U.S. Attorney General yesterday.

For more than three  years now our America’s once honorable “people’s Democratic Party has disappeared from democratic action of  Democrats as individuals, representatives of traditional Americana since the collapse of the one hundred year post Civil War Southern  segregation against the American Negro.

No longer are  Democratic leaders and followers free to express their individual ideas and ideals about things democratic in our American Republic.   Fascism has arrived…..One party, ONE and only ONE voice and doctrine to sell its leftist venoms.

Fascist Nadler is a good leader for fascism.   If you  readers were too busy to view Dem Comrade Nadlers’ House Judiciary Committee gathering on television  yesterday, May 1, 2019, please find a source and spend an hour or more the fascistic performances of every Dem who opened their mouths to smear, to assault U.S. Attorney General, William Barr.

No longer are Democrat Representatives and Senators individuals  they used to be in mind and duty  before  Barrack Obama arrival on the Washington stage.   They have become ONE PARTY, ONE MIND, ONE VOICE, ONE FASCIST LEFT WING  DICTATORSHIP.

I used to vote Democrat until Ronald Reagan.  Both of our major parties in my life time except in  the white racist Democrat South,  were political entities of INDIVIDUALS and GROUPS, who had their own reasons, backgrounds, experiences for voting between the two major parties.  Business versus labor;  Protestant versus Roman Catholic and Jew;  North versus South; farm owners versus farm labor were very common voter competitors until the beginning of the collapse of America’s JudeoChristian values in the 1960s.

Today’s Republicans don’t yet “behave” as fascists where only one idea conquers all.   Most still value JudeoChristian God-fearing  principles….family, honesty, decency, tolerance, democracy, peace, learning for the best in  our Republic .

But NOT the American Democrat LEFT!

TODAY’S DEMOCRATS HAVE BECOME LEFTIST FASCISTS and FEMINISTS WHERE THEY CAN SELL  STALIN, LENIN, MAO, OR HITLER AT UNIVERSITY AND THROUGHOUT COMMUNICATION  TO CONQUER and CONTROL so everyone but the Dem Nadlers, Pelosis, Schiffs, Sharptons,  Sanders, and Blumenthals will be forced under police control and made  quiet.

Dem Feminazis Are Making Their Move to Destroy Our American Republic

The Green New Fascist Deal

by  Mark Musser   at  American Thinker:

 

The “Green New Deal” is a fascist utopian plan written by environmentalist lawyers that is purportedly designed to tackle the global warming apocalypse which capitalism, particularly of the American kind drunk on fossil fuels, has precipitated through economic recklessness and colonial racism. CO2, a trace gas measured in parts per million, is the primary culprit of a semi-apocalyptic global warming crisis that can only be averted through an all-wise cadre of Democratic green lawyers. That such utopianism, political legalism, and apocalypticism is presented as hard science demonstrates the general madness of the present time that is largely rooted in the Social Darwinian scientism of the 1800s, wherein German zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was peddling a racist political biology together with strong ecological values that he characterized as Monism — which speaks of a monistic oneness or holism with nature along totalitarian lines that modern science was supposedly offering the constituents of the Second Reich. While Haeckel coined the term “ecology” in 1866, he mixed racial eugenics with his environmentalism. Today, environmentalism proffers anti-humanism, population control, ecological totalitarianism, and indigenous multicultural tribal racism that “The New Green Deal” is chock full of.

Austrian Nazi forester Guenther Schwab (1904-2006) was one of the most successful original popularizers of apocalyptic environmentalism in the 1950s and 60s, which included the CO2 global warming scare. Thanks to the great success of Schwab’s writings, real green Nazis like Werner Haverbeck, August Haussleiter, and Werner Vogel, among others, helped him lay the foundations for the German Green Party in the late 1970s. Yet, it was German researcher Hermann Flohn (1912-97) who took the global warming theory that had been bandied around by earlier European researchers and gave it teeth to increasingly bite its way into the main storyline of the West as the 20th century drew to a close. Flohn is considered to be one of the most critically important climate scientists of the 20th century, whose research merited a number of prestigious awards.

Flohn’s very German odyssey actually began in 1941, when he published an article on global warming titled, “The Activity of Man as a Climate Factor” during the dizzying heights of Nazi rule. The Dust Bowl years of the 1930s on the American plains was an exceptionally warm period that prompted environmental discussion among many Nazis at the time, who deemed such an ecological disaster as a symptom of diseased industrial capitalism which had ruined the soil. While Flohn was not a Nazi Party member, he received his doctorate in 1934 and began work for the German Meteorological Service at a time when National Socialism was attempting to bring into line German universities within its ideological purview. Later, Flohn became the Luftwaffe’s chief meteorologist under green Nazi Hermann Goering’s watch. The great irony is that the global warming of the 1930s came to an abrupt halt (which lasted until 1975) just in time for the 1941 invasion of Russia when the Wehrmacht essentially froze to death just outside the gates of Moscow.

During the war, it stands to good reason that Flohn’s high atmospheric weather research would have not only placed him in close proximity with high-altitude Nazi human experiments, but probably also would have put him in regular contact with Werner von Braun and his SS rocket boys. After the war, Flohn continued to ratchet up the CO2 global warming scare as more dangerous than even nuclear energy. Such connections seem to suggest that the global warming apocalypse may have been originally introduced in a targeted way into American research labs through Operation Paperclip, when SS Nazi and German scientists were imported into the United States to help Uncle Sam build rockets to compete in the Cold War. The SS was the greenest arm of the swastika.

Even as early as 1935, Nazi Germany was the greenest regime on the planet. Their ecological projects worked hand in hand with their wild Social Darwinian biological programs connected to eugenics and scientific racial hygiene. Cleaning up the blood also included cleaning up the environment. Indeed, Nazi biologist Ernst Lehman defined fascism accordingly, “We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole… This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”

Out of such a Nazi holistic nature-based worldview came a number of environmental laws that preceded their more overt racial laws. In 1933, the Nazis passed a strict animal rights law. In 1934 they passed a hunting law.  Along similar lines, the Nazis also introduced sustainable forestry practices, and essentially became the very originators of what is today called sustainable development that included a great concern for recycling. Even the Four-Year Nazi war plan was to be guided by sustainable development concerns. In 1935, the Nazis passed the totalitarian Reich Nature Protection Act which opened the door to ecological regulation over private property.

That same year, American deep ecologist Aldo Leopold visited Nazi Germany to witness their strong emphasis upon green programs they had just put in place. While Leopold had some criticism of the Nazi efforts, he was very complimentary as he said they were not just talking about environmental problems, but actually doing something. Leopold also dragged home the “Never cry wolf” cult to America as Nazi Germany was the first country in the world to protect wolves. In other words, the western bridge between postmodern socialism/fascism and environmentalism originally rooted in the early German green movement of the 1800s was built by National Socialism in the 1930s, long before Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.

With no small irony, the present strong relationship that currently exists between modern environmentalism and left-wing labor unions was essentially born in Nazi Germany. In June of 1933, green Nazis Rudolf Hess and Walther Schoenichen absorbed many of the environmental groups of the Weimar Republic under Werner Haverbeck’sFolk-Race National Character and Landscape Bund that was a subdivision of the German Labor Front. The German Labor Front thus adopted the greens into their political organization. Nazi architect Albert Speer was proud of his environmental accomplishments as the green builder of the Third Reich who was also another leader of the German Labor Front.

After the war, while biding his time in Spandau prison, Hess often discussed the problems of the free market economy with Speer. Speer had worked under Hess as they were both essentially in charge of Nazi public works projects. Speer noted that Hess loved to critique American capitalism which he called liberal democracy as a form of sickness, “Again and again he comes to me with examples of overconsumption in the United States. He happily notes reports of misguided investments in the market economy, collects examples of land speculation, criminality, bad posture in children and health damage caused by canned foods.”

Hess even came up with a cockamamie sustainable development plan he shared with his fellow Nazi prisoners in 1951. Since highway lamps were being placed above roadways, Hess thought it would be unnecessary for cars to turn their headlights on at the same time. Energy could thus be saved by turning off the headlights when highway lamps were burning. Speer remarked, “This would save current he maintains, and the erection and maintenance of the floodlights could easily be financed out of the money thus saved. I object that the car’s generators would be running anyhow, to supply the current to the spark plugs. He dismisses that; the generator could shut off automatically as soon as the battery was charged. Thus, energy would be stored, fuel saved, and this saving could be spent on financing the illumination of highways.” Such a madness certainly presages the anti-car renewable energy sentiments that have become one of the trademarks of the modern green movement — that is also playing no small role in the Green New Deal as well. In short, to characterize the Green New Deal as fascist is no metaphor.

Mark Musser is a part-time missionary, pastor, author, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington in the summers but spends most of his time on the mission field in the former Soviet Union. He is currently a doctoral candidate at Corban University in Salem, Oregon, and is a contributing Writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Ecology provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the Holocaust.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/the_new_green_fascist_deal.html

Note:   Today’s American  Dem feminazi feminists don’t give a damn about freedom.  FREE MEN DO!  These  Fems, especially those who refuse children, by their Nature without God,   love mouth over brain to make them feel good and make noise.  Enter the ditsy Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez crowd.    They   demand blab, comfort, and security over TRUTH and FREEDOM.   They don’t invent, protect,  problem solve, seek or care about Truth.   Richer fems like Hillary  want maids, demand maids of all sexes shapes and sizes to handle her affairs, fair and foul.

 

Fascistic Dems Led By Ditsy Pelosi Face Trouble in River City?

A BATTLE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SHOULD RELISH

by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

Yesterday, John noted that the escalating Democratic attacks on Catholicism are, in part, an attempt to prepare the battlefield for the day when Justice Ginsburg dies or is unable to continue on the Supreme Court. In that event, said John, President Trump will likely nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg, and Democrats will make Barrett’s religious faith the basis for attacking her nomination.

To which I say, bring it on.

Judge Barrett is the mother of seven children. Two of them were adopted from Haiti. Her youngest biological child has special needs. She is a remarkable and very sympathetic women.

In addition, she is a first rate legal mind. Barrett graduated summa cum laude from the Notre Dame Law School, where she was executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. She then clerked for our friend Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit and for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.

As a law professor at Notre Dame, Barrett was twice named “distinguished professor of the year.” She continues to teach law as a sitting judge.

Do the Democrats really want to got after someone this sympathetic and this distinguished because she believes in the tenets of the Catholic faith? The answer seems to be yes. After all, they did it when Barrett’s nomination to the court of appeals was before the Senate.

But the Supreme Court is different. The public pays virtually no attention to battles over appeals court nominees. By contrast, as we saw with Brett Kavanaugh, fights over Supreme Court nominees rivet the nation.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that Judge Barrett is nominated to the Supreme Court in mid 2020, as the presidential race is heating up. Let’s hypothesize further that Senate Democrats try once again to savage Barrett because, as Sen. Feinstein once put it, Catholic dogma “lives loudly within” her.

How would serious, believing Catholic voters take this? Probably not well.

For this reason and because of her stellar qualifications, I’d be delighted to see President Trump nominate Judge Barrett for the Supreme Court if the opportunity arises. I’m a little less confident than John that Trump would nominate her. She interviewed with Trump for the last vacancy. According to the rumor mill, for whatever that might be worth, the interview didn’t go that well.

But if the Democrats are prepping the battlefield for a fight over Judge Barrett’s religious beliefs, it’s because (as John suggested) they can’t help themselves, not because they are thinking clearly about strategy.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/a-battle-the-trump-administration-should-relish.php

Dem Pollster Man, Nate Silver, Features Seventeen Dems to Battle 2020 Presidential Contest’s Big Dems

How 17 Long-Shot Presidential Contenders Could Build A Winning Coalition

by Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight:

It might seem obvious that having a wide-open field, as Democrats have for their 2020 presidential nomination, would make it easier for a relatively obscure candidate to surge to the top of the polls. But I’m not actually sure that’s true. Democrats might not have an “inevitable” frontrunner — the role that Hillary Clinton played in 2016 or Al Gore did in 2000. But that very lack of heavyweights has encouraged pretty much every plausible middleweight to join the field, or at least to seriously consider doing so. Take the top 10 or so candidates, who are a fairly diverse lot in terms of race, gender and age — pretty much every major Democratic constituency is spoken for by at least one of the contenders. After all, it was the lack of competition that helped Bernie Sanders gain ground in 2016; he was the only game in town other than Clinton.1

So as I cover some of the remaining candidates in this, the third and final installment of our “five corners” series on the Democratic field, you’re going to detect a hint of skepticism about most of their chances. (The “five corners” refers to what we claim are the the five major constituencies within the Democratic Party: Party Loyalists, The Left, Millennials and Friends, Black voters and Hispanic voters2; our thesis is that a politician must build a coalition consisting of at least three of these five groups to win the primary.) It’s not that some of them couldn’t hold their own if thrust into the spotlight against one or two other opponents. Instead, it’s that most of them will never get the opportunity to square off against the big names because the middleweights will monopolize most of the money, staff talent and media attention. Rather than pretend to be totally comprehensive, in fact, I’m instead going to list a few broad typologies of candidates that weren’t well-represented in the previous installments of this series.

This type of candidate has been popular in the minds of journalists ever since Gary Hart’s failed presidential bids in 1984 and 1988 — but it never seems to gain much momentum among actual Democratic voters. In this scenario, a Western governor or senator (e.g. Hart, Bruce Babbitt or Bill Richardson) runs on a platform that mixes environmentalism, slightly libertarianish views on other issues (legal weed but moderate taxes?) and a vague promise to shake things up and bring an outsider’s view to Washington.

This platform makes a lot of sense in the Mountain West, but I’m not sure how well it translates elsewhere in the country. In theory, the environmental focus should have some appeal among millennials. (That particularly holds for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who would heavily focus on climate change in his campaign as a means of differentiating himself.) And Party Loyalists might get behind an outsider if they were convinced that it would help beat President Trump, but “let’s bring in an outsider to shake things up” was one of the rationales that Trump himself used to get elected, so it doesn’t make for as good a contrast in 2020 as it might ordinarily. The Left isn’t likely to be on board with the Great Western Hope platform, which tends to be moderate on fiscal policy. And while the states of the Mountain West have quite a few Hispanic voters, they don’t have a lot of black ones. It’s not that Inslee or former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper aren’t “serious” candidates — being a multi-term governor of medium-sized state is traditionally a good credential — but it’s also not clear where the demand for their candidacies would come from.

You might say something similar about the various mayors that are considering a presidential bid.What niche are the mayors hoping to fill, and are there actually any voters there?

Maybe in “The West Wing,” a hands-on problem solver from Anytown, USA, would make the perfect antidote to a Trumpian president. In the real world, Democrats think the country is in crisis under Trump, and there are a lot of candidates who have more experience dealing with national problems.

But Eric Garcetti and Bill de Blasio, the current mayors of Los Angeles and New York, respectively, have at least had to build complicated coalitions in big, complicated cities — and so they would probably be more viable than the mayors from smaller cities. De Blasio cruised to an easy re-election in New York in 2017 on the basis of support from black, Hispanic and leftist white voters, a coalition that could also be viable in the presidential primary. (De Blasio hasn’t taken concrete steps toward a 2020 bid, but he also hasn’t ruled one out.) Garcetti, who has what he describes as “Mexican-American-Jewish-Italian” ancestry, could find support for his bid among Hispanic voters.

Bloomberg might belong in a different group, as someone who’s not just a former mayor but also fits into the entrepreneur/celebrity/rich person category below and has some of the baggage that comes with that. And unlike de Blasio, Bloomberg wasn’t especially popular with nonwhite voters in New York.

This is a group of candidates I’m quite bullish about, by contrast — especially Stacey Abrams, if she runs. In defeating longtime incumbent Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary in New York’s 14th Congressional District last year, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who is too young to run for president until next cycle) built a coalition of Hispanics, The Left and millennials. Not that everyone necessarily has Ocasio-Cortez’s political acumen, but the potency of this coalition seems rather obvious, in retrospect. Since The Left tends to be pretty white on its own, a Hispanic, black or Asian left-progressive candidate has more potential to build a broader coalition. And millennials, who are sympathetic to left-wing policy positions but also care a lot about diversity, might prefer a Latina or a black woman to an older white man.

In fact, it’s not clear why, other than for reasons having to do with her race and gender, Abrams isn’t getting more buzz as a potential candidate than Beto O’Rourke. (It’s true that Abrams might have designs on Georgia’s 2020 Senate race instead of the presidency; it’s also true that there wasn’t a “Draft Abrams” movement in the same way that influential Democrats almost immediately called on O’Rourke to run for president after his loss to Ted Cruz.) Both performed quite well relative to how Democrats usually do in their states, with Abrams losing to Brian Kemp by 1.4 percentage points in the Georgia governor’s race and O’Rourke losing to Cruz by 2.6 points in Texas’s Senate race. (Andrew Gillum, who barely lost Florida’s governor’s race, can’t make this claim, since Florida is much more purple than either Georgia or Texas.) Both became huge national stories. And both are lacking in the kind experience that traditionally sets the stage for a presidential run. It’s not that I’m down on O’Rourke’s chances; the opposite, really (see Part 2 of this series). But if O’Rourke can build a winning coalition from millennials, Hispanics and Party Loyalists, Abrams (or possibly Gillum) could create one from black voters, millennials and The Left.

I’m not going to spend too much on this category because, in practice, both New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe are likely to have a lot of problems if they want to ascend to the presidential stage. Party nominations are not just about building coalitions but also creating consensus, and McAuliffe and Cuomo have probably picked one too many fights with liberals and spent too much time critiquing liberal policy proposals to be tolerable to a large enough share of Democrats to win the nomination. Of the two, Cuomo would probably be the more viable as he’s shifted toward his left recently, although he’d still have a lot of work to do to repair his relationship with progressives.

Were it not for their abrasive approaches, the Cuomo and McAuliffe coalitions might be a bit more viable than you might assume. In particular, those coalitions consist of minority voters plus relatively moderate Party Loyalists. Cuomo assembled a similar coalition last September and soundly defeated the more liberal Cynthia Nixon in the Democratic primary for governor before being elected to a third gubernatorial term in November thanks to a landslide 84-14 margin among nonwhite voters.

What about the various billionaires considering a presidential run? Count me as skeptical that a CEO title will impress Democrats. Money has never been terribly predictive of success in the primaries (see e.g. Steve Forbes or Jeb Bush) — and candidates such as former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire who last week decided that he wouldn’t run for president, have fared notably poorly in early surveys of Democrats. And that makes sense, because it’s not really clear what sort of Democratic voter they’re supposed to be appealing to. The Left is likely to regard the billionaires suspiciously, at best. Nor are rich white men who have never run for office before liable to have a lot of initial success in appealing to black or Hispanic voters. Finally, their timing is poor given that the president is Trump and that the last thing most Democrats will want is another billionaire with no political experience.

Want a billionaire whose chances I’d take seriously? How about Oprah. One three-pronged coalition we haven’t discussed yet is one consisting of Black voters, Hispanic voters and Millennials and Friends; a nonwhite celebrity who was able to engage voters that didn’t ordinarily participate in primaries3 could potentially win on that basis.

Finally, there are a few people running for president who don’t have anything resembling the traditional credentials for doing so, but who at least have pitches that are a little different than what voters will be hearing elsewhere. Tulsi Gabbard, the four-term representative from Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District, was one of Sanders’s early endorsers last cycle, but she also has a heterodox set of positions, such as her frequent defenses of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and her former opposition to gay rights, that won’t win her fans among any of the traditional Democratic constituencies.

Richard Ojeda, a crew-cut Army veteran and former West Virginia legislator who says he voted for Trump in 2016 and looks the part of a (stereotypical) Trump voter, is presenting what’s essentially a left-wing set of economic policies in a very different package than voters would normally to get that message from. I’m not quite sure how the pitch would go over if, say, Ojeda makes it to a debate stage, which might never happen because the Democratic National Committee and the networks might consider him too obscure. But it’s worth bearing in mind that The Left is the whitest and most male of the Democratic constituencies, so a candidate who intentionally plays into that identity might not be the best one to build bridges to the rest of the party.

Then there’s John Delaney, who decided not to run for re-election to Congress so he could run for president instead — and in fact has already been running for president for well more than a year. He’s preaching a message of bipartisanship, which could win him plaudits from the pundits on the Sunday morning shows, but which it’s not clear that many actual Democrats are looking for. Instead, more Democrats are willing to identify as “liberal” than had been in the past and fewer say they want a candidate who compromises.


That’s all for now! As I mentioned in the first installment of this series, some things we’ve written here are surely going to seem laughably wrong in retrospect. It wouldn’t necessarily have been obvious at this point four years ago that Clinton would do so well with black voters, for example (a group she lost badly to Barack Obama in 2008), or that Sanders would become such a phenomenon among millennials. Fundamentally, however, the U.S. has “big tent” parties, consisting of groups that may not have all that much in common with one another. And so, the nomination process is a coalition-building process. Candidates such as Sanders and Joe Biden, who poll well among one or two groups, may lead in the polls initially. But ultimately the candidate who wins the nomination will be the one who can best bridge the divides between the different constituencies within the party.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-17-long-shot-presidential-contenders-could-build-a-winning-coalition/

I: The Disappearing American Human Female…..Looking Back to THE WAR!

I was born in 1934.   I was born to be very, very visual, gifted with  a great memory, but crippled when it came to reading novels.    This meant I was very accomplished in some worlds of learning, but school life could be very bleak when it came to reading novels and taking standard tests.   It turned out I had, what was called in those days, a photographic memory.

At age 84, I can still see and remember the names of my classroom teachers until I entered college.

I had no clue I was in scholastic trouble until college.   The only course I ever failed was Geomorphology, a requirement needed to secure  my first ‘major’ study, Geography.   Outside of Climatology, of the 40 quarter credits required to major in the field, I earned straight A in each course at a time when undergraduates were weeded out of the “Social-Liberal Arts ” school 40% per year.

I was poorly disciplined yet in those days.  I wasn’t certain I knew what school discipline meant.  I did the best I could as I was told.    I was born  exceedingly gifted and  crippled by curiosity.   Nearly all of my pre-college public school teachers were old maids, gifted with knowledge and experience teaching in their fields, in a male adult environment where no student  was allowed to misbehave…..(except occasionally  when substitute teachers would show up.)

I couldn’t run then.   I was seriously crippled by asthma until college.  Later in life, I discovered my life with  dyslexia….well after it had been “invented”, however.   I own well over 1,000 books and have snooped through them all….especially readers of the American nineteenth century.   The only book I have ever read cover to cover…..and have repeated doing so, is George Orwell’s “1984”.

I was well raised JudeoChristian and am “God-fearing” to this day….although unchurched.   The most moving religious ceremonies I have ever experienced were Russian Orthodox….especially that 1990 October Sunday in Kiev when the Soviet Red authorities there opened services at  St. Nicholas “Cathedral” that day when  I became one of thousands upon thousands of locals  who joined the inspiring  hours of ceremony  that  morning.

In all,  curiosity sent me collecting around 700 quarter credits of college  in my life time….yet, only one graduate degree….. “Soviet Studies” where all classes were given and to be spoken only  in Russian.   (Bwillo chudno!!)   The study allowed me transport and time to  speak Russian in  the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, almost as if I lived there,  on two occasions, in August, 1966 and in October, 1990.

They needed the American dollar!

I was born, raised, and still live in Minnesota’s Twin Cities.   Almost a year of my life was spent in Europe, mostly in Great Britain,  throughout the 1990s absorbing the arts of  landscape gardening.

It was about a half century ago when civilized America slipped into the drug world of sex, crime, ignorance, feminism,  and leftism…..about 1968 in our Twin Cities…… when learnings, jobs, American Christianity, Truth seeking, family life, and womanhood  were all still allowed, practiced, and honored….and the door to racial freedom was to be, at last,  opened!

I taught Russian at the University of Minnesota High School from 1960 to 1967…..and Social Studies and Russian at a working class Minneapolis High School until Spring, 1971.  I had been in the US Army 1957 and 1958.  (I was a child of WWII who religiously and closely followed the war and its pictures and maps from the Battle of Midway  that June of 1942 to the very end, August 15, 1945!  I wanted to know  what I would do if shot at!….as my cousins were!   Our neighborhoods everywhere were still safe in 1956.

I had earned my first Bachelor’s degree that year….and wasn’t sure what to do with it.

I had Winston Churchill’s quote always on my mind from the war…….”The most exhilarating moment in life is to be shot at……………and have been missed”.   Prime Minister Churchill was speaking from experience.

Women were still women then, that August well up to 1960….Christian, mothers, God-fearing, neighborhood ruling, family tending,  raising children, keeping  the home front together during the war.  Neighbors Mr. and Mrs. Landmark had lost their son early in the war in the Pacific.  My dad was in his 40s then, and we lived in St. Paul.  He joined the Air Raid force in our part of the city and was on active duty from Spring 1942 until the following winter.    Twice a week he and his force would walk up and down his team’s blocks to make sure every light in every house was out until siren count at about 9:30 or so.

Our family, actually mostly I, as it turned out, wound up starting  in May of 1942,  in charge of planting and maintaining our neighborhood’s VICTORY GARDEN.   The city would plow up the soil of the empty lots across the alley from us for free if we would agree to plant and care for  vegetables there for the war effort.  We could keep half of the crop for our own family use, but share the remaining half with our neighbors.

That is where I learned my love for plant life……a drug that has stayed with me to this very wintery winter day.

During that first year of the war, our neighborhood folk crowded together  at our local grade school gymnasium twice each month on Monday’s at 7PM to sing patriotic songs for a couple of hours and sign up for war duties such as mothers being taught how to bandage their children if the enemy ever reached ‘our shores’.   I enjoyed the stardom I received when my Mother shared me with other mothers  bandaged up…..

Every house on our block and the block east of ours, had Mothers and children  but one, where grand parents lived whose daughter brought her two boys to the neighborhood from Cedar Rapids, Iowa each summer season for years.

Every Spring and Fall until after the War was over,  our neighborhood would picnic in the lot where we raised our vegetables from egg plant to sweet corn, tomatoes to okra, green beans,  squash, onions,  sprouts, lettuce, rutabaga, white potatoes, and more….the world I   at age 8 to 11 was the primary seeder, weeder, harvester, and insect killer.

I loved it all.   I played war games while pinching potato beetles by dive bombing them as if they were Stukas or Zeros off of the potato leaves and sticking them into a can of  car grease.

Even in our safe Minnesota urban neighborhood women were working overtime in some way to aid our nation’s war effort.   But, they were MOTHERS FIRST AND FOREMOST!   They raised their children to be God fearing, to behave, be polite,  caring for others…..or else!    I never heard a curse word of any kind until I heard the word damn used when I was a freshman at St. Paul’s Central High School the spring of 1949.  A new kid to the school that Spring, Dave Martin, uttered it while we 9th graders were quietly going outside for recess one day.   He was made to disappear from school for one week for his error.

There was no television in our Twin Cities until 1947.   Our first set was an 11 inch black and white screened Philco.   Colored television wasn’t yet on the market for several years yet.  Neighbors were still neighbors then…  moms were moms talking to each other, helping each other, sharing with each other,  laughing with each other.   Moms stayed at home and were real moms, teaching, preaching, playing, gardening,  sewing, decorating, respected.   I didn’t know “crime” in action until a junior in high school when two boys in my school were caught shooting bbs at autos one evening along Snelling Avenue and St. Claire.  They were sent to detention for a couple of months.

My Mother did work part time at my dad’s drug store from 1947 to the mid 1950s.   Mrs. Merrill across the street was a working nurse half time  throughout and after the war.  No other Mother on the block worked even when I entered the army in January, 1957.

Butches hadn’t been invented yet, certainly not in the public arena.   No one on the block had been divorced, either.   No one had a reputation of being ugly or beating up anyone.  Only Tommy Joyce’s dad was known to “drink” from time to time.   However, “Spiral Staircase”  was a big hit at our neighborhood movie house in 1947 or 1948.  I sneaked out to see it one 7PM  just before rain fell and thunder clapped arrogantly  anxious to see what adults were complaining about.   I learned far more than I wanted to learn about what some adult guys might be up to…..and added my sweat to the rain and thunder as I ran home to sweet home.

 

 

 

Fox Aussie Rinos Ridicule Trump over Acosta Stink ?

Trump on Acosta Ruling: “People Have To Behave”

 

President Trump commented Friday on a judicial ruling ordering the White House to reinstate the press pass for CNN’s Jim Acosta. The judge did not rule on the underlying case, but he granted CNN’s request for a temporary restraining order on Fifth Amendment grounds. During a bill signing the president said his staff is working on a set of rules journalists will have to follow in the White House.

“People have to behave,” Trump said on the Acosta ruling. “We’re writing up rules and regulations…If they don’t listen to the rules and regulations, we’ll end up back in court and we’ll win. But more importantly, we’ll just leave, and then you won’t be very happy.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/11/16/trump_on_acosta_ruling_people_have_to_behave.html