Category: Senate

Rumors Swirl: Where Is James Talarico? UPDATE: Talarico Appears in Public

Posted on Comments

UPDATE: The Talarico campaign had been stonewalling and making excuses, but as soon as I took notice of the candidate’s mysterious absence, they wheeled him out in public:

After a nine-day illness-induced absence from the campaign trail, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee James Talarico re-emerged Friday with an unannounced appearance at the Austin City Limits music festival. . . .
Talarico was seen walking the grounds of Austin’s Zilker Park, the site of ACL, and greeting voters ahead of an expected onstage appearance at the festival Friday afternoon.

So I guess he got a day pass from the psych ward.

*** PREVIOUSLY ***

Have you seen this guy lately? James Talarico is a Democrat, a previously obscure state legislator who is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Texas against the current state attorney general, Ken Paxton. Or rather, I should say, Talarico was running for the Senate until Sept. 26, which was the last time he was seen at a campaign event. He showed up in New York City for a fundraiser with Robert De Niro on Sept. 28, and made a virtual appearance on a teleconference Sept. 30, but no one in Texas has seen him in public for nearly two weeks, and wild rumors are now circulating as to the reason for Talarico’s mysterious disappearance.

The official explanation from the Talarico campaign is that the candidate came down with the flu, but nobody believes that because (a) everything the Talarico campaign says is a lie and (b) who ever heard of a two-week case of the flu? Yet the truth about Talarico’s whereabouts is unknown, and speculation has given way to wild rumors.

The most widely believed explanation is that Talarico has suffered some kind of nervous breakdown — the stress of the campaign was too much for him, and his mind snapped under the pressure. If this is true, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate might be locked up in a psych ward, dosed with heavy tranquilizers, doing the “Haldol shuffle” while his campaign aides try to figure out how to keep Talarico’s mental disorder secret until Election Day in November. Tom Eagleton 2.0, basically.

A similar rumor is that Talarico is in drug rehab after suffering a relapse. Although his Wikipedia page doesn’t mention anything about Talarico ever having a drug habit, maybe this is just one of those politically convenient omissions. So I suppose it’s possible that, while he was partying with rich liberals in New York City at that fundraiser last month, Talarico scored some powerful drugs, possibly laced with fentanyl. He could have nearly died from an overdose, requiring him to be revived with a shot of Narcan and, for all we know, is recovering in some out-of-the-way clinic owned by one of his wealthy campaign contributors.

Another possibility that’s being talked about is that Talarico is in jail, locked up for some kind of sex crime involving minors. I’m inclined to doubt that rumor, because surely there would be an arrest record, or an online listing of jail inmates, that would reveal the nature of Talarico’s perverse crimes. It would be difficult to keep something like that secret, even for a couple of weeks, and therefore we can categorize this rumor as unlikely, although perhaps not entirely impossible.

Drug-resistant sexually transmitted diarrhea is a real thing, and public health officials are worried about it. Shigella is the name of the bacteria responsible for this disease, and shigella is “endemic” among gay men, for reasons I’d rather not explain in detail. We know that Talarico is very supportive of the LGBTQ community, and we also know that Talarico was in New York City last month, so if you add 2+2, the possibility of four seems obvious enough. Is there any specific information about Talarico (perhaps under the influence of drugs) getting involved in a wild gay orgy while he was in New York? No, we do not have any such information, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. We must “follow the science”!

What we have now is a mysterious disappearance by a political candidate, a two-week absence from the campaign trail that can’t be explained as a mere flu. The Talarico campaign is lying, and we don’t know what the truth is, so we are free to speculate and share rumors.



 

How We Got Here: ‘Susan Collins, One of the Most Evil People in Public Life’

Posted on Comments

When I wrote about Trump Derangement Syndrome over the weekend, it was while following the discourse over the latest scandalous Graham Platner revelations. These are certainly not the first such revelations, nor will they be the last, as GOP operatives reportedly have a vast pile of opposition research on Mr. Nazi Tattoo they’re waiting to unload when the time is right. But the reaction from liberals to what came out over the weekend was to double-down, to dig their entrenchments deeper, to rationalize the necessity of defending Platner at all costs, no matter what.

The author of that remarkable sentence is a columnist for The Nation, and when he got ratioed, his response was to double down again.

“TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!” The deranged obsession so warps David Klion’s perception that, when challenged on his over-the-top rhetoric, his response is to post a syllogism, the first premise of which is, “Republicans are evil,” and believes that he has thereby vanquished his critics.

His defense of Platner will not suffice:

The Democratic primary in Maine is June 9, less than two weeks away, and the question now is whether Graham Platner will get shoved under the party’s bus before it’s too late to find another candidate to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
Hit by scandal after scandal in recent weeks, Platner’s status as “rising star” is now at risk because Democrats have belatedly realized that there might be even more damaging revelations to come — worse than his SS Totenkopf tattoo, which somehow Democrats had convinced themselves wasn’t really a scandal at all. What they’re realizing now is that Republican sources weren’t just bragging when they told Marc Halperin that their opposition research files on Platner were so toxic that he was not only guaranteed to lose to Collins, but “he’ll have to leave the state.” Frantic social-media drama from Democrats in recent days suggests that party insiders have confirmed what those GOP operatives were hinting at — Platner is unelectable; if he is the Democrat on the ballot in November, Collins will win in a landslide. . . .

You can read the rest of my latest Substack article (it’s free) and if you could, please subscribe while you’re over there.



 

Senate Ends Filibuster; Democrats Immediately Form Circular Firing Squad

Posted on Comments

After a week of conservatives tearing each other apart over Tucker Carlson, etc., it’s nice to see the Democrats take their turn:

A backlash has been brewing against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for possibly striking a deal to end the government shutdown.
As reports surfaced on Sunday of a pending deal between Republicans and Democrats, opponents of the deal immediately voiced their disdain for Chuck Schumer on social media, accusing him of acquiescing to Republican demands. . . .
According to NBC News, the U.S. senators reached a “tentative deal” to end the government shutdown.
“Senators struck an agreement Sunday, projecting confidence that it will be sufficient to end the lengthy U.S. government shutdown, three sources with direct knowledge of the details told NBC News,” it reported.
“The agreement, reached by a group of Democrats who teamed up with Republicans, cleared the first hurdle on a vote of 60-40 to advance in a late-night Senate vote. If it’s approved, it would then need to pass the House and gain President Donald Trump’s signature to become law and reopen the government,” it added.

Later Sunday, the Senate voted to end the filibuster:

A disastrous shutdown for Democrats got worse Sunday when Senate Democrats folded on government funding while receiving nothing of substance in return.
Eight Senate Democrats voted with 52 Republicans Sunday night on a procedural vote to allow a continuing resolution (CR) funding the government to advance.
The motion passed 60 to 40, without a single vote to spare, and will enable a future vote on a clean continuing resolution through January 30, 2026, packaged with three relatively non-controversial appropriations bills extending through the fiscal year: agriculture, military construction-Veterans Affairs, and legislative branch.
The agreement includes back pay for federal employees and guarantees that the 4,000-plus federal employees laid off during the shutdown will be rehired, as well as a blanket prohibition on future reductions in force through January 30. Those jobs are a drop in the bucket compared to the 250,000 or so the Trump administration eliminated before the shutdown.
Most significantly, the agreement does not guarantee an extension of Covid-era enhanced Obamacare premium subsidies, with Democrats only receiving assurances of a vote on a bill of their choice.


Chuck Schumer led Democrats in voting for the longest shutdown in history, and now they’re all denouncing him as a traitor:

Democrats and progressives exploded with outrage after the Senate took a giant step toward reopening the government Sunday night, with many calling for Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s ouster.
Schumer (D-NY), who voted against the bipartisan package to end the longest government shutdown in US history, was slammed for failing to prevent five Democratic defections that allowed the measure to advance, despite Republicans making no concessions on keeping Obamacare subsidies due to expire at the end of this year.
“Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) chided on X. “If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?”
“Tonight is another example of why we need new leadership,” jeered Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who launched his primary challenge to Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) last month, on X. “If @ChuckSchumer were an effective leader, he would have united his caucus to vote ‘No’ tonight and hold the line on healthcare.
“Maybe now @EdMarkey will finally join me in pledging not to vote for Schumer [as conference leader after the 2026 elections]?”

Democrats have been acting this way for 20 years, going back to the G.W. Bush administration, which is when young leftists started calling themselves “progressives” to differentiate themselves from regular liberals (e.g., Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton) who had supported Bush on the Iraq war. Whenever a Republican is in the White House, the left wing of the Democratic Party — especially the always-online activist types — demand that Democrats in Congress fight! fight! fight!

This kind of maximum-resistance stance is easy for people whose only stake in the game is social media clicks, or for congressional Democrats elected from deep-blue states or districts. The problem comes in swing states and districts, where being a “common-sense” Democrat is much closer to what the voters want, and where voting to shut down the government makes you look like an extremist. One could speak of similar tendencies on the Republican side, but Democrats have been wrecked time and time again by this fight! fight! fight! mentality — they won a congressional majority in 2006, then lost the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Four years later, Democrats won a majority again in the 2018 midterms, only to lose both the House and Senate in 2022.

So now, having demanded that Schumer and the Senate shut down the government — while trying to blame Republicans — now the “progressive” grassroots of the Democratic Party are ready to ditch Schumer because he ended the shutdown without getting anything substantial as a consequence. It’s a beautiful thing, to watch your enemies waging war against each other. Let’s hope they keep it up.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

Chuck Chickens Out: No Schumer Shutdown, CR Will (Barely) Pass Senate

Posted on

Because you’ve probably already seen the news elsewhere, permit me to begin by saying that Chuck Schumer may be the leading cause of anti-Semitism in America. Everyone who knows me knows that I am a righteous Gentile, the exact opposite of a Jew-hater, a philo-Semite who is more fanatically Zionist than Bibi Netanyahu. But when I contemplate the profound dishonesty of Chuck Schumer . . . Well, it occurs to me that anti-Semitic prejudice didn’t just magically materialize out of the ether; Schumer is the embodiment of every hateful stereotype, and actually looks like a cartoon in Der Stürmer. Some pious rabbi needs to talk to senior officials of the Anti-Defamation League about their Chuck Schumer problem. The man is becoming a shanda fur die goyim.

With that preamble, now time for the news:

On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) declared that he will not vote against moving forward with a Republican-backed stopgap bill to avert a partial government shutdown at the end of the week.
The announcement, in which Schumer criticized President Donald Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) effort led by Elon Musk, marked an abrupt turnaround. Just one day ago, the top Senate Democrat insisted the Republican majority did not have enough votes for the House-passed continuing resolution to clear a key procedural hurdle.
“While the CR bill is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse. … I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option,” Schumer said in remarks on the Senate floor.
He added later: “I believe it is my job to make the best choice for the country, to minimize the harms to the American people. Therefore, I will vote to keep the government open and not shut it down.” . . .
The Democrat leader’s statement came after a Senate Democrat meeting in which reporters said they could hear Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) shouting about a shutdown.

Speaking of shouting about a shutdown, I had a rather heated phone call last week with a young friend, who unwisely spends too much of his time in the online MAGA echo chamber, and was therefore pro-shutdown.

Look, it’s not as if I’m a squishy RINO sellout. I just happen to be about 25 years older than my young friend, so I have some institutional memory on this topic. Well do I remember the fierce budget battles between Gingrich-led congressional Republicans and Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s, when “government shutdown” first became a headline, and Republicans took a severe public-relations beating, only to fold their cards because Bob Dole couldn’t keep Senate Republicans in line.

This has always been the big problem facing the conservative movement. Every time we get a GOP House majority, we are confronted by the problem of the Senate filibuster. Unless Republicans can get to 60 votes in the Senate, they must negotiate with the Democrats to be able to pass anything, and so the Freedom Caucus types eventually have to accept a deal that is antithetical to their principles. Personally, I agree with Grover Norquist’s most famous quote: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” But that doesn’t change the reality of how legislation gets passed, nor does it change the political calculus of how to maintain a Republican congressional majority. Having finally gotten Trump elected to a second term, the clock is now ticking down to the 2026 midterms, and it will be some kind of miracle if we can stop Democrats from taking over Congress again. The last thing we need, at a time when the GOP is running the whole show in D.C., is to have a government shutdown, which will be perceived (by the moderate “swing” voters, at least) as evidence that Republicans aren’t competent enough to do basic “keep the trains running on time” governance.

So I found myself raising my voice in last week’s phone conversation with my young friend, who can’t see it from this kind of long-term big-picture perspective. Experience proves that we cannot suddenly change everything in Washington; conservatives must build an effective governing majority, and then proceed step-by-step through the legislative process. This kind of patient labor strikes the young hotspurs as timid, lacking the kind of a revolutionary excitement they crave. But we must remind the callow youth that they stand on the shoulders of giants, being heirs to a movement that began long before they were born. It was during the historical apogee of liberal prestige — when FDR’s New Deal commanded the allegiance of an overwhelming majority — that a tiny handful of dissenters organized what became the conservative movement in America. Hayek, Kirk, Weaver, Chambers, Regnery, Buckley — by the early 1950s, the torch had been lit, and was passed along from Taft to Goldwater to Reagan. Alas, we have lost much that ought to have been conserved, and yet despite such defeats, nevertheless the fight continues.

Pardon that digression, but there are too many people on “our” side who are encouraging an irresponsible attitude toward the current situation, and I just want everybody to calm down about it. Let the Democrats stir outrage among the kook fringe on their side, appealing to the fathomless ignorance of their voters. Back to the news:

The Senate needs three-fifths majority — or 60 votes — to invoke cloture and overcome a filibuster on the GOP’s six-month continuing resolution. Because Republicans have a 53-47 majority, they cannot clear that threshold without some kind of bipartisan agreement. The spending legislation will need only a simple majority to prevail in a final vote. . . .
It was not immediately clear how many Democrats or independents will join Schumer, though his opposition to a shutdown may signal better odds for the Republican continuing resolution. Still, some on the Left have expressed stern disapproval of the plan.
Many Democrats had previously released statements claiming they would resist the GOP measure. Prior to Schumer, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) was the sole Democrat to openly state that he would not support blocking the Republican stopgap bill. . . .
One Republican — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) — signaled that he will vote against the bill. However, that does not necessarily mean he would oppose breaking the filibuster. . . .
The GOP-led House passed a 99-page continuing resolution, which provides funds to various federal agencies and programs through September 30, via a 217-213 vote on Tuesday. All but one Republican and a single Democrat — Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) — supported the measure. The rest of the Democrats and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) opposed the bill.

There was a parade of Democratic senators on Twitter yesterday declaring that they would vote against the CR, but the final vote — i.e., yea or nay on the passage of the bill — isn’t the issue. It’s the cloture vote that is the hurdle. If all 53 Republicans vote for cloture, and Chuck Schumer can deliver six Democrat “yea” votes, then when you add J.D. Vance’s tiebreaking vote, that’s the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster. Once that’s done, getting 51 votes for passage won’t be difficult.

If we can trust Schumer when he says he is now against the shutdown, that means he’ll find a half-dozen Democrats to “walk the plank” for the sake of avoiding a shutdown (for which Schumer apparently sees that Democrats would be blamed). That buys him another six months to try to work up some kind of new wicked scheme, and I hope the ADL will intervene to stop him, because otherwise this living Der Stürmer caricature might keep stirring up Jew-hatred past the point of no return.

Now, about those Puerto Rican stereotypes . . .



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

Pam Bondi Confirmed as A.G., and Why Did Democrats Vote Against Her?

Posted on

Only one Democratic senator — John Fetterman of Pennsylvania — voted to confirm Donald Trump’s choice for Attorney General. Can anyone explain why so many Democrats voted against Pam Bondi, about whom there was no real controversy and whose tenure as Florida’s attorney general was entirely successful? There was no scandal in Bondi’s background, no history of controversial policy positions.

But then you read this part:

Bondi, who served as Florida’s first female Attorney General and was a prosecutor for nearly 20 years, has been a Trump supporter since the beginning of her political career.
She served as defense lawyer for Trump in his first impeachment trial and as co-chair of Women for Trump during the 2020 election. Most recently she supported Trump in May at his New York business records trial.

Her “crime,” according to Democrats, is being a supporter of the guy who won the election. That’s it — period, end of sentence. Democrats are constantly telling us that Trump is a threat to democracy, and yet which party is it that doesn’t want to acknowledge the result of the election?

Go back to 2021 and see how many of Joe Biden’s Cabinet appointments sailed through the confirmation process with only token opposition from Republicans. There were 30 Republican votes against Merrick Garland’s nomination as Biden’s attorney general, but there were 18 Republican “yea” votes. Was Garland less controversial than Bondi? Was she more of a partisan ideologue than he? You cannot objectively justify the greater Democratic opposition to GOP nominees, and must therefore conclude that Democrats have not yet lost enough elections to be convinced that the country has turned against them. Last weekend’s circus at the Democratic National Committee meeting is further evidence of this. If Democrats took the 2024 election results seriously, they wouldn’t have been acting the fool that way. They seem to believe that regaining their congressional majorities in the 2026 midterms will be a piece of cake, so they don’t need to make any meaningful changes to their rhetoric or policy agenda, but rather just double-down on “Orange Man Bad.”

Part of the problem, of course, is that the establishment media echo chamber encourages Democrats to think this way. Here is the lead of a New York Times story from Tuesday:

After early signs that some of President Trump’s unconventional cabinet choices could be derailed by Republicans alarmed at their character, disturbing paper trails and lack of expertise, the resistance has collapsed.
One after the other on Tuesday, Republican senators fell into line behind two of the president’s most baggage-laden nominees, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for health secretary and Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence.
The party-line committee votes to send both nominees to the floor for likely confirmation next week provided the clearest evidence yet that Mr. Trump’s pressure tactics and the threat of a barrage of abuse by his allies against would-be defectors had sapped whatever remained of a G.O.P. impulse to balk. And they suggested a broader impulse among Republicans on Capitol Hill — even the few who have maintained some degree of independence from Mr. Trump — to shrink from confrontation with him and allow him to have his way at the dawn of his second term.

What can you say about such “reporting,” except that it’s a manic fantasy symptomatic of Trump Derangement Syndrome? It involves a complete misreading of what has happened in the Republican Party since 2012. After two consecutive defeats against Obama — the John McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns — GOP primary voters rolled the dice with Trump, gambling that this brash billionaire businessman could do something to change the status quo in Washington. The vast majority of grassroots Republicans have never regretted that gamble, and have accustomed themselves to trusting Trump’s instincts, including those “unconventional cabinet choices.” The kind of weak-kneed apologetic go-along-to-get-along Republican “leaders” who might be stampeded by media criticism — they’re not calling the shots anymore. Those days of “bipartisan consensus” (which always involved Republican surrender) are over, and the New York Times can’t seem to process what this means.

By the way, who’s going to CPAC this year? My friend Mike LaChance from Legal Insurrection just reached out to say he’d be there, and I’ve applied for media credentials. The conference in DC begins in two weeks — Wednesday, February 19 — and I’d like to organize a gathering of readers/commenters if you’re planning to attend.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

‘Shrill and Hysterical’: Michael Bennett, Tulsi Gabbard and Edward Snowden

Posted on

Everybody has commented on last week’s drama during the Senate confirmation hearing for Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence. Many of my readers are big fans of Tulsi on “Rule 5” grounds, but I hope you’ll forgive me for saying, “Meh.” Just not my type. I mean, don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are Samoan, but . . . Well, best not to give more fodder to the SPLC, I suppose.

Anyway, my point is that my support of Gabbard’s nomination is objective, and not influenced by considerations of her alleged hotness. Her assignment from Trump, as I understand it, is to root out the Deep State corruption in the intelligence community (IC), and she was chosen for that task in large part because the Deep State went after her when she was challenging Joe Biden in the 2020 Democratic primaries. She was a target of the “spies who lie,” and is therefore highly motivated.

Trump II: Sweet Revenge, this administration would be called, if it were a blockbuster Hollywood adventure flick, and I’m totally down for this agenda, let the debris land where it may. A populist disruption of the bipartisan D.C. status quo is long overdue, and I probably shouldn’t be surprised by unexpected reactions to this, as the disruptive impact has shaken and shifted the coalitions which make up the two parties. People I have detested for years are now on “my” side, while others who I’d long considered my friends are now on the other side — despite the fact that I’m the same person I’ve always been. Going back to the earliest years of this blog, for example, we haven’t been exactly friendly toward Meghan McCain, to put it as mildly as possible. So it was with mixed emotions that I found myself nodding along with what she told Mark Halperin:

“Senator [Michael] Bennet’s behavior is an example of what Americans are sick of. It was designed for YouTube. . . . Like, I could see him looking for his camera angle. . . . No woman could scream at the top of her lungs, doing what he did, and not be called unhinged and shrill, and so I’m calling him unhinged and shrill.”

 

We are truly through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole, when I am favorably citing Meghan McCain. Now, as to the substance of Bennet’s histrionic performance, he kept demanding that Gabbard give a yes-or-no answer to the question, “Is Edward Snowden a traitor?” Well, the colloquial use of “traitor” is different than its constitutional definition, but I don’t know if semantics was the cause of Gabbard’s repeated refusal to answer “yes” to Bennet’s question.

At the time of Snowden’s data-dump of vast quantities of classified data he’d obtained while working as a contractor for the NSA, the Left generally hailed Snowden as a hero, much as they’d hailed Bradley Manning as a hero, and I was having none of that. Readers will recall how the whole “Anonymous” thing was originally linked to the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd, so that Julian Assange was beloved by the socialist scum, even after he was accused of raping one of his fangirls in Sweden.

The hero-worship of “leakers” and “hackers” always struck me as folly, even if — as has sometimes been the case — these leaks and hacks were politically beneficial to Republicans. (Hello, Hillary!)

The problem with Snowden, as with Manning, is that these were people holding a position of trust, given access to sensitive information as part of their jobs, and it offends my sense of honor and propriety whenever anyone in such a position betrays their duty. Some of my friends have security clearances, and are thus required to keep secrets, and when you’d getting paid to keep secrets, you ought to either (a) do your job or (b) quit. Here I will invoke the once-famous saying of Elbert Hubbard, that “an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness.”

To be entrusted with any secret as part of one’s employment is to accept the responsibility of protecting that secret as a moral duty. Notice that, in the Scout Law, “trustworthy” and “loyal” are the first qualities mentioned. This is not by accident. Snowden has said that his “breaking point” was “seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress” about domestic surveillance. We can all now agree, I believe, that Clapper is a wretched swine who ought to spend the rest of his life in Leavenworth, without endorsing what Snowden did.

What happened to those circa-2011 “Occupy” types, who once mentioned Snowden in the same worshipful tone that they praised Manning? What has happened in the past dozen years or so that Bennet is posturing like this — against a former Democratic congresswoman, I must point out — without any apparent fear that his party’s left-wing grassroots base will turn against him? When did Democrats become the party advocating domestic surveillance and defending federal spy agencies?

We live in strange times and, as I say, I’m the same person I’ve always been, just older and perhaps less prone to get excited over day-to-day battles of politics. Live long enough, you’ll see many situations like this, where the Democratic Party shifts en masse from one side of an issue to another, without ever acknowledging that they’ve changed their position. Of course, they went from being the party of Jim Crow to being the party of Black Lives Matter in roughly a half-century, and good luck trying to get any Democrat to provide an honest explanation of that trajectory.

Sometimes conservatives are accused of being similarly inconsistent, but I can answer that question simply: Conservatism is the opposition to liberalism, which is always the aggressor in the conflict. It has been pointed out — to me, directly, by friends who seem to think I’m in need of tutoring of the subject — that “liberalism” is a misnomer, adopted by Democrats in the 1930s as a way to escape the odium which attached itself to the “progressive” label that Woodrow Wilson had proudly worn. Over the past 20 years or so, the Left wing of the Democratic Party has tried to revive the “progressive” label, and some of them would even prefer to be known as “socialists.” My point, however, is that whatever they may call themselves at any time, liberals are always basically the same. Because they keep coming up with novel schemes to wreck the country (or sometimes re-branding their old schemes as “new”), liberals compel their opponents to shift their ground in order to defend the country from being wrecked. In this, then, conservatives resemble Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia in 1864, constantly making flank marches southeastward, all the way from the Rappahannock to the James River, as Grant’s Union army shifted leftward in its attempt to get past Lee.

“Cthulhu may swim slowly. But he only swims left.”

What we are seeing now, if we can extend our military metaphor a bit further, is a counter-attack, an effort by conservatives to seize the strategic initiative, to push the progressive Cthulhu into a corner and keep hammering away at him until he’s finally defeated. In such a desperate struggle, we must take our allies where we find them, and accept that the tactical measures involved may be somewhat outside the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules. So I find myself nodding in agreement with Meghan McCain, and the army must keep marching.

Carry on, my fellow soldiers.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

Retarded Asian Woman Challenges Fake Indian for Title of ‘Worst Senator Ever’

Posted on

There may be dumber people in the Senate than Mazie Hirono, but I’m having trouble naming one after the Hawaii Democrat’s absurd questions to Pete Hegseth during Monday’s confirmation hearing:

MAZIE HIRONO: “Would you carry out an order from President Trump to seize Greenland, a territory of our NATO ally Denmark, by force, or would you comply with an order to take over the Panama Canal?”
HEGSETH: “Senator, I will emphasize that President Trump received 77 million votes to be the lawful commander.”
HIRONO: “We’re not talking about the election. My question is, would you use our military to take over Greenland or an ally of Denmark?”
HEGSETH: “Senator, one of the things that President Trump is so good at is never strategically tipping his hand. And so I would never in this public forum give one way or another direct what orders the president gives in any context.”
HIRONO: “It sounds to me that you would contemplate carrying out such an order to basically invade Greenland and the Panama Canal.”

These are the important issues for Democcrats, see? Instead of talking about readiness, recruiting, equipment shortages or any of the other actual issues affecting the Department of Defense, Mazie Hirono wants to keep campaigning against Donald Trump, with this silly sound-bite stuff about Greenland and the Panama Canal. The fact that voters in Hawaii consider Hirono qualified to serve in the Senate tells you that Hawaii is full of very bad people, perhaps even worse than the people of Massachusetts who elected notorious fraud Elizabeth Warren.

Simple question: Was there ever any chance that Elizabeth Warren would have voted to confirm Pete Hegseth? Is there any other Democrat on the Armed Services Committee who was ever likely to vote in Hegseth’s favor? I think not. In fact, I wish someone would research whether Elizabeth Warren has ever voted to confirm anyone — Cabinet member, judicial nominee, whatever — appointed by Donald Trump. Because I feel pretty certain she was always a reliable “no” vote on confirmations during Trump’s first term, and her elaborate Kabuki performance of outrage in Tuesday’s hearing was just that — a performance, a melodrama staged for theatrical effect. What cannot be overlooked about Warren is her fundamental dishonesty, exemplified by how she gamed the system by claiming to be Cherokee and thus qualifying for affirmation action benefits at Harvard University. The people who elected this vicious fraud to the Senate should be ashamed of themselves, but if they had any sense of shame they wouldn’t be Democrats, would they?



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! Jury Convicts Corrupt Democrat Senator Menendez

Posted on

Perhaps the phrase “corrupt Democrat” is redundant:

The jury in the federal corruption trial of Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and two of his business associates, Fred Daibes and Wael Hana, found Menendez guilty on all charges after a grueling nine-week complex trial in Manhattan. . . .
Jurors deliberated for three days. . . .
In his five-hour closing argument on Tuesday, federal prosecutor Paul Monteleoni urged jurors to hold the New Jersey Democrat accountable for his alleged misconduct.
“This is a big case,” Monteleoni said. “But it all boils down to a classic case of corruption on a massive scale.”
During the trial, prosecutors used cited emails and text messages from Menendez – as well as FBI testimony – to present evidence they argued shows the senator accepted extravagant gifts from foreign governments. The gifts totaled more than $100,000 worth of gold bars, in addition to hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash stuffed throughout Menendez’s New Jersey home.
Menendez was charged by federal prosecutors with 18 counts since he pleaded innocent last year, all relating to a multiyear alleged bribery scheme involving the Egypt and Qatar governments.
In March, an 18-page indictment was wrapped into Menendez’s existing charges already against him and his co-defendants — including his wife, Nadine — for allegedly acting as a foreign agent and accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to benefit the Egyptian government through his power and influence as a senator.

New Jersey voters really know how to pick ’em, eh?



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies