“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Friday, October 21, 2016

Get it on Bitch...Go for Broke!


Pat Buchanan: Ruling class fears the people won't accept its political legitimacy


Pressed by moderator Chris Wallace as to whether he would accept defeat should Hillary Clinton win the election, Donald Trump replied, “I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense.”

“That’s horrifying,” said Clinton, setting off a chain reaction on the post-debate panels with talking heads falling all over one another in purple-faced anger, outrage and disbelief.

“Disqualifying!” was the cry on Clinton cable.

“Trump Won’t Say If He Will Accept Election Results,” wailed the New York Times. “Trump Won’t Vow to Honor Results,” ran the banner in the Washington Post.

But what do these chattering classes and establishment bulletin boards think the Donald is going to do if he falls short of 270 electoral votes?

Lead a Coxey’s Army on Washington and burn it down as British Gen. Robert Ross did in August 1814, while “Little Jemmy” Madison fled on horseback out the Brockville Road?

What explains the hysteria of the establishment?
In a word, fear. 

The establishment is horrified at the Donald’s defiance because, deep within its soul, it fears that the people for whom Trump speaks no longer accept its political legitimacy or moral authority.

It may rule and run the country, and may rig the system through mass immigration and a mammoth welfare state so that Middle America is never again able to elect one of its own. But that establishment, disconnected from the people it rules, senses, rightly, that it is unloved and even detested.

Having fixed the future, the establishment finds half of the country looking upon it with the same sullen contempt that our Founding Fathers came to look upon the overlords Parliament sent to rule them.

Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: Its ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed.
Trump is “talking down our democracy,” said a shocked Clinton.

After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed “democracy” as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach.

Half a millennia ago, missionaries and explorers set sail from Spain, England and France to bring Christianity to the New World. 

Today, Clintons, Obamas and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to “establish democracy” among the “lesser breeds without the Law.”

Unfortunately, the natives, once democratized, return to their roots and vote for Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, using democratic processes and procedures to re-establish their true God.

And Allah is no democrat.

By suggesting he might not accept the results of a “rigged election” Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots. 

For none of the three – diversity, equality, democracy – is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic. 

When Ben Franklin, emerging from the Philadelphia convention, was asked by a woman what kind of government they had created, he answered, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it.

Consider: Six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November.

If that is democracy, many will say, to hell with it. 

And if felons decide the electoral votes of Virginia, and Virginia decides who is our next U.S. president, are we obligated to honor that election?

In 1824, Gen. Andrew Jackson ran first in popular and electoral votes. But, short of a majority, the matter went to the House. 

There, Speaker Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams delivered the presidency to Adams – and Adams made Clay secretary of state, putting him on the path to the presidency that had been taken by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Adams himself.

Were Jackson’s people wrong to regard as a “corrupt bargain” the deal that robbed the general of the presidency?

The establishment also recoiled in horror from Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke’s declaration that it is now “torches and pitchforks time.” 

Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in “Points of Rebellion”:
“We must realize that today’s Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution.”

Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. 

But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America they love, elitist enthusiasm for “revolution” seems more constrained. 

What goes around comes around.


  1. You know the funny thing, I don't get along with rich people. I get along with the middle class and the poor people better than I get along with the rich people.

    Donald Trump

    1. :)

      I think that's the truth too. That has a ring of truth to it from watching him. I hope it's so. And it's a reason to vote for the man.

  2. The establishment also recoiled in horror from Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke’s declaration that it is now “torches and pitchforks time.” 

    Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in “Points of Rebellion”:

    “We must realize that today’s Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution.”.....

    ......What goes around comes around.

    Reminds of Aristotle's cycle of political forms.

    Huck Finn had it figured - light out for the territories:


    THE first time I catched Tom private I asked him what was his idea, time of the evasion?—what it was he’d planned to do if the evasion worked all right and he managed to set a nigger free that was already free before? And he said, what he had planned in his head from the start, if we got Jim out all safe, was for us to run him down the river on the raft, and have adventures plumb to the mouth of the river, and then tell him about his being free, and take him back up home on a steamboat, in style, and pay him for his lost time, and write word ahead and get out all the niggers around, and have them waltz him into town with a torchlight procession and a brass-band, and then he would be a hero, and so would we.  But I reckoned it was about as well the way it was.

    We had Jim out of the chains in no time, and when Aunt Polly and Uncle Silas and Aunt Sally found out how good he helped the doctor nurse Tom, they made a heap of fuss over him, and fixed him up prime, and give him all he wanted to eat, and a good time, and nothing to do.  And we had him up to the sick-room, and had a high talk; and Tom give Jim forty dollars for being prisoner for us so patient, and doing it up so good, and Jim was pleased most to death, and busted out, and says:

    “Dah, now, Huck, what I tell you?—what I tell you up dah on Jackson islan’?  I tole you I got a hairy breas’, en what’s de sign un it; en I tole you I ben rich wunst, en gwineter to be rich agin; en it’s come true; en heah she is!  dah, now! doan’ talk to me—signs is signs, mine I tell you; en I knowed jis’ ‘s well ‘at I ‘uz gwineter be rich agin as I’s a-stannin’ heah dis minute!”

    And then Tom he talked along and talked along, and says, le’s all three slide out of here one of these nights and get an outfit, and go for howling adventures amongst the Injuns, over in the Territory, for a couple of weeks or two; and I says, all right, that suits me, but I ain’t got no money for to buy the outfit, and I reckon I couldn’t get none from home, because it’s likely pap’s been back before now, and got it all away from Judge Thatcher and drunk it up.

    “No, he hain’t,” Tom says; “it’s all there yet—six thousand dollars and more; and your pap hain’t ever been back since.  Hadn’t when I come away, anyhow.”
    Jim says, kind of solemn:

    “He ain’t a-comin’ back no mo’, Huck.”

    I says:

    “Why, Jim?”

    “Nemmine why, Huck—but he ain’t comin’ back no mo.”

    But I kept at him; so at last he says:

    “Doan’ you ‘member de house dat was float’n down de river, en dey wuz a man in dah, kivered up, en I went in en unkivered him and didn’ let you come in?  Well, den, you kin git yo’ money when you wants it, kase dat wuz him.”

    Tom’s most well now, and got his bullet around his neck on a watch-guard for a watch, and is always seeing what time it is, and so there ain’t nothing more to write about, and I am rotten glad of it, because if I’d a knowed what a trouble it was to make a book I wouldn’t a tackled it, and ain’t a-going to no more.  But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she’s going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can’t stand it.  I been there before.


    But there ain't no more Territories....

  3. You got to love this headline over at NPR:


    At Al Smith Dinner, Donald Trump Turns Friendly Roast Into 3-Alarm Fire

  4. Donald Trump’s Year of Living Dangerously

    When he hits Peak Trump, that’s when the trouble starts. What does this mean for a person angling for the most powerful job in the world?

    Read more:
    Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


    Mark Twain


    Sheriff Clarke is the guest on 'Outnumbered' in three minutes, surrounded by all the beautiful left leg crossing American ladies.

    1. .

      Thanks for the Amber alert.

      I'll make sure and avoid it.


    2. Confirming you don't like:

      1) Blacks
      2) Beautiful women or their legs
      3) Intelligent lively conversation

    3. .

      I disagree. I like all three. In fact, it's the absence of the third that makes me avoid FOX.


  7. Alert ! Duck and Cover ! Samsung Attack !

    Obama: ObamaCare is like a defective cellphone, or something
    posted at 9:21 am on October 21, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

    Shorter Barack Obama: They shoot Samsungs, don’t they? In a speech “celebrating” the Affordable Care Act in Florida yesterday, the president admitted that his signature ObamaCare program has some problems, but compared them with glitches that consumers find with their cellphones. “They fix it, they upgrade” Obama said, “unless it catches fire.”

    This analogy won’t catch fire — it’ll blow up in his face:.......

    Samsung washing machines are beginning to explode !

    This could bring down your house.

    Hey Quirk, you need a new washing machine ?

    I have a free one for you.....

    (chuckle, chuckle)

    'Could add 500 examples'...
    HUMA: Hillary Created This Mess!....DRUDGE

  9. Civil War Now Assured In Venezuela

    Dictatorship: Venezuela’s socialist government suspends recall effort

    Oct 21, 2016 1:21 PM by John Sexton

    “This measure makes it difficult to think of Venezuela as a democracy.”

    Dictatorship: Venezuela’s socialist government suspends recall effort

    posted at 1:21 pm on October 21, 2016 by John Sexton

    Whatever last vestige of democracy was left in Venezuela was wiped away Thursday when the socialist government of President Nicolas Maduro suspended an effort to put a recall referendum to a vote. From the Associated Press:

    With the latest actions, the government has effectively halted the effort to stage a recall effort that polls suggest Maduro would have lost by a wide margin. The ruling is particularly dramatic because it comes just days before critics of the socialist administration were to start gathering the one-fifth of voters’ signatures needed to place the issue on the ballot

    “This is a big deal and reveals that the government was fearful of what could
    happen in the three-day signature collection period. They have effectively postponed the recall referendum indefinitely. This measure makes it difficult to think of Venezuela as a democracy,” said David Smilde, a Venezuela expert at the Washington Office on Latin America…

    The suspension of the recall came as a shock to many Venezuelans, who were gearing up for the chance to sign petitions next week seeking the embattled leader’s removal. To trigger a stay-or-go referendum, the opposition needed to collect and validate some 4 million signatures from 20 percent of the electorate in 24 states over three days next week.

    The recall referendum itself is legal but the socialist government has been delaying the effort for months. The officials excuse for calling it off now is that fraud was involved in an earlier step of the process involving the gathering of signatures. That earlier step required the gathering of 200,000 signatures. The opposition turned in 1.8 million just to be sure.

    Henrique Capriles, one of the leaders of the opposition, said on Twitter, “the Government pushes today to a very dangerous stage and increase of the crisis.” He also posted an image of an ominous legal document which orders that he and 7 other opposition leaders not leave the country. No reason was given for the order.

    Venezuela has been suffering under triple-digit inflation which has made finding food, medicine and other basic goods a daily struggle for most Venezuelans. The country also has the second highest murder rate in the world. President Maduro is the successor to Hugo Chavez who died of cancer in 2013.

    1. Biggest oil reserves in the world, and corpses are exploding in hospitals....


      Never let a socialist unemployed cab driver come to power in your country.

    2. That's what we got when Neil Abercrombie was elected Governor of Hawaii.


  10. Clinton Foundation paid women less than men....

    'Foundation' Paid Women LESS Than Men....DRUDGE

    People seem to think we need an 'equal pay for equal work law'.

    We already have one, passed about 30 years ago.

    Many women don't seem to know this and Hillary is always bullshitting them about the issue.

    All they have to do is get a lawyer(s) and sue, class actions (see Wal-Mart) definitely included.

  11. .

    What's worse than Trump?

    over the last three days watching the Libs and Dems and establishment GOP hacks bemoaning the fall of the Republic and the end of the world as we know it if Trump were to be elected.

    These elitist and entitled pricks seem to think we are living in the best of all worlds at the moment and they certainly don't want their 'good thing' to be messed with. One can understand their position. Wouldn't want anyone questioning the status quo when that status quo is giving you a great life.

    Political hacks, Hollywood whores, the LGBTQOIHWEFLKIHFFJHNHIJFJFJF PC pricks, slimy liberal slugs, every friggin late night comedian not named Fallon, with their hypocrisy, saccharin smiles, potty mouths and amoral (or immoral) take on life.

    Makes me want to puke.


    1. Hillary is worse than Trump.

      See here:

      October 21, 2016
      Hillary and the Dogs of War
      By J.M. Mullin

      After Wednesday night’s debate, it is obvious that Nasty Hillary and Crooked Hillary don’t take kindly to having their emails read. What is not spoken very much about is what she will do about it. My guess is lots, once in office. And this is something that suburban, middle-class moms had better sit up and take notice of before they vote. My hypothesis is that Hillary, not Donald, is far more likely to bring the U.S. into war once elected.

      Hillary has made much of the fact that those dastardly Russians (are the Boris and Natasha cartoons far behind?) are the ones throwing open her emails for all Americans to see. But I have yet to see proof. Have you? I hear that 17 million federal agencies have all said it’s the Russians that are doing this, but where is the proof? It could be Russia, but then again it could be the Elks, or the Shriners, for all the hard evidence we have seen. I’m concerned because our feckless leader, Barack, has threatened to mount a cyber-attack of his own on Russia. And that, ladies and gentlemen, could be construed along the Moskva River as an act of war.

      And then there’s Syria. Hillary seems to now want no-fly zones, even though that may have U.S. jets going nose to nose with Russian jets, at rather high speeds. There was an opportunity early on in Syria for safe havens, but that was back there with the “line in the sand,” that Barack shrank back away from, allowing Iran to solidify its hold in Syria. Windows open and windows close, and now Hillary’s belated concerns over Aleppo may have some thermonuclear consequences. People need to ponder that when they close the curtain on November 8th. The peace candidate in this election is not the one you might think.


    3. You still have time to VOTE TRUMP, Quirk.

      Come to your senses, man.

      He's better, not the best, but you're never going to get perfection.

    4. .

      No, I don't. That ship has sailed.

      And you still don't get it. I despise all of these dicks. However, in Clinton and Trump we have reached the epitomy of dickhood. They are the epitome, the archetype, the 'big dick' of dicks. They are the alpha and the omega of dicks. They are the the embodiment of dicktitude. The essence of dickdom. They are the last word in dicks.


    5. .

      I despise them for different reasons equally.


    6. I get the feeling you are holding back a little on your thoughts and opinions. Please, Mr. Q tell us what you really think. Let her rip.

    7. Shit, he's already written himself in for President !


  12. "How to rig an American election in three not-very-easy steps

    John Ibbitson
    The Globe and Mail
    Published Friday, Oct. 21, 2016 1:37PM EDT

    Donald Trump complains that nefarious forces are conspiring to rig the presidential election against him. “What I’ve seen is so bad,” he said in the final presidential debate on Wednesday. There are “millions of people that are registered to vote that shouldn’t be registered to vote.”

    So, he said, he will tell us on election night whether he accepts the result. “I’ll keep you in suspense.”

    Many doubtless agree with President Barack Obama that Mr. Trump should “stop whining and try to make his case to get votes.”

    But perhaps we’re not giving the Republican candidate his due. Perhaps there is a vast, left-wing conspiracy to cook the electoral books – to make a fair-and-square Trump triumph on Nov. 8 look, instead, like bitter defeat.

    If so, how would the conspirators pull it off? Let’s give this an honest look.

    To convincingly steal an election from the rightful winner, the thief would need to accomplish three things: Corrupt the pollsters, corrupt the media, and corrupt the vote itself.

    Those nefarious, biased pollsters

    “I don’t believe the polls any more,” Mr. Trump said this week. Those polls currently show Ms. Clinton ahead by more than six points, according to the RealClearPolitics aggregator. The Republican nominee is skeptical. “Believe me, folks, we’re doing great,” he told his followers, “ if we keep our spirit, and if we go out and win …”

    The American polls could be wrong, of course. There have been recent failures in Canada, where pollsters misread elections in both Alberta and British Columbia, and in Britain, where many pollsters wrongly predicted the Remain side would win the Brexit referendum, when Leave in fact prevailed.

    But American presidential-election polls tend to be accurate, simply because there are so many of them, and they employ several different methodologies.

    So there are three possibilities: The polls are accurate. Or the polls are inaccurate, as election night will reveal. Or shady Democratic operatives are bribing pollsters to torque their results in favour of Ms. Clinton, in hopes the polling prophesy becomes self-fulfilling.

    And there is one outlier among the major pollsters. The USC Dornslife/Los Angeles Times tracking poll employs an unusual methodology in which a fixed panel of voters is repeatedly canvassed. That poll currently shows the two sides tied. Maybe that’s because, as Nate Cohn of The New York Times believes, a single 19-year-old black male in Illinois who plans to vote for Mr. Trump, and whose vote is heavily overweighted in order to create a seemingly representative sample, is skewing the result.

    Or maybe the people at USC/Dornslife simply refuse to cash the Democrats’ cheque.

    In any event, “an outcome at odds with the polls will simply be blamed on bad polling,” Julia Clark, vice-president of U.S. Public Affairs at the research firm Ipsos, predicted in an interview.

    Mind you, Ipsos has Ms. Clinton comfortably ahead of Mr. Trump, so who knows what’s going on behind the scenes over there.

    1. That nefarious, biased media

      Mr. Trump also believes that “the the media is so dishonest and so corrupt, and the pile-on is so amazing” that their reporting has “poisoned the mind of the voters.”

      He’s wrong. We’re not corrupt; we were born this way.

      That is, most major media outlets, including the Times, The Washington Post and most television networks tend to skew in favour of progressive attitudes. It could be the crusading tradition of the craft, or the progressive bias of faculty at journalism schools. But Mr. Trump has a point. Coverage of his campaign by the Lamestream Media has been heavily critical.

      Of course, that doesn’t explain the awkwardness of staunchly conservative newspapers, such as The Dallas Morning News and The Arizona Republic, and magazines such as The Weekly Standard and National Review, that have come out against the Republican candidate. Not a single editorial board in any major American newspaper has chosen to plump for Trump; some of those boards have refused to endorse a Republican presidential nominee for the first time since the Depression, or ever.

      Is it the candidate’s attitude to women, Mexicans, Muslims, the disabled and Vladimir Putin that has turned these conservative bastions against him, or is something more sinister at work?

      Hard to tell.

      Those nefarious, biased vote riggers

      Finally, could the vote itself be corrupted? Project Veritas, a conservative advocacy group, has released a video in which Democratic operatives brag about fomenting trouble at Trump rallies, and about how, in the past, they smuggled out-of-state voters into a swing state, in hopes of influencing the result.

      But in practice, voter fraud is a myth, says Arthur Lupia, a political scientist at the University of Michigan. Numerous studies over the past two decades have revealed “fewer than 20 recorded instances of it nationwide,” he said in an interview. “It’s part of American folklore.”

      Bottom line: “There are so many safeguards in place, it’s impossible to rig a national election,” he believes.

      Making things even harder for any Democratic plumbers, the secretaries of state in the key battlegrounds of Ohio and Florida are Republican. “I can reassure Donald Trump: I am in charge of elections in Ohio, and they’re not going to be rigged. I’ll make sure of that,” Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted told CNN. Getting Mr. Husted to look the other way while the Democrats stuff ballot boxes may take some effort.

      There have long been stories – some no doubt apocryphal, some no doubt true – of construction crews blocking the entrances of certain precincts in past elections, and of fraudulent robocalls (not unlike those that were used to mislead voters in Guelph, Ont., in the 2011 Canadian election).

      But such tactics are rare, unreliable and hard to keep secret, which is why a Conservative campaign worker, Michael Sona, went to jail for orchestrating the Guelph robocalls campaign.


      And that’s the thing about trying to rig an election. People talk. Voters complain. Reporters sniff around. If the Democrats were seeking to fix this one, weeks in advance, we’d be hearing about it from someone other than Mr. Trump, who has provided not a scintilla of evidence to back up his claims.

      But maybe there is evidence, plenty of it, and you’d have heard about it long ago, if they hadn’t bought the media’s silence.

      Who are they? Oh, you know who they are. We all know.

      Don’t we?"

    2. Reminds me of those guys standing in front of the voting place with clubs, scaring off voters.

      Barrack Hussein Obama's partner in crime and racism, Eric Holder, set them free.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. Let's see which dick is the greater danger?

    The one with the Establishment, "Justice," the Media and etc behind her or the one opposed by the Establishment, "Justice," and the Media?

    ...then there's SCOTUS which will no longer function as a Constitutional entity if Hillary is elected.

    Tough Call


    1. You 'pubs sure screwed up the future of SCOTUS - not only did you get Clinton elected you've got her appointing 1 more SC because you wouldn't let Obama's nomination get a hearing. way to go!

    2. Nov. 9, if The Hag wins, the Republicans will begin considering what's his face.

    3. Ash, the Republicans didn't rig their primaries. Sanders never had a chance even if he'd won more votes....superdelegates.

      Trump won because there was so much competition and vote splitting and because a lot of people just like the guy.

      He did tell the best, and shortest, joke of the night at the Al Smith Dinner....which joke, pardon me, we should all hope becomes a reality, if we care for our Republic.


    4. Idaho Bob Fri Oct 21, 06:26:00 PM EDT
      Nov. 9, if The Hag wins, the Republicans will begin considering what's his face.

      Correction - Actually, maybe not, depending on how the Senate races turn out.

    5. The joke was a good one. It would have played better if he hadn't tried to explain it in the very next line.

    6. ?

      I don't recall that. I must have missed it.

      I may have been laughing to hard....

      Though it took a brief moment, everyone 'got it' and the whole house was roaring with laughter, amazingly, even Hillary herself, which is the only positive thing I've thought about her in years.

  15. The NY Times and Washington Post are both reporting Trump seems subdued and facing the possibility that he may lose.

    I just watched him in Newtown, Pa. Not a trace of it there.

    1. The Slimes and The Compost are just trying to demoralize Republicans.

      Obama Bragged: 'We Got Democrats in charge of machines'...

      Russia Offers Election Monitors....DRUDGE



      Sometimes when it seems so hard not to laugh at the human race....just remember to include laughing at yourself too.

  16. .


    Spare me.

    The GOP just isn't that good at nominating SC Justices. It's kind of like the Detroit Lions NFL draft record. Real spotty.

    Regarding nominees, the GOP had a six to three margin on the SC at the time of Roe v Wade. It passed 7-2.

    On Citizens United, the 5 GOP nominees beat out the 4 Dem nominees with some of the goofiest logic I've ever seen. In doing so, they opened it up for corporations, unions, and well-heeled individuals to spend as much money as they want as long as they funnel it through Super Pacs. Few would argue that elections in this country are not now bought and sold.

    Justice Kennedy, the guy who pushed for the expanded decision in the case, later said, 'Gee, that didn't really work out the way we thought it would'.

    The GOP applauded the decision initially assuming they would prosper under the new rules. The Dems hated it. However, this year, it's Hillary and the Dems who are raking in the loot. I doubt they will be complaining any time soon.

    Need another one, John Edwards appointed Chief Justice by G.W.B. pretty much single-handed delivered a victory to Obama on the ACA.

    A conservative, like Antony Scalia for instance, beliefs in judicial restraint. The examples mentioned above are the opposite of that and can only be called judicial activism.


    1. Some are judicial activism for sure.

      But Scalia and four others preserved our individual rights to possession of arms.

      Hillary, the big statist, wants us defenseless.

      It won't work out here. My legislature will just invite all Idahoans to join the State Militia, and we will, for the sake of our free state.

  17. 'Need another one, John Edwards appointed Chief Justice by G.W.B. pretty much single-handed delivered a victory to Obama on the ACA.

    A conservative, like Antony Scalia for instance, beliefs in judicial restraint.'

    I beliefs you bin drinkin' gin agin

    1. You don't need another one, Quart.


    2. .

      Scalia was a textualist in statutory interpretation, believing that the ordinary meaning of the statute should govern.[120] In 1998, Scalia vociferously had opposed the idea of a living constitution, or the power of the judiciary to modify the meaning of constitutional provisions to adapt them to changing times.[21] Scalia warned that if one accepted that constitutional standards should evolve with a maturing society, "the risk of assessing evolving standards is that it is all too easy to believe that evolution has culminated in one's own views."

      Scalia had some goofy ideas when it came to interpretation. this wasn;t one of them.


  18. Ash, a Clinton supporter, wants, from the safety of Canada, the USA to go to war with Russia -


    1. October 21, 2016
      The Coming War with Russia
      By John Dietrich

      It certainly sounds alarmist to predict a war with Russia. However, members of this administration are following policies that can lead to only that result. They are following belligerent policies on two fronts: cyberspace and Syria. These policies are based on a farrago of mendacity and incompetence....

  19. Any US politician that wants to go to war with Russia should be reminded what waits for him after the war begins. It will not be a ticker tape parade down Broadway.

  20. After 15 years of war, we can’t beat the Taliban or any of their derivatives. It will be a real cake walk up against the Russians.

  21. The best missile defense system on the planet is only 50% effective. Besides Hillary Clinton and some of our psycho generals, who is clamoring for war with Russia?


    Mrs. Clinton’s anti-Russian hysterics are crazy – and dangerous

    Is the Iraqi city of Mosul on the border with Syria, as Mrs. Clinton averred during the third presidential debate?

    No way.

    Exactly no one has called her out on this. I guess you have to be Gary Johnson, rather than a former Secretary of State, for the mainstream media to start mocking you over your lack of geographical knowledge. And this was no inconsequential error: it’s supposedly key to her strategy that after “we” take Mosul we’re going to “press into Syria.”

    Did seventeen US intelligence agencies say that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee’s server and John Podesta’s inbox, as Hillary Clinton asserted Wednesday night?


    Mrs. Clinton’s claim here is worth going into in some depth. It came in the context of a question from Chris Wallace about her speech to a gaggle of bankers in which she said “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.” She defended herself, not very convincingly, by saying that she was only talking about energy, but this seems disingenuous at best. In any case, what’s interesting about this is that in order to change the subject quickly she pivoted to one of the most disturbing diatribes ever uttered in the course of a presidential contest:

    “But you are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks. And what’s really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet.

    “This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.

    “So I actually think the most important question of this evening, Chris, is, finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this and make it clear that he will not have the help of Putin in this election, that he rejects Russian espionage against Americans, which he actually encouraged in the past? Those are the questions we need answered. We’ve never had anything like this happen in any of our elections before.

    “WALLACE: [to Trump] Well?

    “TRUMP: That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders, OK? How did we get on to Putin?”

    How indeed?


    1. {...}

      The mainstream media, playing out its role as Hillary’s cheering squad, is bloviating about how “unprecedented” this election is, and they don’t mean that in a good way. Their latest tack is solemnly lecturing us that it’s an “existential threat to our democracy” for a candidate of a major party to call the integrity of our elections into question – a bit of overreaching, since all Trump said was that he’d wait until the votes are counted before committing to accept the alleged result. And please recall that, after the Supreme Court decided that George W. Bush and not Al Gore was the duly elected President, Hillary said the former had been “selected, not elected.”

      What’s really unprecedented, however, is how a major party candidate has accused her opponent of being, in effect, an agent of a foreign power. This has never happened – no, not ever. During the cold war, to be sure, there were some Republicans who accused the Democrats of being “soft” on Communism, but here Mrs. Clinton is clearly accusing Trump of enabling and “encouraging” “Russian espionage,” to use her phrase. Mr. Trump, says Hillary, is a traitor to his country. And our “fact-checking” media is silent, except for this guy – who, at any rate, has few compunctions about “going down that road.” I doubt he’ll like what he finds at the end of it. But by then, of course, it will be too late.

      This whole nonsensical and very dangerous campaign theme of Hillary’s – that the Russians are behind the alleged hacking of the DNC and Pedestal, and that therefore Trump is their conscious agent – is based on the scientific equivalent of vaporware. The reality is that no one knows a) How WikiLeaks obtained the documents it is publishing and b) How they were procured in the first place. That’s because, in spite of the “scientific” pretensions of the cyber-warfare industry, there is no way for anyone to know for sure if it was hackers (as opposed to insiders) or, if it was hackers, who they are – not unless the perpetrators come out and admit it, or unless they are caught in the act by someone looking over their shoulder.

      But that hasn’t stopped some US intelligence officials from straining their already dubious credibility by repeating nonsense in the interests of pushing Hillary over the finish line.

      This debate was really a low point for Mrs. Clinton, who, at the very nadir of the evening, started screeching that Trump is a “puppet” – of Putin, naturally.



    2. {...}

      This is crazy enough – but what’s even worse is that the media is backing her up on this. Hardly a day goes by without some new “revelation” of an alleged Russian plot to undermine US national security, infiltrate Europe, or otherwise subvert our precious bodily fluids.

      Yes, we are headed down a road that can only have one destination: a military conflict with Russia. And with President Hillary Strangelove’s finger on the nuclear button, it cannot end well. The proof is Hillary’s non-answer to the following question from debate moderator Chris Wallace on her proposal for a “no fly zone” in Syria:

      “General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says you impose a no-fly zone, chances are you’re going to get into a war – his words – with Syria and Russia. So the question I have is, if you impose a no-fly zone – first of all, how do you respond to their concerns? Secondly, if you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?”

      After evading for a couple of hundred words, Mrs. Clinton finally got around to saying this:

      “I think we could strike a deal and make it very clear to the Russians and the Syrians that this was something that we believe was in the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria, it would help us with our fight against ISIS.”

      We couldn’t even strike a deal with the Russians in order to bring about a ceasefire. And with President Hillary at the helm, how amenable would Moscow be to any such arrangement? After making her campaign theme “The Russians are coming!” I’d be surprised if they didn’t stop talking to us completely.

      And you’ll note that she didn’t answer the question: would she shoot down a Russian plane over Syrian airspace?

      I’ll leave it to your imagination to come up with an answer, but remember: this is a person who believes it’s perfectly okay to give voice to one opinion in public and hold an entirely different opinion in private.

    3. .

      Is the Iraqi city of Mosul on the border with Syria, as Mrs. Clinton averred during the third presidential debate?

      Close enough. On a map, it looks like the distance from Mosul to the closest Syrian border point is around 75 miles. It would probably take a couple hours to get there. You should be able to move in force in less than half a day.

      It's about the same distance to the Turkish border and about double that to the Iranian border. That's why I suspect the Mosul operation will end up a complete clusterfuck, not so much from the battle itself (even though that's a possibility) but because of the squabbling afterwords.

      Turkey has had a bug up its ass over Northern Syria including Mosul since it was taken from them after WWI. They want to protect their interests in Mosul and the large Turkomen minority there.

      Iran wants a land corridor to the Mediterranean Sea and a crescent of influence through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The shortest route would be through Mosul.

      The Kurds consider Mosul theirs.

      Baghdad fears Turkey and has asked them to leave. They want to control Mosul lest Kurdish control stoke a move towards partition.

      The US as usual is trying to herd cats and as usual isn't doing a good job of it.

      The battle for Mosul includes US-trained Iraqi government troops, Shia Militias, Kurds, Turkish troops, Christian and Yazidi militias, US coordination and air support. They are all purportedly fighting ISIS.

      Turkey is suspicious of the Shia militias and Iran and that feeling is mutual.

      Iraq wants Turkey out but Turkey won't leave. Turkey views Abadi as weak and his troops as ineffective.

      Turkey may use or aid the Iraqi Kurds at times but both they and the Iranians fear anything that makes greater Kurdistan more powerful.

      At the base of the conflict you also have the Shia-Sunni divide that never goes away.

      I believe Obama green lighted or even pushed for an early attack on Mosul in order to help Hillary and to enhance his legacy by saying he was able to recapture Mosul and thus basically all of Iraq from ISIS. (He will then hope to exit door left before the shit hits the fan.)

      This is not a pretty picture for any kind of lasting peace. Turkey and the Kurds have been fighting ISIS in the northern and eastern areas around Mosul. A couple of days ago, Turkish troops already have ended up taking out 200 hundred Kurdish troops 'by mistake'.

      It should get uglier before it gets better. If I were to make a prediction based on the players on the ground and history, I'd have to bet if someone is going to get stabbed in the back (again) it will likely be the Kurds. And Christian and Yazidi militias (both looking for their own autonomous regions)? Forget about it. Hopefully, for their sake they are too small to interest the big guys in swatting them down.


  23. How can anyone vote for this sociopathic lying phony sack of dog shit?

    1. I think Trump will take Pennsylvania.

    2. There's some real optimism. Hope you're right.

      I think he wins Ohio, don't know about Florida, loses Nevada.

  24. October 22, 2016
    Clinton Thug Robert Creamer Planned Obamacare in Jail
    By Daniel John Sobieski

    Robert Creamer, founder and partner of Democracy Partners, the group behind the organized violence at Trump rallies, as shown in the video by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas, is no ordinary agitator. Creamer, a convicted felon, is arguably the spiritual godfather of ObamaCarre and much of the current progressive left agenda.

    Creamer, along with his wife, Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky is no stranger to agitation, violence, and expanding the progressive agenda. As Investor’s Business Daily pointed out in March 5, 2010 editorial regarding protests against House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski over the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, which expanded Medicare benefits and funded the change with a supplemental tax:

    An interesting historical footnote is that leading the protest against Rostenkowski was Jan Schakowsky -- then Director of the Illinois State Council of Senior Citizens -– and currently Democratic representative from the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, and chief deputy whip to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was Schakowshy’s husband, Robert Creamer, a Huffington Post blogger, who wrote what is arguably the bible of current health care reform efforts, Stand-Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, while serving a prison term for check kiting.

    As Breitbart has reported, Creamer, in addition to being the inspiration for ObamaCare, was also involved in heavily promoting the Iran nuclear deal, which effectively removed all impediments to Iran becoming a nuclear power and in providing $150 billion for this state sponsor of terror to foment revolution targeted against Israel and American interests:

    Creamer, a political consultant who is intimately connected with Obama’s inner political circle, pleaded guilty in 2005 to tax violations and bank fraud. He served time in a federal prison and was under house arrest. After finishing his sentence, Creamer worked for Obama’s presidential campaign, training organizers.

    As Breitbart News first exposed in 2009, Creamer used his prison time to work on a political manual: Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win. In it, he devised a strategy to guide a future “progressive” president. His plan included implementing “universal health care” as a first step to other radical reforms, including amnesty for illegal aliens. Obama strategist David Axelrod called the book “a blueprint for future victories.”....


  25. Clinton Foundation employed now-imprisoned senior Muslim Brotherhood official

    October 21, 2016 1:32 pm By Robert Spencer

    The Obama administration while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State (and afterward) was extremely solicitous of the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. This suggests an even closer connection. The Muslim Brotherhood influence in the Obama administration was very strong, and courtesy Huma Abedin, it will continue into the new Clinton administration. That will ensure a foreign policy that enables and aids the advance of jihad and Sharia as much as Obama has done, or more.

    “Clinton Foundation Employed a Now-Imprisoned Senior Muslim Brotherhood Official,” by Patrick Poole, PJ Media, October 20, 2016:

    Gehad El-Haddad, the now-imprisoned former spokesman for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s so-called “Freedom and Justice Party,” was effectively the “Baghdad Bob” of the Arab Spring.

    Educated in the UK and the son of a top Muslim Brotherhood leader, Gehad served as the special advisor on foreign policy to deposed Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi.

    Gehad incited violence, justified the torture of protesters, recycled fake news stories, and staged fake scenes of confrontation during the 2013 Rabaa protests.

    He was arrested in September 2013 after the fall of Morsi and the bloody confrontations during the breakup of the Muslim Brotherhood’s protest camps in Rabaa Square and around Cairo.

    During his ascendancy in 2011 and 2012, at which time he served on the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Nahda” (Renaissance) Project to revive the caliphate and reinstitute Islamic law and also served as Morsi’s campaign spokesman, he was being paid by the Clinton Foundation.
    Gehad had been employed for five years as the Cairo director of the Clinton Foundation until August 2012, according to his own LinkedIn page:

    This shows that the Clinton Foundation subsidized one of the senior Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood officials in his rapid rise to power.

    His LinkedIn shows he was employed by the Clinton Foundation from August 2007 through August 2012, during which time he served in several positions within the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party:.........

  26. They found Rufus!

    ...under a pile of beer cans.


    2. It's a buy !

      The income from the recycled cans would cover the cost of the painting.

      Probably needs a carptet cleaning though....