…and why it’s obvious to YrsTrly, at least, that Shrillary cannot be allowed within 10 LY of the White House. Even though it means voting for Hair.
From Bill Whittle, 5/5/16.
PS. It’s not “failure.” It’s plain, naked evil.
"It is not worth the while to go round the world to count the cats in Zanzibar" – Henry David Thoreau
Have you heard of a preference cascade? We have all heard of the story of the Emperors New Clothes (think of Danny Kaye singing “Isn’t it ohhh! Isn’t it ahhh! Isn’t it absolutely wheee! The suit of clothes is altogether, but altogether, it’s altogether The most remarkable suit of clothes a tailor ever made Now quickly, put it altogether With gloves of leather and hat and feather It’s altogether the thing to wear in Saturday’s parade Leading the royal brigade"), where everyone, wanting to appear to be holding the ‘right’ views, all made claims that inwardly they weren’t happy or comfortable with. Massive social pressure, right?
Well, along comes a small boy who speaks the simple truth, “The King is in the altogether, but altogether, the altogether He’s altogether as naked as the day that he was born.”, and everyone then, relieved to discover they are not the only ones to be holding doubleplus ungoodthink, feel free to express their true opinions, leading to a collapse in dishonesty, deceit and cognitive dissonance. There is a cascading change in the opinions and preferences people express.
Preference cascade, when it happens, can happen fast, and has been put forward by its inventor, Timur Kuran, as an explanation for sudden revolution and societal change, and the Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, has written of it here.
The argument being, things go as they are, and keep going, until something, maybe even a small something, occurs which alerts people to the fact that they are not alone, or just one of a small group, in their dissatisfaction. As knowledge spreads a tsunami of change can then overwhelm the population, society, and the complacent elites who are perfectly happy with things as they are, thank you very much.
Thus Trump, and what will follow.
The GOP leadership does not know what hit it, and the politically correct, those who follow and force the party line on others, are going to spend at least the next few months in outrage nirvana. Quite probably the next eight and a half years.
Anyway, apropos of nothing, just as something to share, you might like this.
Yay, GO MILO:
From Powerline Blog:
Mrs Clinton is making no bones about it, and she seriously expects her supporters to go along with it as well.
It is easy to understand why Hillary and certain other politicians would want such a radical evisceration of the First Amendment, but why would anyone else?
Seriously, is it the ignorant and capricious court jester, or the evil bitch queen from hell?
Not only is she criminally corrupt, but she is quite open about her wish to shred the Bill of Rights.
Something to be considered. Much as most posters here, and visitors, loath the thought of Donald Trump as President, preferring anyone, anyone at all, including the known to be criminally corrupt Hillary Clinton, consider the Supreme Court.
Whoever next takes the White House will be gifted the opportunity to appoint one, probably two, maybe four, or possibly even five, Justices of the Supreme Court. This will shape United States policy for the next three decades.
Do we really want Hillary to have this opportunity?
One mighty argument for Donald Trump is that he has committed himself to appoint Constitutionally conservative Justices, as opposed to the flaming progressive and ‘living document’ appointees we know Hilary will push.
We already know, in advance, that Mrs Clinton intends to appoint only justices who commit to reversing Citizens United. She is determined to undermine the First Amendment, and create a situation where people, when acting jointly, lose the freedoms they possess as individuals.
Consider, how many Sotomayors do we want to see on this Bench? What will this do to Constitutional supremacy?
Do we, following the next election, want to see all three branches in Democrat hands?
The best of friends, all Democrats together.
Anyway, enough about the front runners in the OmniParty race, an email doing the rounds:
TRUMP AND HILLARY IN A BAR
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a bar. Donald leans over, and with a smile on his face, says, "The media are really tearing you apart for that Scandal."
I knew of an obscure law in Texas that essentially made it illegal to have in your home more than two sex toys (guess why the two?). Seeing as archaeologists have found dildos in ancient Egyptian tombs and such this clearly not some vile post ’60 innovation undoubtedly linked to drugs.
I didn’t know Ted Cruz was an architect of either creating the law or just making it er… harder. But…
In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz’s office declared, “There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.”
It sort of seems this was a kinda plea bargain for the removal of the sodomy laws (which he was part of). OK, we’ll let gays do what they want but not with artificial help. In short things like anal sex were made legal but a vibrating butt-plug illegal. Yeah, I’m doing a switcharo here because dildos (or similar) are used in all ends (intended) of the sexual Spectrum (ZX and indeed 48K).
There are a number of issues here but let’s boil it down to one. Ted Cruz strongly implies sex ought to be for procreation and not for fun. So that is me un-fucked. Oh go on Nick! Yes I shall. Would he object to a married woman having a contraceptive implant? I bet he would. Because that is very much sex for fun and also bonding between two humans at the deepest level. There is a bigger issue though. How very dare Ted Cruz tell people what sex is for? How very dare he declare that sex without procreation is against the constitution when the constitution doesn’t mention sex at all and for good reason. Because it is private. He does also mention “public morals” and that is scary. And it comes down to the line about due process rights. And that is scary. The law is to tell you what not to do and not what you can do. Under common law systems it is assumed (and generally upheld) that you can do whatever you want unless it is specifically proscribed. Cruz’s attitude to masturbation is very scary here because it is about the law having to specifically allow something. It is basically allowing nothing unless it is made as legal.
That is very worrying.
Then again, we have a short tale from Anthony Watts about a December evening last year in S.F.
I was walking down Market street in San Francisco last night and spotted these folks out in front of Nordstrom’s. It made me do a double take.
I had just come from a two-hour climate skeptic bashing fest at #AGU15 where Naomi Oreskes and Michael Mann gave slide after slide of vitriol filled notes of why climate skepticism is bad.
I introduced myself to these caroling folks, shook hands with every one, and they were all very nice and wanted to know who I was. They were concerned about how Muslim Americans are being treated given current world events so they came up with this idea of going around to different places in SFO and caroling. Kudos to them for doing so as this little gesture helps break down some of the barriers that fear puts up.
It could be a ruse, of course. I suppose prudence suggests we be wary even while following our inner directive to grant the benefit of the doubt.
But it’s difficult not to take it at face value.
For our American friends out there, your next bumper sticker:
Courtest of Captain Capitalism.
This is not a post about abortion per-se and I hope any comments reflect that. No, this is about the moral vacuum that is Donald Trump and of the many, many reasons he should never be President his flip-flops on the subject are just one. But one hole is sometimes enough and this should be enough. If you want the full sp then reason has it here. It is a good article. I shall not quote from it directly because I had independently come to much the same conclusions. Great minds think alike? Not really. These are obvious observations.
My distinct impression in the abortion “debate” in the US is that there is usually very little middle-ground and that is why it rages on with immense passion on both sides of the fence. Now, that might seem a bad thing and in some ways it is. My point being that that is because it is something that people’s opinions on come right from the core of their moral being. It is something that whether “pro-choice” or “pro-life”* people care about with a passion. I understand that. I understand why people care fundamentally about either the autonomy of the woman or the rights of the embryo/fetus. It is an important moral question and should be treated as such but The Donald managed to change between five different positions in three days. On such a fundamental issue that is remarkable even by Trump’s lamentable standards. It goes without saying that on something that is also a major political issue in the US and has been for a long time (Roe v. Wade was 40 years ago for example) that is to be, at my most generous, politically naive. No wonder the US Christian Right can’t stand him any more than a fervently “pro-choice” atheist Democrat does.
So what makes The Donald like this?
Well, recently there was a documentary on C4 presented by Matt Frei about the Trumpster. It included an interview with Mr Trump’s ex-butler who now runs a shop in Miami selling high-end tat of the sort that Elvis would have considered tacky for his Jungle Room at Graceland. Frei asked if Trump visited and the answer was in the affirmative. Frei followed up by asking what in particular Trump bought most. The answer was, “mirrors”.
And just like that I knew! Most of us take our moral positions from some sort of basis whether it be the Bible or Marx, The Book of Mormon or those of Ayn Rand. Whatever. It means that we believe in something external to ourselves. Or put it another way our morality is comes from something other than ourselves.
Some people believe in God (for example) and try to follow Him.
Trump though believes he is God. And a capricious one at that. What is right is what is good for The Donald and because He is the supreme being so he can make it up on the fly. I mean who dare question God himself because whatever God says is right is right by definition. Trump is a malignant narcissist. And that more than anything else is why he should never be President of the USA.
*I dislike both those terms.
Here is the link to the first page of the list of links to Shrill’s e-mails, all 30,3022 of them, listed in no particular order that I can see at a quick glance.
For your reading pleasure, there are 1517 pages, 20 messages per page.
Have a good time, don’t forget to phone. :>)
PS. There’s a box at the bottom where you can type in a particular page number. It seems that on page 186, they start presenting the subject titles. How nice for us.
Case in point: Good ol’ Moobelle’s gotten her cud out of the public trough again.
Although this site is unknown to me; so, FWIW. On the other hand, it does sound like RT, and also sounds a LOT like Moobelle, who with her dear Sith-Consort has form on this sort of thing.
I do think it’s nice that Le Poot is giving equal time to evildoing in our own dear country, don’t you? The man’s halo shineth ever more electrically, with his heart of gilded titanium and his wings of feathered stone….
American News Feb 21, 2016
According to recent reports, Russian TV host Dmitry Kiselyov has just announced during his prime-time program News of the Week, the launch of new documentary that will expose corruption in the United states.
“This is not fair—to forget about American corruption,” he commented. “about how they get fat on the money of American taxpayers there.”
The film is titled Emperor Obama, and focuses on the ways that the Obamas have taken advantage of their position in the White House. The trailer for the documentary dives right in with an attack on Michelle Obama.
I can’t stand this and now my friends in Zanzibar are going to be treated to a rant !!!
It’s that blasted Ted Cruz. He’s certainly my pick of the availables at this point. I was even willing to forgive his not understanding the “natural born citizen” Constitutional requirement for the privilege of serving as President of the U.S., since apparently most of the elite libertarian legal eagles don’t either, and I am bitterly, bitterly sorry to say that that includes Randy Barnett, who gave a sobworthy (in parts) presentation on the issue to the Washington Journal. You can see for yourselves — link’s below. (C-Span, not embeddable.) –(You probably won’t see why I’m so disgusted by his performance unless I tell you, though.)
However, I’m just now getting around to watching Debate #6, and Ted is in the hot seat. He’s just been asked if he’s a “natural born citizen.” Butter wouldn’t melt as he snidely skewers (as he thinks) those who would dare to raise — quote — “the Birther issue.” In a voice dripping with disdain.
Now, given the authoritative Constitutional weight of people like Barnett and others at The Volokh Conspiracy*, I can understand and forgive the average layman and even the average lawyer and maybe even the average Constitutional lawyer for going along with the idea that birthplace is immaterial– though Shrill, or her staff, thought it important enough to bring up the birthplace issue vis-á-vis the Gentleman from Wherever-the-hell-he’s-from, when they were running against each other back in 2008. However, Ted DOES stick on side about being a Constitutional attorney, or at least his fans and promoters do. (I’m trying to be fair, even though I am royally p.o.’ed.)
So now, back to his answer in the debate. First, and the least of the issues, he says it’s only the “extreme” fringe who think eligibility requires not just one but TWO citizen parents.
Not so. There is a valid argument for that understanding, which is that at the time of the Founding the wife’s citizenship automatically followed that of the husband. Therefore if the wife was not a citizen, it would mean the husband wasn’t either. Mind you, that’s the argument. I don’t say it’s correct; in fact it overlooks uncommon cases that were in fact discussed by the Founders, such as Pop as already passed on or the child is illegitimate. But it’s not “extreme.” And it’s what most non-Proggies who have an opinion seem to believe.
But here is the real problem. He says that the courts have said time after time that people having a parent who is a citizen are natural born citizens (regardless of birthplace).
This is flatly untrue. Yes, such people have been found to be American citizens, but not natural born citizens. In fact they aren’t even native citizens, which specifically means citizens born on American turf: natives-by-birth, so to speak. This is an obvious difference** and so fundamental that only an ignoramus or a liar could say such a thing. So Ted, which is it? Are you openly showing your flat ignorance or are you lying — you know this distinction perfectly well — and hoping nobody will notice?
He has the nerve to back this remarkable position up by saying that “after all, if it were true then Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal wouldn’t be eligible either” — and so they aren’t, but not because of extra-American birth: Rubio born in Miami, Jindal in Baton Rouge. Birthplace not an issue with them. Their problem is parentage. But worse yet, he goes on to add that even THE DONALD wouldn’t be eligible, because although he was born here his mother wasn’t. (She’s from Ireland.)
You fool! As long as she (or she and her husband, or only her husband, depending on your theory about whether it takes one or two citizen parents) was a citizen — naturalized or statutory, makes no difference, which is why the “anchor baby” 14th Amendment comes into the controversy — as long as some non-zero number of parents were ALREADY citizens when the babe was born, the parent(s) citizenship is automatically inherited by the baby**. If Ma Trump was already naturalized when she popped Bonnie Donnie, he IS natural born. (Leaving aside the issue of one parent or two, of course.)
This really is baby stuff. And even Randy Barnett, If I Remember Correctly, does not make such an uninformed claim.
The reason I was going to vote for Ted was that he’s obviously the least worst of the bunch having any chance of the nomination. But if this is not flat-out lying, then he’s not only completely ignorant (or confused, as in deer-in-the-headlights confused, or having what we Computer Types call a Kernel Panic), he’s also unaware of how ignorant (or confused) he is — or else he’s perfectly aware and lying about THAT, claiming that his opinion is the one the courts have gone by all these years.
So now what. I have to vote against whatever fool and/or criminal the Dims put up, which means I have to vote for the Heffalump candidate.
At this point, those are the only grounds on which I can urge people to vote for Ted in the general election — if he’s the candidate.
Ted Cruz in Debate #6, 1/14/16, Fox, Bartiromo and Cavuto, around 22 minutes in, maybe a bit more:
Randy Barnett’s discussion is actually pretty good in the first half. He presents the opposition’s (that would be me) argument honestly and reasonably thoroughly. It’s in the second half of his remarks that he comes up with an ingenious but, to me, not entirely convincing argument, and then ends on a most undignified note (and remember, I’m a longstanding fan of Prof. Barnett; much more than any of the other Volokhites, except in some respects David Bernstein). Now I feel jilted by both of my Libertarian Legal Loves. It’s not FAIR !!! :>((
*Not Prof. Laurence Tribe, interestingly enough — per Barnett, Prof. Tribe’s understanding of “natural born” IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF ELIGIBILTY is the same as mine: A citizen parent at the time of the candidate’s birth, AND must be born on American soil. But, says Randy, this poses no problem for Tribe because Tribe is not an Originalist of any stripe but rather a Living Constitutionalist, so is not hampered by this little departure from the Rules.
**Not true that there are only two classes of American citizens: For purposes of Constitutional eligibility at least, there are three: Naturalized, statutory (for children born abroad of citizen parents), and natural born. Only those in the last category are eligible.
–No, that does not make anyone a “second-class citizen.” There is theoretically no such thing in the U.S. To serve as President is a privilege, not a right. There is no other post in the entire Federal government that is restricted to natural born citizens.