Go Bernie and Kirsten (or Kirsten and Bernie)

A recent report holds that good 'ol Bernie is the early favorite for the Democrat Presidential nod in 2020.  Another view which I respect opines that Kirsten Gillibrand will be anointed.  In both cases, (oh Gad), I hope so. The Dems would thereby drift ever closer to foundering on the far left reefs.

I do so love Bernie Sanders.  He is  deliciously atavistic.  He takes me right back to my freshman year of 1965 when all was so very clear.  At that time he was involved in the celebrated "Young,Idealistic, Ungrateful, Apologetic for the Gulag and Mao, Unquestionably correct Socialists of America", down there in NYC rocking and sneering out to Woody and even  young Arlo, to Pete Seeger and to Peter Paul and Mary in turtle neck sweaters in smoky coffee houses. How redeeming it all was and blasphemous too, I mean all that cigarette indulgence.  And to think - Bernie came right out of that milieu  to our very time- why imagine other then contemporary figures with us again - George Wallace, Abby Hoffman, George Lincoln Rockwell, Harold Stassen, Clean Gene McCarthy, "Bobby" Kennedy, the Smothers Brothers and well, all of them!  I can hardly contain my nostalgia; Kumbayaa to the max.  Actually, I sat at a campfire in the 60's helping to render that perhaps unjustly maligned tune; Bernie wasn't there though. Maybe he was already ministering the true faith to benighted Vermonters.

The thing I love about Bernie is his honesty, honestly! No Alinskyite obfuscation on his part, mind you.  He comes right out with it;  he'll shamelessly take from the productive and blithely give to the willfully unproductive and if you don't like it, well. . . Better stand up to it now because if Bernie gets the opportunity to institutionalize "political correctness", as is the wont of all Marxists, you'll earn a vacation in Stalinland Amusement "Park" if you foolishly think you still have a right to free speech.

And young Kirsten, we know what to expect there.  She is Charles Schumer's shill and he would ensure that she remains so should she improbably gain residence in the executive mansion.  Schumer is of course unelectable outside of NY because he is a stereotypical New York City know it all, exceeded in that obnoxious role only by Andrew Cuomo (another to be hoped for pretender).  Now Kirsten does have the advantage of not sounding like a NYC type (her accent would fit in most anywhere between the coasts and above the Mason Dixon line) but do you think that would flummox a canny NYC guy like President Trump?  Fugettaboutit! He'll nail her.   She's also given to publicly uttering hyperbolic obscenities to refer to those who excite her juvenile antipathy and that still doesn't work for the real America

I can't wait.  Given their frantically vindictive response to the democratic election of President Trump one must delight in the prospect of the hellish whirlpool of  hatred,recrimination and despair into which Dems will plunge after  their 2020 repulse. Let Bernie and/or Kirsten lead them over the brink, please.  Jack

Why, we Dems never did like those Clintons

There has been some current commentary to the effect that the Democrats may commit the Clinton "couple' to the political deep, with disgrace aforehand.  This would be a purely tactical move on their part and we must not allow it to be widely perceived as a belated expression of regret for past Democrat party devotion to this tawdry pair. They are advancing it now only cynically for gain in 2018 and 2020.

Democrats probably perceive that Hillary has shot the bolt in her fevered and perhaps even pitiable (given the disgrace her "husband" relentlessly visited upon her) lifetime pursuit of ultimate vindictive power.  She shows signs of considering a laughable Stassenesque reprise and they fear the consequences of such an embarrassing spectacle. So a preemptive  PR strike on her may be in the works though I don't know what form it might take. Perhaps abandoning her to the consequences of her scandalous past?   Oh, if only she would just retire to the Mondale - Dukakis - Kerry old wronged and perversely denied candidates home. . . But, convinced of her irrefutable righteousness and facing the boomer urge for a last hurrah, she may not cooperate.  Oh, what to do!?

Now "Bill", that's a different matter.  Oh how the chickens do come home to roost, to use a metaphor familiar to many from the rural roots which nonetheless gave rise (as it were) to Slick Willy (no quote marks necessary).   Nobody, but nobody, can refute his well deserved reputation as a cad. But credible evidence has been advanced and is now being reiterated, with potentially catastrophic implications for him,  that he is a forcible rapist (not to mention the long since affirmed reality of him as a perjuror, a draft dodger and one who denied an American citizen a meaningful day in court despite being, unimaginably now, the titular chief law enforcement officer of this Union of ours). For 71 years, his ability to hide behind a corkscrew has facilitated his escape from the consequences of his willingly enacted misdeeds.  Now his apologists may leave him to swing and his long delayed and  deserved reckoning with the real America may be at hand.

Why, the venerable Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, she of the laughable Presidential ambitions as a stalking horse (a Lurleen Wallace if you will) for the unelectable Charles Schumer (and his undoubted shill since her appointment to office) has opined that Slick Willy should have resigned. Well that does it; all it will take now is for Elizabeth Warren to declare that he needs a haircut and the Dems are shut of this execrable legacy.

But they are not and we should never let them be. Once the Clintons and the boomers of whom they are exemplary pass in the next thirty years the nation can let it go.  But until then be it never forgotten:  the Dems willingly went to the wall for this disgusting pair which disgraced our White House beyond measure and with supreme presumption. Charles Schumer, a certainly still present power, denounced Willy's impeachment trial as "ridiculous". The Dems even anointed her!  Let the Clintons be the Dems' deserved albatross for the foreseeable future.  Jack

Some cultures are serious about crime. Eg. China

I do not know if the American athletes accused of shoplifting in China actually committed that presumptuous offense.  If they did, they displayed reckless indifference to the reality that many cultures are unequivocally determined to spare the law abiding majority the far too often excused predation so evident in America.  Strange that, if so; the athletes are college students and have no doubt been thoroughly apprised of the superiority of all cultures to our own.  You'd think they would know better, I mean, being academics and all.

When I was in the Far East in the US Navy  from 1968-72, we were advised in as many words: "yeah, ok, go ahead and do things for which you would be almost reflexively exonerated in a U.S. far more interested in protecting the 'rights' of victimizers than those of their victims.  You'll be ensnared in a system based on the conviction that crime is absolutely intolerable - Period!"  In every port we left men behind who did not respect that warning and they were subjected to the tender embraces of  criminal justice systems based on the concept that criminals are individuals who choose to do that which they ought to know will not be countenanced, "no! - under no circumstances"! If one chooses to enter such a country, one must comply with such law and those countries have every right to expect that of visitors.

The reason they are very quick to punish crimes such as shoplifting is that they know that to excuse that and similar lowlife practices gives license to even more destructive crimes - a very common sense idea.  Their determination to prosecute that belief has the result of their countries being safe for the most  ardently protected segments of any sane and healthy society - children and senior citizens.  We know, to our shame, that we have failed in this.  Its no mystery to the Chinese..

I went to university in Singapore in 1974.  Their country was a tawdry hellhole of all manner of drug related  disgrace when they were ruled by Westerners.  Once the ethnic Chinese dominated  Singaporeans took over in the early '60's they declared " As common sense requires, we  affirm that we will not tolerate crime.  We recognize no qualifiers to this commitment.We have  witnessed undeniable evidence of the corrosive effect that Western excuses for crime have on any sensible society. Westerners think it paramount that the 'rights of the accused' be observed, to the rejection of all other considerations.  We do not. "

One may disagree with their viewpoint but to be fair one must consider the disadvantages of ours.  I recall the execrable  "Bill" Clinton scolding the Singaporeans for having enacted corporal punishment on an American punk convicted of vandalism in  their safe and orderly nation.  The Singaporeans rightfully bade him look to the crime rate in his country.

Perhaps the situation with the UCLA athletes became political; maybe it was a bargaining chip between our President and that of China.  If so, the athletes were subjected to considerations inappropriate to that of which they were accused.  But if they did it, maybe they will wise up? Jack

This was "our day": Gettysburg Address Remembrance Day 2017

I'm a Private in the 42 PA (Bucktails) reenactment regiment.  We have participated regularly in the annual commemoration of President Lincoln's essential Gettysburg Address  in which thousands of Civil War reenactors ,Union and Confederate, march through Gettysburg and end up on or near the hallowed battlefield.

This year we mustered in plausible anticipation of interference in our ceremonies from leftist radicals who have of late insolently attacked the memory and memorialization of the Confederacy in their continuing effort to discredit the history of this, to them, unforgiveable country. Law enforcement did a typically painstaking job in preempting such presumptuous anarchy at Gettysburg.

In the event, the craven lowlifes declined to emerge from their burrows.  We mustered for the parade in a cold penetrating rain which bade fair to suppress both reenactor and spectator turnout.  But that  was not to be.

We sallied forth in continuing frigid downpours, to the tunes of  most inspiring Civil War marching bands, to the elevating applause of patriotic and knowledgeable crowds.  Completely absent were arrogant and bigoted and plainly intimidated radicals. The cold rain lent an unanticipated drama to the progress.  The route of the march took us through a portion of the battlefield, just in the rear of the apex of Pickett's Charge, which has been recently restored to its 1863 aspect.  It was such a thrill.

Our Union column preceded that of the Confederates, who descended the slope to the open area where we gathered post march, in our view ,and they did themselves proud.  Generals Lee and Longstreet led them on foot. As they drew near to us we formed up again and rendered them military honors as they passed through our formation.  It was a sublime moment. Our Captain, Chuck Copello, who organized the tribute to the Johnnies, said it best: " This was our day!" American common sense and love of country prevailed. I'll never forget it.  Jack

Man hater madness

The assorted  crude blunders,  improprieties and perhaps crimes perpetrated by the grotesque Harvey Weinstein in his apparent unending quest for amorous satisfaction have given rise (as it were) to a renewed hue and cry among the purely man hating faction of the feminist movement for close scrutiny of ALL men on the principle, most vindictively and hatefully expressed by seminal "feminist" Susan Brownmiller, that all men are potential rapists; well! The obvious counter to such powerful nonsense is that which all unsociopathic men know; it is not possible for most men to generate penetrating power in the throes of emotions as violent as those required for the commission of as execrable an outrage as rape. Sorry, Susan, only men (and women who are willing to judge men as individuals) know that for sure.

Marxists are blithe to propose proscribed classes, membership in which is defined by relative wealth, education, private or public executive status, professional accomplishment , unforgiveable ownership of private property, or, in the opinions of  radical feminists, possession of a penis. Once in power Marxists follow through in murderous fettle on these frivolous perceptions.  Its a convenient tactic to be sure and has a fabled history of mass disenfranchisement, even unto death, in the 20th century.  Those (including some men) who consider all males to be suspect at least, while violently and disingenuously denouncing any "stereotyping" of women are nonetheless, stereotypically totalitarian.

Oh Gads, where have we seen this before:  the "rich" Kulaks in the Ukraine who were starved in the tens of millions by Soviet bureaucrats who declared their relative prosperity to be "oppression"; all who expressed any doubt about the insane post war tactics of the Khmer Rouge; etc , etc ad nauseum since 1917

It is surreal to have to express and affirm common sense but it is inescapably necessary in this Marxist infested time. Normal men and women are attracted to one another and in a social convention known as "courtship" seek to discover others interested in partnership. Vengeful feminist extremists would have this codified in penal law (so to speak) as criminal when men are the initiators of the dance. And as always with radicals, accusation is tantamount to condemnation and "sexual harrassment" is now, well, whatever they say it is.

In their unrelenting crusade to destroy our society and replace it with one in which advantages and dis advantages are rationed solely in accordance with one's membership in exalted or excoriated classes, leftists have attacked our religious fundamentals, the 5000 year old institution of marriage, our artistic sensibilities, our painfully evolved governmental and legal systems, our military and police, our right to self defense and any positive principle which attracts their basilisk gaze.  Why not then seek to effect the actual outlawing of one of the most spontaneous and inevitable of human interactions?  Why not indeed?    Jack   

       

Yeah, lets disarm the lawful

Another insane outrage and due of course to the unconscionably easy access to guns enjoyed  by homicidal Americans, yes? That this is a perception honestly held by many people of good will is understandable but they are misused and misrepresented by those at the heart of the "gun control" movement.  Those cynics have as their goal the political discrediting of gun owners and their highly effective organizations (eg. NRA) as a key to destroying the entire conservative movement, which knows them for what they are - totalitarians. They think draconian gun control will discourage NRA and its supporters.  Silly babies!

Lets imagine them their visions in realization.  Lets actually ELIMINATE, say, two thirds of the estimated three hundred million plus firearms privately owned by constitutionally free and tyranny resistant Americans.  Gee. I guess the availability of a mere one hundred million firearms sure will put the quietus to the madness now won't it? The monsters will have to resort to, well, powerful vehicles like trucks.  But we already know that can't happen in places like Andrew Cuomo's "Safe" New York, now don't we?

That this kind of nonsense didn't  frequent the 1950's, when gun ownership was not publicly described as mass sociopathy by then rightfully despised leftists, is blithely ignored by the gun banners isn't it? That is because it was before the beginning of time to them: 1964. It is therefore dismissable. What the really determined gun banners like Schumer, Cuomo , the Clintons and their avatars dread is attention to their very real and personal responsibility for mass violence in today's America through their relentless onslaught since the '60's on traditional values, the moral vacuum it has created and the subsequent license that affords to the criminally warped. They cannot risk close scrutiny of that reality so they disingenuously push measures they know cannot work as per their stated intention.  They see yet another opportunity to do so now.Jack

Redirect NEH,NEA and PBS funding to extending Internet access.

In an article in our local newspaper which I expect to see soon on the blog Waddyisright.com, Dr. N.L. Waddy of SUNY Alfred proposes a very sensible realignment of  some national broadcast priorities to extend Internet access (Dr. Waddy, please correct me if I am wrong about its prospective appearance on your blog).   Please read his post because I doubt my ability to paraphrase it correctly.  I thought it very plausible.

It was printed close to an article describing concerns potential grant recipients have about the Trump administration's plans to discontinue Federal funding of  the National Endowment for the Humanities; similar lamentation has been emoted over intended Federal defunding of the National Endowment for the Arts and the "Public Broadcasting System" (I can't help but put the latter in quotes, its so presumptuous).  Supporters of these agencies (prominently among them their employees), disingenuously wail that defunding them will kill "the arts" in the U.S., especially in the nether regions of our vast land. They purposefully ignore the infinite variety of culture already available on the Internet, a medium visually and audibly comparable to the broadcast media.  Want a full opera or ballet or a gallery of paintings by any artist, or a lecture by any accomplished intellectual or a Shakespeare or Moliere play in full professional performance or an opus by any serious musician, now or back then?  Its there.  What the Internet is free of, at least for now, is control by the unelected bigoted American leftist bureaucrats who so obviously and blithely dominate the aforementioned Federal agencies and who direct thereby the devotion of hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to their  political causes - taxpayers of different persuasions be damned.  Advocacy is their game, not cultural enrichment (though they do fancy themselves bringing enlightenment to the benighted).

They have enthusiastically funded and defended abominations like "Piss Christ", a vicious and scornful depiction of a crucifix dipped in urine.  Would they have funded "Piss Martin Luther King" or "Piss on global warming fanatics"?  Well, we (including them) know they would  have been dipped in urine rather than have done so.

Lets redirect their funding and their broadcast space to the extension of the Internet to all reaches of our land. That would give all Americans complete access to high culture at any time, free of the snooty biases of those who think British high society soap operas so very much better than the Young and the Restless. Those who maintain that that will eradicate the arts in America choose not to consider the universality of the Internet and dread their own disempowerment.  They also ignore history; did Herman Melville or Emily Dickinson or Theodore Dreiser need federal support to perpetuate their works?  They let their works speak for themselves in the free market of public opinion; to which the American left, totalitarian as it is, is unalterably opposed. Jack

    

    

Our impolitic President

President Trump is impolitic! Impolitic I say sir! Why, that he is sometimes and I'm glad he is.

Politics is sometimes described as a blood sport.  With any blood sport, noxious substances other than blood, and visual, audible and olefactory unpleasantries are also essential.  A dirty business to be sure.

The dirtiest man ever to be President was yet exceedingly politic.  He was a very polished speaker, always looked tops and was a genuine charmer in personal contact.  Not for nuthin' was he called Slick Willy. He was skilled in political manuvering and accomplishment. .  He was very politic and also very corrupt. He was the darling of those who today wage an unprecedented, insane onslaught on President Trump.

The real America empowered President Trump because it has exhausted its patience with politics as usual, so it makes sense that we will continue to support one who was not of the political world and who has demonstrated his determination to change it for the better.  His recent statement disparaging "political correctness" rings well and true to us; he showed integrity and gutsiness in simply using the term.

It makes sense to us that a person whose success was outside of government will undergo a period of adjustment to the Presidency, which might even include mistakes. But he's obviously no push over and nobody's shill and that appeals to we who abide in the often rugged everyday world.

I'd say we are alot better off with this boisterous, enthusiastic, sometimes crude real American than we would be with some slicko or with an apologist who dreads being seen as "insensitive".  We owe him much gratitude for preventing  the ascension of a grimly determined and exceedingly base and vindictive politician and for enduring the withering calumny directed at him. He is often accused of being "egotistical".  No one's ego is helped by the kind of truck he has to endure. At 70 and with wealth, he did not have to do this. Jack