Posts

Smug, Arrogant, Elitist Liberals STILL Refuse to Fathom President Trump

/1 Comment/in , /by

The question is not “is anyone surprised?”

No one who has observed liberalism at work for decades could be surprised that after a campaign in which they routinely attacked Donald Trump for supposedly being unwilling to accept the election results, the scolders themselves do precisely that.

The stories pour forth. Hillary Clinton lost because the Russians hacked. There have to be recounts in key states because it could change the results. Electors need to step up to the plate and overturn the voters. And on it goes. “It” being the attempt to delegitimize the Trump election and his presidency that will follow.

But why is this? Why this absolutely bizarre notion that, knowing the rules full well — rules for a presidential election in force since the founding of the country — there is this abrupt unwillingness by Clinton and company to accept defeat?

The answer surely can be tied to the longtime sense of moral superiority that has become a standard feature of modern liberalism. Let’s recall that instantly infamous statement of Clinton’s during the campaign. Note well the quote which appeared in the New York Times exactly as written below:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” she said to applause and laughter. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Catch that descriptive line added by the Times? This one, inserted in the middle of the quote, that says “she said to applause and laughter.” This event, again no accident, was a fundraiser held with the elites of Manhattan in Manhattan.
And right there is exactly the real reason this election was lost to Clinton and proved a disaster for her party. The hard fact is that many liberal elites really do look down their noses at their fellow citizens who reside between Manhattan and Beverly Hills. And in this election this translated into an assumption that of course Hillary Clinton was going to win. How could it be any other way?

Take a good look at this Politico story from October 20, written in the aftermath of the third and last debate between Clinton and Trump. The headline?

The final debate was Trump’s chance to stop the bleeding. 16 political watchers tell us whether he succeeded.

The story opens with a brief recounting of the debate, then says this:

It was all pretty much routine in a campaign marked more by put-downs than policy discussion—or at least it was until Trump broke with centuries of tradition and told the audience that he wasn’t sure whether he would accept the voting results on Election Day. It was an admission that shocked—but also one not likely to be uttered by a candidate who’s confident, or even halfway confident, of a win on November 8.Indeed, over the past week and a half, as more than 10 women have accused Trump of sexual assault, he has been sliding in the polls, and election forecasters were giving Clinton around an 85 percent of victory.

And that unconfident candidate was, of course — Donald Trump. Among the sentiments of these sixteen “political watchers” were the following:

‘Trump surrendered whatever shreds remained of his credibility. Unlike Donald Trump, I won’t keep you in suspense. He didn’t lose the election Wednesday night; he forfeited it. Bigly.” – Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of the National Interest

But this will be remembered as one of the very few presidential elections in which the losing candidate mattered more than the candidate who actually won. Trump’s 18-month performance in a self-written piece he should have called “Make America Hate Again” repelled far more Americans than it attracted. Yet even before the final curtain goes down, we are wondering—no we are shuddering to find out—what crazy, destructive things he and his adoring followers will say and do next. – Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University and editor of Dissent

“But the matter of his win or loss will matter less if he takes our democratic institutions out with him—and that was all that mattered at the debate. … One moment crystallized precisely what the 2016 election is about. When asked whether he would respect the election results, Trump shrugged. “I will look at it at the time,” he told moderator, Chris Wallace. “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?” No, not OK. Not at all. This isn’t the build-up to the season finale of a reality show. This is the basis of our representative democracy. Americans are not supposed to be waiting to hear Trump’s verdict on election night; he is supposed to be waiting to hear ours.” – Nicole Hemmer, assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, co-host of the Past Present podcast and author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics

“This cake is baked. Any hope that Donald Trump could deliver a game-changing last-ditch final debate performance was dashed when he refused to accept the Election Day results. Everyone except for the most delusional Trump supporter knows that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. … But the truth is Trump lost this race the day he entered it, when he smeared Latino immigrants as rapists and criminals. He has never led in poll averages against Clinton, save for a brief convention bounce, because he never stopped being a candidate of white right-wing rage in a multicultural center-left nation.” – Bill Scher, senior writer at the Campaign for America’s Future, co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show “The DMZ” and Politico Magazine contributing editor

“Trump is on track to be the biggest loser in a national campaign since Walter Mondale.” – Katie Packer, a Republican consultant, adjunct professor at George Washington University and founder of the anti-Donald Trump super PAC Our Principles PACKatie Packer, a Republican consultant, adjunct professor at George Washington University and founder of the anti-Donald Trump super PAC Our Principles PAC

One could go on here. And on and on.

But without question the smug sense of elitist moral superiority over those vulgar, common people who supported Trump was unmistakeable. Is it any wonder that, dumbfounded at having so grossly misjudged the election, the elites would do anything other than exactly what they so vehemently accused Trump of being willing to do? Which is to say, not accept the election results.

No. Of course not. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, it is a huge mistake to think that this flat-out refusal to accept the election results will simply fade once Trump is sworn in. This is going to be the modus operandi of the Left for the entire Trump term or terms. The subject will change — the underlying theme and tactics will not. Already former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich is pitching the idea that rich, liberal entertainers like Bruce Springsteen, Jay Z, Madonna and more do a counter-inauguration concert. Presumably to detract from the Trump inauguration and the traditional concerts and balls that have become staples of a modern inauguration.

It never occurs to any of these people that the reason Hillary Clinton is not going to be president of the United States isn’t because of Russian hackers or anything else. Simply put she lost because she — and many of her supporters — were too smug, too elitist, too arrogant and too condescending to voters.

And surprise, surprise those voters did not take kindly to it. (For more from the author of “Smug, Arrogant, Elitist Liberals STILL Refuse to Fathom President Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Without Double Standards, Liberals Would Have No Standards at All

/0 Comments/in , /by

Syndicated talk radio host Chris Plante often says on his show “if it weren’t for double-standards then liberals would have no standards at all.” Unfortunately, Plante is right. The increasingly hostile far-left is becoming more and more brazen about their disdain for the rule of law and common standards. This is deeply troubling because even young children are capable of understanding the benefits of rules and common standards. When a group of kids get together and form a club or play a game, they usually agree on a set of “club rules” or the rules of the game before they begin playing. These commonly agreed upon rules prevent cheating and preserve a sense of fairness and equity. By agreeing on “the rules,” kids understand that the winner of the game they are playing will have won on merit and, in the case of the club, all of those agreeing to be members of the club agree to forfeit absolute control over their decisions within the club for a collective decision making process defined by the agreed upon process.

If kids can agree that rules and standards matter, why can’t liberals do the same? How can we continue to move forward as an ideologically-diverse yet ultimately cohesive and respectful nation when one side of this perpetual ideological struggle writes one set of “rules” for itself, and another set of rules for others?

Here are just a few examples of liberal double standards which will shed light on this problem:

1. The Withholding of Federal Tax-Payer Dollars to States and Cities. The recent transgender bathroom battle in North Carolina has emboldened the divisive Obama administration to start yet another fight over what they loosely define as “discrimination.” Putting aside for a moment that women who prefer to use the bathroom with other women are now being defined as “bigots” by the hostile far-left and their wily and calculating White House allies, President Obama outrageously threatened to withhold taxpayer money from taxpayers in North Carolina to make sure that men can use the women’s bathroom. Let’s use logic to walk through their calculation on this issue.

Liberals who supported this since withdrawn Obama administration threat to withhold tax payer money from North Carolina are doing so because they believe that President Obama’s questionable presidential edicts are the “rules” and if North Carolina doesn’t follow “the rules” then the federal government should punish the citizens of North Carolina by keeping their money out of their state. Keep in mind, this entire sad story is based not on a new federal law prohibiting North Carolina from keeping men out of the women’s bathroom which President Obama is enforcing, but an edict from a President who prefers his pen and his phone to law and order. Now, contrast this with the clear cut violations of easy-to-understand federal immigration laws in the many sanctuary cities in the United States. Again, using the liberal’s own standards against them, that the rules matter, then why aren’t the same far-left activists and Obama administration officials pulling tax-payer money from sanctuary cities? If kids can understand the importance of rules then why can’t our liberal friends?

2. Guns vs. Gay Marriage. As our own Daniel Horowitz recently pointed out in his piece titled “D.C. Attorney General Refuses to Issue Gun Permits, Why is He Not in Jail?,” the hypocrisy of far-leftists who celebrated the jailing of Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis for refusing to sign gay marriage certificates is now on full display as they ignore the conduct of Washington D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine. Let’s use logic again to walk through this and demonstrate the far-left’s disrespect for the rules and common standards.

Liberals who celebrated the jailing of Kim Davis did so proclaiming that she is a public servant and that she should do her job and sign the gay marriage certificates in violation of her religious beliefs because, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage, those were the rules. And, although the words “gay marriage” are absolutely nowhere to be found anywhere in the Constitution, many liberals were adamant that Davis should follow the rules or go to jail. Now that the shoe is on the other foot regarding an issue liberals oppose on ideological grounds (the right to bear arms which is actually written into the Constitution) , and with Washington D.C. repeatedly losing in federal courts in their efforts to prevent their residents from protecting themselves, I haven’t heard a peep from a liberal calling for any D.C. city official to be jailed for not following the rules.

The reasons for this blatant hypocrisy on the part of liberals is obvious to many who have studied the history of far-left ideology. The far-left cannot exist within a set of rules which limit its power. While conservatives passionately fight to limit the power of government using the Constitution, the far-left insists on erasing any objective standards of conduct for government. The far-left’s core focus has always been acquiring an ends using whatever means necessary to do so. And if reaching an ends means changing the rules or ignoring the rules then so be it. I’m proud to be a conservative because I believe in a set of rules that will limit conservatives in power too from breaking the rules we all agree to live by. Liberals who insist on double-standards and winning the game, while sacrificing the integrity of the game, should hang their heads in shame knowing that they did so only by cheating and throwing their morals out of the window. (For more from the author of “Without Double Standards, Liberals Would Have No Standards at All” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Liberals Sign Petition to Support White Privilege Tax

/0 Comments/in , /by

Mark Dice’s latest ‘man on the street’ stunt is perhaps his most outrageous yet, proving that leftists will advocate unbridled insanity so long as they are told it’s in the name of fighting racism.

Asked to sign the petition to support a 1% income tax on all white Americans in order to “even out the playing field” and redistribute the wealth amongst minority communities, the first man in the clip is incredulous that such a policy would pass but signs his name to it anyway.

After a Puerto Rican man signs the petition, another individual who admits he is a non resident asks for clarification, remarking, “so in other words, tax the white man?” before signing the paper.

“We’re gonna take the silver spoon out of the white people’s mouths and put it back into yours,” Dice tells an African American man who enthusiastically signs the petition before stating, “appreciate it, man!”

A man wearing sunglasses then seems even more keen to support the white privilege tax, telling Dice, “You’re the kind of white dude I like, thank you…white dudes that promote this kind of stuff are aware of the white privilege.” (Read more from “Liberals Sign Petition to Support White Privilege Tax” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Liberals Love Rand Paul

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Daily Caller

Photo Credit: Daily Caller

Some liberals, fed up with Democratic waffling on issues like military intervention and corporate welfare, are finding something attractive in Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s brand of libertarianism.

In an op-ed for HuffPost on Monday, H.A. Goodman explained why, even though he identifies as “a liberal Democrat” and has “never voted for a Republican,” he plans to vote for Paul in the 2016 presidential elections.

“On issues that affect the long-term survival of this country,” Goodman says, “Rand Paul has shown that he bucks both the Republican and Democratic penchant for succumbing to public opinion, an overreaction to the terror threat, and a gross indifference to an egregious assault on our rights as citizens.”

Goodman applauds Paul, for instance, for questioning the legality of President Barack Obama’s decision to quietly increase troop deployments in Iraq amid an ongoing bombing campaign against ISIS. The deployment came “without a peep from the anti-war left,” but as Goodman points out, “the reaction would have been entirely different from liberals throughout the country” if it had been made by a Republican president. “

Read more from this story HERE.

Stay Classy, Liberals: Gov. Rick Perry Gets Anal Sex Questions At Dartmouth

/3 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: TownHall

Photo Credit: TownHall

This is liberalism at its finest. Get really angry with someone who holds views different from your own, and then berate that person with hyper-emotional drivel. In this case, the victim was Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who received sexually explicit questions from Dartmouth’s student body regarding anal sex during a visit to the college. Perry is a social conservative.

According to the Dartmouth, the student newspaper, Perry was there to discuss the midterms, border security, energy initiatives and foreign policy. There was a Q&A session–and that’s when things devolved. Both presidents of the College Democrats and Republicans condemned the actions of their peers [emphasis mine]:
When Perry opened up discussion to the audience, several students posed questions, deriding Perry’s views on same-sex marriage.

Emily Sellers ’15 asked if Perry would have anal sex in exchange for campaign contributions of $102 million, while Timothy Messen ’18 accused the governor of comparing homosexuality to alcoholism.

Ben Packer ’17, who wrote and distributed these and other questions, said Perry’s views were more insulting than the questions.

Read more from this story HERE.

Study Shows Liberals More Likely Than Conservatives to "Unfriend" Someone Over Politics

/5 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: TownHallA new study by the Pew Research Center has found that people who identify as “liberal” in their political beliefs are more likely than conservatives to have unfriended someone (either in the online or real-life sense) over a disagreement in political leanings.

According to the study, while self-described “consistent liberals” were more likely than conservatives to have friends who have differing political opinions, they were also more likely to block those person’s posts from social media or to unfriend them altogether.

Consistent liberals were the most likely group to block or unfriend someone because they disagreed with their political postings, with 44 percent saying they had “hidden, blocked, defriended, or stopped following someone” on Facebook due to their political postings. Only roughly one-third (31 percent) of consistent conservatives had done the same — although this might be attributable to lower levels of ideological diversity in their online ecosystem.

Read more from this story HERE.

Senator: Emails Reveal EPA, Green Group in ‘Beyond Cozy’ Relationship

/3 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Pete Souza / White HouseRepublican lawmakers say the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enjoys a “beyond cozy” relationship with a liberal environmental action group that seeks to reshape national energy policies in a way that would hurt American businesses and families.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, told The Daily Signal that the Natural Resources Defense Council played an “absolutely inappropriate” role in drafting the EPA’s new carbon emissions plan.

“The EPA has been one of the least transparent agencies I have ever seen, but it’s become apparent that their lack of transparency is to hide the influence that an organization so heavily focused on undermining U.S. businesses and families has at EPA,” Vitter said.

Vitter and House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., have directed staff to look into whether the EPA broke federal law in developing the carbon emissions regulations.

Read more from this story HERE.

How Liberalism Became an Intolerant Dogma

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: REUTERS / Jonathan ErnstAt the risk of sounding like Paul Krugman — who returns to a handful of cherished topics over and over again in his New York Times column — I want to revisit one of my hobby horses, which I most recently raised in my discussion of Hobby Lobby.

My own cherished topic is this: Liberalism’s decline from a political philosophy of pluralism into a rigidly intolerant dogma.

The decline is especially pronounced on a range of issues wrapped up with religion and sex. For a time, electoral self-interest kept these intolerant tendencies in check, since the strongly liberal position on social issues was clearly a minority view. But the cultural shift during the Obama years that has led a majority of Americans to support gay marriage seems to have opened the floodgates to an ugly triumphalism on the left.

The result is a dogmatic form of liberalism that threatens to poison American civic life for the foreseeable future. Conservative Reihan Salam describes it, only somewhat hyperbolically, as a form of “weaponized secularism.”

The rise of dogmatic liberalism is the American left-wing expression of the broader trend that Mark Lilla identified in a recent blockbuster essay for The New Republic. The reigning dogma of our time, according to Lilla, is libertarianism — by which he means far more than the anti-tax, anti-regulation ideology that Americans identify with the post-Reagan Republican Party, and that the rest of the world calls “neoliberalism.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Liberals Go To the Barricades to Defend Crony Capitalism

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Getty ImagesThere’s nothing like a good fight over corporate welfare to bring out the Left’s love of Big Business.

In the current battle over the Export-Import Bank, Democratic politicians and liberal journalists have dropped their populist pretenses and openly embraced the corporate-federal collusion that Ex-Im embodies.

For some, it’s largely partisanship or disdain for the Tea Partiers who want Ex-Im dead. For others, it’s that increasing government’s role in the economy takes precedence over railing against Big Business. And for a shrewd few, it’s about raising money from K Street and Wall Street.

Liberal writer Michael Lind of the New America Foundation, who in 2013 mocked the notion of free-market populism as “Ayn Rand in overalls,” this year sees the free-market attack on Ex-Im as a grave danger to “Big Business,” and, by extension, all of America. Lind blasted “militants on the right.”

“Angry outsiders on the right are threatening to replace business-friendly market populism with real populism,” Lind warned. “And that, to the business community, is downright terrifying. It ought to frighten the rest of us, too.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Liberals Hate Religion Because Government Is Their God

/2 Comments/in , /by

Phtoo Credit: TownHall The liberal attack on religion stems from envy, greed, anger and hate, just like every other precept of liberalism. Liberals envy the loyalty and devotion that religion inspires. They hunger greedily to have it for themselves.

Mostly, they are angry because the religious dare to defy them and to reject the ugly and inhuman tenets of collectivism. And they hate God for having the temerity to define right and wrong. They consider that their sole prerogative.

The liberal freak-out over the Hobby Lobby decision is just the latest example of the left coming out of the closet and embracing its anti-faith bigotry.

It’s interesting to see how liberals approach the controversy, and how they fail to even accurately describe it. In the big picture, the Hobby Lobby case basically pitted the right of individuals to practice their religion even when they combine into closely-held corporations against a newly-minted pseudo-right of women to receive free birth control insurance coverage. Now, the right of religious liberty has been recognized for over two hundred years in the First Amendment. The pseudo-right of free birth control insurance coverage came into being when bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services decided to mandate it following passage of Obamacare in 2010.

Naturally, the liberals side with the government bureaucrats’ four year-old whim over the established principle of religious liberty.

Read more from this story HERE.