Op-Eds du jour

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,200
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
I like Op-Eds. Especially ones I agree with. And I find myself posting them here often, so here's a thread for them along with my (first) entry for today.

Post ones you agree with. Post funny ones. Post ones that are so ridiculous you can't believe a human adult with a functioning brain could think such things, much less get those thoughts published.

Enjoy! :tmack:

"Annoy Liberals By Refusing To Care About Their Stupid Fake Outrages"
Kurt Schlichter | Posted: Oct 22, 2018 12:01 AM

This may shock you, but I care less that a bunch of foreign barbarians killed a foreign barbarian supporter in a foreign country than I do about illegal alien foreign barbarians here in America killing Americans. A lot less.

This is yet another example of my – and perhaps your – shameless wrongthinking. I reject the elite’s fussy paradigm of Things That We Must Pretend Matter. I will stubbornly exercise my right not to get exercised over yet another outrage ginned up by people who are determined to manipulate me. It just ain’t happening.

As I explain in my hilarious and obnoxious new book, Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy, the elite thinks it has some sort of Gaia-given right to demand we join in its endless series of two-minute hates about the outrage du jour. But we’re woke, and it’s just not happening. We don’t care about the climate scam, or illegal aliens being sad about having to leave, or their cheesy charges against conservative jurists. It’s all a lie and scam. Notice how believing all women sure stopped being a thing the second Kegmaster Kavanaugh got confirmed? Right, Sherrod “Pimp Hand” Brown?

In the current convulsion, our moral and intellectual betters who make up our glorious elite are in a fake frenzy because Third World thugs are acting like Third World thugs. That Khashoggi guy was a journalist, damnit! Journalists are special! He wrote for the Washington Post, so he matters…not like that Kate Steinle girl, who was just some American who got in the way of a bullet fired by an illegal alien who the elite ensured was not deported. Everyone get mad, and then let’s cut loose our ally Saudi Arabia, which happens to be the long-term policy goal of the same liberal elite pushing this crisis. Weird how that works.

Oh, and how dare you mention that Khashoggi cavorted with Hamas and al-Qaeda types and generally loved radical Islam and hated America.

I’m not pro-chopping up political opponents, which I only feel the need to state because some willfully obtuse lib jerk is going to claim my refusal to freak out over bad people acting exactly like bad people act means I support chopping up political opponents. Chopping up political opponents is generally a bad thing, though I will not hold my breath waiting for the libs to, for example, cancel their holidays in Havana because the Castro clan has butchered tens of thousands of people for preferring freedom to tyranny.

Liberal outrage, you see, is super-selective. It only exists when there’s a related liberal policy goal it can support. And, as the Steinle family found out, it never exists where it risks disrupting our elite’s preferred narrative.

I don’t care about the Khashoggi caper because I see no reason to join in the faux shock that foreigners are terrible, or that the Saudis are so especially terrible that we must abandon a crucial ally against Iran, which hangs more gays from a single crane every day than the Saudis have ever chopped up in their consulates.

Weird, but the elite was totally mad about Donald Trump pulling out of the “We’ll pay you mullahs to get nukes slightly slower” deal and these same people are now demanding we ditch our primary Arab ally against Tehran. I mean, if I were cynical, I’d say this whole imbroglio was a steaming wheelbarrow of crap.

But I’m not cynical. Their motive for trying to destroy the US-Israeli-Saudi alliance against the mullahs is totally that they care about this sketchy dude who none of us ever heard of before last week. And Chet agrees.

Chet’s my unicorn.

Oh, and it’s all Trump’s fault because Trump is magical and omnipotent and he personally approves Arab hit team operations in Asia Minor. Or maybe it’s Jared Kushner who did that. It’s hard to know which of the White House masterminds (who we are simultaneously informed are scatter-brained half-wits) is pulling the strings around the world. After all, no Neo-Dark Age potentate ever murdered anybody until Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit lost.

This whole thing is stupid and I won’t be part of it.

I also refuse to care that the president made a crack about that congressman who tossed around that reporter a million years ago. I don’t care about that at all. I refuse to pretend that some harmless gag is a declaration of open season on the Fourth Estate – especially when the media is squeeing in giddy delight at lib pols actual calls for violence and intimidation. It was a joke. And it was kind of funny. And if that horrifies Jim Acosta and the rest of the dancing dillweeds of the press, too…damn…bad.

I don’t care. And if you think that makes me a bad person, good. Then you won’t try to hang around me.

See, I reserve the right to decide what I care about. My caring, my choice. And I think I’ll care about things that matter to me, not things that liberal snobs care about.

I care about the interests of the United States of America more than the interests of foreign countries.

I care about Americans not being murdered here more than foreigners being murdered somewhere else.

I don’t care about the media’s peeves and whining. It brought all its misfortune upon itself with its bias, incompetence, and general scuzziness.

I don’t care about global warming. I’ll drive a gas guzzler if I feel like it.

I don’t care about someone’s preferred pronouns. He or she – pick one.

I don’t care about illegal aliens’ sob stories. Go home.

I don’t care about people who feel unsafe, unhappy, or unloved because of what I think, do, and say. Too bad. I will think, do and say what I please.

I don’t care, because I don’t feel like caring about your pet outrages, and you can’t make me.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kur...are-about-their-stupid-fake-outrages-n2530409
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Great Op-Ed.

2 Schoolbuses full of children being blown to bits. "No problem, who cares?"

1 WaPo journalist. "OUTRAGE!"

What's funny to me about that is like....I'm not sure how to express it. This is Saudi Arabia, people....one guy getting dismembered is like someone getting shot in Chicago. It's not really news. I mean...this is the country that lines people up in the streets for public beheadings. Our friend and ally, so nobody cares. Yemeni schoolbuses...fair game. Blow them to smithereens with Lockheed Martin bombs....nobody cares. State funding of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Nobody cares. Provide means and funding to blow up the World Trade Center...nobody cares.

Apparently, this WaPo guy is more important than 2 schoolbuses full of Yemeni children and several thousand dead Americans on 9/11.

WTF?
 
OP
tehmackdaddy

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,200
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
subroc posted this one in another forum and I have thieved it.

"PIERS MORGAN: The media hates him, Hollywood hates him but every hysterical piece of abuse they throw at him just makes Trump stronger and now the Democrats are heading for a midterms disaster"

President Trump is winning.

There is simply no other way to fairly interpret the fact that he’s just hit a new high in his approval rating.

Even better for Trump, he’s officially more popular than his predecessor Barack Obama was at the exact same stage of his first tenure as President.

According to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Trump is now at 47% approval, compared to Obama’s 45% two weeks before the midterm elections in 2010.

Given all the fire, brimstone and perpetual outrage about Trump since he won the White House, this is a truly remarkable state of affairs.

Of course, America’s liberals will respond to the shock poll in the way they respond to all things Trump - with fury, incredulity and by sticking their collective heads in the sand.

‘HOW CAN THIS BE HAPPENING?’ they will wail, uncontrollably.

‘WHAT THE F**K IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE WHO LIKE HIM?’ they will howl into each other’s kale salads.

‘THIS IS THE END OF PLANET EARTH!’ they will sob, in their normal understated manner.

All of which will be music to the ears of Trump, a man who absolutely revels in liberal hysteria because he knows it works for him, as this new poll proves.

The more Trump-bashers scream abuse at and about him, the more it fires up his base – and indeed, the more it fires up Trump himself.

After all, at his heart, the President’s a street-fighting New Yorker who loves a good scrap.

And in two weeks time, he may deliver the biggest knockout punch of his presidency.

Until recently, it was widely assumed the Republicans would lose control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections.

It was being depicted as a ‘damning referendum on Trump’ and historically, most presidents – like Obama - take a whack in the midterms.

But now, I’m not so sure.

In fact, I’d say there’s a very good chance the Republicans will hang onto the House, as well as the Senate, and Trump will move on empowered and emboldened to what could very well be an even bigger win in 2020.

Why is this happening?

Well first, the US mainstream media has become the boy that cried wolf.

Their constant collective outrage over every tiny thing Trump says, tweets or does – much of it driven by commercial self-interest - has had the inevitable effect of diluting the impact of that outrage.


Barely a week goes by without some supposed new ‘Trump crisis’ fuelling wall-to-wall cable news coverage and dire predictions of impeachment or even jail time for the President.

Yet within a few days, each ‘administration-threatening scandal’ dissolves into a giant nothing-burger.

Liberal celebrities are just as bad, relentlessly shrieking away on social media about their hatred for Trump – seemingly oblivious to the fact that nobody cares any more. We just assume all celebrities hate him because they think it’s ‘cool’ to do so.

The effect of this endless hysterical cacophony, as I have repeatedly warned, has been to make Trump ever more popular with his base and with the GOP.

More significantly, as this poll suggests, it’s also begun to move moderates with no particularly animated view of Trump more to a place of tolerating him.

And that’s terrible news for the Democrats, because their only game plan with Trump is to abuse him and rely on mockery and sneering as an election strategy.

It’s the same flawed, arrogant and elitist mentality that led to Hillary Clinton branding Trump supporters ‘a basket of deplorables’ in a speech that I still believe did more than anything else to lose her the election.

I look at the Democrats today and see a Party that’s learned absolutely nothing about how to beat Trump.

And I see a President who’s growing stronger by the day.

Trump’s become a political Godzilla, crushing everyone who dares challenge him and bulldozing his way through an agenda that is beginning to pay real dividends.

In less than two years, Trump’s got two nominees onto the Supreme Court, entrenching a Conservative majority.

He’s slashed taxes, and regulations – sparking a boom in the US economy that shows no sign of stopping, a surge in jobs and record low unemployment.

Trump’s forged a peaceful dialogue with North Korea, launched a trade war with China that many think is long overdue, withdrawn from the obviously flawed Iran nuclear deal and Trans-Pacific Partnership, forced Mexico and Canada to update NAFTA, bullied NATO countries into paying their bills, and bombed ISIS out of Iraq and Syria.

He’s also clamped down hard on illegal immigration.


As I write this, a ‘caravan’ of more than 7,000 Central American migrants – most of them from Honduras - is moving towards the Southern border.

They intend trying to enter the United States illegally.

It’s hard to think of a more powerful image to vindicate Trump’s much criticized demand for a new ‘Wall’, isn’t it?

As he tweeted: ‘Full efforts are being made to stop the onslaught of illegal aliens from crossing our Southern Border… The Caravans are a disgrace to the Democrat Party. Change the immigration laws NOW!’

Trump clearly believes this caravan will help Republicans in the midterms, and so do I. Expect to see the President down on that border very soon, playing Mr Tough Guy.

The combined effect of all these ‘wins’ – obviously this is a subjective word if you’re a Democrat - is that Trump enters this election in an increasingly dominant position as a President who is doing exactly what he said he’d do.

I also think he’s a President who’s beginning to really enjoy himself.

When I saw him several months ago for an interview aboard Air Force One, I was struck by how relaxed and confident he seemed.

He exuded an air of someone who’d worked out how Washington works – or rather, doesn’t! – and how to play the broken, highly partisan system to his advantage.

As for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion, all the signs suggest this may soon deliver a massive damp squib.

Of course, Trump remains a hugely divisive and polarising figure with a penchant for flying loose with the truth and heavy on the inflammatory rhetoric.

But love him or loathe him, there is no denying that he’s winning.

So once again, I can only advise the Democrats to stop their ridiculously self-defeating state of perpetual Trump outrage and work out how they’re actually going to beat him.

Because right now, Trump’s kicking your a**.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...akes-stronger-Democrats-heading-disaster.html
 
OP
tehmackdaddy

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,200
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
Good OpEd, although she forgot to mention Republican Congressmembers being tackled while mowing their lawns or shot at softball practices:

"Democrats waging an uncivil war of mob rule against the GOP"

Hillary Clinton recently said that “civility can start” if Democrats “are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate.” In other words, when she and her friends on the left get their way, they’ll play nice.

Don’t bet on it.

The truth is that if the Democrats win control of the House – or less likely the Senate – in the Nov. 6 midterm elections, that won’t be when civility starts. That will be when civility ends.

After months of a calculated mob rule strategy by the left – in which bullying, harassment and screaming replace reasoned debate – Democratic majorities in either house of Congress would be sure to embrace the fundamentally anti-democratic strategy of mob rule.

Democrats now are determined to stop and silence anyone who’s in their way. Instead of coming up with big ideas they now pride themselves on producing big demonstrations and other tactics that disrupt the business of Congress and the lives of Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials.

Fanatical Democrats convinced of their own righteousness and believing Republicans are evil are more and more frequently trying to stop GOP elected and appointed officials from eating at restaurants, going to a movie, shopping and engaging in other ordinary activities.

As Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., recently told supporters: “If you see anybody from that (Trump) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. You push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!”

All this angry rhetoric and accompanying protest actions has the potential to escalate into violence.

For example, Mark Stark, a man working for the liberal group American Bridge 21st Century, allegedly grabbed and twisted the arm of a woman managing the campaign of Nevada Republican candidate for governor Adam Laxalt on Tuesday. Stark was arrested and accused of battery and then fired by American Bridge.

If Democrats gain majorities in one or both house of Congress things will only get worse.

Game, set, match. Crazy town will be here to stay.

We’ve all witnessed children in public in the midst of a full-blown temper tantrum after being told “no” to something. Their screams reach the decibel levels of jet engines, and their legs and arms swing around and strike whatever is nearby. They repeat nonsensical demands and refuse to stop.

All eyes are likely on the kids having the meltdown. If mom or dad gives in to a child’s demands just to exit center stage, everyone watching as well as the child thinks the same thing – checkmate.

Putting Democrats in control of Congress will make this kind of behavior by the left the new normal in Washington.

Democratic Party leaders and elected officials have not just failed to condemn the bullying and harassment being carried out by their loyal supporters. In some cases they have encouraged it – as Rep. Waters did. And they sometimes stop just short of calling for violence and at times even cross that line.

When asked what Democrats can do to counter President Trump’s policies Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. – Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate two years ago – said: “Fight in the courts, fight in the streets.”

Sen. Cory “Spartacus” Booker, D-N.J. – who may seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 – has called for people to “get up in the face of some congresspeople”.

On the campaign trail in Georgia for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Stacy Abrams, former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder recently said of Republicans: “When they go low, we kick them.” He should have said that when Republicans go low, Democrats go lower.

The liberal soldiers have taken their marching orders from their leaders. We’ve seen elected officials and members of the president’s Cabinet chased down and harassed not just in restaurants and theaters, but even as they enter public restrooms. And we’ve seen demonstrations held at the homes of Republican lawmakers and federal officials.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and his wife were recently forced by protesters to leave their table at a Washington restaurant. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen had to leave a restaurant as well, and White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was told to leave when she and a group went to dinner at a Virginia restaurant.

After Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., voted to confirm the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court someone texted his wife a video of a beheading, and posted contact information for his family.

While Kavanaugh was being sworn in inside the Supreme Court, the mob outside tore through a police line, charged to the chamber and beat on the doors.

Nobody is off limits from the Democratic mob. Last week Kanye West was viciously criticized and called mentally ill by the liberal mob for daring to go to the White House and meet with President Trump wearing a Make America Great Again hat.

Georgetown University professor and MSNBC political analyst Michael Eric Dyson went so far as to say of West: “This is white supremacy by ventriloquism. A black mouth is moving but white racist ideals are flowing from Kanye West’s mouth.”

So, if you don’t agree with the mob and don’t hate President Trump, you’re a white racist. Even if you’re not white.

Then, this week rapper T.I. released a disgusting video of a woman who looks just like first lady Melania Trump, wearing a jacket that said “I really don’t care, do u?”

If you remember, Mrs. Trump wore a jacket with that same saying while getting on an airplane to taunt the media earlier this year. In the video the Melania look-alike strips in the Oval Office.

Perhaps when you don’t have talent you go to the gutter.

T.I. attempted to be cute on social media, tweeting to President Trump: "Dear 45, I ain't Kanye.” I’ve never heard of T.I., but I have heard of Kanye, so no, he’s not Kanye.

Many people remember Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards’ famous speech about two Americas, where he claimed one existed for the rich and one for the poor.

Edwards if you recall, was Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s running mate in 2004. Fourteen years later, Edwards’ idea of two Americas rings true, but for very different reasons.

Today we have the America of mob rule where harassing, bullying and threatening violence seeks to replace “law and order” and “justice for all.” The freedom to have your own ideas and thoughts is no longer tolerated.

The far-left Democrats have flipped so far off the deep end that they’ve made the conscious decision that it’s better to organize an aggressive mob culture than offer any thoughts, ideas or action plans of how they would change things they don’t like in this country.

The Democrats are rolling the dice that people like bullying after all, and that’ll be enough to energize them on Election Day.

This may energize voters – but the question is will it energize them in the direction Democrats hope?

Then there’s the America of peace and prosperity. We believe in in thoughts, ideas and the rule of law. With bullying so prevalent in our children’s schools and all over social media, we see no need to model it for our children as adults.

All of us are entitled to think for ourselves and believe what we want, because that’s how freedom works. Threatening violence and harassing another individual has no home in our America.

In November we will get to choose if we want to set a mob rule precedent by legitimizing such outrageous actions and electing a Democratic Congress that condones such dangerous behavior.

Or we can choose if we want to keep Republicans in control of the House and Senate to protect an America where individual freedom is protected, the rule of law is applied and the mob is discredited and defeated.

Link
 
OP
tehmackdaddy

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,200
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
Essentially on limiting the power of the judiciary.

Christopher Scalia: Lessons from the Kavanaugh chaos -- What my father, Justice Antonin Scalia, would have thought

I’ve frequently been asked in the past few weeks what my father, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, would think about the contentious battle just waged over Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the nation’s highest court.

Would he have been surprised by the heated debate, political maneuvers, protests, last-minute delays and uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct that we saw during now-Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process?

Although I don’t think my father (or anyone) could have predicted the twists and turns of the past several weeks, I don’t think he would have been shocked by the no-holds-barred fight over a Supreme Court vacancy, either. He long ago warned Americans about the excessive intrusion of politics into the judicial appointment process. And he explained that a large share of the blame belongs to the justices themselves.

My father believed that a major reason the judicial confirmation process has become so heated is that federal judges too often exceed the role envisioned by our nation’s founders and usurp the power of elected representatives.

Alexander Hamilton famously argued “that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” and that “the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from” the judicial branch.

But Hamilton qualified that claim. He said it would only be true as long as “the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.” Hamilton agreed with the French political philosopher Montesquieu, who warned that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”

Maintaining that separation means limiting the role of judges. My father explained that for most of American history, Supreme Court justices recognized that the meaning of legal texts – including the Constitution – did not change.

Judges understood that their job was to interpret that original meaning – referring to tradition, history and precedent when necessary. When dealing with laws and statutes, this approach is known as textualism; in reference to the Constitution, it is called originalism.

But over the course of 20th century, judges began to think of the Constitution as a “living document” whose meaning changed with the times. That may seem like a reasonable idea at first; after all, the Constitution was written in 1787 and a nation’s interests and priorities can change dramatically over generations.

Shouldn’t the Constitution keep up with the times?

But in fact, the Constitution establishes democratic processes, both in the states and in Congress, with the flexibility necessary to adapt to changing circumstances. This can happen through new laws and through constitutional amendments. That is, for example, how women earned the right to vote: not by judicial decree, but through the 19th Amendment.

On the other hand, if the Constitution is a living document, consider who ends up determining its new meaning: unelected judges with lifetime appointments – men and women who are intentionally protected from the will of voters at the ballot box.

As a result, many debates and compromises that should have occurred in the political realm have been short-circuited by the judicial branch for decades.

The most notorious example of this is Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision discovering a constitutional right to abortion. The justices believed they were settling a contentious national issue. But they were doing nothing of the sort; they were inflaming it.

When Americans realized that lower court judges and Supreme Court justices were exercising their will rather than just their judgement, judicial nominations became much more heated. My father didn’t like this change, but he understood why it happened.

“A freedom-loving people respectful of the rule of law may be expected to let lawyers decide what a constitutional text means; but they cannot be expected to let lawyers decide what a Constitution ought to say,” my father said.

Or as he put it in another speech, “no court can expect to remain immune from severe political pressure ... if it assumes the role of inventing solutions for social problems instead of merely applying those solutions prescribed in democratically adopted statutory or constitutional text.”

After all, lawyers know the law better than the rest of us, but their value judgments are not necessarily superior to anyone else’s.

One way to help make our judicial confirmation battles less polarizing, then, would be for judges to return to the more limited role they had held for most of our nation’s history: applying laws and statutes according to their text and interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning, using history, tradition and precedent as guides.

This wouldn’t make every Supreme Court decision unanimous. Judges can interpret history and tradition differently, and sometimes the meaning of a text is ambiguous. Nor does it mean courts would never again make a controversial ruling.

But if federal judges returned to the more modest approach our Founding Fathers envisioned for them, they would be less likely to rule according to their preferred policy preferences and more likely to leave political decisions to our elected representatives.

This change in perspective is long overdue, but it will not happen overnight. Right now, it is primarily only Republicans who see the value in originalist judges like Brett Kavanaugh – and we saw the lengths to which Democrats fought his confirmation.

My father devoted considerable time to delivering speeches across the country and around the world explaining the advantages of originalism and textualism. He knew that persuading people to this way of thinking would help return the judicial branch to its proper status as what Hamilton famously called “the least dangerous branch” and help subdue the intensity of the nomination process.
 

subroc

Interested Observer
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
2,276
Reaction score
241
Points
63
Location
New Hampshire
I don't know if this is OP-ED but it is an article about bias and double standard. It is worth the read.

link

Nolte: Media Again Exploit Tragedy to Strip Trump Supporters’ Self-Defense Right

Two unrelated terror attacks over the past ten days have revealed an establishment media rabidly desperate to strip President Trump and his supporters of our right to defend ourselves.

Even before we knew the identity or motive of the man behind a dozen or so pipe bombs mailed to prominent left-wingers — CNN, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, George Soros, Cory Booker, Maxine Waters, Robert De Niro, etc. — the media were already speculating and exploiting this appalling crime into a weapon to strip us of our First Amendment rights — and not just us, but the free speech rights of our own President Trump.

As the media blasted away at anyone who dared speculate about the bomber’s motive, even as they themselves speculated that it could only be a Trump supporter (or Russian interference on behalf of Trump), this speculation was used as a weapon to chill our free speech…

Trump must stop criticizing the media! Trump must stop defending himself from fake news! Trump supporters must stop chanting, “CNN sucks!” Trump and his supporters must agree to roll over and play dead even as they are smeared as “Nazis” and “cnuts.”

And my personal favorite…

Trump and his supporters must stop defending themselves against those who call for violence against them!

Even though those mentioned above have all openly called for violence — never forget that De Niro threatened to assault Trump, Waters called for us to be bullied out of public spaces, Hillary called for incivility, Biden said he wanted to assault Trump, Booker ordered his followers to get in our face, Soros funds left-wing terrorists, CNN has been promoting and normalizing political violence against us for years — even though we are now under assault due to an unprecedented epidemic of violence, the media still believe they can emotionally blackmail us to roll over and play dead, even as Democrats attempt to assassinate us, assault us, destroy our property, and harass our wives — all while CNN asks for more.

And naturally, even though the media portray themselves as neutral umpires, as patriots who only want to unite and heal, it is only ever the political right that must roll over and play dead.

When a Bernie Bro screams about health care and attempts to assassinate a baseball field full of Republican lawmakers, the media argue that it would be wrong to blame Democrats and all their rhetoric about us trying to kill people by repealing Obamacare.

And when Donald Trump Jr. receives a letter filled with white powder and Republican senators and a Republican president have ricin mailed to them, the media not only have nothing to say about Democrat rhetoric — or, heaven forbid, their own hateful rhetoric — the media can hardly be bothered to cover the story at all.

And so, to the surprise of no one, then, a second terror attack this week is seen by the media only as yet another golden opportunity to launch a second attack on our right to defend ourselves, this time our Second Amendment civil rights.

When a Jew-hating monster enters a peaceful synagogue and murders 11 innocent and defenseless people, that can only mean one thing to our media — that America needs even more defenseless people, a whole lot more, because law-abiding Americans being able to defend themselves against Jew-hating monsters are the real problem.

Are you sensing a pattern here?

According to the corporate media, every terrible thing in America, whether it’s a train derailment or a natural disaster or a wacko bomber or the Trump-hating monster who attacked this synagogue… it is all our fault, and we must always answer for it, and the only way we will ever be allowed to atone is if we agree to give up our right to defend ourselves…

We must not only agree to surrender our Second Amendment civil right, but also our right to criticize Democrats who call for violence against us, our right to criticize a media who smear us as Nazis and normalize this wave of violence…

I cannot wait to vote.
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Disobedient Media previously reported the tightening stranglehold of censorship across social media. Unfortunately, events that have taken place since the publication of this writer’s opinion that Julian Assange was the first domino to fall in a series of increasingly draconian censorship measures have far exceeded even this author’s worst expectations.

The crackdown has seen the involvement of organizations that have a documented history of pay to play behavior and are backed by groups including the Chinese Communist Party in collaboration with Western establishment organizations including NATO. In this way, renewed drives for censorship represent a strange new cooperation between transatlantic internationalist groups and China, as the former reacted negatively to the rise of populist and nationalist movements in the West which have disrupted their control.

Before we discuss the details of the latest social media purge, though, we ask: Is the unabashed, coordinated censorship of Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms an illegal affront to freedom of speech?

In the case of Twitter, at least, we do appear to have an affirmative answer to the question. As CNBC reported earlier this year, a Federal judge ruled that Donald Trump could not legally block Twitter users. The judgment in effect defined the platform as a “public forum” which may be regulated by government to defend First Amendment-protected free speech. CNBC wrote:

“Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald said in her ruling that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by preventing certain Americans from viewing his tweets on @realDonaldTrump.The social media platform, Buchwald said, is a “designated public forum” from which Trump cannot exclude individual plaintiffs. She rejected an argument by the Justice Department that the president had a right to block Twitter followers because of his “associational freedoms.” [Emphasis added]

Buchwald’s ruling states in part: “Our inquiry into whether the speech at issue is protected by the First Amendment is straightforward. The individual plaintiffs seek to engage in political speech, Stip. 46-52, and such “speech on matters of public concern” “fall within the core of First Amendment protection,” Engquist v. Ore. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 600… We readily conclude the speech in which individual plaintiffs seek to engage is protected speech.”

Over the months following Buchwald’s decision, we have witnessed the mass-banning of Twitter users who, like those designated to be engaging in political speech regarding Trump, were focused on political issues.

UPDATE on the massive Purge of 800 dissident voices happening in the U.S.

Banned from Facebook yesterday:
-Antimedia
-FreeThoughtProject
-PoliceThePolice
-Minds social media

Suspended from Twitter:
-Antimedia + editors
-FreeThoughtProject + editors
-PoliceThePolice + editors

— Lee Camp [Redacted] (@LeeCamp) October 12, 2018

The focus of the latest Twitter and Facebook purge of domestic, politically oriented content raises the specter of silencing of dissent that, at least in theory, should enjoy First Amendment protection.

Even worse, the banned accounts were often provided with little or no description of their alleged infractions in Twitter’s notice of suspension. Among others, Occupy NZ was given no reason whatsoever for the ban:

Yesterday the @OccupyNZ account was (apparently permanently) suspended. This is the email @TwitterSupport sent about it.

They stated no reason for the suspension, literally leaving the section about why it was suspended, completely blank:

cc @caitoz @ElizabethleaVos @RisePDX pic.twitter.com/8SH972pHpI

— Suzie Dawson (@Suzi3D) October 12, 2018

Another journalistic outlet, The Anti-Media, was almost simultaneously banned from both Twitter and Facebook, with many of its editors also suspended permanently.

As of this writing there have been no updates regarding the appeals made for the official @AntiMedia account, and the personal accounts of their Editor-In-Chief, @CareyWedler, Their Chief Creative Officer, @TheSMGibson, or their associate, @PMBeers – All of which were suspended.

— ANTI-MEDIA (@ANTIMEDIAnews) October 17, 2018

Stunningly, the CEO of The Anti-Media alleged that Facebook had actively worked with the outlet’s Facebook account prior to their sudden multi-platform suspension. The Anti-Media represents just one of the hundreds of accounts and pages banned by Facebook as well as Twitter in this latest crackdown on anti-establishment thought.

A message from Nick Bernabe, the CEO & Founder of Anti-Media. Why was Facebook helping promote information they now deem unworthy of their platform? pic.twitter.com/EFtV6fDGcV

— ANTI-MEDIA (@ANTIMEDIAnews) October 17, 2018

Notably, the social media purge targeted both left-wing and right-wing pages. This suggests that the bans were not so much based on political bias, but instead stemmed from the establishment’s overwhelming paranoia towards the success of all varieties of anti-establishment news and discussion. The efforts seemed geared less towards supporting a particular political side ahead of midterms, than it was geared towards protecting the overall status-quo.

This latest witch-hunt involved marked coordination between Facebook and Twitter, with evidence emerging that the latter has become involved to some extent with the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab. The DFRLab announced its controversial partnership with Facebook earlier this year. At the time, MintPress News wrote of the marriage between militaristic interests and social media:

“The new partnership will effectively ensure that Atlantic Council will serve as Facebook’s “eyes and ears,” according to a company press statement. With its leadership comprised of retired military officers, former policymakers, and top figures from the U.S. National Security State and Western business elites, the Atlantic Council’s role policing the social network should be viewed as a virtual takeover of Facebook by the imperialist state and the council’s extensive list of ultra-wealthy and corporate donors.”

News of the Atlantic Council’s alliance with Facebook came on the heels of reports that Google has developed a censored search engine in collaboration with the Chinese government and has begun a new program to assist China with the development of artificial intelligence (AI).

Remember that NATO and China-funded think tank that is behind most of the censorship at Facebook? They’re working with Twitter now as well. pic.twitter.com/QRwCpfXv2o

— William Craddick (@williamcraddick) October 18, 2018

Disobedient Media previously reported on the NATO-backed Atlantic Council’s history of pay to play behavior, as well as their DFRLab’s direct attack against this outlet.

The Atlantic Council’s supporters include the foundation of Ukranian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, The Open Society Foundation, the United Arab Emirates, Bahaa Hariri, the billionaire brother of Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., NATO, the United States Department of State, Lockheed Martin Corporation, the Chinese Communist Party and the Turkish Ministry of Energy & National Resources. The latter of whose head, Berat Albayrak, was the subject of leaks released by publishing giant Wikileaks exposing increasing political oppression in Turkey as well as collaboration with the terror organization ISIS.

In August, Disobedient Media wrote of the partnership between DFRLab and Facebook: “A former editor of Time Magazine who advocates nations using propaganda on their citizens is a distinguished fellow of the same Atlantic Council lab that “collaborates” with Facebook on censorship policy.” To see an organization whose supporters include many foreign donors and advocates of extreme censorship such as China engaged in the process of undermining the spirit and aim of Constitutional protections of free speech is disheartening.

As to the most recent round of censorship on Facebook, the LA Times: “Facebook said Thursday that it has purged more than 800 U.S publishers and accounts for flooding users with politically oriented content that violated the company’s spam policies, a move that could reignite accusations of political censorship.”

In other words, in the name of “protecting” the democratic process ahead of the midterm elections, it is this writer’s opinion that the actions of Facebook and Twitter represent a direct attack on the First Amendment.

In a truly Orwellian fashion, the battle cry of “protecting democracy” is invoked in an attack on one of its most fundamental supporting principals: the ability to express dissent.

Journalist Caitlin Johnstone, who recently survived Twitter’s attempt to suspend her Twitter account, described the suspension-spree, noting: “In a corporatist system, corporate censorship is state censorship.”

In documenting the drastically escalating, politically-motivated censorship of independent journalists, it is impossible not to confront the reality that it is no longer a matter of “if” one will be silenced, but a matter of when.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/1...ia-purge-leave-the-state-of-social-discourse/
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Second excellent Op-Ed/Editorial I discovered today...

Hitler's Economics

For today's generation, Hitler is the most hated man in history, and his regime the archetype of political evil. This view does not extend to his economic policies, however. Far from it. They are embraced by governments all around the world. The Glenview State Bank of Chicago, for example, recently praised Hitler's economics in its monthly newsletter. In doing so, the bank discovered the hazards of praising Keynesian policies in the wrong context.

The issue of the newsletter (July 2003) is not online, but the content can be discerned via the letter of protest from the Anti-Defamation League. "Regardless of the economic arguments" the letter said, "Hitler's economic policies cannot be divorced from his great policies of virulent anti-Semitism, racism and genocide.… Analyzing his actions through any other lens severely misses the point."

The same could be said about all forms of central planning. It is wrong to attempt to examine the economic policies of any leviathan state apart from the political violence that characterizes all central planning, whether in Germany, the Soviet Union, or the United States. The controversy highlights the ways in which the connection between violence and central planning is still not understood, not even by the ADL. The tendency of economists to admire Hitler's economic program is a case in point.

In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it."

What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.

Such programs remain widely praised today, even given their failures. They are features of every "capitalist" democracy. Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: "[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."

Keynes's comment, which may shock many, did not come out of the blue. Hitler's economists rejected laissez-faire, and admired Keynes, even foreshadowing him in many ways. Similarly, the Keynesians admired Hitler (see George Garvy, "Keynes and the Economic Activists of Pre-Hitler Germany," The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 83, Issue 2, April 1975, pp. 391–405).

Even as late as 1962, in a report written for President Kennedy, Paul Samuelson had implicit praise for Hitler: "History reminds us that even in the worst days of the great depression there was never a shortage of experts to warn against all curative public actions.… Had this counsel prevailed here, as it did in the pre-Hitler Germany, the existence of our form of government could be at stake. No modern government will make that mistake again."

On one level, this is not surprising. Hitler instituted a New Deal for Germany, different from FDR and Mussolini only in the details. And it worked only on paper in the sense that the GDP figures from the era reflect a growth path. Unemployment stayed low because Hitler, though he intervened in labor markets, never attempted to boost wages beyond their market level. But underneath it all, grave distortions were taking place, just as they occur in any non-market economy. They may boost GDP in the short run (see how government spending boosted the US Q2 2003 growth rate from 0.7 to 2.4 percent), but they do not work in the long run.

"To write of Hitler without the context of the millions of innocents brutally murdered and the tens of millions who died fighting against him is an insult to all of their memories," wrote the ADL in protest of the analysis published by the Glenview State Bank. Indeed it is.

But being cavalier about the moral implications of economic policies is the stock-in-trade of the profession. When economists call for boosting "aggregate demand," they do not spell out what this really means. It means forcibly overriding the voluntary decisions of consumers and savers, violating their property rights and their freedom of association in order to realize the national government's economic ambitions. Even if such programs worked in some technical economic sense, they should be rejected on grounds that they are incompatible with liberty.

So it is with protectionism. It was the major ambition of Hitler's economic program to expand the borders of Germany to make autarky viable, which meant building huge protectionist barriers to imports. The goal was to make Germany a self-sufficient producer so that it did not have to risk foreign influence and would not have the fate of its economy bound up with the goings-on in other countries. It was a classic case of economically counterproductive xenophobia.

And yet even in the United States today, protectionist policies are making a tragic comeback. Under the Bush administration alone, a huge range of products from lumber to microchips are being protected from low-priced foreign competition. These policies are being combined with attempts to stimulate supply and demand through large-scale military expenditure, foreign-policy adventurism, welfare, deficits, and the promotion of nationalist fervor. Such policies can create the illusion of growing prosperity, but the reality is that they divert scarce resources away from productive employment.

Perhaps the worst part of these policies is that they are inconceivable without a leviathan state, exactly as Keynes said. A government big enough and powerful enough to manipulate aggregate demand is big and powerful enough to violate people's civil liberties and attack their rights in every other way. Keynesian (or Hitlerian) policies unleash the sword of the state on the whole population. Central planning, even in its most petty variety, and freedom are incompatible.

Ever since 9/11 and the authoritarian, militarist response, the political left has warned that Bush is the new Hitler, while the right decries this kind of rhetoric as irresponsible hyperbole. The truth is that the left, in making these claims, is more correct than it knows. Hitler, like FDR, left his mark on Germany and the world by smashing the taboos against central planning and making big government a seemingly permanent feature of Western economies.

David Raub, the author of the article for Glenview, was being naïve in thinking he could look at the facts as the mainstream sees them and come up with what he thought would be a conventional answer. The ADL is right in this case: central planning should never be praised. We must always consider its historical context and inevitable political results.

https://mises.org/library/hitlers-economics
 

subroc

Interested Observer
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
2,276
Reaction score
241
Points
63
Location
New Hampshire
Worth a look

link

October 31, 2018, 12:05 am

Democrats and their media allies seek to silence their critics.

Americans are no longer a free people, if debate on major public-policy issues is effectively criminalized, which is what the Democrats and their allies are attempting to do with regard to our immigration policy. We are now being told in effect that it is “hate speech” to express opposition to the open-borders agenda of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and such of their billionaire donors as George Soros. Democrats and their media allies have recently taken to declaring that it is a “dog whistle” of racism and anti-Semitism for any Republican even to mention the name of Soros in connection with the immigration issue. If you don’t think the United States should throw open its borders to welcome the caravan of Honduran migrants now headed north through Mexico, and if you call attention to how Democrats are cheering on this horde of would-be foreign invaders, well, you must be some kind of Nazi who wants to kill Jews. Or at least that’s the general drift of liberal rhetoric in the final week of the midterm election campaign.

CNN has spent the past few days insinuating that the gunman who murdered 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue was incited to this act by President Trump. Republicans are not allowed to object to CNN’s one-sided coverage, however, because Florida madman Cesar Sayoc also hated CNN, and therefore anyone who criticizes the network is deemed a potential threat to public safety. Between the Pittsburgh shooter and the Florida bomber, basically anything said in favor of Republicans (or against Democrats) is now considered “hate speech” in the eyes of liberals. This is especially the case when it comes to immigration. Ever since the migrant caravan set off from Honduras, announcing their intention to march all the way to the United States, Democrats have been accusing the GOP of “exploiting” the issue. What are Republicans supposed to do? Pretend they don’t notice the lawless intentions of these so-called “refugees”?

After Mexican officials tried to stop the migrants by blocking a bridge across the Suchiate River at the Mexico-Guatemala border, they crossed the river illegally on rafts. “No one will stop us, only God,” a migrant named Olivin Castellano told an Associated Press reporter. “We knocked down the door and we continue walking.” Perhaps God will not stop this invasion, but the U.S. Army has a duty to defend the country, and Trump has ordered so many troops to the border that the deployment for “Operation Faithful Patriot” will exceed the U.S. force serving in Syria. And while these troops prepare to defend our border, CNN continues an around-the-clock propaganda campaign that accuses the Commander-in-Chief of inciting criminal violence.

Phrases like “hateful rhetoric” and “white nationalist” are part of the CNN script, conveying to the network’s viewers the idea that President Trump is responsible for the acts of deranged kooks like Sayoc, the steroid-addled Florida mail-bomber, and Robert Bowers, the high-school dropout who committed the Pittsburgh massacre. Never mind that Bowers denounced Trump by name in one of his anti-Semitic online screeds, and never mind that Sayoc is a mentally ill former male stripper whose bombs never exploded — no, these two lunatics must have acted on coded signals from Trump, the CNN viewer is led to believe. And then there is the problem of Soros, who was among the intended recipients of one of Sayoc’s non-exploding bombs.

George Soros has been a major funder of much of the institutional infrastructure the Left has built during the past 20 years. David Horowitz’s site Discover the Networks says that “a strong case can be made for the claim that Soros today affects American politics and culture more profoundly that any other living person.” Such organizations as Media Matters for America are beneficiaries of Soros’s vast wealth. While the total of his political expenditures over the years is perhaps beyond calculation, it is known that between 2003 and 2011, for example, Soros spent more than $48 million to fund media properties. Given his enormous influence on the Left, it is understandable that conservatives suspect that Soros is behind every allegedly “grassroots” left-wing activist group. It’s not a paranoid conspiracy, but a documented fact that, for example, the Black Lives Movement received more than $30 million from Soros’s tax-exempt organizations. Likewise, it has been documented that so-called “Antifa” groups, implicated in riots in Berkeley and elsewhere, got money from Soros-funded foundations. And it should surprise no one that Soros has spent many millions in support of an open-borders immigration agenda.

“Soros’s agenda is fundamentally about the destruction of national borders,” researchers David Galland and Stephen McBride wrote in a 2016 article titled “How George Soros Singlehandedly Created The European Refugee Crisis — And Why.” Galland and McBride documented the involvement of Soros’s Open Society Foundation in the crisis that flooded Europe with millions of Muslim migrants. When Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban took action to halt the influx of “refugees” into his country and named Soros as the sponsor of this invasion, Soros responded: “[Orban’s] plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”

This was a startling admission, and it is clear that Soros also views America’s borders as an “obstacle” to his plans. In their book The Shadow Party, Horowitz and his co-author Richard Poe explained that a massive 2006 pro-amnesty rally in Los Angeles involved no fewer than eight groups funded by Soros, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the National Council of La Raza. As for the current migrant caravan from Honduras, it is being supported by the so-called “CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project,” a coalition of four organizations, three of which receive funding from — you guessed, didn’t you? — George Soros.

To identity Soros as the sponsor of this open-borders agenda, however, is to be guilty of hate, as explained last week in a Washington Post headline: “Conspiracy theories about Soros aren’t just false. They’re anti-Semitic.” You will not be surprised to learn that the author of that article, Talia Levin, works for Media Matters, which is funded by Soros. Levin previously worked at the New Yorker, but was fired in June after falsely accusing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent of having a Nazi tattoo (the agent, it turned out, is a Marine Corps combat veteran who lost both legs in Afghanistan). So here we have a Soros-funded writer declaring in the pages of the Washington Post that it is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory to say that Soros is doing what he’s actually doing.

In other words, telling the truth is now “hate speech.”

You could get banned from social media for mentioning Soros’s role in promoting left-wing causes, thanks to a new effort to pressure tech companies to “reduce hateful activities on their platforms.” Guess who’s funding that effort? Yes — George Soros.

It is not yet illegal to tell the truth, however, and Republicans trying to prevent a Democrat takeover of Congress are telling the truth while it’s still legal. An ad targeting a Minnesota Democrat begins: “Prima donna athletes protesting our anthem. Left-wing mobs paid to riot in the streets. Billionaire George Soros bankrolls the resistance — and Dan Feehan.” That ad was denounced by liberals as anti-Semitic, of course, but Feehan’s not Jewish and the ad says nothing about Soros being Jewish either. The Left keeps hearing dog whistles of hate that are inaudible to the rest of us, which makes you wonder who the dogs really are.

Last night on CNN, Chris Cuomo denounced Republicans as proponents of “xenophobia” and every other species of hate, while simultaneously accusing the GOP of “demonizing” its opponents. Who is demonizing whom? Cuomo and his media comrades have spent the past two years accusing Trump of being Hitler, thus implying that the nearly 63 million Americans who voted for Trump are Nazis. If that’s not demonization, what is? Is it wrong for Americans to expect that their President should protect them from an invasion of hostile foreigners? Do citizens have no right to complain about the billionaire who’s funding the horde from Honduras? Is it impermissible to debate our immigration policy?

Here’s some news from yesterday: “Mexican authorities arrested two Hondurans who allegedly shot at federal police officers escorting the migrant caravan across the southern state of Chiapas. The attack follows shortly after government warnings about Molotov cocktail attacks around a second caravan near the border with Guatemala.” CNN didn’t report that story, for some reason.

Two days ago, CNN’s Jim Acosta wrote on Twitter: “We are not the enemy of the people. I am not your enemy. You are not my enemy. It is wrong to call your fellow Americans the enemy. We are all on the same team. We are all Americans.” This was a lie, of course. If you vote Republican, you’re not on “the same team” as CNN. They consider you their enemy, because you refuse to acknowledge their authority to tell you what to think and how to vote. This is the real “hate” problem in America — the media elite’s hatred of anyone who disagrees with them.
 

subroc

Interested Observer
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
2,276
Reaction score
241
Points
63
Location
New Hampshire
worth a look


link



Democrats Struggle to Confront Trump-Era Reality
Jason L. Riley October 30, 2018

Come Tuesday, we’ll find out whether Democrats have learned anything from Hillary Clinton’s shocking defeat two Novembers ago. No, Donald Trump isn’t on the ballot this time, but that’s a technicality. There’s no doubt these midterm elections are about our current president.

Two years ago Mrs. Clinton focused to the max on her opponent’s character flaws and then famously extended those criticisms to his supporters, the “deplorables.” What the Clinton campaign missed is that voters in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were well aware of Mr. Trump’s shortcomings but had different priorities. While she was harping on his behavior, he was harping on the issues they cared about most. Mrs. Clinton lost because millions of people who had supported Barack Obama refused to back her and swung to Mr. Trump.

There’s no shortage of liberals who remain in denial about why Mrs. Clinton lost and who refuse to accept the outcome. Instead, they credit Mr. Trump’s triumph to James Comey or Russian interference or white nationalists. The question is whether Democratic candidates in the current cycle have accepted political reality, and the answer is that it depends. Last Friday found Mr. Obama campaigning for Democrats in Detroit and Milwaukee, two places Mrs. Clinton gave short shrift in 2016. He seems to understand that it was the Democratic nominee’s flawed campaign strategy, not the alt-right, that cost her the election.

Similarly, Democrats running for Senate seats in states Mr. Trump carried have used the final weeks of the campaign to focus on issues rather than the president’s Twitter feed. In Arizona, Florida and Missouri Democratic candidates have been talking nonstop about health care, a top concern for voters in both parties. Four years ago, ObamaCare’s unpopularity helped to defeat incumbent Democrats in red states like Arkansas and Louisiana and deliver control of the Senate to Republicans. But support for the law has risen steadily since Mr. Obama left office, and Democrats now see an opening. The upshot is that voters in some parts of the country are being treated to a substantive debate about the costs and merits of single-payer health care and how best to insure people with pre-existing conditions. This is progress.

One week out, polls predict Republicans will add a few seats to their Senate majority and Democrats will (barely) win control of the House. In the Mach-speed political news cycles of the Trump era, however, a week is an eternity. Moreover, there remains a critical mass of Democrats and left-wing commentators who are eager to give the Clinton strategy of character assassination another go. These are the folks trying to link the president’s rhetoric to the synagogue shooter in Pittsburgh and the mail bomber from Florida. They’ve speculated that the White House is involved in covering up the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. For them, the Koch brothers’ political activism can be denounced from the floor of the Senate, while criticism of George Soros is rooted in anti-Semitism.

It’s possible that what didn’t work for Democrats in 2016 could win the day next week, but thus far the strategy seems to be doing more harm than good. The enthusiasm edge Democrats enjoyed for most of the year has disappeared. Maybe upending Brett Kavanaugh’s life based on unsubstantiated allegations about his behavior in high school more than 30 years ago wasn’t such a good idea.

The Central American caravan stunt is unlikely to turn out any differently for Democrats, who are either misreading public sentiment on immigration or think voters are fools. The caravan didn’t develop organically or spontaneously. To the contrary, liberal activists have rounded up thousands of people, coached them on what to say to journalists and immigration officials, and sent them on a dangerous journey north with the intent of causing a scene at the U.S. border. It’s a bald flouting of America’s asylum policies—an attempt to manufacture a crisis for political gain—and the president has a duty to intervene.

To some extent, the Democratic behavior on display of late is born of desperation. Policywise, the Trump presidency has been largely successful. The business tax cuts and deregulation are paying dividends. Economic growth has accelerated, unemployment is low, salaries are increasing, and consumer confidence is strong. The trade war is a mistake but one that most liberals support, alas. And to the extent that Democrats have offered policy prescriptions, they are of the Obama variety and were rejected when voters rejected Mrs. Clinton. Democrats want to put a Trump fright mask on their opponents. But after two years, who’s afraid of Donald Trump?
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,908
Reaction score
1,980
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
Robert Bidinotto
13 mins ·
THE WASHINGTON POST and the rest of the liberal press are -- for the umpteenth time -- going bonkers over "Willie" Horton.

The immediate provocation is a new pro-Trump TV ad, which they say is "worse than the Willie Horton ads," used to devastating effect by the George H.W. Bush campaign against then-governor of Mass. Michael Dukakis 30 years ago. Some background:

Those 1988 ads cited the example of first-degree convicted killer William R. Horton, Jr.. Horton was convicted in the vicious stabbing murder of a Lawrence, Mass. teenage gas station attendant during an armed robbery. He was subsequently sentenced to "life without the possibility of parole."

Yet despite that "no parole" sentence, Horton -- like dozens of other murderers -- was released on a series of unaccompanied furloughs from a Massachusetts prison. How could this happen? Because it was part of a secret "rehabilitation" program championed by Dukakis. He had been using the behavior of inmates while out on furloughs as a gauge to determine if they had been "rehabilitated." If they returned to prison, without being caught for any other offenses, Dukakis used that as his excuse to *commute their life sentences.* That meant these "life-without-parole" killers -- the worst criminals in the prison system -- could eventually be FREED FROM THEIR PRISON SENTENCES.

You see, being "a card-carrying member of the ACLU," as he often boasted, liberal Dukakis didn't believe in ANY permanent penalties for murder -- not the death sentence, not even life without parole in prison. Nobody, he insisted, should face the prospect of dying in prison. And during his 3 terms as governor, Dukakis had, in fact, commuted the "life" sentences of more than two dozen convicted killers.

During his first term as governor, a killer escaped while on furlough. In the ensuing public outcry, Dukakis's own Democratic-dominated state legislature passed a bill to revoke participation in the furlough program by ONLY first-degree murderers sentenced to "life without parole" sentences. Yet Dukakis vetoed that bill, declaring: "This bill would cut the heart out of our efforts at inmate rehabilitation." By that veto, Dukakis single-handedly kept first-degree murderers like Horton participating in the furlough program.

Later, following the examples of other criminals who fled during their prison furloughs, Horton simply vanished after his tenth furlough. He resurfaced in Maryland a year later, in a 19-hour home invasion during which he sexually assaulted a woman and cut up her boyfriend with a knife. He was recaptured during a shootout shortly afterward, and is now serving a double-life sentence plus 25 years in a Maryland prison.

I know all about this, because I researched and wrote the now-famous July 1988 "Reader's Digest" article, "Getting Away with Murder," that exposed to a national audience the Massachusetts furlough program, Dukakis's role in championing it, Horton's crimes following his furlough "escape," and the crimes of other furlough participants.

This was no pre-planned political hit piece. I had actually begun research on the Mass. prison furlough controversy in November 1987, long before Dukakis had become the Democratic nominee. In the biggest serendipity of my journalistic career, my article came together during the spring of 1988, just as Dukakis emerged as the primary frontrunner. Regardless, the article was exhaustively researched -- by me, by a Digest fact-checker who accompanied me on a second trip to Massachusetts, and by others on the RD staff.

In the years since, no one has refuted a single fact reported in the article. Not one.

My article hit the nation like a bombshell in the middle of the election campaign, because it was a riveting parable of justice vs. injustice -- made so compelling because it showed the HUMAN FACES of the victims of liberal leniency in our criminal justice system. It sent shock waves through the left, because -- for once -- it utilized against them their own favorite tactic: trotting "victims" before the media, in order to push their agenda. This time, though, it was the *actual* victims of their own policies whose stories were being vividly dramatized, in what was then the world's most widely read magazine.

My article set off a national uproar. The Republicans immediately began to circulate and cite it; a copy was left on every chair at the GOP convention that summer, and the RNC bought and distributed nearly two million reprints. They also began running "revolving door" TV ads, citing facts and statistics brought forth in the article. "Getting Away with Murder" became the subject of countless talk shows and commentaries, and I became an interview fixture on national radio and TV shows. Within a couple weeks of its publication, Dukakis's poll numbers -- which had led Bush's by double digits -- plunged like a burned-out meteorite. It's virtually the unanimous verdict of pundits and pollsters and campaign books about that election that my article played a pivotal role in its outcome.

"Getting Away with Murder" was so effective because it stood the left's Morality Play on its head. It showed that the purveyors of "social justice" were actually the *enemies* of justice, plain-and-simple; that their emotional sympathies lay with predatory criminals, whom they regard as "victims" of an unjust American society; that they were correspondingly indifferent to the *actual* victims of those same predators -- victims they reduce to faceless, homogenized statistics in crime and "recidivism" reports. It put faces on those victims. It named their victimizers and the *enablers* of their victimizers -- in that case, Michael Dukakis.

It did all of this by harnessing the awesome power of dramatic storytelling to create a compelling MORAL NARRATIVE.

Stunned and scared by this turn of events -- but mostly by the ominous loss of their moral monopoly in "victim" storytelling -- the left has been trying ever since to rewrite the history of the 1988 campaign. According to their counter-narrative, the use of Horton in the anti-Dukakis ads was "racist." (The Republicans called him "Willie Horton," and one of the ads showed his photo. For the record: My Digest article never mentioned the race of "William R. Horton, Jr.," never showed his photo, and never called him "Willie.")

This claim -- that the Horton episode was all about racism, NOT an expose of liberal hostility to JUSTICE -- has been advanced endlessly in the leftist media. Interestingly, those critics almost NEVER mention my article, which ignited the entire controversy -- probably because it is factually unassailable, and because it dramatizes the evil of their philosophy too effectively.

Now they are shrieking that a current GOP ad (which I've not seen) -- citing the example of a twice-deported illegal alien who returned to American to kill two police officers -- is equally "racist." And they are using the "Willie Horton" episode as a comparison -- as an example of everything that is evil and racially exploitative.

In this tactic, they are seeking a "two-fer." First, they are trying to narrowly beat back what is likely an effective Republican attack ad. But more broadly, they are desperately trying to neuter the counter-use of "victim" storytelling against themselves -- and to render the devastating Horton example, and its lessons, radioactive.

I believe many on the left (though few on the right) grasp the huge MORAL vulnerability my article revealed about them.

Yesterday here I quoted from an article that posed the question: How can a tiny minority of "progressive activists," about 8% of the population, manage to control and bully 90% of us? The answer is that they have controlled the moral/cultural Narrative. Since at least the days of Dickens and Hugo, leftists have understood the persuasive potency of storytelling to advance their ideas and agenda: of creating an overarching Narrative, a Morality Play, with evil right-wing villains harming or exploiting helpless victims, and casting themselves, the progressives, in the roles of heroic champions of those downtrodden victims.

Now, witness their shrieking and panic when those whom they have so long cowed, shamed, and intimidated use the power of Narrative against them...but this time, a Narrative built on a *valid* concept of justice.
 

subroc

Interested Observer
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
2,276
Reaction score
241
Points
63
Location
New Hampshire
I remember that willie horton ad well. There was a particular trick they did with the printing that made it really memorable. They spiraled the dots of the printing from his left eye (right when looking at it) as the center of the image. It was hard to look away from as well as hard to ignore. It made the subject matter important and dificult to forget.
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,908
Reaction score
1,980
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
The Author is a a longtime friend of mine.

And you're right about that.
I remember that willie horton ad well. There was a particular trick they did with the printing that made it really memorable. They spiraled the dots of the printing from his left eye (right when looking at it) as the center of the image. It was hard to look away from as well as hard to ignore. It made the subject matter important and dificult to forget.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,908
Reaction score
1,980
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
I couldn't link it. But here is yesterday's article.

"THE EMPEROR'S WOKE CLOTHES" -- an important article, in which Wesley Yang asks: "How did an elite, repressive minority policing speech and culture through political correctness come to browbeat the American democratic majority?" Because it IS, in fact, a tiny minority of Thought Police -- according to a huge national survey Yang cites -- that's intimidating the overwhelming majority that represents all demographic groups. Who is in this minority?

"The only group within which a majority of respondents do not regard political correctness as a problem are those that the study characterizes as 'progressive activists,' a category that comprises 8 percent of the country. Only 30 percent of this group considers political correctness to be a problem.

“'Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample,' [political scientist Yascha] Mounk writes,

"'progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African-American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.'

"The extent to which this finding might surprise you is a measure of how close you are to either elite. It is also a measure of how successfully the toxic rhetoric of warring elite cliques has gaslighted you into submitting to a narrative that is brazenly false. The findings are disquieting because they show by implication the power of that false narrative. It reveals the extent to which the overwhelming will of the majority can be continually frustrated by wildly unrepresentative, power-seeking elite factions that increasingly occupy critical chokepoints within media, educational, nonprofit, legal, government, and corporate bureaucracies. For that is what political correctness really is—a symptom of a large disorder which the vast majority of Americans of all races and creeds regard as a problem."

So, how DO this tiny minority manage to exercise that kind of social, cultural, and political control? Yang's allusion to "the power of [a] false narrative" comes tantalizingly close. For by wielding that narrative like a moral cudgel, progressive activists...

"... benefit from what social psychologists have termed 'the false enforcement of unpopular norms,' a phrase that describes the tendency, as observed in both experimental settings and in the wider world, of widespread conformance to unpopular norms out of social pressure, and the accompanying desire to signal the genuineness of one’s conviction by out-competing all others in zealous enforcement of norms in which they do not themselves believe."

Left unraised -- hence, unanswered -- by the article are the questions: What IS that "narrative"? WHY does it hold so much power over the majority, causing them to feel morally intimidated into compliance with it -- even to "out-compete all others in zealous enforcement of norms in which they do not themselves believe?" Is there something in that "narrative" that disarms the majority, leaving them helpless before the demands and impositions from a "wildly unrepresentative, power-seeking elite"?

Honest grappling with those questions will lead to disquieting conclusions -- including confronting the cultural sources and wellsprings of that toxic "narrative." The victimized majority may find, to their excruciating anguish, that they have bought into the "moral" lessons of false and dangerous, but timeless and seminal, cultural myths and fairy tales that are cynically exploited against them by ruthless power seekers.

Read the article in its entirety and grapple with those questions yourself.

(Hat tip to Robert Tracinski for quoting from the piece extensively today in his subscriber newsletter.)



Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Mises yesterday posted something from one of my heros, one of my idols, a God in the world of the Baron....one of the 3 truly great minds of the 20th Century...

What the State Is Not
[From Anatomy of the State (1974).]

The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the "private sector" and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people.1 But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.2 No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one another," must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

If, then, the State is not "us," if it is not "the human family" getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.3 Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

1. We cannot, in this chapter, develop the many problems and fallacies of "democracy." Suffice it to say here that an individual's true agent or "representative" is always subject to that individual's orders, can be dismissed at any time and cannot act contrary to the interests or wishes of his principal. Clearly, the "representative" in a democracy can never fulfill such agency functions, the only ones consonant with a libertarian society.

2. Social democrats often retort that democracy—majority choice of rulers logically implies that the majority must leave certain freedoms to the minority, for the minority might one day become the majority. Apart from other flaws, this argument obviously does not hold where the minority cannot become the majority, for example, when the minority is of a different racial or ethnic group from the majority.

3. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper and Bros., 1942), p. 198. The friction or antagonism between the private and the public sphere was intensified from the first by the fact that . . . the State has been living on a revenue which was being produced in the private sphere for private purposes and had to be deflected from these purposes by political force. The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the service of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind. Also see Murray N. Rothbard, "The Fallacy of the 'Public Sector,"' New Individualist Review (Summer, 1961): 3ff.


https://mises.org/wire/what-state-not
 

subroc

Interested Observer
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
2,276
Reaction score
241
Points
63
Location
New Hampshire
Another reason to loathe the media.
link
With Pelosi making nice, the White House press corps tries to lead The Resistance

By Post Editorial Board, November 7, 2018 | 7:45pm

Both House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and President Trump offered a surprising amount of conciliation and sweet talk (albeit with some veiled warnings) the day after the split-decision midterms. Maybe that’s what inspired some in the White House press corps to try to seize leadership of The Resistance.

“The election’s over,” and “now everybody is in love,” the president declared.

No one expects the honeymoon to last long. Yet Pelosi, who’s likely to return as speaker, offered her own olive branch to Trump, citing her “responsibility to seek common ground when we can.”

Yes, she warned that Democrats “do not intend to abandon or relinquish” investigations of the administration. But she added, “that doesn’t mean we’ll go look for a fight.” Whether her members agree remains to be seen.

The president, in turn, warmly praised Pelosi, saying he, too, looks forward to negotiating “a beautiful bipartisan-type solution” to pressing issues.

Oh, he had his own warning: Aggressive congressional investigations will be met with a “warlike posture.” And “I’m better at that game than they are.”

There was no mixed message, though, at Trump’s long news conference, where some questioners outright berated him — and drew angry barbs in return.

“CNN should be ashamed of themselves, having you working from them,” he told Jim Acosta. “You are a rude, terrible person.” He had a point: Acosta showed no respect for Trump or his office during a protracted and often nasty exchange. Nor was he alone.

Persistence is one thing — indeed, it’s a reporter’s job. Repeatedly interrupting and debating and denigrating the president is something else entirely.

All this may go over big at the National Press Club, but it does no good for the Fourth Estate or for the nation. For Trump supporters and many moderates, it confirms the suspicion that the press has abandoned all objectivity.

When the president is playing nice with the opposition, it’s not the media’s job to poison the well.
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Wow...I can't believe this comes from the Toilet Paper of Record....

The Midterm Results Are a Warning to the Democrats
Stop manning imaginary barricades, and start building real bridges to the other America.

For months we’ve heard from sundry media apocalypticians that this year’s midterms were the last exit off the road to autocracy. On Tuesday, the American people delivered a less dramatic verdict about the significance of the occasion.

In a word: meh.

Are you interested in seeing Donald Trump voted out of office in two years? I hope so — which is why you should think hard about that “meh.” This week’s elections were, at most, a very modest rebuke of a president reviled by many of his opponents, this columnist included, as an unprecedented danger to the health of liberal democracy at home and abroad. The American people don’t entirely agree.

We might consider listening to them a bit more — and to ourselves somewhat less.

The 28-seat swing that gave Democrats control of the House wasn’t even half the 63 seats Republicans won in 2010. Yet even that shellacking (to use Barack Obama’s word) did nothing to help Mitt Romney’s chances two years later. The Republican gain in the Senate (the result in Arizona isn’t clear at this writing) was more predictable in a year when so many red-state Democrats were up for re-election. But it underscores what a non-wave election this was.

It also underscores that while “the Resistance” is good at generating lots of votes, it hasn’t figured out how to turn the votes into seats. Liberals are free to bellyache all they want that they have repeatedly won the overall popular vote for the presidency and Congress while still losing elections, and that the system is therefore “rigged.”

But that’s the system in which everyone’s playing — and one they had no trouble winning in until just a few years ago. To complain about it makes them sound like whiners in a manner reminiscent of Trump in 2016, when he thought he was going to lose. It’s also a reminder that, in politics, intensity is not strategy. You have to be able to convert.

The Resistance didn’t convert.

It didn’t convert when it nominated left-wing candidates in right-leaning states like Florida and Georgia. It didn’t convert when it poured its money into where its heart was — a lithesome Texas hopeful with scant chance of victory — rather than where the dollars were most needed. It didn’t convert when it grew more concerned with the question of how much Trump did not pay in taxes than with the question of how much you pay in taxes.

It didn’t convert when Chuck Schumer chose to make Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court the decisive political test of the year. It didn’t convert when it turned his initial confirmation hearing into a circus. It didn’t convert when media liberals repeatedly violated ordinary journalistic standards by reporting the uncorroborated accusations against Kavanaugh that followed Christine Blasey Ford’s.

Above all, it didn’t convert the unconverted.

It doesn’t take a lot to get the average voter to tell you what he doesn’t like about Donald Trump: the nastiness, the divisiveness, the lying, the tweeting, the chaos, the epic boastfulness matched by bottomless self-pity. As my colleague Frank Bruni has astutely observed, Trump is as transparent as they come: You don’t need a Ph.D. in psychology to know that the president is an insecure narcissist with daddy issues.

Then again, what does the average voter think about the people who pompously style themselves “the Resistance”? I don’t just mean the antifa thugs and restaurant hecklers and the Farrakhan Fan Club wing of the women’s movement, though that’s a part of it.
Editors’ Picks
Live U.S. House Election Results
Live U.S. Senate Election Results
The Election in Pictures

I mean the rest of the Trump despisers, the people who detest not only the man but also contemn his voters (and constantly let them know it); the ones who heard the words “basket of deplorables” and said to themselves: Bingo. They measure their moral worth not through an effort at understanding but by the intensity of their disdain. They are — so they think — always right, yet often surprised by events.

I was a charter member of this camp. Intellectual honesty ought to compel us to admit that we achieved precisely the opposite of what we intended. Trumpism is more entrenched today than ever. The result of the midterms means, if nothing else, that the president survived his first major political test more than adequately. And unless Democrats change, he should be seen as the odds-on favorite to win in 2020.

To repeat: I’d hate to see that happen. I want Trump, and Trumpism, to lose. But if the Resistance party doesn’t find a way to become a shrewder, humbler opposition party, that’s not going to happen. The day Democrats take charge in the House would be a good opportunity to stop manning imaginary barricades, and start building real bridges to the other America.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/midterm-results-2020-democrats.html
 
OP
tehmackdaddy

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,200
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
Hillary Will Run Again
Reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand, Mrs. Clinton will easily capture the 2020 nomination.
By Mark Penn and Andrew Stein
Nov. 11, 2018 2:13 p.m. ET


Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle—back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.

It’s been quite a journey. In July 1999, Mrs. Clinton began her independent political career on retiring Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s farm in upstate New York. Her Senate platform included support for a balanced budget, the death penalty and incremental health-care reform. It was a decisive break from her early-1990s self. Hillary Clinton 2.0 was a moderate, building on the success of her communitarian “It Takes a Village” appeals and pledging to bring home the bacon for New York. She emphasized her religious background, voiced strong support for Israel, voted for the Iraq war, and took a hard line against Iran.

This was arguably the most successful version of Hillary Clinton. She captured the hearts and minds of New York’s voters and soared to an easy re-election in 2006, leaving Bill and all his controversies behind.

But Hillary 2.0 could not overcome Barack Obama, the instant press sensation. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton held fast to centrist positions that would have assured her victory in the general election. But progressive leaders and donors abandoned her for the antiwar Mr. Obama. Black voters who had been strong Clinton supporters in New York and Arkansas left her column to elect the first African-American president. History was made, but not by Mrs. Clinton. Though she won more delegates from Democratic primaries, activists in caucus states gave Mr. Obama, who had called her “likable enough,” the heartbreaking win.

Licking her wounds, Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state while she planned her comeback. It was during this time that the more liberal Hillary 3.0 emerged. She believed she could never win a primary as a moderate, so she entered the 2016 primary as a progressive like Mr. Obama. Then she moved further left as Sen. Bernie Sanders came closer to derailing her nomination. This time she was able to contain her opponent’s support, crucially by bringing African-American voters into her camp.

But Mrs. Clinton’s transformation during the primaries, especially on social and cultural issues, cost her an easy win against Donald Trump. As Hillary 3.0 catered to the coastal elites who had eluded her in 2008, Mr. Trump stole many of the white working-class voters who might have been amenable to the previous version. Finally she had the full support of the New York Times and the other groups that had shunned her for Mr. Obama—but only at the cost of an unforeseen collapse in support in the Midwest.

Claims of a Russian conspiracy and the unfairness of the Electoral College shielded Mrs. Clinton from ever truly conceding she had lost. She was robbed, she told herself, yet again. But after two years of brooding—including at book length—Mrs. Clinton has come unbound. She will not allow this humiliating loss at the hands of an amateur to end the story of her career. You can expect her to run for president once again. Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing.

Mrs. Clinton has a 75% approval rating among Democrats, an unfinished mission to be the first female president, and a personal grievance against Mr. Trump, whose supporters pilloried her with chants of “Lock her up!” This must be avenged.

Expect Hillary 4.0 to come out swinging. She has decisively to win those Iowa caucus-goers who have never warmed up to her. They will see her now as strong, partisan, left-leaning and all-Democrat—the one with the guts, experience and steely-eyed determination to defeat Mr. Trump. She has had two years to go over what she did wrong and how to take him on again.

Richard Nixon came back from his loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960 and won the presidency in 1968. He will be the model for winning again. Mrs. Clinton won’t travel the country in a van with Huma Abedin this time, doing small events and retail politics. Instead she will enter through the front door, mobilizing the army of professional women behind her, leveraging her social networks, and raking in donations. She will hope to emerge as an unstoppable force to undo Mr. Trump, running on the #MeToo movement, universal health care and gun control. Proud and independent, this time she will sideline Bill and Mr. Obama, limiting their role to fundraising.

The generation of Democrats who have been waiting to take over the party from the Clintons will be fuming that she is back and stealing their show. But they revealed themselves to be bungling amateurs in the Brett Kavanaugh nomination fight, with their laughable Spartacus moments. She will trounce them. Just as Mr. Trump cleared the field, Mrs. Clinton will take down rising Democratic stars like bowling pins. Mike Bloomberg will support her rather than run, and Joe Biden will never be able to take her on.

Don’t pay much attention to the “I won’t run” declarations. Mrs. Clinton knows both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama declared they weren’t running, until they ran. She may even skip Iowa and enter the race later, but rest assured that, one way or another, Hillary 4.0 is on the way.

Mr. Penn was a pollster and senior adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton from 1995-2008. Mr. Stein is a former Democratic Manhattan borough president and president of the New York City Council.

:tmack:
 
Top