Saturday, September 12, 2020

No, "Cuties" is not pedophilia. However...

OK, I watched the thing on NetFlix. I have been pondering quitting NetFlix for a while now, because while they do have interesting documentaries and some interesting comedies and dramas, they also have Leftist propagandistic crap. But my fellow right-wing patriots are off in their criticisms of it, although there still is definitely something to criticize.

So, is it pedophilia? No, quite the contrary in the way it is filmed; however, the message is still disturbing, because it reflects how the trashiest elements of ghetto culture are popular and even celebrated, and not enough emphasis upon how destructive that can be.

(a few spoiler alerts ahead, but I will try to avoid giving it all away)

The film is French, with English subtitles. It is about a Senegalese-French immigrant girl who gets involved with and wants to fit in with classmates who want to enter a dance competition, classmates who also have adopted the worst aspects of ghetto culture. The setting is clearly the lower classes of France and she and one other girl of that group clearly live in a tenement or housing project.

Along the way, the protagonist experiences her first period, teasing by peers, and other grade school bordering on middle school sad experiences and traumas. And yes, that teasing involves innuendo and disturbing aspects of children trying to grow up way too fast. The director herself, Maïmouna Doucouré, is Senegalese-French, and I suspect the film was meant to be autobiographical. Anyway, my fellow Americans, *never* think America has cornered the market for ghetto problems, (multi)cultural dysfunction, and immigration issues, the French clearly have these problems too.

Is the film pornographic? No, definitely not the way it was shot. Yes, their dance contest outfits and "twerking" or "freak" moves are disturbing, but it was not in any way cinematography filmed in such a way as to make that appealing. To the director's credit, you can see LOTS frowning parental faces when the girls do their terrible dance routine at the competition, and the protagonist does have a "OMG, what the hell am I doing here?" moment, after which she quits and runs off the stage. To quote a US Supreme Court justice, Potter Stewart, in an old Court case, Jocobvellis v. Ohio, which was also about alleged pornography, "I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

However, that such trashy culture is prevalent and pervasive in society today is disgusting to be sure, and THAT is what really creeps me out about the film. I suppose the director will use the "Hey, I'm just the messenger, not the message" defense, but I don't see an ending where rejection of trashy culture is emphasized. At the end of the film, the protagonist Amy, abandons both the traditional Senegalese wedding dress (her father's bigamy a sub-plot in the movie) and her sexy dancer's outfit, and, in normal pre-teen girl jeans and a t-shirt, her hair down, she goes out to play jump rope with a group of girls. Which is better, but a rejection of trashiness is *not emphasized enough* in my mind.

So, while the film is not as bad as it has been made out to be, the message is clearly *not good*.

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Lessons for the GOP From ‘Mr. Republican’

A great American Spectator piece about Robert Taft, by author Lee Edwards.

He is perhaps forgotten today, but before Donald Trump, before Ronald Reagan, before Barry Goldwater, there was Robert Taft. All of whom took on an out-of-touch "Eastern Establishment", what today we call Republican Globalists.

Indeed, the intra-party fights in the GOP truly are "deja vu all over again": Trump vs. the Bush dynasty, Reagan vs. Ford (and the beginning of the Bush dynasty), Goldwater vs. Rockefeller, Taft Vs. Dewey.

Lessons for the GOP From ‘Mr. Republican’

Bob Taft 2.0 is sorely needed, to stand up for liberty under law.

Before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater, there was Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio. From 1938 until his unexpected death in 1953, Taft led the Republican resistance to liberal Democrats and their Big Government philosophy. During the 2020 Republican National Convention, the GOP should consider the lessons of Robert Taft’s legacy.

Taft called himself a conservative, by which he meant someone “who knows and appreciates the importance of stability.” Echoing the 18th–century British parliamentarian Edmund Burke, he explained that “while I am willing and ready to consider changes, I want to be darned sure — darned sure — that they are really better than what we have.”

He was a federalist who insisted that the role of the federal government be limited to that of “a keeper of the peace, a referee of controversies, and an adjustor of abuses; not as a regulator of the people, or their business and personal activities.” The guiding principle of a legislator should be whether a policy “increases or decreases the liberty of our people.”

He looked to the Constitution as his North Star and agreed with the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. He supported an “equality of opportunity” whereby all men and women can rise from poverty and obscurity (as his grandfather Alphonso did) according to their ability and ambition. He was a consistent supporter of civil rights, supporting anti-lynching laws and desegregation of the armed forces, opposing the KKK and state poll taxes. He approved the Supreme Court’s decision requiring states to furnish equal education to citizens of all classes.

Taft insisted that any proposal for federal action must be judged by its effect on the liberty of the individual, the community, industry, and labor. “Such liberty,” he said, “cannot be sacrificed to any theoretical improvement from government control or government spending.” But he was not a radical libertarian; he accepted a limited welfare role for government. He sponsored modest federal aid to education, health, and housing with the condition that the administration of the programs be placed in the hands of state and local authorities, not the federal government.

In the political summer of 1948, every poll reported that if President Harry Truman sought reelection, he would be defeated. The polls were very wrong. In the most unexpected outcome in modern presidential politics, Truman beat New York Gov. Thomas Dewey by more than two million popular votes and by 305 to 189 in the Electoral College.

Conservatives hoped that the party had learned a crucial lesson: Do not nominate someone who waffles on the issues. Taft argued that the Republican Party could not survive unless it turned away from “the Deweys and the Eastern internationalists in general.” He was certain that “millions of his kind of Republican had not been voting for years in presidential elections” because the candidates were always Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Here was the argument for courting the Forgotten American, the Silent Majority, the Moral Majority, the Tea Party, and Midwest populists that would be advanced by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Donald Trump in the decades ahead.

Going into the 1952 national convention, Taft was the almost certain nominee with over 500 delegates pledged to him, with 604 needed to nominate. But he faced an immensely popular opponent — Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had led the Allies to victory in World War II. The delegates appreciated all that Sen. Taft, “Mr. Republican,” had done for the party, but every poll showed Eisenhower easily defeating any Democrat by a wide margin. Republicans loved Bob Taft, but they loved victory more. Ike was nominated on the first ballot.

With Taft’s all-out help and a united Republican party, Ike defeated liberal Democrat Adlai Stevenson easily, gaining 55.4 percent of the popular vote and sweeping the Electoral College by 442-89. His long coattails helped produce Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. For the first time since 1930, Republicans controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. It seemed that a moderate president and a conservative senator would forge a unique alliance for the good of their party and the country. Tragically, in just six short months, Robert Taft, the requisite link between the White House and Capitol Hill, was dead of cancer.

But his principled approach to politics lives on. It’s preserved, for example, in John F. Kennedy’s best-selling work, Profiles in Courage, his popular study of eight consequential senators in American history, which is required reading in many high school history classes. Taft and his principles are the subject of an excellent study by the conservative historians Russell Kirk and James McClellan, who discuss his most significant accomplishments.

Taft revived the GOP during the postwar period and restored an opposition when parliamentary government had fallen into decay throughout much of the world. He stood for liberty under law — “the liberties of all classes of citizens, in all circumstances.” He contended for “a humane economy,” in which the benefits of American industry would be extended to every citizen. He helped restore the balance between management and labor with the Taft–Hartley Act.

In a Senate eulogy delivered after Taft’s passing, Kennedy nominated Taft for Man of the Year, remarking that like Churchill, his character and personality were so powerful that his influence would “continue to endure after death.” In Profiles in Courage, Kennedy praised Taft for his succinct definition of liberty: “When I say liberty, I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life.”

That was the creed by which Sen. Taft lived, Kennedy said. More than that, Robert Taft sought to provide an atmosphere in America “in which others could do likewise.” Given the toxic atmosphere that now pervades our politics and our culture, the need for another Bob Taft grows more urgent with every passing day.
Unfortunately, Robert Taft still got smeared by a toxic atmosphere in politics even then. For example, a rather mild statement cautioning against "victor's justice" in the Nuremburg Trials led to accusations of anti-Semitism, even though his strong support for the foundation of Israel was well known. Others took him to task for his previous isolationism and hesitancy about the USA taking on more a global role, although after Korea he changed there too.

Monday, June 01, 2020

5 months or so to Election Day 2020 - A prophecy

What will happen between now and then?

The Democrat Party Deep State, along with the "NeverTrump" GOPee quislings, are going to:

1) Inflame civil unrest
2) Stoke racial tension and violence
3) Commit mail-in and non-citizen ballot fraud
4) Increase technological censorship of patriots 5) Extend the pandemic panic, when it is utterly unwaranted given the damage it will do to must of us 6) Hurt economy with #5 above 7) Stage fake "White Supremacist" terror events 9) Weaponize their media further than they already have.

Tuesday, April 07, 2020

Before you vote for "higher education" funding....

....think again. You or your children will be made dumber by going to the University of California system unless you or they pursue a strictly STEM curriculum. Exhibit number - I lost count:

Because OF COURSE there would be a "Virtual Healing Circle". Like that would do any damn good to stop ZOOM hacking, if any actually even happened.

And this is on the MERCED campus, which is the smallest and among the most rural of the UC campuses, with the lowest percentage tenured faculty, in an area heretofore not left-wing in any sense of the word. In fact, back in Cold War days, the region had Castle Air Force Base.

And yet, every other year in every other ballot initiative election there is some Proposition asking for more funding for the UC and CSU systems. If even a cent goes to nonsense "administrators" like these, vote NO.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

More nonsense from The University of California

And again, this is from UC Merced ,the smallest, least radical, and least tenured of campuses. You or your children will be taught how misspell and how not to think critically at all:

From: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 1:00 PM
Subject: Help Us Celebrate 150 Years of Womxn in the UC

A Message from the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion

Dear Campus Community, 

The UC Regents passed a memorial resolution on Oct. 3, 1870, “that young ladies be admitted into the university on equal terms in all respects with young men.” A UC Berkeley committee has been working to coordinate a yearlong celebration of 150th anniversary of that resolution, and we have been invited to join in. 

One of the central aspects of this celebration is a UC-wide history project designed to examine the history of womxn and diversity on the all the UC campuses and to disseminate this history widely as part of a permanent archive. The project will feature the contributions and lives of notable students, alumni, faculty, staff and friends of the UC campuses.

I would like to invite you to submit names (photos and short bios are welcome, too) of notable womxn associated with UC Merced, which will be considered for inclusion on the 150W website.

For example: 

·         womxn who have made a profound different at UC Merced;
·         institutional “firsts” (e.g. first womxn Ph.D., first tenured womxn, first womxn dean, etc.); or 
·         names of womxn (alumni or past/current employees) who have significant national or international accomplishments.

We know it is not possible to submit the names of all womxn associated with our campus, and thus I encourage you to select a representative subset which illustrates the wide range of womxn who have been a part of UC Merced.

Please send the above information to by 5 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 25, for review by members of the 150W steering committee at Berkeley.

Thank you for helping us ensure our celebration is inclusive.

Dania Matos
Associate Chancellor and Chief Diversity Officer
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

I remember when the Leftist militant lesbians insisted upon calling themselves "womyn", but "womxn" is even stupider than that.

And this kind of nonsense goes on in a followup email. I am sure no instructor there, let alone any student, would dare to call this nonsense out:

From: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:00 AM
Subject: Comment Period for Policy: Gender Recognition and Lived Name 

A Message From the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion 

Dear Campus Community,

The University of California Office of the President invites comments on a proposed Presidential Policy: Gender Recognition and Lived Name. It is proposed that the policy be fully implemented by UC campuses and locations by July 1, 2021, and it includes the following key issues:

The university must provide three equally recognized gender options on university-issued documents and information systems — female, male and nonbinary.

The university must provide an efficient process for students and employees to retroactively amend their gender designations and lived names on university-issued documents and in information systems.

The legal name of university students, employees, alumni and affiliates, if different than the individual’s lived name, must be kept confidential and must not be published on documents or displayed in information systems that do not require a person’s legal name.

The proposed policies are posted on UC Merced’s Policies website. 

Employees who want to provide comments on the proposed revisions can submit them to the UC Merced Policy Office by May 14, 2020, by emailing

Best regards,

Dania Matos
Associate Chancellor and Chief Diversity Officer
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
University of California, Merced | 5200 N. Lake Road, Merced, CA 95343 

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

But Trump increased the national debt! Waaaah!

Originally on Ace of Spades blog, but it so bears repeating. Especially since this Strange New Concern about the national debt was utterly unmentioned when the Obama Administration was unrolling each and every massive new government social(ist) spending program:

Fake-conservative politicians and pundits have been unmasked in the Trump era, and now another scam perpetrated by the GOPe and Conservative Inc seems to have run its course – the “Budget Hawk” fraud is over. For much of the past 40 years, fiscally conservative “budget hawks” have ensured that no conservative priorities are ever tackled because everything is subordinate to “the budget crisis.” A crisis they never did anything about. The key to the scam was “political capital” – it had to be reserved for the big battle to reign in “entitlements.” GOP politicians would refuse to tackle issues such as securing the border, or exiting from climate agreements, or pressing our deadbeat NATO allies to pay their dues, because it would waster precious political capital. Even worse, the “fiscally conservative budget hawks” refused to even cut “minor” wasteful spending such as aid to foreign despots who hate the USA, or funding for public radio leeches who also hate the USA. The budget hawks told us cutting these dollars were just “drops in the ocean.”
Ace wrote a great post about a dozen years ago explaining that the only way Americans would allow entitlements to be cut is if we eliminated every drop-in-the-ocean sacred spending cow first, so that people would realize that entitlements were the only thing left to cut. But our cowardly politicians also figured this out. Refusing to cut funding to PBS isn’t a bug – it’s a feature. They KNOW they will never have to cut entitlements, because it CANNOT happen if the small stuff isn’t cut first. And they won’t let you forget – cutting drop-in-the-ocean spending programs would waste that valuable political capital that must be reserved for the big budget battle. Even worse, the only time the budget hawks will oppose “drop in the ocean” spending is if it is for a conservative priority. They can find money to give to the PLO, but they oppose funding border security for fiscal reasons. Similarly with tax cuts – the budget hawks anguish about every lost dollar of tax revenue if taxes are cut, but they sure don’t mind tax dollars being steered to fund Planned Parenthood – dollars that could be cut to offset the tax cuts.
 Donald Trump may not be championing fiscal responsibility, but he is actively advancing the rest of the conservative agenda. There is a very long list of conservative agenda items that Trump has followed through on, most importantly border security, but so much more - exiting the climate accord, moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, Keystone, tax cuts, regulatory reform, refugee screening, the travel ban, etc. None of this would happen with a President McRyanBushRomney, because they’d conserve their valuable political capital for the big budget battle that was never going to happen.
Conservatives are sick of the budget hawk fraud so we elected someone who will at least advance the rest of our agenda if budget restraint isn’t going to happen. And not to belittle the deficit issue, but for 40 years I’ve been promised that apocalypse is imminent if I don’t keep electing GOP budget hawks. They did nothing and the apocalypse hasn’t happened. It’s a little like the imminent climate catastrophes that haven’t happened. Yes – governments can spend themselves broke (see Greece & Illinois) but conservatives have come to understand that “the deficit” is also an excuse for not fulfilling any other promises made to conservative voters.

Friday, October 04, 2019

The Televised Speech Donald Trump Should Make

DJT needs to hold a televised address to the American People, and lay out the following, as an explanation of what Your President is doing, and to address the loose talk of "betraying the Country" being advanced by Congress:

1. That the Russia investigation was an intentional hoax by Hilliary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Democrat Party, that wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and pitted American against American in a cynical attempt to overturn a lawful election.

2. That the American Republic requires that all parties to the process accept the outcome of duly held elections. Which did not occur post 2016, evidenced by the Russia-collusion hoax. As such, those who pushed the fake collusion narrative are in fact threatening the foundations of our Republic.

3. Therefore, it is of the highest importance for the US Government, with full force of the Executive and the Attorney General, get to the bottom of the origins of the Russia hoax, including obtaining information from an investigation that was already undertaken on this by Ukraine prior to any US request.

4. That to this purpose the President has asked, and will continue to ask, for assistance of Ukraine, for all information it has as to any hacking of US servers, and origins of the "Russia collusion" hoax.

5. This is all the more so as the DNC never even let the allegedly hacked server be investigated by the FBI, role of Crowdstrike, and that Donna Brazile has admittedly destroyed the server. So having destroyed the direct evidence, we must now rely on other sources. But this was their doing.

6. It is dishonest to characterize requests for appropriate information from any/all governments, so the US can get to the bottom of actual crimes, including as to who hacked what, or if it was covered up, as "impeachable" or "betraying the US"

7. If there were US officials such as former VP Biden engaging in selling his office and pressuring Ukraine on behalf of his son, it is also in the interests of the US to know this, and to be sure this is punished so that US diplomacy can be trusted abroad.

8. Anyone claiming that investigating what appear to be actual crimes is "impeachable" is simply trying to deflect and obstruct justice, and can go pound sand.

Tuesday, November 06, 2018

Election Guide, November 2018 edition

As I stated back in June 2018, I wonder if I should bother, given the four recently changed aspects of voting I mentioned last time around for the June primary, to wit:

1.  The “Top Two Open Primary”, or legally the Nonpartisan Blanket Primary, which means that the top two contenders face off against each other in the General Election of November, regardless of Party.
2.  Mass voting by mail, with the potential for outright fraud, with “late discovery” manufactured and mailed in ballots and everything else,
3.  A moribund California Republican Party, which could not get to be the #2 primary winner in all too many races, and
4.  For State ballot Propositions, the full and complete “TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW” is no longer there in the Official Voter Information Guide.

But civic duty is still civic duty!  So on I go…..


This image says it all:

Now you are probably thinking, “But Curmudgeon, here you are just telling us to Vote 100% Republican or Die, and all of the Democrats are now Commiecrats, and yadda yadda yadda…”

Well, in California that really is the case and the choices really are that stark. In California, the “Blue Dog”, “Boll Weevil”, or “Joe Six-pack” moderate Democrats, that might exist in other Midwestern, Southern or Eastern states, are *extinct*.

Even if you think “Make America Great Again” is a trite and corny slogan, what is their response to it? Either “America Was Never Great”, or worse “Make California Mexico Again”. I am not kidding.

Is the Republican Party’s new flamboyant standard bearer, Donald Trump, uncouth? Sure, but I really don’t care, because that bar was already lowered two decades ago.  And for once, a Republican confronted by a media slanted against him *fights back*. As Abe Lincoln said of the loutish Hiram Ulysses Grant, “I can’t spare that man—he fights!”

I prefer Uncouth Patriots to false Polite Traitors. I take that back-- they NOT even polite Traitors anymore—witness the actual “AntiF(irst)A(mendment)” Mob Violence many of them have been encouraging and stirring up, from foaming at the mouth Maxine Waters to smarmy Charles Schumer. A Republican Congress candidate in the East Bay area was actually physically attacked and beaten up.

GOVERNOR:  John Cox, or Perdition. The choice is that stark.

His sadly favored by the polls opponent, Gavin Newsom, first as mayor of San Francisco and then as Lieutenant Governor, epitomizes all that is wrong and incoherent with California politics. He presided over a city that in the name of ecology bans plastic straws, yet neglects the ecology of basic sanitation, to the point where many city blocks *smell of human poop* from the defecation of homeless people.

I am not joking—try driving to an event or shopping in Union Square, looking for parking in the nearby Tenderloin District, and walking back to Union Square with block after block of this wafting odor, watching your step along the way. Or ride the mass transit into Downtown San Francisco, come up from the Market Street BART or MUNI subway routes, and smell it and watch your step for block after block. Sometimes you will even see people in the act of pooping and peeing. Someone even created a computer phone application to report the poop, “SnapCrap”.

And the solution to impoverished homeless people who cannot afford a place to sleep in that city? Not rounding up and incarceration of any of the poopers, nope, not that.  As Lieutenant Governor, Gavin Newsom offers “Sanctuary” (Sic) to more impoverished and uneducated people, who are not citizens nor legal aliens, making the housing crunch all the more severe. All. For. Votes.

Originally, in the June Primary, I had preferred Travis Allen over John Cox, and I feared that John Cox was another wealthy dilettante from another state who has not seen how legislation works its way through “the Bill Mill” (or often does not). However, John Cox is hammering hard upon the real issues, and Travis Allen is earnestly and loyally stumping for Mr. Cox. I am pleased with this Republican Team Spirit, no matter how uphill the fight.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR:  Ed Hernandez, Older and lesser of the two Evils

Between DEM Party Stalinist apparatchik Eleni Kounalakis, and DEM Party Trotskyite Ed Hernandez, it is a matter of which one is less nauseous. Like Gavin Newsom, BOTH epitomize all that is wrong and incoherent with California politics.  

However, consider their ages. With Leftists, Youth (or the lack of it) matters. Eleni Kounalakis is 51, and with her war chest and the nod of the Party bosses, she could well entrench herself politically for years to come. 

Ed Hernandez is 61 and ten years older, has much less Party and money backing, and he might actually rub the wrong way all of the special interests that have made their Faustian bargains with the ruling Demunist Party. Like the people who supported the geriatric dissenter Bernie Sanders for President over the entrenched and younger Party apparatchik Hillary Clinton, I say that if you must vote for one of the two, vote for Hernandez instead. 


An actual election law attorney will be very helpful here, and he is one.

CONTROLLER:  Konstantinos Roditis

TREASURER:  Greg Conlon

Greg Conlon has tried for this office before, and lost before, to John Chiang in 2014 and to Phil Angelides in 2002 before that. He has also tried for the US Senate, the State Senate, and the State Assembly. A “happy warrior”, who gets back up when he is knocked down.  Let’s give him one last hurrah.

ATTORNEY GENERAL:  Steven C. Bailey 


Another veteran of the California Political Psychic Wars, like Greg Conlon for Treasurer above.

U.S. SENATOR:   Dianne Feinstein, although I know it’s hard to stomach.

“And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said, “Stick to the Devil you know….””—Rudyard Kipling

Like the Lieutenant Governor contest above, it is hard to be happy with either DEM Party Stalinist apparatchik Dianne Feinstein, or DEM Party Trotskyite Kevin DeLeon.  

Moreover, it is VERY tempting to punish Dianne Feinstein for her disgusting stunt with respect to Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh’s hearing was made into even more of a Kangaroo Court and even more of an accusation by false hearsay than the hearing for Clarence Thomas was, and I did not think that was possible. False and utterly bogus accusations not just going back to younger adult times, but to adolescent minor times. I am waiting for the Demunists to try to destroy a judge based upon alleged grade school bratty behavior next.

However, again AGE is the decisive factor.

The “Very Old Guard” Dianne Feinstein is 85 years old. There is even a chance, however unlikely, that a Governor John Cox could appoint her successor when finally she steps down, or more likely, finally makes that trip across the River Styx.

Meanwhile, her opponent Kevin DeLeon is only 51.

Better to have the Senator senile, no matter how revolting her final actions have become.


The principle here is:  Does the judge act as an Umpire or Referee in the Game of Politics, or as a sleazy semi-permanent Player who can never be called out? With that principle in mind:

Carol Corrigan:  YES, keep her.

Leondra R. Kruger:  NO, dump her.


His leading opponent, Tony K. Thurmond, is endorsed by Senator Kamala Harris and all the teacher unions. I will leave it at that.

On a related note, Kamala Harris is a worse Senator than even Barbara Boxer was, or Dianne Feinstein has become. At least the two old witches won their election campaigns fair and square and did their homework when pushing their agendas, however loathsome. Kamala Harris gained her first political appointments, and then election campaign backing, by taking off her clothes and spreading her legs and acting as a “sugar baby” mistress for DEM party “sugar daddy” chieftains, most notably state Party Chairman Willie Brown. I am not joking and I am not just writing that because I like to trash leftist Dems. She literally *slept* her way to the top of the California political heap.


Prop 1 - Unaffordable Housing Bonds: NO.  

Bonds, meaning DEBT, are only appropriate when an actual capital intensive but long lasting public project (like a freeway, a dam, a community center) is to be built. And there is a bit of that in this.

However, government housing projects, where people live but have no sense of community, have a wretched and unhappy track record. As the old and sweetly sad reggae song went,

But most of this initiative isn’t even that. It is in large part borrowing for tenant assistance programs, so they can better rent existing housing stock. And the rest of you already trying to rent housing who don’t qualify for those? You get to pay off the bonds and you get your rental market bid up!

Prop 2 – Bonds for Homeless Shelters: NO.  

On one level this *is* seductively tempting. Mentally ill Homeless pooping on the streets? Why not build places with toilets for them to be placed where they can defecate and maybe get the help that they need? And this is an initiative with bonds funding actual construction capital projects.

However, the money to pay off those bonds will come from an existing tax which is currently used to fund mental health services for those very same unfortunate people.  This measure will take some money out of mental health services and use it instead to pay off housing bonds.  Result: fewer mental health services.

Prop 3 – Bonds for Parks, AGAIN???  NO, in fact hell NO.

First, even if you like parkland watershed bonds like this, WE JUST PASSED AN INITIATIVE JUST LIKE THIS ONE LAST JUNE. Are you telling me that all those projects were already finished in a few months?

Second, nothing is more annoying than a proposition that claims to have “water supply” provisions, that does not build a single dam to store it. Acquiring more watershed park area is not truly increasing supply.

Third, the State cannot maintain the vast parkland area it already has. It probably should be selling off the parks that hardly anyone enjoys, or which have no known endangered species, and making them productive ranches or something similar again.

Fourth, Bonds, meaning DEBT, are only appropriate when an actual capital intensive but long lasting project, like a Dam, HINT HINT, is to be built. Borrowing for current maintenance of existing parks is folly.

Fifth, too many initiatives like this were approved in the past, LIKE THE ONE LAST JUNE, and we are still paying those off. Vote NO. 

Meanwhile, Governor Brown has already signed legislation aiming towards year-round water restrictions of 55 gallons per person per day – about the per capita water usage of Uganda – effective in two years, even if you’re bailing floodwaters out of your living room one future winter day because the dams were not built to trap and catch them.

Prop 4 – For the Children’s Sake Don’t: NO.  

This bond initiative, unlike other sham bond initiatives, is actually building new public goods, so there is THAT in its favor. This will mean about $1.5 billion in additional debt (about $260 per household in interest and principal) for construction of children’s hospital facilities.

However, there is an Elephant in the Room. How much of those overcrowded children’s hospitals are due to illegal alien mothers making that “anchor baby dash” to birth on American soil so they can definitely stay?  

Prop 5 – Encouraging “empty nesters” to downsize: YES.  

Proposition 13 capped property taxes at one percent of your home’s purchase price, plus two percent per year.  One problem: old people held on to bigger homes they no longer needed in order to keep their lower property tax.  Prop. 60 partially improved this, allowing seniors (older than 55) to keep their lower assessment if they moved into a smaller home.  This measure says they can keep it wherever they are moving, even if they move into one of those “Mello-Roos” special property tax assessment areas which were established as an end run around Proposition 13 of 1978. 

Prop 6 – Stop Paying Through the Nozzle: YES.  

If I saw lots of new road projects being built with the higher gasoline taxes recently imposed (thinking of the proposition passed last June attempting to restrict gas taxes to just road construction and maintenance), I could vote NO here. But I don’t. I see a useless “high speed” (sic) choo-choo getting a new lease on life.

And the existing taxes are only scheduled to soar ever higher.  When fully phased in and combined with previous taxes, you’ll be paying $2 per gallon in taxes before you buy your first drop of gas.  Californians already have the secondhighest state taxes per gallon for gas (only PA exceeding, and PA does not have environmental fuel blend costs on top of that), but we’re always at the bottom in per capita spending for roads.  That isn’t the fault of taxpayers for not paying enough taxes.

Prop 7 – Let’s change “Daylight Savings Time”: YES.  

If you are tired of the utterly pointless “spring-ahead-fall-back” ritual, this prop’s for you.  Initially it was six months of spring forward and six months of fall back, but lately it has been nearly eight months of spring forward and just over four months of fall back, ostensibly to “save” more of that precious daylight. This initiative would allow the legislature to adopt daylight savings time in California year-round.  And let’s just do that. I would rather go to work in the dark than come home in it.

Prop 8 – Price controls for Dialysis: NO.  

This is price control for dialysis – it purports to limit dialysis prices to 115 percent of costs.  Dialysis prices – in fact, all health care prices – are far too high. But does this initiative increase dialysis supply, or decrease dialysis demand? No and no. It is the same Commiecrat Rent Control Mentality (read on for Prop 10 below).  This proposition assures that any new investments in dialysis care won’t be made in California – leaving patients with fewer options to get treatment.  That’s why this measure, which promises to help kidney patients, is opposed by the National Kidney Foundation.

Prop 9 – (Not forgetting it; the courts struck it off the ballot).

Prop 10 – Allowing Local Rent Control again: NO.  

The Demunist repertoire of terrible ideas rise again.  We have not heard much of bad ideas like rent control for over two decades. That is because back in 1995, when Republican Pete Wilson was still Governor and enough Republicans could still win legislative office, The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act was passed, which nullified local rent control initiatives and laws, on the grounds that cities and counties that passed such laws were only dumping housing problems onto adjacent cities and counties. Such laws can now only happen by state legislature level action, effectively locking them into a Political Crypt. 

What this initiative does is open the locked political crypt again, remove the wooden stakes, and allow Local Rent Control Vampires to once again rise. Keep the wooden stakes firmly in place and the crypt locked.

I live in an area with Slavic immigrants. Among them, there is an old Soviet-era saying, “What good is a free bus ticket in a city with no buses?”  The same is true of rent.  Rent controls are very effective at drying up the supply of rental housing in any community where they’re imposed. Those currently renting do very well, but they hold on to their old apartments and landlords stop building new ones.  Presto: nothing to rent – but at a very affordable price.

Prop 11 – Breaks for Ambulance workers: ???  

The argument for this is that California’s idiotic labor laws forbid ambulance crews from responding to an accident during lunch and other breaks.  However, how enforced is this actually and how many emergency personnel actually do not drop what they are doing if true tragedy strikes?

Prop 12 – Tiny Houses for Food: NO.  

Here’s the latest from the “animals are people too” crowd.  Back in 2008, Californians foolishly passed an initiative forbidding caging livestock and poultry in spaces smaller than their behavioral preferences, because, after all, who wants a grumpy steak?  Among other things, California egg production dropped, prices surged 33 percent and it still sucks to be a chicken.  This makes matters worse by imposing square footage requirements – think of it as a “Tiny House” mandate for your dinner, paid by you. Remember that the same people pushing this want you to eat like you live under Pol Pot.

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Halloween pre-election day food for thought

215 The Left is trying to incite the whole plot point of Halloween III Season of the Witch.Posted by: Anna Puma (HQCaR) at October 31, 2018 03:51 PM (V9pqX)

Looking at their strategy of incite and smear, this really sums it up!

Monday, June 18, 2018

The Howling About Separating Illegal Immigrants From Their Kids Is Just An Attack On Enforcing Immigration Laws

"The Trump administration is currently under attack by people from both sides of the political aisle for trying to actually administer federal law as written by Congress. The law, of course, is federal immigration law and the problem is that an alliance of administrations, Republican and Democrat, decided, for different reasons, that ignoring illegal immigration, or making a show of enforcing it for us rubes who are concerned about it, was preferable in every way to actually enforcing the law of the land.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration seems set on carrying out President Trump’s campaign promises and that is causing angst everywhere. And predictable hyperbole.
This is, as I see it, the situation. It really isn’t complicated. It is a very basic exercise is what in military operations is known as “branches and sequels.” (Keep in mind that persons following the law and presenting themselves at border crossing points and declaring they are seeking asylum are not separated from their children. This is solely about illegal immigrants.) Actions take place that lead to either alternative steps or next steps.
When people cross and they are apprehended, what do you do? Do you send them back across the border, if they are Mexican, and let them try again at some other place? If they are other than Mexican (OTM), do you detain them or do you cite them an let them go? Or do you, as has been our policy since April 18, detain all crossers, charge them with a misdemeanor offense, get a guilty plea, and deport them?
If you are asking why anyone would bother showing up for a hearing that will result in their deportation rather than simply disappearing, then you have just identified the key reason why we are unable to control illegal immigration.
If you want to detain illegals then you have to decide what to do with them. Unaccompanied adults isn’t a problem. Unaccompanied children, like those who swamped the border during the last couple of years of the Obama administration, really aren’t a problem either. The problem is minors accompanied by adults, who may or may not be related to them, which are classified as “families.”
When a “family” is apprehended crossing illegally you have a whole new range of problems. The adults are going to be charged and processed and deported. What do you do with the children while this happens? You have three options. You can parole the children to relatives already residing in the US legally. This brings with it another array of issues. Before the government can do that, it has to do at least a cursory background check on the “relatives” to ensure they are related to the children and that the home is suitable. So you still have the “what do we do with them now?” problem. You could, in theory, establish “family” detention centers. This, of course, brings its own difficulties.
We know a non-trivial number of the adult members of these family groups aren’t actually related to the children, they are smugglers. Statistically, a certain number of the adults will be criminals. How do you run a co-ed (“mothers” and “fathers” will be detained here) facility with children and protect the vulnerable from being assaulted, sexually or otherwise? What about those cases, which exist, of children being brought across in sex trafficking operations? Do you want to house them with their captor?
This leads us to the obvious solution in which the paramount concern is the safety of the child. Your options are either a pre-certified foster care facility or a more industrial scale mass detention facility. In both cases, “families are ripped apart.”
At one time, we conservatives mocked liberals for trying to make policy based on feelings. And yet, in this case, that is exactly what is happening. If you read Laura Bush’s op-ed today, it is a triumph of feelings over reality. At no point in the op-ed does Mrs. Bush pose a solution..other than returning to the status quo ante where crossing into the US with children was a get-out-of-jail-free card if you were apprehended. What the Trump administration is doing is correct. If Congress doesn’t like the optics, Congress should act. We should not make people who drag their kids across the border into martyrs of government oppression. These people have exactly one person to blame for their kids being taken away for a few days. Themselves.
Placing adults of unknown background and children in a detention facility together is going to lead to a lot of very bad things happening. This will lead to another outcry about the inhumanity of detaining “families” altogether. This will lead to the return of the catch-and-release policy. This creates more DREAMers. And makes crossing into the US with children the preferred method of travel. 
It is difficult to view this debate, and who is saying what, and not come to the conclusion that this is more of a reaction to the Trump administration’s attempt to be serious about protecting our borders than it is about anything to do with separating children from alleged parents. It is much more about preventing the Border Patrol and Immigration from doing their job than it is about any kind of humanitarian impulse."

Friday, June 15, 2018

Leftist Lesbians Share The Truth

In light of the recent Court victory for freedom of religion in the face of the Gay Goons, one picture says it all:

Ace of Spades blogger Oregon Muse nails it:

"Look at the sign in the photo...No doubt the person holding it is a brainwashed progressive, but despite that, I actually agree with it. Because if it were "about the cake", homosexuals can easily find other bakers to design wedding cakes for them. It's not like Christians have a lock on the bakery business. It's not about baking a cake, it's about forcing your political enemies to submit to your terms and then rubbing their faces in it. Normal people can easily imagine a country that is big enough to serve both groups, where the owners of bakery 'A' do not want to do gay weddings, but bakery 'B' down the street is happy to do gay weddings, and there needn't be any quarreling about it. Everybody can live happily side by side. But progressives don't want this. The very existence of people who think differently than they do fills them with mindless fury. Even if the country were divided between 99% progressives and 1% normal people, the progressives would be constantly whining and crying about that 1%. Because in their view, forced unanimity is better than freedom."
And worse than that, in some cases, we must affirm their delusions too--OR ELSE:

Tuesday, June 05, 2018

For What It's Worth: California Primary Voting Guide

Election time again, although I wonder if I should bother. In the past, I always thought that if I did not vote, then I had no right to complain about the aftermath. However, FOUR recently changed aspects of voting have changed my thoughts on this:

1. The “Top Two Open Primary”, or legally the Nonpartisan Blanket Primary, which means that the top two contenders face off against each other in the General Election of November.

This system is vulnerable to chicanery and “sabotage voting”, and a well-entrenched incumbent can effectively “pick” his or her opponent for the November election, by covertly lending “Support” to whom said incumbent will easily defeat in the General Election. The corrupt weasel Governor Evin Edwards of Louisiana (another state that has such a wretched primary process) did this in 1991, allowing an otherwise inconsequential creep named David Duke his 15 minutes of fame.

We need Real Primaries again, where Republicans pick a primary Republican, Democrats pick a primary Democrat, and other parties pick whoever they pick for their party primaries.

2. Voting by mail.

The potential for outright fraud, with “late discovery” manufactured and mailed in ballots and everything else, is significant here. As if “Motor Voter”, also known as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which made in-person registration less likely and also opened the door to more voter fraud, was not bad enough.

3. A moribund California Republican Party....

....which could not even bring itself to get a nominee on the ballot for my State Assembly district and my House of Representatives Congressional District. If I had known about this in advance and it was not too costly (in terms of either money or time) to do so, I would have thrown my own name on the ballot, even with no chance of winning, just for giggles. Maybe when I can retire—if I am still in this state and have not given up on California altogether and moved to Reno—I will see what I can do if I have time to throw at it.

On the other hand, in several races, more than one Republican is running for that office, dividing their minority party’s primary vote and insuring that it is Democrat vs. Democrat in the General Election of November, given the “Top Two” Open Primary mess described above. Moreover, in the Governor’s race, rather than champion an experienced Assemblyman or State Senator who has come up from the trenches, they chose another wealthy dilettante from another state (See Governor Endorsement below).

For many points of view, there will need to be a “Pre-Primary” in order to pick the champion of said point of view in the Official Primary. The California Republican Party could have decided which one of theirs to officially endorse in the “Political Party Endorsements” section of the Official Voter Information Guide, but could not get itself together to even do *that*.

4. For State ballot Propositions, the full and complete “TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW” is no longer there in the Official Voter Information Guide.

This former staple of ballot initiative Propositions, with the changes to (and strikeouts of) existing laws as was appropriate and necessary, is no longer presented with the summary of each ballot initiative Proposition in the Official Voter Information Guide we receive, and you have to send away for it.

While for many initiatives this is not necessary, as the initiative is simple and summed up well by the Legislative Analyst Summary and by the Official Arguments For And Against said initiative, in some cases it really does---and still no doubt will—pay to “read the fine print”, or the exact Text Of the Proposed Law, as the case may be. I sense the proverbial wool will be pulled over our eyes as a result, and perhaps we should just NOT have ballot initiatives or Propositions anymore and just go back to our representatives in the State Assembly and State Senate as was originally intended in the California Constitution, before the whole Populist idea of Initiative and Referendum plebiscites began in the late 19th and early 20th century, but that was a long time ago. We probably should repeal the 17th Amendment and no longer have direct election of Senators too, which would cause more things to be resolved at the state and local levels, but that is a done deal.

As a result, the temptation to not bother with this is strong. On the other hand, Nick has a tradition to uphold! So on I go…..

GOVERNOR: Travis Allen

Of the two major Republican candidates with an actual chance on the ballot, Mr. Allen’s stances against so much of what has ruined California are refreshing, and he is in the State Assembly 72nd District, so he understands how “The Bill Mill” in Sacramento actually works, or does not work.

Unfortunately, it appears that rather than pick Mr. Allen, the Establishment of the California Republican Party, such as it is, has decided to endorse John Cox, another wealthy dilettante from another state who has not seen how legislation works its way through “the Bill Mill” (or often does not).

And what is truly sad about this is that, had the California GOP united behind one candidate, a Republican Governor might actually finish second in the “Top Two” Primary and be a possibility, given the FOUR major contenders running in the Dem lineup dividing up their vote:

1. The utterly smarmy Gavin Newsom (Dem-Stalinist)

2. The Reconquista 5th columnist Antonio Villaraigosa (Dem-Trotskyite)

3. The slightly better Delaine Eastin, whose record as State Superintendent of Schools was lackluster at best

4. The somewhat better John Chiang, but as a former State Controller and now Treasurer, he really ought to know better about California’s rickety finances.

Leave it to the California GOP Establishment to insure defeat. But we might as well show our support for Travis Allen and make it clear to them that we do not need another wealthy dilettante parachuting into California, and what we really need is a candidate coming up from the State Assembly or State Senate, who knows how hard it can be to be a minority party, and how laws are created.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: David R. Hernandez. NOT to be confused with Democrat Ed Hernandez who is also on the ballot.

Sadly, the Dems are lined up behind Eleni Kounalakis, while the Republicans appear to have an “Amateur Hour” going on here, with 5 different and not well known contenders, so as with the Governor’s race above, this is probably a done deal. Still, I think Mr. David R. Hernandez, NOT Ed Hernandez, is the best of the lot. His webpage here, and his Facebook here

Anyone with a slogan “Make California Great Again” is awesome, anyone Mexican American who has not been demagogued on the immigration issue is awesome, and anyone who brought himself up by the proverbial bootstraps from humble origins is awesome.


An actual election law attorney will be very helpful here, and he is one.

CONTROLLER: Konstantinos Roditis

TREASURER: Greg Conlon

Greg Conlon has tried for this office before, and lost before, to John Chiang in 2014 and to Phil Angelides in 2002 before that. He has also tried for the US Senate, the State Senate, and the State Assembly. A “happy warrior”, who gets back up when he is knocked down. Let’s give him one last hurrah. Although I will say that another Republican contending on the ballot, Jack Guerrero, seems like a nice younger fellow, and I wish him luck after Greg Conlon retires.



Another veteran of the California Political Psychic Wars, like Greg Conlon for Treasurer above.

U.S. SENATOR: Erin Cruz

Again it looks like “Amateur Hour” of multiple candidates from the GOP here. I wonder why GOP veterans, like Mr. Greg Conlon and Mr. Steve Poizner above, didn’t throw their hats in the ring here! And what is truly sad about this is that, had the CA GOP united behind one candidate, a Republican Governor might actually finish second in the “Top Two” Primary and be a possibility, given the two major contenders running in the Dem lineup dividing up their vote:

1. The “Very Old Guard” Dianne Feinstein (Dem-Stalinist)

2. Another Reconquista 5th columnist Kevin DeLeon (Dem-Trotskyite)

Anyway, of the amateurs, I find Ms. Cruz most appealing, and NOT because of her relative youth and beauty. She was a Tea Party activist back in 2010, and I heard her speak there first. I like her stances. And, when the Dirty Dems falsely claim that anyone with sensible border policies is somehow anti-Latino, then it is good to have a telegenic Latina lady advocating them.


His leading opponent, Tony K. Thurmond, is endorsed by Kamala Harris and all the teacher unions. I will leave it at that.


PROPOSITION 68: Bonds for Parks - NO, in fact hell NO.

First, nothing is more annoying than a proposition that claims to have “water supply” provisions, that does not build a single dam to store it. Acquiring more watershed park area is not truly increasing supply.

Second, the State cannot maintain the vast parkland area it already has. It probably should be selling off the parks that hardly anyone enjoys, or which have no known endangered species, and making them productive ranches or something similar again.

Third, Bonds, meaning DEBT, are only appropriate when an actual capital intensive but long lasting project, like a Dam, HINT HINT, is to be built. Borrowing for current maintenance of existing parks is folly.

Fourth, too many initiatives like this were approved in the past, and we are still paying those off. Vote NO.

PROPOSITION 69: Promising to spend New Transportation Revenues for Transportation Projects – NO.

In the past, I would have voted YES. In fact, in the past, WE HAVE voted YES on initiatives like this. But it turned out those initiatives were toothless, and so is this one. Moreover, in the past, initiatives like this were “bait and switch”, where voters were promised freeway and other road improvements, but instead, were given light rail showpieces that didn’t go where most commuters needed to go. Worse, will the “high-speed” (sic) choo-choo, that won’t be high speed as it is going from SF to LA via Bakersfield, Tehachapi, Lancaster, and Palmdale, get bailed out from this?

PROPOSITION 70: Legislative Supermajority for Carbon Tax Fund spending – YES.

Sometimes, in his own special wacky way, Governor Brown takes on elements within his own Democrat Party. And this initiative is one of those times.

I like the idea of a “rainy day fund”, and a supermajority requirement for new spending, even if Governor “Moonbeam” Brown is behind this, and the carbon tax is based upon speculatively flawed “Climate Science” computer models that have been wrong for two decades now. (I remember the climate models that said water vapor from jet planes, and sulfur dioxides (besides causing “acid rain”), would block out sunlight and cause a New Ice Age).

Governor Brown has long wanted to create a “rainy day fund”, given that California’s “progressive” tax system, as burdensome as it is on most of us, still depends upon a handful of key industries and wealthy citizens for the majority of its revenue. If software apps and motion pics have a bad year, so does the state in terms of revenue. And the state economy is much less diversified than it used to be. Of course, this begs the question of how this “rainy day fund” would actually work: Money in the bank earning miniscule interest? Buying up and paying off the billions in bonds California has outstanding?

Anyway, Republican Assemblyman Chad Mayes, although he no doubt thinks the carbon tax is flawed and horrid, decided that, if there IS to be such a tax, then let it finance Governor Brown’s “Rainy Day Fund”. And so he and Governor Brown both wrote the argument for the initiative in the Voter Guide. And I LIKE IT! Let’s sequester the money from this tax and use it to buy back California bonds.

And the opposition to this initiative? Various “environmental” leftist lobbies that want the money for their pet projects.

PROPOSITION 71: Delays Effective Date For Ballot Measures – flip a coin???

Given that so many initiatives are subject to court fights after they are approved, and given the increased delays (and fraud risks) of more voting by mail, I suppose this initiative may be OK. Or may not matter. If you have a good argument for voting YES or NO, let me know.

PROPOSITION 72: Less Property Tax Assessment of “Rain Capture” systems – YES.

While “rain capture” systems are a piss-poor substitute for real dam building, they still have their place, and we should not jack up property tax assessments on people who install them.

Thursday, May 31, 2018

Samantha Bee: So who really IS the "feckless c*nt"????

If anyone is a "Feckless C*nt", it would be Samantha Bee, for advocating a return to immigration policies that let gang members like MS-13 cross the border with impunity.

And if Samantha Bee was put at the tender mercies of MS-13, her c*nt would end up, well, something more than feckless.

Saturday, May 12, 2018

Trump’s 'lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship'

Trump’s 'lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship' By Marshall Kamena, Mayor of Livermore, CA.

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”

Here’s my answer: We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.

We tried statesmanship.

Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?

And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.

I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.

I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent.

Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming.

Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today.

Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking.. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”

That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.

It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN.. He made it personal.

Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”... Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. ... They need to respond.

This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve. It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.

Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church.

Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do.

These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America!