The UK election was a whole cloth rejection of democratic socialism

Yesterday, UK voters handed Tory leader Boris Johnson the biggest Conservative Party electoral victory since the days of "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher. The ultra-liberal/socialists in the Labour Party suffered an obliterating defeat. They lost seats that had been comfortably leftist for generations.

The image below comes courtesy of DecisionDeskHQ, a data-driven website that provides real-time election results and analyses. You may need to tap or click the image to get something readable on a mobile device.

In the UK, blue is the color of Conservatives and red is for Labour. The Scots, Irish and Welsh each have their own identities and sometimes governing coalitions involve them with either Conservative or Labour pluralities. For the British left, the image above is the map of destruction. Majorities like the one claimed by Johnson and his Tories are very unusual and have been historic in their impact. 

Along with the loss of this election, British lefties have lost any hope of starting a global democratic-socialist movement. The UK will leave the European Union with or without a negotiated trade deal now. Gone are socialist hopes of the British leading a global new world order. Gone are all the social justice tropes that focused on intersectionalism, identity politics, and destruction of traditional values such as family, hunting, Judeo-Christian faith, patriotism, etc.  

To say this was a devastating loss by the UK's far left might be understating the impact, if for nothing else than for the fact that the left had big hopes and dreams for the future.

Jonathan Chait is an American liberal who writes for the New York magazine. Unlike most lefty American media types, Chait has the rare gift for telling it like it is.

Go here for all of the excerpts from hopeful U.S. lefties who saw Jeremy Corbyn's movement as a precursor to a similar movement on this side of the pond. Here are a few to whet the appetite.

Many writers, not only on the left, detected parallels between the rise of Corbyn and the movement around Bernie Sanders. The latter is considerably more moderate and pragmatic than the former, and also not laden with the political baggage of Corbyn’s widely derided openness to anti-Semitic allies. And yet many leftists have emphasized the similarities between the two, which are indeed evident. Both built youth-oriented movements led by cadres of radical activists who openly set out to destroy and remake their parties. Both lost in somewhat close fashion, Sanders in 2016 and Corbyn the next year. And fervent supporters of both men treated their narrow defeats as quasi-victories, proof of victory just around the corner.

Arguments of this sort tend to quickly devolve into straw-man attacks. So, in order to show that the view I’m describing is widespread, I am sharing lengthy excerpts from a half-dozen essays written by American leftists in recent years:

“Only Socialism Can Defeat Trumpism,” by Nicole Aschoff and Bhaskar Sunkara, The Nation, November 2016

“The past year has shown that millions of ordinary people are ready for an alternative, one pointed to by the success of Sanders and the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in Britain …

As with the collapsing social democrats in Europe, the Democratic Party’s best bet is to move left and embrace a platform that speaks to the real needs, fears, and aspirations of working people …

For the Democrats, no less than their peers in Europe, where the neoliberalization of social democracy has opened up space for a populist right, the choice on offer might well be either socialism or irrelevance.”

“Jeremy Corbyn’s Success is a Model for American Progressives,” by James Downie, Washington Post, June 2017

“Corbyn’s success provides a model for U.S. progressives in 2018, 2020 and beyond: If you need turnout to win — as liberals in the United States do — you need a bold, uncompromising platform with real solutions …

Why was turnout so high? Because Corbyn was able to generate excitement among Labour voters, especially the young. That’s in no small part because of this year’s Labour manifesto (the British equivalent of a party platform). Unlike other recent versions, mostly incrementalist documents that tweaked what came before, the 2017 edition is the boldest in decades: more money for the National Health Services and other major initiatives, a “jobs first” Brexit and free university tuition, financed by taxing corporations and the wealthiest. The manifesto and the campaign were summed up by their elegantly simple slogan: “For the many, not the few.” …

“Politics has changed,” declared Corbyn Thursday night, “and politics isn’t going back in the box where it was before.” He is right about British politics. If progressives apply the lessons of his success judiciously, U.S. politics will also change — for the better, for the many and not the few.”

“Jeremy Corbyn Is Leading the Left Out of the Wilderness and Toward Power,” by Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept, June 2017

“Last Thursday’s election result in the U.K. is a ringing confirmation that stirring idealism need not be sacrificed at the altar of political pragmatism …

Yes, mainstream center-left parties may have been crushed in recent European elections — think of France or the Netherlands. However, Corbyn — who spent 32 years toiling in obscurity on the backbenches before becoming leader of his party in a shock victory in 2015 — has now a paved a road out of the wilderness …

Here in the United States, meanwhile, the Corbyn-esque Sanders has become the most popular politician in the country and would probably win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination by a landslide if the contest were to be held tomorrow. Some polls also suggest he might have defeated Trump last November, too.”

“The American Left Has Found a New Hero,” Paul Blest, The Outline, June 2017

“American left-wingers like myself have found ourselves looking for an escape over the past few weeks in the stratospheric rise of the Labour Party — led by Corbyn, an unabashed socialist — in the polls ahead of this Thursday’s UK election …

As left wing activist Paul Mason told the New Republic last week: “They assumed Corbyn was their secret weapon. It turns out he is our secret weapon …

The reason that Corbyn is surging now, apart from the discovery that May is extremely bad at campaigning, is that he’s got a clear, progressive vision for the future, one that tackles the big question of making a more equitable society at home and around the world. The Labour Party manifesto unabashedly goes the farthest we’ve seen from a major left-of-center party; not just the Sanders-like social democratic parts like pumping more money into the National Health Service and making college free, but in nationalizing essential public services and raising revenues from increased taxes on the wealthy and corporations to pay for all of it.”

 Those dreams will have to wait for five more years.

Lefty protesters storm the field at halftime during #TheGame between Harvard and Yale

The 136th installment of The Game was interrupted Saturday when protesters stormed the field at halftime. The protest was staged by environmental wackos who really, really want Yale and Harvard to DO SOMETHING! about the weather.

Students from both schools occupied midfield after the Yale band had finished performing. Some held banners asking their colleges to act on climate change and Puerto Rican debt relief.

“Hey hey, ho ho, fossil fuels have got to go,” some protesters chanted.

After a few minutes, hundreds more people stream onto the field. A public address announcement asked them to leave “as a courtesy to the players.”

“As a courtesy to both teams, the game must resume.”

The Harvard-Yale football game has been delayed due to students protesting climate change in the middle of the field. pic.twitter.com/uY9Kc3Mn32

— ESPN College Football (@ESPNCFB) November 23, 2019

Oh, and cancelling Puerto Rican debt.

Of course, the only people who think this was a smart move are the folks for whom a college football game is just a distraction from far more important issues, like changing the weather and running interference while corrupt socialists pilfer disaster relief funds.

If these yahoos were 'brave' enough to try a stunt like this during the Iron Bowl or the SEC Championship Game on December 7, all hell would break loose. The few hundred 'brave' protesters would be followed by several thousand SEC fans, who would absolutely succeed in removing the pests from the field. The game must go on and no pantywaist protesters will stop it. We might laugh at a streaker. We might hurt more than feelings if the protesters' disrupt longer than a media timeout.

The difference in treatment of Saturday's protesters and the would-be 'brave' SEC protesters is why Antifa gets away with their crap in places like California and Connecticut, and why they'd never even try it in SEC Country. In Connecticut, Antifa is just a 'political protest movement.' In this part of the world, it's a terrorist organization.

Applying for a job, out-of-work QB Colin Kaepernick tries to set conditions for his interview

As of today, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick is an unrestricted free agent. He is free to sign a contract with any team in any league. He obviously likes it that way.

Last week, the National Football League made a surprise move and offered the out-of-work quarterback an opportunity very few other unrestricted free agents get. They offered to stage a private workout with any and/or all of the NFL's 32 teams who wished to see him execute drills, run sprints and throw passes. There are dozens of unrestricted free agent QB's looking for spots on NFL teams, so you'd think that Kaepernick would be grateful. But this is Colin freakin' Kaepernick, y'all. He's special.

Representatives for former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick called an audible less than an hour before he was scheduled to work out for 25 NFL teams Saturday, moving the session to a high school football field in Riverdale, Ga. from the Atlanta Falcons training facility in Flowery Branch, 60 miles away.

Kaepernick threw passes for about 40 minutes to free agent receivers Bruce Ellington, Brice Butler, Jordan Veasy and Ari Werts before signing autographs for hundreds of fans gathered in the end zone.

"I've been ready for three years. I've been denied for three years," Kaepernick told reporters at the conclusion of a bizarre day. "... We are waiting for the 32 owners, 32 teams and [NFL Commissioner] Roger Goodell to stop running. Stop running from the truth, stop running from the people."

Colin Kaepernick’s workout at the Falcons’ training facility at 3 pm is off; his workout now will be at another Atlanta location at 4 pm today.

Here is the official announcement: pic.twitter.com/d9dIfJSbY3

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) November 16, 2019

Remember, folks... Kaepernick hasn't taken a snap since the 2016 season. His last gig was for the 49ers--a team now sitting atop the NFC West Division with 8-1 record. He's not without talent--his 49ers made it to Superbowl XLVII and he led the 49ers to two comeback wins in the playoffs. He led them in another comeback during the Superbowl but fell short and lost to the Baltimore Ravens.

It would be his career pinnacle. The 2013 49ers made it to the NFC Championship Game but lost to eventual Champ Seahawks. The 2014 team went 8-8 and missed the playoffs. The 2015 team got worse, going 5-11, and the 2016 season ended 2-14. It was the 2016 season in which Kaepernick and wide receiver Eric Reid set off the trendy protests over perceived racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem at games. The move spread to other teams and divided the country by alienating fans.

Kaepernick, Reid, their other 'woke' social justice warriors and their employers all learned that while protests are as American as the 4th of July, they're not without consequences. Game attendance and TV viewership dropped sharply enough for the owners and the league to institute policies that allowed the players to express their grievances out of the public view. The league essentially told Kaepernick et al that "we respect your right to be upset over a matter in which we have no influence. Please throw your temper tantrums over there in the locker room. Be ready to play when the whistle blows, or be subject to disciplinary action as agreed to in the union contract you signed."

The NFL eventually negotiated a collusion grievance settlement with Kaepernick and Reid. Reid got the message and now plays for the Carolina Panthers. Kaepernick, though...

When was the last time any average Joe or Jane got invited to an interview for their dream job, only to call the prospective employer the day of the interview and say, "hold up." And then say, "you need to come to this place instead of your place. And here's how this interview goes down. Afterwards, I'll say a few words to the press I've invited and sign autographs for my admirers." The job offers just roll in after an episode like that, right?

Stephen A. Smith is no fan of "the system." Not many rage against the machine as long or as loud as the Stephen A and he tells it like he thinks it is. Sometimes I give the finger to Stephen A and change the channel but sometimes I listen.

So today, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick is still an unrestricted free agent. He is still free to sign a contract with any team in any league. But I bet he won't.

When Donald Trump lays a trap, and the lefty media outlets warn "It's a Trap!"

Remember folks... Donald Trump doesn't play by the swamp's rules. He plays by his own and so far he is undefeated.

Despite the outrage that greeted reports of the president’s actions, Biden’s immediate response was no simple matter. His son Hunter Biden’s lucrative contracts with Ukraine — at the same time the vice president was in charge of U.S. policy toward the country raised — raised the prospect of fueling a narrative with downside political risk for Biden. 

“This puts him on the ropes over having to talk about this,” said Patrick Murray, a pollster with Monmouth University. “He certainly doesn’t want to talk about this, his family.” 

Murray suggested the ethical dimensions of the controversy — and the implications of Trump’s actions for impeachment, which Biden at present does not support — made any extended discussion of the story potentially perilous for Biden.

Politico, NYT: "This New Trump Scandal Is Also An Old Biden Scandal, You Know"

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/09/21/politico-nyt-new-trump-scandal-also-old-biden-scandal-know/

With Mueller testimony, Democrats see their bombshell explode in their faces

What an unmitigated disaster for Capitol Hill Democrats. Former Special Counsel testified before two Democrat-controlled House committees on Wednesday, and our President Donald Trump came out vindicated when Mueller failed to provide any more fuel for the Democrats’ guttering impeachment fire.

Drudge called it ‘Dazed and Confused,’ but a better description would be ‘woefully unprepared.’ The lack of preparedness is particularly damning because Democrats went all in on preparation. They took 2-1/2 weeks holding mock hearings with stand-ins for Mueller and key Republicans on the two House Committees. Mueller himself tried to prepare for Wednesday’s political theater, hiding out with trusted aides in the days before.

None of it did any good and the reason is as plain as day: You cannot spin the truth.

Mueller made a critical mistake in his report last spring. He stated that his 2-year, $35 million investigation could not prove that our President Donald Trump did not commit a crime. This is a perverted, upside-down view of a prosecutor’s role. It’s not his job to prove that the target of the investigation didn’t commit the crime. It’s his job to prove that it’s reasonable to conclude the target did.

Democrats and their media sycophants took this ball, ran down the field while no one but us was looking and set themselves up with a 1st and goal at the 1-yard line. Mueller’s testimony on the Hill was supposed to be Tony Dorsett over the top for the go-ahead score. Leading straight to impeachment of our President Donald Trump.

But then the Republicans blew the whistle and reminded us that there are certain rules in our legal and political system and everybody has to play by the same ones:

Oof.
By Democrats' own reasoning, Hilary Clinton cannot be exonerated for the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi. And Barack Obama cannot be exonerated for being born a Muslim in Kenya. And Al Gore cannot be exonerated for invented this pernicious internet thing and Jeffrey Dahmer cannot be exonerated for eating Jimmy Hoffa.

Even worse for Democrats and their media sycophants is the truth that the good guys get to spike the ball when they get a righteous score, and that’s just what they’re doing.

“Epic embarrassment.” “They whiffed.”

Some inside the White House were especially pleased with the questioning of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), another close Trump ally, who hammered Mueller over his failure to charge a key figure, the Maltese academic Joseph Mifsud, for making false statements to the FBI. Mifsud, according to Mueller’s report, told Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, but lied to the FBI about his interactions with Papadopoulos.

When Mueller said he could not “get into” his decision not to charge Mifsud, Jordan snapped, “A lot of things you can't get into...You can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements. But the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can't charge him. I think that's amazing.”

Truth be told, it would be better for our President Donald Trump's reelection prospects if Democrats went ahead with their grand impeachment scheme because... well... that will backfire and blow up on them, too.

President Trump addresses the nation

In case you missed it, here is President Donald Trump addressing the nation on the need to address illegal immigration and his plan to increase physical and technological security on our southern border with Mexico.

---

---

"How much more blood needs to be shed before Congress does its job?"

May God Bless you, and may God Bless these United States.

Impeaching Donald Trump is a no-lose situation… For Republicans

Republicans would rather not see the country dragged through another impeachment process because it’s painful, messy and costly. But there is no doubt that they will come out of it on top.

First of all, let’s deal with the goose chase of a theoretical indictment. It’s in regards to hush money paid to two women alleging to have had extramarital affairs with Donald Trump before he became President. As the talking point goes, Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen paid them from non-campaign funds at the direction of then candidate Trump. Cohen says the payments were made because they helped the campaign. Since these payments were not reported and they exceeded a statutory limit, the crime of making an illegal campaign contribution has occurred and since Trump directed it, he committed a felony.

No, he didn’t. This would only be a crime if the payments would have been made even if Trump were not running for office. Celebrities make hush money payments every day. There’s an entire cottage industry and specialty bar practice focusing on shaking down unscrupulous celebrities. It’s legalized blackmail and it’s as old as the term “celebrities.” All the Trump defense team would need to do is convince a judge that Celebrity Trump would have done the same thing Candidate Trump did. Paying off tryst trollops is unsavory, but it is not illegal.

Let’s say something else is dug up in the near future that convinces Democrats and the media that a high crime or misdemeanor has occurred. This is not altogether unlikely because Democrats hate Trump and they are unable to think clearly because of their visceral reaction to him. They are likely to find a real estate deal that somehow involves some Russian dude. With that and some egging on by the media they contrive a case where Donald and Boris conspired to do an end-around on the emoluments clause of the Constitution...

In fact, I don't just think this scenario is likely. I think it's a virtual lock. With their newfound majority in the House, the hardcore lefties will demand it. And they'll get it, or else.

Articles of Impeachment are drafted, passed by the House in a straight party-line vote. Chief Justice John Roberts convenes and presides over the Senate trial and Trump prevails because there is no two-thirds majority vote to convict and remove him from office. The voting public seethes at the partisan impeachment circus and takes its wrath out on the Democrats. Trump is easily reelected in 2020 and Republicans sweep to commanding majorities in the House and Senate.

Or, let’s say Trump and Boris actually conspire to conceal or destroy evidence of a murder. Through impeachment or resignation, Trump leaves office and Vice President Mike Pence is sworn in as the 46th President of the United States.

Pence is  a doctrinaire Reagan Conservative. Abortion would become a crime. Amnesty for dreamers would be a pipe dream again. Regulations would be rolled back to pre-Carter levels. Burning the flag would be a hate crime and Antifa would be classified as a terrorist organization. Markets will boom, the trains will run on time and God will rest comfortably on his throne again.

It will be like that day Frodo cast the One Ring into the crack of Mount Doom, ending the leftist threat and scattering the Democrats like Orcs in the wind.

So get busy, Nancy. Your move, Chuck. Go ahead. Make our day.

Vladimir say: “Зачем вмешиваться в выборы? У вас есть демократы!”

In case you didn’t study Russian in High School or college, Russian President Vladimir Putin asks a valid question: “Why interfere with election? You have Democrats!” He hasn’t yet posed the question but he might as well have. By the way, did you know that Russians consider it rude and presumptuous to use a diminutive or nickname for someone with whom you are not intimate or close friends? Don’t call him “Vlad,” unless you’re really close to the guy. He’s not the kinda guy you want to piss off.

Anyway, at the close of business last Tuesday Arizona GOP Senate hopeful Martha McSally had appeared to eke out a close, 9,000 vote win over pretend moderate Democrat Krysten Sinema. By close of business Friday, Arizona election officials had miraculously found enough Democrat ballots to put Sinema up by 20,000 or so. In a red state.

Down in Florida, where Democrats have made election theft a finely honed skill, it took a state judge to force election officials in south Florida to stop fabricating Democrat votes out of thin air and the trunks of private vehicles.

Maybe some readers will remember the 2000 election, when it took a US Supreme Court order to halt a manufacture-and-count-ballots operation in the same counties that have been rigging the vote count so many times that they don’t bother to hide it any more.

Meanwhile across the state line in Georgia Democrats are feverishly and brazenly scouring for votes in what even the New York Times openly calls  “post-campaign campaigning.” Republican Bryan Kemp won a 50.35% of the vote on election night, with 100% of all precincts reporting. Democrat Stacey Abrams won 48.71% and Libertarian Ted Metz got 0.95%.

Under Georgia law, if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote, the top two candidates go to a runoff.

Give Georgia Democrats some credit for coming up with a new election theft tactic: Find people to swear up and down that they voted via absentee or provisional ballot even and especially if they didn’t, and scream “VOTER SUPPRESSION!!!” when otherwise lawfully acting election officials (doing a heroic yet thankless job) can’t find the nonexistent ballots.

If you’re pulling for Team Blue, all the Abrams gang has to do is find about 28,000 extra ballots for their side to push the election into a runoff. Don’t you dare think they can’t do it. If Arizona Democrats can find tens of thousands of ballots in a desert and Florida Democrats can find them in a swamp, then Georgia Democrats ought to be able to find’em somewhere between the hedges.

This drives Rule of Law loving people crazy because while we may not like outcomes, the process counts for everything. Democrats don’t give a rat’s ass about process. It’s all about getting the desired outcome. To them, “process” is just another word for “by any means necessary.”

No wonder the Russian President is pointing and laughing. He doesn’t need to lift a finger to create chaos, uncertainty and distrust in our election process. Why should he, when the Democrats will do it for him?

If Republicans hold the house in the 2018 midterms, thank the country folks

I want post this now, while all of my readers are watching college football. That way, if I’m right I’ll get to say, “I predicted it!” And if I’m wrong, all y’all can point at me and laugh at the data nerd.

Ok…

I just finished reading a fascinating analysis of the 2016 election, authored by a couple of data geeks. Sean Trende and David Byler are analysts at Real Clear Politics, a must-read-daily website full of charts, projections and analysis. Their analysis following the 2016 election looks at trends in the electorate over time with a geographic filter, breaking voters into six distinct groups: rural, small town, large town, small city, big city and mega city.

Here’s a tell-all chart presented in the conclusions section of the report:

This shows that over the last three decades, Democrats have dramatically increased their share of voters in the largest cities and  dramatically lost their share in areas that are large town or smaller. Their worst losses are in the smallest population areas. Democrats may be getting more votes nationwide, but concentrating those votes in cities that they already dominated is like shooting a dead man. It’s a wasted bullet because dead is still… well… dead.

Getting an extra four or five million votes across the cities of Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia is not enough to offset votes lost by the collective tens of millions from the thousands of Anytown, USA locales. There are at least 38 states that do not have a mega city in them or nearby. There are at least 25 that don’t even have a large city in them. Yet these “fly over” states have well over half of the eligible voters.

Democrats have created a very effective coalition of voters, but they have concentrated them in too few places, blunting their effectiveness and allowing Republicans to win elections without winning the majority of the popular vote.

This is important: You don’t need to win a national majority to win a national election.

California has a population of about 40 million. It has 53 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, or about one member for each 755,000 people. Alabama has about 4.9 million people and seven House members, or one member for every 700,000 people. Fewer people in Alabama have the same influence as a larger number of Californians. It’s not hard to put together a coalition of rural-ish states with fewer people wielding greater influence than states with high concentrations of urban dwellers.

This effect plays out in electoral politics but it also plays out in popular culture.

Pop culture is driven by urban dwellers. Urban areas are where the studios, producers, financiers, technicians and pop stars live because urban areas tend to have the physical infrastructure to support mass media production.

Urban areas are also more diverse demographically. They have higher concentrations of people of African, Hispanic and Asian descent. They also have higher concentrations of those identifying as having a non-traditional sexual orientation. As you watch your favorite commercial television programming over the next season, pay attention to the ads for alcohol, automobiles, toothpaste, mortgage lending and healthcare services. The vast majority of those will show the kinds and mixes of people you are likely to encounter in everyday life in the big city. Why? Because the people who make commercials use urban-ish people.

This may puzzle the Anytown citizen and for reasons he or she doesn’t realize. The small town banker may not run into a biracial or homosexual couple seeking a mortgage.  The rural grocer may not see a large south Asian family shopping together in her store. The large town teacher rarely has the child adopted by the gay couple in his class.

This cultural divide causes issues when the votes are counted on (and sometimes for weeks after) election day. The urban dweller can’t believe that their House or Senate candidate lost because all of the people just like them voted the same way. The rural-ish folks don’t see what the fuss is about, because all of the people just like them voted the same way.

The Ruralites may not (yet) understand the power that they wield, especially in midterm elections when turnout is typically low. But the Urbanites really don’t understand because everything they see on TV, hear on radio or dig on Spotify says everyone is diverse like them and diversity is just another word for Democrat.

They don’t understand that despite the diversity surrounding them in their urban enclaves, non-Hispanic whites still make up at least two-thirds of the electorate and most of that electorate lives in areas that are large town and smaller areas.

As a result, Urbanites are likely to conclude that the Ruralites are racist homophobes.

They would be wrong. Ruralites probably get the Melting Pot concept much better than Urbanites are willing to give them credit for. Most rural folks can trace their lineage back to immigrants, especially those in the rural areas east of the Mississippi and in the Mississippi River Watershed. Latin cultural influences are felt from rural Michigan to Louisiana and from south Florida to Wisconsin. The difference between those roots and the ones forming today is that in the ‘old days,’ immigrants assimilated and became Americans, contributing their culture to the greater American tapestry. This is less so with today’s Hispanic, Asian and growing Middle Eastern communities. Assimilation is now slower to occur, especially given the speed at which we get news today. Also, we have not helped assimilation by printing instructions for Life in America in languages not named English.

This frustrates Ruralites, who grew up speaking only English and maybe had bilingual grandparents. It’s not racist for immigrant-born Ruralites to expect today’s immigrants to do what everyone before them had to do. This is what made America great, they think, and when someone comes along with a promise to Make America Great Again, Ruralites are more willing to give the guy a shot.

The pollsters and election gurus missed the Ruralite movement in 2016, and may be missing it again in 2018.

Most of the 2018 polling, projections and analysis still look to the so-called ‘generic ballot’ as the most influential predictor in the outcome of congressional elections. This is a useful indicator of national sentiment, but it is still just an indicator of how the popular vote may go. It does not predict how people will vote. Even if it did, it ignores the first fact from above—you don’t have to win the popular vote to win a national election.

Two models: If both are right, Republicans will hold both the House and Senate

Ray Fair is a Yale Economics professor. He uses a numerical model driven by economic conditions to predict election outcomes and has a pretty good record—his was the only model that favored the Republicans in both the 2014 midterms and the 2016 election. The Fair Model predicts that Democrats will win 50.70% share of the vote.

Nate Silver is the architect of the Five Thirty Eight prediction model. Silver currently gives the Democrats an 85.9% chance of taking the House (and an almost nonexistent chance of taking the Senate). However, this prediction is based on Democrats winning by at least 5.9 percentage points.

Fair's model says Democrats only get 0.70 points, just barely a majority. As we know from Trende and Byler’s analysis, and as we can see from Silver’s model, this means that Republicans are poised to surprise the talking heads in the media on Tuesday night.

I believe they will.

A fairy tale begins with ‘Once I am elected.’

It is crazy enough how honest a leftist is when he knows the camera is rolling and the mic is hot. When he doesn’t know that he can’t ever make the truth disappear… hoo, boy. This is what we get when Project Veritas goes undercover and gets people to be comfortable with who they are and what they’re up to.

The clip below is just the first 2:30.

---

---

Go here for a link to the full video and a keen analysis of what it means.

Florida, please tell me that you’re not about to be this stupid. Please.

What happens if Mueller’s Russia probe finds nothing?

And… from this Politico report, it sounds like Robert Mueller is likely to hand anti-Trumpers a big fat nothingburger. This highly likely outcome is not at all what the left had hoped for when the probe was launched. The left was so convinced that Hillary Clinton would ascend the throne that 2016’s outcome just had to be the result of a grand scheme. Should the special counsel’s report not indict someone, anyone that implicates the President in an impeachable offense, oh my.

And should that report not be made public by Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein, the outcry is going to be epic.

For starters, Mueller isn’t operating under the same ground rules as past high-profile government probes, including the Reagan-era investigation into Iranian arms sale and whether President Bill Clinton lied during a deposition about his extramarital affair with a White House intern. Those examinations worked under the guidelines of a post-Watergate law that expired in 1999 that required investigators to submit findings to Congress if they found impeachable offenses, a mandate that led to Starr’s salacious report that upended Clinton’s second term.

Mueller’s reporting mandate is much different. He must notify his Justice Department supervisor — currently Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — on his budgeting needs and all “significant events” made by his office, including indictments, guilty pleas and subpoenas.

When Mueller is finished, he must turn in a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” — essentially why he chose to bring charges against some people but not others. His reasoning, according to veterans of such investigations, could be as simple as “there wasn’t enough evidence” to support a winning court case.

Then, it will be up to DOJ leaders to make the politically turbo-charged decision of whether to make Mueller’s report public.

Oh, the temper tantrums.

There’s another link I’d like you to follow, but it’s a tad longer of a read than most Tweeters and Facebookers might be willing to concentrate on. The author describes a category of Democrats and Democrat-leaning folks that I have been calling WHELPs—White, Highly Educated Liberal People.

WHELPs are liberals that don’t like playing by any rules other than their own. They make the rules, and they apply the rules however and whenever they want to (or find them useful) and ignore them whenever they want to (or find them unhelpful). This is anathema to people who subscribe to the rule of law concept.

WHELPs set the rules for the 2016 election. To their shock and horror, Donald Trump broke every single one of those rules and was still sworn in as our 45th President. But they had a mulligan, they thought. They thought that surely, the election was a sham and Mueller would prove it.

Unless he doesn’t. And he won’t. 

So, we can expect a pandemonium of protest when Mueller’s report finds no evidence of an impeachable offense. When the WHELPs learn that there will be no Senate Trial presided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; that President Trump will remain in office until at least January 2020, they will be in the streets. It’s gonna be a hot mess.

I believe that if Mueller had found evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, he would have followed his mandate and reported them to his superiors already. The left will not get what it wants.

I also believe that the national embarrassment of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation will be made to look like a kindergarten donnybrook.

These are people who like to make their own rules.  They refuse to live life on terms that are set by someone else and are the same for left and right alike before the game begins. They regard any outcome short of total victory under such terms to be illegitimate.

Fortunately, elections and courts of law are conducted by rules set by mature, (usually) rational adults. While impeachment is a political process, it is one that already has a set of rules prescribed by the Constitution. It even has precedents. This game is not played by WHELP rules.

WHELPs are fortunately a minority of a minority. They nonetheless make the most noise and cause the most trouble and they are their noisiest and most troublesome when the game doesn’t go their way. This one probably won’t, just like 2016. Just like Kavanaugh.

Drudge: Trolling Democrats since 1995

Actually, the headline is not fair. Matt and Charles have been trolling everyone since 1995. Democrats are just much easier.

Kanye West in the White House, and it’s magic

Music mogul Kanye West visited President Donald Trump in the White House today, and it was ‘winning,’ y’all.

Two things: One: When was the last time you saw a President sit and listen while another man talked? I didn’t hear President Trump’s voice until more than six minutes into this clip. Two: When was the last time a President listen to a black man like this? Not just sit quietly while his guest spoke, but listen intently. Look at Trump’s face. The man is listening.

This is how dialog begins. You don’t have to agree with everything another man or woman says. But if you’re going to work with people you then have to listen to them. How can you find common ground with anyone if you don’t know where he stands?

One other note: Ronald Reagan won two terms by going around the media’s Maginot Line and speaking directly to the American people, and he also won working class Democrats. Trump speaks directly to the people, and if he’s able to win open-minded minority voters like Kanye, look out.

This video needs no more commentary from me. Just watch and listen (there is some NSFW language).

---

---

Senator Fail: Doug Jones’ task force couldn’t find serial bomber Eric Rudolph for FIVE YEARS.

From early 1998 through early 2003, Eric Rudolph’s elusiveness was a running joke. It was a lot like Saturday Night Live (when SNL was still funny and relevant) and the Weekend Update report that Spanish strongman Generalissimo Francisco Franco was ‘still dead.’

What Rudolph did was not funny. He planted bombs in Atlanta and Birmingham, targeting abortion clinics gay bars and the 1996 Olympics. But the federal task force set up to capture him was a Keystone Kops affair that failed miserably in its efforts to bring him in.

That task force of local, state and federal law enforcement was headed up by none other than the junior Senator from the state of Alabama.

President Bill Clinton appointed Jones as the US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama in August 1997. He became point man for the task force in 1998.

For the next five years, Rudolph successfully evaded capture. He wasn’t caught until May 2003 when a rookie cop in a small town in North Carolina saw a bum rummaging through garbage for breakfast. Five years. Millions of federal dollars. And it took the sharp eye of a 21-year old Barney Fife to bring him in.

When Jones ran in the 2017 special election to fill the seat left by former Senator and eventual Attorney General Jeff Sessions, President Donald Trump correctly labeled him as ‘soft on crime.’ Local and national media raced to his defense and gave him all the bandwidth and column inches he needed to talk about his ‘record as a prosecutor.’

But no one asked about his miserable role in the task force that couldn’t find just one man. One man who had no outside help, no money, no job, no nothing. That one man was atop the FBI’s Most Wanted List for five years and had a $1 million bounty on his head.

Ask him today why a former federal prosecutor sits on exactly zero Senate committees with responsibility for law enforcement. Ask him why he has sponsored exactly zero Senate bills on the issues of crime and law enforcement.

He won’t answer because the one opportunity he had as a federal prosecutor came up empty. For five years.

Democrats may have wrecked their chances for House control

A heartfelt thank you to creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti. For he has blessed President. Donald. Trump. in ways he never imagined.

If Democrats fail to win control of at least one house of Congress in the 2018 midterms, it will be because they overplayed a bad hand in the Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Debacle. And Avenatti held the losing hole cards.

Historically, the party not in control of the White House loses a significant number of Congressional seats in midterm elections. It has been a traditional means for the electorate to communicate that executive overreach will not be tolerated. But when the party out of power itself overreaches—as it did with their Kavanaugh Debacle—history rewards the aggrieved.

---

Multiple pollsters now warning Dems they may fall short of winning the House https://t.co/6bsUSjTBWh

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) October 8, 2018

---

Currently, The RCP Average generic ballot poll has the Dems with a +6.6 advantage. Due to the geographic advantage Republicans have owned since the bloody red waves of 2010 and 2014, this translates into a dead heat. At no time since January of this year have Democrats enjoyed a +10.0 advantage, a number that has typically signaled a midterm Congressional turnover for Democrats (see 2006 for example).

Democrats can thank ex-President Obama for this—the midterms of 2010 and 2014 destroyed the state and local power and infrastructure that used to be their advantage in get-out-the-vote operations. That apparatus is in control of the GOP now. The short analysis is that if the Democrats want to wrest control of gavels and committees on Capitol Hill, they will need a repeat of 2004, and today’s polls say that ain’t happening, y’all.

Had Democrats gagged the creepy porn lawyer and told him “nay, thou shalt NOT pile on with even more ridiculous allegations,” Christine Blasey-Ford may have successfully derailed Brett Kavanaugh’s ascension to SCOTUS.

They didn’t, and look what’s happening now.

Congratulations to Justice Kavanaugh. And shame on Senator Doug Jones

Congratulations to Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Doug Jones should be ashamed.

On Saturday, October 6, 2018, Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed by the United States Senate to the Supreme Court. He becomes the 114th Associate Justice in the history of the highest Court in the country. He replaces retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Kavanaugh was appointed by President Donald Trump on July 9 and toiled through a bitterly partisan vetting process and confirmation hearings. He was accused of vile sexual assaults by people that he didn’t even know and probably never met. They trotted out bare allegations with no supporting evidence, no witnesses, no nuttin’.  It was a confirmation process that shouldn’t have happened.

Jones didn’t agree to meet with then Judge Kavanaugh until he was hounded by the media and Alabama voters, inventing an excuse that he wanted to see his performance in “the hearings” first. That was bullshit—Jones was never going to be a Yes vote for confirmation and had no reason to meet with a man that he was never going to support.

Jones also repeated a lie he propagated throughout 2017’s special election campaign—that he was an independent voice and would not toe a party line. Jones isn’t an independent. He’s the Senator with the lowest seniority rank in a minority Senate conference run by Chuck Schumer. What Schumer says, Jones does. He’s a buck private in Schumer’s army of thugs.

Doug Jones did nothing to stop his “colleagues” or warn them that such partisan character assassinations are beneath the United States Senate—the world’s most deliberative and collegial legislative body. Their tactics were totally out of bounds in the advice and consent role Jones was elected to fulfill.

The Democrats made it clear that they would stop Brett Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Nation’s highest court.  On the very same day that President Trump announced Judge Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court nominee, Schumer promised to “oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have.”  When he said everything, he meant letting his fellow Democrats assault the character and reputation of an accomplished jurist who has done more to advance the role of women in the judiciary than any other Judge on his Court. It also meant making sure that little man Jones stayed in his place and kept his mouth shut as a national disgrace played out before us.

As an Alabamian, I was horrified.

Jones may object, pleading that there was nothing he could do.  That is another bare faced lie.

Jones could have put a quick end to the whole embarrassing and divisive confirmation by saying, “I have listened to my constituents and I have evaluated the Judge’s qualifications. I will vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.”

Jones turned his back on Alabama. He turned a deaf ear to the people of this state, and their representatives in Montgomery and Washington, DC.  By a nearly two-to-one ratio, Alabamians supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Every elected leader from the state supported his confirmation. Senator Richard Shelby—who met with Kavanaugh very early in the confirmation process—strongly supported the nomination and proudly voted for it.

Jones voted against it, along with all but one honorable Democrat—Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Jones also stayed silent as his fellow Democrat henchmen tried to make Judge Kavanaugh out to be a serial sexual predator. Despite his fellow thugs’ best effort, Kavanaugh was confirmed by a 50-48 vote.

The Court will survive this mess, just as it has survived the 1991 “high tech lynching” of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Jones should be absolutely ashamed of himself.

The Office of Personnel Management gave up my personal data

To the Chinese, it appears. My name, my address, my social security number. Not only that, but my wife’s name, the names of my children and all of their social security numbers, too. They also have the names and locations of my references that I used to apply for a Top Secret clearance in 1990. All of which is now in the hands of potentially bad actors who might attempt to use that information for nefarious purposes.

The letter displayed below says that my personal information “may have” been compromised. Right. Trust me—it was compromised.

I was disappointed to say the least, but I did not panic because:

1. Anyone who knows me knows that I am somewhat anal when it comes to system security. If you’re good enough to get through my security system you get an IP address of 0.0.0.0. A Black Hole.
2. I haven’t had a Top Secret security clearance since leaving the Department of the Army in 2006, nine years ago almost to the day. I still maintain an active Secret security clearance.

In my circle, I’m known as a white hat hacker. I’m the kind of guy who goes down the hall and checks a door knob. If it’s unlocked and there’s something valuable behind it, I alert the person responsible for securing it .I don’t wait until my black hat peers compromise, pilfer or otherwise steal that stuff of value.

But that’s what OPM has done in this case—they let the black hats walk through that door and take everything they wanted. Then they decided to tell us what “may have” transpired?

Here’s the letter I received from OPM on Monday. I’m only posting the first two pages, with certain parts blacked out.

Two things worth observing here. OPM is offering me an 18-month, no cost-to-me credit monitoring service. Please refer back to bullet No. 1 above. I already have LifeLock; and who wants to trust the lowest bidder on a government “security” contract? CSID may be great. But that’s Ok—no thanks.

The second thing, and the one that bothers me the most, is that there will likely be no one held accountable for this egregious negligence. Just like the VA scandal, the IRS scandal and the disaster in Benghazi. No one in this administration pays a price for incompetence or inattention to duty. We do, however.

And that’s what it is, ladies and gentlemen: Gross negligence and incompetence. Because the people responsible for protecting my sensitive info were asleep (or drunk) at the switch that data is now in the hands of God knows who.

Am I mad? Hell yes. Am I worried? Not even a little. I’m a low value target and I’m really hard to get to. You’re gonna have to come to the door to get anything, and if you do, you’ll be staring down the barrel of my brand new Browning tactical shotgun, loaded with buckshot.

In warfare and politics, it is wise to choose your battles carefully.

Sorry, Erick Erickson. Sorry, Sean Hannity. Sorry, Mark Steyn. Sorry, Mark Levin. Sorry, Rush Limbaugh.

You’re all wrong. The CROmnibus bill that is so vilified by pundits on the right doesn’t make for good policy. On that point, most people on the right can agree. I don’t like it either—it spends too much and doesn’t fix any of the myriad of problems this country faces going forward.

But two facts make passing the spending bill good politics. First, until this Congress adjourns, the GOP is a minority in the US Senate and there is still that recalcitrant demagogue in the White House. Republicans could have made a stand on principle by denying the President the funding he needs to effect his extra-constitutional XO on immigration. That’s a losing battle, and every sentient conservative knows it.

Second, what passed the Senate last weekend puts Barack Obama in an unwinnable position. He can veto the bill, which essentially shuts down the government. Or, he can sign it and allow the Dept. of Homeland Security to be funded until February, upon which he’ll be forced to either sign or veto a bill that defunds his lawless action. Either way, he can’t win. He gets defunded, heads or tails. And, by the time  Valentine’s Day-ish arrives, he’ll be facing the largest Republican majority in Congress since his Kenyan father was but a wee radical.

Sometimes, you have to trade part of the loaf so that you get to eat. Or, as I opined in last year’s post regarding the strategy and tactics of Sam Houston, you need to carefully choose when and where to fight your battles.

---

As a student of History, this is where I believe the lesson so aptly taught by Sam Houston comes in. In 1836, Houston, with a poorly trained, poorly equipped and vastly outnumbered force of volunteers, repeatedly retreated rather than fight the Mexican Army in the struggle to liberate Texas. His apparent refusal to take a stand and fight the demonstrably brutal General Antonio López de Santa Anna dismayed his officers and political supporters, but it was an effort to buy time and avoid a crushing defeat. Santa Anna had already overrun and massacred the defenders at the Alamo near San Antonio, and had ordered the mass execution of approximately 300 to 400 members of the Texas Militia at Goliad.

Houston wanted to fight on his terms, not Santa Anna’s, so he waited until Santa Anna made a mistake. Santa Anna did just that—dividing his forces in an attempt to surround Houston’s growing force of Militia and well trained regulars.

At the battle of San Jacinto, Houston made his move. In about 20 minutes’ time, Houston’s forces surprised and overwhelmed Santa Anna’s, ending the struggle and forcing Santa Anna into signing the treaty of Velasco, ending Mexican rule of Texas and paving the way for Texas to join the United States of America.

What can be learned from this, in the context of the current political struggle to wrest control of this great country from the grip of the brutally oppressive leftists?

In warfare and politics, it’s important to choose your battles wisely. Don’t strike when your enemy is strong and you are not. This is a divided government, but conservatives have control of only one house of Congress. No stand taken on principle has a prayer in hell of getting adopted and made the law of the land.

Bide your time. Consolidate your forces. Let your opponent make a mistake. The more arrogant and self-confident your opponent—as both General Santa Anna and Democrats (along with a sycophantic media) are—the more likely it is that your opponent will make a mistake that neither he nor his allies saw coming.

---

The iconic pundits I mentioned above are as exasperated with the GOP leadership as Houston’s officers and supporters were in 1836.

I find it ironic that Texas Senator Ted Cruz led the battle against the CROmnibus. It’s almost as if the man hasn’t learned the lessons from his own state’s history. Sam Houston could have taken a stand on principle, but he knew that his troops would be destroyed and his cause lost if he stood on principle at the wrong time or the wrong place.

I am a big fan of Ted Cruz. The man speaks about the Constitution like it is the document that sets forth what the co-equal branches of government can and cannot do, which is exactly what the Constitution is. But you can’t fight every battle against a superior force, which is exactly what the GOP in this Congress faces. Taking a stand on principle against a foe with superior numbers and a tactical advantage might as well be facing a Santa Anna firing squad. You always lose.

Why sacrifice so much to gain so little? Why not wait, as Houston did, until your enemy is weak and makes a mistake? Why throw your advantage away now, when you can use it against a weakened enemy later?

In January, a new Congress will be seated. As noted above, it will be the largest Republican majority since before WWII. Before them almost immediately will be the issue of whether or not to fund President Obama’s reckless and irresponsible attempt to encroach on the powers of the Legislative Branch.

There is much work to be done between January 2015 and December 2016, including a new budget resolution that will be bitterly fought between the Capitol and the White House. In February 2015 however, there will be an even more bitter fight over the President’s lawlessness, and choosing that San Jacinto that was the right strategy.

There’s an old saying: When a bear and an alligator do battle, the victor is determined by the terrain.

Choose your battles carefully. Do not strike when your enemy is strong but when he is weak and in an unwinnable position, as Mr. Obama will be two months hence.

Yeah, you gave up funding an irresponsibly out-of-control government until next year, but what you gained is ground that you can fight on, and a battlefield that you can win on.

Let’s fight the budget battle in September of 2015. Let’s fight the lawless President in February 2015.

And Mr. Cruz, study your history, sir.

Bridge Scandal indicates that Chris Christie is no conservative

Weeks after the 1964 presidential election, the Lyndon Johnson administration announced the closure of Brookley Air Force Base in Mobile, Alabama. Johnson, who had a well-known reputation for rewarding friends and punishing enemies, was accused of punishing the state of Alabama for voting for Johnson’s 1964 opponent, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Johnson viewed the vote as a betrayal of the state’s traditional Democratic roots and ordered the base closed as retribution.

To my knowledge, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush rarely, if ever, punished a group of people or constituency for perceived insolence of their political leaders or for voting against them. Richard Nixon did, but then history is clear that Nixon was no conservative. Make an argument if you will that neither were the Bushes, but both at least endorsed some conservative ideals.

Barack Obama certainly has. See the IRS scandal, for example. There are others, but the Chicago community organizer knows how to reward friends and punish enemies.

As does, apparently, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

At issue is an emerging scandal wherein top Christie aides apparently ordered access lanes to the George Washington Bridge between Fort Lee, New Jersey and New York City for several days, causing massive, hours-long traffic jams. It prevented people from getting to work, it prevented school buses from getting kids to school and it may have indirectly led to the death of an elderly woman that was unreachable by emergency personnel.

In the Brookley AFB closure, Johnson imposed a decades-long economic stagnation in Mobile, a city that relied heavily on the economic stimulus of having a large base within its city limits. Mobile’s economy didn’t fully recover until the 1980’s, when the base was transferred to a local airport authority. Brookley Aeroplex, as it’s now known, is a growing industrial and aerospace complex and is set to become the home of a major Airbus assembly facility.

The Jersey bridge lane closure lasted less than a week, but it still demonstrates that Christie, or people who work for him, know how to send a message.

This is decidedly un-conservative behavior, and it’s demonstrative that the bombastic Jersey Governor is no conservative. It is more consistent with the actions of Johnson, Clinton and Obama than it is with those of Reagan and the Bushes.

Conservatives don’t treat people like this, and the conservative base should be appalled by this event. While Christie has apologized and today fired those responsible, the fact that it even happened is reason enough to look elsewhere for a conservative standard-bearer for 2016. If he’d do this to a small town for the reticence of the mayor, he’d do it to the residents of a state that rebuked him, and that’s just wrong.

Conservatives believe in diversity of opinion. We believe in an honest, open debate wherein our opponents are free to oppose without fear of retribution. Non-conservatives, liberals in particular, have absolutely no stomach for a loyal opposition. Time and time again, liberals lash out at those who oppose or offend them, seeking to shut them up, shut them down, get them fired, get them back.