Deplorable scum

Hillary Clinton made a big bet on “deplorables.” Three years later, already having won that hand, Donald Trump raised her bid. He tweets that Never Trumpers are “human scum.”

“The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!”

This is obviously the Democrats’ fault. They keep empowering the President with their Star Chamber Impeachment coup, and encouraging him by continually upping the crazyiness ante. I mean, aren’t we all waiting with bated breath for Hillary Clinton to respond?

“Deplorable Russian scumbags” is still available.

If the Democrats had potential Presidential nominees (and Ms. Tentsuit is not one of them) who would condemn gun confiscation, eschew banning fracking, resist the pronoun war fallout, refuse massive tax hikes, ridicule the provision of free healthcare to illegal immigrants, oppose open borders, concede a woman’s right to choose logically ends with the birth of an autonomous being, abandon ruinously expensive fantasy proscriptions to prevent “climate change,” give up efforts to erase the Electoral College and pack the Supreme Court, and stop threatening to stamp out religious liberty – Trump might have had to moderate his language.

Even so, he probably wouldn’t have. He can’t help himself. Democrats apparently cannot grasp that, and, by now, they certainly should.

Full disclosure: I was NeverTrump during the GOP primaries. I voted Libertarian in the General. After Mr. Trump was elected, I accepted his Presidency. I have been pleased by some of his policies, appalled by others. That’s all on record here.

Nonetheless, according to The Donald, I’m now at least peripherally scum.

I can’t vote for anyone else this time. Wish I could. My enthusiasm ends with stopping the Democrat, whoever that turns out to be. If there were a GOP Presidential primary, I’d vote for Ted Cruz, though he’s too principled to run against a sitting President of his own party.

Mr. President, I know you can’t keep a civil tongue. I know it contributes to your success. But, gross insults of people who don’t matter to your re-election won’t convince any undecideds to vote for you.

And some people who gave up NeverTrumping might succumb to recidivism. That comment was just one of many bridges you went too far to burn.

Deplorable has already been used up

The New York Times spent two years collaborating with the Democrats in trying to convince everyone that Donald Trump conspired with Russia. What can they do now, noses still raw from rubbing in the abject failure of their attempted coup? Take direction from the drove of Democrat presidential candidates; who are moving directly to a different way of trashing America to get at Trump: Fanning racial division.

Assisting in that effort, the Pink Lady is embarking on a project to convince Americans that the United States was founded on slavery, with side shots at capitalism. The Time’s effort is called the 1619 project, after the 400th anniversary of the first slave imported to the US. Which they will refer to as The Founding.
JOHN KASS: Robert Mueller crushed their dreams, so Democrats pivot to race.

After withering Twitter criticism over a headline above a story on Trump’s remarks after the recent back-to-back mass shootings, the Times changed the headline from ‘Trump urges unity vs racism’ to ‘Assailing Hate But Not Guns.’ This sent the newsroom into a navel gazing downward morale spiral. Not because of the change, but because someone could have lacked sufficient wokeness to sully the Times propaganda goals by posting the first headline at all. They had a staff meeting to discuss it.

The truly amazing leaked transcript of that meeting is up at Slate. Should you wish to give them a click, remove the ‘x’ at the end of that otherwise broken link. I include just one example of the discussion about the NYT pre-election plans.

Baquet is executive editor Dean Baquet. The exchange is prompted by an earlier question/answer (I paraphrase), “Why don’t we call Trump a racist more often?” The answer was, “There are more subtle and powerful ways to call him a racist.”

Staffer: Hello, I have another question about racism. I’m wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting. Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know? Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn’t racist. I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting. And so, to me, it’s less about the individual instances of racism, and sort of how we’re thinking about racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country. And I think particularly as we are launching a 1619 Project, I feel like that’s going to open us up to even more criticism from people who are like, “OK, well you’re saying this, and you’re producing this big project about this. But are you guys actually considering this in your daily reporting?”

Baquet: You know, it’s interesting, the argument you just made, to go back to the use of the word racist. I didn’t agree with all of this from [NPR’s] Keith Woods, [but] …his argument, which is pretty provocative, boils down to this: Pretty much everything is racist. His view is that a huge percentage of American conversation is racist, so why isolate this one comment from Donald Trump? His argument is that he could cite things that people say in their everyday lives that we don’t characterize that way, which is always interesting. You know, I don’t know how to answer that, other than I do think that that race has always played a huge part in the American story.

And I do think that race and understanding of race should be a part of how we cover the American story. Sometimes news organizations sort of forget that in the moment. But of course it should be. I mean, one reason we all signed off on the 1619 Project and made it so ambitious and expansive was to teach our readers to think a little bit more like that. Race in the next year—and I think this is, to be frank, what I would hope you come away from this discussion with—race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story. And I mean, race in terms of not only African Americans and their relationship with Donald Trump, but Latinos and immigration.”

So, a staffer asks if the NYT marching orders are, “When writing a story about anything, first and foremost consider how you can include racism as a fundamental characteristic of the United States.” And Baquet says, yes, but don’t be too obvious about it.

They act like this is a new idea, but I’m so old I can remember when they told us the words “Chicago,” and “golf” were racist.

Anyway, you will be hearing this a lot in the next year(s). So, here are two articles debunking the 1619 project that may assist you in refuting the histrionic flurry of statism and race baiting sure to come from Progressives with whom you may be trapped in an elevator.

Slavery Did Not Make America Rich
The Anti-Capitalist Ideology of Slavery

Burdensome

Nancy Pelosi defending Ilhan Omar:

“I think she has a different experience in the use of words, and doesn’t understand that some of them are fraught with meaning that [she] didn’t realize, but nonetheless that we had to address,” Pelosi said.

Omar most recently came under fire after she accused Jewish Americans of having “allegiance to a foreign power.”

Pelosi made a similar statement on Thursday, when she told reporters at a press conference that she believes Omar didn’t understand “the full weight” of how other people understood her words.

“When you cross that threshold into Congress, your words weigh much more than when you’re shouting at somebody outside, and I feel confident that her words were not based on any anti-Semitic attitude, but that she didn’t have a full appreciation of how they landed on other people, where these words have a history and cultural impact that may have been unknown to her,” Pelosi said.

Nancy’s excuse for Omar is certainly absurd. It’s also condescending, imperialist, and culturally supremacist. Poor little Muslim girl doesn’t have the background to understand her own words. She’s only been in the United States for 24 years.

I guess that’s the white woman’s burden, Pelosi style. I can’t understand why all the woke Twitter users haven’t declared a fatwa on the Speaker.

Motor City Mother

If House Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) had been speaking:

New Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) on Thursday vowed to take on President Trump hours after she was sworn into office, saying before a crowd of supporters, “We’re going to go in and impeach the mothef—er.”

…about her fellow female Congresscritter, Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and if she’d said brotherf***er, she might have had a better point:

As many candidates do, Omar has made her personal background an integral part of her campaign. But neither the candidate nor the reporters who covered her have shown much interest in exploring one aspect of her personal story that recently came to public attention: the fact that she is not legally married to the man she advertises as the husband and the father of her three children. In fact, she is legally married to another man—who may be her brother.

Illegal immigrants being pwnd, Democrats committing vote fraud, Useful idiots calling for confiscation of all profits, Union bosses lying about their employers, God is dead to Democrats, Women defined as vaginas

Just a day at the Democrat’s convention.

Young face put on illegal immigration at DNC
“I’ve had to live almost my entire life knowing I could be deported just because of the way I came here.” And “how you came here,” that would be… illegally? Same with how you stay here?

Just whose votes does Obama expect to gain by suing Arizona, or issuing that executive “no deportation” order? A possible answer:
State Rep. Hudson Hallum, 3 Others Plead Guilty to Election Fraud

Democrats loudly proclaim there’s no such thing as vote fraud, and call Republicans racists for mentioning it. But, is there any reason to believe arranging for illegal immigrants to vote would have caused Hudson Hallum the slightest pang of conscience? Is there any reason to believe the president’s executive order was not crassly political in its timing? He could have done it over 3 years ago if he thought it about justice or compassion.

DNC delegates: Let’s ban corporate profits!
And these are people supposedly knowledgeable about politics and business? They are selecting THEIR candidate for the most (as yet) important job in the world.

Steelworker Featured at DNC Didn’t Work for Bain
They’ve got commercials where Democrat operatives claim to have converted from the GOP, why not someone who prevaricates about where he worked?

On the removal of “God,” and “Jerusalem” from the platform. First, the floor vote was obviously a fraud. Second, the President either knew about it and agrees, or didn’t know about it and is incompetent. On his record, I lean toward believing the former – his acolytes made it clear they (also) don’t like people “clinging to religion,” or calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel. As if it was their decision rather than Israel’s.

Then, there’s the nearly incoherent speech by Sandra Fluke. Ms Fluke became famous because Rush Limbaugh used the word ‘slut’ to describe her demand that you pay for her birth control pills. Slut is imprecise, because it leaves out the Federal pimp. I’d say ‘cheap whore to big government.’ Cheap, because the contraceptives she wants your Uncle Sam on the hook for cost 4 bucks a month. Whore, because it’s not about wanting to have sex, it’s about making someone else pay for it.

DNC delegates: Let’s ban corporate profits!

And these are people supposedly knowledgable about politics and economics? They want to say Obama’s” “You didn’t build that,” is taken out of context? They ARE the context.

Steelworker Featured at DNC Didn’t Work for Bain

They’ve got commercials where Democrat operatives claim to have converted from the GOP, why not someone who prevaricates about where he worked?

The Democrats think these ideas are good ones for their brand. Consider that while (if) you’re watching the soaring rhetorician accept his annointment tonight.