Trump rally in Des Moines, IA HERE.

quote:

No, and they weren't impressed when he claimed there had been no terrorist attacks on US soil in the past 8 years.

No that's some fake news shit right there.

Has the Trumpian Revolution Begun?


By Patrick J. Buchanan

The wailing and keening over the choice of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA appears to be a lead indicator of a coming revolution far beyond Reagan’s.

“Trump Taps Climate Skeptic For Top Environmental Post,” said The Wall Street Journal. “Climate Change Denial,” bawled a disbelieving New York Times, which urged the Senate to put Pruitt in a “dust bin.”

Clearly, though his victory was narrow, Donald Trump remains contemptuous of political correctness and defiant of liberal ideology.

For environmentalism, as conservative scholar Robert Nisbet wrote in 1982, is more than the “most important social movement” of the 20th century. It is a militant and dogmatic faith that burns heretics.

“Environmentalism is well on its way to becoming the third great wave of redemptive struggle in Western history,” wrote Nisbet, “the first being Christianity, the second modern socialism.” In picking a “climate denier” to head EPA, Trump is rejecting revealed truth.

Yet, as with his choices of Steve Bannon as White House strategist and Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general, he has shown himself to be an unapologetic apostate to liberal orthodoxy.

Indeed, with his presidency, we may be entering a post-liberal era.

In 1950, literary critic Lionel Trilling wrote, “In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.”

The rise of the conservative movement of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan revealed liberalism’s hour to be but a passing moment. Yet, today, something far beyond conservatism seems to be afoot.

As Hegel taught, in the dialectic of history the thesis calls into existence the antithesis. What we seem to be seeing is a rejection, and a counterreformation against the views and values that came out of the social and political revolutions of the 1960s.

Consider the settled doctrine Trump disrespected with Pruitt.

Call them climate deniers or climate skeptics, but they see the establishment as running the Big Con to effect a transfer of wealth and power away from the people — and to themselves.

We have long been instructed that climate change is real, that its cause is man-made, that it imperils the planet with rising seas, hurricanes and storms, that all nations have a duty to curb the release of carbon dioxide to save the world for future generations.

This is said to be “scientific truth,” and “climate deniers” are like people who believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. Some hold the matter to be so grave that climate deniers should be censored for promoting socially destructive falsehoods.

Yet, the people remain skeptical.

Their worry is not that the rising waters of the Med will swamp the Riviera, but that tens of millions of Arabs, Muslims and Africans may be coming across to swamp Europe, and that millions of Mexicans may cross the Rio Grande to swamp the USA.

Call them climate deniers or climate skeptics, but they see the establishment as running the Big Con to effect a transfer of wealth and power away from the people — and to themselves.

Across the West, establishments have lost credibility.

Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….

The proliferation of minority parties, tearing off pieces of the traditional ruling parties, points to a growing distrust in ruling regimes and a return to identifying with the nation and tribe whence one came.

A concomitant of this is a growing disbelief in egalitarianism and in the equality of all races, creeds, nations, cultures and peoples.

The Supreme Court may say all religions are equal and all must be treated equally. But do Americans believe Christianity and Islam are equal? How could they, when Christians claim their faith has as its founder the Son of God and God himself?

After calling for a ban on Muslim immigration, Trump was elected president. After inviting a million refugees from Syria’s civil war into Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel admits having made a mistake and is now in favor of letting German cities and towns decide if women should be allowed to wear burqas.

A sea change in thought is taking place in the West.

Liberalism appears to be a dying faith. America’s elites may still preach their trinity of values: diversity, democracy, equality. But the majorities in America and Europe are demanding that the borders be secured and Third World immigrants kept out.

The next president disbelieves in free trade. He wants a border wall. He questions the wisdom of our Mideast wars and the need for NATO. He is contemptuous of democratist dogma that how other nations rule themselves is our business. He rejects transnationalism and globalism.

“There is no global anthem, no global currency, no certificate of global citizenship,” said Trump in Cincinnati, “We pledge allegiance to one flag, and that flag is the American flag. From now on, it’s going to be America first. … We’re going to put ourselves first.”

That’s not Adlai Stevenson or Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama.

Nothing seems settled or certain. All is in flux. But change is coming. “Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind.”

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
The Second Amendment of the American Constitution is partly of the reason for terrorism?
He's an even bigger piece of commie shit than I ever gave him credit for.

I believe Obama really is delusional. This man is mentally ill.

A sitting president telling the military it is their right to openly criticize the next commander in chief. NUTS I tell you.

Obama Tells CNN His Greatest Regret Was Failure To Secure More Gun Control

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...ama-cnn-gun-control/

President Barack Obama tells CNN’s Fareed Zakaria his greatest regret from the past eight years was his inability to further restrict the Second Amendment via more gun control.

Obama said:

If you ask me where has been the one area where I feel that I’ve been most frustrated and most stymied, it is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common sense gun safety laws.

Zakaria said, “He failed to pass any firearms legislation. By the time it became a priority he simply did not have the political capital.”

The segment went on to show that gun control only became a priority after the December 14, 2012, attack on Sandy Hook Elementary, but it was too late. Americans were not interested in passing more gun control in response to an attack wherein the gunman, Adam Lanza, had bypassed all gun laws by stealing the weapons he used to carry out the attack.

The Obama administration tapped Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) to push universal background checks in the months after Sandy Hook; grasping what the Democrats’ viewed as a window of opportunity to secure legislation they had long desired but failed to secure.

In the end, Manchin’s gun control legislation failed to pass and Obama failed with it. CNN quoted Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), saying, “Let’s be honest here, there haven’t been the votes in the Congress for gun control, make no mistake about it.”

One quick point about Obama’s assertion that “the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common sense gun safety laws.”

This statement seemingly refers to the universal background checks Democrats have pushed and repeatedly failed to pass. It is important to note that Paris, France, has universal background checks. France also has bans on entire categories on guns, mental health checks, and other requirements that must be met before a person is allowed to own one of the few guns that can be legally obtained. Yet Paris witnessed 12 people gunned down during the January 7, 2012, attack on Charlie Hebdo and another 130 gunned down during the November 13, 2015, Paris terror attack.

Moreover, on July 14, 2016, a terrorist bypassed all gun control and used a truck to kill 84 in Nice.

Closer to home, Washington state, California, and Colorado have universal background checks too. Yet on September 23, 2016, five innocents were killed in a mass shooting in Burlington, Washington and on December 2, 2015, a duo of attackers killed 14 in San Bernardino, California. On November 27, 2015, three were killed in an attack on a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood and less than a month prior, on Halloween Day, three more innocents were gunned down in the streets of Colorado Springs during a daytime attack. And the list goes on.

The bottom line–background checks do not stop determined attackers, period.

Connecticut had background checks and what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence rated as the fifth “toughest” gun control laws in America when Sandy Hook occurred. But all those laws went out the window when the attacker decided he would simply steal his guns.

Seen in this light, Obama’s greatest regret is one of freedom’s clearest victories. The Second Amendment survived his presidency.

however we achieved an even greater victory

we got Obama Control

As one of the articles points out, we were fortunate Obama was sidetracked pushing other issues back when he had much sway.

By the time he turned to gun control, it was too late.

It's probably wishful thinking but I'd like to see the Bush Sr. ban done away with.

Anyone catch Ole Shotgun Joe on TV tonight, all butt hurt over the election results?

Complaining about WHAT the media covered vs. didn't cover. That's why the Dems lost.

Can anyone name ONE positive thing this guy has done in the last 8 yrs?

quote:

Originally posted by Excam_Man:

Can anyone name ONE positive thing this guy has done in the last 8 yrs?

Being the perfect protagonist for the Obama/Biden Buddy Memes.

The memes have Shotgun Joe wanting to pull stupid, juvenile pranks in the White House. Barry says no or replies disapprovingly. That's some funny stuff. It is great that Joe is the type of idiot to make the memes come off as plausible and so very entertaining.

quote:

Originally posted by Excam_Man:

Can anyone name ONE positive thing this guy has done in the last 8 yrs?

Well, if you owned a gun store, you probably loved him.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
A sitting president telling the military it is their right to openly criticize the next commander in chief. NUTS I tell you.

Immediately following his election it was made very clear to the military forces that Bill Clinton could not be criticized for his admitted drug use and draft-dodging, and as Pale Horse pointed out, it was strongly reiterated when he took sexual advantage of a subordinate. The Democrats had no problem with those restrictions on anyone’s First Amendment rights. Then of course there was General McChrystal; did the President react to his statements by saying, “That’s okay, I expect my military commanders to criticize me if they believe it’s warranted”?

Apparently, the P-E will attend the Army-Navy game tomorrow, flying down on Trump Force One.

That'll take all the attention off the nominal Commander in Chief. Obama may have to hit up a scalper outside the stadium for his ticket.

I don't think Obama is even attending the Army/Navy game.

Obama attended in 2011.

always something new to enjoy:

Sabato: Say, 2018 looks like a looming disaster for Senate Democrats

Democrats blew a golden opportunity to win back control of the Senate in 2016. Republicans defended 23 seats against the Democrats’ 13, and were widely expected to suffer significant losses — more than the four seats necessary to reduce the Senate to a tie. Instead, the GOP held on in Florida, Pennsylvania, and handily won a Wisconsin race that almost everyone expected Russ Feingold to win by a large margin. If the GOP wins the run-off race in Louisiana as expected, they’ll have a 52-48 majority for the next two years — and maybe wider, if Heidi Heitkamp gets a position in the Donald Trump administration.

By 2019, that might become a filibuster-proof majority, warns Larry Sabato. Rather than the 10-seat advantage they had in 2016, Democrats will have a seventeen-seat disadvantage. Furthermore, many of those races will be in states won by Republicans in November:

Including the two independents who caucus with the Democrats, the party holds 25 of the Class I Senate seats that are up for election in 2018, while the Republicans hold only eight. Again, a look back at the last few times this group of seats was contested explains the Democrats’ exposure. After Republicans netted eight seats on this map in the 1994 Republican Revolution (and party switches by Sens. Richard Shelby of Alabama and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado from Democrat to Republican would essentially make it 10 by the time of Campbell’s switch in March 1995), Democrats made big gains in Class 1 in both 2000 (four) and 2006 (six). Going into 2012, it appeared that Democrats would lose seats, but they upset expectations and instead gained two, which is why they are so overextended now. …

The last time a party was as exposed as Democrats are in 2018 was in the 1970 cycle. At the end of 1968, 25 Democratic-held seats were up in the 1970 midterm. There are some similarities between the position of Democrats in 1970 and 2018. First, Class I Senate seats were up in 1970, just as they are in 2018. Second, a sizable number of Democratic-held 1970 Senate seats (13) were up in states that Republican Richard Nixon had just carried in the closely-contested 1968 presidential election, compared to the 10 Democrats are defending in 2018 in Trump states. Perhaps endangered Democrats up in 2018 can feel a little bolstered by the fact that Democrats only lost three net seats in the 1970 midterm despite having to defend numerous seats, many in states that backed the most recent GOP presidential nominee. Overall, 11 of the 12 Democratic incumbents running in states won by Nixon in 1968 won reelection in 1970 (though Harry Byrd Jr. of Virginia ran as an independent that cycle, eschewing his previous party label).

Democrats overcame their overextension in 1970 in part because Nixon held the presidency, while the overextended parties in 1926 and 1938 held the White House, perhaps contributing to their bigger losses. So as the Democrats assess their Senate odds in 2018, they can take some solace in the possibility that the midterm dynamic might help them protect their many vulnerable incumbents.
Can they actually take solace in that, however?

Here's the 2018 Senate map - not since 1970 has a party gone into a midterm playing so much defense



Now overlay that with the Congressional map from 270toWin after the 2016 election:



Bear in mind that Democrats usually do better in presidential cycles than midterms, thanks to the dynamics of turnout, and one starts to sense the disaster Sabato sees looming. There is little chance of Democrats losing the deep-blue coastal states or Minnesota, especially with Amy Klobuchar defending her seat. After that, though, Democrats have a large number of seats that look at serious risk, including Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin again, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and probably Florida. All of these states have Republican legislatures and went for Trump in this election. Picking up those eight bring Republicans up to 60, and that’s without considering what might happen in Virginia, West Virginia, and Maine — where Trump did stronger than expected and which is represented by an independent (Angus King) who caucuses with Democrats.

It’s entirely possible that Republicans could end up with a 62-63 seat majority, which would give them carte blanche on policy for the final two years of Trump’s first term. It’s also possible that some of this potential might dissipate as a reaction to Trump’s governance, as frequently happens in midterm elections. That would require Democrats to have learned the lessons of why they lost so badly in 2016 — and so far, as Salena Zito explains, they’re still in deep denial:

What is astounding, post-election, is the total lack of contrition Democrats have displayed for ignoring the workingman and -woman bloc that has been the party’s horn of plenty. The only regret they display is that they lost the election, not the voters.

What Democrats, academics and pundits keep refusing to see is that the loss was never about Trump’s candidacy; it was all about how Democrats have increasingly lost touch with their voters outside of coastal America — until those voters finally hit their breaking point.

“The Democratic Party has become a coastal elitist club and if there is any decision or discussion made to broaden that within the ranks it is squashed,” said Dane Strother, a legendary Washington, DC-based Democratic strategist.

“We have completely lost touch with Middle America,” he admits, “How did we go from the party of the little man to the party of the elite?” Then he answers; “Yes, we rightfully should protect the rights of minorities, African-Americans, Hispanics, the LBGTQ communities and we always should — but we can’t forget the rest of the country along the way,” he said.

They have less than two years to figure that out. So far, though, all they’ve done is kept their party’s leadership in the same hands that lost four straight election cycles and turned Democrats into that “coastal elitist club.” That portends yet another major electoral disaster for Democrats. And if Republicans and Trump actually deliver on their promises in 2017-18, it could be even worse than it looks for those coastal elites.

http://hotair.com/archives/201...or-senate-democrats/

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you..."

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you..."

with glee. I'm thinking of heading over to Fred Astaire studios, and see if they can teach me how to dance a jig, so I can properly celebrate the little daily festivities brought to bear by having adults in charge. I listened to Trump's speech in Fayetteville, NC on Tuesday, and felt it had been written to speak to me, personally. Then, there are little tidbits to relish, such as:


Trump Team’s Memo Hints at Broad Shake-Up of U.S. Energy Policy

Advisers to President-elect Donald Trump are developing plans to reshape Energy Department programs, help keep aging nuclear plants online and identify staff who played a role in promoting President Barack Obama’s climate agenda.

The transition team has asked the agency to list employees and contractors who attended United Nations climate meetings, along with those who helped develop the Obama administration’s social cost of carbon metrics, used to estimate and justify the climate benefits of new rules. The advisers are also seeking information on agency loan programs, research activities and the basis for its statistics, according to a five-page internal document circulated by the Energy Department on Wednesday. The document lays out 65 questions from the Trump transition team, sources within the agency said.

On the campaign trail, Trump promised to eliminate government waste, rescind "job-killing" regulations and cancel the Paris climate accord in which nearly 200 countries pledged to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Trump, though, hasn’t detailed specific plans for federal agencies. The document obtained by Bloomberg offers clues on where his administration may be headed on energy policy, based on the nature of questions involving the agency’s research agenda, nuclear program and national labs.

Loans, Incubators

Under Obama, the department played a major role advancing clean-energy technology through loan guarantees and incubators, while writing efficiency rules for appliances. The department leans heavily on tens of thousands of contractors, who supplement the work of its roughly 13,000 direct employees.
Two Energy Department employees who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed the questionnaire and said agency staff were unsettled by the Trump team’s information request.

Tom Pyle, the head of Trump’s Energy Department landing team and president of the oil-industry-funded free-market advocacy group American Energy Alliance, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the memo. Media representatives for the Trump transition and an Energy Department spokesperson also didn’t immediately respond to calls and e-mails seeking comment.

A person close to the transition team confirmed the questions Thursday. The person, who asked not to be identified because he isn’t authorized to speak publicly about the matter, praised the caliber of the Energy Department staff and cast the transition team’s effort as designed to ensure transparency on the formation of existing, Obama-era policy.

Social Cost

The questions about the social cost of carbon dovetail with similar, so-far-unsuccessful requests from Republicans on Capitol Hill, who have also sought information about the analysis underpinning that policy and the people who helped develop it.

The transition team questions includes perfunctory requests to identify current advisory committees, pending procurement decisions and positions subject to Senate confirmation — information critical to ensuring the agency’s functions before and after Trump is sworn in.

The document also signals which of the department’s agencies could face the toughest scrutiny under the new administration. Among them: the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, a 7-year-old unit that has been a critical instrument for the Obama administration to advance clean-energy technologies.

Since going into operation in 2009, ARPA-E, as it is known, has provided about $1.3 billion in funding to more than 475 projects involving grid-scale batteries, power storage, biofuel production, wind turbines and other technology, according to a May report on the agency. Trump’s energy landing team is seeking “a complete list of ARPA-E’s projects” and wants information about the “Mission Innovation” and “Clean Energy Ministerial” efforts within the department.

Without Subsidy

The group also questions whether any technologies or products that have emerged from Energy Department programs “are currently offered in the market without any subsidy” and asks “what mechanisms exist to help the national laboratories commercialize their scientific and technological prowess.”

The Energy Information Administration, the department’s statistical arm, is the subject of at least 15 questions that probe its staffing, data and analytical decisions, including whether its forecasts underestimate future U.S. oil and gas production. EIA staff also are asked how they account for added costs to transmit and back-up renewable power.

The Trump transition advisers also want to know in what instances the EIA’s independence was most challenged over the past eight years.

While the request for information hints at areas the Trump administration will address in terms of energy, it doesn’t actually specify policy, and administration plans may be shaped in part by the Energy Department’s responses.

Nuclear Plants

The document shows Trump advisers contemplating ways to keep aging U.S. nuclear power plants on line, including by addressing concerns about the long-term storage of spent radioactive material. “How can the DOE support existing reactors to continue operating,” and “what can DOE do to help prevent premature closure of plants?” the transition team asks.

Trump advisers have been weighing how to revive a long-stalled plan to stash radioactive waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. In the document, they ask if there are any statutory restrictions to restarting that project or reinvigorating an Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management that was responsible for disposing of spent nuclear material.

In the transition document, Trump advisers ask for "a full accounting" of DOE liabilities associated with DOE’s Loan Program Office, criticized by Republican leaders over its part in bankrolling Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer that went bankrupt and left taxpayers on the hook for $535 million in federal guarantees. The documents seeks lists of outstanding loans, their terms and objectives, and the parties responsible for repaying them.

In addition to Pyle, Trump’s Energy Department landing team includes national security lawyer David Jonas; Michigan Republican Party vice chair Kelly Mitchell; Jack Spencer, vice president of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at the conservative Heritage Foundation; Martin Dannenfelser Jr., previously with the Energy Innovation Reform Project; and Travis Fisher, with the Institute for Energy Research.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...of-u-s-energy-policy

Wouldn't it be incredible if we had another Silent Cal on our hands? Tweeter Cal?

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:

I'm thinking of heading over to Fred Astaire studios, and see if they can teach me how to dance a jig, so I can properly celebrate the little daily festivities brought to bear by having adults in charge.

I'm learning ( from online instruction) cabbage patching for the same purpose.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2S7auiJFJs

December 8, 2016 10:56am
Trump to interview former Ford CEO Alan Mulally for secretary of state

A top source in the Trump transition team tells Fox News that President-elect Trump will be interviewing Alan Mulally as a possibility for the position of Secretary of State. The transition team later confirmed that Trump will be meeting with Mulally today.

Mulally is the former CEO of Ford—and before that of Boeing.

Fox News' Chris Wallace and John Roberts contributed to this report.

I don't know anything about this gentleman ... anyone?

He he the few leftist proggies I know must be cowering under their beds.

This is what happens when you denigrate half the society as "deplorable racist deniers" and insult the people as if they are stupid since they don't think like "you".

I might go buy another gun, just cause LOL