Fascism in Their Hearts

For those who think the economic policies of the Democratic party are communist, I’d disagree.

Turning the means of production over to the workers isn’t exactly what the Democrats want since it would dry up their funding and largesse for individual members. In other words most would like to continue to live in the style to which they’ve become accustomed. If you’ve eliminated private industry, including the uberlucrative financial industry, all those Democrats fielding enormous contributions and living in the well-heeled neighborhoods and counties of the United States will have to move lower-rent digs.

You can’t lobby for a private industry that no longer exists. You can’t have much of an NGO/nonprofit group attacking private industry if the private industry no longer exists; supplanted by a governmental department made up of your former cronies, allies and school chums.

There’s also the consideration that if “the workers” are controlling the “means of production,” that would place control over to them rather than a governmental agency (or squealing progessive mobs).

No, what the Democrats yearn for is fascism. Yes, fascism is a socialism but in it much private industry survives, so long as it cooperates with its government masters. In fascism, all economic actors become creatures of the government, even unions.

Remember the phrase popular among Democrats in the 1980s and 1990s — “Industrial Policy”? Government choosing winning industries and the players in those industries. Keep the government happy and you keep your government funding. Disagree with the government and you become an enemy of the state. That’s purebred fascism.

In Nazi Germany, the Nazi government created the Deutsch Arbeitsfront – DAF – German Labor Front – an overseeing worker agency, similar but more powerful than our Dept. of Labor. The DAF controlled the hiring and firing of workers, their compensation, insurance, workplace conditions.

Does that sound familiar? The Democrats constantly pitch increased government control of the hiring and firing policies of private businesses. Obamacare controls “health insurance” for all, whether they are officially part of it or not (it also has regulations for life insurance policies taken out by businesses for individual workers). OSHA, the EPA have long had their claws in workplace conditions. And, of course, compensation is the holy grail — minimum wage laws, the constant bellowing about gender pay differences, “inequality” and CEO pay tells you that the Democrats dream of a day when government will dictate pay scales.

The results of fascist economics are a trail of failure. Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, Peronism and its fellow Latin American “corporatist’ siblings, all have been failures. That is what the Democrats have in store for us.

Advertisements

Hart of the Matter

Is nothing sacred?

Short answer — in our modern PC world, no.

You have to read this to believe it, “NBC’s ‘Hart to Hart’ Reboot Will Have One Groundbreaking Difference.”

You can probably guess what that “groundbreaking difference” is going to be.

These people are really shameless. They have no respect for anyone different than them, and by different, I mean normal. They have no respect for the past, either.

“Hart to Hart” was a purebred example of 1970-80s Aaron Spelling schmaltz. It was great prime time family entertainment. Utterly harmless and didn’t have a mean bone in its body (except to the bad guys caught at the end of each show). Bob Wagner was a handsome devil and supersexy Stephanie Powers was a MILF before there was an acronym for such a creature. They even had a cute dog. Their butler, in real life, was an old hardcore commie who, when exposed and blacklisted, went to work on Wall Street before returning to acting. America, what a country! And Reagan was president during “Hart to Hart.”

So instead of letting “Hart to Hart” rest in peace as a hunk of cultural amber… the liberals in Hollywood feel the need to “reboot” it, which tends to mean take everything that made it successful and strip much of that out and see how long they can con the rubes.

Number one target, take the two hot, mature, heterosexuals and turn them upside down. (In reality, that might be the only reason ‘Hart to Hart’ is getting ‘rebooted.’)

You might remember a few months ago when the liberal culture warriors were in angst demanding all the superhero characters be “rebooted” into SJWs, with all the proper political correct traits – gay Green Lantern, black Captain America, female Thor, etc. You might also remember at that time actress Michelle Rodriguez — innocent, naive, Michelle Rodriguez — suggested that maybe all those concerned folks should just write original stories with newly created heroes who displayed all the characteristics the PC crowd wanted rather than appropriating existing superheroes and changing them.

You could have heard a pin drop … Right before the volcanic reaction demanding Rodriguez’s head on a platter, in a nice aspic with maybe some arugula garnishing… She meekly apologized in a sack cloth, forever destroying her hard-earned reputation as a tough girl afraid of no man (but clearly terrified by the politically correct crowd).

You see, dear Michelle, it’s not about creativity. It’s about control, intimidation and power. That which can’t be controlled must be destroyed, including the past. People can’t be allowed to choose what they like because they might not like the things that the cultural commissars think that they should like. That’s what the politically correct are really about.

No “gay” superhero is ever going to be anything other than a niche, other than in a parody (cue The Ambiguously Gay Duo — which almost certainly couldn’t be made today). That won’t satisfy the professional culture warriors. To appropriate Erick Erickson’s point (everyone must be made to care about liberal talismans, whether they like it or not), everyone must be made to love gay characters, precisely because they are gay!

So, to take that back to “Hart to Hart.” Some of the charm of the show was because Jonathan and Jennifer Hart loved each other and had a fun time with each other as they went around solving crimes and mysteries. To most people whoever lived on this planet that wouldn’t seem out of the ordinary, but we live in “different” times. In the eyes of the rebooters the Harts exist to be used for the greater good of gaydom. The Harts have to be made to care.

You might be asking, as Michelle Rodriguez did, why can’t these Hollywood writers and producers come up with their own gay, mystery-solving, super-rich couple (modeled maybe on Chris Hughes and Sean Eldridge)? Perhaps call it, maybe, “Rock and Lee” (after Rock Hudson and Liberace) or something like that. A high-profile campaign getting the writers, producers and stars to appear on every talk show on every network plus sympathetic news stories and NPR puff pieces would be a piece of cake. Make a few episodes and put them on the air and see if anyone watches. The show would almost certainly crater if the writers pushed the homosexual angle but then that’s what the show is supposed to be about so maybe you can understand their need to appropriate someone else’s work as a Trojan Horse. That’s how the left works.

You will be made to care about the gay Harts, even if the Harts have to be destroyed. You have been warned.

It’s All Vlad’s Fault

Our amazing president has done it once again.

Last week, on the anniversary of 9/11 he expounded on the crisis du jour, Syrian refugees. I guess it should be noted that he didn’t blame the United States for the crisis, nor the white power structure, though he did rope some white people into the fault so that only partially spared George W. Bush from his usual role as origin of all-things-wrong.

So what caused the Syrian crisis?

Russia did!

Most importantly Vladimir Putin did it.

Now I’m no Russia lover, especially of Vladimir Putin, he’s an old-fashioned strongman with delusions of grandeur — think of a Latin American caudillo writ large — but seriously? Russia?

According to an article in The Washington Times (warning: ad-heavy website), Obama said: “‘Russia has for many years now provided financial support, sold arms to Assad. I remember a conversation I had with Mr. Putin four or five years ago where I told him that was a mistake, that would makes things worse,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘He did not take my warnings, and as a consequence, things have gotten worse. It appears now that Assad is worried enough that he’s inviting Russian advisers and Russian equipment…We are going to be engaging Russia to let them know that you can’t continue to double down on a strategy that’s doomed to failure.’”

I seriously doubt President, Barack Obama (AKA Swami Obami, the Delphic Oracle of our time) told Vladimir Putin, to his face, that he, Putin, was on the wrong side of history, to use The One’s favorite phrase of self-justification and vindication. The simple fact that Putin’s alive today, not having died laughing or been shot by the Secret Service trying to give Obama a noogie, is proof of that. This is just another one of those self-serving stories that both Obamas traffic in (seem to actually live in) .

If there was any remotely viable causative effect one would have to say that Russia’s support has propped Bashar Assad up and kept him around this long, not caused ISIS — the chief Syrian underminer. Syria was a client state of the old Soviet Union, which provided weaponry and built-out a number of facilities — ranging from chemical weapons facilities and supplies to a Soviet naval base on the Mediterranean (Tartus) to standard planes, tanks and missiles. Russia inherited the relationship after the fall of communism and Putin has taken an interest in it. He certainly doesn’t want to see source of Russian income and of a fellow tyrant taken down. That sets a bad example, gives people the wrong ideas, you know.

Obama’s reasoning is exactly wrong. He couldn’t be any more wrong (well, maybe if he had blamed, say, Martian earthquakes, he might be slightly more wrong but on Planet Earth…). I suppose one could make a tautological argument that if Assad didn’t exist ISIS would have no one to overthrow and therefore would evaporate in a puff of logic but I suspect they’d probably be warring with whomever replaced Assad.

That leaves — Can he possibly believe such a pile of nonsense or was he in total BS mode as he just let that rip off-the-cuff?

I’m hoping it was just another bit of off-the-TelePrompTer impromptu speaking that Obama is famous for. He says something that pops into his head, that might serve a policy point he’s trying to make — say, arms sales = bad, and he comes up with a cock and bull story that he thinks sounds sophisticated, relying on the audience to be made up of his low information/high esteem supporters. It’s highly unlikely that anyone will publicly call him on it, certainly not on that moment. And then he’s off to a round of golf on Martha’s Vineyard. Mission accomplished.

Going back to the legendary “Reset” fiasco, the Obama administration has long tried to get the Russians to follow O’s lead. After all, he showed a willingness to suck-up to the Russians with a high-school level slam of the Bush administration (bad relations: All Bush’s fault). But after the Obama team agreed that Putie’s old girlfriend was a stupid slut, that really cute and rich boy (♥♥♥♥!) still didn’t ask us to the prom!

In fact, he started sleeping around with all of our friends (while we still did his laundry for him!) by invading and destabilizing neighbors, jamming up the Obama administration in international forums and just being a meany! Doesn’t he realize we’re smart and beautiful and talented and better than all those cheap tramps he hangs out with?????

If you want to know how Obama and liberals think and operate, think about the social dynamics of high school; if you want to know their policy thoughts, think kindergarten and elementary school.

Our “smartest-evuh!” president is shockingly ignorant, and not particularly bright (example, the error-filled silliness we are talking about now). He’s obviously gone through life with few people actually questioning him, much less simply explaining that he’s wrong about some issues. There’s also no indication that Obama is even concerned about facts but rather he focuses on narratives that “must” be true — like Putin is on the wrong side of history so if he’d just stop supporting Assad, Syria would reboot into the pleasant democracy it was before Putin supported Assad and created ISIS. Fore!

The scary part of this is — is this an example of Obama’s narcissistic tendency to think that whatever comes out of his mouth must be true simply because he said it? Did he knowingly throw out some absurd reasoning to fill some time at an event he didn’t want to be at or does he actually believe his Syria-is-Russia’s-fault story? Is his administration making policy on this concept?

There is the quasi-Nixonian possibility that O & Co. tossed that out because Obama is trying to get out from under the “ISIS is J.V.” analogy (another off the TelePrompTer remark) and taking any blame that yanking troops out of Iraq and grabbing his ankles on Iran had anything to do with the rise of ISIS nor his own vacillation concerning Syria. Laying the blame on Russia is classic Obama blame-shifting (ask George W. Bush about that). And don’t forget, Obama killed Osama! Al Qaeda and all other similar terrorist groups were supposed to roll over and wither away while pure, sweet, secular democracy was going to spring forth in the Middle East (as it had reigned in Muslim-dominated lands throughout history). Everyone in the late night dorm room BS session that is the Obama administration agreed that would happen and anyone who’s participated in a Mock U.N. or academic conference on the Middle East knows that should have happened.

But it didn’t and the ugly thought that serious military forces will need to be deployed to curtail ISIS is beginning to heckle Obama’s inner monologue. (Another other heckler is yelling ‘Bush, Cheney and the Taliban conservatives were right!’)

I’m hoping that’s it because the alternative, our president is delusional, is worrisome. Of course, using a 9/11 anniversary chat with the military to lay the groundwork for such a position is “bush league” but then that’s what Obama has always been.

He often treats the political arena, home of traditional give-and-take, as if its an inner-city basketball court and he’s the number one “trash-talker.” Except he believes his own BS.

Scott Johnson at Power Line has a good piece on this topic.

The Care and Feeding of Topsy

It’s a sad axiom of government that once a program is started it will forever grow, eventually moving far beyond its intended purpose and scope.

While we are replete with thousands examples, I shall apprise you of a recent one that has come to my attention.

Ronald Reagan, bless his heart, had a blindspot for Rooseveltian social claptrap. It was a left over from his days as a Democrat. One of Reagan’s leftovers was a program called “Lifeline,” aimed at maintaining basic phone service for isolated senior citizens.

This was back in the early days of phone deregulation, the 1980s. Telephones were still sort of new back then, or at least not taken for granted. There were senior citizens who remembered having their first phone installed at their home. It was still a luxury to have more than one phone in the house, though that was changing. Long distance calling was still expensive, though thanks to Craig McCaw it was coming down. Cellphones had not been invented yet.

Lifeline was to be a small program, paid for by those nickle & dime “fees” that you read about on the back of your phone bill (like the one instituted to pay for the Spanish-American War but was only finally removed more than a century after the war ended). No one thought much of it because no one wanted Grandma to be without a phone and it was just a few pennies a month, right? Besides, back then even grandmas scrimped and saved to pay their bills. Nobody was going to call them deadbeats!

Fast forward 30 years to now. That cute little puppy of a program has grown into mangy adult coyote, complete with its own Washington lobby, army of rentseekers and disingenuous activist supporters.

Lifeline, in the eyes of the FCC, is now morphing into a broadband Internet entitlement that people of “low-income” are, well, entitled to. In fact, the cable television industry lobby group, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, wants to add in more than just basic services, because, as it says, consumers want choice (especially when other people are footing the bill).

There’s no such thing as “beggars can’t be choosers,” in this day and age. I’d surmise that many liberals would insist that it is those very beggars who should be given the most choice. That’s how they think in their upside down world.

The Democrats at the FCC are pushing to fatten it up as well.

Adding fuel to the fire — Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut (a Democrat, of course), has written a letter to the FCC (and the Veterans Administration) insisting that Lifeline be expanded to cover all military personal and veterans.

I guess that would make a new recruiting tool — Join the Army, get free broadband for life. If that doesn’t raise the patriotic fervor of today’s kids and older couch potatoes, I don’t know what will.

Laugh now that some think broadband Internet should be considered a basic of daily life. In a few more years you’ll be paying for it (assuming you’re one of the 50% that actually pays taxes and for your Internet – which will be deemed a ‘human right’ by some.).

Common Cause?

There’s an old political adage — the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It certainly can be useful at times, make strange bedfellows and even generate genuine bipartisan action.

And then sometimes it’s just dumb.

As of late conservatives have become more suspicious of an increasingly militarized local police. Tales of military-grade equipment and even training have garnered attention about exactly what the relationship is supposed to be between a police department and the public it putatively serves and protects. It sometimes looks as if the police are arming to go to war with its citizenry.

The strange bedfellow here is the hard left.

For some reason I get emails about the campaign in Oakland to “stop” “Urban Shield.” Urban Shield is some kind of police exercise/trade show that takes place every year around this time. I get the emails practically year round but they intensify in August.

Looking at the Urban Shield website, it does seem to be a bit heavy on the firepower. But then one wouldn’t want the local police to be outgunned by actual bad guys rather than, say, suburbanites who know Scott Walker. It’s a tough call.

The people, er… “coalition” who are protesting Urban Shield — actually trying to get it shut down — have names like “War Resisters League, the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Xicano Moratorium Coalition, and Critical Resistance.”

Oooo-kaaaaayyyy.

The email says: “Urban Shield is a county-wide war games, SWAT training and weapons expo held each year since 2007 that involves hundreds of local, federal and international agencies, with past participation of law enforcement from apartheid Israel. The event plays a significant role in militarizing police, which leads to increased violence in many communities, particularly in Black and Brown neighborhoods.”

Uh-huh… They didn’t capitalize “apartheid” but did “Black and Brown.” Interesting.

The guy sending the email is named Mohamed Shehk.

Ahem…

Well, so much for a temporary tactical alliance. These guys aren’t against the militarization of the police. They are against the police, any police.

I’m in the media, which is the big reason I get these emails. Everyone assumes I must be a liberal. I’ll also guarantee you that big media (I’m little ‘b-to-b’ media) gets these too. So why aren’t these fairly scary, superhard left wackos exposed to the public? In places like Oakland they are quite numerous and some of their allies are on city and county councils. Dig down and you’ll find a lot of them are university professors, public school teachers, city, county and state workers. They have taxpayer-funded jobs-for-life. Some of the groups receive city, county, state or federal grants.

These people and their wacky groups are real. They are the left-wing version of “militias,’ yet unlike the highly marginalized and wildly disorganized militias, these groups are large and well-organized. This bunch crows that it got the event shut down last year and says, “Community organizations in the Stop Urban Shield Coalition are mobilizing to ensure that Urban Shield is no longer welcome in the Bay Area or anywhere else.”

When some liberal rolls their eyes at you and insists you are exaggerating when you mention the threat of leftwing groups, remember that there are some groups for which there simply is no common ground.

This Kim Davis Thing

I have to admit that the whole Kim Davis thing conflicts me.

She has a local public government job so she really loses all possibility of choosing what jobs to perform. She’s public servant — emphasis on public and servant. This was the job that she campaigned for (it’s an elected office). It wasn’t foisted upon her (though it sort of changed after she was seated). She wasn’t promoted into the job but sought it out. If she didn’t like everything about the job (including potential changes) she probably shouldn’t have run for it. She is supposed to serve all of the county’s citizens.

Yet our liberals have set out a precedent that public servants don’t have to actually perform jobs that that they are uncomfortable with. Look at the mayors, city councils, et al, of “sanctuary cities” and their refusal to enforce immigration laws or cooperate with federal authorities on immigration law enforcement. Or look at King Barry, he specifically ordered immigration officials to not enforce laws, even if some of them felt compelled to do their jobs.

Kim Davis was actually jailed by a federal court judge for “contempt” of his court by not issuing the marriage licenses, in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Obergfell decision.

So a federal judge, not a judge for the state of Kentucky or the county of Rowan, has decided to jail a county officer for not doing his bidding.

A federal judge is not an enabler of a county. A federal judge is not an officer of that county nor of that state. A federal judge does not sign Davis’s paycheck nor contribute to the county in any Constitutional, statutory, economic or civil way. He would seem to have no legal connection to Davis, her office or her county other than some declaratory overlord relationship. Maybe subservience is a better description.

Why do we even bother with local authorities anymore? Why not just have federal judges run everything? After all, by their own acknowledgment, they know so much better how to run the county than the yokels that live in those counties.

Who voted for this judge? No one in Rowan County. No one in Kentucky. No one in the United States voted for this judge. U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning is appointed by an authority outside of the state.

It needs to pointed out that Bunning was appointed to his position by George W. Bush and is the son of former Rep. Jim Bunning, a Republican. Davis herself is listed as a Democrat (Kentucky is the last redoubt of Yellow Dog conservative Democrats).

Things like this should engender a serious debate of the role and power of our federal judiciary.

Why is this woman being detained? Why not move to have her removed from office, for failing to fulfill her duties (as decided by this ‘inferior’ court), by the tools available to the citizens of Rowan County or the state of Kentucky?

Is it because the outcome of those time-consuming attempts possibly wouldn’t satisfy the gays behind this legal imbroglio?

Why the recourse to instantly federalize this issue and legally annihilate anyone standing in the way? We have time-honored and traditional models of dealing with public servants accused of not doing their jobs.

For centuries marriage laws have been the jurisdiction of states and their counties. Local community values, such as age, were defined and addressed by this approach. Few things are more “community” than marriage and its traditions.

What’s the hurry? Gay marriage was just ruled “legal” or “Constitutional” last June, having not previously been seen in the Constitution in the centuries before.

But suddenly marriage laws have become a one-size-fits-all (or fits liberal preferences) federal government issue. Everyone has to turn on a dime.

Here’s a question: Are the people pushing the legal proceedings actually citizens of Rowan County? Kentucky? Do they really have standing?

I can’t believe there are that many gay couples in Rowan County (population 23,000) demanding marriage licenses…

This proceeding would seem to have been concocted by legal tourists looking to start trouble. The “couples” I heard on the radio reports declaring their sudden liberation and joy didn’t exactly have Kentucky accents (though I’m sure there are gays in Kentucky).

If the supposed gay wave of Rowan County can’t obtain marriage licenses, nothing prevents them from moving or applying to the state of Kentucky for a remedy. Don’t like the laws of Rowan County or Kentucky? Run for office to change things, assuming that the citizenry wants to change, or move. Go live with people who are like you, share your values and want to be with you.

That’s the way things are/were supposed to be handled.

No longer. Increasingly, every conflict, disagreement, political issue is being inflated into a big issue and federalized. No doubt some of this intention is that liberals are increasingly dominant in the judiciary. If you can;t win at the ballot box, using the judiciary to obtain your goals has long been a liberal tactic.

The decent thing for the “couples” would have been to go elsewhere and let Davis suffer at the hands of the Rowan County citizens, if they want gay marriage. If not, why not let them live in their “backward,” insufficiently enlightened world.

But why be friendly when you can be a bully and make people you don’t like knuckle under to your particular desires? Especially when you have big brother behind you. That’s modern liberalism in a nutshell. It’s about power and submission.

Of course one can also argue it’s also true for Kim Davis and her supporters. She precipitated this.

This whole mess is an overreaction. No one is dying because Kim Davis refuses to issue marriage licenses to a handful of gays. Yet people are dying because King Barry and the officials of several cities, counties and states refuse to enforce the laws, notably on immigration, that they have sworn to uphold. Where’s the Supreme Court on this? Where’s Judge Bunning? Where are the activists now demanding compete and instant obeisance to the latest judicial farago? (You’ll find a lot of those ‘activists’ are also supportive of the law-ignoring sanctuary cities movement, how ironic.)

CBS Radio’s Nancy Cordes — Tool

I’m pretty much forced to listen to CBS Radio every morning in between the traffic, weather and sports reports. It’s a sad and sometimes stressful way to start the day.

Tuesday morning, with the release of a tranche of new Hillary Clinton emails, Washington correspondent Nancy Cordes ever-so-gingerly explained away the whole tempest in a teapot and the apparent inconveniencing of Hillary Clinton’s march to the White House by these so-called charges of impropriety.

She trotted out a lawyer, a supposed expert in these matters, who couldn’t see anything that Hillary had done wrong. Some expert. Mr. Magoo has better eyesight. See my take here.

Cordes cherry-picked a couple of innocent emails – Hillary asking what time “The Good Wife” was on and fluff like that. She off-handedly mentioned that there might be a couple of emails that maybe, just maybe, might, sort of, possibly be like… um… secret-ish if examined in a certain kind of light but anyone listening would be excused thinking that this really was much ado about nothing – which was the real point of the story. Nothing to see here, move along.

Cordes isn’t stupid. Like most of the top-level reporters she’s packed away a couple of Ivy League degrees (she’s also a graduate of the same high school Obama attended in Hawaii).

So we’re stuck. Is Cordes simply ignorant of the whole issue, in which case she shouldn’t be reporting on it? Or did she purposefully misreport the story? In which case she shouldn’t be reporting.

Anybody up on this case probably doesn’t pay much attention to major media anyway since the MSM won’t be breaking any embarrassing or damning stories on Hillary (unless the dam breaks), just recycling DNC talking points that the New York Times launders as actual news reporting. Cordes and CBS Radio aren’t aiming at those folks since they’ve already made up their mind. No, they are aiming at the low-info voter. The Obama voter. The person who thinks they are well-informed because they listen to CBS Radio. Keep them in line either through leaving out details or simply lying.

And just for laughs, add this to the “Imagine If This Were a Republican” file.

It’s shoddy or biased reporting like this that has driven faith in the news media to such low levels.

And speaking of bad and biased reporting. Courtesy of Power Line, get a load of the malarkey peddled in The New Yorker by the Dean of Columbia University’s School of Journalism, considered a top J-School. Note, Steve Coll is a former Washington Post star.

And journalists wonder why so many doubt them and their circulation and ratings have collapsed…