Category Archives: Must Reads

The Left Hates You — Act Accordingly

Kurt Schlichter absolutely nails it with his “The Left Hates You. Act Accordingly.”

This is a very important statement. The left is playing to win and playing to eliminate any resistance to its belief in its historical progression to omnipotent power over all before it.

Myron Magnet Speaks the Truth

Myron Magnet is one of my favorite writers. He can often be read at the indispensable City Journal.

I can’t do any better than this takeaway from the recent election, Donald Trump and the Rejection of Progressivism. It begins with this and gets better: “One message to take away from Donald Trump’s presidential victory: Americans don’t want to be ruled.

Go read and enjoy. This week the future of this country suddenly became much brighter.

Fisking Hillary

Here’s Hillary Clinton’s op-ed for USA Today on why people should vote for her. It’s really kind of simplistic. An intern probably write it. I’ve added a few comments.

In January, America is going to have a new president. Things are going to change — that much is certain. [But, Hill, I thought things under you and O were great. Why do they need to change?] The question is, what kind of change are we going to have?

We can build an economy that works for everyone, or stack the deck even more for those at the top. [Which is exactly how Hillary wants it since she’s at the top.]

We can keep America safe through strength and smarts [Smartpower! How’s that worked out? It hasn’t.] — or turn our backs on our allies, and cozy up to our adversaries. [All of which is a perfect description of the Obama foreign policy, much of which you’ve been involved with intimately.]

We can come together to build a stronger, fairer America, or fear the future and fear each other. [Aren’t you the candidate telling every minority you can find that if you aren’t elected they’ll be in chains or pregnant and without an abortion mill within a stone’s throw?]

Everything I’ve done, as first lady, senator, or secretary of State, I’ve done by listening to people and looking for common ground, even with people who disagree with me. [Seriously, you said that with a straight face?] And if you elect me on Tuesday, that’s the kind of president I’ll be. [Lady, you must have the face of a stone if you didn’t break out into laugh after that howler.]

Here are four priorities for my first 100 days — issues I’ve heard about from Americans all over our country. [Is this ‘hearing from Americans’ meme poll-tested. You seem to be hitting it like a drunk hits the bottle.]

First, we will put forward the biggest investment in new jobs since World War II. [Wait, we gotta start a World War to get the economy moving? Isn’t Trump supposed to be the warmonger?] We’ll invest in infrastructure and manufacturing to grow our economy for years to come. [Is this ‘investment’ going to be bigger than Obama’s ‘Stimulus’? How’d that work out?] We’ll produce enough renewable energy to power every home in America within a decade. [Are you drunk right now? Who told you anything like that was remotely possible?] We’ll cut red tape for small businesses and make it easier for entrepreneurs to get the credit they need to grow and hire — because in America, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it. [How can you cut red tape if you are going to expand the administrative state? And where are these loans coming from?] We’ll pay for it all by asking the wealthy, Wall Street and big corporations to finally pay their fair share. [Oh, I see. Soak the rich. You are aware that the rich already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes? Of course you are. You’re just cynically manipulating the unintelligent but very envious supporters now.] And this commitment will go far beyond the first 100 days. Creating more good jobs with rising incomes will be a central mission of my presidency. [Um, you do understand that you can no more command that than King Canute could command the sea?]

Second, we will introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation. [Why does ‘immigration’ need to be reformed? There’s nothing wrong with the laws we have that enforcing them wouldn’t fix.] The last president to sign comprehensive immigration reform was Ronald Reagan, and it was a priority for George W. Bush. I’m confident that we can work across the aisle to pass comprehensive reform that keeps families together and creates a path to citizenship, secures our border, and focuses our enforcement resources on violent criminals. [There’s nothing listed here that wouldn’t be enabled by simply enforcing the current laws.] This is the right thing to do, and it will also grow our economy. [What, it doesn’t cure cancer too? Lay off the hallucinogens.]

Third, to break the gridlock in Washington, we need to get secret, unaccountable money out of our politics. [Like the money that has enriched you and the Democratic Party?] It’s drowning out the voices of the American people. [How?] So within my first 30 days, I will introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. [Because you want all political speech to be approved by a government that you and your bureaucratic minions control? The First Amendment is very clear.] We should be protecting citizens’ rights to vote, not corporations’ rights to buy elections.[So you admit that corporations are buying the presidency for you?]

Fourth, we need to get started on end-to-end criminal justice reform. Too many people have been sent away for far too long for non-violent offenses. [No, many if not most of those people also had weapons charges against them but they pleaded to lesser charges. You’re just lying to get more felons sprung so they can vote for Democrats.] I believe our country will be stronger and safer when everyone has respect for the law and everyone is respected by the law.[‘Everyone has respect for the law.’ Does that include you? Your husband? Cheryl Mills? Heather Samuelson? David Kendall? Jake Sullivan? Jimmy the Weasel Comey? Et al.]

There’s so much more we need to do together, and we certainly won’t get it all done in the first 100 days. But we’re going to roll up our sleeves and get to work for American families — and I’ll never, ever quit. [I’m pretty sure you’ll quit when you’re dead. And why families? What about us single people?]

I want to be president for all Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents; Americans of every race, faith and background. [Is this going to be like Obama’s everyone? Where some everyones are more equal than other everyones?]

My opponent has run his campaign on divisiveness, fear and insults, and spent months pitting Americans against each other. [Holy cow! Did you not read what you just wrote above? Oh, nevermind, I forgot, you’re a liberal so hypocrisy is your middle name and self-awareness is a concept to you like grasping the 47th dimension is to the average human being.] I’ve said many times that Donald Trump has shown us who he is. Now we have to decide who we are. [Admit it, that last sentence is a nod to Obama.]

Because it’s not just our names on the ballot this year. Every issue we care about is on the ballot, too. This is about who we are as a country — and whether we are going to have change that makes us stronger together, or change that pushes us further apart. [That whole self-awareness thing really is hard for you, isn’t it?]

It all comes down to this. I love our country. [So why are you so eager to turn into a socialist hellhole?] I believe in our people. [Actual Americans or your little clique of entitled elites? I’m thinking you are really referring to the latter.] And I think there’s nothing we can’t achieve if we work together and invest in each other. [Always have to work in that money angle…]

VDH on Trump and Schumer Is Booed

A double treat here.

Victor Davis Hanson says it as no one else can in “The Case for Trump.”

As problematic as Trump is, the Hillary Clinton presidency is not acceptable for the positive future of this country. She is the pinnacle of the modern, corrupt, grasping, self-dealing, nepotistic, racist, greedy, oppressive, socialist, totalitarian left.

A must read.

And for a special cherry on top comes this story on Amy Schumer getting booed in Tampa.

No, it’s not from a conservative source either. I’m amazed it made TV Week since that newsletter has pretty much run nonstop and egregious anti-Trump pieces. The name Hillary Clinton is alien to them.

But here it is, pushback for the random cultural attacks that anyone who is not a liberal is constantly subjected to.

And this is important. Do not patronize these people. Do not buy the tickets. Do not watch them on TV.

Schumer’s been lately on Bud Light beer commercials, claiming putative nonpartisanship in some fictional political party, yet in one commercial she recently asserted that “gender is a spectrum.”

It’s a beer commercial and here she is (and the Anheuser-Busch corporation) inserting very controversial, some would say incorrect and nontraditional, leftwing assumptions and political points.

Has anyone in any of these commercials seen the “Bud Light Party” utter a single conservative talking point? Plenty of libtard talking points but nothing on the other side of the real spectrum.

As I often say, the left will politicize anything and it will politicize everything — even beer commercials.

Do not buy the beer! Make these companies understand that carrying water for liberalism has consequences. Stop enriching these liberals.

Hollywood’s Misportrayal of Republicans

I read Hank Stuever’s “I’m With Him” in Thursday’s Washington Post. I rarely read anything in the WaPo but I thought I’d get a good laugh at a story about how Hollywood portrays Republicans.

Amazingly enough it’s actually a good piece; wholly without that “Conservatives in the mist” flavor that characterize most stories concerning conservatives/Republicans that are written by members of the MSM.

Stuever flatly acknowledges that Hollywood (focusing on TV mostly though including movies), does a poor, practically clueless, job at creating and portraying Republicans. These portrayals are generally stupid, plodding hypocrites who are either purposefully evil or accidentally malevolent.

He even grants that Republicans and conservatives probably have a legit beef with Hollywood over this. He doesn’t do the usual thing that you’d see at Vox, Slate, HuffPo, et al, of simply blathering that the portrayal is accurate and the lack of conservatives in Hollywood is because they are ignorant Phillistines that only care about business and bigotry.

However, he doesn’t offer any reasons for this blindness, likely because he fears for his job, but he at least goes that far.

He could have noted that most Hollywood denizens don’t know any actual Republicans or conservatives. And unlike active conservatives, who are quite knowledgeable about liberalism (how could we not be since we are bombarded with it in our culture, education, government and, increasingly, every nook and cranny of everyday life?), liberals know little to nothing about conservatives and what little they know is distorted, caricatured or misunderstood.

He could have remarked upon the pressure exerted by politically-active liberal Hollywood producers, directors, writers, actors and executives. Conservatives rarely last long in Hollywood or they keep their mouths shut. Conservative projects, outside of shoot-em ups, military and revenge/vigilante porn, do not get made. Any conservative yelp that creeps into a program is often shouted down and those behind it are chastised and chastened. Apologies will be issued and new, politically-correct characters and story lines introduced in penance.

He could have pointed out that an educational system, especially at elite institutions, has been miseducating students for decades, creating liberal-spiced automatons.

I could go on but I’ll add one final point missed. When it comes to politics/Washington, Hollywood does a terrible job of getting it right. Most Hollywood TV series and movies with a Washington setting are dreadful liberal propaganda that bear no resemblance to the dreadful liberal mess that Washington actually is.

The truth is that politics is, for the most part, boring. It doesn’t have the dramatic dynamic that TV shows and movies need. Most policy is made in bits and pieces by liberal bureaucratic worms at the agency level, slowly digesting our freedoms. It’s not made by pretty, incredibly smart people in the West Wing outwitting the Republican troglodyte retrograde opposition for the umpteenth time.


I’m a bit late getting to this one but Thomas Lifson’s “The 11-point lead for Hillary in WSJ-NBC poll sure looks like psy-ops” is must read.

It lays out the case that a highly-trumpeted poll showing Hillary Clinton with an almost insurmountable lead is nothing more than a push-poll/dirty trick.

It’s sad that our mainstream media has become little more than an arm of the Democratic Party, but it is true. Very little that you read/hear/see, is actual news. So much, especially political content, is propaganda design to further party and its march to socialism. I do not exaggerate.

Read the piece. That poll was created by a company that was founded by a Democrat pollster, Peter Hart, and it is heavily contracted with the Clinton campaign. That it is being played as an unbiased poll is outrageous. It’s a lie. The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed to be associated with the poll and the outfit but the WSJ has it in for Trump.

I don’t exactly know why they do. There is a way to register criticism without attempting to destroy him. They seem to be of the delusion that there is going to be a miracle third option appearing soon.


Make sure you read it and regularly check out American Thinker. It’s a site that has a lot of good stuff that isn’t in the MSM or even some of the better blogs.

And remember that many polls are really push-polls designed to depress Republican support and turnout.

Thornton Nails Liberal Hypocrisy

Bruce Thornton has written “Trump, Politics, and Our Sexual Schizophrenia,” a perfect crystallization of the recent (and latest) L’Affair Trump.

This is a great piece. Read it. I can’t do it justice it with my words. Thornton perfectly recounts the decades-long degradation of sexual values, mores and intercourse (not the act but the conversation) by Democrats and liberals and their utter hypocrisy by blushing at Trump’s language. It’s as if a lifelong prostitute complained that she was outraged that women were being treated like sex objects to be bought.

The gall is astounding, yet they get away with it.

So read it.

This leads me to the Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins. She had a Tuesday column, “No Leader Says Things Like That in [the] Locker Room,” wherein she claimed, vis a vis Donald Trump’s claim that he was just engaging in “locker room talk,” that “there is no such thing as ‘locker room talk.’”

Saying something like this reveals an obtuseness that should get her removed from the job she is supposedly paid to do.

She then lapses into accidentally acknowledging that such talk does exist while denigrating anyone that talks that way. Along the way she tut-tuts like a Victorian finishing school marm.

She gets around to labeling such talk as more like “sauna chatter between a couple of junior brokers.” While Jenkins has been in professional sports locker rooms as part of her job, I seriously doubt she’s ever been in a men’s sauna, especially when junior brokers were conversing.

She then gathers a handful of pro players in a painfully politically correct lecture. Professional gay Scott Fujita chimes in that he heard a lot of course talk in locker rooms but nothing about “casually boasting about a criminal sexual act…” Clearly Scottie wasn’t catching any of the rap tunes pounding around the room nor paying attention to any of the talk about the cheerleaders… But Scott’s gay so he probably tuned out all that het-sex stuff. Great choice of sources, Jenkins.

She also uses a couple of other players who deny they’ve ever heard any naughty talk at all, ever, honest… and to prove it she lapses into cataloguing the charity one of them is involved in. Wow, a guy involved in charity would never say such things… Case closed, Trump is guilty!

One might not like such talk but it’s a tradition from the pros to college to minor leagues and amateur sports; especially when dealing with males that have been idolized, patronized and socially coddled all of their lives.

Yes, there are clucks trying to ban such talk, feminize sports, instill political correctness but such talk happens amongst men. I’d bet that Fujita talks that way among his gay buddies when a hunk of beef goes by. Gays are notoriously fixated on sex and scoring since… uh… that’s their whole definition of existence.

But let’s take her claim on its merits, stipulating that she herself has never heard such talk in a locker room. This leads to several possible conclusions.

One, perhaps she’s never been in a locker room. No, she’s had to be there and has been one of those female reporters demanding access to naked players.

Two, she is deaf or has a lot of wax in her ears.

Three, players and coaches are on their best behavior when she’s around.

Four, she’s a lying politically-oriented hack.

The answer is three and four.

Though female sports reporters claimed that they didn’t want to be treated any different than men and that they are just as tough as the men, they pressured sports teams to have the players and coaches curtail their salty language because the girls found it offensive/harassing/uncomfortable. Surprise! Hypocrisy from liberals… They were aided by beta male journalists.

When the girls aren’t around the talk can revert back to other topics that they would find offensive (and they find most male things ‘offensive’).

Sally Jenkins a terrible sports reporter/writer. She’s an affirmative action hire (aided tremendously by being famed sports writer Dan Jenkins’ daughter) and proves it with nearly every column. She showed time and time again when covering the Redskins that she new little about football and after being given a second chance to cover the beat proved to have learned nothing. Rather than focusing on actual football, strategy, performance, stats, etc. she preferred to emphasize personalities.

A sports fanatic, wanting to learn something about the game or the players, will not read Jenkins. If you want the personality buzz, the scuttlebutt about who’s in or out, the sizzle behind the steak, then Sal’s your gal.

Jenkins, like the revolving selection of talentless female sports writers the WaPo sports section seems required to retain, tends to write less about sports as competition and a day-to-day event than just another politically-oriented venue where she can ultimately rant about injustice, lack of “fairness” and demand “equality.” That the female athletes she often writes about usually wouldn’t make a men’s high school team never enters her mind as she demands increased pay, prizes and facilities for female athletes. That few watch or care about so many female sports is not important to her or, obviously, her bosses.

Jenkins, like so many liberals prefers to live in a fantasy world. She wants the world to be as she wants it and demands that everyone else occupy that world rather than the world they inhabit.

And, finally, oh, yeah, please get your hack politics out of the sports section.