Latter Day Jacobins

  • Democrats: the Demolition Party — Destroy America First, vs Make America Great Again*
  • Profound exposition by Victor Davis Hanson about what is at stake

The Looming ‘1984’ Election 

Like it or not, 2020 is going to be a plebiscite on an American version of Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four.

From American Greatness- November 11, 2019

For a variety of reasons, the 2020 election is going to be a referendum beyond Donald Trump’s record and his Democratic opposition.

The furor that Trump has incurred, and the radical antithesis to his agenda and first term, have redefined the looming election. It is becoming a stark choice between a revolutionary future versus American traditionalism.

The choice in reductionist terms will be one between a growing, statist Panopticon, fueled by social media, a media-progressive nexus, and an electronic posse. Online trolls and government bureaucrats seek to know everything about us, in Big Brother fashion to monitor our very thoughts to ferret out incorrect ideas, and then to regiment and indoctrinate us to ensure elite visions of mandated equality and correct behavior—or else!

In other words, the personality quirks of a Trump or an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders will become mostly irrelevant given the existential choice between two quite antithetical ideas of future America. In 2020 we will witness the penultimate manifestation of what radical progressivism has in store for us all—and the furious, often desperate, and unfettered pushback against it.

Targeting Traditional America

We are also well beyond even the stark choices of 1972 and 1984 that remained within the parameters of the two parties. In contrast, the Democratic Party as we have known it, is extinct for now. It has been replaced since 2016 by a radical progressive revolutionary movement that serves as a touchstone for a variety of auxiliary extremist causes, agendas, and cliques—almost all of them radically leftwing and nihilistic, and largely without majority popular support.

When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and a number of Democratic presidential candidates sympathize with the New York subway jumpers who openly threaten the police, then what or who exactly is the alternative to such chaos?

When the media proves 90 percent partisan according to its own liberal watchdog institutions, or reports things as true that cannot be true but “should” be true, what are the forces behind that?

When the violence of Antifa is quietly—or sometimes loudly—condoned, who are those who empower it and excuse it?

If a late-term abortion results in a live baby exiting the birth canal only to be liquidated, who exactly would say that is amoral?

If the leading Democratic presidential candidates openly embrace the Green New Deal, reparations, abolishing the Electoral College, welfare for illegal aliens, open borders, amnesties, wealth taxes, a 70-90 percent income tax code, Medicare for all, and legal infanticide—what is the alternative vision and who stands between all that and a targeted traditional America?

Californication Ahead!

In California, the nation’s largest utility preemptively shuts off power to multibillion-dollar industries and two-million customers, given its ossified grid and over-regulated operations, and the deliberate policy of the state not to clean up drought-stricken dead forests and underbrush that are ignited by wind and antiquated transmission cables. So, who or what then in 2020 would oppose all that?

In a state where half the nation’s homeless use the streets as open sewers and receptacles for refuse, incubating medieval diseases and public hazards, who exactly says that is unacceptable? The California attorney general openly boasts that he believes the state is the home for 10 million illegal aliens; is there any pushback to that agenda? If not, would 20 or 30 million illegal aliens be acceptable for Californians? Why not 50 to 60 million additional illegally residing foreign nationals?

Can even a leftwing Facebook, Google, or Apple operate within a landscape that cannot ensure reliable power to run its businesses? Do the progressive masters of the Silicon Valley want to hand over millions per year in wealth taxes on money that has already been taxed—but which is considered by the Warrenites and Sandersites as veritable public property given their own past use of state roads and infrastructure to build their businesses? Do these billionaires really think conservative state policies encouraged tens of thousands of homeless people to sleep in cars and streets near their businesses?

On the social front, we are bombarded with celebrities dreaming of various methods of assassinating the current president. Who speaks out against such incendiary smears? Did Hollywood stars do the same to then-President Barack Obama?

In professional sports, Colin Kaepernick’s circus of not standing up during the national anthem has transmogrified into something far more serious—the National Basketball Association’s wholesale appeasement of the dictatorial communist Chinese government, and the leveraging of U.S. free speech in return for access to the lucrative Chinese market. Who is more likely to speak out against that?

Will Campus Culture Replace Our National Character?

Our universities effectively have eroded the First Amendment and the due process protections of the Fifth in matters of sexual assault allegations. Higher education is now controlled by a revolutionary clique. It institutionalizes racially segregated dorms and safe spaces, matter of factly promotes censorship, and either cannot or will not prevent students from disrupting lecturers with whom they disagree. What or who exactly say not to all that? Who would dare say that America in its third century is not going to change its use of English pronouns or decide that there are not three and more biological genders?

When a progressive mom takes her kids to walk and play in a California municipal park and, instead of relaxing comfortably with her fellow mom friends, finds blood-tainted needles sticking up out of the grass, what sort of policies does she imagine allowed that? When a small business owner in San Francisco finds vagrants defecating near his breezeway or mobs of shoplifters swarming his store, what sort of politics and ideologies will he consider led to that?

Who Is Sovereign Here?

On the national level, what or who created a landscape in which the highest echelons of the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department sought to surveil American citizens, undermine a presidential campaign, and abort a presidential transition and then a presidency? If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, would anyone have objected? Do any object today that she hired a foreign national to work with foreign sources to discredit and smear her political opponent?

Who or what is behind the constant remonstrations that the American people are racist, sexist, homophobic, nativist, xenophobic, and oppressing the transgendered? Who lodges such charges? Who believes them to be true?

Why is gasoline reaching $5 a gallon in coastal cities, when states like California have huge untapped sources of oil and natural gas? Why is lumber sky-high in stores while the state mandates that millions of harvestable drought-stricken dead trees instead slowly rot to serve as kindle for deadly wildfires?

What is wrong with 3.5 percent unemployment? Is there a Democratic plan to lower it to 2.5 percent?

Who exactly wishes to pack the court, to repeal the Electoral College, to nix the difference between residency and citizenship, to promote identity-politics tribalism over collective affinities, to nullify federal immigration law, to hunt down and disrupt political opponents as they eat and sleep—and who not?

Whose ideologies logically lead to promoting iconoclasm and statue-toppling, the Orwellian renaming of streets and buildings, the defacing of public murals?

The Orwellian Jacobins or America First

The new progressive party is Jacobin. It sees politics in all-inclusive French revolutionary terms—encompassing every aspect of American life from entertainment, sports, academia, religion, and family matters to politics, foreign policy, and individual rights.

In his own way, Trump also fights back in 360-degree fashion, from the existential to the trivial, railing against Colin Kaepernick, tit for tatting Hollywood stars, weighing in on radical abortion, open borders, power outages, the homeless and subway jumping. The result is not just that there looms a choice between two different agendas, but two quite different American lifestyles and experiences—and histories.

Like it or not, 2020 is going to be a plebiscite on an American version of Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four. One side advocates a complete transformation not just of the American present but of the past as well. The Left is quite eager to change our very vocabulary and monitor our private behavior to ensure we are not just guilty of incorrect behavior but thought as well.

The other side believes America is far better than the alternative, that it never had to be perfect to be good, and that, all and all, its flawed past is a story of a moral nation’s constant struggle for moral improvement.

One side will say, “Just give us more power and we will create heaven on earth.” The other says “Why would anyone wish to take their road to an Orwellian nightmare?” The 2020 election is that simple.


*graphic via HP  not in original

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Latter Day Jacobins

Why we don’t do Facebook

Eric Ciaramella, Eric Ciaramella, Eric Ciaramella,  Eric Ciaramella, Eric Ciaramella, Eric Ciaramella, Eric Ciaramella, Eric Ciaramella, . . .

It is widely circulated information that the name of the so-called whistleblower ( we prefer the term traducer, driveler, muckraker) regarding a Trump phone call to the Ukrainian president is one Eric Ciaramella a CIA employee, deep state denizen, highly political operative, protege of lying former CIA Director John Brennan —  aka a cia pet.

His name has been reported extensively and authoritatively as a matter of important journalistic work. By the way there is nothing in a “whistleblower” statute that says “whistleblowers” are entitled to have their anonymity protected, that they can make anonymous founded or unfounded accusations (the information in question about Trump’s phone call was not first hand information to Ciaramella). It would be an outrage to anyone accused on the basis of first or second-hand claims not to be able to face their accuser.

Below is an article regarding censorship  by the social media force Facebook of content that names Eric Ciaramella as the “whistleblower.” For that and other likely sins against liberal Facebook we would be in Facebook jail on a regular basis, de-platformed with regularity. Facebook is an anti-humor anti-ridicule-of-liberals platform.

To be sure as an internet platform Facebook has certain conveniences, but also limitations. Certain of its features are merely spins on other available purposed internet platforms. As a WordPress subscriber we have had no limitations on controversial content per se attributable to WordPress. Certainly we do not entertain everything but some of our content would not likely pass Facebook’s liberal oriented filters. Twitter we find largely irritating.  Both claim to be platforms and the immunities implied by that yet they censor content including political content.  As corporations they should then be subject to political advocacy statutes.

Facebook has distribution features that can enhance outreach which makes it appealing to many news and commentary outlets across the political spectrum.  From what we have observed of Facebook templates however, we prefer the concept of an entire post being intact (other than links) rather than requiring people to bounce about within the format.  We think our navigation is more straightforward and we do not like their censorship.   Our readers are anonymous, not tracked as a result of visiting our site, and no individual data is kept.

https://www.oann.com/facebook-bars-content-claiming-to-name-trump-impeachment-whistleblower/

Facebook bars content claiming to name Trump impeachment whistleblowerNovember 8, 2019

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Facebook Inc. is taking down any content that claims to name the anonymous whistleblower who ignited an impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Donald Trump, the social network said on Friday.

The company’s statement follows right-wing Breitbart News’ publication of an article that said it identified the whistleblower.

Breitbart, which former Trump adviser Steve Bannon once headed, reported that Facebook users attempting to view the article received a message saying the content was not available, and administrators of its Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday evening that its page is “at risk of being unpublished.”

“Any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content ‘outing of witness, informant, or activist,’” the company said in a statement, initially provided in response to Breitbart.

“We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.”

The whistleblower, a U.S. intelligence official who complained about Trump’s July 25 telephone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, has in recent days become a target of attacks by Trump, his allies in Congress and the conservative media, who have pushed for the person to be publicly identified.

Breitbart is one of the top-performing publishers on Facebook and was recently designated as an official Facebook News partner. Facebook said in response to criticism of that decision that Breitbart is an unpaid partner, unlike some outlets in the section.

(Reporting by Katie Paul; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Why we don’t do Facebook

Chart of Democrats approach to transparency and fair-play

This chart accurately describes the House Democrats Star Chamber proceedings aimed against Trump.  The Democrats have to proceed this way because Trump has done nothing wrong regarding Ukraine, indeed he has proceeded with integrity.  There has been neither “quid-pro-quo” or whatever the Democrats latest invented offense.

Below the chart are some links to substantiate its content. Also included is a video content from Republican’s revealing Democrat unfairness, fraudulence, subterfuge, deception.

Via  HP

Schiff’s Democrats plot a secret impeachment, with leaks

Republicans have a list of gripes about Adam Schiff’s handling of the House impeachment inquiry 

Jim Jordan Rips Adam Schiff for Blocking Witness Impeachment Testimony

Top impeachment committee Republicans to Schiff: Bring in the whistleblower

David Bossie: Republicans right to protest Adam Schiff’s impeachment witch hunt against Trump

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Chart of Democrats approach to transparency and fair-play

Democrats on a mission to run out of other people’s money

Democrats unveil proposal for ‘millionaires surtax’ 

——————-

“Crazy Horse” (Liz “Ah think ah’ll git me a beer” Warren) will be so angry!

Two congressional Democrat nitwits have gone and tipped her hand. Crazy Horse is famous for having ‘a plan’ for everything and Native Americans’ most famous fake had a funding scheme all worked out.

She promised to tax the sh*t out of ‘just the multi-Billionaires’ (with a B) … why who could be against that?!  Only after she became America’s 46th (and last elected ) president, would ‘CH’ implement “phase II”:

In order to ‘pay’ for all the free stuff she promised her benighted voters, she would then call on her socialist Democratic congress to add a “surtax on Millionaires” (with an M), in addition to their current tax liability!

President Warren would explain to America that “these people (Millionaires) didn’t EARN that much money”, and it’s time for them to ‘give back’ to their 90% of America who have much less than they.

“And beside, she will assure, it won’t unfairly treat those millionaires. Why my ‘one-time’ surtax will ‘only’ be 3% of their net worth.

For example that typical millionaire, who might even live in your neighborhood, would only have to give $30,000 more than the taxes they’ll pay next year! (A “super-rich” person worth $3 million would only have to pay $90,000 more). And that’s only for ‘one year’.)

“Think about it.”  She will say. “They’ll still have $970,000 ! How much will you have? And think how much more ‘free stuff’ I can provide to all Americans!” (A ‘super rich’ family would still have $910,000 !)

How’s that for a plan?

Anybody care to guess what ‘Mao Tse’ Warren has in mind for “phase III” of her “plan”?

dlh
——————————————
Democrats unveil proposal for ‘millionaires surtax’

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) on Thursday rolled out a proposal for a “millionaires surtax,” amid a growing interest from Democrats in increasing taxes on the wealthy.

“This is a bill designed to address two major problems of public policy: the lack of revenue, and inequality,” Beyer said on a call with reporters. “It’s a laser-focused solution that requires those who benefited the most from the economy to contribute in a way they simply haven’t been asked to before.”

The lawmakers’ bill, which is being co-sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), would create a 10 percentage point surtax on all income above $2 million for married couples and $1 million for single tax filers.

The surtax would result in the top tax rate on income from wages and salaries increasing from 37 percent to 47 percent, plus a 3.8 percent Medicare surtax. It would result in the top rate on capital gains increasing from 20 percent to 30 percent, plus a 3.8 percent net investment tax.

The Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, has estimated that such a surtax would raise nearly $635 billion over 10 years.
“This is revenue generated that we can then invest in helping other Americans succeed,” Van Hollen said.

The release of Beyer and Van Hollen’s proposal comes as Democratic presidential candidates and lawmakers have been offering a host of proposal to tax the rich more in order to combat inequality and raise revenue to pay for spending priorities. Of note, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who are both running for president, have proposed wealth taxes on multimillionaires and billionaires.

Van Hollen said his proposal isn’t “in conflict” with other tax-the-rich proposals, and that the surtax proposal “will become part of that broader debate.”

Beyer said there has been a debate about whether a wealth tax would be constitutional, but there shouldn’t be any constitutional issues with their surtax. He also said that the surtax proposal was simpler than a wealth tax.

The “millionaires surtax” proposal is backed by progressive tax groups such as the Patriotic Millionaires and Americans for Tax Fairness. Supporters of the proposal have released a calculator that allows people to see what the revenue raised by the surtax could fully or partially fund.

Supporters of the proposal also released polling data from Hart Research that found that 73 percent of voters would support a Democratic proposal creating such a surtax — including a majority of Republicans and of those who voted for President Trump.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Democrats on a mission to run out of other people’s money

Local election results and implications – part 1

Alderman at-Large Gripp more popular than Mayor-elect Matson

The results from the mayor race in Davenport indicates that people did not like the choices on the ballot.

How so you ask?*

Both the mayoral and the alderman-at-large positions are city wide elections. They are non-partisan in that party affiliation does not appear on the ballot and primaries are not determined by each party supplying a candidate.  However unlike the mayoral contest the alderman-at-large position was unopposed  – meaning there were only two candidates on the ballot for two positions.  Voters were voting for two to fill those two positions. Voters were not in a position to eliminate one although they could decline to vote for one or both.  Indeed other than to write in someone there was not a definitive reason to even vote the election as both were otherwise automatic winners.

We note that the two individuals for the alderman-at-large position combined received 15,518 votes. Kyle Gripp a registered Republican received the most with 8,702 of the votes cast (55,4%). The other person JJ Condon a registered Democrat received 6,816 votes (43.39%).

For the Davenport mayoral election, with two on ballot but with the option to vote for only one, there was a contest and people needed to vote to determine the winner. But there were only 12,070 combined votes cast.  The winner Mike Matson, a registered Democrat  received 7199 votes with Rawson another Democrat coming in at 4871.

So if people voted with knowledge of the players in the alderman-at-large contest which they presumably did as regards the mayoral contest then comparing the total vote spread between the two elections (~30%) might be of some significance. It is a sketchy proposition we admit because the alderman at large contest involved people voting for more than one and many might have liked both and voted accordingly.  It is also arguable that the alderman-at-large positions should have had a total vote in the 24000 range instead of the 16000 range but that would assume all people voting liked both candidates enough to cast a vote for them both however predetermined the outcome was.   HOWEVER the spread between the two candidates for the alderman-at-large positions at 12% more for Gripp indicates considerable selection going on in that race.  Our instinct says people did not like the choices for mayor as much.

Alderman-at-large Gripp received about 1500 more votes than Matson. Again, in the Alderman-at-large vote you could vote for two without penalty, but you did not have to, and selectivity was clearly going on. It would appear Alderman-at-large Gripp is the most popular city-wide candidate in Davenport.

*this article was revised from the original posting to better explain our rationale.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Local election results and implications – part 1

We will believe it when we see it

It is easy to doubt whether there . . .

  • Is an IG report
  • Is a William Barr!
  • Is a Republican Judiciary/Intelligence Committee

We have been teased so much by the conservative media and analysis of every little tea leaf and emanation to the effect that  THE BIG ONE IS ON THE WAY  so forgive us if we are of the attitude that we will believe it when we see it.

More and more it seems likely that the DOJ, FBI, and National Security apparatus are all still run by Obama holdovers wearing funny masks and suits that are cut from White House drapes fabric

Via sundance at Conservative Treehouse

diGenova and Toensing on Upcoming IG Report: “it’s going to be worse than you can imagine”…

Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing appeared on Fox News to discuss issues surrounding the ongoing investigations of Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorney John Durham. Mr. diGenova and Ms. Toensing bring the tick-tock hammer to the audience.

According to Ms. Toensing the upcoming IG report is going to be “very bad for people in the Obama administration.” Toensing went on to say, according to her sources, “it’s going to be worse than you can imagine.”

Mr. diGenova went on to say: “it’s going to be devastating” … “it’s going to ruin careers” etc. Mr diGenova has a great deal of confidence in AG Barr, Horowitz and Durham.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

The “glow” after the vote

  • Useful perspective for all of us on politics and politicians

Via reader “Fast Eddie” in Michigan

HEAVEN OR HELL ?

While walking down the street a senator was tragically hit by a car and died.

His soul arrives in Heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance. “Welcome to Heaven”, says St. Peter. “Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.”

“No problem. Just let me in,” says the senator.

“Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we’ll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.”

“Really? I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven,” says the senator.

“I’m sorry, but we have our rules.” And with that he goes down, down to Hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a golf course. In the distance a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hands and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They played a friendly round of golf and then dined on lobster, caviar, Cebu lechon and the finest champagne. Also present is the devil who really is a very friendly guy and who is having a good time and telling jokes. They are all having such a good time that before the senator realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.

“Now it’s time to visit Heaven.” So, 24 hours passed with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp, Cebu guitar and singing. They have a good time and before he realizes it the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns. “Well then you’ve spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now choose your eternity.

“The senator reflects for a minute before he answers: “Well, I would never have said it before, I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in Hell.” So he goes back down to Hell.

The elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders.

“I don’t understand,” stammers the senator. “The other day I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse and we ate lobster, caviar, lechon, drank champagne and we danced and had a great time. Now there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?”

The devil smiles at him and says, “Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted”.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on The “glow” after the vote

Comments on local election results soon

Republicans in Davenport not in the game. Comments later this week.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Comments on local election results soon

Moreon: the Leftist Mindset

More of our scintillating posts later but in the meantime a few memes about the liberal mindset:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Moreon: the Leftist Mindset

Breaking: Revelations about Davenport School Board from QC Times

This QC Times article reports on the transcripts of  Davenport School Board recorded minutes regarding the sale of Lincoln School.  Incumbent candidates seeking reelection Daniel Gosa and Linda Hayes (among others) are exposed for their biases and failures to protect taxpayer interests.

Lincoln School sale: Two Davenport School Board members said they might have conflicts of interest, but proceeded anyway   (excerpt)

According to the audio, Hayes’ employment was also noted as a potential problem at the last meeting before the district approved the offer from her employer.

On June 3 — more than a year after Hayes she first mentioned the conflict — TJ Schneckloth, then–interim superintendent, told Johanson he should “probably ask about Linda” when he talked to the district’s legal counsel.

“I think it’s an issue of not voting,” Johanson said, without mentioning Hayes’ participation in each of the six closed meetings where her employer was discussed.

Hayes indicated she would not vote, and she didn’t. But her input was used to help build the board’s consensus; she questioned Maloney as to why Third Baptist’s informal offer hadn’t been brought to the board; she participated in a discussion of the church’s financial wherewithal to take on the project; she publicly endorsed Together’s plan for the property before the vote; and she made the motion to proceed with the vote on the sale.

Read entire article for more depth.

V’PAC note: Hayes fellow Democrat Gosa voted outright for the cheap sale.  Both are up for election Tuesday.

V’PAC supports candidates Gene Guy, Mark Holloway and Kent Paustian.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Breaking: Revelations about Davenport School Board from QC Times