“Dear Trump Fan, So You Want Someone To ‘Tell It Like It Is’? OK, Here You Go.”

February 23, 2016
Fine as long as the mouth stays shut

“I can do or say anything, and they still love me!”

Via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt, Matt Walsh at The Blaze hits Trump fans over their asinine double-standard:

You say you want some straight-shooting, honest, politically incorrect tough talk, but that’s simply a lie. If it were true, my inbox would not be filled to capacity with cartoonishly shocked and outraged Trump fans every time I utter a word of criticism in his direction. It shouldn’t matter that my criticisms are sharp and severe; you ought to revere me all the more for it. I thought you were tired of people walking on egg shells?

It turns out you don’t want Donald Trump to walk on egg shells, but you have fortified your own perimeter with a thick layer of egg shells and you expect anyone who comes near it to tip toe with extreme caution. It turns out you want to be coddled and cuddled and pandered to and excused. You’re in favor of whatever Trump says because Trump said it, but when it comes to how people talk about you and him, you expect to be treated like a soft and delicate flower.

You flock eagerly to a flamboyant, authoritarian billionaire fascist, and you feel you ought to be completely insulated from criticism while you do so. Everyone else ought to be subject to relentless and profane invective from an elderly Manhattan real estate heir, but you and he should be above reproach.

Tell it like it is? I’ll tell you like it is: In my life I’ve never encountered a group of people more averse to being told how it is. Of course, you believe you’re entitled to this attitude because you’re “angry.” Your “anger” indulges you with the moral authority to take leave of your reason and your common sense. Your anger, you believe, places you beyond judgment, even as you attempt to drag this country into a future of (more) tyranny and cultism. You believe the rest of us ought to take your supposedly righteous rage into account while you refuse to take anything but your own infatuation with spectacle and celebrity into account.

Whatever concerns we raise, including the ones I’m raising now, can be written off in an instant. “WE’RE TIRED OF POLITICS AS USUAL! WE’RE ANGRY!” And that’s supposed to be some kind of rhetorical hall pass, permitting you to do and say what you please unchallenged.

Pardon me while I cheer and applaud: smiley dance smiley cheering

Preach it, Brother Walsh! I’ve encountered this myself many times on Twitter: say anything critical of Trump, point out how his positions are no different than a progressive Democrat’s, that they’re often to the Left of Hillary, that his proposals are usually harmful, stupid, or both (but, don’t worry, he’ll have new ones tomorrow and deny he ever had the old ones), that he himself is a crass vulgarian and dishonest cronyist who is playing his fans for suckers, and…

And they just don’t care. They’re too busy being angry to use their brains and the reason God gave them.

This is the fate of the Republic we’re talking about, and there is no functional difference between Hillary, Bernie, or The Donald. They would all be disasters.

For pity’s sake, lay down your anger and act like the adult, serious voters to whom the Founders entrusted this marvelous nation.

Donald Trump is an authoritarian strongman, an American caudillo. He’s the heir of Juan Peron, not George Washington.

Breathe deep and think, before it’s too late.

PS: Read the whole thing, and make America awesome, again.

PPS: About the only point at which I disagree with Walsh is where he calls Trump a “fascist.” Trump is just a blowhard strongman: he’s too callow intellectually to grasp fascist theory.

PPPS: Don’t be a maniac.


Hillary Clinton, populist heroine

August 19, 2014
One of us?

One of us?

Via the Free Beacon, what says “woman of the people” more than demanding the presidential suite in the hotel of your choice as part of your speaking fees?

Documents for one of Clinton’s upcoming events reveal that she charges a whopping $300,000 speaking fee, requests 20 seats for guests picked by Clinton herself, a chartered Gulfstream 450 jet for round trip transportation for 16 people, and round trip business class seating for two of her staffers to check out the locale. Additionally, Clinton demands that a presidential hotel suite be booked for her and three adjoining rooms for her aides. Clinton also requests that her lead travel aide be given a $500 stipend and that meals, incidentals, and phone charges for Clinton and her aides be paid for by the host. A stenographer will be hired, but only Clinton will be given the transcript of her speech.

Hosts must agree that Clinton will not spend more than 90 minutes at the speaking engagement, that she will not pose for more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people (including her 20 guests) and the host is strictly forbidden from advertising the event as well as allowing press to cover the event.

Remember folks, she’s one of us. Why, she and Bill left the White House in 2001 darned near broke, which is probably why they could afford to buy only two mansions in swanky areas.

Just like the rest of us.

The former senator and secretary of state wants to be seen as understanding the struggles of everyday folks,  and she’s tried hard to show that common touch.

Which is kind of hard to do, when the hand you’re extending has a ring on it you expect to be kissed.


On birthday parties, income inequality, and big government

January 20, 2014
"By invitation, only."

“By invitation, only.”

So, in all the excitement of the NFL’s “championship weekend” the featured the 49ers thrilling come-from-ahead loss in Seattle (1), I forgot it was Michelle Obama’s 50th birthday. You can bet she didn’t forget, though, enjoying a lavish party attended by 500 celebrities and political stars. An intimate soirée, in other words.

Like Byron York, I’ve no need to know the details, assuming the party was paid for with private money, but the intense secrecy surrounding it is intriguing:

It’s not easy to enforce discipline on successful, wealthy, and famous people used to having their own way. But the White House apparently did not want to see photos of the first lady’s glittery gala circulating around the Internet. So it imposed a strict rule: No cellphones. “Guests were told not to bring cellphones with them, and there was a cellphone check-in area for those who did,” reported the Chicago Tribune. “Signs at the party told guests: No cellphones, no social media.” People magazine added: “Guests had been greeted by a ‘cell phone check’ table where they deposited their camera phones on arrival and it was understood that this was not an occasion for Tweeting party photos or Facebooking details.” The publications cited sources who insisted on anonymity for fear of White House reprisal.

“So great was the secrecy surrounding the party,” the Tribune reported, “that guests were handed an invitation — on their way out, the sources said.”

Kind of amusing for the Most Transparent Administration in History, no?

York speculates on the reasons for the secrecy, including the aforementioned privacy. But, he also touches on another, one that I think is at least equally valid – political messaging:

Or maybe, since the president has announced he is devoting the rest of his time in office to an “inequality agenda,” the White House felt photos of a champagne-soaked, star-studded party would be somewhat off-message.

I’m willing to bet this is it. The Left is singing like a chorus about income inequality and the widening gap, hoping to distract us all from the rolling disaster of Obamacare, and Michelle’s big blow-out would sound a loud discordant note, if it had gotten out on the Internet.

The truth the Ancien Régime misses while enjoying their luxurious parties at Versailles-on-the-Potomac, however, is that their parties are not the problem. No one really cares whether Michelle invites five, fifty, or five-thousand guests. No one cares (other than as an object of mockery) how many snobby dinner parties Anna Wintour throws for her glitterati friends.

The real problem, according to David Malpass in the Wall St. Journal, is that the Left’s preferred big-government, class warfare policies make the dread inequality worse more often than not:

Big government expansions in recent years have harmed individuals with modest incomes while exempting or benefiting people with higher incomes. These include the federal takeover of the mortgage industry, and the Federal Reserve’s decisions to keep interest rates near zero and buy some $3 trillion in bonds. Both of these expansions channel credit to the government and the well-connected at the expense of savers and new businesses.

Middle-income earners used to be the primary beneficiary of the rise in the value of their houses. Housing gains now lift Washington, allowing the government to pay itself huge “dividends” from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Reserve, which owns nearly $1.5 trillion in the government’s housing-related bonds. The government promptly spends the windfalls, fueling a further accumulation of wealth and income for those with Washington access.

The financial industry is making billions in profits fueled by the government’s provision of zero-rate loans for those with connections and collateral. Wall Street’s upper crust is the epicenter for financing the contractors, lobbyists and lawyers that help the government spend money. Meanwhile, government grabs a huge share of the profits generated by small businesses. It piles on opaque regulations, complex tax rules and countless independent agencies, producing a system that works against small businesses and the middle class. The Affordable Care Act takes pains to exempt Congress, government, corporations and unions, but leaves the rest severely exposed, adding to inequality.

This week’s congressional budget deal saw a narrow group of Washington’s elite legislators and lobbyists working over the weekend to divvy up nearly $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending for 2014. Much of the spending and all of the lobbying and debt underwriting costs will benefit those with high incomes while the extra debt falls heavily on the middle class.

Thus while Our Betters in D.C. and Manhattan and Hollywood graciously deign to run our lives for us (when they’re not attending a fancy-dress ball or jetting off to another exclusive resort), the burdens they impose on our lives really just enrich their friends at our expense and leave us holding the bag.

There’s a genuine opening or moment for a populist revolt coming. Not the Left-wing, class warfare kind the progressives like to sucker us with (and for which far too many fall), but a Jacksonian, democratizing electoral uprising against governing elites represented largely, but not exclusively, by today’s Democratic Party. A rising that would restore opportunity for us all, not trap us like Europe in social democratic amber.

We saw the first wave of this with the Tea Party rising of 2010, and Obamacare creates the conditions for another. The question is, will the Republican Party have the sense and the skill to take advantage of it?

We’ll see.

Footnote:
(1) Okay, I’m done pouting. Really. Just wait’ll next year…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Video: America rising

January 3, 2010

Oh, this is good:

Call it a populist wave or a Jacksonian moment, there’s a storm headed for DC.

(via Obi’s Sister)