Je Suis Trump?

In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, most “conservative” media in this country were quick to proclaim the sanctity of our First Amendment rights and properly blamed the terrorists and their fanaticism. Later, John F’n Kerry was rightfully derided for blabbering about understanding the rationale for the attack; the typical, knee-jerk leftist attitude to these things. But what happened last Friday at a planned Trump rally in Chicago was a deliberate, organized, blatant and ultimately successful (by their measure) denial of the First Amendment rights of those gathered for the rally. Their success came from creating an atmosphere of chaos, fear and intimidation; it’s what terrorists do. What came after this, however, was shocking to this observer; some of the so-called “conservative” media joined their comrades on the left and Mr. Trump’s opponents to seize on the opportunity to try and lay the blame on his “inciting” rhetoric. Put another way, they all immediately assumed the John Kerry and leftist approach in rationalizing the loathsome tactics of the protesters. Why? Because defeating and attacking Donald Trump is politically expedient as opposed to defending our First Amendment rights. Strange, isn’t it?

The Trump Potential

The “pendulum” diagram below summarizes the direction in which this nation has been heading for about the last 100 years; inexorably drifting leftwards. It also suggests the hope for a potential Trump presidency; would it, could it, halt the slide? Not simply slow the rate of it, as one might argue has happened intermittently over the last century, but actually STOP it? Why might he be able to do it? Because he can bypass and destroy media narratives and expose and tear down the Washington D.C. elitist cabal; at least this is the hope and I believe this is what drives a lot of his support. This is the potential opportunity here but there is a lot of work to be done to undo the various power grabs of the federal government (my list is here). With the right selection for a VP that is, a conservative, we could then seriously begin to start moving the pendulum to the right.

pendulum_trump

Bernie Is Getting Schlonged The Socialists’ Way

M1: Mr. Sanders, great crowds, a resonating message out there. You seem to be leading a movement.

B: Why, yes; thank you.

M1: You won New Hampshire and some how received less delegates than Mrs. Clinton.

B: Yes, those are the rules.

M1: Do you miss the irony here, Sir?

B: What? What do you mean?

M1: The socialism you preach…

B: Yes?

M1: Redistribution…

B: Right, right, from those who have to those who haven’t! Absolutely!

M1: There you go, that’s exactly what’s happening with your votes. See, you win the votes but your opponent receives the benefits. It’s like seizing stuff from someone who works and handing it over, at no cost, to someone who won’t…love it, right?

B: That’s right! I look at Sweden, Norway, Denmark; those are my models!

M1: Really? What do you say to Sean Penn, Michael Moore and others in your party who’d prefer the Cuba and Venezuela models?

B: Exercise patience! We’ll get there!

M1: So, why are you still in the race?

B: I’ve got a great message! See my crowds? I can still win this thing!

M1: Sir, are you too dumb to understand that you’re never going to win? You are a designated loser!

B: Of course I can! What kind of question is that?

M1: Let me put it this way, dumbass, if delegates were dollars, you are being taxed at one of those rates you advocate and you know where those “tax dollars” are going?

B: Redistribution!

M1: You think you can now explain why you’ll be a loser to the countless morons who follow you?

B: I am being mugged! I am feeling the burn!

M1: Hemorroids?

B: Yes but don’t tell them that…

Parody – We’ve Been Fooled Again (D.C. RINOs Sell-out)

A parody of The Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again…” here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

You’ve been voting at the booths
With your children at your feet
That the morals they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Thought it all along
That your will, will be damned

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Watch the transformation all around
Go to work again today
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
‘Cause we’ve been fooled again

The changes we’d hope to come
But suspected all along
Will not liberate from the same old, that’s all
And if the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
Cause the banners, they say will be flown in the next war

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Watch the transformation all around
Go to work again today
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
‘Cause we’ve been fooled again
Oh yeah!

I’ll move myself and my family abroad
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

There’s nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the party of the left
Are now the party of the right
And the whores were all bought and paid for overnight

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Watch the transformation all around
Go to work again today
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
‘Cause we’ve been fooled again
Oh yeah!

Yeah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

A More Realistic Front Page of the Failing NY Daily News…

DAILY_NE

Related notes:
(1) As noted in a previous post, leftists should spare us their faux outrage, their sanctimony, their demagoguery on the issue of guns every time one of these incidents happen. The moral high ground on the issue of human life must never be ceded to these hypocrites as long as they unconditionally support abortion.
(2) Why is it that when these incidents happen abroad, e.g., Paris, the left never blame guns but, instead, talk about climate change, lack of jobs and so on. Why don’t these excuses apply here in the US and the knee-jerk reaction is to call for gun control?

Amnesty? Refugees? What’s the difference? Democrats Will Grow Their Base…

Suffering, perhaps temporarily, the setback of an injunction against executive amnesty; the administration is moving full speed ahead with its plans for refugees. Who knows what the actual intake will be before this is all done but missing from the equation is the untold number that will also arrive, subsequently, as derivative beneficiaries of those granted status (see here: http://www.uscis.gov/i-730).

Unlike the folks entering across the southern border, refugees, once they’ve been admitted into the country and have stayed for a year, automatically qualify to adjust status to become permanent residents. From this point on, they are on a glide path to becoming US citizens in five years which then allows for another round of possible “chain” sponsorship of relatives and thus even more immigrants will flow. By its very nature, refugee status produces the same results as amnesty and for the Democrat party and assorted RINOS, the happy outcome they seek. The difference, however, is that no executive or unilateral action is needed – current laws allow this. One wonders if, as we write this, DHS and USCIS are figuring out just how to declare all illegals in the country refugees (or at minimum, the ones who’ve been arriving since Summer 2014, supposedly fleeing strife in Latin America).

Any reform of current immigration law MUST end chain immigration by moving away from that based entirely on “family reunification.” A realistic and beneficial solution is one in which family unity is limited to spouse and minor children with all other family sponsorship being based on a points system of which “family reunification” is a minor aspect; points will be primarily awarded on an educational background and experience or skill basis. Until there is reform (not likely under this President) fundamental transformation will proceed, country and the will of its citizens be damned; unabated and abetted by a Congress that has long since given up on the concepts of checks and balances and being a co-equal branch.

Some Things are Self-evident….(Climate Change Crap)

But it took a study to confirm it:

http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/solar-energy-contributes-climate-change-study

As was originally postulated here on 1/3/2014, under the title:

To The Hot Air Crowd (When it Suits Them)

Here we are, it’s winter, it’s freezing cold outside, snow is on the ground and a global warming research ship is stuck in ice looking for evidence of melting and disappearing ice. I suppose this is really “climate change,” the lingo used to cover everything that needs a weather related explanation when the obvious is too simple and when it has to be pinned on mankind. So, for instance, if it is freezing cold outside, as it should be in winter; it is not global warming but “climate change” that gave us snow. If it is an extremely hot day in August, then, it is really global warming. See how this works? By the way, what happens to the alarmists who predicted an “active hurricane season” last year, as they did the year before, when not much happens? Their salary doubled?

As the scientists should know and as Al Gore and his acolytes should learn, a single data point here and there doesn’t prove a damn thing. A flash, by the way, remember when John Glenn got a free ride on the shuttle (then in his 70s), to “study” the effects of microgravity on old folks? Well, everyone should know, including the loser Mr. Gore, that a “study” involving one person is worthless; unless, of course, said study is the study of chakra release in the confines of a massage room. (For the record, I don’t believe the rumor that it was Chopra, Deepak Chopra, that Mr. Gore wanted released from his, er, pocket!)

But seriously, scientists, again, ought to know about two things; these are:

(1) the “butterfly effect” which in chaos theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz, ScD, in the very title of his paper, “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?” (see following link for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lorenz ). Essentially, it’d seem that the equations governing the outcome of weather patterns over long periods of time (beyond your 5 – 10 day forecasts) are very dependent on the initial conditions. Imagine then that these equations are complex models involving differential equations with boundary or initial conditions that no one can predict or is known; what good would solving these do? So we run through some supercomputer many different models, the point is, no one really knows. Have these scientists even used what they do know and have observed to match any of their models? Put another way, have they been able to model a system that provides an output that matches the empirical, historical data? Even if they have, however, it’d prove nothing with respect to long term prognostications because, again, the initial conditions are always changing and not really known. Those who pretend to understand all of this would also likely believe an economist who says that, based on his models, on December, 28th, 2020, the DJIA will close at 24,020 or that on January, 6th, 2014; it will close at 15,900. No one has a clue and still, to morons like Mr. Gore; this is “settled science” by “consensus” but all it really is utter crap.

This brings us to the second thing you have to wonder if “scientists” or environmentalists know or have been concerned about.

(b) I’ll call this, the “mononymous1” effect (as a placeholder, because I’d actually like to call it the “my family name” effect – in the interest in remaining anonymous, for now; this is obviously not possible). This “mononymous1 effect” is the combined effect on weather patterns and climate change due to the introduction of wind turbines into wind streams and the increased albedo of the planet because of solar panels. If the butterfly effect is real, then imagine the ripple effect of erecting wind turbines into wind streams. It’d seem, on its face, that the interruption of wind flow and the removal of energy from a wind stream would have a direct and immediate impact on weather and many perturbations on climate models. Are the “green” folks aware of any of this? is there “settled science” on this? Imagine, also, the ripple effect of changing the planets albedo (put another way, energy absorbed versus energy reflected) by using highly reflecting solar panels. Again, do the “green” people know? Has anyone got a clue? Hey, Dr. Gore, are you on to this? Have your guys studied how and if the buildings of Manhattan have produced any “climate change” or weather patterns anywhere? Get back to me…

It is one thing to care about the environment; it is, in fact, quite commendable and we should let our own conscience guide us on how we choose to “care.” It is quite another thing, however, to think you KNOW something about “climate change” or “global warming” and try to use it as a means of stealing freedom and coercing certain behavior from the gullible and collaterally, the rest of us.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.