It’s about much more than Trump

Would it be too much of a simplistic exaggeration to say that the recent eruptions – anti-Trump, pro EU, marches for women’s rights – reflect the perennial struggle between the progressives holed up in their urban echo chambers and the traditionalists in fly-over country, between the globalist citizens of the world fighting to save the EU and its moribund emblem, the Euro, and the nationalists, always portrayed as disturbing Fascists, who love their country, its culture, traditions, and vibrant immediacy subject to gradual erosion by alien forces, between the Hegelian-Marxist millennium worshippers and those of us more than comfortable in our own skin, sex, marriage, career, locality, and religion?

Think of the rage if a long-cherished dream were at last just within grasp only to be snatched away by cruel, capricious fate. Just like a child stripped of the candy about to be enjoyed, so the Leftists of America were ever so rudely deprived of a Hillary completion of the Obama transformation of America. So the intelligentsia of Europe so enamored of their post-national, new non-country super state, the European Union, were shaken by the unexpected rebellion of their inferiors in the Brexit vote, soon to be followed by Italy or some other country whose people have decided that there is a deeply personal, life-enhancing and -deciding meaning to their country and its cultural identity worth fighting for.

The press against Trump, including the BBC, the portrayal of France’s Marine LePen, the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, and others as Hitlerian Fascists, the marches worldwide today for women’s rights all proceed from a worldview of radical, undifferentiated equality that admits of no mediating institutions between man and government, least of all the family. Multiculturalism proclaims all cultures equal, our own inferior one excepted. Non-discrimination leads to an Orwellian acceptance of the Lie as the Truth. One of the Queens chaplains was asked to resign after complaining of Islamic prayers denying Jesus’s divinity in a Scottish cathedral. Might offend Muslims, you know. But the rubes in the provinces know that regional, cultural, and other differences make life worthwhile, not least because they are ours and because they keep the progressives and the horror of their millennium at bay.

Women’s rights? The emasculation of America is nearly complete. Universities teach courses on demasculinization. Title IX star chambers rule. Women in combat roles is now law, although women cannot succeed as grunts. They haven’t got the strength, the endurance, or the culture to be the relentless killers we need our soldiers to be. Nor do they want to be. Men are portrayed on TV as dunces. Millions of men in their prime, ages 25 to 54, are completely outside the workforce, the jobs that should be theirs taken by immigrants, illegal and legal. Feminists crow that women need men as fish need bicycles and yet bemoan that single women occupied with their children don’t earn as much as men. NBC News regrets that while over half the drivers are women, less than 2% of mechanics are female. Division of labor by sex roles is the new unforgivable sin. Weak men gather this into their psyche and submit (and occasionally explode.) Strong men and women know they have work to do.   Troglo

Troglo (L. H. Kevil)

Name that Party: the return of an old parlor game

This little game, popular several years ago, had apparently fallen into desuetude. I’ve written earlier about this game here, here, and here. To play, you read a news story about a politician caught with his pants down or his hand in the cookie jar. According to the rules of the game, the politician’s party affiliation is not mentioned. It is up to the reader to guess what it is. The public soon became tired of this game because the unmentionable party was always Democrat. Republican miscreants were always identified.

This particular instance involves serious allegations of voter fraud by the Mayor of the St Louis County municipality of Berkeley. The FBI was involves in an investigation of improper handling of absentee ballots. In this case we have two two-fers: not only is the party affiliation not mentioned, but also the race of the suspected cheater. There are two news accounts, one by St Louis Post-Dispatch reporters here and another, based on the Post story, by the Associated Press. The latter story was picked up by the Kansas City Star and the Columbia Daily Tribune.

In the AP story neither the party nor the race of the miscreant was mentioned. (The Post story showed a photograph of the Mayor, revealing his race.) We leave it to the reader to play this game and get the correct answers. It is rather delicious that the reportage mentions that a St Louis County elections official was a Republican, but declines to specify the party of the Mayor. This reminds me of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune refusing to call Somali Muslims implicated in terrorism anything but “Minnesota men.” The Powerline blog had extensive fun with this politically correct reflex.

“Name that party” of course raises the issue of journalistic bias. Interestingly, in  the same issue the Columbia Tribune published an article from a retired University of MIssouri journalism professor disputing “the attacks by Donald Trump’s campaign against my colleagues.” I’ll comment on that article in the next post.    Troglo

Troglo  (L. H. Kevil)

Roseburg and the Rose Garden: Obama goes for the slime

In much too typical fashion President Obama feigned indignation over the massacre at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon in order to deflect attention from the horrors of the recent videos about Planned Parenthood’s grisly procedures. Also typically the mass media have not pointed this out. Not only does Planned Parenthood murder children in the womb by burning them alive with saline solution or ripping off their limbs one at a time – like drawing and quartering regicides and heretics centuries ago –, it also dispatches those unfortunates born alive. Then it sells the body parts for cash. President Planned Parenthood stands so much behind this criminal organization that even in the Illinois Senate he would not support legislation to spare children born alive. To him and others the right to choose is the right to have a dead baby, no matter the means or the torture inflicted. He threatens to veto any spending bill that removes the money Planned Parenthood receives as direct appropriations from the Federal Government. Scores of millions of deaths since Roe v. Wade have not moved him. Retaining the political support of those supporting abortion on demand – the central dogma in their religion – is too important to let something as inconsequential as his conscience stand in the way.

But in response to the murders of the nine students in Oregon the President steps up to the bully pulpit, but not to offer prayers, or a word of consolation and healing. Rather does he divide the country and attack Republicans for not passing legislation that would remove “easy access” to guns. In his world evil should be confronted with legislation and rhetoric. But if access to guns is no longer easy, those who need them for their line of work, like drug dealers and future mass murderers, will make all necessary efforts to procure them. This is Obama at his partisan, destructive worst. He offered no positive proposals, stating he is mainly going to talk about the problem. But he could have done the following.

  • Use the bully pulpit to encourage abolition of gun-free zones, which offer mass shooters easy targets.
  • Encourage cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C. to allow citizens to defend themselves against armed criminals.
  • Direct administration agencies to enforce existing gun laws strictly.
  • Encourage the news media not to publicize these mass murderers by showing their photos and revealing their names. Notes from the Roseburg murderer show he was a Satanist who wanted to be in the “limelight” and then welcomed in hell. There is some research suggesting a copy-cat effect in mass shootings and teen suicides. Giving the murders international attention and ordering the national flag lowered gives the shooter just the kind of infamy he wanted. It also might encourage others.
  • Obama also could have announced that he will veto the criminal sentencing reform bill going through the Senate. This bill would release felons who carried guns when committing their crimes.
  • He will of course do none of these.

It turns out that Alek Skarlatos, one of the three Americans who subdued a Muslim would-be mass murderer on a Paris-bound train last August, is a student at Umpqua Community College. Who would you rather have in the classroom with one of your children during an attack, Alek, recipient of the Légion d’honneur and Christian, or President Pusillanimous? Troglo

Troglo

Political quickie: a question for Barack Obama

Given on the one hand the President’s hand wringing over the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Freddie Gray, not to speak of his Justice Department’s ‘civil-rights’ investigations into the deaths, and on the other his silence about the murder of Kate Steinle, we wonder why the press has not asked him this simple question:

Do white lives matter?   Troglo

Troglo

AP bias uptick: it must be election season

Regular readers know our thoughts about the left-wing bias of the Associated Press (AP.) Now that the warm-up to the 2016 elections is upon us, we are starting to see an increasing number of blatantly biased AP articles. Most of these articles are unsigned, perhaps for obvious reasons. As one example we read today the astonishing news regarding same-sex couples that we live “in a nation that recognizes their marriages.” One would think that the writer would try to present this fatuous assertion a bit more artfully.

Our main point in this post is the reporting of the debate about funding welfare for the next fiscal year in the Missouri State legislature. This story will be typical of the AP’s coverage of the upcoming elections, as it seeks to portray Republicans in a negative light. We read the following about the Republican war on the poor and downtrodden:

  • Cutting social services priority for GOP lawmakers
  • Republican lawmakers are using their large majorities this session to try to limit the social safety net on a number of fronts
  • Republicans looking to trim the state’s social safety net
  • Lead budget writer Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, is pushing for funding cuts to the state’s social services, health and mental health departments next fiscal year

None of this is of course true. Weasely reporters have a long history of portraying actual increases as funding cuts. They do this by implicitly comparing the actual funding not against the previous year’s funding, but against requested funding or projections. The AP can only get away with this whopper by not reporting the context. Since Senator Schaefer is a candidate for Attorney General in the upcoming election, he has an AP target on his back. Below are the details the AP omitted to report, based on what Senator Schaefer has said himself here.

Welfare spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate, threatening to gobble up every new dollar in revenue the state receives as the economy improves. Something needs to be done. The safety net cannot become a hammock.The legislature has had a difficult relationship with the Governor and the department heads, who will not cooperate and help the legislature fund the most pressing needs first. Social Services requested an additional $1 billion over what had been spent the previous year. Senator Schaefer’s proposal would give Social Services an $800 million increase over the previous year’s expenditures. An $800 million increase cannot honestly be characterized as a cut. Senator Schaefer proposes to give the department heads their entire budget allocation in a lump sum, the equivalent of block grants, and thus the responsibility for prioritizing what is needed where. This strikes us as a sensible policy until we get a new Governor, at which time accurate measures of the effectiveness of the expenditures should be put into place.   Troglo

Troglo

Leftist media bias: be prepared for the onslaught

With the competition for the Republican presidential nomination heating up, we can expect a stepped-up payload of bad reporting. For example, you can read about a recent case of fraudulent reporting about Scott Walker from the New York Times here and here.

Now with the Brian Williams scandal front and center, we might be tempted to think that lack of accuracy and truthfulness are the main issues. However the problem with Williams and his fellow lefties is not just falsehoods or embellishments, nor is it limited to accepting sloppy research if it puts conservatives in a bad light. A major problem is their judgement about what is newsworthy. As the managing editor of NBC News Williams determined that the Benghazi cover-up, Solyndra, or the IRS targeting of conservative organizations leading up to the 2012 elections were just not very newsworthy and so were hardly reported at all. Stories important to Democrats were more numerous and often highlighted.

Continue reading

Compromise and Democrats: a very bad deal

The big news from D.C. is the fight over funding the Federal Department of Homeland Security past the February 28 deadline. The House of Representatives passed legislation funding all of the Homeland Security Department, but prohibiting expenditures in furtherance of President Obama’s illegal executive actions creating amnesty. As this bill reached the Senate all 44 Democrat Senators and both of the two ‘Independents’ filibustered against it. Their action will effectively strip Homeland Security of all funding starting March 1. A minimum of five Democrats and one Independent had expressed concern over the illegality of the President’s amnesty. Yet despite their principled concern, they joined to form the 100% solid Democrat bloc. Details here and here.

This has happened time and again. Democrats act in unison, while Republicans almost never form a solid bloc. If there is to be compromise, the Democrats have the advantage. Ideally in compromise, each side brings forward the issues most important to it that might be acceptable to the other party. The result is a kind of win-win for the country. But when one party will not give in to the other, compromise means the Democrats get the permanent change they crave, while Republicans can barely manage to get something they want and then often only on a temporary basis. With the news media biased in favor of Democrats, they can now dishonestly claim regarding Homeland Security funding the Republicans are shutting down the government and perhaps win the opinion-poll wars. [See note 1 below.] Over time this leads to a ratcheting effect, with the Federal government drifting inexorably leftward. With a progressive President in power and the ability of the Federal government to bully states and localities by threatening to withhold Federal funding, we have a very dangerous situation. Congress should stand its ground.

In our view, the Republican Party needs to change. Not drastically, but substantially in several respects.

Continue reading