Archive for the ‘Cultural Barometer’ Category

I struggle sometimes to rank my levels of disgust when it comes to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton.

Each one of these people has been profoundly toxic to these United States, making a mockery of the rule of law and selling our power to foreigners on a regular Obama golf and mushroomsbasis (or otherwise enabling our most hated enemies), and it sickens me to see their faces or even hear their voices. I cannot watch any of their speeches, or even listen to them.

And so it is with great pleasure that I wake this morning to Bernie Sanders’ total domination of the New Hampshire primary at the expense of Hillary Clinton and her “inevitable” candidacy.


As many commentators have pointed out, Hillary Clinton led Sanders 40% to 4% about a year ago, and yet the truth about her chicanery while serving as Secretary of State and her being in-the-bag for Wall Street was embraced by New Hampshire voters in a big way.

Sanders won the primary 60% to 38%!

By the time all the votes had been counted, five hours later, Sanders had defeated his rival Hillary Clinton by an eye-popping 21 percentage points, the largest margin of victory in a contested Democratic primary in the Granite State since the start of the modern era. <yahoo.com, link>

And the New York Times noted that he won nearly EVERY demographic group versus Clinton:

He carried majorities of both men and women. He won among those with and without college degrees. He won among gun owners and non-gun owners. He beat Mrs. Clinton among previous primary voters and those participating for the first time. And he ran ahead among both moderates and liberals. <New York Times, link>

This result is crushing to the Clinton campaign, and yet we all know she won’t give up and will keep on lying, and obfuscating, and opening her mouth really really wide.

Hillary and the Joker

Note to Hillary: the open-mouth-really-wide thing is not working for you…

Meanwhile, the Liberal media is mostly still rooting for the Clinton campaign.

Note this opening paragraph announcing the Sanders win, from The Atlantic, a publication I once enjoyed but that has become a left-wing asylum in recent years:

CONCORD, New Hampshire—“Thank you, New Hampshire!” a somber but clearly gratified Bernie Sanders said to a crowd of thrilled supporters in a high-school gymnasium. The 74-year-old democratic socialist from Vermont had just resoundingly won the New Hampshire Democratic primary, dealing an astonishing blow to the Hillary Clinton juggernaut, casting the race into turmoil, and dramatically highlighting the dissatisfaction of the party base with its establishment. <theatlantic.com, link>

In the above paragraph, I note the conspicuous absence of the final vote tally, 60% to 38%, which is an outrageously anti-Sanders and pro-Hillary omission.

Here is the actual result — FEEL THE BERN, HILLARY CLINTON:

New Hampshire Primary - Democrat party vote tally


Furthermore, note the mention of Sanders’ age, as if trying to remind voters in other states that he is getting on in years.

Given Ms. Clinton’s decades-long assault on the rule of law, and her role in suppressing female victims of her husband’s multiple alleged sexual assaults and alleged rape in one case, and her actions during and after the terrorist siege in Benghazi that killed four Americans, and her outright selling of the office of Secretary of State in exchange for financial payments to her charitable foundation, and her willful avoidance of accountability during her tenure in the Obama administration through the use of a personal email server and the wiping-clean of that server when the FBI asked for it, we have to ask theatlantic.com and other Liberal media outlets who are rooting for Hillary Clinton:


Why do you support this person for president of the United States?




Read Full Post »

I am truly fascinated by human society and its ebbs and flows of what we collectively pay attention to and which things a society says matter.

Perhaps the most amazing case study ever on this issue is the way in which the decades-old (and ignored) Bill Cosby rape allegations by several women suddenly mattered to people. Why didn’t they matter before, and what changed to make them matter now?

As is widely known, the comedian Hannibal Burress told a few jokes in late 2014 about Cosby drugging women and raping them, and almost by magic the seriousness of his alleged heinous acts entered our collective consciousness.

Chicago Magazine observed back in 2014:

When Philadelphia magazine last month [Oct 2014] posted a video of Chicago comic Hannibal Buress riffing on Bill Cosby’s myriad rape allegations, it didn’t take long for the Internet to explode. <Chicagomag.com, link>

hannibal burress

Mr. Burress had no idea that his standup performance would snowball into what is now the arrest of Bill Cosby and his potential criminal prosection.

But it happened.

And now Bill Clinton and his victims are getting the Cosby effect.

Alleged Rapists

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1991 and 1992, many women came forward, as did various men who had been in then-Governor Clinton’s inner circle, with claims of sexual assault by Clinton (as victims or witnesses). The Clinton machine dealt with these allegations in a ruthless way, portraying the various women as “bimbos” and “trailer trash”.

But did it derail his campaign? No, he was elected president in 1992 and again in 1996.

In 1999, one such woman, Juanita Broaddrick, revealed her identity and gave specific, horrifying, detail of what she said was her violent rape by Bill Clinton (she had previously testified to the rape under a pseudonym to protect her identity). This is a partial transcript of Ms. Broaddrick’s interview with Lisa Myers, and I dare anyone to watch the interview (clip is below) and not wonder how Bill Clinton could have gotten away with the acts she describes.

Broaddrick: “Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip (she cries). Just a minute… He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. (crying) And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen (crying) but he wouldn’t listen to me.”

Myers: “Did you resist, did you tell him to stop?”

Broaddrick: “Yes, I told him ‘Please don’t.’ He was such a different person at that moment, he was just a vicious awful person.”

Myers: “You said there was a point at which you stopped resisting?”

Broaddrick: “Yeah.”

Myers: “Why?”

Broaddrick: “It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip.”

Broaddrick also says the waist of her skirt and her pantyhose were torn.

Juanita Broaddrick: “When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door.”

Myers: “On your lip?”

Broaddrick: “Yeah.”

Kudos to Donald Trump for not being intimidated by the Clintons as they accuse him of being anti-women — he has served up his own Hannibal Burress moment of shining a light on old, but powerful, allegations against not only Bill Clinton, but also Hillary Clinton, who allegedly participated in the post-assault handling of his victims.

Here is Broaddrick’s tweet from last week:

Broaddrick tweet

After this tweet, news organizations began calling her and asking for more information.

She is obliging these requests, and they are seeing the light of day:

Broaddrick said that she doesn’t describe herself as Republican or Democrat, but is supporting Donald Trump for president. 

“He says the things I like to hear,” Broaddrick said.

She lauded Trump for broaching the issue of Bill Clinton’s past marital infidelities and allegations of sexual assault.

“I’m glad someone did. Everyone has been hanging back and most of the mainstream media won’t approach it but it’s something that should be talked about.” <Thehill.com, link>

Bill Cosby.

Bill Clinton.

Justice has a way of sneaking up on the perpetrators, even years later..

Read Full Post »

One of the more Orwellian themes promoted by Democrats is that Republicans engage in a “war on women”.

It is Orwellian because it is Democrats, not Republicans, who continually imperil women in the United States and around the world.

A case in point is this latest article in the New York Times about the recent fate of women in Afghanistan (see below).

Recall that George Bush chose to invade Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in order to destroy the Taliban regime and eliminate the safe havens for Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist training camps.

Recall also that this war succeeded. The Taliban was driven from power, as was Bin Laden.

And now take note of Barack Hussein Obama’s disastrous policy of total withdrawal of all U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and the creation of a power vacuum that ISIS gladly filled (and had been planning for years as they listened to mr. Obama’s anti-American rhetoric).

So, in addition to the rise of ISIS, what has Obama’s policy wrought? The resurgence of the Taliban, including the recent takeover of Kunduz.


And what did the Taliban do to women once they took charge?

In a methodical campaign, the Taliban relentlessly hounded women with any sort of public profile, looted a high school and destroyed the offices of many of the organizations that protected and supported women in Kunduz.

Among those who have fled are the women who ran a shelter for female victims of violence, who Taliban commanders say are “immoral.”

Gone are educated women who worked for the government or international organizations; gone are some women who were school administrators and women who were activists for peace and democracy. They left, mostly at night, on foot or in run-down taxis, hiding under burqas, running for their lives. <New York Times, link>

Dr. Hassina Sarwari, the Kunduz Province director of Women for Afghan Women (a shelter for abused women, a family guidance center and a center for the children of women in the Kunduz prison) had this to say:

I won’t go back — I will never go back

But where will she go to be safe? And who will care for the women she protected now that she is gone?

But there is more. Here are some direct quotes, as reported in the New York Times, by a Taliban commander, named Abdul Wali Raghi:

Before we managed to take control of the shelter, Hassina Sarwari, the head of the shelter house, along with all the runaway sluts and immoral girls, had already left Kunduz city. Hassina Sarwari herself is an immoral slut, and if we had captured her, she would be hanged in the main circle in Kunduz city.

Yes, the New York Times is quoting this misogynist monster as using the term “immoral slut” several times, about a woman who provides care and comfort to women in her community.

I suggest to readers of this essay the following: a Republican president would not have allowed the Taliban to retake control of major cities in Afghanistan, and would therefore have spared women this gruesome fate.

Clinton war on womenMeanwhile, former president Bill Clinton, who trampled a women’s right to pursue her abuser in court for sexual harassment, is having a Bill Cosby moment (again). In a new book just released, dozens of women who were sexually assaulted by Mr. Clinton are given a voice. Here is a quote from an article about the new book (emphasis added):

The book recounts the stories of about two dozen women, beginning with one of Bill Clinton’s college classmates, who have stepped forward to claim that President Clinton sexually assaulted them. Some of the women received settlements of hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of them claim to have had their pets killed, their jobs terminated, their businesses audited by the IRS, their tires slashed, or to have received odd phone calls or queries from strange bypassing joggers about the health of their children. <Daily Caller, link>

Can you imagine being sexually assaulted and then, to add insult to bodily injury, having your livelihood, family members, and pets, hurt or threatened in such violent ways?

War on women, indeed.

Read Full Post »

With the rise of the Nanny State, beginning in earnest as a consequence of WWI and then really gaining steam with Roosevelt’s New Deal and then WWII and continuing to the present day under Marxism-influenced (“You didn’t build that”) Barack Obama, the quintessential character of Americans — the Code of Personal Responsibility — has come under slow but certain destruction.

There are countless examples of this, but today’s short essay is on the American addiction to food and sugary drinks and the idea in this country that one can shove 5,000 calories per day into one’s mouth and then expect government health care to pay for a full knee replacement, or two.


Particularly galling is the recent news that Coca-Cola is attempting to use science to promote the idea that consumption of processed sugar is nothing to worry about.

Coca Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, is backing a new “science-based” solution to the obesity crisis: To maintain a healthy weight, get more exercise and worry less about cutting calories.

The beverage giant has teamed up with influential scientists who are advancing this message in medical journals, at conferences and through social media. To help the scientists get the word out, Coke has provided financial and logistical support to a new nonprofit organization called the Global Energy Balance Network, which promotes the argument that weight-conscious Americans are overly fixated on how much they eat and drink while not paying enough attention to exercise. <New York Times, link>

And so the degradation of personal responsibility marches on, from all angles.

A nation cannot remain free without an educated, responsible citizenry, and the state of the Union today is just about where the Founding Fathers feared we might one day be.

Who will lead us out of this blind alley?

Read Full Post »

I just published an essay on Donald Trump and included some data on recent presidential elections and thought it made sense to do a separate post on the importance of American women in presidential elections.

Actually, “importance” does not do justice to the weight women have in our national elections: primacy is a more appropriate word.

Look at this chart and see what I’m talking about:

Romney vs Obama election results

Mitt Romney won the men’s vote by a wide margin (52% vs 45%), but lost the women’s vote by a much bigger margin (44% vs 55% — a whopping 11 points).

On top of this differential, many more women than men voted in the election: 53% of votes cast vs only 47% for men.

Much was written about why Romney lost, but it’s all a waste of words when you consider the lopsided gender result in the election. No other voting segment even comes close to the women’s voting block (Hispanic, for example, was only 10% of total, making the women’s segment more than 5 times as big in the election).

George W. Bush defeated John Kerry in 2004, and did so in my opinion by closing the gap on the female vote (but not entirely):

Bush vs Kerry results

Bush won the men’s vote by 11 points and lost the women’s vote by only 3 points, and won the election overall.

If more women had gone Kerry’s way, Bush would not have won — just look at the dominance overall: women accounted for 54% of the vote vs 46% for men.

A Republican running for president must appeal to women sufficiently to narrow the gap the way George Bush did.

Nothing else matters, in my opinion.

Abortion and Issues that are not Abortion

Now, it is clear that a Republican candidate will fail to win a majority of women’s votes for as long as that candidate is anti-abortion.

Therefore, there are only two ways to go if a Republican seeks to win more female votes:

  1. Embrace the Pro-Choice stance on abortion rights, and mean it
  2. Appeal to women on other passionate policy matters and hope that such matters can compete with the abortion issue when considering presidential candidates

I am not hopeful about candidates embracing #1: Republicans campaigning to win the primaries are afraid to go against the pro-life wing of the party. I think this is a shame, because I absolutely believe that a pro-choice Republican would destroy any Democratic candidate in every presidential election from now until the end of time.

But it won’t happen.

Therefore, we need to encourage the second option above.

So how did George Bush largely close the gap in 2004?

I am not sure, but I recall a lot of ink being spilled promoting the notion that his focus on security in the wake of 9/11 resonated with many women.

2016 Election

So what are the existential issues facing out nation in 2016?

Clearly the federal debt, at $18.3 trillion and counting (>100% of GDP…), and the trillions in unfunded liabilities across Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare; the rise of Russia; the rise of Muslim Jihad inside the American homeland; the rise of China; the accelerating destruction of our health care system; and the asphyxiation of our nation by rampant illegal immigration and associated costs we can no longer afford financially or culturally.

Will any of these compete with the abortion issue among female voters?

I certainly hope so, but it will take a strong Republican candidate to set the right priorities for 310 million Americans whose heritage, values, and legacy of freedom are under vicious and unrelenting assault from a federal government that knows no bounds and crushes all in its path.

Read Full Post »

When Donald Trump announced his presidential candidacy I paid it no mind and prepared myself to be entertained. Judging from Trump’s reaction to a certain media outlet’s decision to report his campaign events in its entertainment section, Don would be offended by my reaction, but he shouldn’t be: the man is entertaining, at a minimum.

Early on, blogger Doug Ernst (link) published a nice piece in which he easily demolished Trump’s faux Republican credentials:

Do a little more digging on “The Donald” and you’ll see that the billionaire has held quite a few positions over the years that were more “Clinton” than “Coolidge.”

Trump Clinton donations

Donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton make Trump a complete fraud vis-a-vis Conservatism or the true soul of Republican party (which is to say: not the Mitch McConnell / Bob Corker Republican party).

Since then, Trump has shocked us all with exceedingly blunt talk about illegal immigration and its terrible impact on our nation, and although he has made some ridiculous statements (hyperbole is often the great destroyer of otherwise sound arguments), he touched a nerve on what many Americans feel is an ongoing sellout of our sovereignty at the southern border. He is currently leading the field of Republican candidates, despite an almost reckless abandon in his public remarks on a range of topics.

Is he for real? Whom is he for?

Is he for real? Whom is he for?

The truth is that the public policy endorsement of illegal immigration by most Democrats and many Republicans, such as George W. Bush and his brother Jeb, rips at the fabric of the concept of the Rule of Law, which is the bedrock of civilized life and community; when 12 – 20 million people are given a free pass from our laws, it promotes a kind of anarchy, and tens of millions of Americans have had enough.

The father of a high school football star who was killed seven years ago by an undocumented immigrant praised Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Friday for his stance on illegal immigration. Jamiel Shaw Sr. said controversial statements about Mexicans and other immigrants the billionaire made during his announcement that he was running for office resonated with him. <CNN.com, link>

He’s speaking for the dead. He’s speaking for my son. He’s speaking for the people who can’t speak for themselves that demand that somebody do something.

…Sabine Durden’s son Dominic died three years ago when he was riding a motorcycle struck by a car driven by an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala. Durden said Trump is a voice for her and others who think the same way.

When I heard Mr. Trump, I started screaming. I started hooting and hollering. Finally, somebody that had the guts to say what millions are thinking but are afraid to say.

And in the wake of Trump’s fiery anti-Mexican illegal immigrant oratory, a young woman was gunned down by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco, a crime made even more morally reprehensible by the fact that the illegal had been allowed to remain free in San Francisco because the city is a proud “sanctuary city” inside the USA, i.e., a city that openly defies our nation’s immigration laws and enforcement personnel.

More than 200 cities, counties, and states across the United States are considered sanctuaries that protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents. <Center for Immigration Studies, link>

What amazes me is how scared the other Republican candidates are on the issue of illegal immigration. They seem to believe that the (legal) latino vote is bigger than it actually is (error number one), believe that mushy statements about illegal immigration will win them latino voters (error number two), and continually take their eyes off of the true electoral imperative, which is the female population (error number three).

Not incidentally, I know several women who are anti-republican voters because of the abortion issue, but who at the same time are anti-illegal immigrant.

But women outnumber latino voters by a factor of 5X (see below)…hey Republicans: win more of the women’s vote and the rest will take care of itself. For example, in 2004, George W. Bush won re-election and earned 48% of the women’s vote against John Kerry’s 51% (not a majority, but not terrible).

Bush vs Kerry results

Compare this to Mitt Romney against Obama:

Romney vs Obama election results

This chart says it all.

Romney won the men’s vote by 7 points but lost the women’s vote by 11.

Oh, and by the way, Republicans, do you see how dominant  the female vote is as a percent of voters? 53% vs 47% for men, and vs 10% for Hispanic.


But I digress: what does the Trump candidacy mean for the coming presidential election?

Theory #1 on Trump Candidacy

I have a conspiracy theory that will make you laugh, but I’m not entirely intending to be funny.

Assuming that Trump has no real desire to shoulder the burden of the presidency (he’s having far too good a time in his own world) and the scrutiny on him that it would entail, and recognizing that he has actually contributed money to Hillary Clinton, it may be that his candidacy among Republicans is meant to sabotage Republican chances in the general election, and therefore help pave the way for a Clinton victory.

Yes, it seems bizarre, but when you listen to Trump’s views on many issues, he does not sound as Conservative as he pretends to be.

Even on illegal immigration, he is on record for what sounds very much like amnesty:

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Friday, host Joe Scarborough asked Trump what he would do about the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country once America secured its southern border. After arguing the real number of illegal immigrants is much higher and saying the first thing America needs to do is “take the bad” illegal immigrants and “get them the hell out,” Trump sounded like he was open to providing some type of pathway to legalization for the remainder.

“And then the other ones — and I’m a very big believer in merit system, I have to tell you,” Trump said. “Because some of these people have been here, they’ve done a good job, you know, in some cases sadly they’ve been living under the shadows.” <Daily Caller, link>

Who is the real Donald Trump?

Theory #2 on Trump Candidacy

If theory number one is incorrect, and Trump is in it as a legitimate Republican, the question then is, does he really want the nomination?

I don’t think so, and believe it to be at best a massive vanity project put on my a man who is in love with his own voice and his own visage.

Read Full Post »

I’ve been traveling lately, not keeping up with the news as closely as usual, and I looked at today’s headlines and wondered what kind of America I am living in?

We have fallen very far from the days of the Nixon Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up, and Nixon’s eventual resignation from the presidency as Congress, including many Republicans, began to move against him for the sake of defending and protecting the United States Constitution.

But it’s now 40 years later, and today I see this headline:

IRS Targeted Mainstream Conservatives

and go on to read that Barack Obama’s IRS targeted not only Tea Party groups (already a potentially impeachable offense, with Lois Lerner having pled the fifth to avoid incriminating herself further, not to mention obstruction of justice by the department in its erasure of email servers), but also targeted individual Republican donors to those groups.

Judicial Watch Wednesday announced that IRS scrutiny of conservative groups went beyond tea party organizations and included higher profile groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Crossroads GPS, associated with former George W. Bush advisor Karl Rove. The information was just a piece of a treasure trove of data turned over to Judicial Watch last week under a Freedom of Information Act request. The information was made public late Wednesday.

The documents reveal, according to the organization, that the IRS used donor lists from conservative tax-exempt organizations to target donors for audits. In 2010, they say, the IRS considered cross checking donor lists against gift tax filings and commencing audits against taxpayers who failed to file. Some audits were initiated, but the IRS ultimately stopped the effort. Such audits are the subject of controversy because the Supreme Court has ruled against them as a violation of the First Amendment. <Fox Business, link>

Barack Obama’s use of the IRS to target political opponents is, by itself, a scandal that by now should have resulted in serious consequences to his occupation of the Oval Office, up to and including his removal from it.

Will Congress or private groups hold this administration accountable now that such damning evidence is seeing the light of day?

Obama and Lerner

Then I see this headline:

John Kerry: Anti-American comments from Iran’s Ayatollah ‘Very Troubling’

Yes, the Iranians have already come out and said what we all know to be true about Iranian intention, and John Kerry is “troubled…” (!!! — Kerry, the living embodiment of Useful Idiot).

Here is the Ayatollah Khamenei’s comments just the other day, after Barack Obama’s long press conference in which Obama claimed the deal is a great step forward for us and the world:

Our policies toward the arrogant government of the United States will not be changed at all. American policies are 180 degrees different from us. We will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon. Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change.

How stupid do John Kerry and Barack Obama look right now?

The article (Breitbart, link) goes on to add the following wonderful additional news:

Khamenei also declared that Iran’s support for terrorists in the region would not change as a result of the nuclear deal. 

Chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” were shouted during Khamenei’s speech.

Obama and the Ayatollah

So let’s review what has happened on Iran, via the Obama regime: a treaty has been negotiated in which Iran may openly and freely enrich uranium without any real inspection regime (“Knock Knock, we’re here to inspect!”….”Ok, we’ll let you know if we object, and if we do, you’ll wait at least a few weeks before we will reconsider…”), and Barack Obama thinks it’s a good deal and that we can trust Iran.

Meanwhile the U.S. Senate, which has under the Constitution the responsibility and duty to approve or disapprove treaties between our government and foreign powers, voluntarily gave up that power earlier this year in an accommodation to Barack Hussein Obama. That is, the REPUBLICAN-led Senate did this, which really makes you wonder what is going on in Washington right now.

Radio host Mark Levin has done a masterful job breaking this down and exposing the charade that it is <link>, and here is a link to a National Review article by Andrew McCarthy outlining exactly how Republican Senator Bob Corker threw away power when he didn’t have to <link>.

Under the Constitution’s burden of persuasion, then, the Iran deal did not have a prayer of becoming law….Enter the Corker legislation. It undermined the Constitution’s presumption against international agreements by shifting the burden of persuasion: Rather than forcing the president to persuade two-thirds of the Senate to approve the deal, it imposes on opponents the burden of persuading two-thirds of the full Congress to reject it. Even worse, this scheme also undermines the Constitution’s legislative process. The Corker legislation authorizes the president to waive sanctions against Iran even if Congress fails to pass, or to get the president to sign, a resolution approving the waiver. 

And now Bob Corker is charging that “America got fleeced” in the Iran deal (Politico, link), as if he and fellow Republicans didn’t already forfeit, under his “compromise” with Democrats and Obama, the U.S. Senate’s power to stop this absurd Iran agreement.


And so it is quite difficult these days to read the news and watch the Republican leadership indulge a man whose actions spell out a very clear plan to undermine and destroy our nation.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »