Groundhog Day: The Fight Between Evil and More Evil Continues

Well, it’s Groundhog day alright.

Fake news reports that Punxsutawney Phil did not see his shadow, so Spring is right around the corner. Well I suppose it could happen; anything can happen.

In other Groundhog Day news headlines, this just in: Another Democrat guilty of what they accused their opponent of. This one never gets old, does it?

Remember that attack ad Ralph Northam ran against Republican Ed Gillespie?

Well, as it turns out, the real racist in the race wasn’t Gillespie after all.

Top Democrats seemed surprised and outraged by the racist Med-school yearbook picture of Ralph Northam, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, that emerged yesterday.  Of course the outrage was ginned up by those same Democrats. After the Governor bungled their plans for advancing the New Democratic Socialists agenda of making “women’s health care” front and center for the 2020 presidential campaign by advancing late-term abortion throughout the land, Northam had to go. He made a fatal error in his now infamous radio interview in that he used the terms “abortion” and “infant” in the same sentence. Bye bye Ralphie, it’s for the good of the party. We don’t want the plantation dwellers to get confused.

CNN, In another Groundhog Day fake news antic, tried a little damage control by running a fake chyron misidentifying Northam as a Republican…because who wouldn't believe that?

And in another “anything could happen” moment, another Democrat of nominal credentials tossed his hat into the ring this week – this time Corey Booker. While he claims to be black, he has no chance running against previously declared women-of-character like Elizabeth Warren (who claims to be Cherokee) and Kamala Harris (who claims to have won her political offices on her own merits - judged to be partly true). Because remember, 2020 will be yet another “Year of the Woman” brought to you exclusively by the Democratic Party of Guilt-Shaming-You-Into-Voting-For-Our-First-Ever-Fill-In-The-Blank-Candidate.

Unfortunately Corey can’t claim to be the “first” anything, not even the Country’s first black, gay president. But keep up the fight, I know we’ll all enjoy watching the battle between evil and more evil.

FLOTUS Friday: “Your Honor My Client Pleads Not Guilty By Reason of Cultural Relativism”

Someday, although I doubt I’ll be alive long enough to see it, history will note all the lies that have been made up, told and perpetrated against Donald J. Trump and his family. By then all of the intended damage will have  been inflicted and few will be left to care. And that is why we take great pleasure when somebody, like The Telegraph, is held accountable in the here-and-now for their libelous spreading of flagrant lies. So I’ve chosen to print The Telegraph’s retraction and apology to America’s First Lady, Melania Trump, in full:

Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family.  Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump.  They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations.  As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.

Most of the embarrassment caused by The Telegraph’s publication of false allegations is their own. Why anyone would print an article based on the “work” of an acknowledged liar like Nina Burleigh – who writes for Newsweek as a National Politics Correspondent specializing in Trump bashing – is beyond me. Especially when  Burleigh acknowledged that she never actually spoke with the First Lady for the book she based the article on. She claims Melania Trump’s people wouldn’t grant her an interview – a fact that in retrospect is not so surprising.

But Nina isn’t going to let truth lay in the way of her journalistic deception and dishonesty. No indeed, she’s fighting back:  “They defamed me by calling my work ‘false,’” Burleigh complained. I presume she subscribes to the belief that such behavior is only inappropriate when directed at a “journalist” not a public figure.

In a letter to the Telegraph Nina’s lawyer threatened a defamation lawsuit over the apology it issued to Melania Trump:

“Your Apology traduces [ed. when you’ve got nothing else use 2-bit words] Ms Burleigh’s reputation as a competent journalist by asserting that many of the statements in the Article and by extension in the Book from which the Article was derived, both authored by her, are false.”

I’m going to predict that Nina’s threat will never see the light of a courtroom on either side of the Atlantic. The letter is a lame attempt to salvage what little reputation the “journalist” - who once infamously offered Bill Clinton BJs for his role in in keeping abortion legal - had left.

Indeed, Ms. Burleigh’s defense seems to consist mostly of her own flawed work… 

Burleigh also told the Washington Post her book “has been widely excerpted and reported on in American publications.” [ed. “repeat a lie frequently enough and it will be true”]

and the work of others who libeled Melania first:

“Furthermore, the points they objected to include facts that have been previously reported by other writers."

Apparently the new rigorous standard for journalist “facts” is “I read it somewhere.” 

Outside the insular world of partisan journalism circular reasoning is considered a logic fallacy and excluded from serious deliberation. But in the very dense world of modern journalism, where the prime objective is advancing the narrative, a thing is not false if it’s your truth…whether it’s false or not.

“Your Honor, my client pleads not guilty by reason of cultural relativism.”

Trump’s War

       “Rouse him, and learn the principle of his activity or inactivity. Force him to reveal himself, so as to find out his vulnerable spots.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Consider our enemies revealed:

Democrat 2020 Platform pic.twitter.com/IToM8UyfU1

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) January 31, 2019

Winning

Look, the Super Bowl is on Sunday, and I know some of you are sitting it out and that’s fine. But this appeal is directed towards those of you who are going to watch the game anyway and root against the Patriots. First of all, how can you root against a team called the Patriots? ABT- anyone but Tom? Really? That’s nearly as bad as Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Secondly, don’t people like underdogs anymore? Oh sure, I know, the Patriots aren’t your classic underdog team with all of their Super Bowl trips/wins, and Tom is certainly not considered an underdog in life’s lottery anymore, but that wasn’t always the case.

Tom Brady, 1991

In college he was an underdog quarterback – from a school that sports writers have never liked - and was still an underdog when he finally got drafted into the NFL.

Tom Brady looked nothing like an NFL quarterback at the league’s pre-draft combine in 2000. His legs were the size of toothpicks, and his college resume consisted of being a benchwarmer who struggled to keep the starting job once he finally won it.

“You wouldn’t recognize this guy,” said Gil Brandt, the longtime NFL personnel guru. “He was really chicken-chested.”

Brady was drafted by the New England Patriots in the sixth round, bulked up, and made a remarkable transformation from forgettable prospect to generational star. A brief history of his career since includes ranking near the top of nearly every all-time passing statistic, winning more playoff games than any quarterback in league history and taking home five Super Bowl wins.

So why do people hate him so? Is it because he’s rich, married a gorgeous model, has a lovely family and appears to be happy? Just like Trump.

Or is it because of '”Deflategate,” a trumped up charge *ahem* designed to make us believe Tom is an illegitimate winner? The primary proof of this “settled science” appears to be the (winning) science fair project of a 10 year old named Ace Davis. Aside: what kind of parent names his kid “Ace” anyway?

Or is it that America has just gotten tired of winners? That seems rather petty. Especially when you consider some of the people who are Tom Brady and Bill Belichick haters. 

Daniel Radcliffe, Hogwart High’s most famous alumni

Daniel Radcliffe stopped by the Variety Studio at Sundance presented by AT&T, where he delivered a special message to Patriots quarterback and Trump supporter Tom Brady.

“Take that MAGA hat out your locker…the whole world is rooting against the Patriots,” Radcliffe quipped after explaining that though Brady shouldn’t retire, he should “stop winning things.”  - Variety

That’s rich, coming from a guy most famous for playing a graduate from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry – talk about cheating! And a Brit at that, where they think soccer is football.

I don’t know, maybe America just doesn’t like winners anymore because it’s hard to argue that Brady isn’t a winner. Even though he’s older and not quite as agile as he once was he’s learned how to compensate.

Brady has adjusted his game to compensate for all the things that a quarterback loses as he ages. He makes up for decreased mobility and diminishing arm strength by throwing the ball quickly and short. He avoids injury the same way, and as a result is rarely hit.

And it seems to be working.

(Brady) completed 28.3% of his passes to running backs in 2018, the highest rate of his entire career. This came after he set career-highs in 2017, 2016 and 2015, too. He relies more and more on the player who begins the playstanding right next to him. – WSJ

Still, if you’re winning but you’re not the person others think should win there will be haters, hoards of them, out to get you. I guess that’s part of America too, everybody likes a success story, as long as you’re not too successful. Just ask our President if you don’t believe me.

Oh and by the way, Coach Belichick holds a degree in economics. Unlike another famous econ major, he actually learned economic principles and uses them to to help him dominate the NFL.

Belichick, an economics major, is constantly looking to find market inefficiencies to exploit. He has had great success with quirky schematic innovations, but, for the most part, he takes tried and tested methods and adopts them.

The brilliance is in the timing. Belichick reintroduced the 3-4 defense to the league back in the early 2000s. When it got too popular (thanks to the Patriots’ success), he switched back to a 4-3, where he could unearth some cheap gems. He was also an early adopter (around 2011) of the up-tempo spread offense that’s become ubiquitous in 2018.

So maybe that’s why everybody hates New England: their coach outplays everyone by being unpredictable:

The head coach’s ability to zig while others zag has kept New England ahead of every team in the league for 18 years, and led to a mindboggling period of sustained success that should be impossible in a league that is designed for parity through a salary cap and draft system. Belichick’s genius lies in his refusal to wed himself to one overriding philosophy. He’s a shape-shifter, constantly evolving his team’s style – and that flexibility has been on show this season. - The Guardian

Sounds like somebody else we know.

I don’t know, maybe it’s just me. Maybe it’s because I spent many a fall Saturday in Ann Arbor watching Tom Brady beat Michigan’s opponents on home turf but I think he’s a winner. And I think his coach is a winner too. And it somehow seems wrong to root against them.

Tom and PDJT - don’t count either of them out.

And there’s zero chance that either of them are going to go away just because a bunch of people don’t like them. That would be un-American. And neither of them are tired of winning yet.

We Need Six More Years To MAGA

True in 2009, still true today

It might be interesting to reflect on how we got where we are today. Specifically, how we got Trump. This reminder, circa early 2016, comes compliments of Glenn Harlan Reynolds:

Brooks is, of course, horrified at Trump and his supporters, whom he finds childish, thuggish and contemptuous of the things that David Brooks likes about today’s America. It’s clear that he’d like a social/political revolution that was more refined, better-mannered, more focused on the Constitution and, well, more bourgeois as opposed to in-your-face and working class.

The thing is, we had that movement. It was the Tea Party movement. . . .

Yet the tea party movement was smeared as racist, denounced as fascist, harassed with impunity by the IRS and generally treated with contempt by the political establishment — and by pundits like Brooks, who declared “I’m not a fan of this movement.” After handing the GOP big legislative victories in 2010 and 2014, it was largely betrayed by the Republicans in Congress, who broke their promises to shrink government and block Obama’s initiatives.

So now we have Trump instead, who tells people to punch counterprotesters instead of picking up their trash.

When politeness and orderliness are met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is something less polite, and less orderly. Brooks closes his Trump column with Psalm 73, but a more appropriate verse is Hosea 8:7 “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Trump’s ascendance is a symptom of a colossal failure among America’s political leaders, of which Brooks’ mean-spirited insularity is only a tiny part. God help us all.

The column has held up surprisingly well precisely because the media ignored the reasons behind the Trump phenomenon and continue to do so today. So I ask, as I’ve asked before,  “Want more Trump? Because this:

this,

this,

and this,

is how you get more Trump.

And my message to the ruling class and the talking head class is this: keep up the good work. We need another 6 more years to MAGA.

KAMALOT: As Black As Obama, As Likeable As Hillary™

I know, Kamala Harris looked formidable as she kicked off her presidential campaign:

What with all the tears and adulation.

But don’t worry. Kamala is not the female Barack Obama. She’s more like the half-black Hillary.

 

Pretty unlikable to anyone other than her base, who’d vote for anything with a Democratic “F” after her name.

 Charter members of the “I’m With Her” club, no matter who or what “her” is

Like Hillary, Kamala is a woman who came to power on the coattails of a powerful man, and I’m not talking about Barack Hussein Obama (America’s last black president), although he thinks she’s “haute” too.

And if speaking that truth to power makes me a misogynist, what does it make her?

Any-hoo, she kicked off her presidential run with a big rally in Oakland – not exactly the Brandenburg Gate but the epicenter of the new Democratic Socialists. In it she vowed to “seek truth, speak truth and fight for the truth.”  She also found a new abrasive way to put us all in her basket of deplorables:

“Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia are real in this country,” Harris said. “And they are age-old forms of hate with new fuel. We need to speak that truth so we can deal with it.” - LAT

Here’s my truth for Kammie’s Kampaign: KAMALOT: As Black as Obama, as likeable as Hillary™.

As a slogan I think it’s a winner, how about you?

Why Are Canadian Geese Such Jerks?

A disturbing new crime wave is sweeping the (northern) United States, specifically Obama’s Windy City: the theft of Canada Goose jackets, literally ripped off the victims back – sometimes at gunpoint. The jackets reportedly sell for around $1700. Those PETA people are getting more and more aggressive.

As far as I know the Canadian Goose, along with some 170 others, is still covered by the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1916 that protects migratory birds during mating season. Like many well intentioned laws that may or may not have served a purpose at one time, legislators tend to ignore statues that become  obsolete or irrelevant.

Got Geese?

It seems that during the past 30 years or so Canada Geese have become ‘urban exploiters,’ a species that thrives in human-made environments. This also means there’s no need for them to ever go home once they land here.

Jocelyn Hudon, curator of ornithology at the Royal Alberta Museum, says that the species, for lack of population control, doesn’t fear humans as much in urban areas, since the birds know city residents don’t pose much of a threat. Geese in the wild, on the other hand, are careful, more vocal, and less likely to engage. – Why Are Canada Geese Such Jerks

So now that we are being overrun by these migrants from the north who arrived with impunity, were allowed to reproduce freely and won’t go home, what are we supposed to do? Welcome even more of these sometimes aggressive invaders with open arms?

I say PETA be damned, turn them into coats!

Or I suppose you could stuff all the feathers on the inside if you don’t want to flaunt your affluence.

Build the Wall and Crime Will Fall