Friday, October 18, 2019

Hillary Clinton Reignites Her “Vast Russian Conspiracy Theory” Against Tulsi Gabbard

Despite the abject nuttery, there is good news here.  Former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is accusing current Democrat Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a secret Russian agent:
“[Tulsi Gabbard is] the favorite of the Russians, and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. She’s a Russian asset! I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate.” (link)
The insufferable Mrs. Clinton re-initiated her vast Russian conspiracy theoryduring an interview with former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.  Yes, THAT David Plouffe.

However, Clinton nuttery aside, this level of political quackery -as expressed- is not all bad news.  Clinton’s tendency to make herself stupid and small is a strong indicator: (A) she’s not stable; (B) she’s not viable; and (C) she knows she could never re-enter the race.


‘Eye Popping’: Liberal Think Tank

Townhall


'Eye Popping:' 

Liberal Think Tank Projects Enormous Price Tag for Warren's Single-Payer Plan

'Eye Popping:' Liberal Think Tank Projects Enormous Price Tag for Warren's Single-Payer Plan
Nothing terribly new here, except for the fact that leftists can't dishonestly dismiss out of hand these cost projections for single-payer healthcare.  Previous, similar estimates were lazily derided as Koch-funded -- which does not seriously attempt to grapple with the calculations themselves -- but nobody can remotely accuse the left-leaning Urban Institute of being some right-wing front.  They'd already put out an astronomical number on the ten-year price tag of single-payer healthcare, but updated figuresfurther underscore how enormous the expenditure would be, via The Atlantic:
The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections...In recent history, only during the height of World War II has the federal government tried to increase taxes, as a share of the economy, as fast as would be required to offset the cost of a single-payer plan, federal figures show. There are “no analogous peacetime tax increases,” says Leonard Burman, a public-administration professor at Syracuse University and a former top tax official in both the Bill Clinton administration and at the CBO. Raising that much more tax revenue “is plausible in the sense that it is theoretically possible,”Burman told me. “But the revolution that would come along with it would get in the way.”

Such gargantuan tax increases are, in fact, "theoretically possible."  Read this post and re-acquaint yourself with how massive they would need to be.  The piece excerpted above notes that "throughout the campaign, Warren refused to provide any specifics about how she would fund a single-payer plan. Instead, whether questioned by moderators or challenged by other candidates, she recycled variants on the same talking points she has used in [various] venues."  She is avoiding this question like the plague because she knows that bruising, across-the-board tax increases are unavoidable to fund a scheme that would add roughly $3.4 trillion in new spending every year (the federal government spent roughly $4 trillion last year, and is already racking up reckless and unsustainabledeficits).

The Warren-friendly media is now trying to frame questions about this glaring issue as Republican-aiding, off-limits 'gotchas,' despite the fact that "how will you pay for X Y o Z" is the veritable definition of a legitimate policy question -- especially for someone who holds herself out as a wonky planner.  This gas-lighting from a prominent journalism professor (!) is quite revealing.  Thou shalt not ask questions of candidates that might help Republicans:

The lefty rebuttal to the tax increase question is that net-net, many people will pay less overall, as their premiums and deductibles are eliminated.  That math is not clean, however, as the overall costs of single-payer (and therefore taxes) could soar even higher as on-paper anticipated government "savings" fail to materialize.  Private coverage would be outlawed under Warren's plan, but long wait times and government rationing could also likely lead to an outcry in favor of supplementary plans, which would raise people's costs even further.  Also, why should anyone trust 'lower cost' assurances from the same people who dishonestly peddled the "Affordable" Care Act, which utterly failed in its core premise?  I'll leave you with Mayor Pete pressing this point further after this week's debate, plus this reminder that Buttigieg also effectively supports the very program he's attacking as unaffordable:

BWHAHAHA! I Guess Being A Liar Come Easy For Democrats!



14 October 2019

Dear Representative Cunningham:
I am writing to you as an outraged constituent. I see where you support Speaker Pelosi's support of Adam Schiff and this illegitimate attempt at a faux Impeachment.
I listened to your speeches when you ran for the position you successfully beat a Republican for in the 1st District, You sir ran on getting things done, being an outsider and not participating in the Washington Kabuki Theater.
Were you lying then?
President Trump has accomplished wonderful things for the country as well South Carolina, why are you not helping him lead this great country?
I expect you to put this partisan nonsense aside and support our President.

Sincerely,
This is what I sent to my Congressman, this is what I got back:

JOE CUNNINGHAM
1ST DISTRICT, SOUTH CAROLINACongress of the United States // House of Representatives // Washington, DC 20515
October 18, 2019


Dear:
     Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about partisanship in Washington. I appreciate hearing from my constituents about issues facing the Lowcountry and the nation.
     I came to Congress to represent the Lowcountry, not a political party or Washington special interest. And so far, my record is consistent with that philosophy. In fact, according to Congressional Quarterly Magazine, a nonpartisan media outlet with a focus on Congress, I have the most independent voting record of anyone in my party. This means that I have crossed the aisle and voted with Republicans more than any of my colleagues.
     The American people want unity and for their representatives to work across the aisle to solve our country's problems. I stand ready to work with the White House and both parties in Congress. I will always put Lowcountry over party as your Member of Congress.  
     As always, I am open to learning more from you and I appreciate you taking the time to express your views. If you would like to stay connected to my office, please sign up for my newsletter for updates on how I am working for you.
With kind regards, I remain

Very truly yours,

(signed)
Joe Cunningham
Member of Congress

My follow up letter is simple:



18 October 2019

Representative Cunningham:

You are a liar and a fraud.

I will do all I can to help the Republican beat you in the next election.

Sincerely,

WWWP Weekend Open Thread


What do you know, it's that time of the week again where I say a few things, post a few vids and then bail to run errands. Post -N- Jet ... It's not on purpose, it's just how things work out. It's ok, Iron Man told me he would watch after things. I believe it's the real guy ... I mean, the suit looks legit to me ¯¯\_()_/¯¯








It looks like this segment got pretty meta this week.


IT'S MUSIC TIME



\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


//////////////////////


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\



y'all know what's up
memes, gifs, music, pics, random thoughts ...
post 'em if you got 'em

Joe Biden Lied For Years About The Car Accident That Claimed The Life Of His Wife And Daughter



I hesitated to post on this story because it is based on one of the saddest events that life could possibly hand anyone. On December 18, 1972, 30-year-old Sen. Joe Biden received a telephone call notifying him that a car accident had taken the life of his wife and his 13-month-old daughter and seriously injured his two sons.

The issue is that, for years, Biden had repeatedly made the claim that the driver of the truck involved in the accident “drank his lunch” that day. According to the judge assigned to the case, there was no evidence that the driver had been drinking. Further, police determined that Biden’s wife “drove into the path of Dunn’s tractor-trailer, possibly because her head was turned and she didn’t see the oncoming truck.”

POLITICO wrote in January of this year that a friend of Biden’s looked into the accident at the time and concluded, “She had a stop sign. The truck driver did not.”
Now, Biden is being called out for spreading a lie.


In 2001, Biden delivered a speech at the University of Delaware in which he said that the accident had been caused by a drunken driver. “A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly — and I never pursued it — drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly and killed my daughter instantly and hospitalized my two sons …” He also told the story on the campaign trail in 2007. In 2008, Biden’s comments were picked up by the New York Times and were repeated by CBS talk show host Katie Couric and others.

In late August 2008, the producers of “Inside Edition” contacted Newark resident Pamela Hamill, the daughter of the tractor-trailer driver, Curtis Dunn, who had collided with Biden’s wife. Her father had passed away in 1999, so they requested an interview with Hamill, who appeared on the show in September. Hamill wanted to set the record straight.

She also campaigned for a “public apology from [then] vice presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), whom she says has repeatedly besmirched her late father.” I was not able to find evidence that she ever received an apology although I did read of an instance of Biden telling the story in 2009.

In October of 2008, the Newark Post ran a story to help her set the record straight.

They reported:
According to Delaware Superior Court Judge Jerome O. Herlihy, who oversaw the police investigation 36 years ago as chief prosecutor, there is no evidence supporting Biden’s claim.
“The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver (Dunn), is incorrect,” Herlihy said recently.
Police determined that Biden’s first wife drove into the path of Dunn’s tractor-trailer, possibly because her head was turned and she didn’t see the oncoming truck.
Dunn, who overturned his rig while swerving to avoid a collision, ran to the wrecked car and was the first to render assistance.
Police filed no charges against Dunn, who at that time lived in North East, Md. with his wife, Ruby, and their seven children.
Dunn was haunted by the accident until the day he died, Hamill told the newspaper. “Growing up, my dad never talked about it. He always got very solemn around Christmastime because the anniversary was Dec. 18, and he never wanted to celebrate the holidays. When newspapers had anniversary articles (about the crash), we hid them from dad.”

She also said she wants to “clear her late father’s name before Biden’s story is even more widely accepted as fact. Suppose he becomes the next vice president. Movies could be made about him and books could be written about him, all falsely portraying my father as a drunk driver. We need to set the record straight and clear my father’s name right now before this goes any further.”

Biden’s mischaracterization of this accident doesn’t surprise me. It’s part of a pattern of behavior that we’ve come to associate with Biden. He has a history of embellishing events which have occurred and occasionally inventing entire stories out of whole cloth if it serves his purpose. Put another way, this man’s word is not to be trusted.

We all remember when he was forced to withdraw from the 1988 Democratic presidential primary after it was discovered that he had presented a powerful speech delivered by British politician Neil Kinnock only four months earlier.
Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because our predecessors were thick? Does anybody really think that they didn’t get what we had because they didn’t have the talent or the strength or the endurance or the commitment? Of course not. It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand.
Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife… is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? …Is it because they didn’t work hard? My ancestors who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It’s because they didn’t have a platform on which to stand.
A more recent example of Biden’s propensity to embellish was his story about facing down local thug “Corn Pop” in 1962 armed only with a six foot chain. Corn Pop was accompanied by three of his goons, each of whom carried a razor blade. If any of you missed that entertaining tale, my colleague Streiff wrote a very amusing post about it, entitled “Did Joe Biden Really Face Down Feared Northeast Wilmington Thug ‘Corn Pop’ And Win The Respect Of A City.”

For so many reasons, Biden should have sat this election out. His time, if he ever really had one, has past.



Why Liberals and Democrats Should Be Hunted To Extinction

The opinions of the author do not necessarily represent management.

In their book “How Democracies Die,” Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that authoritarians undermine democracy in several ways. They reject the democratic rules of the game, the unwritten norms we rely upon to make the political system work. They deny the legitimacy of their political opponents, using extreme language to deny them standing as co-citizens.

They reject the democratic rules of the game, the unwritten norms we rely upon to make the political system work.



They deny the legitimacy of their political opponents, using extreme language to deny them standing as co-citizens.



They deny the legitimacy of their political opponents, using extreme language to deny them standing as co-citizens.



It seems Liberals and Democrats have no grasp of reality in this book as well at this NYT article the fools claim Trump followers do the very things Liberals and Democrats have done since 3:30 am on November 9, 2016.  We have had 3 years of this Bullshit from people who should be hunted to extinction.

David Brooks - New York Times opinion

It is Obvious David Brooks suffers from some brain damage from TDS.

Why It Matters That Sidney Powell Wants Data From Joseph Mifsud’s Smartphones



While Sidney Powell’s latest motion barely comprised two pages, the implications are multi-pronged and monumental.

On Tuesday, attorney Sidney Powell struck again, revealing yet another huge development in the Spygate saga between the lines of her latest motion. That motion, filed in the still-pending criminal case against Trump’s former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, demanded exculpatory evidence from federal prosecutors.

But unlike her previously filed motion to compel, here Powell seeks evidence “that has only recently come into its possession.” And the evidence sought? The data and metadata from two Blackberry devices used by Joseph Mifsud.

While Powell’s latest motion barely equaled two pages, the implications are multi-pronged and monumental.

That the U.S. government has only recently obtained possession of a pair of smartphones used by Joseph Mifsud tells us two things: that Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham’s probe into the origins of the Russia-collusion hoax is both serious and successful, and that the Crossfire Hurricane targeting of President Trump and former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation were neither.

After all, Mifsud was the man whose tip to young Trump volunteer advisor George Papadopoulos, that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton, supposedly formed the basis for the FBI to launch Crossfire Hurricane’s targeting of the Trump campaign in late July 2016. Yet no one bothered to interview Mifsud until six months later, when he traveled to D.C. to speak at a conference sponsored by the State Department.

And then the FBI let him go, later blaming Papadopoulos for their inability to properly question the purported Russian agent. Mueller seemed equally uninterested in Mifsud—a strange position to take toward a putative enemy agent.

In contrast, Barr and Durham seemingly considered Mifsud key to understanding the Russia-collusion investigation. At least their reported trip last month to Italy suggested as much, with the Washington Post repeating the news that while there, “Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham were played a taped deposition from when Mifsud reportedly applied for police protection.”

The timing of the Italy trip, Powell’s motion, and her assertion that the government only recently came into possession of Mifsud’s two smartphones, all suggest Barr and Durham returned stateside with the evidence—something a serious investigation into potential Russia collusion back in 2016 would have already looked at.

It would be an impossibility for our government to cordially obtain Mifsud’s smartphones if he were truly a Russian agent. If he were, he’d not hand over his smartphones to the United States or allow the Italian government to do so.

Powell’s revelation that the government has Mifsud’s two Blackberries goes deeper, too: It connects to the shocker Powell shared in a previous court filing—that Mifsud attended the Russia Today dinner in Moscow on December 17, 2015, where Flynn was photographed with Vladimir Putin. That dinner marks a second connection between Trump campaign folks and Mifsud, with Papadopoulos as the other.

In her motion, Powell suggests Mifsud had been tasked against Flynn, seeking, along with other agents, to arrange “—unbeknownst to him—‘connections’ with certain Russians that they would then use against him in their false claims.” But Powell is handicapped in making this argument, because the prosecution refused to turn over much of the evidence she seeks to defend her client.

Federal prosecutors have not said no to providing Mifsud’s smartphone data, at least not yet. Instead, in response to Powell’s request for the data, the government told her that “if we determine that they contain information that is discoverable or that is relevant to sentencing, we will produce them to you.”

This response proves intriguing and triply so. First, the prosecutors speak of deciding, which suggests that they have not yet reviewed the smartphones. That raises an interesting possibility—that Barr and Durham are controlling the investigation of the investigators and they had yet to see the smartphones or data. Yet Powell knew about the phones, suggesting she has a well-placed source sympathetic to Flynn’s plight, or outraged by the political and prosecutorial abuse on display in this case, or both.

Finally, the government’s response indicates that federal prosecutors may be ignoring presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan’s standing order. In that standing order, Sullivan ordered the government to produce to “any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” But in its response to Powell, the government speaks of only providing evidence “relevant to sentencing,” and seemingly ignores the court’s directive, which was to provide any evidence favorable to Flynn and material to either his guilt or his punishment (sentence).

The court is not likely to rule on Powell’s latest filing for some time. And who knows, by then Barr and Durham may have already issued their report.


Schiff Should Be Censored..

Real Clear Politics

Adam Schiff Should Be Censured 
for His Media Statements

Rep. Adam Schiff’s behavior as President Trump’s chief antagonist has gone so far over the top that he has violated the rules of the House of Representatives. His violations are so egregious that it’s time to sanction him and remove him from his position as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To that end, I recently filed a formal complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics, demanding that the office launch an official investigation. 

Congressman Schiff’s violations, according to media reports, are not new – in fact, they have been going on for years, since long before he took over as chairman of the intelligence committee. 

In early April of 2017 – less than three months after President Trump took office, and before his removal of then-FBI Director James Comey led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel – Congressman Schiff was the butt of a prank phone call by Russian radio comics who offered to give him what they called “compromat” (compromising information) on President Trump. According to the Russians, who posed on the call as a Ukrainian politician, they had “obtained recordings and documents that proved Vladimir Putin was blackmailing Trump with naked photos taken during an affair between the president and a Russian glamour model,” as The Daily Mail reported. Schiff took detailed notes on the call, asking for names to be spelled properly, so that he could follow up. 

Schiff’s staff said later that he knew all along it was a prank. But if that were true, why would one of his intelligence committee staffers have followed up with an email to the Russia radio comics describing the call as “productive” and asking “how best to arrange a pick-up of those materials from your Embassy here in Washington, DC?” 

More recently, Congressman Schiff lied on multiple occasions when he told reporters for at least three different news outlets that he and his committee staff had had no contact with the so-called “whistleblower,” when, in fact, they had. 

On Sept. 16, Schiff told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that neither the whistleblower nor his lawyers had contacted him. But Schiff also deflected, saying, “I don’t want to get into any particulars. I want to make sure that there’s nothing that I do that jeopardizes the whistleblower in any way.” 

The following day, Schiff appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” and told Sam Stein that neither he nor his staff had “spoken directly with the whistleblower.” Said Schiff, “We would like to. But I am sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the Director of National Intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.” 

Perhaps worst of all, on Sept. 19 Schiff told reporters: “In the absence of the actions, and I want to thank the inspector general, in the absence of his actions in coming to our committee, we might not have even known there was a whistleblower complaint alleging an urgent concern.” 

These bald-faced lies were so egregious that even the fact-checker for The Washington Post – no den of Trump sycophants – declared: “Schiff on ‘Morning Joe’ clearly made a statement that was false. He now says he was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case, he should have quickly corrected the record. He compounded his falsehood by telling reporters a few days later that if not for the IG’s office, the committee would not have known about the complaint. That again suggested there had been no prior communication. The explanation that Schiff was not sure it was the same whistleblower especially strains credulity.” And then the fact-checker awarded Schiff four “Pinocchios” – the worst prize possible for telling deliberate lies. 

And who can forget Schiff’s opening statement at a hearing of his committee two weeks ago, when he put words into the mouth of the president of the United States, trying to pass him off as a mob boss? It was only because committee Republicans objected strenuously that Schiff backed off and claimed he had meant his statement as “a parody.” 

Adam Schiff has abused his position as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In his fanatical pursuit of President Trump, he has misused taxpayer-funded resources for his partisan political agenda, and he has lied repeatedly. It is time for him to go. 

Jenny Beth Martin is chairman of the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund.

Why the ‘Woke’ Corporations Support...


Why the ‘Woke’ Corporations Support 
China in Hong Kong

Free-market Christians are the biggest enemies of both.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Think there’s a contradiction between ‘woke’ corporate titans like Apple and Disney silencing anyone opposed to China’s crackdown on protesters in Hong Kong?

It’s not hypocrisy, it’s synergy.

The same forces that made the major brands scattered around your kitchen, living room and garage broadcast their support for gun control, gay marriage and illegal immigration are fueling their support for the People’s Republic of China pulling another Tiananmen Square in Hong Kong.

The lefties in Beijing and Berkeley used the same set of ideological tools to force companies to toe the party line. They roped off access to an appealing customer base, the population of mainland China, urban millennials with huge amounts of disposable income, in exchange for ideological compliance.

Communist China is one entangled oligarchy which mingles political party and company. Sound familiar?

The CEO of Nike sits on the board of Disney. The CEO of Disney until recently sat on the board of Apple. The CEO of Apple sits on the board of Nike. Good thing we have a “free market economy” isn’t it?

Disney, Apple and all the rest have no problem understanding their Chinese Communist counterparts.

ESPN smears democracy protesters in Hong Kong for the same reason that it celebrated Colin Kaepernick. There’s a fundamental contradiction in principles between supporting a Communist police state and denouncing American police officers, but a perfect synergy of political expediency.

Disney, ESPN’s parent company, has embraced identity politics from the top down, even as its head honcho, Bob Iger, remains whiter than vanilla ice cream, not because it really believes in this stuff. The Chinese Communist Party believes in One China. Its American counterparts believe in A Thousand Genders. Lefty power in China is built on unity and solidarity. Lefty power in America is built on divisive minority coalitions. But it’s only a difference if you focus on the means rather than the ends.

And the Mouse didn’t eat the entire entertainment industry by being unable to see the endgame. Avengers Endgame brought in $612 million in China. That’s the real endgame that it cares about.

In America and China, a lefty political elite controls the culture. Chinese and American lefties interlock cultural, economic and political power. Disney, once seen as a square family friendly studio, can rule the box offices in America and China because it advances the cultural goals of their political elites.

American corporations went ‘woke’ because their ideal customer base, wealthy millennials, were reprogrammed by academia. Getting access to young people with lots of money required ritual virtue signaling, first by cultural industries, which didn’t need much encouraging to function as gatekeepers, censors and reeducators, and then by all the other industries which bowed to the culture.

If Disney didn’t advance the party line, its comic book movies would be ridiculed, dismissed and denounced, and its cartoon remakes would be accused of racism in America. And in China, where the loci of political control are even simpler, they would never be released in the country’s movies theaters.

China’s Commies control the entire economy. America’s lefties control the cultural economy. And our few real exports to China are either agricultural or cultural. And soybean farmers aren’t tweeting about Hong Kong. The ‘wokest’ parts of our economy, entertainment and tech, are that way because they depend on the cultural sanction of the same political movement that killed millions in China.

If you’re going to sell thousand-dollar phones made by slave labor in some dusty factory town where the air is poison, you need the sanction of the Communist Party of China and the culture industry of California. And if you’re going to dump your cultural garbage in American and Chinese movie theaters, both owned by the same Chinese corporations, you’ll need to run the stuff by cultural censors.

Chinese censors are concerned about portraying their leaders as powerful and discouraging insurrection. American censors want to push their identity politics. That’s how you end up with ESPN cheering Colin and booing Hong Kong protesters. Chinese and American commies both get what they want and ESPN gets a foothold in the Chinese market and among the Ivy League’s wealthy woke grads.

The Hong Kong protesters won’t be too happy, but how many Avengers movies do they watch? How many iPhones can they buy? How many copies of Battlefield do they play? That’s the real question.

The ‘enemies of the people’ in Hong Kong are free market Christians who don’t want a police state controlling their lives. Funny coincidence, those are also the ‘enemies of the people’ in America.

Giant multinational monopolies don’t like free markets. They encourage competition.

The last thing the NBA, Disney, Apple, Nike and the rest of the ‘megas’ want is competition. What they want is a walled garden tended by a kindly Zen-Communist tyrant who will give them a virgin territory in exchange for a huge slice of the pie to be shared with local political partners. And, of course, slavish devotion to the tyranny of whatever it is the locals believe in, dialectical materialism, the transcendence of gender, which is a small price to pay by people who don’t have any principles or believe in anything.

It doesn’t really matter if this walled garden is in China or California. Either way, the ideal outcome is a totalitarian leftist state and the enemies are Christians who believe in a free market economy.

Can you think of anything a soulless ‘woke’ monopoly would hate and fear more than religious believers who also believe in personal freedom? That’s why Disney, Apple and the ChiComs are on the same page.

Apple, Disney and all the rest are about brands. A brand is a form of identity.

Brands don’t make good products. Instead they churn out overpriced junk and use advertising to fuse consumer loyalty to their brand. And that brand, a sports team, an Apple logo, becomes part of the identity of the people who are brainwashed into identifying with it even to their own detriment.

That’s why ad agencies have gone gaga for identity politics. And why every other ad you see is virtue signaling so hard that it would make Mao roll his eyes. They’re all in the manufactured identity business.

Identity politics manufactures identities and then convinces its dupes that their lives are hopeless and incomplete until they also implement open borders, gun control, and a ban on fossil fuels.

Sound familiar? Buy into the revolution now. Organizers are standing by to take your call.

That’s also why religious believers are the enemy. They don’t make ideal consumers.

People who have a form of meaning in their lives that isn’t for sale on Black Friday aren’t good consumers. Lefties with thirty genders and a hole the size of Cleveland where meaning should be, are.

So are Communist drones in a society drifting away from Communism while suppressing religion.

That’s why California and Communist China are the capitals of ‘Capitamunism’. And why free market Christians are the enemies in both of the capitals where identity politics are their own religion.

In China, it’s nationalism. In America, it’s anti-nationalism. But those are just different identities. And advertising is in the business of monetizing identities. The militant Chinese nationalist vocally insisting that everything in Asia belongs to Beijing and the furious Black Lives Matter activist demanding that we build Wakanda in Oklahoma are two sides of the same coin and ESPN will market to both of them.

And if a few protesters in Hong Kong or police officers in Dallas get shot, that’s also the same coin.

What really matters is the next game, the next movie, the next phone and the next crackdown. What matters is that you can buy governments, shut down protests and suppress the truth. What matters is that more people, in China and America, are realizing that what they want isn’t a sale: it’s freedom.

Nancy Pelosi’s USMCA Strategy for 2020 is Contingent Upon the Canadian Election


Yesterday Nancy Pelosi was questioned about why the House was not voting to pass the USMCA trade agreement.  Speaker Pelosi immediately fell back upon her talking point: “we are working toward yes.”   This is complete hogwash.  There are no discussions. Pelosi is doing what Pelosi does best, politicizing anything positive for the U.S. economy in a concerted effort to undermine Trump in 2020.


Nancy Pelosi and her far-left ideologues entered an agreement with their Canadian liberal allies and Justin Trudeau to stall the USMCA passage.
Trudeau’s government ideologues agreed not to call the USMCA up for a vote in the Canadian parliament.
Speaker Pelosi is waiting to see if Trudeau can win re-election.  If Canada re-elects Trudeau on October 21st, Pelosi will announce the labor provisions are not strong enough within the USMCA deal; discussions with the Trump administration are not resolving the issues; the U.S. workers are not protected enough, and she is tabling any vote.
Speaker Pelosi will then wait until after the 2020 election.  The purpose is political.

Ratification of the USMCA would be a boost for the U.S, and North American, economy.  More growth in the economy is politically adverse to her interests.  Part of the 2020 Democrat strategy is to stall the U.S. economy, stoke a recession narrative, and hopefully weaken President Trump’s re-election bid.  That’s the plan.

For Canada’s part of the scheme, Justin Trudeau -if successfully reelected- will announce that Canada is waiting for the U.S to work out the USMCA labor disagreements.  This is the quid-pro-quo between liberals in the democrat party and liberals in Canada.


However, if Trudeau loses the election then Pelosi loses her partner in the plan.  As a consequence Canadian ratification of the USMCA will be certain, and it will be outside the control of U.S. Democrats…

So, if Trudeau loses the election Nancy Pelosi will bring the USMCA to a vote timed with the impeachment vote.  This plan allows democrats to try and dilute the political nature of the impeachment scheme by referencing the Trump administration USMCA vote as an example of Democrats not being political.   This is how they scheme.

If it does not benefit Democrats, it simply is not done.

Yes, this is what Democrats spend 100% of their time doing… This is how they roll.  24/7/365 constant planning and political strategy sessions to best exploit and shape events to their narrative.  Here’s the talking points if Trudeau loses on Oct 21st:
’See, we’re not politically motivated, we’re giving the same president we are impeaching a win; because this trade deal is in the best interest of America.  Just like the impeachment of this corrupt president is in the best interest of America’….
This is why it is so frustrating trying to communicate with and work with Republicans.

As a group they are the worlds worst strategists; most often, intentionally so.  The right side of the UniParty prefers to be the party in controlled-opposition because Wall Street pays them better for their votes, and their constituents are oblivious to the construct.

It’s a big club….