Narrow?

So, this is the spin:

Limbaugh says it well:

“The reason they’re trying to say it’s narrow is that the court’s ruling today did have a lot to do with the way the baker was treated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They called him a Nazi. They said he was a Holocaust denier. They gave him the usual deranged, insane left-wing insults at the hearing at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on this dispute, whether he should have to bake a cake for a gay wedding. He said he didn’t want to, it violated his religious beliefs.

And the court said we can’t have this kind of decision-making. We can’t have this man’s religious rights denigrated in this way by the Civil Rights Commission. So in a sense, the ruling was not constitutional, but, folks, to tell you how important this is and how big it is, you have to look at what would have happened if it had gone the other way.

If the court had ruled that this baker was required to bake this cake for a gay couple in violation of his constitutional protections, the freedom to practice his religion, if he had lost this, you don’t think the left would be out there saying, “Well, it’s not that big a deal. It’s just pretty narrow.” They would be dancing on graves right now. This is a huge deal and don’t let anybody tell you it isn’t. The left is just trying to provide solace to its lunatic, deranged base and to keep them from feeling entirely, totally defeated.

…

You know, where you listen to the left talk about how this is very narrow and not that encompassing. Imagine how you would feel today if it’d gone the other way, if by a 7-2 vote in the Supreme Court they had ruled that Christian religious freedom essentially doesn’t exist or didn’t in this case.

I mean, the left would have been on this, and they would have been marching into every religious business they could find and challenging it, starting late this morning, certainly early this afternoon. They would have been out there doing everything they could to maximize this. So, as far as that — even though it’s just an individual case — the Supreme Court stood up for religious liberty, First Amendment in a major, major way.”

Exactly so.

This started out with leftists trying to change the culture by means of law and government. They could have gone to another baker. They did not, for one simple reason… because that wouldn’t have served their original purpose.

They failed.

Liberals think conservatives are mean.   We think liberals are stupid.   Dumbo, the president with the big ears and small brain in 2016 explaining why jobs are not coming back, from Bizpacreview:

“When somebody says like the person you just mentioned who I’m not going to advertise for, that he’s going to bring all these jobs back,” Obama said, Trump being the person he referenced.

“Well how exactly are you going to do that? What are you going to do?” he continued. “There’s no answer to it. He just says, ‘I’m going to negotiate a better deal.’ Well how? How exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have?”

If one assumes that Dumbo is both honest and modestly intelligent, He seems to be saying jobs and economic growth are beyond the scope of any democrat political vision.  It is as if Milton Friedman had never lived. Yet somehow both lived in Chicago.

Elsewhere in the same year, the woman formerly known as the Smartest Woman in the World, trying, but failing, to explain how to revive the economy, from Western Journal:

“Why? Because his whole plan is to cut taxes, to give the biggest tax breaks ever to the wealthy and to corporations, adding $20 trillion to our debt, and causing the kind of dislocation that we have seen before, because it truly will be trickle-down economics on steroids,” she continued.

“So the plan I have I think will actually produce greater opportunities. The plan he has will cost us jobs and possibly lead to another Great Recession,” Clinton added.

Video:

Obviously leaving more of the People’s money in the People’s pocket is concept Mrs. Clinton is too stupid too grasp, or simply beyond the realm of her socialist mindset

Note: I may, or may not, have consulted Bitsblog’s double secret style edit one Sally Field, before referring to our former president as a bitch.

Samantha Bee denigrates First Daughter, from Matt Wilstien, Daily Beast:

“Ivanka Trump, who works at the White House, chose to post the second most oblivious tweet we’ve seen this week,” Bee said. “You know, Ivanka, that’s a beautiful photo of you and your child, but let me just say, one mother to another, do something about your dad’s immigration practices you feckless c*nt!”

Reax via Kate, Small Dead Animals:

It was “inappropriate and inexcusable” and entirely scripted and prerecorded, and TBS’s standards & practices division (aka, the network censors) allowed the show to air, presumably after previewing it. As Sean Davis tweets, “If the Turner non-reaction so far is any guide, Roseanne’s big mistake was putting her comments on Twitter instead of in her show’s script. The fact that a whole network reviewed, approved, promoted, and aired Bee’s scripted slur is the best protection Bee could ever buy,” adding that “The Roseanne and Samantha Bee scandals aren’t comparable. Roseanne wrote something on Twitter and her show was immediately cancelled. In the case of Samantha Bee, an entire network’s legal and editorial team knew exactly what Bee would say, approved it, and broadcast it.”

More reax, Mary Katherine Ham, via Federalist:

Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump a ‘feckless’ word I can not say…that is the worst word you can call a woman on TV and there will not be a nine-day news cycle about that.”

The c-word is the worst possible word in American English to refer to a woman, and the Turner Broadcasting System thought it to acceptable. In contrast, Roseanne Barr’s brain fart can be at least in part attributed to too little sleep and too much medication. On the other hand, TBS’s decision to broadcast the c-word was a corporate decision.    I presume one made sober and awake.

As I suggested yesterday, #MeToo was brought out as a weapon to be used against conservatives, and against Donald Trump.

(Notice, please, that I refrain from calling The Donald a conservative.)

The question becomes would that weapon, #MeToo, have ever been sprung, had Hillary Clinton won the election? And, if in fact the left cares in the least about sexual harrassment, as an example.

We know that it would not have been sprung. Harvey Weinstein for example would still be Dr. Casting Couch, leftists would never have been forced to admit that they should have called Bill Clinton on his escapades, back in the day. Having such things associated with the left would be counter productive to the goal.

Now, however, all that’s fair game. And that, dear reader, is a measure of the left’s desperation. The left is collectively willing to sacrifice such people, so that they can employ their weapon against anything and anyone to the right, because they have nothing else to bring to bear… They have no other arrows in the quiver.If they happen to destroy a few of their own, so be it.

They are now absolutely desperate to shut down anyone, and any ideas they don’t approve of, to the point where they’re willing to destroy some of their own to achieve that goal… We both know that’s something they’d never have even considered before, and had Hillary Clinton been elected, such tactics still wouldn’t be used.

It would seem logical, in light of this, to ask if the left really cares at all about any of the causes they are supposedly championing, or if, rather, they’re trying to make out like the Lynch mob chasing them, is a parade they’re leading.

The Left started this #MeToo movement, in an effort to Associate the presidential candidate they lost to, with sexual assault, thereby supposedly delegitimizing him and his presidency.

It didn’t work to that end, but the blowback on their own people has been far more than they realized, and certainly more than has been good to them…. To the point where even The Daily Beast started getting embarrassed and pulled a rather comprehensive list which included apparently all too many liberal Democrats.

Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Matt Lauer, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Al Franken, Charlie Rose… The list goes on and on and on,

Thing is, that’s what happens when you unleash the kind of weapon that #MeToo represents.

I wonder how many people who were instrumental in organizing and promoting the #MeToo attacks, truly understood the nature of the weapons they were deploying, and once released, how it would play out. I predicted at the time that it was going to backfire on them and my prediction was truer than my wildest dreams. The fact is, they started making accusations before they realized that the leftist icons couldn’t stand up to their own rhetorical judgments.. couldn’t stay within their own stated standards.

Ponder the idea that Bill Clinton was known to have committed actions of greater offense then any one of the people listed above.

Boom.

So here’s the point of all of this. I begin to wonder if organizers of the attacks we’ve seen recently on anyone who dares speak anything but leftist ideology in public, say, Tim Allen for example…. Or if you like, Roseanne Barr…. Laura Ingraham, etc, inderstand that because of the efforts surrounding #MeToo, the old leftist double standard just isn’t going to fly anymore with the American voter. And for that matter the American pocketbook. If you’re going to charge your opposition with bigotry, you better make sure your own house is in order or you’re going to get called on it.

This in fact is the reaction of most people looking at what happened to Roseanne Barr, for example. They’re not tremendously interested in defending Roseanne Barr per se, but they are loudly calling out the double standards involved.

Make no mistake, these attacks both #metoo and the more recent Spade of nonsense involving Tim Allen Roseanne Barr and so on,are not about in the end preventing sexual assault or anything of the sort, they are not about standards impact of any kind, other than maintaining Democrat Party power.

These were my thoughts this afternoon. So imagine my surprise when I stumbled across Larry Elder over at Townhall:

.Disney also owns ESPN, the sports cable channel that employs Keith Olbermann, whose angry, unhinged tweets about President Donald Trump make Barr’s anti-Jarrett tweet look like a love note. Here’s one Olbermann tweeted at Ivanka Trump, Trump’s daughter: “Then tell your racist,eed white supremacist, neo-nazi father to get the f— out of our society.” One would think that Disney would find Olbermann’s tweets “abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with (their) values.”

Indeed. This is the guy they hired 48 hours before firing Roseanne Barr. Roll that one around in your head for a few seconds. Does it sound to you like anybody gave a hoot how about standards of any kind when they hired this guy?

Speaking of Disney, let’s talk about the regulars of The View. After all, Roseanne Barr’s comments were so despicable and so bigoted that it stands to reason, ( as one of my correspondants quipped) that she will be asked to host The View next month.

As with the #MeToo attacks, this business is doing nothing but angering mainstream America to the point of never voting Democrat again. The movement is now out of control having gotten away from its Originators and is backfiring on their original purpose. To confirm that one need look no further than Joy Reid. I’ll let you investigate that one yourself.

At the end of the day these are tactics that are used by people who recognize clearly that they’re not going to make any gains in any other fashion. They don’t have anything else to bring to bear.

It’s called desperation, folks. And it’s going to eat the Left Alive.

Personally, I’m making popcorn.

Folks, I want you to understand something. There’s a reason that the liberal media in particular is going nuts on Roseanne Barr at this moment. Keep in mind please that the woman has never been a conservative.

The reason that the left is having such a problem with her just now is because she dared to leave the donkey Plantation. She managed to swerve into a small piece of the truth of the matter, and like Tim Allen before her, she must pay the price and serve as an example for anyone else who considers leaving the donkey Plantation.

The left knows very well that they cannot survive if people start actually thinking for themselves. So right now, they’re busy playing whack-a-mole, hammering down anybody who dares to step out of line.

That’s what this is all about.

The Rosenbergs were electrocuted for precisely the same laws that Hillary Clinton violated.

A tragic local story makes the national news, from the New York Post:

A twice-deported illegal immigrant from Mexico was being held Tuesday in the disappearance of a 14-month-old boy who became the subject of an Amber Alert last week after his mother was found dead upstate.

Evarardo Donoteo-Reyes, 25, is currently charged with tampering with evidence, but prosecutors expect to file more charges against him once cops determine how his 18-year-old girlfriend, Selena Hidalgo-Calderon, was killed.

The young woman’s son, Owen Hidalgo-Calderon, is feared dead following an extensive search of the couple’s home in Wayne County and surrounding areas. The toddler was reported missing on May 23 after his mom’s body was discovered near their residence.

So two questions. First, to Little Andy, b/k/a Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York: So why do you give sanctuary to felon animals like Evarardo Donoteo-Reyes?

Second, to Senator Chuckles, b/k/a Senator Charles Schumer(D – NY). why do you refuse to support a border wall to keep out animals Donoteo-Reyes?

For what it is worth, I believe that Owen Hidalgo-Calderon is still alive but has been kidnapped.

In the story of what gets tolerated and what doesn’t by the left, maybe it’s best to stay with one individual.

This would seem to say it best…

Notice if you will that the same people who are applauding ABC eliminating the show as not being consistent with their values, are the same ones who eliminated Tim Allen, and for the same reasons. Yet, these are the very same people who were screaming that Colin Kaepernick should not be fired for expressing his views.

I’ve not even seen any reaction to this story yet, and I will guarantee you that that’s how it’s going to go down.

You will recall that just after the election I move was a foot to remove the ability of high tax blue States like New York Massachusetts California and New Jersey, to write off those High tax bills to the federal government and therefore spreads those taxes to the remainder of the country.
I approved at the time, saying in part:

Think..the majority of the people complaining are in high tax states such as New York New Jersey Pennsylvania California Oregon and so on. In other words, democrat-run States. These states have been subsidized by the rest of the country for generations now because they were able to write off their state taxes. Now, with this new tax bill, they won’t be able to do that anymore.

Now Ponder this. For all of the screeching about tax the rich, what this comes down to is the higher-income people’s in those States who find themselves unable to write off their state-level taxes to the federal government and there for the rest of the country are the ones that are hit the hardest and the ones that are currently screeching the loudest.

Apparently they don’t want to tax the rich after all.

Democrat politicians aren’t happy with, for two reasons. First to forestall rioting they’re going to have to start cutting back on their lavish spending. And they really don’t want to tax the rich anyway because that’s where the Democrat donors are.

About a month later I added;

For the record, I view removing the write- off from the state taxes to be a very positive thing. Unmask the amount of spending that the state is doing, by insisting that the people pay for those High tax states upfront. Good.

I figure the spending will end up being cut rather dramatically when there’s a few hundred thousand torches around the State houses in democrat-run states. Such things have a tendency of focusing the attention. And I’m afraid that little else will.

Turns out there’s another effect that I probably should have made mention of at the time, and it comes from a Bloomberg article, released about the same time I made my original comments. (

Many analysts say the U.S. is a low-tax country, mostly on the idea that taxes paid as a percentage of gross domestic product are lower than most other developed economies. But whether the U.S. is a low- or high-tax country is a matter of perspective, and depends a lot on your income, as the tax code is steeply progressive. With a top federal rate of 39.6 percent, plus a state income tax of 9 percent to 13 percent, plus property taxes — which are no longer fully deductible — the tax burden for high earners approaches Scandinavia, where tax rates are in the high 50 percent range.
People used to complain about high taxes before, but for the most part, they tolerated them. I suspect that now they are going to do something about itbecause capping the deductibility of state and local taxes (SALT, as it is known) has the potential to result in a population migration so large that it would result in profound economic and social changes. For starters, the South could become home to some of the nation’s largest cities. Many businesses will flee high-tax states in favor of low-tax states. This has been happening for years, but SALT will accelerate the trend.
Of bigger concern is how the leadership of high-tax states will respond. If individuals and businesses leave, eroding the tax base, states will face a choice between cutting spending or raising taxes. Less spending is hard with existing pension obligations, so there’s a strong possibility that a state like New York or Connecticut could enter a “death spiral” where residents leave, the state raises taxes, more leave, and so on. Since the governments of the high-tax states are nearly all Democratic, I doubt many have the desire to cut services when faced with net migration out of the state.

Well, if that happens then the responsibility Falls to those of us on the right to explain to those people fleeing those higher taxes exactly what was that caused them and that they shouldn’t bring those policies to the States they’re fleeing to.

Personally, I’m making popcorn

Apparently you can’t teach an old fraud new tricks.

Rachel Dolezal, the former NAACP chapter leader who resigned after her parents revealed she’s not African-American, is facing a felony theft charge in Washington state after she allegedly made false statements to secure nearly $9,000 in food and childcare assistance.

The charges against Dolezal, who changed her name to Nkechi Diallo in October 2016, were first reported by KHQ-TV.

According to court documents, investigators with Washington state’s Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) started looking into Dolezal’s finances in March 2017 after the publication of her autobiography, “In Full Color: Finding My Place in a Black and White World.”

Clearly this is somebody that knows how to work the angles and has been doing so for a very long time.

There’s a number of questions that spring from this, however. Chiefly among them why would she be trying to pass yourself off as black if she didn’t think there was some kind of an advantage to it?

Some kind of, shall we say, privilege?

It’s interesting if you think about it, that the computer age that we live in is driven by Logic. (If this, then that, and so on…)

So why is it then, with so much dedication to logic going on in our society these days, that we have such an extreme problem with analyzing cause and effect, on a societal level?

Why are we so afraid to talk about the real causes of all these school shootings by logical means?

I mean, look, prior to 1968 anyone on the planet could walk into a hardware store with cash and walk out with a gun and there wouldn’t be any questions ask about it at all. And yet back in those days these mass shootings were very rare indeed. So instead of listening to the left shrieking incoherently about the supposed “easy availability of guns”, if we were logical we would be asking what’s changed since then.

As an example of our reluctance to actually address the real issue, observe the attempt of Victory Girls to try to explain all of this:

We have forgotten the values that bind us together.

Family, respect for our nation, community, service, helping our neighbors, and respecting our elders and others with more experience and knowledge.

Today, kids are taught they’re special without having to actually achieve anything. They’re told they deserve a trophy merely for showing up. Grades are no longer an assessment of knowledge and hard work, and teachers are discouraged from criticism and issuing fair performance assessments.

Families are broken because we’re encouraged to go for whatever desire happens to strike us.

Exactly. Very good so far. But, watch where the writer takes this:

Some say the elimination of God from families is also a contributing factor. Church fosters community, communities work together to help one another, and accountability to a higher power makes us better people. I have nothing but respect for folks who go to church and who feel responsible to God, and more power to them. I’m not one of those people. My parents tried to instill religion in me; it never stuck. I don’t do the right thing because I’m afraid of going to hell. I do the right thing because it’s the right thing.

Now, understand before we proceed… I’m not going to argue this from a religious standpoint, but rather a practical one.

Consider that the founders, who, while they disagreed rather profoundly about the nature of our creator, agreed just as profoundly that such a Creator exists.

Consider also that the founders thought of our inalienable rights as a moral issue. Therefore, they thought of that Creator as a moral law giver… And so they believed that government, being populated by men and therefore subject to that creator, could not over rule those rights, that moral law. Thus, the passage in the Declaration of Independence regarding inalienable rights.

Now let’s approach the question with the absence of such a creator, with the absence of a moral law Giver. Without what I’ll call “the above”, which is to say a lawgiver is that is insuperable by man, what is to say that any given set of moral laws is more pertinent and valid than any other?

The answer of course is “absolutely nothing”.

Pol Pot, Mao, Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, all took their actions personally as moral imperatives. They were able to do so because they created their own reference points. In effect, they made themselves out to be gods.

I don’t mean to pick on the author at victory girls particularly. The place is always worth a good read. But the argument that .,.

I do the right thing because it’s the right thing.

… Is patently absurd, and illogical in the extreme. Absent the external reference point, on what basis does the author determine what’s right and wrong? Simply put, they cannot.

Any set of moral laws without the external reference point of “the above” would by necessity be self-referencing, and therefore of equal value to any other moral view, including that of every tin pot dictator in history, every Mass murderer, and so on.

With all that in mind then, let’s really think about this, instead of allowing the anti-gun crowd to rule us emotionally which is what they’ve been doing, really. Let’s take this out of the realm of the emotional and stick to the logical for a moment.

Is it possible that the issue here is the collapse of the morality that the left has spent the last 50 years mocking deriding and dismantling? To say nothing of the underlying basis of that morality, of course.

Like it or not, our nation and for that matter Western culture as we know it today, was built on the foundational idea of our creator being the source of our rights… That whatever kind of government was in place, it was going to be answerable to a higher power at some point.

As a practical matter, what happens to a house when you remove the foundation?

On the other hand is it possible that our nation has been as great as it has been for so very long, because of the morality that comes from the concept of having someone above government that all men will answer to?

Folks, it is no accident that the very people that are trying to separate us from our 2nd Amendment rights are the very same people that by and large have been attempting to separate us from those concepts I’ve listed here. It’s fairly easy to understand their motivation. They believe in big government and believe that government is the ultimate Authority. It is their religion in fact.

Whether or not the consequences of this movement were intentional, is an argument for another time. The theological aspects of all of this are an argument for another time as well.

But it can hardly be ignored that as a practical matter, a cultural shift has occurred to the point where large numbers of people believe that we can no longer be trusted with the rights we once enjoyed.

I’ve mentioned Friedrich Nietzsche before, but I think it worth bringing up here. He understood very well I believe, the implications of erasing the Creator from our existence…. The removal of “the above” from our cultural value. Observe:

THE MADMAN
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!” — As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? — Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him — you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us — for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars — and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”

Friedrich Nietzsche was the son of a man of the cloth and the grandson of another. He rejected the concept of God, apparently never getting over his rebellious streak from his youth.

But for all that he rejected God, look at the imagery he uses to describe what happens when we no longer have an external reference point for in this case, a creator.

Ironically this writing was the foundation of the God is dead movement in the mid to late sixties… The period in time I referred to earlier, where Joe or Jane average could walk in off the street with cash in hand and pick up a firearm and walk out without any questions asked.

It was that “God is dead” movement which started us down this long destructive path. What is so seldom understood about this is that it was written as a warning, not as a guide map.

And so again I ask the question…

Is it possible that the issue here is the collapse of the morality that the left has spent the last 50 years mocking deriding and dismantling?

In answer I would suggest it’s well beyond possible and most likely a lock sure bet… and for far more of our societal woes than was encompassed by the original question.