Super Tuesday: the Dems are not just worried about losing but about losing big

From Why the Dems are desperate to scuttle Bernie.

That if Sanders is nominated, Donald Trump will crush him in November. And not only will the White House be lost, all hopes of winning the Senate and blocking Trump’s second-term Supreme Court nominees would also be lost.

And not only the Senate but Nancy Pelosi’s House could also be lost. And not only the House but hundreds of down-ballot candidates could also lose, leaving the GOP with the whip hand in redistricting congressional seats through the decade.

For Democrats, the fear is of the Harding-Coolidge Roaring ’20s revisited.

And if Trumpists rule the roost in the Republican Party and the populist-left of “Crazy Bernie” dominates the Democratic Party, what happens to the agenda of the establishment?

Today promises to a fateful one in the history of the Democratic Party, and it will answer many questions:

Will Sanders win enough delegates to give him an insurmountable lead for the nomination? Or will he have a good, but not a great, night, winning most of the states, but not a large enough pile of delegates to reach 50% before the convention in Milwaukee?

As for Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who was being urged to drop out and back Biden before he got the first returns on his $500 million investment in his campaign, what did he buy with that half billion? We shall find out today. …

What the establishment wants is for the first ballot to end without a nominee — if that nominee would be Sanders — and the pledged delegates to be freed of their commitments, and for the superdelegates to vote on the second ballot, and for the party thus to be spared falling into the custody of an angry septuagenarian socialist.

For the Democratic establishment, the stakes could not be higher and thus that establishment, after Biden’s landslide in South Carolina, is not disguising its interests or demands: Sanders must be denied the nomination, and Biden is the only one who can accomplish that.

He is also uncontrolled and uncontrollable. He would be the Donald Trump of the left. PDT has taken the US back to JFK’s New Frontier. Bernie would take the US forward to a Venezuelan future. Even mainstream Dems are terrified and so should we all. And you know what’s most terrifying of all. There is no certainty that Bernie would lose.

Get off of my porch 2nd Amendment version

Full story here.

I think I’d vote for his wife. The whole story is quite tragic given what is happening in San Francisco and elsewhere. The left promote irresponsibility and the lack of self-discipline. Our way of life will not work that way as is plainly visible.

Normal Tuesday here but elsewhere…

Benjamin Netanyahu defeats Gantz, but is still short a majority. For the Israelis it is always an existential election and in the realest sense possible. And even there they mess around with the left of centre soft-centred opposition.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on track to win 59 seats for his bloc of right-wing and religious parties in Monday’s election, down by one from the 60 predicted by the initial exit polls. The new prediction leaves him two short of a majority in the Knesset.

He will find a majority but it’s too far away to know much more about why it was so close, but not as close as the last two times in the past twelve months when no winning side could be determined.

Meanwhile, in the US where Tuesday has not even arrived, Pete, Amy and ??? have pulled up stumps leaving the 3 B’s plus what’s her name? Therefore, Joe Biden, 77, Becomes Youngest Male Candidate in Democrat Primary. Tomorrow is not just Tuesday but Super Tuesday in the primaries so things will become a bit clearer on the socialist side.

Pete and Amy withdrew to help Joe out since the Dems are trying to avoid an open convention second ballot with Bernie. And for those of you who believe Slow Joe will be easy pickings, you may be in for a surprise. More pleasantly would be if I were in for a surprise. We shall see.

Meanwhile, just for added interest:

Bernie v Biden plus Bloomberg

The 3 B’s of the Democrat contenders. Pete is out and so is Steyer. Warren remains but only because she is probably angling for the VP – they will need a female for balance even if the the presidential candidates are white, male and elderly).

None of it matters to Democrats (see, for example, Comrade Sanders Declares War on the Whole U.S. Economy) since their only interest is in seeing Trump lose in whatever way it takes. The Dems are unified in their policy agenda and it makes no difference to them which is the candidate since all will deliver on open borders, abortion, medicare for all, free stuff in general and whatever else remains in their Deep State foreign policy agenda. And the certainty is that the media will lie to the fullest extent they can get away with it, as shown below.

Related: Facebook Fact-Checkers Admit Trump Never Said Coronavirus Was ‘a Hoax.’


Democrats, and the American left in general, are as politically insane as it is possible to be – or perhaps there are still surprises to come.

ADDING PDT ON BLOOMBERG:

The Presidential debates will be amazing, no matter who the Democrat is.

Killing men for art

Victorian Opera's Salome, Vida Miknevičiūtė

From The Age today: Killing women for art? Opera’s 2020 death toll might surprise. Comes with the picture above. This is how it starts.

At the Palais this week Salome looked like she was doing so well. Singing her heart out, John the Baptist’s head in her arms, Herod humiliated, mum proud. Suddenly the king bellowed the command “Man töte dieses Weib” – “kill this woman”. Slain. Final curtain.

A debate gathering steam in the opera world questions whether the art form is at core misogynistic, patriarchal and oppressive, and in need of reform. So The Age decided to check the body count on Melbourne opera stages in 2020 to see if women come off worse than men. The result (spoiler alert) may surprise.

First, the case for the prosecution. Take a roll call of some of the greatest and most-performed masterpieces. Tosca: jumps off a castle, dead. Carmen: stabbed by a jealous lover, dead. Butterfly: humiliated, stabs herself, dead. Violetta (La Traviata) and Mimi (La Boheme): dead, both by tuberculosis. Liu in Turandot: stabs herself after being tortured, dead. Gilda in Rigoletto: stabbed and stuffed in a sack, dead. Salome: dead. Norma: dead. Lucia di Lammermoor: dead.

So just have a closer look at the picture. Why it’s none other than the head of John the Baptist held aloft by Salome having herself sought his death from the king for having undertaken the Dance of the Seven Veils as her side of the bargain. Mere background detail, there just to move the plot along.

The sentimentality of all forms of art, best expressed by the line-up for the lifeboats on a sinking ship, women and children first, means the death of men is just so it goes. It’s their lot in life. The final stat in the column is that this year eleven men have died on stage but only three women. But no story line I know of makes the death of some male the emotional centre of the plot. As for women, that’s a different story altogether.

Platitudes plus free stuff is hard to beat

Watched my first Democrat debate and very sobering. These people are practised liars who know what to say and what to avoid saying. Filled with empty rhetoric and appeals to be even better than Trump at building the economy, defending America, protecting Israel, and on and on. So far as I could see, there were no differences in the policy outcomes promised from those offered by the president, but that they will be done more fairly and with greater efficiency. Joe Biden did not appear addled or out of it, even with the occasional slip that no one on his side will blame him for.

With one third of Democrats ready to elect a self-confessed communist (whatever that means today), I won’t be comforted until the election is over and I have to start worrying about 2024. This is no sure-thing.

**DRUDGE POLL** WHO WON DEM DEBATE IN CHARLESTON

  • WARREN
    4%
  • STEYER
    10%
  • SANDERS
    30%
  • KLOBUCHAR
    15%
  • BUTTIGIEG
    10%
  • BLOOMBERG
    19%
  • BIDEN
    12%

Ilhan Omar personifies and leads a Progressive-Islamist alliance against the West

MANCHESTER, UNITED STATES - 2019/12/13: Vermont Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar embrace each other during the campaigns at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester.

I tend to think of Ilhan Omar as relatively unrepresentative of the trends on the left in the US. She is an Islamist, anti-semitic, anti-American, generally stupid and hardly a leader. Yet there are some very serious and highly insightful people who think this is a very bad mis-reading of what she stands or who she is, and is a particularly bad misunderstanding of what her presence in the midst of the American political system actually means. Scott Johnson has a post today – AMERICAN INGRATE: ILHAN OMAR – in which he discusses a book that has just been released: American Ingrate: Ilhan Omar and the Progressive-Islamist Takeover of the Democratic Party in which the sub-title provides a more sinister take on what she represents. This is all the more so given who have written detailed cover quotes for the book. First, though, the description of the book at Amazon:

In American IngrateFederalist Senior Contributor Benjamin Weingarten exposes Ilhan Omar’s radical and revolutionary Left-Islamist agenda, her seminal role in the progressive takeover of the Democratic Party, and the dire threat she poses to U.S. national security by way of her collusion with subversive anti-American forces.

She says that America was “founded by the genocide of indigenous people and on the backs of slaves,” and that “ignorance really is pervasive” among Americans today.

She says America must “dismantle” capitalism and “demilitarize” U.S. foreign policy, which she sees “from the perspective of a foreigner,” tweeting “thousands of Somalis [were] killed by…American forces…#NotTodaySatan.”

She says American support for Israel is “all about the Benjamins baby;” and that American Jews disloyally pledge “allegiance” to Israel’s “apartheid…regime,” which has “hypnotized the world.”

She says of the 9/11 attacks: “some people did something.”

Shockingly, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) words merely scratch the surface of her hatred of America—and the West—and divert our gaze from the nefarious actions she is taking to sabotage it from within.

American Ingrate is the defining book on the size, scope, and nature of the threat posed by Representative Omar—the personification of the anti-American Left-Islamist nexus—heightened by her hidden collusion with like-minded adversaries foreign and domestic, and alleged criminality and corruption.

This is a clarion wakeup call to the dangers epitomized by Rep. Omar. For she is not merely a lone radical in Congress, but the archetype of the new Democratic Party—and a uniquely dangerous figure at the heart of a uniquely dangerous challenge to America.

I will provide a single sentence from each of the distinguished authors who have taken the time to read the book and offer their own perspective.

Victor Davis Hanson: “She is a metaphor for a larger American pathology of progressive virtue-signaling, and, ultimately, self-loathing.”

Dennis Prager: “Rep. Ilhan Omar is the new face of the Democratic Party; she not only personifies but leads a Progressive-Islamist alliance held together by the glue of hatred of America, of Judeo-Christian values, of Western civilization, and of Israel.”

Newt Gingrich: “It has become clear that left-wing ideology and extreme identity politics have cultivated a dangerous strain of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party that is part and parcel of its increasingly anti-Judeo Christian and anti-Western orientation.”

Scott Johnson: “Omar is a leading indicator of the direction of the Democratic Party.”

Lee Smith: “The Democratic party’s inability, or unwillingness, to censure or even criticize the Minnesota congresswoman for her hateful remarks about other Americans, American Jews, is evidence that one of the country’s two major political parties is trending in a dangerous direction—not progressivism but Middle East-style sectarianism.”

Caroline Glick: “Ilhan Omar is no mere “symbol” of diversity. She is a hardcore, radical, ideologue who went into politics to advance her goal of weakening America while making the United States an inhospitable place for Jews and for everyone who doesn’t share her bigoted, hatred for Americans, America, and everything it stands for.”

Ingratitude seems the least of it. She is on a mission with our destruction her ambition.

You should read Scott’s entire column.

From Democratic Socialists to Socialist Democrats

Image result for venezuela shopkeeper meme

There really is a level of communal ignorance shown by the advances made by Bernie Sanders on just how savage socialism is. The problem is not just an inability to learn from history – even from the recent history of the Venezuelan economy. It is also due to the difficulty in understanding why socialism, however nice it sounds in theory, cannot work in practice, which is why it never has. Does anyone actually think Bernie Sanders is the soul of kindness and benevolence? It is hatred and anger all the way down.

The issue is much more than pure politics.

There are lots and lots of longtime Democratic political professionals who believe that nominating a self-proclaimed democratic socialist is a recipe for disaster for their side.

What these “political professionals” are worried about is that Sanders may end up losing in a landslide and then lose the House and the Senate at the same time because there is still a toxic phobic reaction among most Americans to socialism. The reality is that on the non-zero chance that Sanders might win, it would be an economic disaster for everyone, not just for Democrats. Unfortunately, why that is remains very difficult to explain. Understanding what happens under socialism requires a deeper understanding of the processes of a market economy than most people have.

It really is incredible how lacking in any understanding among those voting for Bernie are about what they are buying into, why it would be an economic disaster. There is only a shallow understanding of why socialism will almost immediately stop the economy in its tracks and impoverish almost everyone. It is almost impossible to understand why this is, in the same way it is so difficult to understand why a market economy does work. I wrote a brief pamphlet on the fatal consequences of socialism at the start of last year with the subtitle: “Why a socialist economy can never work”. The actual title may sound odd – I, Mechanical Pencil – but was chosen because it is an extension of a famous anti-socialist publication written in the 1950s titled, “I, Pencil”. This is from the intro:

Political oppression is easy to see, but economic oppression is much more difficult to identify and understand. Anybody can see without difficulty that socialist economies are inevitably poor, but many people need instruction to understand why that is. That is the reason I have written this … to explain the causes behind the economic nightmare of socialism that accompanies the political oppression that is its twin.

You can download the article at the link.

The question asked here is Will Bernie Sanders’ long-ago praise of Socialist regimes hurt Democrats in November? If he is still there in November, one can only hope, but if he is still there in November, win or lose, it will be a very bad sign of things to come, not just in America but across the world.

Image result for bernie sanders socialist meme

 

The Sheryl Sanders role model meets Captain Capitalism

Feminism has its mighty grip on our culture and will not let go any time soon. This began from an Instapundit post on Sheryl Sandberg gives awful advice to women. Follow it at your peril and the following, from Captain Capitalism, was quoted in one of the comments.

Dear Ms. Venker,

I skimmed your piece in the Washington Examiner because I already knew what it was going to say; just wanted to make sure.  And sure enough it said what I thought it would.

Women are not men.
We’re supposed to compliment each other.
We are not adversaries.
Leave the proposing to men.
Feminism has ruined women and made them miserable.
Insert examples of miserable women here.

Blah blah blah.

But may I ask you to entertain a new approach?  One that might be more effective in convincing future women that feminism is not the way?  And one that will be less frustrating than merely saying “Sheryl Sandberg bad.”

Leave Sheryl Sandberg alone.
Leave the women who follow her advice alone.
Matter of fact encourage them, or just not bother with them at all.

And the reasons for this approach are many.

First, you are not going to convince any woman today to abandon feminism and go with traditionalism.  You yourself provided several examples of what I can only imagine to be middle aged women with children and careers who are facing problems in their marriages.  Do you think at that age and with that much infrastructure invested in a non-traditional life they can just uproot all of that midstride and in a flip of a switch go to a traditional 1950’s nuclear family?  Additionally, it doesn’t sound like they’re abandoning their roles, just complaining about them.  And these are women who have a receptive ear to traditionalism.  Traditionalism just not powerful enough to override their entire life’s investment they’ve made in feminism or the buyer’s remorse they most certainly have.  You’ve cured no one (or at least very few).

Second, do you think your article, along with every traditionalist argument made in the past 30 years even holds a candle to the trillions of dollars and billions of human hours that have been invested in now-three generations of women to follow a feminist life philosophy?  This isn’t to say you’re wrong.  You are factually right.  But did you have all young women’s ears from K-thru-college?  Did you control the media?  Do you have a best selling book like Ms. Sandberg?  And do you control academia?  For every hour (if an hour at all) a mom taught her daughter about being a good mother or wife, supporting her man, staying svelte and beautiful, etc., there were at least a thousand hours of feminist counter-propaganda installed in young women’s minds.  And to give you an example of how out gunned and out-spent traditionalists are compared to feminists I’ve provided an infographic below.

Third, do you really think women are going to listen to you?  I can completely sympathize with you and your goal to offer women an alternative to the feminist lifestyle they’ve had forced on them.  I understand the moral, noble intention you have to provide a solution or at least an option to women who are not happy with their love lives.  But take it from me dear, they won’t listen.  Humans are programmable automatons, not the “independent minded” sentient beings they fancy themselves to be.  And though I’m willing (and hopeful) to be proven wrong, I’m going to guess the success rate you’ve had of convincing women to become traditionalists are about the same as mine to get people to spend less than they make, eat less calories than they expend, and get young people to stop majoring in stupid shit.  Zero. Which then behooves the question for you as to whether or not you want to put yourself through this banging-your-head-against-the-wall-torture.

Finally, there is also a nuanced, esoteric argument to be made about balance, karma, and universal equilibrium.  Do these women, after decades of feminism, outsourcing their kids to daycare, putting their careers above humans, things above love, deserve to “be saved?”  Do they deserve to find “happiness” and “love?”  I personally don’t believe any of them will be convinced of the merits of a traditional life/relationship, making this question moot.  But what I am trying to do is make you question your own (albeit moral, noble, and well-intended) incentives.  How many of these women simply loved their careers more than their children or husbands?  How many of these women valued a corner office or a fancy title more than human interaction?  How many of these women in the past probably turned down perfectly good men that would have otherwise made great husbands, all for an unanchored religion like feminism?  And how many of them were just plain mean and unfeminine in the past to men?

Though noble, your goal is not only impractical, but is getting in the way of universal karma that is going to be delivered anyway.  There is nothing you can do to stop it.  The only person you can save is yourself.  So please, let women have what they want.  Let women have what they choose.  Treat women as equals and let them make their own choices in life.  But above all else, truly treat them as equals in letting them reap the costs and consequences of those choices.  And perhaps then you may find some solace in learning to “Enjoy the Decline.”

Sincerely,

Aaron Clarey

The Democrat semi-finals half time report

And you still can’t be sure that one of those Dems won’t be president next year. Via Instapundit.

FEBRUARY 19, 2020

ELIZABETH WARREN TAKES IT STRAIGHT TO THE BILLIONAIRE WHO CALLS WOMEN FAT BROADS (VIDEO).

Or to put it another way: Bloomberg got scalped.

HARSH, BUT FAIR: