The media and Senator Paul

Early stages but Rand Paul being the only candidate I have ever met and spoken with, and who I liked on the spot, there is a certain partiality I must confess to. He, like Marine LaPen, has a family past he must overcome but still embrace. I am nevertheless encouraged by his foray this morning having put himself forward for the nomination. But what really appeals to me is that he has decided to take on the media, who are enemies not only of every Republican, but enemies of good governance and common sense.

Tuesday night, Paul came out swinging. “The media tells you and I that we should choose a GOP nominee with a track record full of sellouts, compromises and betrayals,” he tweeted. “So even though I’m at or near the top of every state poll for the nomination, they continue to try and dismiss my message of liberty!

“Thankfully, our national media doesn’t get to pick and choose our Republican Party’s presidential nominees. Patriots like YOU do!”

But by the end of the day Wednesday, the candidate seemed to recognize that perhaps that approach was bringing the wrong kind of attention to his nascent campaign, conceding that he often didn’t handle tough questions particularly well. “I’ve been universally testy and short-tempered with both male and female interviewers,” he admitted explained to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Gage echoed Paul’s description, saying that in the interview with Guthrie, the senator had seemed to “come across as a bit of a bully. I don’t know if that’s specific to her being a woman, or in­cred­ibly bad manners.”

It’s an approach that usually fails to deliver in the long run, she added. “I think particularly when you’re trying to appeal to women voters, they’re a little turned off by that level of aggressiveness when it comes across as cranky and mean,” she said.

Whether he wins or not, this seems to necessary from the Republican side that I can only hope it is blessed with great success. The media has ruined the US by its lickspittle backing of parties to the left. Someone has finally tried fighting back. Even if it doesn’t work for Rand, it will help clear a path for others.

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT: More media baiting: Rand Challenges Press: Ask DNC Head ‘If It’s Okay To Kill A 7-Pound Baby In The Uterus’. Only one has to for her to have to either reply or walk away from the question. But it is the kind of push back that should have been done years ago.

American sniper, female division, goes to Congress

This is Joni Ernst’s reply to Obama’s State of the Union speech. It’s cornpone but effective. She is the newly elected Senator from Iowa and utterly Tea Party, Sarah Palin endorsed even. These are some rueful comments from The Washington Post:

By drawing on her uncommon, interesting personal story as an Iowa farmgirl and Army National Guard combat veteran, and relating to her fellow Iowans, Ernst captured one of the most reliably liberal Senate seats in the country — one that had been held by now-retired Democratic senator Tom Harkin for 30 years. While Ernst’s opponent ridiculed Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) for being a farmer, Ernst embraced her roots and produced one of the most memorable, viral campaign ads of the 2014 cycle.

But even more than losing a critical Senate seat, Democrats are frightened by Ernst because she is a woman who has a strong conservative philosophy and message that appeals to a lot of people. Democrats can’t dismiss Ernst as a token, because she didn’t run as one. Everything about her biography and style blunts the Democrats’ usual criticisms of conservative women.

Now when Hillary Clinton comes to visit Iowa, rather than having a friendly liberal trial lawyer senator by her side, she will be bracketed by Ernst — who no doubt will hold Clinton’s feet to the fire. It will be a woman-to-woman matchup, so the Democrats’ usual pablum about a GOP “war on women” just won’t work.

It need hardly be mentioned that Obama’s speech was deceitful from end to end, or that the media will pick him up on none of it. But this was an effective reply, given the nature of the politics of the US at the present time.

AND BY THE WAY: I have just discovered the following about Chris Kyle, the actual American Sniper:

Kyle also served as the personal bodyguard for Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor, at many points throughout her political career, including at the screening of Breitbart News Network Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon’s film about her political rise: “The Undefeated.”

If you really want to understand the political views of someone else, ask them about Sarah Palin. The most perfect political-moron detector I have yet discovered.

Ann Coulter on immigration

It is not racist in any way to want your country to have sensible immigration laws to ensure that you are monitoring who enters your community and to ensure that one’s way of life is not undermined by an inability to cope with rapid increases of people from a different cultural background. Just because someone wants to come to your country to live does not mean you have to let them. When I think of the interviews I had to go through back in 1974 to migrate to Australia, the attitudes some people have today only make me laugh. And I had two university degrees and was coming to fill a job at a university that could not fill a lecturer’s position in economics. Boy were those the days! This is the always-sensible Ann Coulter discussing ‘DON’T SUCK UP’ ON IMMIGRATION in which she notes that even migrants to the US may not be all that keen on open migration either.

Columnist and author of “Never Trust a Liberal Over 3-Especially a Republican,” Ann Coulter argued that the Republican Party shouldn’t “suck up” on immigration during an interview on Saturday’s “Huckabee” on the Fox News Channel.

“Don’t suck up on things like amnesty and by the way, when I said that, you have the beautiful illustration in this one campaign, a wonderful new Republican Senator, Cory Gardner (CO), had just in a debate said something I’d consider a suck up and I don’t really want to attack a Republican I love. But he was attacking Udall for not pushing amnesty hard enough. Well, then after I said ‘this isn’t going to work, this is so stupid,’…then he came out with exactly what Republicans should be doing. And that is as Romney said, we will appeal to Hispanics the way we appeal to everyone by saying we are the party that offers opportunity and freedom from regulation and we won’t pass stupid bills like Obamacare that pay for abortions’…that totally worked” she argued.
She added “this idea that recent Hispanic immigrants want a huge wave of illegal immigrants to compete with them for the same jobs and drive their wages down, is silly. The Democrats are trying to persuade Republicans to fall for this so that the Democrats get more voters. But, I note, that when Obama was appealing for the Hispanic vote, he didn’t talk about amnesty in his Spanish language ads.”

Coulter also expressed faith in the new Republican Senate to push good policies, stating “everyone keeps saying, particularly on our side, ‘yeah, it was great and now the Republicans better not blow it. And I don’t think they will, I think [Sen.] Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is smart about this. But, I would like to warn the Tea Partiers there, do not expect the first bill to be a complete repeal of Obamacare that’s not the way Republicans should be playing this. They should send up a small piece, a small piece, things that are so overwhelmingly popular…that when and if, and probably when Obama vetoes it, the newspapers are going to have to report what Obama just vetoed. And people will say ‘wait a second, illegal aliens are getting earned income tax credit benefits?’”

You should go the link as well and listen to Ann speaking with Mike Huckabee, and I particularly liked his “President Oblivious”. There will be lots more of this in the days, weeks, months and years to come.

Philomena – a feel bad film about all the standard enemies of the left

The left will have its villains and nothing will stop them. Philomena is a feel bad film in which nothing positive can possibly be said about its chosen enemies, in this case organised religion, specially the Catholic church, and the Republican Party in the US, and especially Ronald Reagan.

But in this case, because there is a true story of some kind that lies beneath the plot, the film is forced to hold onto some actual facts that are obstacles to its heavy-handed lessons. I won’t say there would have been no bad actions taken by anyone in real life since who can know, because there are some pretty mean-minded people around and you find them everywhere. But let’s start with a few bits.

I don’t wish to be judgmental, but not to put too fine a point on it, the young Philomena is something of a tart. She meets a boy at a fair around age 14, goes off into the bushes and never sees the lad again. Even in our more permissive times, that seems unacceptable. What parent today would find that OK? And that fifty years later she can reminisce about how wonderful that moment was, makes me wonder whether that could have been her first occasion since she has no memory of a painful deflowering moment.

The idea that an unwed mother back in the 1950s would keep her child back has a probability in the range of zero or perhaps less. Few abortions, some unwed mothers and therefore many adoptions. So the very premise of the film, that her son was adopted out, is hardly a tale of horror since it was standard. There is so little likelihood that she would have been allowed to keep her son that it is ridiculous even to set that up as a premise. But a bit of an anachronism and we can rage at the attitudes of those who ran the orphanage as if it were the year before last.

But then there are the kinds of things that Philomena could not possibly know, such as when she is in the middle of a breech birth, that they decide to let her suffer and not offer any medical assistance. If you are in the middle of labour pains, you don’t know what conversations are being held somewhere else, and no one was going to tell her later.

The son is adopted out but those at the centre of the storyline work out that he has been adopted by an American family. Moreover, the son turns out to be (1) gay and (2) a high official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. A nice chap, very accomplished. Therefore, he is a “closet” gay since no one in the Republican Party can be seen to have accepted his sexual orientation. Except that everyone you meet is perfectly aware, especially since he dies of AIDS.

But since it goes against the Code of the Left that amongst Republicans no one cares, they have to make it out that he has had to hide this side of his life because otherwise you would have to think that someone like Ronald Reagan – and therefore Republicans in general – are indifferent. Which is the case but cannot be allowed to be shown.

Then, finally, there is the scene at the end when Sister Hildegarde is confronted with her hatred of the sin of carnality. The scene is so perfect as a concluding statement, so nicely framed and to the point, that there can be no doubt that it is entirely made up. If it’s in the book, I don’t believe it’s true. But the narrative is all, and this gives us the high point finale in which all views are satisfied, except perhaps my own.

A clever and manipulative film that you enjoy in spite of yourself, and to a large extent because Judy Dench does stand up for the church until the very last moment. Being aware in the confines of the theatre of how everything is structured doesn’t quite protect you because you are driven by the story. They set the stage and there is little chance to resist as you sit and absorb the plot. But a sign of our decadent times that such an anti-Catholic film is even possible never mind a box office sensation. Try it out with some other religions and see how you go.

November 22, 1963

It’s a date that remains edged in black for me always. Oddly, as incompetent as his execution was in many respects, John F. Kennedy, if he had the same views today that he had then, would have been a member of the Republican Party – and a very conservative member at that – because no modern Democrat has views as stridently pro-market and as militantly anti-communist as he did. His only stimulus was to cut taxes, not to increase spending. His brother Robert, the attorney-general in the Kennedy administration, worked for Senator McCarthy in the search for communists in the State Department.

He was shot down by a communist, a defector to the Soviet Union, a militant member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. But he was shot in Dallas, in the South, and so the story remains as told by the usual suspect sources that he was killed by those crazy right wingers. He was killed by a madman on the left, and a thousand conspiracy theories later, it remains firm in my mind that it was Oswald acting alone.

Ronald Reagan said that he hadn’t left the Democrat Party; the party had left him. Who can know what Kennedy would have done had he lived. The world is only partly shaped by the “forces of history”. It is also shaped by its great leaders. I still think of Kennedy as one of the great might-have-beens. It remains a tragedy that he died so young and so early before his promise could be fulfilled. Fifty years ago today.