#HRC

Senate Democrats take up the fight against the nomination of “XX”

0D16B5F7-6B08-4D1C-A333-05154911DE8B.jpeg

What planet are these people on? Without the pick having even been announced, “XX” was deemed to be sufficient enough for Senate Democrats to launch a campaign and fire up the Women’s March group to commit exactly the same mistake. Trump Derangement Syndrome has hit such epic heights that carelessness seems to be a chronic side effect. Not one person proof-read the document prior to the release? One could almost make the case that their hatred and inability to have a sane conversation about any topic such that even if a clone of Obama appointee Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was nominated they would howl in protest. No wonder the #WalkAway movement is gaining momentum. A party that stands for such flimsy principles will fall for anything.

SC nominees have generally been selected by sitting presidents (no matter how much advice they may have received in making the choice). It is up to the Senate to confirm it. In a democracy if the yea’s beat the nay’s it is pushed ahead. Simple. Could the Democrats truly admit they favour SC justices that prioritize conservative values? Of course not. In principle, SC justices are supposed to be impartial and interpret the constitution. In practice it is not always a safe bet to say personal biases do not come out. We need only look at Sotomayor’s responses to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case to show how she was wilfully criticising the law and interpreting the way she wanted it to be rather rather than defend it for what it is. No doubt one could find evidence to suggest that conservative SCJs have shown personal leanings in the past. In any event, it is not up to the SC to change laws. That is the job of the Hill. It is up to voters to put in those politicians they believe will support their values and change laws to right what they see as wrong.

CM probably has as much read through on SC nominee Brett Kavanaugh as 99.9% of the population i.e. next to none. Yet the expert commentary is everywhere on why every congressman and woman needs to reject this nomination. So unhinged has the left become that the poor kids being stripped from mothers at the border has become seemingly yesterday’s news. If it wasn’t Kavanaugh the identical verbatim would have been spewed at any other nominee set forward. All of them must have been carbon copied. How soon the TDS switches gears from one outrage to the next. This is the type of double standard that infuriates the masses. After the SCJ appointment, what next?

If the Democrats truly have a hope of winning the mid-terms or 2020, they aren’t learning any of the lessons that led to the loss in 2016. The majority of people don’t want to be harassed, screamed at or labeled bigots and racists for holding even uncontroversial personal beliefs. The perpetual outrage is driving normal people to turn off the white noise. Maybe parents want to watch a Disney movie with their kids without having to make their way around an anti-Trump picket march much less be subjected to reviews about Dumbo being safe for kids for not containing racist elements. What on earth would possess Vice Magazine to think that it did?

Democrats alienating GOP voters is a given – after all they are deplorable. Yet for more centrist leaning Democrats, the rattlesnake snapping tail of its left must be causing consternation for a growing number of supporters about whether the party embodies any of the reasons they back it in the first place. The infighting is becoming all too self-evident.

Just think of 28-yo Socialist Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in NY deposing an incumbent Democrat Joe Crowley. She turned on Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on her resounding  nomination win saying, “Unsurprising, but disappointing that @SenGillibrand didn’t even bother to talk to nor consider me before endorsing…You‘d think a progressive leader would at least be interested in how a no-corporate money Bronx Latina triggered the 1st NY-14 primary in 14 years on prog issues.” yet Gillibrand tweeted about Kavanaugh, “President Trump just announced Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee to the Supreme Court. One thing’s already clear from his record: He can’t be trusted to safeguard rights for women, workers or to end the flow of corporate money to campaigns.It is comical.

CM has said repeatedly til blue in the face that the best thing about a Trump win in 2016 is that it has woken people up to how much the vote counts. It doesn’t matter how racist, sexist, nationalist, disgusting or bigoted some may find him or his supporters, the reality is that decades of neglect by both parties has led to his creation. In spite of all the negative media calling into question his intelligence he is still the president and he is likely to get his SCJ picked. Doesn’t sound that incompetent? His opponent had the entire MSM on board, happily hid the fact she had the questions ahead of the debate, hijacked her own party, stole a nomination, buried evidence against her, financed a fake dossier, weaponised the FBI, had her hubby have a chance meeting on a tarmac with the AG ahead of the verdict on her emails and treated the election as a coronation and still lost. Incompetence? If it means enough to a majority of Americans they can exercise their opinions democratically.

If enough people detest his presidency they can cut him off at the knees by restricting his ability to govern at the mid terms and turf him out in 2020. They don’t need to protest on the streets or shout the average punter down. People get the issues. It is on a 24-7 news cycle. They want to vote in peace.

Ironically the Democrats only help him achieve his cause. Some say the mainstream media gave him a $5bn free media campaign in the lead up to the election. One would imagine he gets $10bn in free media every six months now – his tweets are global and when a London Mayor allows a Trump baby balloon to fly around London when POTUS visits only adds to how pathetic the grandstanding has got. A bigger reflection on the juvenile standards of the left than easily winning debates with reason, data and logic.

His defeat is a tragically simple affair – stop giving him hot air and he’ll plummet to earth. Imagine how many XXXX’s Democrats could give to the deplorables then. Sadly Trump is too good for ratings!

3rd time lucky?

9DD6B4DD-619D-44BD-945E-32ADA6994369.jpeg

Third time lucky? According to The Hill, former VP Joe Biden took the top spot in a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll conducted this month for 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates, with 32% of the vote. Hillary Clinton was named the Democrats’ second best option, with 18%. Socialist Bernie Sanders, at 76 years old, came in third, with 16%. Senator Elizabeth Warren took 10%.

If the Dems can’t come up with a fresh candidate to challenge there is little hope in wresting the White House away from the GOP in 2020. Such is the level of internal ructions, Schumer & Pelosi were forced to publicly denounce Waters for suggesting people harass Trump officials in the street.  As written yesterday in ‘Staring at the Dictator – redux’ trying to encourage voters to back a party that screams white noise incessantly is unlikely to succeed in converting the masses.

Staring at the dictator – redux

507657ED-F3DB-4239-8029-7931BB973B12.jpeg

In Feb 2017, CM wrote a piece titled ‘Staring at the Dictator’ which highlighted that winning hearts and minds comes from sensible and reasonable dialogue. Not from widespread activism where the sole purpose is to shut down debate. Hasn’t the left learnt that physically and verbally bullying people senseless and mocking them for their supposed ignorance doesn’t work? Yet they still keep screaming the same hypo-ventilated bile, as Robert Reich has below. Nothing would make CM happier if democracy does its job in any country. If we believe he speaks for the majority, he has absolutely nothing to fear. No need for protests of any kind. Yet he shouldn’t blame the constituents for overthrowing bad governments who believe in divine incumbency. Blame bad policy.

If Democrats hadn’t treated the last election as a coronation then perhaps Hillary Clinton may have got her wish. Things had obviously become so bad at the grass roots level that the establishment was rejected. Even after all of the p*ssy grabbing allegations had been brought to light, Trump still won. His vulgarity was on the ballot. His “no one respects women more than I do” lie after this revelation in the 2nd debate was broadcast to 100s of millions. It was also on the ticket. Despite his supposed racist demagoguery, he got a higher proportion of black and Hispanic voters than either McCain or Romney. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. These are facts, as much as we may not like what they portend.

The #whitelash arguments don’t rub either because the same people voted a black man in twice. Clinton didn’t lose because she was a woman. She lost in part because she ran on the basis she was a woman. Surveys may show that Republican voters don’t want a female president however should Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley run in 2024 she would win their support on the basis of her strength, not her gender or her Native American/Sikh heritage. Ability should be all that matters. Clinton’s constant griping 18 months after her loss shows just how poor a president she would have made. It is so bad even Rasmussen reports that a majority of Democrats don’t think she would have been any better than Trump. Take that!

If Trump loses legitimately (assuming he runs) in 2020 then so be it. In the last 1.5 years in office, American citizens have had plenty of time to weigh him in their own minds, regardless of the media’s relentless onslaught of over-the-top sensationalist click-baiting. If citizens feel he has delivered in areas that affected them on a personal level, they’re probably on balance willing to vote for the same again unless the alternative offers something better. At the same time they have had plenty of time to weigh the Democrats. They’ve seen first hand the bitterness at the State of the Union plastered on the faces of Pelosi et al. They’ve heard Maxine Waters call to her supporters to gang up on the staff in the current administration. They’ve seen countless Hollywood celebrities chant vile hate from celebrating the decapitation of the President, calling Ivanka a “feckless c*nt” to hoping 12yo Barron is ripped from Melania’s arms and caged with pedophiles. Democrat supporters have gone so far as to shoot GOP politicians. CM is quite sure that however horrid the President may be, these are hardly the types of antics that will sway opinion of the swing voters to join the self-appointed ‘righteous’ like Reich. And no, not all Democrats think like this much like many Republicans don’t endorse stupidity from their own. It lets down both sides.

Republicans or swing voters do not respond well to being called intolerant, cruel, racist, misogynist, xenophobic or climate sceptics without fact or basis. Since when does one consciously vote for others over their own needs? It isn’t selfish. If one is buried under onerous tax legislation, red tape or financial destitution do they vote to put the interests of others above their own? No. As a long term Liberal Party (aka conservatives) voter in Australia, the current party has ‘left’ me. I didn’t leave them. They did not win my vote last election. It must be earned. They don’t represent my values. It didn’t take tribal beltings to force me to a conclusion. Nor negative media to discover it. Yet somehow the activists believe that constant bleating will cause me to change my mind.

What would be nice is to see properly supported factual (not subjective rhetorical) evidence that 63mn Trump supporters are as one when it comes to all the claims they make. I would love to see the arguments in all their gore should they exist. Not a one off event. Happy to see where my own arguments hold deep flaws.  Many Trump voters detest him on a moralistic level yet are happy to champion his achievements if they feel they get a direct benefit from them. So often claims are made to undermine his followers. Every time (and often) these assertions prove to be baseless, the journey to sway the other side to see reason gets thwarted even further. Time magazine issuing a confession over the photo-shopped cover of last week ended up at the bottom of a long article. It just shows just how unapologetic they are. Kathy Griffin was sorry until she wasn’t again. Talk about self serving.

To the comments made by Robert Reich today:

“My friends, this is a dark hour. Intolerance, cruelty, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and environmental destruction have been let loose across the land.

Trump controls the Republican Party, the Republican Party controls the House and Senate, and the Senate and Trump will soon control the Supreme Court.

Republicans also control both chambers in 32 states (33 if you count Nebraska) and 33 governorships. And in many of these states they are entrenching their power by gerrymandering and arranging to suppress votes.

Yet only 27 percent of Americans are Republican, and the vast majority of Americans disapprove of Trump. The GOP itself is now little more than Trump, Fox News, a handful of billionaire funders, and evangelicals who oppose a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage, and the Constitution’s separation of church and state.

So what are we – the majority — to do?

First and most importantly, do not give up. That’s what they want us to do. Then they’d have no opposition at all.

Second, in the short term, if you are represented by a Republican senator, do whatever you can to get him or her to reject Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, or, at the least, postpone consideration until after the midterm elections. Urge others to join with you. 202-224-3121

Third, make a ruckus. Demonstrate. Engage in non-violent civil disobedience. Fight lies with truth. Join the resistance. Participate in http://www.indivisible.org and https://swingleft.org.

Fourth, vote this November 6 for people who will stand up to all this outrage. Mobilize and organize others to do so. Contact friends and relations in “red” states, and urge them to do the same.

Fifth, help lay the groundwork for the 2020 presidential election, so that even if Trump survives Mueller and impeachment he will not be reelected.

Finally, know that this fight will be long and hard. It will require our patience, our courage, and our resolve. The stakes could not be higher.”

Perhaps what Reich fails to get is that he is almost backhanding his own supporters in his rant. It is more than likely that a majority of Republican (and no doubt many centrist Democrat) voters want the liberal left to give up because it has become nothing but white noise. The more they protest the more tuned out they become. Control of the Supreme Court? I encourage you to read the cake shop transcript where Associate Justice Sotomayor shows without a doubt she is a political activist, not a judge. It is embarrassingly obvious. The Supreme Court is only supposed to apply impartiality around current laws (or those at the time of the legal action), not make a song and dance about wish lists and try to piece a verdict around how nice it would be if things were different. She was trying to argue 2018 laws around a 2012 issue. One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to work that one out.

To the assertion that a handful of billionaire funders lean the GOPs way, he should reflect that most of the billionaires in America reside in blue states. In today’s world, the big corporations win more by backing Democrats because more onerous regulation benefits their ability to squeeze out the smaller competition thanks to red tape. Laissez faire? You’ve got to be kidding.

Perhaps in closing, the most compelling argument Reich makes is the one which stands out above all others – “we, the majority.” If he wants to stop Trump, he just needs the majority to vote on the shared basis of his beliefs – case closed. No need for protests. After all he says that Trump’s base is so small. If almost 3 years of negative spin on the sitting POTUS has failed to convince the majority, nothing will. Screaming in public may seem therapeutic to the masses but should the GOP win the mid-terms then Reich will prove just as out of touch as he was prior to the election.

Silence is golden. Let democracy take its course. Let us see whether the Russians consolidate their pick in the mid-terms…Putin has even more reason to ensure America sees more “red.”

Really?

8F6C101A-1A3F-479E-AD44-F24103E3B5B4.jpeg

Really? Does Newsweek honestly believe that 59% of Republicans don’t want a woman president in their lifetime? Could it be GOP supporters don’t want to see a woman made president solely on the basis of gender? Is that irrational?

It is highly conceivable that many Republicans would back someone like US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, if she ever runs given her strength and purpose, regardless of how appalled Democrats might be. Even worse, the Democrats would die a thousand deaths knowing her Native American/Sikh background would singlehandedly outflank almost any identity driven political candidates the DNC could field itself.  To be thrashed at its own game when the opposition party doesn’t even know the rules. The irony!

However Newsweek would not be budged going straight down the line of how poor old Hillary Clinton was the innocent victim of rampant sexism. Aren’t Republicans bigger racists than sexists?

Newsweek’s Tim Marchin wrote,

Clinton’s candidacy was, of course, a big moment for women in U.S. politics. No other woman has ever earned the nomination of one of the major parties. After her loss in the election—to a man accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct—2017 became a year that was, in many ways, defined by women leaders…Millions of people took to the streets across the world in the Women’s March shortly after Trump’s inauguration. More recently, the #MeToo movement has helped shed light on just how many women have suffered from harassment, discrimination and assault. The movement has also revealed accusations against a number of men in positions of power.”

Marchin would have been far better off  conceding that Clinton’s campaign of identity politics (Obama 2.0) was on the ballot paper. It wasn’t wanted. The electorate preferred to place a serial p*ssy grabbing silver back with an agenda that better suited their needs.

Marchin might have reflected that Clinton ran her campaign like a coronation rather than a democratic election and deplorables voted for the guy who actually made the effort to see them. He may have pondered that even having an advantage of getting the questions before hand (aka cheating) saw her lose. To have her husband randomly meet the Attorney General on an airport tarmac days before the FBI testimony. Mere coincidence and who wouldn’t talk about the grandkids? It had nothing to do with her gender. It had nothing to do with those darned white women controlled by their red-necked husbands on voting day. She was an awful candidate.

More shameless clickbait journalism which tries to shame Republicans with a gotcha question bound to have wide interpretation. Here’s an idea for the Democrats – run a better candidate.

Why is Australia bothering with the UN?

IMG_0670

If there is one club that annoys more than the European Union it would have to be the United Nations. You’ll struggle to find an organization that has better pay for play rules than this. It makes the Clinton Foundation look like the wooden spooners in the amateur league. While the UN espouses virtue signaling at every turn one only needs to do a quick check of its multiple councils to work out it is about buying influence. It’s Human Rights Council is littered with countries that have appalling human rights records (Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Egypt and Qatar to name a few) whose main goal in life is to beat up Israel. The UN IPCC has the some of the worst sets of governance and conflicts of interest as to beggar belief. The former President of the IPCC had vast funds funneled through a supposed ‘research’ body he was the owner of. The amount of lies, falsehoods, manipulation and editorial oversight makes a mockery of the process. The IPCC’s sole purpose itself on endless life support. Its actions speak much louder than words and the 50,000 disciples who fly 1,000s of miles, spewing the dangerous CO2 they fear so much from the back of Boeings to kneel at the altar of the UN prove it.

Being elected to a UN council effectively says you are more important than you really are. The UN is nothing but a bunch of consensus hugging group thinkers who must buy their relevance. It is a club of hollow values.

If you are in the UN of course you want it to continue. The pay scales are incredible, On top of generous pay you can get housing support, kid’s schooling assistance, health insurance and other cost of living allowances that would make most people loyal slaves to the cause. Salaries consume 74% of the budget. The average salary of the 41,000 that work there is US$100,000. In Japan a D1-D2 level would be looking at $320,000 peer annum. No wonder they need members to keep chipping in more and more into the UN coffers to keep the circus going, Is it any wonder that pay for play is how you buy influence on councils.

The Heritage Foundation did an interesting study on the UN’s budget which shows how much it has exploded in the last 40 years.

IMG_0671.PNG

It stated with respect to trying to rein in the overbloated budget,

The latest U.N. regular budget, while superficially smaller than the previous budget, made no fundamental programmatic or structural adjustments—e.g., reducing permanent staff, freezing or reducing salaries and other benefits, and permanently eliminating a significant number of mandates, programs, or other activities—that would lower the baseline for future U.N. budget negotiations.[10] Despite the Secretary-General’s proposal to eliminate 44 permanent posts, the 2012–2013 budget actually increased the number of permanent posts by more than a score compared with the previous budget. The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits is especially problematic because personnel costs account for 74 percent of U.N. spending according to the U.N.’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).[11] Without a significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will remain out of reach.”

Note the peacekeeping budget is on top of the administrative side of the UN. The US currently contributes 27.1% of the total peacekeeping budget which is around $9bn.

Which brings us to Australia. The UN is an overbloated, outdated and ineffective body which needs massive reform which will likely never come unless big members like the US aggressively defund it so it can be hollowed to efficient levels. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop may criticize former PM Kevin Rudd for trying to buy UN votes with aid money but one can be pretty sure that if Australia is awarded a 2018 seat then she will be on the first flight to New York for a photo opportunity and the idea that Australia is relevant not to mention how important the UN is that we need to chip in more.