bonginoreport--2020-10-12--Kevin McCullough: Signs That Trump Isn’t Going to Win on Nov. 3

It ’ s a foregone conclusion and must now be faced .
Republicans have worried .
Democrats have gloated .
Libertarians , Independents , and Reformers have all weighed in .
Now it must be acknowledged President Donald J. Trump is just not capable of winning this Nov. 3 .
Perhaps the Democrats have finally found the silver bullet .
After the Russia Hoax , Impeachment Farce , Lockdown Lies , Evaporative Economic Policies , Debate Blowups , and CoVid Contraction—they ’ ve even floated the 25th Amendment—which I only thought really bitter and nasty Never Trumpers would ever embrace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not even Nancy Pelosi ’ s prayers for the President ’ s health could keep him in the hospital for more than three days .
And here one week after he contracted it — no one ’ s even discussing him having it because he ’ s symptom free and feeling twenty years younger .
So no ... Donald J. Trump just doesn ’ t have what it takes to just win on November 3 .
Because he ’ s going to absolutely crush the election that day .
A # Trumpslide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart people ” will tell you that ’ s not possible and that he lags Joe Biden in the polls by margins too big to overcome .
If you only look at the selective polls listed in the Real Clear Politics average one might come to that conclusion ( Just like they did in 2016 ) .
One thing they won ’ t tell you though is that the hesitancy to tell pollsters what they think is a real phenomenon .
A little more than a month ago Bloomberg published a survey that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice as likely as Democrats to not reveal to pollsters their true thoughts .
So if the polls that seem to point to a Biden win are wrong what was I depending on when I published my prediction map ( the first of a few leading up to Election Day ) .
To be exceedingly clear — I find no evidence of a Biden win outside of the media polls .
But here 's a short list of considerations that give us a better understanding of the race .
The candidates already know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mile .
President Trump can ’ t help but to continue to draw massive crowds ( even while in the hospital . )
Every weekend , in every state , in hundreds of cities bikers , truckers , boaters , horse and buggy people , and regular pedestrians are having larger and larger participation in various parades of support from Miami to Manhattan and from Beverly Hills to Capitol Hill .
Meanwhile Biden has trouble getting more than a dozen to show up at a tour stop in Yuma .
And we all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t vote for him then , ” or “ I wasn ’ t really sure about him in 2016 , ” who have converted to “ I ’ ll crawl over broken glass to vote for him now.
” Is it significant that Candace Owens led a “ Back the Blue ” march through DC and to the White House yesterday consisting of thousands of African American voters ?
Is it important that President Trump received them ?
Does it seem to make an impact that President Trump oversaw the fastest job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth in wages among the poorest Black Americans in the modern era ?
Evidently it does because he ’ s currently enjoying ( what I perceive to be understated ) support anywhere from 18 to 25 percent of Black Americans .
When narrowed down to Black men he ’ s consistently in the low to mid-30s percentage wise .
The modern era high for a GOP president is 11 percent .
Democrat ’ s consistently need 90 to 95 percent support of Black voters to win .
If Trump gets anything above 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes 20 percent or more it starts to reshape states like Pennsylvania where he runs up the score in the west and enjoys enough Black support around Philadelphia so as to win the state convincingly .
Carbon copy that for Michigan , Minnesota , North Carolina , etc .
Biden also has challenges with Hispanic voters .
The president has seen a broad based support with Latinos that similarly to Blacks defies modern era history .
One veteran of elections going back multiple decades told me last week that the president may enjoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the Hispanic vote .
A number that big just seems so unheard of for a Republican .
It ’ s hard for me to grasp .
But just realize this : if the president gets anything above 35 percent he will again shatter recent history and entire state compositions begin to shift .
I ’ m also very bullish on an old fashioned idea , that if you keep a promise , you ’ ve earned a second-term .
You do realize don ’ t you that Trump presents the opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate makes a ton of promises and then either breaks them or does very little to fulfill them once in office .
Clinton kept three over eight years , Bush kept two ( outside of 9/11 related items ) , Obama a big fat one in his first-term .
The president came to office and went to work on day one .
He ’ s lifted more than 2,000 regulations on small businesses , got tax reform done , and started in on his list .
By my count 127 promises later he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insulting as it sounds it ’ s still the bottom line .
People vote their pocket book .
Voters know this instinctively .
Biden has nothing to show for 47 years in DC .
The president built the fastest growing economy the world had ever seen .
In the past four months he ’ s produced the fastest job growth in history at just shy of 12 million jobs created , with more than half of those lost only months before due to the virus and ensuing lockdowns .
It was precisely the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed the rebound to occur so quickly .
And just imagine how much more the recovery would be underway if governors and mayors who are keeping their cities and states locked down for political reasons would allow them to actually open up .
Oh the pundits , Never Trumpers , and Democrats will explain away Biden ’ s every foible .
When he says the voters “ don ’ t deserve to know ” his view on a 150-year precedent breaking idea of randomly packing the Supreme Court , they will give him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rolls in and six people sit in a gym in big circles drawn on the floor , the media will ignore the contrast of 40,000 supporters on a rainy tarmac in Minnesota .
But this election won ’ t be decided by the pundits , Never Trumpers , and swamp monsters .
The American people are the only poll that matters .
On November 3rd , President Trump won ’ t just win , he will break records , shift turn out patterns , and crush his way to the biggest re-election victory @ @ @ @

It’s a foregone conclusion and must now be faced.
Republicans have worried. Democrats have gloated. Libertarians, Independents, and Reformers have all weighed in. Now it must be acknowledged President Donald J. Trump is just not capable of winning this Nov. 3.
Perhaps the Democrats have finally found the silver bullet. After the Russia Hoax, Impeachment Farce, Lockdown Lies, Evaporative Economic Policies, Debate Blowups, and CoVid Contraction—they’ve even floated the 25th Amendment—which I only thought really bitter and nasty Never Trumpers would ever embrace.
But none of it has worked. Not even Nancy Pelosi’s prayers for the President’s health could keep him in the hospital for more than three days. And here one week after he contracted it — no one’s even discussing him having it because he’s symptom free and feeling twenty years younger.
So no... Donald J. Trump just doesn’t have what it takes to just win on November 3.
Because he’s going to absolutely crush the election that day. A #Trumpslide if you will.
Now the “smart people” will tell you that’s not possible and that he lags Joe Biden in the polls by margins too big to overcome. If you only look at the selective polls listed in the Real Clear Politics average one might come to that conclusion (Just like they did in 2016).
One thing they won’t tell you though is that the hesitancy to tell pollsters what they think is a real phenomenon. A little more than a month ago Bloomberg published a survey that demonstrated Republicans and Independents are more than twice as likely as Democrats to not reveal to pollsters their true thoughts.
So if the polls that seem to point to a Biden win are wrong what was I depending on when I published my prediction map (the first of a few leading up to Election Day).
To be exceedingly clear — I find no evidence of a Biden win outside of the media polls.
But here's a short list of considerations that give us a better understanding of the race.
Enthusiasm Gap
The candidates already know that the president is winning by a mile. President Trump can’t help but to continue to draw massive crowds (even while in the hospital.) Every weekend, in every state, in hundreds of cities bikers, truckers, boaters, horse and buggy people, and regular pedestrians are having larger and larger participation in various parades of support from Miami to Manhattan and from Beverly Hills to Capitol Hill. Meanwhile Biden has trouble getting more than a dozen to show up at a tour stop in Yuma. And we all know people who say “I didn’t vote for him then,” or “I wasn’t really sure about him in 2016,” who have converted to “I’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for him now.”
Black Votes Matter
Is it significant that Candace Owens led a “Back the Blue” march through DC and to the White House yesterday consisting of thousands of African American voters? Is it important that President Trump received them? Does it seem to make an impact that President Trump oversaw the fastest job creation for Black Americans with the fastest growth in wages among the poorest Black Americans in the modern era? Evidently it does because he’s currently enjoying (what I perceive to be understated) support anywhere from 18 to 25 percent of Black Americans. When narrowed down to Black men he’s consistently in the low to mid-30s percentage wise. The modern era high for a GOP president is 11 percent. Democrat’s consistently need 90 to 95 percent support of Black voters to win. If Trump gets anything above 11 percent he wins big. If he takes 20 percent or more it starts to reshape states like Pennsylvania where he runs up the score in the west and enjoys enough Black support around Philadelphia so as to win the state convincingly. Carbon copy that for Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, etc.
Latino Support Sans Pandering
Biden also has challenges with Hispanic voters. The president has seen a broad based support with Latinos that similarly to Blacks defies modern era history. One veteran of elections going back multiple decades told me last week that the president may enjoy support as high as 45 to 50 percent of the Hispanic vote. A number that big just seems so unheard of for a Republican. It’s hard for me to grasp. But just realize this: if the president gets anything above 35 percent he will again shatter recent history and entire state compositions begin to shift.
Promises Kept
I’m also very bullish on an old fashioned idea, that if you keep a promise, you’ve earned a second-term. You do realize don’t you that Trump presents the opposite problems of most politicians? Usually a candidate makes a ton of promises and then either breaks them or does very little to fulfill them once in office. Clinton kept three over eight years, Bush kept two (outside of 9/11 related items), Obama a big fat one in his first-term. The president came to office and went to work on day one. He’s lifted more than 2,000 regulations on small businesses, got tax reform done, and started in on his list. By my count 127 promises later he’s still not finished.
It’s still the economy, stupid.
As insulting as it sounds it’s still the bottom line. People vote their pocket book. Voters know this instinctively. Biden has nothing to show for 47 years in DC. The president built the fastest growing economy the world had ever seen. In the past four months he’s produced the fastest job growth in history at just shy of 12 million jobs created, with more than half of those lost only months before due to the virus and ensuing lockdowns. It was precisely the tax reform and deregulation of businesses that allowed the rebound to occur so quickly. And just imagine how much more the recovery would be underway if governors and mayors who are keeping their cities and states locked down for political reasons would allow them to actually open up.
Oh the pundits, Never Trumpers, and Democrats will explain away Biden’s every foible. When he says the voters “don’t deserve to know” his view on a 150-year precedent breaking idea of randomly packing the Supreme Court, they will give him a pass. When the Biden-Harris bus rolls in and six people sit in a gym in big circles drawn on the floor, the media will ignore the contrast of 40,000 supporters on a rainy tarmac in Minnesota.
But this election won’t be decided by the pundits, Never Trumpers, and swamp monsters.
The American people are the only poll that matters.
On November 3rd, President Trump won’t just win, he will break records, shift turn out patterns, and crush his way to the biggest re-election victory since Ronald Reagan.


bonginoreport--2020-10-12--Roger Kimball: The Cultural Roots of Conservatism

Here in mid-October , we are at or even just past the apogee of that “ season of mists and mellow fruitfulness ” John Keats celebrated in “ To Autumn.
” Harvests are arriving everywhere .
The “ maturing sun ” has conspired “ to load and bless / With fruit the vines that round the thatch-eves run ; / To bend with apples the moss ’ d cottage-trees , / And fill all fruit with ripeness to the core.
” Which brings me to the word “ cultural.
” I remember the first time I noticed the legend “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accompanied some seedlings .
“ How quaint , ” I thought , as I pursued the advisory : this much water and that much sun , certain tips about fertilizer , soil , and drainage .
Planting one sort of flower nearby keeps the bugs away but proximity to another sort makes bad things happen .
Young shoots might need stakes , and watch out for beetles , weeds , and unseasonable frosts .
.
.
The more I pondered it , the less quaint and the more profound those cultural instructions seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the word “ culture ” comes from the capacious Latin verb colo , which means everything from “ live , dwell , inhabit , ” to “ observe a religious rite ” —whence our word “ cult ” —to “ care , tend , nurture , ” and “ promote the growth or advancement of.
” I never thought much about it .
I should have done .
There is a lot of wisdom in etymology .
The noun cultūra ( which derives from colo ) means first of all “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the care or cultivation of plants.
” But it , too , has ambitious tentacles : there ’ s the bit about religious rites again and also “ well groomed , ” and “ chic , polished , sophisticated.
” It was Cicero , in a famous passage of the Tusculan Disputations , who gave currency to the metaphor of culture as a specifically intellectual pursuit .
“ Just as a field , however good the ground , can not be productive without cultivation , ” Cicero wrote , “ so the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Philosophy , he said , is a sort of “ cultura animi , ” a cultivation of the mind or spirit : “ it pulls out vices by the roots , ” he said , “ makes souls fit for the reception of seed , ” and sows in order to bring forth “ the richest fruit.
” But even the best care , Cicero warned , does not inevitably bring good results : the influence of education , of cultura animi , “ can not be the same for all : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secured a hold upon a character suited to it.
” That is to say , the results of cultivation depend not only on the quality of the care but also on the inherent nature of the thing being cultivated .
How much of what Cicero said do we still understand ?
In current parlance , “ culture ” ( in addition to its use as a biological term ) has both a descriptive and an evaluative meaning .
In its anthropological sense , “ culture ” is neutral .
It describes the habits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what its members do , not what they should do .
Its task is to inventory , to docket , not to judge .
But we also speak of “ high culture , ” meaning not just social practices but a world of artistic , intellectual , and moral endeavor in which the notion of hierarchy , of a rank-ordering of accomplishment , is key .
Let me pause to introduce one more bit of etymology : “ hierarchy ” derives from words meaning “ sacred order.
” Egalitarians are opposed to hierarchies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us about egalitarianism ?
Culture in the evaluative sense does not merely admit , it requires judgment as a kind of coefficient or auxiliary : comparison , discrimination , evaluation are its lifeblood .
“ We never really get near a book , ” Henry James once remarked , “ save on the question of its being good or bad , of its really treating , that is , or not treating , its subject.
” It was for the sake of culture in this sense that Matthew Arnold extolled criticism as—you all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world.
” It is of course culture in the Arnoldian sense that I have primarily in view when I ask about the cultural roots of conservatism .
And it is the fate of culture in this sense that I will be chiefly concerned with here .
But it would be foolish to draw too firm a distinction between or among the realms of culture .
There is much confluence and interchange between them .
Ultimately , they exist symbiotically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each other .
The manners , habits , rituals , institutions , and patterns of behavior that define culture for the anthropologist provide the sediment , the ground out of which culture in the Arnoldian sense takes root—or fails to take root .
Failure or degradation in one area instigates failure or degradation in the other .
Some people regard the astonishing collapse of manners and civility in our society as a superficial event .
They are wrong .
The fate of decorum expresses the fate of a culture ’ s dignity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is why conservatives have always regarded the degradation of manners as presaging other , more sinister degradations .
Let me say something , too , about the nature of metaphors .
The problem with metaphors is not that they are false but that they do not tell the whole truth .
The organic image of culture we have inherited from Cicero is illuminating .
Among other things , it reminds us that we do not exist as self-sufficient atoms but have our place in a continuum that stretches before and after us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , it can be elevated into an absurdity if pushed too far .
Oswald Spengler ’ s sprawling , two-volume lament , The Decline of the West , is a good illustration of what happens when genius is captivated by a metaphor .
Spengler ’ s book , published in the immediate aftermath of World War I , epitomized the end-of-everything mood of the times and was hailed as the brilliant key to understanding—well , just about everything .
And Spengler really is brilliant .
For example , his remarks about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second religiousness ” in which “ men dispense with proof , desire only to believe and not to dissect , ” have great pertinence to an era , like ours , that is awash in new-age spiritual counterfeits .
Nevertheless , Spengler ’ s deterministic allegiance to the analogy between civilizations and organisms ultimately infuses his discussion with an air of unreality .
One is reminded , reading Spengler , of T. S. Eliot ’ s definition of a heretic : “ a person who seizes upon a truth and pushes it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falsehood.
” That said , for anyone who is concerned about the cultural roots of conservatism , there are some important lessons in the armory of cultural instructions accompanying a humble tomato plant .
Perhaps the chief lesson has to do with time and continuity , the evolving permanence that cultūra animi no less than agricultural cultivation requires if it is to be successful .
All those tips , habits , prohibitions , and necessities that have been accumulated from time out of mind and passed down , generation after generation : How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anarchy and decay !
Culture thrives and develops under the aegis of permanence .
And yet instantaneity—the enemy of permanence—is one of the chief imperatives of our time .
It renders anything lasting , anything inherited , suspicious by definition .
Our culture wants what is faster , newer , less encumbered by the past .
If we also cultivate a nostalgia for a simpler , slower time , that just shows the extent to which we are separated from what , in our efforts to decorate our lives , we long for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” —is a version of sentimentality—a predilection , that is to say , to distort rather than acknowledge reality .
The attack on permanence comes in many guises .
When trendy literary critics declare that “ there is no such thing as intrinsic meaning , ” they are denying permanent values that transcend the prerogatives of their lucubrations .
When a deconstructionist tells us that truth is relative to language , or to power , or to certain social arrangements , he seeks to trump the unanswerable claims of permanent realities with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiculturalist celebrates the fundamental equality of all cultures—excepting , of course , the culture of the West , which he reflexively disparages—he substitutes ephemeral political passions for the recognition of objective cultural achievement .
But what at first seems to be an effort to establish cultural parity turns out to be a campaign for cultural reversal .
When Sir Elton John is put on the same level as Bach , the effect is not cultural equality but cultural insurrection .
And if it seems far-fetched to compare Elton John and Bach , recall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remark in 1967 , that “ sometimes [ the Beatles ] are like Monteverdi and sometimes their songs are even better than Schumann ’ s. ” In the face of such leveling assaults , the most basic suppositions and distinctions suddenly crumble , like the acidic pages of a poorly made book , eaten away from within .
Culture degenerates from being a cultūra animi to a corruptio animi .
Aldous Huxley ’ s Brave New World may be a second-rate novel—its characters wooden , its narrative overly didactic—but it has turned out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1932 , it touches everywhere on 21st century anxieties and has a lot to say , implicitly , about the cultural roots of conservatism .
Perhaps the aspect of Huxley ’ s dystopian admonition that is most frequently adduced is its vision of a society that has perfected what we have come to call genetic engineering .
Among other things , it is a world in which reproduction has been entirely handed over to the experts .
The word “ parents ” no longer describes a loving moral commitment but only an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ born but designed according to exacting specifications and “ decanted ” at sanitary depots like The Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre with which the book opens .
As with all efforts to picture future technology , Huxley ’ s description of the equipment and procedures employed at the hatchery seems almost charmingly antiquated , like a spaceship imagined by Jules Verne .
But Huxley ’ s portrait of the human toll of human ingenuity is very up-to-date .
Indeed , we have not—not quite , not yet—caught up with the situation he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet— inhabit a world in which “ mother ” and “ monogamy ” are blasphemous terms from which people have been conditioned to recoil in visceral revulsion .
Maybe it will never come to that .
( Though monogamy , of course , has long been high on the social and sexual revolutionary ’ s list of hated institutions . )
Still , it is a nice question whether developments in reproductive technology will not soon make other aspects of Huxley ’ s fantasy a reality .
Thinkers as different as Michel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Houllebecq have pondered the advent of a “ posthuman ” future , eagerly or with dismay , as the case may be .
Scientists busily manipulating DNA may give substance to their speculations .
It is often suggested that what is most disturbing about Brave New World is its portrait of eugenics in action : its vision of humanity deliberately divided into genetically ordered castes , a few supersmart Alpha-pluses down through a multitude of drone-like Epsilons who do the heavy lifting .
Such deliberately instituted inequality offends our democratic sensibilities .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility that the most disturbing aspect of the future Huxley pictured has less to do with eugenics than genetics .
That is to say , perhaps what is centrally repellent about Huxley ’ s hatcheries is not that they codify inequality—nature already does that more effectively than our politically correct sensibilities like to acknowledge—but that they exist at all .
Are they not a textbook example of Promethean hubris in action ?
It is worth stepping back to ponder that possibility .
In the 17th century , René Descartes predicted that his scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and possessor of nature.
” Are we not fast closing in on the technology that proves him right ?
And this raises another question .
Is there a point at which scientific development can no longer be described , humanly , as progress ?
We know the benisons of technology .
Consider only electricity , the automobile , modern medicine .
They have transformed the world and underscored the old observation that art , that techne , is man ’ s nature .
Nevertheless , the question remains whether , after 200 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to become more closely acquainted with the depredations of technology .
It would take a brave man , or a rash one , to venture a confident prediction either way .
For example , if , as in Brave New World , we manage to bypass the “ inconvenience ” of human pregnancy altogether , ought we to do it ?
If—or rather when—that is possible ( as it certainly will be , and soon ) , will it also be desirable ?
If not , why not ?
Why should a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pregnancy if a fetus could be safely incubated , or cloned , elsewhere ?
Wouldn ’ t motherhood by proxy be a good thing—the ultimate labor-saving device ?
Most readers , I think , will hesitate about saying yes .
What does that hesitation tell us ?
Some readers will have no hesitation about saying yes ; what does that tell us ?
These are some of the questions anyone concerned with the cultural roots of conservatism will have to conjure with .
As Huxley saw , a world in which reproduction was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was also a world in which culture in the Arnoldian sense was not only otiose but dangerous , and hence severely policed .
This suspicion of culture is also a sub-theme of that other great dystopian novel , George Orwell ’ s 1984 , which ends with the work of various writers , such as Shakespeare , Milton , Swift , Byron , Dickens , being vandalized by being translated into Newspeak .
When that laborious propaganda effort is finally complete , Orwell writes , the “ original writings , with all else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past , would be destroyed.
” The point is that culture has roots .
It limns the future through its implications with the past .
Moving the reader or spectator over the centuries , the monuments of culture transcend the local imperatives of the present .
They escape the obsolescence that fashion demands , the predictability that planning requires .
They speak of love and hatred , honor and shame , beauty and courage and cowardice—permanent realities of the human situation insofar as it remains human .
The denizens of Huxley ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his word “ conditioned ” is more accurate—to be rootless , without culture .
Ditto the denizens of Orwell ’ s nightmare totalitarian society .
In Brave New World , when a relic of the old order of civilization—a savage who had been born , not decanted—is brought from a reservation into the brave new world , he is surprised to discover that the literary past is forbidden to most of the population .
When he asks why , the bureaucrat in charge says simply : “ Because it ’ s old ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We haven ’ t any use for old things here.
” “ Particularly when they ’ re beautiful , ” replies the bureaucrat .
“ Beauty ’ s attractive , and we don ’ t want people to be attracted by old things .
We want them to like the new ones.
” Huxley ’ s brave new world is above all a superficial world .
People are encouraged to like what is new , to live in the moment , because that makes them less complicated and more pliable .
Emotional commitments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( The same , again , is true in 1984 . )
In the place of emotional commitments , sensations—thrilling , mind-numbing sensations—are available on demand through drugs and motion pictures that neurologically stimulate viewers to experience certain emotions and feelings .
The fact that they are artificially produced is not considered a drawback but their very point .
Which is to say that the brave new world is a virtual world : experience is increasingly vivid but decreasingly real .
The question of meaning is deliberately short-circuited .
Huxley ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He understood that in a world in which reproduction was emancipated from the body , sexual congress for many people would degenerate into a purely recreational activity , an amusement not inherently different from one ’ s soma ration or the tactile movies .
He pictured a world of casual , indeed mandatory , promiscuity .
But he thought it would develop along completely conventional lines .
He ought to have known that the quest for “ agreeable sensations ” would issue in a pansexual carnival .
In this area , anyway , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal further than the characters who inhabit Huxley ’ s dystopia .
In part , the attack on permanence is an attack on the idea that anything possesses inherent value .
Absolute fungibility—the substitution of anything for anything—is the ideal .
In one sense , this is a product of what the philosopher Michael Oakeshott criticized as “ rationalism.
” “ To the Rationalist , ” Oakeshott wrote in the late 1940s , “ nothing is of value merely because it exists ( and certainly not because it has existed for many generations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing is to be left standing for want of scrutiny.
” The realm of sexuality is one area where the effects of such rationalism are dramatically evident .
It was not so long ago that the description from Genesis— “ male and female created he them ” —was taken as a basic existential fact .
True , the obstinacy of sexual difference has always been a thorn in the side of utopian rationalism .
But it is only in recent decades that the engines of judicial meddlesomeness , on the one hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have effectively assaulted that once permanent-seeming reality .
What we are seeing in sexual life is the fulfillment , in some segments of society , of the radical emancipatory vision enunciated in the 1960s by such gurus as Herbert Marcuse and Norman O .
Brown .
In Eros and Civilization , Marcuse looked forward to the establishment of what he called a “ non-repressive reality principle ” in which “ the body in its entirety would become .
.
.
an instrument of pleasure.
” The sexual liberation Marcuse hailed was not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World , children do not enter into the equation .
The issue is pleasure , not progeny .
Marcuse speaks glowingly of “ a resurgence of pregenital polymorphous sexuality ” that “ protests against the repressive order of procreative sexuality.
” A look at the alarmingly low birth rates of most affluent nations today suggests that the protest has been effective .
When Tocqueville warned about the peculiar form of despotism that threatened democracy , he noted that instead of tyrannizing men , as past despotisms had done , it tended to infantilize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in childhood.
” What Tocqueville warned about , Marcuse celebrated , extolling the benefits of returning to a state of what he called “ primary narcissism.
” What Marcuse encouraged , in other words , is solipsism , not as a philosophical principle but as a moral indulgence—a way of life .
I note in passing that Marcuse was a college professor : how proud he would be of those contemporary universities which have , partly under his influence , become factories for the maintenance of infantilizing narcissism .
A couple of concluding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Culture , T. S. Eliot noted that “ culture is the one thing that we can not deliberately aim at .
It is the product of a variety of more or less harmonious activities , each pursued for its own sake.
” “ For its own sake.
” That is one simple idea that is everywhere imperiled today .
When we plant a garden , it is bootless to strive directly for camellias .
They are the natural product of our care , nurture , and time .
We can manage that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we turn our hands to cultūra animi , we seem to be considerably less successful .
Let me end by noting that the opposite of “ conservative ” is not “ liberal ” but ephemeral .
Russell Kirk once observed that he was conservative because he was liberal , that is , committed to freedom .
Kirk ’ s formulation may sound paradoxical , but it touches on a great truth .
To be conservative : that means wanting to conserve what is worth preserving from the ravages of time and ideology , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may thrive .
In some plump eras the task is so easy we can almost forget how necessary it is .
At other times , the enemies of civilization transform the task of preserving our culture into a battle for survival .
That , I believe—and I say it regretfully—is where we are today .

Here in mid-October, we are at or even just past the apogee of that “season of mists and mellow fruitfulness” John Keats celebrated in “To Autumn.” Harvests are arriving everywhere. The “maturing sun” has conspired “to load and bless / With fruit the vines that round the thatch-eves run; / To bend with apples the moss’d cottage-trees, / And fill all fruit with ripeness to the core.”
Which brings me to the word “cultural.” I remember the first time I noticed the legend “cultural instructions” on the brochure that accompanied some seedlings. “How quaint,” I thought, as I pursued the advisory: this much water and that much sun, certain tips about fertilizer, soil, and drainage. Planting one sort of flower nearby keeps the bugs away but proximity to another sort makes bad things happen. Young shoots might need stakes, and watch out for beetles, weeds, and unseasonable frosts . . .
The more I pondered it, the less quaint and the more profound those cultural instructions seemed. I suppose I had once known that the word “culture” comes from the capacious Latin verb colo, which means everything from “live, dwell, inhabit,” to “observe a religious rite”—whence our word “cult”—to “care, tend, nurture,” and “promote the growth or advancement of.” I never thought much about it.
I should have done. There is a lot of wisdom in etymology. The noun cultūra (which derives from colo) means first of all “the tilling or cultivation of land” and “the care or cultivation of plants.” But it, too, has ambitious tentacles: there’s the bit about religious rites again and also “well groomed,” and “chic, polished, sophisticated.”
Cicero’s Cultivation of the Soul
It was Cicero, in a famous passage of the Tusculan Disputations, who gave currency to the metaphor of culture as a specifically intellectual pursuit. “Just as a field, however good the ground, cannot be productive without cultivation,” Cicero wrote, “so the soul cannot be productive without education.” Philosophy, he said, is a sort of “cultura animi,” a cultivation of the mind or spirit: “it pulls out vices by the roots,” he said, “makes souls fit for the reception of seed,” and sows in order to bring forth “the richest fruit.”
But even the best care, Cicero warned, does not inevitably bring good results: the influence of education, of cultura animi, “cannot be the same for all: its effect is great when it has secured a hold upon a character suited to it.” That is to say, the results of cultivation depend not only on the quality of the care but also on the inherent nature of the thing being cultivated. How much of what Cicero said do we still understand?
In current parlance, “culture” (in addition to its use as a biological term) has both a descriptive and an evaluative meaning. In its anthropological sense, “culture” is neutral. It describes the habits and customs of a particular population: what its members do, not what they should do. Its task is to inventory, to docket, not to judge.
But we also speak of “high culture,” meaning not just social practices but a world of artistic, intellectual, and moral endeavor in which the notion of hierarchy, of a rank-ordering of accomplishment, is key.
Let me pause to introduce one more bit of etymology: “hierarchy” derives from words meaning “sacred order.” Egalitarians are opposed to hierarchies in principle; what does that tell us about egalitarianism?
Culture in the evaluative sense does not merely admit, it requires judgment as a kind of coefficient or auxiliary: comparison, discrimination, evaluation are its lifeblood. “We never really get near a book,” Henry James once remarked, “save on the question of its being good or bad, of its really treating, that is, or not treating, its subject.” It was for the sake of culture in this sense that Matthew Arnold extolled criticism as—you all know the famous phrase— “the disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world.”
The Cultural Roots of Conservatism
It is of course culture in the Arnoldian sense that I have primarily in view when I ask about the cultural roots of conservatism. And it is the fate of culture in this sense that I will be chiefly concerned with here.
But it would be foolish to draw too firm a distinction between or among the realms of culture. There is much confluence and interchange between them. Ultimately, they exist symbiotically, nurturing, supplementing, contending with each other.
The manners, habits, rituals, institutions, and patterns of behavior that define culture for the anthropologist provide the sediment, the ground out of which culture in the Arnoldian sense takes root—or fails to take root. Failure or degradation in one area instigates failure or degradation in the other. Some people regard the astonishing collapse of manners and civility in our society as a superficial event. They are wrong. The fate of decorum expresses the fate of a culture’s dignity, its attitude toward its animating values, which is why conservatives have always regarded the degradation of manners as presaging other, more sinister degradations.
Let me say something, too, about the nature of metaphors. The problem with metaphors is not that they are false but that they do not tell the whole truth. The organic image of culture we have inherited from Cicero is illuminating. Among other things, it reminds us that we do not exist as self-sufficient atoms but have our place in a continuum that stretches before and after us in time. Like other metaphors, however, it can be elevated into an absurdity if pushed too far.
Oswald Spengler’s sprawling, two-volume lament, The Decline of the West, is a good illustration of what happens when genius is captivated by a metaphor. Spengler’s book, published in the immediate aftermath of World War I, epitomized the end-of-everything mood of the times and was hailed as the brilliant key to understanding—well, just about everything. And Spengler really is brilliant. For example, his remarks about how the triumph of skepticism breeds a “second religiousness” in which “men dispense with proof, desire only to believe and not to dissect,” have great pertinence to an era, like ours, that is awash in new-age spiritual counterfeits. Nevertheless, Spengler’s deterministic allegiance to the analogy between civilizations and organisms ultimately infuses his discussion with an air of unreality. One is reminded, reading Spengler, of T. S. Eliot’s definition of a heretic: “a person who seizes upon a truth and pushes it to the point at which it becomes a falsehood.”
The Enemy of Permanence
That said, for anyone who is concerned about the cultural roots of conservatism, there are some important lessons in the armory of cultural instructions accompanying a humble tomato plant. Perhaps the chief lesson has to do with time and continuity, the evolving permanence that cultūra animi no less than agricultural cultivation requires if it is to be successful. All those tips, habits, prohibitions, and necessities that have been accumulated from time out of mind and passed down, generation after generation: How our society militates against such antidotes to anarchy and decay!
Culture thrives and develops under the aegis of permanence. And yet instantaneity—the enemy of permanence—is one of the chief imperatives of our time. It renders anything lasting, anything inherited, suspicious by definition.
Our culture wants what is faster, newer, less encumbered by the past. If we also cultivate a nostalgia for a simpler, slower time, that just shows the extent to which we are separated from what, in our efforts to decorate our lives, we long for. Nostalgia—the Greek word for “homesickness”—is a version of sentimentality—a predilection, that is to say, to distort rather than acknowledge reality.
The attack on permanence comes in many guises. When trendy literary critics declare that “there is no such thing as intrinsic meaning,” they are denying permanent values that transcend the prerogatives of their lucubrations. When a deconstructionist tells us that truth is relative to language, or to power, or to certain social arrangements, he seeks to trump the unanswerable claims of permanent realities with the vacillations of his ingenuity. When the multiculturalist celebrates the fundamental equality of all cultures—excepting, of course, the culture of the West, which he reflexively disparages—he substitutes ephemeral political passions for the recognition of objective cultural achievement.
But what at first seems to be an effort to establish cultural parity turns out to be a campaign for cultural reversal. When Sir Elton John is put on the same level as Bach, the effect is not cultural equality but cultural insurrection. And if it seems far-fetched to compare Elton John and Bach, recall the literary critic Richard Poirier’s remark in 1967, that “sometimes [the Beatles] are like Monteverdi and sometimes their songs are even better than Schumann’s.”
In the face of such leveling assaults, the most basic suppositions and distinctions suddenly crumble, like the acidic pages of a poorly made book, eaten away from within. Culture degenerates from being a cultūra animi to a corruptio animi.
The Human Toll of Human Ingenuity
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World may be a second-rate novel—its characters wooden, its narrative overly didactic—but it has turned out to have been first-rate prognostication. Published in 1932, it touches everywhere on 21st century anxieties and has a lot to say, implicitly, about the cultural roots of conservatism. Perhaps the aspect of Huxley’s dystopian admonition that is most frequently adduced is its vision of a society that has perfected what we have come to call genetic engineering. Among other things, it is a world in which reproduction has been entirely handed over to the experts. The word “parents” no longer describes a loving moral commitment but only an attenuated biological datum. Babies are not born but designed according to exacting specifications and “decanted” at sanitary depots like The Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre with which the book opens.
As with all efforts to picture future technology, Huxley’s description of the equipment and procedures employed at the hatchery seems almost charmingly antiquated, like a spaceship imagined by Jules Verne. But Huxley’s portrait of the human toll of human ingenuity is very up-to-date. Indeed, we have not—not quite, not yet—caught up with the situation he describes. We do not—not quite, not yet— inhabit a world in which “mother” and “monogamy” are blasphemous terms from which people have been conditioned to recoil in visceral revulsion. Maybe it will never come to that. (Though monogamy, of course, has long been high on the social and sexual revolutionary’s list of hated institutions.) Still, it is a nice question whether developments in reproductive technology will not soon make other aspects of Huxley’s fantasy a reality. Thinkers as different as Michel Foucault, Francis Fukuyama, and Michel Houllebecq have pondered the advent of a “posthuman” future, eagerly or with dismay, as the case may be. Scientists busily manipulating DNA may give substance to their speculations.
It is often suggested that what is most disturbing about Brave New World is its portrait of eugenics in action: its vision of humanity deliberately divided into genetically ordered castes, a few supersmart Alpha-pluses down through a multitude of drone-like Epsilons who do the heavy lifting. Such deliberately instituted inequality offends our democratic sensibilities.
What is sometimes overlooked or downplayed is the possibility that the most disturbing aspect of the future Huxley pictured has less to do with eugenics than genetics. That is to say, perhaps what is centrally repellent about Huxley’s hatcheries is not that they codify inequality—nature already does that more effectively than our politically correct sensibilities like to acknowledge—but that they exist at all. Are they not a textbook example of Promethean hubris in action? It is worth stepping back to ponder that possibility.
In the 17th century, René Descartes predicted that his scientific method would make man “the master and possessor of nature.” Are we not fast closing in on the technology that proves him right?
Scientific Development Antithetical to Progress
And this raises another question. Is there a point at which scientific development can no longer be described, humanly, as progress? We know the benisons of technology. Consider only electricity, the automobile, modern medicine. They have transformed the world and underscored the old observation that art, that techne, is man’s nature.
Nevertheless, the question remains whether, after 200 years of breathtaking progress, we are about to become more closely acquainted with the depredations of technology. It would take a brave man, or a rash one, to venture a confident prediction either way.
For example, if, as in Brave New World, we manage to bypass the “inconvenience” of human pregnancy altogether, ought we to do it? If—or rather when—that is possible (as it certainly will be, and soon), will it also be desirable? If not, why not? Why should a woman go through the discomfort and danger of pregnancy if a fetus could be safely incubated, or cloned, elsewhere? Wouldn’t motherhood by proxy be a good thing—the ultimate labor-saving device? Most readers, I think, will hesitate about saying yes. What does that hesitation tell us? Some readers will have no hesitation about saying yes; what does that tell us?
These are some of the questions anyone concerned with the cultural roots of conservatism will have to conjure with.
As Huxley saw, a world in which reproduction was “rationalized” and emancipated from love was also a world in which culture in the Arnoldian sense was not only otiose but dangerous, and hence severely policed. This suspicion of culture is also a sub-theme of that other great dystopian novel, George Orwell’s 1984, which ends with the work of various writers, such as Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, Byron, Dickens, being vandalized by being translated into Newspeak. When that laborious propaganda effort is finally complete, Orwell writes, the “original writings, with all else that survived of the literature of the past, would be destroyed.”
The point is that culture has roots. It limns the future through its implications with the past. Moving the reader or spectator over the centuries, the monuments of culture transcend the local imperatives of the present. They escape the obsolescence that fashion demands, the predictability that planning requires. They speak of love and hatred, honor and shame, beauty and courage and cowardice—permanent realities of the human situation insofar as it remains human.
A Superficial World Requires Obliteration of Culture
The denizens of Huxley’s brave new world are designed and educated—perhaps his word “conditioned” is more accurate—to be rootless, without culture. Ditto the denizens of Orwell’s nightmare totalitarian society. In Brave New World, when a relic of the old order of civilization—a savage who had been born, not decanted—is brought from a reservation into the brave new world, he is surprised to discover that the literary past is forbidden to most of the population. When he asks why, the bureaucrat in charge says simply: “Because it’s old; that’s the chief reason. We haven’t any use for old things here.”
“Even when they’re beautiful?” asks the savage.
“Particularly when they’re beautiful,” replies the bureaucrat. “Beauty’s attractive, and we don’t want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like the new ones.”
Huxley’s brave new world is above all a superficial world. People are encouraged to like what is new, to live in the moment, because that makes them less complicated and more pliable. Emotional commitments are even more strictly rationed than Shakespeare. (The same, again, is true in 1984.) In the place of emotional commitments, sensations—thrilling, mind-numbing sensations—are available on demand through drugs and motion pictures that neurologically stimulate viewers to experience certain emotions and feelings. The fact that they are artificially produced is not considered a drawback but their very point. Which is to say that the brave new world is a virtual world: experience is increasingly vivid but decreasingly real. The question of meaning is deliberately short-circuited.
Huxley’s imagination failed him in one area. He understood that in a world in which reproduction was emancipated from the body, sexual congress for many people would degenerate into a purely recreational activity, an amusement not inherently different from one’s soma ration or the tactile movies. He pictured a world of casual, indeed mandatory, promiscuity. But he thought it would develop along completely conventional lines. He ought to have known that the quest for “agreeable sensations” would issue in a pansexual carnival. In this area, anyway, we seem to have proceeded a good deal further than the characters who inhabit Huxley’s dystopia.
In part, the attack on permanence is an attack on the idea that anything possesses inherent value. Absolute fungibility—the substitution of anything for anything—is the ideal. In one sense, this is a product of what the philosopher Michael Oakeshott criticized as “rationalism.” “To the Rationalist,” Oakeshott wrote in the late 1940s, “nothing is of value merely because it exists (and certainly not because it has existed for many generations), familiarity has no worth and nothing is to be left standing for want of scrutiny.”
The realm of sexuality is one area where the effects of such rationalism are dramatically evident. It was not so long ago that the description from Genesis—“male and female created he them”—was taken as a basic existential fact. True, the obstinacy of sexual difference has always been a thorn in the side of utopian rationalism. But it is only in recent decades that the engines of judicial meddlesomeness, on the one hand, and surgical know-how on the other, have effectively assaulted that once permanent-seeming reality.
A Return to “Primary Narcissism”
What we are seeing in sexual life is the fulfillment, in some segments of society, of the radical emancipatory vision enunciated in the 1960s by such gurus as Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown. In Eros and Civilization, Marcuse looked forward to the establishment of what he called a “non-repressive reality principle” in which “the body in its entirety would become . . . an instrument of pleasure.” The sexual liberation Marcuse hailed was not a fecund liberation. As in Brave New World, children do not enter into the equation. The issue is pleasure, not progeny. Marcuse speaks glowingly of “a resurgence of pregenital polymorphous sexuality” that “protests against the repressive order of procreative sexuality.” A look at the alarmingly low birth rates of most affluent nations today suggests that the protest has been effective.
When Tocqueville warned about the peculiar form of despotism that threatened democracy, he noted that instead of tyrannizing men, as past despotisms had done, it tended to infantilize them, keeping “them fixed irrevocably in childhood.” What Tocqueville warned about, Marcuse celebrated, extolling the benefits of returning to a state of what he called “primary narcissism.”
What Marcuse encouraged, in other words, is solipsism, not as a philosophical principle but as a moral indulgence—a way of life. I note in passing that Marcuse was a college professor: how proud he would be of those contemporary universities which have, partly under his influence, become factories for the maintenance of infantilizing narcissism.
A couple of concluding observations: In Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, T. S. Eliot noted that “culture is the one thing that we cannot deliberately aim at. It is the product of a variety of more or less harmonious activities, each pursued for its own sake.”
“For its own sake.” That is one simple idea that is everywhere imperiled today. When we plant a garden, it is bootless to strive directly for camellias. They are the natural product of our care, nurture, and time. We can manage that when it comes to agriculture. When we turn our hands to cultūra animi, we seem to be considerably less successful.
Let me end by noting that the opposite of “conservative” is not “liberal” but ephemeral. Russell Kirk once observed that he was conservative because he was liberal, that is, committed to freedom. Kirk’s formulation may sound paradoxical, but it touches on a great truth. To be conservative: that means wanting to conserve what is worth preserving from the ravages of time and ideology, evil and stupidity, so that freedom may thrive. In some plump eras the task is so easy we can almost forget how necessary it is. At other times, the enemies of civilization transform the task of preserving our culture into a battle for survival. That, I believe—and I say it regretfully—is where we are today.


bonginoreport--2020-10-12--Bill O’Reilly: She’s Speaking

Bill O’Reilly: She’s Speaking

Kamala Harris is a dangerous woman .
She may be President of the United States one day and if that happens , everything will change in this country .
For the worse .
And maybe forever .
Senator Harris possesses many weapons in her quest for power .
She identifies as African American and uses skin color to attack and deflect .
Her running mate , Joe Biden , got a heavy taste of that when she told the world in a primary debate that Biden ’ s bigotry brought her pain as a little girl who was being bused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden had no cogent reply .
Kamala is also a proud feminist who “ believes women.
” Brett Kavanaugh got a massive dose of that when the Senator convicted him of terrible crimes on nationwide TV .
Despite being a career prosecutor , Ms. Harris totally denied Kavanaugh any semblance of due process , attempting to destroy him and , by extension , his wife and two daughters .
Later , when the FBI found zero evidence that Justice Kavanaugh had ever violated anyone , Senator Harris continued her witch hunt posture saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden of a physical crime .
But , incredibly , Mr. Biden does not hold a grudge against Kamala Harris and seems to be happy having her as a running mate .
By the way , Senator Harris now believes Joe Biden is the greatest guy , not guilty of anything .
After last week ’ s debate , a focus group of regular folks run by Frank Luntz all agreed that Kamala Harris came across as “ arrogant and condescending.
” Looked that way to me , too .
When Vice President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator she snapped : “ I ’ m speaking.
” Three times .
And it was true , she was speaking - saying words that were false .
She said President Trump called the pandemic a “ hoax.
” He did not .
She said fracking would not stop if the democrats won .
She said the exact opposite at a Town Hall .
She said Abraham Lincoln refused to nominate a Supreme Court judge while campaigning for a second term .
Not true .
So what we have here is failure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Mr. Pence attempted to point that out , Ms. Harris gave him a look of contempt .
The message was clear : how dare you contradict me , Kamala Harris !
A woman who believes all women .
A woman who will not be silenced by the likes of you or any other misogynist .
Perhaps I am being too harsh on Kamala Harris .
I have never met her .
She has accomplished much in her life .
But from what I have witnessed and heard , the Senator ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gleeful quest is to punish those with whom she disagrees .
In Washington , she has plenty of company in those pursuits .
This makes her dangerous if you are a traditional American who believes in due process , honest discourse , and a country that does not divide people into race and gender camps .
So , if the Biden/Harris ticket wins , all of us including old Joe better had better watch our backs .
That ’ s because the little girl on the bus is now a left-wing zealot consumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking , you interrupt at your own peril .

· Talking Points Memo: The failure of the Biden administration is only getting more and more obvious by the day. Here’s three major agencies that are falling apart.
· President Biden snaps at reporter for asking about Hunter’s text messages.
· SCOTUS rules on state’s control over elections and agrees to hear case on wealth tax.
· Bill renews calls for investigation into Zuckerberg’s efforts into the 2020 presidential election.
· Former Prosecutor Cully Stimson on his new book ‘Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers are Destroying America’s Communities’.
· Reuters releases report that says all living US Presidents descended from slaveholders – all expect Donald Trump.
· Smart Life: pickleball injuries
· This Day in History: International Body Piercing Day
· Final Thought: Leaving money to kids, charities & friends
In Case You Missed It:
· Read Bill's latest column, "They're Not Victims"
· It's the 'Summer Reading Special!' 'Killing the Killers,' Killing the Legends,' and 'Killing Crazy Horse' all for $32.95. We'll also give you a FREE 'Team Normal' hat.
· 'Team Normal!' gear is 15% for a limited time. Go to BillOReilly.com now and order!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices


bonginoreport--2020-10-12--Newt Gingrich: Abolish the Debate Commission

The time has come to recognize how arrogant , biased , and obsolete the Commission on Presidential Debates has become .
It is an engine of insider Washington Establishment domination of the political process .
Its moderators all represent the Washington Establishment – and the norm is hostility to Republican candidates .
The commission has no right to independently control the debate process .
Now , it is standing in the way of what the American people want and seeking to further its own insider agenda .
Yesterday , the commission announced unilaterally it was killing the debate format , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This decision was made with no consultation with the Trump campaign , let alone approval for such a dramatic election-influencing shift .
This is what we can expect from the arrogance of a collection of establishment figures averaging 73 years of age .
Whether the timing of the commission ’ s virtual debate announcement was deliberately set to cut off focus on the vice-presidential debate , where reviews strongly favored Vice President Mike Pence and weakened Sen. Kamala Harris , is not knowable .
But the timing certainly served the interest of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Pence ’ s superb performance .
With this announcement , the commission proved once and for all that it must be ended in order for Americans to expect useful debates in the future .
It is as useless as the anti-science plexiglass barriers they installed in the vice-presidential debate .
More embarrassing for them , their co-chair admitted last night on Fox News that their choice had been reached in secrecy days ago – and still , they consulted no one .
It ’ s almost as if this is another haggard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power , that wanted to bend the rules in order to influence the election — the same thing we ’ ve seen from so many Deep State foes of President Trump .
As the New York Post put it , “ Looks like the Commission for Presidential Debates has joined CNN et al .
in the tank for Joe Biden : Its bid to dictate a new , virtual format for the next Biden-Trump faceoff was a blatant gift to a candidate who never wants to stray far from his basement.
” This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered Democrat , a friendly biographer of Nancy Pelosi , and a Biden intern as the first three moderators .
All four moderators are Washington insiders who live in Washington , socialize in Washington , and have no relationship with the so-called “ deplorables ” the Left despises .
The commission represents precisely the values and attitudes which were repudiated in the election of President Trump .
Even the Republicans on the supposedly non-partisan commission board are pre-Trump members of the old order .
Conservatives are , ever since the Candy Crowley moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the level of bias they face – a bias which the commission has repeatedly endorsed and exercised over the debate process .
Even the supposedly Republican board members are a catalogue of figures openly opposed to the president .
As The Washington Examiner reported , in 2017 , former Missouri Republican Sen. John Danforth called Trump “ the most divisive president in our history.
” Republican Richard D. Parsons , former Time Warner chief , said Trump was “ not good for any America.
” And former Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , said Trump was “ hurting the GOP brand.
” The failures of the commission involve an anti-conservative bias , a Washington insider arrogance , and simple technological ignorance as the commission ’ s gerontocracy has no understanding of the evolution of media since the time of network television domination .
As Hugh Hewitt wrote : The Commission is “ a free-standing group of self-anointed , self-important Beltway Brahmins.
” Hewitt went on to assert that the Commission is : “ a bastion of Beltway privilege , with a little New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The table servants became table setters .
This week they made their big move .
Without consulting President Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden , the commission simply declared it was changing the rules for this year ’ s second general-election presidential debate : The Townhall Debate would be virtual.
” Hewitt admitted “ I ’ ve inveighed against the commission before , because it is obviously biased to the left , so patently of , ‘ in , by and for ’ the Beltway , as have been many of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these debates are not new , nor do they only come from the right .
In 2008 , Politico ’ s co-founders called the town hall debate “ the worst debate ever , ” noting that “ The presidential debate commission ’ s rules are a scandal , ” and that “ the commission that has been invested with pseudo-constitutional status to run the debates… clings to antiquated formats.
” Here is one example of how different , more open , and more creative an entrepreneurial debate system could be .
Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world , Joe Rogan , offered to host a debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden .
Rogan commands an audience that dwarfs the entire viewership of CNN on a full 24-hour day .
He is representative of an entire trend in media toward new , iconoclastic voices who take to podcasts and streaming video , with huge audiences for their work .
Why not include such voices instead of standing by an obsolete exhausted universe where only old guard corporate media exists ?
Alternatively , the two adults running for president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( socially spaced , maybe even double spaced at 12 feet instead of the recommended 6 ) with five agreed upon topics , a timer , and no moderator .
This would resemble the Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas Debates , in which the two Senate candidates agreed on questions to be debated .
Hewitt suggested “ the president name a stage and a date , name his own moderator , and invite Biden to join him along with a moderator of the Democratic nominee ’ s choosing .
The moderators could alternate questions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk to each other for 10 minutes at a time .
Who knows what would happen ?
A debate might break out.
” The Wall Street Journal agrees , writing : “ We favor doing away with moderators and having microphones that give each candidate , say , two minutes to speak at a time .
The candidates can use their time as they see fit before the microphone goes dead when the time runs out .
The questions would come from the candidates and their campaigns , not some outside party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Surely the candidates know the best questions to put to their rivals.
” A consensus is growing , and President Trump should lead it .
He should offer to have two face-to-face debates with Biden with each candidate picking half the topics .
Biden will have to respond .
He can ’ t hide in the basement and seem afraid .
After all , if you can ’ t stand up to Donald Trump , you sure can ’ t stand up to Vladimir Putin , Kim Jong Un or Xi Jinping .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an already amazing year .

by Newt Gingrich
The time has come to recognize how arrogant, biased, and obsolete the Commission on Presidential Debates has become. It is an engine of insider Washington Establishment domination of the political process. Its moderators all represent the Washington Establishment – and the norm is hostility to Republican candidates.
The commission has no right to independently control the debate process. Now, it is standing in the way of what the American people want and seeking to further its own insider agenda.
Yesterday, the commission announced unilaterally it was killing the debate format, and instead imposing a virtual debate. This decision was made with no consultation with the Trump campaign, let alone approval for such a dramatic election-influencing shift.
This is what we can expect from the arrogance of a collection of establishment figures averaging 73 years of age.
Whether the timing of the commission’s virtual debate announcement was deliberately set to cut off focus on the vice-presidential debate, where reviews strongly favored Vice President Mike Pence and weakened Sen. Kamala Harris, is not knowable. But the timing certainly served the interest of the Biden-Harris ticket, cutting into Republican excitement about Pence’s superb performance.
With this announcement, the commission proved once and for all that it must be ended in order for Americans to expect useful debates in the future. It is as useless as the anti-science plexiglass barriers they installed in the vice-presidential debate. More embarrassing for them, their co-chair admitted last night on Fox News that their choice had been reached in secrecy days ago – and still, they consulted no one.
It’s almost as if this is another haggard institution, devoted to its grip on power, that wanted to bend the rules in order to influence the election — the same thing we’ve seen from so many Deep State foes of President Trump.
As the New York Post put it, “Looks like the Commission for Presidential Debates has joined CNN et al. in the tank for Joe Biden: Its bid to dictate a new, virtual format for the next Biden-Trump faceoff was a blatant gift to a candidate who never wants to stray far from his basement.”
This year, the commission has picked a registered Democrat, a friendly biographer of Nancy Pelosi, and a Biden intern as the first three moderators. All four moderators are Washington insiders who live in Washington, socialize in Washington, and have no relationship with the so-called “deplorables” the Left despises.
The commission represents precisely the values and attitudes which were repudiated in the election of President Trump. Even the Republicans on the supposedly non-partisan commission board are pre-Trump members of the old order.
Conservatives are, ever since the Candy Crowley moment in 2012, no longer that naive about the level of bias they face – a bias which the commission has repeatedly endorsed and exercised over the debate process.
Even the supposedly Republican board members are a catalogue of figures openly opposed to the president. As The Washington Examiner reported, in 2017, former Missouri Republican Sen. John Danforth called Trump “the most divisive president in our history.” Republican Richard D. Parsons, former Time Warner chief, said Trump was “not good for any America.” And former Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, who donated to Jeb Bush in 2016, said Trump was “hurting the GOP brand.”
The failures of the commission involve an anti-conservative bias, a Washington insider arrogance, and simple technological ignorance as the commission’s gerontocracy has no understanding of the evolution of media since the time of network television domination.
As Hugh Hewitt wrote: The Commission is “a free-standing group of self-anointed, self-important Beltway Brahmins.”
Hewitt went on to assert that the Commission is: “a bastion of Beltway privilege, with a little New York representation and media preening tossed in. The table servants became table setters. This week they made their big move. Without consulting President Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden, the commission simply declared it was changing the rules for this year’s second general-election presidential debate: The Townhall Debate would be virtual.”
Hewitt admitted “I’ve inveighed against the commission before, because it is obviously biased to the left, so patently of, ‘in, by and for’ the Beltway, as have been many of its moderators.”
The complaints about the quality of these debates are not new, nor do they only come from the right. In 2008, Politico’s co-founders called the town hall debate “the worst debate ever,” noting that “The presidential debate commission’s rules are a scandal,” and that “the commission that has been invested with pseudo-constitutional status to run the debates… clings to antiquated formats.”
Here is one example of how different, more open, and more creative an entrepreneurial debate system could be. Last month, the most prominent podcaster in the world, Joe Rogan, offered to host a debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Rogan commands an audience that dwarfs the entire viewership of CNN on a full 24-hour day. He is representative of an entire trend in media toward new, iconoclastic voices who take to podcasts and streaming video, with huge audiences for their work.
Why not include such voices instead of standing by an obsolete exhausted universe where only old guard corporate media exists?
Alternatively, the two adults running for president could agree to stand on a stage (socially spaced, maybe even double spaced at 12 feet instead of the recommended 6) with five agreed upon topics, a timer, and no moderator. This would resemble the Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas Debates, in which the two Senate candidates agreed on questions to be debated.
Hewitt suggested “the president name a stage and a date, name his own moderator, and invite Biden to join him along with a moderator of the Democratic nominee’s choosing. The moderators could alternate questions and leave the men who would be president to talk to each other for 10 minutes at a time. Who knows what would happen? A debate might break out.”
The Wall Street Journal agrees, writing: “We favor doing away with moderators and having microphones that give each candidate, say, two minutes to speak at a time. The candidates can use their time as they see fit before the microphone goes dead when the time runs out. The questions would come from the candidates and their campaigns, not some outside party who may have her own agenda. Surely the candidates know the best questions to put to their rivals.”
A consensus is growing, and President Trump should lead it. He should offer to have two face-to-face debates with Biden with each candidate picking half the topics. Biden will have to respond. He can’t hide in the basement and seem afraid. After all, if you can’t stand up to Donald Trump, you sure can’t stand up to Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un or Xi Jinping.
This will be one more surprise innovation in an already amazing year.
[vc_facebook][vc_tweetmeme share_via=”NewtGingrich”]
An Important Video from Newt – Please Watch and Share
Newt’s Latest Articles
[vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”3″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1601654821076-3647a472-be6f-8″ taxonomies=”485″]
Newt’s Latest Podcasts:
[vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”3″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1601654856570-7678efad-a71c-1″ taxonomies=”323″]
Order Newt’s Latest Book:


bonginoreport--2020-10-12--Gordon G. Chang: Thanks to Trump, China’s Huawei Is Dying

By cutting off the supply of semiconductors , the Trump administration is severely undermining the viability of China 's Huawei Technologies , currently the world 's leading manufacturer of both telecom networking gear and smartphones .
And as goes Huawei , so goes China 's ambitions of dominating global communications .
Washington has accused Huawei of persistent theft of U.S. intellectual property .
In addition , the current administration believes the company poses a national security threat because Beijing uses its equipment to surreptitiously take data flowing through its servers and other networking gear .
At the beginning of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Shenzhen-based Huawei , already in more than 170 countries , would dominate 5G , the fifth generation of wireless communications , for years .
Huawei , which says it is employee-owned but is in reality in the hands of the Chinese state , is one of China 's `` national champions , '' and it had 5G covered at both ends .
The company has maintained its lead as the world 's No .
1 maker of networking gear , a crown it has worn for years .
Furthermore , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to industry trackers Canalys and IDC , it had leapt past South Korea 's Samsung to become the leading manufacturer of smartphones .
The company , however , is unlikely to sustain its lead in either area .
At the moment , its most immediate problem is that it is running out of chips , necessary for both lines of products .
Thank the current U.S. administration for Huawei 's semiconductor shortage .
The U.S. Commerce Department , effective May 16 of last year , added Huawei to its Entity List .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without prior approval from the Bureau of Industry and Security , is allowed to sell or license to Huawei products and technology covered by the U.S .
Export Administration Regulations .
Since then , the Trump administration has issued waivers from the designation , but now it is tightening the rules and at the same time issuing new ones .
The result is that chip companies are not supplying semiconductors to Huawei .
Not only U.S. companies have been affected by the ban .
The Commerce Department in May extended its rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ export license before selling to Huawei , or designated subsidiaries such as HiSilicon , chips made with U.S. equipment .
The wide-ranging prohibition has forced Asian producers such as Samsung and SK Hynix to cut off Huawei .
Most significantly , TSMC , formally known as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. , is no longer making the Huawei-designed Kirin chipset .
The U.S. rules are so comprehensive that even Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. , China 's largest chip foundry , is no longer accepting orders from Huawei .
Industry analysts believe Huawei will run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the middle of next year .
Others say earlier .
Sales estimates reflect the exhaustion of inventory .
Huawei has estimated it will ship 50 million handsets next year .
That is down from both the 190 million sets analysts had originally predicted for the year and the 240 million sets it sold last year .
The shortage for Huawei 's other line of business—5G networking kit—is not as severe .
The company , in anticipation of a cut-off of supplies , has stored enough chips `` for several years '' according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself by producing its own chips ?
China at the beginning of this year made 16.3 % of its chip requirement , according to Brandon Weichert of The Weichert Report .
Some estimates are higher .
Eventually , the percentage will increase , due in large part to the Made in China 2025 initiative and related efforts such as the 14th Five-Year Plan , which begins next year .
Beijing , Claude Barfield of the American Enterprise Institute points out , is `` hell-bent '' on developing its own semiconductor industry .
Weichert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than two years to develop a `` reliable indigenous semiconductor capacity . ''
Huawei 's founder Ren Zhengfei suggests a bit longer .
In August of last year , he wrote that in the next three to five years he will create an `` invincible iron army '' to counter U.S. sanctions .
Ren also referred to the company as facing a `` live-or-die moment . ''
To build Ren 's `` army , '' Huawei , with its Habo Investments subsidiary , has gone into the business of making chips .
Its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too late to rescue it from its current jam .
Habo will not be able to turn out chipsets for years .
In the meantime , Huawei will have to scrounge the world for product .
`` Do not count Huawei out , '' Weichert told Gatestone this month .
`` The company is viewed by Beijing as an essential component of its national push to dominate technology , and the Chinese party-state will beg , borrow , and steal to keep Huawei competitive in the global tech war . ''
China is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to insulate itself from American rules .
There is , consequently , a limited window to defang Huawei .
November 3 could be a `` life or death '' day for the Chinese giant .
Vice President Biden may say he will be tougher on China than President Trump , but his supporters have signaled that he will not .
Max Baucus , who served as ambassador to China in the Obama years , predicted that , with a Biden win , there would be a `` reset '' in U.S.-China relations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will engage in quiet diplomacy , '' he told CNBC 's Squawk Box Asia on October 8 .
Moreover , Jake Sullivan , a senior Biden advisor , has made it clear that the U.S. `` should put less focus on trying to slow China down and more emphasis on trying to run faster ourselves . ''
That is 2020-speak for `` we should allow Beijing to do whatever it wants . ''
China 's leaders are therefore looking for a return to China-friendly policies with Biden .
`` I think there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as pardoning companies that are crucial to us from targeted U.S. sanctions , '' said Li Yi of the Shanghai Academy of Social Studies , referring to Trump 's prohibitions on chip sales , to Hong Kong 's South China Morning Post .
So , expect chip companies to lobby a President Biden to restart the flow of chips to Huawei Technologies .
The sound of a pen gliding over the signature line on a waiver is music to the ears of one Shenzhen-based threat to the United States—as well as @ @ @ @ @

So, expect chip companies to lobby a President Biden to restart the flow of chips to Huawei Technologies. The sound of a pen gliding over the signature line on a waiver is music to the ears of one Shenzhen-based threat to the United States—as well as its masters in Beijing.
Vice President Biden may say he will be tougher on China than Trump, but his supporters have signaled that he will not. Max Baucus, who served as ambassador to China in the Obama years, predicted that, with a Biden win, there would be a "reset" in U.S.-China relations.
(Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
By cutting off the supply of semiconductors, the Trump administration is severely undermining the viability of China's Huawei Technologies, currently the world's leading manufacturer of both telecom networking gear and smartphones.
And as goes Huawei, so goes China's ambitions of dominating global communications.
Washington has accused Huawei of persistent theft of U.S. intellectual property. In addition, the current administration believes the company poses a national security threat because Beijing uses its equipment to surreptitiously take data flowing through its servers and other networking gear.
At the beginning of this year, it was a sure bet that the Shenzhen-based Huawei, already in more than 170 countries, would dominate 5G, the fifth generation of wireless communications, for years.
Huawei, which says it is employee-owned but is in reality in the hands of the Chinese state, is one of China's "national champions," and it had 5G covered at both ends. The company has maintained its lead as the world's No. 1 maker of networking gear, a crown it has worn for years. Furthermore, in the second quarter of this year, according to industry trackers Canalys and IDC, it had leapt past South Korea's Samsung to become the leading manufacturer of smartphones.
The company, however, is unlikely to sustain its lead in either area. At the moment, its most immediate problem is that it is running out of chips, necessary for both lines of products.
Thank the current U.S. administration for Huawei's semiconductor shortage. The U.S. Commerce Department, effective May 16 of last year, added Huawei to its Entity List. The designation means that no American company, without prior approval from the Bureau of Industry and Security, is allowed to sell or license to Huawei products and technology covered by the U.S. Export Administration Regulations.
Since then, the Trump administration has issued waivers from the designation, but now it is tightening the rules and at the same time issuing new ones. The result is that chip companies are not supplying semiconductors to Huawei.
Not only U.S. companies have been affected by the ban. The Commerce Department in May extended its rules to require foreign businesses to receive an export license before selling to Huawei, or designated subsidiaries such as HiSilicon, chips made with U.S. equipment.
The wide-ranging prohibition has forced Asian producers such as Samsung and SK Hynix to cut off Huawei. Most significantly, TSMC, formally known as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., is no longer making the Huawei-designed Kirin chipset. The U.S. rules are so comprehensive that even Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp., China's largest chip foundry, is no longer accepting orders from Huawei.
Industry analysts believe Huawei will run through its chip inventory for phones sometime in the middle of next year. Others say earlier.
Sales estimates reflect the exhaustion of inventory. Huawei has estimated it will ship 50 million handsets next year. That is down from both the 190 million sets analysts had originally predicted for the year and the 240 million sets it sold last year.
The shortage for Huawei's other line of business—5G networking kit—is not as severe. The company, in anticipation of a cut-off of supplies, has stored enough chips "for several years" according to one report.
Can Huawei save itself by producing its own chips? China at the beginning of this year made 16.3% of its chip requirement, according to Brandon Weichert of The Weichert Report. Some estimates are higher. Eventually, the percentage will increase, due in large part to the Made in China 2025 initiative and related efforts such as the 14th Five-Year Plan, which begins next year. Beijing, Claude Barfield of the American Enterprise Institute points out, is "hell-bent" on developing its own semiconductor industry.
Weichert thinks it would take China no more than two years to develop a "reliable indigenous semiconductor capacity." Huawei's founder Ren Zhengfei suggests a bit longer. In August of last year, he wrote that in the next three to five years he will create an "invincible iron army" to counter U.S. sanctions. Ren also referred to the company as facing a "live-or-die moment."
To build Ren's "army," Huawei, with its Habo Investments subsidiary, has gone into the business of making chips. Its effort, however, appears to be too late to rescue it from its current jam. Habo will not be able to turn out chipsets for years. In the meantime, Huawei will have to scrounge the world for product.
"Do not count Huawei out," Weichert told Gatestone this month. "The company is viewed by Beijing as an essential component of its national push to dominate technology, and the Chinese party-state will beg, borrow, and steal to keep Huawei competitive in the global tech war."
China is vulnerable now, but it is working to insulate itself from American rules. There is, consequently, a limited window to defang Huawei. November 3 could be a "life or death" day for the Chinese giant.
Vice President Biden may say he will be tougher on China than President Trump, but his supporters have signaled that he will not. Max Baucus, who served as ambassador to China in the Obama years, predicted that, with a Biden win, there would be a "reset" in U.S.-China relations. "You will see a president who will engage in quiet diplomacy," he told CNBC's Squawk Box Asia on October 8.
Moreover, Jake Sullivan, a senior Biden advisor, has made it clear that the U.S. "should put less focus on trying to slow China down and more emphasis on trying to run faster ourselves." That is 2020-speak for "we should allow Beijing to do whatever it wants."
China's leaders are therefore looking for a return to China-friendly policies with Biden. "I think there will be some improvements made in other areas, such as pardoning companies that are crucial to us from targeted U.S. sanctions," said Li Yi of the Shanghai Academy of Social Studies, referring to Trump's prohibitions on chip sales, to Hong Kong's South China Morning Post.
So, expect chip companies to lobby a President Biden to restart the flow of chips to Huawei Technologies. The sound of a pen gliding over the signature line on a waiver is music to the ears of one Shenzhen-based threat to the United States—as well as its masters in Beijing.


bonginoreport--2020-10-12--Kurt Schlichter: Flying the Flag Is a Secret Trump Handshake

Among the threats of persecution and death we face for supporting President Trump are some that are frankly hilarious .
It ’ s one thing for libs to try to leverage fear to intimidate their patriotic opponents ; it ’ s another thing to try it when they think that Kevlar is a hip Indonesian spice you sprinkle over your kale , and that SIG Sauer is a happening non-binary Swedish stand-up comic who doesn ’ t tell jokes because laughter is racist .
We recently had Chris Hayes opine that , as soon as they install a Grandpa Badfinger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise Botox Nan ’ s new 25th Amendment option – we Trump supporters should be hauled before “ some kind of truth and reconciliation commission ” to confess and atone for our sin of refusing to genuflect before the garbage establishment .
Keith Olbermann , who apparently still exists for some reason , wants to go one better and convict Trump supporters of political crimes .
One can only assume that they will embark on the mission to arrest us with their tweets locked and loaded .
Now , if the fascist fantasies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amusement to those patriots whose response to being gathered up for political re-education and/or punishment would come in a rainbow of calibers , millimeters , and gauges , right now most people would prefer to avoid the hassle of overtly battling their neighbors over Trump .
Sure , some of us enjoy taking to Twitter to provoke leftist idiots , but I repeat myself .
Others delight in putting that bumper sticker on our ride , or sticking a Trump sign in our yard .
But normal people generally eschew overt political activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pain in the Schumer and confine their patriotic demonstrations and riots to the ballot box .
But they still want to be heard without the annoyance of dealing with some man-bunned neighbor shrieking that a sign in their yard supporting DJT is “ literal violence ” that has his woke 8-year-old “ literally shaking.
” That ’ s why these folks rely on hidden signals to demonstrate their support for the greatest president since Ronald Reagan .
In many places where Trump is popular , like America , reports tell us that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Other places , not so much .
I live in Ted Lieu ’ s district – thank you for your thoughts and prayers – and you just don ’ t see a lot of Trump signage here .
You do see some around , usually on houses with defensive obstacles and clear fields of fire , and it ’ s got to freak out the woke wine women , the frigid Karens , and the Volvo-driving soft boys who make up the vocal local left .
Note that you do not see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you do see is often associated with people who insist have yard signs that inform their neighbors about how hate has no home there , how black lives matter , and how they believe in science .
This is presumably in opposition to all their neighbors who apparently rent out a room to hate , do not think black lives matter , and who refuse to believe in science .
Remarkably every one of these luddites who hate science has power lines and cable running into their homes , which seems weird .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ exhibitionists constitute maybe one homestead in a hundred .
This lack of excitement seems to reflect how most Democrats are approaching this election with the same sense of grim necessity they approach their periodic colonoscopies .
For a guy the CNN/MSNBC/Chet the Unicorn poll has 72 points ahead , there ’ s more enthusiasm at your average Calvinist wake .
There is – and I swear this is true – a sign on a main throughfare here in Lieuville that reads “ 2020 BIDEN – ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
” Can you feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a paucity of posters and no surfeit of signs , there are plenty of American flags .
Now , you always see a flag at a Trump sign house , but as Don Jr. observed , you never see a flag at a house with a Biden billboard .
Liberals are to manifestations of patriotism as Dracula is to garlic .
It ’ s the other , un-signed houses that are flying Old Glory that are interesting .
What ’ s up with them ?
There ’ s no big patriotic holiday right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Columbus Day spirit , and doing that usually takes the form of conquering North America .
Yet there are a ton of flags flying .
Why ?
Because it ’ s a hidden signal , a secret handshake .
If someone has a flag up , he ’ s down for Trump .
Period .
And no , I am not spilling the secret to liberals .
Except for the occasional troll , no lib is ever going to read this .
They are too busy drinking screw-top Trader Joe ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ copy of Harry Potter and the Fifty Shades of White Fragility .
And there are other ways to send out the Trump bat signal .
Like gay men on the down-low in old timey Hollywood would let slip that they were a “ Friend of Dorothy , ” there are a multitude of ways to show you are a Friend of Donald .
You can wear clothes referring to your past or present service in the American military .
My Army ballcaps and shirts get nods from folks who understand that military service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy priorities include penalizing pronoun crimes .
Likewise , when someone observes that “ masks are stupid , ” the chances are it ’ s a Trump supporter and not some Democrat sheep who delights in the total submission to authority that results in him sporting a piehole thong as he putters about alone in his Prius .
Or when someone mentions “ I don ’ t watch the mainstream media , ” or that we need “ law and order , ” you know you are in the presence of a patriot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Democrats take over the Senate , the oppression will increase .
Like we have seen , they actually want to create a totalitarian dictatorship in conjunction with their tech pals and corporate lackies .
So , all these tactics , techniques and procedures people are practicing now will come in handy if the Democrats get their wish for total power , at least until the inevitable backlash that will make the fussy likes of Chris Hayes and Keith Olbermann regret their choice to figuratively fire on Ft. Sumter again .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Fight .
Join .
Look out because the fifth volume in my best-selling conservative thriller series , Crisis , is coming in November , so prep by reading People 's Republic , Indian Country , Wildfire , and Collapse .
Also , get my new intentionally non-fiction book The 21 Biggest Lies about Donald Trump ( and You ! )
!

Among the threats of persecution and death we face for supporting President Trump are some that are frankly hilarious. It’s one thing for libs to try to leverage fear to intimidate their patriotic opponents; it’s another thing to try it when they think that Kevlar is a hip Indonesian spice you sprinkle over your kale, and that SIG Sauer is a happening non-binary Swedish stand-up comic who doesn’t tell jokes because laughter is racist. We recently had Chris Hayes opine that, as soon as they install a Grandpa Badfinger regime – and even before Kamala can exercise Botox Nan’s new 25th Amendment option – we Trump supporters should be hauled before “some kind of truth and reconciliation commission” to confess and atone for our sin of refusing to genuflect before the garbage establishment. Keith Olbermann, who apparently still exists for some reason, wants to go one better and convict Trump supporters of political crimes. One can only assume that they will embark on the mission to arrest us with their tweets locked and loaded.
Now, if the fascist fantasies of pampered effete liberal male-identifying creatures provide amusement to those patriots whose response to being gathered up for political re-education and/or punishment would come in a rainbow of calibers, millimeters, and gauges, right now most people would prefer to avoid the hassle of overtly battling their neighbors over Trump. Sure, some of us enjoy taking to Twitter to provoke leftist idiots, but I repeat myself. Others delight in putting that bumper sticker on our ride, or sticking a Trump sign in our yard. But normal people generally eschew overt political activity if it’s going to be a pain in the Schumer and confine their patriotic demonstrations and riots to the ballot box.
But they still want to be heard without the annoyance of dealing with some man-bunned neighbor shrieking that a sign in their yard supporting DJT is “literal violence” that has his woke 8-year-old “literally shaking.” That’s why these folks rely on hidden signals to demonstrate their support for the greatest president since Ronald Reagan.
In many places where Trump is popular, like America, reports tell us that you see a lot of Trump signs. Other places, not so much. I live in Ted Lieu’s district – thank you for your thoughts and prayers – and you just don’t see a lot of Trump signage here. You do see some around, usually on houses with defensive obstacles and clear fields of fire, and it’s got to freak out the woke wine women, the frigid Karens, and the Volvo-driving soft boys who make up the vocal local left.
Note that you do not see much Biden signage either, and what you do see is often associated with people who insist have yard signs that inform their neighbors about how hate has no home there, how black lives matter, and how they believe in science. This is presumably in opposition to all their neighbors who apparently rent out a room to hate, do not think black lives matter, and who refuse to believe in science. Remarkably every one of these luddites who hate science has power lines and cable running into their homes, which seems weird. Regardless, the properties of these liberal exhibitionists constitute maybe one homestead in a hundred. This lack of excitement seems to reflect how most Democrats are approaching this election with the same sense of grim necessity they approach their periodic colonoscopies. For a guy the CNN/MSNBC/Chet the Unicorn poll has 72 points ahead, there’s more enthusiasm at your average Calvinist wake. There is – and I swear this is true – a sign on a main throughfare here in Lieuville that reads “2020 BIDEN – ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.”
Can you feel the heat?
But while there is a paucity of posters and no surfeit of signs, there are plenty of American flags. Now, you always see a flag at a Trump sign house, but as Don Jr. observed, you never see a flag at a house with a Biden billboard. Liberals are to manifestations of patriotism as Dracula is to garlic. It’s the other, un-signed houses that are flying Old Glory that are interesting. What’s up with them? There’s no big patriotic holiday right now, unless people are getting into the Columbus Day spirit, and doing that usually takes the form of conquering North America. Yet there are a ton of flags flying. Why?
Because it’s a hidden signal, a secret handshake. If someone has a flag up, he’s down for Trump. Period. And no, I am not spilling the secret to liberals. Except for the occasional troll, no lib is ever going to read this. They are too busy drinking screw-top Trader Joe’s Chardonnay with their nose buried in a copy of Harry Potter and the Fifty Shades of White Fragility.
And there are other ways to send out the Trump bat signal. Like gay men on the down-low in old timey Hollywood would let slip that they were a “Friend of Dorothy,” there are a multitude of ways to show you are a Friend of Donald.
You can wear clothes referring to your past or present service in the American military. My Army ballcaps and shirts get nods from folks who understand that military service is rarely the domain of people whose policy priorities include penalizing pronoun crimes. Likewise, when someone observes that “masks are stupid,” the chances are it’s a Trump supporter and not some Democrat sheep who delights in the total submission to authority that results in him sporting a piehole thong as he putters about alone in his Prius. Or when someone mentions “I don’t watch the mainstream media,” or that we need “law and order,” you know you are in the presence of a patriot.
Now, if Trump should lose and the Democrats take over the Senate, the oppression will increase. Like we have seen, they actually want to create a totalitarian dictatorship in conjunction with their tech pals and corporate lackies. So, all these tactics, techniques and procedures people are practicing now will come in handy if the Democrats get their wish for total power, at least until the inevitable backlash that will make the fussy likes of Chris Hayes and Keith Olbermann regret their choice to figuratively fire on Ft. Sumter again.
It's Time for Conservatives to Stand Together and Fight. Join Townhall VIP .
Look out because the fifth volume in my best-selling conservative thriller series, Crisis, is coming in November, so prep by reading People's Republic, Indian Country, Wildfire, and Collapse. Also, get my new intentionally non-fiction book The 21 Biggest Lies about Donald Trump (and You!)!