Tag: presidential candidates

Victory

bonnyblue1607Leave a comment

Yesterday I was cautiously optimistic, but I admit that Trump’s victory today was somewhat surprising  — and I admit that all the naysaying talk about how ”They” wouldn’t  let him win, or “They” wouldn’t allow us to take back our country was even affecting my attitude.

Even now, as Hillary (or Queen Xanxia as I’ve been calling her: a Dr. Who allusion) has reportedly conceded, there are honestly Republicans on the Internet saying they won’t believe it, because she would never concede. Or they are saying that Trump can’t officially win until she appears in public and makes a formal concession speech. This is how hard it is for some to accept that the ‘Lizard Queen’ is not invincible or superhuman. They really think she can hold up the process by not making a formal speech. As far as I know there is no law that the losing candidate has to officially concede in front of the national media — it may be a tradition but it is not an ironclad rule, surely.

I still remember election night in November, 2000 when that sore loser Al Gore, after having called G.W. Bush to concede, then turned around shortly thereafter and took back his concession. I was flabbergasted; so graceless and childish on his part. So we can never overestimate the left’s capacity for treachery and dishonesty — but though they may have fits of  petulance and try to sabotage things, they can’t overturn the results of the election just because they don’t like to lose.

I think our folk have lived under political correctness and leftist manipulation for so long that we are like a psychologically beaten and whipped people. I think we’ll need de-programming or something to re-learn our self-confidence and to stop overestimating our enemies. ‘They are but men’, as the Bible says of the arrogant and powerful; they are not superhuman, not even Hillary.

No predictions, but…

bonnyblue16072 Comments

I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict the result of tomorrow’s election. I certainly have hopes for a certain outcome, and I certainly do pray for the desired outcome.

I will say that, contrary to the belief of the Republican faithful like those at Free Republic, I don’t believe that there will be a groundswell of support for Trump among blacks. Or Hispanics. Those who claim to see that are wishful thinkers — in my opinion.

Malcolm Jaggers, at The Right Stuff, says much the same thing in a good piece today, titled About Those Mythical Conservative Blacks.

“The spectacle that Trump has made of himself trying to persuade Blacks in particular to vote for him have been not just futile, but almost embarrassing. Establishment Republicans think it’s simply fantastic, which kind of proves how feckless it is. Yes, there are realpolitik reasons for urban outreach that go beyond face value. Nonetheless, there is just no evidence that Blacks are yearning for “economic zones” to be created in the inner city. I would love to be contradicted on that point, and if Blacks vote for Trump at a percentage higher than I can count on one hand, I will consider myself officially contradicted.”

The ‘economic zones’ that have been proposed sound rather familiar. They were promoted by Jack Kemp and later by the Reagan administration. Need I say that they weren’t a smashing success? Regardless, even if we believed such things would work to ‘lift up’ minorities, as the TRS piece points out, they tend to vote by race; they are not attracted by policy proposals and abstract ideas.

However if a few minorities cross over and vote for Trump, so much the better, but then the GOP will end up, possibly, as a demographic mirror image of the Democrats, as we try to include everybody, and those ‘everybodies’ want coddling and special attention to their causes and their ‘felt needs.’

Then there’s this: if (heaven forbid) we lose this election, the party honchos will be saying ‘we didn’t do enough outreach to minorities; we’ve got to try harder.’ How has that worked out so far?

 

Evangelicals prefer Trump

bonnyblue16072 Comments

According to one poll, 69 per cent of Evangelicals prefer Trump.

This contradicts what many of the news media have been saying, and it’s also the opposite of the popular opinion on many Alt-Right/dissident right blogs, where people say that Christians will not vote for Trump.

Personally I think that the seculars out there who are Trump supporters simply have a low opinion of Christians (or Evangelicals specifically), as the public at large has been conditioned to have negative images of Christians. So many on the secular right are lumping Christians together with the ‘Churchians.’ Not all Christians are Churchians, or ‘cucked’.

I live in a town where the majority of people are Christian, I mean, actively Christian, who belong to churches and attend every Sunday. They even read (and believe) their Bibles. They aren’t just casual Christians; they’re not just Christians by default because they haven’t yet become Moslems or Hindus or Mormons or atheists. But in my town, the vast majority of yard signs, bumper stickers or other such displays are for Trump. I have seen one sign for Hillary, though there may be a handful here and there.

Even in the University town which is about 20 minutes away, I have seen a total of two yard signs for Hillary. It’s hard to believe because that town, population about 80,000, is an ultra-liberal town, populated by many academics and young naive college kids. There are still some ‘Bernie’ signs there that were never taken down; Bernie was the choice for most of the lefties there. But I’ve seen two Hillary signs in my recent visits.

Anecdotes aren’t data, I know. But if there is a lot of support for Hillary, people must be too embarrassed to show their support. I can only hope they will be too embarrassed to go to the polls to vote for Hillary.

The media, I think, are trying to demoralize potential Trump voters by their barrage of false data and skewed ‘news.’

Big revelations no surprise

bonnyblue16072 Comments

The Drudge headline about the Enquirer’s ‘stunning revelations’ about Hillary gives the impression that these stories are something new. In fact, as most people are aware the rumors and allegations have been circulating for decades. So the ‘revelations’ are about as surprising as Shep Smith’s admission that he is gay. It’s old news.

Will it have any effect on voters? I can’t imagine those who are supporting Hillary turning against her, as that demographic is already fully programmed with the pro-homosexual belief system; they can only see it as a plus that Hillary may be ‘gay.’ Being ‘gay’ is now hailed as an act of ‘bravery and courage’, though how it is ”courageous” to be what one is supposedly born to be is unclear to me. According to the ‘gay gene’ believers, homosexuals have no choice in the matter; they are simply genetically gay. No matter; things don’t have to make sense to the PC crowd; their brains are full of all kinds of conflicting beliefs and contradictions. They don’t even see that, so lost are they.

So Hillary’s core supporters will not turn against her, but will likely hail her for these ‘revelations’, and/or accuse those who are reporting the story of being ‘homophobic bigots.’ She will be twice as heroic because she might become more of a victim, and all the world loves a victim today.

Will some of the liberal ‘evangelicals’ who are horrified by voting for Trump be shocked by these stories, and change their vote from Hillary to Trump? No, those people are usually pro-”tolerance” already. Many of the churches, even some of the more conservative, historically Calvinistic churches, are adopting gay-friendly policies; “love the sinner, hate only the sin”, as their spiritual exemplar Gandhi said.

I’ve said before that there are no social conservatives left anymore; that may be a slight exaggeration. There are, however, vanishingly few Christians, let alone non-Christians, who object to homosexuality or any kind of sexual misbehavior anymore. The GOP, which was for a while the home of something called the Christian Right, is for the most part willing to welcome homosexuals. What kind of resistance did the political right put up against same-sex ‘marriage’?

As the GOP tolerates the presence of people like Lindsey Graham, obviously they are not going to suddenly go all moralistic about a story like this one about Hillary. No doubt there are quite a few closeted homosexuals in the Republican Party; remember Larry Craig? Then there was Denny Hastert, whose history was more reprehensible because it involved minors. So no, the Republicans don’t have room to throw stones here. They too have become corrupt and compromised.

One charge that could be made here with the Hillary allegations is hypocrisy; why has she not openly announced her sexual preferences, if true? It can’t be because of “homophobia” or fear of an intolerant public, because society has become almost infatuated with gays, thanks to concerted efforts by homosexual ”activists” and a complicit media. So why would anyone not want to capitalize on their ”special” sexuality, in a perverse age that hails such things as ‘heroic’? Why not cash in on that capital and make use of it? There’s no reason to fear coming out these days, while remaining closeted could be seen as not just hypocritical, but cowardly.

But not to worry; I don’t think this will change things one way or the other.

Wikileaks on deleted e-mails

bonnyblue1607Leave a comment

From Wikileaks latest, Hillary Clinton and her people deleted 33,000+ e-mails, knowing that it was illegal to do so.

This brings to mind the Nixon tapes during the Watergate hearings back in the 1970s, wherein the media treated as shocking the idea that Nixon’s secretary (on his orders, allegedly) purposely deleted parts of those tapes. All of 18 minutes of the tapes! Compare that to the potentially damning material in tens of thousands of e-mails. Notice the obvious difference in the way the media treats the two situations.

Hillary? Give her the benefit of the doubt, by all means. Maybe she wasn’t aware she was doing anything illegal — yes, she’s supposedly a brilliant woman, has been a ‘co-president’ with her reprobate ‘husband’, was supposedly a hot-shot  lawyer and an Ivy Leaguer with a high IQ but she didn’t know? Which is it? Brilliant woman, or simply ignorant of the law?

But Nixon and the missing 18 minutes? He was an evil, diabolical man who was obviously covering up some kind of serious wrongdoing.

And remember, the genius Hillary was one of those who was part of the Watergate investigation. It’s ironic that now she is caught doing the kind of thing for which Nixon was so reviled by the likes of Hillary and the leftist media. Does this fall under the heading of ‘karma’ to which the lefty New-Agers are always alluding? If so, then it’s fitting.

Glass houses, again

bonnyblue16077 Comments

The fake outrage being directed by Hillary et al in the wake of the Trump ‘scandal’ is absurd. Not only Hillary but all the Clintons’ blind followers are guilty of defending the worst sort of lewd and immoral behavior, going back to the 1980s and 1990s, at a time when the country still had some vestiges of Christian sexual morality.

I can remember when Hillary as well as the rest of the Clinton media mouthpieces brazenly said, on national TV, that adultery was no big deal; everybody did it, and not only that, everybody lied about it afterward. ‘Of course you’d lie! Who wouldn’t lie? Why would you confess to it if you weren’t caught in the act? Lying is reasonable and understandable human behavior!’ That was the anti-moral party line coming from the Clintons and all their lackeys back then.

Bill Clinton denied, in the most bald-faced way, all the many allegations of rape or sexual assault against him; his accusers were many. But there was little attempt to deny that he did have at least one adulterous affair, that with Gennifer Flowers. Hillary, by all accounts, knew of this and was willing to stay with him in spite of it, so her morality was not so puritanical as her present feigned ‘horror’ about Trump’s comments would indicate.

The left, in general, is the most libertine, sexually loose and immoral segment of society, though unfortunately their libertinism is now shared across the political spectrum. People who hold to the old Biblical morality of chastity and sex within marriage are few and far-between, but it is primarily the left that loudly champions ”anything goes” sexuality and public sexual displays — media, advertising, public nudity, etc. So just how they think they can credibly have it both ways in pretending that Trump’s ”locker room” talk is ”horrific” is beyond me. And nobody should let them get away with it.

Obviously I’m part of two of the groups (women and Christians) who are supposed to be turned away from Trump by this ‘scandal’ but then I never held any illusions that Donald Trump or any other politician (except, possibly one or two real Christians who may exist in politics) shared my traditional moral standards. It’s pretty much a given to me that politics is not the place to expect to find people with Christian sexual morality.  And from all I have read Hillary is no paragon of traditional morality in her own, shall we say, irregular personal choices, quite apart from her condoning and being complicit in her ”husband’s” sexual predations.

Debates: some historical perspective

bonnyblue16072 Comments

I have no opinions to voice about the debate really as I didn’t watch it. There is a lot of analysis online from people who did endure the debate, and so my impressions, based on what I’ve heard or read are not worth much.

I actually haven’t watched any presidential debates since 2000, I think, which was also an important election for anybody on the right then, because the Clintons and their minions were on the way out of the White House (or so we hoped; if Al Gore had been elected it probably would have been a continuation of the Clinton regime with the same corrupt and venal cast of characters.)

A lot of us on the right then were desperate to get the Democrats out of the White House but the candidates were not inspiring. Most of us who voted for G.W. Bush did so only because he seemed preferable to the other options. At the time the election seemed all-important because so many of us were just living to see the back of the Clintons and their ilk. Even then, mind you, there was talk of Hillary planning to follow her ”husband” as President, eventually. But none of us could have envisioned the situation that we find ourselves in now, with our country in such dire straits, being overrun by immigration, our economy in a shambles, race conflicts at a possible all-time peak. No one could imagine that things could get so bad, so fast. It is dizzying, in retrospect, to ponder how far we’ve fallen.

But again, the younger people among us have no memory of the days of the Clinton scandals and all the corruption and deception which marked those years. If the younger generations know anything about the Clinton years they may know about the ‘sex scandals’, ‘Zippergate’, and so on. They may not have heard of Chinagate, Whitewater, the Mena, Arkansas drug-running allegations, the ‘tainted blood’ scandal which had to do with Arkansas prison inmates (on Bill Clinton’s watch as governor) donating tainted blood to Canada, etc. And what about the White House travel office scandal. Then there was the Arkancides, and let’s not leave out Waco, and the OKC bombing. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

We then thought that our country had reached a nadir in politics, and that things could not be worse than what we had seen under the Clintons. Yes, we thought the 2000 election was very important, and I remember how frustrating and angering it was that the Democrats managed to contrive a way to contest the election when Bush was declared the winner.

Some may wonder why so many of us were ‘fooled’ by G.W. Bush but the thing is, we thought he was a prince compared to the Clintons, or Al Gore. And the ‘prince’ we elected turned out to be a frog, after all.

Sometimes I wonder if whoever pre-selects our candidates purposely chooses the worst possible candidate on one side to ensure that the other one is elected.

When G.W. Bush started showing his true, globalist/neocon colors early in his first term, I remember on an online forum I used to frequent, quoting from Scripture  “Put not your trust in princes.” Did I catch flak for saying that! I’d uttered blasphemy and treason, as Bush was still above criticism among average Republicans. So I was disaffected with Bush very early on, and left the GOP fold to ultimately find myself where I am now. Wherever that is; on the right side, I hope.

Putting paid to ‘birtherism’

bonnyblue16074 Comments

As I often do I am going to take a contrarian position on this whole story, which is being discussed here, on Steve Sailer’s blog, among other places.

Does it all end with a whimper, after, what, 8 years of controversy? And all because one man steps before a microphone, saying it isn’t true?

I am sure that ‘resolution’ makes certain people in high places very happy; now the issue can be declared dead and laid to rest. And even more to the point, the whole issue of the ‘natural-born’ requirement for presidential candidates is now declared irrelevant, according to those who were always opposed to the so-called ‘birthers.’

The consensus on the ”right” seems to be that the whole controversy originated with Hillary Clinton, or her campaign in the person of the sleazy Sid Blumenthal. Therefore, goes this line of ‘reasoning’: Hillary started it, and therefore it was bogus and it was a lie, hence it’s delegitimized by being associated with her or her lackeys.

Now what’s the name of that logical fallacy again? Whatever it’s called, it is dishonest and just not valid to say that because person X makes a statement or raises a question that the claim is automatically discredited, or obviously a lie. The fact is, too, that nobody offers proof of the statement that Hillary (or Blumenthal) started the controversy, or that they were the first to ask the obvious questions about the birth of a presidential candidate.

Those who’ve read this blog know that while I didn’t write much on the ‘birther’ issue I expressed my disgust with the very vociferous ‘anti-birthers’ who acted as ”concern trolls” whenever people posted blog pieces or forum topics on the birth controversy. If those antis had had their way, nobody would have been allowed to discuss it, lest ”we look ridiculous to the left”. “You’ll make us a laughingstock; we’ll lose the election if you don’t shut up!” Such was the tenor of their ‘arguments.’ Sad. More than sad.

Does the Truth matter to more than a handful of people on this planet anymore?

I do remember that during the 2008 election the birth issue was raised by a number of bloggers, one being a blogger known as Dr. Kate. There were a number of others. A lot of scholarship and investigation went into the question on the part of some people, whose efforts are now being repudiated.

The only reason, as far as I can see, that the GOP establishment did not take up the hue and cry is political correctness. Then, as now, they were running scared from the ‘r-word’, just as I knew they would. They refused to touch the issue, while Hillary felt more free to exploit the obvious doubts, being more protected by the media and her constituency. That does not mean she invented ‘birtherism.’

It is by no means self-evident to me that Hillary started it all with a big lie as most are happy to accept. I need to have that proven to me, but then again there will be few people who will touch the subject now. Nobody likes being smeared as a ‘conspiracy kook’, a ‘birther’ (why should that be a slur, anyway) or a ‘Sperg.’  I really hate that last childish insult. It’s a low kind of ad hominem aimed, I guess, at people who are deemed too ‘nitpicky’, what the Freudian idelogues call ‘anal.’ So you see, standards and rules are important only to people with Aspergers, or autistic people, or ‘anal’ people. Thank you, social “sciences”, for creating new labels to discredit differing opinions and the personalities of those who hold unpopular opinions.

I know that the younger ‘rightists’ say that the Constitution has become an idol and that we need to get over our obsession with the Constitution — but that’s much like what C.S. Lewis warned about when he said that each age paradoxically argues against the very things that are all but defeated and extinct. For example, a libertine and licentious age rails against ‘puritanism’ and ‘prudery’, as is happening now, things which most know full well are on life support. The antis just want to make sure that the old standards are good and dead, and in no danger of resurrection. They are determined to put a stake in the heart of anything traditional lest it recover and spoil their party.

So to most ”rightists’ of whatever stripe, the Constitution is something best forgotten, including the requirement that our presidents be natural-born. They say they do not care. And during the primaries the Cruz supporters declared that the ‘birthers’ who objected to a Canadian-born, half Cuban immigrant candidate were crazy or out of bounds to even raise the question.

Anti-birthers, you won, and now the field is officially wide open for anyone from anywhere to be elected presidents. Thanks to the anti-birther concern trolls, who’ve won the day by shouting down the people with legitimate unanswered questions.

 

 

Throwing stones from a glass house

bonnyblue16072 Comments

Mrs. Bill Clinton says that ‘half of Trump supporters’ are ‘a basket of deplorables.’

This, from the nominee of a party that includes among its core constituents an odd assortment of rag-tag-and-bobtail. Example: convicted felons, death-row criminals (always the object of so much compassion from Clinton and her likes), rapists, deviants (of every conceivable variety and then some), men who have delusions of being women and vice-versa, illegal aliens, and all professional ‘victims’ — at least all who are not White, Christian, or especially not male.

One of the last Democrat national conventions I watched any part of was, I think, in 1996, when the camera panned across the delegates, offering an up-close view of those representing the party. One of the faces that stayed in my mind all these years was that of an obvious male, wearing eye make-up,  dressed in a woman’s wig and feminine clothing — and in the close-up shot, his facial stubble was very visible. What a grotesque spectacle, and yet today it hardly draws a shrug from most people. Thanks, Democrats, for that.

Then there was the spectacle in 2000, or was it 2004, of the Democrats booing the Boy Scouts because of the Scouts’ then-policy of excluding homosexual scoutmasters. Yet now that stance is painted as ‘homophobic and bigoted.’ Thanks, leftists, for making evil, good, and good, evil.

During my misguided youth I attended enough liberal events (protests for ‘peace’, etc.) to know firsthand the base of the Democrat party. The big-time fundraisers may be populated by the limo liberals who support the party financially but the voting base and the radical foot-soldiers are a rabble of older communists and deluded young people,  having bad hygiene, smelling of body odor and patchouli. Even the middle-class Democrat types are slovenly, being proud of their proletarian rumpled look. Sad to say that look crosses party lines now, though it used to be the trademark look of middle-aged and older lefties.

Bad dress sense and hygiene aside (and granted, those are superficial things, though not unimportant) just look at what the left says and does; look at the things they consider priorities. They are full of loathing and envy and resentment — resentment of those who are their betters in any sense of the word: people who are more intelligent, more successful, more attractive. It’s been said that most leftists are ‘mentally ill’ in some sense, though they project that onto their political enemies — they are masters at projection and denial. But no, the problem is not just that they are outwardly unpleasant but that inwardly they are full of venom and corruption. They are unethical, immoral, and sleazy. That’s what’s deplorable, not these invented ‘sins’ of Islamophobia, ‘racism’, or ‘homophobia.’ Telling, isn’t it, how they had to invent new words to describe their invented sins.

‘Basket of deplorables?’ Mrs. Clinton just described herself and her blind followers.

Politics replaces tribe, for some

bonnyblue16073 Comments

Some ask why I bother to read Free Republic and the like. One answer I give is that it’s a fairly good place to find aggregated news stories that are of interest to me. (If anyone can recommend another that would serve this function, I’m open to suggestions.)

I also read there because I used to believe, based on some signs that I observed, that some of the “conservatives” there were potential converts or allies. Less and less do I think so. After rapidly worsening scenarios involving mass immigration and racial tensions over the last couple of decades, if these people haven’t ‘gotten it’ by now, they likely never will. In fact, for many of them, it seems they have dug in their heels and become more politically correct and deluded, somehow, because of what has been happening. It is as if denial has become stubbornly entrenched among some White folk. It is their way of plugging their ears and reciting the propaganda to shut out the truth. May God help these lost souls.

One example: a news story reports that Quanell X, (born Quanell Evans), a ‘black activist’ has endorsed Donald Trump. And this is one response:

Blacks aren’t our “enemies”. Blacks, and Hispanics and Asians and whomever want for themselves and their families the same things “we” want: peace, safety, jobs, good schools, to be left alone to pursue our dreams with the talents that God endowed us with…..and more.

“Thugs” do not represent the average American Black person any more than Klansmen or NAZIs represent White Americans.”

Or this:

Add that to the list of things I’d never thought I’d see. Civic nationalism has a broad appeal.”

One commenter notes that blacks have been angry at Democrats for ”failing them for 54 years”. The commenter thinks they have a right to be angry, the implication being that yes, Democrats have ”failed” blacks. Right, just as schools keep ”failing” blacks and the ”justice system” has ”failed” blacks. That is, none of these institutions have done enough to free blacks from personal responsibility or to coddle and cater to them.

But the part about blacks like Quanell X possibly turning to Republicans in a fit of pique against the insufficiently servile Democrats makes sense. In other words, they are saying ‘the Republicans may make us a better offer, and unless you raise their bid, we won’t vote for you. You don’t want to lose our valuable votes, do you? Or be called ”racist”, do you?‘

It’s the same with the ever-elusive Hispanic vote. The country club GOP types, and the ‘Main Street’ GOP, think we should win over the Hispanics by wooing them and flattering them, making concessions to them — little things like amnesty. And of course the Hispanics like to flirt with both sides, like a vain and manipulative woman. If she can have two or more men bidding for her affections, she can get both sides to woo her and make promises and lavish her with gifts. This is how Hispanics and now, blacks play the two parties (really one party) against each other. Will Quanell X and his ilk really vote for Trump? If they do, it will not be because they are ‘natural conservatives’ and suddenly believers in the Free Market and Smaller Government. No; it may only be because they dislike Mexicans more than they dislike Whites at this moment, or more cynically, because they want Trump to side with them against their Mexican rivals. But then I think they are trusting too much if they believe he will close the borders.

And again, their support will come with a price tag. Quid pro quo.

Quanell X’s ‘turf’ is the Houston area, as the article mentions; illegal Latino (and other) immigration — as well as legal immigration — has changed that area immensely, so blacks in that part of Texas do see and feel the results of racial displacement and conflict. Would someone as militantly anti-White as Quanell be willing to ally with Whites against mass immigration? Doubtful; the minority groups may just be jockeying for a greater share of the government handouts and status.

But the ‘conservatives’ who are sold out to the ‘Big Tent’, multicult rainbow America are really diehards, for whom their politics replace natural tribe affinities. And as such they are bound to be used and abused and ultimately very disappointed as things do not move towards a happy, multicultural utopia based, of course, on ”conservative ideology.”