Category Archives: GILLIBRAND

No. 2 Bookworm Podcast — Night Two of the Democrat Debates

The second night of the Democrat debates again revealed that Democrat candidates are anti-Constitutional, power-hungry, very strange people.

I’m still going forward with my podcast experiment but, as I promised, I’ll keep blogging too. I’ll include a link to the podcast at the bottom of the post, but here, more or less, is what I talked about.

First, my primary impression was that all of the Dems on the stage led with their emotions. Indeed, it was often all that they had to offer. The worst of it was when they got to the subject of illegal immigration. It seemed as if all they could say was “the children! the children!”

None of the candidates, however, seemed to have any compassion for American children. They didn’t care about American children who end up in the foster system because their parents committed illegal acts. They didn’t care about American children killed by gang members who entered America illegally. They didn’t care about American children orphaned or killed by illegal aliens driving drunk. The only children they care about are the Latin American ones.

The whole thing emphasized — again — that Democrats really despise Americans. We Americans betrayed the Democrats’ power grab when we voted for Trump and they want their revenge: they want us to be reduced to a minority by a population that is already accustomed to corrupt governments that use socialism to control them and, moreover, a population that will vote Democrat. This isn’t about race; it’s about culture. No matter how horrible Latin American governments are, they gave their people free things. It’s very hard to train a people used to enslavement — with the prison walls made up of horrible services rather than walls and metal bars — to leave that prison and embrace true liberty. And that’s why the Dems want them and not you.

And here’s what I said, more or less, about a few of the candidates:

Kamala proved last night that she’s a good candidate when she’s in an offensive position and a dreadful one when she’s in a defensive position. In other words, she can handle herself when she’s been prepped, but falls apart when she’s blindsided, as she was by Tulsi.

This is consistent with what I’ve always heard about her, which is that she’s Willie Brown’s disciple. He does the thinking and she does the acting. Because Kamala works hard, she can prep for anticipated scenarios and come off looking good. However, because she’s not very bright, when the unexpected happens, she’s helpless. If identity politics is enough to power her to the nomination (female and black, albeit, like Obama, not part of the American black experience), Trump will eat her alive. And if, by some bizarre chance, she gets to the Oval Office, unfriendly foreign leaders will eat her alive too.

I also dislike Kamala’s voice. She sounded sedated last night, highlighting the fact that her nasal voice sounds bored and condescending. When she roused herself to some semblance of anger, she sounded shrill and shrewish. She can give Hillary a run for the money in the unpleasant affect category.

What really made me crazy about Kamala was when she insisted that healthcare is a “right” not a privilege. In America, our rights are defined by the Constitution. Moreover, they are rights inherent in each one of us, entirely separate from the government. Unlike the situation in socialist countries, government can neither give us these rights nor take them away from us. Only in socialist systems is a “right” something entirely under government control.

If Kamala wants healthcare to be a right, there are two ways to make it happen. First, you amend the Constitution. Second, you get the government out and open healthcare entirely to the free market. In that way, healthcare comes under people’s control and out from under government control.

Moreover, that will help control prices because a significant part of what we pay for our healthcare is actually government compliance. Back in 2008, I read that insurers in California were subject to 1,500 separate regulations, both state and federal. Texas, which eschewed most state regulations, was therefore able to offer substantially cheaper insurance. I don’t know how Obamacare affected that, but I do know that regulations cost lots and lots of money.

Another thing Kamala did was to emote over illegal alien children in a government facility:

I went to a place in Florida called Homestead, and there is a private detention facility being paid for by your taxpayer dollars, a private detention facility that currently houses 2,700 children.

And by the way, there were members of us — Julian was there, members of Congress, they would not let us enter the place, members of the United States Congress. So I walked down the road, I climbed a ladder, and I looked over the fence. And I’m going to tell you what I saw. I saw children lined up single file based on gender being walked into barracks.

I don’t know about you, but except for the size of the place, that sounds like every American summer camp ever for the last 100 years. Moreover, what the Left refuses to admit is that we separate children for their own good. After all, stories like this demonstrate that “family asylum” is an invitation for predators and traffickers:

A Honduran migrant admitted to purchasing a baby for $80 in Guatemala after finding out that it was easier for family units to apply for asylum at the United States border.

Amilcar Guiza-Reyes, 51, confessed to immigration agents when he presented himself at the border with the six-month-old boy and was told he would be required to undergo a DNA test.

According to U.S. officials, the undocumented immigrant, Guiza-Reyes reportedly bought the child during his stop in the western Guatemalan town of Huehuetenango and continued his journey through Mexico before reaching the southern U.S. border where he was detained May 7.

The case is one of thousands which officials flagged as potentially fraudulent in recent weeks. (Emphasis mine.)

As for the other stuff about Kamala — her complicated health care plan, her verbal slip ups, etc. — you can read more and better analyses about those things elsewhere.

When it comes to Biden, who did manage to hang in there by the tips of his fingers (and he owes Tulsi a debt of gratitude for that), Trump really did a number on him with the “Sleepy Joe” moniker. You could see Joe trying desperately to be super perky to belie any signs of age and torpor. However, by the end of the 2.5 hour long evening, he was showing the strain. He was often talking in word soup (lots of words, not lots of meaning), and he set himself up for an endless meme when he gave that weird call out to some sort of text or phone number.

Biden also revealed that there’s nothing moderate about him. He did so by stating, loud and proud, that “we should put some of these insurance executives who totally oppose my plan in jail for of the $9 billion opioids they sell out there.”

That’s wrong on so many levels. First, insurance executives don’t sell opioids. Second, they’re not doing anything illegal by paying for appropriately prescribed opiate prescriptions. Third, he didn’t say they should be jailed if they engage in illegal activity regarding opiates. He said they should be jailed if they “totally oppose my plan.” You know who agrees with that attitude? Maduro does. So does Erdogan. And Kim Jong un does too. Those are dictator words, not moderate worlds.

Lastly, I think Biden went overboard trying to sell redemption for prisoners. I’m all for offering redemption for those who feel remorse, but Biden sounded as if he wanted to set them up for life:

Right now, we’re in a situation where, when someone is convicted of a drug crime, they end up going to jail and to prison. They should be going to rehabilitation. They shouldn’t be going to prison. When in prison, they should be learning to read and write and not just sit in there and learn how to be better criminals.

And when they get out of prison, they should be in a situation where they have access to everything they would have had before, including Pell grants for education, including making sure that they’re able to have housing, public housing, including they have all the opportunities that were available to them because we want them to become better citizens.

Inslee strikes me every time as a moron who’s also a climate change monomaniac. I’d like to laugh at him, except that too many people are marching in the same parade he’s trying to lead. No wonder every Leftist wants fully taxpayer funded college. It’s at those colleges that they turn out indoctrinated drones who believe in “science” as if it’s a magic spell, rather than a process — a process, moreover, that the climatistas have long since abandoned.

Gillibrand provided the best unintentional laugh. Before I get to that, though, let me say that I have never seen someone speak in so many cliches (although Booker tries), nor have I ever seen anyone so nakedly ambitious. She says anything and everything — often contradictory things — in her endless efforts to scrabble her way up to the top tier of politics.

But back to the funny thing. Although it got a laugh, her “joke” about cleaning out the Oval Office with Clorox was not funny. First, she never made that kind of joke about Bill Clinton, who really did soil the Oval Office. Second, Trump has behaved with apparently perfect discretion since he’s been in the White House. Third, Gillibrand’s father was tangled up in that NVXM sex slave cult. She should leave jokes about sleaze at home.

No, the really funny thing was when Gillibrand touted herself as a “white privilege translator”:

I think as a white woman of privilege, who is a U.S. senator, running for president of the United States, it is also my responsibility to lift up those voices that aren’t being listened to.

And I can talk to those white women in the suburbs that voted for Trump and explain to them what white privilege actually is, that when their son is walking down a street with a bag of M&Ms in his pocket, wearing a hoodie, his whiteness is what protects him from not being shot.

When his – when her – when their child has a car that breaks down, and he knocks on someone’s door for help, and the door opens, and the help is given, it’s his whiteness that protects him from being shot. That is what white privilege in America is today. And so, my responsibility’s to only lift up those stories, but explain to communities across America, like I did in Youngstown, Ohio, to a young mother, that this is all of our responsibilities, and that together we can make our community stronger.

Gillibrand knows that this is B.S. If she really believed it — heck, if any of the white candidates believed this — she and all of the others would withdraw from the presidential race. After all, they keep arguing that their white privilege is practically insurmountable. The only way to give non-whites a chance is if whites stay out. No wonder the DCCC fired all its white people! If whites are as toxic as Gillibrand says, they need to go.

And that’s what I put on the podcast, which you can find here or listen to here:

The post No. 2 Bookworm Podcast — Night Two of the Democrat Debates appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Thoughts about the two Democrat debates

The Democrat Debates were indeed boring, but they were also a wonderful insight into Democrat policies and candidate strengths and weaknesses.

I watched both of the Democrat debates. I’ve now had 43 hours to ruminate about Wednesday’s debate and 19 hours to ruminate about Thursday’s debate. That’s given me a little perspective. For what it’s worth, here’s what I think:

I. The debates as a whole.

When Obama ran in 2008 and again in 2012, he tried to underplay his radicalism. Both times, he played lip service to the center and then governed to the Left. A perfect example concerns how he handled LGBT issues, whether for open military service or getting married. He assured voters that neither would happen and then went and supported the more Leftward policies anyway. I’m not opining about the policies. I’m just pointing out that Obama lied.

What’s refreshing about the current crop of candidates is that they are not disguising their political beliefs and practical goals. Given that Trump is completely open about his traditional American political values and that the Democrats have stopped hiding their Leftism, this may be the most honest political campaign since the one in 1860.

Indeed, if the ultimate Democrat primary victory retains that honesty into the election campaign, rather than trying to rewrite the history of whatever he or she said during the primaries, we will not see the usual presidential campaign in which candidates circle the middle (a middle that moved increasingly Left beginning in the 1990s). Instead, there are some very stark differences here. Talk about American having a true “time for choosing.”

One of the major differences between every single Dem candidate on the one hand and Trump on the other hand, is the way in which they view America. Obama occasionally leaked out comments showing his dislike and disdain for both America and Americans, but he tried to dress his politics in the upbeat, and entirely meaningless, mantra of hope. Yeah, sure America was great he said, but he would make it so great it would be “fundamentally transformed,” apparently into a different kind of greatness entirely. But it was all great.

Trump, of course, is Mr. Optimistic. He has wonderful visions about a great America that will still be a recognizable America, although better than ever before. Most importantly, it won’t be socialist country. It will continue to be a free market, sovereign nation in which people benefit from small government, individual liberty, and true equality before the law. Our foreign friends will respect us and our foreign enemies will fear us (as they should). Indeed, some of our foreign enemies may well have abandoned their wicked ways to join the community of nations. Trump is optimistic and endlessly upbeat.

The twenty Democrat candidates paraded before the American people on Wednesday and Thursday are pessimistic, angry people who live in a dystopian reality that they hope to make worse for everyone. Theirs is a world in which people are starving and dying in the streets, filth is piled everywhere, there are no jobs, an apocalyptic climate “emergency” is waiting around the corner, the races despise each other, and gay people are marginalized and dying.

Thinking about it, there is some truth to their reality: They’re pretty much describing Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, inner city Washington D.C., de Blasio’s New York, the whole states of California and Illinois, and any other communities in which Leftists have been free to have their wicked ways.

Listening to Democrat candidates’ dystopian visions, it was as if the Trump economy never happened. There is no record low unemployment amongst blacks and Hispanics; there is no 3%  or more quarterly economic growth; and there is no vibrant stock market, one based on real economic gains rather than the Obama market, when fearful investors parked their money in the market because they were afraid to put it into an unstable real economy.

No one should be too surprised, I guess, about the fantasy world the Leftists have built. After all, these are the same people who believe that a person’s biological sex is a social construct, that the sun has nothing to do with the earth’s climate, and that pot is harmless. Facts tend not to interfere with their belief systems.

Significantly, none of the 20 candidates is a happy warrior. All of them, instead, seem to be auditioning for a leadership role in a Mad Max movie — they will be the only stable dictator in a world of horrific violence, despair, and decay.

In addition, none of the 20 candidates has charm or charisma. I’ll talk about their individual traits below, but my overall takeaway was that these are very weak people. If you look at Trump, whether when he was campaigning in 2015 and 2016 or during his years as president, what you see is an effortless alpha male. He commands any space he’s in. He is optimistic and powerful. Whether or not you like where he plans to lead America, he is a relaxed, happy, effective leader. He’s also very, very funny and can show tremendous warmth and charm.

In contrast, the 20 Democrats are frenetic, shrill people who hoped to disguise their fundamental personal weaknesses by outshouting each other. Funnily enough, when I think of them, I think of a movie review I read at National Review. Yeah, I know that sounds like a non sequitur but it’s not.

The review was about Murder Mystery, a made-for-Netflix movie staring Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler, both of whom are capable of being appealing. What piqued my interest about the review was the fact that Kyle Smith likened their teaming to Nick and Nora Charles, the dynamic married duo who starred in a series of Thin Man movies in the 1930s. Nick was played by the debonair William Powell and Nora by Myrna Loy, one of the most beautiful, charming, funny, appealing actresses ever to grace the silver screen. Here’s what Smith had to say:

Murder Mystery: An Old Comedy Genre Gets Polished UpAdam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston make a fine Nick and Nora Charles.

[snip]

In Murder Mystery, Sandler does the unexpected and plays a character who’s neither Kurt Cobain nor Jerry Lewis but just an ordinary working stiff with a slightly disappointed but basically loving wife. Thanks to a deft, funny script by James Vanderbilt and brisk direction by Kyle Newacheck, this throwback comedy turns out to be an easygoing charmer.

[snip]

Murder Mystery takes us back to the days when Nick and Nora Charles were martini-sipping crime-solvers in the six-film Thin Man series, updating the formula with a superb twist: This time the couple are working-class types who get pulled into a world of international playboys and billionaires’ yachts. Sandler’s Nick is a frustrated NYPD cop (he tells everyone he’s a detective, but he keeps flunking the exam) and Aniston is Audrey, his hairdresser wife of 15 years. He promised her a trip to Europe one day, but the money to pay for it has never come. He’s the kind of guy who buys her the wrong allergy medicine at the drugstore to save 50 cents. When he finally does decide to max out the credit card to get her that transatlantic vacation, Audrey sneaks into first class, where she meets a charming bon vivant (Luke Evans) who likes her enough to invite the pair of them to hang out on his yacht. She’s Jennifer Aniston, so this is plausible enough.

I have to part ways with Smith. Aside from the upper class setting, Aniston and Sandler are nothing like Nick and Nora. They’re neither witty nor charming. They are, instead, shrill, angry, and irritating, three traits that no sane Thin Man writer would ever have thrust upon those characters. I slogged through the end of Murder Mystery to see whodunnit (not worth the slog), and came away desperately disliking the lead characters.

That’s exactly how I felt watching the debate. I’d been promised that at least some of the candidates would offer charisma, if not wit and charm, but none offered anything. They were alternately shrill, angry, paranoid, irritating, greedy, totalitarian, and completely loopy (an adjective that’s not reserved solely for Sanders and Williamson). The thought that these types of human beings might lead our great nation was quite disturbing.

The candidates’ policy prescriptions matched their personalities. Across the board, they want to increase government power, raise taxes, impose socialized medicine, upend the Second Amendment, abort babies up to the minute of birth, and open our borders while promising free medical care, education, and welfare to all comers. In other words, they imagine a dictatorship of the elite — an angry, paranoid, elite that hates so much the people over which it governs that it wants to import an entirely new, more amenable group of people over which it can govern.

Regarding importing a whole new demographic, as several people commented it was often unclear whether the candidates in these Democrat debates wanted to be president of existing, legal American citizens, or were seeking the votes of Latin Americans who have yet to arrive here illegally. I listened to Derek Hunter’s podcast today, and he said it was as if the candidates vying for Angela Merkel’s position in Germany tout to the voters all the good things they promise to do for France.

It’s the rare, peculiar, and frightening candidate who doesn’t pander to his own voters, but panders instead to citizens of another nation entirely. It’s hints that these candidates believe that, between now and November 2020, they can get enough illegal aliens into America to vote a Democrat into office.

II. The individual candidates

And now a few thoughts about the individual candidates at the Democrat debates. It’s a given that all of them said things intended to appeal to their mad base (open borders, socialized medicine for all comers, unlimited abortion, high taxes, gun seizures, abasement before Iran, the destruction of the American economy through a Green New Deal, etc.). My comments are just about their personalities. Ladies first.

Kamala Harris presents with a flat, Fran Drescher voice and a naggy personality. She can definitely go on the attack, as she did with her probable lies to Biden about busing. My question, though, is whether American voters really want to elect as president their hated ex-wife or the mother with whom they had issues, especially when she’s made it plain that she wants to empty their bank accounts and control every aspect of their lives? Heck, if they wanted that, they could have stayed married to that shrew or accepted living in mad Mom’s basement….

Also, contrary to Harris’s “I’m the only black person here” statement, she has something significant in common with Obama: She’s a fake American black, for her black-skinned father is very elite Jamaican man and she was raised for a significant part of her life outside of America. In other words, Harris has no connection to the American black experience.

Kirsten Gillibrand presents with a shrill, childish voice and an angry, bossy personality. She demands attention, rather than earns it, and when she gets it, she hectors people sharply. For all her anger, her history of flip-flopping frantically to whatever the political winds demand tells me that, if you put her in a room with a mullah or a member of North Korea’s Kim clan, she’ll collapse like an old tissue.

Amy Klobuchar has a no-nonsense affect that reminds me strongly of my 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Fukuda. Or maybe she’s like some Mary Poppins-esque nanny who firmly puts you in your place. Indeed, her presentation is so firm and normal that it’s easy to forget that, when it comes to policies, she’s as Leftist as the rest of them. In other words, she’s the school teacher from Hell.

Tulsi Gabbard was in the military. Did you know that? She definitely was in the military. She’s happy to tell you over and over again that she was in the military. When she talks about the military, her voice takes on the harsh tones of a drill sergeant. The rest of the time, she sounds, not sedate, but sedated. And by the way, she was in the military. I’ve also heard she looks nice in a bikini. Trump, I’m certain, does not.

Elizabeth Warren is someone about whom I cannot be objective because I’ve disliked her for thirty years, going back to her banking law class. Learning that Warren leveraged family lore into a well-paying Harvard gig based upon imaginary diversity did not make me like her more. Learning that she lied her way into fame by gaming statistics about medical care and family bankruptcy did not make me like her more. Hearing her denigrate individual achievement in America (“you didn’t build that”) did not make me like her more. Her current assurances that for everything she dislikes about America she has a plan, when it’s clear that the plan is always about more taxes and more power for the government, do not make me like her more. And finally, her spinsterish, scolding presence on the debate stage does not make me like her more. I really dislike her.

Marianne Williamson is the hippie whom time forgot. Most of the time she spoke with the earnestness of a stoned preacher on the corner of Haight and Ashbury in 1967. “Love, man . . . yeah, that will heal the world. Just more love and maybe some health-giving flowers for America’s inner being. I’ll drop love bombs on Kim Jong-un and the Mullahs. Even our archest of arch enemies, Donald Trump, will feel the healing power of my love deep in his evil soul. Nameste, America. Peace.”

And now the men, in alphabetical order:

Michael Bennet had a hysterical quality I found very disturbing. There’s something emotionally off about the man.

Joe Biden really did try to be Mr. Normal in a field of radicals but he lost it there when he said that his first act as president, should he win, would be to defeat Donald Trump. Otherwise, he was pathetic as he tried desperately to find his footing while crossing the ice floes made up of his decades in Democrat politics all the while fending off the snapping young Democrat dogs surrounding him.

Cory Booker will be defined forever by the horror that showed on his face when he realized that Beta has stolen his “I speak Spanish” shtick. Otherwise, he was his usual glib, insincere self. His insistence that the rights of black transgenders is a matter of paramount concern was peculiar. He also sounded ineffective when he complained about crime in the city in which he once sat as mayor. All I could think of was “you had once job….”

Pete Buttigieg is another ineffectual mayor. He presides over the 300th largest city in America, a position he won by 8,000 plus votes. That’s not 8,000+ votes more than his competitors. That’s total votes. The blacks in his city despise him because it’s obvious that he always viewed them, not as his job, but as stepping stones to something bigger. His constant attacks on Christians are a glaringly obvious psychological insight into his anguish about living a life inconsistent with Biblical precepts (for the Bible is not fond of gay sex), but are decidedly unappealing in an American presidential candidate. Also, he looks like Beaver Cleaver’s radical Leftist brother — immature and politically dangerous.

Julian Castro is short and wants abortions for transgender women (i.e., men). He cannot win and should leave the national stage before he embarrasses himself further. By the way, I too am short and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just that in a telegenic age, a pipsqueak who is confused about basic human biology squaring off against the alpha male Trump is not a good look. Buttigieg, by the way, also suffers from the short man problem.

Bill de Blasio has only one advantage in the race, which is that he’s tall enough to square off physically against Trump. Otherwise, I wouldn’t buy a used car from that corrupt, hypocritic, and I certainly wouldn’t trust him to take possession of American’s money and redistribute it. Also, considering that monied New Yorkers are leaving in droves, taking away the funds supporting his crazed, corrupt socialism, is not a selling point for the rest of America.

John Delaney was slightly more sane than the rest of the people on the stage. He’s also bland and is a little too obsessed with his own father. He has no chance.

John Hickenlooper is a nattering old maid. Old maid men do not win in American politics. The only thing that puts the lie to his old maid status — and most decidedly not in a good way — is that he sat through a porn flick with his mother.

Jay Inslee is a scary dude. He’s an apocalyptic street corner preacher, but with a better haircut. His end-of-days climate obsession is not a winner.

Beto O’Rourke is Beta O’Rourke. Take away the skateboard and the flapping arms (and did you notice how careful the MSNBC/NBC camera men were to hide his hands?) and you’ve got the kid in the dorm who thought he was deep and cool while everyone else knew full well that he was a not-very-bright dork. Dork’s don’t win presidential campaigns.

Tim Ryan is visually identical to Inslee. Other than that, I can’t remember a darn thing about him.

Bernie Sanders — I’ve covered Bernie in a separate blog. He’s a mean-spirited, evil, foaming-at-the-mouth, yellow-toothed socialist tyrant wannabe.

Eric Swalwell is running a campaign that can be summed up thusly: The Second Amendment is toilet paper. All the other candidates also want to take your guns, but Swalwell is the most fanatic on the subject. Let me remind you of other politicians who seized guns: Hugo Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, the Kims, etc. I’m sure Swalwell doesn’t believe he ever could be a tyrant, but the temptation is always there for a political leader once the people he’s disarmed stand helpless before him.

Andrew Yang opposes circumcision. Aside from being fundamentally anti-Semitic, because circumcision is Judaism’s core covenant with God, it’s also an unhealthy position, for there’s indisputable evidence that circumcision slows the spread of certain sexually transmitted diseases, most notably AIDS. I cannot support him under any circumstances. I also think the whole “give every $1,000” is stupid. Why not just lower tax rates? That way, taxpayers will keep their own money in proportion to the money they’re forced to pay, while those who don’t pay taxes don’t just get more free cash.

The post Thoughts about the two Democrat debates appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 6/15/19 — the no news is good news illustrated edition

Scott Adams points out that life is so good under Trump that there’s no news. Since this illustrated edition has lots of silly stuff, I believe he’s right.





Trump Candace Owens Press Secretary Illustrated Edition


























































The post Bookworm Beat 6/15/19 — the no news is good news illustrated edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.