I figure Sarah Palin endorses Trump because of the way the GOP establishment gave her the treatment and the bum’s rush in 2008 and afterward. They used her to woo the blue collar conservatives with her populist credentials, but expected her to shut up and do the beauty queen wave for McCain, and were shook up when she outshone him, as evidenced by the Palin/McCain stickers and banners that soon appeared at rallies. Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned, and if getting Trump the nomination will be a sword in the ribs of those who damaged her, well, there goes it.

But other conservatives who support him, I don’t get their blindness.  This is the new Fred Phelps, the Southern Poverty Law Center lawyer and lifelong liberal D who took on the Andrew Dice Clay like Westboro persona to smear Christian conservatives. Except Trump is there to be a lightning rod for hate to transfer it to the whole conservative movement.


The Bundys think enough of this to warrant a sit-in in a federal facility.  The Hammonds already turned themselves in to serve the remainder of their lengthened sentence. I know you can’t re-prosecute someone for the same crime as per the double jeopardy taboo. I don’t know if changing the sentence of an already convicted person 1) is double jeopardy, and 2) if it isn’t, if it is even legal anyway. The statute requiring a minimum of five years was there before the conviction; the judge simply failed to make sure the sentence complied. Now I know that if a law gets beefed up to put a longer term upon the convicted, that new harsher sentence only takes effect upon those convicted after the bill becomes law, and does not apply to older convictions. There may be something in that idea which can fight against this appellate decision to re-sentence. Small towns being what they are, extended relatives of the Hammonds testified against them in the trial, pointing out that they were free and easy with their duties, and even doing them on days when burning was forbidden.

Now arson is a powerful word which carries felony status with it. Law dictionaries vary with the modern term (common law meant the burning of another’s house), but universally it involves the destruction of improvements by fire on another’s land, or defrauding an insurer whether the improvement was theirs or yours. Controlled burns, despite being burns, are seen as a beneficial turn for the fallow area. The Hammond ranch land was burned to better it; I cannot see the unimproved federal land being called anything worthy of the term damaged. I’m curious as to how they ended up with an arson conviction vs. damage to public property, with even that a stretch. If anything, a stiff fine to discourage future carelessness, but sitting in prison?

The press won’t print anything objective, and one has to glean from commenters. It’s like heating a 5 gallon stock pot of water, then throwing a potato into it and presto, it’s potato soup.


In 2005, Muslims have a fit about a swirl on a Burger King ice cream cup that they say looks like a script  of the Arabic word for Allah, and Burger King promptly removes the swirl to appease them.

In 2015, Christians get annoyed, but not to the level of Muslim offendedness, about Merry Christmas being removed from Starbucks’ Christmas cups, and they are ridiculed for pointing that out as Starbucks effectively says kiss out collective ass and fails to change a single thing.

At least WordPress kept the snow for Christmas. Hooray for bread crumbs.


The story of Mexican drug lord El Chapo going to war against ISIS turned out to be a hoax, but Giovanni Gambino told ISIS the Mafia will fight them if they hit NYC again, and the earliest fire returned against jihadists who shot up Paris a month ago came from drug dealers illegally carrying who had their deals interrupted.

In the meantime, your government, as well as the candidates seeking election, are in agreement that you the citizen are to blame for your predicament, and they offer you no protection. But a former KGB chief in the former Evil Empire is directly fighting the Muslim threat to civilization while westerners go off by the hundreds to fight for the enemy, as the public school system that cannot train them to be star employees sure can train them to hate their own culture.

Then they wonder in astonishment why oh why a clown prince who spent hardly anything so far is the toast of the town.


I guess a bankrupt society gets that way the same way financial bankruptcy happens; very slowly, then all at once. It makes it all not worth writing about, since writing just gives the other side ammo, not that they won’t make it all up as they go anyway.

It’ll all keep going until the Eagle fails to land twice in a row in welfare mailboxes, or there is an interruption in the sports or t.v. schedule. Bread and circuses, you know.

Though I cling to the thought that Trump entered the race as an agent provocateur to mess the GOP up for a Hilary win, at least they’re entertaining about it. There is no way they’ll let a true populist who would bring a fair deal to the mass of people get in. They’d ruin him the way they went after Palin, or they’d shun him into oblivion like Huckabee and Santorum. If that doesn’t work, they’d snuff him.

I fail to see what the ruling class sees in ruining the county’s traditions and morals, safe neighborhoods, and readily at hand well paying and meaningful jobs. But all of this recreational drug usage, safe, well built cities demolished by minorities when the whites sold it to them for pennies on the dollar, and buggery uber alles; go ahead, look at what you had by 1955 and now look at what a shadow of it things are now.

I just want to live long enough to see the liberals devoured by the world of their making.


I need your help with this one. When a pizza house refuses to host a reception for an event with which they don’t want their business associated, they are haters and bigots and harassed until their business is closed. When a musician demands that a politician stop using his music because he does not believe in the politician’s mission, it’s not fascist, bigoted hate speech even, as the Dropkick Murphys said about Scott Walker, “We really hate you.”  Neil young can say “I will not have my music used in Trump’s campaign” but a cake maker cannot say “I will not have my company’s designs used to promote that way of living.”

If the musician licensed his music via ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, as long as the campaign paid its usage fee, how can he say where the music can be used? And if it’s not licensed somewhere, what are the rules? How come he can have a say in who uses his music based on what issues he holds common and which he has a problem agreeing with, and the rights of a bed & breakfast owner or a photographer making the same discernment choice, just over a different issue, get considered not only null and void, but get the people ostracized?


Hilary Clinton’s idea about abortion is that if you are opposed to it, you should simply change your religion, and resulting moral world view, so you can accept it.

This is exactly, precisely, why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is needed, not for sexual deviants per se, though it would be interesting if gene therapy was devised to cure sodomites and provided through the Affordable Care Act, but I digress.

It is for when an amoral sociopath becomes the chief of national health care.


Writing about current events has become almost impossible. I sit down at my computer, and nothing happens. Oh, I have plenty to say, but you can only say stuff so many times over and over before you just start to feel like a hack, luxuriating in the act of screaming. And that’s no good.

Not to sound like a broken record (or skipping CD for you younglings), but I think one of the reasons I am struggling to summon the drive to comment on current events is the fact that nearly everything I read is built upon a false premise. And when you have to not just rebut conclusions, but the very premises those conclusions are built upon; when every single conversation, argument or exchange requires total remediation of the base premise, and no matter how many times you do this, no progress ever seems to be made, it gets tiring. – Ann Barnhardt

Yep. Do I like talking about sodomy all the freaking time? No, but they dominate the news and force themselves to be the reason for the story. Do I like crabbing about the liberals? No, but they and their Gramsican take on life looks to destroy everything around me. Ann is right, that is all I have to say.

They abuse the language and redefine words on the fly as they debate, They change the subject mid-sentence. There is no way for them to win but by using dadaism to work up emotions. Their world comes defined by Rousseau’s everything is what you say it is; mine by the Aristotlean concept of the the telos, the end purpose of things and beings.


In Valparaiso, Indiana, and soon to catch on in many other places as the dadaistic reaction to the Religious Freedom Act by the left, we have a push for merchants to “prove” their acceptance of all types of people by proudly displaying this sign in their windows, with the lack of signage of course implying that non-compliant businesses are narrow-minded, bigoted haters who should be shunned and driven out of business.

It’s the game of, “Senator, how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?” with a whole new twist.


Kind of pretty, cheerful, and fun. Who could object? Czechoslovakia’s famous anti-communist thinker Vaclav Havel gives us an analogy of the very same thing from the communist days of his homeland in his essay The Power of the Powerless:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.