Greenwald

 

Greenwald

Something on Bongino today validated ( I'd like to think it did) something that I've mentioned many times before.

Reagan's "Speech" declared that there's no right v. left, just freedom v. tyrrany. It would seem to be echoed when Greenwald said that the powers-that-be aren't concerned about the squabbles between the right v left, but in stability in their views.

It validates what I said because if the two squabbling entities were to ever unite, the powers-that-be would be in deep-doo-doo.

What to unite about? Common core values, which includes free speech. Greenwald is no conservative, but Bongino is talking a lot about his stuff. On the other hand, there are those who read Greenwald and comment saying that he defends Trump too much. You can take the leftie v rightie thing too far.

Since when did we start in on the notion that free speech is a bad thing? But that is what is happening. Those who are on the left are going to regret jumping on this bandwagon to suppress speech. Those who are pushing for the censorship don't really like you any more than they like Trump.

Bongino says freedom cannot be suppressed. It can be appealing as Reagan demonstrated. Look around and see what's going and see if you can continue to believe that suppression of your political opponents is that path you want to take. It can also be turned on you as well. But if freedom really is like the beach ball that is being kept down, eventually it will pop up again.

AOC drama queen

 Accuses Sen. Cruz of attempted murder.  Staffers were 'traumatized' watching it on TV.  /boo-hoo

Ace rips the drama queens a new one.  Good.

Class Warfare

 

Class warfare

How to write about this subject? For the longest time, the liberals were all about the little guy. On the Bongino Show today, that script was flipped big time. You'd swear you were listening to an old-time Democrat if you listened to his show today.

Does old Danny boy really want to go down that track? The problem with it is that the left can reclaim it so easily. A GOP-type cannot do it because nobody will believe them.

AOC jumped on that bandwagon. Nobody will be against the poor and needy. Nor will they be against the middle class. The Democrats have been riding that horse for the longest time. They'll keep on riding it because it works so well. When it stops they'll be in trouble.

So what's the real problem? The real problem is the total lack of sincerity of those claiming to be who they are. The Democrats are not for the little guy. All the big timers were for Biden. Biden's funding came from them. Trump's people were small contributors. The big timers were against Trump. Money talks and big money was for Biden. Bongino is right, but the average smuck won't believe it.

This really isn't new. In the old Boots and Oil Blog, I remember writing about it with respect to the Democrats then as well. The Democrats have morphed into the party of the rich while the GOP gets blamed for it even though they don't get the money nor the votes. Another reason they are so stupid. Trump was a Godsend to them but nooooooo.

If the GOP were who they claimed to be and the Democrats were who they really were, the issues would be traditionally what they've always been. But neither party is who they say they are. They are both screwing over their own supporters. It's all about "how can we fool them today."

Maybe the Democrat voters don't know it or they don't care, or both. Too many GOP voters don't seem to be any different. My guess is that big money LOST this election but BIG MONEY stole it for Biden.

Biden stole this friggin' election. The thing is that it is LEGAL if the state legislatures say it is and the Congress agrees. Biden is legally POTUS, but he didn't get it by winning an election. The powers-that-be put him there. They bought who they needed to buy and that is the way it is.

Frau Blucher

 Cloris Leachman has died.  She played the character in the Mel Brooks comedy Young Frankenstein.

It's "Fronkensteen".  We could use a few laughs about now.

Paul v Bully boyz

 

Rand Paul v Stephanopolous

This one has gotten some mention in a couple sites, so let's have a look. Upon "further review", it looks like Snaganoctupus tried to get Paul to say that the election wasn't stolen.

Rand Paul replies that there's "two sides to the story". He says that the Snagalotofpuss is "injecting himself into the story" as opposed to reporting both sides.

Neither budged the other. It kind of reminds me of a lot of arguments that I've had in the past. You talk past each other, but you never do get to the issue at hand.

Why not say the election was stolen, if that is what you think? It seems to me that the Democrats don't even want to look at it, and don't want anybody to say anything about it. That is the "other side" of the story that Paul was getting at.

When you don't even want to go there, it looks like you really didn't win, and you are trying to cover something up. You make yourself look guilty.

An honest person would acknowledge the facts. The only thing that the Democrats are interested in is saying that the matter is closed because it managed to get by the system, and now they are in power.

If you look further, it threatens their legitimacy. But that is their own fault for their unwillingness to look honestly and courageously at the facts. Now they want to bully those like Paul who want to look at the "other side of the story".

Update

Sen. Rand Paul is faking it. He is stating his objection NOW, as opposed to doing it in a timely manner when it counted.

One of the things he stated was that the courts refused to hear about election irregularities based upon lack of standing, but not the facts. This was known at the time, so why not support the challenge? Paul didn't support the challenge, but now he tells us this.

Methinks he wants to play up to Trump supporters that make up a large part of the rank and file. It is too late for that. The time to lodge the objections was at the time the challenge was taking place. To do so now is just throwing some crumbs at Trump voters in a bid at pacification.