Paul Ryan equals John Anderson?

Paul Ryan equals John Anderson?

The link is about a comparison between the GOP candidate in 1980, who ran against Reagan and lost the nomination to Reagan. He then rejected his party's nominee, and ran as an independent against Reagan, and lost again. Paul Ryan has declared that he won't attend the GOP convention in 2024 if Trump wins the nomination. Thus, the comparison. Ryan is the new John Anderson. it would seem. Trump is the new outsider that the GOP Establishment hates.

Which brings me to the disclosure made before on this blog. I didn't vote for Reagan. Instead, I voted for Anderson. It was a protest vote towards Reagan's then proposed massive tax cut. Not that I was against tax cuts, but against tax cuts without the commensurate spending cuts that would keep the budget disciplined. Supposedly, the budget would balance automatically through the process of increased economic growth. Never mind supply side theory, the result was massive deficit spending that has plagued the economy almost every year since. My fears of hyperinflation didn't come true, but the foundation for conditions that would lead to that end were being laid. Hyperinflation may well be in our future now thanks to the defenestration of budgetary responsibility. Former VP Dick Cheney said the lesson of the 80's was that deficits didn't matter. If that's what he learned, then everybody learned the wrong lesson.

The deficit spending is no longer a concern to the public. It isn't even an issue any more. Nobody seems to care about it now. But 70's style inflation is back. Perhaps the concern about excessive spending can once more rise to the level of public debate. But it hasn't thus far.

Perhaps seeing is believing. If the inflation bug continues to plague the economy, maybe now people will believe.

By the way, Anderson positioned himself against Reagan. Former President Gerald Ford said Reagan was too conservative to be elected. Those were examples of opposition to Reagan coming from old Guard GOP. His running mate, George H W. Bush called his boss's economic proposals "voodoo economics". Papa Bush didn't like Reaganism, and tried to govern a "kindler gentler" policy, as if his former boss's policies were somehow too cruel to countenance. It didn't seem to bother him as VP.

But the article didn't not make economic connections. The article linked above made the Washington Establishment connection between Ryan and Anderson. The Establishment didn't like Reagan, who was the outsider in that election. But the outsider won big in 1980 and 1984. George H W Bush rode his coat tails to the Presidency, and it has been downhill for America since. Without Papa Bush in the White House, "Dubya" couldn't have rode the same coat tails to the Presidency in 2000. There is a lesson here. Establishment Republicans don't do very well. They can't win on their own, and have to depend upon some superior force to get them into office. Otherwise, they would always lose.

Now it is DeSantis trying to ride on the populist fervor that Trump brought to the party. But the Establishment GOP isn't about to do anything to earn anybody's loyalty. You have to give it before you can expect it. It seems that their only claim to power is how much they can betray those who they manage to deceive. Trump helped DeSantis, and this is how DeSantis repays him.

George HW Bush deceived the Reagan coalition by breaking his pledge against new taxes. His son rode the tax cuts to the White House, but broke many of his other pledges. Amongst these broken promises were school vouchers, and to veto McCain Feingold election "reform". Betrayal suits the GOP Establishment. That's why they need help to get across the finish line. They cannot be trusted. They play up to enemies as if those enemies will join them. But they don't.

Rejecting Paul Ryan is easy these days. Experience has a way of clarifying things. I've seen their act too many times already. Perhaps the youngsters can learn from history.

Out wolf the wolf, out fox the fox

Out wolf the wolf, out fox the fox

Here's a link that says what I've been saying. Actually it doesn't say what's in the link's text about "out wolf the wolf", but that's my take on it. It is just another way of saying it.

The Direction of Country Poll is at 35 percent and Biden's Rassmussen numbers are at 48 percent. People are clinging to what doesn't work, and giving their approval to what they don't like because they fear something new. So the left says the opposition is fascist, and nobody wants a new Hitler. Hitler was a wolf, yet these people who claim to be conservative never learn their lessons. The let the left label them as fascist because they really aren't interested in winning this fight against the wolf. The political left is the wolf, just as much as Hitler was.

Somebody reading the "out wolf the wolf" will get scared because they think it means war. But it doesn't. Nor is there anybody in the opposition who are remotely fascist. But the fear works. The left used it during COVID. If they can scare you into submission, they've won. Yes, they are winning because those who claim to be conservative aren't really. The let themselves be defined as dangerous, and then the opposition just walks right into the trap. "We the People" are the opposition that the wolf wants to overcome. Too bad the "thought leaders" are serving "we the people" on the platter for the wolfish element.

Out wolfing the wolf means to defeat the wolf. It doesn't mean becoming the wolf. A "sheep dog" can protect the sheep without being a wolf. The thing that makes a wolf a wolf, is that the wolf cares nothing for the sheep. Our so-called public servants are nothing but wolves. They pretend to care about such things as rule of law and democracy, but they don't. Out wolfing the wolf means to defeat the wolves in their attempts to subjugate and rule over WE The People with an iron fist. Out wolfing the wolf means keeping our freedom. It doesn't mean allowing yourself to be herded into a big pack of frightened sheep.

Again and again I see the so-called conservatives missing the mark. One of the latest things is the "national divorce". That isn't out wolfing the wolf. It's falling right into the wolf's fangs. Now the wolves can scare all the sheep into their clutches. People fear the unknown, and telling them to break up the country will only drive the sheep into the clutches of the wolf. It is almost as those who are saying such things actually WANT THIS OUTCOME. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

Yes, think about that one. Those who use the right versus left argument aren't conservatives. That is just playing into the wolf's clutches too. It is the Marxist paradigm that the Marxists want everybody to subscribe to. Why play on their turf? This isn't out wolfing the wolf by playing the wolf's games.

Sun Tsu said you have to know your enemy. If you play the wolf's game, you don't know the wolf or yourself. You have no chance. We the people are the opposition that the wolf has to overcome.

Unless you get free of the wolf's games you will lose the game. The National Divorce just plays into the hands of the wolves. It's dumb, or its just another wolf scaring the sheep. Either way its bad. Either way, it's a losing strategy. You have to wonder why "thought leaders" are using this strategy. Are they really that dumb?

Bongino show 2-27-23

 

There won't be a link this time. The reason being that Bongino may be missing the biggest point. I need to be careful here, because I don't want to help the commies. What Bongino is saying should hurt the commies a lot, but it won't. It won't because it doesn't quite hit the mark like it should.

Of course the media and the Democrats were lying. Everyone should have known it at the time. The phrase "at the time" is key. Nobody has the guts to come out with this "at the time". Coming out now, after 3 years, is not worthy of any credit. If everybody "knew", then why was it only a very, very few that were condemning this "at the time"?

If it wasn't a lack of guts that kept them from saying something, then it must be something worse. Think about that for a moment, IF YOU DARE.

There were plenty of GOP who wanted Trump out too. That's why they weren't screaming like they should have been. It is like the dog that didn't bark, in my opinion. The dog that didn't bark means that the dog would have been barking if there was someone the dog didn't recognize as belonging there. The dog SHOULD have been barking up a storm, but wasn't. That is very very telling.

If the commies are owning up to this now, it is because it is safe for them to. The ones who could have made them pay didn't "bark" at the time, and so they are in up to the keister in this too. Bongino can't call them out on it, and have any credibility.

It's okay for Bongino to blame the media. But they are too obvious a target. There are others who need to be held accountable for this. But ala the slapping incident in the movie Jaws, the wrong one gets the slap. Although Trump could have been stronger, and should have stronger, he wasn't. He let Fauci on the podium with him, and so did Pence. If Trump knew, he should not have done this. If everybody knew the truth, then so did Trump. He gave Fauci too much credibility by standing with him. So did Pence.

Nobody should misunderstand this. The lies needed to be confronted "at the time". It's not going to matter much now that it is all over with. The left has a fig leaf they shouldn't have. All of this because our side ( if they are really on our side after all) cannot get their act together.

It should be noted that DeSantis didn't get everything right either. Just saying. But there were a few that did get it right from the beginning. But you'll never hear it anywhere. But maybe here.

Barnhardt got it right from the start. There it is. But who'll ever say that???

It took me about April of 2020 to get it right. It was a political operation and that is all it was. Never was about public health.

Christo fascist; Why is that term used?

Christo fascist; Why is that term used?

The link refers to the term, in which the article linked to doesn't directly discuss the term, and its meaning.

From where is the origin of the term? It may be related to Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal, in which he refers continually to Francisco Franco's regime in Spain. Since Franco supported the Catholic Church, it must mean that all Christians must be fascist. Or that it is what these people would have others believe.

It should be pointed out that Franco's regime was neutral during World War II. Evidently, the mention of the term fascist is often referring to Hitler. Of course, Hitler is the commie's favorite bogey man. It's true that Hitler was a bad man, but it doesn't equate to Franco. Franco has to be judged on his own.

It should be noted that the Center Party in Germany did not support Hitler. Or at least, that is my recollection from reading Shirer's book. Hitler banned all other political parties anyway. The Center Party was most associated with the Catholics in Germany, if memory serves. If the effort is to connect Hitler to the Christians, it must fail on its merits. If Hitler was anything, he was a pagan. He may have been born in a Catholic family, but he certainly wasn't one when he became Der Fuhrer.

Were other denominations unduly supportive of Hitler? Nothing that I saw said anything pro or con on that question. Perhaps there were a FEW, but that doesn't make it the rule. The rule is that it isn't a Christian thing, but a pagan thing, since that is what the left is, and what the fascists are too. If Franco supported the Catholic Church, it wasn't because of fascism. Communists have used Christianity too in order to prop up their regimes.

Christians opposed same sex marriage and homosexual behavior. Anyone who opposes this must be fascist, according to this kind of thinking. Actually, the German military was more into tradition, the religious aspect was secondary. Hitler was more interested in using the German military to his advantage, than in any religious opposition to homosexuality. In fact, Hitler's closest friend was a notorious homosexual, and was the leader of the infamous Brown Shirts. When Hitler was promoting traditional values that the military valued, which included prohibitions against homosexuality, it was only for political advantage. Hitler wasn't being a good Christian, for crying out loud. He was no Christian at all, but a pagan.

Therefore, the use of the term is yet another dishonest political attack. The political left is notorious for this.

The article could have mentioned this, but didn't. It DID mention why it was wrong on other grounds, but not on this one. Of course it is wrong. The political left is almost always wrong. Even if they have a point, it is used the way Hitler used it. It is only for political effect.

Woody Harrelson SNL monologue triggers leftist media

 

Woody Harrelson triggers paranoid media

There was a part in that monologue where Harrelson says something that seemed quite familiar with what happened during the COVID madness of recent years. He said ( as a joke, and that must be emphasized) that he had a script in hand that had all the drug cartels forcing people to stay inside, and required that they used their drugs over and over again. Then he said, "who'd believe that".

Too close for comfort for some of the paranoid leftists in the media.

So some in the media cannot take a joke. It was described as spreading misinformation. So now you can't joke about anything they actually did.

Maybe this will wake some people up to what's going on here, but who knows?

We are long past the point in which people should believe the media.

Somebody called it "anti-science". No. It was a joke. Too bad these people would rob us of all that makes life livable.

You have to ask, what are these people so afraid of? Well, I should qualify it a bit. There were three quotes pulled ( in the video) to show that at least of few of these people in the media totally lack any perspective and have no sense of humor at all.