Not A Chance In Hell

Quoth some Democrat “strategist”:

“This has got to be an election fundamentally about Democrats’ vision for bringing the country together and solving the big problems that confront us.”

Really?  This from a party which [deep breath]:

  • encourages urban unrest through its paramilitary Antifa movement
  • thinks voters for The Other Party are rubes, racists and “deplorable”
  • supports “open borders” (i.e. unlimited immigration) and calls those who don’t “racists” and “white supremacists”
  • resists ICE when they try to deport violent illegal immigrants
  • supports early release of violent felons from prison
  • supports Marxist electoral candidates and socialist/communist doctrine, in a nation which won the Cold War against that precise set of principles, and despite the obvious failures and appalling death tolls in all Communist nations since 1917
  • supports infanticide and unlimited abortion rights despite those being incredibly unpopular with the majority of Americans
  • wants to disarm the American population, despite Constitutional protection and (once again) massive popular support for private gun ownership
  • espouses insane social philosophies and policies such as gender-swapping surgery and gender-reassignment treatment for children
  • has Congressional representatives who ignore (and in some cases, even support) Muslim terrorism and the organizations which perform it
  • supports high taxation and increased government spending, when it is obvious that most Americans hate both
  • believes that climate catastrophe is imminent, excoriates all science (and scientists) that disproves their belief, and is willing to sacrifice both national- and personal prosperity to further their goals
  • thinks that America is still a fundamentally racist country
  • believes that international problems are mostly the fault of America, and supports diplomatic appeasement and accommodation of malevolent nations such as Communist China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela (to name but a few)
  • demands First Amendment protection for themselves, while actively denying it to anyone who opposes their philosophy
  • continues to support failed education policies like Common Core
  • denies school choice to parents when those choices include non-state school education
  • refuses to allow failing and incompetent schoolteachers to be fired because of entrenched union opposition
  • allows radical college administrations to suppress any contrary positions to their own
  • supports radical feminism and its lunatic (and un-Constitutional) positions such as #BelieveAllWomen and similar policies which would deny the accused their right to a fair trial
  • has, through its adherents in the federal bureaucracy, attempted a coup against an elected President
  • has the support of a mainstream media which continues to excuse and obscure all wrongdoing perpetrated by Democrats;  and invents, magnifies and exaggerates the same for any organization or person who opposes them even marginally
  • sincerely believes in tropes such as “toxic masculinity”, Arab-inspired blood-libel of Israelis, and “climate catastrophe”
  • will attempt to enact “climate-friendly” legislation and regulations which will hobble America and indeed the entire Western world’s economies, while giving a pass to the major sources of global pollution:  China, India and the rest of the Third World
  • wants to resurrect ObamaCare and take it to nationalized “single-payer” medical care
  • will end America’s energy independence by outlawing fracking, construction of pipelines, destruction of the coal industry altogether and ending nuclear power generation.

There are more, but I think everyone gets the idea.  And if you think I’m inventing or exaggerating this behavior, feel free to study all California’s legislation and regulations enacted since 1990, or NYFC’s Mayor DeBlasio’s ditto.

Here are just a few pictures which encapsulate the incoherence in modern “progressive” thought:

And I’m not making this stuff up.  Look at the numbers in the chart below:

Considering that all the above are largely threats coming from Democrat politicians, supporters and Democrat-controlled organizations, explain this to me:

How will the Democrat / Socialist Democratic Party ever “bring the country together”?

The simple answer is:  they can’t, and they don’t want to.  Their entire philosophy is predicated on the Marxist principle of the class struggle;  and if they don’t have an economic class struggle (as in the U.S.A., where prosperity is the rule and not the exception), they will invent  another class struggle against a different enemy, e.g. “White Patriarchy”, “White Supremacists”, “Racists” or “The 1%” (to name but some), even if their own leaders  belong to said groups in one way or another.  This quite apart from their actual  opponents, e.g. conservatives and Trump supporters, whom they demonize with such exaggeration that reconciliation is quite impossible..

In other words, the Democrat Party thrives on disunity, and all their actions and policies are designed to exacerbate and not reduce it.  So their stated desire to bring the country together is just another political lie, and it’s nothing more than a transparent ploy to try to win the 2020 election.



    It seems like insanity has taken over the left some how.
    Now, I have not witnessed directly and personally any of the insanity I see online, so it doesn’t really exist for me. But if perchance I did happen to see an instance I would probably stand there and marvel at it. As long as it posed no threat to me I would probably laugh at it. If it did, though, direct it’s ire in my direction I would not hesitate for a split second to take it out right on the spot. I believe tolerance for insanity encourages and emboldens it. The solution is simple, as it has been throughout human history, but it appears now a days people keep their nuts in a box in the closet and rarely use them.

  2. I often wonder if it’s possible that the Leftists are actually smart enough to have done what they’ve done over the last 60 or so years intentionally, or if it’s all just a happy (for them) accident.

    John Adams noted that our Constitution is meant for the governance of a moral and religious people, and is totally unsuitable for the governance of any other type of people.

    So Liberals have systematically chipped away at basic morality, duty, honor, integrity, bringing up a population (C.S. Lewis’ “Men without chests”) living under a system of government that’s inadequate for governing them, so of course the Leftists step in with changes to make the government more suitable for governing an immoral people, which would of course be a tyranny with themselves as the tyrants.

    So if you’re moral and honorable you’re old fashioned, or worse part of the patriarchy of dead white men and therefore irrelevant. If you’re immoral, a deviant, or just an all around scumbag you’re part of the elite who will rule over the rest of us.


    1. ” If you’re immoral, a deviant, or just an all around scumbag you’re part of the elite who will rule over the rest of us.”
      At least until it becomes time for the elite to rule over the rest of us, in which case at best you’ll be a minor functionary, permitted to lord it over your area of authority, and at worst, you’ll be inconvenient, at which point you’ll be in the Gulags with the awful old-fashioned people you helped put there, writing letters explaining how you’d always been loyal and hardworking, so there must be some mistake.

  3. I think I’ve said it before but the Dems biggest problem is that by creating a “coalition of the disaffected”, i.e. every group that has some sort of grievance against the status quo, they have collected a bunch of people who, while they might all agree that they hate the current “system”, they don’t agree on how to create a new one, and often times, they hate each other as much as they hate the status quo.

    It’s easy to tear down but it’s hard to build. Generating discontent is not difficult, since almost everybody has an axe to grind. But as soon as you start coming up with “solutions”, you’re bound to start stepping on SOMEBODY’S toes, and that’s when the coalition falls apart.

    And what’s even funnier is that the party whose core has been saying, for at least the last decade or so, that the only thing worse than an old, white man is an old, white man with a billion dollars, may face the prospect of old, white billionaire Mike Bloomburg as a candidate.

    If that happens, the Bernie Bros and Warren Hos (I just made that last one up BTW) will either vote 3rd party or just stay home in disgust.

  4. The same California Assemblycritter who excreted the state’s Motor Voter law which “accidentally” registers an unknown number of non-citizens to vote just dropped another one on the state’s subjects: Compulsory voting!

    “The bill would require anyone who is at least 18 years of age and qualified to vote by the next election to cast a ballot. The Secretary of State would decide how to enforce the law, and the San Francisco Chronicle reports that voting would be similar to jury duty, where fines or incarceration would be penalties for neglecting to fulfill the obligation.”

    1. Everybody who is eligible to vote already votes. Some vote by casting a ballot, others vote by staying home and doing nothing.

      It’s like when you order pizza for a group of people. Some want pepperoni, some want green peppers, some can’t stand onions, some just want cheese.

      Then there are the ones who say “I’m fine with whatever everyone else chooses.” That’s what non-voters are: The ones who are fine with whoever the rest of the voters pick. That’s a vote, too.

      1. An unknown number of people not eligible to vote also vote. We know for sure that it has happened. It is to be presumed that they vote (D) since California’s one party government is not revealing much interest in finding out how much of it actually is going on.

  5. I suspect Mike Bloomberg will be Trump’s competition in this election–there simply isn’t one in the low speed trainwreck that is the current crop of candidates.

    I propose that we should all start referring to him as “Nanny Bloomers” and/or “Meglo Mike” for the duration.

  6. Minor quibble, but I don’t think “paramilitary” is the most apt word to describe Antifa and their ilk. It doesn’t adequately capture the group’s thuggishness.

    I suggest brown or black shirts. Much more evocative, at least to the historically literate.

Comments are closed.