Dems, Tell Hillary to Go Back to the Woods; A.B. Stoddard

A.B. Stoddard  "Before Hillary Clinton puts more miles on her comeback tour, Democrats should let her know she’s done enough damage and it’s time to pack it in. That won’t stop her, since even after losing to Donald Trump she fancies herself some misunderstood martyr, but it might slow her down a bit. 

"While they crawl out of the wilderness that both Clinton and President Obama left them in, any moments Democrats spend amusing their failed 2016 nominee as she tries to find a way back to some sort of relevance is more than wasted energy -- it’s self-sabotage.  

"Last week Clinton sat in sanguine reflection at a carefully timed interview at a Women in the World Summit event and blamed everyone but herself for her staggering loss five months ago. After telling New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that personally she’s just fine, but that “as an American, I’m pretty worried,” she listed the causes for her loss: WikiLeaks, for publishing real emails about her campaign; Russia, for interfering in the campaign; FBI Director James Comey; and misogyny. When asked about future office, she did not rule it out, repeating that she wants to do “interesting things” and has “no plans” to ever run again. It was, well, Clintonian in its predictability.  

"Days after her remarks, a devastating tell-all was published that renders the same conclusion -- no matter how badly things go, it’s never on Hillary. In “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign,” a new, second book on Clinton by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, the toxic Clinton cloud returned, worse than ever before. The book portrays the distrust and dysfunction inside the bunker of a campaign where Clinton never took any blame, and aides were terrified to attempt to break through her denial with suggestions for any course corrections. Huma Abedin, the candidate’s closest aide, “couldn’t be counted on to relay constructive criticism to Hillary without pointing a finger at the critic,” the authors write." . . .

On Bill O'Reilly (UPDATED)

I personally had trouble liking the guy because of his constant interruptions of guests whose opinions I wanted to hear and his hawking of his merchandise, (even though the proceeds were said to help charities). But here is a sample of opinion on O'Reilly's departure that interested me:

The NY Times called O'Reilly a "cable news giant"  Posted today, but it's a fait accompli, a done deal: You Can’t Fire Bill O’Reilly  . . . "But whatever the truth of the allegations against him, they are clouded by an organized campaign to target his advertisers and get him off the air.

"And they are celebrating their victory, not over O’Reilly, but over us. Because O’Reilly’s fans are their targets. His platform. our platform. We count on O’Reilly for gutsy and penetrating television news. The kind you cannot get on any other network. Or any other show on his now former network.

"O’Reilly’s adversaries — our adversaries — hate, yes hate, how he so easily sees through their hoax of the month, whether that be global warming, evil bankers, sympathetic criminals, Black Lives Matter, Cops Lives Don’t Matter, lower taxes, fewer sex offenders, real borders, and free people with guns and money to use as they choose." . . .

Destroying Bill O'Reilly . . . Let me be clear that I don't support sexual harassment or the mistreatment of anyone in the work environment.

"I do see a lot of selective indignation, especially when the allegations came from an article in the New York Times.  Isn't this the same paper that endorsed Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and loves Ted Kennedy?"  

"Is Roger Simon right that this is really about Trump?  I think that Roger is on to something here: " . . .

If only he had been a liberal things would have been just fine. 

Emails show O'Reilly lawyers' last-ditch effort to save his job

The famous Fox host sharpened the differences between older, center-right Republicans and today’s young, cosmopolitan right-wingers.
. . . "Repulsed by the radicalism of Berkeley and the Black Panthers, offended by the lecturing of Jimmy Carter (crystallized in his “malaise” speech), but not far removed from the horrors of the Great Depression and World War II, they found themselves looking back affectionately to the economic ascendancy and cultural consolidation of the 1950s. And so they landed firmly on the right side of the political spectrum — but nearer its center than we often recall today. It was this audience that Fox News targeted when it was created in 1996 and that found a representative voice on The O’Reilly Report, which launched that same year." . . .

Earth Day is coming. UPDATED

http://terrellaftermath.com/

The Hypocrisy of 'Earth Day'  . . . "Of tomorrow’s extravaganza, The Earth Day Network explains, “The March for Science is a celebration of our passion for science and the many ways science serves our communities and our world. The March for Science is an unprecedented global gathering of scientists and science enthusiasts joining together to acknowledge the vital role science plays in our lives and the need to respect and encourage research that gives us insight into the world.” This, of course, is a shot across the bow at “climate skeptics” and the Trump administration, which is considering abandoning last year’s bogus Paris climate agreement." . . .

"Yet climate crusaders like Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Gore, John Kerry and March for Science activists hypocritically jet set around the globe while railing against fossil fuels and mankind’s carbon addiction. Last year, Kerry lectured, “The future demands from us something more than a nostalgia for some rose-tinted version of the past that did not really exist in any case. You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world.” Translation: Global stastism(sp), which requires activism via “boots on the ground,” is the cure for America’s ills. Thus, leftists are indifferent to their own hypocrisy. In truth, we’re doing just fine without their agenda-driven involvement." . . .

UPDATE: Climate Marches Aren't About Science — They're About Trump  . . . "A science march website says this is "explicitly a political movement, aimed at holding leaders in science and politics accountable" for trying to "skew, ignore, misuse or interfere with science."

"That pious language really means they intend to allow no deviation from climate cataclysm doctrines.

"It means everyone must accept claims that fossil fuel emissions, not powerful natural forces, now govern Earth's climate; any future changes will be catastrophic; despite growing wealth and technological prowess, humanity will somehow be unable to adapt to future fluctuations; and mankind can and must control the climate by regulating emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, regardless of costs.

"Equally revealing, former UN climate convention director Christiana Figueres has said the UN goal is to "intentionally change the economic development model" that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution." . . .

Cruel to Be Kind

Mike Adams



"Several years ago, a feminist professor told me that she had decided to abort her child because it was the “compassionate thing to do.” Those were her exact words and she was serious. At the time, I thought she must have suffered a severe intellectual hernia from the strain required to declare an act of dismemberment to be an act of kindness. Since then I have realized that this was more than just an isolated instance of intellectual constipation. Disguising acts of cruelty as acts of kindness is a feature of virtually every policy position of the secular “progressive” left. Some notable examples follow:" . . .


Prof. Adams names the examples in alphabetical order and the list includes this:

Anti-racism. I understand that fighting racism is a good idea – provided we are talking about actual racism. But when you start calling someone a racist for saying “all lives matter” – as one of my so-called colleagues recently did to a student in front of her classmates – you aren’t stamping out racism. You are just intentionally defaming people in order to end an argument with intimidation tactics.

. . .

But the list includes so much more.