Showing posts sorted by date for query electoral college. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query electoral college. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, September 2, 2025

Bruce Springsteen’s Anti-American Anthem: Honoring the Rust Belt’s greatest sellout — and elitist suck-up.

The American Spectator   

. . . "“He isn’t the voice of American pride. He’s a salesman, a disingenuous one at that. He fooled a nation into cheering its own condemnation.” That’s well put. And I was among the young fools, cluelessly cheering the condemnation and making this working-class liberal a rich man in the process.

Springsteen by Bruno Munier

"It was July 1984, a very late weeknight. My buddy Mike and I closed up Perkins Restaurant in Butler, Pennsylvania, and left about 1 a.m. with a six-pack of Budweiser pounders for the old Kaufman’s department store in downtown Pittsburgh. There we joined a long line of fellow 1980s degenerates sleeping out all night on the sidewalk in quest of coveted Bruce Springsteen concert tickets.

"Perkins is a nice family restaurant chain. The restaurant where Mike and I worked — he as a junior manager and I as cook, dishwasher, and all-purpose grunt — flew a gigantic American flag on a high pole outside Clearview Mall. That flag always pleased patriotic Americans, of whom there were many in our hometown, including among classmates who had graduated from Butler High School the previous month.

"My friends and I weren’t political or ideological. We loved our country but knew little about politics. I couldn’t define a Republican or a Democrat. Like almost everyone in America, however, we liked Ronald Reagan. Even Walter Cronkite had marveled about Reagan, “I never thought I’d see anyone that well-liked ….  Nobody hates Reagan. It’s amazing.” That was evident when Reagan was reelected with nearly 60 percent of the vote, 49 of 50 states, and winning the Electoral College 525 to 13.

"We patriotic teens also liked Bruce Springsteen. Already an established pop-rock star, he had just reexploded on the music scene with a smash album, Born in the U.S.A. The album cover and Bruce himself were bedecked in red, white, and blue. The stars and stripes were his theme. Old Glory was front and center for every performance during Springsteen’s enormously successful year-long-plus tour that hit major cities in America (Pittsburgh twice, both the Civic Arena and Three Rivers Stadium) and around the world.

"When Springsteen, during those shows, belted out the title track to the album, the crowd went nuts with patriotic fervor, furiously waving small and large flags. It was a great American moment.

"Or so it seemed.

"Unfortunately, young people in that era had been conditioned through years of indiscernible lyrics to not listen carefully to the actual words of the often-fatuous ditties to which they hummed and tapped their toes and played air guitar. In days when you didn’t have phones to Google lyrics, you often had no idea what the hell rocker X, Y, or Z was saying. And if the lyrics were sung clearly enough to understand, we morons didn’t really think much about them.

"And there were few starker examples of that than Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.”

Mockery of the U.S.A.

"When one paused to actually listen to the words of this seemingly patriotic anthem — which capitalized big-time on the surge in patriotism of the Reagan 1980s — you realized that Bruce’s signature song was in reality a protest. Quite incredibly, given how it fooled everyone (our fault for being mindless dupes as much as Springsteen’s fault), the Boss’ famous track was a mockery of the American dream." . . .

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

How Obama doomed Democrats

 Don Surber

"Obama insisted on putting his party on the 20 side of 80/20 issues. Democrats are pro-criminals, pro-illegal aliens, pro-child mutilation and against anything and everything that Trump does."

"The New York Times is running a series of stories aimed at sparking Democrats after their second defeat by Donald Trump despite outspending him and owning all the media. NYT fears he’s the iceberg that hit their Titanic that for most of this century ran the country.
"NYT reported, “How the Electoral College Could Tilt Further From Democrats.
"The concern of the moment is over the 2030 Census which will reflect California’s loss of actual citizens to middle class flight and the deportation of the illegal aliens that Democrats use to fluff their population totals. They literally were replacing Americans with immigrants as they tried to maintain an Electoral College advantage that California does not deserve.

President Trump is deporting that plan." . . .

"Obama used his power to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to fight for their First Amendment right not to dispense artificial birth control to their employees.

"I’m not saying he is a pervert, but he used his power to finance the butchery of children in the name of transgendering.

"The first black president made life miserable for everyone by dividing us by race, sex and sex life.

"He used the FBI to spy on Donald Trump and likely many others as Susan Rice spent her time as the nation’s spy chief “unmasking”—that is identifying—Americans in what were supposed to be FBI recordings of foreign nationals.

"But Obama’s worst sin for Democrats was hanging on to power by becoming the first ex-president to live in DC to watch his moles in government work against his successor. For four years, he harassed President Trump with false investigations, phony baloney lawsuits and ludicrous impeachments.

"Under Biden, Obama had Trump’s home raided by his buddies in the FBI. Obama’s minions charges him with 91 counts of crimes that existed, as he said, “in the imagination.” . . . More.

Here’s why Democrats work so hard to defend criminals   . . . "Obama is an intelligent person who morphed Saul Alinsky, Marx, Critical Theory, and anarchy into a legitimate political movement.  Although it was successful in his personal ascension to power, this approach has not generally gained ground nationally.  (It is well received in the large urban cities with large minority populations.)  The movement toward radicalism includes a reduction in policing and punishment for crimes.  This results in chaos which threatens the local poor and minority population most giving them a sense of hopelessness and desperation.  This is critical to the theory.  Hence, these political leaders will resist any attempt to make our streets safer." . . .

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

What Made the Democratic Party Go Crazy?

Victor Davis Hanson   

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were the last Democrats to go through the motions of appealing to the middle class. But in retirement, they both cashed in, went global, and became multimillionaires by selling their name and brand—and so joined the madness. 

"The answer was not Trump alone.

"Indeed, irony abounds when Democrats resonate with the claims of the vestigial Never Trumpers that the MAGA movement “hijacked” the Republican Party.

"In characteristic projectionist fashion, the left is simply falsely attributing to their opposition the very hijacking that hit the Democratic Party.

"The Republicans are still the party of conservatism and traditionalism. But in the last decade, it adopted an expansionary middle-class agenda that has led to record party registration, its first popular presidential vote victory since 2004, and control of all three branches of government.

"The MAGA emphases also have accomplished what prior “moderate” Republican presidents and presidential candidates had sought but largely failed to achieve: making inroads with minorities and youth and substituting class commonalities for racial chauvinism.

" 'Thus, in 2024, 55 percent of Hispanic men and somewhere around 25 percent of black males voted for Trump—along with a +2 advantage for Trump among young men in general (18-29).

"In contrast, Joe Biden left office with below 40 percent popularity in many polls. His replacement, 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, despite a substantial advantage in funding and overwhelmingly biased, favorable media coverage, lost both the popular and Electoral College vote.

"Since the election, a variety of data points show a steady erosion in Democrat Party favorability (24 percent positive polling) and voter registration (for the first time in memory, Republicans are out-registering hemorrhaging Democrats in new voter affiliations).

"They are also on the losing end of a 40/60 split among voters on most issues—especially the border, energy, crime, transgenderism, and foreign policy—a truth that even the legacy media cannot disguise.

"The Democratic implosion does not necessarily mean they will not win back the House in the next election. Historically, it is difficult for even an unpopular out-party not to pick up lots of House and Senate seats in an administration’s first midterm. But if Democrats capture at least the House, the vote will not be for their party’s policies or politicians as much as a reflection of their ginned-up opposition to Trump, the messenger of a radical and controversial counterrevolutionary message.

"The Democratic project is bleeding out because it either does not address what the middle class is worried about, or it offers no solution to popular anger—namely over inflation, the out-of-control DEI commissariat, illegal immigration, crime, high energy prices and tyrannical Green New Deal policies, steep interest rates, unaffordable housing costs, and anemic foreign policies." . . .   More...

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

Who Has Been Busy Destroying Democracy?

 Victor Davis Hanson  

 'So, it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows—given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them." . . .


“Destroying democracy”—the latest theme of the Left—can be defined in many different ways.

"How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient, and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains?
"So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court?
"Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster—though only when they hold a Senate majority?
"Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia—by altering the Constitution—as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators?
"Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?
"Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president?
"So, who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of “collusion” to  sabotage Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump’s first term?

"Who prompted a cabal of “51 former intelligence officials” to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a “Russian intelligence operation?”

"Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign?
"Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort, and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate?
"Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there?
"Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him?" . . .Full article here...

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

Radicalism Rebranded: Is New York City’s ‘Mamdani Moment’ America’s Problem?

Kim Ezra Shienbaum - American Thinker

"Even foreign policy has been affected. Groups once universally condemned as terrorist organizations, like Hamas, have been rebranded in activist spaces as “resistance” movements, sheltering under the umbrella of Progressive intersectionality."


"Many Americans are asking how we reached a point where lawlessness, anti-Americanism, and open sympathy for terrorists are not only tolerated but celebrated—and where mayoral candidates who would once have been considered “fringe” can win primaries in major cities. The answer? Since the 1960s, the United States has undergone one of the most dramatic political rebrandings in modern history, particularly on the Left. The sixties radicals never disappeared. Their ideas, once considered extreme, have not only resurfaced, they’ve been rebranded.  Today, extremism is marketed to new generations as compassionate, inclusive, and enlightened, marching under the “progressive” banner and embraced by a growing bloc of post-9/11, college-educated voters.

"However, while the rhetoric has softened, the underlying ideology and its mission remain unchanged.  Indeed, the label “Progressive” is itself a branding triumph.  It wraps radical demands in the soft language of European-style social democracy.  But the resemblance is misleading.  Unlike Europe’s Social Democratic parties, which operate comfortably within free market economies and reject Marxist class conflict, the American progressive left is anti- capitalist and embraces identity-based Marxism, recasting social conflict in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender.  Today, that rebranding is no longer confined to universities or activist circles—it is shaping electoral outcomes.  The rise is not an aberration, but the culmination of a movement decades in the making.

The Radical Roots

"In the 1960s, radical groups like Students for a Democratic Society, the Weather Underground, and the Black Panthers openly called for dismantling America’s political and cultural framework.  Their rhetoric—violent, confrontational, and contemptuous of American identity—alienated the public.  The Left learned a crucial lesson: they could not win by storming the gates.  To succeed, they would need to exchange the vocabulary of revolution for the language of compassion, justice, and human rights.

The Rebranding Campaign

"Over decades, the Left refined its message. Words that once triggered alarm were replaced with language that sounded moral and inclusive.  This was more than semantics—it reframed the debate over what America is and should be.  Policies once seen as dangerous gained legitimacy by being rebranded as moral necessities.  Over the next several decades, the radicals and their ideological heirs shifted the battleground from the streets to the lecture hall, the newsroom, the school board meeting and now to City Hall." . . . More...

Monday, July 14, 2025

early and often America Would Be Better Off If Trump Won in 2020

  Intelligencer  

"A Trump win would have also meant no second Trump impeachment, then no federal criminal prosecution of Trump for his involvement in an attempted insurrection."


"When Donald Trump’s megabill passed the Senate, consummating nearly a half-year of aggressively reactionary policymaking by the 47th president, a colleague commented that “it’s like the Biden presidency never happened.” That’s true in the sense that between Trump’s executive orders and the megabill, it’s hard to find a single stone unmoved from where he found it when he took office in January. But on reflection, it might be quite literally true. The country, and even the Democratic Party, would very likely have been in better condition today had Trump been reelected in 2020 over Joe Biden.

"By that, I don’t mean Trump reversing his 2020 election defeat in Congress, the courts, or via the Capitol riot; I mean had he gained 77,000 more votes in four battleground states and hence won a majority in the Electoral College. Barring some lurid scandal, Democrats (with scattered dissents) would have accepted Trump’s victory as legitimate just as they did after his 2016 win, which similarly came with a national popular-vote deficit" . . .

Being affiliated with New York Magazine, author Kilgore is strongly anti-Trump.

Friday, April 11, 2025

Kamala Harris Reveals Her Possible Next Move, and You'll Be Rolling on the Floor Laughing


 RedState
   

"We need to guard that spirit. We have to guard that spirit. Let it always inspire us. Let it always be the source of our optimism, which is that spirit that is so uniquely American. And let that then inspire us by helping us to be inspired to solve the problems that so many face." Kamala Harris

"What will Kamala Harris do next? That's been the question bouncing around since she suffered one of the most embarrassing presidential election defeats in modern history. 

"Despite having a billion dollars to spend over a three-month period, making her dollars go further than basically any other candidate in modern history, and having the press so in her corner that they laughably tried to remake her as a cultural icon, Harris still managed to not only lose, but lose in an electoral college landslide. In a sane world, the question wouldn't be what she does next. It'd be where she retires to while she collects lucrative checks from various corporate boards. 

"But this is 2025, and that means a Democrat never truly fails. They can only be failed, and that's left the former vice president searching for a new gig. Will she run for Governor of California? Will she bide her time to run for president again in 2028? Both seem like absurd options given how awful of a politician she is, but there's another option being weighed: Opening an institute of policy and ideas." . . .

Quote
Andrew Stiles
@AndrewStilesUSA
NYT: Kamala Harris, known for her deep knowledge and ability to articulate complex issues, is thinking about launching "an institute for policy and ideas."

Kamala Harris is a mean girl   . . ."GovTrack’s non-partisan report card rated Senator Kamala Harris as the furthest-left congressperson, even further left than self-avowed socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders. Harris continued her pro-abortion — and even pro-infanticide — rabidity while serving in the Senate, voting against the Born Alive Infant Survivors Protection Act, which simply required babies who survived abortion to be given medical care. The bill did not restrict abortion at all. Even so, Senator Harris voted “no.”

"There’s no other way to say it: Kamala Harris is mean. And like any mean girl, she enjoys calling those she doesn’t like “weird.” That’s her moniker for Trump and Vance — beloved fathers who, unlike Harris, have spent years building things bigger and better than political careers. Trump is a successful businessman and an adored grandfather. Vance is a veteran, entrepreneur, acclaimed author and family man whose story typifies the American Dream. Kamala Harris is a vengeful, power-hungry bully who calls normal “weird.' ” . . .

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Why would anyone be a Democrat?

 Bob Weir  

"If you’re a Democrat who is sensible enough to know that men can’t give birth to children, why don’t you take a stand against the crazies in your orbit?  Are you so morally bankrupt and cowardly that you would remain silent simply because you’re a member of a political party and don’t want to hurt your chances for re-election?" 

Rich Terrell

"The 2024 presidential election was a seminal moment in our history.  It did more than provide a wide margin of support for one candidate over another.  It spoke volumes about how deteriorated our culture has become when the issues of the campaign were as polar-opposite as love and hate.  President Trump talked about closing the southern border in order to stop illegal immigration, whereas Biden/Harris told us the border was secure, notwithstanding daily videos of thousands of illegals forcefully streaming into our country.  The Biden administration was telling us that inflation is transitory while consumers were paying double and triple prices for goods and services.  How deluded were the Democrats to think their party could win by denying everything that was occurring right before the eyes of all Americans?

"Moreover, after they suffered the devastating loss, they continued to fight against all the issues that Trump ran on, and that voters overwhelmingly supported.  As promised, President Trump got to work quickly by issuing hundreds of executive orders.  By the way, did you ever think, in your wildest imagination, that a president would have to issue an order proclaiming that there are only two genders?  How about an E.O. declaring that men can no longer participate in women’s sports?  He even needed an E.O. to stop the flow of illicit drugs across our borders.  During a saner time in our history, such actions would have been part of the normal order of government business.

"It makes me wonder why anyone would be a Democrat and have to defend the insanity of the radical left in his party.  Isn’t there anyone with the courage to speak common sense to the extremists within?  That so-called “Squad” of reprobates, who evince obvious hatred for the country they were elected to serve, appear to have an iron grip on the other 200-plus in their party." . . .

Democrat party now the biggest threat to world peace and freedom   . . ."Part and parcel of that is that, ironically, it is the biggest threat to democracy in America. It wants to abolish the Electoral College, dispense with the filibuster, make Puerto Rico the 51st state, grant statehood to the federal District of Columbia as well, pack the Supreme Court — and make it illegal to ask for I.D. at voting/polling places across the fruited plain, thereby inviting massive fraud and effectively disenfranchising countless citizen voters.

"On top of all this, it seeks to further eliminate its political opposition by fabricated character attacks, perpetual lawfare, and even assassination.

"But even this is not enough." . .There's MORE?


Monday, February 17, 2025

Democrat party now the biggest threat to world peace and freedom

Eric Utter

 "Most of you know the names: Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Gavin Newsom, Tim Walz, J.B. Pritzker, Kathy Hochul, George Soros, et al.  Hopefully, this doesn’t come as a shock to anybody, but these are not good people.


  "
I have been quite blunt in my writings here over the past five years or so -- about the state of the nation, the West in general, the nature of the mainstream media, Democrats, and the hoaxes that the latter two have foisted on us.

"I have repeatedly noted how Democrats lie, gaslight, and project (their favorite tactic.)

"But I now have to say something some will consider patently extreme, and others may judge to be simple hyperbole: the Democrat party is the biggest threat to the planet -- on the planet -- today.

"Allow me to explain.

"Part and parcel of that is that, ironically, it is the biggest threat to democracy in America. It wants to abolish the Electoral College, dispense with the filibuster, make Puerto Rico the 51st state, grant statehood to the federal District of Columbia as well, pack the Supreme Court — and make it illegal to ask for I.D. at voting/polling places across the fruited plain, thereby inviting massive fraud and effectively disenfranchising countless citizen voters.

"On top of all this, it seeks to further eliminate its political opposition by fabricated character attacks, perpetual lawfare, and even assassination.

"But even this is not enough.

"Democrats seek to strip Americans of the inherent rights granted to each of us by our Creator. The right to free speech, assembly and religious association? Not if Democrats don’t care for the speech, cause, or religion involved. (You’re screwed if you’re a conservative Christian, for example.) The Second Amendment? Nope.
Whatever God granteth, Democrats taketh away. Or try to.

"And it isn’t just the formerly United States that suffers because of this. It has recently become crystal clear that Democrats and their favored big government and Deep State institutions are zealous proponents of wars and forever wars around the globe." . . .


Wednesday, January 29, 2025

A Bad Year for The Wall Street Journal

Ann Coulter  

"Trump’s a good negotiator. How about he makes this deal with the Journal: His mass deportation force will allow one illegal alien rapist to stay for every WSJ editorial writer who self-deports?"

Tony Branco

"Who was Monday worse for? MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal or people on the streets of D.C. selling M.L.K. merch?

"I say the Journal. MSNBC hates Donald Trump and opposes him no matter what he says. He could come out against sinkholes and MSNBC would have to be for sinkholes. Monday was just another day at the lunatic asylum.

"But the Journal is supposed to be a Republican newspaper and, for decades, its most impassioned advice to Republicans has been: more wars and, above all, more immigrants!

"Then along comes a New York Times-Ipsos poll — consistent with a half-dozen other polls over the past year — showing that Trump’s single most popular issue is his “mass deportation force.” And Trump’s second most popular issue is his promise to stop intervening in other countries’ wars — for example, by sending billions of dollars to Ukraine.

"Both of these positions would be different from yours, Wall Street Journal.

"Nearly 90% of Americans (87%) support deporting illegals who’ve committed crimes. About two-thirds (63%) support deporting the illegals who’ve come in the last four years under Joe Biden. A clear majority (55%) support deporting every illegal in the country — or as the Times puts it, “everyone living in the United States without authorization.” In other words, illegals just lost the Electoral College vote and the popular vote.

"But since the 1990s, the Journal has been denouncing “the GOP’s anti-immigrationists” for sending a “cramped, pessimistic message,” and exhorting Republicans to be like Ronald Reagan, who “celebrated immigration.” (This was back when the illegal alien population was estimated to be about 2 million, compared to well north of 40 million today.) The paper routinely champions Republicans who adopt the WSJ/Ramaswamy position that any given immigrant is better than any given American. Then, they invariably go on to lose.

"Trump, the biggest “anti-immigrationist” of them all, got more votes than pro-immigrationist John McCain. Today, more Hispanics want to deport illegals than voted for either Trump or McCain. Is it still the official position of the Republican Party that winning is preferable to losing?

"Most recently, the Journal was flacking for the Democrats (and one idiot Republican from Oklahoma — what’s the matter with you, Oklahoma?) and their so-called “border security” bill that would have written into law the entire Biden policy on immigration. Which was to defy existing written law on immigration." . . .