Kaepernick’s Plan “B” as in Bullshit proceeds

Dr. Raymond Stantz: Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve WORKED in the private sector. They expect results.

Ghostbusters 1984

A few days ago I wrote that Colin Kaepernick was the person most affected by the Miles Garrett situation because before he swung that helmet the entire NFL was talking about the Kaepernick workout, but once that helmet was swung Garrett was the only topic in sports but the only NFL story that the national media cared about.

I also noted that it was a great litmus test to measure if Kaepernick actually wanted to play in the NFL to wit:

If Kaepernick’s goal is to be signed by an NFL team then he should send Miles Garrett and gold plated helmet in thanks for getting him under the radar.
If, as I suspect, Kaepernick’s goal is to be the center of attention as the ultimate media martyr he’s just been screwed.

Well we found out which goal he had didn’t we,? Not only did he managed to play the drama queen but did so in a way to garner maximum press while minimizing his prospects of being signed.

Even Stephen A Smith isn’t buying this routine anymore:

Now in one respect Kaepernick is being smart. After all as long as he is not signed he can play the Martyr game and continue to collect good money as a poster boy for the left and Nike and other woke companies or companies desiring to be woke. That is a source of income that can go on for decades.

But the moment he is signed by an NFL team suddenly, not only is his status as a martyr lessened considerably but he instantly is put in an environment where instead of being judged by the content of his character he will be judged by the objective standard of:

Can you as a quarterback take an NFL offence down the field to score against an NFL defense that is determined to stop you?

If the answer to that question is “No” than Kaepernick return to the NFL would be rather short lived and even if the answer is “yes” it’s likely for a very short time and he risks injury every moment he’s trying to prove it.

Much easier to be a symbol and a martyr, the pay is better, the job has less physical risk and you don’t have to prove yourself against anyone else.

Kaepernick isn’t training to be an NFL quarterback he’s in training to be the next Al Sharpton.

Report from Louisiana: Four more years of decline

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – I saw a meme on social media Sunday morning:  “Waiting for election results is like waiting for a grade on a group project. I know I did my part right but I’m scared the rest of you screwed it up.”

Well, they did.

We’ve got four more years of John Bel Edwards. Pete wrote about this yesterday.  It’s true, as he says, that Edwards is a pro-life Democrat and to a state that is heavily Catholic, especially in the southern regions, that matters.

However, I’d hardly say that his re-election is a mandate. The race was very close and for a lot of us who would like to see business returning to Louisiana, this is not really good news. It means:

Four more years of high taxes.

Four more years of trial lawyers running businesses out of the state.

Four more years of last-in-everything.

Four more years of shackles on the oil and gas industry.

Four more years of decline.

The race was close: Edwards received 774,469 votes and Rispone received 734,128, giving Edwards about 51% of the vote. Voter turnout was about 50% and it is worth noting that Orleans Parish went 90% for Edwards. 

The days leading up to the election were insane: Donald Trump lobbied throughout Louisiana for Eddie Rispone and his rallies drew literally thousands. In the Shreveport/Bossier City area here in northwest Louisiana, Trump visited on Thursday, before the Saturday election.

Interestingly, just days before Trump’s visit, the Shreveport mayor Adrian Perkins (D) issued a “stand-down” order, telling Shreveport police and fire responders to offer no assistance to the security of the President during his visit. Shreveport’s first responders had been in planning meetings and had assignments to assist Bossier City (we are divided only by a river). This stand-down order met with a backlash against Mayor Perkins that resulted in a local defeat of the Mayor’s bond election that was also on the ballot.

The only good news here is that this runoff election granted Louisiana Republicans a supermajority in both the House and Senate, and so Edwards will have a tougher time this term.

Looking at the numbers, it is interesting to consider for example that voters reinstated the Republican Secretary of State overwhelmingly over the Democrat candidate (59% to 40%), but only 51% of those same voters went for Edwards.

I think a lot of the problem for Republicans in this election can be placed on two things: a lot of people see Edwards as just moderate enough that they can take him. The second thing is that Republicans just did not offer up a top tier candidate. Rispone’s name recognition was zero coming into this election and he had no political experience. He’d just made lots of money in the private sector. He knows business and he touted himself as the Louisiana Donald Trump.

If Senator John Kennedy had run, we might be having a very different conversation right now.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport and is the author of Cane River Bohemia: Cammie Henry and her Circle at Melrose Plantation. Follow her on Instagram @patbecker25 and Twitter @paustin110.

Profiles in cowardice: The Democrats’ push to impeach Trump

Andrew Johnson statue on the grounds of the Tennessee state capitol

By John Ruberry

One of the heroes in the Pulitzer Prize winning book, Profiles in Courage, which was credited to John F. Kennedy but largely written by Ted Sorensen, was Edmund G. Ross, a Radical Republican senator from Kansas who is credited as the deciding vote against the removal from office of President Andrew Johnson, who had been impeached by the House of Representatives.

Ross was appointed to the Senate in 1866, when, Sorensen wrote, “the two branches of government were at each other’s throats.” Such as it is now between the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and President Donald J. Trump.

Johnson, like the man he succeeded, Abraham Lincoln, favored a quick readmission of the former Confederate states into the Union. But Johnson had few of the political skills of the Great Emancipator, and compared to the Radical Republicans, Johnson was very weak on the Civil Rights. Johnson was impeached in 1868–an election year–for violating the recently enacted Tenure of Office Act for firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. The president deemed that law as unconstitutional, it was repealed a few years later and the courts later proved Johnson correct.

Ross, along with six other Republican senators voted to acquit Johnson. Sorensen, in Profiles in Courage notes Ross’ words, written years after the impeachment trial.

In a large sense, the independence of the executive office as a coordinate branch of the government was on trial…If…the president must step down…a disgraced man and a political outcast…upon insufficient proofs and from partisan considerations…the office of the president would be degraded, cease to be a coordinate branch of the government, and ever after subordinated to the legislative will.

If Johnson had been removed from office America would have seen a weakened office of the presidency. One subject to the whims of an emboldened Congress.

Trump’s crimes in regards to the Ukraine call, if any–and I don’t believe there are any–are subject to interpretation. Say what you will about the only other president to be impeached, Bill Clinton, but he clearly perjured himself when testifying about Monica Lewinsky.

If Trump is impeached by the House, the likelihood of his being convicted by the Senate and removed from office is remote. But a precedent could be set by future Congresses to impeach presidents, well, simply because member of the “loyal opposition” opposes him. Or her, of course.

As Wikipedia writes about the Johnson impeachment:

The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for the balance of federal legislative–executive power. It maintained the principle that Congress should not remove the President from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office. It also resulted in diminished presidential influence on public policy and overall governing power, fostering a system of governance which Woodrow Wilson referred to in the 1870s as “Congressional Government”.

But most of the current crop of Democrat members of the House don’t care about history. They simply want to, in the crass words of freshman congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, “Impeach the motherf—er.”

When impeachment comes to a full vote in the House, will any Democrats–and not just those from districts that are overwhelmingly pro-Trump–offer a profile in courage?

It seems right now that most House Democrats have profiles in cowardice–they answer only to the MSNBC–incited mob who fill their campaign coffers. 

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Pro-Life Democrat wins in Louisiana

Yesterday Jon Bell Edwards managed to do something a lot of people didn’t expect, he won re-election to the Governorship of Louisiana even after president Trump came down to support his opponent.

A lot of people on the left and in the media are publicly spinning this as a rejection of the president but there is one simple reason why Edwards was able to win, and it had nothing to do with Donald Trump, impeachment or anything else. Edwards won re-election because he is a creature even more rare than an honest journalist…a pro-life democrat who doesn’t equivocate when it comes to supporting life:

Edwards signed into law one of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws in the country, earning praise from groups like the Susan B. Anthony List, which applauded him for “leading the way in the bipartisan effort to bring our nation’s laws into line with basic human decency.”Edwards said, “The pro-life ethos has to mean more than just the abortion issue. It’s got to go beyond that. The job isn’t over when the baby’s born if you’ve got poor people who need access to health care.”
Source: America Magazine on 2019 Louisiana gubernatorial race , Dec 14, 2018

Unblemished anti-abortion voting record
John Bel Edwards says, “We need the exact opposite of what we’ve gotten from Bobby Jindal; he has sacrificed the state’s well-being to further his own self-ambition.” But in some ways, Edwards is more like Jindal than many might think. Like the governor, he is an anti-abortion, pro-gun rights Catholic; his voting record is unblemished on both issues.

It’s worth noting that the left hasn’t been shy about attacking him for it either:

A rarity in his party, Edwards’ anti-abortion stance provokes angry outcries on social media from Democratic voters and disappointment within the party’s broader ranks across the country.
“When Republicans are taking away women’s rights at every step, it’s on the Democrats to show that we are the party that will protect women. When we fail to do that, we make it absolutely hopeless for women around the country,” said Rebecca Katz, a progressive Democratic consultant.

Many Democrat candidates for president and national leaders hit him for the heartbeat bill, NARAL hit him particularly hard:

“Women are the base of the Democratic Party, leading the charge for equality by fighting for reproductive freedom,” NARAL Pro-Choice America Political Director Nicole Brener-Schmitz said in a statement. “Governor Edwards, and any other elected official attempting to use political overreach to roll back our rights, is mistaken to think our fundamental freedoms are up for debate….He won’t get a pass just because he is a Democrat.”

But in the end Edwards didn’t flinch from his position and as a result Democrats kept the governor’s mansion in a race where they lost the secretary of state candidate lost by almost 20 points.

Now the reality is that both candidates in the race were very pro-life and there are plenty of other reasons why a Republican victory in Louisiana would have been a better thing for the state, but I also think that if Edwards’ victory gives Democrats both in the south and elsewhere the courage to stand up for life when the national party and the left demand they abandon it if they want statewide or national office it is a fine thing.

the Democrats / left / media can spin this anyway they want, but today was a victory for life and I suspect the knowledge that they owe that victory to Edwards’ stance against them galls them almost as much as a GOP victory would have.

Closing thought: Abortion is a sine non qua for me. If I have the choice between a pro-life democrat like Edwards and a pro-abortion republican like Brown or Baker or even one who was with me on any other issue, the pro-life Democrat would get my vote every single time.

Nothing trumps life at the ballot box for me, NOTHING.

Democrat Women Candidates Think Nagging Will Win Them Votes

Good luck with that

by baldilocks

Weaklings.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar wants you to think her struggles to gain momentum in her presidential bid are due to her sex — and the bias of the American public.

The Democrat took a swipe at fellow White House contender Pete Buttigieg, who leads her, by saying the South Bend mayor likely wouldn’t have garnered the support he has — given his light resume (in her opinion) — if he were a woman. (…)

California Sen. Kamala Harris raised similar claims to explain her single digit showings in the polls, questioning whether Americans are ready to elect a woman as their commander in chief.

“Essentially, is America ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States?” Harris posited in an Axios interview in late October. (…)

And let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton has spent the years following her loss to Donald Trump trying to blame sexism and other character flaws among Americans for why she isn’t the first female president. Perhaps she’s forgotten she did get 3 million more votes than Trump. But thanks to the Electoral College, Trump outplayed her.

The writer doesn’t mention any complaints from Elizabeth Warren on the topic, and for a good reason; she’s polling right behind the front-runner — Joe Biden — as the potential Democratic Party nominee.

Okay, let’s pretend that America’s goose isn’t cooked if President Trump is removed from office or if he loses the 2020 election. Could you imagine being hectored and scolded for your “sexism” every time someone opposes a distaff President of the United States? I mean, it was bad enough being called racist for opposing the 44th president or for supporting the 45th.

What these women are doing is as old as the oldest profession: turning their deficiencies as candidates into someone else’s fault.

Some advice from the cheap seats: suck less, ladies. Suck it up, drive on, and quit your complaining. After all, your purses are still being filled and that’s something for which to be grateful.

Wait … gratitude? From leftist women? Never mind.

Now. We return you to your regularly scheduled Impeachment Theater, featuring another Democrat woman whining.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

Hospital pricing, a long overdue change

Hospital pricing, from MSNBC

Going to a hospital is stressful. People generally go that are sick and want to get better. But even if you do, getting the bill in the mail a few days later can often send a shock to your system. After Rebecca died, I did get the final bill (that my insurance gratefully paid for), and the total was almost $100,000. Paying that out of pocket would have been pretty tough.

A little while back, I was visiting friends and one of them told me she had finally paid off the hospital fees associated with her little girl. It was shocking to me, since I’m blessed to have insurance and because her girl was two years old. But her insurance didn’t do a great job of detailing out-of-pocket expenses, so she and her husband got a bill that they just couldn’t pay in one chunk.

Thus, I was really happy to hear the news that President Trump pushed for price transparency rules that require hospitals to post prices. Initiatives like this have been moving forward before with varying degrees of success. Not surprisingly, hospitals and insurance companies are pushing back, but that’s no surprise. Every time an organization can hide their cost model it doesn’t benefit the consumer. Banks were like this years ago, and I’d argue social media sites are in this category now.

The more we learn about how hospitals charge people, the more people will shop around for routine procedures and force larger hospitals to embrace change. The only place this works now is in elective surgery. You can in fact shop around for LASIK eye surgery, and that has kept the surgery within grasp of most Americans, even ones without health insurance. As that same level of transparency gets applied to other areas of health care, we’re going to get better pricing, and stop saddling people with huge hospital debt.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

Anthony Jay & Jonathan Lynn Prophets of Yesterday’s Impeachment Hearings

I was actually wasn’t all that surprised with what I saw when I saw the article above or watched the sample of yesterday’s impeachment hearings that I was willing to waste with.

That’s because the whole argument of the left against Trump was made on TV 33 years ago by two of the funniest men who ever wrote about politics in my favorite episode of the best sitcom ever about the political world:

Sir Humphrey: So what’s the foreign office worried about then Dick? Haven’t you got the Foreign secretary eating out of your hand?

Sir Richard: Oh yes completely house trained.
Sir Humphrey: Heh, so what’s the problem?

Sir Richard: The Prime Minister’s the problem. He’s starting to mistrust our advice when the foreign secretary gives it to him.

Sir Humphrey: Ah.

Sir Richard: He’s every beginning to question foreign office policy.

Sir Humphrey: Surely not?

Sir Richard: We even see a danger of the cabinet pursuing it’s own foreign policy.

Sir Humphrey: But that’s absurd the country can’t have two foreign policies!

Yes Prime Minister A Victory for Democracy 1986

As far as the deep state is concerning the government is theirs to pursue the policies that enrich them and theirs and pols in general and particularly one like Donald Trump in particular have no business interfering. How such people are viewed are summed up breifly at the end of that scene.

Sir Humphrey: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the world stage.
Sir Richard: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober, and say the lines they’re given in the right order.

Donald Trump has this silly idea that he is not there to enrich him and his family, after all he was already damn rich to begin with. He has the idea that he is the president elected to do a job and intends to do it, with or without the help of the deep state.

Trump’s no fool, he has had to deal with these types all his life. That’s why they were always willing to praise him and he was always willing to grease them when they asked for decades. He knows who and what they are.

I suspect if the deep state kept their head down and even if they didn’t work with him simply allowed him to do his job then they would still be anonymously intact and nobody would know a thing about Hunter Biden & Co. or any of the other stuff that is going to come out when all of this is done. Their reputations would still be intact.

They choose to fight, it was a very bad call.

Myles Garrett knocks out…Colin Kaepernick?

What a difference seven seconds makes in the media.

The NFL in the media before the final seven seconds of the Browns / Steelers game was only about one subject.

Colin Kapernick, COLIN KAEPERNICK, COLIN KAEPERNICK!

The NFL in the media after the game.

Colin who?

Myles Garrett ripped off Mason Rudolph’s helmet and swung it at Mason Rudolph’s head…and knocked Colen Kapernick right out of the media spotlight. The woke media all over the nation was likely going to be talking about Kaepernick’s Saturday workout in Atlanta as a Friday lede. Instead Myles Garrett swinging Mason Rudolph’s helmet was the lead story on Good Morning America.

I submit and suggest that the NFL behind closed doors the NFL execs who arranged the Kaepernick workout are high fiveing each other. Nobody will be talking about the Kaepernick workout today or this weekend. Cripes the Patriots could sign Kaepernick Saturday and name him the starter for the game against the Eagles this weekend and Garrett would still be the only story in the lague.

If Kaepernick’s goal is to be signed by an NFL team then he should send Miles Garrett and gold plated helmet in thanks for getting him under the radar.

If, as I suspect, Kaepernick’s goal is to be the center of attention as the ultimate media martyr he’s just been screwed.

Closing thought: Democrats in congress should thank their lucky starts that it bumped impeachment as well.

Today’s Reality Check Amnesty’s Tweet and fear

Richelieu: I am the state, Your Majesty. And I say it now privately. So that we have no need to discuss it in public. In France I am the state. These men have set|themselves above me. And it is I, not you|who render judgement.

The Three Musketeers 1948

Twitchy had a piece about a tweet by Amnesty International condemning an Israeli rocket attack that was almost certainly Palestinian rockets falling short is outrageous but not surprising for one important reason.

Amnesty knows that for all its rhetoric concerning Israel they do not risk anything by condemning the Jewish state, but if they are too emotive when condemning the Palestinians, they put their lives in danger.

While I am sure, given the direction Amnesty is going hitting Israel is a bug not a feature it is that fear that is driving their response.

I think fear is a behind a lot of what we’re seeing lately from Impeachment (fear that the illegal attempts to stop Trump from being elected will be exposed) to the cancel culture (fear of being rejected). Nothing motivates like fear.

A look back at how President Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union

This Saturday marked the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  No individual was more responsible for the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union than President Ronald Reagan,  I know liberals scoff at that notion and anyone will be able to find many politically correct revisionist articles tearing apart that historic fact.  A careful examination of the evidence will demonstrate how President Reagan brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union through a very complex plan.

The Breitbart article How Ronald Reagan Won the Cold War chronicles this miraculous series of events.

Based on intelligence reports and his lifelong study, Reagan concluded that Soviet communism was cracking and ready to crumble. He first went public with his prognosis of the Soviets’ systemic weakness at his alma mater, Eureka College, in May 1982. He declared that the Soviet empire was “faltering because rigid centralized control has destroyed incentives for innovation, efficiency, and individual achievement.”

One month later, in a prophetic address to the British Parliament at Westminster, Reagan said that the Soviet Union was gripped by a “great revolutionary crisis” and that a “global campaign for freedom” would ultimately prevail. He boldly predicted that “the march of freedom and democracy … will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”

He directed his top national security team to develop a plan to end the Cold War by winning it. The result was a series of top-secret national security decision directives that:

-Committed the U.S. to “neutralizing” Soviet control over Eastern Europe and authorized the use of covert action and other means to support anti-Soviet groups in the region.

–Adopted a policy of attacking a “strategic triad” of critical resources—financial credits, high technology, and natural gas—essential to Soviet economic survival. The directive was tantamount, explained author-economist Roger Robinson, to “a secret declaration of economic war on the Soviet Union.”

Another great read on this subject is the Heritage article Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

There is one Western leader above all others who forced the Soviets to give up the Brezhnev Doctrine and abandon the arms race, who brought down the Berlin Wall, and who ended the Cold War at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield. The one leader responsible more than any other for leading the West to victory in the Cold War is President Ronald Reagan.

The plan President Reagan implemented was one he authored before being elected to the Presidency.

In January 1977, four years before he was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan told a visitor that he had been thinking about the Cold War and he had a solution: “We win and they lose.”

It was a plan he began implementing soon after taking office,

From his first week in office, President Reagan went on the offensive against the Soviet Union. In his first presidential news conference, Reagan denounced the Soviet leadership as still dedicated to “world revolution and a one-world Socialist-Communist state.”

It is true that the Soviet Union was an economic mess, however that nation was able to produce a military that was hugely superior to ours, especially after the Carter Presidency.

Based on intelligence reports and his own analysis, the President concluded that Communism was cracking and ready to crumble. He took personal control of the new victory strategy, chairing 57 meetings of the National Security Council in his first year in the White House.

Here is the plan that President Reagan implemented.

Reagan directed his national security team to come up with the necessary tactics to implement his victory strategy. The result was a series of top-secret national security decision directives (NSDDs).

NSDD-32 declared that the United States would seek to “neutralize” Soviet control over Eastern and Central Europe and authorized the use of covert action and other means to support anti-Soviet groups in the region, especially in Poland.

NSDD-66 stated that it would be U.S. policy to disrupt the Soviet economy by attacking a “strategic triad” of critical resources–financial credits, high technology, and natural gas. The directive was tantamount to a “secret declaration of economic war on the Soviet Union.”

NSDD-75 stated that the U.S. would no longer coexist with the Soviet system but would seek to change it fundamentally. America intended to roll back Soviet influence at every opportunity.

Here are more components of the plan.

A subset of the Reagan strategy was U.S. support of pro-freedom forces in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, and Cambodia. A key decision was to supply Stinger ground-to-air missiles to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, who used them to shoot down the Soviet helicopters that had kept them on the defensive for years.

The year 1983 was a critical one for President Reagan and the course of the Cold War. In March, he told a group of evangelical ministers that the Soviets “are the focus of evil in this modern world” and the masters of “an evil empire.”

The same month, the President announced that development and deployment of a comprehensive anti-ballistic missile system would be his top defense priority. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was called “Star Wars” by liberal detractors, but Soviet leader Yuri Andropov took SDI very seriously, calling it a “strike weapon” and a preparation for a U.S. nuclear attack.

Moscow’s intense opposition to SDI showed that Soviet scientists regarded the initiative not as a pipe dream but as a technological feat they could not match. A decade later, the general who headed the department of strategic analysis in the Soviet Ministry of Defense revealed what he had told the Politburo in 1983: “Not only could we not defeat SDI, SDI defeated all our possible countermeasures.”

The master stroke of the plan was this event:

In June 1987, Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate and challenged the Soviet leader: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” No Western leader had ever before dared to issue such a direct challenge.