The Left will start a civil war, though they shouldn’t

A few weeks ago I wrote that the Left will provoke a civil war due to their hatred and stupidity.

They really shouldn’t, though. The left can’t allow a civil war to start. The reason: Once a serious civil war is underway, this country will become a dangerous and unpleasant place to live. That means that invaders immigrants will leave by the millions.

The left, dependent on an ever-rising flood of immigrants for votes, can’t afford that politically. They need this country to be a safe and pleasant place to continue to draw immigrants. As soon as it becomes less pleasant, immigration will stop and the ones already here will go back home.

And it’s not enough for it to be a little bit more pleasant than the immigrant’s homeland. It has to be significantly more pleasant to overcome the chore of moving, the risks of moving, for those coming here illegally, and – for those who don’t plan to just stay in their own ex-pat community – the costs of learning a new language.

By the way, some non-leftists will also hasten this by going after the sources of welfare once the chaos of civil war is underway. I predict they’ll disrupt and destroy welfare payments in various ways, and the benefits of being here will plummet while the costs and risks skyrocket.

This will be fairly easy to accomplish once the civil war has broken out; cops and army guys dealing with a rain of bullets from rooftops at city block A are not going to prioritize that fact that someone broke into a welfare office at block B ten miles away and destroyed all its computers.

However, I doubt there are still any people on the left who have thought all this through. If not, then they’ll keep provoking the civil war they think they want, they’ll get it, and a significant amount of the expulsions that will be part of the war and its aftermath will already have been done by the “immigrants” themselves.

Advertisements

Why are so many House Republicans retiring?

Here’s an article at CNN, which is dishonest but probably not yet quite brazen enough to lie outright about a House member retiring.

43 House Republicans and 19 House Democrats have announced plans to retire or have retired. The Republican House majority right now has a margin of 48, so Democrats need to flip 24 House seats to retake the majority. (Each time a seat changes party, the old party loses a seat and the new party gains a seat, so flipping one seat changes the party margin by two.)

I don’t know the odds of a seat changing parties when someone retires. So I’m just going to assume that half of such seats switch to the opposite party. This probably overstates the frequency of a party change, since the whole reason that a seat is Republican or Democrat in the first place is probably that that district leans Republican or Democrat. But just to get a feel for the basic idea…

If the probability of a seat changing parties is one half, then with 43 Rs retiring and 19 Ds retiring, the Reps lose 21 and the Dems lose 9 (rounding down). So the R net loss is 12 and the D net gain is 12, for a net change of 24. That’s not enough to flip the House by itself: the Dems need to flip 24 seats for a net gain of 48, not flip 12 seats for a net gain of 24. Still, it sets up a headwind for the GOP in the battle for the House.

All this said, it’s important to note that some of these people are retiring from the House in order to run for a Senate or Governor position.

What about the Senate? Per USA Today, there are three GOP Senators retiring, and no Dem Senators retiring. But the Dems are defending a lot more Senate seats than the Repubs overall, so no one is predicting the Dems will take the Senate.

Also, those three retiring GOP Senators are Orrin Hatch, Bob Corker, and the aptly-named Jeff Flake, all of whom would have been defending their Senate seats this year anyway. In other words, these aren’t surprise mid-term retirements that make an otherwise-safe seat contestable. They were slated to be contested anyway. Flake, BTW, is an anti-Trumper, so losing him isn’t a hell of a loss. Orrin Hatch is simply a Washington D.C. creature, and I don’t know about Corker.

Note: The Infogalactic page on the House hasn’t been updated in years! As of this writing, May 21, 2018, it says that the “Next election” will be in November 8, 2016. Duuuuur. Come on, guys. So here’s the Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives

Video Proof of Old Media’s Organized Brainwashing

Via Anonymous Conservative several weeks ago. Sorry late, catching up:

The link has video of many local news shows all saying the same phrases that are dozens of words long. It finishes with a clip of 15 of them saying, of independent sources of news, “This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.” The EXACT same phrase, uttered by 15 (I counted) different news anchors!

I went to YouTube and typed in extremely dangerous to our democracy. The autofill completed it, btw. As you finish the word extremely it’s the third choice of the autosuggestions, and at extremely d it’s the first choice. I wonder how long they’ll let THAT continue!

Here are some links. I’m including several in the anticipation of possible censorship by YouTube:

This one has some introductory material for a half-minute or so, then contains the entire video that’s at Anon Conserv (plus a 5-second blurb from the new Cosmos guy):

This one has lots of ads:

And finally:

Mueller: We Can’t Indict Trump

CNN: Giuliani: Mueller’s team told Trump’s lawyers they can’t indict a president

FOX: Mueller told Trump’s legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News

Bretibart: Giuliani: Robert Mueller Has Said Special Counsel Will Not Indict Trump

From Breitbart:

President Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani told Fox News on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller notified Trump’s legal team two weeks ago that he will not indict the president.

Giuliani said Mueller will follow the Justice Department policy stating that a sitting president may not be indicted.

In a statement to CNN, Giuliani said, “All they get to do is write a report.”

“They can’t indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us,” he added.

The Justice Department’s guidance on whether it can indict a sitting president is laid out in a 1999 memo.

“This case is essentially over,” Giuliani told Fox. “They’re just in denial.”

This is great news if Mueller is being honest. BUT: Remember that in the 2000 election, Gore called Bush to congratulate him on his victory… but it turned out to be a ruse to put the Bush campaign off its guard while the Gore campaign prepared to contest the election. (Note to young people: Yes, Democrats are actually that slimy.)

Watch for the same thing here. It would be absolutely par for the course for Mueller to pull that kind of sleazy trick. So tentatively accept this as good news, Mr. President… but have a plan for what to do if Mueller suddenly “changes his mind” and announces a surprise indictment.

An exchange I hope to hear about the Supreme Court

…in the near future, pertaining to the Court’s upcoming “ruling” on immigration:

Random person: Mr. President, do you pledge to abide by the Court’s ruling?

Trump: I pledge to take the text of the Court’s ruling as seriously as the Court takes the text of the Constitution.

Trump Strategy in an Impeachment over “Stormy Daniels”

The short version:

The bad guys might try to impeach President Trump over an alleged violation of campaign finance laws. The BS is that if his lawyer paid off Stormy Daniels and that wasn’t listed as a “campaign expenditure,” it’s a violation.

Yes, it’s retarded, but it doesn’t matter: Many politicians who run for office have this sort of (intentional or unintentional) violation of pointless minutiae. So…

All Trump’s team has to do is find similar “violations” committed by unfriendly members of Congress and shout those violations out to the public.

That forces a hostile member of the House or Senate to answer this question, in voting on Articles of Impeachment:

“Is this action, which you yourself are known to have committed, an impeachable offense?”

LOL.

The details version:

The impeachment thing cannot remove Trump from office because that requires a majority in the House and two thirds of the Senate. But the left of course wants Articles of Impeachment anyway to distract and politically damage the President. In this post in March, I wrote,

I’m not saying they won’t try to impeach him [President Trump] over something – of course they will, if they have the numbers in the House; Trump’s election has them absolutely frantic. I’m saying that it won’t be about the retarded “election meddling” thing.

It looks like it’s going to be either “Firing Comey was obstruction” or the Stormy Daniels thing. The bad guys are trying to argue that under certain circumstances, Trump’s lawyer paying Daniels and not disclosing it would be a violation of campaign finance laws.

The Comey option is hobbled by the videos of dozens of Democrats themselves saying that Comey should be fired or step down around the time of the 2016 election. So it’s more likely to be the absurd Daniels thing.

No problem.

IF any such thing happened, it’s the sort of thing that many politicians do, so Trump’s team should simply do the following:

Research unfriendly members of the House and Senate for possible violations of such pointless minutia. Focus specifically on: (1) Democrats, and (2) Republicans who are likely to cuck in an impeachment vote. Shout these violations from the rooftops so that the public knows all about them.

I think that in this case, it’s better to make the violations known before a possible Articles of Impeachment vote, because that forces Dems and cucks into the hilarious position of saying that something they themselves are known to have done is an impeachable offense. That will discourage some of them.

If there is a threat that damaging info will be released after, it won’t matter to Dems, who will just believe (rightly or wrongly) that the media can protect them. They might be wrong, but it’s their beliefs that will determine their vote. Additionally, bad guys like Dems and cucks don’t mind being flagrantly hypocritical; indeed, all indications are that they like it. So they won’t mind voting to impeach Trump over some alleged violation, and then voting not to impeach a Dem or cuck over the same violation. But it’s different if the public knows before and during the vote that you did the same thing you’re voting on. There’s no hiding from the glare of that spotlight.

Alternative timing is to quietly make it known to unfriendlies that their violations will be broadcast if they vote to impeach. The idea here would be the old chess adage, “the threat is stronger than the execution.” However, that doesn’t apply in this case: What’s relevant here isn’t a threat to disclose a violation (it’s not blackmail). The idea is to put them in the position of voting “This thing which everyone knows I did is an impeachable crime.” That would lose its force it the revelations came after the vote was a fait accompli.

Ideally, the revelations are made known to the public, and if Articles are proposed against Trump, then the faithful GOP members of the House propose Articles against the unfriendlies, and before the vote on Trump’s case.

Women’s Assessments of Men’s Dad-liness Vary Over Their Menstrual Cycle

A signal flare of a finding, for those who still deny the red pill. USA Today, May 12, 2012. Via Chateau Heartiste.

Excerpts from the article, edited for length:

Hormones make ‘sexy cads’ look like ‘good dads’
by Dan Vergano

What does she see in that bum?

One answer, suggests a series of psychology experiments, is that she isn’t seeing that bad boy straight, and biology may be supplying the rose-colored glasses that makes a “sexy cad” look like a “good dad.”

“Why do women delude themselves about men who are terrible ‘boyfriend’ material,” asks professor Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, lead author of the forthcoming report in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. “It’s not just that they are attracted to them, but they actually see them as different people.”

In the study, Durante and her colleagues sought to explore observations that women were more attracted to stereotypical masculine faces when they were at the most fertile part of the menstrual cycle.

Some evolutionary psychologists have suggested that the high testosterone levels of swoon-worthy men, responsible for those chiseled good looks and come-hither self-confidence, served as a signal of evolutionary fitness and explained the attraction. But at the same time, Durante says, that high testosterone made these cads less-than-reliable mate material, there to help support the survival of offspring.

Instead, women should chase after dull dudes who seem likely to do the dishes and change the diapers, Durante says. But you don’t have to watch Divorce Court every afternoon to know that doesn’t always happen.


We are about to embark upon a mission to… The Red Pill zone. This study is “official science” catching up to the hardcore empiricist knowledge of Game practitioners, who long ago noticed the dual Alpha fucks, Beta bucks mating strategy that (at least some) women employ.


How come? In a simple experiment the team first asked 33 college-age women to take part in a study [involving] fertility tests revealing where they were on their monthly cycle. At both the high fertility and low fertility points of their cycle, the women were randomly shown a biography and photo of a “sexy man,” an award-winning skier and handsome adventurer, or the same for “reliable man,” a hard-working average-looking accountant. Then they asked the women how the men would split the work of parenting, (giving baths, cooking, washing bottles etc.) if they had a baby with him.

Good, old Mr. Reliable. The women estimated he would do around 40% of the household work no matter when they were asked. And the ski champ looked similarly helpful to the women when they were asked at low fertility moments. But the women actually estimated Prince Charming would do as much as 53% of the chores when they were ovulating, a statistically significant difference. The “sexy cad” will be a “good dad,” transformed into a caring father through the miracle of ovulation.


Women are biologically incapable of thinking objectively about certain topics. Official science has now confirmed it. Rather late, and confirming the blatantly obvious, but it’s something. By the way, I’m not saying that men’s ability to think straight is never fucked up by a beautiful face. But that’s been known forever, and is a politically correct thing to say. The finding that women are unable to make good judgments and good choices due to peculiarities of female biology is most definitely not politically correct. It’s startling that this information appeared in a mainstream newspaper.


Interesting, but the men did look different after all. So the researchers hired male actors to play twins, a “sexy cad” and a “good dad.”

“The actors really did a great job, one guy would play a cad and then shave to clean up and play the dad,” Durante says. The “dad” stammered his way through a self-effacing introduction, while the cad charmed them and promised them a good time. This time, the researchers also asked the women if the cad would make a good dad for another woman’s child.

Nope, they answered. For themselves, they thought the bad boy would reform and become a good dad [LOL] just like the first experiment, when they were ovulating. “But not for other women, they could see right through him then,” Durante says.


That’s another interesting finding. When the woman didn’t have skin in the game, she was able to see the realities of the situation. But when the message is, “He’s interested in you, honey!” then she gets all wet and can’t think straight.


The finding supports the notion that young women do delude themselves when the hormones are talking, says UCLA psychologist Martie Haselton.


Ya think?

Here’s the paper, which Heartiste linked to in his May 18, 2012 post that I provided above:
http://www.livescience.com/20294-women-choose-bad-boys.html