Buttigieg exploits a child’s emerging sexuality for political purposes

The New Neo Posted on by

This is very chilling:

Pete Buttigieg decided it was a good idea to have a nine-year-old child join him on stage at a campaign event in Denver on Saturday to talk about his sexuality.

If you didn’t think the end was near, think again. Most of us are wishing for an asteroid extinction event at this point. The child sent a question to Buttigieg asking him to help him “be brave like you.” Cue endless virtue signaling from clapping weirdos who think it’s totally normal that a 9-year-old is thinking about gay sex.

Actually, some 9-year-olds do think about sex. What they think about it is sometimes “Ick!” But whether it’s “ick” or whether they are eagerly anticipating it or even fantasizing about it – the latter of which is probably more common these days, now that children are exposed to far more sexuality earlier and almost everywhere, including in school – please let them be, rather than encouraging some sort of public declaration.

And I don’t care whether the child is being urged to declare his gay sexuality or his hetero sexuality. Either way, it’s a tremendously inappropriate exploitation of a child. But that seems to be standard operating procedure these days.

[NOTE: Video at the link.]

Israel, Socialism, and Bernie “Corbyn” Sanders

The New Neo Posted on by

The editorial board of the NY Sun writes, in a piece entitled “Democrats Debate: Senator Sanders Emerges in the Garb of Jeremy Corbyn”:

Where in the blazes were the rest of the Democrats on the stage when Israel was brought up in Charleston? How could they let slide Senator Sanders’ libels of its elected premier? It took none other than Israel’s foreign minister, Yisrael Katz, to put Senator Sanders’ dishonest, ad hominem remarks on Israel into proper relief — as so “horrifying” that those who support the Jewish state would be unable to support Senator Sanders for president.

But the answer to their question is rather simple: Where were they? The same place they were when Barack Obama set out to systematically and publicly humiliate and isolate Netanyahu. The same place they were when, in one of his final acts as president, Obama stabbed Israel and Netanyahu (as well as Trump) in the back:

President Barack Obama has decided to go out with a bang: In a stunning diplomatic rebuke of Israel, the United States on Friday abstained on a controversial United Nations Security Council resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory, allowing it to pass easily.

By abstaining — instead of vetoing the resolution, as the United States has reliably done to similar measures for decades — the Obama administration allowed the highly symbolic measure to make it through the chamber.

It was the first time in nearly 40 years that the Security Council has passed a resolution critical of Israeli settlements. It was also a firm rebuke of both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had strongly argued against it, and President-elect Donald Trump, who had taken the highly unprecedented move of weighing in Thursday and pressing for the measure to be vetoed.

So why would the Sun editors be surprised by the crickets meeting Sanders? And I wouldn’t call Sanders the “Corbynization” of the Democratic Party; certainly not the cause of it. He’s the result of it.

The Sun editors continue:

The catastrophe in Charleston was a reminder, if one were needed, that the Democratic front-runner is cut from the same cloth as the leader of the Labor Party in Britain, Jeremy Corbyn. He is another socialist from a Jewish background who for years spent his political capital apologizing for Israel’s enemies. It’s hard not to conclude that one reason Mr. Corbyn’s party met a historic defeat was the hostility to the cause of Zion.

One phrase there is curious: “another socialist from a Jewish background.” I have never heard, nor can I find at the moment, any reference to Corbyn being Jewish or even “from a Jewish background” – which, depending on the writer, can mean anything up to some great-grandparent or other having been Jewish whereas every other ancestor is not. Googling Corbyn’s religion, all I get is this sort of thing:

He has denied being an atheist but has not publically committed himself to any particular faith. Before becoming Labour leader he did an interview with the Christian magazine Third Way in which he talked very positively about some of the values held by those with faith. He acknowledged he had many atheist friends who wanted nothing to do with faith at all, but that he himself was more relaxed.

It is worth pointing out that his father was a professing Christian and Corbyn himself went to a Christian school.

So I don’t know what the Sun is referring to and haven’t seen anything suggesting it’s the case.

The Sun editors are correct, though, that Corbyn is “another socialist.” Not only is that the case, but he’s another socialist who (like Corbyn) calls himself a “Democratic socialist,” as though that matters. There are two ways socialism can take over a country. The first is democratically, according to election law in the country involved. The second is through some sort of revolution or coup. I suppose there’s a third – administratively, when a centralized governmental bureaucracy takes over by a series of agency decisions and executive orders.

Does the mechanism matter all that much, when socialism stunts the economy and liberty of the people? I suppose it’s better if the government has been elected, because then one can say “you made your bed, now lie in it.” But how much does it really matter? Look at Venezuela. And look at how often the people are lied to (or just ignorant) when they first cast their votes for socialism.

From Venezuela’s Chavez:

n 2005, Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez, told the World Economic Forum

“[T]here is no doubt in my mind […] that it is necessary to transcend capitalism […] through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. […]

We have to re-invent socialism. It can’t be the kind of socialism that we saw in the Soviet Union, but it will emerge as we develop new systems that are built on cooperation, not competition […]

“We must transcend capitalism. But we cannot resort to state capitalism, which would be the same perversion of the Soviet Union. We must reclaim socialism as a thesis, a project and a path, but a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything.”

The Soviet Union hadn’t been ‘real socialism’. Venezuela would be.

We all know how that turned out.

Biden says he’s a candidate for the US Senate

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m all for forgiving candidates who make a few gaffes. But Biden goes way beyond the usual threshold.

Now he’s said: “I’m a Democratic candidate for the United State’s Senate. Look me over. If you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden. Give me a look though, okay?”

You might say “well, maybe he meant ‘from’ rather than ‘for.'” Well, it’s still not a great advertisement for his mental acuity. And what “other Biden”? Was that his attempt at a joke? As in vote for me, or vote for me? Or has he developed a multiple personality disorder? Or is he pushing his son as an alternative?

Biden’s candidacy has turned into a very sad exercise.

That Cuban literacy rate Bernie loves to talk about.

The New Neo Posted on by

This is a few years old (hat tip: Instapundit) and was written about a statement of Obama’s. But it applies quite nicely to Bernie’s praise of the Cuban literacy program under Castro as well:

But there’s nothing “extraordinary” about the Cuban educational system. Children are taught by poorly-paid teachers in dilapidated schools. Cuba has made less educational progress than most Latin American countries over the last 60 years. According to UNESCO, Cuba had about the same literacy rate as Costa Rica and Chile in 1950 (close to 80%). And it has almost the same literacy rate as they do today (close to 100%). Meanwhile, Latin American countries that were largely illiterate in 1950 — like Peru, Brazil, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic — are largely literate today, closing much of the gap with Cuba. El Salvador had a less than 40% literacy rate in 1950, but has an 88% literacy rate today. Brazil and Peru had a less than 50% literacy rate in 1950, but today, Peru has a 94.5% literacy rate, and Brazil a 92.6% literacy rate. The Dominican Republic’s rate rose from a little over 40% to 91.8%. While Cuba made substantial progress in reducing illiteracy in Castro’s first years in power, its educational system has stagnated since, even as much of Latin America improved. Educational attainment is particularly lackluster among Afro-Cubans, judging from a recent New York Times story.

Please read the whole thing.

But Bernie (and Obama before him) counts on people just nodding and saying, “Gee, he’s got a point.” And he counts on the MSM backing him up if he ends up becoming the Democratic nominee. What else can they do?

A lot of people who emigrated here from Cuba know better (or whose parents did). One of those long-ago emigrants – and current US citizen and author – tells her story here:

See, despite your claims, senator, that it was Castro who started a literacy program in Cuba, a common and often-repeated lie, the girl’s [“the girl” is the author, Fabiola Santiago] mother worked in a literacy program in the countryside after graduation from a teacher’s college in the early 1950s.

Teachers had to do so to earn their spot in a city classroom…

Yes, by the time she leaves Cuba in 1969, this girl knows that the Cuban education system is dogmatic and abusive to innocent children who are ostracized for their parents’ beliefs.

Her parents’ heart-wrenching decision to leave it all behind and start a new life in Miami, saves her from worse. After their 12th birthdays, her friends have to enroll in la escuela al campo. They have to leave their home and their parents to live in barracks in the countryside and work in agricultural fields.

More at the link.

Sanders isn’t stupid. He may be “sincere,” but he’s either lying through his teeth or he doesn’t want to look at the truth. He’s been that way his whole life, and it’s only in the last few years that it seems to really really be paying off for him. Finally, starting in 2016 and continuing through now, the voting public contains enough people schooled in leftist propaganda but innocent of any personal experience of living in a leftist regime to make him a very real contender for the highest office in the land.

A few more things about answering the phone or not answering the phone

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This builds on yesterday’s post.]

One reason I don’t mind answering the phone is that I can almost always tell what’s a robocall, and avoid those. They ordinarily have an area code that matches mine (their designers are clever that way) and yet the number corresponds to no one on my cell phone’s list of contacts. They makes it very simple, because I put everyone – my insurance agent, my doctors, my dentist, the car repair place – on my contact list. So anyone I want to talk to will be on it, and all the other phone calls I can ignore.

If I do end up ignoring something important, I can count on the person to leave a message. Robocalls sometimes do, but most of the time they don’t.

But for the other calls, especially the ones from people I know and love, I prefer listening to the sound of a voice. Most of my friends and loved ones don’t live nearby. Many live very far away. I see them very seldom, and the distance is painful for me. So although I try not to be a pest, and call and call and call, I much prefer talking to texting or email although I’ll do texting or email in a pinch (or if they prefer it).

You can tell so much more from a human voice! Unless a person is a great actor – and I mean a great actor – you can perceive mood and even health. The entire interaction is so much warmer. It’s almost like a visit with that person, which a text never is.

I’m always surprised at people who say they don’t like to talk on the phone, either to receive calls or to make them. I know such people exist, and I even think I know some reasons why they don’t like it, or at least why they say they don’t like it. They don’t have time and talking on the phone takes time. They consider a phone call some sort of intrusion or invasion. Some people are just naturally shy. Some people don’t like to talk to someone they can’t see. Some people prefer to keep others at an emotional distance, and the distance of texting serves them well.

There are very few people in my life about whom I feel that need to be distant. Of course, I don’t always feel like talking at the very moment friends or loved ones might call. But I often will drop what I’m doing to talk. And if not, I’m usually happy to call them back and have a real (and a long) conversation. Fortunately, most of them will still pick up their own phones when they ring.

On not answering the phone

The New Neo Posted on by

This article discusses the fact that very few people answer their phones anymore.

Well, I’m one of the few who do, I guess. That’s one of many things that seem to mark me as a dinosaur.

I don’t always answer it, of course. I know which numbers tend to be spam calls or robocalls and I ignore them, usually blocking the number as well. The latter doesn’t have too much effect because the groups who make these calls have access to an arsenal of numbers, but I think it helps a bit. I probably only get one or two such calls a day, if that, which apparently is a rather low number compared to what’s typical.

But with caller ID, I almost always will answer a call identified as from a person I know, and the vast majority of my calls are just that. I usually turn my phone off when I’m at restaurant or in the theater, or visiting a live person. Sometimes I don’t answer if I’m watching something at home that’s especially compelling. Sometimes I’m tired. Sometimes I’m very busy. But most of the time I’m happy to hear from a friend and happy to talk.

Of course, not all that many people call me, so it’s not that much of a distraction.

I’ve learned not to call someone of the younger generation, though, unless it’s something urgent. Or, if I’m going to call, I am fully prepared to just leave a message that the person (yeah, usually my son) should call back when he gets a chance. It can be days before that happens.

I realize that texting tends to get a quicker reply. But I find texting not only time-consuming (my fingers aren’t that fast) but so much less satisfying than the easy give-and-take of hearing a voice and perceiving tone. I’ve long been hyper-sensitive to tone. I can often tell if a person is tired, or blue, or double-tasking while speaking to me, or lying down, just from the person’s tone of voice. If I ask, I discover that I’m usually correct.

The ring of a phone used to signal the promise of something wonderful. It still does – at least, to me. At least for now.

Trump’s India triumph

The New Neo Posted on by

Trump is wildly popular in India, where he’s been visiting:

You can find a lot of coverage here.

I’ve previously written about about Modi’s election and his admiration for Trump.

[NOTE: I find it interesting that Melania’s outfit somewhat matches Modi’s. No accident, I’m sure. She chooses her garb very very carefully, especially in her appearances abroad.]

Berniephobia

The New Neo Posted on by

Berniephobia is gripping many Democrats. But hey, it’s been gripping me, too. It’s been gripping me for several weeks now, even before it got to its present fever pitch. And I don’t believe it’s plateaued yet.

I wrote the following back on February 3, and it still applies:

I think it’s always dangerous to wish for the Democrats to nominate their most radical candidates because we might think they are almost certain to be defeated. I don’t see Sanders as certain to be defeated at all, although I think his support should be at about 2%. But it is much much greater than that. Of course, Sanders is not the only one whose policies are dangerous. But he seems to be the most charismatic, and although I fail to understand that appeal, it is undeniably present.

Sanders was almost nominated in 2016, when the field wasn’t nearly as split and his opponent was supposedly highly qualified as well as experienced and brilliant, in contrast to the miserable group of candidates he’s competing against today. If that doesn’t put the fear in you, I don’t know what would. I’ve certainly got it, and so does this group of people.

Mark Levin has joined them:

As far as I can see, Levin hasn’t explained why he wrote that. But I think I know. Not only is it possible that Bernie could win the general election, but his likely selection as nominee for a major US party supported by roughly half the population is an alarming sign that not only have people succumbed to MSM/Democratic anti-Trump propaganda, but that the Gramscian march has been remarkably effective. Both things are profoundly troubling.

It’s hubris to think that you know what’s going to happen in a Trump vs. Sanders matchup next Election Day. Yes, all signs are pointing to a Trump victory. I get that. But that was the exact reason so many Democrats wanted Trump nominated in 2016 – because he was a surefire loss for the Republicans and all signs pointed to a Clinton victory. How’d that turn out for them? “Pass the popcorn,” indeed.

In that same post I wrote on February 3, I noted that a good friend of mine who had heretofore been a moderate Democrat is now a big Bernie fan. I still haven’t found out why – although I still plan to ask her about it, she’s been mega-busy – but hearing her say that gave me a new perspective into the Bernie phenomenon. If this person can support Bernie, a lot of non-leftists could. And to me, that spells trouble.

After all, we’ve had over three years of relentless anti-Trump propaganda and it has to have had an effect. A lot of people, and not just leftists, hate his guts and literally want him dead They would vote for the proverbial yellow dog rather than Trump – or vote for a Socialist like Bernie to stop him.

I sincerely hope not. But I’m not getting out my popcorn popper.

Some thanks NeverTrumpers get for helping the Democrats out

The New Neo Posted on by

They never expected to be put in the position of having to vote for an actual bona fide Socialist to avoid re-electing Trump.

But NeverTrumpers should have expected it. The writing’s been on the wall for quite a while that the far left is exactly where the Democratic Party has been heading. And yet the NeverTrumpers didn’t seem to see it, or if they saw it they really didn’t believe it.

Now almost all of them are panicked at the consequences of their throwing their lot in with those very same Democrats. Something about Trump the person seems to have utterly destroyed their reasoning power. And there’s nowhere for them to hide, because this has all played out very publicly. They’re boxed in.

You lie down with dogs, you get up with Socialist fleas.

Fascinating and urgent

The New Neo Posted on by

Ammo Grrrll of Powerline writes

…I seem to be at a stage in my life where I find almost everything equally fascinating and equally urgent.

I can relate – up to a point.

Like Ammo Grrrll, I’m also at that stage in life I could call early old age if I’m being honest, and somewhere in middle age if I’m not. Like her, I’ve noticed a creeping increase in impatience about certain things that I suddenly find not just fascinating but fascinating right this minute. And the things I find to be that way are also increasing in number and scope.

For me, this mostly involves reading. Sometimes it involves writing. And sometimes it involves phone calls or visits.

Or watching any of the YouTube videos in the series “I Shouldn’t Be Alive.” Not only do I find them irresistibly compelling, but I always cry when the person (or people) is rescued. I’m thinking of starting a 12-step program for others likewise addicted.

But all of this goes along with procrastination. A lot of things seem both fascinating and urgent, but paying my bills or doing my taxes never seem to be among them, although they get pretty darn urgent as deadlines approach, when I begin to attack them with a flurry of long-delayed energy. My daily exercise is another thing I usually perform, but sometimes quite late in the game – meaning that I tend to know the exact time of sunset every day and plan accordingly. Emails can pile up, too, as can laundry.

And don’t ask me about my vacuuming habits.

Is this a function of being older and feeling the pressure of time? I find, for example, that I’m more impatient about books. If the first ten or twenty pages of a novel don’t grab me, that book gets shut forever. For non-fiction, I often get the gist of it in fifty or a hundred pages and skip the rest. When I was younger I used to plow through anyway, although sometimes so quickly that I probably didn’t absorb everything. Now I lack the patience to go on reading if I think I’m not gaining much from it.

But poetry – ah, poetry suits me very well.

Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter–and the Bird is on the Wing.

Whether at Naishapur or Babylon,
Whether the Cup with sweet or bitter run,
The Wine of Life keeps oozing drop by drop,
The Leaves of Life keep falling one by one.