Inching Closer to the Mark

WSJ reports that now some businesses are refusing to take cash money in America and in the U.K.:

Sam Schreiber was mid-shampoo at a Drybar blow-dry salon in Los Angeles when someone from the front desk approached her stylist with an emergency: a woman was trying to pay for her blow-out with cash.
“There was this beat of silence,” says Ms. Schreiber, 33 years old. “She literally brought $40.”

More and more businesses like Drybar don’t want your money—the paper kind at least. It’s making things awkward for those who come ill prepared. After all, you can’t give back a hairdo, an already dressed salad or the two beers you already drank.

The salad chain Sweetgreen has stopped accepting cash in nearly all its locations. Most Dig Inns—which serve locally sourced, healthy fast food—won’t take your bills either. Starbucks went cashless at a Seattle location in January, and at some pubs in the U.K., you can no longer get a pint with pound notes. The practice of not accepting cash has become popular enough to catch the attention of American lawmakers.

Ms. Schreiber was tempted to wait and see how the Drybar employees would handle the situation with the customer, who had no credit or debit card with her; instead, she intervened from the shampoo bowl. “I said, ‘I can just pay for her and she can give me cash or Venmo me,’ ” she says.
A few moments later, one of the employees came back to hand her the $40 and expressed thanks on behalf of the stranger. The staff also offered her a second mimosa, which are free to customers. “I kind of wanted to be, like, I should get a free updo or something,” she says. “I basically was…the bank for them.” Drybar declined to comment.

Hmmm… Now where have I heard this before?

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
(Revelation 13:11-18 KJV)

It’s happening, slowly but surely.

Update: Here it is in graphic form:

From the “You Must kidding…” File: Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is deemed unacceptable by progressives

613 reported and confirmed acts of left wing violence

I am posting this because it bears repeating….

I am posting this hesitantly, because I’ve never been a fan of the “They do it too!” argument. Because violence is wrong, no matter who or what is behind it. But, it does need repeating, because there are some on the left, who want to white wash the truth.

oh, and…this:

I am reposting the Breitbart list because it was hacked earlier this week, and will likely be attacked again given liberal’s bent on interfering in the upcoming elections.

Let them try and hack this site. Ha! Good luck! 😆

Via Do Right Christians and BreitBart.com:

Continue reading “613 reported and confirmed acts of left wing violence” →

Further proof that society is swirling the drain

Oh brother….:

Healthline has claimed health disparities and higher rates of HIV and STIs observed in LGBTQIA communities are due to discrimination in the sex ed world. So, the California based health information provider has adopted the gender-inclusive term “front hole” in place of the medical term, “vagina” in their latest LGBTQIA safe sex guide.“For the purpose of this guide, we’ll refer to the vagina as the ‘front hole’ instead of solely using the medical term ‘vagina,’” the document explains. “This is gender-inclusive language that’s considerate of the fact that some trans people don’t identify with the labels the medical community attaches to their genitals.”“For example, some trans and nonbinary-identified people assigned female at birth may enjoy being the receptors of penetrative sex, but experience gender dysphoria when that part of their body is referred to using a word that society and professional communities often associate with femaleness. An alternative that’s becoming increasingly popular in trans and queer communities is front hole.”The document went on to claim, lack of representation and anti-LGBTQIA bias in standard safe sex guides stigmatizes certain sexual behaviours and identities and is directly related to higher rates of HIV and STIs reported within LGBTQIA communities.The guide goes on to suggest, “it’s imperative for safe sex guides to become more inclusive of LGBTQIA and nonbinary people and their experiences. This will help address barriers to accessing care and effective educational tools, while simultaneously normalizing and acknowledging the true diversity that exists with regard to gender and sexuality. – Source: Healthline says, using the medical term ‘vagina’ is not gender-inclusive language, uses ‘front hole’ instead. · Caldron Pool

Gateway Pundit says:

This is your brain on liberalism.

Indeed.

Instapundit quips:

I’m looking forward to the next presentation of The Front Hole Monologues.

And quotes this:

UPDATE: James Woods tweets, “The good news is that ‘asshole’ will still be used for the idiot who came up with this…”

Heh. 😆

God Bless Shepard Smith at Fox News Channel

For this gem of a smack down of Donald Trump: (H/T to Mediaite)

https://youtu.be/weHjxfa4bvA

Shepard Smith is correct, we need NATO, no matter what people like Pat Buchanan might say.

A perfect example of just how bad the left has become

It used to be that the left, as it is called, had an actual purpose. We were against the Iraq War. We were fighting against something that, we felt, was very wrong. When I was among those ranks, we were writing against something that actually existed. It has been said, by many, that it seems that the left, has lost its way. Well, I give you proof of such.

Matt Vespa writing over at Townhall.com has discovered, just how far the liberal left, has fallen:

Around Christmas time, yes, I will confess I sometimes watch a Hallmark Christmas movie. They’re cheesy. All aspects about it are too good to be true, but to get into the season and to take a break from my usual viewing of graphic violence, I’ve seen worse. Apparently, though—it’s very problematic because everyone is white, there are no feminists, no Muslims, and the male leads have white nationalist haircuts—whatever that means. It’s your typical contrarian drivel from Slate, a Washington Post-affiliated site. Oh, and the areas with the strongest viewership are in states where Trump won. I smell collusion. I smell propaganda, right? No, I actually don’t because I’m not a progressive, but the analysis is quite entertaining [emphasis mine]:

Here is the quote:

At a rally in November 2015, Donald Trump heralded, “If I become president, we’re all going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again, that I can tell you.” Of all his empty guarantees, the president has perhaps fulfilled none better than a counterstrike in the War on Christmas, and no battalion has fired more rooty-toot artillery for him than the Hallmark Channel. In 2017, the network is premiering 21 original Christmas movies (up from 20 last year)—42 hours of sugary, sexist, preposterously plotted, plot hole–festooned, belligerently traditional, ecstatically Caucasian cheer. To observe the first holiday season under the Trump administration, I’m bearing witness to them all.
Hallmark Channel, owned by the Kansas City, Missouri–based greeting-card giant, has boomed since Trump began campaigning. In 2016, Hallmark was the only top-15 entertainment channel with double-digit ratings growth, and viewership has jumped another 16 percent this year. Meanwhile, Hallmark’s Christmas programming, which this year began before Halloween, generates more than 30 percent of its annual ad revenue and has helped Hallmark become the season’s highest-rated cable network among women aged 25–54. More than 70 million Americans watched Hallmark Channel Christmas movies last year.The network has already approached that number in 2017, with three weeks and five premieres remaining. And the network’s strongholds map to Trump’s Electoral College victories.After watching a few of Hallmark’s Countdown to Christmas films, the network’s burgeoning red-state appeal comes into focus. As much as these movies offer giddy, predictable escapes from Trumpian chaos, they all depict a fantasy world in which America has been Made Great Again. Real and fictional heartland small towns with names such as Evergreen and Cookie Jar are as thriving as their own small businesses, and even a high school art teacher (played by Trump supporter and the face of Hallmark, Candace Cameron Bure) can afford a lavishly renovated Colonial home. They brim with white heterosexuals who exclusively, emphatically, and endlessly bellow “Merry Christmas” to every lumberjack and labradoodle they pass. They’re centered on beauty-pageant heroines and strong-jawed heroes with white-nationalist haircuts. There are occasional sightings of Christmas sweater–wearing black people, but they exist only to cheer on the dreams of the white leads, and everyone on Trump’s naughty list—Muslims, gay people, feminists—has never crossed the snowcapped green-screen mountains to taint these quaint Christmas villages. “Santa Just Is White” seems to be etched into every Hallmark movie’s town seal.

I don’t even know how to respond to this. At least when we were protesting the Iraq War, we were actually protesting something that was real; and not something imagined.

Liberal Democrats and the Electoral College

I know I have not written in a long while. I just do not have the drive to write about politics, like I used to. I guess I just do not have the stamina like I once did.

However, I have to laugh at the idiotic nonsense that I am seeing on Memeorandum about the electoral college. First up let’s look at the NYT’s call for getting rid of the electoral college:

The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes.
Today the college, which allocates electors based on each state’s representation in Congress, tips the scales in favor of smaller states; a Wyoming resident’s vote counts 3.6 times as much as a Californian’s. And because almost all states use a winner-take-all system, the election ends up being fought in just a dozen or so “battleground” states, leaving tens of millions of Americans on the sidelines.
There is an elegant solution: The Constitution establishes the existence of electors, but leaves it up to states to tell them how to vote. Eleven states and the District of Columbia, representing 165 electoral votes, have already passed legislation to have their electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement, known as the National Popular Vote interstate compact, would take effect once states representing a majority of electoral votes, currently 270, signed on. This would ensure that the national popular-vote winner would become president.
Conservative opponents of a direct vote say it would give an unfair edge to large, heavily Democratic cities and states. But why should the votes of Americans in California or New York count for less than those in Idaho or Texas? A direct popular vote would treat all Americans equally, no matter where they live — including, by the way, Republicans in San Francisco and Democrats in Corpus Christi, whose votes are currently worthless. The system as it now operates does a terrible job of representing the nation’s demographic and geographic diversity. Almost 138 million Americans went to the polls this year, but Mr. Trump secured his Electoral College victory thanks to fewer than 80,000 votes across three states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

I cannot believe that the NYT actually wrote that with a straight face. Funny, I do not seem to remember anyone complaining about the electoral college when Barack Obama won the election twice or when Bill Clinton won the election twice.

Then, there is this from the NYT:

In Washington, a state where Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont had strong support in the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton, three of the state’s 12 electoral votes went to Colin L. Powell, the Republican former secretary of state. One more elector voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American leader. Another Democratic elector in Hawaii voted for Mr. Sanders.

Two Texas electors voted for different Republican politicians: Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and former Texas congressman Ron Paul.

In addition, three Democratic electors, in Colorado, Maine and Minnesota, initially declined to vote for Mrs. Clinton. Two were replaced by an alternate, and one ended up changing his vote.

Golly gee, you think that it might just be that the majority of Democratic Party voters simply hated Clinton and just saw her as a 1990’s retread and a continuation of establishment Democratic Party politics as usual? Or…Maybe perhaps that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of living under the conditions that the Democrats have created, like stagnate wages, high taxes and a health care system that quite frankly sucks?

Nah, that would actually mean thinking in true reality terms, something that Democrats of today have a problem doing. 🙄

And finally, there is this from this guy here (click the link please…):

Couldn’t post this earlier today because it’s too depressing, but today the Electoral College voted to put the worst president-elect in my memory in charge of the United States.
I expected this, because the Electoral College has become a meaningless rubber stamp, instead of the safeguard against the election of an unqualified president it was intended to be.
I don’t know what to say. This country — and the world — is in for a nightmare world of hurt. We’re witnessing the early days of a disaster.

I mean, it is truly laughable to see liberal Democrats, quite literally losing their ever-loving minds over Donald Trump. I mean to listen to these people; you would think that Trump is going to start rounding people up and sending them to death camps or something. Do these people know that we are a Republic and that there safe guards in place to limit his power and if he attempts to abuse that power, that he could be impeached? Apparently not. 🙄

The Trump Derangement Syndrome era has begun.

Other Bloggers, your mileage may vary: Washington Monthly, Occupy Democrats, Washington Free Beacon, Hot Air, LGBTQ Nation, The Daily Caller, The Guardian, TheBlaze, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, FiveThirtyEight, Jezebel, Morning Consult, Little Green Footballs, Harvard News, Common Dreams, Washington Post, Political Wire, Liberal Values, NPR, Sputnik International, Politico, Business Insider, Vox and CNBC, Independent Journal Review, Los Angeles Times, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Victory Girls Blog, Politico, Outside the Beltway, The Week, The Daily Caller, Townhall.com, MichelleMalkin.com, New York Magazine, The Geller Report, Business Insider and The Point

Leftists show their true colors at the news of Nancy Reagan’s passing

This, my friends, is the true colors of the Democratic Party and the leftist base that supports them. This is why I quit voting for them. This is the sort of bile that drove me away from that Party. I was no fan boy of Bush and Co. But, this sort of bile is uncalled for. Which is why I stopped voting for them, supporting them and such.

Check out: First 30 Minutes: Vile Tweets About Death of Nancy Flow On Twitter – Breitbart

There is no excuse for it, at all. This is why Ronald Reagan left that party.

Update: Seriously Wonkette? I hope the Reagan family sues the crap out of you for this bile.

A brutal take down of the so-called “Conservative Movement”

This is rough, tough, and brutal. I am in agreement with Vox Day on this one, he calls it “Devastating. Absolutely devastating” and he is very much correct. Yes, I know, I have had disagreements with Vox Day in the past. But, on this, he is spot on. (I cannot seem to locate the posts, I may have pulled them.)

This article by a John Kludge over at ricochet basically sums up my feelings as well:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.
First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

It is this part here that really sticks out:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.
The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?
And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.
Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

This is what you would call a political smack down and it is about time someone said it. This here too, is something that I high agree with:

Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

I put in bold, underlined and turned that quote red to make a point. This above is what happened to the Conservative movement. It started after Ronald Reagan left office and got really crazy after the election and ultimate defeat of George H.W. Bush. After that, Conservationism went straight loony after that. Conservatives have no one to blame, but themselves. They put in a President, who went soft on taxes, and whom proceeded to usher in the “new world order.” and the Reaganites; which consisted of Fundamentalist Christians, like myself — went running for the hills. They knew then, that they had been duped.

Now, this many years later; along comes Trump and he dares to challenge those in the ivory towers that have created what we have now —- and the vultures are out for blood. They know that the current existing state of affairs in Washington D.C. is being threatened and they are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.

The question is, can Donald Trump fight them effectively enough to win the nomination?

Hillary doesn’t deserve the black vote, says The Nation

I saw this on Memeorandum and my eyes bugged out. 😯

Via Michelle Alexander at The Nation:

Hillary Clinton loves black people. And black people love Hillary—or so it seems. Black politicians have lined up in droves to endorse her, eager to prove their loyalty to the Clintons in the hopes that their faithfulness will be remembered and rewarded. Black pastors are opening their church doors, and the Clintons are making themselves comfortably at home once again, engaging effortlessly in all the usual rituals associated with “courting the black vote,” a pursuit that typically begins and ends with Democratic politicians making black people feel liked and taken seriously. Doing something concrete to improve the conditions under which most black people live is generally not required.
Hillary is looking to gain momentum on the campaign trail as the primaries move out of Iowa and New Hampshire and into states like South Carolina, where large pockets of black voters can be found. According to some polls, she leads Bernie Sanders by as much as 60 percent among African Americans. It seems that we—black people—are her winning card, one that Hillary is eager to play.
And it seems we’re eager to get played. Again.

It gets better, go read this one. She spares no expense in gutting the Clintons. It’s that good.

Others: Mother Jones, Washington Post and Slantpoint