Rebel Yid on Twitter Rebel Yid on Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

To Hell With Hillary’s Supporters


from Katherine Timpf at National Review, Sorry, Madeline Albright, but I’d Rather Go to Hell Than Support Hillary Clinton

Second of all, I’d actually take the exact opposite view of Steinem’s: I’d say that the liberal women who support Bernie are actually more politically knowledgeable than those who support Hillary. They’ve been paying enough attention to know that Bernie has been fighting for gay rights since the ‘70s while Hillary didn’t support gay marriage until 2013, and that the head of Goldman Sachs said Bernie’s candidacy “has the potential to be a dangerous moment” while Hillary has taken tons of money from the firm for paid speeches. You know, to name a couple of things.

Albright’s comments were even more ludicrous than Steinem’s. During a rally for Hillary in Concord, New Hampshire on Sunday, Albright said that “there’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help each other.”

But it totally is. First of all, feminism is supposed to be about women being able to make choices for themselves. Second of all, is Albright saying that Hillary should be sent to Hell? After all, the way that she actively worked to ruin the lives of women who accused her husband of sexual assault hardly qualifies as her giving her “help” to them. Or maybe there’s an exception for “bimbos?” That would be, of course, very feminist.

Personally, I would never support Hillary. She’s a hawkish, lying, corrupt, untrustworthy woman. She cares about nothing except money and her own political prowess, and will destroy anyone who dares to get in her way.


two thoughts:  1. Never waste time killing some one busy committing suicide (Dick Army) and 2.) the left can not handle dissent- when unable to defend their ideas they simply find ways to insult and demean any opposition

Print This Post Print This Post

The Weak Sisters of Conservatism

From Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry at National Review, Toward a Conservative Populism

But there is also a key element of conservatism that Trump has either ignored or contradicted. Missing from both his policies and his rhetoric is any interest in freeing markets or reducing the federal government to something closer to its proper constitutional dimensions.

Trump promises not to limit government but to manage it better. He will hire the best, smartest people, who will come up with terrific plans, and the results will be excellent. What’s wrong with our government, on Trump’s telling, is not that it has overextended itself, taking on tasks that it has no business performing and by its very nature cannot perform well. It is that “we are led by very, very stupid people” rather than the “terrific” people who would staff his administration and bring America back to greatness.

None of this, of course, has particularly hurt Trump to this point. His success so far is, in part, a testament to how limited government and free markets are the weak sisters of conservatism. Yes, voters say they want less government — it’s an impulse built into the country — but there just aren’t that many voters highly motivated by those causes. When push comes to shove, voters care more about national strength, jobs, and their own government benefits than the relative abstractions of a smaller state and robust markets.

Read more at:

Print This Post Print This Post

Stymied by Democracy


from Jonah Goldberg at National Review, The Bogeymen of the ‘Billionaire Class’:

The simple fact is that almost everywhere you look, the super-rich are being stymied by democracy. In 2014, David Brat, an unknown academic, defeated the second-most-powerful Republican in Congress, then–House majority leader Eric Cantor, even though Cantor spent more money on steak dinners than Brat did on his whole campaign. The recent referendum on marijuana legalization in Ohio was lavishly funded — and failed. And just a reminder: Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney and his plutocrat pals.

Those evil corporations aren’t faring much better. We constantly hear about their vise grip on Washington, yet we still have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world (not counting United Arab Emirates). Big corporations rightly want to be able to repatriate their profits earned overseas without being taxed on them again. (Most countries allow corporations to pay taxes on profits solely in the jurisdictions where they were earned.) And yet they can’t get it done. Even the dreaded Koch brothers, those supposed super-villains, have failed to buy the policies they prefer.

Read more at:

Print This Post Print This Post

Personality is No Substitute for Ideas

Donald Trump

from National Review editors, Against Trump

Indeed, Trump’s politics are those of an averagely well-informed businessman: Washington is full of problems; I am a problem-solver; let me at them. But if you have no familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, get rolled. Especially if you are, at least by all outward indications, the most poll-obsessed politician in all of American history. Trump has shown no interest in limiting government, in reforming entitlements, or in the Constitution. He floats the idea of massive new taxes on imported goods and threatens to retaliate against companies that do too much manufacturing overseas for his taste. His obsession is with “winning,” regardless of the means — a spirit that is anathema to the ordered liberty that conservatives hold dear and that depends for its preservation on limits on government power. The Tea Party represented a revival of an understanding of American greatness in these terms, an understanding to which Trump is tone-deaf at best and implicitly hostile at worst. He appears to believe that the administrative state merely needs a new master, rather than a new dispensation that cuts it down to size and curtails its power.

Read more at:


Print This Post Print This Post

Inexperience is No Virtue

Donald Trump

from National Review editors, Against Trump

It is unpopular to say in the year of the “outsider,” but it is not a recommendation that Trump has never held public office. Since 1984, when Jesse Jackson ran for president with no credential other than a great flow of words, both parties have been infested by candidates who have treated the presidency as an entry-level position. They are the excrescences of instant-hit media culture. The burdens and intricacies of leadership are special; experience in other fields is not transferable. That is why all American presidents have been politicians, or generals.

Any candidate can promise the moon. But politicians have records of success, failure, or plain backsliding by which their promises may be judged. Trump can try to make his blankness a virtue by calling it a kind of innocence. But he is like a man with no credit history applying for a mortgage — or, in this case, applying to manage a $3.8 trillion budget and the most fearsome military on earth.

Read more at: