Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

They lie

When it comes down to the nut-cuttin’, they’re all the damned same.

AUBURN, Wash – On Sunday, Jordan Waits walked up and down Auburn streets canvassing for the Yes on I-1639 campaign.

“It’s important to me as citizens and voters that we contextualize our rights and do the things that are best for our community,” said Waits.

“Contextualize our rights”? Rights that are “contextualized” aren’t rights at alll; they’re privileges.

Waits served in the 1st battalion twelfth Marines from 2010-2014. He was a motor vehicle operator, fire team leader, and a line non-commissioned officer.

“I’ve seen what happens when somebody that takes six rounds to the chest,” Waits said. “I’ve seen what someone looks like after they take one or two rounds from an AR-15. It’s not a joke.”

Izzat so? Because last time I looked, the AR-15 was not an issue rifle in any branch of the US military. In fact, the ammo for the AR isn’t compatible with the issue M4s and M16s; if I remember right (and I’m certainly no expert and could well be wrong), 5.56 barrels can run .223 rounds without problems, but not so vice the versa. So it would seen that if this guy truly has seen the aftermath of one or two AR rounds in the chest, it surely wasn’t while he was on deployment with the Corps.

“I’ve seen the incredible devastation that weapon can cause,” he said. “And I own several firearms myself. I’ve had thousands and thousands of hours of firearm training. And I firmly believe that that’s not something that we should hand to an 18-year-old without a background check and without training.”

Sorry bub, gonna have to call bullshit on this one. “Thousands and thousands of hours of firearms training”—as a vehicle-pool truck jockey, no less? I’ll let Tom Knighton run the numbers:

That’s a load of male bovine excrement if ever I’ve heard it.

Let’s do the math, for a moment.

If Waits is to get the benefit of the doubt, his “thousands” is the bare minimum to be pluralized, meaning just 2,000 hours of firearm training.

Now, assuming eight-hour training days, that means Waits spent 250 days of training on just using and understanding firearms. If you assume a five-day work week, which isn’t out of line for most military duty outside of a war zone, then he spent 50 weeks doing nothing but firearm training.

That’s a year of non-stop training on nothing but firearms. Nothing else. No sexual harassment training, no diversity training, nothing but gun stuff.

Now, any veteran can tell you how little actual firearm training goes on in the military. While infantry and special ops get the lion’s share, even they don’t get a whole lot of trigger time considering what they do.

And bear in mind that he said firearms training. Not training where he was issued a gun, but actual weapons training. That’s an important distinction because just walking around with a weapon while you’re learning something else isn’t the same as detailed instruction on how to use a firearm.

But wait, there’s more.

And there is—more, and worse.

Hate to say it and all; you folks already know I have several close friends who are either active-duty or former military, mostly Navy and Marines. I have tremendous respect and love for all of them. But now and then you get one for whom the training just didn’t take, or who just doesn’t get it—even in the Corps, bless their crusty black hearts. Anybody remember notorious ex-not-former-Marine John Murtha, perchance? It happens. It’s rare, but it happens.

In any event, this guy went through boot, served his term honorably, got his DD214 in due course…and somehow came out the other end a gun-grabbing Democrat, with only a nodding acquaintance with truth and the concept of Constitutional rights, just like the rest of them. At the very best, he’s extremely poorly-informed and relying on hype and exaggeration to overstate his experience and knowledge, which in itself wouldn’t be exactly unheard of in the ranks of former sailors and Marines. In his own words:

Waits says many of his fellow Marines disagree with his viewpoint and he welcomes dissenting voices.

“I joined the Marine Corps because I care about my community, I wanted to protect my community, I want to make things better for Americans. And that doesn’t stop when you take off the uniform. I’m just doing the same thing on the street here.”

His welcoming of dissent is to his credit, unlike his fellow gun-grabbers. For the rest of it…well, he’s at best misguided. I really, really want to give this guy the benefit of the doubt here, I truly do. But—well, I’ll let Knighton state the inescapable conclusion, sorry as it is:

Then again, Waits isn’t just some objective veteran who is acting based solely on what his experiences tell him. He’s a Democrat who is spouting the typical anti-gun line of his party and using his veteran status to work to disarm legions of his fellow vets.

As a veteran, I know that there’s a technical term for that: Blue Falcon.

Waits is a blue falcon of the highest order, all for political gain. Pathetic.

It’s depressing, that’s what. In the end, I’ll just repeat my Mark-1 Mod-0 response to all such: come and take them, asshole.

Share

UNITY!

I’m all for it. So is Kurt.

The simple truth is that these shrill demands for unity are really demands for our surrender. The elitists who are howling that we have to come together have no intention of coming together with us. Rather, they want us to come together around them and the very same policies, initiatives, and weird taboos that we’ve spent the last few election cycles repudiating.

What, exactly, do these people propose to give up to help close America’s divide? Their campaigns against our free speech? Our religions? Our guns? Our desire for people to use the right bathroom?

Nothing, nada, zip. They intend to give up nothing. We’re supposed to give up what’s ours. Why? We just are.

We can have unity, all right. We just need to do everything they want and we’ll have unity. Like ants have unity. Like the Red Chinese have unity. Like liberal college campuses have unity. Sweet, warm, huggy unity, under the benevolent guidance and iron rule of our elite betters.

Hard pass.

He goes on to spell exactly what we ARE willing to unify around, all of which I am on board with.

Share

Build the dam wall!

Hate speech.

There seems no way that the caravan of 4,000–14,000 migrants approaching our southern border is going to end without blood being shed. There probably will be blood. And, while the debate over “man-made climate change” is far from over, the debate over The Wall is finally over:

The Wall finally must be built. Just as a dam serves as a last-ditch physical barrier to prevent or control a flood, The Wall now is revealed as the only logistical way to create a barrier to prevent or control a flood of Illegals. So, as an Orthodox Rabbi who must restrict certain words I use, it is not inappropriate for me to say: Build the Dam Wall already!

Let it be clear: If we let them in — and, yes, they are people with feelings and sensitivities and loves and hopes and dreams — then there will be another Caravan after it, and next time it will be a Caravan of 10-15,000 sensitive lovers and hopers and dreamers. And three months later it will be another Caravan. And then another. What $38 million cash raised and wasted in one calendar quarter could not buy for Beto O’Rourke and his Kennedyesque DUI driving record and his Kennedyesque attempt to flee from the scene, the hordes will solve: Texas really will turn bold shades of “overnight blue.” Arizona will turn blue. Alabama and Mississippi will turn blue. North Dakota and Montana and Idaho will turn blue. We will lose this country — exactly as the Democrat playbook seeks. Despite their losing the male vote, the Caucasian female vote, the married woman vote, the blue-collar union worker vote, the Democrats simply will import hordes of new voters to seize power.

It is the same Leftist strategy as their new dream of stacking the federal courts: if they cannot gain majorities fairly under the established rules, then just change the rules by stacking the numbers. The Left’s model is California. With the exception of Donald Trump, we elect Presidents who either have held prior significant elected office (e.g., United States Senators, Congressional representatives, Governors, Vice Presidents) or who have been heroic generals who won major American wars (e.g., George Washington, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, U.S. Grant, Ike) or both (e.g., Andrew Jackson, James Garfield, Teddy Roosevelt). Not all that long ago, California gave us Sen. Richard Nixon and Gov. Ronald Reagan, whose elected offices entitled them to reach the Presidency. Today, with California’s “jungle primary” that effectively limits most statewide elections to races between two Democrats, neither Nixon nor Reagan would even be on the ballot for statewide office. So Reagan never would have become a Governor and, therefore, not a President. Great and successful California governors like George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson never would have been elected. Instead, we have a paltry polity defined by Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and other “jungle primary” arrivals. Just consider the drek from which Californians now will choose a U.S. Senator: Dianne Feinstein or Kevin Leon (who later changed his named to “de León” to get more Spanish votes).

If the Democrats succeed in eviscerating our southern border — and that is their plan: DACA, catch-and-release, abolish ICE — they can overcome a century of their losing the support of Americans who once trusted them — blue-collar ethnic Catholics, union workers, married women, seniors. Instead, they can win just by importing tens of millions of new voters unschooled in American values, clueless as to the Constitution, knowing and caring nothing of our culture and higher purposes. Between suffering Illegals, encouraging cemetery turnout, and granting suffrage to felons, they can win back lost numbers. It is a sensible strategy.

The incoming throngs have no jobs, few marketable skills, no assets. No family or friends vouching for them or guaranteeing that they will not impose a burden on American taxpayers. They arrive expecting and receiving free schooling, publicly guaranteed taxpayer-sponsored health care and free hospital access, and every imaginable free public service. Meanwhile, the children of long-time California taxpayers find that they cannot get into University of California schools that have set aside protected seats for the undocumented. The Illegals further receive food stamps and welfare, and they even are assured that these are not “charitable hand-outs” but “entitlements”: It’s OK, you’re entitled. Meanwhile, virtually every California city is pocked with tent cities of homeless residents, with San Francisco streets reeking of urine, feces, and syringes, and with epidemic outbreaks in Los Angeles of Third World diseases like typhus. It is only natural that Illegals will align electorally with the Democrats who buy them off for a generation or two with the taxpayer-funded goodies that will flow their way.

This cannot be permitted to spread. This just has to stop.

Indeed it must. Our ace in the hole? Trump himself.

The most fascinating feature of the Trump era is the President’s uncanny ability to bilk the media into providing coverage that confirms the percipience of his political positions. Their 24/7 coverage of the migrant caravan, complete with images that couldn’t be better for his stance on illegal immigration had they been produced by the White House Press Office, is little short of an in-kind contribution to the GOP. Combined with the incredibly irresponsible Democratic open borders platform, the media are materially improving Trump’s approval numbers and reducing the chances that the Republicans will lose either house of Congress next week.

The media reflexively supply the public with countless images of people marching toward our border, breaking down barriers and fighting with Mexican police, and have no idea that they’re proving Trump right. The optics of the caravan are so bad for the open borders crowd, in fact, that even Trump-haters like Andrew Sullivan are advising the Democrats to adopt a more rational position if they want to prosper in the near future. He points out that the pervasive influence of social media worldwide allows ever more people to learn what life is like here and encourages them to head our way. He then spells out the political consequences for the Dems:

As we can see right now in front of our eyes, elections can turn on this.…Until one Democratic candidate declares that he or she will end illegal immigration, period, shift legal immigration toward those with skills, invest in the immigration bureaucracy, and enforce the borders strongly but humanely, Trump will continue to own this defining policy issue in 2020.

The Democrats have, thus far, failed to listen to such advice. Instead, they collectively call for the abolition of ICE and change the subject to fictitious Republican threats to their health care. They seem to believe that, combined with the usual whoppers about the GOP’s dark conspiracy to cut Social Security and Medicare, this will allow them to escape the illegal immigration issue. The Democrats are trying to divert voter attention from a huge problem they can see on their television screens every night by yammering about pre-existing conditions. Trump, meanwhile, is exploiting this blunder by reminding the electorate why immigration is broken.

As with their Kavanaugh debacle, the Democrat Socialists seem not to realize just what a catastrophe they’ve created for themselves here. Can there be anyone so blind as to think it coincidence that each and every one of their recent “causes” and campaigns, if brought to fruition, would do grave injury to this nation?

By pimping this “caravan” of American-flag-burning indigent immivaders—denouncing this country every step of the way while demanding their nonexistent “right” to cross our border illegally and start immediately leeching on Uncle Sugar for their subsistence—they’ve painted a very ugly picture showing what they’re really all about, for all Real Americans to see: destruction, disorder, and dragging this country to its knees for good.

Share

Unholy alliance

We Are All Proud Boys Now. Excepting, of course, the cuckified pussywarts of Conservative, Inc.

Lost amid the uproar over the alleged threat of right-wing violence revealed by crude bomb-like devices apparently mailed to CNN and some top Democrats: the speed with which Conservatism Inc. endorsed the Left’s Narrative (David Frum here, Bill Kristol here, Ben Shapiro here, Rich Lowry here). It’s a Thing: increasingly openly, Conservatism Inc. is making a de facto alliance with the Left in a last-ditch effort to stop its Dissident Right’s rivals’ takeover of the Right. Case in point: its disgraceful reaction to the New York authorities’ anarcho-tyrannical drive to suppress Gavin McInnes’ Proud Boys pro-Trump fraternity, while simultaneously exempting Antifa demonstrators from prosecution.

The Proud Boys clashed with Antifa because the black-masked anarchists were robbing and assaulting people who were leaving an event addressed by McInnes at New York’s Metropolitan Republican Club. As soon as video emerged of the scuffle, the Left and their journalist auxiliaries and quickly went into histrionics. Conservatism, Inc. was all too willing to join in.

Respectable conservatives prefer standing on imaginary moral high ground rather than fight for their own supposed interests. But turning the other cheek to Antifa and denouncing anyone who dares to punch back will not quell Leftist violence. It rewards it, and only makes conservatives look like cowards.

Unfortunately for the Proud Boys, Conservatism, Inc. condemnation is the least of their concerns. The media paints them as Neo-Nazi thugs although they boast more racial diversity than HuffPost and have repeatedly disavowed white nationalism. The “Hate Group” label has stuck as usual, making anyone affiliated with the Proud Boys subject to employment termination—several in New York were arbitrarily fired from their jobs the day after Trump’s election—and other severe harassment. The Twitter accounts for the group, McInnes and several prominent members have been permanently suspended. More censorship will likely follow. 

But the persecution of the Proud Boys is no concern for Conservative Inc., even though they are the only group willing to defend patriots from Antifa violence. The Respectable Right are clearly more than happy with the Left taking out the “disreputable” elements of its Dissident Right competition.

Of course they are. They want their comfy-cozy Deep State Business As Usual back, and don’t care whose diseased cock they have to suck to get it. Where’s it all leading? Derb wonders:

So the question arises: Are we moving into a zone where street fighting between political groups becomes normal?

Antifa have had the streets pretty much to themselves up to now, courtesy of cowardly political leaders. Actions generate reactions, though. It wouldn’t be terrifically surprising to see more groups like the Proud Boys coming up, ready and willing to fight.

The New York Times, which to the best of my knowledge has never printed a single word critical of Antifa, will denounce them as Nazis and appeal to the Southern Poverty Law Center for Hate Group designations. Which is why New York law enforcement is now hunting down and jailing the Proud Boys, while doing nothing whatever about Antifa.

But you can only push people so far before they push back. (You can donate to the Proud Boys legal defense here.)

And back of my question about the forthcoming normalization of political street fighting, is a bigger, darker one.

Suppose these street fights escalate to a serious, major breakdown of public order, serious enough to need the attention of the military. Will the military stand neutral? If not, if they take a side, which side will they take?

Heartiste knows:

We crossed the Rubicon with the election of Trump, an event which shitlibs have been unable to countenance or reconcile.

America has regressed to the unexceptional default state of mankind. Perhaps it was fated.

It should be of great concern that the divisions prior to Civil War I pale in comparison to those we have today. The ingredients are already in the mixing bowl; all that’s left is to add the explosive reagent to set off the chain reaction to Civil War II.

The Left has become intolerant from decades of cultural power. Uncompromising. If they win now, and again in 2020, they will crush dissent. If they lose, they will refuse conciliation. Either way, war in some form is coming to America. Once the anti-Left loses faith in their own restraint, the battlefield will finally erupt.

And the cucks—sidelined and irrelevant until things go hot, loathed as traitors and cowards after, big-L losers first, last, and forever—will be caught in the crossfire and mowed down.

(Via Ol’ Remus)

Share

Birthright citizenship: another Trump win

I’ll just let one of Aesop’s commenters say it:

And just like that… he has Democrats insisting that we follow the Constitution.

Masterful.

Ain’t it just. It’s a joy to watch the man work.

All ears update! Tell me more about this mysterious “Constitution” thing of which you’re so suddenly fond, libtards.

That the 14th amendment — the centerpiece of the Reconstruction Amendmentspassed and ratified under the Johnson and Grant administrations, but proposed and voted in by the Radical Republicans in Congress — applies specifically and only to the newly freed slaves is clear not only from its historical context, but to its very language…

The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The Court later ruled, in the Wong Kim Ark decision (1898), that children born to foreign diplomats, or born to enemy soldiers occupying U.S. territory, were not protected under the 14th, as they were clearly not under American jurisdiction. (Neither were American Indians, until 1924.) But then, neither are illegal alien invaders, who openly proclaim their contempt for American immigration law even as they march toward our southern border.

Further, our immigration laws were designed for lawful immigration, with some carve-outs for genuine refugees and asylum-seekers. What they were not designed to do is absorb a calculated onslaught of lawbreakers with no beneficent intent; instead, these people are very clear about their purpose: to manipulate the loopholes of the laws, force entry, earn money, and send it back home to their “countries” of origin — three of which (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador) are among the most savage and violent places on earth. America has no domestic need for these people, and no moral obligation to admit them, especially under these circumstances. There is no war ongoing in their homelands (the violence is entirely of their own making, and cultural history) and economic “refugees” can apply through proper channels like everybody else. America is a sovereign nation, not an international charity.

Not if the Left has its way.

Unhinged update! Living rent-free in their empty heads.

The president should be given no ground on this issue. After so many years of peddling so many racist and xenophobic falsehoods—about former president Obama’s birthplace, about walls and refugees and caravans—Trump cannot be permitted to use a lie about the Constitution to advance his nationalist crusade.

If he abuses his position in an effort to undermine the protections afforded by an amendment to the Constitution that bars any abridging of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, the president must be immediately checked and balanced by responsible members of Congress and by the courts. The response from New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood office was appropriately blunt: “The Constitution is clear. If President Trump’s pre-Election Day ploy to unconstitutionally end birthright citizenship moves forward, we will see him in court.”

If Trump persists in this lawless endeavor, he should be introduced to an essential requirement of the Constitution. Article 2, Section 4, of the founding document states that “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Gee, wonder how the flapping, foaming fucktards at the Nation feel about the Second, now that they’ve conjured a reverence for the Constitution all of a sudden.

Shitlibs shamelessly quoting the Constitution at us—even more fantastical, insisting on a strict-constructionist interpetration of its words after all these years of “living document” horseshit, too. Did you ever think you’d live to see the day?

Just the facts update! It’s not that they don’t know anything. It’s that so much of what they know isn’t so.

The United States and Canada are the only two “developed” countries that retain unrestricted birthright citizenship laws. While many Latin American and Caribbean nations also maintain lenient naturalization laws, it is important to understand them in their historical context. Those laws came about not out of a liberal exigency to bestow citizenship onto foreigners, but rather as a mechanism of empire-building designed subdue indigenous populations by growing the number of Europeans in their midst. “The birthright laws in South America have remained due to low immigration numbers,” explains John Skrentny, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego.

In other words, if Scots-Irish Americans began caravanning to Mexico, demanding jobs and welfare, and driving up crime rates, odds are good that Mexico would turn “nativist” and amend its constitution to decrease the liberality of their naturalization laws. Indeed, every other Western country that has experienced mass immigration has amended or repealed their naturalization laws in response.

Tony Mecia of The Weekly Standard claims that the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark provides a defense of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, while the Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh asserts there is “little legal debate over the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Not true. Not true at all.

Nowrasteh glosses over part of the amendment that specifies about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and takes it to mean that “immigrants, both legal and illegal, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government, jurisdiction being a fancy legal word for ‘power.’ Any other interpretation would mean that the U.S. government didn’t have legal power over tourists or illegal immigrants here, a crazy notion.”

Is that crazy? The citizenship clause, adopted in 1868, was never meant to extend to those with allegiances to another nation, i.e., non-citizens. It was the Wong Kim Ark case that expanded the constitutional mandate at the end of the 19th century to confer citizenship unto the children of legal, permanent residents.

Read all of it; there’s plenty more supporting evidence, including Supreme Court precedent and quotes from the architect of the citizenship clause himself. And then there’s this:

Moreover, the claim that Trump is out to “reverse centuries of American tradition,” asserted by the likes of John Yoo and Angelica Alvarez, is bunk. As far as anyone can tell, unrestricted birthright citizenship for all children born on U.S. soil began sometime in the mid-1960s, not “centuries” ago.

An institution that does not exist cannot be undermined, nor can such a farcical practice that is younger than the president himself constitute “centuries of American tradition.”

So basically, then, it’s the usual story: everything they say is a damned perfidious lie.

Share

((((((((JEWS!!!!)))))))–a primer

What with all the talk in certain Alt-Right circles about the (((((((JEW!!!!))))))) Question, I thought I’d dip a toe in too. In the course of researching these strange, sinister “people,” I actually learned quite a bit, some of which was horrifying, some of which was repulsive. It was quite a remarkable learning-journey; I’ll now share some of my newly-acquired knowledge with you folks, if I may.

First off, this is a (((((((JEW!!!!))))))):


Gene-1-sandwich.jpg

His name is Gene Klein, which he changed to Gene Simmons so no one would know he was a (((((((JEW!!!!))))))). In this photo, he is enjoying a sandwich made from the bones and sinew of Christian infants, which is something (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))) do quite a lot. This is what he looks like without makeup, in real life:

simmons-gene-bloody.jpg

In this photo, the (((((((JEW!!!!))))))) Klein has just slaked a parching thirst with a (((((((JEW!!!!))))))) drink made from the blood of Christian children, also very popular among (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))).

Here is another picture of a (((((((JEW!!!!))))))).


The_Crucifixion.jpg

He was called Jesus the Christ, and he was killed by another (((((((JEW!!!!))))))) named Pontius Pilate, which is why most reasonable people now call (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))) the Christ Killers. That word above his head means “King Of The Jews” in their secret (((((((JEW!!!!))))))) language, which is called the Koran.

Jesus should have just gone back where he came from, just as all the rest of the (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))) should. Then maybe he wouldn’t have been killed for his (((((((JEW!!!!))))))) troublemaking, and we’d all be a lot better off for it. The trouble is, where they all came from is Palestine, which, in one of the earliest examples of a long series of twisted conspiracies they’ve conjured up, the (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))) claimed for themselves, after killing all the Palestinians and drinking the blood of their children. What a bunch of greedy, rotten bastards those (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))) are, eh? GIVE THE PALESTINIANS THEIR LAND BACK, YOU JEWS!

Nobody should be the least bit embarrassed or hesitant about giving in and indulging the natural human impulse to hate (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))); almost everybody does hate them, and you’ll be in some pretty lofty, honorable company. These are just a few examples of the kind of intelligent, noteworthy movers-and-shakers you’ll be aligning yourself with. Some of them may even invite you to dinner at their house!


Al-Sharpton-Net-Worth.jpg


jesse-jackson-getty.jpg


LouisFarrakhan.jpg


democratic_seal-2.jpg


Palestinian-3.jpg


RobertSheetsByrd.jpg


linda-sarsour.jpg


HITLER-SALUTE.jpg

Yep, excellent company for sure. Incidentally, that last pic is of a guy called Hitler, unfairly maligned—by (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))), of course—for supposedly killing 6 million of them in something they call “the Holocaust,” which never actually happened. It was at most only a couple million anyway. Which, it didn’t happen, so there. Just another (((((((JEW!!!!))))))) lie to make everybody feel sorry for them, that’s all.

A side note: if you’re interested in writing something about (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))) on your own blog (if any), you must be sure to always use a lot of parentheses and exclamation points when naming them so people will know who you’re talking about. But be careful: in addition to being greedy, spiteful, conspiratorial, and strongly tribal, (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))) are also extremely vengeful and dangerous. When they get wind of anybody talking bad about them, that person will suddenly find himself cut off from any chance of enjoying any more of their delicious child-blood (((((((JEW!!!!))))))) drinks, and will no longer be welcome in any of the major cities or countries they control, which is all of them. They will also never be able to attend a movie, sporting event, or concert again, because (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))) control those industries too. Nor can they watch TV; yep, (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))) in charge again. Yes, even Netflix. Also, the Internet.

So in sum, that’s what I learned about these vile, depraved, grotesque, iniquitous, omnipotent monsters, and quite an eye-opener it all was, too. Stay away from them, don’t speak of them for any reason, and maybe they’ll be content to sit back counting their money and drinking their horrible, demonic drink and just leave you alone. Probably not, though. That’s the one thing they NEVER do. Darn (((((((JEWS!!!!))))))).

Share

Comedy GOLD

Look, it’s plain she’s NEVER going to just go away. That being the case, yeah, I hope like hell the miserable, sickly old sot climbs out of the gin bottle and runs (staggers) again. At this point, she can hurt them way more than she can hurt us.

On Friday, failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stated she would “like to be president” during a live taping of Recode Decode at New York City’s 92nd Street YMCA.

“I’d like to be president,” stated Clinton. “I think, hopefully, when we have a Democrat in the oval office in January 2021, there’s gonna be so much work to be done.”

Hillary Clinton’s return as a potential presidential candidate in 2020 could not come at a worse time for Democrats. The Democratic Party is trying to seal the midterm elections and complete a takeover of the House majority for the first time in nearly a decade, but the race has tightened in the weeks leading up the November 6 midterm election.

By most accounts on both sides of the aisle, Hillary Clinton’s return to national electoral politics would likely be a disaster for the Democratic Party. Republicans and Democrats have spoken out about Clinton’s negative influence on the Democratic Party in the midterm elections, and any effort by her to run for president again would likely only energize the GOP even more than the party’s base is already fired up.

“The longer a scandal-plagued Hillary Clinton lingers in American politics, the worse off House Democrats will be,” said Jesse Hunt, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to NBC News.

“Hillary Clinton is the kiss of death and she represents the part of the Democratic Party that led to historic losses and that elected Donald Trump president,” said a leading Democratic strategist who requested anonymity due to fear of political retribution, per the Washington Examiner.

Political retribution ain’t the kind you oughta be worrying about with this one, bub; the Clintons are well known for handling problematic individuals a lot more, shall we say, dynamically than that.

Has there ever BEEN a more clueless, self-serving, out-of-touch political sewer-crawler than Her Herness? Oh, the fun we’ll have!

Share

A funny thing happened on the way to the Blue Wave

It collapsed in on itself, creating a black hole of post-election wailing and despair on the Left from which no sanity will be able to escape the bounds of the event horizon. You just watch.

The Democrats typically lead Republicans in early voting during midterm and presidential election cycles. In 2016 the Democratic lead in early voting was such that it inspired major news outlets, AP for example, to run articles with titles like “Early voting: More good signs for Clinton in key states.” Among the states in which early voting portended a victory for Hillary, according to AP, were Florida and North Carolina. The story went on to quote her spokesperson as follows: “The Clinton campaign describes both North Carolina and Florida as ‘checkmate’ states.” Trump won both of course.

And, make no mistake, there is a GOP surge that has rendered this year’s early voting pattern unique. Interestingly, the only major network that has covered this story in detail is by no means remarkable for its Republican-friendly reporting. On Monday NBC reported, “The data suggests enthusiasm among early GOP voters that could put a dent in Democratic hopes for a ‘blue wave’ in the midterms.” Early GOP voters were leading Democrats by large margins in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, Tennessee, and Texas. And that was not an anomaly. By Thursday NBC reported:

The current nationwide total of early or absentee ballots counted exceeds the 2016 total from two weeks before Election Day.… Republican-affiliated voters make up 44 percent of the early voting electorate and Democratic-affiliated voters make up 40 percent of the early voting electorate.

So, there are two unusual phenomena associated with this year’s early voting — the overall participation has been far higher than is usually the case in a midterm election, and Republican ballots are materializing in significantly higher numbers. At this point in the 2016 election, early Democratic ballots led early GOP ballots by 45 percent to 38 percent. This cycle, the Republican percentage has increased by 7 while the Democratic percentage has dropped by 5. Does that mean the oft-predicted blue wave was BS?

Gee, it’s a real head-scratcher there, that one.

As each and every successive act of seditious refusal to acknowledge they lost in 2016 blows up in their faces, they ratchet up the insanity another turn, then scream in frustrated rage when Real Americans’ will to defy them doubles and redoubles. Everything they do now—absolutely everything—reinforces the Normals’ suspicion of them, deepens our loathing for them, and strengthens our resolve to fight back against them. We don’t believe them, we don’t trust them, we don’t like them. They’ve spent decades giving us good reasons for it.

They’re now trapped in an inescapable cycle of self-destruction, a powerful vortex of futility and debacle in which every attempt at escape only strengthens the suction and draws them deeper. Their inability—or refusal—to see just how fed up Americans are with them inspires them to even more obnoxious extremes of insult, assault, and general depravity.

They think this is going to win them votes and elections. They’re wrong about that. That is precisely as it should be. Which is yet another thing they just don’t get.

UNPOSSIBLE update! Looks like it ain’t just Kanye jumping the sinking Democrat Socialist ship.

With a little more than a week left until the midterm elections, Democrats appear to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The matchups were theirs to lose, and they seem poised to underperform in a bunch of them.

A reader recently asked me: “I don’t understand why Latinos are not motivated to vote against a bigoted POTUS and willing enablers.”

I can help with that. The answer has to do with how Latinos feel about Donald Trump, and how they feel about Democrats as an alternative.

As for Mr. Trump and the Latinos, that’s a complicated relationship. Trump began his campaign for president by kicking Mexicans in the teeth, calling them rapists and drug traffickers.

Liar. He didn’t call “Mexicans” anything at all. He referred specifically to illegal-alien border jumpers and MS13. You and other liberals like you dishonestly conflated that to mean ALL Mexicans for political purposes, that’s all. So how’s that working out for ya now, liar?

He also showed his ignorance about immigration when he said that Mexico doesn’t send their best people to the United States when that is exactly who they send — dreamers, doers and risk-takers.

Also bullshit, you liar.

Then a strange thing happened. Once Trump emerged as the Republican nominee and squared off against Hillary Clinton — who often tries to out-Republican the Republicans as an immigration hardliner — polls began to show Trump’s support among Latinos climbing.

Probably because those who waited in line and went through the process tend to resent those who didn’t even more than native-born Americans do.

As a Never Trumper, I didn’t get it. So, I interviewed some Latinos for Trump and I got an earful. Many of them saw themselves not as Latinos but as Americans, and so they weren’t hung up on Trump’s anti-Latino screeds. They didn’t like or trust Clinton, appreciated Trump’s frankness, wanted a strong leader, and thought he was right about a lot of issues, including trade and immigration.

Yes, immigration. What most non-Latinos don’t grasp is that Latinos are ambivalent about illegal immigration. They have a front-row seat not just to the pain of deportations, but also to how many immigrants commit crimes or abuse social services.

Wait—”commit crimes,” “abuse social services”? I thought they were “dreamers, doers, and risk-takers,” Mexico’s best and brightest?

In 2016, an astounding 29 percent of Latinos voted for Trump.

And now, two years into his presidency, polls show that his support among Latinos is somewhere between 33 and 41 percent. That’s insanely good for a president who is so bad on issues that Latinos supposedly care about.

If you’d take off your NeverTrump blinders and switch that to “issues that LIBERAL Latinos supposedly care about,” you’d probably be on the road to “getting it,” bub. Needless to say, I won’t be holding my breath,

Share

UNEXPECTED!™

The Democrat Socialists acknowledge some home truths at last.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—After a string of mail bombings targeting Democrats ended in the arrest of a Florida man, Democrat leaders announced the commencement of a brief moratorium on calling for political violence against their foes.

Democrats said they would cease calling for violent attacks on conservatives “at least until this whole mail bomb thing is out of the news cycle.”

“Once all this blows over, we will resume demonizing our opponents and calling for mobs to harass people we disagree with in public,” said Maxine Waters at the press event. “We really thought our words would only incite violence against the right, and hadn’t really thought about it going back the other way. But now that we see how destructive and detrimental violence really is, we’ll just cool our jets for a bit.”

Yes, of course it’s the Bee, finding a way to do the impossible and satirize them again.

Share

Problem, meet solution

The boy’s a damned genius.

You don’t fly 1000 miles away to bomb a refugee column, even if it’s 98% military-aged male invaders. If we ever do that, it gets done when they’re 20 miles away, not 1000 (and after the mid-term elections, if ever). This nonsense is just a sideshow to bigger things.

But if we decided to seize a one-mile-wide buffer 2000 miles long on their side, and invest it with troops while we build the wall, that would be reasonable.

Seizing all remittances to those countries automatically, as the fruit of illegal activity, and contributing to terrorism, would also stop this nonsense in about a heartbeat, fund the military action, and hit those countries where they live. In Mexico alone, it’s some good fraction of their yearly GDP, and if it were gone, they’d be in open revolution in about a week.

It would also cost $0 to implement Monday morning.
Demanding Congress permanently outlaw the practice to those countries would similarly be reasonable.

Telling Mexico if they want that brand new trade treaty to stand they’d better end this nonsense is also correct.
If they want to see their food prices quadruple, all they need to do is ignore us.
Once again, that’d be the cue for open revolution in Mexico.

Which would make a military buffer both prudent and necessary.
It means we could then start rounding up illegals as enemy aliens, and deport them permanently over that wall, once and for all.

27 problems solved, by Friday next, at that point, and without bombing anyone or mostly without firing a single shot.

Works for me, right down the line. Diplomad puts some more meat on dem bones:

It is a hostile act, an overtly hostile act, by the government of Mexico and those of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. The so-called march northward is clearly funded by somebody with deep pockets and good organizational skills, and abetted by officials in those countries. The immediate victims, of course, are thousands of poor people being lied to, exploited, and put in great physical danger.  We see pictures of marchers painting swastikas on American flags and then burning them, and waving flags of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador at the head of long columns of marchers. These people apparently so hate racist, xenophobic America, and feel so patriotic about their home countries, that they are putting their lives at risk to head for the USA and get away from their non-sh*thole countries.  

The usual morons in the media are having a field day trying to blame these marches on Trump. I guess, in a way, Trump is to blame as under him the US economy rockets along and generates new jobs and rising wages for our workers, all of which serves as a magnet for the poor of the world. We should ask President Trump to stop winning for the USA, and that would, I assume, slow down the rate of marching. Right.

In other words, elect the Democrats and that will make the USA a much less attractive place to live for everybody. We could do that…or we could do what we should have done long ago: build the wall; change the immigration laws so that you can’t come here to mooch or work illegally; and punish the traffickers. By traffickers, by the way, I include the governments of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and the funders of these marches. Do what I long ago suggested, that until these countries begin to act as “friends,” use our military and other elements of national power to shut the border to all traffic in goods and people; suspend issuance of visas to nationals of those countries; and, of course, drastically reduce those nations’ diplomatic and consular presence in the USA. Yank us out of NAFTA, and tell those American companies who build their factories in Mexico, that doing so is a bad bet on the future. Prosecute any American individuals or organizations involved in funding, organizing, or leading these marches.

Beginning with one George Motherfucking Soros, Nazi collaborator, international financial criminal, and uber-destructive America-hater nonpareil. Deporting him to Hungary would be a suitable alternative, I guess, but a fair trial followed by a first-class hanging would indeed be better. But there’s also a problem—one you’d probably not expect, from a seemingly unlikely source:

In April of this year, Secretary of Defense James Mattis approved a memo ordering the deployment of up to 4,000 U.S. National Guardsmen to the southwestern border (provided that the governors of border states approve of the action and that the Department of Homeland Security reimburse the Department of Defense for its troubles). Yet, the DoD instituted such strict rules of engagement for the National Guardsmen that they’ve proven useless to the Border Patrol.

What’s more, the 800 active-duty troops that are being deployed to the border are not charged with providing physical support of the Border Patrol and National Guard. Instead, the Pentagon has opted to send its doctors, lawyers, and engineers. What do you think military doctors, engineers, and lawyers are going to do to turn back the human wave threatening America’s porous southwest? (Hint: they’re not going to physically turn back that caravan; they’re going to accommodate it in all likelihood!)

As I reported earlier this year, the Pentagon has already approved the Department of Homeland Security’s request to turn unused areas of large U.S. military bases along the southwestern border into tent cities. Clearly, the Pentagon has decided to engage in its own bit of policymaking, regardless of what the president has ordered — or what the American people want (and what the United States Constitution outlines).

Remember that treasonous op-ed in the New York Times written by an anonymous senior Trump Administration official detailing the effectiveness of #TheResistance from within the government to Trump?

Taken together, it is clear that the Pentagon today is simply going through the motions. It is as uncomfortable about physically protecting the U.S.-Mexico border as the Democratic Party is. Without a direct, inviolate command from the president explicitly ordering the Pentagon to take decisive actions to physically turn back the caravan, the Department of Defense will slow-walk and half-ass its response to this pending invasion — hiding behind process until the caravan has arrived, and there is no choice but to take the human mass in.

Just another indication that America’s biggest problems originate not beyond our own borders, but within ’em…which in turn means that President Trump, just as he’s said from the start, will not be able to solve them all by himself.

Share

Anomalies aplenty

Codevilla runs down the curiouser-and-curiouser case of fake-bomb fallguy Cesar Sayoc.

During my years with the Senate Intelligence Committee, as I worked to repair this country’s counterintelligence operations, I sometimes lectured our intelligence community’s leaders on the principles of counterintelligence analysis. Prominent among these is that close attention to an event’s anomalies—to things that don’t seem to quite fit—can reveal more about the event than everything else about it. In other words, if in fact the event contains a lie, it may lead you to understand the deepest truths about that event.

The obvious account of the bomb drama is that devices were mailed or delivered to prominent critics of the Trump Administration to hurt them or to frighten them into silence.

Not originally knowing anything about who mailed those devices, or why, and assuming that the alleged perpetrator was a competent person who would have covered his personal tracks well—the way that the Soviets had deceived U.S intelligence analysts for a decade about their nuclear command post—noticing anomalies, in this case the ways in which these devices and their deliveries don’t quite fit the obvious story, was the best way of grasping the truth of the matter.

Although it is usually prudent to assume the opponent’s intelligence and rationality, the analyst had to keep in mind that an assumption is only just that.

The devices could not have caused harm, and were unlikely to have caused fear first, because they were unlikely to reach their supposed victims. They were sent through the U.S. Postal Service, which advertises that it checks all packages for explosives, or were delivered to places protected by the Secret Service or known to have other, serious security measures. A rational perpetrator would know that. By the same token he had to know that the undelivered packages were sure to draw the media’s attention.

Nothing about the devices themselves fit the main story of harm and fear. First, they were made of PVC pipe—grossly insufficient for containing an explosion to lethal force. Second, whereas package-bombs are set to go off when the package is opened, these contained outside timers, apparently unconnected to what may or may not be detonators.

But though incapable of hurting the recipients, were they meant to frighten them into silence? Believing that things so obviously harmless could frighten persons protected by world-class security beggars belief. In short, these devices’ anomalies lead the analyst to conclude that they were meant to look like bombs, aimed at a credulous press, just as the Sharopova wind tunnel was aimed at credulous intelligence analysts.

Hence, counterintelligence analysis’ first hard conclusion: Whoever the perpetrator was, he acted to harm some and help others politically, by leveraging the media. But if the devices were meant to ignite a media frenzy, who were the intended victims and who the beneficiaries?

Read it all; he doesn’t take his analysis quite where one might initially assume, and I think he makes an error in his central premise which you guys will probably be able to identify easily enough yourselves. His conclusion, though, I am in complete agreement with. Seeing as how said conclusion—that the effect achieved was the exact opposite of the intended one—is so, we can expect this fiasco of a fuckup to disappear from the national radar pretty quickly now.

Share

If it wasn’t for fraud, they’d never win anything

Vote fraud: a Democrat-Socialist joint.

President Trump warned on Twitter last week that law enforcement would be looking for “voter fraud” in the midterm elections. Many journalists quickly responded – as they always do – by dismissing the very existence of voter fraud.

CNN’s Jim Acosta tweeted “voter fraud in this country is actually very rare.”

Glenn Thrush of The New York Times claimed: “there is essentially no voter fraud in this country.” He instead asked, “Will the (Justice Department) Civil Rights division prevent/investigate a real threat-voter suppression?”

Journalists have credulously repeated unsupported, patronizing claims that in Georgia and other states, voter registration and absentee ballot laws somehow suppress minority votes.

The preference for opinion journalism over real reporting prompted Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame to tell a CNN summit last Monday, “We need to be doing stories that really look at whether or not there is widespread voter fraud…. we still need to be doing that basic aspect of the reporting.”

Follows, a list of examples of guess-what by guess-who from four states, one which no one should suppose is anything close to all-inclusive. The real tell, though, is how fiercely they shriek, scream, and wail about requiring some form of easily-obtainable ID to vote: there’s really no good reason to oppose such a common-sense rule other than the serious impediment it presents to the usual Democrat-Socialist program of electoral fraud and malfeasance.

All the more reason, then, to show up this November 6th, and every election; if it ain’t close, they can’t cheat.

Share

Uncle Tom’s gotta Uncle Tom, right, shitlibs?

Uncle Tom’s gotta Uncle Tom, right, libtards?

Kanye West Designs “Blexit” Apparel Urging Black People To Leave Democratic Party

OH, how I love it.

Unveiled Saturday at Turning Point USA’s Young Black Leadership Summit in Washington by TPUSA’s Communications Director Candace Owens, “Blexit” is designed to “open a conversation we have needed to have.”

“Blexit is a renaissance and I am blessed to say that this logo, these colors, were created by my dear friend and fellow superhero Kanye West,” said the 29-year-old Owens.

A superhero for sure; I love that, too. A “renaissance” for sure, one that’s long overdue. The Democrat Socialists have exploited black Americans for generations—taking their votes for granted by virtue of having bought them fair and square with a mess of pottage; fostering dependency and destroying the black family and the black middle class along the way.

They’ll have plenty to say about Kanye and Owens both over this, all of it demeaning and insulting. But it can all be translated thus: back on the Democratic-Socialist plantation, boy, you’re getting entirely too uppity heah! The bottom-line truth is as Hinderaker says:

What is Blexit?

BLEXIT is a frequency for those who have released themselves from the political orthodoxy. It is a rebellion led by Americans wishing to disrupt the simulation of fear.

BLEXIT is a renaissance. It is our formal declaration of independence.

You can read about it here. Candace and the rest of the crew are planning to criss-cross the United States, holding Blexit rallies in all major cities.

This is, of course, the Left’s nightmare: African-Americans declaring independence from liberalism, the welfare state and the Democratic Party. And the current generation of fiery, smart young black leaders can, I think, make it happen in sufficient numbers to be a political earthquake.

Let’s not discount Trump’s highly salutary influence on this most welcome trend, either.

Welcome, Kanye, Candance, and all other truly free-thinking, independent-minded black Americans, welcome and well-met. The rest of us are pleased and proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in the ongoing struggle for liberation from tyranny and despotism.

(Via Ed)

Share

“We are all Proud Boys now”

And not a moment too soon, either.

“Our attack is merely the beginning,” Antifa’s terror manifesto read after they led a premeditated and well-coordinated assault on our Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan’s Upper East Side. They hoped we would cancel a scheduled event the next night with founder of the Proud Boys Gavin McInnes as a result of their violent outburst. They were wrong.

It is not easy to be a Republican in New York City, but our ragtag group does the best we can to fight for conservative values in the belly of the beast. Earlier this week, we refused to back down in the face of extreme oppositiony from the leftist mob. Those of us who have been in the fight since at least the 2016 Trump campaign have seen our fellow patriots demonized, ambushed, insulted, defamed, beaten, and robbed of their livelihood. From our experience, we know that to acquiesce to their ultimatums and threats is to surrender. We stood defiantly in the face of those anti-American terrorists in the street, and welcomed Gavin McInnes to our event as he held a rubber sword to honor legendary Japanese anti-socialist Otoya Yamaguchi.

The leftist terrorists shouting unoriginal slogans in the streets were enraged that we exercised our 1st Amendment rights. Despite all their threats, the event proceeded, largely thanks to the great work of New York’s Finest. They guarded the doors even while chanting Antifa berated them as “Pigs” and “Fascists.”

After leaving the event, a colleague and I witnessed a right-leaning independent journalist being assaulted and mugged by multiple masked Antifa thugs who did not want their likenesses revealed to the greater public. We saved the man from a vicious mob beating from Antifa, who called me a “Nazi” despite my being Jewish and having family who died in Europe during the Holocaust. These Neo-Brownshirts even attacked the man’s girlfriend, showing that these enemies of America will stoop to any depth in order to shut their opposition down, all under the guise of “Fighting Fascism.” 

After meeting with the police to give a statement on what I saw, I was confident that justice would be served. I could have never imagined what was next to come. A complete inversion of reality was widely reported by the press, who seized upon the incident to fabricate an “October Surprise” to damage the GOP’s chances for November’s midterm elections. Top Democratic officials, including the New York governor, New York City public advocate, and the attorney general all badmouthed the Proud Boys publicly and called for their prosecution for defending their rights and engaging in self-defense during other incidents that night. Antifa assailants are referred to simply as “protestors” while a multiracial and multiethnic group of Proud Boys are defamed as “White Nationalists” in the press, being simultaneously “doxxed” by the online wing of the Antifa mob. Now, the feeding frenzy has started. Our stand for freedom against leftist terror has been completely spun. Out-of-context quotes from Gavin McInnes are being used to paint him as a right-wing militant leader when he in all actuality he just runs a patriotic fraternal group who like America and beer. Antifa’s acts of terror and manifesto promising more violence were glossed over completely in nearly all reports.

This is what makes Antifa so dangerous. It is not their fighting skills, which are subpar at best, but it is their immense establishment support. These people would be laughable otherwise, but they operate with near impunity due to supporting the establishment’s values of open borders, globalist socialism, censorship, social degeneracy, and limitless centralized power. There is an organized network of leftist lawyers who will defend these terrorists free of charge, and countless deep state apparatchiks working as judges, journalists, law enforcement officials, university administrators, and federal bureaucrats who regularly abuse their power to protect these unabashedly violent activists. This is a far worse problem than Antifa merely getting payoffs from Soros and other far-left oligarchs through their shady non-profit networks.

Read all of it—and at long last acknowledge fully and without flinching that we are in fact already at war with the TWANLOC mob…and that all the desperate wishes for “civility” and “dialogue” will not and cannot alter that, or deflect it, or defer it, or make it go away. Which essential truth necessitates a new category, in honor both of Breitbart, who coined the phrase, and the Proud Boys, who are breathing new life into it in defiance of the both the thug Left and the mewling cucks who moan about their righteous actions: FUCK YOU, WAR!

Update! It might be a little OT, but in poking around to find a link explaining the origins of Breitbart’s immortal line, I ran across some other good stuff and felt it was worth adding into the mix. Such as this, from a speech to a Massachusetts Tea Party group:

I must say, in my non-strategic… ‘cuz I’m under attack all the time, if you see it on Twitter. The [unclear] call me gay, it’s just, they’re vicious, there are death threats, and everything. And so, there are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot.’

Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns. [laughter] I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with.

And I have people who come up to me in the military, major named people in the military, who grab me and they go, ‘Thank you for what you’re doing, we’ve got your back.’

They understand that. These are the unspoken things we know, they know. They know who’s on their side, they’ve got Janeane Garofalo, we are freaked out by that. When push comes to shove, they know who’s on our side. They are the bullies on the playground, and they’re starting to realize, what if we were to fight back, what if we were to slap back?

There’s just a part of me that wants them to walk over that line.

And so they have, in spades. This next is from a pretty decent Slate article shortly after Andrew’s untimely death, written by Dave Weigel, of all people:

Every time they upload a story or tweet, Breitbart.com’s editors are answering a question: How do you keep this stuff going without your star? Can you keep getting on CNN and Fox and the Drudge Report? Does your inbox keep filling up with tips and video scoops? How do you replace Andrew Breitbart?

You really don’t. Breitbart’s death was commemorated by memorials in L.A., New York, and—twice—in D.C. The admiring bloggers who put on the first D.C. memorial went on to start the Breitbart Scholarship. Ideally, board members like James O’Keefe will use it to dole out cash for enterprising student journalists.

The second D.C. memorial, which I attended last night, was held at the Newseum in a theater a few steps away from a giant slab of the Berlin Wall. Four members of Congress gave speeches paying tribute.

“I don’t know anyone who can, with clarity, articulate the left and what they’ve done over the last 100 years,” said Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican, after the memorial. “I didn’t think I was the only one who understood it, but when I read his book, I realized—wow, he really understood it. Marcuse, the Frankfurt School, all of that.”

The tribute ended with a short video tribute by the makers of the upcoming documentary Hating Breitbart. The #war hashtag started with their original trailer. It ends with Breitbart closing a long rant with, “Fuck you,” staring at the camera for a few seconds, then saying, “War” like he was trying to spook somebody out of the hiccups.

“We didn’t even push that hashtag,” said Andrew Marcus, the director of the documentary. He rattled off some of the other Breitbart memes that have spread since the Web pioneer died. “IAmBreitbart, BreitbartIsHere, the posters—that’s all organic. Nobody’s planning that.”

I don’t think Breitbart’s importance to the consolidation and crystallization of Fed Up Americans into a movement working to reclaim and restore America That Was can be overstated. A reformed Leftist himself (his disgust with the Clarence Thomas hearings is what finally drove him from Progressivism’s cold, choking embrace, ironically enough), he was one of the first high-profile figures on the Right to lose patience with the moribund GOPe’s politics of appeasement and perpetual defeat and unabashedly, aggressively punch back at the Left instead. He was bold, indomitable, and effective. He was a wholly serious, dedicated man, but he also managed to maintain his sense of humor and a casual, almost flippant attitude about his own role in the struggle to right our shipwrecked country.

Regrettably, Weigel is right: you don’t replace a Breitbart. He’s far from forgotten, and his fingerprints are all over the Trump Revolution and its string of welcome, overdue victories. He was the right man at the right time, and that’s a fact. But we could certainly use him now, maybe more than ever. He is sorely missed.

Share

Annnnnd it’s another random loon

A “known wolf,” mentally unstable, with completely incoherent and contradictory political beliefs, apparently. In other words, Jared Loughner redux, more or less.

Unraveling update! Well. Well, well, well, well, well, well, well.

MAGA Bomber? More like Mayan Bomber. Shades of “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman. Florida, again!

CNN graphics employees are currently tinkering with the Whiteness saturation of their Cesar Sayoc mug shot. “Blast it to ‘blindingly white’! I want to see Sammy Sosa after a week-long chemical peel!”, yells Jeff Zucker.

His van windows were plastered with oddly fresh Trump stickers. The Deep State went a little overboard with the pro-MAGA signaling.

Then, too, along with listing his “Political party” on some social-media hogwallow or other as—ahem— Democrat, there’s also this:

PPPPS Curiouser and curiouser: #MayaBoomer Cesar Sayoc only follows left-wing accounts on Twatter.

Curious indeed.

These Fake Bombs two weeks before the elections are so obviously a scam because even the dumbest right-wing patriot would know that mailing bombs to prominent Dems and media would effectively make martyrs of them and tip the midterm election momentum in their direction. So Cesar Sayoc is INCREDIBLY stupid, a dupe, or an agent provocateur. Maybe he should have taken bomb-making tips from Ahmed the Clock Boy.

From commenter Captain John Charity Spring MA,

So he’s an darkie ethnic minority, lived in NYC and Miami, with a violent criminal record, a swindler, a soccer coach (pedo), stripper choreographer (childless?) and we are asked to believe he’s a devoted Republican White Supremist, because of some decals…

He’s defying every single demographic if he is a Right winger.

We’re being played again. But the flim flam sham is so amateur that it will not swing one independent away from Trump.

Aesop closes it out:

Another Own Goal from the same Deep State geniuses that brought you Christine Brassy Fraud, and her Fakerape accusations, now we have long-time DEMOCRAT and recent “Republican” Cesar Sayoc, a Filipino from NYFS trying the Warren dodge of claiming Native American status in FL as a Seminole (we’re guessing he’s really only a member of the Semen-Hole Tribe from New Yawk), whose molester van was window-papered with obviously two-day old unfaded Trump and anti-media meme stickers, which somehow escaped getting it torched by understanding libtards in Dade County because they were just stuck on the windows in the last two days (including blocking the passenger front window, a violation in all 57 states, yet never ticketed).

And as a multi-strike felon, he can’t vote for ANYONE

And, as you can see above, the perpetration team forgot to scrub all his social media, because the Internet is forever. Well-played, douchetards, but too slow.

This dork is a Central Casting custom-ordered Fakebomber, to go with the fakebombs and the fakenews, and the only thing missing from his mug shot was green skin and neck bolts.

Bullshit flag thrown: 15 yard penalty, and loss of possession.

So, re my title, not so random after all, although he’s certainly still a loon. Looks like we’re right back to a Democrat-Socialist and/or Deep-State hoax again. A laughably incompetent one.

Can’t anybody here play this game?

Or is he update! Contradictory info surfaces.

According to Sayoc’s Facebook page, he is a Trump fan who posted pictures and videos of himself at one of the President’s rallies in October 2016.

Sayoc posted a photograph of himself wearing a MAGA hat in front of the US Capitol in 2017.

He was a registered Republican and his politics appeared to revolve entirely around Trump, with no apparent political registration prior to the 2016 election.

They do have the pics up at the Daily Mail link above, so who the hell knows. Clearly still a loon, though.

(Via WRSA)

Share

Bombtroversy: Mitt blows up!

Of course you all know by now about the Bombgate fizzle (sorry), about which I don’t know how much worthwhile I really have to add.
Thankfully, Steyn takes his commentary in a quite unexpected direction.

Me yesterday:

I shall hold off further comment until more facts are known.

No such circumspection stayed Utah Senate candidate Mitt Romney, who reacted instantly to the “suspicious packages” mailed to the Clintons, Obama, George Soros, CNN and others, and weighed in with boundless confidence:

Hate acts follow hate speech. It is past time for us to turn down and tune out the rabid rhetoric.

This is a nitwit statement even by Mitt’s recent standards, and doubtless a preview of the role he intends to play in the Senate. It is also an object lesson in the perils of Tweet-speed insight. “Moderate” “reasonable” “centrists”, like all other politicians, should take a deep breath and be mindful of the old adage: Don’t just say something, stand there.

Is it true that “hate acts follow hate speech”? To lazy types like, alas, “severely conservative” Republican Senate candidates, the logic is self-evident.

Let us stipulate that we live in awful, vulgar, witless hyper-partisan times. Does instant stupid mouthing-off on the Internet encourage violence? There’s just as much evidence that it’s a safety valve: Just as “sexting” seems to have replaced sex for large numbers of people, so venting seems to function as a violence substitute: Hey, let’s get that guy and string him up on the edge of town! Er, actually, I was thinking I’d just Tweet that he’s a f**ktard douchebag in capital letters, and then watch “Carpool Karaoke” before turning in…

I have had some small distant connection with letter bombs. They are an inefficient way of dispatching your enemies, which is why for high-profile assassinations the IRA preferred placing actual bombs in situ themselves: They did not trust the murders of, say, Lord Mountbatten, Sir Anthony Berry, Ian Gow, Robert Bradford and Airey Neave to the vagaries of the Royal Mail. Setting aside their unreliability, in the over-entouraged political culture of contemporary America there is zero chance of a letter bomb to a former president finding its target. Or even to Maxine Waters.

Sending multiple bombs that will never reach their targets is an ineffective way to kill former presidents, vice-presidents, cabinet secretaries and movie stars…but it’s such an ingenious way to “hijack the debate” that you’d almost think that was its purpose.

Whether or not that proves to be so, the pile-on by Democrats and media these last twenty-four hours confirms they’re happy to co-opt it as such: Pipe bombs? You deplorables need to pipe down.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Most telling? That Hillary!™, after having been sent one of these not-remotely-explosive devices, went ahead with her Florida appearance anyway, without batting an eyelash. A profile in courage, an example of fearlessness from a true leader? Sorry, no sale; I can’t see her going out there to make an entirely pointless appearance unless she was already confident she was in no danger. This sounds a lot more like it to me:

Somehow it is all too convenient, this “October surprise”. None of the named targets were really in danger, although others could have been hurt touching, picking up, or opening a package.  The same could not be said when a Bernie Sanders supporter showed up at a baseball field in Alexandria determined to kill Republicans.

Back then we weren’t supposed to link that individual with the rhetoric of Sanders and other Democrats who warned that if the Republican agenda was enacted, millions would die.

As the liberals rise up in righteous condemnation of Trump’s “toxic” rhetoric, we will be asked to forget Rep. Maxine Waters’ call for nonstop harassment of GOP players, of key Republicans being hounded out of restaurants, confronted in elevators and even in their offices and at their homes. We will be asked to forget the violent riots on college campuses to keep conservative speakers from speaking.

Of course, rhetoric does not justify a response with explosive violence, yet, as noted, for a so-called domestic terrorist attack, this scattering of suspicious packages seems too lame, too ineffective, too conveniently timed and doesn’t really pass the smell test, at least according to Rush Limbaugh…

The packages may be found to be a real threat from an obviously unbalanced individual or individuals, but it may very well also be a false flag designed to reaffirm the Democrats’ continuous slander against the GOP.

If I was a gambling man, I know which way I’d bet. Which, I have to say I’m not prepared to flatly state that I believe, absolutely and unshakeably, that this “bomb” scare was nothing more than a Democrat Socialist hoax, intended as a distraction before an election that looks more and more like ending up a drubbing for them of biblical proportions. That said, the question is: cui bono?

That question is a bit more complicated now that this hamfisted, inept fiasco appears to have blown up in their faces like all their other get-Trump buffoonery has. Hamfisted, inept buffoonery has become something of a trademark for them at this point—which hasn’t kept them from plodding right on anyway, stepping on one Sideshow-Bob rake after another. Ludicrous and over-the-top as it is, this could well be just the latest example. As Walsh says:

Left to their own devices, they’d be howling in the wilderness. But the media endorses and amplifies what otherwise would be their inchoate rage by constantly reinforcing, in ways both subtle and blatant, the narrative that the country has been illegitimately seized by reactionary forces who prevented Merrick Garland from cementing a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, then deprived the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua from her rightfully ordained rest in the Lincoln Bedroom, and now are rolling back social-justice gains that should have been legislated for all eternity. As I wrote in this space last week: they’re losing, and they know they’re losing.

They’re losing, they’re desperate, they’re clueless, and they’re incompetent. They’re also treacherous, amoral, corrupt, and shameless. It’s hardly unreasonable, then, to be extremely skeptical of this almost vaudevillian “bomb scare,” nor to suspect a Democrat-Socialist hand behind the curtain. If the whole story suddenly vanishes from MSM coverage in a week or two like Muslim terrorist attacks usually do nowadays, that’ll tell us all we need to know.

But in a sense, it doesn’t matter anyway. A genie has been let out of its bottle, and there ain’t no putting it back.

Democrats and their media allies have sanctioned violence against Republicans. They’ve defended harassment and even assaults as activism. They have embraced and celebrated hate groups. The mob culture they have brought forth is fundamentally changing the rules of American politics.

The alleged bombs should open a dialogue about the degree to which violence has become the currency of our politics. But instead the media will offer up the same tired talking points that ignore the violence of its side, while pretending that the culture of political violence in the last two years began yesterday.

It did not.

Once political terror is unleashed, it can’t be controlled or compartmentalized.

Leftists, who have written a bloody history of political terror from Europe to South America, from the Middle East and across Asia, and right back to America, ought to know that better than anyone else.

The Left has made it its mission to destroy America. This is what destroying a country looks like.

In Europe, in Russia, in Asia and in Latin America, leftist revolutions unleashed civil wars of unimaginable brutality in which ordinary men committed horrifying crimes because every norm of decency had been destroyed. The hour came when sides no longer mattered; there was no right or wrong, just murder.

The mad toll of death threats and assaults, of shootings and harassment was unleashed by the Left. The hectoring media has made millions from it. Fortunes have poured into the war chests of radical Democrats. They can make it stop. Or they can go on feeding the beast while blaming conservatives.

Once again, I know which way I’d bet. Meanwhile, the filthy Democrat Socialist scum are doubling down on making political hay out of their debacle. Exhibit A:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) published a video on Thursday placing the blame for the bomb threats to her office — and to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — squarely on President Donald Trump’s shoulders, despite his clear and repeated condemnation of the attacks. Waters avoided any mention of her own efforts to incite protest, or the similar statements from Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, and Cory Booker.

“I think the president of the United States should take responsibility over the kind of violence that we’re seeing for the first time in different ways,” Waters declared in the video. “I think the president of the United States has been dog-whistling to his constituency, making them believe that their problems are caused by those people over there.”

The congresswoman argued that the perpetrators “are acting out what they believe the president wants them to do and the way that he wants them to act.”

Okay, I’m just gonna come right out and say it here: if the purpose behind the bombs HAD been to take Waters and the other pusbags out (doubtful), AND THEY HAD SUCCEEDED, I can’t honestly say I’d have been plunged into paroxysms of inconsolable grief over it. They’ve been attacking us for years now, again and again. They’ve followed up not by strongly, unequivocally condemning the perpetrators, but by continuing to incite them and then blaming Trump and/or Repubs for it. When directly called out on their brazen incitement, they either blithely ignore it, lie about it, or, again, blame the Right for it.

They’re only “concerned” about violence when they’re on the receiving end; the only time they bother to demand “civility” is when their own tactics get turned against them. Bottom line: the Democrat Socialist Party is A-okay with politically-motivated violence, as long as they’re the ones committing it. Violence is just another tool in the Left’s box, one they claim an absolute and exclusive right to use.

They are unalterably committed, heart, body, soul, and mind, to grinding this country under the Marxist heel. They arrogate to themselves an absolute right to rule, without reference to or regard for the consent of the ruled. They now have no tack to take, no other option left to them but violence. They will use it as and when it suits them, and do so gleefully, with neither reservation nor remorse.

They are utterly despicable, and they must be stopped.

Share

Look away, Dixie lamb

Is there NO WAY to convince these repulsive, blubberous, eye-tearing, saggy skanks to keep their fucking clothes on? Why must they inflict their wrinkled, baggy asses and wilted udders on all and sundry whenever they think they have some “important” statement to make? Don’t they realize that A) we don’t give a shit about their juvenile political opinions, and B) stripping off is the surest way I can think of to guarantee that any normal American, of whatever sexual proclivity, will be driven to unswerving hostility towards said opinions by even a brief glimpse of them in the buff? Heartiste says:

From Garth V., a pithy bit of insight revealing the shared motivation of ugly shitlib broads accosting people with their ugliness and totalitarian marxists forcing subjects to swallow their propaganda,

They get off on making you repeat their big lies. The more obviously false the lie is, the more you debase yourself in repeating it. When you instead affirm the truth, you’re letting them know that you will not be their slave.

The lie here is, “These are strong, empowered women. Beauty comes in all shapes and sizes.” The Fuggernaut wants us to abide this Big Lie, and in so abiding we debase ourselves. We bring ourselves down to their level.

I say no to that.

I say HELL NO to it. All of it.

Yes, in case you might have been wondering, it does in fact appear that the last in the highly-emetic series of obscene manatees has a dick. As for that “beauty comes in all shapes and sizes” twaddle, I dispensed with that nonsense years ago:

Hey, here’s a revolutionary idea: how about we just own up to a few basic facts at long last? Beauty is what it is — an ideal, something to admire and aspire to — precisely because everybody doesn’t have it. in fact, most of us don’t; if it wasn’t rare, it wouldn’t actually be “beauty” — it would be “ordinary” or “common” or “plain.” I suppose that’s in reality why politically-correct nanny-state ninnies have such a hard time dealing with it: first, their politics-as-religion ideology requires that they cobble together a position paper and a bureaucracy to maintain control over every aspect of life, including ones that are patently outside of mortal jurisdiction — see Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) for further examples; and second, it sort of upends their “all must be equal in a grey drone world” agenda.

Human physical beauty is a peacock-feathered rebuke to the idea that underneath the drab, one-size-fits-all tunic liberalism would force over our heads, we’re ever going to be anything like equal, no matter how hard statists try to reshape reality.

I also included a pic with that post that I promise you you’ll like WAY better than any of the ones Heartiste ran.

No, everybody is NOT beautiful, in their own way or otherwise, no matter how many silly-assed 70s pop songs mught claim otherwise. And what’s beautiful to one person ain’t necessarily so to another. That’s the, uhh, beauty of it, see. Different societies have different standards for beauty, and even within societies there’s plenty of room for, shall we say, a wide range of opinion between individuals. You’d think, given the libtard obssession with “diversity,” that they’d get that easily enough, and maybe even be enthusiastic about it. After all, that wide range of opinion between and within disparate cultures is the very meaning of the damned word.

And yet.

Thanks a pantload to CA, the heartless bastard, for pointing us all to this horror, even going so far as to repost one of the pics himself. I suppose it IS appropriate in at least one way, it being so close to Halloween and all.

Share

“Can’t you see that this is something that is not really up for debate?”

This guy says he’s a “progressive,” but I have to say I have my doubts.

Recently, I arrived at a moment of introspection about a curious aspect of my own behavior. When I disagree with a conservative friend or colleague on some political issue, I have no fear of speaking my mind. I talk, they listen, they respond, I talk some more, and at the end of it we get along just as we always have. But I’ve discovered that when a progressive friend says something with which I disagree or that I know to be incorrect, I’m hesitant to point it out. This hesitancy is a consequence of the different treatment one tends to receive from those on the Right and Left when expressing a difference of opinion. I am not, as it turns out, the only one who has noticed this.

“That’s a stupid fucking question,” answered a Socialist Alliance activist when I asked sincerely where they were getting what sounded like inflated poverty statistics. “If you don’t believe in gay marriage or gun control, unfriend me,” demand multiple Facebook statuses from those I know. “That’s gross and racist!” spluttered a red-faced Ben Affleck when the atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris criticized Islamic doctrines on Bill Maher’s Real Time. Nobody blinks an eye when Harris criticizes Christianity, least of all Affleck, who starred in Kevin Smith’s irreverent religious satire Dogma. But Christians are not held to be a sacrosanct and protected minority on the political Left.

So how and why have these activists become so intolerant and horrible to deal with? Part of this hostility can be explained by a wilful ignorance and incuriosity about ideas with which they disagree. Every so often, a progressive friend will peruse my bookshelf in a thought-police sort of fashion. What happens next is fairly predictable. Once they realize that Malinowski’s Melanesian epic The Sexual Life of Savages doesn’t include any erotic pictures, they will turn their attention to the Ayn Rand collection. “Why do you have these?” they ask with an air of indignation, holding up a copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. “Have you ever read her?” I will ask. “No,” they reliably respond.

Hm. Doesn’t believe in gay marriage or gun control. Reads Ayn Rand. Would seem to have at least some sympathy for the Christians relentlessly persecuted by the Left. Looking back over the piece again, I realize that he never actually says he’s a liberal or “progressive” at all, contrary to my opening assertion; it’s just an impression I somehow came up with on my own, and I would seem to have been in error. Oh well. If I inadvertently slandered the guy unjustly, I hereby offer my humble apologies. No one who isn’t one would want to be called a Progressivist, that’s for sure.

Be all that as it may, he makes a whole slew of most excellent points throughout—such as this one:

According to these academics and others like them, not only should people be punished for not conforming to the new politically correct consensus, but conservative opinions opposing punishment for non-conformity should also be punished. A 2012 study, conducted by Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers and published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, found that progressive faculty openly admit to discriminating against the conservative minority when it comes to job promotions and grant applications.

Given the current environment, conservatives would be advised to simply abandon academia if they know what’s good for them. On the other hand, it is a problem when a student goes through university where each and every course is taught by a left-leaning professor. For conservative students, the toxic and hostile university environment needn’t cripple their intellectual development. These students arrive at university with conservative ideas and will naturally seek out and read conservative authors in their own time to balance out the latest application of progressive doctrine to which they are subjected in class. The most ambitious will be familiar with both Rand and Marx, Keynes and Hayek, Galbraith and Friedman, Krugman and Sowell, Picketty and Peterson. But we ought to worry about the progressive student who arrives with progressive ideas, and is then showered in class with more of the same and reinforces them in their own time. Such students live in a much smaller cultural universe than the cosmopolitan intellectual world through which the conservative will be made to travel. This isn’t to deny that bigoted reactionaries on the opposite side of the spectrum also inhabit a tiny intellectual space. But that does not excuse the closing of the mind at a university.

Nothing can; intellectual curiosity and flexibility are the very heart and soul of a properly-functioning institution of higher learning. Unfortunately, that isn’t what our universities now are, and that isn’t by accident, either.

This article, of which you will want to read the all, is a deep and thoughtful one and covers a lot of ground. For me the big takeaway is probably this, most especially the part I put in boldface:

In his remarkable book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, Haidt recalls a telling experiment. He and his colleagues Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham sought to discover how well conservative and what Haidt terms ‘liberal’ (ie: progressive) students understood one another by having them answer moral questions as they thought their political opponents would answer them. “The results were clear and consistent,” remarks Haidt. “In all analyses, conservatives were more accurate than liberals.” Asked to think the way a liberal thinks, conservatives answered moral questions just as the liberal would answer them, but liberal students were unable to do the reverse. Rather, they seemed to put moral ideas into the mouths of conservatives that they don’t hold. To put it bluntly, Haidt and his colleagues found that progressives don’t understand conservatives the way conservatives understand progressives. This he calls the ‘conservative advantage,’ and it goes a long way in explaining the different ways each side deals with opinions unlike their own. People get angry at what they don’t understand, and an all-progressive education ensures that they don’t understand.

Indeed they don’t; they don’t understand much of anything, nor do they wish to, nor can they even conceive of any necessity for it. Neither do they consider such blockheaded, smug arrogance any kind of failing or flaw—something not to be proud of, but corrected. There’s no longer any reasoning, discussion, or honest debate to be had with them; the intellectual wall is complete, and cannot be breached or scaled.

They must be crushed. It’s almost certainly going to be bloody. And that’s all on them.

(Via Insty)

Share

Prior constraint

And power, and control.

I’m sure that somewhere there are reams of paper written on this topic. But, while discussing abortion with a rather liberal coworker of mine I was struck by an observation. The leftist mindset is firmly rooted in the idea of prior constraint. There are of course other driving ideals among leftists, but this is the one that really struck me as I hadn’t really considered how much it colors the worldview of people like my intellectually benighted coworker. As we were getting to the heated part of the discussion, he went for the ad absurdum argument of “You want women strapped to a table and forced to take their pregnancy to term”. Notice his careful wording that carefully avoided the phrasing carrying her Baby or Child to term. Intellectual mendacity is another hallmark of leftism, but I digress.

In choosing this particular argument he explicitly shows his own preference for governance. Rather than making something illegal and allowing someone to make their own choices as to whether or not to follow the law, and accept the punishment for breaking it, he would simply make everyone do what the government wants. Even to the absurd length of strapping a woman to a table and forcing her to take her pregnancy to term. Now this could charitably be considered taking the point to its logical extreme, or it could give a more complete view into the inner workings of the left’s mindset. By choosing the “logical” extreme that involves strapping someone to a table we see a difference in first principles. Preventing any sort of bad choice vs living with the consequences of a bad choice. This is the essence of prior constraint writ large.

If we examine this more closely we can see it playing out in other areas of the leftist playbook. The two most obvious examples are Guns and Free Speech. To prevent undesirable outcomes they want to simply ban all guns. The range of undesirable outcomes in their minds can vary from keeping those scary brown people from robbing me to the horrifying thought of a Deplorable getting uppity and thinking they have the right of self-determination. Both are equally loathsome to the agenda of leftists. This could be argued to be simply a childish case of Hoplophobia, or a well-meaning wish to keep crime in check. But I would argue that it is something deeper. It is my contention that it is that leftists believe in the perfectibility of man. If only they can control all of the variables, limit enough of his choices, protect him from his own worst nature, they will create a perfect man, and by extension, the perfect society. To bastardize a horribly overused saying “You can’t have your Utopian omelet without breaking a few individualist eggs”.

Free Speech is much the same. Rather than risk people making bad choices, and by bad I mean any that the leftists don’t approve of, they simply limit the debate to the leftist’s approved ideas. Any ideas outside of the approved orthodoxy must be shouted down. The offending ideas must be stopped before they can take root in the Prole’s mass consciousness. This has played over and over in the last few years as conservative speakers in universities have been subject to the Heckler’s Veto. Time and again speakers have been shouted down, attacked by mobs, or cancelled at the last minute by leftist fellow traveler administrators. This constraint of the free exchange of ideas is anathema to the purpose of a university, truly to any institute of learning. Any strain of thought that must be protected from heterodox ideas injected from the deplorable masses must invariably lead to a great degree of intellectual flaccidity. This flaccidity has created an entire generation of people that, left to their own devices, can do little to the people that they disagree with but resort to name calling. I guess that creating the sort of people to populate Utopia requires that no one be able to muster the intellectual firepower to question the Philosopher Kings running it. Prior Constraint must be considered the preferred tool to keep impurities from taking root in the perfectible man. This pure vessel must be protected at all costs. Stop any act and crush any idea that may take hold in this person. Utopia must be protected at any cost.

Our old buddy and CF lifer Sam sends that, and he’s onto something big there regarding what really makes Lefty tick. I hope to expound on the theme a bit myself soonest; there’s just so much out there of late to post about, and so little time in which to do it.

Share

Are you hearing your words?

Irony so incandescent it actually hurts to look directly at it.

I listened to a remarkable bit of self-parody on National Public Radio on Tuesday: a moderator, a pair of experts, and some very earnest listeners trying to figure out how to most politely tell climate change skeptics they are dangerous idiots.

Yes, on NPR’s “1A,” finding a way to convert those neanderthals, or at least move the “conversation” in the right direction, was the topic of nearly 40 minutes of chatter that was at times quite unintentionally funny.

To be clear, this program was not about debating the existence of climate change. That was already settled for everyone whose head isn’t stuck in a microwave. This was about talking to pea-brains who do not fully believe drastic policy changes are required to combat climate change, and—this is important—having these “conversations” in a way that would not frighten or anger these stunted children.

That the entire segment presupposed that the panelists are so much smarter, wiser, more virtuous than skeptics—or “deniers,” to borrow that creepy nomenclature—and thus, extremely condescending, seemed to escape everyone involved. Let’s dig in.

Said moderator Joshua Johnson at the outset:

Clearly climate change is tough to discuss, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its existence. Or maybe because of that evidence. I mean, think about it. If someone tried to hit you over the head with a bunch of facts and figures, supremely confident that they are right and you are wrong, how would you feel? Or, if someone flat out refused to hear you out, despite the facts being really clear, and just dug in their heels to avoid feeling like they lost an argument, what would that be like? We want to elevate this debate, to change the way we talk about climate change.

Bold mine, of course, because…wow. These people would seem to possess not even trace amounts of self-awareness.

Bledsoe took a question from a caller who wondered why President Trump and other skeptics are so “adamantly ignorant” on the issue, and he warned of not talking about it in terms that are too science-y.

“We who talk about climate change have to talk about it differently. We can’t make it a technocratic or scientific issue,” Bledsoe said.

No, you really can’t. But not for the reason you think.

Myhre was more scathing and then neatly shifted into how gender dynamics fits into all this, showcasing what I’m assuming she learned in Intersectionalism 301 at UC-Davis.

“My view is that we need to indict public leaders who are trafficking in science denial as a form of misconduct and a form of putting the American public into danger,” she said. “However, I do think that we as scientists have engaged nonstop in trying to confront denialism and often that engagement is a very—it’s coded male power brokering that is very problematic in the culture because it pits people against each other instead of focusing on shared values.”

Bold mine, again, because, again…wow. She’s really hitting all the libtard buttons she can reach, ain’t she? C’mon, honey, work some transgenderIslamophobicNaziracistcapitalistgreedbigotedsexism into the mix, whydon’tcha? I got faith in you; I know you can do it. In fact, I suspect you couldn’t stop it if you tried.

Bledsoe interrupted to say the U.S. problem with climate change was unique in its political and cultural aspects, but Myhre responded:

I would agree with that, but I just want to reflect back again that the entire world, by and large, and the world’s global resources are run by men, and those decisions are made by men, and so one of the fundamental aspects of solutions for climate change has to do with anti-racism and anti-misogyny, and that is at a global level. The closer we get to an equitable and safe society for everyone, specifically for the rights of girls and women, then that’s a component of the pathway for us to get to climate solutions.

Ahhh, there it is. Earlier, though, she accidentally let a little raw truth slip out:

I mean, you can talk about the science until you’re blue in the face right? But then when we are actually trying to sit in relationship with people, that’s a two-way street. That is an experience where you have to listen in order to engender trust and relationship, and part of the piece around this is that realizing as scientists, we’re trying to broker power and authority in the public. We’re trying to gain agency and authority, in order for the science that we are stewarding to be integrated into public decision-making. But that piece around brokering for power, man, you gotta get curious about that, right? Because there’s all sorts of lines that divide our culture around, who is trusted? Who gets buy-in? Who has authority?

And that’s what it’s REALLY all about; for the Left, it always is. They can’t ever keep the mailed fist hidden in the velvet glove for very long. I got lots more to say about that, but I’m going to hold onto it for another post.

The crazy bint then went on to have a total moonbat-meltdown on Twitter over having been “disrespected” and “patronized” by the men in the discussion, which I find quite a bit less than surprising (before tootling off to a “sexual harrassment” meeting, naturally). Yeah, I can totally see this seized-up nutbar engaging in a calm, rational, trust-and-relationship engendering chat with a truly well-informed skeptic expecting to bring him or her around to Her Truth on the climate-change scam. I’d give her about a sentence and a half of being able to maintain her obviously precarious sang-froid before going bughouse and getting violent, no more.

A lot of religious discussions seem to end that way, you know.

(Via MisHum)

Share

Real deal

Careful what you wish for, libtards.

If lived experience is indeed the be-all-end-all that the identarian left considers it to be, there is one area where my lived experience without a doubt shit all over the lived experience of the woke folk. Unlike all those among them who have been born and/or raised in the West and have zero or almost zero experience of living under anything other than a liberal democratic government (which is 99 per cent of them at least), I have lived the first 15 years of my life under the Soviet block-style communism, or “real socialism” as the Party used to call it. I’m not going to pretend that the 1970s and the 80s in Poland were as bloody and traumatic as the Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China or Pol Pot’s Cambodia (as P J O’Rourke who visited Warsaw at that time noted, the communism for most part doesn’t kill you any more, it just bores you to death) but I do know a difference or twenty-two between a totalitarian or authoritarian society and a Western democracy.

So to all the women dressing up in costumes from “Handmaid’s Tale” who think they’re on the brink of living in a misogynist theocracy,

To all those calling themselves “The Resistance”, as if they were the French Maquis or the Polish Home Army shooting collaborators and derailing trains after their country has been brutally occupied by a totalitarian foreign power,

To those who think that America is currently in a grip of fascism and are calling on the military to stage a coup to remove the President (that’s you Rosie O’Donnell, Sarah Silverman, Congressman Steve Cohen and others),

To the celebrities and commentators, from Michael Moore to former security officials like John Brennan, who think the United States is on the brink of dictatorship,

To all those who have compared Trump to Hitler,

(And a special mention of those who really should know better – professional historians of the German and the Russian totalitarianism, like Timothy “Bloodlands” Snyder and Charles “Ordinary Men” Browning, who have been only too happy to – without quite comparing Trump to Hitler – talk about illiberal democracy, authoritarian leadership, and draw parallels between the 1930s Europe and the 2010s America),

you really have no idea, and I mean it with the greatest possible respect. Actually, I don’t. Most of you are supposedly mature, rational adults but you seem to have at best the most superficial knowledge of history and a complete lack of self-awareness, any sense of perspective, and an ability to contextualise. Having spent your lives relatively free of hardship, deprivation and persecution on any remotely comparable scale to people in other, less fortunate corners of the world, you probably get some frisson from believing yourself to be big actors at a critical time in history, the last line of separating civilisation from the descent into new dark ages. You’re free to engage in whatever ideological cosplay you want, but don’t expect others to take you seriously.

You can pick up any of the thousands of books written about life under a dictatorship and read all about it, or you can watch a doco or listen to a podcast, but clearly you couldn’t be bothered to do so thus far in your life, so I’m going to give you potted version of how a real tyranny (it does not particularly matter whether communist or fascist as they are quite similar in practice, which is of course another thing you don’t want to hear, but that’s tough – they certainly have far more in common with each other than with a free society) works and what the world in which I was growing up looked like.

And then he does, chapter and verse. Not that the idiots will listen to him anymore than they have the thousands of other escapees from communist tyranny who have tried to educate them over the years.

Now tell me how your life today in the United States or Australia or Great Britain is at all similar to life under the state oppression. Please. Anything that even remotely compares to what I have described.

If anything, all the recent attempts to police speech and dictate the correct ways of thinking, whether on the initiative of the state or by private businesses and non-government groups, are inspired by the left, i.e. pretty much the same section of the politically-aware society which is complaining about the descending fascism. This is why I get so agitated about issues like freedom of speech; it’s not just theoretical to me – it reminds me too much of my childhood. When my family escaped to the West it was precisely to leave these things behind not to discover them under a different guise amidst the supposed liberal democracy.

So, dear Resistance, excuse me while my lived experience under the actual dictatorship leaves me cold when listening to and looking at your hysterics and public exhibitions of ignorance and ideological blindness. Your generally white, coddled, middle class progressive privilege it’s showing, and it’s not a pretty sight.

No, it is not. Tantrums by spoiled, obnoxious little brats almost never are.

(Via VP)

Share

Stinkin’ Blue Wave

Don’t let any splash on ya, that’s my advice.



Via Hoft and PB.

Defeat is an orphan update! Okay, I have to admit that, as confident as I’ve been about the Blue Wave being a washout, I did NOT see this coming.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said Monday that he has always thought this year’s elections would be close and that he doesn’t use the term “blue wave” to describe a possible big win for his party.

“We always knew that this election was going to be close — I don’t use the term ‘blue wave,’ I always talk about the need for the blocking and tackling,” Perez said in comments on CNN’s “New Day.”

“I always talk about the need for organizing, to make sure you’re leading with your values, and that’s how we’ve been winning throughout this year and throughout 2017.”

More:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thinks there is reason to doubt the predicted “blue wave” in next month’s midterm elections, saying control of Congress will be decided by a few tight races.

“I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it,” Sanders told Hill.TV’s “Rising” co-host Krystal Ball during an interview that aired on Monday.

Yet more:

Is the “blue wave” turning purple?

Republican-affiliated voters have outpaced Democratic-affiliated voters in early voting in seven closely watched states, according to data provided by TargetSmart and independently analyzed by the NBC News Data Analytics Lab.

GOP-affiliated voters have surpassed Democratic-affiliated ones in early voting in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, Tennessee and Texas, the data showed.

Only in Nevada have Democratic-affiliated voters exceeded Republican-affiliated voters so far in early voting, according to the data.

Another tell:

One of the emerging lessons of the midterms is that if you’re a Democrat running statewide in Trump country, you have to run as a Trump Republican to have a shot at victory. Consider the handful of statewide elections currently considered toss-ups. Most of them feature Democrats trying to persuade swingable voters that not only are they not part of the Resistance, they actually agree with Trump on certain issues.

In Indiana, which Trump won by 19 points, incumbent Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly is running an ad campaign attacking “the radical left,” touting Trump’s border wall, and boasting about how often he splits from his own party. In South Dakota, which Trump won by nearly 30 points, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Billie Sutton, who is pro-life and pro-gun, is running on an anti-corruption platform with a former Republican as his running mate.

In Montana, which Trump won by 20 points, incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Tester ran a full-page ad in 14 state newspapers ahead of a Trump’s visit in July, thanking the president for signing bills that Tester had pushed. (Despite the thank-you, Trump has been attacking Tester for allegations he made against Trump’s one-time secretary of Veterans’ Affairs nominee, Adm. Ronny Jackson.)

In each of these races, recent polls show the Democratic candidate with a slight lead. That stands in sharp contrast to Democratic candidates who are making no effort to embrace Trump voters in states he won. They aren’t faring nearly as well.

So, as always, they have to lie through their teeth and conceal what they really are, then. Nothing new about that.

After their enormous Kavanaugh blunder and last week’s attempt to tamp down fever-swamp expectations for the Mueller charade, the Demonrats are backpedaling so fast they’re liable to trip over themselves. None of this sounds or feels like a party confident of any impending “blue wave” to me. In the end, it all comes down to this:

“How many people do you know who voted for Trump (are) claiming that the Democrats need to win now because Trump has to be stopped and all this tweeting has to be stopped and all these bad manners have to be?”

“Uh, nobody.”

“So why do you think the blue wave?”

“I saw it in the media. I saw it on TV. I see the polls.”

“Why do you believe it? Where is the trend that Democrats are winning elections?”

Seventy-seven thousand people have signed up to get into the Trump rally in Texas for Cruz that holds 17,000 people. Where do you get this idea Democrats are popular?

Meanwhile, in another huge tell, even their once-mighty Lord and Savior, His Most Puissant Highness Barrack, can’t draw flies. In light of all this, I’m thinking Bill and Her Herness might want to rethink that stadium tour of theirs, unless they’re willing to pay people to attend.

The Democrat Socialist jalopy is running on fumes, sputtering and farting and belching smoke; they’re praying for a miracle to help nurse the faltering old rattletrap back home before it falls completely apart and leaves them stranded in Nowheresville. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of assholes, if you ask me.

Share

Ask a silly question

It answers itself, really.

Why would the Washington Post hire a pro-jihad, pro-Sharia, pro-Hamas advocate for political Islam?

The answer is clear: the Post hired Jamal Khashoggi because his views coincided with those of the paper’s editorial board. The American Left today holds positions on Israel, Hamas, and political Islam that are essentially indistinguishable from those of the Muslim Brotherhood.

As Bill says: “I’m amazed that WaPo didn’t make him Editor in Chief, given how many of their boxes he ticked.” Explains why shitlibs are so upset about his getting offed, too.

Share

The science is settled

Can we start calling them “gender deniers,” maybe?

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The “anti-science” and “anti-facts” Trump administration is considering reverting the definition of gender to a biological, objective, scientific standard, drawing the ire of the “pro-science” left.

Critics have long claimed Trump is opposed to science, and they believe his decision to use scientific standards to define gender prove his anti-science stance.

“Trump obviously can’t stand scientific facts, and that’s why he’s hatefully changing the definition of gender to a biological, objective standard,” said one MSNBC host. “The true lover of science knows that gender is a nebulous, imaginary concept that you can change based on your feelings.” The hosts of the program then chanted “Love trumps hate!” for a full 45 minutes before the show ended.

Congressional Democrats held a press conference shortly after the news of the reversion to anti-science scientific standards. “This is unconscionable,” said Nancy Pelosi. “These scientific standards will set us back thousands of years—or at least a few years, to when we changed the definition of gender in the first place.”

It’s gotta be tough writing for the Bee, what with having to come up with ways to parody people like Pelosi and all. I mean honestly now, doesn’t that sound exactly like something the cracked, bilious old bitch would say?

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix