Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Literally Hitler crashes the party

You gotta love the guy.

Trump crashes MAGA-themed wedding, prompting ‘USA’ chants
President Trump made a guest appearance at a wedding at his Bedminster, NJ, golf resort on Saturday that left the bride and groom chanting “USA! USA!”

The president, who’s spending the weekend at the resort, walked into the wedding reception for Nicole Marie and PJ Mongelli, according to video of the event.

As the crowed roared and turned their phone’s cameras on the president, he motioned for the couple to come to him.

Trump, wearing a dark suit without a tie, put his arms around the two as they took part in the “USA” chants, thrusting their arms in the air.

What a rude, offensive, obnoxious boor this slob is, eh? HE MUST BE IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY.

Via Insty, who, referring to Rancid Rashida’s 2016 psychotic break, asks: “WHO’S HAVING MORE FUN?” Ahh, but never forget Mike’s Iron Law: when Democrat-Socialists are unhappy, it means good things are happening for Real Americans.

Share

Tyranny comes in all sizes, shapes, and colors

And it does NOT emanate exclusively from FederalGovCo, either.

1. Happy hours are illegal
Happy hour specials can only be offered for ‘food.’ Yeah, mind blown? Me too.

2. You can get a DWI on a horse
Good, because my favorite bar has seriously scarce horse parking. Other ways to get a DWI-tractor, bicycle, electronic scooter.

There are more of these at the link, yet more on the books, and they’re rarely if ever enforced. And yeah, they’re all pretty silly at one level. But frivolous and amusing though we might find them, they also have to raise a more serious question in the mind of anyone possessed of an ounce of self-honesty, namely: in a country forever congratulating itself on how “free” it supposedly is, how the hell does legislation this intrusive and meddlesome ever get passed into law in the first place?

Now, it is definitely true that North Carolina is a very liberal state, and always has been. NC has elected but one (1) Republican governor in the last, oh, I dunno, six hundred years or so, and that was the execrable Pat McCrory—who, despite the phony blandishments he pukes up on his local radio show, is about as faux-conservative as faux-conservative professional politicians get. And yeah, no state or even local government is anything like perfect. The states particularly, in their role as the Laboratories Of Democracy, are more or less allowed to flout the Constitution’s limitations (ahem) on the federal gummint, which they do to a fairly alarming degree. I get all that, I really, really do.

But still. Y’all know I become nettlesome every year, as the 4th of July approaches, at the sudden sprouting of all the huge tents in every shopping center parking lot offering fireworks for sale, exhorting all and sundry to “Celebrate freedom!” during the one fucking week every year that selling the damned things is legally allowed. And at that, the fireworks they sell aren’t anything to get excited about: sparklers, snap-n-pops, and wet-fart little ‘crackers, that’s it. No M80s, no cherry bombs. No bottle rockets, repeaters, arrowheads, Roman candles, and such-like. Too, too dangerous, you see. Plus, there’s always the awful risk of some unreconstructed, RACIST!™ old-timer laying the Roman candle on its side in the gutter and referring to it by its primordial-joke name—”nigger chaser”—thereby corrupting the youth, spooking the horses, and causing the wimmen to faint dead away from the rude shock of it.

“Legally allowed” to celebrate Independence Day with otherwise-illegal fireworks? Bosh, I say. The mere utterance of the phrase “legally allowed” ought to automatically stoke the ire of every red-blooded American still extant—however many of those there might be left—just as a matter of principle; its very existence should be considered an affront, its now-omnipresent application a call to arms, the moral equivalent of a war-tocsin being struck. No happy hour? No rollerblading in the sun? No riding a bicycle one-handed? Horseback DUIs, all the other tyrannical tommyrot from the article, and so very much more, not just here in the Tarheel State but everywhere across the fruited plain? In (what was once) America?

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK, people?

Share

Viva A/C!

Another anniversary we should celebrate, folks—of possibly a more momentous and society-altering stroke of pure brilliance than the moon shot wound up being.

In July of 1902, an engineer named Willis Carrier designed the world’s first modern air conditioning system. The design was to cut the humidity level at the Sackett & Wilhelms printing plant in Brooklyn, New York.

“It was so hot that summer that the ink would not stick to the paper. It was too humid,” said Rackley. “So he developed a device that would pass air over coils that were cooled by a refrigerant, I guess it was called water then, that pulled the moisture out of the air and they were able to print.”

There was a happy side effect from that design. The temperature inside the factory became more pleasant and pretty soon, they were installed at other factories and businesses.

“When it first came out, movie theaters are where folks would show up,” said Rackley. “You would go to the movies not only to watch a movie but to stay cool. It was dark and cold. You could sit comfortably and get out of the heat.”

It would be years before homes had air conditioning but when it did, there was no going back!

Ahh, but that’s precisely what the Green-weenie Ecotards would force us to do, in the name of stopping Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”). Then again, they feel that way about pretty much everything that represents true progress, and makes modern life less brutal and more bearable. As Glenn says, air conditioning is a triumph of Western civilization…which is all the more reason for Proggy to hate it.

Share

Historical greatness

Gerard has several great posts commemorating the Apollo 11 moon landing (link to the main page, just scroll) over at his joint—along with one on an anniversary of a rather more sordid, horrific, and disgusting sort—with links to other essays and lots of inspiring photos. This one is my personal fave:

After the 1972 conclusion of the Apollo program, a group of about 30 NASA thoughtleaders sequestered themselves for a few days on Caltech’s sunny campus. They reviewed what they had accomplished and tried to grapple with exactly how they had pulled off the challenge of the century: landing humans on the lunar surface and returning them safely to Earth on an absurd deadline.

Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the moon, attended most of their sessions in relative silence. While known to be quiet, he was never what someone would call shrinking or invisible. His thoughtful presence carried significant weight in any meeting. Armstrong was not a typical test pilot turned astronaut. “I am, and ever will be,” he once said, “a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer.”

After everyone else had finished speaking at the Caltech gathering, Armstrong calmly rose and went to a chalkboard. He drew four bell-type curves, spaced slightly apart, and labeled them: Leadership, Threat, Economy and Talent. And he said to the room, “My thought is, when you get all these lined up, you can’t stop something really big from happening.” Indeed, the early 1960s had it all: a bold (and in some ways, desperate) president; the threat of the Soviet Union; flush federal coffers; and an unprecedented number of college-educated youngsters. When the curves aligned, Armstrong suggested that an Apollo could rise. According to Gerry Griffin, engineer, flight director and eventual director of the Johnson Space Center, everyone in the room was nodding in agreement, as if to say “Of course, that’s it.”

The analysis of rarely aligned curves can help explain why we haven’t yet sent humans back into the cosmos. But four peaks fail to fully capture the miracle: 400,000 souls uniting in peacetime on a project so ambitious as to appear ludicrous. As humanity makes ample noise about restarting these journeys to other worlds, it’s worth looking under Apollo’s hood and asking the surviving engineers how they did it. Based on scores of recent interviews, their most frequent and fervent responses follow.

All of them fascinating, I assure you. Meanwhile, Steyn ponders our sad inability to repeat the feat, much less outdo it:

When After America came out, I was booked on “Fox & Friends” to talk it over with Brian Kilmeade. Sitting next to Brian on the couch waiting to get going, I watched Steve Doocy across the studio link to an item on the space shuttle Enterprise beginning its journey to whichever museum it’s wound up at. Steve called it “historic”, and, as I remarked to Brian, pity the nation whose greatness becomes “historic” – whose spacecraft exist only in museums. There’s a passage in After America on just that theme:

In 1961, before the eyes of the world, President Kennedy had set American ingenuity a very specific challenge—and put a clock on it:

‘This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.’

That’s it. No wiggle room. A monkey on the moon wouldn’t count, nor an unmanned drone, nor a dune buggy that can’t take off again but transmits grainy footage back to Houston as it rusts up in the crater it came to rest in. The only way to win the bet is with a real-live actual American standing on the surface of the moon planting the Stars and Stripes. Even as it happened, the White House was so cautious that William Safire wrote President Nixon a speech to be delivered in the event of disaster:

‘Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace…’

Yet America did it.

It was not a sure thing. In 1961 the Soviets had it all over the Americans in the space race: They had already reached the moon, with the unmanned flight Luna 2, and they had put a man in space, Yuri Gagarin. Gagarin and the cosmonauts were inspirational figures well beyond the Warsaw Pact. By contrast, all the US unmanned missions had been failures, and their astronauts were earthbound – or sub-orbital at best. Kennedy was cautioned against his moon speech on the grounds that he was setting America up for very public humiliation.

But he chose to go ahead.

And now? From After America:

Four decades later, Bruce Charlton, professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham in England, wrote that “that landing of men on the moon and bringing them back alive was the supreme achieve- ment of human capability, the most difficult problem ever solved by humans.” That’s a good way to look at it: the political class presented the boffins with a highly difficult and specific problem, and they solved it—in eight years. Charlton continued:

‘Forty years ago, we could do it—repeatedly—but since then we have not been to the moon, and I suggest the real reason we have not been to the moon since 1972 is that we cannot any longer do it. Humans have lost the capability.

‘Of course, the standard line is that humans stopped going to the moon only because we no longer wanted to go to the moon, or could not afford to, or something…But I am suggesting that all this is BS…I suspect that human capability reached its peak or plateau around 1965-75—at the time of the Apollo moon landings—and has been declining ever since.’

Can that be true? Charlton is a controversialist gadfly in British academe, but, comparing 1950 to the early twenty-first century, our time traveler from 1890 might well agree with him. And, if you think about it, isn’t it kind of hard even to imagine America pulling off a moon mission now? The countdown, the takeoff, a camera transmitting real-time footage of a young American standing in a dusty crater beyond our planet blasting out from his iPod Lady Gaga and the Black-Eyed Peas or whatever the twenty- first-century version of Sinatra and the Basie band is…It half-lingers in collective consciousness as a memory of faded grandeur, the way a nineteenth-century date farmer in Nasiriyah might be dimly aware that the Great Ziggurat of Ur used to be around here someplace.

How long will it even half-linger? Great civilizations can survive a lot of things, but not impoverishment of spirit. That’s one reason I didn’t join in the media sniggers at Donald Trump’s new Space Force – because I’d like it to be true.

Agreed on that one. But I have an idea of at least one contributing factor in our descent into paralyzed decline:

Phil Plait has mixed feelings about the moon-landing hoax.

Plait — known as “The Bad Astronomer” to his many thousands of readers on Syfy — told Space.com he is frustrated that he and others like him still have to debunk the hoax theory from time to time, 50 years after the first moon landing. Then again, Plait became famous because he’s so good at debunking in the first place. 

Back in February 2001, Fox Broadcasting ran a documentary titled “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?” Plait coincidentally had a pile of research ready from a book he was working on, and a friend sent him an advance copy of the show so that he had time to write up a response.

I kind of wish it had never aired,” Plait said about the Fox documentary, “because it opened a huge Pandora’s box. On the other hand, it’s exposing a wound to sunlight. That thing was there anyway, festering. Let it get out to the public, and let it heal, and let it kill the infection. But yeah, it’s troubling. Just to know that if Fox hadn’t aired that, who knows what my career path would have been.”

Like the 9/11-hoax conspiracies, the old “fake moon landing” crap is so stupid it’s embarrassing to sensible people. I mean, come ON: a conspiracy involving not just a handful but tens, even hundreds of thousands of participants…not one of whom ever utters a single syllable exposing it for the rest of their lives? Occam’s Razor alone makes mincemeat of such arrant lunacy. Throw in the idea of the US government being competent enough to pull such a hoax off, then keep it concealed LITERALLY FORFUCKINGEVER, in spite of an Everest of evidence to the contrary in front of our faces every single day, and…well, buy into it if you want. I’ll just be over here quietly laughing at your dumb ass, that’s all.

Anyways, the article toodles along smoothly until this bit, which is what led me to make that “contributing factor” crack earlier:

Plait said there is a danger in talking about the moon-landing conspiracy and other clearly debunked conspiracies like it, such as vaccines causing autism or humans not being responsible for climate change.

Oh, jeez. So here we have an obviously smart fella, a scientist of some type, capable of debunking several other hoaxes and conspiracy theories…and yet he’s fallen for the most pernicious one of the modern era.

I just can’t even. If this guy is any indicator of how intelligence and competence have atrophied, soon enough we won’t even be able to tie our own shoes—much less rediscover the ability to design, build, and successfully launch rockets—and any exploration of space we do will be limited by the effort not to drool on ourselves when we look skyward at night.

Update! Aesop tells the NYT/SJW/PS crowd to suck a fat one.

Moonshootem.jpg

It upsets them ’cause it’s true.

Share

Facts is facts

STOP CONFUSING ME WITH REALITY, DAMN YOU.

Segregating the sexes in sports is not unfair to women—if anything, it’s exceedingly kind.

But equality is a hill that many true believers are willing to die on, no matter how foolish it makes them look.

In a 2017 article for The Guardian, professional female golfer Anya Alvarez concedes the undeniable fact that men “are stronger than women” and that their average golf swing is about 18MPH faster than the female average. She says that despite these male advantages, “suggesting that makes females lesser athletes is ridiculous.” Then she compares the stats of select female pro golfers against that of select male pro golfers without stating where they stand in the rankings of their respective genders.

But in 2003 when Annika Sorenstam—widely acknowledged as one of the all-time great female golfers—competed in a gender-blind tournament against men, she ranked 96th out of 113 competitors.

An article in Duke Law examines track and field events for 2017 and cites how many times that year’s world-best performance for women was bested by boys under 18. There wasn’t a single event in which the best woman in the world wasn’t bested by at least 10 under-18 boys; in the 400-meter dash, 285 boys outperformed the world’s fastest woman.

When compared to adult males, it looked even worst for the gals: In 2017 alone, the best woman’s result in the 100-meter dash was beaten over 10,000 times by men; in the 800-meter race, men outperformed the best woman’s time in the world nearly 14,000 times.

When it comes to men’s and women’s power-lifting world records, the listing for actual world records doesn’t even specify men because it’s assumed that men hold every record; it simply says “World Records.” The male record for squats is 542 pounds heavier than the female record. The pattern persists throughout all categories: It’s 415 pounds heavier for deadlifts, 298 pounds for bench presses, and 810 pounds for one person’s totals in all categories combined. In three of the four women’s categories, the world champeen is an American named April Mathis.

April Mathis was born a man and still looks like one, complete with the pattern baldness. So the best “female” weightlifter of all time is actually a man.

If you’re truly concerned about being fair to women, you should forbid male-to-female trannies from competing against them in sports.

I might be concerned about being fair to women, but I am not in the least concerned about being fair to “feminist” Leftards. Since the current ludicrous chaos is but the inevitable end-stage of Proggy’s relentless and destructive campaign to undermine families, muddle traditional sex roles and relations between them, and distort the very idea of gender itself, I want it all crammed right down “feminist” throats, just as far as it will go. I want to see them forced to abide by the spurious assertions of total, no-difference equality between the sexes they’ve been promoting for decades.

Their own toxic ideology disallows any distinction between male, female, transgender, or Other; in fact, it precludes the existence of “womens’ sports” in the first place. Fine, then. If it’s true that a “transgender woman” athlete must be acknowledged as being nothing less than a real, true woman, then zhym must be allowed to participate in xhyr’s chosen sport as one.

The original leaders of the “feminist” movement, some of them anyway, allowed themselves to be seduced by cultural Marxism and abandoned what may once have been a reasonable quest for greater automony and freedom. The rank and file went along with it. So let them live under their own New Rules. If, as Goad says, “equality is a hill that many true believers are willing to die on,” then by God let them die on it.

Share

To ask the question is to answer it

Is there really NO American success they won’t find a way—any way, any at all—to dismiss, denigrate, defile, or generally piss over? Not even one of the greatest achievements in all human history—one unsurpassed, unequalled, or even remotely approached after 50 fucking years? But we gotta remember, for shitlibs and Enemedia (BIRM), any opportunity to both bash the US and extol the USSR simultaneously is a two-fer, a win-win, and not something to be passed up.

The New York Times published an article detailing “How the Soviets Won the Space Race for Equality” Tuesday, highlighting how socialism allowed people of “the humblest origins” to become successful.

The article, published under the “Past Tense” section, compared the “segregated United States” to the Soviet Union during the space race. While America put the first man on the moon, the Soviets sent the first man into space in 1961, before the U.S., and then sent “the first woman, the first Asian man, and the first black man into orbit – all years before the Americans would follow suit,” the article read.

“Cosmonaut diversity was key for the Soviet message to the rest of the globe: Under socialism, a person of even the humblest origins could make it all the way up,” Sophie Pinkham wrote after explaining how some of the women rose from lower or middle-class beginnings.

The NYT peddled a “NASA is sexist” theme in another recent article.

“To Make It to the Moon, Women Have to Escape Earth’s Gender Bias” was published as an essay by American author Mary Robinette Kowal Wednesday. It discusses how NASA “was designed by men, for men” as the United States celebrated its 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing.

Holly Maths Geek deftly dispenses with the NYPravda’s despicable propagandizing:


Then, too, there’s this conspicuous omission:

Astonishingly, amid this endless America-bashing and gender-griping, the essay didn’t pause to mention Margaret Hamilton, the remarkable computer scientist, systems engineer and Medal of Freedom recipient who played a leading role in developing software for the Apollo project.

Hamilton received no attention, but the Times essay did mention that, yes, the Soviet Union beat the United States when it came to sending women into space.

This was par for the course for the Times. It’s become increasingly important for the American left to portray failed socialist states like the Soviet Union as feminist paradises. In 2017, Kristen Ghodsee, a professor of Russian and East European studies at the University of Pennsylvania, penned a Times op-ed arguing that even sex was better in the Soviet Union.

Wrote Ghodsee: “Some might remember that Eastern bloc women enjoyed many rights and privileges unknown in liberal democracies at the time, including major state investments in their education and training, their full incorporation into the labor force, generous maternity leave allowances, and guaranteed free child care.”

Education was free, that’s true. And when your education was completed, the state would send you to where you were needed. You had no “rights and privileges” as it extended to your free will. My mother, raised in central Russia, became a teacher and was shipped to Turkmenistan, 30 hours away from her home.

It’s a tedious habit of modern-day liberals to examine and judge and lament all American history by today’s woke standards. Trashing the American space program, which succeeded in putting men on the moon, because it doesn’t appeal to present-day virtuousness is bad enough. Comparing it unfavorably to the Soviet Union’s is morally inexcusable.

Y’know, there are days when I just can’t wait till Real Americans start shooting the bastards.

Share

Shitholes gotta shithole

Presented without further comment.

Hodan Nalayeh, a Somali-born Canadian journalist (who) traveled to Somalia last week to prove Somalia is “beautiful” and to challenge ‘stereotypes’ ended up being killed by Islamic terrorists.

Hodan Nalayeh returned to Somalia, the place of her birth, to document the beauty and to tell “uplifting” stories, according to WaPo.

One of Nalayeh’s Twitter followers praised her for “countering the doom narrative propagated by many about Somalia.”

On July 12, al-Shabaab terrorists stormed Asasey Hotel in Kismayo. 26 people were killed in the terrorist attack and Hodan Nalayeh, 43, and her husband were among the victims.

According to a Canadian news outlet, Nalayeh was pregnant when she was killed by al-Shabaab terrorists last week.

Jeez.

Share

With great power comes great responsibility

Pay no attention to the corruption behind the Big Tech curtain.

How is it that Facebook, who refuses to dox any of the violent Antifa terrorists that use its platform, are happy to give up the personal details of the Facebook user who anonymously uploaded a slowed video of Nancy Pelosi, within minutes, to some rando journalist on the phone? (How do you even call Facebook?)

Well what if I told you a Policy Director at Facebook was Nancy Pelosi’s Chief of Staff before taking said job directing policy at Facebook? What if I told you the head of algorithm policy at Facebook worked for Hillary at The State Department? Or that the Head of Content Policy worked for the Hillary presidential campaign? What if I told you the person in charge of privacy policy at Facebook used to work for Al Franken, before he worked for Senator Bonoff, before he worked for Congressman Oberstar? Or that the Director in charge of “countering hate and extremism” at Facebook came from the Clinton Foundation? Did you know that the person at Facebook who currently “oversees programs on countering hate speech and promoting pluralism”, and “develops internal third party education and drives thought leadership on hate speech and content moderation” was one of Obama’s policy advisers at The White House?

Why does Facebook have someone whose job is to show others how to use their platform as a type of privatized government and “exert influence” over the public? And what exactly does it mean for Facebook to “exert influence” over the public?

How about YouTube? How does Laura Southern’s documentary about the border get removed from YouTube within 24 hours of posting without any reason or explanation? What if I told you a Policy Manager at YouTube, before becoming a Policy Manager at YouTube, was employed by Hillary for America and was a manager in Obama’s campaign before that? What if I told you YouTube’s Global Content Policy Lead previously worked at the DNC? Did you know the person responsible for “growing the next generation of stars” on YouTube worked in the Office of Digital Strategy at the White House under Obama? Or that the person in charge of developing the careers of YouTube creators was the Director of Video for Obama? Speaking of helping the careers of creators, did you know Vox, the company that got Steven Crowder demonetized, was one of the companies that YouTube doled out $20 million dollars to, for ‘educational videos’?

Ten people, directly connected to the progressive Democrat political machine who are now controlling our conversations online. Sounds like an important alarm, no?

What if I told you there were nearly a hundred more?

I’d be surprised there weren’t more than that to be found—and would assume that, in truth, there are. But it is chilling nonetheless. Silicon Greybeard demurs:

Does their monopoly status require they undergo more Federal regulation to ensure access? Is access a “civil right”? It really is the big argument of our day.

For those who are regular readers, or who are but haven’t picked this up from me: these are private companies invented and developed by individual citizens. They have every right to kick anyone and everyone off their platform. Further, the leftist leaning politics of Silicon Valley companies should be apparent to anyone – which means they’ll attract these Democrats. My solution is to not use Facebook or Twitter and just use YouTube and Google for the few ways I want. While I don’t particularly think YouTube access is a civil right, reframing that question by asking what if YouTube banned all blacks or all gays or all of any other group instead of conservatives seems to lead to a different conclusion.

I can’t agree. Due in part to the fortuitous timing of their appearance; their near-universal acceptance; and the near-impossibility of any real competition establishing itself at this late date, these are de facto monopolies. However, because of their politicized nature and ubiquitousness, they are far more insidious than the ones Teddy Roosevelt took the bust-up stick to way back when.

These companies wield grotesquely outsized influence and power; at this point, they’re more akin to public utilities than they are private companies. Having become formidable platforms for disseminating political opinion whose owners and employees have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to use their muscle for censorship of viewpoints they don’t like, the Big Tech/social media megaliths habitually and intentionally run afoul of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Allowing them to continue on as they have been isn’t merely unfair; it’s downright dangerous. In sum:

Each day we wake up and see the latest way conservative voices are being censored, shadowbanned, silently deleted, hidden from view, buried in searches, algorithmed out of existence. Whether it’s the biased search results hiding /r/The_Donald on Google and Reddit (or their questionable subscriber numbers), whether it’s banning Twitter accounts that simply track violence against Trump supporters, creating policy to allow death threats against conservatives, censoring the Declaration of Independence for hate speech, blocking a conservative Marine for literally saying the sky is blue, labeling bible verses as porn, or simply banning the top conservative voices for no reason at all, Big Tech companies absolutely are controlling our speech.

These aren’t just Democratic voters, but former employees from the DNC, from the offices of Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, Feinstein, Giffords, Schumer, Reid, Planned Parenthood, even Rachel Maddow, who are migrating en masse to gate-keeping positions in social media companies. They didn’t all learn to code, they aren’t designing the like button or working on Messenger. They are taking up residency in the policy departments across the web; shaping the conversation, pushing agendas, picking who gets featured, deciding who gets blocked, judging who gets banned for life, dictating the parameters of the algorithms we’ll never be allowed to see, and making cases for censorship – that always seem to ratchet in one direction.

Lots, lots more at the topmost Spinquark link, and damned good on ’em for their fine investigative journalism.

(Hat tip to Fuel Filter)

Share

Wax my balls!

Funniest damned thing I’ve read in a good, long while. That wasn’t published by the Bee, I mean.

Thanks to a citizen journalist, Canadian media have failed to boycott controversial human rights tribunal hearings in Vancouver.
 
On July 4 and 5, 2019, no media were present when the BC Human Rights tribunal heard two of the complaints filed by JY, a transgender person with male genitalia. JY contacted over a dozen BC estheticians in 2018 to request a Brazilian bikini wax. JY often used a stereotypical male name and image when contacting the aestheticians on Facebook Marketplace; the women then informed JY that they only waxed women.

Claiming discrimination on the basis of “gender expression and gender identity,” JY withdrew the first three complaints. JY did so each time, JY learned that the other side had retained a lawyer to defend against the claim. Prior to withdrawing the complaints, JY was demanding money from the women in “settlement” of the complaint, asking as much as $3,000. One can only speculate as to how much money JY has received in settlement from the women against whom JY commenced legal proceedings.

SB, a Sikh woman who declined to provide genital waving services to JY, was working out of her own home, where young children were present, when contacted by JY. In her Sikh faith, intimate touching is reserved only for one’s husband. SB has always refused to provide services for men, and won’t even do facials. She provides waxing services to women to help support her family.

Justice Centre lawyer Jay Cameron argued that waxing female and male genitals is different. Since SB has no experience waxing male genitals, she has a bona fide occupational reason not to perform the service. In addition, SB is not comfortable waxing male genitals for both religious and personal safety reasons, since she was working out of her own home with small children, and her husband was away at work.

SB is not being asked to wax a gender identity, but male genitalia. Since JY presented with a stereotypical male name and male appearance, SB cannot be faulted for perceiving JY as male.

Nobody can. Because, according to science, sanity, and the most cursory glance netherwards, he is. Brace yourselves for the most rib-tickling part, because here it comes.

AB started out providing services from her home, and discussed the risks involved with this. To wax a male client, AB must handle his scrotum and the shaft of the penis. Many men get erections. Some men ask for sex, and when this request is refused, some get angry. AB has been called “bitch,” “slut” and worse.

Angry men are very intimidating to staff at the male-only waxing salon. As a teacher, AB does not and cannot teach male waxing, because some students are under 18, and some have religious objections to handling male genitals.

There is no accredited program for male waxing, but AB teaches the technique through her salon. The ideal wax used for male genitals is different because the skin is very thin, and waxing can cause injury if not done properly.

JY asked SB if she would provide service to post-operative trans women. SB responded that she would wax a vagina, but not male genitals. JY asked why SB would provide haircuts for post-operative trans women, to which SB responded that they don’t have a penis on their head.

Well not yet. But you can bet your sweet indeterminate-gender ass that, as Western Civ sinks ever deeper into the mire of degeneracy, decay, dysfunction, and dementia, it’s surely coming. And, as “wymrynz” are more and more commonly seen sprouting honking big surgically-attached schlongs from somewhere betwixt their ears, the Left will demand that we not just tolerate ’em but that we all stand up and cheer—and consider such a body mod ourselves, you betcha—lest we be publicly shunned as “bigots” and/or “dickheadophobic.”

I find none of the above the least bit either puzzling or surprising at this point, and you shouldn’t either. But there is one thing that kinda has me scratching the ol’ noggin just a mite. To wit: is this JY guy serious about all this? Hell, is he even a “trasgender” at all? Or might he just be some more or less normal type having himself a bit of sport with the current state of Western decadence?

It’s entirely possible, too, that he’s simply a con artist looking to glom a PC-lunacy payoff for himself, in which case more power to him I suppose. But if he IS serious about all this crap, one can only sit back in awe and wonder at the staggering chutzpah of a dude still sporting OEM courting tackle going around in public claiming his due and proper special privileges as a “transgender wyrmynz,” when what he really is is a garden-variety, Mark-1 Mod-0 transvestite—and will remain so unless and until he works up the, ummm, balls to take the plunge and hack ’em off.

(Via Laura Rosen Cohen)

Share

Reparations I can REALLY get behind

What the hell, why not.

To those who suggest we might be better spending our time righting the injustices of today rather than of the distant past I say: shame on you. If these wrongs are not righted through compensation they will live on in our collective shame and the descendants of the victims will continue to suffer. Far from abandoning the principle of restorative justice we should be expanding it and exploring what other injustices might be put right through financial compensation.

One glaring example is the great evil visited on the Anglo-Saxon population by the Normal Conquest of 1066. By any standard, the effect on indigenous English society was enduring devastation. Through war, invasion and genocide, the Anglo-Saxon ruling class was almost entirely replaced, control of the church and state surrendered to foreign adversaries, English replaced by Norman French as the language of government, and England’s entire political, social and cultural orientation shifted from Northern Europe to the continent for the next thousand years.

This matters because, just as the pain of colonialism continues to be endured by its descendants, the Conquest continues to have lasting effects. In his study of surnames and social mobility, economic historian Gregory Clark concluded that Norman surnames continue to be 25 percent overrepresented at Oxbridge to this day relative to other indigenous English surnames. As Clark put it: ‘The fact that Norman surnames had not been completely average in their social distribution by 1300, by 1600, or even by 1900 implies astonishingly slow rates of social mobility during every epoch of English history.’ Not for nothing did Nonconformists and Whigs loudly oppose ‘the Norman yoke’ during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Cambridge University, which still drips with Norman money and influence, should now consider to what extent it needs to compensate its Anglo-Saxon victims. The Sutton Trust estimates that Oxbridge graduates earn £400,000 more during their lifetimes than graduates from other UK universities. These figures imply that descendants of the rapacious Norman invader class could be earning tens of thousands of pounds more than other graduates — an undeserved lifetime premium that has survived 31 generations.  So, reparations must certainly be made.  But who shall pay, and who shall receive?

It should be straightforward for a Royal Commission to trace the present-day descendants of Britain’s Norman usurpers through a combination of genealogical and administrative research as well as — inevitably — mandatory genetic testing. A small tax on the Lampards, Vardys and Gascoignes of the world, payable to the Bamfords, Bransons and Ecclestones, would be sufficient to catalyze healing for the open sores of the past.

There will be inevitable quibbles, such as descendants of Normans claiming that they were not personally responsible. But this is feeble prattle. Countries typically honor treaties dating hundreds of years in the past, despite no one being alive who signed them. We pay debts accumulated by previous generations. Similarly, reparations correctly depend on a notion of collective and inherited responsibility, precisely why the Jews were held accountable for the death of Jesus Christ for most of the Christian era.

We are learning every day just how deep our roots in the past lie. The more we learn, the more necessary it is to see the past in terms of the attitudes of the present, and to rectify regrettable aspects. Eventually these may encompass events as old as the Indo-Aryan invasions of 1500 bc, which produced the Hindu caste system, as well as more unheralded travesties such as the American conquest of the Philippines, which introduced junk food, soap operas and general bad taste. Ultimately, only by demarcating a special class of victims and making grievance inheritable can we address the sins of the past and promote harmony in our own world.

Bang on. So if you aren’t passionately, one thousand percent behind seeing justice done for such horrible imperialist oppression, you are almost certainly a RACIST™, and should probably be killed.

Share

Bookish notes

Two solid endorsements on some new, free reading material for you folks. First off, our good friend Francis is offering the latest installment of his Futunari saga, The Wise And The Mad, all day tomorrow, prefacing the festivities with a little authorly musing on the writer’s art:

I’ve gotten a lot of feedback about The Wise and the Mad. Not all of it has been positive. Some of the comments have castigated me for “approving” of the recently much-discussed phenomenon of transgenderism. Some of the castigations have verged on condemnations. Yes, really.

You’d almost get the idea that a writer must believe, with absolute fidelity, what each of his characters believes, and would do what each of his characters would do if put into their particular situations. Hot Flash To the Slow Of Uptake: It isn’t so. It’s never been so. And it is particularly distressing to hear any of my readers express an attitude that ignorant of what a fiction writer struggles to do.

Wait, strike that last: “What a fiction writer struggles to do” — ? Naah. What an American tries to do…and, God willing, succeeds.

When he generously sent me the first Futunari book and solicited my opinion on it, Fran expressed a bit of trepidation about its unusual, off-the-beaten-track nature and how it might be received. A novel centered around the unique lives and experiences of a group of what you might call real transgenders—people who are born with, shall we say, atypical primary sex characteristics—I felt that tackling such unusual subject matter was a daring, gutsy move, and I both respected and admired Fran for it.

Having been a voracious reader since childhood, I’ve covered a hell of a lot of ground when it comes to litt’rachure, and I can’t recall ever reading anything remotely like these books. Fran is an extremely talented writer, though, and proved more than equal to the challenge of bringing the Futunari series to vivid life. Despite a subject that some might find odd or uncomfortable (or maybe because of it), these stories suck you right into the world Francis has created, and as with everything else of his that I’ve ever read I thoroughly enjoyed them. Give ’em a try yourself; your comments on the subject here are always most welcome, as I’m sure they will be over at Francis’s place too.

Next up: earlier this evening I received an email from an old friend of mine who tipped me off to a new novel by his older brother George, another longtime friend and neighbor from my yout’. To wit:

Hey Mike,

Don’t know if you had heard about George’s latest book The Skin Artist. He says the characters are fictional but he sure wrote from a lot of childhood experiences. Still trying to figure out who was the muse for the stripper. He says it was a dancer that Chip Anderson dated but I’m not buying it. Anyway, it’s a free download on Amazon Prime. Dances around the Belmont Playboys a bit too.

Mark

As it happens, and apropros of nothing, Mark and George’s older brother Ray was one of my closest high-school chums; he was killed when we were still in school in a tragic off-road motorcycle accident, an event which stunned and saddened the whole community. I had no idea George was pursuing a career as an author, having been mostly out of touch with him for years now. So I was glad to get the word on this novel, and look forward to reading it. I’m especially interested in seeing just what Mark meant by that “dances around the Belmont Playboys” business, as you might imagine. Click here to download the book, and enjoy, y’all.

Share

Turning chicken shit into chicken salad…that still tastes like shit

Wnna know why the Democrat Socialists punch far above their actual weight, and end up winning far more battles than they of right ought to? Two reasons: 1) they’re shameless, and 2) they’re relentless. They simply cannot be rocked off of the offensive, disregarding any and all conceivable setbacks, embarrassments, failures, or outright catastrophes to keep driving the Eternal Agenda forward. Latest case in point: their favorite creepy-crawly pedophile, pimp, and financial benefactor.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday said that Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta should resign over a 2008 plea deal involving financier Jeffrey Epstein and that if he doesn’t, President Trump should fire him.

“I am calling on Secretary Acosta to resign,” Schumer said during a Senate floor speech. “It is now impossible for anyone to have confidence in Secretary Acosta’s ability to lead the Department of Labor. If he refuses to resign, President Trump should fire him.” 

Yeah, right. Because reasons, eh, Chuckles?

“Acosta chose to let him off easy. This is not acceptable. We cannot have as one of the leading appointed officials in America someone who has done this,” Schumer added of the plea deal received by Epstein.

Umm, well, not exactly, Chuckles. Not quite.

But now a mob has been loosed. What is striking about Acosta’s case is that he is being excoriated not for doing too much to defend a sex offender but too little to punish or convict — that is, he is being criticized not as a defense attorney, like Sullivan, Pattis, or Adams, but as a prosecutor. Just as defendants and their counsel must weigh their risks of conviction, so too must prosecutors assess the risks and costs of failing to meet that much higher burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Epstein served jail time and probation and was compelled to register as a sex offender. Acosta has stated that “the plea deal’s results were ‘better’ than risking a trial, which he said had ‘a reduced likelihood of success.'”

Acosta weighed the evidence and the odds, choosing to make a deal that still put the pustulent Democrat-Socialist Epstein behind bars—which is far, far more than you can say for Bill “The Creep” Clinton, Chuck Schumer, or any other Democrat-Socialist alive. Details, from Acosta’s press conference earlier today:

“The Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office was ready to let Epstein walk free,” Acosta said. The Florida grand jury reviewed the evidence and recommended a single charge that included no jail time and no registering Epstein as a sex offender.

“Without [the U.S. Attorney Offices’] involvement, Epstein would have gotten away without charge. We believe that we proceeded appropriately,” Acosta said. “Based on the evidence, there was value to getting a guilty plea and having him registered.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office intervention in the state process was incredibly rare. Acosta said he was determined to make Epstein go to jail, register as a sex offender, and provide restitution to the victims.

“The world need to be on notice that he was a sexual predator,” Acosta said. “Based on the evidence, there was value to getting a guilty plea and having him registered… He needed to go to jail. That was the focus.”

Acosta pressed the point that the case was ultimately under the jurisdiction of Florida, and “the work release was not what was bargained for,” Acosta said. “I fully thought he would be spending his time in jail.”

By the way, just guess who also signed off on the deal, as head of the FBI. Go on, guess. As for the Left’s near-reflexive sleazy, greasy attempt to use Epstein’s arrest to smear Trump as being every bit as tainted by his association with Epstein:

Perino asked Patterson about Trump’s remarks: “President Trump said earlier that he had a falling-out with Epstein about 15 years ago. Do you know what that was about?”

Patterson responded: “Well, I know that there were some complaints about Epstein at Mar-a-Lago and also I spoke to the head of the spa there. I said ‘did you ever meet Epstein?’ She said, ‘oh yes…he was inappropriate with some of the younger women there.’ She said she went to Trump and he threw him out of the club.”

At another point in the interview, Patterson said he “knows Trump didn’t know” about Epstein’s alleged criminal activity.

Investigative journalist Conchita Sarnoff told Fox News’ Shannon Bream on Monday night that when former President Bill Clinton traveled on Epstein’s private plane that there were “underage girls” on the plane and that he “many times” did not have his Secret Service detail with him.

Hmmm. The Creep slipping his SS leash to fly off to Orgy Island who even knows how many times, versus Trump getting wind of serious misconduct by a guy he barely knows and immediately 86’ing his ass? Why, JUST the same, not a whisper’s worth of difference between the two. Meanwhile, Clinton is squirming and wriggling and just generally doing what shitlibs do: lying his lying ass off.



And as always with The Creep, that’s merely the tip of the Iceberg O’ Lies. Elsewhere, King Cuck gets busy a-sucking and a-slurping in a True Conservative™ sploogefest.


Bottom line is as Hinderaker says: Epstein is Clinton’s problem, not Trump’s. Clinton’s, and plenty of other depraved Democrat Socialists as well.

Cherchez le Cerno update! Might this fat, juicy worm have a barbed hook hidden in it?

Author, journalist, and filmmaker Mike Cernovich told Breitbart News Daily on Tuesday that the establishment media only has an interest in the Jeffrey Epstein court battles in order to attack President Donald Trump.

Cernovich spoke with Breitbart News Daily host Alexander Marlow in the wake of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest on sex trafficking charges. The Gorilla Mindset author fought to unseal court documents relating to a civil lawsuit in 2017 eventually led to Epstein’s arrest.

Despite the widespread interest in Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking crimes and who might be connected to them, the establishment media has spent more time attempting to link President Donald Trump to Epstein, without evidence, than to the actual sex trafficking case.

Cernovich contended that the media only has interest in the Epstein case as a means to attack Trump through his relationship with Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta. Acosta, as a then-Miami prosecutor in 2007, struck a deal with Epstein in which the billionaire would plead guilty to prostitution charges in exchange for dropping all other charges.

“The media only care about Epstein as a way to go after Trump because of the Alexander Acosta angle,” Cernovich said.

Cernovich added that “They are trying to create a conspiracy theory involving Donald Trump and Jeff Epstein despite no evidence that Trump ever flew to any island or partied with Epstein or did anything.”

Despite much of the media’s attack on Trump, Yahoo News reported that a lawyer representing a trio of Epstein accusers explained that Trump assisted authorities in building a civil lawsuit against Epstein.

Trump also banned Epstein from his Florida resort Mar-a-Lago because Epstein allegedly sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club.

Marlow noted that Breitbart News Economics Editor John Carney said that no one on Wall Street knows how Epstein made his money. The Breitbart News Daily host described Epstein as a “very shadowy” figure.

Cernovich suggested that Epstein might have run a blackmail scheme to make his billions of dollars.

Well, nobody can claim it’s all a completely outlandish idea, that’s for sure.

Share

Justice: served, piping hot

Remember what I always say about the wheels grinding slow, but surpassing fine?

Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy, politically connected Florida financier, was arrested in New York on Saturday evening on sex trafficking charges, sources tell NBC 4 New York.

A law enforcement official said Epstein would be charged with trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex.

“Jeffrey Epstein has evaded justice for too long – this child rapist belongs in prison and should not be allowed to post bail and hurt more girls,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee.

A 2008 deal ended a federal investigation that could have landed Epstein, now 66, in prison for life. Instead, he was allowed to plead guilty to lesser state charges that resulted in a 13-month jail sentence and required financial settlements to dozens of his victims. He also had to register as a sex offender.

Insty says Epstein might well be facing Arkancide: “HE HAS DIRT ON BILL CLINTON; WHAT’S HIS LIFE EXPECTANCY NOW?” Real justice—TRUE justice—would demand the answer to that question be: very short. Sadly, though, I doubt he’ll get anything like what he deserves. Nor will his wealthy and powerful clients, I’m afraid. But if Epstein ends up doing any time at all in a non-country-club prison, he’s going to find out what the pen-name “Short Eyes” means…and what the price tag for wearing it is.

Share

Bleeding twat gets booted

Cry me a river, Baby Huey.

“Spotted two separate tables of people wearing MAGA gear at @HillCountryWDC. Disgusting. Hill Country clean up your act. I have been patronizing you for 10*•+ years starting in NY. Don’t serve Nazis,” TJ Helmstetter, a Magaphobe said on Twitter Thursday.

Hill Country BBQ wasn’t having it and tossed the hater out for harassing the customer in the MAGA gear.

“Just got thrown out of Hill Country DC for standing up to a Nazi. Don’t go there ever again. They support Trump and Nazis,” Helmstetter said.

It’s his favorite restaurant so he felt like he had the right to harass fellow American citizens.

“Guy wears MAGA hat at my favorite restaurant. I say “hey are you from dc?” He says “no.” I say “we don’t tolerate racism in this city.” His girlfriend then physically jabs fingers into my chest and starts threatening me. Management tells me to leave, not woman who assaulted me,” he said.

Helmstetter said he called the manager at Hill Country BBQ and they told him that the establishment is “an equal opportunity restaurant who welcomes all political viewpoints.”

But there’s more…

TJ Helmstetter is a Democrat Party Operative and Hillary Clinton adviser.

In another Tweet, Cuntboy snivels about how “the Nazi’s girlfriend assualted me by jabbing her fingers into my chest repeatedly, and I simply backed up.” Of course you did, gutless. Too bad she didn’t haul off and poke you in the snoot rather than poking your chest. Who knows, maybe she just wanted to watch it jiggle or something.

A hearty CF attaboy to the Hill Country BBQ folks for not knuckling under to your weak-ass sniveling and wailing. They provide a most welcome contrast to that Red Hen dive’s fully-Woke management style. More womanly kvelling from Doughboy McCrybaby:

Reflecting on the interaction on Twitter, Helmstetter said: ‘Cool, except MAGA hats actually make clear that POC and LGBT are not welcome at all.’

Oh, yeah? Wanna try explaining how you figure that exactly, shitwit? Seems to me it’s a mighty big leap to be making there, boyo, based on assumptions not in evidence—completely insupportable ones, at that. But then, you just established, by your own words and actions, that you’re a hater, a bigot, and a complete ignoramous. So in the end those big, blind leaps of yours aren’t all that hard for sane people to figure out. But now we come to the best part:

Reaction to Helmstetter’s story has been less than sympathetic, with many reaching out to say he should’ve left the couple alone and what he did was both ‘rude’ and ‘ignorant’.

‘Assuming someone is a Nazi because they are wearing a Trump hat is ignorant and trying to ruin his night is rude,’ Rachel Stolzfoos tweeted. ‘Glad to see @HillCountryBBQ handled this appropriately.’

In retort, Helmstetter said: ‘Seeing Nazis in public ruins my night so I guess we are even.’

LOLgetfucked, bitch. You have NO right to live your life free of ever being offended. On the contrary, being offended is the natural consequence of leaving one’s home, as eminently quotable headcase Fran Leibowitz once famously remarked. At the same time, you also have NO right to abuse people in public for political views that don’t precisely align with your own, either. Thus:

‘Intolerant man harasses people trying to have dinner and is shocked that he is asked to leave,’ Mollie Hemmingway replied.

‘This guy was harassing a Trump supporter in the restaurant and now claims to be the victim,’ surmised Erick Erickson.

To heckles of ‘freedom of speech’ in relation to the tourist’s choice to wear the hat, Helmstetter acknowledged the man he did have the right to publicize his political views, but, under the rules of free speech, Helmstetter says it’s his right to challenge those views.

So stipulated…in the proper venue, in the proper fashion: politely, respectfully, and honestly. Haranguing supporters of America’s current President with utterly specious, offensive, and inflammatory “Nazi!!!” accusations in a goddamned restaurant does NOT meet those standards. Not even close. Your mistake, a particularly obnoxious and ignorant one, is conflating “challenge” with “harrass.” They are NOT one and the same; again, not even close. But you’re just not bright enough to grasp the distinction, are you, Tubbsy?

‘To be clear, it is the Nazi’s 1st amendment right to wear racist s**t in public. And it is decent people’s 1A right to tell them they are racist pieces of s**t. He exercised his 1A right, and I exercised mine. @HillCountryBBQ mgmt chose to protect the Nazi’s right but not mine.’

Okay, now the whining is just becoming tiresome. Contrary to this blubbering, what Hill Country BBQ actually did here was to wisely decide not to support—or further put up with—the frothing hysteric who was causing a disturbance in their place of business, preferring instead to throw in with the sane people quietly and peaceably tending to their own affairs, who wished only to enjoy a nice dinner without bothering a living soul. That’s a perfectly understandable decision, one any reasonable business owner not himself an unhinged Leftist would find quite easy to make.

Not one word of which will make the slightest dent in precious little Chubbsy Ubbsy’s inflated sense of grievance and Oh So Special Specialness, of course. Just another example of why one should never bother arguing with these puds, other than for one’s own momentary amusement. As always, it wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

Share

1984: American pop’s best year?

Nope.

It remains one of the most impactful periods in music; Rolling Stone magazine called 1984 “pop’s greatest year…New Wave, R&B, hip-hop, mascara’d hard rock and ‘Weird Al’ Yankovic all crossed paths on the charts.” In one poll, 1984 ranked number four in the all-time best years of American music.

Contrast all that with today, when new music choices seem limited to country tunes or some warped version of Drake, 1984 had something for everyone. Legends such as Tina Turner, Stevie Wonder, and Paul McCartney introduced themselves to the children of the children they entertained in the 1960s. Our parents—and in my case, grandparents—had their own copies of Michael Jackson’s “Thriller,” the top-selling album of all-time that debuted in 1982 but still dominated the record charts in the spring of 1984.

The year was so cool that Van Halen named an entire album after it.

Kelly goes on to cite John Cougar Mellonhead, Bruce “Limousine Liberal” Springstain, Huey Louie, and a whole passel of others I can’t stand, excepting maybe the Cars, who are…meh, all right, I guess. Then you get a couple of old 60’s fossils in the comments declaring that THAT decades music rules, and everything else drools. I do wholeheartedly agree with Julie’s assertion that today’s stuff is utter and complete garbage, which makes it kind of ironic that the seeds for a lot of it were sown by 80s electronic, emasculated, discofied technodreck. Bottom line: ever notice how almost all of us believe the music we listened to during our formative years to be the BEST MUSIC EVER? Except for this guy:

I graduated from high school in ’83, college in ’87, and I didn’t like 80s music then, and I don’t like it now. Watching Season 3 of “Stranger Things” this week only reminds me of how much I dislike/d it.

In the 80s I was a teenager listening to the American Songbook, Big Band, Jazz, and Swing. America’s best decade of pop music was the 1940s followed by the 50s. Pop music, like everything else, took a wrong turn in the 1960s.

NOW you’re playing my tune, young feller.

Share

Gallopin’ gourmet

Okay, I DEFINITELY just threw up in my mouth a little. The only thing more puke-inducing would be seeing Lena Dunham eating it, in the bulky buff.

CHICAGO (AP) — Officials say U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport thwarted a man’s attempt to import several pounds of African rat meat.

Customs spokesman Steve Bansbach said Tuesday that the man declared the 32 pounds of meat on June 26 when his flight arrived from the Ivory Coast. The meat was confiscated and destroyed.

Bansbach says the man did not face a fine and continued on his journey because he was forthcoming about what he was bringing into the country. He says customs officials prohibit the entry of African meats to prevent the spread of African swine fever.

In fairness to the poor rat-munching slob, he’s from a primitive, backward part of the world, and his culture is not our culture. Too, when a man gets hungry enough he’ll eat anything. And where he hails from, it can oftentimes be a choice between rat and starvation. They don’t call it the Dark Continent for nothing, you know.

Hell, I hear some of the beastly savages in this world’s more benighted places even favor dog meat for vittles, considering Fido filet to be just good eatin’.

Appetizing update! Seems like a good excuse to sneak this tasty old classic in.



Share

Jim Rockford: a great American

What the hell, I’ll buy it.

The Rockford Files (1974-1980) is not only the greatest television show ever made; its lead character is the greatest American ever brought to the small screen. The Sopranos, The Shield, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Lost… All are fantastic television shows, and I could name many others, but none tops a 1970s private eye series that ran for six seasons on NBC.

You see, there was only one James Garner…

Garner was as ruggedly handsome as Clark Gable, as roguish as Errol Flynn, as masculine as Burt Reynolds, as stoic as Gary Cooper, as tough as Robert Mitchum, as cool as Steve McQueen, as funny as William Powell, as cynical as William Holden, as likable as Jimmy Stewart, and as charming as Cary Grant.

There was no one else like him, and for more than 40 years, audiences went where Garner went, from TV to movies to TV movies — many of them classics: The Great Escape, The Americanization of Emily, Murphy’s Romance, The Notebook, Support Your Local Sheriff, The Skin Game, Victor Victoria, Sayonara, Grand Prix, My Name Is Bill W., Streets of Laredo… Just to name a few.

And no one else could have played Jim Rockford. It was tailor-made for Garner, lightning in a bottle, and, yes, the most American television show ever made.

Here are all the ways in which Jim Rockford is TV’s great American…

Rockford is a Veteran who was wounded and won the Silver Star in the Korean War. (Garner, who was also a great American, earned his own Purple Heart in Korea. He also marched for civil rights before it was cool, took no crap from any man or employer, and was married to the same woman for 56 years.)

Rockford’s an entrepreneur who ekes out a hand-to-mouth living as an independent, self-employed private investigator. He could never survive in the government bureaucracy or corporate culture he frequently sneers at.

He regularly challenges, insults, and dismisses authority. Rockford spent years in San Quentin for a crime he didn’t commit and has no love for the corrupt System that put him there, but plenty of love for the Bill of Rights that won his pardon.

He eats junk food and meat.

He owns a gun. Better yet he doesn’t have a permit to carry it and still does on occasion.

He smokes cigarettes.

He exceeds the speed limit.

He burns fossil fuels.

Above all, Jim Rockford is first, last, and always his own man. His independence, his unwillingness to conform to anyone’s idea of how he should live his life, work his profession, or bow to authority is as American as it gets. He doesn’t tell anyone else how to live their life, and as long as you don’t cross that busybody line with him, there won’t be a problem.

What could be more patriotic than shoving the Bill of Rights up the ass of an officious authority figure abusing his government power or turning down a case because you’d prefer to go fishing and drink beer with your dad?

Mind your own business. Don’t take anyone’s shit. Distrust authority. Keep a gun in the cookie jar. Never conform. Drive a fast car. Pay your own way through life…

Jim Rockford isn’t just an American…

He is The American.

Heh. Pretty much. Still can’t figure out how we lost the country to fucking Pajama Boy and a Mardi Gras parade-float’s worth of angry chicks with dicks when we had guys like Rockford in our corner. Oh well. I’ll add one thing more to Nolte’s list: Rockford also had theme music that was released as a single, and became probably the biggest TV theme song hit ever.



That song was ALL OVER the radio back then; I can’t recall hearing a single person say they didn’t like it. Nice guitar work, too.

Share

When women were women

Did 70s Hollywood kill feminism, or was it vice the versa?

The great auteurs of the 1970s used women as props, either victims or vixens. The ’70s women were plot devices, not fully developed characters. I grew up in the ’70s, with only two kinds of Hollywood women. They were either murder victims or prostitutes; unless they were prostitutes getting murdered. With the exception of a certain princess from Alderaan, as a teenager, I never saw a strong woman on the big screen.

In contrast, when I’d watch movies on the old movie channel, there were reporters, businesswomen, army nurses, even scientists. I was told again and again, that women of the 1930s were oppressed and women of the 1970s were liberated. But the old movie channel told a very different story.

Those women from black white movies were tough in a realistic way. They were not like today’s ridiculous female heroines—chicks who are all of 95 pounds and beating up men three times their size. The women in the movies of the 1930s and ’40s were resilient, resourceful, and intelligent. In other words, they were tough in a feminine way. They were not just carbon copies of male heroes.

She goes on from there to cite several sterling examples of female strength and power in the old classics before getting to one of my favorites:

Finally there is the champ—one of the strongest women ever put on film. You aren’t allowed to say that of course, because she was on the side of those whose statues we must now tear down. But there never was, and probably never will be, as strong a woman in movies as Vivien Leigh’s Scarlett O’Hara. Her entire life, quite literally, is burnt to ashes. But she rises and builds a great business. She has financial success; when everyone around her says it is unseemly for women to do anything but stay home. Scarlett has more right to the name Phoenix than any of the X-Men.

Scarlett O’Hara still stands atop the adjusted for inflation box office.

I think she always will. The entire Yankee army couldn’t take Scarlett down, and a horde of super and space heroes won’t be able to topple her, either.

Those were the strong, female characters, that inspired me in my youth. These women fought against villains and succeeded without fantasy super powers. They brought men like Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart and, yes, even the epitome of the male hero, John Wayne, to their knees.

The great auteurs of the ’70s threw women like that under the bus. They beat women and raped women and killed women and degraded women. Now Hollywood pats itself on the back for their ridiculous dress-up paper dolls and proclaim voila! As if it is the first time we’ve ever seen the “strong female character.”

In fairness, though, they’ve done a real number on men, too. And I don’t mean just in terms of the characters, but of the actors themselves. Or do any of y’all want to compare such classic male exemplars as Clark Gable, Erroll Flynn, or Robert Mitchum with any of our forgettable, slope-shouldered effeminates of today by way of argument?

Yeah, thought not.

Aubert makes a stronger point than she might realize in citing GWTW, though. Hell, nearly every damned women IN the film, excepting Aunt Pittypat and Scarlett’s whiny sisters, was tough, courageous, and entirely admirable. Melanie Wilkes, Belle Watling, Mrs Meade, Ellen O’Hara, even Mammy: ain’t a hothouse flower or shrinking violet in the bunch, bless their indomitable hearts.

Share

Learn to code, bitches!

I cannot begin to tell you how much I enjoyed this article.

The far-left fake news outlet CNN came in 15th place in primetime during the previous quarter and lost nearly 20 percent of its already pathetic viewership.

…Obviously, what the above numbers prove is that CNNLOL is not the victim of a downturn in the overall news cycle but rather a victim of its own horribleness, of Suicide By Fake News and Hate.

In all of cable TV during primetime, FOX was number one, MSNBC number two, and CNNLOL was number…. 15.

In the all-important (for advertiser rates) 25-54 age demo during primetime hours, FOX averaged 373,000 viewers, MSNBC 252,000, and CNNLOL just 188,000.

Compared to this same quarter last year, in the age demo, FOX is down 21 percent and MSNBC 27 percent, but CNNLOL again managed to humiliate itself with an incredible 37 percent crash of young primetime viewers.

With only two other cable news outlets as competition, not a single CNNLOL program ranked in the top 20.

There’s a reason why more Democrats tune into MSNBC and probably even Fox News.

CNN is an unreliable and dishonest hate network obsessed with working out its psychosis against Trump and his supporters by going so far as to condone and encourage violence against them.

Okay, it’s possible I may not have enjoyed reading this quite as much as Nolte obviously did writing it.

Share

From Texas to Frisco in one simple step

Austin decides to go full Third Turd World.

Austin has long been the weird, liberal capital of Texas. The rest of Texas just sort of shrugs and puts up with it. Austin is quirky. Austin is odd. Austin lives in its own little world. Austin is also home to some of the best live music joints anywhere and you have to work pretty hard to find a bad restaurant in the city, so it’s not without its charms. The joke about Austin is that it’s nice because it’s so close to Texas (its the capital, a deep blue dot surrounded by a vast red sea). Austin is like that oddball cousin we all have. He’s there. He picks his nose and argues with light posts. But he’s nice and basically no threat to anyone, so whaddyagonnado?

Well, Texas’ weird cousin just became a threat to itself and others.

On June 20, the Austin city council passed what has to be one of the dumbest, most nonsensical ordinances since the city’s last idiotic, nonsensical ordinance (they pass a lot of ‘em, bless their hearts).

The city council made it perfectly legal to camp out on the city’s public spaces and sidewalks, under bridges and overpasses and, well, everywhere all over town – except, notably, parks and Austin City Hall.

That’s right. The city council exempted themselves from seeing homeless campouts — let’s call them Adlervilles, after the esteemed Mayor Steve Adler — on their own front porch. Mayor Adler and his cohort deemed city hall camping out of bounds. But you, owner of the local cookie store or overtaxed home, will get to see and step over and around all manner of things right out in your yard 24-7 now.

Fine. But why inflict this on homeowners, business owners and everyone but themselves? I’m not making this up. They claim it’s mean to issue tickets for running a clothesline off the Discount Tire store – which has actually already happened! That the tickets create a spiral out of which the homeless cannot escape. So it’s somehow better to issue tickets if you water your lawn at the wrong time, because Harry the Homeowner can actually pay the fine, but inhumane to keep the streets free of bedrolls and poop – a policy which in Los Angeles is giving rise to medieval disease. Only in the liberal mind does this make any sense.

Oh, I think we can take that bit about just who “can actually pay the fine” as more or less dispositive here. Not that the sanctimonious virtue-signalling isn’t worth some points as well, mind. Remember the eternal rule: for liberals, charity really does begin at home. Yours, not theirs.

Share

Boring!

Democrat-Socialist debates: a celebration of degeneracy.

The Democrats kicked off their year long process to select a party nominee for the 2020 presidential election and it felt like 2016 all over again. Instead of watching the debate, which would have been a horrible way to spend an evening, I scanned Twitter for reactions to get a feel for how enthusiasts were reacting in real time. This was something I did in the 2016 during the Republican debates. It turned out to be a much better gauge for how people were reacting than what was coming from the media.

Three things were fairly obvious, based on Twitter. One is the Democrat media was instructed to sell the hell out of Warren, which they tried hard to do, but Warren gave them little to work with after she read her prepared lines. What they are going to learn is what people in Massachusetts know about her. Like all pols, she can read from a script and seem quite good. On her own, she reveals herself to be quite dull. Her serious egghead presentation is just an act. She is a pseudo-intellectual poseur.

Another thing that was made obvious to enthusiasts is that Beto O’Rourke is just a slacker who has been getting by on his looks. The media likes him because he has the RFK routine down cold. He knows how to charm left-wing Baby Boomers. The trouble is, once you get past the horse teeth and hairstyle, you’re left with a guy who probably spends his free time reading comic books. He is in politics because it requires the least amount of effort for the best possible lifestyle. Otherwise, he is a bum.

The third thing that was obvious reading left-wing twitter is they could not stop noticing Tulsi Gabbard. The Democrat media was programmed to ignore her, so they will ignore her, but the lower ranking members, who don’t get to see the memos from the party, were noticing their hell out of Gabbard. She was the only candidate who said anything of substance picked up by the enthusiasts. The rest were judged on style. Gabbard was noticed because she made valid points about foreign policy.

Most likely, the media will just ignore Gabbard for now. They will no doubt have been told to celebrate Creepy Uncle Joe as the winner of the second debate. In case he sexually assaults one of the women on stage, they probably have been told to have some material on Harris ready. They have some sidebar pieces ready to tell the faithful that the homosexual is a rising star in the party. The point is to make sure Sanders gets no positive press from the debate. This time, he gets taken out early.

For now, as we saw in 2016, the media will do what it can to gaslight the voters, by selling the cold turd sandwich that is Biden and Warren, while carefully ignoring anyone that the party fears. If the result of these preliminary rounds is rising support for Gabbard, we will see if the Progressive Industrial Complex really did learn from the 2016 debacle. The gaslights will be on full for the rest of the summer, as they use all the tools to get the result the oligarchs want from this election.

I’d much rather gargle diarrhea than watch a single minute of any Democrat-Socialist debate. For one thing, watching those wormy, grubby liars trying to maneuver themselves into a good position to ram the blades into each others’ backs is the more nauseating choice. For another, watching these debate shit-shows would leave a way more unpleasant taste in my mouth. Gargling diarrhea would probably provide more nourishment than trying to swallow all the toxic Leftism spewed nonstop by those assclowns, too.

Update! Slow Joe shellacked on segregation.

Joe recently mentioned how he was able to work with the loathsome Democrat racists infesting the Senate when he got there in the early ’70s. They were a different breed of loathsome Democrat racists back then. They hated everyone who was not white. Today’s loathsome Democrat racists now hate everyone who is, but they are more flexible than that. The loathsome Democrats of today are not merely racists, but sexist religious bigots who hate men, observant Jews and Christians, as well as individual members of sexual and racial minorities who reject the poisonous ideology of progressivism. Their word for this evolution is “progress.”

Anyway, Joe fell into a wokeness trap by thinking his theme of normalcy and working together, which his consultants told him will appeal to the soft dummies in the suburbs who usually vote Republican but got scared by The Donald’s refusal to be a submissive sissy, would trump the SJW agenda. Oh no. He spoke about how he got along with those awful Democrats of yore and, well, that’s pretty much proof he’s a Grand Cyclops, just like Democrat hero Robert Byrd.

It’s all stupid and not even his opponents, who would never even vote for him to be Delaware’s Dogcatcher-in-Chief, believe that Joe Biden is some sort of second coming of Bull Connor eager to divide up drinking fountains by skin tone. Nor do the SJWs and the cynical candidates who picked up the cudgel of “RACIST!” and beat him about his empty head with it. But none of that matters. Facts are a bourgeois conceit, you see, and they are themselves racist when they get in the way of the progressive narrative. Racism charges don’t have to be true if they can kneecap an opponent.

What’s hilarious is Baffled Joe’s reaction to this perfectly predictable uproar. He was legit outraged that anyone would say something like this about him, yet it was cute how he was surprised at the world he made and at the behavior of the Children of the Damned he helped raise. Joe was happy to slime Republicans with the same kind of garbage he’s lately been pelted with. Remember what he said about Mitt Romney, who is useless for dozens of reasons but none of which is that he hates black people? Joe said: “They’re gonna put y’all back in chains!”

Well Joe, enjoy being filleted by your own. We’re over here laughing, you jerk.

That’s the bright spot in this whole goatfuck. We get a brief reprieve while the 27 Dwarves turn their go-to weapon on each other, instead of us.

Updated update! For what it’s worth, I have to tell you guys that I am now endorsing Mxrs. Peter “Puffer” Buttplug and his wife and/or husband, not only for the Klown Kar Dem nomination but for President as well. No, I haven’t gone rabid and decided to support newly de rigeur Progtard policies like: reparations and an official apology for illegal aliens; one (1) taxpayer-purchased white male conservative slave for every Wakandan-American; Catholic priests forced to perform abortions on uncut male-to-female transgenders regardless of need; a nationwide ban on all travel, commuting, or bodily movement; confiscation and destruction of all fossil-fuel vehicles; the death penalty for all cis-het-binary breeder scum; and etc.

No, what I’m most interested in is having a President who will be referred by half the nation, no matter the occasion, as “President Buttplug.” I also eagerly anticipate endless, serious Enemedia deliberation and debate over who gets to be called the First Lady. Confusion, chaos, and comedy, people—three of my favorite things, all occupying a rainbow-flagged White House while the rest of the world snickers openly at America’s First Poofter President. His introductory staredown with Putin, as Vlad the Impaler struggles with all his might not to simply laugh in his face and walk away, whilst CNN tries to magick President Buttplug into a tough, doughty, no-bullshit leader whom allies respect and enemies fear, will be worth it all by themselves.

Tallying update! Hard to say who won, but it’s obvious enough who lost.

Experts Agree Loser Of First Dem Debate Was America
MIAMI, FL—Experts around the country and numerous poll results revealed Wednesday evening that the decisive loser in the Democratic debate was the American people.

A poll found that an overwhelming majority of respondents believed that America lost the debates by a wide margin, with 5% of Americans believing Americans won last night and a whopping 62% stating that “oh my gosh America is doomed.” 33% elected to turn off the TV and just watch neighborhood cats fight instead of watching the debate once it became clear that America was going to get decimated.

“America really needed a win out there tonight, but only fell further behind,” said one commentator, adding that he didn’t have “high hopes” for the country’s chances moving forward. “Things are not looking good for America’s prospects in the 2020 campaign at this point. If America doesn’t pull out a win tonight, we can only expect America to drop out of the race entirely.”

Amazing, innit, how much more real, actual truth you get from a little old satire site than the MFM entire.

Share

“SCIENCE” IS BAFFLED!

A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

Psychologists Can’t Figure Out Why Hardly Anyone Wants To Date A Trans Person

A real headscratcher for sure. But I think I have the answer already. Two, actually.One: they aren’t nearly as confused about their own sexuality as transgender types are, and two: as a wise old uncle of mine told me years ago, although I confess to having ignored his sage advice on WAY too many occasions over the years: never stick your dick in crazy, son.

A recent Journal of Social and Personal Relationships study found that nearly 90 percent of survey respondents are not interested in dating transgender people. In a Psychology Today article on the study, coauthor Karen Blair implies these findings demonstrate significant discrimination—or at least an unwillingness to be inclusive—in dating.

However, instead of pointing out the obvious truth that biological cues are foundational for sexual and romantic attraction, the author goes to great lengths to convey sympathy for the exclusion of transgenders in the dating field as if it’s merely a social justice issue. This is yet another avenue progressives are using to encourage others to deny biological reality and normalize abnormal behaviors.

And thus does the Bughouse Left warp and abuse science yet again for political purposes.

Blair explains how important finding love is to happiness. Hardly anyone would disagree with her there. Then she goes on to say, “If very few people are willing to date trans people, what does this mean for their health and well-being? If trans and non-binary people lack access to one of the most stable sources of social support, this could explain some of the existing health disparities within trans communities.”

Ass-backwards and wrong again. The “health disparities” exist because they’re transgender—part and parcel of what was once, in a less stultifyingly PC age, correctly called “gender dysphoria.” I don’t know if you’d call this putting the cart before the horse, reversing cause and effect, or just what. Transgenders aren’t mentally disordered because straights aren’t interested in dating them; they’re transgender because they’re mentally disordered. Their dysfunction is not a result of some supposedly unfair, irrational “prejudice” against them. Nice try, though, at finding a way to scold straights for causing problems they bear no blame whatsoever for. Jesse Singal unloads on ’em, closing the following Tweet pair with the line of the day:


It’s all about normalization of the abnormal, except for the part of it that’s all about clubbing Normals into not just tolerance but enthusiastic endorsement:

So thus begins the pressure for straight people to have sex with same-sex people.

Strange that it’s a hate crime to suggest that gay people should try to be straight, but it’s now a pet project of the left to pressure straight people to be gay.

Apparently this will help the 0.1% of the population that is trans.

You know what would help the 97% of the population that is straight and normal as far as sexual identification? If the oddly-sexed people would just act straight and normally-sexed, so we wouldn’t have these bizarre flare-ups of rage and entitlement.

But we’ve decided that, as regards sexual minority, it’s wrong to pressure them into being different than they are just in order to spare the rest of society some discomfort and awkwardness.

Why does this rule not extend in the opposite direction? Why are people with more bog-standard sexualities not permitted to be just as God made them — Born This Way, you know — without being hassled about it?

Why does the obligation to Live and Let Live only run in one direction?

BTW: Why don’t trans people just date trans people?

Oh, right: Because they have an innate attraction to people of a specific sex.

So, they’re permitted to be sexually attracted to whoever they’re sexually attracted to, but the rest of us will just have to brainwash ourselves into having a different sexuality. We’ll have to have sex with people we don’t want to have sex with to show that we’re not “transphobic.”

I assure you that, at least in my case, they’re going to find themselves VERY disappointed in the results their effort is gonna yield, and do not give a tinker’s damn about being accused of any kind of “phobia” these flailing fucktards like, be it trans-, Islamo-, or anydamnedthing else they might come up with. Excepting pedophilia, necrophilia, and animal abuse, I’ve always been content to live and let live when it comes to whatever kink, perversion, or oddity adults might get up to. I’m willing to extend them the courtesy implicit in Eddie Murphy’s line from one of his concert flicks: “I think you should be with whoever makes you come the hardest.”

But if they’re not going to extend me the reciprocal courtesy of keeping that shit at home, indoors, and out of my fucking face, all that can change…with a quickness.

Share

Send in the clowns

For the Democrat-Socialists’ “reparations” dumbshow.

There are actually things Congress could be doing, you know.

Things which are of more value than putting on demagogic expositions like allowing Sheila Jackson-Lee, the utterly moronic Democrat congresswoman from the slums of Houston, to stage a hearing on the urgent necessity of paying reparations to the black community for slavery.

This wasn’t a hearing to discuss a true reparations plan, mind you. No, what Wednesday’s circus involved was a hearing to talk about creating a commission — surely a blue-ribbon outfit that will be! — to create a study of whether reparations would be practical. 

Well, I dunno. We’re all probably better off having these dolts diddling themselves with non-starter nonsense like this, rather than spending their time on way more damaging pet projects. But now we come to the really good part:

Not everyone on the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which put on this ghastliness, was enthused about She-Jack’s exposition. The ranking Republican on the committee, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), who was a noted constitutional scholar and a highly successful attorney in constitutional cases, thought he’d offer a critique of exactly how well an idea like the one being discussed would pass muster on its immediate court challenge…

But Johnson’s critique wasn’t the most colorful. That one came from former NFL defensive back Burgess Owens, a Fox News contributor and frequent critic of the Left on racial and economic issues who took to the witness stand with a rhetorical flamethrower in tow.

“I used to be a Democrat until I did my history and found out the misery that that party brought to my race,” he said. “Let’s point to the party that was part of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, that has killed over 40 percent of our black babies, 20 million of them.”

He wasn’t done.

“Let’s pay restitution,” he agreed. “How about the Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race and those, after we learn our history, who decide to stay there, they should pay also. They’re complicit. And every white American, Republican or Democrat, that feels guilty because of their white skin, you should need to pony up also — that way we can get past this reparation and recognize that this country has given us greatness,” Owens said.

Ahh, but that’s just it: we’ll NEVER get past “reparations,” no matter what—because this isn’t about fixing anything, and most certainly not about righting any unredressed wrongs. What the Democrat-Socialists are really up to here is the same thing they’re always up to: trying to punish America and Americans, on any pretext they can gin up. That’s their sole agenda; it lurks behind absolutely everything they propose, and they will never, ever stop pursuing it. In fact, at this point I doubt they could even if they wanted to.

As abominable as slavery inarguably was, I’ve often said that every descendant of slaves here in America now should be thanking God that their ancestors were brought here way back when; the horror endured by their forebears was the down-payment on the life of relative ease and prosperity enjoyed by future generations, a priceless gift that spared their descendants the true horror of life in some primordial African shithole. And then there’s this:

Two things should be said about this issue, which is a waste of America’s time and yet another stain on the escutcheon of the Democrat Party to even bring it up in 2019. First, America didn’t create slavery, we inherited it from every other society on earth — the Europeans, the Africans, the Turks, and the Arabs, most specifically. We spent 600,000 lives in shedding that inheritance.

And second, the reason we inherited slavery from all of those other societies is that before the advent of the Industrial Revolution, which may have started in Europe but was perfected in this country, slavery or something like it was a sad economic necessity in all human societies. That’s not to minimize the moral degeneracy of the institution, which by the way is still alive and well in places like Libya and Somalia — something nobody at Wednesday’s ridiculous hearing seemed interested in discussing. It is to say that the prosperity and technological innovation brought on by free-market capitalism is what made slavery obsolete.

And the same political party which promoted slavery and racial oppression in America throughout its existence has spent the last 30 years trashing the capitalism which ended it.

Yep. Ironic, ain’t it?

Share

Envy is always an unlovely thing

Oh shut up, Whoopsie.

It’s beginning to sound an awful like victim-blaming.

Actress Bella Thorne leaked her own personal, private pictures on Saturday in an effort to take power back from an alleged hacker who threatened to release them to the public. The 21-year-old posted on her Twitter account screenshots of the NSFW images, along with text messages from the hacker who demanded money in exchange for not posting the pictures.

Many fans and other Twitter users offered support and praise for Thorne’s actions, but on Monday’s episode of The View, Whoopi Goldberg  essentially blamed Thorne for taking the nude photos in the first place.

“If you’re famous, I don’t care how old you are. You don’t take nude pictures of yourself,” Goldberg said. “Once you take that picture, it goes into the cloud and it’s available to any hacker who wants it, and if you don’t know in 2019 that this is an issue, I’m sorry. You don’t get to do that.”

Thorne responded with a note posted to her Instagram Story. “Dear Whoopi, I have loved u for so long but honestly I’m so displeased and saddened by your response to my leek [sic],” she wrote. “Blaming girls for taking the photo in the first place? Is sick and honestly disgusting.”

Just because nobody wants to look at nekkid pics of Goldberg’s ugly old ass is no reason she should go bustin’ on Thorne. You go, girl. Let ’em breathe, I say.

Reminds me of a good old joke: a little boy is at the beach, swimming in the surf alongside a comely, buxom young lass in a tiny bikini. A serious rogue wave comes a-crashing over them both, rough enough to rip the hottie’s skimpy top right off and away. As she’s desperately trying to keep her arms over those fun-bags and hold them underwater so’s nobody gets a free peek, the boy says to her, “look, lady, if you’re gonna drown them puppies I’ll take the one with the little brown nose.”

If I was at the beach and such a thing happened to Whoopie, I’d hold her damned head under, for as long as it took.

Share

Senator Tom Cotton wins the Innarnets!

Economic power as weapon.

There’s a troubling trend among giant corporations using this wealth and power to force liberal dogma on an unwilling people. As liberal activists have lost control of the judiciary, they’ve turned to a different hub of power to impose their views on the rest of the country. This time it’s private power, located in a few mega-cities on the coasts.

And that’s not an exaggeration. The overwhelming majority of companies that lashed out against the pro-life movement in that New York Times ad are headquartered on the coasts, hoping to rule the rest of us like colonies in the hinterlands. More than three-quarters are headquartered in New York or California alone. More than a dozen are foreign companies. Yet those same companies presume to tell all of America what we should think.

And for some reason, this outrage only seems to go in one direction. As states like Arkansas have passed pro-life laws, other states have sadly gone down a different path, stripping unborn children of recognition and protection under the law. States like New York, Illinois, and Vermont recently passed laws declaring abortion a “fundamental right,” accessible until moments before birth for practically any reason as long as you have a doctor’s note.
We’ve already begun to see the consequences of these laws, which strain so mightily to defy and deny the humanity of the unborn. In New York City, prosecutors recently dropped a charge of abortion against a man who brutally stabbed to death his girlfriend and her unborn child. They dropped that charge because the pro-abortion law that had just passed the legislature in Albany removed all criminal penalties for killing an unborn child. According to the laws of New York State, that woman’s child never existed.

Pro-abortion laws passed in New York, Illinois, Vermont, and elsewhere truly deserve the label “radical.” So why isn’t the national media covering these radical laws with the intensity they’ve reserved for states like Georgia? Where are the indignant CEOs who profess to care so much for their female employees? Nowhere to be found, because their outrage is very selective. They don’t speak for the majority of Americans, much less for women. Instead, they’re actively trying to force a pro-abortion agenda on an unwilling public.

These companies want to wield a veto power over the democratic debate and decisions of Arkansans and citizens across our country. They want to force the latest social fashions of the coasts on small towns they would never visit in a million years. They want us to betray our deeply held beliefs about life and death, in favor of a specious account of “equality.” If there’s one thing the New York Times ad got right, it’s that “the future of equality hangs in the balance” when it comes to abortion. But their idea of equality doesn’t include everyone: it omits and degrades unborn babies as expendable, lesser than, even “bad for business.” That’s a strange kind of equality, if you ask me.

Nailed it, clean and tight. Humble thanks to Ace for so generously providing that transcription for us, bless his coal-black heart. His own remarks, wherein he moots the idea of shareholder lawsuits against the CEOs of these WOKE! corporations, are as always worth a look:

Now, most such suits are over stuff like corporate charity but those suits don’t work because of the very malleable concept of “goodwill.” If a corporation thinks that donating to Planned Parenthood buys it more goodwill, it’s within the corporate charter (as increasing goodwill is always or almost always permitted as a basic function of business).

HOWEVER, moves that alienate half the country, threaten states, BOYCOTT entire states, etc., do not increase goodwill. They decrease it.

Also, I’m 99% sure they don’t run polls about this stuff to determine if such a move would increase goodwill or not. I think I know that because I know a guy who does consulting and was asked about this sort of issue, asked by the CEO of a MAJOR, MAJOR corporation for advice (because he thought all the liberal marketing department people and mid-level managers were just telling them their Get Trump opinion, not necessarily reflective of popular opinion).

How major a corporation? Well, one of the blue chips.

Anyway, he started to do a study, and so began looking for previous studies on this sort of issue for a background and template for his own study.

His findings? THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ACTUAL STUDY OR POLL DONE ON A CORPORATE POLITICAL POSITIONING MOVE. N-E-V-E-R.

His was the first.

Corporations just make these decisions based on the personal political preferences of the officers and board, and their vague “feels.”

True enough, but my guess is even that ain’t the whole story. These corporations—many of them headquartered in urban liberal citadels like NYC—are not ony acting in accord with their executives’ personal political leanings, but are also responding to the loud, shrill demands of Proggie activists—who have more than adequately demonstrated their willingness to launch protests cum riots at the very doorstep of those corporate HQs, complete with threats, human chains blocking main entrances, plus the usual assorted piss-and-shit-flinging, sabotage, and senseless, random violence.

The Left has long been the squeaky wheel, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And when that greasing is in harmony with corporate leadership’s own political preferences anyway—and when they also know that conservatives/Normals/whatever are unlikely in the extreme to make things as uncomfortable for them as they already know the Left will—well, just what would be the downside for the CEOs here?

It always boils down to the same old thing in the end, doesn’t it? The comfortably-numb Right, accustomed through long habit of passively accepting defeat after defeat, must find a way to rile itself up enough to start directly confronting the Left—ALL of the Left, from individual political-street-theater performers right up to corporate malefactors who must be forced to make a choice as to whether their business is, y’know, the business they’re in, or politics. Until that happens, the Right must resign itself to being antagonized, harrassed, attacked, and ignored.

Share

Categories

Archives

Notable Quotes

"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

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." -Bill Whittle

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