Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

An inconvenient shooting

Not politically useful to the gun-grabbin’, goosesteppin’ Left.

School shootings are terrible events — except for the left where they represent opportunities, as in Rahm Emanuel’s “Never let a crisis go to waste” modus operandi.

CNN, for example, wasted no time in politicizing the latest school shooting in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.

After the shooting, other than some virtue signaling by the media, the story has left the front pages, as the narrative may be inconvenient for the leftist agenda. CNN and MSNBC have lived up to their reputation as “drive-by media” by quickly moving on. No interviews with David Hogg or other gun control fanatics. So, what are some of the inconvenient aspects to this story that the media would prefer to drive by without any discussion or analysis?

Oh, there are lots of them listed here, each and every one pushing precisely the wrong Progtard buttons, thereby guaranteeing the story’s speedy interment. In fact, this one was apparently deemed to be so potentially damaging to our Leftist lords and masters that Enemedia’s usual tacit agreement to quietly abandon further reporting wasn’t enough. The courts got involved, Soviet-style, to make sure those pesky facts STAY buried.

The case of two anti-Trump leftists, one of whom is transgender, who shot up a school in Denver last week has been placed under seal by a judge, banning the public from seeing it.

Devon Erickson, 18, and Alec McKinney, 16, opened fire on two classrooms at the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) charter school in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, on May 7, killing one student and injuring eight others.

16-year-old Alec McKinney identifies as male but is biologically female, having been born Maya Elizabeth McKinney.

Following the shooting, it emerged that his accomplice Erickson had posted anti-Christian and anti-Trump messages on social media while praising former President Barack Obama.

It is now being reported that details of the case will remain secret to the public after it was sealed by a judge.

Via Komrade Bill, who adds: “As near as I can tell, it’s still up in the air whether the magenta-haired Easter-Worshiper hater was gay or not. If he was, that makes it even more imperative for the left to shove this one right down the memory hole.” I’m sure you meant “she” though, right Bill? Watch out with those unacceptable (if factual) pronouns there, buddy. That hate-crime shit can get you in all kindsa trouble.

So this is where we are in Amerika 2019, folks: a judge is suppressing information in a case that would ordinarily be receiving blanket, 24-7 Enemedia coverage nationwide, in close enough detail as to require the use of an electron microscope. I mean…just…wow. Since we’ve descended so far into propaganda wonderland, and myself having just deployed the obvious Soviet reference, it might be helpful for us to keep the old Soviet-era joke foremost in mind from here on out: there is no Pravda in Izvestia, and there is no Izvestia in Pravda.

Share

Asked, answered

Roger Simon asks the silliest of questions:

Should Journalists Go to Jail for Spreading Russia Lies?

A: Yes. Just on the off-chance he’s being serious: HELL yes.

As a First Amendment maximalist, I am inclined to reply an automatic “no” to my own headline – should journalists go to jail for spreading Russia lies? But a penalty of some kind, indeed a serious one, should certainly be levied for misinforming the public on the most important subject of our day, which has happened repeatedly over the last few years concerning the Russia probe. And when these prevarications can be shown to have been deliberate, to have been done knowingly, difficult as that may be to prove, the line to sedition may have been crossed and there is an argument the reporters involved should face legal consequences. They should also be fired.

Unfortunately, because reporting is an occupation with no official standards like law or medicine, no professional organizations to disbar them, and because, as A. J. Liebling wrote long ago, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one,” with media operations like CNN and NBC often encouraging those very lies, this is unlikely to happen.

Nevertheless. As Kimberly Strassel indicated in “For Fear of William Barr: The attorney general gets attacked because his probe endangers many powerful people,” heads of those who instigated the Russia probe are likely soon to roll. Shouldn’t members of the press who gave them voice be more than unindicted co-conspirators?

A: YES. These nothing-of-the-sort “journalists” weren’t reporting; they were participating, providing active, enthusiastic assistance in the most outrageous, brazen scandal in American history. High among the reasons they should be locked up for it:

Will these journalists have learned a lesson and change their habits? Not likely. For the most part, they are moral narcissists, primed to feel confident of the righteousness of their cause even when faced with countervailing reality. And in any case, to change would lead to personality disintegration, loss of friends and family and, worse, to being fired by the profiteers who run their companies. That’s the way of the media world today.

It is that. But it shouldn’t be, and Americans should no longer be willing to put up with it. The way to change things is to deal out some seriously painful consequences. Anything less must be flatly rejected by We, The People, by whatever means we must use to get that message across. Treason and sedition should be returned to their proper status as the most serious of crimes; let every Leftwit coup-plotter, in government and out, tremble at the mere contemplation of such heinous acts.

As for our degenerate Propagandist Class, a good, long stretch in the hoosegow ought to be a distant second in their list of worries, with hanging by the neck until dead comfortably in the lead. Otherwise, we will surely have to confront more of this nonsense from these charlatans, and worse, before very long.

Share

Cornered, like rats

Lest anybody forget, there’s more going on than just Barr’s thang.

Many of us have believed for the last several years that a small, but extremely powerful cabal within the intelligence community and law enforcement felt – because of their self-righteous arrogance and partisan leanings – that they could use the immense power of the surveillance state to conduct a partisan attack on a political opponent.

These officials felt justified in their actions because they believed Donald Trump was not a suitable person to be president of the United States and because they had policy differences with Trump.

In addition, it appears that some in that cabal feared Trump becoming president because they believed he would demand great accountability and transparency inside of the intelligence and law enforcement community.

I hope that investigations likely coming out of the inspector general’s report will lead to answers regarding former CIA Director John Brennan’s role in giving credence to the Steele dossier.

And I hope the inspector general’s report will provide answers to why the initial FISA application authorizing surveillance of Page was approved and then renewed three more times.

I suspect that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges took the FBI at its word and that someone who is guilty at a minimum of the crime of falsifying by omission did not admit to the court that the applications were based on a piece of partisan propaganda.

All of these things are deeply troubling because our surveillance and law enforcement regimes are based primarily on trust. Trust that those seeking FISA applications to surveil American citizens are being honest, and trust that they are above reproach.

The problem that we now confront is that the trust placed in these people and in the process has been shattered. We must remember that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted in response to abuses at the FBI under Director J. Edgar Hoover, who headed the bureau from 1924 until his death in 1972.

All of what we have seen over the last several years has revealed the FISA safeguards are an utter sham. If FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers are willing to lie and falsify information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – and more importantly, if there are no consequences for those actions – then FISA is a joke.

This also means that our civil liberties are a joke and we will have accepted a police state that can use a piece of partisan propaganda or anything else as a justification to spy on private citizens.

The only way we can deal with this abuse is to have serious consequences for these actions. People must go to prison for breaking the law.

Absolutely, positively, one bazillion percent correct, to the very last syllable of it. But really, why don’t we all just cut to the chase here and do something these shrieking Democrat-Socialists seem to desire above all else:

The details of the Russiagate conspiracy theory, that some combination of Russian Facebook trolling, most of which took place after the election and targeted black people, and the hacking of the emails of Hillary’s campaign chair, whose contents no one outside the media and political activists cared about, somehow swung the election, are gibberish. But the facts don’t matter in the paranoid style of politics.

Hillary Clinton, whose people invented the Russia conspiracy theory and used it to convince Obama officials to spy on Trump allies and staffers, compared it to 9/11. Other Democrats and media outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times compared it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.

“This was an act of war, in my view,” Senator Richard Blumenthal said. Senator Tim Kaine also thought it was an act of war. Senator Ben Cardin said that the election conspiracy amounts to an “act of war”. Rep. Steven Cohen also agreed that it was an act of war.

An “undeclared, but very real, ‘war’ has already come to the United States,” Senator Chris Coons claimed.

If they really believe that Facebook trolling is an act of war, then they should declare war on Russia.

President Trump can’t declare war. Only Congress can do that. President Trump should ask Democrats to put up or shut up with a declaration of war. If they truly believe in their conspiracy theories, if they really think that what happened was as bad as 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, that it was, in their own words, an “act of war”, they should have no problem voting unanimously for a declaration of war against Russia.

If they truly believe that what happened was an act of war, why won’t they defend America?

The only thing they REALLY believe is that they should be in power: unchecked, unchallenged, always and forever.

Share

Chickens, roost, all that

As the man himself has reportedly said, they’re poking the wrong Barr.

Democrats, as expected, tried to cloud the conclusions by suggesting there was too much smoke in the president’s actions for there not to be fire somewhere. The best hope they had was a letter from Mueller telling Barr he was unhappy with the AG’s initial four-page letter on the report’s conclusions, saying it “did not fully capture” the scope of the entire 450-page report.

Barr called the letter a “bit snitty,” and countered the criticism by saying he had moved quickly to release the entire report, minus minimal redactions, and the whole world could see what Mueller had found — and didn’t find.

It was a legitimate, if thin, line of questioning, but Dems didn’t like the answer and lost it again. Obviously frustrated that their main talking point for the entire Trump presidency has come up empty, they savaged Barr and accused him of covering up for a corrupt ­president.

It was politics at its most dishonest as they tried to argue that up is down and black is white. Barr was mostly stoic, but allowed himself a brief moment to brilliantly summarize the outlandish effort to twist reality.

“How did we get to the point where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians, accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent, and the evidence now is that that was without a basis?” he asked. “And two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false. But to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think the Mueller report had found the opposite.”

No better, more concise statement has been made about the bankrupt nature of the Democratic Party and its leaders. They bet everything on Mueller validating their Big Lie of Russia, Russia, Russia, and now they have nothing.

Barr’s comportment as AG so far has been exemplary: quiet, judicious, and straightforward. Exhibit A:

In mid-February, shortly after he was sworn-in, Barr instructed Mueller’s team to identify any grand jury material in the final report “so we could redact that material and prepare the report for public release as quickly as we could.” Barr confirmed his order during his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning. But Mueller did not abide by that request, and instead submitted a raw report without suggested redactions.

Since the report had not been vetted by the special counsel’s office, Barr explained, and it would have taken at least three weeks to protect sensitive information in the document, he decided to compose a summary of the report’s conclusions in order to partially satisfy the public’s interest.

“I made the determination that we had to put out some information about the bottom line,” Barr told the committee. “The body politic was in a high state of agitation. There was massive interest in learning what the bottom line results of Bob Mueller’s investigation was, particularly as to collusion. Former government officials were confidently predicting that the president and members of his family were going to be indicted. So I didn’t feel that it was in the public interest to allow this to go on for several weeks.”

A wise move by an honest man, in stark contrast with the worm Mueller’s greasy slithering. In light of Barr’s above statement we now return to Goodwin for another excellent, penetrating Barr quote, leaving no reason to wonder why the Democrat-Socialists hate him so much.

At one point, he talked of possible “overreach” by top officials, then added: “But what we have to be concerned about is a few people at the top getting into their heads that they know better than the American people.”

Perfectly, entirely correct. The trouble being, this attitude is the very cornerstone of Progressivism. It always has been; it underpins absolutely everything they do and say. Without it, they have no real reason to exist at all.

At another point, he said, “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”

Which is a tactic every bit as fundamental to Progressivism as the sacrament of “rule by expert” is. Barr appears to be a no-nonsense sort of man with a crystal-clear understanding of what his duty as AG is, what his oath to uphold the Constitution means, and no intention whatsoever of brooking any interference from “higher loyalty” types who are in reality nothing more than shifty, corrupt weasels maneuvering in support of a hyper-partisan agenda. It’s like this:

Barr had apparently masterminded the most inept cover-up in history, first by accurately laying out the outcome of the special counsel’s investigation. Then, after some light redactions (none instigated by the president), by releasing the report to the public so the entire world could read it.

Now, if a fresh observer to the Russia collusion circus only heard from Democrats, he might not know that the Mueller report had been public for weeks — sifted through and debated extensively. He certainly wouldn’t know that no criminality was uncovered. But most people heard something else. And Barr’s greatest sin had been preempting the collusion spin for the first time.

In his initial letter, the attorney general informed the public, before media was able to manipulate and confuse the core findings, that, despite its best efforts, the special counsel — an open-ended, unimpeded investigation with virtually no oversight — couldn’t find evidence to corroborate the prevailing myth that had been perpetuated for more than two years by Democrats and the political media.

By accurately conveying that the investigation had exonerated Trump and his administration of criminal conspiracy or coordination with the Russians, two years of ostensibly serious reporting was exposed as little more than resistance fan fiction. Rather than take a moment’s self-reflection about how their actions had caused unprecedented political chaos, undermined trust in the electoral system and crowded out legitimate coverage of the presidency, the entire collusion industry just moved its frenzied focus onto obstruction.

Well, under oath, the attorney general confirmed that he had spoken to Mueller on the phone and that the special counsel had been “very clear” that the AG’s letter laying out the conclusions was not inaccurate. There’s been no evidence to contradict his claim.

The AG’s letter had also accurately conveyed that Mueller, who it seems spent a lot of his efforts ferreting out unseemly Trumpian outbursts rather than finding nefarious Russians, punted on charges of obstruction. Volume II of the Mueller report, on the issue of obstruction, reads like a political document meant to incite Democrats into doing what the investigation did not. And that is Barr’s other sin: refusing to play Mueller’s game.

Anybody still wondering why they hate him? The most effective endorsement for Barr, though, comes from none other than the irredeemable scumbucket Adam Schittforbrains:

The attorney general of the United States misled the country about an investigation implicating the president. Then he lied to Congress. Then he did something worse: He effectively said that the president of the United States is above the law.

William Barr should resign.

When Mueller finished his nearly two-year investigation, Barr could have released Mueller’s own summaries. He instead chose to write his own summary, and one that mischaracterized Mueller’s findings and conclusions.

Not according to Mueller it didn’t, Schittbag.

In his March 27 letter, Mueller stated that Barr’s actions had undermined a central purpose of the special counsel regulations, to “assure full public confidence in the outcome” of the investigation. Mueller was right, but Barr’s actions and statements have done far worse than that. They have undermined public confidence in the independence of the DOJ and the fair administration of justice.

Nope, not hardly. That was already taken care of by Comey and his filthy crew, scrambling around desperately to get Ogabe and Hillary!™, among plenty of others, clear of a due and proper reckoning for election-tampering by using the DoJ to illegally spy on Trump. Among plenty of other things.

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1, Barr gave no convincing defense of his actions, nor his false statements to Congress, nor why the obstruction of justice laws do not apply to a president who instructs those around him to lie in an effort to conceal his actions. Instead, he said the president can end a criminal investigation simply because he thinks it’s “unfair” or unwarranted: “I think the department’s position would be that the president can direct the termination or the replacement of a special counsel.”

Seems a little Constitutional refresher might be helpful for ya, genius: the DoJ is part of the Executive branch, which is run by and subordinate to, y’know, the CHIEF EXECUTIVE. He can fire, hire, direct, initiate, terminate, or rearrange anyfucking thing he wants in the branch he is in charge of—within the Constitutional constraints placed on his own office, of course.

That’s more than enough of that garbage, I think; whenever we want any more shit from Schitt, we can always squeeze his enormous head. The day I’m willing to humbly sit back and take lessons on the Constitution from a devious Democrat-Socialist mediocrity like him is…well, I assure one and all that that day just ain’t coming.

Go get ’em, Mr Barr. Go get ’em all, each and every one; let the guilty parties be brought to justice, and cram it all right down Schitt and Co’s throats until they choke and fucking die.

Update! “Lied to Congress,” was it? Bullschitt.

The real problem is that Mueller wanted Barr to execute a public-relations hit on Trump and wasn’t happy that Barr confined the summary to the bottom-line conclusions. Barr said he didn’t want to attempt to summarize the entire report and would let the report speak for itself. He has never deviated from that explanation and Mueller’s letter points to no inaccuracy or misleading information.

Thus, Barr’s answer was 100 percent accurate.

Barr has now revealed that Mueller made a conscious choice to salt the report with unsegregated grand jury material. It wasn’t until after Barr released his March 24 summary that Mueller redacted the summaries from the report. Barr wasn’t interested in making a press release for the president’s enemies. That makes him an enemy of the juggernaut. That’s his real crime.

We just learned that the Justice Department sent a less-redacted Mueller report to Congress and that the Democrats haven’t bothered to read it. Instead, they now want a legal battle over Barr’s refusal to turn over a completely unredacted report.

To be clear, they don’t want the report, which is 98 percent unredacted in the public form. They want the fight.

They’re all in a very deep hole, and have no clue how to get themselves out other than to just keep right on digging.

Share

They will NEVER stop

Hey, remember back when Enemedia’s credibility was forever destroyed by the Mueller Bellyflop, and Democrat-Socialists/shitlibs would be forced to eat a heapin’ helpin’ of humble pie for the two-year rain of bullshit they had pimped?

Nope, me neither.

Bill Maher mocked Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff over his obsession with President Donald Trump and Russia: “But this [Mueller] was our big gun. Now it just looks like you’re stalking him.”

Schiff began by clinging to his false claim that the Mueller report said: “that the Trump campaign welcomed it [the Russian interferece], embraced it, built it into their plan, made full use of it, lied about it, covered it up, and then obstructed the investigation into it; and, if we had any doubt before about this president’s fitness for office, there is no doubt remaining: he is unfit for the presidency.”

Actually what the Mueller report says was there were various attempts by Russian operatives to assist the campaign their origin was unknown, and each attempt was turned down or ignored. But Schiff would never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.

Of course not. That’s because he’s a Lying Left piece of shit—just like Maher, just like all the rest of them.

(Via VP)

Update! Apparently, the Obama cabal high crimes haven’t stopped yet.

It has been brought to my attention by a former CIA station chief of some prominence and who has a legendary reputation inside the community of pre-Brennan operators, that Hillary Clinton’s loss did not curtail the worst activities of the outgoing Obama team. In fact, through the use of a walled-off team of contractors working inside the Intelligence Community, and for political realms alone, with no FISA-authorization or other national security justification, the Trump White House was spied upon after the January 20 inauguration. (Those responsible for this on-going crime are known to more than one investigative journalist and I have been told that the first of the new revelations will be published in the coming week).

Simply put: the Obama Administration used the most powerful intelligence capabilities in the world to attempt a penetration and subversion of the presidential campaign of the the opposing party. When that failed, they used a special prosecutor to divert attention away from that activity, log-jam the work of the new president, and clean up the evidence of what had been done to him and his team. And most un-American of all: the former intelligence leadership of the Obama Administration continued to spy illegally on Donald Trump and his closest advisers after they had moved into the White House.

Many take offense at the way President Trump uses language, at his tweets and at what they see as his hyperbole. But this week when he called the operations against him and the will of the people who chose him, a “coup” and an “attempted overthrow” of the government, he was making a simple statement of fact.

The central irony remains: the conniving curs who so piously demanded that Trump guarantee to “accept the results of the election” should he lose are refusing to accept defeat themselves. And I say yet again: they will NEVER stop. They will have to BE stopped, most likely by being stood up against a wall or swung from a gibbet in large groups.

Share

Grotesque

Yes, they really ARE this dumb.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate and director of Global Social Action Agenda at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, called out Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and The New York Times for promulgating the notion that Jesus was a Palestinian.

Omar re-tweeted an April 20 tweet from Omar Suleiman, an adjunct professor for Islamic Studies at Southern Methodist University, who said a Palestinian relative told him regarding the “Christian right”: “Don’t they know we’re Christian too? Do they even consider us human? Don’t they know Jesus was a Palestinian?”

Similarly, an April 19 New York Times piece focusing on various depictions of Jesus Christ’s skin color stated, “Jesus, born in Bethlehem, was most likely a Palestinian man with dark skin.”

Cooper told the Journal in a statement via email that it’s a “grotesque insult to Jesus born in the land of Israel and to Christianity” to say that Jesus was a Palestinian.

“Palestine was a name made up by Romans after they crucified thousands, destroyed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and exiled the People of Israel from their homeland,” Cooper said.

Myself, I’m somewhat puzzled by Suleiman’s “Palestinian relative” misnomering Easter Worshippers with the recently-forbidden term “Christians,” but what the heck. More knowledge for stupid Leftwits:

The name “Palestine” wasn’t even applied to the land of Judea by the Romans until 100 years after Jesus, after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 134 A.D. The Romans plucked this name out of the Bible (it’s a variant of “Philistine”) as the name of the Jews’ ancient enemies, just to taunt the Jews as they barred them from living in the area. And when they did apply this name, it was the name only of a region, never of a people. There were never any “Palestinians” until they were invited by Yasser Arafat and the KGB in the 1960s. And now the entire Western establishment political class and media expects us to kowtow and repeat this lie.

Yep. But that’s just Proggie SOP, see. Truth is to them as garlic is to vampires.

Share

Lies, damned lies…

And Gropey Joe’s campaign blah-blah.

Joe Biden says his proudest moment of Obama’s presidency was ‘not one whisper of scandal’

And if you don’t believe it, why, just ask them.

So let’s get this straight here: The Benghazi coverup never happened. The IRS targeting of dissidents never happened, either. The Gold River pollution on traditional Native American lands by the EPA never happened. Solyndra never happened. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never had an illegal private server in some guy’s bathroom. She never sold 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to Russia, and her bleachbitting of her subpoenaed emails was perfectly scandal-free, as well as her smashing of Blackberries with hammers. The fact that top-secret emails turned up in Anthony Weiner’s perverted computer, for the New York cops to read, was a nothingburger. And if you like your doctor…

Even that voluminous list is only the tip of a damned ginormous iceberg.

Now we are coming off more Obama scandals from the Mueller report – with President Obama in possession of Clinton’s deleted emails, and questions raised about unmaskings and bad uses of FISA warrants, and Joe Biden brings up the years-old baloney about Obama being scandal free?

Something tells me this is about trying to reset a ‘narrative’ now that the walls are closing in on Obama. 

Could be, could be. But if AG Barr does his job right, Gropey’s happy horseshit ain’t gonna be nearly enough to cover the rising stench of treason and corruption wafting off himself and the rest of the Obama junta entire.

Share

The exception that proves the rule?

Apparently, not ALL Millennials are stupid, shallow, and spoiled rotten.

I’m sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to “fix” the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook’s, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought. We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times. Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful.

Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, “An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.”

Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth.

Which, given what the Enemedia has become, is saying something. I’ll hold off on excerpting further, but trust me: there’s more, it’s all great, and you’re gonna love it. So get yourselves on over there and read the rest. Hats off to you, Alyssa, and best of luck with your writing career. You’re obviously quite talented, but given the incredible tide of bias you’ll be swimming against in the publishing world you’re probably gonna need all the luck you can get.

Via Insty, who throws in: “Indeed. It is essential for Democrats’ objectives that things be awful. Or, failing that, that people think that things are awful.” The REAL hell of it is that, when they’re in charge, things ARE awful. Must be coinkydink, or maybe more of that Heinleinian “bad luck,” maybe.

Update! You’ll want to read all of this one, too.

This is no “sugar high” for the U.S. economy. To the great shock and disappointment of liberals who have been desperately hoping for an economic downturn, the U.S. economy once again blew away expectations, recording a 3.2 percent GDP growth rate in the first quarter of this year.

Even MSNBC described the quarterly growth as “extraordinary.”

Liberals have been predicting an impending recession for months. Frustrated with the obvious success of President Trump’s sweeping middle-class tax cuts – which they had claimed would result in “Armageddon” – Democrats next argued that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would only produce a “sugar high” for the economy. With each successive quarter that their predictions have failed to materialize, they’ve only become more frustrated with the economy’s long-term prospects.

This isn’t a one-time anomaly, either. GDP growth has been increasing steadily throughout Trump’s presidency, and the most recent data bring us to three consecutive quarters in which year-over-year growth has been 3 percent or higher. In fact, GDP growth has averaged 3.3 percent over the past four quarters.

When Trump predicted this economic outcome more than three years ago, the Washington establishment snickered and scoffed, convinced that the pathetic economy Obama presided over was simply the “new normal.”

And it would have been the “new normal” for every bit as long as the American people allowed Obama-types to run things. It’s a testament to the remarkable resilience of capitalism that it’s capable of so speedily bouncing back once the socialist shackles are…hell, not even removed, just loosened up a mite.

All of us, even the freshly-minted Trump skeptics among us, badly need to remember one crucial thing: bad news for the country is good news for the Democrat-Socialists—and very much vice the versa.

Share

It’s “complicated”

As complicated as they can possibly make it.

Let’s say a fire breaks out at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris at the start of Holy Week, and just after two of the city’s other most prominent houses of worship – St Sulpice and the Basilica of St Denis – have been attacked and vandalized.

Well, I think we can all confidently say as the first flames are beginning to lick the ceiling that it’s undoubtedly an accident. Cigarette butt. Or maybe computer glitch. Probably just an overheated smart phone. We don’t need to get in there and sift through the debris. We can just announce it.

On the other hand, when there are coordinated attacks on Easter services at several churches in Sri Lanka, it becomes a little more challenging to pass off multiple suicide-bombings killing nearly three hundred people as an electrical malfunction.

So, in contrast to the confident declarations of a week ago, on Sunday morning the media opted for a subtler narrative. Lead sentence from The Economist:

IT HAS BEEN nearly ten years since the guns fell silent in Sri Lanka’s civil war. But bloodshed returned with a vengeance…

So it’s something to do with the Tamil Tigers? Their guns fell silent, but now they’ve returned with a vengeance, eh?

Let us turn to The New York Times:

Religious Minorities Across Asia Suffer Amid Surge in Sectarian Politics

Gotcha. This is all part of a general problem of various unspecified religions in unspecified countries suffering in a general sort of way. But could you be a little less general and more specific?

Okay. Opening paragraphs:

The deadly attacks in Sri Lanka on Sunday highlighted how easily religious coexistence can be ripped apart in a region where secularism is weakening amid the growing appeal of a politics based on ethnic and sectarian identity.

In India, the country’s governing right-wing Hindu party is exploiting faith for votes, pushing an us-versus-them philosophy that has left Muslims fearing they will be lynched if they walk alone.

In Myanmar, the country’s Buddhist generals have orchestrated a terrifying campaign of ethnic cleansing against the country’s Rohingya Muslims.

And in Indonesia and Bangladesh, traditionally moderate Muslim politicians are adopting harder-line stances to appeal to more conservative electorates.

So Hindus are attacking Muslims, and Buddhists are attacking Muslims, and “hard-line” Muslims are attacking moderate Muslims. Thank God for some clarity on the situation. But what were all these Muslims doing in church on Easter morning?

Well, as we said, it’s all very complex – not like “Edelweiss” being an obvious white-supremacist dog-whistle by a notorious Nazi Jew composer. Best not to think about it.

The lights are going out on the most basic of journalistic instincts: Who, what, when, where, why. All are subordinate to the Narrative – or Official Lie. All day yesterday and into today, if you had glanced at the telly, switched on the radio or surfed the big news sites of the Internet, you would have thought the Tamil Tigers were back “with a vengeance”, as The Economist put it – even though with one exception (the 1990 police massacre) the death toll was higher than any individual attack the Tigers had ever pulled off.

Meanwhile, back in that fast shrinking space known as the real world, from the very first hours the headline of this story was completely straightforward:

Islamic Suicide Bombers Slaughter Three Hundred on Easter Morning

But apparently that can no longer be said.

Perhaps not. But try as they might to keep us in the dark, we all know it just the same. While we’re on the topic of being mushroomed by the Left (ie, kept in the dark and fed shit)…ummm, “Easter worshippers“? SRSLY?!?


Ahh, but we all know what the REAL problem is, right?


Yep, you got it: “far-right anger.” Ace says of this pathetically inept display of propagandizing and narrative-pimping:

The pace of this game has accelerated. It used to be that the media would spend a day or two at least noticing that Islamists had murdered a bunch of people again before claiming The Real Crime is any possible hypothetical speculative future side-eye a woman in a hijab might get at Wal-Mart.

Now, they start claiming that Muslims Are the Real Victims here while they’re still gathering up the limbs sheered off of the victims.

They’re now so utterly transparent they just don’t seem to care anymore whether they’re fooling anyone or not. They’re just phoning it in at this point.

HEARTBREAKER update! Poor ol’ Hils just can’t catch a break.

On a special politicians’ episode of Wheel of Fortune, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton nearly took home the grand prize. She was on the last puzzle of the regular rounds of the game, which read, CHRISTI_N. The audience began to cheer as it appeared Clinton had finally won something.

But, as is usual for Clinton, she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and shouted “Easter worshiper!” instead of the obvious answer, which was “Christian.”

I’m betting on Russian collusion as the culprit behind this latest bitter defeat for Her Herness. Nothing a fifth or two of Ol’ Popskull can’t ease the pain of, of course.

Share

History, revised

Ask a silly question.

We’re all heard stories about young children being punished at school by their socialist teachers for drawing or cutting out pretend handguns, or even for pointing a finger on the playground and saying “Bang! Bang!”

And some of us did sound the alarm about the “slippery slope,” years ago, when the forces of political correctness realized how easy it was to start rewriting history by “digitally editing” old historical photos. After all, why NOT remove the cigarette holder from old photos of President Franklin Roosevelt? You don’t want today’s kids to think it’s OK to smoke, do you?

But surely we’ll never reach the point where gun haters in a U.S. government agency will actually start doctoring images to remove the rifles (the arms with which Americans won and have long defended our freedoms) from the hands of American COMBAT SOLDIERS, will we? — altering an image of a soldier in combat, removing the piece of equipment on which his survival depended, to make it appear that U.S. soldiers CARRY NO NASTY RIFLES when they go to war?

They’ll never go THAT far. Right?

Gee, that’s a toughie all right.

Standing in line at the post office the other day, I noticed a poster on display showing eight newly issued commemorative stamps, along with a sheet of 20, behind glass, of one of the new stamps, called “World War I / Turning the Tide.” In the background of this stamp can be seen a biplane, a shell burst, and some barbed wire. In the foreground, a uniformed and helmeted U.S. doughboy strides bravely ahead, holding close to his chest an American flag.

I have nothing against featuring the American flag on a stamp, mind you. But look at the way that soldier’s arms and hands are positioned. You’ve seen men on combat patrol holding their arms and hands in that position plenty of times. But they weren’t holding flags. 

Does it get worse, you ask? Guess.

I emailed artist Mark Stutzman in Maryland, who designed the “Turning the Tide” commemorative and who had earlier drawn the Post office’s popular 1993 “Elvis” and “Buddy Holly” stamps. In his original design, as submitted, had the American doughboy held a rifle in his hands?

He replied: “Hi Vin, Thanks for writing. Interesting that you should bring this up. My original proposal was with a rifle.”
A source familiar with the back-and-forth between artist Stutzman and the Postal Service told me the USPS “Stamp Advisory Committee” was “a little ‘gun shy’ about the rifle being so prominent.” Stutzman declined to confirm that for the record.

“We debated a few options and settled on him holding the flag instead,” Stutzman told me. “It seemed to bring some patriotism forward and helped identify him as American more immediately. Since stamp images are so small, there’s a need for immediate comprehension. In this case the read of hierarchy is WWI soldier, America, and war (barbed wire, plane, smoke)…I am somewhat speculating on the reasoning for why the decision (to remove the rifle) was made since I got information about committee meetings second-hand through the art director. He may be a better source for info and also have a direct line with the Postal Service. Greg Breeding is his name. . . . Super guy and easy to talk to.”

Not so much. 

Imagine my surprise. Then begins the hem-hawing, slithering-squirming, slip-sliding evasion of the old Bureacrat Shuffle.

After several days of ducking my emails and phone messages, art director Breeding, in Charlottesville, Virginia, finally sent me his polite refusal to talk:

“Hello Vin, Thank you for your interest in the World War I stamp. It was my deep privilege to art director this issuance to commemorate America’s role in bringing World War I to an end. Such an incredible part of our history. Regarding your questions, it is the policy of the Postal Service to direct these types of inquiries to Public Relations…”

Said PR guy “will be happy to assist you and, sometimes, he will subsequently involve the art directors and other Postal employees as well.”

Not so much.

Suprynowicz soldiers manfully on in his bootless quest for a simple, straight answer to his query, but the bobbing and weaving from our putative “civil servants” just continues on and on from there. Y’know, like it does. I guess we can maybe take some small gratification from the fact that even these insensate bureauweasels seem to know that their airbrushing of history is something to be ashamed of, cold though that comfort may be.

(Via MisHum)

Share

They lie

Regulate ’em, enforce the law against ’em, break ’em up.

As we now learn from the Daily Caller, The American Spectator has been blacklisted by Google. The DC’s headline, in a post by J. Arthur Bloom, is this:

EXCLUSIVE: DOCUMENTS DETAILING GOOGLE’S ‘NEWS BLACKLIST’ SHOW MANUAL MANIPULATION OF SPECIAL SEARCH RESULTS

And oh yes. There was also this reminder in the Daily Caller story:

(Google CEO) Sundar Pichai testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 11 of last year. Democratic California Rep. Zoe Lofgren asked why a search for the term “idiot” returned a photo of President Trump. In response, Pichai said, “This is working at scale, we don’t manually intervene on any particular search result.”

Which is to say, Mr. Pichai looked a congressional committee in the eye and insisted that “we don’t manually intervene on any particular search result” — while the Daily Caller revelations revealed that “Google does manipulate its search results manually, contrary to the company’s official denials, documents obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller indicate.”

There is a name for doing that. It’s called lying to Congress. A federal crime with jail time attached.

This is no longer some minor bug in the tech world.

The fact of the matter is that the American Left is waging a full scale war against fellow Americans who have the audacity to disagree with Left Wing orthodoxy. They are not interested in debate, discussion, ideas, free speech, or a free press. They are the enforcers of their own iron-fisted, totalitarian, Mao-style cultural revolution. The targets can be Fox News or individual Fox hosts with names like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham. It can be conservative speakers invited to college campuses — with the mere appearance of conservative Ben Shapiro requiring the University of California at Berkeley forced to lay out $600,000 to protect the speaker. It can be a Media Matters campaign to remove Rush Limbaugh from the air. Or, yes, me.

On and on and on this kind of thing goes. This is no longer a debate about ideas in the tradition of America. It is a war of personal destruction.

No, not merely a war “of personal destruction,” although at ground-level it is that too. In the larger sense, it’s a war to determine who will control, who will be controlled, and how that control is to be implemented and maintained. Ultimately, though, it is the same old war—the eternal, the forever war—between the despot and the subject, the tyrant and the freeman, the overbearing master and the discontented, determined, not-quite-conquered slave.

Google, its fork-tongued evasions to the contrary notwithstanding, is in no sense an impartial, disinterested bystander. It is a corporate combatant, a willing rank-and-file partisan in one side’s army. They, among so many others whose poorly-hidden agendas have been recently exposed of late, need to be held to account. Which presents me with another fine opportunity to repeat my usual recommendation to you folks: Duck ’em. Duck ’em all!

Share

Lies, lies, nothing but lies

It’s all they have, and all they’ve ever had.

Shortly before Special Counsel Robert Mueller filed his report on the Russia investigation last month, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., alerted Attorney General Bill Barr to what they described as the “selective” use of emails in Mueller court filings — as well as potential “improper political influence, misconduct, and mismanagement” in the FBI’s original Russia probe.

In a March 8 letter, Grassley and Graham referred Barr to a letter sent to Mueller in late 2017 that alleged his investigators had cherry-picked details from emails to include in court documents, urging him to review the materials. They also notified him that they had asked DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz a year earlier to review the original FBI probe.

Fox News has also obtained the 2017 letter (above) from Grassley to Mueller, which spelled out the lawmakers’ concerns about the “absence of additional context” in the court filings — as well as concerns over how those documents were covered in the media. “The glaring lack of [context] feeds speculation and innuendo that distorts the facts,” Grassley wrote at the time.

That court filing said Papadopoulos emailed another campaign official in May 2016 with the subject line, “Request from Russia to meet Mr. Trump.” The document said the email stated that Russia “has been eager to meet Mr. Trump for quite sometime and have been reaching out to me to discuss,” adding in a footnote that the official forwarded the email to another campaign official asking to discuss: “We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.”

The senators said media outlets then seized on the fragments to report a “Campaign official suggested ‘low level’ staff should go to Russia.” However, they said the full emails — obtained from the Trump campaign — tell a different story.

“In full context, the emails in question actually show that the Trump Campaign wanted someone ‘low level’ to decline these types of invitations,” Grassley and Graham wrote in the letter to Barr.

Anybody surprised? If so, may I ask why, exactly? The remarkable thing is that they were so confident that none of this base deception would ever be unearthed that they were willing to resort to it in the first place. Then again, though, that might have been more a matter of panic and desperation than it was confidence.

(Via GP)

Share

Take ’em down, take ’em down, take ’em ALL down!

This, too, is a mea culpa we shall never, ever see.

On Sunday a vindicated president tweeted “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”

So now what?

For starters, Twitter, Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley tech companies should remove all Russian collusion conspiracy theorists from their platforms.

After all, social media networks didn’t hesitate to ban Alex Jones of Infowars and others for spreading misinformation and/or conspiracy theories, so why not ban House Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Schiff, Eric Swalwell, John Brennan, Beto O’ Rourke and scores of media hacks who’ve all done the same?

And what about Google? Will it continue to allow search results that yield now-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding Russian collusion and the Trump campaign? Or will they do the right thing and scrub misinformation and lies to stop the hoax from perpetuating?

Via Ace, three guesses on that one.

Google search is hiding auto-completed text related to the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

Using Google search on multiple browsers and on private-browsing mode, the Free Beacon found Google search had an aversion to the search term “indictment.”

Using either “Trump” or “Mueller” as the subject, the following word “indictment” was not suggested even after spelling out most of it. For example, putting “Trump indi” into Google’s search bar does not lead to “Trump indictment” but rather to “Trump India,” “Trump India Pakistan,” Trump India tariffs,” and “Trump Indiana.”

Searching specifically for “Trump indictment,” the Free Beacon found Google preferred the result “Trump indictment advent calendar,” which leads to a humorous story in which indictments of Trump family members are seen as gifts around Christmastime. (The Free Beacon had not previously searched for such a calendar and it was not on our search history.)

As with most things in life, though, there’s a workaround.

Update! Greenwald, bless the nefarious old sod, is still knocking ’em out of the park.


If I gave so much as a single shit about Twitter—which I don’t—I’d have to seriously consider laying aside the vitriolic blog-battles we fought here in the dim and distant past and following the guy at this point. In any event, Greenwald’s output on all this says very good things indeed about his personal and professional integrity, and my cap is duly doffed to him for that if nothing else. No, we ain’t likely ever to agree on just about anything. But I definitely, if somewhat grudgingly, have to confess to a degree of newfound respect for him.

Share

The Democracy question

Ruling the mob via bread and circus.

It is a worthwhile question to consider when watching the Brexit drama unfold over the next two weeks. The official version of this process is the British people had a referendum and they voted to leave the EU. The law put March 31, 2019 as the deadline for leaving and Parliament had until that date to work out a deal with the EU. If there was no deal, then Britain unconditionally leaves the EU. A deal to leave slowly and gently, however, would need to pass through Parliament. That was the orderly process laid out for Brexit.

As of this writing, the government of Theresa May has tried several times to get the deal she struck with the EU through parliament. The deal is an insult to the intelligence of the average British subject, so it has failed to get through parliament. The deal she cut is to leave the EU in name only. Britain would continue to allow Brussels to dictate terms on things like regulation, trade and most especially immigration policy. Those rooting for democracy have to be appalled by the craven cynicism of this ploy.

The Commons Speaker, which is like the head parliamentarian, ruled that Theresa May cannot submit her deal for a vote again, unless it is substantially altered, which is an impossibility at this point. That would mean Britain is headed for a hard Brexit at the end of this month. It would also mean that a responsible democratic government would now be moving to inform and prepare the public for that eventuality. Instead, the government is scheming with the EU to delay everything so they can have a second referendum.

Americans are familiar with this gag. Back in the dark days when marriage was linked to biological reality, left-wing agitators would get homosexual marriage initiatives onto state ballots. These initiatives would fail, but the agitators would get them on the ballot again the next election. The Left sees democracy as a bus. Once it takes you to your desired stop, you get off. That means they demand people keep voting on their issues until the people get the correct result. Once that happens, no more democracy.

This is the scheme the “Remainers”  have always had in their back pocket. It’s why they have been happy to drag out this process for years, right to the deadline. This week, they will argue that the country is not prepared to meet the legal deadline, so there has to be a delay in the process. Of course, the point of the delay is to then get a second vote setup for later in the year. If that vote goes their way, that’s it. If they lose again, then the whole process begins anew as they scheme to undermine the results.

Again: the one thing to keep foremost in mind about Brexit is the same as with Trump’s Big Beautiful Wall: ain’t gonna be none. The Power, here and there, has no intention of ever allowing such things to come to pass. Though they’d prefer to remain hidden behind the curtains quietly keeping the Great And Powerful Oz Show in Ordnung, they’ll step out and flex their real muscle if and when they must.

Unfortunately, such overt action to put the peasantry back in its proper place will eventually create problems for The Power, as folks slowly come to realize that their votes mean nothing, that self-government is a disgraceful sham. Then Da Peepul do one of two things: they either give up completely with a shrug, or they get pissed right the fuck off. With the docile, stump-broke Brits, it’s a depressingly easy guess which way they’re most likely to jump. On this side of the pond the question is still open, if only just barely.

Share

BLASPHEMY!!!

Nazism, Marxism: two peas, one pod, all Left.

“Conservative” and especially “liberal” have changed over time and have different meanings in the United States and Europe. Hayek himself, who had a more European view of conservatism, was wary of labels. He spurned both “conservative” and “libertarian,” and dedicated his most famous book “to the socialists of all parties.”

For precision, I refrain from using “conservative” or “liberal” unless through quotation and use “left” and “right” as generally accepted in modern America. The right consists of free-market capitalists, who think the individual is the primary political unit, believes in property rights, and are generally distrustful of government by unaccountable agencies and government solutions to social problems. They view family and civil institutions, such as church, as needed checks on state power.

These people don’t think government should force a business to provide employee birth control or think law should coerce bakers to make cakes against their conscience. They think the solution to bad speech is more speech, and the solution to gun violence is more guns. These people talk about freedom—the method of individual decisions. (The counterexample might be gay marriage but that is a positive right—“give me something”—instead of a negative right—“leave me alone.”)

The left believes the opposite. They distrust the excesses and inequality capitalism produces. They give primacy to group rights and identity. They believe factors like race, ethnicity, and sex compose the primary political unit. They don’t believe in strong property rights.

They believe it is the government’s responsibility to solve social problems. They call for public intervention to “equalize” disparities and render our social fabric more inclusive (as they define it). They believe the free market has failed to solve issues like campaign finance, income inequality, minimum wage, access to health care, and righting past injustices. These people talk about “democracy”—the method of collective decisions.

By these definitions, the Nazis were firmly on the left. National Socialism was a collectivist authoritarian movement run by “social justice warriors.” This brand of “justice” benefited only some based on immutable characteristics, which perfectly aligns with the modern brand. The Nazi ideal embraced identity politics based on the primacy of the people, or volk, and invoked state-based solutions for every possible problem. It was nation-based socialism—the nation being especially important to those who bled in the Great War.

But hey, you don’t have to take my word for it—or the above author’s, or even Hayek’s. You can get the skinny straight from the original horse’s mouth.

Yet the evidence the Nazis were leftists goes well beyond the views of this one scholar. Philosophically, Nazi doctrine fit well with the other strains of socialism ripping through Europe at the time. Hitler’s first “National Workers’ Party” meeting while he was still an Army corporal featured the speech “How and by What Means is Capitalism to be Eliminated?”

The Nazi charter published a year later and coauthored by Hitler is socialist in almost every aspect. It calls for “equality of rights for the German people”; the subjugation of the individual to the state; breaking of “rent slavery”; “confiscation of war profits”; the nationalization of industry; profit-sharing in heavy industry; large-scale social security; the “communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low costs to small firms”; the “free expropriation of land for the purpose of public utility”; the abolition of “materialistic” Roman Law; nationalizing education; nationalizing the army; state regulation of the press; and strong central power in the Reich. It was also racist and anti-immigrant.

Gee, the more things change, the more they really DO stay the same.

It wasn’t only theoretical. Hitler repeatedly praised Marx privately, stating he had “learned a great deal from Marxism.” The trouble with the Weimar Republic, he said, was that its politicians “had never even read Marx.” He also stated his differences with communists were that they were intellectual types passing out pamphlets, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun.”

It wasn’t just privately that Hitler’s fealty for Marx surfaced. In “Mein Kampf,” he states that without his racial insights National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.” Nor did Hitler eschew this sentiment once reaching power. As late as 1941, with the war in bloom, he stated “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same” in a speech published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Nazi propaganda minister and resident intellectual Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that the Nazis would install “real socialism” after Russia’s defeat in the East. And Hitler favorite Albert Speer, the Nazi armaments minister whose memoir became an international bestseller, wrote that Hitler viewed Joseph Stalin as a kindred spirit, ensuring his prisoner of war son received good treatment, and even talked of keeping Stalin in power in a puppet government after Germany’s eventual triumph. His views on Great Britain’s Winston Churchill and the United States’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt were decidedly less kind.

If, as has been said, the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing us he didn’t exist, then it could equally be said that the greatest trick ever pulled by the devils of the Left was convincing the world that Naziism was somehow a Right-wing phenomenon. Although the pitiful handful of present-day Hitler wannabes might argue otherwise—I don’t know, I don’t care—it ain’t, and it never was.

Share

Not fragile

No, I don’t mean the BTO song.

Leftists constantly preach such nonsense as “The world that we live in is beautiful but fragile.” “The 3rd rock from the sun is a fragile oasis.” “Remember that Earth needs to be saved every single day.” These and many other statements, along with apocalyptic predictions, are stock in trade for environmentalists. Worse yet, this fragile-earth indoctrination is fed to the nation’s youth from kindergarten through college. That’s why many millennials support Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

Let’s examine just a few cataclysmic events that exceed any destructive power of mankind and then ask how our purportedly fragile planet could survive. The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, in present-day Indonesia, had the force of 200 megatons of TNT. That’s the equivalent of 13,300 15-kiloton atomic bombs, the kind that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II. Before that was the 1815 Tambora eruption, the largest known volcanic eruption. It spewed so much debris into the atmosphere that 1816 became known as the “Year Without a Summer.” It led to crop failures and livestock death in the Northern Hemisphere, producing the worst famine of the 19th century. The A.D. 535 Krakatoa eruption had such force that it blotted out much of the light and heat of the sun for 18 months and is said to have led to the Dark Ages. Geophysicists estimate that just three volcanic eruptions — Indonesia (1883), Alaska (1912) and Iceland (1947) — spewed more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than all of mankind’s activities during our entire history.

Our so-called fragile earth survived other catastrophic events, such as the floods in China in 1887, which took an estimated 1 million to 2 million lives, followed by floods there in 1931, which took an estimated 1 million to 4 million lives. What about the impact of earthquakes on our fragile earth? Chile’s 1960 Valdivia earthquake was 9.5 on the Richter scale. It created a force equivalent to 1,000 atomic bombs going off at the same time. The deadly 1556 earthquake in China’s Shaanxi province devastated an area of 520 miles.

My question is: Which of these powers of nature could be duplicated by mankind? For example, could mankind even come close to duplicating the polluting effects of the 1815 Tambora volcanic eruption? It is the height of arrogance to think that mankind can make significant parametric changes in the earth or can match nature’s destructive forces. Our planet is not fragile.

Occasionally, environmentalists spill the beans and reveal their true agenda. Barry Commoner said, “Capitalism is the earth’s number one enemy.” Amherst College professor Leo Marx said, “On ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument.”

Excepting a handful of misguided ninnies, the whole thing is nothing but a scam—a pig in a poke, a false-flag op—and it was never anything but. As Williams notes at the end, it’s a subterfuge intended to cloak the promotion of communism, the redistribution of American wealth, and world government. The climate changes, ever since the Earth first got itself one, and is going to go right on doing so with or without any nudging of any kind from puny humanity. Full stop, end of story.

Share

De-meaning

A tried-and-true tactic originating with the Soviets, now brought to its fullest flower by their American understudies.

Even before the manipulation of numbers became commonplace, the manipulation of words was a major tool in keeping the fear alive. Simple words in common usage, like “risk”, “known”, “similar” and “equivalent” were given esoteric meanings that bore little resemblance to their definitions in Webster’s Dictionary and of which the general public was completely unaware.

Thus, unbeknownst to the average citizen, EPA’s so-called quantitative cancer risk assessments have never quantitatively assessed the true risk of potentially carcinogenic exposures. In EPA’s 1986 Risk Assessment Guidelines, the following, uncharacteristically honest, and seldom quoted (except by me) statement was made: “The true risk is unknown and may be as low as zero.” Obviously, if the “true” risk is unknown, then the “risk” that is supposedly quantified in EPA risk assessments cannot be the “true” risk. Throughout my career as an ATSDR toxicologist, I routinely quoted the “zero true risk” statement in all of my toxicological evaluations for health assessments that addressed potential cancer hazards on site. And, it never failed to irritate agency management, and even some of my colleagues.

Originally, EPA classified chemicals as “known”, “probable” or “possible” carcinogens. These classifications were strictly defined. In particular, a substance could be classified as a “known Human Carcinogen” only if sufficient epidemiological evidence existed to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between cancer and exposure to that substance. However, in 1996 (the date of the first draft), EPA rewrote its Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines (CRAGs) to allow it to classify substances as known human carcinogens in the absence of any epidemiological evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. The final draft of EPA’s new CRAGs was not actually published until 2005, but, 5 years earlier (2000), dioxin (2, 3, 7, 8-tetradichlorodibenzodioxin) became the first chemical to which the new CRAGs were applied, resulting in that chemical’s re-classification as a “known” human carcinogen. 

On November 28, 2006, late in my career as an ATSDR toxicologist, I delivered an in-house lecture entitled “Frank’s Last Word on Dioxin” to a very small audience. I concluded my lecture by predicting that the next “bogus human carcinogen” would be trichloroethylene. Just 5 years later (September 2011), TCE was, indeed, declared by EPA to be a “known” human carcinogen, notwithstanding all of the toxicological & epidemiological data to the contrary.

When they were originally created, both federal agencies had legitimate problems to solve. But, EPA quickly became a victim of its own success. As the environment became cleaner, there were fewer and fewer real environmental problems to address. So, they began inventing them, initially by just making their dose-specific health guidelines and media–specific comparison values smaller to create the impression of increased “risk”. Then, they would make the unsubstantiated and over-used claim that chemical X “is now more toxic than previously thought”. But, it was almost never true.

If all this is confusing, it was meant to be. Because, when something unintelligible is expressed mathematically and claims to be “scientific”, the tendency is for most people to assume that it is just “over their heads” and accept it uncritically. However, in this instance, as Seven of Nine said in Star Trek Voyager (Season 6, Episode 2), “You are being confused by irrelevant data; Ignore it.” In reality, the sole purpose of EPA’s scientifically bankrupt HEC method for evaluating the “risk” associated with “equivalent” inhalation exposures was to rescue the cherished (but counterintuitive) bureaucratic assumption that humans are more sensitive to the adverse effects of chemical exposure than are experimental animals.

It is an entirely defensible argument that, in order to protect the public health in the face of unresolved uncertainties, it is often necessary that agencies charged with that responsibility should “err on the side of safety”. However, that argument does not justify intentionally erring on the side of the absurd. For, there is with all things a point of diminishing returns. And, when we start basing expensive public policy decisions on the mere possibility that an implausible thing might happen, then we may as well start building airports for UFOs.

Don’t give them any bright ideas, buddy, they’ll get around to it soon enough. But the EPA is hardly alone in their ongoing campaign to sow FUD via rejiggering the mother tongue:

Two parties, two vocabularies. One positive, one negative — very bad, evil in fact.

Consider the testimony by Michael Cohen last week in front of various Congressional committees.

For example, since he worked for Donald Trump, Cohen was described about a million times as a “fixer.” Democrats, on the other hand, have lawyers.

Hillary Clinton paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat operatives who then bought or made up false Russian dirt on Trump — that was opposition research. Republicans, on the other hand, “collude!”

Republicans lie, Democrats misspeak.

Democrats plan, Republicans scheme.

If a Democrat changes his or her position on an issue, they have evolved … grown. Republicans “flip-flop.”

Whenever an unfamiliar politician is ensnared in some scandal, you naturally wonder which party he or she is a member of. If the “embattled” pol is a Republican, affiliation is usually noted in the headline, or at the very latest in the first paragraph.

If, however, you reach the third paragraph of the story without his party being identified, you can be absolutely certain you are reading about a Democrat miscreant.

A lot more to both of these articles, all of which you should read.

Share

HATE CRIME!

No hoax, this one.

Smollett has shown that the most absurd narratives imaginable will continue to gain credence because they fill a deep psychological, cultural—and, yes, careerist—need for millions in the country to believe that hate crimes are epidemic, that they are the currency of the Right, and that they can only be addressed by more government scrutiny of a particular class of victimizers such as the Duke Lacrosse team, the Covington kids, or Smollett’s mythic red-hatted Trump racists.

(A cynic might have advised Smollett to have first checked that the anticipated surveillance cameras under which he staged the attack were pointing in the right direction, and that he should have ensured his “Empire”hirelings did not buy their sundry assault gear—masks, hats, etc.—all at the same store or at least not on film, and that Smollett himself should have not written them a traceable check for their services, and that he should have written into his script antifreeze dousing instead of household bleach that freezes at about 5 degrees.)

In 2019 America, the number of those likely victimized far outnumbers the shrinking pool of likely victimizers. The rewards and publicity for being a concocted victim of a frenzied Trump supporter far outweigh the possible downside of fabricating the entire incident. As we saw with the Kavanaugh and Covington fiascoes, if a crime could or should be true, then it more or less is.

His farce is yet another example that it is now largely permissible to slur and smear millions of purported Trump supporters, as either defined by their stereotyped race and gender or their red hats (with or without a logo). As pundits and talking heads nearly wept on screen in their worries about future potential hate crimes that might now not be taken seriously, they abjectly ignored the real hate crime that had just occurred. In truth, Smollett had done his best to ignite some sort of popular racially driven vendetta against conservative white male voters, previously known as “clingers,” “crazies,” “deplorables,” and “irredeemables” who, our elites warn, smell up Walmart, gross America out with toothless smiles, and should be swapped out for new immigrants.

Given that the Smollett myth followed so closely after the Covington kids fiction, we can surmise that Smollett counted on two popular reactions: the left-wing public was still thirsty for more “proof” of MAGA white hatred, even if poorly scripted and logically implausible; and, second, Smollett was not much worried about any serious consequences if he should be caught once again in a made-up hate crime.

To paraphrase CNN anchorwoman Brooke Baldwin, who in careerist fashion immediately sought to gin up popular outrage over the Smollett “hate crime” attack: “This is America, 2019.”

The sad part is, even though nobody talks about it much anymore, “fake but accurate” is still a going thing, it seems. The sadder part is, she’s right: this IS America, 2019. But not in the way she thinks.

Share

Payback

It’s gonna be a bitch a shitload of fun.

What if Trump refuses to accept defeat in 2020?
President Donald Trump’s critics are increasingly focused on the question of which Democrat will challenge him for the presidency in 2020. It’s an important question, but another one might be even more important: Regardless of who runs in 2020, if Trump loses, will he leave the Oval Office peacefully?

Follows, the usual pantload you’d expect from The Most Busted Name In News, written by one of the most smackable dweebs ever to lapse into hysterics about overcooked tofu ruining—RUINING!!—his fifty-dollar bowl of artisanal, free-range ramen noodles. Think I’m kidding? Check it:

CNNDweeb.jpg


THIS. IS. CNN. My God, where the hell did they ever dig up such a wetsmack, no-ball bedwetter, anyway?

Of course all the dweebie’s handwringing angst is for naught, based as it is on the flawed liberal premise that Trump is some sort of NaziHitlerfascistdictatortyrantstrongman, which remains just as everlastingly stupid as it was the night he was elected and they all started crying and spazzing out from the shock and horror of it all. So we won’t bother fisking the rest of the gooey, stinking mess in detail.

But it did set me to thinking: if Trump DOES lose in 2020—which I still consider to be the most likely scenario, by the way—what ought to be OUR response? I mean, seeing as how we’ve already seen them flatly refuse to accept the results of an election, going so far as to launch a sort of pussified palace coup in response to their defeat?

For one thing, there should be protests, even riots, all over the whole damned country. The welkin should be made to ring with ceaseless cries of “NOT MY PRESIDENT!” from every corner. The electoral count itself shouldn’t be certified by a single Red state pending meticulous investigations into ballot fraud, which should be as drawn out as they can be made. Op-eds tut-tutting about the new president taking office “under a cloud of suspicion and doubt” ought to be run repeatedly in every conservative publication. Let the bolder among ’em refer to him unfailingly as the “ostensible” or “putative” President So-And-So.

Most important of all, though, is this: GOP Congressmen should immediately launch as many investigations, blue-ribbon commissions, and fact-finding panels as they have personnel to staff. Let a thousand Muellers bloom, I say; let these “investigations” be as wide-open and far-reaching as his own personal flea-circus has been, no matter what their actual mandate may specifically be. Drag ’em all out, too; insist on the “vital importance” of allowing them to “complete their work” unencumbered in any way, even passing legislation expressly forbidding any and all interference with them or their task.

Make the next Democrat-Socialist president the most investigated, harrassed, hounded, hindered, and hamstrung president in all of history. Truss him as tightly the Lilliputians did Gulliver, and then dare him to so much as wiggle an eyebrow. Go after his family, his friends, his appointees, his neighbors, and anyone he ever so much as sneezed at on the subway decades ago in like fashion. Imprison as many of them as possible, on any pretext that can be contrived. Offer each phonus-balonus conviction as further “proof” of his corruption and unfitness for office. Start the House impeachment process on January 21st.

Harry his appointees in restaurants, grocery stores, and gas stations, just as Maxine Fucking Waters called for. Protest at their homes long after midnight, for days and weeks on end; inconvenience and bully their neighbors too, while you’re at it. Assault any and every one of his supporters bodily; ambush them in gangs, injure them as severely as possible before running off into the night. When someone complains about the violence, blame the President and his “climate of hate.” Turn the tables by declaring your fear of his “thuggish” supporters and their well-known penchant for fascist violence.

Lie about Their Guy ceaselessly. Claim he said things he never actually said; claim that he didn’t say things he did. Blame him for any personal insecurity, neurosis, or irritation you ever suffered. Make things up out of whole cloth and assert them with unswerving confidence as if they were nothing more than common, universally-accepted knowledge. Persecute their president and everyone in his orbit relentlessly; make all their lives a living hell, every minute of every day, seven days a week. Make him and everyone around him wish not only that he’d never even thought of running for President at all, but that he and they had never been born at all.

In short, do every last thing they themselves have spent the last two years doing to Trump and his supporters, right down to the Nth detail. Only more so. Take it all further—double down, then redouble it, then double it again. Make sure Their Guy can’t accomplish even the most trivial agenda item without having to wade through a raging torrent of pain-in-the-ass first.

Ain’t gonna happen, of course. In particular, the legislative end of this hopeful fantasy would have to be put into action by the GOPe, which…well, ’nuff said about that. But it sure is nice to think about, ain’t it? Continue reading “Payback”

Share

We must destroy the industry in order to save it

Take ’em down. ALL THE WAY down.

The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations negligently and with actual knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.… As one of the world’s leading news outlets, the Post knew but ignored the importance of verifying damaging, and in this case, incendiary accusations … The negligence and actual malice of the Post is demonstrated by its utter and knowing disregard for the truth available in the complete video of the January 18 incident…

That’s a quote from legal eagle L. Lin Wood’s lawsuit on behalf of Nick Sandmann against the WaPo to the delicious tune of 250 million smackeroos, every penny of which Sandmann of right ought to collect. And if paying up for their wilfull, malicious slander puts the WaPo out of business, hey, I’m good with that too. But Vichy GOPe pundit David Catron frets:

This incident enraged a public whose trust in the “news” media is already at an all time low and alarmed many honest journalists and scholars who fear that the increasing number of such abuses by the press will cause an overreaction by the courts resulting in undesirable restrictions on the First Amendment. Indeed, confirming the validity of such concerns, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas just wrote a concurring opinion in which he suggested that NYT v. Sullivan, a landmark First Amendment ruling involving defamation cases, should be revisited…

NYT v. Sullivan is regarded as sacrosanct by the media. The general gist of the ruling is that news organizations can’t be sued for defaming public figures unless they act with “actual malice.”To clear that bar, an outlet must be shown to have published a claim about a public figure knowing that it was untrue or with reckless disregard concerning its accuracy. A good recent example involves a false story about Melania Trump published by the Daily Mail in the U.S. The First Lady sued whereupon that “news” publication was forced to pay $2.9 million in damages.

And it’s precisely what the WaPo did too: they knowingly and with reckless disregard for the truth attacked somehow who in no way met the description of “public figure”, purely for political purposes. They damned well should be pay the price for it. Happily, it ain’t just the WaPo Lin is sinking his teeth into:

The list of news organizations Wood is likely to go after includes the New York Times, CNN, NPR, GQ, the Atlantic, and the Hill. Possible defendants also include individual “journalists” who participated in the slander of Sandmann. They include David Brooks, Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, Kurt Eichenwald, Michelle Boorstein, and Maggie Haberman. How will lawsuits against these outlets and journalists save the First Amendment? The news business is a business. And, as Mark Hemingway points out in the Federalist, bad journalism hurts the bottom line…

In other words, there’s a pretty straightforward way to improve the reputation of reporters, fend off accusations of fake news, and keep the courts from reassessing important constitutional precedents protecting freedom of the press — journalists need to start fulfilling the mission assigned to them by the authors of the First Amendment. The role of the news media in a free society is to keep all politicians honest. “The only security for all is in a free press,” as Jefferson put it. But the press isn’t “free” if a journalist may only criticize one party and remain employed.

It isn’t even “the press” as Jefferson understood it; they are propagandists, not true journalists but political operatives deceitfully promoting an ideology—aiding and abetting the Deep State/Uniparty coup against the American people and the man they elected President. Their role is not to impart factual reportage to an interested and informed public, but to mislead and misinform them. They are exactly what Trump has said they are: enemies of the people, purveyors of Fake News, dangerous vipers in liberty’s fragile nest. As such, their “freedom”—to malign, smear, and destroy—is not sacrosanct but forfeit, deserving of no 1A protection at all. Should they ever decide to get back to being honest reporters we can talk about their “rights.” Not a moment before. Until then, they have none.

The tsunami of lawsuits that is about to hit the press pursuant to the Sandmann disgrace will shake up the news industry. A lot of outlets will lose a lot of money, and a lot of journalists will lose their jobs. This is good news for those of us who believe the media have misused their constitutional protections for partisan purposes. But it is also good news for the nation if the survivors of the flood remember what a unique and precious thing we have in the First Amendment. If a 16-year-old from Kentucky gets it, maybe there’s hope for the editors of the Washington Post.

No, there is not, nor will there ever be. Not until the current crop of liars and deceivers is replaced wholesale by honest reporters with no partisan axe to grind or agenda to push there isn’t, and only a fool would think there is. It’s useless to cuddle any cozy notions of “saving” the First Amendment from them. They don’t want it saved. They oppose it along with the rest of the Constitution; its only relevance to them is when they can use it as a shield in their campaign to destroy it.

Rather than Pollyannishly blibbering on and on about “saving” things we long ago had taken from us, we ought to be destroying the Left root, branch, and bough—beginning with refusing to allow them to cower behind the protection of a Constitution they’ve shattered. And I do NOT mean talking about destroying them, either. No more cringing behind “principle” as a means of talking ourselves out of taking action; I mean rolling up our sleeves and DOING it. If we’re too effete and high-minded to fight back we can’t possibly win, and the First won’t be the only thing we shamefully fail to save.

Share

A nation divided by a common language

Or lack thereof.

For decades, immigration enthusiasts have offered conflicting assurances to skeptics who perceive a lack of assimilation among newcomers. Multiculturalism is a great gift to the United States, so why worry? Also, assimilation is proceeding apace, so, again, why worry? The former assurance is generally directed at liberals, and the latter is directed at conservatives, but the underlying point is the same—nothing to see here, just move along.

Pundits repeated the same assurances last month after Tom Brokaw remarked on how “Hispanics should work harder at assimilation,” and that “they ought not to be just codified in their communities but make sure that all their kids are learning to speak English.” Despite the furor and his subsequent apology, Brokaw is right to be concerned.

For those who still believe that Hispanic Americans will abandon Spanish just as Polish and Italian immigrants gave up their ancestral languages, the reaction to Tom Brokaw’s mild encouragement of assimilation must be disconcerting. Brokaw’s “Meet the Press” co-panelist Yamiche Alcindor took an anti-assimilation stance, saying, “…We also need to adjust what we think of as America.”

Yeah, fuck you. You want to come here, you adjust your damned self. You don’t want to do that, you stay wherever the fuck you’re at. Heritage Americans aren’t obligated to adjust a gott-damned thing, for you or any other invading alien. The US is a nation founded on particular ideals and values; the official language spoken here is English. If you prefer to use some other tongue, move to a country that shares your preference and leave us the hell alone.

Alcindor’s racist arrogance is bad enough; I assume she’s an immigrant herself, and she’s clearly a Leftard, so her position is no surprise. But this is probably worse:


“Assimilating into the increasing diversity”? Yeah, fuck you too, pal. If you hate this country so bad you wish for it to commit national suicide by accomodating hordes of illegal-alien invaders who propose not to assimilate and contribute to their new home but to suck up resources and spit on those who provide them with benefits and freebies, you can vamanos yourself off to someplace that better suits your self-loathing and liberal guilt too.

As for the claim that the United States must become multilingual in order to compete in the global economy, it is undercut by numerous counterexamples. Look no further than China, which has grown wealthy selling products to the West despite having only a tiny percentage of citizens who are fluent in a European language. Similarly, monolingual Japan developed a tremendous export-based economy. Its problems today are due to a low birthrate, not homogeneity per se.

Far from enriching, multilingualism stresses cultural fault lines. Even in First World countries such as Canada, Spain, and Belgium, ethno-linguistic tensions have lingered for centuries. The best way to confront the problem here in the United States is to debate it openly, and that starts with questioning superficial reassurances, such as “multilingualism is wonderful” and “Hispanics will adopt English the same way past immigrants did.” Unfortunately, any questioning of the language issue—even by a famous liberal in good standing with the media—is met with swift condemnation, and so the empty assurances endure.

The “empty assurances” are lies, a tactic meant to lull Real Americans into a false sense of calm and complacency while their country is stolen right out from under them, to be remade into something in no way to their liking, without their informed consent. The vitriol of that “swift condemnation,” even of one of Lefty’s own, is proof enough of the real intent here for anyone with eyes to see.

“Debate it openly”? You gotta be kidding. You can’t debate honestly and in good faith with people who have neither, and view such traits as weakness. We’ve been doing just that for a long time already anyhow, right up to electing a rebel President based in large part on his promise to stop the border insanity. The national will was expressed peacefully, legally, responsibly, and CLEARLY, through the established electoral process.

And just what did THAT get us, pray tell? The PTB have tried unceasingly to undo said election and deprive us of our right to have a government respectful of and responsive to our wishes, continuing right on with their insults, slander, and open-borders sedition regardless.

The time for debate is over. The time for fighting back, by any and all means, is nigh.

Share

Fake Noose!

Annnnd that’s a wrap.

CHICAGO — “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett has been charged with one count of felony disorderly conduct for filing a false police report, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office said Wednesday evening.

Smollett is due in court in Chicago at 1:30 p.m. Thursday. Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said CPD detectives will make contact with Smollett’s legal team to “negotiate a reasonable surrender for his arrest.”

Aww, why not have a SWAT team kick in his door in the predawn hours, with assistance from about 130 Fibbies and a tank or three, as with that deadly-dangerous menace to the public weal Stone? Ehh, guess not. Meanwhile, this bimbelina flaps her arms hoping the truth will go away:

“Activists Masquerading as Journalists”: Why the Right-Wing Media Is So Furious About the Jussie Smollett Affair
A rush to judgment was endemic on the left. But the Smollett episode also exposes a complementary phenomenon on the right, specifically an ever-simmering resentment at being labeled the party of bigotry, or racial grievance, or discrimination, which many conservatives reject as a form of discrimination itself.

That’s because it, y’know, IS a “form of discrimination”—raw racist bigotry and hatred, actually, with no fakery whatsoever required—and the “ever-simmering resentment” is ENTIRELY justified.

Smollett LIED. His LIE was immediately and unanimously swallowed, spread, and endorsed by “liberals” eager to bash Trump, his supporters, and white males generally—for not just this phony “hate crime” in particular, but for their countless supposed atrocities throughout history. After a long, long list of similar fabrications aimed at smearing white males as irredeemable racists, rapists, brutal misogynists, plunderers, and opressors, now this woman scolds us for “seizing on” a bit of “awkwardness”: dismissing Righties for being “incensed” at decades of abuse, then trying to conjure out of thin air a vague moral equivalence between those who fomented the LIE and those who she claims were angered by it.

Hate to bust your bubble and all, sweetie, but I really don’t know anybody who was truly angry over this. Mostly, we’re amused. See, we don’t expect anything more from you lying, self-dramatizing shitlib assholes. By now we know from a whole hell of a lot of prior experience how to spot one of these bumbling vaudeville routines early on; we were just biding our time until this fish story fell apart just like all the others, and now that it did we think it’s fucking hilarious. No, we’re not “angry,” promise. We’re laughing at you. We’ll be right here waiting to bust a gut when the next epic FAIL from one of your hapless dolts rolls around, too. We know it won’t be long in coming.

Of course, there is a serious side to all this, along with some larger issues in train. Walsh connects the dots:

To make sense of the recent spate of hysteria on the Left, it helps to understand how their minds work—or, as they like say, connect the dots. The shortest route between an isolated instance (Jussie Smollett, John Wayne) and a knee-jerk cry of racism, sexism or some other pet -ism is from one neuron to the one directly adjacent to it in a progressive’s brain. Every event, even ones faked or misleadingly reported, must have both a political cause and a coercive resolution: the Narrative demands it. Amplified by social media, it’s driving us all mad.

Any random weather event can trigger cries of the apocalypse from the likes of Al Gore or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A putative but wholly implausible attack during the sub-zero arctic chill of a Chicago late night instantly is seized upon as proof of America’s incorrigible (and thus de-legitimizing) racial prejudice. A wrongly interpreted word, or gesture, or smile, even the use of a personal pronoun, is cause for alarm, insults, or legal action. J’accuse! has become the national motto as the Twitter tumbrels roll. Heads dutifully roll into the baskets as the Madame Defarges of the media click their knitting needles and fashion the next installment of the Narrative tapestry.

Connecting the dots means never having to accept an apology. All grievances must continue to be redressed, long after they have ceased to exist. But the Left cannot let them go, and use them as battering rams in their war on Western civilization. How different the fate of race relations in the aftermath of the Civil War and emancipation would have been had not the Democratic Party spent the next 100 years trying to overturn Grant’s victory. Indeed, Grant’s presidency, which was largely dedicated to ensuring and enforcing the rights of African American citizens in the teeth of implacable opposition from the Democrats, has been slagged off by left-leaning historians and only now is getting the reassessment it so richly deserves. And still the Democrats have the gall to raise the issue of reparations for slavery.

Wielding the simpleton’s version of Occam’s Razor, the dotty Left has a ready explanation for every social and political event. Donald Trump was not elected because the Electoral College gave him a majority of its votes, but because his voters were racists, sexists, white supremacists—Hillary’s whole “basket of deplorables.” For two years, they have been salivating for the conclusions of the Mueller investigation into the non-crime of “collusion” as payback for the lost election. They even went so far as to try and stage a soft coup involving the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Clinton campaign. When the final history of this fiasco is written, who will be surprised if all roads lead to Rod Rosenstein—the man who wrote the memo that got James Comey fired, and who then appointed Mueller at Comey’s urging in order to investigate…the firing of James Comey, among other things.

Sometimes the dots form a perfect circle of jerks.

And then, like Mardi Gras necklaces, someone pulls the string and down the beads come, pinballing off the walls of Twitter and Facebook and rattling around on the floor, propelling everybody headlong into the next imaginary crisis, the next hallucinatory outrage, the next manufactured frenzy over something or nothing at all. Facing the cliffs of their own lunacy, they howl in rage like King Lear, unable to bring reason to bear where emotion rules.

I included Mike’s link to the John Wayne thing above because it’s truly hilarious—perhaps the most sidesplitting example of Loony Left hysterics yet, after a couple of years that have yielded a bumper crop of ’em. One can only stand back in awe at how they manage to outdo themselves time after time after time.

Injustice update! It just ain’t fair.

The year is 2019. You’d think we’d be living in a progressive paradise by now, with energy-efficient trains crisscrossing the idyllic countryside, everyone being accepted for who they are—gay, bi, straight, or polygamous—and all people having equal access to free government breadlines.

But no. In the actual year 2019 that Trump has created, gay people are still being forced to attack themselves in the streets. Gay people, especially black gay people, have been so brainwashed by the messaging of Trump’s America that they are now hiring people to oppress them right out in the open.

This isn’t some third-world country where this is happening. This isn’t in some dystopian young adult fiction, where I get most of my political ideas. It’s here. It’s now. Every day, a gay person somewhere in this country hires a couple of Nigerian guys to make it look like he’s hated and oppressed.

We need to take a good, hard look in the mirror, America, and ask ourselves if this is who we want to be. We have allowed an evil movement of Trump supporters to take over our nation so effectively that we’re now paying people to dress up like them and beat us up. This won’t stand any longer. The time has come to say, “No more!”

May I suggest one of your nice urban riots—complete with arson, vandalism, looting, and assault against random innocent passersby? Y’know, your usual response to not getting your way.

Share

Twitter twisters

Y’all know I ain’t a Twitter guy, and ain’t ever gonna be. Their obvious bias against us RightwingNaziDeathbeasts aside, I just don’t have much use for the damned thing, and can’t see why anybody slightly to the right of Stalin would subject themselves to the bannings, censorship, and general abuse they endure there. That said, though, I do sometimes run across good Twitter jibes and ripostes out there, and am happy to repost ’em here for y’all’s enjoyment when I do. For instance:


That’s good stuff right there, folks. As for True Conservative™ Trump-hater SE Cupp and her highly-cuckish Tweet—nicely ground into a fine powder and scattered to the four winds by Seton Motley above—Ace has a choice headline for her once-fine ass: “S.E. Cupp Isn’t Cute Enough Anymore to Get Away With Being This Dumb.” What can one say but: OUCH.

But wait—did I mention that the more things change, the more they stay the same just a moment ago? Why, yes. Yes, I certainly did.

Editors’ note: Jussie Smollett is now yet another hoax victim in the ongoing and endless narrative of the Unholy Alliance’s fake and self-made ‘hate-crimes.’ The leftist establishment media, doing its faithful Unholy Alliance duty, uncritically embraced and sensationalized Smollett’s elaborate “hate crime” story — of him being a victim of assault of white supremacist, homophobic Trump supporters. But, again, it turns out to be all untrue. In light of this new, but very expected, development, Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to this escalating phenomenon of fake “hate crimes” that very conveniently serve the Unholy Alliance’s agenda.

We are therefore reprinting, below, Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s article, The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t, from the November 18, 2016 issue of The Daily Caller, which reveals how totalitarian movements portray themselves in order to gain power.

The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t.
The deranged fantasy world of the totalitarian cry-bully.

To gain power, totalitarian movements always portray themselves as victims. And while they are in the process of abusing, they cry in front of the world posing as the abused. They stage “hate-crime” attacks against themselves because hate crimes are their political and cultural capital. When those hate-crimes don’t exist, they must be invented.

We are witnessing precisely this phenomenon at this very moment in regards to the myriad hoax “hate-crimes” that anti-Trump forces are manufacturing out of thin air and blaming on Trump supporters. 

In between my ellipses is a long but no-way-no-how comprehensive list of fake “hate crimes” perpetrated by lying Lefty frauds. You’d think they’d learn eventually, after enough of these things have blown up in their faces. Sadly, though—pathetically, even—that looks like yet another of those things that, the more they change, the more they remain the same.

Update! Somebody put together a database of hate-crime hoaxes—page, after page, after page of ’em.

Share

Anatomy of feminism

Like the Progressivism that enfolds and inspires it, it’s a fabric of dishonesty draped over sinews of authoritarian/totalitaranism, all supported by a skeleton of stark raving madness.

Feminist leader Kate Millett wrote Sexual Politics in 1970, which the New York Times called “the Bible of Women’s Liberation.” But her sister Mallory Millett reveals in this interview the destructive legacy of radical feminism.

Mark Tapson: Your sister was an icon of female empowerment, but what do you think the reality of feminism has been for generations of women since Kate helped launch the second wave of the movement?

Mallory Millett: How bizarre it is to have to argue the obvious; to have to prove over and over again what is self-evident so let me be as offensive as I possibly can: Men are men and women are women. They are essentially different and designed for a natural division of labor. Period.

I get a kick out of the feminists’ love affair with the word “empowerment.” They have clever formulas for ensnaring hapless souls into their deceits. One of their slicker moves is to create a vocabulary designed to get around long-held beliefs, mores, taboos or fears. “Pro-choice” is their Newspeak euphemism for the casual murder of a human being; “Dreamers” means illegal immigrants; “Progressives” denotes a group dragging us back to the cave; “Sanctuary City” means a place where no actual U.S. citizen is safe. This “empowerment” thing makes me especially crazy.

When women ran society, power emanated from the home. Men labored to keep their families sheltered, warm, clad and fed while women mostly stayed in the home to run the children and the community. Mother oversaw the household and carefully watched the children’s behavior. Most of the neighborhood women knew each other and had informal meetings in their living rooms and kitchens, called “coffee klatches.”

It was here that the community developed ground rules on how to manage children and husbands. Any mother was free to chastise anyone else’s child should they misbehave. It was pretty unheard of for someone to say, “How dare you correct my child!” They would agree amongst themselves what was desired behavior. Good manners were required and trained. Neighbors backed each other up. It was expected.

The essential rules that Moms formed in their infants and homes radiated outwardly into streets, schools, offices, boardrooms, departments, factories and agencies to form the framework of Western ethics. The communities, churches and schools all echoed the same values because most people went to Church or Temple and so, the foundation of our mores being Judeo/Christian, Mom’s rules were designed by the Ten Commandments. Many towns didn’t lock their doors, even at night.

So, after fifty years of the almighty “consciousness-raising” experiment to empower women, and during the recent Harvey Weinstein [sexual assaults] scandal, what we are hearing from the little girlish voices of the victims is, “I froze, I was paralyzed. I gave in because I didn’t know what to do. I was terrified!” Hey, that’s some weird kind of empowerment. When I was a girl we did what our moms instructed: we yelled “NO,” slapped his face, and left the room or called a cop.

Today, 60 percent of babies who escape abortion are born outside of marriage. On top of that they are miserably reared, thrown into child-care shortly after birth, with not only a lousy education but a miseducation in classrooms infiltrated by Mao, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx, and Saul Alinsky rather than readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmatic, American history, and civics. Our children now score poorly compared with other countries, whereas before the feminist “experiment” we led in almost all categories. In 1964 we had 90 percent literacy and 5 percent illegitimate births. We now score shockingly low on literacy (38 percent of American men read at the lowest levels; only 11 percent of men and 12 percent of women are proficient readers) and of course, those out-of-wedlock births at 60 percent.

I would say that raising several ill-prepared fatherless generations of slackers, meth and opioid users, porn dogs, disheveled rockers, and illiterates speaks poorly of any degree of empowerment in parenting. Most parenting is done by absent single women since two-thirds of mothers are raising their youngsters outside of marriage. So, we have the filthy clothes, ten o’clock shadows on guys, shocking grammar, plethora of tattoos, sullen misfits in torn filthy clothing listening to violent hate-filled so-called music; entitled attitudes and non-existent manners say it all. Empowerment? Why, the facts scream that feminists are two generations of the worst-ever educators of America’s children. In what manner does this speak of empowerment?

The stuff I elided, chronicling the heavy hand of Maoism as it guided the founding of NOW, is interesting indeed. And then we get to the “madness” part:

Tapson: Can you tell us a bit about Kate’s mental instability, and if you think it had anything to do with her radicalism? Or vice versa — do you think her radicalism affected her mental state?

Millett: Kate was mentally ill for as long as I remember. She was five when I was born and our elder sister Sally says that once I arrived, Kate was hanging over my bassinet plotting my murder. We shared a bedroom from my birth. From my earliest memory I recall trembling from the vibrations of her insanity. She was the most disturbed, megalomaniacal, evil and dishonest person I have ever known. She tried to kill me so many times that it’s now an enormous blur of traumatizing horrors. She was a sadist, a torturer, a deeply-engrained bully who took immense pleasure in hurting others. Incorrigible and ruthless, she was expelled multiple times from every school she attended. I spent my childhood with heart hammering as I tiptoed through the house so as not to be noticed by the dreadful Kate. Our mother was helpless, paralyzed with terror in the face of Kate.

It’s a grinding hardship to bring oneself to write such harsh things about one’s own blood. It took some bucking up for me to start telling the truth. I must say here that, always and forever, I had a reservoir of love for my sister Kate, but reality trumps all and her brand of nihilistic darkness was an implacable obstacle.

I love the term “Feminazi,” as these humorless women are, indeed, fascists, killers of faith and society. So many people think the rise of women and the evisceration of our culture are somehow coincidental. But it’s been calculated and deliberate. It’s the only way America can be “fundamentally transformed” into the Marxist test-tube to dazzle the world. It’s the result of HATE: hating God, hating life, hating society, hating men, hating babies, hating history, hating our fathers, hating our families, hating our white male founders, hating happiness, hating heterosexuality, hating Western civilization. Is this not madness?

If it isn’t, then the word has no meaning. Damned smart woman, this Mallory Millet is. Read all of it.

(Via WeirdDave)

Share

Wait, this blatherskite is still talking?

And here I’d thought all this time that Progressivists were all about Rule By Expert. Apparently not.

During an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, gun-control activist David Hogg claimed those who own AR-15s and similar rifles are not interested in self-defense but in hunting human beings.

“The truth of the matter is weapons like the AR-15 have an effective range of over 1,500 meters,” Hogg said. “If you’re using a weapon with an effective range of over 1,500 meters, you are not defending yourself. You are hunting a human being.”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade group for the firearms industry, estimated last year that more than 16 million AR-15 and similar rifles had been produced or imported to the United States over the past 25 years. Still, Hogg said no civilians should be allowed to possess those kinds of firearms.

“I don’t think any civilian needs to have their hands on a military weapon like that,” Hogg said.

Aww, ain’t it adorable? This footling brat believes what he thinks means a damned thing to anybody except himself.

As for that “effective range of over 1,500 meters” horseshit, well…no. No, not quite. Might want to consider removing your foot next time before opening your fat yap about things you know absolutely nothing about, bright boy.

Share

Categories

Archives

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

"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

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