Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Treason and traitors

The irony, it burns.

My favorite part of the day is going on social media and having froth-lipped adherents of the party that eagerly signed on with the KGB’s 1980s nuclear freeze campaign telling me, a guy who was then serving in Germany on the west side of the Wall waiting for the Reds to invade, that I’m a traitor. This argument is not compelling. All this kind of babble does is annoy me and millions of other people who refuse to freak out at the behest of establishment hacks eager to regain their lost power.

Any legit criticism of Trump’s policies is swamped by the insanity. But that’s part of the plan. They want people so outraged they can’t, or won’t, think. This is a cynical ploy to ramp things up to a fever pitch and panic the weakhearts. They seek to split the GOP between Trump supporters and the Flake Fredocon Faction of simpering sissies so they can retake power. The establishment was always going to dogpile Trump no matter what he did in Europe. That he gave them some ammo with what he concedes was loose talk followed by a walk-back only made their job easier. But the fix was already in.

Will it resonate with regular Americans? You know, the ones who aren’t watching MSNBC lunatics shouting that Trump is literally Hitler, just like W, McCain and Romney were literally Hitler? Normals are simply not reading 37-tweet threads explaining how pretty soon Trump’s going to make sure there are spetsnaz troops with AK-47s on every street corner, forcing our country into a Red Dawn scenario where #TheResistance shouts “Avenge me! Avenge me!” and fights back against the invaders, presumably with vicious tweets and gyno-beanies.

It will not resonate, any more than the last hundred WORST THING EVERs resonated. And why should it? After years of hearing how Trump is all four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, it’s hard to make him the fifth as well with some new atrocity that, upon sober reflection, is not exactly earth-shakingly atrocious.

Why would the establishment believe it had any credibility anyway?

THAT’S the truly baffling part of the whole sordid little shitshow.

This is where one would normally find some cliché about Trump being his own worst enemy. No. He makes mistakes but he is not his own worst enemy. His worst enemy is the establishment. Period.

Annnnd bingo. Nice thing is, they’ll all be flipping out and beclowning themselves over something else next week—if the current trend holds, something even more preposterous, pointless, and un-sellable than the last, and which will blow up in their smarmy, pinched faces even more spectacularly. It’s BEAUTIFUL to watch, it truly is.

Share

Let’s go to Bizarro World!

Let’s explore liberal hijacking of some common terms, unpack those terms, and explain what they really mean by them.

Climate change denier
The climate has been changing ever since the planet has had a climate, and absolutely nobody is denying that. What the more honest and sane of us DO deny is the reliability of the computer models used to bolster the AGW hoax. These models, aside from being cooked and manipulated to produce the desired result, are necessarily flawed from go because of incomplete data. And how could it possibly be otherwise? We don’t even KNOW all the data on the climate, nowhere near.

Anti-fascist, Nazi, Trump is Hitler, etc
These are some of the most painfully ironic verses in the whole liberal hymn book, seeing as how THEY’RE the ones out in the streets in masks and hoods violently crushing dissent. It’s a noxious offshoot of the greatest liberal con ever perpetrated: turning the popular perception of the Nazis—ie, the National SOCIALIST Workers’ Party, for Christ’s sake—into a “right-wing” phenomenon, rather than what it really was: a nasty refining of Marx’s original shitshow.

Women’s health
Abortion.

A woman’s right to choose
Ditto.

Reproductive freedom
Abortion as contraception.

Family planning
Avoidance of having a family

No one is talking about taking anyone’s guns away
That’s EXACTLY what they’re talking about.

Reasonable, common sense gun control
See above.

“I’m a hunter myself”
Only when the TV cameras are running.

Civility
Shut up, we’re lecturing.

Constitutional rights
“Rights” not found anywhere in the US Constitution, whether explicit or implied.

Islamopohobia
Prudent caution about unfettered Muslim immigration, based on an informed understanding of what the Koran says.

Undocumented immigrant
Illegal alien, border jumper.

Racist bigotry
Color-blind.

Affirmative action
Government-mandated racism.

Journalism
Propaganda.

Starting to read a bit like Orwell, ain’t it? Note that this is only a very partial listing, and that I left obvious chestnuts like “diversity,” “tolerance,” and “fairness” entirely alone.

Share

“CRY ME ANOTHER RIVER OF SALTY TEARS, YOU INFANTILE FREAKS”

Heartiste—who, thanks to the most damnable of oversights, was not in Ye Olde Blogrolle until a few minutes ago—lets fly.

So many leftoid crocodile tears shed for bawlin’ beanlets dragged by their parents thousands of miles away from their homelands, while not a single tear spared for poor White kids who live a few towns over. Tears for the former are grace and empathy personified, while tears for the latter are gauche. That’s how moral enlightenment looks once refracted through the twisted shitlib mind.

“How dare you?” shrieks the anchorshitlib in high dudgeon when her Void-Cunt Conformism Test is defied by a wompin’ White man whose sympathies are more realistically and sincerely situated closer to home. “These poor (brown) children are being separated from their parents! IT’S A NATIONAL DISGRACE,” she screams through red face and eyes bulging with fire and brimstone. To which the only needed response is, “lol suk a dik, you leftoids are off your rockers. ‘Tender age’ kids are separated every day from their parents…it’s called elementary school!”

Yellow journalism isn’t the right term for what’s going on today with the media, which is much worse than mere sensationalism. The media is now into passing off lies and suppressing truths to whip up fervor among their remnant shitlib followers in the hopes of inciting either an impeachment or an assassination of Trump. It’s that bad.

Manufactured emotionalism is the Chaimstream Media’s sole purpose now. Truth? Objectivity? Journalistic ethics? Sanity? Toss it in the bin, because the only thing that matters is winding up a bunch of hysterical cat ladies, urban sluts, and soyboys over the phony plight of foreign invaders who use their kids as “get into the US free” props. The media’s mottos can be condensed to “Anything to Get Trump” and “No Lie Too Big”.

But a funny thing happened (again) during this combo platter two minutes hate + two minutes sanctimony: the central figure — the core conceit — of the shitlib narrative collapsed, and made a farce of what was already a sham.

The Great Bawlin’ Beanlet Hoax of 2018 was always about Trump and what he and his followers represent: a disturbing lack of faith in the value of histrionic anti-White moralism. It was, yet again, a theatrical piece of agitprop around which shitlibs could coalesce into an uptalking choir of smarmy self-righteousness revealing an increasingly fragile superiority complex over those deplorable Whites who don’t commute to work via bike lane. Every modren day madness roiling the Hajnalsphere is just another front in the IntraWhite War.

With that much rich buttery goodness already, need I even suggest that you go read the rest of it? Apologies to Chateau Heartiste for the delayed entry into both my blogroll and bookmarks, by the way.

(Via WRSA)

Oopsie update! Oh, we REALLY got him now!

Yes, it’s true that after a few days of media hysteria over the “crisis” on the border, which reflects a situation not all that dissimilar to the way things have been down there for two decades other than the fact the behavior by the illegals is worse than it’s ever been, Trump signed an executive order aimed at getting the issue off the front page. And yes, that executive order was a step down from a policy which, given time, probably would have deterred the wave of illegals coming to the border. But the Rasmussen poll shows that this was at best a Tet Offensive by the Democrats — not a substantive victory.

Anyone with a brain knows, of course, that the issue was only on the front page due to the necessity of finding something — anything — that would displace the earth-shaking Inspector General’s report from its rightful place there. The IG report is the most newsworthy item in American current events in the past five years, if not far longer — not just because of the governmental corruption depicted in its 500 pages but because of the whitewash the conclusions of the report entail. Queried about that disconnect — the mountain of evidence of bias and corruption in the body of the report and its nonetheless weak executive summary — Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz refused to disagree with much of anything his House and Senate interlocutors in hearings this week presented him with.

The inference to be drawn from this is obvious — if we get to see the original draft of Horowitz’s report, we’ll likely find that its conclusions are in line with those of the Jim Jordans, Trey Gowdys, and Lindsey Grahams of the world, but when that report was reviewed by muckety-mucks within DOJ they were watered down to Horowitz’s dismay.

Maybe. Either way, what’s in the report makes Watergate look like a two-bit burglary. And we know there is more coming, because Horowitz is set to deliver another report, this one on the Russia investigation, soon.

Wonder what the Democrats and their stenographers in the legacy media will come up with to displace that news. Asteroids? Tidal waves? The return of Zuul?

All we can know for sure is that 1) there WILL be something, and 2) it will be even more bugfuck-nuts than the last attempt, as their abject failures continue to pile up and push them ever closer to the abyss of literal psychopathy. Those who aren’t there already, that is.

Share

All you need to know about them

They shriek about Trump’s perfectly apt and highly popular “fake news” diatribes, then go ahead and prove him correct over and over again. I won’t bother excerpting; Ace covers quite a lot of ground succinctly and well, thanks. For my own part, I’ll just highlight this perfectly stunning bit of gall:

TIME defended its cover and its reporting Friday, essentially claiming the facts are irrelevant because of the propaganda value of the piece. The photo and story “capture the stakes of this moment,” the editor in chief told reporter Hadas Gold.

Bold mine. In other words: they’re lying, they know they’re lying, and they don’t care. They think it serves the overriding goal of damaging Trump, deceiving their audience, and shaming normal Americans into accepting open (ie, no) borders. For the Left, truth has always run a very distant second to the Agenda, and it always will.

Be sure to click on the Federalist link to see Time’s despicable cover, a full-strength example of propaganda their spiritual forebear and role model Joseph Goebbels could only envy and admire were he still around to see it.

No honor. No integrity. No principles. No ethics. Yeah, we can trust these people to debate fairly, in good faith, and with respect for dissenting points of view. All we need do is be “civil” with them and they’ll surely respond in kind. Right, cucks?

Update! More from Daniel:

Even amid the torrent of fake news propaganda about the migrant crisis (“see small children cowering in Trump’s cages”, “listen to the sound of the children Trump took away from their parents” and “This little girl is probably crying because of Trump”), an occasional act of journalism takes place. Just not by the mainstream media.

It’s been true for a long while now.

Journalism update! One of those rare and unexpected acts of journalism Daniel was talking about, from a steady, consistent, and reliable source: Heather MacDonald.

So it was a ruse. The hysteria over the separation of illegal-alien asylum-seekers from their children (or their purported children) was in large part pretextual. The real target of rage was the Trump administration’s policy of prosecuting all illegal border-crossers for the federal misdemeanor of illegal entry.

Heather does her usual solid investigative job, exposing the bigger Progressivist picture with unflinching clarity thusly:

This principle is at work in the ongoing attacks on the criminal-justice system as well: the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is attributed to allegedly racist actors and institutions, not to lawbreaking by the criminals. Non-legal forms of distress are also covered by the no-agency rule. If single mothers experience elevated rates of poverty, the fault lies with a heartless welfare system, not with their decision to conceive a child out-of-wedlock. The father, of course, is as good as nonexistent, in the eyes of the single-mother welfare lobby. If teen mothers are stressed out, the problem lies in the absence of daycare centers in high schools.

The “progressive” solution to these dilemmas is to confer an immediate benefit on the alleged victim that will alleviate the problem in the short term, perverse incentives be damned. Illegal aliens with children must be exempt from immigration rules. The likelihood that such a policy will encourage more illegal aliens to come is out of sight, out of mind (if not covertly viewed as an affirmative good). If having more out-of-wedlock children puts a strain on a single mother’s welfare check and food stamps, then the government should increase the allotment to reflect the additional births. If that single mother and her children show up at a shelter claiming homelessness, give them an apartment. If such free housing encourages more single mothers to flood the shelter system, contract for more apartments.

Read it all. MacDonald, as does Sharryl Atkisson, reminds us of the importance of REAL journalism with her work, providing a damning contrast with the insidiously dangerous hackery of the MFM’s liberal propagandists to boot. That contrast would shame them unbearably, were they capable of any such thing.

Hilarious update! A way better version of the Time cover.

Share

Tactics and methods

Just more of the same duplicity, misdirection, and obfuscation that have long been the Progressivist MO.

“In the face of the federal government’s inhumane treatment of immigrant families, New York will not deploy National Guard to the border,” Cuomo announced Monday. “We will not be complicit in this ongoing human tragedy.”

Well, again, nobody asked. But the Guard diversion is a useful tool, deflecting attention from the fundamental dishonesty of the governor’s full statement. That is, the federal government is treating no one inhumanely; the “families” involved are not so much immigrants as they are economic migrants with no inherent right of entry into the United States—and to the extent that there is an “ongoing human tragedy” on the border, responsibility for it resides with those attempting to enter the county illegally.

Indeed, not since “the homelessness crisis” blossomed a generation ago to constrain honest discussions of substance addiction, disintegrating families, deinstitutionalization, and an explosion of common vagrancy has artful rhetoric so successfully obscured facts, law, and sound public policy. Then (as now) it was deemed judgmental—a grave sin—to censure personal choices or behavior. The problem, advocates and the media insisted, was lack of a home, and it was up to government to provide one. Since then, billions have been spent on housing and other programs, to no discernible long-term positive effect—and it is still all but impossible to have a serious public discussion about the addled, the addicted, and the socially dysfunctional.

Fast forward to America’s southern border, where—advocates and the media contend—children routinely are “ripped” from their mothers’ arms, shunted off to “cages,” and pretty much traumatized for the rest of their lives. Once again, facts and context are optional; politically opportunistic rhetoric drives what little debate is allowed, and meretricious politicians like Cuomo get away with simply making stuff up. Never mind that the policies now at issue date at least to the Obama administration, even if the circumstances have changed. Or that the alternative to separation is a choice between jailing the children with their illegal-alien parents, or allowing those parents free passage into the country.

Facts and context aren’t “optional” for them, actually; they’re anathema. The next bit is key:

That last point, of course, is the fundamental element in the debate: is America to have control of its borders, or not?  Once again, euphemism obscures the issues; when “illegal alien” morphed into “undocumented immigrant” in the popular lexicon, the debate was largely over.

Control the language, and you control everything. It’s a good article; read the rest of it.

Share

“Another fake crisis”

It surely is.

Now we are treated to the spectacle of US border officials ripping children away from their loving “parents”–and we don’t know if they’re the parents. “Separated,” yes, “separated” is now the new evil word! Curse you, Trump! This never happened under previous Presidents! Hollywood types are all abuzz; the word “NAZI” makes a frequent appearance. Hillary Clinton, her very self, is now up-in-arms over taking children from their “parents.” The women who told us that it takes a village to rear our kids doesn’t like that village when it’s run by Trump. The same progs who have set forward and funded billions upon billions of dollars worth of programs that take children from parents–“Child Services,” anybody?–object to children being separated temporarily from criminals. Oops! Did I just write C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S? There I wrote it again. 

Yes, folks these “asylum” seekers are, in fact, criminals. If nothing else, they are child trafficking coyotes.

First of all, we must question their love for the kids if they are putting them through a brutal and illegal trip; this, as noted, is child trafficking at its worst. Second, if they were legitimate asylum seekers, they would go to a legal border crossing, and claim asylum. They would get a respectful hearing, and “their” kids would not be ripped away. Instead, of course, these “asylum” seekers have allowed themselves to become pawns in a cynical and ILLEGAL process that exploits children. This stunt is pushed by well-funded progressive activists, abetted by Mexican officials, with the intention of collapsing our immigration system and creating a fake but very loud and visible political and humanitarian “crisis.” I repeat, people crossing our border illegally, there’s that pesky word, are, by definition, breaking the law and engaging in criminal behavior. If a bank robber were to show up at the bank with his kids and get arrested, would the kids stay with him? No. Child Services, anybody? We don’t keep minor children incarcerated with adult criminals; imagine the “OUTRAGE!” were we to do that. 

Another fake crisis.

Comrade Elian Gonzalez could not be reached for comment.

Update! TuCa blasts ’em but good.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Monday blasted the “self-righteous posturing” of politicians and media figures eager to condemn the Trump administration for its border policy.

“So, the same people who support the third term post-viability abortion for purposes of sex selection are now lecturing you about God and sin and the holiness of children. Feel chastened?” Carlson asked sardonically before launching into a few more examples, including Michael Hayden’s comparison of the border situation to Nazi Germany. 

“We could go on,” The Daily Caller co-founder said. “There was so much more just like that. The rich and powerful reminding you just how virtuous they are. Do you think any of these people really care about family separation? If they did, they would be worried about the collapse of the American family, which is measurable and real, but they are not worried about that. In fact, they welcome that collapse, because strong families are an impediment to their political power. That’s why they are always lecturing you about the patriarchy and the evil of the American family.”

“This is one of those moments that tells you everything about our ruling class. They care far more about foreigners than their own people,” said Carlson, pointing out that they also aren’t “interested in solutions to anything. They are great at yelling and at preening but not so much at fixing and building.”

“Lots of people yelling at you on TV don’t even have children, so don’t for a second let them take the moral high ground,” Carlson concluded. “Their goal is to change your country forever, and they are succeeding by the way.”

Well, they were, anyway.

Via Ace, who mixes lots of rich buttery goodness into his post—including a handy how-to guide from those humanitarian patriots at #OccupyMyBalls on how to murder an ICE agent, and why you should.

Yeah, we’re gonna be able to find a way to peacefully resolve our differences with these vicious, hate-addled pigs. I’m sure we will.

Bitter tears update!The statue of liberty is weeping“? Yep. Know why? Because, as my friend Don said earlier, once upon a time immigrants came into this country with pride right in front of her via Ellis Island, with respect for our laws, eager to become Americans and contribute to our society. Now they sneak in behind her back; have no interest in becoming Americans at all; refuse to even bother learning our language; have no regard for our culture and traditions; and whine about their nonexistent “rights” while ignoring the responsibilities of citizenship.

Share

The gang that couldn’t shoot straight

Better sit down for this one, folks. As difficult to believe as it is, it would seem that Barry Hussein Oshitstain told a lie once.

IG Report Shows Obama Lied When He Said He Knew Nothing About Hillary’s Secret E-mail Scheme
‘The policy of my administration is to encourage transparency,’ Obama told CBS News during the same interview in which he lied.

I can’t believe it. I WON’T believe it. Uncle Peter, my smelling salts!

In 2015, President Obama told America he only learned that his secretary of state Hillary Clinton was illegally using a private email server to conduct public business after The New York Times published a story saying so. Today’s release of a Department of Justice inspector general report shows that was a lie.

“FBI analysts and Prosecutor 2 told us that former President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account,” the report says in a footnote on page 89. “Obama, like other high level government officials, used a pseudonym for his username on his official government email account.”

Boy, their whole world pretty much unravelled once Gin-Soaked Hillary!™ got sent to the royal showers, didn’t it?

The report also says Obama Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey knew that Obama had lied.

Sigh. Of course he did.

It was in 2015 that Obama had disclaimed knowledge that Clinton used a private, rather than government, email address. In 2016, while drafting a public statement explaining why the FBI wouldn’t prosecute Clinton during her run for the presidency, Comey changed the statement’s wording to hide that Obama had communicated with Clinton through her private email address, the report says.

“A paragraph [in Comey’s statement] summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that hostile actors accessed Clinton’s server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton’s use of her private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary,” the IG report says. “This reference later was changed to ‘another senior government official,’ and ultimately was omitted.”

Clowns. They’re all fucking clowns, for God’s sake. If you’re going to lie for a living, you need to be one hell of a lot better at it than these droolcases. A Tweet from Sean Davis is appended:


We should all wish for enemies as stupid and inept as Trump’s. A commenter on Davis’s Tweet has himself a good laugh over Barky’s shopworn perennial excuse:

You realize what this means? It means Obama didn’t even know he sent those e-mails until he read it in the IG report.

Thus proving the truth behind Treacher’s evergreen observation about saying anything he thinks will get him through the next five minutes. If I remember right, that line was in reference to somebody other than His Royal Majesty. But it applies perfectly well to just about every Democrat Socialist tapeworm you could name.

Via Ace, who adds:

Unrelated, but it turns out that Comey used personal email for government business too. Giving him a conflict of interest on this point: He had to claim a lack of ‘intent” saved Clinton, or else he’d be making the case for his own criminal prosecution.

And of course he didn’t recuse himself.

Well, I mean, DUH. It’s diff’runt when they try to rig an election, cover up their criminal and treasonous behavior, fail spectacularly at that too, and then try to overthrow the duly-elected president via a frame-job built on manufactured evidence, see. Because reasons, y’all.

Most galling of all: these are the people—yes, these fucktard stumblebums—who believe themselves so much smarter than you that their Divine Right To Rule should just be automatically assumed by all, never to be questioned or even examined. And they’re STILL shocked unto hysteria and hissy fits that they didn’t get away with it, too.

No, really. The big fat raised middle finger real Americans waved in their faces by elevating Trump to the Presidency is something they’ll never recover from. There’s only one thing left to do, which will put the lock on the rubber-room door for all time.

Lock her up. Lock him up. Lock ’em ALL up, the whole kit and kaboodle.

Update!Anyone can see what’s going on here.

Let’s bear in mind that this IG report doesn’t even get started on the Robert Mueller investigation, which we now know is the fruit of a poisonous tree planted by Clinton partisans at FBI as they believed their candidate would win. That report will come later, and it is exceptionally likely to deliver a lot worse to the Deep State gang.

All of this is very bad. The American people, who probably haven’t followed this the way they did the Watergate investigation simply because of the diversity of media coverage available today compared to the mid-1970s, still get it — the in-crowd in Washington didn’t want Trump to win and were willing to break the law and screw the Constitution in order to make Clinton president and yet were too pathetically incompetent to make that happen despite all of the resources of the federal government at their disposal. That’s reflected in polling which indicates the folks are less and less impressed with the Mueller investigation — which is the bastard child of the FBI’s 2016 bias.

This is a hopeful thing, at the end of the day. It suggests we are not slaves to our supposed masters in Washington and can still beat them when push comes to shove.

If the American people haven’t followed this the way they did Watergate, I submit that it’s due not to “diversity of media coverage” but to a near-total lack of faith or trust in the federal government: the growing awareness that every one of the rotten bastards, elected or appointed, is corrupt to the bone, and hopelessly incompetent into the bargain. But this is a hopeful thing in its own way, since it happens to be the simple truth—with more supporting evidence being unearthed every day. It’s another reason why we chose an outsider instead of just another professional politician, in fact.

Share

Fake news? You better believe it

The Last Real Journalist does her homework.

We the media have “fact-checked” President Trump like we have fact-checked no other human being on the planet—and he’s certainly given us plenty to write about. That’s probably why it’s so easy to find lists enumerating and examining his mistakes, missteps and “lies.”

But as self-appointed arbiters of truth, we’ve largely excused our own unprecedented string of fact-challenged reporting. The truth is, formerly well-respected, top news organizations are making repeat, unforced errors in numbers that were unheard of just a couple of years ago.

Our repeat mistakes involve declaring that Trump’s claims are “lies” when they are matters of opinion, or when the truth between conflicting sources is unknowable; taking Trump’s statements and events out of context; reporting secondhand accounts against Trump without attribution as if they’re established fact; relying on untruthful, conflicted sources; and presenting reporter opinions in news stories—without labeling them as opinions.

What’s worse, we defend ourselves by trying to convince the public that our mistakes are actually a virtue because we (sometimes) correct them. Or we blame Trump for why we’re getting so much wrong. It’s a little bit like a police officer taking someone to jail for DUI, then driving home drunk himself: he may be correct to arrest the suspect, but he should certainly know better than to commit the same violation.

So since nobody else has compiled an updated, extensive list of this kind, here are…

Follows, a compendium of fifty (!) “mistakes”—some major, some minor, some distortions of the truth, some outright fabrications. Some of them are truly petty and childish, enough so to make one wonder what kind of purblind dolt would put not merely his own personal credibility but that of his entire industry at risk by perpetrating them. But all of them cut only one way (against Trump) and are therefore neither “honest” nor “innocent,” but self-evidently malicious.

And still a dwindling few of them persist in denying the existence of any liberal bias in “journalism,” a claim that would be despicable if it weren’t so transparently laughable. Thus do they deal their rapidly-vanishing credibility another shattering blow, carrying self-beclownment beyond limits previously thought unbreachable.

Share

One-stop solution shop

A Schlichter column from earlier in the week explains how to properly defeat liberal arguments.

Let’s look as some of liberals’ favorite cheats, and how you can defeat them.

The Cheat: “Jesusplain Those Rubes!”

When in doubt, play the messiah card! It’s always a pleasure to have some atheist hipster explain to you how Christ was a socialist SJW who was ultra-open-minded about what bathroom people should use and who demands you give the government money so it can hand your cash over to deadbeats. I often wonder if this gambit ever works, if anyone ever thinks, “Gosh, I guess if @ImpeachTrumpHillarysHot says my Savior hates AR15s, then I better disarm myself in the face of liberal-enabled crime and liberal-supported tyranny.”

How to Beat It: You could explain the whole Christianity thing, but it’s easier to just tell the liberals to go pound sand.

The Cheat: “You are [Something Terrible] for thinking that!”

Racist, sexist, homophobic, Nickelback-loving – there’s not a slur or slander you won’t be called for standing up for the principles that made America great. But somewhere along the line, certain conservatives – let’s just say they tend to try to sell you cruises where you can mingle with the who’s who of the Fredocon elite – started trying to please liberals, seeking to prove that, “No, I’m not that horrible thing you just called me!” Big mistake. Of course, that never works. Liberals themselves are all of the things they call you, and they know it, and they don’t care, because their caring and concern and compassion for all the groups they accuse you of oppressing is just a pose. Watch how quickly they go from claiming you hate gay people to accusing you of being gay because calling a conservative gay is an insult that is supposed to blow our button-down bourgeois minds.

How to Beat It: You could deny the charges, but it’s easier to just tell the liberals to go pound sand.

Hmm. I do believe I’m seeing a pattern beginning to develop here. Kurt’s closer is a real gem too.

Share

The play’s the thing

Fake phony frauds, as Bob Grant used to say.

Hypocrisy Watch: Democrats hope they’ve found an issue that will re-energize the fading “Blue Wave” with the recent spike in gas prices. Never mind that the increase is temporary. Or that Democrats have for years tried to force gas prices up — permanently — through various tax hikes.

Sen. Minority Leader Charles Schumer and other Democrats plan to use this price spike to blast President Trump and, hopefully, improve their election chances in November.

“President Trump’s reckless decision to pull out of the Iran deal has led to higher oil prices,” Schumer said. “These higher oil prices are translating directly to soaring gas prices, something we know disproportionately hurts middle and lower income people.”

But what’s really rich is that Democrats are complaining about a temporary spike in gasoline prices after having spent years trying to force them up permanently.

As recently as 2015, Democrats were pushing to nearly double the federal gasoline tax. At the time, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that it was the perfect time to do so because “if there’s ever going to be an opportunity to raise the gas tax, the time when gas prices are so low — oil prices are so low — is the time to do it.”

At the same time, Democrats have pledged to impose a tax on carbon emissions of around $50 per ton of CO2 — which would go up each year at a rate faster than inflation — to combat “climate change.”

Schumer himself promised to enact a carbon tax if Hillary Clinton won and Democrats regained control of the Senate in the 2016 elections.

Well, guess what? A carbon tax of that magnitude would sharply raise gasoline prices. A report out of the University of Michigan last fall concluded that a carbon tax of $40 per ton would hike gasoline prices by 36 cents a gallon.

Where was Schumer’s concern about working families then?

Same place it always was: in the theater, wearing a kabuki mask and cavorting onstage to distract the suckers. It’s less hypocrisy than it is undiluted, raw deception. Like the GOPe’s “conservative principles,” the Democrat Socialists’ concern for the working stiff exists only in the runup to an election, to be carefully packed away at the very back of a securely locked closet the rest of the time.

Share

An idea whose time has…uhh, well…

It might not be such a bad idea, really, but I don’t see it happening.

America is being made great again in the wake of Obama’s failed presidency, which in hindsight already appears as nothing more than the absurd climax of affirmative action gone off the rails.  Trump has wiped the floor with his legacy while building an incredible one of his own.

Now, I propose, is the perfect time for the American people to seal their own deal: let’s make a campaign ourselves to expire terms such as “Democrat,” “liberal,” “leftist,” and “progressive,” and let’s call it what it is: totalitarianism.

He ain’t entirely wrong, of course. But “totalitarian” is a wee mite unwieldy, shall we say. Not to mention that I doubt most average workaday Joes out there even know what it means, or care.

I’ve opined myself about the near-uselessness nowadays of the old terms like “liberal,” “conservative,” etc. In fact, those two in particular have come to signify pretty much the opposite of their old, long-accepted definitions—a direct result of the Left’s hijacking of the world “liberal” not as a clarification of their intentions, but as camouflage for them. If there’s anything remotely liberal about unending expansion of a bureaucratic central behemoth’s control over each and every one of us, I sure wish someone would explain to me what it might be.

I coined the term “Progressivist” and use it pretty extensively here, because I am confident in my readers’ familiarity with the history of the so-called Progressive movement, its origins, and its sinister agenda. But I expect that my use of “Progressivist” as a sort of shorthand for the Left’s fetishized continuation and extension of the original Progressives’ statist, tyrannical program might not be properly understood by most folks out there. On the other hand, when someone says “liberal” everybody pretty much gets the idea, at least for now. Cohen still makes some pretty good points, though:

Now that Trump is midway through his second year as president, I believe we can now announce without fear of the Post-Orwellian Thought Police: the enemies of President Trump are the enemies of the family, the Constitution, morality, and sanity. They are collectively the enemies of our nation’s future, who actively seek to flood the nation with third-world refugees while disarming the native population. In a word, President Trump’s enemies are barbarians within the gates, and they have gotten this far because they do a good job of weeping when retaliation looms. We now must update our terminology if we are consciously to move ahead: the words “liberal,” “progressive,” “Democrat” are what “National Socialist” are to “Nazi.” They are a lot of misleading verbiage.

Oh, I don’t know how misleading they really are at this point. They were once, and were intended to be. But people are beginning to see through the smokescreen more clearly than they ever have before; the fog is lifting at last as the inevitable failure of Left governance makes itself felt more keenly, leaving behind only the revolting stench of pure corruption. Cohen goes on to reel off this great line:

The liberal agenda exists solely because the people liberals are hell-bent on attacking are too busy living their lives to bother shooting them all.

Heh. For now, I suppose. We’ll see how long that holds up. Cohen’s closing recommendation is right on the money too.

Share

On the climate

An excellent precis.

Trying to calculate something called “global average temperature” from this massive variety of ever changing data covering diverse locations, elevations, times, and weather is an exercise in statistical sophistry – either meaningless or misleading.

“Climate” is just the notional 30-year average of weather, so climate is controlled by the same big three factors that drive weather.

Notice one thing about the three big drivers of weather: not one is measurably affected by the trace amount of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere.  Never does a daily weather forecast mention CO2, and never do weather-watching farmers or sailors note daily measurements of CO2.  However, there are over one hundred massive computerized climate-forecasting models run by bureaucracies that use CO2 as a key driver, with variable inputs and rules and differing results.  No one knows which model may have stumbled onto an accurate climate forecast.

CO2 is a rare (0.04%) colorless natural atmospheric gas.  It does not generate any heat – it just moves heat around.  In the atmosphere, it may slightly reduce the solar radiation that reaches the surface, thus producing cooler days, and it may slightly reduce nighttime radiative cooling, thus producing warmer nights.  The net effect is probably a tiny net warming at night, in winter, and in polar regions – all of which are probably welcomed by most people.  Even this tiny effect shrinks rapidly as CO2 levels rise.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the key nutrient of our carbon-based life on Earth.  It has always been there, usually much more of it than now.  It is nothing to be scared about.  If it increases, the net effects will be highly beneficial for all life on Earth.  It is time to stop the carbon dioxide scare stories.

Change is the natural order of things on Earth, and all records are destined to be equaled or broken.  From the first ray of morning sunshine to the frosts at midnight, temperature is always changing – every minute, every day, and every year, at every place on Earth.  The Earth keeps turning, the planets interact, asteroids come and go, and that big glowing pulsing nuclear reactor in the sky keeps moving toward the next phase of its turbulent and finite life.

No level of carbon taxes or emission targets will stop Earth’s climate from changing.  Nature rules, not politicians.  We must aim for resilience and be prepared to adapt.

There’s so much good, science-backed common sense here it was hard to decide when to stop excerpting. You’ll definitely want to read it all…and maybe even bookmark it for future reference, too.

The Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) scam was never really about Saving Gaia!!!™ from human depredation. In fact, it was never even about the climate, really. It was about the same old things that underlie every Leftist plaint: power, control, and expanding government’s reach. No more, no less.

Share

Worm on a hot griddle

Comey just keeps right on slithering.

REMNICK: Do you think we’d be a lot better off with Hillary Clinton as president than Donald Trump?

COMEY: Certainly given her commitment to our traditions and our norms and our values and the rule of law, yes.

Daniel asks some penetrating questions regarding the above:

No one quite embodies the rule of law like a Clinton.

How does Comey know Hillary’s commitments to our traditions? And which traditions are those? Compulsive lying, compulsive thieving and compulsive paranoia?

Does Comey mean America traditions, norms and values? Or lefty ones.

Oh, the answer to that is certainly clear enough, I think.

But wait, it gets even better. The miserable Comey was asked the same question by Jake Tapper, as it turns out, producing a very different response:

TAPPER: Do you think the nation would be better off if Hillary Clinton had won?

COMEY: I can’t answer that. That’s something- that hypothetical is too hard for me to go back in time to try and answer-

TAPPER: You paint a pretty dire picture of President Trump. It’s hard to imagine how you don’t think the nation is better off if Hillary Clinton had won.

COMEY: I don’t think about it in those terms though, Jake.

He wriggles and weasels around some more, leading the author of the Mediaite article to conclude:

That’s quite a drastic shift Comey made within a matter of hours.

It begs the question why the former FBI Director would tell Jake Tapper one thing and David Remnick another. Is it the fact that one interview was on television and the other was on radio? Did Comey simply change his mind between both interviews? Or did he knowingly withhold from Tapper how he felt about Hillary Clinton being our president?

Whatever the truth may be, the man who used to be the nation’s top cop should know of all people how suspicious it looks when someone who’s being interrogated changes their story.

It’s not so suspicious, really; it just confirms that Comey is exactly what we think he is, that’s all. As Treacher once so brilliantly said of Obama, Comey will say whatever he needs to say in order to get through the next five minutes.

That as sad and sorry an excuse for a man as Comey is could rise to the most dizzying heights of federal law enforcement is a wholly damning indictment of—well, everyone involved in his undue elevation, certainly. But also the FBI itself, the DOJ, even America’s degenerate federal government entire, too. The thing that makes it all so entertaining is just how bad he really is at being a scumbucket. Then again, all the good cops I know always say the same thing: it’s the incompetent crooks that get caught.

Share

Once an asshole, always an asshole

The liberal leopard never changes his spots.

In April of 2017, I published a podcast with Charles Murray, coauthor of the controversial (and endlessly misrepresented) book The Bell Curve. These are the most provocative claims in the book:

  1. Human “general intelligence” is a scientifically valid concept.
  2. IQ tests do a pretty good job of measuring it.
  3. A person’s IQ is highly predictive of his/her success in life.
  4. Mean IQ differs across populations (blacks < whites < Asians).
  5. It isn’t known to what degree differences in IQ are genetically determined, but it seems safe to say that genes play a role (and also safe to say that environment does too).

At the time Murray wrote The Bell Curve, these claims were not scientifically controversial—though taken together, they proved devastating to his reputation among nonscientists. That remains the case today. When I spoke with Murray last year, he had just been de-platformed at Middlebury College, a quarter century after his book was first published, and his host had been physically assaulted while leaving the hall. So I decided to invite him on my podcast to discuss the episode, along with the mischaracterizations of his research that gave rise to it.

Needless to say, I knew that having a friendly conversation with Murray might draw some fire my way. But that was, in part, the point. Given the viciousness with which he continues to be scapegoated—and, indeed, my own careful avoidance of him up to that moment—I felt a moral imperative to provide him some cover.

In the aftermath of our conversation, many people have sought to paint me as a racist—but few have tried quite so hard as Ezra Klein, Editor-at-Large of Vox. In response to my podcast, Klein published a disingenuous hit piece that pretended to represent the scientific consensus on human intelligence while vilifying me as, at best, Murray’s dupe. More likely, readers unfamiliar with my work came away believing that I’m a racist pseudoscientist in my own right.

After Klein published that article, and amplified its effects on social media, I reached out to him in the hope of appealing to his editorial conscience. I found none. The ethic that governs Klein’s brand of journalism appears to be: Accuse a person with a large platform of something terrible, and then monetize the resulting controversy. If he complains, invite him to respond in your magazine so that he will drive his audience your way and you can further profit from his doomed effort to undo the damage you’ve done to his reputation.

Since then, Klein has kept at it, and he delivered another volley today. I told him that if he continued in this way, I would publish our private email correspondence so that our readers could judge him for themselves. His latest effort has convinced me that I should make good on that promise.

Glenn used to approvingly link Klein regularly back in the old days, which I never did understand. He was then, is now, and ever shall be just another garden-variety liberal shitbag: smarmy, self-righteous, nasty, and bereft of any regard whatever for either facts or fairness. I don’t know much of anything about Harris or his views, but whatever they may be, he just got himself a schooling on Lefty’s true nature, along with the uselesness and futility of trying to debate him in good faith. He should be thankful; however rude his awakening, in truth he got off light:

It’s mildly amusing that Harris is only discovering now that the media in general, and Ezra Klein in particular, is disingenuous and utilizes character assassination as its stock tool-in-trade. Imagine what it is like for those who can be disemployed as well as discredited, Sam!

Not to mention being set upon and brutally beaten by a violent Progressivist mob. LIve and learn, Sam.

Share

Lies, damned lies…

And damned liberals.

Here’s the deal – everything the liberals say about guns is a lie. Every. Single. Thing.

Oh, it ain’t just guns, boyo. You coulda just left “about guns” right out of there.

It’s a lie when they scream that you can hit the Guns-2-Go drive-thru and buy yourself a fully semi-automatic assault machine gun with high-powered 5.56 mm rounds, because glorified 5.56 mm rounds are “high-powered” on their planet, faster and quicker than you can call an Uber.

It’s a lie when they say an armed citizenry would be powerless in the face of a leftist government equipped with tanks and artillery and bombers – though their assumption that a leftist government would use tanks and artillery and bombers on the American people seems like a pretty good reason for having an armed citizenry.

It’s a lie when they say they only want to have a “conversation” and seek only “bipartisan compromise.” Foamy Marco Rubio got suckered into that grift just like Chuck Schemer suckered him into pushing amnesty, and they’ve been ritually disemboweling him ever since.

Which brings us round to one of the best lines on the topic I’ve seen yet. Bold mine, because it merits the emphasis:

Liberals constantly sneer that we are “insecure about our masculinity” and “need guns to feel like men.” Leaving aside the millions of gun-owning women out there who don’t seem to fit within that stupid paradigm, and the irony of leftist doors opining on manhood, liberals miss the point.

We don’t need guns to be men. We need guns to be free men.

And that right there is what really drives them nuts.

Update! Who you gonna believe, us or your lying ears?

Did you hear? They’re talking about repealing the Second Amendment. It started with former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. And it sure does seem like those calls prompted skeptics of American gun culture to echo their remarks. Turley and Stevens were joined this week by op-ed writers in the pages of Esquire and the Seattle Times. Democratic candidates for federal office have even enlisted in the ranks of those calling for an amendment to curtail the freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Of course, this is just the most mainstream invocation of anti-Second Amendment themes that have been expressed unashamedly for years, from liberal activists like Michael Moore to conservative opinion writers at the New York Times. Those calling for the repeal of the right to bear arms today are only echoing similar calls made years ago in venues ranging from Rolling Stone, MSNBC, and Vanity Fair to the Jesuit publication America Magazine.

Are you sitting down? You might be surprised to learn that none of this occurred. It’s only your vivid or, some might go so far as to say, fevered imagination. Rest assured, CNN host Chris Cuomo insists that “no one” is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. And even if they are, as Justice Stevens most certainly is, he’s a “boogeyman” who commands no influence or respect. Apparently, to suggest that anyone is calling for such extremist measures, and not universally beloved “common-sense” restrictions on firearms ownership, amounts to swatting at phantoms. Cuomo retreated into a familiar, well-fortified rhetorical trench—a place where other liberals can be found whenever basic firearm-ownership rights are called into question. Essentially, his contention boils down to this: You didn’t hear what you thought you heard.

You might also have heard conservatives complain about a double standard applied to students who survived the Parkland shooting and emerged as prominent gun-control activists. Those conservatives claim that when they take these students seriously and engage with their ideas or criticize them for unfairly smearing their opponents, they are accused of issuing personal assaults on the character of near-defenseless children. Well, you’ll be happy to learn that this, too, is a figment of conservative imaginations.

It is a “straw-man argument,” suggested the New Republic editor Jeet Heer, to claim that liberals have reacted with anything other than friendly disagreement when student activists are criticized. The left’s only visceral objections arise when figures on the right accuse these students of fabricating their identity or experience—which, unfortunately, has occurred. The mere suggestion that the left has done anything other than welcome respectful and legitimate criticism of the Parkland students amounts to “conspiracy theories,” according to Rewire New editor-in-chief Jodi Jacobson. Anyone saying otherwise is “scared” or peddling a “weak case.”

That’s good to know. I was concerned for a while there that liberals had deliberately conflated substantive disagreement with personal attacks on the Parkland activists.

Don’t worry, folks; if you don’t like any of those lies, they have plenty of others.

Updated updated! Turtles lies, all the way down.

For baseball players, it’s “Keep your eye on the ball.”

For fighter pilots, it’s “Lose sight, lose the fight.”

Different ways of saying the same thing:
History’s gut pile is assembled from the body parts of the witless and clueless.

At its root, the Parkland shooting, except for the dozen-and-a-half unfortunate victims, was nothing surprising or newly dreadful, and nothing functionally different than any of the other mass shootings enabled by the concentrated stupidity of Gun Free Victim Zones. It’s what happens when you ring the dinner bell, chum the water, and push tourists into the pool with predators created by the Left, sharing the same amoral outlook as hungry carnivorous sharks.

FFS, that’s been the entire point of the exercise, indeed the very raison d’etre for the Evil Party to enact it: precisely to keep up a steady supply of outrageous acts, to feed their Political Hate Machine with a never-ending supply of still-warm victim’s blood, for their faithful party hacks to always be dancing in, until they achieve their goal:

the total disarmament of anyone who would oppose their totalitarian control of the population.

Whoot, there it is. Plenty more at the link, of which you should read the all.

Share

Be of good cheer

Or, perhaps, not.

Tuesday’s narrow win by Democrat Conor Lamb in a special congressional election in Pennsylvania has thrilled Democrats eager to believe that the entire country has finally seen the error of its ways and is about to remove the interloper Donald J. Trump, if not from power then at least from moral authority in the White House. This, they crow, is yet more proof of the “blue wave” that surely is coming in the fall, when the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition retakes the House of Representatives, re-installs Nancy Pelosi as speaker, and effects the Progressive Restoration in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016.

Chastened Republicans, meanwhile, are expected finally to bow to the inevitable and hang their heads in shame, while accepting the natural overlordship of their Democrat betters and returning to their Vichycon places at the table, collaborating whenever possible and putting up only token resistance when not.

Not so fast. It’s always dangerous to draw national conclusions from local elections, which House races are by definition.

I’m still reasonably confident of another Democrat-Socialist shellacking this fall; for starters, all this nonsense about Trump’s supposed “unpopularity” conveniently ignores approval numbers which are now safely above Saint Barrack’s own. And I still no longer put much stock in polls at all anyway. Nobody should forget that the current “unpopular” polling meme is being touted in the very same places that gave Trump no chance whatsoever of beating Her Herness in the first place.

Leftymedia clings to the same erroneous assumption they have all along: that Normals hate Trump every bit as much as they do themselves. It’s more than vaguely reminiscent of the stunned, traumatized libtard who famously declared, after Nixon’s win, “I don’t know anybody who voted for him.” (Possibly a misquote—see this.)

Well, of course she didn’t. How could she? Wrapped up snugly in their DC, Upper West Side, or Hollywood cocoons, snooty Progtard elitists couldn’t remotely conceive of the existence of anyone so troglodytic, so benighted—so confoundingly perverse!—as to ignore the scolding of their betters and vote for someone they so deeply disapproved of.

I could easily be wrong about a coming Dem-Soc disaster though, I admit. Back over to Walsh for some reasons why:

What ought to worry the GOP about the Lamb victory is not the victory itself—Lamb had been leading handsomely in the polls, running as a “conservative”—but the stealthiness of the campaign, which is all part of an emerging new Democrat strategy. As House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) noted, “the candidate who is going to win this race is the candidate who ran as a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Nancy Pelosi, conservative.”

So behold the emerging Campaign ’18. For months now, Democrats have been recruiting youthful military vets, some of them anti-abortion, and committed to a generational change of the Democrats’ geriatric leadership. In an area like Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district, which historically has been home to white, working-class, blue-collar cradle Democrats, this is a winning idea. In order to take back states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Democrats finally are realizing that the Pelosi-Schemer-Clinton axis of evil no longer holds any appeal, but that clean-cut, all-American types like Conor Lamb very much do. A party that has never had any problem compromising its transient “moral” principles won’t hesitate to run right at conservative Democrat voters, even it means betraying their professed ideals in order to support the national party with votes in Congress when it matters. “By any means necessary” is the Democrats’ slogan for a reason, after all.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the consultants who make a living by turning winnable races into close elections, bear much of the blame. Behind the scenes, in race after race, they decide beforehand which candidates are viable and which aren’t. The result is a top-down determination about where the PAC money will go, and about which candidates will get national media attention. Ask yourself this: had you ever heard of Rick Saccade until last week? Bet you heard of Conor Lamb.

Ah, but it’s worse than that; worries about GOPe ineptness are only part of the story. We shouldn’t leave treachery out of our calculations:

RUSH: I see the smile. Oh, he’s gloating. (imitating Murphy) “Yeah, I did, Trump, Trump, Trump, guess what, we’re getting clobbered in the polls. The problem is fundamentally Trump and the fact that the party’s become a bunch of lemmings following him. Oh, you idiots. I tried to tell you, I tried to tell you. We have the most unpopular president in the history of presidents, two-thirds of the country’s offended by the guy every day, I told you, it’s Trump, Trump, Trump. Blue wave is coming. We’re toast! Ha-ha! I told you.”

Let’s go on to McKinnon, Mark McKinnon next. He ran all the media for George Bush in the 2000 campaign and was prominent in 2004. He was on with Don Lemon. And McKinnon is the guy that founded this centrist group called No Labels. We’re not conservatives. We’re not liberals. We’re actually liberals that don’t call ourselves liberals, is what the No Labels group is. And Lemon said, “Okay. You’re plugged into a lot of Republicans, Mark. What are they really saying behind the scenes?”

MCKINNON: They’re saying, get off the beach. The wave is coming. Get out of here. I mean, actually, that is happening. I mean, they’re getting out of the races altogether. In fact, 41 Republicans have retired and resigned. And I think because of last night we’re gonna see more resignations. Last night’s news, that was the canary in the coal mine getting hit by mustard gas and a grenade, and there’s feathers everywhere. I think a lot of Republicans were holding out hope that because of the tax cuts and because of the very strong economy, that would help carry through some of the problems that we’ve been seeing out there. This suggests that that’s not gonna be the lifeboat that everybody thought it was gonna be.

RUSH: Okay. We got one more with Murphy back on CNN, and he’s on the same show with McKinnon ’cause you’ll hear McKinnon in this bite as well.

MURPHY: We need to give the same kind of long leash to some of our candidates who want to walk away from the president a little bit and walk away from some of these litmus test primary issues, like guns in these suburban districts where Republican support is collapsing. So I would say my advice to the Republicans would be, copy that, because we are heading for real headwinds. That’s an effective tactic, as we just learned in one of our base districts.

RUSH: So we need to give a long leash to some of our candidates who want to walk away from the president a little bit, walk away from some of these litmus test primary issues like guns in these suburban districts where Republican support is collapsing. Republican support for guns in suburban districts is collapsing.

Hey, anybody remember when these guys were howling about Trump because Muh Conservative Principles? Nah, me neither.

Limbaugh administers the antidote:

Okay, so the message is that Trump is a buffoon, an idiot, he’s hated and despised, two-thirds of the country doesn’t like the guy. He’s the most negative polling president first year, first term we’ve ever had, blue wave is coming, get off the beach or you’re gonna drown. Republicans are resigning left and right. It’s over.

How did he get elected in the first place, then? Could somebody explain to me what happened, how did he get elected in the first place? Was he overwhelmingly popular by people who voted for him and now one-third of the people that voted for him have abandoned him or more, he’s hated and despised? Trump is hated and despised by many of the people that the voted for him, Republican support is collapsing because of Trump, Trump, Trump? How did a guy like this ever get elected then?

And that’s still my question too. Like I said, I could easily be wrong here. Enough people out there could buy into the Democrat-Socialist bait and switch to send the Repubs packing. And I have no doubt that a return to their also-ran status would suit plenty of business-as-usual GOPers just fine.

But the fact remains that, aside from blatantly misrepresenting themselves, the Democrat Socialist Party has NOTHING. Nothing but old, tired ideas that have failed every time they’ve been tried; Obama’s dismal record; and a bitter, bone-deep contempt for traditional American values they don’t even bother trying to conceal anymore. I just can’t quite get my head around the chilling thought that most Americans are so fickle, so naive, so fucking stupid as to be taken in by such brazen chicanery. Not yet, I can’t.

I mean, really: if a guy like Conor Lamb truly is such a rock-ribbed “conservative”—even going so far as to run a campaign ad featuring himself firing an AR15, ferchrissake—then why on earth would he bother with the Democrat Socialist Party at all? Any person who owns and enjoys an “assault weapon” knows very damned well that the Dems are practically drooling at the prospect of banning them again, emboldened enough by recent tragedy to abandon the old “I’m a hunter myself” subterfuge to shout their intentions from the very rooftops. If Lamb was as staunch a Second Amendment proponent as he claims, he wouldn’t even be a member of the Democrat Socialist Party, much less running for office under their tainted rubric.

No, we’ve seen this movie before, about a bajillion times. Run in a Republican district as a “conservative” or “moderate,” slime your way into office, and then march in lockstep with the rest of the dirty DC commies forever after. It pains me to have to say it about a former Marine, but Lamb is either a fraud or a fool. And the people who just elected him are either suckers…or something much, much worse. There just is no other explanation.

Lest we forget, the execrable cur John Murtha was a Marine too. From Pennsylvania, if I remember right (yep, I do). Must be something in the water up there or something.

Share

Age of Travesties

When “shock value” is the only value left.

Early in the Netflix series called Babylon Berlin, set in Germany in 1929, the police vice squad raids the studio of a pornographic film company. At first, we hear only the off-camera voice of the director speaking to “Mary,” “Joseph,” the “shepherds,” and so on—and, for a second, we infer that it is a rehearsal for a school Christmas pageant.

Then the camera, following the police officers, enters the studio to disclose the pale, naked bodies of actors engaged in an orgy in a manger—coupling in the fashion of barnyard animals, as the director calls out instructions and encouragement.

The scene is not just a travesty of the Nativity but a travesty of blasphemy itself—and, somewhere beyond that, a comment on a style of German transgressiveness so naïve and humorless and boorish and literal-minded (almost moronic) as to be…not innocent, exactly, but bovine, a little too dumb to arouse an intelligent person’s indignation. One feels disgust, but it is not directed at the religious transgression; rather, one is overwhelmed by the depressing, over-the-top stupidity of it all, the squalor. The vice squad officers, all business and a little bored, take the scene as a matter of course. These are the polluted waters of their culture. This is their swamp. (Weimar Germany was a prequel, needless to say.)

It’s possible to have a similar reaction to aspects of America in 2018.

An understatement if ever there was one.

Leading universities have turned themselves into hybrids of Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood and Mao’s Red Guards. They have become madrassas of identity politics, given over to dogmatism, indoctrination, the coddling of grievance, and the encouragement and manipulation of neurotic youthful insecurities for the purpose of consolidating political power. The effects of travesties being committed on American campuses, where the mind of the hard Left is embedded in faculties, administrations, and boards of overseers, will be felt for generations. The damage may be irreparable.

Consider the comedy of the pronouns, which is symptomatic—and hilarious, if you can stand it. In the Alice in Wonderland of academe, pronouns are deemed to be discretionary. A person may choose a unique pronoun (“ahi,” “her,” or “Gloria Swanson,” or “John Foster Dulles” —up to you, precious: we leave the choice to your iridescent narcissism).

This is a travesty of the sanctity of the person and of individual freedom. It is not social justice but vandalism of the language—self-obsession carried beyond the reach of parody. It is the sort of mischief that children do when they have no parents worthy of the name; universities make a wicked travesty of the idea of in loco parentis.

“Vandalism of the language” indeed. But in his eagerness to avoid declaring, as he puts it, “which side is responsible for what has gone wrong in our culture and politics,” Morrow passes right by the fact that this vandalism is not something done randomly or unawares—that it is part of a larger Leftist strategy to vandalize the entire culture, in a long-term quest to bring America That Was crashing down and tumbling into the arms of global Marxism at long last, and for good.

Where, after all, has nearly every nonsensical perversion of language you can think of originated if not with the Left? The sowing of confusion and doubt by distorting the very words we speak—eliminating old ones, coining new ones, and rendering long-accepted meanings of others into their exact opposite—is a tactic used by both Hitler and Stalin in their day, to great effect.

Example: “assault weapon,” a meaningless drivel-salad invented by the gun-grabber Left to link perfectly ordinary semi-automatic rifles with assault rifles for the purpose of frightening and misleading the ignorant into supporting tight restrictions and eventually a ban on them. The spurious definition of “assault weapon” is based entirely on cosmetic appearance and not function; it is pure manipulation, propaganda and nothing whatsoever more.

The most shocking aspect, though, is not that the Left did it, but that they did it so successfully. The term is now thoroughly embedded in American culture; even 2A supporters use it, in dismaying numbers. And it’s nothing but manufactured horseshit.

That’s just one example. There are others related to firearms, and way, way more just about any and everywhere else you look—far too many to be comprehensively cataloged. The Left’s reduction of so much of plain language into near-gibberish would have to be one of their greatest success stories, in truth. “Tolerance”? “Diversity”? “Dissent”? “Patriotic”? “Brave”? “Heroic”? “Rape”? “Freedom”? “Truth”? Good Lord, even the word “liberal” itself has come to mean the precise opposite of what it once did.

None of which even begins to address the forced conversion of perfectly acceptable words like “handicapped” into clumsy, insulting pabulum like “differently abled”; “heterosexual” into “cisgendered”; “Negro” into “person of color,” and so on and on. Don’t even get me started on bland, neutered tripe like “Congressperson” or “waitron” or “chairperson.” I’m suspicious of the morphing of “secretary” into “administrative assistant,” “employment office” into “human resources department,” and “boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband/shackjob” into “life partner,” but I can’t prove anything. Yet.

Thankfully, the Marines decided not to go with “rifleperson” or “infantryperson” in the end, after paroxysms of indignation from disgusted leathernecks who must have suddenly found themselves wondering what the hell they signed up for in the first place. The Corps end up bowing pretty deeply to political correctness, though, just not quite all the way to the ground. Yet.

The lowering of Marine CET physical fitness requirements to accommodate female “Marine” Mass Organized Conflict Facilitator Persons who can’t hack the program is another matter. Well, actually, no, it really isn’t. It’s another surge of the same old Dismal Tide inundating sanity, reality, and common sense while undermining the effective defense of this nation. Which, hey, for a Progtard, what’s not to like?

In the interest of comity, however, could we at least all agree to stop referring to Muslims as a “race”? I know it’s a bridge way too far to expect any acknowledgment that skepticism about the wisdom of admitting hordes of them into the country with no expectation of either assimilation or allegiance—skepticism informed by knowledge of Muslim history, present-day proclivities, and clearly stated intentions—can NOT reasonably be denounced as either “Islamophobia” or “racism” with any real fairness, and don’t ask it of anyone.

While we’re on race, “Asian,” “black,” and “Hispanic” are ethnicities; not one of them is really a “race.” I still prefer “Indian” or “American Indian” to “Native American,” although I acknowledge that it’s sloppy and off-base. Plus some of the Native Americans themselves seem a bit tetchy about it, so I’m willing to go along to get along there. On the other hand, I’d love to see “African-American” shitcanned entirely. Dammit, you can be one or the other, but you can’t be both. Pick one and get on with your life. If you go around wearing African tribal garb but you were born and raised here and neither you, your parents, nor your grandparents have ever so much as vacationed in Africa, you’re a pretentious phony, or at best deeply confused. But you ain’t African. Sorry.

“Hooker” or “prostitute” into “sex worker”, “stripper” into “exotic dancer,” “porn star” into “adult film actress”? Eh, thanks, but no thanks. Not ones that rankle me greatly, mind, but I figured I’d go ahead and throw ’em out there.

When they start demanding we all refer to “Cajuns” as “linguistically-enhanced sobriety-challenged Bayou persons,” I’m getting off the damned bus. But Cajuns are more or less white, so Proggies probably won’t care much about renaming them.

All things considered, it’s a travesty, is what it is.

Share

Guess the real headline

One of the following three headlines is a real one from CNN and AP. Can you spot it?

  • Nigerian hacker threatens to spill Trump secrets, demands payoff
  • Russian model in Thai jail says she’ll spill secrets on Trump if released
  • Former Soviet agent retired in France says he wants payment for archived dirt on Trump from 1980s

CNN broke the story. Here is the AP version. I’m not telling you which one of the above is real, but you can hover over the link and figure it out.

Based on this descent into the bottom of the barrel of tabloid trash, here are some headlines I expect from CNN in the coming weeks:

  • 3 foot tall “Bat Girl” spills details on affair with Trump
  • Barbra Streisand claims Trump is reptilian alien with human skin
  • No records of Donald Trump before UFO crash in Roswell
  • Trump planning secret biological warfare project to wipe out leftists
  • White House haunted; ghost of JFK tells Trump to resign
  • Bigfoot witnessed Trump affair with Stormy Daniels
Share

Looking for love logic in all the wrong places

Ace commits an error very common on our side:

Other people have pointed this out, but Trump is saying: We should pick immigrants according to our needs.

The left is fighting this claiming that it is immoral to think about ourselves; we must think only of the immigrants’ plight.

But why are they in a “plight” at all? What would be immoral about just leaving them where they are now?

Because, of course, they live in shitholes. That’s what the left puts forth to change this argument from one of rational self-interest (pick immigrants and number of immigrants according to our own changing needs) to one of absolute moral imperative — we must let them in because to leave them in their current countries would be cruel and inhuman.

There’s only one kind of place it would be cruel to leave someone — that’s right, a shithole.

So they can choose between screaming that we are morally obligated to lift immigrants out of their shitholes, or they can scream that it’s a travesty to call these countries shitholes, but they can’t do both.

But of course they can. They do it all the time, in fact, on just about every issue you can name. It’s been a source of half-annoyed amusement for me for a good long while now: the Left seemingly paints itself into another corner, and then some Righty blogger, columnist, or TeeWee talker crows in triumph that “they can’t POSSIBLY…” or “they wouldn’t DARE…” say or do this or that…

And then they go right ahead and do it anyway. And get away with it, too, except for whatever momentary pause our Charlie Browns out there kicking furiously at that football again and again might give them. Which is to say: none at all.

The mistake at the heart of the assertion that the Left “can’t POSSIBLY” do anything they wish is based on a fallacy: that logic, rationality, integrity, fairness, evidence, and even facts themselves matter to Progtards in even the smallest degree. It has been made bounteously clear a million times over that they do not. Not when there’s an argument to be won or a dissenter to be silenced or run over roughshod, they don’t.

The Left does not debate in good faith. Not ever, not about anything. There’s no real harm in making the case for that truth, I reckon, and in some ways it’s even a good and necessary thing. But nobody should be saying “they can’t…” with any serious expectation that it will inspire some serious reflection on their internal contradictions among them, much less stop them from doing whatever they may wish. I’m sure Ace knows that, and uses that statement not out of a shocked revulsion at their dishonesty and lack of honor, but as a reinforcement of the very notion of integrity in debate. Like I said: nothing wrong with that. And in similar vein, I’ll present this:

Three weeks after college, I flew to Senegal, West Africa, to run a community center in a rural town. Life was placid, with no danger, except to your health. That danger was considerable, because it was, in the words of the Peace Corps doctor, “a fecalized environment.”

In plain English: s— is everywhere. People defecate on the open ground, and the feces is blown with the dust – onto you, your clothes, your food, the water. He warned us the first day of training: do not even touch water. Human feces carries parasites that bore through your skin and cause organ failure.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that a few decades later, liberals would be pushing the lie that Western civilization is no better than a third-world country. Or would teach two generations of our kids that loving your own culture and wanting to preserve it are racism.

Senegal was not a hellhole. Very poor people can lead happy, meaningful lives in their own cultures’ terms. But they are not our terms. The excrement is the least of it. Our basic ideas of human relations, right and wrong, are incompatible.

I couldn’t wait to get home. So why would I want to bring Africa here? Non-Westerners do not magically become American by arriving on our shores with a visa.

For the rest of my life, I enjoyed the greatest gift of the Peace Corps: I love and treasure America more than ever. I take seriously my responsibility to defend our culture and our country and pass on the American heritage to the next generation.

African problems are made worse by our aid efforts. Senegal is full of smart, capable people. They will eventually solve their own country’s problems. They will do it on their terms, not ours. The solution is not to bring Africans here.

Actually, I do disagree with one thing here: after uncounted millennia of these “smart, capable people” in Senegal and other places NOT “solving their country’s problems,” I can see no reason to assume they ever will. I’ve read several Righty columns and posts the last few days on Trump’s “shithole” truism, with almost all of their authors hastening to declare that the problems of shitholes like Haiti, Somalia, and others are “not the fault of their people.” They do this either in obeisance to liberal pieties, or in order to deflect the cries of “RACIST!” that will surely follow any contravention of them.

Which timid delicacy STILL doesn’t render those pieties true or accurate (it won’t safeguard the writers from shrieks of “RACISM!™” either, but that’s another topic). After literally eons of failure, squalor, and general lack of civilizational progress in these squalid places—with every form of governance ever conceived of having been attempted there, the only one yielding any success at all being colonial rule by more enlightened European nations—the inescapable conclusion is that, yes, these shitholes are what they are PRECISELY BECAUSE OF their primitive, mostly ineducable, un-upliftable, savage inhabitants. Naturally, there are exceptions, as Karin herself points out. All facts, history, and numbers considered, they would be of the kind that prove the rule. Goad examines but a handful of the inconvenient truths:

In terms of life expectancy, Norway leads the pack at 81.8 years. Then comes the USA (79.3), with a sudden drop to 63.5 years for Haitians and a mere 55.0 years for Somalians.

Norway also wins the blue ribbon when it comes to per-capita income, which is a staggering 38 times that of Haitians and 173 times that of Somalians.

The noble Norsemen also win when it comes to their nation’s mean IQ, which is 100 compared to the USA’s 98. Somalia (68) and Haiti (67) both suffer a mean IQ that is below the commonly accepted cutoff line for “retarded.”

The only category where the USA comes out on top is the percentage of the population with access to improved sanitation facilities—one index claims that 100% of Americans can find a functional toilet if they try. Next comes Norway at 98.1%. Haiti (27.6%) and Somalia (23.5%) are far, far worse.  According to Wikipedia, “Sewer systems and wastewater treatment are nonexistent” in Haiti, which would mean the country is a literal shithole.

Prediction: Not a single loudmouthed virtue-signaler who’s publicly wetting themselves about Trump’s alleged comments will ever move to Haiti or Somalia.

That, too, is true, and telling. If you think it’s all “racist” anyway, well, my heart just breaks over your anguish there, kid. But reality is what it is, and speaks for itself…just like Trump’s open acknowledgement of these shitholes’ nature—and the desirability and likely negative impact on our own country of importing them—does.

Be sure to read all of it; her conclusion is bang-on, and well-stated. Hats off to her as well for having courage enough to confront some ugly truth head on, and to allow her views to be informed and shaped by it rather than clinging to what I would guess was the standard starry-eyed “we’re all the same” liberal balderdash she would have been infected with in college. As one of Vox’s commenters puts it: “What’s the difference between a missionary and (a) racist? Two weeks.” We can file that worthy observation for future use right alongside the great old classic, “a liberal is a conservative who’s been mugged,” I think.

Share

Shorter version: WAAAAAH!

Take their memes from them, use them for your own purposes, club them to death with them, and make the little libtard propagandists cry.

I should have realized that any person, idea, or phrase — however neutral in its intention — could be twisted into a partisan cudgel. I had always reported on fake news generated from both the left and the right. But after the 2016 election, shocked US Democrats, looking for explanations, adopted the concept as an easy answer to the puzzle of Donald Trump’s election. And in response, Trump and his supporters saw the term as a threat and an insult — and a weapon.

The end of “fake news” as I knew it came on Jan. 11, 2017, when Donald Trump — master of branding — redefined the term to mean, effectively, news reports he didn’t like. The previous day CNN and BuzzFeed News had reported on the existence of the Steele dossier.

Trump stood on stage during his first press conference since Election Day and pointed his finger at CNN’s Jim Acosta. “I’m not going to give you a question — you are fake news.” (He also called BuzzFeed a “failing pile of garbage.”)

In that moment, fake news was conscripted to fight in the partisan wars, and was co-opted by Trump. This instantly made it harder to win the actual fight against the manipulation of platforms for profit and propaganda, the real challenges facing democracy in a connected age, and the risks of censorship from platforms and governments alike.

And let’s all just never mind that the Steele dossier was in fact the biggest Big Lie of them all, a record-shattering demonstration of Fake News in full effect, and that Trump was absolutely right to call out the manipulative worms pimping the thing at CNN and BuzzFeed on it. So how ya liking your Alinksy Rule 4 now, punks?

Why yes, as a matter of fact I DID intend that last paragraph as a practical example of Rule 5. As Glenn says: “Amazing how often those Lefty torpedoes have circled back around on their creators.” Ain’t it just. Funny as hell, too. But then, torpedoes will do that sometimes.

Share

Heroes of Suffering

An old but evergreen and eternally-relevant VDare post from Sailer:

For more than forty years, the teaching business has been completely dominated by the prejudices of the Sixties People, whose Gramscian “long march through the institutions“ has left them in control of the schools.

What is striking to somebody like me, who grew up during the 1960s and 1970s, is the subsequent lack of generational rebellion. Kids these days tend toward intellectual conformism. They trust anyone over 30 who tells them what everybody else is telling them.

Why have the Sixties People proven so enduring in molding young people’s minds? My theory: The Sixties mindset—aggrieved, resentful, and unrealistic—is perfectly attuned to appeal permanently to the worst instincts of adolescents.

And yet young people do have a finer side—their hunger for heroes—that history books once tried to fulfill rather than exploit. For example, I was galvanized in 1975 when I read Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison’s tribute in his Oxford History of the American People to Orville and Wilbur Wright:

“Few things in our history are more admirable than the skill, the pluck, the quiet self-confidence, the alertness to reject fixed ideas and to work out new ones, and the absence of pose and publicity, with which these Wright brothers made the dream of ages—man’s conquest of the air—come true.”

But the Wright brothers aren’t the kind of heroes we like anymore. In our Age of Oprah, rather than Heroes of Accomplishment, we are addicted to Heroes of Suffering.

This Heroes of Suffering fetish is exacerbated in modern history textbooks by the “diversity“ imperative.

Take, for example, one US history textbook widely used in high school Advanced Placement courses and in college courses: Nation of Nations: A Narrative History of the American Republic (McGraw-Hill, Fourth Edition).

It’s in many ways an impressive book. The amount of labor that went into it is enormous. And, as you notice the political mandates under which the five historian co-authors labored, you begin to feel sorry for them.

You feel even sorrier for the students, however. The need to include a huge amount of material celebrating each politically organized diversity group has bloated the textbook to 1277 oversized pages. It costs $108.78 on Amazon, and weighs in at a vertebrae-compressing 5.4 pounds.

Celebrating diversity just take a lot of space. Even with a tome this immense, diversity awareness means that there isn’t room in all 1277 pages to mention…the Wright brothers.

Not even once? REALLY? Ummm…wow. But incredibly, it actually gets worse.

How hard did the textbook authors have to work to make Midway dull?

Answer: Nation of Nations‘ section entitled “The Naval War in the Pacific,” which covers the turning point years of 1942 and 1943, gets all of two pro forma paragraphs.

In contrast, eight paragraphs are devoted to the internment of Japanese, seven to women and the war, and five to “Minorities on the Job.”

Hilariously, the naval war gets the same amount of text as the 1943 Zoot Suit riot in East LA!

Steve goes on to offer example after disheartening example of the Dismal Tide of educational malpractice, not one of which is either accident or coincidence. This one, though, just might top them all:

At one point, I went looking in this textbook’s index for the Civil War hero, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, colonel of the XXth Maine Volunteers. By repelling repeated assaults on crucial Little Round Top hill on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Chamberlain more or less saved the Union. (He’s played by Jeff Daniels in Ron Maxwell’s movies Gettysburg and Gods and Generals.)

I suspect teenage boys might find him, you know, interesting. Maybe?

Well, needless to say, Joshua Chamberlain isn’t in the Nation of Nations’ index. I did find, however:

Chanax, Juan, 1096—1098, 1103, 1124, 1125

Who, exactly, is Chanax and why does he appear on six pages when Chamberlain can’t be squeezed in anywhere?

It turns out Chanax is an illegal immigrant from Guatemala who works in a supermarket in Houston. This hero’s accomplishment is that he brought in 1,000 other illegal aliens from his home village. (The link Sailer included here is broken, but the supporting article can be found here—M)

Wow. I mean, just…wow. Right when you think they can’t possibly surprise you anymore, they go and pull a real brain-buster like this. Hats off to the warped bastards for sheer brazen gall, I suppose.

The task of undoing this deeply-embedded, depraved rot is beyond daunting, beyond Herculean, maybe even Sisyphian. It is the work not of years, but of decades. But it is also vital; there is no hope whatever of reclaiming our nation and our culture without it. Personally, I’m careful to point out to my daughter now and then that her teachers don’t necessarily know everything, that they aren’t always going to be right; as a second-grader, the insidious process of indoctrination hasn’t really begun for her yet at least as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, and her teachers have all been decent, well-intentioned people so far.

But start it will—at least by junior high, I figure, if not before. My small effort may not seem like much when it comes to undermining and loosening the grip the Left has maintained for far too long on education, admittedly. But it’s a start, and I intend to encourage skepticism and independent thought in my child for as long as I’m able.

Or, y’know, allowed.

Share

Ask yourselves why we hate you

Explain all you want, but they still won’t get it. They can’t afford to.

So we arrive at a new theory: the media, when it tries to involve itself in Middle American political races, always manages to make things worse for the candidate that they support. The anti-media candidate, meanwhile, gains a new gust of momentum, courtesy of the public’s downright hatred for those mobs of carpetbagging weasels trampling over their yard signs and smirking at their values. People who didn’t care about the election one way or another all of a sudden vote for the guy getting vilified by the snobby people, because they see themselves in him. Populism is an instinct. That’s why the mainstream media is the most effective weapon patriotic Americans have to destroy the mainstream media.

The people of Montana, having heard the news and heard the tape, sided with the Republican who bodyslammed the liberal reporter. The bodyslam made him more appealing to the voters. Said Bozeman’s James Baker: ”A lot of reporters get aggressive. And I guess, after the heat of a long campaign, people can lose tempers. But obviously I don’t endorse it, but I think that in some cases it’s understandable even if it isn’t forgivable.” Said Kalispell’s Vaughn Warriner: “And now the night before the election, what do they do? They bring some outsider in, barges in, causes a scene, and make Gianforte look bad, when it was his fault in the first place.”

Ben Jacobs’ MSNBC “Chris Hayes” appearance did nothing to sway the good people of Montana to his cause. The good people of Montana simply hated him so much that they elected the guy who violently threw him to the ground.

In Georgia, the Democrats spent record-breaking amounts of money to try to elect some lightweight named Jon Ossoff to Congress in a special election for Tom Price’s seat, but it backfired. A Republican named Karen Handel beat him with 51.9 percent of the vote even though she got less than 20 percent in the primary. The voters didn’t care much about her either way. They simply hated Jon Ossoff, who, it turns out, didn’t even live in the district he was running in.

This is President Donald Trump’s America, where the Fake News is on the run but too ignorant to realize it, where reporters like Dave Weigel, who post blatantly false information, finally have to apologize for it and be held accountable to the American people forced to imbibe their errors and fabrications.

So why don’t people believe the media now when they tell us that a Republican candidate is a bad person? Because we already know the media has no values.

The media is for killing babies, covering up for Clintons, starting nation-building wars in countries they’d never deign to fight in, and advertising pornographic gun violence in movies even as they fight to disarm the lawful citizenry. They undress women on their stupid reality shows and patronize women on their braindead daytime talk shows. And now, as we find, the truly bad people in the workplace aren’t the conservative Republicans they tell us to hate. The bad people are Matt Lauer. Harvey Weinstein. Democrats so high on their own moral self-satisfaction that they forget to practice any morality whatsoever. They are the ones who hurt and abuse others more vulnerable than them. They are the ones who have turned against God or whatever conception of basic human decency guides the lot of us. So their moral posturing rings false.

They thought we’d all just humbly sit back and endure their abusive disdain forever; after all, it’s what Conservative Inc Republicrats have always done. But after decades of being lectured, nagged, and insulted—scorned as ignorant, bigoted, hate-filled fools too stupid to be trusted to act in our own best interests, which they’ve always been happy to define for us—from their ivory-tower enclaves in NYC and LA, normal Americans are fed up.

And not just with the Democrat Socialist/Media combine, either; they also finally kicked Conservative Inc to the curb in favor of a cantankerous political novice finally willing to punch back twice as hard on their behalf, to borrow a phrase. After years and years of false Republicrat promises meant to obscure a total unwillingness to defend them and their values, the Normals at long last said to hell with all you, and to hell with all this and rejected business as usual in favor of long-overdue disruption of the tired old charade.

But as much justified anger as there is at both Uniparty wings, it’s perhaps the liberal Praetorian Media that inspires the deepest wrath, and rightly so. No matter which flavor of empty-suit hand-puppet occupies the Oval Office, Old Media is always right there—to prop up a Democrat Socialist with relentless propagandizing, and to keep any Republicrat placeholder keenly aware of his proper role by attacking him unceasingly, dishonestly, and hypocritically, by any means necessary. Their influence isn’t what it once was, to be sure, and continues to dwindle; their old kingmaker/gatekeeper role has been seriously undercut by an earthquake, sudden but long a-building, that they seem to have missed completely. But among the old guard politicians they still do hold some sway.

Maybe even worse for them, both in terms of their dwindling influence and the low regard Normals have for them, is that on the rare occasions when an Old Media “journalist” dares to venture out into the heartland to report on its incomprehensibly bizarre, barely-human inhabitants, the condescension fairly drips from them, and their confusion, discomfort, and wonderment at this alien landscape is palpable. The “journalists” assume that the subhuman hayseeds are so awed by their celebrity as to be blind to the contempt they feel for them, and I’m sure plenty of them are. But not all; at this point, I’d guess not even close to most. The Normals harbor a pretty deep contempt for the “journalists” too, and for far better reasons, although being polite folks they’re way more careful about letting it show.

Trump has lashed Old Media remorselessly and to great effect with the “Fake News” crop, and the Normals know he’s speaking nothing but the plain truth. Far from being alarmed or put off by it, Normals are enjoying seeing the liars called out, after having waited and wished for it for a long, long time. To compound the misery of the “journalists,” the past week’s blundering has rendered their sniveling outrage over Trump’s richly-merited scourging of them completely ludicrous:

This week alone, four big scoops were run by major news organizations — written by top reporters and presumably churned through layers of scrupulous editing — that turned out to be completely wrong: Reuters, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and others reported that the special counsel’s office had subpoenaed Donald Trump’s records from Deutsche Bank. They weren’t. ABC reported that Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with Russian officials before the election. He didn’t (as far as we know). The New York Times ran a story that showed K.T. McFarland had acknowledged collusion. She didn’t. Then CNN topped off the week by falsely reporting that the Trump campaign had been offered access to hacked Democratic National Committee emails before they were published.

Forget your routine bias, these were four bombshells disseminated to millions of Americans by breathless anchors, pundits, and analysts, all of them feeding frenzied expectations about collusion that have now been internalized as indisputable truths by many. All four pieces, incidentally, are useless without their central faulty claims. Yet there they sit. And these are only four of dozens of other stories that have fizzled over the year.

If we are to accept the special pleadings of journalists we have to believe these were all honest mistakes. They may be. But a person might then ask, why is it that every one of the dozens of honest mistakes are prejudiced in the very same way? Why hasn’t there been a single major honest mistake that diminishes the Trump-Russia collusion story? Why is there never an honest mistake that indicts Democrats?

Easy: because they AREN’T “honest mistakes.” Their “mistakes” only ever cut one way—which all by itself militates against their being “mistakes,” and certainly not “honest” ones—and of late they capitulate and issue a “correction” of sorts only after having been dragged kicking and screaming to it: burying a mealy-mouthed, weasel-worded admission of semi- or non-specific “problems” near the bottom of page C37 (for those few newspapers still able to publish that many pages), after several days of complaints from people fully aware of what they’re up to. More from Limbaugh:

Therefore what Mueller is doing is not the investigation of a crime. What Mueller is doing is pursuing an impeachment. There is no two ways about it now. I didn’t have any doubt about it last week, but this perspective on this. So this brings us back to CNN. There is no evidence. You know what else? If we’re gonna suppose that there was collusion, that the Russians hacked or whatever — and that’s all it is — let me tell you what you get when there is no evidence of Russian hackery, when there is no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion in this mythical hackery.

You know what you get? You get fake news. You get Brian Ross lying in a report about General Flynn’s plea bargain. Brian Ross lied through his teeth when he said that Trump, as a candidate, made Flynn call the Russians. Reuters and Bloomberg published a false report about a subpoena for Trump’s financial dealings with a German bank. That didn’t happen. CNN lies about Donald Trump Jr. getting early notice of emails posted on WikiLeaks with the encryption key to open the file.

That didn’t happen! Donald Trump Jr. got nothing in advance of anything that was made public. And then Dave Weigel of the Washington Post posted a phony photo of the Trump rally in Pensacola on Friday before people were even let in, pictures of empty seats. Weigel wanted people to believe that nobody cared about the Trump rally (be sure to hit the link; Trump’s response busting the deceitful moron is absolutely hilarious—M). That’s what you get. You get lying, fake news when there isn’t any collusion and when there isn’t any evidence of any collusion.

I got a quick question for CNN and all the rest of you Drive-By Media types. You’re telling us these mistakes you’re making are honest. Yeah, you’re just trying so hard to be good journalists. Let me ask you: How many totally lying, erroneous, false, damaging, defamatory stories about Barack Obama ran in eight years? Hmm? How many times in your quest to be over-the-top fair and to get it right did you run defamatory stories that did damage to Barack Obama? Answer: Zero.

Which is just another little thing that gives their game away. Add in that it ain’t just one Fake News outlet making these “mistakes,” but several—ALL in the same direction, mind—and you can no longer deny that the Liberal Media is participating in our political process not as honest, at least reasonably impartial reporters of news as they claim, but as active advocates promoting one side over another. Not and be taken seriously, you can’t.

Anybody—ANYBODY—who still thinks after all this that they can rely on Establishment Media for useful information on the news of the day—presented fairly, offering coverage of all viewpoints, untainted by a concealed agenda—is nothing but a damned fool. Period fucking dot.

“Honest mistakes”? Don’t make me laugh. Those “mistakes,” and their slow, reluctant “corrections,” are all part of the larger attempt to overturn the last election, that’s all. The keg of gasoline here around which they’re waving matches all unawares, though, is the whole idea of the peaceful transfer of power. Once a source of great pride in this country, taken as a given even after a hotly contested election, it’s the bedrock of our system’s stability. But now it is being recklessly endangered, by the very fools likely to be most badly burned by the resultant conflagration.

Jesus famously said, “forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” Same with these feckless fucktards—they truly know not what they do. Only they’re not seeking God’s forgiveness—He in His boundless wisdom not really being directly involved and all—and the people they WILL need to beg absolution from aren’t likely to be in a forgiving mood.

I’ve reiterated my long-held belief that if there is to be a second Civil War in this country, it will be gun confiscation that sparks it. But I’m beginning to think that there’s another possibility that just might suffice as well: a successful soft coup finally achieved by the Left and its propaganda wing that removes Trump from office on one or another of these Pecksniffian pretexts of theirs. Should they somehow contrive to pull it off at last, an uprising of some sort is far from inconceivable. A vast number of normal Americans are now fully awake to the nature and intentions of the forces arrayed against them, and the final confirmation of the removal of Normals’ right to a say in how they’re governed just might be the spark that sets off an explosion.

I would guess that it would begin as nonviolent protest both in Mordor on the Potomac and all over the country, but the potential for escalation to real violence would be pretty high right from go. If Antifa/BLM/Occupy/miscellaneous other thugs of the hard Left show up to deal out some of their trademark mob beatings, with the cops again quietly ordered by Democrat-Socialist city and state officials to stand idly by and let it happen…well, there’s really no telling where it all might lead.

But one thing I’m fairly certain of is that it would signal the start of open season on “journalists,” with no bag limit. Which I would have to consider a feature, not a bug. Tar, feathers, torches, and pitchforks would end up being the most trifling of their concerns, a best-case scenario.

In light of which, although I know it amounts to whistling in a hurricane and all, I’ll repeat my sage advice to them yet again: best be careful what you wish for there, Proggies. I’ll let Schlichter lay out the bottom line:

These are the same people who constructed, out of whole cloth, the narrative that we are somehow morally obligated to give up a red state Senate seat because Gloria Allred dragged out some sad-faced woman with a story and a yearbook. Except the yearbook was tampered with – just like the Roy Moore Truthers said. No, our glorious press didn’t uncover that lie. But then, the press didn’t want to.

What about the Washington Post and its alleged “scrupulous reporting?” Turns out it’s likely that this whole thing is a Jeb!boy hit job. No shock – the corrupt establishment has been working with the corrupt press to claw back the power we relieved them of since we rejected Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit. The Fredocons and liberal journalists want respect, but they deserve only contempt – and woke conservatives are delivering.

Say, who’s ahead on embarrassing corrections regarding the Russiafail fake scandal this week? WaPo? CNN? The Times? Because all we see are giant headlines about how this is the end for Trump, followed a few hours or days later by sheepish, page B-26 corrections and then hilarious tweets from Trump rubbing it in.

Mr. President, please never stop tweeting.

Seconded, with all my heart and soul. It’s not as if those fastidious Fauntleroys most distressed over the boorish unseemliness of it all were ever in his corner anyhow. Trump got to the Oval Office without heeding those dweebs; it would be an error most grievous to start paying attention to their agitated squeaking now. The payoff:

Here’s a lesson for our would-be moral instructors. See, the thing with moral authority is that you don’t get any more after you set fire to what you have. And our media/political/Hollywood elite’s moral authority is a raging inferno.

Well, now it’s time for America’s Normals to instruct you elitist jerks: We just don’t care what you say anymore.

Nope, not even a little bit. And if you devious, deluded lackwits DO somehow manage to gin up a way to get what you think you want and remove Trump from office…well, that’s when your REAL heartaches begin. For real, and for keeps.

You have been warned.

Share

Unfair, unbalanced, untruthful, untrustworthy, unhinged, unravelling, unimportant

Just another thing Trump has been right all along about.

The mainstream liberal media is primarily composed of stumblebum leftist jerks who want all the glory and respect due a caste of objective, moral truth-seekers, yet who don’t want to do the hard work of actually being objective or moral or seeking the truth. “I can’t pass, and I can’t tackle, and practice is really a hassle, but I’m wearing a sportsball jersey so I want your adulation and a Super Bowl ring!

Remember, to our intrepid media, news is only news if it helps the liberal narrative. If it doesn’t, it’s not news. It’s not anything. It’s un-news. Like the stock market boom. Like wiping out the ISIS caliphate. Like Mueller’s manifest conflicts of interest. Un-news. Remember, half the job of the mainstream media is generating metaphorical tumbleweeds.

And then there’s Brian Ross, the ABC News goof whose 100% false claim about candidate Donald Trump cavorting with Russia gave millions of mouth-foaming anti-Trump weirdos like Bette Midler doppelgänger Joy Behar a collective Muellergasm at the thought that the Flynn plea might not turn into yet another disappointment. And of course it did. Talk about un-news – they were giddy and, as a real journalist demonstrates, the plea means nothing. They were looking for Mueller to convict Donald J. Manson of mass murder and all Mueller’s managed to do was write one of his girls a ticket for double parking outside Sharon Tate’s house.

What kind of nut might think a mainstream media outfit would lie about a conservative who is about to take a critical Senate seat? That’s crazy talk. Sure, Fusion GPS (the group of ex-journalists that manufactured and promulgated the fake Trump dossier) had unnamed journalists on its payroll – gosh, the WaPo and the rest of the media sure aren’t curious about who they are – and yes, WikiLeaks revealed journalists working for Democrat campaigns, but it’s super paranoid nutso crazy to think this Moore thing smells fishy. Heck, no one covers the backcountry of Alabama beat better than the Washington Post, certainly not the local Alabama media that has covered Moore for 30 years and never gotten wind of this bombshell through Moore’s multiple elections! How dare you hicks not immediately accept at face value everything the liberal media says!

If (when) Roy Moore gets elected he ought to send the liberal media a dozen roses to thank it for his victory; their coverage is an in-kind campaign contribution. No one but Moore and his accuser knows whether Moore cavorted with an underage girl or not, but the voters of Alabama have a perfectly legitimate basis to disbelieve the media’s claims – the sordid track record of the media itself. Would the liberal media lie to hurt a conservative? Are you kidding? It does that every day, and the difference is that now we’re woke.

And that right there is their biggest problem, and will prove to be their undoing in the end. It’s a joy to behold, made more so by watching them flail away and knowing that there’s nothing they can do about it, because they cannot stop, and probably wouldn’t if they could anyway.

Share

There they go again

Now the Lyin’ Left is hoping to hang Charles Manson around the Right’s neck.

At VICE magazine—which at the moment appears to be on the verge of about 100,000 sexual harassment lawsuits, give or take a few—we are told that Manson was a “virulent racist” and that “If Charles Manson were alive and literate, he would be writing for Breitbart.”

The Huffington Post refers to the Manson Family as a “Far-Right…Cult.” It further alleges that both Charlie Manson and leaders of the modern Alt-Right such as Richard Spencer were ultimately seeking power, as if no one on the left ever cloaks their unquenchable thirst for power beneath bullshit phrases such as “equality” and “justice.”

Even in India they’re trying to shackle Manson to Donald Trump and the Alt-Right. An essay in The Hindu aggressively denies that Manson was in any way a product—and especially not the reductio ad absurdum—of the 1960s counterculture:

Manson had a well-documented hatred of Jewish people, African-Americans and women. Rather than the liberal counterculture movement of the 1960s, his bigoted philosophy bears a disturbing resemblance in some respects with the far-right or alt-right brand of neo-fascism that has mushroomed in certain pockets of U.S. politics recently.

Writing for Raw Story, 85-year-old hippie icon Paul Krassner blames imprisonment and Scientology—Manson for many years claimed to be a Scientologist—rather than the 60s counterculture for molding Manson’s psychology: “Manson was never really a hippie,” he writes.

Oh, really?

Would anyone care to explain the fact that the Manson Family first took root in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district during 1967’s “Summer of Love”? What about all the orgies and long hair and LSD? Care to account for the communal living and dumpster-diving? How about the Manson Family’s rock-star aspirations and the fact that the Beach Boys covered one of Charlie’s songs? What about their vocal opposition to the Vietnam War, to “the establishment,” to “capitalist filth,” and all the inflamed rhetoric about “pigs”? What about the fact that Richard Nixon openly hated Charles Manson and vice-versa? How about Manson girl Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme’s failed 1975 assassination attempt on Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford?

What about when John Lennon approvingly noted that Manson “took children in when nobody else would” and claimed that “I just think a lot of the things he says are true”? How about the fact that folksinger Phil Ochs and Jerry Rubin visited Manson in jail? How do you explain Bernadine Dohrn of the far-left murderous terrorist group Weather Underground—and later cosponsor of Barack Obama’s fledgling political career—describing the LaBianca murders in the following psychotically exultant terms?

First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.

To claim that Charles Manson had nothing to do with the 1960s counterculture is like saying that the 100+ million killed under communist regimes had nothing to do with real communism.

Pretty much, yep. Which isn’t to say that Manson’s own political beliefs (if any) were Leftist, mind. As with so many of these mass-murdering nuts, his political leanings—to the extent he had any at all; if he ever stated them in any great depth I’m not aware of it—were a chaotic, nonsensical melange of disparate and even contradictory bits of this and that. Manson’s primary motivation was never politics at all, but his demented obsession with sparking a race war (Goad has further examination of that, and proposes a much more mundane and pragmatic alternative idea behind the Tate/LaBianca murders). Bottom line:

Manson was indeed a product of the 1960s, but more than anything he was the product of a teenaged alcoholic mother/prostitute and the doomed path such a bedraggled spawning set him on. By the time of the Tate/LaBianca murders, Manson had already spent half of his life in correctional facilities of one sort or another. And if he developed negative attitudes toward blacks, it likely had far less to do with reading George Lincoln Rockwell and far more to do with being forced to interact with blacks behind bars during his formative years. He was not nearly as naive about race as so many who’d condemn him for being a “racist” are.

MLK was murdered a year before the Manson Family murders. Riots had sprung up all across the USA. As a street hustler and lifetime con, Manson had the survival instincts that so very few pampered modern leftist scribes will ever have. If he foresaw an inevitable race war in America, maybe he was nothing more than a hillbilly Bob Dylan and saw it blowin’ in the wind.

If Manson was truly prophetic about anything, though, it was why whites would lose a theoretical race war. According to Manson, when blacks came seeking blood vengeance, whites would be too hopelessly split between those with self-preservation instincts—those who are now defamed as “racists”—and the uptight, sheltered squares who thought it would be “racist” not to let black people start killing them en masse.

None of which will dissuade the contemptible, self-loathing Progtards from trying to make political hay out of him themselves, naturally. In fact, if the Manson Family murders had happened last week, they’d probably be trying to gin up a way to call for another gun ban in the wake of it, and blaming Trump and Fox News for the whole thing. Which only means they’re damned near as loony, incoherent, and manipulative as Manson was.

Share

The Opposite Rule

ZMan hangs a useful name on something I’ve mentioned here many a time.

Like most normal men, I’m enjoying the hell out of seeing the girls go crazy, accusing every liberal man in sight of being a predator. When it comes to the media, I’m firmly in the camp that says, “burn, baby, burn.”  When it comes to cretins like Al Franken and John Conyers, well, there is no torment that would be too monstrous for them. Of course, the Hollywood stuff is manna from heaven. The only thing that would make it better is if they actually start burning men at the stake in the Hollywood hills. That would be awesome.

As others have been enthusiastic to point out, this is almost exclusively a Progressive problem. The men being hauled off to pervert’s island are mostly the male feminist types, who used to delight in accusing normal men of bad behavior. The Fox News scandal that kicked this off is the notable exception, but that’s beginning to look like a special case as the great panic rolls forward. I’ll get back to this in a minute, but I think the Fox stuff fits into all of this, as does the Roy Moore hoax. It’s all part of the larger pattern.

What this looks like is the Left set out to accuse their rivals of the things popular on the Left. All of these Prog-men being jammed up by the girls were happy to accuse Trump of being bad for women. Meanwhile, guys like Matt Lauer were planning to build a sex dungeon at 30 Rock. Al Franken was entertaining his buddies with stories about how he wanted to drug and rape Leslie Stahl. The Opposite Rule of Liberalism says that whatever Lefty is hooting about, you can be sure he is the most guilty.

Yep. Call it projection, call it deflection, call it a strategic diversion or whatever else you like, but the Opposite Rule works well enough for me.

Share

Categories

Archives

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix