Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Category: Near-Naked Propaganda

The slant from the liberal media, Old Media, mainstream media, whatever you want to call it; it’s dishonest, it’s biased, it’s propaganda, it’s anti-American and anti-freedom, and you know it as well as I do

MORE collusion!

Posted on      by      Leave a comment

You just gotta love these gormless, hapless clowns. For certain values of “love,” natch.

A coordinated campaign by more than 100 newspapers Thursday will see publication of a wide variety of editorials, all condemning President Trump for his attacks on the press and pretty much anything and everything. (Update: Reported number now over 300.)

This is what fellow recovering journalist Kerry Dougherty so astutely calls “briar-patch-level genius.”

Here we have a president attacking the mainstream media as lying “enemies of the people” and “fake news” trying to bring him down. And over there we have a significant chunk of the mainstream media publishing a nationwide coordinated campaign of collusion to bring him down.

Trump was not elected despite his often outrageous behavior and statements. He was elected because of his outrageous behavior and statements.

They promised drastic change and profound offense to so many establishment types, especially in the East and the media, who in their self-satisfied position of power and comfort had for so long patronized and ignored the complaints and pleas of that plurality.

Had those elites of both parties paid genuine attention to flyover country’s concerns, frustrations and fears, as silly and stupid as they seem to disconnected Beltway know-it-all’s, they would not be in today’s baffling, powerless position. There would have been no need for a Trump. And by the way, isn’t it strange how a billionaire from a New York high-rise could detect the heartland’s hurt better than those elected from that region?

Actually, it isn’t strange in the least; since they are the authors of that hurt, and the perpetuators of it, it’s no more than obvious and inevitable. It’s not so much that they can’t detect it as that they hope like hell we can’t detect their disinterest in it, and most especially their role as creators of it.

Trump did not invent many Americans’ visceral dislike of the media. He’s using it, exactly as these 100+ newspapers will use their readers’ visceral dislike of Trump to influence a large audience on this day. It’s all fair game in a free society, even one as bitterly splintered as ours these days.

Many silent Americans see a Washington paper, for example, chronicling in excess of 4,000 Trump exaggerations and lies. Fair enough.

Where was that passion for lie detection during Obama’s endless reign of error when he spewed serial untruths about, among others, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, Benghazi’s video roots and how Americans could keep their insurance, doctor and about $2,500 in savings under Obamacare?

Oh, we all know well enough where that “passion for lie detection” was—which is a YUGE part of their problem now. Limbaugh knows it too:

Now, let’s go to this media-coordinated effort started by some editorial writer at the Boston Globe to have America’s major newspapers unite and run anti-Trump editorials today while maintaining that they are not united in opposition to Trump! While trying to maintain that they are not the enemy of the people — which, by the way, Trump has never said. He said fake news is the enemy of the people.  He never said the media in toto or the media at large. My point is they’re proving everything Trump’s alleged about ’em with this little scheme that they’re trying.

But here’s the thing about this: They’re not gonna persuade anyone. This is gonna backfire on them because you know what it’s proving?  It’s proving something very simple. It’s proving the media is biased — and of course, they maintain that they aren’t. But you can’t get a more classic definition and illustration of media bias than this.

Trump has always said the fake news is the enemy of the people, but not all the news, not the entire news media. But for some reason all these news people think that he is talking about them. Now, from a couple of days ago Little Brian Stelter at CNN: “More than 100 Newspapers Will Publish Editorials Decrying Trump’s Anti-Press Rhetoric — [Marjorie] Pritchard said. ‘We have some big newspapers, but the majority are from smaller markets, all enthusiastic about standing up to Trump’s assault on journalism.”

I can’t tell you what a majority of the American people — how big a majority — agree with Trump on this. I cannot tell you how many Americans are fed up with the media, with the unfairness, with the bias. You know it as well as I do. Maybe even better. Trump is more accessible than any president has ever been.  Trump talks to the media more often than any president ever has. Trump lets them into cabinet meetings. He lets them into little meetings that go on in the Oval Office when foreign leaders are in town.

He sometimes conducts entire meetings at the White House with the media present. He stops on the way to Marine One — the helicopter or wherever. He stops, and he’ll talk to the press for 15 or 20 minutes. He just happens to call ’em out on their BS! Trump has not spied on them the way Obama did.

All of which adds up to make their fearful caterwauling and indignant protestations over Trump’s bluntly accurate characterization of them all the more amusing. Back to Malcolm for the closer, whose own contempt for Trump is apparently uncontainable:

As part of their drift off into monopoly arrogance, newspapers in general and editorial pages in particular somehow came to think and lecture like they knew better than the readers who paid good money to read their words. They were pharmacists handing out a daily dose of the news they prescribed. Not a good attitude for any business to have toward customers, especially in an era of expanding free choices.

And now these same editors and publications will again lecture the country about the dangers and evils of the man they didn’t like 646 days ago, who punches back and got elected by millions who didn’t read those lectures then either. Other media, righteously nodding their heads, will cover it conscientiously and copiously as if it’s important medicine and of no self-interest.

By Friday, those pages will be in the bottom of recycle bins and bird cages. And in their cozy, mutual isolations, millions on both sides will feel sure once more that they’re in the right.

Ahh, but there’s the rub, see: one side IS in the right. And it ain’t the side trying to bring down a duly-elected President with lies and skullduggery, however one Andrew Malcolm (or anybody else) may feel about the guy.

Share

Sympathy: limited

Posted on      by      1 Comment

More cheese to go with all that whine, stat!

The media keeps claiming that President Trump is encouraging violence against them. But the media are not the true victims here, and they will largely have themselves to blame if violence does befall them.

Talking about Trump, MSNBC’s Katy Tur said last Friday: “Yeah, we get it, you don’t like us. Fine. But do you have to put our lives in danger?”

The New York Times’s Bret Stephens even wrote a piece over the weekend titled: “Trump will have Blood on His Hands.”

“I warned that this inflammatory language [by Trump] is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence,” said New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger. CNN’s Jim Acosta echoed that warning: “I’m very worried that the hostility whipped up by Trump and some in the conservative media will result in somebody getting hurt.”

The solution, of course, is very simple: they can stop being out-and-out Democrat-Socialist propagandists and start working as actual journalists. Unfortunately, that appears to be another of those jobs Americans, or American liberals at any rate, just won’t do. But Lott has another angle to cover here:

Mass public shooters may begin to realize that shooting up a liberal media outlet would create a publicity firestorm. These shooters crave attention and pick targets where they can cause maximum casualties and gain maximum notoriety. Let’s hope that people don’t get to thinking that killing people in the media is a special ticket to notoriety.

Of course, this is no different than the impact that the media has on these attacks by continually mentioning these killer’s names.

Reporters decried the Capitol Gazette shooting as “one of the deadliest attacks on journalists in US history” and said it “may be the worst mass shooting of journalists in the country.” While understandable from the media’s perspective, giving so much excited coverage creates an incentive for someone else to come along and try to cause an even bigger sensation.

Compare for a moment the news coverage given to the Republican congressmen who were shot at last summer or the threats of violence against the daughters of Congressmen Jason Lewis (R-MN) or Lee Zeldin (R-NY) with the coverage that the media gives to vague threats of violence against them. In Lewis’s case, the threats against his daughters came immediately after completely dishonest attacks by CNN and others in the media that he was disappointed that he could no longer call women “sluts.”

If you were a killer who craved attention, who would you attack? A Republican congressman or someone in the media?

There is surely no symmetry here. The media doesn’t acknowledge any responsibility for threats on congressmen and the attack on Republican congressmen last year.

There was also no similar mainstream media outrage when President Obama accused Fox News of being “destructive” to the country or said that his administration needed to “pretend” that Fox is a “legitimate news organization.” The Obama administration even spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen and also CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson. But the mainstream media acted like it was Fox News’s fault for being in Obama’s crosshairs and they ignored Attkisson’s case.

Obama expected the mainstream media to be nice to him. In 2008, he kicked newspaper reporters from the Dallas Morning News, New York Post, and Washington Times off his campaign plane because their coverage wasn’t favorable enough.

Obama could have clapped half of the whores of the White House press brothel in irons and tossed them into a dungeon and the rest of them would have gone right on fellating him just as enthusiastically as before.

With the mainstream media’s constant false claims about supposed lies by Trump (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) and the frequent allegations that he is a racist, one can only marvel at the media’s self righteousness and thin skin. Many reporters have made it their jobs to lie about Trump, and when he calls them out for it they accuse him of endangering their lives.

Last I looked, I saw no mention whatever in the Constitution of any right to constantly, relentlessly lie about a sitting President in the hope of bringing him down or making it impossible for him to govern according to the will of the people as expressed by their having elected him. Nor do I recollect any right to pose as impartial reporters of the day’s news while acting as shills and cheerleaders for one party.

When Trump calls the media out for being exactly what they are, we Normals out here in bitter-clingerland enjoy it tremendously and consider it no more than their due. Then, when the pompous blowhards tremble and quake in fear, whining about being “endangered” after having shamelessly encouraged hatred and violence against us for so long, we find it amusing.

Somehow, I seem to recall an old saw about the inadvisability of sowing the wind, as well as the unpleasant consequences of having gone aheand and done so anyway. Maybe some shitlib journo-hack could look that one up for us sometime, in between bouts of making stuff up about Trump, then jizzing himself over the weekly “OH, WE GOT HIM NOW!!!” ploy. Failing that, we can all just sit back and watch as certain chickens come home to roost.

Frankly, if anybody’s ass just HAS to be beaten and/or shot, I’d just as soon it be them instead of us for a change.

Share

“Some racism is more equal than others”

Posted on      by     

Hound the NYT, harrass them, don’t let up for a moment. It’s doubtful that we’ll ever persuade them to give up their new house racist; she’s nothing more than a reflection of the views they already hold themselves, and we have no sway with them whatsoever. But we can at least make their—and her—lives miserable for a while, and that ain’t nothing.

As CNN’s Jim Acosta grandstanded his way out of a White House press briefing on Thursday because the administration portrays the news media in an adversarial light that he claims endangers journalists, the Times hired a woman who equates Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. Why, other than to inspire an Operation Valkyrie, does anyone with a megaphone compare the elected president of the United States with a genocidal monster? Acosta advocates producing chants, buttons, and bumper stickers protesting the White House, apparently in an effort to persuade the public that the president is wrong to regard the press as an enemy.

Some people miss their irony.

More than a generation ago, The Media Elite reported a survey of 240 journalists at major publications showing that in the four presidential elections from 1964 to 1976 the press never voted by less than a 4-to-1 margin for the Democratic candidate. A 2014 study by Indiana University professors Lars Willnat and David Weaver indicated that the number of Republicans among full-time journalists dropped from 18 percent in 2002 to seven percent in 2013. Anecdotal evidence, such as the New York Times editorial board hiring a crackpot and CNN assigning a zealot to cover the White House, suggests that the media became more ideologically homogenous in the intervening few years.

Hypocrisy may color the media’s crusades for diversity in other fields as journalism remains a stuff-white-people-like profession. Something far worse characterizes its lockstep conformity of opinion.

Something far worse still characterizes their frantic lust to enforce that conformity of opinion on everyone else at the point of the Big Government gun.

Share

Piling on

Posted on      by     

Even Klavan—no Trump guy, he—can’t resist batting the squeaky little cat toy around a bit.

New York Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger says he told Trump his anti-press rhetoric could lead to violence. But the media’s anti-Trump rhetoric already has led to violence: public officials rat-packed and bullied, Trump supporters harassed, White House spokes-lady Sarah Sanders having to live under guard. And yet when Sanders pointed this out to Look-At-Me-I’m-Jim Acosta, Acosta stormed out of the room. Hell, if he doesn’t want to hear the truth, he could just stay home and watch CNN.

What’s also appalling is that reporters answered Sanders by reminding her of the tragic shooting of journalists in Maryland. But that had nothing to do with Trump. It was the personal grudge of a madman. Even when these knuckleheads are protesting being called Fake News, they are purveying Fake News. Remarkable.

But most remarkable is this: the media seems to take no responsibility for the anger in the country. Not once — not one time — have I seen a reporter come onscreen and say, “Hey, you know what, maybe we are biased. Maybe we haven’t listened. Maybe we have been arrogant and insulting. Maybe we do bear some responsibility for the anger against us.”

When Muslim extremists destroyed the World Trade Center, David Letterman and others among the chattering classes went on TV and wondered: “Why do they hate us?” But they can’t take the time to ask the same question about their fellow citizens. The Islamists are murdering pigs. Who cares why they hate us? These Trump supporters are just ordinary folks. If they were screaming at me, I’d do a moral inventory on myself before blaming them.

Yeah, but see, you have at least a modicum of good sense and humility, Andrew. Which makes for a pretty stark contrast with those shitbirds.

Update! Walsh also puts the boot in:

The old journalistic ladder looked something like this: a year or so on the police beat in Dubuque, followed by a stint covering the local county and perhaps federal courts for a newspaper in Portland, and then, if the reporter was able enough, a job on one of the big-city papers in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles. Not every piece had to have a political angle; not every lede needed to include a slighting reference to the president of the United States; not every opening graf needed to mischaracterize or refute the Republican/conservative position on any given topic. In fact, attitudinizing was strictly forbidden: it was talent that mattered, not the correct opinions.

Now the White House beat has become an entry-level reporting job, in the course of which the callowest of youths, or the most airheaded among the former beauty queens, can sass the objects of their coverage, mock them, call them liars, and generally act out in public. (Yes, Jim Acosta, we’re talking about you.)

This constant irruption of mindless prattle might be amusing were it not such a terrible commentary on the state of “journalism” today. And when the tables are turned, and the public gives the reporters a taste of their own crude hostility, the media freaks out and, of course, blames Trump, falsely claiming that a little civilian pushback against a group of people who openly despise them is somehow a direct threat to the First Amendment and might even get some reporters killed. The fact that, as far as I know, there has never been a single pampered White House correspondent killed in the line of duty, not only never seems to pierce the veil of their heroic fantasies, but it also dishonors the many great reporters who actually did die for their profession, among them Mark Kellogg (who died at the Little Bighorn with Custer) and Ernie Pyle, killed at Okinawa in 1945.

There’s precious little they don’t dishonor.

Updated update! OHH, talk about piling on!


Acosta-Thompson.jpg

Courtesy of WRSA.

Share

Acosta doubles down

Posted on      by     

And steps in it again.


The truth IS prevailing, Jimmy boy. That’s what’s happening right now…and it’s driven your side right into daylight barking madness.

Pro tip: you and your faux-journalist ilk aren’t supposed to even HAVE a side, Jimbo. But you do, and we all know you do. Hannity gets the last word:


Bang fucking ZOOM.

(Via Breitbart)

Share

“Journalists and their hangers-on are doing more to encourage violence against journalists than Trump is”

Posted on      by     



And then another libmedia drooltard chimed in to support his fellow propagandist:

In a now-deleted tweet, Caputo commented on the video, saying, “If you put everyone’s mouths together in this video, you’d get a full set of teeth.”

In another deleted tweet, he responded to a tweet castigating his mockery of Trump supporters. “Oh no! I made fun of garbage people jeering at another person as they falsely accused him of lying and flipped him off. Someone fetch a fainting couch,” Caputo wrote.

“Oh no! Some real Americans called Acosta out to his face for his open contempt of them, his and his network’s dishonest fake-news “journalistic” malpractice, and his general asswipery—verbally, without resorting to actual violence like liberals do. Someone fetch him a fresh clean diaper!”

Right back atcha, asshole.

Caputo then apologized for his insulting outburst, which, who cares. Insty offers thoughts:

Two points: (1) Yes, this is what the press thinks about Trump supporters, and this now-deleted tweet was an honest reflection of that. It’s totally hypocritical for people like Acosta to clutch their pearls about Trump’s “rhetoric” given how they treat, and talk about, his supporters. And as for their fear that Trump’s “rhetoric” might lead to violence, note how they skip right over the fact that Democrat James Hodgkinson shot GOP Congressman Steve Scalise as he tried to massacre the Republican House leadership.

(2) What’s worse is, Caputo’s actually one of the better political reporters, willing to report stuff that hurts Democrats and helps Republicans without sweeping it under the rug. That’s good, but if he thinks this way, what are the rest like?

And yes, he offered a solid apology. But that doesn’t change the attitude that his original statement revealed, or the fact that it seems to be widely shared among his press colleagues.

Fuck Caputo, fuck Acosta, fuck the whole filthy lot of them. The loathing and contempt for normal Americans their ilk can’t seem to help themselves expressing is reciprocated in full measure out here. Whining and bleating about “hate” and “violence” coming from these oozing chancres is pretty rich considering their own ongoing incitement to violence—incitement which has resulted in actual, y’know, hate and violence.

538, motherfuckers. That ain’t some prissy journo-dink’s fear or fantasy; that’s an actual, hard number of verifiable media applause for acts of shitlib violence against their opposition. In one corner, we have that; in the other, we have people making Wee Jimmy Winky wet himself by yelling “CNN sucks” in his pinched little face.

One of these things is NOT like the other.

“The press is not the enemy”? Like bleeding hell it ain’t. These guys are just upset that now we know it, and they’re shit-scared of the possibility of getting some of their own splashed back on them at last.

Well, cry me a river, you lying pissant pricks. This is just the opening bell; you sniveling curs have got a lot more like it and worse coming, and you’ve earned everything you might get, plus some.

Share

Running scared

Posted on      by     

Not the meagerest drop of sympathy from me.

WASHINGTON — New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger said he warned President Trump at a face-to-face meeting July 20 that Trump consistently referring to the media as “the enemy of the people” will lead to violence.

Sulzberger said he attended, at the request of the White House, along with NYT editorial page editor James Bennet.

“My main purpose for accepting the meeting was to raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric,” Sulzberger said. “I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous.”

“I told him that although the phrase ‘fake news’ is untrue and harmful…”

“Untrue” it demonstrably, provably is NOT. With that blatant, self-serving lie, we got nothing more to talk about here as far as I’m concerned.

“I made clear repeatedly that I was not asking for him to soften his attacks on The Times if he felt our coverage was unfair,” Sulzberger said. “Instead, I implored him to reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I believe are dangerous and harmful to our country.”

Know what really IS “dangerous and harmful to our country”? The raw propaganda the “broader” range of “journalists” have been fobbing off for years and years as “honest,” “balanced,” “unbiased” reportage. Just how many years am I talking about? Oh, ’round about a hundred and fifty, give or take:

The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

That’s a quote from a famous speech made by John Swinton, a NYT op-ed writer and hardcore Leftist himself, in…1883. The more things change, the more they etc.

If Sulzberger doesn’t want to be referred to as an “enemy of the people,” he should start doing his level best to stop acting like one.

Share

“IS THE MEDIA THE ‘ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE’?”

Posted on      by     

Ask a silly question.

Is the media really the enemy of the American people? Let’s tackle the question objectively.

Enemies hate you and want to destroy you. Do the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, CBS, and the whole alphabet soup of organizations with corporate headquarters in major cities really want to destroy the people who watch their programs, buy their papers and serve them soup after hours?

It seems implausible. But so did the Communists of the Khmer Rouge shooting everyone who wore glasses. Or North Korea’s multi-generational concentration camps, Nazi Germany diverting crucial resources from the war effort to kill Jews, or Venezuela shipping oil to Cuba while its people starve.

Plausibility is a poor measure of what fanatical ideologues might do. Let’s start with what they do, do.

By all means, let’s.

Rap Sheet: ***529*** Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters

Note that the title above has been updated since I first opened the article a few days ago; the count was at 203 then. I left the tab open intending to mention it here when I got a chance; when the page auto-reloaded just now, the toll was up to…what you see above.

Enemy of the people? You bet your ass they are, in every way that matters. Back to Daniel for further explication:

The media’s first allegiance is to the left. Not to America. Its people are not Americans. They’re leftists. The politics of the left are geared at replacing Americans with leftists through a combination of indoctrination, demographic replacement, economic warfare and voter suppression.

Destroying the American people would be an act worthy of an “enemy of the people”.

The media is offended by being referred to as the “enemy of the people”. But does it believe that the American people have the right to exist and maintain their existence? And if so, on what terms?

Unacceptable ones, that’s what: subjugation, silence, oppression, and servitude. Just like in every other socialist hellhole.

The liberal media is as committed an enemy of the American people—of America itself—as is possible to imagine, and Trump is right to say so. Far from being appalled or alarmed by it, his calling them out openly is one of the reasons normal Americans love him—yet another facet of his incredible success shitlibs just don’t get, and never will. Back to Nolte again for the closer:

…remember that if any one of these things happened to a Democrat, the media would use the story to blot out the sun for weeks. Remember how crazy the media went over a nobody rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask, a GOP staffer who criticized Obama’s daughters? And yet, hundreds of Trump supporters are harassed and brutalized and the media only dutifully report them, if at all. That is because the media are desperate to normalize and justify violence and harassment against Trump and his supporters.

And while the media openly encourage this violence against us, the media also campaign to disarm us, to take away our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves.

Funny, that. Must be one of them coinkydinks or something.

Share

The Old Grey Whore

Posted on      by     

How “journalism” is done: on their backs, legs spread wide.

Just when you thought contemporary journalism couldn’t sink any lower, along comes Ali Watkins, now 26, a reporter for the New York Times whose rapid rise through reporting’s corrupt and partisan ranks includes stints at the Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, and Politico. Back in February, Ms. Watkins suddenly became the object of official attention when the feds seized her email and phone records as part of an investigation into a prominent Senate staffer, James Wolfe — the former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee and a Democrat, of course. Then, in June, Wolfe was arrested and charged with lying to the FBI, which was investigating leaks from the committee to select reporters…among whom was Ali Watkins.

It turns out that Watkins had been involved in a sexual relationship with Wolfe for three years, although at the time of Wolfe’s arrest she had moved on to greener pastures, including other staffers on the committee…

A responsible journalistic organization would never have hired this little scamp, but at the Times, which is hell-bent on turning its formerly white male newsroom into a model of “diversity,” being female trumped all other considerations, and the newspaper is clearly grooming Watkins for bigger things. But now that the truth is out about how this particular reporter got her scoops, a responsible journalistic organization would have fired her.

The Times, alas, is not that journalistic organization.

“Scamp”? That’s putting it WAY too mildly. Anybody who still kids himself that people like this can be treated with honorably and honestly needs to think very carefully about how completely the little whore was willing to degrade herself to advance the shitlib agenda. For instance:

The indictment said Wolfe, 58, began dating Watkins — who is in her 20’s — in 2013 when she was an undergraduate student working as a news intern. The indictment said the pair ended the relationship in December 2017.

In an April 2013 tweet, Watkins also tweeted about the fictional Netflix television show “House of Cards,” where a young reporter has an affair with an older member of Congress.

“I wanted to be Zoe Barnes…until episode 4,” she tweeted. “Sleeping with your source- especially a vindictive congressman? #badlifechoice #HouseofCards”

In another tweet, Watkins asked: “So on a scale of 1 to ethical, how does everyone feel about pulling a @RealZoeBarnes for story ideas? #TOTALLYKIDDING @HouseofCards.”

The “House of Cards” tweets were posted months before prosecutors said her relationship with Wolfe began.

So after smirking about it being a “#badlifechoice,” our roundheels decided with full awareness to prostitute herself with a guy old enough to be her grandfather in order to get Trump.

She’s not just a whore, she’s a stupid whore. Better get out of the world’s oldest profession now, honey, before you get hurt. Any streetwalker stupid enough to let the NYT pimp her out just ain’t cut out for The Life.

Share

Polemic made easy

Posted on      by     

It’s getting mighty hard to parody them, but Surber just made a damned fine job of it.

Writing newspaper editorials is an exercise in exasperating futility. They have scant impact. 243 newspapers endorsed Hillary. 20 endorsed Donald John Trump. Who won?

To those still laboring at a craft that last had impact in the 19th century, I draw upon my 27 years of experience to offer this generic editorial on whomever President Trump nominates for the Supreme Court.

You may cut and paste it, and your boss will not notice the difference.

The Senate Must Reject This Monster

President Trump — a vain, deranged, and impulsive man elected by Russia and not a majority of Americans — has nominated the worst judicial candidate since Roger Brooke Taney, the chief justice who authored the Dred Scott decision. [Nominee’s name] may be worse. Not only does [he or she] view African-Americans as chattel, but women as second-class citizens!

Most Republicans want to return America to the oppressive and conformist days of the 1950s when everyone had a job instead of welfare!

President Trump has nominated a person who wants to return to the slave days of 1850s!

This would be Armageddon for our Constitution. Women would be forced to seek reproduction freedom from back-alley butchers again. Republicans would bar minorities and millennials from voting. People would be allowed to own as many guns as they like without registering them; vaginas would be more regulated than assault weapons!

They’re so comically predictable by now it pretty much writes itself, in a way. And damned if I didn’t just realize that Surber isn’t in Ye Old Blogrolle, which I remedied with a quickness. I really need to give that thing a good going-over soon.

Dream a little dream update! Elsewhere Surber explores a topic I mentioned here not long ago myself, but in much greater detail than I did.

In addition to being an obscene poison pen writer, Kevin D. Williamson is sloppy. He penned an ode to Harley-Davidson because it is standing up to “The Man” by shipping more production overseas to protest President Trump’s tariffs.

Williamson missed the real story. Harley-Davidson owes its existence to tariffs imposed by President Reagan in 1983. Ingratitude is hard to see when you are a Never Trumper basking in the glow of conservative victories that President Trump earned.

Harley now has plants all over the world. Harley, Williamson and the National Review ignored Reagan’s actions and words. They bet against America. They call it free trade, but given the low wages paid in Thailand, where Harley is building a plant, maybe we should call it slave trade.

Williamson wrote, “unilateral free trade is an idea far too radical for our current timid national mood.”

Unilateral free trade is economic euthanasia.

“Free trade” is a chimera, a unicorn. As long as there are nation-states with governments pursuing competing interests, it will not exist—it cannot exist.

Share

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

Posted on      by     

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

Posted on      by     

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

Fake news? You better believe it

Posted on      by     

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

No, no, NO

Posted on      by     

I tire of this.

Podesta’s Gmail account was hacked in March 2016, and his emails were later leaked by WikiLeaks during the campaign. An assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies concluded there were no “evident forgeries” in the stolen emails, which were also taken from the Democratic National Committee.

No, it most certainly was NOT hacked. Podesta was stupid enough to click on a phishing-scam e-mail link (glancingly mentioned in the article, in all fairness to the WashEx), something even my eight-year-old daughter is web-savvy enough to know better than to ever do. The e-mails weren’t really “stolen” at all; numbnuts Podesta gave ’em away, in any honest or realistic sense.

But still just about everybody keeps right on saying “hacked” when referring to his comic misadventure, as if poor dear old John was victimized with intent by some uber-slick internet sharpie—why, the sort of thing that could happen to ANY OF US!!— working from deep within the labyrinth of RUSSIAN!! intelligence to make Trump president, rather than just being a plain and simple dumbass who wouldn’t know a URL from his urethra.

Stop it. Just stop it, already.

Via Insty, who says: “Information security doesn’t seem to be their thing.” One of his commenters then ups the ante:

Or border security…
Or national security…

Heh™. Indeed™.

Share

How deep the Deep State?

Posted on      by     

Silly question, asked.

Question? What is going on here? Time after time after time one can only ask… is there a Mueller “Get Trump” campaign being waged in the media by Trump enemies in the Deep State with an assist from anti-Trump media?

Um. Well, y’know, duh. Lots more silly questions:

Is the Department of Justice running a damage control operation through the media? Is anyone at DOJ or the Special Counsel’s office inquiring into just how the information of rogue anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok being shifted around by Mueller — something that happened in the summer but was not reported until December — made it into the media when it did? Which is to say, conveniently, on the heels of the news of the General Michael Flynn pleading? What role did Mueller and/or the Department of Justice play in keeping that news from the public — and Congress?

How, exactly, do various pieces of information from inside the belly of the Deep State beast slow roll themselves into public view?

From there, Lord dives into the real meat of the thing.

All of this goes to the question of a corrosion of the system — of a buddy system within the Deep State government to protect one another.

There is a considerable school of thought that the real scandal here is not the fantasy of a Trump/Russia collusion, but rather the seriously bigger-than-Watergate scandal of an insiders attempt to first prevent the election of Trump and, when that failed, to engineer a palace coup to depose the elected president. And to make sure that they protect each other when new information on their behind-the-scenes dealings abruptly pops into public view.

In short: The Deep State media game afoot here is to protect the Deep State buddies by slow-rolling out the news that affects them negatively — and if possible keeping that news from the public and Congress. But any news that can help sabotage the President? That is to be leaked ASAP.

The Deep State web is vast, intricate, cohesive, and until recently very well concealed. It encompasses far more than just the federal government itself, and is by no means geographically limited to the DC environs. That all begins to sound like just another nutty conspiracy theory at that point, but there is no conspiracy necessary. These are people who think the same way, believe the same things, travel in the same social and career circles, were “educated” in the same schools, and have the same goals. The narrow congruence of view is the product of shallow, groupthinking drones, stilted both mentally and verbally, not any formal backroom plotting.

Fleshing out details of the Deep State’s existence by imagining a single puppetmaster (or a cabal of them) issuing directives and coordinating actions is neither necessary nor particularly useful in destroying it. The mules are a team—one that’s already in harness, and can only pull in one direction. We already know who they are and where they want to take us, because lately they can’t seem to stop themselves from braying about it. All that really needs to be done is to unhitch them and lock them back in the stables.

Share

Just another hype

Posted on      by     

The “opioid crisis,” that is.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who chaired the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, invokes that narrative when he talks about “the injured student-athlete who becomes addicted after [his] first prescription” or remembers the law school classmate who died of an overdose after getting hooked on the oxycodone he was taking for back pain. Such examples are misleading because they are rare, accounting for only a small percentage of opioid-related deaths.

Contrary to the impression left by most press coverage of the issue, opioid-related deaths do not usually involve drug-naive patients who accidentally get hooked while being treated for pain. Instead, they usually involve people with histories of substance abuse and psychological problems who use multiple drugs, not just opioids.

Conflating those two groups results in policies like the pill count that left Craig without the pain medication he needed to get out of bed in the morning, go to work, and lead a normal life. The rationale is that cutting people like him off will stop them from ending up dead of an overdose in a Walmart parking lot next to a baggie of fentanyl-laced heroin.

But the truth is that patients who take opioids for pain rarely become addicted. A 2018 study found that just 1 percent of people who took prescription pain medication following surgery showed signs of “opioid misuse,” a broader category than addiction. Even when patients take opioids for chronic pain, only a small minority of them become addicted. The risk of fatal poisoning is even lower—on the order of two-hundredths of a percent annually, judging from a 2015 study.

Despite such reassuring numbers, the government is responding to the “opioid epidemic” as if opioid addiction were a disease caused by exposure to opioids, a simplistic view that ignores the personal, social, and economic factors that make these drugs attractive to some people. Treating pain medication as a disease vector, the government has restricted access to it by monitoring prescriptions, investigating doctors, and imposing new limits on how much can be prescribed, for how long, and under what circumstances. That approach hurts pain patients by depriving them of the analgesics they need to make their lives livable, and it hurts nonmusical users by driving them into a black market where the drugs are deadlier.

A large majority of opioid-related deaths now involve illicitly produced substances, primarily heroin and fentanyl. As usual, the government’s efforts to get between people and the drugs they want have not prevented drug use, but they have made it more dangerous.

Government: is there anything it can’t fuck up in its ceaseless quest to exert absolute, comprehensive control?

This is a long article, covering a lot of ground; it’s well worth a look, particularly for the insight it offers into how government and the media work hand-in-glove to stampede the gullible herd—to “keep up the skeer,” as Bedford Forrest had it in another context.

Admittedly, the drug abuse question is a somewhat thorny one. But it’s not nearly as thorny as it’s generally made to appear, and certainly not as pervasive. As with most everything else, the right answer is the one megalomaniacal bureaucrats who only want to “help” would never dream of considering: leave people the hell alone.

Share

Charm, offensive

Posted on      by     

Schlichter seems shocked, but after years of seeing Lefty fellate the Soviet Union, China, North Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, and every other communist tyranny you care to name, it shouldn’t come as any big surprise.

And then there is siding with the North Koreans against our president and vice president. Look, liberals’ fake patriotism in the wake of the humiliating defeat – in an election – of Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit was always grating. But, as predicted, liberals can’t keep up the pretense of siding with America. This stuff about Trump and the Russians, the same Russians who couldn’t sit down during the Cold War without checking to make sure they weren’t going to crush a Democrat’s head, was always a joke. That the liberal establishment thinks worse of Mike Pence than a woman who is literally the head of the Propaganda and Agitation Department for a country that just threatened to nuke the United States says all you need to know about their fake patriotism.

No liberals, I’m not questioning your patriotism. Don’t be silly. I’d never do that. I don’t waste my time questioning unicorns either.

America’s most effective advocate of the principle of an armed populace is now officially the liberal media that usually seeks to do the ruling class’s bidding and strip us Normal Americans of that sacred right. But after the media’s bizarre display of eager tongue-bathing of the semi-human savages who run North Korea, any patriot has got to be thinking, “I best load up, because it’s pretty clear what the establishment’s desired end state is.”

The New York Times quivered: “Kim Jong-un’s Sister Turns on the Charm, Taking Pence’s Spotlight.”

Reuters tingled: “North Korea judged winner of diplomatic gold at Olympics.”

And CNN harassed airport travelers with: “Kim Jong Un’s sister is stealing the show at the Winter Olympics.”

But besides having bad taste, our mainstream media is revealing our ruling class once again. You watch the non-stop squee over these monsters and the only conclusion you can reasonably draw is that, for our worthless establishment, the North Korea murderocracy is not a cautionary example. It’s an objective.

Dude, of COURSE it is. The establishment of a globe-spanning Marxist misery-pit is the whole idea for them; it’s Job One, a feature and not a bug. What did you think they’d been working towards all the years they’ve been growing the federal government, making its power nearly absolute, taxing everything that moves (or doesn’t), demanding more federal spending no matter how astronomical the sum, waxing hysterical over the heartless evils of capitalism, denouncing the primacy of the individual and emphasizing the collective, and gushing with praise and envy over Europe’s embrace of socialism?

It Takes A Village, remember? Government is a word for the things we do Together? Taxes are the price we pay for civilization? Those and a bazillion other inspiring little liberal shibboleths?

Admittedly, North Korea is one of the more ghastly examples of Marxism’s inevitable failure; that being so, one might imagine Leftards would hesitate before extolling the place as any kind of example, if only as a matter of self-interest. But one would be underestimating their confidence in their talent for deception, overestimating their intelligence, or perhaps both.

Elsewhere, I sure hope Kurt ain’t holding his breath waiting for this. Yes, you betcha it’s related.

The FBI can buy manufactured evidence to spy on us, and that’s okay. We aren’t human.

The IRS can persecute us if we try to exercise our right to participate in the political process, and that’s okay. We aren’t human.

 Some Sanders fan who no doubt had a COEXIST sticker on his minivan can shoot up a bunch of Republicans, and that’s okay. We aren’t human.

Maybe his family getting sent fake anthrax will teach Don Jr. some obedience.

Let’s slide past the hideous moral bankruptcy of this way of thinking and get to the practical problem with normalizing terrorism and dehumanizing opponents. It creates a set of new rules, and the complicit liberal elite better think really hard about whether they truly want those new rules in effect. After all, they enacted new rules regarding vicious campaigning and then Trump came and wiped out Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit using them.

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing violence and terrorism?

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing denormalizing your political opponents?

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing dehumanizing your political opponents?

You may think you do now, but trust me, you really don’t.

There is a way out, a way that is obvious to anyone of good faith and common sense, and since it’s always a leftist attacking Republicans, the Democrat leadership needs to lead the way. The way out is to join together with the President and other conservatives and unequivocally reject violence and terror.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and all the other key Democrat leaders must stand on a stage beside Donald Trump and Don Jr. and say, without qualification that this is unacceptable and wrong. Then they and their minions in politics and in their pet press must stop with the non-stop, psycho-fueling hate for their conservative opponents – not the political disagreements but the senseless, drooling venom that infects the MSNBCs and the Twitters and all the rest.

But that will never happen.

Of course it won’t. In their eyes, that would be not just defeat, but surrender. It would require them to renounce the principles they’ve come to cherish most, depraved as those principles are.

The Left intends not to govern, but to rule. Their intent is not to debate, but to silence. They wish not to defeat us, but to enslave us—to bring us to heel, to train us to accept the bit. To force us by any means necessary to accept the superiority of their beliefs and foreswear any notion of dissent from them.

And if they can’t, well, that’s what the gulags are for.

Shocking, that Leftymedia would be so shamelessly fulsome in their praise for the Kim Il Whosits and their hideous government? Not hardly. They have so much in common, y’know.

Share

Shorter version: WAAAAAH!

Posted on      by     

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

Tired of all the WINNING!™

Posted on      by     

You and I might not be, but Schlichter can name you plenty of folks who are.

Slowly, it’s dawning on Trump’s enemies – on our enemies – that this isn’t just an unfortunate, temporary bump in the road to the Californiaization of America, but a U-turn. The people who elected Donald Trump were something his allegedly conservative Never Trump opponents never were: serious about being conservative. It’s easy to grift the donors with big talk about culture wars and policy initiatives when you never expect to be in a position to actually pull them off. But the Normals finally got sick of election year bomb-throwers morphing into pliable puffboys once their reps crossed into the Beltway. And that’s how you got Trump.

Suddenly, the fake hardcore facade of Conservative, Inc., was revealed for what it was – a pose, an act, tiresome political voguing. When someone finally showed up who actually wanted to act on all the things the pro-cons had been talking and writing about for decades, well, that didn’t leave a lot of room for those who only wanted to talk and write and luxuriate in being insiders. Never Trumpism spends a lot of time whining about how Trump is “vulgar” and “unfit,” but what these guys really resent is that he has embarrassed them. He showed them up. He did what they had been yakking endlessly about doing, and they hate him for it. They much prefer the quiet dignity of losing under a Bush or a Romney to obscurity under a Trump.

It’s crisis time for Conservative, Inc. The Eagle Liberty Forum of Conservative Freedom and Liberty can’t fill its annual dinner tables anymore, even with a keynote speech by Ben Sasse on how “True Conservatism™ Morally Obligates Us To Lose And Not Offend The Elite Rather Than Win And Displease Our Betters.”

That’s why they hate Trump. He didn’t make them irrelevant; he just showed the world that they were irrelevant. And that’s unforgiveable.

Trump’s kickin’ it old school in his enemies’ heads, chillin’ in their cerebral crib. His foes defined themselves by not being him. The Democrats’ tax policy? Not Trump. Their regulatory policy? Not Trump. Their foreign policy? Not Trump. And it’s the same with the allegedly conservative Never Trumpers. How do you get an alleged conservative to oppose moving our embassy to Israel’s capital? Get Trump to finally do it.

They are all about Trump, 24/7. CNN, and its silly Don Lemons and Tater Stelters, need Trump. They obsess over him, for without Trump they are nothing. The Resistance? They have nothing but Trump to fill their empty lives, getting giddy every time some media outlet reports that someone who knows somebody who heard somebody say that maybe Mueller is investigating someone who met Trump once for felony jaywalking. The Supreme Poo-Bah of the HIPAA Court is readying his Grand Warrants of Arresting – it’s gotta be true cuz I read it on the interwebs!

Trump owns his foes. They are mere satellites orbiting around him, and his gravity is all that keeps them from spinning off into space. They have willingly submitted to the reality of a Trumpocentric political universe. It’s hilarious.

Ain’t it, though. Ain’t it just. This is probably the most important part of all, though:

Their impeachment fever dreams are fading, so they look at popularity polls and take solace at the numbers. They took solace in them on November 8, 2016, too.

It amazes me that some of us to this day are baffled and/or fretting over Trump’s supposed “unpopularity” according to the very same polls which have never yet been right about him, not even once. The feeble guesswork of the polling apparatchiki—part and parcel of Ruling Class manipulation, most of it—is another thing that stands exposed by the Trump Awakening, but some folks still haven’t realized it for some reason.

But come on: can anybody out there seriously claim to expect honest, reliable truth from any poll done by ABCBMSNBCNN, the NYT, or the WaPo? And if you do, can I please request that you share whatever the hell it is you’re smoking with the rest of us?

Share

Heroes of Suffering

Posted on      by     

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

Why no, I am NOT sick of all the winning yet

Posted on      by     

They’re not gone completely yet, of course, and will still eke out the occasional (mostly Pyhrric) win here and there. But in the end, what’s going to do them in and reduce them to shrieking-incoherent irrelevance for good is the necessity of having to explain to Americans just what it is about the very idea of making America great again they’re so violently opposed to.

Few things are better than watching the media weep in despair as President Trump continues to deliver on his promises. One of those things, however, is watching as the intellectually honest among them are forced to admit that he is winning.

And that is exactly what has been happening in recent weeks. Two of the largest and most biased media outlets, marching through vales of tears, admitted that President Trump, arguably, has kept more of his promises than any President in modern history.

The first of these delicious offerings is CNN’s “Donald Trump — Keeper of Promises.” Then, like an early Christmas present, came the second piece in the Huffington Post: “Sadly, Trump is Winning.”

Both articles highlight all of Trump’s major accomplishments and track how closely they line up to his promises on the campaign trail. And both delineate his accomplishments as occasion for lamentations which, of course, cannot ring as anything other than delightful music in the ears of Trump supporters.

CNN talks about how Trump has made good on his word to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Paris Agreement, while also swiftly moving to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and de-certify the Iran Deal. These were all bad deals for our country that Trump promised supporters he would renegotiate, and he is doing that. After fighting the courts for months, his travel ban has finally been fully implemented. Most recently, of course, he made the bold move of declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel, much to the chagrin of the globalist elite and Islamists around the world. GDP growth has been soaring at levels of 3 percent or higher for the last several quarters, and the stock market continues to reach for the sky, with its latest milestone being 24,000.

The Huffington Post piece makes clear, even in the title, that Trump’s success is an occasion for their mourning; yet even they can no longer deny that by Trump’s metrics, he is winning.

By Trump’s metrics? By ANYBODY’S metrics, seems to me, whether they have America’s best interests in mind or—as with CNN, PuffHo, and every other Jurassic Media establishment, along with the NeverEverEverTrumptard cucks and their Democrat Socialist partners—very evidently not.

They just can’t help themselves, and they can’t hide what they are anymore. Chickens, home to roost, baby.

Share

Ask yourselves why we hate you

Posted on      by     

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

Posted on      by     

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

Rotten tree bears toxic fruit

Posted on      by     

Defining degeneracy down. Or, looked at another way, raising the bar to truly nauseating heights.

Would you be inclined to buy makeup because a 10-year-old boy is showing you how to create a look on Instagram? If we’re talking about Jack Bennett of @makeuupbyjack, then the answer could well be a resounding yes.

Oh, I assure you it most certainly could NOT. It does raise a whole lot of other questions (such as whether this poor confused young man’s overindulgent parents ought to be locked up, for one), but the only real answer it provides is whether this kid has serious mental-health issues or not, and whether he’ll be tormented by them his whole life long. But I suspect there was never much doubt about those answers anyway.

Since convincing his mother to start his account in May, young Mr. Bennett, who lives in Berkshire, England, has amassed 331,000 followers and attracted the attention of brands like MAC and NYX, which have offered products to create looks. Refinery29 has celebrated him as the next big thing in makeup.

He is the latest evidence of a seismic power shift in the beauty industry, which has thrust social media influencers to the top of the pecking order. Refreshingly, they come in all shapes, sizes, ages and, more recently, genders. Hailed by Marie Claire as the “beauty boys of Instagram,” the early male pioneers, like Patrick Simondac (@PatrickStarrr), Jeffree Star(@jeffreestar) and Manny Gutierrez, (@MannyMua733), have transcended niche to become juggernauts with millions of followers. And their aesthetic is decidedly new: neither old-school-rocker makeup nor drag queen.

“When I first started on Instagram six years ago, the only stuff that existed was guy-liner,” Mr. Starrr said. “It was Fall Out Boy, and it was not glamorous. There wasn’t anything close to applying false lashes. I wanted to feel pretty and beautiful without being a drag queen.”

Well, sorry, kid, but despite the cheerleading from the cultural boll-weevils at the NYT—who wish only to undercut the whole idea of masculinity by promoting gender confusion and dysfunction, and are merely using your natural early-stage groping for identity to promote a sinister agenda—you’ve failed at that.

What makes the Lefty propagandists indulging and manipulating the trials of youth to advance their larger goal of manipulating the greater society as well as humanity itself so despicable in this instance is the damage they’re doing to the boys. Instead of providing them with proper guidance and role models that could ease their passage to a healthy, realistic, and more productive place in society, the kids in this article are going to suffer their whole lives from this Lefty ploy in one way or another. The villains wreaking this havoc—starting with the writer of this article, and the NYT itself—should hope most fervently that karma ain’t a real thing. Or, y’know, Hell.

Mike Walsh lays his finger on another issue:

At the same time the MSM tosses around the word “pedophila” without the slightest idea what its definition actually is, the Newspaper of Record goes and runs a celebratory story like this: just have a look at the picture at the link of a ten-year-old boy. This is not only the sexualizing of children, it’s the homosexualizing of them, which is of course the point, given the Times‘s passionate and enthusiastic advocacy of all things gay.

The gay marriage battle, as many said at the time, was just the first step down a path that would lead into many cultural blind alleys. That now-quaint notion was airily dismissed at the time as absurd exaggerations from extremist bigots overcome by hysteria and hate. Those “extremists” wished not to oppress anyone or do them harm, but to preserve institutions and traditions that have served humanity quite well for a VERY long time, and sparked the most rapid advancement, the most true progress, in all of human history.

A small irony: the remarkable rapidity of that progress, juxtaposed with the breakneck speed of the changes in attitudes being wrought even now by the Left’s machinations seeking to pervert or undo it. Imagine gay marriage as anything but a completely mainstream and non-controversial proposition now; imagine lighting up a cigarette in a bar freely and without approbation or arrest; imagine repealing Obamacare…and not replacing it with any government-run system.

You probably can’t. I’d bet anything your teen or twenty-something kid can’t.

As with feminism and the status of American blacks among many other issues, the NYT’s and Leftymedia’s pro-gay advocacy has dragged us way beyond righting some wrongs, addressing some legitimate grievances, and liberating a marginal minority who, yes, had been treated unfairly in the past, sometimes horribly so. This is now something else entirely: it’s an attempt at the overthrow of an entire culture, replacing it not with some marvelous Utopia but with chaos and confusion.

But you don’t have to take my word for it; the loathsome hippies gave the game away long ago:

Everyone knows that Charles Manson inspired those murders. None of that is being forgotten in reports of his death.

But what also shouldn’t be forgotten was how the murders inspired Bernardine Dohrn, the ’60s militant Marxist who spearheaded the Weather Underground.

That surreal, cruel moment came at the appropriately titled “War Council” held in Flint, Michigan on December 27, 1969, two days after Christmas. It was attended by some 400 student radicals from the SDS-Weathermen cabal, who promoted this political-ideological-sexual gathering as a collective “Wargasm.” For the lovely ’60s hippies, it would be (as usual) a night of radical politics, unrestrained sex, and violence.

Among the ringleaders was the late John Jacobs, who had coined a fitting slogan for the evening and for the entire movement: “We’re against everything that’s good and decent.” That became obvious when the indecent Bernardine Dohrn grabbed the microphone. “We’re about being crazy motherf—ers,” Dohrn shouted, “and scaring the sh-t out of honky America!”

Mark Rudd, the SDS leader who shut down Columbia University a year earlier, in the spring of 1968, translated this message for the wider world: “The message was that we sh-t on all your conventional values, you murderers of black revolutionaries and Vietnamese babies. There were no limits to our politics of transgression.”

A line had been crossed that night in Flint — the first steps into a dark world. From the high altar of Rev. Dohrn’s four-finger salute flowed domestic terror cells, gunpowder, bomb-making units. A “new decade now dawned,” recalled Rudd, as “the New Red Army marched out from Flint, exhilarated and terrified.” Its members would spend the next decade literally plotting the violent overthrow of the United States of America, which (quoting their hero, Che Guevara) they declared “the Great Enemy of Mankind.”

They planned attacks, planted bombs, and engaged in murder, all along fleeing the federal authorities as fugitives on the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list. Ayers would change his name from town to town, chillingly visiting dead cemeteries where he borrowed the names of deceased babies from tombstones as his macabre aliases.

Lest you kid yourself that this is all some quaint old ancient history with no relevance for us in the modern era, better think again:

Dohrn and Ayers, of course, were back in the news again in 2008, when their friendship with an aspiring Illinois politician named Barack Obama was raised. A chilling symbolic moment in Obama’s rise was the political blessing he received in the living room of Bill and Bernardine in their Hyde Park home in 1995.

In fact, Obama and Bill Ayers actually did a number of things together in Chicago. They jointly served as board members at the Woods Fund in Chicago; they worked on “school reform” through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge; they served on a juvenile-justice panel (organized by Michelle Obama); they appeared together as speakers or panel participants at Chicago events; they had many mutual associations, including with disturbing figures like Rashid Khalidi; they acknowledged one another in books and reviews and even endorsement of their books; they had a relationship as neighbors (three blocks apart); plus numerous other reported associations. (I detail these and many additional connections, with copious endnotes, in my book 2010 book, Dupes.) In 2001, the same period when Ayers openly lamented that he had not done enough damage to the Pentagon, Ayers donated $200 to Obama’s reelection campaign for the Illinois Senate, which Obama happily accepted and was never called upon to repudiate. The relationship was professional and personal. Some have speculated that Barack met his wife Michelle at the Sidley & Austin law firm where Bernardine Dohrn worked.

But, hey, who’s counting — eh?

Who indeed. Which is probably the most dismaying part of all.

This does work well as a reminder that nobody should be telling themselves Leftists are going to be easy pickings when the liberty-minded finally do rise up to throw off the yoke of their oppression, or that their professed abhorrence of violence extends far enough to cover anyone who disagrees with them or dares to try to resist them. Some of that might apply in varying degrees to some or perhaps even most of them. But there has always been a hard core of the Left that is thuggish, vicious, cannot be reasoned with, and is quite enthusiastic about doing violence to their opposition. And they are probably far greater in number than many of us imagine.

Oh, and don’t be kidding yourself with the comforting assumption that our side has all the guns, either. We have most of them, true, and probably will for a good while yet. But empty talk of who has what never yet stopped even one piece of contra-Constitutional act of legislative tyranny, nor any Obama pen-and-phone power grabs, either. And the Left is beginning to arm up.

On the other hand, the hard Left will also be bringing effeminate, passive neurotics like the children in the article up top gradually into their ranks too. They’ll be dull-witted, sheep-like, and incapable of functioning or taking initiative outside of a strictly-regimented environment thanks to their government schooling. They’ll be awkward with tools, unable to cope when something malfunctions or breaks down, and prone to breaking down themselves into helplessly paralyzed fits of weeping at the slightest misadventure or unexpected complication. All of which will serve to weaken the Left just as much as it will (or has) America itself.

Another instance of stinging irony, and of their grandiose plans blowing up in their faces because of having actually been brought to a fuller fruition than they at first imagined—but which WE easily foresaw, and warned against all along. Hey, who says there ain’t any justice in the world, anyway? Why, sometimes, it’s so rich and moving as to be almost eerily poetic.

Share

Liberal media covers itself in its usual “glory”

Posted on      by     

Or shit, take your pick.

I’ll get to that point in just a sec, but first I want to address something from the Chuck Schemer squirm below, which the liberal media outlets are gleefully quoting as if it were the Gettysburg Address or something—specifically, this part:

Schumer also snuck in his own counter-punch, pointing out that Trump’s budget proposal had cut back on anti-terrorism funding, and he called on Trump to seek more money for those programs.

Now, leaving aside that it’s only a proposal at this point and therefore could have had NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the actions of the terrorist Schemer so willfully imported into this country, can these people truly believe that every single problem we face—EVERY SINGLE ONE—is solvable only by having the government spend more money on it? And can they possibly be unaware that, if we start sanely restricting immigration as we should have long ago, it wouldn’t be necessary to throw bucketloads of government money at the problem in the first place? Not to even mention militarizing our police; building a surveillance state in direct contravention of our battered Constitution; subjecting ourselves to demeaning, intrusive, and ineffectual Security Theater; scarifying our public spaces with barricades, bollards, and AR15-toting military-style guards in Kevlar and full battle rattle—in sum, transforming the very warp and woof of American life into something more closely resembling Beirut circa 1983 or so?

Never mind; don’t answer that, lest the answer inspire us to start stringing these feckless cocksuckers up from lampposts. With sincere apologies for the insult to any and all honest, sane, and intelligent suckers of cock everywhere, mind.

Anyways, in the post below I quoted from a Limbaugh diatribe that goes on to address another irksome liberal-media issue, namely the constant use of the “lone wolf” meme to deflect and distract from what’s really going on here. Along with their recent penchant for going out of their way to identify Moslem immivaders who’ve been here less than eight or ten years as “homegrown” or “domestic” terrorists who were doing just fine until suddenly and mysteriously finding themselves radicalized from within the US or whatever other nation they spent those eight or ten years plotting to attack, it’s a particularly silly subterfuge, capable of deceiving only the thickest among us. To wit:

The whole point is, this guy has backup. He’s got an entire community or neighborhood that gives him moral support, that buttresses him! He’s not a lone wolf and a coward. That’s the whole point of the Diversity Visa Program. It’s the whole point of the necessity being to vet for Sharia supremacists and prevent them from getting in.

He’s got a network of people who think exactly like he does, who inspire him, motivate him, encourage him. He’s exactly not a lone wolf! That’s the whole point. He may have been the only guy in the commission of this crime, but he’s not alone, and he’s not rogue. That’s what they want you to believe so that you don’t think you’re in danger. “It’s a one off. These things happen!”

Precisely so. And sure enough, the inevitable drip-drip-drip of information contradicting the liberal head-in-the-sand version of (un)reality is already starting:

Federal authorities announced Wednesday they are no longer searching for a second Uzbek national who may have been connected with Tuesday’s terror attack in Lower Manhattan.

The FBI announced Wednesday there were seeking information about 32-year-old Mukhammadzoir Kadirov, who they believed may have played a role in the incident, as reported by the The New York Times.

The FBI is no longer seeking information on Kadirov, according to Reuters. Authorities say they found the man, the FBI announced during a Wednesday press conference.

Okay, well and good, right? Sure, except…

Saipov was connected to suspects under investigations for terror-related activities, police officials also announced Wednesday. 

Hmm. “Suspects,” plural, is it? “Investigations,” with an “s”? My oh my.

This guy, and every other damned “lone wolf” Moslem terrorist, has an entire global network of support behind him. He can travel to any country in the Middle East any time he likes and be welcomed in the neighborhoods and mosques of Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh, Khartoum, Dubai, Doha, or Sanna’a as a brother-in-arms and a hero, because that’s exactly what he is to them. He can get money and materiel from any number of governments or independent organizations via those same mosques; he can feed his psychotic depravity by immersing himself in books, leaflets, and websites innumerable.

Should he ever waver momentarily in his dedication to jihad, his commitment can be quickly bolstered by watching a few Dark Web murder videos or visiting those same mosques, or just talking it over with his like-minded neighbors. There’s a reason they tend to congregate in Moslem-only enclaves seeded in the outskirts of urban areas throughout the West, you know; they’re keepin’ the faith, baby, and as with the hippie communes in the 60s from whose denizens the phrase originated, that’s always been easier to do in a group. Should he require marksmanship and/or tactical training at some point, there are between 22 and 35 Moslem terrorist training camps right here in the good ol’ US of A where he can feel right at home again, cleansing himself of unholy influences and brushing up on his infidel-smiting skills.

And…”domestic terrorist” my chapped ass. These swine are about as American as playing polo on horseback with the head of a goat for a ball, or shunning and killing dogs as “unclean,” or stoning women for the crime of having been gang-raped, or…well, you get the picture. I like falafel and hummus and dates just fine and all, don’t get me wrong. But hot dogs and apple pie they ain’t, any more than the Muslim call to prayer is the equal American-tradition-wise of church bells ringing on Sunday morning or a Fourth of July parade. Unlike liberal media boll weevils, you’ll never hear me try to claim that they are.

In other words, they aren’t American at all. They never will be, because they don’t wish to be. They come here not because of their admiration and respect for us, their desire to enjoy the blessings and benefits of living in Western society. They come here to destroy it, to undermine it, to conquer and vanquish it; to absorb it into the global Caliphate, and to kill as many of those who would dare to resist or defy them and their bloodthirsty, demonic false God as they possibly can.

The “lone wolf/domestic terrorist” narrative is horseshit on stilts, as is the notion of the peaceable, tolerant “moderate Muslim” (himself damned near chimerical) suddenly waking up one fine morning in his peaceful suburban home to find himself “radicalized” by incomprehensible forces, as if he’d caught a bad flu bug from off a restroom doorhandle. They’re all nothing more than polite, comforting fictions liberals tell themselves for two reasons: to reassure themselves that their ass-backwards ideology can somehow be made to work at long last, particularly as pertains to multiculti diversity achieving not an explosive potential for conflict but a warm, fuzzy, huggy-kissy Utopia, and to convince the rest of us of how wrong we really are about them and their childish delusions.

Every successive attack, every mauled corpse, every blood-splashed Western sidewalk contradicts these shallow and ignorant assumptions. Rather than face up to the cognitive dissonance—which has to be so severe by now as to be physically painful—it’s much easier to close their eyes, stuff their fingers in their ears, sing tra-la-la, and keep hoping for some sort of miraculous deliverance from their awful plight.

Until they end up being one of those butchered in our increasingly bloody streets, anyway. Which is about as fitting an end for them as I can think of, really, short of that whole swinging-from-lampposts thing I mentioned earlier.

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