Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Furious…and funny

Klown Kar Koup runs over own feet.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California conceded Tuesday that she can’t attest to the veracity of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school.

“[Ford] is a woman that has been, I think, profoundly impacted. On this…I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know,” Feinstein told reporters on Capitol Hill when asked if she believed the allegation.

Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, has been maligned by her Republican colleagues for failing to disclose the sexual-harassment accusation after initially being made aware of it via a letter from Ford in July.

Asked why she did not make her Judiciary Committee colleagues aware of the allegation at the beginning of Kavanaugh’s vetting process, Feinstein hesitated before citing Ford’s desire to remain anonymous.

“I don’t know; I’ll have to look back and see,” Feinstein told reporters before entering the Senate chamber.

Oh, bullshit, you despicable liar. The whole thing was never anything at all but a political ploy intended to discredit Kavanaugh and hamstring Trump, and you know it better than anybody. But does it get better, you ask? Of course it does.



That’s Alexandra Miranda Vera Cruz De La Holla Cardinale Occasional-Cortex flipping the White Power Secret Handshake that nobody ever heard of until the Deranged Left’s ludicrous meltdown over it last week, having been thoroughly trolled by 4Chan’s co-opting of the hand sign sane people know as representing “OK” for just that purpose.

(Via Ed)

Mo’ funny update! Sung to the tune of the Ballad Of The Green Berets.

Bracken-Kavanaugh.jpeg


Courtesy of WRSA.

In the clutches of commies update! On a more serious note, also via WRSA:

Classic communism in play at the Kavanaugh confirmation. The communist organizations and the communists in government will do anything to keep the death cult alive, part of that is Planned Parenthood. They have sold the idea that if Kavanaugh is confirmed that he and Gorsuch will combine to eliminate Roe v Wade, this has led to the desperate attempt of Christine Blasey-Ford to derail the nomination through an accusation of teenage sexual misconduct.

What else can the communist left in this nation do, but make specious allegations against their enemy? Understand, it is in the communist playbook to lie. Lying to them is a tactic, not a sin. A talented liar is highly valuable. Look at the way they responded to Clinton when he lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. It wasn’t just that he lied, but the propaganda media swooned over how well he lied.

The same goes with Obama, they loved the way he looked them in the eye and lied with conviction and with the smoothness of a used car salesman. Lying well is to be aspired to. All of us rubes; the fools that we are; the hopelessly convicted believers in Christ who view lying as a sin are just easy prey. But, after all of that, if they think we believe that they are above a good lie to derail a Supreme Court nomination they are the fools.

It is not difficult to imagine Christine Blasey-Ford with all of her social justice warrior armor wrapped up in her pink hat, remembering Kavanaugh from some distant party and knowing that the proximity gives any story she chooses to make up credibility.

Actually, what she remembers a lot better is Kavanaugh’s mom ruling against Christine Lying-Whore’s parents in a foreclosure hearing she presided over as judge. But hey, I just can’t imagine any deranged Sanders-sucking commie holding a grudge for that long, can you?

If you can’t, I have a bridge in Brooklyn up for sale that I think you might be interested in. The bottom line remains: this is just another Democrat-Socialist shitshow, another Oh, We Got Him Now! moment. Like all the others before it, this one is already starting to collapse, after which it will be on to the next one.

Which makes the grovel-reflex from Benedict Arnold Republicans even more sickening than usual, including the pundit-class types who lapsed right into standard chin-pulling and handwringing over the “seriousness” of Lying-Whore’s bullshit charges mere moments after Fienswine made her dirty move. Harsanyi provides a useful reminder for the preemptive-surrender monkeys:

It’s worth remembering that these Democrat tactics aren’t only meant to sink this nomination — should they end up forcing Kavanaugh to withdraw — but also to damage the credibility of any Supreme Court featuring Trump-nominated (or, let’s be honest, Republican-nominated) justices. Democrats have been dishonestly challenging the “legitimacy” of the court throughout these hearings. They don’t want to abide by any authority that treats the Constitution seriously, because it’s often the only thing standing in the way of their coercive policies.

The Kavanaugh hearings were already an embarrassing spectacle in which Democrats ignored the rules, processes and procedures when it suited them. Yet, if Republicans refuse to hold more open hearings now, they will be accused of ignoring sexual assault. If they do hold hearings, they will be accused of attacking a sexual assault survivor, anyway. Republicans will never be able to ask Ford anything useful, because they’re mostly white men, and white men are, I’m told, perfunctorily racist and misogynist. If Republicans bring up the fact that Ford’s allegation wasn’t reported or relayed to anyone for more than 30 years — until Kavanaugh’s name emerged as a possible Supreme Court justice — they will be accused of attacking a woman. If they point out that her therapist’s notes, the ones that Ford claims prove her charge, in some ways contradict what she is now saying, they will be portrayed as a bunch of men attacking a sexual assault survivor. When they point out that polygraph tests are unreliable and inadmissible in courts, they will be accused of berating a victim.

Republicans are simply expected to nod their heads in agreement.

Which is exactly what way too many of them got real busy doing. Myself, I’ll just let McThag do my talking for me:

Dear Democrat Senators: 
You did nothing about the numerous rape allegations and escapades associated with William Jefferson Clinton.

This means that we don’t give a shit what you think about a single allegation about Brett Kavanaugh from when he was in high school.

I’ll tell you what, Dianne, even if you produce a film of him raping someone now…

I don’t care.

You beat the “give a fuck” out of me on this issue.

Hollywood’s treatment of women beat the “give a fuck” out of me on this issue.

I used to care, but you keep telling me it’s no big deal in every word and deed.

But now that it is a pro-gun, conservative Supreme Court nominee, it’s somehow different?

Yeah, fuck off.

With fucking bells on. As Aesop says:

We could not have said so much with so little if we whittled at that block of wood all day, a fact we hereby cheerfully concede and acknowledge.

I’ll put a hearty “amen” to that sentiment.

Share

Stolen glory

They stepped in it. They splattered it all over themselves. Now they’re frantically trying to clean up the mess.

Legendary Apollo 11 astronaut Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin took a swipe at the upcoming movie “First Man” late Sunday for its director’s decision not to show the planting of the American flag on the moon during the historic 1969 mission.

Aldrin, 88, who was the second man to step on the moon, behind crewmate Neil Armstrong, posted historical photos of the flag-planting and added the hashtag “Proud to be an American.”

In previous posts Saturday, Aldrin shared photos of himself wearing a T-shirt with the tagline “Buzz Aldrin, Future Martian” that shows an astronaut planting the American flag on the Red Planet.

Chazelle himself also released a statement, insisting the omitting of the planting of the US flag had nothing to do with politics.

“The flag being physically planted into the surface is one of several moments of the Apollo 11 lunar EVA [extravehicular activity] that I chose not to focus upon,” he said on Friday.

“To address the question of whether this was a political statement, the answer is no. My goal with this movie was to share with audiences the unseen, unknown aspects of America’s mission to the moon — particularly Neil Armstrong’s personal saga and what he may have been thinking and feeling during those famous few hours,” the director added.

When he was, y’know, planting the American flag on the fucking moon. In celebration of a wholly American achievement. The Soviets got to low orbit before petering out. Nobody else has managed to do even that much. Hell, even we can’t manage it anymore. It might be a past glory, now long behind us. But it’s still OUR glory, no matter how much that indisputable fact disrupts the feel-goods of globalist shitlibs.

The article quotes Armstrong’s kids as saying they actually agree with the shitlibs on its being a “human” achievement, but who gives a stinking damn what they think? None of them have been to the moon yet either. Anytime they want to go plant themselves a UN flag up there, they’re welcome to try. Maybe Once-Great Britain, Turkmenistan, Sierra Leone, and Burkina Faso can help out.

Share

Where’s MY white privilege, dammit?

Self-loathing is an essential—perhaps THE essential—component driving the modern liberal psyche.

The concept of ‘white privilege’ was popularized by Peggy McIntosh in a 1989 paper written at Harvard University and titled, “White Privilege: Unpacking The Invisible Knapsack.” It was written as a personal, experiential essay, and it details 26 ways in which McIntosh’s skin color has been decisive in determining her life outcomes. This hugely influential paper has been responsible for the subsequent proliferation of a rigidly enforced theory of privilege throughout social movements and university classrooms. So central has this doctrine become to progressive politics, pedagogy, and activism, that to even question its validity is to invite the inquisitorial wrath of ‘social justice’ radicals. But it is for this very reason that it is important to subject McIntosh’s ideas to scrutiny. So let us return to the source and to first principles and unpack Peggy McIntosh’s knapsack…

Follows, a close examination of the tremendously large silver spoon ensconced in the gormless nitwit’s mouth from birth, a matter far more of wealth, social position, and access to a network of lofty connections than of race. She doesn’t seem interested in groveling apologetically for those things, oddly enough.

In other words, Peggy McIntosh was born into the very cream of America’s aristocratic elite, and has remained ensconced there ever since. Her ‘experiential’ list enumerating the ways in which she benefits from being born with white skin simply confuses racial privilege with the financial advantages she has always been fortunate enough to enjoy. Many of her points are demonstrably economic. One is left to wonder why, given her stated conviction that she has unfairly benefited from her skin color, there seems to be no record of her involvement in any charity or civil rights work. If she did take to the streets in support of some cause or other, she left no trace that I can see. Nor, as far as I can tell, has she spent any time teaching the underprivileged or working directly to better anyone’s condition but her own. Instead, she has contented herself with a generous six figure salary, and has not shown any particular eagerness to hand her position over to a more deserving person of color.

Very few of the people reading this article—whatever the color of their skin—will have even the vaguest idea of the comfort and privilege in which Peggy McIntosh grew up and to which she has since become accustomed. Nor will we have access to the world of opportunities that she has been fortunate enough to enjoy. But even though the lifetime of privilege McIntosh has experienced is almost certainly due to her wealth and not the colour of her skin, she nevertheless found a way to share this irksome burden with the illiterate children of Kentucky coal miners, the hopeless peasants of the Appalachians, poor single mothers struggling to make ends meet on welfare, and the vast majority of whites in the United States and throughout the world who never had the chance to attend Radcliffe or Harvard. She simply reclassified her manifest economic advantage as racial privilege and then dumped this newly discovered original sin onto every person who happens to share her skin color. Without, of course, actually redistributing any of the wealth that, by her own account, she had done nothing to deserve.

All of which means that pretty much anything you read about ‘white privilege’ is traceable to an ‘experiential’ essay written by a woman who benefitted from massive wealth, a panoply of aristocratic connections, and absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever. This alone calls into question the seriousness and scholarly validity of the derivative works, since they are all the fruit of a poisonous tree. But McIntosh’s hypothesis was eagerly embraced nonetheless, because it served a particular purpose—it helped to mainstream a bitter zero-sum politics of guilt and identity. This dark epistemology has quietly percolated through the universities and the wider culture for two decades now. It has had the effect of draining attention from a massive and growing wealth gap and it has pitted the poor against one another in public spectacles of acrimony and even violence. Even so, it was readily embraced by progressively-minded professors who might otherwise have had trouble squaring their thirst for social justice with their high six figure salaries. In the last decade, this dogma has come screaming out of the nation’s august halls of learning and into mainstream civil discourse (although to call most of what passes for discourse today ‘civil’ somewhat labours the definition). And, still, we are endlessly and forcefully reminded that to question this concept in any way is, in and of itself, racist.

That’s probably enough excerpting; it’s a deep, well-conceived and crafted piece which goes into some unexpected places and is deserving of a read in full. Good comments, too.

McIntosh’s unwelcome gift of the burden of her own misguided guilt, neurosis, and self-flagellation is one the world could have done without. Whatever happened to the notion of a becoming sense of gratitude, responsibility, and noblesse oblige as an accompaniment to the good fortune of being born into a life of wealth and privilege, anyway?

If we’re all going to have to shoulder the load of stupid PC-Progtard angst, though, I’m gonna have to insist that they lay off their damned appropriation of my culture: “The Language Police Want Y’all to Adopt the Gender-Neutral, Non-Sexist ‘Y’all’.” Help, help, I’ve been microaggressed!

Seriously, though, the idea of sensible people “uniting” with such useless skinbags for any purpose at all seems fanciful beyond even the wildest science-fiction these days. Not even something as cataclysmic as the events in John Ringo’s Posleen War series could do it, seems to me. I know that whenever a gaggle of ’em goes out to attempt a “dialogue” with the Posleen in hopes of finding a “peaceful resolution of our differences,” “compromise,” and “reconciliation” with them—and you know damned well they would—I won’t be making any attempts to talk ’em out of it.

(Via KT)

Share

Raise your hand if you haven’t hacked Hillary!™

Perhaps it might be easier if we tried to list all the nations that WEREN’T all up in Crooked Hillary’s illegal bathtub-gin server.

A Chinese-owned company operating in the Washington, D.C., area hacked Hillary Clinton’s private server throughout her term as secretary of state and obtained nearly all her emails, two sources briefed on the matter told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Chinese firm obtained Clinton’s emails in real time as she sent and received communications and documents through her personal server, according to the sources, who said the hacking was conducted as part of an intelligence operation.

The Chinese wrote code that was embedded in the server, which was kept in Clinton’s residence in upstate New York. The code generated an instant “courtesy copy” for nearly all of her emails and forwarded them to the Chinese company, according to the sources.

Okay, it’s just purely hilarious at this point. Naturally, Peter Stroke and the FBI are involved too. I repeat: how on earth did such blithering idiots ever manage to steal our country from us in the first place?

Share

The Great Unmasking

Ooooops.

Thanks to the election of President Trump, we are in the midst of a process I call “the great unmasking.” American leftists and progressives have, until President Trump, gone out of their way to hide their disdain for this country and its (mostly) free-market economy. They are enraged that everything is not perfect by their lights and imagine that they could produce a much better system if only they had absolute power.  

Because the deplorables out there in the American public still cling to patriotism (ever since Karl Marx, the left has disdained nationalism as obstructing worldwide proletarian class solidarity), progressive politicians have hidden their disdain.

But Donald Trump’s election has engendered a mass neurosis we call “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” which has engendered a frenzy to be rid of him. Frenzied is never a good mode of action, for it blinds one to obvious pitfalls.

That’s why yesterday, the governor of New York, speaking to a friendly group, let slip a genuine gaffe, in the meaning of Michael Kinsley’s definition: accidentally telling the truth. Nobody could ever state in public that America “was never that great” unless he believed that. That’s why the expression has a ring of sincerity when Cuomo uttered those words.

He’s a Leftard and a Democrat-Socialist (BIRM), so the only surprising thing is that he was stupid and politically maladroit enough to slip up and express his true beliefs right out loud. And even that ain’t much of a surprise, given how completely Out about such things so many of them are since we smacked ’em right in their filthy gobs with President Donald J Trump.

They hate America. They hate the white guys who founded it. They hate the white guys who held it together and made it work all along. They hate the very idea that anybody might believe it’s great (or ever was). They hate the fact that we’re no longer willing to sit meekly back and tolerate their abuse. Most of all, they hate the deeply-buried, subconscious knowledge that they’re a bunch of pussified parasites whose very existence as peurile, neurotic, self-loathing, eternally-complaining, shit-stirring brats would be measurable in minutes in the Marxist shitholes they so admire.

Nemo provides a few worthy ripostes over in Bill’s comment section. As for Koo-mo, naturally he got busy backpedaling and non-apology apologizing, for all the good it’ll do him anywhere outside NYC—where they won’t see what all the fuss was about anyway.

Share

MORE collusion!

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

Best of times, worst of times

Unbearable thoughts.

Anti-Americanism has the same psychological dynamic as anti-Semitism. When the anti-Semite launches into his harangue, we instinctively recoil. We recognize that he is a troubled soul. We understand that he is obsessively tracing the inner contours of a mental cage that exists beyond the reach of rationality.

The insights of Revel and Rangel suggest that the Americans who suffer from anti-Americanism must also be afflicted by an unbearable thought.

What unbearable thought? The answer is ready at hand. The Progressive project has gone from strength to strength politically in America – and everywhere it has brought ruin in its wake. Detroit was once an economic powerhouse, and San Francisco was once America’s most beautiful city. Decades of one-party rule according to the Progressive project have wrecked Detroit, and San Francisco is becoming something truly strange, a modern city overwhelmed by human excrement in public places.

Hm. Must be a coincidence, right?

How did these three beautiful and prosperous American cities morph from the best of cities to the worst of cities in only a couple of generations? Let’s look at who is in charge.

San Francisco has not had a Republican mayor since 1964, the height of Motown music in one of the other cities we are discussing. For the past fifty-plus years, San Francisco has been led by a procession of Democrats.

Detroit’s last Republican mayor finished his term in 1962, around the time the Supremes were singing “Where Did Our Love Go?” Now they would be singing, “Where did our city go?” Since the early 1960s, Detroit has had a succession of Democrat mayors, including Coleman Young and their famous hip-hop mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, now serving a long prison term. Michigan, similar to Illinois and California, has two Democrat U.S. senators.

Anyone see a common thread here? Cities run by liberal Democrats, implementing liberal policies, with predictable results. These are certainly not the only American cities ruined by Democrat governance – there are also Newark; New Orleans; and Washington, D.C. to name a few others.

Back to my first link for the only rational conclusion:

The Progressives’ failure is not a failure to enact their agenda. They have dominated America politically for the past century. FDR gave us really big government, and the federal government has become a scandal of fraud, waste, and abuse – a scandal that even the Big Government Press cannot keep hidden from us. LBJ declared War on Poverty – and that war was lost. Instead of eliminating poverty, the War on Poverty has made poverty more pathological, creating an underclass, often now described as “permanent,” living on government handouts. Even the Progressives’ anti-Americanism was given free rein with the election of Barack Obama, who shared their obsession with “fundamentally transforming” America. Yet wave after wave of electoral victory has not made American Progressives happy.

Whenever the voters put the Progressives in charge, the result is governmental metastasis and social catastrophe – by necessity. The left is simply wrong about how things work. It is easy to come up with programs that defy common sense. It is also possible to use governmental power to impose those programs on society. But the power of government can’t make them work.

As I always say: their argument isn’t with us. It’s with reality.

Share

“Democratic socialism” and equality before the law

Incompatible and contradictory.

Observing the media hijinks and economic moronity of Democrat hopeful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is prepared to increase taxation to unsustainable levels to pay for the socialist dream – “universal health care, tuition free higher education, and the 100 percent use of renewable energy, among other programs” – I could not help but reflect that infinity can be measured only by the extent of human stupidity.

Ocasio-Cortez, a lightweight even on the Bernie Sanders scale, is merely the latest in a long line of what we call today “democratic socialists” or “social justice warriors.” They are oblivious to the proven fact that socialism never works, that it has failed wherever it has been tried, that a centralized state and a command economy inevitably lead to rampant inefficiency, reduced incentive to compete and innovate, diminished production, economic stagnation, and ultimately to one or another version of the police state, whether the “velvet totalitarianism” that John Furedy speaks of or sheer brutal repression – in current terms, the Venezuela option. Socialism is the enemy not only of human flourishing and individual freedom, but, as we will note shortly, of the concept of equality before the law.

“Democratic socialism” is a contradiction in terms – or it is democratic in the same way as death is, reducing everyone to the same level. Socialism is no less a grim reaper than mortality. Similarly, “social justice” has nothing to do with the Western legacy of equality before the law. Clearly, people are not equal with respect to character, intelligence, aptitude, moral fiber, personal responsibility, and motivation, but they should be equal before the law. “Democratic socialism” ignores the complexity of human personality by reducing difference to a lowest common denominator just as “social justice” is dismissive of individual contributions to the well-being of the state. What such fantasy-laden constructs call “equality” is nothing but the dispensation of unearned privilege to the masses, culminating inexorably in the imposition of a featureless collective.

Socialism is a perversion of both equality and justice, the weaponizing of the law in the service of an unfeasible ideal and the progressivist legalization of outright theft, which can result only in the eventual destabilization of the state. It terminates in the society of Harrison Bergeron, in which everyone is equal only in the sense that everyone, apart from an echelon of exploiters, is equally poor, equally deprived, and equally miserable. This is not what Amos would have conceived as justice.

But it is what the Ocasio-Cortezes of the world – and they are legion – would in their risible ignorance inflict upon the rest of us, if we are lunatic enough to allow them. Florida candidate for governor Ron DeSantis is on the mark when he points to the utter folly of Ocasio-Cortez “running around saying, well, capitalism is going to die and…that socialism is the wave of the future. And as somebody who lives in Florida, I can tell you, we probably have more refugees from socialist countries – Cuban-Americans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans – then just about any state…and certainly they can tell you socialism doesn’t work. It’s a failed philosophy.”

Or, to go back to the Powerline meme collection:


Fleeing-capitalism.jpg


If socialism really IS “the wave of the future,” the future is gonna really, really suck.

Update! OG blogger Stephen fisks the living hell out of a socialism-pimping Reuters propaganda piece.

First the headline, which reads: “Once oil wealthy, Venezuela’s largest state struggles to keep the lights on.”

That headline gives the impression that Venezuela has run out of oil, but nothing could be further from the truth. The country still possesses the world’s largest oil reserves, so there’s plenty of oil wealth. It’s still right there in the ground. It hasn’t gone anywhere. The problem is that Bolivarian socialism has ruined the country’s extraction industry, but you wouldn’t know that from anything in the entire story.

Here’s the second graf:

The rolling power blackouts in the state of Zulia pile more misery on Venezuelans living under a fifth year of an economic crisis that has sparked malnutrition, hyperinflation and mass emigration. OPEC member Venezuela’s once-thriving socialist economy has collapsed since the 2014 fall of oil prices.

When Hugo Chavez took over the country in 1998 and began imposing his socialist regime, oil prices were at around $18 a barrel. Twenty years later they’ve “collapsed” to… about $70, with some temporary lows around $40 or so.

That is to say, oil prices since 2014 have averaged about triple what they were in 1998. And from ’98 to 2014, oil was mostly on an upward trajectory and routinely went for well over $100. So the question isn’t how this “crisis” was caused by a “collapse” in oil prices. The question is: What the hell did Maduro and Chavez do with all the damn money?

Here we have a story detailing Venezuela’s economic collapse, and every single problem can be explained by two words: Because socialism. And yet the only time reporter Mayela Armas uses the word socialism, it’s in the context of a “once-thriving socialist economy.”

It never WAS a “once-thriving socialist economy”—because when they went socialist, the economy stopped thriving. Just like they all do, every single time. One thing Stephen gets wrong, though: he calls this propaganda “malignantly uninformed,” but it’s more like MISinformed. Or, to be more precise, dezinformatsiya.

Share

Crazy, not socialist?

Embrace the healing power of “and.”

Trump’s victory tore the mask from the Democrats leaving them nothing but rage. Formerly mainstream Democrats are quick to embrace every insane lefty position from abolishing borders to supporting Hamas, not because they understand or believe in them, but because they’re “resisting” Trump.

The socialists think they’re winning. But they’re just the guys shouting things at a crazy mob. And the mob is not really for anything, it’s just enraged. It doesn’t want to build, it wants to tear down.

Tweak a normal person’s sense of outrage and they’re moved. Keep doing it a bunch of times and you can enlist them in a movement. Do it every 5 seconds and you drive them as crazy as rats in a Skinner Box. And if you want to see a sample of the Dem Skinner Box, here are a few Nancy Pelosi emails.

“A matter of life or death,” “I’m so furious I can barely write this email,” “As if it couldn’t get worse today,” EVISCERATED,” “I’m scared”, and “DOOMED”.

Peak Outrage induces feelings of frustrations, fury, helplessness and despair.

That’s why you have lefties gathering together to scream at the sky. That’s not the behavior of committed activists building a socialist future. It’s what happens when leaders drive people crazy. Everyone has emotional limits, just as they have physical limits. The madness of Germans at a Hitler rally or Russians mourning Stalin is the end result of people reaching the limits of their emotional sanity.

Madness ensues.

The ultimate beneficiaries of Peak Outrage won’t be the socialists. Crazy people who have been mainlining hate and fear for a decade aren’t really interested in nationalizing health care. They’ll cheer socialism if there’s nothing else on the table and convince themselves briefly that they care. But what they really want is someone to liberate them from their rage and helplessness by destroying the two sources of those emotions, the reviled Republicans and their own failed Democrat leaders.

They don’t want Alexadria Ocasio-Cortez. They want to be freed of their sense of helplessness.

No reason it can’t be both—especially if they believe, as they seem to, that Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardinale Occasional-Cortex can be the instrument of their liberation. This part, though, is right on the button:

The left created a monster. And it thinks that it’s riding the monster. But you don’t control monsters.

That’s what makes them monsters.

The monster that the left created doesn’t believe in things. It hates them. It’s roaring with anger and pain. The Frankensteins of the left made the monster in their social media laboratory by taking away its hopes and replacing them with fears, keeping it angry and afraid until it was ready to open fire at a Republican charity baseball practice or phone in death threats to a congressman’s dog.

Socialists made the monster. As they always do. But as history shows us, monsters eat socialists. Ask the old Bolsheviks, Mao’s old pals or all the leftists shot by other leftists in the Spanish Civil War.

As always, they all assume they’ll be part of the nomenklatura in charge of things. They’ll go on thinking it, right up until they’re put up against a wall or heaved into a gulag by those who really ARE in charge of things. And that, folks, is why they’ve always been known as “useful idiots.”

Share

Draft horses of America, unite!

You have nothing to lose but your harness…and a passel of whining, over-entitled parasites who don’t know their asses from an inner tube with wrinkles painted on it.

Congratulations, oh most insufferable of generations – against all odds and confounding the experts, you have still somehow managed to make yourselves even more annoying. Apparently, the hep new jive among your tiresome cohort is “Democratic Socialism,” resurrecting a poisonous nineteenth-century political death cult and putting a kicky new spin on it to make it palatable for the suckers. It’s the political equivalent of hipsters who insist vinyl records are superior because they didn’t grow up forced to crank their tunes on that miserable format.

The “Democratic” part is some cunning rebranding. Just stick “Democratic” in front of something awful and it’s good-to-go. “Democratic haggis”? Yummy! “Democratic herpes”? Sexy! “Democratic Nazism?” Hey, what’s the difference? National socialism, democratic socialism? It’s really just a question of who runs the camps because regardless of the particular brand of socialism, there are always camps.

Always.

No one loves socialism quite like a moron who has never experienced it firsthand. No one hates it like someone who has seen it up close. I walked around in its ruins overseas; it’s an abattoir. My wife escaped it, though her granddad didn’t – he rotted in Castro’s prisons for nearly two decades because he refused to play ball with the reds. Then he died. Oh well, gotta break a few eggs to create a paradise where somebody else pays for your college, right?

Just remember that you are an egg.

Kurt throws some very choice words at bug-eyed Mental Giant and Future Of The Democrat Socialist Party Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardinale Occasional-Cortex, too. But did he say “moron” just now? Why yes, I do believe he did. And as sterling an example as she is, the word doesn’t apply only to her, either.

Democrats are less likely to know what socialism is compared to other voters but have a much more favorable opinion of it. They stop well short, however, of thinking the Democratic Party should become a national socialist party.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 28% of all Likely U.S. Voters think the national Democratic party should officially declare itself a socialist party. Fifty-three percent (53%) disagree, while 18% are undecided.

Still, 51% of Democrats have a favorable impression of socialism, with 13% who share a Very Favorable one. This compares to favorables of 21% among GOP voters and 26% among unaffiliateds, with seven percent (7%) and five percent (5%) respectively who hold a Very Favorable opinion of it.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democrats, however, incorrectly believe the individual has more power than the government in a socialist system, a view held by just 12% of Republicans and seventeen percent (17%) of unaffiliated voters.

Never forget, folks, they’re smarterer than you. If you don’t believe it, just ask ’em.

Those under 40 have a much more favorable opinion of socialism than their elders do and are the strongest supporters of Democrats becoming a national socialist party. But younger voters are also the most likely to believe the individual has more power under a socialist system.

Liberals like socialism a lot more than moderates and conservatives do and are much more likely to think it empowers the individual. But conservatives are the biggest fans of Democrats becoming a socialist party.

Actually, that isn’t quite right: I don’t think any of us is particularly happy that that’s what they in fact have become. What we’re in favor of is them owning up to the sad fact at last. But then, socialists ain’t exactly known for their honesty, as Schlichter reminds us:

Socialism’s perfect record of failure, misery, and slaughter is kind of a problem for them, so they pivot and distract, playing an ideological shell game by claiming that what they really want isn’t socialism. Why, they just want to be more like Canada! This, of course, begs the question of why they call themselves “socialists” if they don’t want socialism. But Normals are woke; they prefer their freedom and abundant toilet paper. They know that the current socialist fad is a lie, because socialism is built on lies. The democratic socialists keep promising Denmark and Norway, but they always deliver Cuba and Venezuela.

Of course, as I’ve noted here before myself, Norway isn’t really quite as socialist as all that, and other Scandinavian countries are beginning to back rapidly away from the Great Third-Way Experiment that has impoverished them. But socialism aside, ideology aside, honestly representing who and what they are is what the Democrat-Socialist criminal conspiracy masquerading as a political party ought to be forced to try to win elections on:

But let’s look at this. Forget ideology for a second and let’s just look at some readily available facts. We have just come off eight years of economic stagnation. No economic growth to speak of. We have had tax increases out the wazoo in the past eight years, including all of the new taxes brought on by the government taking over health care with Obamacare. We had the president of the United States, Barack Obama, running around to places like West Virginia, Indiana, and Ohio and telling people out of work:

(impression) “It’s too bad, but your jobs are never coming back — and if someone tells you that your job will be coming back, he’s waving a magic wand, but what’s he gonna do? What’s Trump gonna do? Just wave a magic wand? You gotta get ready for the fact those jobs are not coming back.” So rather than have a president that inspired people, we have a president who tried to convince them that this was the new America: A nation in decline. We didn’t really deserve our robust past, and we needed brilliant people like him to manage this decline so that resources — which would be dwindling — could be distributed more fairly and equally to the population at large.

Okay. So we’ve come off eight years of that kind of thing, exactly what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to return to. In just a year and a half of a presidency that believes in American greatness, that believes lost jobs can be brought back — who believes that this economy can once again grow and that people’s incomes can increase, that standard of living and wealth can once again start going up. In just a year and a half it’s happened. Does this woman have the ability to look at facts on the ground? The government today…

Have you looked at the latest revenue that has been collected by taxes? It’s a record high. The government is collecting record tax revenue after Trump’s tax cuts! This also happens every time it’s tried. It’s simple math. More people are working than under Obama, and thus more people are paying taxes. So even per capita taxes may be down and the amount of money individuals are paying, it’s more than made up by all the new taxpayers that are happily working, whereas a year and a half ago they weren’t.

There are stories… I have a story in the Stack today that one of the big problems that employers have today is there just aren’t enough people to fill jobs that are open, and so employers are getting ready to scrub the idea that prior experience is necessary. They need work done! There’s more job openings than there are people to fill them right now. Now, where is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? She’s an economics graduate from Boston University. Does she have the slightest idea what’s going on now?

Of course not. She’s dumb as a box of hair; credentialed, but not educated; inarticulate, not bright, and entirely arrogant about all of it.

And she’s also the brightest star in the Democrat Socialist firmament at the moment—precisely as she should be. We all ought to fervently hope not only that she wins election, but that she remains in the spotlight as an avant garde leader of her trainwreck of a Party for as long as possible. Realistically, we can’t expect anything good from a NYC Congresscritter, but sending a dumpster fire like Occasional-Cortex to Mordor On The Potomac might work out even better anyway. The more she blibbers and stammers her arrant hard-Left horsepuckey, and the more Normals see her doing it, the better off we’re all going to be. She might just finish off the Democrat Socialist Party for good all by herself.

Share

Socialism at work

Aww, ain’t she cute.

I graduated law school in 1999 and immediately went to work for a big law firm, representing big corporations. But I am a lifelong liberal and really wanted to put my law degree to work for social justice. I wanted to help the poor, and I was very interested in how a major city dealt with large-scale poverty reform, so I applied to work in New York City’s government.

I got a job working as a lawyer for the city in 2003, a year after Michael Bloomberg became mayor. I happily took a 20 percent pay cut because I wanted to make a difference.

I loved coming to work every day under Bloomberg. I loved the constructive discussions about how to fix the most urgent social problems — meetings that involved workers at the highest levels of government with the civil servants and case workers at the lowest. All opinions were valued. And I loved being out in the city and seeing how programs worked or didn’t work.

I felt I was making a difference.

When Bill de Blasio became mayor of New York in 2014, things changed drastically. I started to hear rumblings early on. My former colleagues who were dedicated public servants were concerned by a large-scale rollback of Bloomberg’s strategic initiatives. These seemed to be based on partisan politics and black-and-white thinking as opposed to critical analysis. It was very disappointing for me since I had also voted for de Blasio.

Although I was still working in the same social-services agency where I had remained at the end of Bloomberg’s term, my job changed radically. I had no contact with the new commissioner who appeared to be disengaged from substantive discussions about social-services programs for an extremely vulnerable population. In fact, she was much more preoccupied with renovating her office — I heard her new desk alone cost thousands of dollars. She even requested that a private bathroom be built for her. She had the attitude of an oligarch and was disturbed that she had to vet invitations to galas through legal and City Hall. She wanted carte blanche to attend expensive events.

She also refused to meet with the lawyers in her department and she kept the door to her office closed and didn’t know the names of the people who worked in her agency.

Under my commissioner, there were no benchmarks, no goals and she did not hold regular meetings with her general counsel. Under her tenure, the legal unit was gutted. And there were no consequences for failing to meet performance goals because there were no performance goals.

Bloomberg wouldn’t be mistaken for a conservative anywhere but NYC, of course. But he ain’t really a socialist either, and he certainly isn’t cut from the same filthy left-wing cloth as Red Bill. Her plaintive closing wail is perfect:

My career spanned a handful of social-service agencies under the administrations of two very different leaders. I was shocked to discover that I actually preferred Michael Bloomberg’s very corporate City Hall to Bill de Blasio’s failed socialist utopia. Who wouldn’t?

Why, only some simple, dewey-eyed whelp caught up in the arrogance of her ignorant assumptions who never actually had to live in one, natch. Any bets on whether the kid still considers herself a diehard “liberal” even now, despite her up-close-and-personal lesson in how it really works? Any further bets on how many times DeBlasio gets re-elected in spite of all the damage he’s done in his tenure so far?

Yeah, I thought not.

Share

Lesson: ignored

Wasn’t properly taught, nor driven home.

California Rep. Maxine Waters said that Americans should be “out in the streets screaming” about President Trump in a Wednesday interview.

Waters told CNBC’s John Harwood, “I think [Trump’s] dangerous.”

“I don’t know why people take it. I think Americans should be out in the streets screaming to the top of their voice. Do something. Make something happen,” she continued.

During the interview, she also said, “[Trump is] one of the most deplorable people I’ve ever encountered in my life.”

These comments come after Waters encouraged the harassment of Trump cabinet members in June.

Looks like the Oathkeepers, with their half-hearted, aborted “protest” at her office instead of her home, screwed the pooch sure enough. Malone again: “If you open the ball with these people you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they won’t give up the fight until one of you is dead.” And yes, it should be noted that in one case we’re talking about gangsters, crooks, and violent criminals, while in the other we’re talking about…Al Capone.

(Via Ace)

Share

Trump babies

London Squalling.

The “Trump Baby” balloon was the most visible symbol of the days-long diarrhea fest that the haggard and perpetually sourpussed English left dubbed a “carnival of resistance” shat out in petulant protest of the fact that the world’s most powerful man would even DARE to set foot in their resolutely suicidal nation. London’s Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan temporarily refrained from jailing indigenous Britons for saying unkind things about immigrants on Facebook to OK a permit for the Trump Baby to float, because after all it was a “free speech” issue, and he’d never think of standing in the way of free speech.

“We realized the only way to get at him was to ridicule him,” said one of the Trump Baby’s creators Max Wakefield.

Has Max ever pulled his head out of his rectum long enough to realize they’ve been ridiculing him at maximum intensity for three years and he hasn’t batted an eyelash? Does Max realize he’s constantly laughing at them while they never stop crying about him? If Trump was the baby they insist he is, do they think he could stand a minute of this shit, much less an incessant hurricane of it? And is Max so bereft of insight that he can’t see what so many others see—that he and his ilk have been publicly losing their minds for three years and predicting all sorts of implausible doomsday scenarios simply because he got elected?

In the days preceding Trump’s first-ever UK visit as president last week, the mentally disorganized and physically inactive community organizers and activists who populate the modern decaying left arranged for at least 60 separate events designed to harass, mock, malign, and dehumanize the president because, well, he harasses, mocks, maligns and dehumanizes everyone and everything that they, in their endless capacity for pious delusion, hold sacred. The pre-visit hysteria was so intense that the US Embassy cautioned American tourists to “exercise caution if unexpectedly in the vicinity of large gatherings that may become violent.”

One of the main events, the Together Against Trump march and rally last Friday, was organized by a group called Stop The War Coalition. According to vice-chairman Chris Nineman, the group’s main aim is “opposing the West.”

Let that sink in for a moment.

No need, really; that much has been disgustingly apparent for all too long now, at least to me. Yet somehow, despite “opposing the West,” not ONE of them seems to be in any great rush to shag their useless asses on off to Cuba, China, Venezuela, or some other commie shithole where they can truly Live The Dream at last. Curious, that.

As has always been the case with Trump, his fiercest critics are merely only projecting their own inner turmoil onto him. Everything they say and do is far more hysterical and childish than anything he’s ever said or done.

So why are they so hysterical if Trump isn’t?

Mostly BECAUSE he isn’t, I’d guess. They can’t touch him; he keeps right on running rings around them, he doesn’t give a tinker’s damn what they think or say, and it’s driven them all crazier’n a shithouse rat.

Again: it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the miserable tapeworms. And laugh, and laugh, and laugh.

Share

“A nation of immigrants”?

Nope.

The “nation of immigrants” trope is relatively new in American history, appearing not until the late 19th century. Its first appearance in print was most likely The Daily State Journal of Alexandria, Virginia, in 1874. In praising a state bill that encouraged European immigration, the editors wrote: “We are a nation of immigrants and immigrants’ children.” In 1938, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said to the Daughters of the American Revolution: “Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.” John F. Kennedy would later use the term as the title of a book, written as part of an Anti-Defamation League series, so it is undoubtedly objective, quality scholarship.

But in 1874, as in 1938, and even in 1958 when JFK’s book was written, America was not a nation of immigrants. The women Roosevelt was addressing were not the daughters of immigrants but rather the descendants of settlers—those Americans who founded the society that immigrants in 1874 came to be a part of.

Concerning immigration patterns, from 1820 through 1924, 34 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Europe. Throughout this period, intermittent waves of immigration were punctuated by pauses and lulls. These respites provided immigrants time to Americanize. By contrast, from 1965 through 2000, 24 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Latin America and Asia, and with few if any pauses between waves. In just 35 years, America experienced nearly as much immigration as it did over a century. Nevertheless, from 1820 through 2000, the foreign-born averaged just over 10 percent of the total American population.

To claim that America is a “nation of immigrants” is to stretch a truth—that America historically has experienced intermittent waves of immigration—into a total falsehood, that America is a nation of immigrants. For the truth of the first thing to equal the truth of the other, every nation that experiences immigration may just as well be considered a “nation of immigrants.” Germans have lived along the Rhine since before Christ, yet Germany has also been swarmed by foreigners from the Middle East and North Africa. Is Germany, therefore, a nation of immigrants? A resounding nein is the answer we are hearing from Germans.

Before America was a nation, it had to be settled and founded. As Michael Anton reiterated in response to New York Times columnist Bret Stephens: America is a nation of settlers, not a nation of immigrants. In that, Anton is echoing Samuel Huntington, who showed that America is a society of settlers. Those settlers in the 17th and 18th centuries—more than anyone else after—had the most profound and lasting impact on American culture, institutions, historical development, and identity. American began in the 1600s—not 1874—and what followed in the 1770s and 1780s was rooted in the founded society of those settlers.

Settlers, Anton explains, travel from an existing society into the wilderness to build a society ex nihilo. Settlers travel in groups that either implicitly or explicitly agree to a social compact. Settlers, unlike immigrants, go abroad with the intention of creating a new community away from the mother country. Immigrants, on the other hand, travel from one existing society to another, either as individuals or as families, and are motivated by different reasons; and not always good ones. Immigrants come later to be part of the society already built by settlers, who, as Higham wrote, establish the polity, language, customs, and habits of the society immigrants seek to join and in joining must embrace and adopt.

Justice Louis Brandeis would later echo Jay, declaring that the immigrant is Americanized when he “adopts the clothes, the manners, and the customs generally prevailing here…substitutes for his mother tongue the English language,” ensures that “his interests and affections have become deeply rooted here,” and comes “into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations.” Only when the immigrant has done this will he have “the national consciousness of an American.”

Remember, Brandeis was a Progressive leading light back then. In light of the above statement, the raving madmen of our present-day Loonie Left wouldn’t for a moment consider him an acceptable SC nominee now. But then, if Trump nominated Che Guevara to the Court the NYT, WaPo, and all the rest would doubtless denounce even him as a “right-wing extremist,” too.

That’s progress, see.

Share

Rule One

SJWs must be excluded, shunned, and generally avoided like the plague they truly are.

John Schnatter—the founder and public face of pizza chain Papa John’s—used the N-word on a conference call in May. Schnatter confirmed the incident in an emailed statement to Forbes on Wednesday. He resigned as chairman of Papa John’s on Wednesday evening.

The call was arranged between Papa John’s executives and marketing agency Laundry Service. It was designed as a role-playing exercise for Schnatter in an effort to prevent future public-relations snafus. Schnatter caused an uproar in November 2017 when he waded into the debate over national anthem protests in the NFL and partly blamed the league for slowing sales at Papa John’s. 

On the May call, Schnatter was asked how he would distance himself from racist groups online. He responded by downplaying the significance of his NFL statement. “Colonel Sanders called blacks n—–s,” Schnatter said, before complaining that Sanders never faced public backlash.

Schnatter also reflected on his early life in Indiana, where, he said, people used to drag African-Americans from trucks until they died. He apparently intended for the remarks to convey his antipathy to racism, but multiple individuals on the call found them to be offensive, a source familiar with the matter said. After learning about the incident, Laundry Service owner Casey Wasserman moved to terminate the company’s contract with Papa John’s.

In an emailed statement on Wednesday afternoon, Schnatter confirmed the allegations. “News reports attributing the use of inappropriate and hurtful language to me during a media training session regarding race are true,” he said. “Regardless of the context, I apologize. Simply stated, racism has no place in our society.”

Ace draws the correct lesson from this teachable moment.

Even though he was not using the word from his own lips, but rather saying what Colonel Sanders had done (without pushback), a Social Justice Warrior got offended and leaked a recording of the conversation, and now he’s out as chairman of his own company.

Never, never hire a Social Justice Warrior. They are hate machines who will destroy any venture because they get off on that. They’re never in the business of whatever business is stupid enough to pay them to “work;” they’re only in the business of hyperpoliticization, sowing division, and destroying the work of others.

Don’t hire them; if you own a business and have employed them by mistake or in ignorance of what they are, use any reasonable (meaning not legally-actionable) pretense you can come up with to remove them. Don’t mix with them in even the most casual social settings; if an SJW snowflake is present at any gathering you might happen to be attending, no matter how innocuous or apolitical its nature, leave immediately and, if possible, inform your hosts of the reason why in no uncertain terms. Any possible association with them by sane, sensible people is an invitation to disaster; unpleasant as they are, it’s not worth the risk.

Social Justice Warriors are the terminal symptoms of an always-fatal disease. Like a tumor, they’ll have to be surgically removed to the last, tiniest trace if Western culture is to survive.

Share

Losing it

Of course, she didn’t have much of it in the first place.

Democratic House minority leader Nancy Pelosi appeared to mess up a chant that she started at an event Wednesday.

Pelosi attempts to rally an audience to chant “Clean air! Clean water! Clean government!” Just moments later, she messes up the chant herself in a video first reported on by NTK Network.

Her strange public behavior and occasional difficulty speaking have garnered attention online, as many notice a pattern of such flubs.

In a recent appearance, she repeatedly slurred her words, saying “soy boyn” instead of “soy bean” and “repoot” instead of “repeat.”

The minority leader has also said, “The Constitution does not say that a person can shout … yell ‘wolf’ in a crowded theater. If you are endangering people, then you don’t have a constitutional right to do that.”

Of course, the actual saying is that you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater, not “wolf.”

Who says senility can’t be funny? Via Ace,who says: “Because that’s what people with healthy brains do.” Quite true—for Democrat Socialist values of the word “healthy.”

Share

Switcheroo

Another enjoyable rip on the Loser GOPe.

George Will. Max Boot. Jennifer Rubin. David Brooks.

A few years ago, the names of these prominent columnists would have reminded us that while most mainstream newspapers do lean to the left, there were a few prominent conservative voices present in their pages. But in the era of Trump, these “conservative columnists” are anything but. They’ve jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon and chosen the left’s adoration over their commitment to conservative principles.

Max Boot just wrote an op-ed entitled “I left the Republican Party. Now I Want Democrats to Take Over.” George Will, long a conservative icon, penned a piece encouraging people to vote against the GOP this November.

Jennifer Rubin’s WaPo column, ironically still labeled “Right Turn,” has devolved into a demented stream of Trump Derangement Syndrome. She’s rallied against President Trump, #resisted the tax cuts, and rebelled against the pro-life cause — yet Rubin still presents herself as conservative, or at least as right-of-center. This gets to the heart of the issue with the left’s faux-conservative columnists — they allow newspapers and big media alike to feign intellectual diversity while actually existing as an echo chamber on the issues that matter most.

Newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post aren’t explicitly ideological publications. Even if in practice they lean heavily to the left, in theory they dedicate their opinion pages to debate, discussion, and diversity of opinion. So it makes sense that they’re expected to employ at least a handful of conservative columnists—but right now, that’s not the case. Rubin, Boot, Will and others alike may not be liberals, but they’re not even close to conservative anymore.

With the few conservative voices in the mainstream media flipping sides, there’s almost no one in the opinion sections of many mainstream publications and newspapers espousing the ideology of half the country. The Washington Post employs socialists and the New York Times op-ed page has their fair share of radicals, which is fine, even admirable. All ideas, within reason, should be represented. But why isn’t there one obvious pro-Trump columnist at any of the major liberal publications that claim to value diversity of ideas?

The answer is right there in the one word: claim.

No need for puzzlement here, though. What’s happening is the clarifying and hardening of ideological differences, with those who have long straddled the fence and misrepresented themselves caught in a trap of their own devising. A natural, inevitable clash of incompatible ideals is on the horizon, and people are being forced into thinking very hard about just who they are and what kind of government they believe a free people ought to arrange for themselves.

More effete, timid types like Will, Boot, and Rubin, however, prefer to think of themselves as above such a dirty, uncouth fray, as is appropriate for self-proclaimed elites. In truth, they’re deathly afraid of any conflict more unruly and fraught with hazard than the blowhard bait-and-switch displayed on the Sunday morning liberal-network chat shows, where their Proggy masters allow them to pointlessly preen and pontificate as the housebroken token-neuters they always were.

They’re leashed, caged, gelded. Like their professional-politician GOPe counterparts, they’re accustomed to losing by long habit; it was part of the devil’s bargain they made long ago to gain a modicum of toleration for their very presence. The whole sordid mess was never anything but Opposition Theater, and it must be admitted that they had a good, long run—far longer than their performance merited, really. But the advent of Trump and the Real American Uprising that brought him to power disrupted this comfy kabuki and brought down the curtain on the whole show.

Everything for them now depends on their finding a way to pull the wool back over a now fully-woke public’s eyes. Tough noogies for them; try as they might, it can’t be done. There’s no unseeing the slime-pit of corruption, cowardice, and double dealing the Trumpening has exposed, no going back to the old way of quiet, clandestine DC business as usual. For real Americans, the only way forward now is to run right over the Uniparty hacks and their pet scribblers, which as it turns out they are quite damned willing to do. All in all, can anybody honestly wonder why all the Swamp creatures, Left and faux-Right alike, hate President The Donald with such irrational, obsessive, self-destructive zeal?

Oh, one more thing, about this bit from the excerpt above:

The Washington Post employs socialists and the New York Times op-ed page has their fair share of radicals, which is fine, even admirable. All ideas, within reason, should be represented.

It’s quite offensive, or it should be, that presentation of socialist ideas should be considered by any knowledgeable person as “admirable.” I very much doubt the author would say the same about Nazi ideas, say, or South African apartheid, or the CSA’s defense of the “peculiar institution” of slavery. Permissible? Sure. “Admirable”? Hell NO.

But socialism/communism/Marxism was responsible for far more deaths than all of those combined, and those deaths weren’t any more the result of misguided good intentions or plain “bad luck” than Hitler’s body count was. They were nothing less than systematically-planned-and-executed murders—in some socialist hellholes, actual, literal attempts at genocide. The single moral distinction between them and Hitler’s Holocaust that I can think of is that the Marxist death-machine didn’t usually discriminate along racial or religious lines, the Soviet Union’s own persecution of Jews excepted.

The Left has manufactured a bizarre pass for itself regarding its atrocities; their ongoing ability to evade accountability for the direct and predictable results of their preferred mode of misrule is nothing short of remarkable. That needs to end. The mountain of corpses created by Leftist ideology of right ought to be hung around the proper necks at last, if only for the sake of historical accuracy and simple justice, and espousing it should be considered every bit as provocative as openly sporting a swastika armband in public is.

Via Ed, who goes on to quote from an old Jonah Goldberg column, apparently unaware of the attendant irony. Even more ironic: Jonah makes a good point.

[Here’s] a short rule of thumb for how to tell who is a “respectable” conservative in the eyes of liberals: any conservative out of power or not seen as supportive of those in power. An even shorter rule of thumb would be: conservatives are respectable if they are useful to liberals. Pat Buchanan became respectable, even adorable, among a loose coalition of liberals leftists, from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews to Ralph Nader, when he turned on the GOP establishment. Kevin Phillips, David Gergen and John Dean have been “real” Republicans — though rarely conservatives — for decades because they are willing to confirm the assumptions of liberals. An even more telling example would be the “neocons.” Before the Iraq war, neocons were the nice conservatives, the good conservatives, the idealistic conservatives the un-racist conservatives, according to academics, The New York Times and others. This is not to say that they aren’t nice, good, idealistic and un-racist. Rather, it’s to point up the way in which conservatives become evil as they become influential, relevant, or otherwise inconvenient to liberals. John McCain was touted as a good choice for president by The New Republic and other liberal voices. Today, McCain is increasingly vilified by many of these same voices because, it turns out, he’s actually a Republican.

What McCain was and remains is a backstabbing, vicious, untrustworthy, self-serving professional politician. He’s a Swamp critter through and through—another “conservative” who never conserved a single thing. But Jonah is nonetheless on the beam: once McStain was no longer useful to the Left, they didn’t hesitate to crucify him. Later, when he was back to being no conceivable threat to them, he was rehabilitated as “reasonable” and once more worthy of (some) respect—mostly owing to his recent attacks on Palin, probably. On down the page, a commenter notes the irony Driscoll missed:

Goldberg has been on relatively high rotation on NPR’s smartypants weekend morning talk shows, and he always, very consistently, bangs on Trump for this, that, and the other. That’s about as respectable as any ‘conservative’ can get.

Meanwhile, I’ve never once heard Mark Levin or Mark Steyn on NPR…..it’s the strangest thing.

Ain’t it, though? Ain’t it just. At this point, I’m just about ready to pronounce a blanket rule here: if they’re appearing regularly on NPR, CNN, the broadcast networks, or in the WaPo or NYT, they’re part of the problem, and not on our side.

Update! Strong message follows. And I do mean STRONG.

So, you douches want to leave now that we’re routing the enemies of America on nearly every front, both at home and abroad?

Be still, my beating heart!

Go! 

We should have pushed you douchecanoes out of the boat in 1993, but it took this long for your spots to show beyond a reasonable doubt. And it’s clear now they’re not leopard spots, but more like smallpox. Calling for voting in senile fruitcake Nancy Pelosi and Chuck U. Schumer is pretty much getting caught handing the British army the plans to West Point, you historically illiterate gasbag traitors.

Those calling for “punishing” the GOP for the sins of – let’s be clear about this – the overwhelming majority of the actual voters who comprise that party, and who have been spat upon, ignored, and derided by these same hacks for DECADES, unstintingly – are, and always have been, fifth-columnist Democrats in sheep’s clothing, and should be sent back across Traitor’s Bridge with all due pomp, ceremony, and public castigation, and heartily awarded the Benedict Arnold Trophies which they so richly deserve. They go from being big fake fish in a small pond, to being the turncoat lackwits in an ocean of communist traitors, and will gain the ignominy and derision from both sides they so richly deserve, and in full, glorious measure.

Much, much more, including some tasty Animal House riffs.

Hard truth update!Media’s anti-Trumpers aren’t ‘leaving’ the GOP. They’ve been fired.” OUCH. Good, hard smack, that one.

Share

The science law is settled!

Susan Collins is an idiot.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote on President Donald Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, said Sunday she would oppose any nominee she believed would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

The White House is focusing on five to seven potential candidates to fill the vacancy of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on the court. The Maine senator said she would only back a judge who would show respect for settled law such as the 45-year-old Roe decision, which has long been anathema to conservatives.

“I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law,” Collins said.

Oh, absolutely. Which is why Dred Scott, Plessy, and a whole slew of others are actually still in effect. Right, genius?

Such a judge, she said, “would not be acceptable to me because that would indicate an activist agenda.”

Yeah, that would surely be a dangerous thing all right. Why, next thing you know, such an “activist” judge might be creating rights never mentioned in the Constitution at all, just making stuff up to suit the passions of the day. Y’know, like…Roe V Wade.

As with Arizona and McCain, the people of Maine who keep sending this nimrod back to Congress again and again have one hell of a lot to answer for. Bill’s response is the only reasonable one.

Share

Big backfire coming

Bake me a fucking cake, retards.

A restaurant in Virginia booted the White House press secretary from the premises. The co-owner did so due to her standards, and much coercion from her staff.

This, in my opinion, is completely up to the discretion of the restaurant. No restaurant, or any business, should be forced to serve those they don’t want in their establishment. In a perfect world, the incident would be over, and the restaurant could continue feeding its clients. Unfortunately, that won’t happen.

So. You should be just fine with restaurants refusing service to blacks, Hispanics, GLBTVRYUILLXQ39SPACEMODULATORs or whomever else they may arbritrarily choose, right?

Ahh, but of course not. One can only conclude that the New Standard is that it’s now fine to refuse service based on ideological and/or political affiliation, then. Our good bud Aesop ain’t on board with all that:

Sorry, but HELL NO.

“In a perfect world”, the owner and her halfwit staff realize that absent any actions of personal misbehavior on the premises whilst dining, they treat Sarah Sanders exactly like every other customer who enters their public establishment. Because they know if they fail to adhere to that minimum standard of civility (from whose meaning-rich root, civitas, springs also the word “civilization”), the Banshees Of Comeuppance will descend on their establishment, and drive their establishment out of business, for cause, and remove their jackassical DNA from the economic gene pool, exactly the “invisible hand” predicted in 1776 by Adam Smith, the explicatory father of capitalism and its functioning.

So, for the exact same reason we have public health codes, if you’re in business to serve food to customers, you serve food to customers. Period. Paragraph. End of effing book.

This was not the Democrat Harpy Pub. It was not the Politically Correct Lounge.

Well, I dunno. Seems like, as a practical matter at least, maybe it WAS.

Stand by for a bunch of preening nonsense from the Hapless Right about how shitlibs, thanks to the self-evident hypocrisy now fully exposed by their “right to refuse service” Brand New Principle, “can no longer” force Christian bakers or anyone else to act in ways contrary to their own beliefs. Au contraire, chum; they most certainly can, and they most certainly will. You can rest entirely assured that, should a Republican-run eatery refuse service to Democrats based on party affiliation according to Brand New Principle, its proprietors and premises will be protested against, condemned, threatened, vandalized, boycotted, and harrassed because of their unacceptably unacceptable “bigotry.” Righties will sputter and fume about the obvious unfairness of this.

They will be ignored.

Lefty’s newfound reverence for the right to freedom of association is just like every other one of their supposed “principles”: conditional, compliance with which will be demanded only when it suits their purposes to do so. They themselves will continue to go right ahead and do whatever they damned well please, thanksverymuch, and just never you mind what they “can no longer” do. The only way fairness will ever enter the picture is if it’s forced on them—in other words, only if and when ignoring it does them immediate and tangible harm.

Which, in turn, brings us right back to the absolute and unavoidable necessity of inflicting serious pain on Leftards for their myriad abuses. Sniffing about all the things they “can no longer do” is horseshit on stilts, akin to complaining about liberal bias in Jurassic Media. Anybody expecting such complaints—even when backed up by ironclad examples—to inspire them to correct it, refrain from it in future, or otherwise inhibit them one iota, is headed for a lifetime of disappointment.

Bottom line:

Business owners absolutely have the right to eject anyone from their premises. But in no world, perfect or otherwise, save for one best described by Dante in Inferno, do they have any right to remain ignorantly and blissfully free of consequences for their actions, whether wise or blisteringly stupid.

Bingo, and a most important point. Progtards have gotten away with their shit, consequence-free, for way too long. They’ve now gotten it thoroughly up their noses, as Wodehouse used to say. Appeals to some phantom sense of “fair play” or “integrity” are worse than a waste of time; those consequences Aesop mentions aren’t going to just miraculously be visited on Lefty all on their own. To use an analogy that might be just a bit too apt given current conditions: if you stack wood and kindling in the fireplace, just waving an unlit match over the pile ain’t going to get anybody any warmer.

To yield the desired result, the match must first be struck.

They will not stop. They will NEVER stop. They will have to BE stopped. As unpalatable as the prospect may be to the House Of Cuck, it remains the simple truth.

Update! Aesop also provides a link to this:

As I’ve said about gay people who can’t get a baker or photographer to work for their wedding, why would you want to do business with them?

Go somewhere else.

There’s really no reason to waste your money patronizing an establishment that doesn’t like or approve of you.

The real kick in the pants is as much as the Left hates Chick-fil-A, they will serve anyone. Gay, Democrat, Hillary voter — everyone receives service with a smile.

The Red Hen of Lexington? Not so much.

But the Red Hen also did a huge favor for Sarah Sanders.

Let’s be frank. If her snowflake staff hadn’t called the owner, I’m guessing the odds are someone would have spit in her food.

True, dat. Dianny—who’s going to wind up another belated blogroll entry sure enough—also provides a pic of the Red Hen owners, and they look just exactly as you would expect them to…right down to their choice of, umm, hats.

Share

The gang that couldn’t shoot straight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh. Of course he did.

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

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

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


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

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

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

Via Ace, who adds:

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

And of course he didn’t recuse himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Blue wave, red sea

Running the numbers.

Liberals represent America’s distinct ideological minority. In 2016, despite eight years of America’s most liberal president popularizing and raising their issues and profile, exit polling still showed them only 26 percent of the electorate — well behind conservatives (35 percent) and moderates (39 percent). And comprising a quarter of America’s electorate is their high water mark — as recently as 2004, liberals comprised just 21 percent.

Positive spin would acclaim the left’s growth, but there is no escaping it remains just a quarter of the electorate, still needing roughly twice its number to reach an electoral majority. Yet with this liability comes loyalty: Liberals voted 84 percent for Clinton in 2016 — greater attachment to Democrats than either moderates or conservatives showed to either party.

The Democrats’ conundrum with a decidedly loyal minority is: How to win when America’s minority becomes your majority. The left has been the Democratic Party’s most fervent element for several years. Its growth, although still the nation’s ideological minority, has apparently raised it to at least close to majority status within the Democratic Party and its loyalty to the Democratic Party is unquestionable.

Democrats have little choice but to attempt to relabel the left as “progressive,” before the left re-brands the Democratic Party as “the left.”

Far, far too late for that, I’m afraid. Too bad, so sad. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of assholes.

The effort is as neat as it is necessary. By using “progressive,” they implicitly acknowledge the weakness — separation (i.e., extreme) from the center — but seek to make it positive: Although separated, it is because they are ahead of where the center will be.

Of course, the progressive label’s greatest service is masking reality diametrically opposed to its rhetoric. The left’s ideology is anything but new, just as it is anything but successful.

Slice it where you like, it’s still the same old Marxist baloney. NeverTrump GOPe cucks better figure out quick just who it is they’ve allied themselves with, lest they wind up going to the bottom with the DSS Titanic themselves.

Update! Anybody up for a Red Wave?

Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, is pledging higher taxes. Al Green, a seven-term Texas Democrat, and at least 58 other House Democrats, are promising impeachment. But the stock market is up, wages are up, unemployment is down, and peace may be breaking out on the Korean Peninsula. How many people will vote for higher taxes and all the social and political stress associated with impeachment?

Some Democrats are beginning to sense this. One Washington Post columnist predicted that “there will be no Trump collapse” while others are expressing concern that Mr. Mueller’s investigation — his dawn raids and strong-arm tactics — don’t play well in Peoria. If Mr. Mueller is not able to prove collusion with Russia, the stated reason for his appointment, then Democrats, who have talked about little else for the past 18 months, will be left looking unserious or worse. They’re right to worry.

Up until recently, the conventional wisdom has been that a blue wave powered by a huge enthusiasm gap would propel Democrats to midterm glory. But the evidence doesn’t bear that out. Yes, Democrats have won some special elections and those victories are real and should warn Republicans against complacency. But left almost totally unremarked upon is that Republican primary turnout is way up from where it was at this point in the 2014 midterm cycle. This is often the result of competitive primaries, but that underscores the vibrancy of the grass roots’ struggle to reclaim control of the party.

According to Chris Wilson at WPI Intelligence, Republican primary turnout was up 43 percent or more over 2014 in states like Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia. The president’s popularity has been rising overall but especially in these critical battleground states. In West Virginia, his approval rating was over 60 percent in 2017. That sounds more like a red wave than a blue one, especially for imperiled senators like Joe Manchin in West Virginia and Claire McCaskill in Missouri.

Yes, the victories won in 2016 can be reversed, but only by voters at the polls and not by any of the irregular means that occupy the fantasies of many people who still can’t believe that their side lost.

Y’know, it still frosts my nuts a bit that the Democrat Socialists and Leftymedia were somehow able to hang the “Red” label on the Right and misappropriate “Blue” for themselves, when they’re the ones who are truly Red in tooth and claw. That’s okay though, since it’s looking more and more like being the last smart move they’ll ever make.

Share

Change of heart

A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.

Many leaders in the Democratic Party are veering too far left and overpromising government programs that are not fiscally possible, Howard Schultz told CNBC on Tuesday.

Without naming names, Schultz said in a “Squawk Box” interview: “It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left. I say to myself, ‘How are we going to pay for these things,’ in terms of things like single payer [and] people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don’t think that’s realistic.”

“I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and start talking about the truth and not false promises” said Schultz, whose Monday announcement that he’s stepping down as executive chairman of Starbucks is driving speculation that he may run for president in the 2020 election.

Now, I don’t know a damned thing about the guy really, and so could be all wet here. But I can’t help but wonder how he felt about these issues before he got a good dose of Lefty biting back over his suddenly “racist” coffee shops.

Share

Yet another brilliant Tweet

He’s no way smart enough to know it, but Little Adolf just got PWNED, as the kids say these days.

Continue reading “Yet another brilliant Tweet”

Share

Yet another brilliant Tweet

He’s no way smart enough to know it, but Little Adolf just got PWNED, as the kids say these days.


Continue reading “Yet another brilliant Tweet”

Share

Twits

Two of the most hilarious Tweets ever:




Do note French and Biba’s complete lack of any awareness of the irony and self-contradiction wafting off both of them like a bad funk. Yep, the FAIL! is truly epic with these two insensate clods, folks. There’s a little follow-on bonus hilarity in the comments attached to Kelly’s Tweet, too.

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