Archive

Archive for the ‘WTF?!’ Category

Man bites dog!

October 18th, 2017 2 comments

For the most part, the news has been as predictable as the sunrise, and as uninteresting as a HILLARY!™ speech: Trump says something obviously true, the media goes apoplectic; Trump underlines a principle most of us hold dear, and the media and the Left (but I repeat myself) descends into apoplexy over the OUTRAGE! of it all; some disaster or Moslem atrocity occurs, and Trump is blamed for it. So a genuine shocker like this is pretty rare.

He’s NOT dead, Jim?

The hero Mandalay Bay security guard who vanished hours before he was due to give interviews with major TV networks will now break his silence on the Ellen DeGeneres Show.

Jesus Campos, who was shot and wounded in the Las Vegas massacre, disappeared from the public eye last week ahead of several TV interviews, including with Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

But DeGeneres has now confirmed that the security guard sat down with her for a pre-taped interview that is set to air on Wednesday.

‘Tomorrow, the first people to encounter the Las Vegas shooter are here – security guard Jesus Campos and building engineer Stephen Schuck,’ DeGeneres tweeted late Tuesday night.  

Well, how about that. Guess he didn’t offend the Clinton Machine badly enough for them to hire out one of their Death Squads to be sent after him. I do note, however, that they don’t mention exactly when this “taped interview” was actually conducted, just that it airs tonight. Doesn’t mean anything, I’m sure. But this still does:

His disappearance came just hours after MGM Resorts International disputed the official timeline of the shooting.

They rejected any suggestion that hotel staff delayed calling 911 for six minutes after Paddock opened fire.

The latest chronology raised a series of questions about whether officers were given information quickly enough to possibly have a chance to take out the gunman before he could carry out the bloodshed.

But according to resort officials, it was no more than 40 seconds between the time Campos used his walkie talkie to call for help and Paddock opening fire on the crowd from two windows in his suite.

Yep, still stinkin’.

(Via Ironbear)

Share

Vegas stench still rising

October 15th, 2017 9 comments

And strengthening.

The Mandalay Bay security guard shot in the moments leading up to the Las Vegas massacre checked into a “quick clinic” instead of appearing in a series of previously scheduled interviews, but his union representative does not know his exact condition or location.

“It’s highly unusual. I’m hoping everything is okay with him and I’m sure MGM or the union will let (media) know when we hear something,” David Hickey, the president of the Security Police and Fire Professionals Union told Fox News.

He’s dead, Jim.

Hickey said he’d been helping security guard Jesus Campos prepare for a string of interviews, scheduled for Thursday evening.

“For the past four days he’s been preparing,” Hickey said, noting the interviews were Campos’ idea to begin with. He said he hoped telling his story would help him move on.

He’s dead, Jim.

“Thursday we had a meeting with MGM officials, and after that meeting was over we talked about the interviews, we went to a private area, and when we came out, Mr. Campos was gone.”

Hickey told Fox he received a text Thursday night, saying Campos had been taken to a “quick clinic.”

A text from whom, pray tell? He’s dead, Jim.

“Right now I’m just concerned where my member is, and what his condition is,” he said.

He’s dead, Jim.

Plenty more from Denninger and Sundance. Thank goodness the Left finally decided to sacrifice their beloved Weinstein so as to provide a distraction from worrying about stuff like this, eh?

(Via Insty)

Update! Steyn, too, ain’t buying any.

As readers know, I have a low regard for conspiracy theories, mainly because the reasons the world is going to hell are pretty much staring us in the face. But I can’t honestly blame anyone following the Las Vegas massacre story from taking refuge in any conspiracy theory, no matter how wild and zany. Almost a fortnight from the moment when 58 people were gunned down at a country-music festival, officialdom has so bungled the case that almost every single one of the most basic facts about the act are up for grabs.

As I had cause to remark over a week ago, I dislike the contamination of police press conferences by various politicians and bureaucrats all indulging in an orgy of mutual self-congratulation. But, in this case, the self-congratulation is entirely unwarranted. From the beginning this seemed an unusual crime that didn’t seem to line up with any other mass shooting by a nutter who flips. It has only gotten weirder in the days since.

He has plenty more, and it all stinks.

Share

Sad!

October 13th, 2017 2 comments

Just…sad. And THESE are the pathetic slime-molds we let take over and destroy our civilization?

At breakfast, in the glass-towered city of Vancouver, five-year-old Abigail looks glumly at her half-eaten bowl of cereal.

“What is it, honey?” I brush the bangs back from her face.

She lets out a big sigh. “I wish I wasn’t white.”

I start. Nothing in the parenting manuals has prepared me for that.

“All we’ve ever done is hurt people,” she continues. “I wish my skin was dark and that I had a culture.”

We live in a part of the city where immigrant families abound. Our neighbours are homesick, first-generation Mexicans, which means that salsas and pinatas and Aztec legends feature prominently at shared social gatherings. Our family regularly eats in Little India where we gush over the flavours of curry and dhal, and every February, we attend the Chinese New Year parade in the slanting rain. Plus, my husband and I are children of missionaries and harbour an acute guilt for the cultural imperialism of our forebears. To compensate, we’ve raised our children with a deep appreciation of non-Western cultures.

So when Abigail laments the colour of her white skin, part of me is programmed to protest. Is it not my moral obligation to tell her that her feelings of poor self-worth are nothing compared with the psychological ruin of real racism? Girl, everything about Canadian culture weighs in your advantage and you have no right to snivel!

The very fact that such dimwitted twaddle would be the first thing to spring to this useless bint’s mind—putting her insipid liberal politics above her own fucking child, to that child’s obvious detriment—tells you just how despicable she is. Her kind deserves absolutely everything they’re going to get, from Moslem rape gangs to their violent demise at the hands of whatever roving bloodthirsty mob their weak-kneed political-correctness inspires to ultimately come for them. The sight of their charred corpses piled in heaps or their heads on pikes scattered throughout the urban shitholes they infest will inspire nothing more than scornful laughter and a hearty “good riddance” from saner sorts.

Instead, I feel a sadness settle over me. We thought we were raising the enlightened child of the 21st century. We thought we were doing our part in setting the history record straight.

You weren’t setting a damned thing straight, you were leaving out the bits that offended your vapid Progressivism to assuage your own crippled conscience and bolster your overweening smugness. You weren’t teaching history, nor were you “correcting” it. You were corrupting it.

Yet, in doing so, it seems we have robbed our oldest child of something primal to psychological health, something elemental to her well-being as a human being: cultural roots.

I don’t know what to say.

After decades of hectoring, nonstop lectures aimed at your actual moral betters, that would have to be a very welcome first.

Via Vox, who says:

The word “fundamentalist” stems from those who go back to the basics of the religion, back to the fundamentals. It is time for us to become cultural fundamentalists, and our roots are Christianity, the Greco-Roman legacy, and the European nations.

The alternative is this societal suicide in the name of not being called racist. Of all the reasons for a society to die off, this simply must be the most utterly stupid ever witnessed on this planet.

Ain’t THAT the miserable truth.

Share

The milkman’s kid

October 4th, 2017 3 comments

Annnnnd it’s Muslims liberals both.

I don’t usually post on events like the Vegas atrocity in the early days for the simple reason that almost everything the newsies are talking about in the early going always turns out to be wrong. In this case, now that the media dust is starting to settle a bit, I feel comfortable in asserting a few things. One—what with photo and video proof that he had attended anti-Trump rallies and the like, plus the allegation that Antifa fliers were found on-scene—he was a Leftard whackjob. Two, there is at least some speculation on a link to ISIS.

Three: there is WAY more to this than meets the eye.

So “Mr. Not A Gun Guy” with no prior military service or training, rented two rooms, for three days, at weekend rates during a music festival across the street, from the highest vantage point, covering two different directions, in a hotel where 2/3rds of the rooms could never even see the venue because they face the wrong way, and had 30 weapons in total, including at least 10 recovered in the hotel, and had either illegally modified semi-auto weapons or legally purchased full-auto weapons (with a six- to eight-month wait for the BATFE approval on that) and ammunition sufficient to shoot something approaching 300 people, from mag after mag after mag, and took his time (several minutes) hosing down throngs of unsuspecting random strangers across the street before committing suicide, but he supposedly “just snapped”.

(cough)BULLSHIT!(cough)

This has to be about the most meticulously-planned mass-shooting in US history.

The woman “roommate” LVMPD was looking for was “coincidentally” in Australia when this happened; is a Phillipine immigrant who was formerly (or is currently, it’s unclear) married to a barking leftard moonbat; and the picture she claims was taken of her and Shooter “in L.A.”…

…was one she had previously tagged online as being taken in Dubai.

Show of hands: everyone who’s hooked up with a married émigré from a country with an ongoing Muslim terrorism problem, and who was with her in the world capitol region of Muslim terrorist problems, who’s retired, but blew $15-50K on weapons, ammunition, and a 3-day stay in the ideal sniper roost for a full-auto attack on a crowd of packed targets, coincidentally, with no one being the wiser, and for whom the FBI could rule out any terrorist connection entirely within 60 minutes of the incident, please raise a paw.

Sh’yeah, thought so.

“Just snapped”, my ass.

That’s just the first of a whole slew of posts from Aesop taking note of the distinct cow-pasture odor rising off of this one in waves. Which leads me to another thing I feel completely safe in asserting: Praetorian Media will milk this for any possible gun-control gains they think they can get out of it for another two-three days, then a pillow gets put over its head until it stops kicking, and the corpse gets crammed as deep down into the memory hole as they can stuff it.

Update! Rush handily dispenses with the gun-control angle—not that it will make a tin dime’s worth of difference to the irrational, childish hoplophobes of the Gun Grabbin’ Left and the cynical would-be despots stampeding them:

What law that we do not have that you could enact that would have prevented this guy from getting his arsenal, Senator Schumer? That really is the question. There isn’t a magic law you have out there. We have 59 people dead. We have laws against murder. People still get killed in America. Not even laws against murder stop it from happening. What law could you come up with here that would, quote, “prevent guns, especially the most dangerous guns, from falling into the wrong hands”?

The guy already broke every law on the book getting these guns. What’s another law gonna do? Automatic weapons are essentially illegal. Is the NRA advocating new laws to make them legal? Of course not. The NRA has no involvement whatsoever in trying to make the acquisition of illegal automatic weapons easier. What’s tough about this is this shooter had nothing in his background, at least that’s been reported, that would disqualify him from owning a gun. Not a thing. But even at that, he had to violate every law on the books to accumulate this kind of an arsenal.

What law, Senator Schumer, could you pass that would have prevented these weapons from falling into his hands? What does that even mean? We need a law to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. What does that even mean, falling into the wrong hands? This guy didn’t have anything fall into his hands. He went out there and got them, and he violated laws to do it.

I have had so many debates in private settings, not public, private settings with typical establishment liberal political types who just utter whatever they say on gun control because it makes them sound like they care. It makes them sound very sophisticated, but they don’t know what they’re saying.

And I’ve asked these leftists that I’ve had these debates with — one of them was at a dinner party on Fifth Avenue right across from Central Park. The guy was a former Treasury official in the Nixon administration. He was a dinosaur. This was in the mid-nineties, and he was a dinosaur then. I don’t even know if he’s still alive. And he’s giving me all the clichés the left has about gun control. And it’s all about gotta get guns out of the society, the murder rate, the guns, there’s no sense in having people have guns. It’s senseless, it’s cruel, it’s stupid. “Why don’t you conservatives join us,” he said.

So I pointed out to Central Park. And I said, “Mr. Dinosaur, if you can assure me that whoever’s over there lurking under the cover of darkness is also not gonna be able to get their hands on a gun, then we might have something to talk about. But, Mr. Dinosaur, the only thing you’re gonna do if you succeed is take guns out of the hands of innocent people who defend themselves with them, and you’re not gonna solve anything.”

You’re gonna make people more at risk, more vulnerable, the danger will increase, and in fact let me repeat this. These are stats from the American Enterprise Institute. From 1994, the percentage change in number of firearms versus gun homicides. The number of firearms since 1994 has increased 56%. That’s pretty substantial. Whatever the number is, it’s substantial. A lot of guns have been purchased since 1994. Fifty-six percent increase over what it was in 1994.

But what about the gun murder rate? Well, guess what? The percentage of murders, the gun homicide rate is down 49% in the same time frame. Now, the left says more guns equals more crime, more guns equal more mayhem, more guns equals more dead people, more guns equals more murder. No, it doesn’t. Fifty-six percent increase gun ownership, 1994, 49% decline in gun homicide rates at the same time. You could say that having more guns has reduced the number of gun homicides.

Yeah, but that’s counterintuitive, and far too complex a concept for minds already crippled by liberalism’s core illogic to grasp.

Share

The Afghan Tar Baby

September 16th, 2017 Comments off

Another fine mess.

The focus now should be on the implementation of the new U.S. strategy for Afghanistan and the region. Commentators debate the pros and cons of the approach, but it is now U.S. policy. It requires careful coordination and integration of the tools of American power—military, diplomatic, economic and development—to move toward its objective: a negotiated Afghan political settlement. The policy’s specifics must now be defined and executed.

The rationale for continued U.S. engagement—to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a base for terrorist attacks as it was in 2001—carries much weight given the threats from radical and terrorist groups emanating from Afghanistan, Pakistan and across the region. “Right now (the Taliban) calculates that it can win,” argues a senior U.S. official, and if the United States were to leave precipitously the outcome would be “a state of chaos.” Yet, the tools and actions needed go far beyond “kinetic” actions.

The U.S. approach needs to address: 1) the situation in Afghanistan itself (political, economic, development and military); 2) the role of Pakistan as an enabler of the Taliban and other violent groups and as a possible facilitator of peace; 3) the regional context: other neighbors and key players who can help or hinder a peace process and the India-Pakistan rivalry, which adds a nuclear dimension; 4) the important role of U.S. allies and partners in Afghanistan and in forging a path to peace; and, 5) the objective of achieving a negotiated political settlement which incorporates the Taliban.

Umm, s’cuse me and all, but..”incorporates the Taliban”? Really?

REALLY?

Let’s see, would that be the same Taliban that we’ve been engaged in a fruitless, umpty-leven year slog trying to remove from power? The murderously savage thugs who arm, equip, train, shelter, and fund Muslim terrorists, and have for years? THAT Taliban?

The same Taliban who did this? THAT Taliban? They’re to be our “partners in peace” now?

What the ever-loving blue-eyed Hell ever happened to defeating these vile bastards, pray tell? No, never mind; probably best not to answer that one. It would be too fucking depressing.

Far as I’m concerned, the only “plan” Trump needs to be working on regarding Afghanistan is the airlift schedules for pulling every last bit of American materiel, personnel, and armament right the hell out of there—down to the last bullet, bandage, jerry-can, MRE, and tent stake. Yesterday wouldn’t be too soon. But hey, guess that’s just me.

Sheesh. Who the hell came up with this tripe, anyhow?

Earl Anthony Wayne served in Afghanistan 2009–11. A retired U.S. Career Ambassador, he is a Public Policy Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center and a Senior Nonresident Advisor at CSIS.

Ah. “Career Ambassador”…and wouldn’t you just know Woodrow Wilson’s black name would pop up again, even in as far-flung a context as this.

Share

Deep State still Deep Stating

August 31st, 2017 3 comments

The last of Trump’s MAGA advisers fires a Parthian shot on his way out the door.

Your presidency will prove to be one of the most significant events in modern American politics. November the 8th was the result of decades during which the political and media elites felt that they knew better than the people who elect them into office. They do not, and the MAGA platform allowed their voices finally to be heard.

Regrettably, outside of yourself, the individuals who most embodied and represented the policies that will “Make America Great Again,” have been internally countered, systematically removed, or undermined in recent months. This was made patently obvious as I read the text of your speech on Afghanistan this week.

The fact that those who drafted and approved the speech removed any mention of “radical Islam” or “radical Islamic terrorism” proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost.

Just as worrying, when discussing our future actions in the region, the speech listed operational objectives without ever defining the strategic victory conditions we are fighting for. This omission should seriously disturb any national security professional, and any American who is unsatisfied with the last 16 years of disastrous policy decisions which have led to thousands of Americans killed and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent in ways that have not brought security or victory.

America is an incredibly resilient nation, the greatest on God’s Earth. If it were not so, we could not have survived through the unbelievably divisive years of the Obama Administration, nor witness your message to roundly defeat a candidate who significantly outspent you and had the Fakenews Industrial Complex 100% on her side.

Nevertheless, given recent events, it is clear to me that forces that do not support the MAGA promise are – for now – ascendant within the White House.

Every word of it the sad, sorry truth. The ‘Stache, too, sees the writing on the wall:

President Donald Trump will have to override his advisers if he wants to make good on a campaign promise to abandon the Iran nuclear agreement, according to former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who published a draft proposal for exiting the accord on Monday.

Bolton alluded to a rift within the administration over whether the United States should scrap the landmark deal, and said he was recently denied a meeting with Trump on the issue after staff changes at the White House.

“It’s a question of who prevails here: the president or his advisers,” Bolton told the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday.

It surely is. The Iran farce aside, though, Bolton’s most disturbing words would have to be these:

After Bannon’s departure, Bolton said he was compelled to go public with his blueprint since he no longer enjoys regular access to Trump and can’t deliver it to the president himself.

“I made the request and it was turned down to see him most recently,” he said, though he declined to comment further.

Ah well, there’s always Madeleine Halfbright to turn to for advice instead of that icky Bolton, I guess. Or, y’know, Felonia McPaintsuit. And then maybe Trump can exhume Janet Reno to straighten out the FBI after that. Hey, if you ain’t gonna clear out the rat’s nest after all, might as well just hire all the rats and get ’em back on the payroll, right?

Only problem with that is, if Trump ain’t gonna do the job they sent him to do, real Americans might just have to look into some alternative hiring possibilities themselves come 2020.

Share

Doorbells? DOORBELLS?

August 28th, 2017 1 comment

Seriously? I mean, seriously?

These delicate little neurotics are afraid of fucking doorbells now?

Damned if I’da told it.

Mr. Walia, 19 years old and a computer science major, says he just isn’t comfortable ringing them. He and his friends have become so accustomed to texting one another upon arrival, he says, that the sound of a doorbell feels like an unexpected jolt.

“Doorbells are just so sudden. It’s terrifying,” says Tiffany Zhong, 20, the founder of Zebra Intelligence, which helps companies conduct custom research and gather insights on people born in the past two decades.

Um. “Terrifying”? Really? Good Lord.

There’s no published research about doorbell phobia, but it’s a real thing. In a poll by a Twitter user earlier this month that got more than 11,000 votes, 54% of respondents said “doorbells are scary weird.”

Some millennials and Gen Zers say they won’t even consider answering a ring at the door until they’ve checked the security camera.

The doorbell freak-out reflects the ascendance of mediated communication, which means people interacting through technological devices rather than directly. It’s not so much about screen time versus face time as it is a merger of the two.

Smartphones provide extra information thought by users to be vital to day-to-day interactions. Without smartphones to help, encounters can feel fraught.

“Typically, doorbells are for outsiders,” says Ms. Zhong, whose LinkedIn profile describes her as a “teen whisperer.” “A text signifies it’s a friend.”

God help us if we as a nation ever have to rely on no-ball pisspots like these to, say, storm the beaches at Normandy or something. What might be even worse than publicly admitting something as humiliating as this, though, is that the wilted little hothouse flowers don’t even have sense enough to be ashamed of their tremulous lunacy, and don’t seem to care who knows what gutless little feebs they are.

On the other hand, though, I guess in light of this it’s easy enough to see why they’re all so terribly frightened of Trump. I imagine that, should they ever so much as see a picture of Patton, they’d all just fall over dead from the quivering fantods.

I repeat: good Lord.

Share

A plague of locusts

July 27th, 2017 5 comments

They fouled their own nest. Now they’re coming to foul yours.

Last year, three states in the Northeast — New Jersey, New York and Connecticut — landed in the top five places people were moving out of fastest, according to 2017 data from United Van Lines. (The other two states on the list were Illinois and Kansas.) And data from Pew Charitable Trusts found that while people are all about moving to the South (their population grew by nearly 1.4 million people from 2014 to 2015) and the West (866,000 more people), the population growth in the Northeast is “sluggish.”

The Northeastern exodus is particularly acute in many big cities like New York City. Since 2010, more than 1 million people have moved from the New York area — which includes parts of New Jersey, Connecticut and Long Island — to other parts of the country.

So why are so many Northerners packing their bags?

Three guesses, only one of which involves the harsh winters—a direct result of global warming, no doubt.

Either way, they’re coming, and your hometown will never be the same. Even worse, coming right along with them will be hordes of neurotic “liberal” harpies obsessed with their physical attractiveness.

For Zoë Barry, feeling attractive in New York was an impossible feat. The 32-year-old, who grew up in Stuy Town and attended an all-girls private school, says her self-esteem was slowly sapped by the city’s sky-high beauty standards. “As a woman, you’re never enough,” says the sporty 5-foot-6 CEO. “I was never tall enough or slim enough. It grates on you after a while — that pressure to be a walking mannequin.”

So Barry pulled a confidence-boosting move that more and more New Yorkers are considering lately: She fled NYC for a city that actually appreciates her.

“A bruised ego is a very common New York syndrome,” says Upper East Side psychologist Kathryn Smerling. “There’s always someone who’s going to be better-looking or have nicer clothes than you. It’s a perennial quest for perfection.”

Manhattan-based psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert says the trickle-down effect is especially painful when it comes to looks — and finding love. “It’s not uncommon to feel overwhelmed,” he says. “New York City creates an underlying push not just to keep up with the Joneses but outdo them. This makes it very difficult for people to feel good about themselves. Leaving is definitely on the increase.”

Even conventionally gorgeous women risk getting swapped out by spoiled men.

If you click on over to the article and peruse the accompanying photos, you’ll see that not one of these women is “conventionally gorgeous,” or anything like it. There’s nothing at all wrong with them, mind, except for their neurosis about their looks, and the accompanying lack of self-esteem. They’re perfect ordinary women, in truth: not gorgeous, not ugly, just…kinda plain.

But see, that’s the way it is with beauty: its value is entirely due to its rarity. No, girls, you’re not all beautiful; if you were, the word “beautiful” would of necessity mean something entirely different, and we’d need to find another descriptor for those few of us whose looks are extraordinary. Moreover, in the supermodel capital of the world, well, even a truly striking woman might end up looking…well, ordinary in comparison. Like, say, the girls in the article.

All this heartache and angst is entirely the fault of “spoiled men,” of course.

Meanwhile, after soaking up all that kvetching and complaining, we Southerners are wondering if Trump could maybe be persuaded to build his big beautiful wall a bit further north than he originally planned.

Share

Voodoo racism

July 23rd, 2017 Comments off

As I keep saying: the Left’s problem isn’t with us. It’s with reality.

Over the past three months in San Francisco (and throughout the entire Bay Area), roving gangs of teens have been robbing and terrorizing passengers on the BART subway trains. Last week, the BART board of directors announced that it is refusing to turn over surveillance video of the attacks because, as the thugs involved are black, releasing the videos would create “racism,” which would lead to terrible consequences for the black community.

Now, to anyone with a decently functioning brain, that heaping plate of nonsense is impossible to digest. If the general public has a fear of black crime, it’s because of black crime, not footage of black crime. I mean, that’s obvious, right? How fucking elementary can something be? Because of the board’s refusal to release the surveillance videos, the marauding hoodlums will most likely not be caught (or they will not be caught as quickly as they would have been if people were given the opportunity to, you know, identify them from the footage). They’ll commit more crimes, thus leading to more people having “negative experiences” with black BART riders, thus leading to more suspicion directed at all young black men on the trains. By helping the criminals avoid capture, BART will only make things worse for law-abiding blacks who ride the subway. So why is BART acting in such an illogical and self-defeating manner? To answer that question, one has to view “racism” through the eyes of a leftist. Leftists see racism as an evil spirit—an otherworldly entity, conjured by whites and made manifest on an earthly plane, a “duppy” that, once brought into existence, flies around the world inflicting harm on black people, like a curse. Should the BART footage be released, it would summon demons, “racisms” that, once manifested, would sow destruction in the black community, causing crime sprees, absentee fatherhood, unemployment, drug use, and school truancy.

Anti-racism, as it’s practiced by modern leftists, is a massive faith-based superstition. And as anyone who’s ever tried to argue with the superstitious knows, you can’t talk sense to someone in the fevered throes of irrationality. Remember “Niggerhead rock”? Back in the 1980s, the family of former Texas governor Rick Perry leased a parcel of land for hunting. On the land, placed there decades before the Perrys ever arrived, was a rock with the word “Niggerhead” written on it. Perry had the ugly epithet painted over, and he turned the rock upside down. End of story, right? Not so fast. During Perry’s 2011 presidential bid, The New York Times declared that painting over the word was not good enough—the rock should have been destroyed. The word had rendered the rock evil, and only reducing it to gravel would free the land from its spell. Of course, imagine if the stone had been marked with a pentagram, or the words “hail Satan,” and Perry, a Christian, had destroyed it because the words or symbols had made the stone malevolent. He would have been ridiculed as a superstitious fool by the same leftists who proclaimed that the “nigger” rock was possessed by wickedness and in need of physical obliteration.

It should be pointed out that a lot of anti-racism voodoo practitioners are white. A few days ago, as I watched the cop-cam footage of talentless irritant Shia LaBeouf’s drunken meltdown, I thought to myself, here’s a prime example of a leftist voodoo priest who thought his magic had made him immortal. LaBeouf screechingly challenged the cop who arrested him, How dare you arrest me, I’m a white man! I can’t be touched! My take on it is, LaBeouf, a far-left social-justice nutcase, has been preaching about “white privilege” for so long, he’s come to believe it’s a real thing. When his superstitious beliefs were proven wrong by cold hard reality, he couldn’t handle it. LaBeouf didn’t just lose it because he was going to jail; he went batshit because his magic amulet didn’t protect him from persecution the way it was supposed to. Literature is filled with stories of witch doctors who become so convinced that their magic is real, they begin to believe they are protected from all harm. The repulsive little weasel in the back of that cop car is a man suffering a crisis of faith. We also saw this a few months ago after the arrest of SJW crusader “Reality Winner,” who stands accused of stealing classified documents from the NSA. Immediately after being tossed into a cell, Winner told her sister not to worry—her privilege as a pretty white woman would soon get her released.

It didn’t. As with the villain at the end of Polanski’s The Ninth Gate, the “magical protection” turned out to be completely illusory.

Anti-racism voodoo hurts everyone, from the black community to those at risk from the crime that emanates from the black community to the voodoo priests themselves, who eventually go mad as they lose themselves in their fantasy world of demons and magic.

Is there a cure for those who believe in “racisms”? Well, logic hasn’t worked.

Nor should we expect it ever to. It’s never worked with (or on) the Left yet. Seems like fending off logic, reason, and rationality is the only thing their “magic” does work on.

Share

Delenda frigging EST

July 19th, 2017 5 comments

Just when you think they’ve reached Peak Lunacy.

I wrote an essay in The Washington Post last year, during the height of the Brock Turner case, about my sons and rape culture. I didn’t think it would be controversial when I wrote it; I was sure most parents grappled with raising sons in the midst of rape culture.

Well, actually, ummm, no. Most parents know that “rape culture” is complete fucking horseshit—the sane ones, that is. Or so I would hope.

One of my sons was hurt by my words, although he’s never told me so. He doesn’t understand why I lumped him and his brother together in my essay. He sees himself as the “good” one, the one who is sensitive and thoughtful, and who listens instead of reacts. He doesn’t understand that even quiet misogyny is misogyny, and that not all sexists sound like Twitter trolls.

If he’s at all intelligent, he understands that not all of what a twisted freak like you calls “misogyny” is actually, y’know, misogyny.

He is angry at me now, although he won’t admit that either, and his anger led him to conservative websites and YouTube channels; places where he can surround himself with righteous indignation against feminists, and tell himself it’s ungrateful women like me who are the problem.

“Ungrateful”? No, not so much that. Demented, hate-filled, obsessive Feminazis like you, yeah.

I teeter frequently between supporting my son and educating him. Is it my job as his mother to ensure he feels safe emotionally, no matter what violence he spews?

What “violence” he “spews”? I’d really have to see an example of such before I’d believe it. As for translating the rest of it: For “supporting my son,” insert “being an actual loving mother.” For “educating him,” substitute “lecturing, hectoring, bullyragging, and intimidating him out of any trace of normal masculinity.” Your “job as a mother”? You haven’t the vaguest fucking clue, you sick bint.

As a single mother, I sometimes wonder whether the real problem is that my sons have no role models for the type of men I hope they become.

Of course they don’t. That’s because the “men” you hope they become aren’t men at all; they’re emasculated, steercotted little pussies, pushed around and bullied out of any truly masculine identity at all. I repeat: sick bint.

I know I’m not supposed to cast an entire sex with a single paint brush — not all men, I’m sure some readers are thinking and preparing to type or tweet. But if it’s impossible for a white person to grow up without adopting racist ideas, simply because of the environment in which they live, how can I expect men not to subconsciously absorb at least some degree of sexism? White people aren’t safe, and men aren’t safe, no matter how much I’d like to assure myself that these things aren’t true.

How very sad for you, you weak, pathetic freak. Every single premise presented in this paragraph is simply fucked beyond redemption. And with that, we draw near to the nut of things.

My sons won’t rape unconscious women behind a dumpster, and neither will most of the progressive men I know.

Neither will most of the men you know, period, de-balled Progressivists or otherwise.

I love my sons, and I love some individual men. It pains me to say that I don’t feel emotionally safe with them, and perhaps never have with a man, but it needs to be said because far too often we are afraid to say it. This is not a reflection of something broken or damaged in me; it is a reflection of the systems we build and our boys absorb.

And there it is: it most certainly IS a reflection of something broken and damaged in you. This whole wretched screed is nothing BUT a public display of just how badly damaged, how completely broken, you are.

This deranged bitch is a perfect exemplar of the dank, twisted hole into which Progressivism drags everything within its reach. Pity the poor boys raised by such a diseased mind; what hope have they of ever leading a normal, sane life after having been endlessly harangued during their formative years by the kind of woman who would put her petty politics ahead of properly nurturing her offspring?

It’s easy enough to mock a sicko like her, sure enough, and it should surely be done every chance we get. But we should never lose sight of an important fact: the damage done by her despicable ilk is real, and most likely irrevocable. Her sons may have the strength to rebel against her, and throw off her malignant influence in the end. But it’s likely going to cost them. And in the end, it will cost all of us.

Share

Calvinball on Mars!

July 6th, 2017 5 comments

Du Toit tries to explain it all to PJ O’Rourke who, regrettably, just doesn’t get it.

I’ve always liked P.J.’s writing, by the way, because he uses just enough humor to make a political point insightful without being boring or snarky. But after reading this, his latest political work, I got the feeling that P.J., always something of a journalistic outsider but possessing a keen political sense, was almost in the same boat as the liberal mainstream media when it came to the 2016 results — he was caught between his distaste for Donald Trump as a person and his knowledge of our political system. The only thing that set him apart from the rest was his intense dislike of Hillary Clinton and most things Democratic, but in the end, he was betrayed because like our hapless sportscaster above, he only knew one game.

And if there’s a better analogy of last year’s election than Calvinball (for both political parties), I can’t think of one. The only difference between the parties was that on the Democrat side, the party bigwigs changed the rules as they went along (the Clinton campaign essentially cheating Bernie Sanders out of fully participating in the nomination process), whereas on the Republican side, the rules were constantly being changed by the voters — and as Trump was the only one who caught the “toss ’em all out” mood of the electorate, he was able to play it all the way to the White House. Nothing says “Change” like “Drain the swamp”, after all.

So all the way through P.J.’s book, I could see his complete inability to understand what was going on — why was Trump winning, how could voters not vote for Rubio / Bush / whoever wasn’t Trump, and so on. The fact that NJGov Chris Christie and OHGov John Kasich — mere distractions both — merited more than a few lines in the book was, I think, symptomatic of the media’s problem in general: they got caught up in personalities when what was really happening was a sea change in voter attitudes towards the whole political structure.

And that pretty much says it all. I’ve always liked PJ too, going all the way back to his old NatLamp days. He’s made much razor-sharp sport over the years of DC dysfunction; it kind of amazes me sometimes how anyone, much less somebody as perceptive and skeptical of the federal government as O’Rourke always was, could look at the mess professional politicians have made of things and think for a moment that the best way to come to grips with it was to elect yet another professional politician, instead of a cantankerous, brash outsider who relishes a good scrap, is accustomed to success without being paralyzed by the occasional setback, and is immune to agonizing over what his enemies might say about him.

Share

The identity transaction

July 3rd, 2017 2 comments

Haven’t looked in on Eric Raymond in a while. I have been remiss.

There was a very silly news story recently about “Claire”, a transsexual “girl” with a penis who complains that she is rejected by straight guys for ‘having male parts’. Er, how was “she” expecting anything different? By trying to get dates with heterosexual teenage boys using a female presentation, she was making an offer that there is about her person the sort of sexual parts said boys want to play with. Since “she” does not in fact have a vagina, this offer was fraudulent and there’s no wonder the boys rejected it.

More to the point, why is this “girl” treated as anything but a mental case? Leaving aside the entire question of how real transgenderism is as a neuropsychological phenomenon, “she” clearly suffers from a pretty serious disconnect with observable reality. In particular, those delusions about teenage boys…

I can anticipate several objections to this transactional account of identity. One is that is cruel and illiberal to reject an offer of “I claim identity X” if the person claiming feels that identity strongly enough. This is essentially the position of those journalists from The Hill.

To which I can only reply: you can feel an identity as a programmer as strongly as you want, but if you can’t either already sling code or are visibly working hard on repairing that deficiency, you simply don’t make the nut. Cruelty doesn’t enter into this; if I assent to your claim I assist your self-deceit, and if I repeat it I assist you in misleading or defrauding others.

It is pretty easy to see how this same analysis applies to “misgendering” people with the “wrong” pronouns. People who use the term “misgender” generally follow up with claims about the subject’s autonomy and feelings. Which is well enough, but such considerations do not justify being complicit in the deceit of others any more than they do with respect to “I am a programmer”.

A related objection is that I have stolen the concept of “identity” by transactionalizing it. That is, true “identity” is necessarily grounded not in public performance but private feelings – you are what you feel, and it’s somehow the responsibility of the rest of the world to keep up.

But…if I’m a delusional psychotic who feels I’m Napoleon, is it the world’s responsibility to keep up? If I, an overweight clumsy shortish white guy, feel that I’m a tall agile black guy under the skin, are you obligated to choose me to play basketball? Or, instead, are you justified in predicting that I can’t jump?

You can’t base “identity” on a person’s private self-beliefs and expect sane behavior to emerge any more than you can invite everyone to speak private languages and expect communication to happen.

The self-contradictory madness of Progressivism has reached its end-stages. There really isn’t a whole lot further for it to go, and it needs to be put out of its—and our—misery, before it can do any more damage.

Share

The latest imagined, nonexistent “right”

June 29th, 2017 3 comments

And trust me, it’s a doozy.

Vice, known lately for covering super serious news, published a 2,000-word probethis week by Meredith Talusan, a writer who doesn’t identify as either a man or a woman. The central existential question: “Why can’t my famous nonconforming friends get laid?”

Talusan describes the friends in question, Jacob Tobia and Alok Vaid-Menon, both outspoken activists with tens of thousands of followers.

Neither has undergone hormone treatment, so they have “visible body hair that marks them as more obviously trans.” Both have a five-o’clock shadow, high heels and lipstick, and “they” as a pronoun.

It turns out, Talusan says, that while the LGBT community is increasingly accepting of people with such specific and niche professed identities… no one really wants to bed them.

Go look at the pictures. Go on, I dare you. The conclusion of the article is hilarious:

From Talusan’s perspective, the fact that no one wants to sleep with Tobia and Vaid-Menon is a sign of injustice. “Jacob and Alok don’t need more claps or raised hands, more YASSSS’s or SLAY’s,” the article concludes. “What they need is to be found deeply, undeniably f*ckable.”

That’s right: Vice is now pushing pity f*cks for social justice.

They obviously are NOT “deeply, undeniably fuckable.” If they were, they wouldn’t have to be whining about not getting laid. What they actually are is spoiled, overindulged, mentally unbalanced freaks. And honestly? Neither of these two is even particularly good-looking, freakishness aside.

But there’s no laying the freakishness aside. What this is akin to is putting on a clown suit, makeup, a big red nose, a frightwig, and big floppy shoes, walking around town, and then complaining when people point and laugh and call you a clown. Ace points out another big problem here:

I ask this a lot but I’ll ask it again: If it’s fair game for George Stephanopolous to ask Mitt Romney, out of nowhere, whether he’d ban contraception– that is, to ask a Republican about an idea he’d never suggested, just to put him in the position of being associated with a fringe sort of position and also having to distance himself from a fringe sort of position that may be held by some of his potential voters — why is George Stephanopolous not asking prominent Democrats if they agree with the proposition that being “tolerant” of gay and/or trans people means that straight people should be willing to date them?

If we get asked such wedge issue questions about difficult, embarrassing, wedge-issue sexual topics, why the hell shouldn’t Claire McCaskill and Elizabeth Warren and Lord God King Barack Obama be asked if “Love Trumps Hate” means that straight people should repress their own “Born This Way” Sexuality and do some gay dating?

Oh, they’d never dream of it. They already had trouble enough dragging the country along for the gay marriage circus; if they think the Progtards are in trouble politically now, just let questions like that start getting asked on Good Morning America or the Today Show and see how Middle America reacts. The “liberal” media, firmly in the pockets of the Democrat Socialist Party, would never even contemplate doing something so prospectively harmful to their lords, masters, and partners in crime. Sure, they’d be happy enough to establish a double standard for Republicans and hound them about it if they thought it would get them anywhere, but who could possibly be surprised in the least by that, at this stage of the game?

Look, I’m willing enough to concede that gay people can’t really help who and what they are, that they don’t choose their sexuality; they’ve always been a part of the human parade, and always will be, and I’m not interested in persecuting them or harming them in any way. I have a handful of gay friends myself, and they’re great people, and I don’t bear them the least ill will.

But they have always done me the courtesy of acknowledging that I didn’t really choose my sexuality either—that it’s every bit as indelible a part of my makeup as their same-sex attraction is for them. As for “doing a little gay dating”, or bedding either of the two tragic psychological trainwrecks in the article: um, sorry, fellas, but…no. Not ever. Not interested, not under any circumstances. I really don’t care what you get up to among yourselves, it ain’t none of my business. But if the next step in societal evolution regarding gay rights is to insist that straight people MUST be willing to consider romantic and sexual relationships with their own gender—that we are somehow harming gays or are less “evolved” or “woke” because we aren’t interested in any such thing—well, you guys are going to find yourselves in for some pretty rough sledding. And if you think it’s a great idea to somehow push for legislation along those lines to force us into it (and as outrageous and absurd as it sounds, you already know somebody is going to, very soon now), well, that’s when your troubles will REALLY begin.

Trust me on this. Seriously, you guys.

Share

UNEXPECTED!

June 8th, 2017 2 comments

I almost appended this to the Trump post below as another example of somebody coming around to embrace Teh Rebellion at last, but…well, naaaah.

Donald Trump’s whole position on this has been that we are all at risk from Islamist extremists who want to kill us. And he has come up with endless ways he is suggesting of trying to stop this. You may not agree with him, but that is where he is coming from. After what has been happening in London and Manchester, has Trump not got a point?

Is he not allowed as President of the United States to say ‘Wake up everybody! We are in a war here.’?

Brace yourselves, gang; in fact, you better sit down for it. That’s Piers Morgan—PIERS FUCKING MORGAN, ferchrissakes—quoted above. He was interviewing London’s terrorist-supporting sleeper-Muslim mayor, whose response was:

KHAN: Let me tell you what I was commenting on when I said he was ignorant. The idea at the time, when he was a candidate, of banning all Muslims from going to the USA, and I made the point that his views are ignorant — why? Because there are literally million of Muslims born and raised in America who love their country… But also there are millions of Muslims around the world who love America –me included– who love Americans. Who have family in America. And playing to the ISIS narrative that Western liberal values are incompatible with Islam is ignorant.

Okay, first off, you fucking insidious liar: Trump never once, not even ONCE, suggested “banning all Muslims” from etc. It was actually an extension of an Obama edict that…oh, to hell with all that. I am all done with being lured into the weeds, arguing minutiae with dishonest liars. It’s a distraction, and it ain’t no accident that they do it, if you ask me. To hell with arguing on their dishonest terms; I won’t do it with Muslim frauds any more than I will with the Left. Once they get you chasing your tail like that, the game is over, and they won.

Second: Western values incompatible with Islam? Well, depends, I guess. If you mean the Islam of the Koran and the hadiths, yeah, they most certainly are. But if you mean the milder Islam embraced by a tiny handful of more-moderate Muslims scattered here and there across the globe, well, Islam has a word for that, too: APOSTASY. You can go look for yourself what the punishment for that is.

All that said, I must tentatively doff the CF chapeau to these guys:

Over 130 imams from across the United Kingdom have said they will refuse to perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer for the London and Manchester terror attackers. The ritual is normally carried out for every Muslim, regardless of their actions.

In what is a highly unusual move, Muslim religious leaders from different schools of Islam — both Sunni and Shia — issued a statement late Monday saying their pain at the suffering of the victims of Saturday’s attacks had led to their decision, and they called on others imams to follow suit.

“We are deeply hurt that a spate of terror attacks have been committed in our country once more by murderers who seek to gain religious legitimacy for their actions. We seek to clarify that their reprehensible actions have neither legitimacy nor our sympathy,” the statement put out by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), an umbrella body representing over 500 organizations, read.

At risk of being an asshole here, I must say I am more than a little skeptical of this. Much as I would love to wholeheartedly welcome and endorse such a move—it’s exactly the kind of gesture we’ve said all along needs to be made by reasonable Muslims, and the onus is surely on them to do it—well, frankly, I don’t trust them. The rest of their statement has a pretty greasy feel to it, which doesn’t do much to allay my suspicions:

“Consequently, and in light of other such ethical principles which are quintessential to Islam, we will not perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer for the perpetrators and we also urge fellow imams and religious authorities to withdraw such a privilege. This is because such indefensible actions are completely at odds with the lofty teachings of Islam,” the statement continued.

See what I mean? A lot of noise about “the lofty teachings of Islam,” and what is and is not “ethical principles which are quintessential to Islam.” Tell me, is abject subjugation of women one of those “lofty teachings”? The killing of gays, the enslavement into dhimmitude of all non-Muslims? It would seem so; it’s all right there in the Koran, after all. Sorry, but this sounds too much like a press release penned by some grubby hack working for a third- or fourth-tier PR firm to me. This, too, only reinforces my skepticism:

He said that while a campaign would be launched to urge mosques to increase their vigilance, “the path towards extremism is outside of the mosque and at the margins of society.”

Umm, no. Not even close. The path towards extremism runs directly through the mosque, into and then out again; in fact, the mosques are a prime source of the problem here, as has been demonstrated again and again. As I’ve said: the problem isn’t some supposed “perversion” of Islam; the problem is Islam, as specifically and unmistakably delineated in its own “sacred” texts.

I dunno, maybe they’re sincere; I most surely hope so, as must we all. If so, good on ’em. But I’ll hold to my skepticism for now; Lord knows the Muslim world has earned that skepticism many times over, and one hell of a lot more besides.

Share

Root causes

June 2nd, 2017 3 comments

Still wondering how our once-mighty economy got turned into a staggering, anemic, dysfunctional parody of its former robust self?

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Teens in Gardendale are in for a rude awakening this summer when it comes to cutting grass. According to the city’s ordinance, you must have a business license.

Teenagers have been threatened by officials and other lawn services to show their city issued license before cutting a person’s lawn for extra summer cash.

Cutting grass is often one of the first jobs many have in the summer. But a business license in Gardendale costs $110. And for a job, just for a couple of months, that can be a bit extreme.

“I have never heard of a child cutting grass had to have a business license,” said Elton Campbell.
Campbell’s granddaughter cuts grass around the neighborhood.

“She charges one lady $20, and another lady $30, and another girl $40 besides what we pay her,” said Campbell.

For her, this was the perfect summer gig!

“Just helping out and raising money for admissions and trips,” said Alainna Parris.

But now, it’s becoming a hassle.

Which is kind of the whole point. But lest anyone thinks it’s all the fault of greedy, grasping government, think again:

“One of the men that cuts several yards made a remark to one of our neighbors, ‘that if he saw her cutting grass again that he was going to call Gardendale because she didn’t have a business license,” said Campbell.

And there you have it. Government will always be ready, willing, and eager to step through the doors opened for it by medddlesome fools like this putz.

“He’s coming after a kid when a kid is at least trying to do work. There’s kids at home on iPads and electronics and not wanting to go outside,” said Parris.

And that presents a larger conundrum: how do we foster anything resembling a good work ethic and a sense of responsibility in our youths when they’re faced with horseshit like this? Assuming, of course, that we want to inculcate those values in the first place. Clearly, that can no longer be taken as a given.

Mayor Stan Hogeland said when operating a business for pay within the city limits, you must have a business license. He said sending someone after a child making extra money over the summer, is not a priority. But he is committed to find a way to make this less of an issue for teens.

“I would love to have something on our books that gave a more favorable response to that student out there cutting grass. And see if there’s maybe a temporary license during the summer months that targets teenagers,” said Mayor Hogeland.

Seems reasonable enough. But is a kid out mowing lawns in and around his neighborhood for a few bucks really “operating a business” in any truly meaningful sense? If a kid helps an elderly neighbor rake some leaves or paint his house or mend a fence, say, and the neighbor throws him twenty bucks for his trouble, is that “operating a business for pay” too? If not, why not?

I look back on my own childhood experience mowing lawns, and I can’t help but wonder: how in the world did we all ever manage to survive our own childhoods without the Nanny State watching over us and making sure we were all in full compliance with its edicts, anyway? And what about safety? Lawnmowers are dangerous devices; shouldn’t these kids be wearing helmets, gloves, goggles, full suits of medieval armor—shouldn’t ALL of us be?

And finally: is it too much to ask for the busybodies to finally admit that they’ve badly overstepped their bounds, and to willingly relinquish some of the outrageous power and control they’ve asserted over us—without our having to string a bunch of them up from lampposts first, that is?

Does the word “tyranny” have any meaning at all anymore?

Share

Whaaa…?

May 6th, 2017 7 comments

Okay, I can’t even. I just…can’t even.

Trayvon Martin’s getting a college degree.

The slain Florida teenager — killed by George Zimmerman five years ago — will be awarded a posthumous bachelor’s degree in aeronautical science from Florida Memorial University.

Martin’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, will accept the degree on his behalf during the school’s spring commencement on May 13. Fulton is an alumnus of the school, a historically black university in Miami Gardens.

The aeronautics degree is in “honor of the steps he took during his young life toward becoming a pilot,” the school said in a Facebook post. Florida Memorial’s Department of Aviation and Safety has a designated Cessna pilot training center, and the school also houses the Trayvon Martin Foundation.

Florida Memorial wanted to award the degree to Martin now because, if he had lived and attended the college, he would have been graduating this year, said school President Roslyn Clark Artis.

If he had lived…and attended the college. And paid attention in class, and completed his assigned coursework, and not mugged random white people along the way, and spent most of his time getting high and robbing random victims, and generally being the useless violent thug he was.

On her Twitter page, Fulton thanked the university for honoring her son. She said he became interested in aviation after attending summer camps at Florida Memorial.

“He was so excited,” she told CNN. “But he couldn’t decide whether we wanted to fly planes or fix them.” Martin took aviation courses in high school, as well as a few flying lessons.

Well, hey, bless his little heart. Maybe if he’d actually followed up and pursued that, he might have ended up as something other than a parasitical drain on society who got his just deserts when he made the mistake of picking on someone prepared to defend himself instead of laying down and begging for mercy like Martin expected.

Martin was shot and killed in February 2012 by Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida. Zimmerman had called 911 to report a suspicious person in his neighborhood and later got into a fight with the 17-year-old. Zimmerman said he shot Martin in self-defense.

“Got into a fight.” Umm, no. Zimmerman was viciously assaulted by Martin, who WAS a suspicious person, and successfully defended himself after being jumped and having his head smashed into the pavement repeatedly by this predator. Zimmerman said he shot Martin in self-defense…because it’s true. That is exactly what he did. Just like you would have, just like I would have, just like any sensible, self-respecting person would have if it happened to us.

But hey, we mustn’t let inconvenient truths get in the way of a good narrative, right? Poor, poor little Trayvon, an innocent child whose dreams reached to the stars themselves, but who saw those beautiful dreams snuffed out by a vicious, hateful, bigoted White Hispanic who murdered him for no reason, no reason at all.

Just who do these malignant assholes think they’re fooling with this transparent horseshit, anyway? Certainly not anybody who’s ever suffered the misfortune of having to live in a neighborhood populated by the likes of Trayvon Martin, that’s for sure.

(Via Sundance)

Share

Ummm….WINNING, is it?

May 5th, 2017 9 comments

I think Coulter just may be tired of all the, uhh, WINNING.

Mulvaney’s most disturbing comment was to say that what upset Trump the most was the Democrats’ “spiking the football” on this deal.

Apparently, Trump’s fine with no wall — and everything else in a bill straight out of George Soros’ dream journal — if only the Democrats hadn’t been so rude as to tell the public about it. When your main complaint is that the other side is gloating too much, maybe you’re not that great a negotiator.

Yeah, sure, it’s only 100 days in, it’s an artificial deadline, the media is dying to say Trump has failed and so on.

Except: Planning for the wall should have begun on Nov. 9, and a spade should have been put into the earth to begin building it the day after Trump’s inauguration. Now, it’s 100 days later, and we still don’t have the whisper of a prospect of a wall.

Moreover, this isn’t one random bill funding Planned Parenthood (which this bill does). This is the budget deal. There won’t be another one like it until next October.

That’s a spectacular failure. Democrats have got to be pinching themselves, thinking, Am I dreaming this?

Oh, I doubt that. After all, it’s only been like this for the last forty years or so; they gotta be so used to it by now they just take it as a given. This, though, is the crucial part:

No amount of abandoning his supporters will get Trump anywhere with Wall Street, Hollywood or the media. Their ferocity will simply shift to ridicule.

The deal was that we were getting the Hollywood version of a New York businessman: an uncouth, incurious rube — who would be ruthless in getting whatever he wanted.

In addition to being the only candidate for president in either party taking America’s side on trade, immigration, jobs and crime, what set Trump apart was his promise that we would finally win.

Remember? There would be so much winning, we were going to get “sick and tired of winning,” and beg him, “Please, please, we can’t win anymore…It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else.”

We’re not winning. We’re losing, and we’re losing on the central promise of Trump’s campaign.

How would Trump, the businessman, react if an underling charged with developing a new golf course could never break ground?

Trump would fire that employee so fast your head would spin.

We want the ruthless businessman we were promised.

We certainly do. Yes, it’s early days yet, steep learning curve, all that. And I always said anyone expecting Trump to fix everything all by himself was delusional—in four years, much less a few months. But on the wall at least, it’s time for him to dig in and bare some teeth. No, he can’t legislate from the Oval Office, that ain’t how it works. And yes, he’s produced some very good executive orders, and is fighting a three-front war against the Republicrats, the Demicans, and Court Media. But he’s showing too much give on some of his core platform planks, seems to me, and if he wants to risk being turned into a lame duck three years prematurely, well, that’s probably the way to go about it.

We elected you to drain the damned swamp, Donald. A tough job, certainly—maybe, probably an impossible one—and one that won’t get done in a day, or a hundred of them. But you ain’t gonna do it by pouring more stinkwater in, either.

Update! Schlichter:

So far you’ve done some great things, and you are blessed with hilariously inept enemies. But the one opponent you can’t beat is yourself. That’s why they are trying to manipulate you – because only you can defeat you.

Are you going to let yourself be played?

Do you want to go down in history as a loser?

If your reaction to seeing your buddy Arnold’s miserable failure is “Oh yeah? Hold my near beer!” just keep on stiffing your friends and hanging with the “cool” kids who are laughing at you behind your back.

Or you can say “No.” You can take charge. You can tell the K Street Krew and the Squish Squadron how it’s going to be. You spent your life dealing with old money jerks who laughed at you for who you are and what you did. Until now, you played them. Not vice versa. They were never your friends, and they aren’t now.

Choose to lead, not be led.

Choose loyalty to you and the cause, not the wormtongued advice of craven creeps.

Choose to be a winner, not pathetic.

Amen, to every word of it. Screw those “craven creeps,” as hard and fast and deep as possible, every chance you get. Dance with who brung ya.

Share

M’aidez!

May 5th, 2017 1 comment

I missed out on any commentary on May Day. Luckily, Daniel has it covered:

Most leftists are dilettantes. They admired and admire Communism’s commitment to murdering millions of people and arguing the esoteric dogmas of the party line. It’s this latter that Gornick’s New York Times piece bleeds with nostalgia for. She tells us, again and again, that the Communists were wonderfully inspirational because they sat around kitchen tables arguing about ideas.

So did the Nazis. But the New York Times doesn’t print fond recollections of debates over whether the Japanese really counted as Aryans and how National Socialism should approach the rights of workers. Nostalgia for the Third Reich is rightly regarded as abominable. And the hobby of those who have a soft spot for its murderous totalitarian ideology.

Curiously, the left never applies this same indictment to its own fondness for Communism. Instead it traffics in nostalgia for Communism’s idealism, as if its ideals were any nobler than those of Nazism. But the left believes they were. And how could it not? Communism is just the left taken to its inevitable conclusion.

Actually, I’d take it a bit further: Communism is the Left, period. Or, perhaps more adroitly and accurately put, the Left is Communist. Dress it up how they will; hide it, disguise it, misnomer it. Call it socialism, call it Progressivism, call it liberalism (the most egregious misnomer of them all, and one that didn’t happen by accident)—Communism is Leftism, and Leftism is Communism. Period, full stop, end of story: a totalitarian, authoritarian ideology wherein the State is supreme; rights are not part of our natural inheritance as human beings but granted by the State, and subject to revocation or abridgment as the State may whimsically choose. Wherein individual ambitions and aspirations are subordinate to the needs of the collective as determined by the State. Wherein no individual right to petition the government for redress of grievances is acknowledged, much less honored or respected.

All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. This is EXACTLY what the Left wants, and they’ve come all too close to getting it. But it’s as un-American as it’s possible to be.

Well, y’know, FUCK that noise.

The left doesn’t believe that Hitler was bad because he killed Jews. Mass murder isn’t a crime in the left’s eyes. Just ask Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest of the gang of monsters whom the left defended in papers just like the New York Times until they had committed the worst of their crimes.

As long as the Hitler-Stalin pact held, leftists vehemently campaigned against war. There were plenty of “Hitler is bad, but” pieces of the sort that they’re running about North Korea or Iran. Hitler only became truly irredeemable when he invaded the Soviet Union. And then everyone, except the Trotskyists, decided that Nazi Germany was utterly evil. Leftist fellow travelers went, in the span of days, from protesting “warmongering” and “militarism” to demanding action yesterday.

And that too is another dirty red secret of the left.

It’s inconceivable that the New York Times or any paper would run a glowing piece titled, “When Nazis Inspired Americans”. No fond recollections from participants in the Madison Square Garden rally. No fond memories of Bund camps. No sugar-coated recollections of how the Thousand Year Reich would create a better world… only to then learn that Hitler wasn’t a very nice man.

But “When Communism Inspired Americans” regurgitates the same exact message. And it remains acceptable because the left feels an emotional and intellectual connection with Communists.

That is the ugly truth at the root of our conflict.

Yes, it is. But it also remains acceptable because we have so long shied away from calling them exactly what they are. We’ve allowed them to hijack the terms of the debate and run away with them; we’ve fought them on their terms and their ground without ever questioning their premises or calling them what they really are. We’ve allowed them to paint any negative mention of Communism as out of bounds, the exclusive province of wild-eyed, irrational extremists…even as they themselves have become more openly extreme themselves.

The fact that “McCarthyism” is now such a dirty word, such an unacceptable paradigm—when McCarthy has been proved in the main correct, by documents released after the fall of the Soviet Union itself, for Christ’s sake!—demonstrates just how successful they’ve been at transmogrifying falsehood into a threadbare scrim of accepted truth.

But that’s what Communists do; it’s what they’ve always done, and always will do. To go rummaging about for the needles of accuracy in the massive haystack of Leftist lies and propaganda is worse than a fool’s errand; it plays right into their hands, and is just the kind of distraction they want us to relax haplessly into. It’s a sort of acceptance of defeat, really, an admission of unworthiness and inferiority, a submission.

And the hell of it is, we’ve let them talk us into it, with nary a shot fired or punch thrown. These days we don’t even dare call a Communist a Communist, no matter how Red they paint themselves from top to toe. They launch violent riots in our streets denouncing capitalism, democracy, and freedom of speech while brandishing hammer-and-sickle flags in our very faces with no fear of repercussion at all, burning and looting while the “fascist” cops stand idly by on orders from city hall without lifting a finger. They’re making a serious effort at overturning the result of a legitimate election, while our so-called “leaders” natter amongst themselves about whether they’re willing to commit a pitiful fraction of the grotesque federal budget to repairing a few miles of a border fence that was supposed to have been finished years ago.

And still we take it, as our despicable “leaders” promise us big results next year, or the year after that, maybe, or sometime, eventually. I’ll risk being tedious again by repeating myself: as with the Muslims, so with the Left—you cannot defeat an enemy you’re too timid to call by his rightful name, or even acknowledge as an enemy. Call it the CF Theorem, maybe. I’ll let Daniel sum it all up:

This is the left. It returns, like a dog to its vomit, to the dream of the true radicalism of a totalitarian leftist state. It occasionally deals with uncomfortable truths. Circles around them. And then it lapses back into an opium dream of Marxists sitting around a kitchen table and debating which windows to smash first and whom to shoot first.

And as has been demonstrated more than adequately the last century or so, they’ll have no qualms whatever about embarking on all that smashing and shooting when they deem the time is ripe for it. We just have to make sure there’s a few of us left who retain the means and the will to shoot back, that’s all.

Fuck May Day. Fuck Communists. Fuck the Left. Let them come. At long last: let them come. May they be shown exactly as much mercy as they’d show us, and not one jot or tittle more.

Put another way: may they all die screaming.

Share

A different take

April 20th, 2017 2 comments

On Fox News and the O’Reilly dustup:

News brings word that the SJW’s have bagged their biggest trophy to date. Bill O’Reilly is the most popular cable news talker in the business and he was just fired for making the girls cry. It is all part of what is looking like a well orchestrated effort to break Fox News on the wheel of political correctness. The screeching harpies knocked out Roger Ailes and now they have taken out the top star, all via the same method – powerskirts claiming to have been done wrong by the knuckle-dragging misogynists running the network.

The claim will be that the advertisers demanded Fox fire O’Reilly, but that is complete nonsense. Cable channels, like Fox News, exist on subscription revenues, not advertising dollars. FNC gets $1.50 from every cable home each month. That’s roughly $1.8 billion a year whether people watch or not. Their ad revenue is less than a third of that number. In the case of ESPN, for example, ad revenue is around one billion, and they have an audience about ten times the size of a cable news operation, even Fox News.

An advertiser boycott could certainly harm the bottom line for Fox, but there is another reality to the cable business. Those companies demanding their ads be pulled from the O’Reilly show would still be running ads on other Fox programs. The reason they choose to run ads on Fox News is they believe there are people watching Fox News who will also buy crap they see advertised. Bill O’Reilly could be strangling kittens on his show. If he gets a valuable audience to watch, advertisers will want to get their name on his show.

The reality is Fox could weather the storm and ride out this thing if they wanted to do it, but they probably have another agenda. It’s tempting to assume that Fox is stuffed to the rafters with right-wing ideologues, but that’s not the case. Fox is just as Prog infested as every other media company.This could very well be part of an effort to make the channel more Prog friendly. It could also be the dream-child of someone in management, to remake the network to appeal to younger, gayer viewers.

Anyway, a good lesson to recall in all of this is the story of Time Magazine. Henry Luce founded the magazine, as well as Life, Sports Illustrated and other famous publications. He was also involved in radio, newsreels and eventually television. His company was the first multimedia corporation. In his heyday, he was considered the most influential private citizen in the country. The reason for that is his publications reached almost every American. He was an arbiter of the news.

After Luce died, his media company was slowly infiltrated by lunatics. By the 60’s it was unrecognizable. By the 70’s it was fully refashioned into a weapon of the Left. Even though its over the top Progressive bias slowly killed its circulation, the people running it did not care. What mattered was promoting the one true faith, even if it destroyed the institution from which it was broadcast. Time Magazine is gone now and the Luce company exists in name only.

That’s the fate of Fox News. Rupert Murdoch was never a man of the Right. He was just a guy who loved tabloid news and was a genius at making money on modern media properties. His kids are Kool-Aid drinking Prog loonies, who will piss away the family fortune trying to buy status within the Cult of Modern Liberalism. As a result, Fox News will slowly be converted into a megaphone for the one true faith. We’ll sooner see a trans gender-fluid lesbian of color in prime time than another Bill O’Reilly type.

I never liked O’Reilly myself; in fact, I couldn’t stand him, and back in the days when I still had cable, avoided watching him like the plague. But I think Zman has the right of it; O’Reilly’s seems to be one of the few scalps the SJW fascists can legitimately claim of late, although if they’re smart they won’t publicly crow too much about it. Rush fills in the gaps:

The way this works is this. The New York Times runs a story, and the story talks about how valuable O’Reilly is to Fox News and how much money O’Reilly is generating, and this irritates everybody that reads the New York Times. They don’t want to see this. They don’t want to see how successful O’Reilly is. They don’t want to see how big Fox is ’cause they hate it. They hate Fox, they hate O’Reilly, they don’t want to see any of this. And the New York Times pounds ’em with how much money O’Reilly is making, how much money he’s generating for Fox, how powerful Fox is, and they see as they read this.

And then the New York Times lowers the boom and points out that O’Reilly is a serial whatever and has paid off $13 million to other women to shut up. There has to be an outlet for the anger. Then what happens is where the real story begins. And it is not that advertisers are reading the New York Times and going, “Oh, my God, I can’t have my product there,” and they call their agency and say, “You get us out of there.” That is not how it happened. That is what they want you to think happens, but that’s not how it happens.

The advertisers are not taking the initiative here. The advertisers are themselves being inundated with what they think is tens of thousands of complaint emails and tweets from people they believe represent tens of thousands of legitimately angry citizens. When in truth it is a bunch of bots, Facebook bots and Twitter bots that may have been generated by no more than 10 people, made to look like tens of thousands. And that’s all she wrote.

When the advertisers are swarmed with that, if Fox, O’Reilly, if the salespeople are not prepared, if they don’t know what’s going on, and if they can’t hit these advertisers and explain what’s happening to them and tell ’em to ignore it, that it’s all part of an organized campaign and that these tweets do not represent real people.

Because, you know, liberals, sponsors of O’Reilly have been…have you noticed many of them sponsor the Clinton Foundation? Many of them…There’s a serial alleged rapist. I mean, you talk about sexual abuse? Bill Clinton’s wife ran the bimbo eruptions units when he was in the White House to seek and find the women who might accuse Bill Clinton of sexual abuse (and other things) and destroy them. And advertisers never leave the Clintons, and donors never leave the Clintons. Why is that?

Because donors and advertisers never receive massive numbers of complaint emails from all of these Twitter and Facebook bots. It’s a one-way street.

Yeah, liberalism always is. Again, Ace:

I’m not sure if there should be a rule against men with money and power just hitting on women. For one thing, you don’t become a monk just because you make it.

For another thing, women often seem to dig men with money and power.

It also seems like O’Reilly did not “retaliate” against this woman. She did not get the coveted Fox News Contributor status she coveted — but then, 90% of the people you see on Fox News covet that paid status, but never get it. The Fox News Contributor thing is one of the most chased-after prizes in media — and far more chased than caught.

But he kept having her on his show after the turn-down, and advertised her book a fair amount.

Is that “retaliation”?

She says O’Reilly “promised” to “help” her get that coveted slot.

How does she know he didn’t?

“Help” doesn’t get you a gig that every woman (and dude) loosely affiliated with the conservative movement is chasing. They’re not handing these out like tampons in a male bathroom, after all.

Eh, I kinda don’t like O’Reilly but this seems like very thin gruel — especially thin gruel for a dismissal.

I think he just nailed it completely. And I also think Zman ultimately gets the bigger picture straight: Fox News is well on its way to re-aligning itself with the Powers of Progressivist PC. Maybe Tucker Carlson and Bret Baier can save them. And maybe not. All I know is, I care less and less about whether they can with every passing day, and I’ve never been more glad that I cut the cable-TV cord years ago.

Is Hannity still on Fox? If so, look for some sort of thin-gruel allegations against him too, sexual harassment or something else, before too long.

Share

Weird!

April 18th, 2017 1 comment

Okay, I confess to being not entirely sure what to make of this.

If you’re any student of politics, you saw Steve Bannon on the cover of Time magazine in early February — “The Great Manipulator,” it called him — and knew to start the countdown then.

Dead strategist walking.

He’d crossed the line that a politician’s advisers mustn’t, to a place and prominence where only the most foolish of them tread. Or at best he’d failed to prevent the media from tugging him there.

He was fine so long as he was a whisperer. On the campaign trail and on the Potomac, you can whisper all you want.

He was damned the moment he was cast as a puppeteer. That means there’s a puppet in the equation, and no politician is going to accept that designation, least of all one who stamps his name in gold on anything that stands still long enough to be stamped. Or whose debate performance included the repartee: “No puppet, no puppet. You’re the puppet.”

“I’m my own strategist,” the president told The New York Post early last week, and the message to Bannon couldn’t have been louder and clearer if it included a four-letter word.

Trump went so far as to suggest that he was barely acquainted with Bannon before August 2016, when Bannon joined his presidential campaign. Wrong. Trump had been a guest on the radio show that Bannon used to host nine times. But his rewrite of history was telling. Bannon needed to be erased because he was taking up too much space on the page.

Politics is a tricky business, Washington is a treacherous place and Trumplandia is downright brutal. In all three realms, you have to strike the right balance of self-promotion and self-effacement. The media’s no help: We love few archetypes better than that of the brilliant mastermind who’s the real power behind the throne. But the savviest operators find ways to resist that assignment, deflecting as much credit as they claim.

So you guys feel free to correct me if I’m getting this wrong and all, but: the NYT is now reduced to attacking Trump by…defending Steve Bannon? Really? REALLY?

Wow. I have to admit, I’m slackjawed flabbergasted over this one. Trump has them so completely discombobulated I’m gonna have to come up with some new categories here to cope with the contradictory madness emanating from them daily. Like, say, “Shit Or Go Blind,” or something along those lines. I repeat: WOW.

Via Breitbart, whose headline take makes way more sense of this than I’m able to: “NYT: The Media Manipulated Steve Bannon’s Image to Drive a Wedge Between Him and Trump.” Well, yeah, sure. But now they’re gonna openly admit to that? I repeat: slackjawed. Flabbergasted. They continue to have no clue at all as to how to approach destroying Trump. Nothing they’ve tried so far has worked; in fact, each new attempt has blown up in their faces and made their plight worse. They just can’t seem to grasp that we don’t believe or trust them anymore, and no longer care what they may say about anything.

May they remain forever clueless.

Share

Oldie but goodie

March 24th, 2017 4 comments

I excreted this one into the comments at DuToit’s place just now, and I’m perverse enough to think that it should be shared with you miscreants here too, sick H8TRZZZZ!! that I know every last one of y’all to be:

Q: How do you tell when a woman is having an orgasm?

A: Who the fuck cares?

Context.

I left Kim with a vague threat to drive off his readership by sharing more of this sort of thing with them unasked—I got a million of ’em, I promise you—and if anybody messes with me I just might do it, too.

Share

Horrors!

March 16th, 2017 2 comments

Okay, the whole Steyn/CRTV saga just got really, really weird.

When conservative commentator Mark Steyn sued the company that canceled his new online TV talk show last month, he said he was doing it for his employees.

His staff didn’t buy it.

“It’s bullshit, frankly,” said Mike Young, formerly the show’s site supervisor. “They all hate him.”

Ummm. Well…okay.

They say Steyn ran the show into the ground. He generally wouldn’t even speak to crew members, they claim, and when he did, he verbally abused them. In one case Steyn referred to members of the northern Vermont-based crew, a former employee claimed under oath, as “a bunch of meth-heads.” A Steyn spokesperson denied he made that comment.

Steyn had crew members run personal errands, they say, spent CRTV funds on lavish meals and expensive personal purchases, and boasted of the large settlement he planned to extract from the company.

This account is based on sworn declarations, made under penalty of perjury and provided exclusively to The Daily Beast, from nine former Mark Steyn Show employees, and interviews with four of those former employees, three of whom spoke on the record.

Steyn did not respond to a request for comment on his former crew members’ allegations. His spokesperson Melissa Howes denied most of their claims. “It saddens us to hear these allegations,” she said.

Follows, a long horror-show litany of arrogance, insensitivity, rudeness, irresponsibility, and general all around shitheadedness on Steyn’s part. You guys all know by now that I’m a huge fan of his, and this IS coming from the Daily Beast, after all; later in the story they spin the Michael Mann lawsuit as evidence of supposed litigiousness on Steyn’s part (it’s Mann’s suit, not Steyn’s), rather than an attempt by the liar Mann to cover his fraudulent tracks. Nothing on Steyn’s site on all this yet, as one would expect. It might just all come down to, as Ace puts it:

As they say, there are three sides to every story: Your side, my side, and Amy Schumer’s side, which is cribbed from a ten year old Patrice O’Neal bit.

I always heard it as “his side, her side, and the truth,” but Ace’s version works for me too. Steyn has had a pretty rough go of it these last few years; perhaps it’s all finally starting to wear on him a bit, who knows. Either way, I hate it for him, and for us; there’s been way too little of his writing during his trials and tribulations, and we certainly need all of it we can get. I wish him nothing but the best, and hope it all gets sorted out and life gets easier for him soon.

Share

What the….

March 4th, 2017 2 comments

So Steyn gets booted from Mark Levin’s TV network, his contract violated four years prematurely with no explanation proferred to date, and now his friggin’ website is down too?

Jeez, I’m beginning to worry some about that boy.

Share

Liberal killjoys claim another victory

January 17th, 2017 3 comments

Y’know, this Progressivist utopia sure looks like a grim, joyless place.

After its nearly century and a half run, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus plans to shut down “The Greatest Show On Earth.”

The historic American spectacle will deliver its final show in May, says Kenneth Feld, the chairman and CEO of Feld Entertainment, the producer of Ringling.

Feld announced the news on the company website Saturday night, citing declining ticket sales — which dipped even lower as the company retired its touring elephants.

“This, coupled with high operating costs, made the circus an unsustainable business for the company,” Feld says.

Ringling has been phasing out elephants as a result of shifting public tastes and criticism from animal rights groups over the well-being of the animals.

I can’t recollect ever seeing any convincing evidence that Ringling Bros was mistreating their elephants; I suppose it’s just possible that there might be some, but I’d be willing to venture a solid guess that the psychotic lunacy of the animal-rights crowd is far more well-established. If those nutjobs told me it was raining outside, I’d check twice before reaching for the ol’ bumbershoot.

Be all that as it may, the one thing I could never get past is this: why would they? Occam’s Razor, always a useful implement for slicing through liberal-fascist bullshit, definitely says they wouldn’t. The elephants were a huge part of their livelihood, as is adequately demonstrated by the fact that without them they’re folding up the Big Top for good. Given that, plus the tremendous expense involved in even bringing elephants here in the first place, it would make absolutely no sense for them to abuse the critters from a business standpoint alone, all ethical considerations aside.

All that plus the solid fact that, as Vox says, SJWs always lie, and…well, I know what conclusion I can’t help but reach. Your mileage may etc.

Either way, it’s a damned shame. My aunt took me, my brother, and my cousin to see the circus when we were kids, and I still remember it well all these years later. It was an awesome show, a pure delight for a youngster from start to finish; they’re going to be here Feb 1st through the 5th, which is my birthday, so if I can swing the tickets, I’m gonna take my little one out for the last local hurrah of the Greatest Show On Earth.

Y’know, if anybody ever steps back to tot up the sum total of what Progressivism has cost us, there’ll wind up being a bounty on the juiceless twerps.

Share

Who needs ’em, who wants ’em?

December 5th, 2016 Comments off

Derb asks the most salient question:

People often say, concerning genuine Muslim refugees, driven from their homes in places like Syria, that their brother Muslim nations should take them in. Well, in the case of the Artans, assuming they genuinely were fleeing from something or other in Somalia — a questionable assumption in itself, given the history of fraud in these cases — even assuming that, Muslim Pakistan did indeed step up and take them in.

How did they then become America’s responsibility?

And these are Somalis: the group, of all Muslim groups, with the highest proportion of swivel-eyed fanatics and the lowest proportion of persons with any useful skill or literate in anything but Islamic mumbo-jumbo.

Yet, as those numbers show, the U.S.A. has an insatiable appetite for more and more of them.

When I say “the U.S.A.,” of course, I don’t mean the ordinary people of America. Nobody cares what they want.

Well, our elite Ruling Class clearly doesn’t, anyway. Which is another among many reasons why we sent them packing and installed Trump.

Read all of it, wherein Derbyshire exposes the “refugee” racket for what it truly is: a money-making scam for the agencies, a way to undermine the very foundations of the Republic for the Democrat Socialists, and very little else of any conceivable value to the real Americans who are being screwed, ignored, mocked, and murdered for it.

Share