Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

An inconvenient shooting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Sex strike

Yeah, whatevs.

You think, “Nope, progressives can’t possibly be any dumber,” and then they proceed to reset the dumbness bar. The latest example is Alyssa Milano, who has publicly announced she’s not going to have sex anymore until people can once again kill babies without restraint. If that’s what counts as foreplay these days, count us conservatives out.

The 80s TV teen turned leftist Twitter twerp recently tweeted that “Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on.”

Let’s review. Alyssa Milano is not going to have sex unless and until you allow her to kill babies. I am unclear on what our reaction is supposed to be. Does she expect us to pull a 180 on pre-birth infanticide in order to keep the Alyssa Option open?

Liberals are already thoroughly confused (at best – a lot of them know that liberalism is nonsense but embrace it as a vehicle for their personal power), yet when they get going on the abortion issue they get exponentially worse. It’s a pretty simple question – is it okay to kill a human being who has not yet been born? I say “No,” you say “No,” and they say it’s practically mandatory.

It’s not exactly clear why they draw their hardest ideological line on abortion, but they do. Maybe they love to freak out us squares. Maybe they hate the idea of traditional motherhood. Maybe liberalism is just a hideous death cult that has substituted Margaret Sanger for Moloch.

Probably some of all three.

Consequence-free sex via abortion is just one of the weapons in the Left’s anti-family arsenal. Along with his excerpt from the above, Glenn furnishes this amusing graphic:

abstinence-600x403.jpg

Heh. When it comes to baby-murdering Hollywood ho’s, abstinence makes the heart grow fonder. But wait, it gets even worse.

Milano received support from fans and fellow actress Bette Midler joined her in also calling for a sex strike. “I hope the #womenofGeorgia stop having sex with men until these indignities are overturned,” Midler said.

Not that they know me from Adam or would give a shit if they did, but Midler and Milano don’t need to go on any strike as far as I’m concerned. I’d gladly go WAY the hell out of my way to avoid having sex with either one of ’em.

Update! Ouch.

If memory serves Bette Midler’s first hit was her version of “In the Mood”. Forty-five years later, she’s finally not in the mood.

And for that, we can all be thankful.

Share

Fascist is as fascist does

Just another Democrat-Socialist “hero.”

PHILADELPHIA — When Brian Sims first ran for state representative in 2012, he ran as a new pro-business voice. He was going to be a bridge-builder, brimming with commonsense ideas on pocketbook issues.

Sims never met that promise.

Instead, he became many other things: an outdoor adventurer who climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro, a partisan attack dog who accused fellow state Rep. Martina White of saying she wanted to deport all immigrants, something his staff had to admit she never said, and a celebrity activist whose lucrative, nationwide speaking circuit earned him an ethics investigation.

He also became the guy who tweeted a photo of himself wearing a suit and a smirk and raising his middle finger to the vice president of the United States as Mike Pence headed to Philadelphia.

Sims wrote: “Let me be the first to officially welcome you to the City of Brotherly Love and my district! We are a city of soaring diversity. We believe in the power of all people. Black, Brown, Queer, Trans, Atheist, & Immigrant. So…get bent, then get out!”

“The power of all people”—except Caucasians, males, heterosexuals, etc. Actually, though, he DID provide a helpful list of who he means by “all people.” Basically, if you ain’t on that list, you’re fair game.

Last week, Sims decided to film his own harassment of a woman outside an abortion clinic here in Philadelphia, calling her an “old white lady” and her beliefs “grotesque” to her face and to the camera. The clear plan was to incite his audience against this peaceful protester, whom he saw as clearly bigoted and evil.

This was an emboldened, out-of-touch, arrogant elected official who woke up one day last week and made a conscious decision to go to Planned Parenthood for the express purpose of fighting and badgering.

And he chose a woman, standing by herself. And he didn’t start a dialogue. He didn’t introduce himself. He badgered her. Repeatedly. Relentlessly. Angrily. He badgered an enemy he himself described as an old lady.

We must reflect on this. This is the extreme Left acting out in public in exactly the manner they ascribe to conservatives: confrontational, intimidating, police tactics, berating women, threatening the First Amendment.

This stunning behavior — premeditated, confrontational, abusing the power of office, targeting women, contrived to gain political benefit — all occurred and was criticized by no one to date on the Left. No elected Democrat has come out and condemned Sims publicly.

Think about that.

No need to. And nobody needs to “reflect” on anything, either; there’s no use in it, it’s worse than a waste of time. Nor will there be any Democrat-Socialist condemnation of Sims’ repulsive violence against his foes. We all already know why: because this is who they are, this is what they do.

No, I’d say “thinking” and “reflecting” time is well behind us, and if any Democrat-Socialists DID condemn his actions, it would be false—they’re all for it, one hundred percent behind him. Hell, getting them to halfheartedly denounce Bernie Bro James Hodgkinson was like pulling teeth. And he was, y’know, shooting people.

No, next time this obstreperous, bullying punk decides to show everybody what a total badass he is by strongarming little old ladies or teenage girls because they dared to disagree with his dumbshit politics, those little old ladies or teenagers need to make sure to have brought along some muscle of their own. Then, should Sims show up feeling frisky, that muscle should proceed to stomp a fucking mud puddle in his worthless ass and walk it dry. Next time, and every time, until the pain of his injuries inspire the necessary “reflection” on his part.

Hate things had to come to this and all, but…well, here we all are. We ain’t the ones that need to “reflect,” as if we were guilty of anything other than being victims of liberal-fascist abuse and violence. We didn’t start this crap. But unless we’re okay with having it continue—and continue to escalate—we cannot, we MUST not, flinch from finishing it. Because that’s all too clearly the only way it’s ever going to stop.

Share

“The biggest voter suppression mechanism in American politics is Hillary Clinton’s personality”

To know her is to loathe her.

For the entire 40 years of Hillary Clinton’s public life, one thing has been consistent: The less people see of her, the more popular she is.

The Deplorables of Arkansas in the late ’70s, were not thrilled by the snooty feminist from Chicago who refused to take her husband’s name—so she was hidden at the Rose Law Firm where money could be funneled to the Clintons through her supposed legal prowess (a continuing theme).

Before Obamacare became an epithet, the term “HillaryCare” was used to stop the Clinton socialized medicine plan of the 1990s. And if you think that Hillary’s involvement in it didn’t have as much to do with popular rejection of it as its content did, then you weren’t there.

Sure, she won in New York after the Republicans went through a candidate shuffle when Giuliani declined to run (due to personal issues that seem tame today)—but hey, that was New York.

Hillary was the inevitable president in 2008—until people had to contemplate four years of the screech that Rush Limbaugh wickedly said reminded men of their ex-wives, over the dulcet tones of Barack Obama.

And so it goes. When Hillary is in the background, her popularity rises. When she is front and center, it goes down.

Hillary Clinton is right, however, when she says: “I take responsibility for all my decisions, but that’s not why I lost.”

That is correct. You lost because of who you are, not what you did.

Such a nasty woman. If Trump only ever said one perfectly true thing in his entire life, that’s it.

Share

Bust ’em up, shut it down

Laura Hollis presents an idea whose time has surely come.

As long as we’re contemplating changes to the way we elect the president, or to the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, let’s not exclude the legislative branch from the party.

But I’m not proposing that we reform Congress. I’m arguing that we should abolish it.

At this point, why do we need it? We have plenty of independent agencies, statutes and regulations; we don’t need any more. We don’t need any more taxes. And as for confirmation of federal judges? Each state can send two state senators to do the job that the U.S. Senate has done. They surely could not behave worse than what we saw with the Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.

None of these megalomaniacs pays the slightest heed to the principle that Congress’ powers are limited. In 1791, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Congress has either ceded or overstepped its constitutional authority since long ago. Would we really be worse off without a federal legislature?

Congress is a dysfunctional, staggeringly corrupt shitpit filled to the rafters with arrogant, parasitic career politicians—a breed the Founders rightly abhorred. Almost all of them have failed by every measure to live up to the hopes of the voters who sent them there. They use their position to enrich themselves at the nation’s expense; their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution is blandly made mock of six days a week, and twice on Sundays. Shut the whole comedy act down, turn the building into a museum or something, and force the deer ticks and leeches infesting the place to go out and make themselves an honest living for once in their squandered lives.

I know Hollis is probably just kidding around here, but I ain’t. Well, mostly.

Share

Down the tubes

The SF Shit Map has been updated, and…well, I mean…that is to say…uhhh…

Good Lord.

poop-map.jpg


If you think that’s just something I P-Shopped up myself as a gag, you can go here to verify the stomach-turning truth. Goad digs deeper into this crappy shituation.

But San Francisco is the most expensive major city in the USA, and its residents boast a per-capita income twice the national average. It is also the nation’s most aggressively progressive major city, and its residents should tolerate no such public atrocities under their watch, right?

If you even have to ask such questions, you don’t understand much about wealth inequality. You’d be hard-pressed to find a single major American metro area whose politics aren’t obnoxiously leftist and that also doesn’t feature wealth inequality far beyond anything you find out in the sticks. Maybe these types see wealth inequality everywhere because that’s their natural habitat. Either way, you shouldn’t be surprised to see a Silicon Valley billionaire accidentally stepping in a homeless Vietnam Vet’s dung on the streets of the City by the Bay—it comes with the territory.

San Francisco’s climate—always chilly but never unbearable—is also more of a homeless magnet than frozen wastelands such as Chicago and Boston. The problem—at least when it comes to turds on the street—is that San Francisco suffers a much higher quotient of homeless people who have no permanent shelter than cities where you can die of frostbite during most winter evenings. Unlike LA, San Francisco’s geography doesn’t sprawl on forever, so it’s homeless quadrants tend to be more tightly compacted than those in other cities.

Heh. I see what you did there, Jim. This part is gut-bustingly funny:

Last year, the city formed a “Poop Patrol” to tackle the crisis. Comprised of five workers who each earn $184,000 yearly in salary and benefits, they enjoy the dubious honor of being the city’s first-response squad whenever anyone reports seeing human feces on the streets. A dedicated 311 line reportedly fields 65 calls about sidewalk poop daily.

Developers have also produced a phone app called SnapCrapthat allows users to point, click, and officially report all instances of sidewalk shittery.

The city’s Public Works department also sponsors a campaign called “Doo The Right Thing” that offers free dog poop bags and canisters for containing your pooch’s feces until they can be safely disposed. There are apparently no plans for a human version, no matter how loudly the universe howls for one.

In an unintentionally funny account of the sidewalk-shit crisis, the San Francisco Chronicle follows around Supervisor Matt Haney, who accidentally steps into some feces while guiding around the reporter. Within moments, an unrelated bicyclist named Malcolm Haney also steps in feces—only to do it again within a couple minutes.

Heh. To recycle a Bart Simpson quote I’ve gotten a lot of use out of here over the years: WHOA, that’s good squishy!

Yeah, yeah, I know. Sorry.

Share

Shit City

The tide is high, and rising.

People are pooping more than ever on the streets of San Francisco
Between 2011 and 2018, San Francisco experienced a massive increase in reported incidents of human feces found on public streets.

In 2011, just over 5,500 reports were logged by the San Francisco Department of Public Works; in 2018, the number increased to more than 28,000.

The government watchdog Open the Books documented the sharp increase over time in a stunning chart, first spotted by the BuzzFeed editor John Paczkowski.

Notably, this is a chart of only documented reports — the actual amount of feces on San Francisco’s streets is likely even higher than these statistics suggest.

Vox gets to the, uhh, bottom of the problem.

The reasons one should support Christian nationalism and Western civilization aka Christendom is not limited to a personal belief in Jesus Christ as Man’s savior. On the political side, even if you lack religious faith, a mere preference for indoor plumbing will suffice.

This is the dyscivilizational reality of the promised shiny, sexy, science fiction seculartopia that was promised by the progressives. Rivers of blood and public streets lined with shit.

Never forget, folks: what they did for once-thriving urban meccas like Detroit and San Francisco, they can do for YOU!

Share

Ghouls out

Here they come, predictable as the sunrise. Ladies and gents, I give you the vile, despicable Left, in all its pus-oozing depravity.

“I wonder how many art pieces and artifacts that were sitting in the Notre Dame were stolen from former colonies,” said user Shaziya. When confronted with criticism and backlash, she doubled down: “I’m criticizing French colonialism, if this bothers you so much then you ought to reevaluate your morals, bye.”

Well, SOMEBODY certainly ought to, yeah.

“I think it sucks that Notre Dame is burning but f*** imagine if we had this same energy for every historic building we carpetbombed in the Middle East,” said another user.

Other users reveled in the fact that “white people” were saddened to see Notre Dame go up in flames. “I’m dying at the white people triggered,” said one person named Aly. “It’s a damn building that’s literally used for tourism, no one died, move on.”

While Notre Dame indeed invited tourists to look upon its magnificent beauty, becoming one of France’s most iconic landmarks, the cathedral still served as a home to practicing Catholics who worshiped God through the Holy Mass every Sunday — not to mention the multiple popes in recent history who have led processions there. The church hosted weddings, funerals, and consecrations. It never sacrificed its Christian mission at the altar of commercialism, as perhaps best exemplified by the priceless relics — including the crown of thorns said to have been worn by Christ — that Notre Dame housed within its walls.

“Notre Dame on fire is the most aesthetically pleasing visually I’ve ever seen,” said another user.

“This one’s for colonizing African countries b****,” said another user.

“Notre Dame burning is cosmic karma for all the historical sites and artefacts [sic] France destroyed and stole when being colonialist scum,” said the blue-checkmark “culture writer” Hikikomori Povich.

Sickening. Elsewhere, Rick Moran shits the bed.

It may turn out that the fire that destroyed most of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was deliberately set. Maybe it was terrorism. Maybe it was a protest against President Macron. Perhaps it was your garden variety right-wing or left-wing nuts.

But jumping to conclusions at this point is silly and stupid. My colleague Monica Showalter wrote the proper takedown of these fools. And kudos to Fox News hosts Shep Smith and Neil Cavuto for actually cutting off conspiracy theorists who appeared on their shows.

Don’t you wish hosts on other networks had cut off the wild speculation from liberals about the fantastical idea of Russian collusion?

I have no real problem with Moran’s call for caution in the immediate aftermath of events like these, when rumors are flying, no one really knows a whole hell of a lot for sure, and solid facts are awfully thin on the ground. But in this case he’s wilfully brushing past certain realities, particularly Parisian ones, and his shrill accusation of “conspiracy theorizing” on the part of Catholic League president Bill Donohue is just over the top.

Smith’s reaction was exactly right. Cavuto echoed his sentiments:

Several hours later, Cavuto had a similar experience with Catholic League president Bill Donohue, who immediately raised the notion that this inferno was tied to other church burnings.

“Well, Neil, if it is an accident, it’s a monumental tragedy,” Donohoe said. “But forgive me for being suspicious.”

He added: “Just last month, a 17th-century church was set on fire in Paris. We have seen Tabernacles knocked down, crosses have been torn down, statues have been smashed.”

Cavuto went on to request that Donohue avoid bringing up his suspicions as no connections have been made by officials. The Catholic League leader, however, was unable to help himself, eventually asserting: “I’m sorry, when I find out that the Eucharist is being destroyed and excrement is being smeared on crosses, this is what’s going on now.”

The Fox News anchor interjected, letting Donohue that while he appreciates his time, “we cannot make conjectures about this.” Cavuto then dropped the call.

Too often, the media allow this kind of speculation to run rampant, feeding the paranoia of right- and left-wing extremists who will believe anything bad about their perceived enemies. For any news outlet, speculation without evidence is irresponsible. If you want to feed your conspiracy habit, there are plenty of nutcases posting nonsense on the internet where you can get your fix.

Professional news organizations are supposed to be in the business of reporting facts. Intelligent speculation is one thing. But wild fantasies with zero evidence to back them up belongs on social media, not on news broadcasts.

Um, sorry to have to point it out and all, Rick, but like it or not, Donohoe didn’t say anything in the above quote that wasn’t…ummm, y’know…established, well-known fact. Maybe he got into some “wild fantasies” elsewhere in the truncated interview; I didn’t see the thing, so I can’t say. But if the above is what you call “wild fantasies,” “extremist,” “paranoia,” and “conspiracy theorizing,” well, your definition of those things differs one hell of a lot from mine.

Donohoe noted that attacks on Christian churches in Paris are numerous, and escalating. Which, y’know, is true. He cited some specific desecrations. Which, y’know, happened. He then said, calmly and not unreasonably, that this history left him “suspicious”—without naming any names, or accusing anybody of anything at all.

For this, Cavuto went full-on hysterical and cut him off. Moran then took up the cudgel and bashed Donohoe over the head with it, for his “irresponsible speculation” among other atrocities. Both, for no good reason at all. Oddly enough, I can’t seem to recall either Cavuto or Moran reacting quite this intensely to the Left’s knee-jerk penchant for blaming every recent mass-shooting incident on “right-wing extremists” of one stripe or another—a tired, seemingly involuntary reflex the Left maintains despite nearly every one of those shootings later turning out to have been perpetrated either by a Left-leaning psycho or a politically-incoherent or -disinterested one.

I myself am perfectly comfortable with speculating—based on both recurrent historical fact and the oft-stated intentions of Muslims themselves—that it’s very damned likely one (or more) of them was behind the Notre Dame fire. Should it turn out that I’m wrong this time I’m okay with that too, and have no problem owning up to it. Seems to me that maybe my reaction is a good bit less irresponsible, unhinged, and extreme than Moran’s and Cavuto’s were. But hey, YMMV and all that jazz.

Limbaugh, who also includes herein the complete transcript of Cavuto’s unfairly interrupted interview with Donohoe, makes the telling point:

Well, I’ll admit here this could all be irrelevant. The Notre Dame fire could very well have been accidental, caused by some construction worker flicking a still-burning cigarette. But as a thought experiment, apply all the numbers that I just recited to black churches in the United States, and then imagine a fire like the one at Notre Dame at a black church in America, and then imagine how the media would react to that.

Using the same theory, if there had been over a thousand black church fires, acts of vandalism, cemetery violence, if that had been happening in the last two years in the United States and a big black church erupted in flames yesterday, what do you think the story would be? The story would be who on the right did this? What white nationalist is doing this?

The speculation on who on the right could have been responsible would be the story. There wouldn’t be any, “Hey, let’s not jump to conclusions. It could be arson. It could be totally innocent. Let’s not go there.” Every guest would have been required to blame such a fire at a black church in America on white nationalists.

I’ll be honest with you here, folks. I’ve never understood… That’s not the right way to say it. I understand it. That’s the problem! I understand it. You go back to 9/11, and at the time, we knew who did it. The next day, who knew who did it! There were their pictures all over the news of the 19 hijackers. We knew who did it. We knew their names. We knew where they grew up. We knew where they were trained, that the majority of them were from Saudi Arabia — and then Osama Bin Laden is out claiming credit for it.

It’s a no-brainer who did it. And yet, within a few short days the entire narrative changes and becomes our fault. “What did we do to inspire this kind of attack?” The State Department! The State Department convened a symposium on, “Why do they hate us so much?” And it didn’t take long after 9/11 before you weren’t allowed to talk about the people who did it. You know the old saw about, “Oh, we’ve got to guard against the backlash against Muslims in the United States.”

What do you mean guard against a backlash against…? It’s descended from there consistently to today, where you’re not even allowed to mention it, speculate, talk about it. Even things that we know were Islamist terrorism we’re not really supposed to say this.

At some point, it becomes far more irrational and damaging to blind ourselves to observed reality than it is to make speculative judgment based on it, even if such judgment might turn out to be incorrect once in a while. As far as I’m concerned, we passed that point with Muslim terrorism a long time ago. I repeat: if this story quietly goes away in a few more days, you’ll know we’ve just taken another step down the primrose path…with folks like Cavuto and Moran skipping happily along in the lead.

Share

Meat-beat manifesto

This culture cannot survive. And it damned well shouldn’t.

College promotes men’s cuddling group to ‘redefine masculinity’

Oh, you’re redefining it all right, I’ll give you degenerates that fucking much.

Dr. Christopher Liang, a counseling psychology professor at Lehigh University’s College of Education, recently came out in support of a Philadelphia area “Men‘s Therapeutic Cuddle Group,” a function advertised by Lehigh University in a news release. The Meetup.com page for the group currently has 69 members and the group has held 46 events so far. The meetups are held once every other week.

Organizers have established quite an expansive set of guidelines for attendees. The men attending must be “hygienically sound” and “remain fully clothed at all times.” The group’s organizers state that all cuddling is “non-sexual.” However, they do note that participants may become aroused during cuddling

Of course they will.

and that if that occurs, it should be treated as a normal thing.

Oh, absolutely.

Liang believes that “these types of groups can be healthy and helpful for men and women,” according to the news release.

Most especially for men who wish they WERE women, or believe themselves to be, or who are, y’know, gay.

“Traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful,” the APA’s news release said

Well, it surely could be—to YOU, if you ever get within arm’s reach of me.

while adding that “socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.”

So who advocates such harmful socializing, pray tell? Might it be—hmmm, I dunno, let’s see now—all you fucking liberal degenerate assholes trying to repress innate behavior hard-coded into male DNA and emasculate them instead? Telling boys their natural, immutable male instincts are “harmful” instead of teaching them correct behavior and providing them with positive outlets for their inborn fondness for competition, physical play, aggressiveness, and such? Teaching them to be ashamed of being male, trying to crush out any spark of normal male behavior to instead brainwash them into mincing, namby-pamby, effeminate little pussyfarts? Encouraging grade-school kids to go ahead and chop their fucking dicks off the moment they show the slightest sign of uncertainty about their own gender identity—a perfectly normal and routine part of the process of growing up, one that will work itself out in due course—for Christ’s sweet sake?

Let’s just acknowledge straight up that there are two, and only two, types of “man” who are going to be interested in this “cuddle group” crapola: 1) the exact species of quivering, lily-livered, useless twerp cranked out on purpose by our abominable schools, and 2) gay men. That is absolutely, positively IT.

And I’ll also acknowledge straight up that I have no problem with gay men myself, and don’t give a damn if they want to snuggle up in groups, make cow eyes, and sigh dreamily on each other’s necks til the cows come home, six days a week and twice on Sundays. If they want to call that “therapy,” well, I’m fine with that too. Whatever gets you through the day, fellas. Ain’t really no business of mine.

No, what frosts me about this bushwa is that this isn’t really a legitimate, above-board effort to service a heretofore overlooked market hungry for this sort of thing; no, it is yet another insidious attempt at societal tinkering by Progwits who don’t really care whether it makes anyone genuinely happy or a better, more fulfilled person. The Left intends to rewrite the manual on what constitutes healthy, normal manhood, as the psych prof in charge himself admits, to redefine men as neutered, enervated…well, as women, actually. Being weak sisters themselves, all a-tremble and continuously in need of a “safe space” and a good cry, they hate the thought of being snickered at by far better men than themselves for their sissy-mary pusillanimity.

Ultimately, it comes back to that social engineering I already mentioned. One world; one government; one bland, uninteresting race; one indistinct gender—all distinguishing traits and quirks blurred, individuality subsumed into the collective whole, with the “experts” lording it over the whole sorry shebang. That’s the Progressivist project in a nutshell, folks; always has been, always will be, until either they conquer us or they are stopped. Period. Fucking. Dot.

The nice thing is, I guess, that these self-selected eunuchs show no interest in reproducing, even the cishet binary oppressors among ’em. So all normal Americans really have to do in the long run is just wait them out. They’ll die off quicker than the dinosaurs without our ever having to lift a finger. So we got that going for us.

(Via Insty)

Share

One more reason to abandon Gilette

Please, make it stop. PLEASE.


After citing a few facts on the many, many ways obesity is unhealthy in the extreme, Cristina puts the thing simply: “Obesity is not something that should be promoted or celebrated.” And it really, really isn’t. “Slay the day”? Might want to ask your doctor about that one, Jumbo, and pronto. Until you step away from the AYCE buffets and Double Whoppers with Xtra cheese and get yourself on some kind of exercise plan, the only thing you’re gonna be slaying is your jiggly, misshapen self.

For my own part, I’ll say it again: the cheap feel-goodery of this “everyone is beautiful” flapdoodle actually negates the very idea of beauty itself. By definition, beauty is rare; if everyone is beautiful, then “beauty” has been dumbed down to just another synonym for “common.”

Semantic arguments aside, what really IS rare is people who seriously think blubberous, grotesque manatees such as this are in any way beautiful. Well, aside from the statistically-negligible handful of twisted pervs skulking around those chubby-chaser Pr0n sites, that is.

Share

It’s satire…I think

Democrat-Socialist 2020 candidates rated by their patron saint.

Comrades,

I know what you think I, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, have risen from my mausoleum by Kremlin Wall Red Square as amusement for Day of Fools of April.

Not so! Trust me, bolsheviki, I do not play idle game in honor reactionary bourgeois holiday invented to drug proletariat with bad jokes.

We are at moment history very grave. Mueller Report is disaster and orange-haired robber baron who tweet imperialist lies to working class will once again be president American States.

Our old comrade John Brennan promised this would not happen, swore so, but, alas, tovariches, as I told Zinoviev at Second International, even best friend not to be trusted. The revolutionary checks twice!

So now… “What Is to Be Done” – part two….

We do not want to make mistake of past. We must not overreach. Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho, Maduro, Tom Hayden, Sean Penn, even Mao try to do too much too soon. Everything take time.

That is why necessary examine Democratic candidates carefully. Those with big mouth die quickly. Those with sloppy hands die faster.

But first—important. More Mueller report only make worse, make easier for Trump. Enough of Mueller and FISA. Smart revolutionary shut up about this. Learn from errors. Send Adam Schiff to Gulag or Amerikansky version of Lubyanka if he keep talking. I not like Beria but he knew how to handle these idioty.

Also this Nadler. Shove him down hole or send to Israel where no doubt they eat alive or turn into matzo balls for Passover. Tant pis pour lui, as French say.

Well whaddya know, something I agree one hundred percent with ol’ Vladimir Ilyich on.

Share

Believe all the wymryns!!!

Will Gropey Joe find himself thrown under the bus? Or will the Democrat-Socialists hypocritically betray #MeToo victims and their own self-proclaimed “principles” to protect yet another of their own higher-tier serial sex-abusers again?

A top Democratic National Committee (DNC) official sided with former Vice President Joe Biden over Lucy Flores, the former Nevada lawmaker accusing Biden of grabbing her shoulders, smelling her hair and kissing her head at a 2014 campaign event.

DNC finance chair Henry Munoz said he doesn’t believe Flores because he doesn’t think she was ever alone with Biden at the event. Latino Victory Fund, a progressive group Munoz co-founded, organized the event where Flores said Biden kissed her.

“As the organizer of the rally in question, I have thoroughly reviewed photographic documentation from the event, and spoken to nearly every principle in attendance, as well as staff associated with the event. To the best of our recollection, at no time were Lucy Flores and Vice President Biden alone,” Munoz wrote in a statement he posted to Twitter on Sunday.

Munoz said he was close friends with both Munoz and Biden, but asserted that “at no time were these two leaders alone together and I, and the organization I cofounded and those in attendance, do not believe that circumstances support allegations that such an event took place.”

Munoz’s defense of Biden appears to have misrepresented Flores’ account. She did not claim she and Biden were alone when the alleged incident happened.

Hell, in all the myriad photos and reported accounts I’ve seen so far documenting Gropey Joe’s well-known penchant for unwanted and inappropriate fondling, rubbing, squeezing, kissing, hair-sniffing (?!?), and the like, he and his victims were NOT alone, but in public—quite often on a stage, in front of a crowd. But it figures this DNC slimewad would try to turn this aside via weasel-words; that’s just one of the things they do.

Gropey’s problem here is a common one nowadays for Democrat-Socialists, particularly the old guard. Having long been accustomed to his bad behavior being indulged or quietly ignored, he suddenly finds himself swamped by the rapidly-shifting tide of Lefty standards for acceptable behavior. It’s understandable, in a way: when your party’s standards and principles are written in quicksand—subject to complete reversal in half a heartbeat without warning, constantly being altered to appease the very outermost fringes of your political base of unhinged, perpetually-aggrieved lunatics—who could possibly keep up with it? And if you’re an upper-echelon-elite type who’s accustomed to wielding great power with total impunity, how could you not be shocked when your number comes up and accountability is demanded of you for stuff you’d gotten away with for years and years? You almost gotta feel sorry for the doddering old fool, really.

Gropey is sure enough a pervy old degenerate though, no fooling. There never was any doubt about that; you’d have a very tough time finding anybody who didn’t know it all along:

Biden’s behavior is so notable that even left-leaning publications have called him out:

  • The Washington Post: “What are we going to do about Creepy Uncle Joe Biden?”
  • Daily Beast: “Dear Lord Would Joe Biden Be a Terrible Candidate for These Times”
  • Huffington Post: “Joe Biden 2020 Is A Terrible Idea In A Post-Weinstein America”
  • VICE: “Joe Biden Is the Last Person the Democrats Should Run in 2020”

Another issue that needs to be addressed with Biden is the allegations that he repeatedly got naked in front of female Secret Service agents who found his behavior to be highly offensive.

Imagine for a moment what the media’s reaction would be if the following photos and videos featured President Trump instead of Biden.

Oh, no need for all that, thanks; anyone who knows his shitlibs is already well acquainted with the state of play here. Enemedia is way more than shameless enough not to fret themselves over how it might look when one of their own finds his butt in the blades and in need of rescue, for flouting the rules they demand the rest of us be rigidly bound by. They just close ranks and lock arms without hesitation, reflection, or remorse. The miscreant issues an apology not for his transgression but for possibly having been offended or put off by it, hustles off for “counseling” or rehab, all is forgiven, and it’s on to the next scandal. Why, he’s a victim himself, when you get right down to it. As are we all.

Nor will charges of hypocrisy give them pause, no matter how apparent or incontrovertible the justification for them. Hypocrisy is their meat, their metier, and their medium. They work in it like an artist in oils or watercolor; it inhibits or otherwise troubles them no more than a fish is inconvenienced by the water he swims in, although shitlibs never disdain to accuse their enemies of it with righteous indignation should they deem it momentarily useful and never bat an eye…thereby compounding their own already-staggering hypocrisy to record levels.

Examples abound, the alacritous about-face in support of gay marriage after revered Democrat-Socialist leaders’ having roundly denounced it only a few short years before being one of the most recent. Of course, Enemedia promptly provided cover for their bosses by conveniently rebranding their politically-expedient hypocrisy as their position having “evolved.”

But maybe Uncle Gropey has, like Her Herness, finally outlived his usefulness to The Cause and will indeed be forcibly put out to pasture. Lifson thinks so:

Joe Biden’s penchant for unwanted touching of women and girls has been a common object of humor on the conservative side of the spectrum for over a decade, ever since he became Barack Obama’s running mate. But even after the dawn of the #MeToo movement, it mattered not at all to the mainstream media and most Democrats — so much so that he continues to be the top choice among Democrats polled on their preference for the 2020 nomination.

But once outed as a creepy groper by Lucy Flores, a Democrat office-holder and former Nevada state legislator who had worked for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and has been photographed recently with Robert Francis O’Rourke, it’s a media scandal. You can call it Democrat privilege or second-class citizenship for conservatives, but the reality is that we don’t matter in the imaginary world the media proclaim to be reality.

Imagine if Biden had been a Republican! He would have been driven from public life long ago.

Now that there are powerful people on the Left who want Biden to just retire and go away, to make room for a candidate with more intersectionality points — race points, sex points, sexuality points, any purported disadvantage that now brings privilege — the blackout no longer applies.

My guess — and it is a pure guess, as I have no connections with the Dems’ inner circles — is that Joe Biden is going to see the wisdom of withdrawing from the race, especially since his son Hunter’s connections in Ukraine are at risk. He’s old and has been making scads of money giving lectures. He has a choice: retire and reap gratitude, honors, and many more lucrative speaking gigs, or else press forward with his candidacy and become an icon of perversion, with his son facing Trump treatment by the media, an old white male whose apologies for his privilege only further enrage the aggrieved.

I’m inclined to agree. Biden was never going to be president anyway; he’s tried and failed, what, about seventeen times already? As an old, white male who’s been repeatedly rejected, with plenty of other deal-breaking skeletons rattling in his crowded closet—plagiarism, influence-peddling, nepotism, a relatively moderate past record, etc—he pushes all the wrong buttons for today’s wild-eyed Woke extremists. He’s a smarmy, transparently insincere, obsequious rumpswab. He’s not very bright.

Apart from his too-evident compulsion to cop a feel off every frail that breaches his plane of vision, Gropey appears to be a more or less garden-variety cis-het-binary of the most uninteresting sort, without so much as a hint of bi-curiousity to liven up his sexual resume. All in all, the Veep slot suited Gropey perfectly, with its primary responsibilities being no more taxing than attending state funerals, dinners, and shaking hands and mouthing inanities at trifling meet ‘n’ greets. As president, though, he’d clearly be in WAY over his head. He may skate out of this yet. But if even one more accuser steps up, he’s surely going to shuffle off into That Good Night, be it Gently or dragged kicking, screaming, and on a leash. He’s nothing but a spavined, broken-down old nag now, and his appointment with the knackers is close at hand.

Update! No sooner do I say it.

A second woman has come forward accusing Vice President Biden of touching her inappropriately.

A Connecticut woman says Joe Biden touched her inappropriately and rubbed noses with her during a 2009 political fundraiser in Greenwich when he was vice president, drawing further scrutiny to the Democrat and his history of unwanted contact with women as he ponders a presidential run

“It wasn’t sexual, but he did grab me by the head,” Amy Lappos told The Courant Monday. “He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth.”

Lappos posted about the alleged incident on the Facebook page of Connecticut Women in Politics Sunday in response to a similar account by former Nevada legislator Lucy Flores, which comes as Biden is considering a 2020 run for president. Flores accused Biden of kissing her on the back of her head in 2014, when she was a candidate for lieutenant governor.

Floodgates: open. Dam: overtopped. Biden 2020: done.

Share

Good riddance redux

Chapter and verse on yet another thing Trump is right about: double-dealing, backstabbing, self-serving prick John Effing McCain.

Perhaps the reason why McCain overlooked those inconvenient details is because he was a central figure in fueling hysteria about Russian influence in the election after Trump won the presidency. At the same time, Kramer was working behind the scenes along with Simpson to legitimize the dossier, including confirming the explosive news that McCain personally delivered it to Comey in early December 2016. Collectively, it produced the fertile soil from which the Trump-Russia election collusion hoax would grow after Trump’s inauguration.

Sadly, rather than use his stature and leadership skills to soothe a nation rocked by the surprise election of Donald Trump, John McCain instead poured rhetorical gasoline on a smoldering body politic. Working in tandem with shell-shocked Obama officials desperate to find an excuse for Hillary Clinton’s humiliating loss, McCain publicly pounded the idea that Russian “hacking” was the reason for her defeat. His accusations escalated from initially decrying Russia’s sketchy interference in the election to calling it an “act of war” by December 2016.

Many people now insist that it is somehow unfair or disrespectful to examine McCain’s role in the biggest political scandal in American history because he is gone. Although the president has a valid reason to be angry about McCain’s role in this scandal, Trump’s impetuous remarks only obscure the more serious charges about the late senator’s complicity in fomenting the destructive post-election Russia hysteria.

The American people deserve a full accounting of all the players involved, even if the facts are unsettling for some to reconcile. The unwarranted and yet unproven Russia collusion hoax will forever taint the Trump presidency and has resulted in real life consequences for innocent people, not to mention the upheaval of our political system. No one should be shielded from responsibility.

“Impetuous”? The hell you say. Like the preceding ones, Trump’s latest brusque Juanny Mav slam was right on target, nothing more than the plainspoken truth. McCain was slime, a perfectly representative sample of your basic Mark-1 Mod-0 Deep State sewer rat; his treachery and viciousness, along with the gratuitous damage he did to the nation, exude a stench that will long outlast any other aspect of his quite dubious legacy. From my own obit after he finally assumed room temperature:

Some sort of scientific study should be done on just what in the hell is wrong with Arizona voters that they could vote to re-elect such a blight again and again, then follow up by sending a like-minded excrescence, Jeff Flake, to DC as his cohort. I’m guessing it’s something in the water, maybe.

McCain was the pluperfect example of absolutely everything wrong with Mordor On The Potomac and its despicable denizens—of the loathsome, twisted genotype colloquially known as “professional politicians.” His posthumous parting cheap-shot at Trump was petty, cowardly, and demeaning—to McCain, and no one else. It was the act of a true and irredeemable asshole, a jerk nonpareil; his forbidding Trump to attend his funeral likewise. Petty spite of such a low nature is John McCain’s proper legacy; may he be long remembered for it.

Amen. Remembered—and abhorred.

Share

BLASPHEMY!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Eating their own

Okay, okay, so maybe I should have phrased my title a little more carefully.

Actress and left-wing activist Debra Messing caught major backlash from social justice warriors after her woke International Women’s Day post of empowering vagina cupcakes was deemed transphobic. In the current year, not all women have vaginas, or something.

Messing, a privileged cis-gendered white woman, was eventually forced into an apology for her transgression.

“Happy International Women’s Day! Powerful, beautiful, and sweet,” the “Will & Grace” actress posted Friday, captioning an image of cupcakes that look like vaginas.

Most of the comments on the post are critical of Messing for apologizing for the photo or for posting the “nasty” photo in the first place. But the limited comments critical of the photo’s apparent exclusion of trans “women” seemed to hold a lot of weight for the actress.

My personal favorite is the first one listed:

So when are we gonna stop equating genitalia to gender?

Ummmm…okay, moving right along.

“I want to apologize to my trans sisters,” she wrote. “This photo was supposed to be light, & sassy. The first thing I thought when I saw this photo was ‘wow how wonderful. Each one is unique in color and shape and size.’

“The porn industry has perpetuated this myth of what a ‘beautiful’ vagina looks like and as a result there are women who feel shame or insecure about the shape of the vulva,” Messing continued. “I loved that this picture said ‘every single one is beautiful and unique and that’s powerful.’ I did not, however, think ‘but there are innumerable beautiful, unique and powerful women who don’t have a vagina.[‘] And I SHOULD have. And for that I am so so sorry.”

Pretty sure that there’s not a single true word in the third-to-last sentence, excepting “I did not think.” And forgive me if I’m missing something here—I’m quite sure I’m not near “woke” enough to grasp the advanced scientific concepts involved—but if someone has NOT had the requisite chopadicktomy or addadicktome surgery, should they really be calling themselves “transgender”? I mean, isn’t having had gender-reassignment surgery sort of the defining condition for being a transgender, rather than, y’know, a boring old garden-variety transvestite?

Ahh, to hell with it; let’s get back to the dope Messing’s lovely, empowering snootchycakes. I wanted to download the pic and embed it for y’all’s edification, but couldn’t find a way to do it. So the image is here, and the horrible things are every bit the appetite suppressant you’d expect them to be.

Now don’t get me wrong here, folks: I have whiled away many a happy hour just staring intensely at various real-world, fleshly versions up close and quite personal, utterly captivated by their matchless allure. Wonderful things, them vaginers. They just never seem to get old—their appeal never tarnishes, their luster never dims. I don’t know any red-blooded cisgender binary fascist misogynistic male H8888R who doesn’t feel exactly the same way. In fact, I wish I had one close by and ready to hand right now. I bet you do too.

But dammit, keep ’em off of the baked goods, excepting maybe for novelty or bachelor-party purposes. They ain’t food, and their power can only be diminished by such irreverence, rendering them no more than mundane and uninteresting. I know the entire point of being a Leftard is to ruin, sully, and destroy—taking all the magic out of our most revered talismans; making meaningful things meaningless; uglifying our art; producing atonal “music” that sickens rather than elevates; all that witless, iconoclastic rot. But could you guys maybe leave off trying to demystify and cheapen everything, just this once?

Share

The powerlust is strong with this one

Well, that sure didn’t take long.

What a difference a day makes.

Hillary Clinton made headlines Monday when she told a local New York news channel that she would not runfor president in 2020.

“I’m not running, but I’m going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe,” the former presidential nominee told News 12 Westchester. She insisted that she would remain relevant and has no plans of “going anywhere.”

But late Tuesday, Maggie Haberman, a political reporter for the New York Times, tweeted that she spoke with a person close to the former secretary of state. The unnamed source said Clinton was not trying to “be emphatic and close the door on running” with the comment and was apparently “surprised” at the reaction.

“The person also says [Clinton] is extremely unlikely to run, but that she remains bothered that she’s expected to close the door on it when, say, John Kerry isn’t. She has told her team she is waiting at least to see the Mueller report,” Haberman tweeted.

Yeah, I can see that mattering to her quite a lot. For one thing, if the Koup Klux Klowns can’t pull something at least resembling a win out of the flaming dumpster against all odds, then what hope does she have? Plus, there’s still the small related matter of her, Obama’s, and their Deep State unindicted co-conspirators’ sedition possibly being brought fully to light as an unintended consequence of the Mueller shitshow, and of something resembling justice being visited upon at least some of them in consequence. She’ll definitely want to weigh the odds of being manacled and frogmarched off of a campaign-stop stage to begin a long term of Rockin’ Orange in her 2020 deliberations.

I’m sure Trump would greatly enjoy whipping her doddering, gin-soaked ass a second time—he’s Tweeted to that effect, I believe—and should I manage to not croak or go senile by then, I’ll get a lot of laughs out of making further sport of the shambolic old trainwreck myself. But seriously, folks: isn’t about time for the Clintons to just go away?

How can you tell she’s lying update! Hey, didn’t a bunch of people lecture the hell out of Trump that it was critically crucially vitally crucially critical that he unequivocally pledge to accept the results of the election, no matter how fraudulent or rigged it may have been, at a debate somewhere? Or did I just dream it?

“I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act, and I will tell you, it makes a really big difference. And it doesn’t just make a difference in Alabama and Georgia; it made a difference in Wisconsin, where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40 [thousand] and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls because of the color of their skin, because of their age, because of whatever excuse could be made up to stop a fellow American citizen from voting.”
— Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, at the annual “Bloody Sunday” commemorative service, Selma, Ala., March 3, 2019

“Just think about it: Between 2012, the prior presidential election where we still had the Voting Rights Act, and 2016, when my name was on the ballot, there were fewer voters registered in Georgia than there had been those prior four years.”

Astoundingly, the WaPo’s Fact Checker checked, and the fact is every word of that was a lie. Including “and” and “the.”

Wisconsin was not one of the states covered by Section 4 (the only part of the VRA that was struck down—M) when the court ruled in 2013, so, right off the bat, Clinton’s claim that this “made a difference in Wisconsin” is unfounded. Georgia was covered by Section 4, but Clinton’s claim that total voter registration declined in that state from 2012 to 2016 is false; it increased.

At the high end of the scale, the UW-Madison study estimates that 23,252 voters were “deterred” by the voter ID requirement. That’s just a hair above Trump’s 22,748 margin in the state. Mayer and DeCrescenzo did not ask survey respondents whom they would have voted for because their research was funded by the office of the Dane County clerk. In any case, Clinton said 40,000, not 23,000.

Where does Clinton get the 80,000 figure for the high end of her estimate?

She made it up, natch. Because that’s what she does. Because she’s an inveterate, congenital liar. At this point, she’s probably gotten herself on the outside of enough high-proof popskull over the years that she doesn’t even know whether her statements are true or not; she needs them to be true, they make her feel better, so they’re true to her. Ed Morrissey points out another problem with Her Herness’s increasingly pathetic, self-serving rationalizations:

But what about the “best studies” that showed voter-ID deterring up to 80,000 Wisconsin voters? That claim was based on a study done in two counties with a sample of fewer than 300 voters. The study’s authors warned readers not to extrapolate their findings statewide, but that fell on deaf ears. It also ignores an inconvenient fact for Hillary, which is that she didn’t generate much enthusiasm among African-American voters anywhere, in states with or without voter-ID laws.

Nor was this phenomenon limited to black voters. Four months ago, I noted in a column at The Week that Donald Trump didn’t win the blue-wall states as much as Hillary lost them. This wasn’t a voter-ID issue — it was a candidate-ID issue.

Oh, voters ID’d her all right—as a vile, powermad, dishonest, narcissistic hack with nothing but contempt for the “little people” she fraudulently claims to care so very deeply about. Despite the orchestrated “outrage” over it, Trump was no more than perfectly honest and accurate when he said she was “such a nasty woman.” Ace blasts away at another problem, with another set of loathsome phonies:

And yet a certain breed of “True Conservative” still thinks this creature was an upstanding and honest candidate for President who should have been elected rather than the Drumpfenkonig.

If you’re feeling as if you might need a shower after getting all grubby from this immersion in sleaze, well, I sympathize. But I gotta also say I’m happy that Hillary!™ has apparently decided to ditch those boring, unflattering Soviet-style pantsuits and tunics of hers in favor of an attractive new look for Failed Campaign 2020 that better suits her personality and style, as you can see from this pic of Her Herness on a recent likker-store run:

Gorn.jpg


That’s the stuff, Hills! Nice dress, and I’m digging the gauntlets too. You never looked better, like real Presidential material. No, really—you go, girl.

Share

The talentless, prospering

Tucker unleashes another good rip. This one is a long ‘un indeed—a thorough takedown of execrable NeverTrumpTard tough guys Max Boot and Bill Kristol—but it’s a delicious read nonetheless. From the Kristol portion:

Under ordinary circumstances, Bill Kristol would be famous for being wrong. Kristol still goes on television regularly, but it’s not to apologize for the many demonstrably untrue things he’s said about the Middle East, or even to talk about foreign policy. Instead, Kristol goes on TV to attack Donald Trump.

Trump’s election seemed to undo Bill Kristol entirely. He lost his job at The Weekly Standard after more than 20 years, forced out by owners who were panicked about declining readership. He seemed to spend most of his time on Twitter ranting about Trump.

Before long he was ranting about the people who elected Trump. At an American Enterprise Institute panel event in February 2017, Kristol made the case for why immigrants are more impressive than native-born Americans. “Basically if you are in free society, a capitalist society, after two, three, four generations of hard work, everyone becomes kind of decadent, lazy, spoiled, whatever.” Most Americans, Kristol said, “grew up as spoiled kids and so forth.”

In February 2018, Kristol tweeted that he would “take in a heartbeat a group of newly naturalized American citizens over the spoiled native-born know-nothings” who supported Trump.

Then, just to bookend Kristol’s Leftward transmogrification:


Once again, we go to Ace for the coup de grace: “True Conservatism never smelled so grifty.” And once again, I can only add: OUCH. Do tell us again all about exactly what Muh True Conservative Principles!™ might require from us, guys.

Share

Double bubble trouble

YIKES! With (urk) pictures.

DESPERATE for a fuller bust Jacqueline Harvey spent her life savings on a boob job.

But the 23-year-old was left distraught after the “botched” op left her with malformed, “double bubble” boobs.

The graphic designer saved for five years, before splashing out £4,500 on the op – boosting her bust from a 34C to DD.

However, after waking up and looking in the mirror, Jacqueline immediately regretted her decision.

She realised her implants had caused a second bulge under her breast bone – creating what looks like four “bubble” boobs.

The average cost of breast augmentation in Australia is $13,000 [£7,000], so Jacqueline was thrilled to find a discounted price of $6,000 (£4,500).

But she now regrets choosing the knock-down rate as she will have to spend the same amount on corrective surgery.

She added: “It was a lot more affordable than what I had previously been quoted for breast augmentations, which range around $13,000.

There’s a reason for that. There usually is.

“But I regret my decision as I now need to spend this amount to correct the damage that was done in the first operation.”

Rule Numero Uno, kid: never, ever, EVER bargain-shop for tattoos, tools, shoes, surgery, helicopter pilots, or high explosives. It’ll end up costing more than if you just bite the bullet and drop the coin to get the good stuff right out of the gate. WAY more, and in more than just money, too.

I just don’t get the store-bought-titties thing, I never did, and I never will. For whatever it might be worth, I find synthetic fun-bags repellent—notwithstanding my having more than one or two female friends to whom I will never willingly disclose that opinion, in the interests of my own physical well-being. Not knocking anybody for their preference in knockers, mind, whatever it may be and however they may have arrived at it. To each his/her own, I say.

Share

“We cannot afford a lack of moral clarity in our political civil war”

Preach it, brother.

Conservative commentator Dennis Prager once made an insightful distinction between the political left and right. The right, he noted, generally sees the left as wrong but not evil, whereas the left sees the right not merely as wrong but as evil. This was a valid assessment once upon a time, but as the left has increasingly exposed itself in the Trump era as rabidly illiberal, irrational, and immoral, it is time for the right to acknowledge that the left is not merely wrong, but evil.

Actually, that’s neither a difficult nor unreasonable conclusion to reach. In fact, by now it requires way more intellectual contortion to resist it than to admit it. Post-birth abortion alone is support enough for the proposition…and it’s nothing like alone.

To be clear: evil is hardly the sole domain of the left. It can inhabit individuals of any color, sex, political persuasion, or religious belief. But as an ideology, Progressivism – the rebranding of Communism – embraces totalitarianism and absolute statist control, which always and everywhere leads to misery, corruption, and brutality, and never elevates humanity. Can anyone look objectively at the ghastly devastation wrought by Communism in the 20th century – the gulags and the mass starvation, the torture and executions, the existential fear and hopelessness, the tens of millions dead and countless more lives destroyed – and not conclude that leftism is an ideology of evil? Add to that its unholy alliance with fundamentalist Islam today to subvert the whole of Western civilization, and there can be no doubt.

At the core of the true leftist is a hatred for anyone and anything that stands in the way of his or her lust for power over others: the nuclear family, Christianity, the Constitution, Donald Trump, etc. As David Horowitz had noted on numerous occasions, during a presidential debate in October 2016, candidate Trump spoke more naked truth about leftists than any establishment Republican would ever have dared when he said that his opponent Hillary Clinton had “tremendous hate in her heart.”

Let us zero in on specific, recent examples of the left’s cruel methodology. Keep in mind that the contemporary leftist, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, has been mentored either directly or indirectly by the influential, Mephistophelean strategist Saul Alinsky and his book Rules for Radicals, whose thirteenth and final rule has transformed the left’s entire modus operandi into the politics of personal destruction: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Alinsky dedicated his book, as you may recall, to Lucifer.

Lucifer was once also known as the Father Of Lies, as it happens. And that raises the question of whether any of us can possibly persuade ourselves to regard the Left’s reflexive dishonesty as mere coincidence. Tapson goes on to cite lots more damning evidence, putting forth a lengthy but still nowhere near comprehensive litany of…yes, evil. Bruce Thornton calls it “The moral idiocy of our times“—which, while not exactly incorrect, still falls short of the bullseye:

One of the foundational myths of modernity holds that the progress of scientific knowledge and technology has been accompanied by moral progress. As wealth and knowledge increase, the old impediments to moral improvement such as poverty, religious superstition, and ignorance are being swept away, resulting in a kinder, gentler, and more pacific human nature.

Last week we were presented with evidence that this argument is woefully mistaken. In New York a bill was passed that removed restrictions on late-term abortions, allowing infants viable outside the womb to be killed “at any time” to protect the mother’s life or “health.” Worse yet, this regression into primitive custom was met with celebratory cheers and a standing ovation by the “lawmakers” who had approved it. In Virginia a similar law was proposed but rejected. It had been defended by Del. Kathy Tran and Gov. Ralph Northam (pictured above). They admitted that a baby could be killed even after the mother went into labor, or after delivery. Tran, by the way, on the same day as she introduced the bill to liberalize late-term abortions, also introduced a bill to protect gypsy moths and cankerworms.

Ironic, that—grotesquely, hideously so. If a private citizen made a habit of killing newborn puppies or kittens on his own hook and outside of animal-shelter supervision, he would be faced with a wrath far more ferocious than any you’ll ever see over murdering a human infant to safeguard “a woman’s right to choose”—to choose to have promiscuous, guilt-free sex without consequence or responsibility, that is. PETA alone would lapse into paroxysms of rage; do NOT doubt for a second that they’d be joined wholeheartedly by the rest of the howling Lefty circus entire.

Sorry, but this ain’t just “moral idiocy,” folks; it is amoral depravity. Given this swift, sharp plunge into evil and degeneracy, can “liberal” advocacy for, say, legally-sanctioned cannibalism be very much longer in coming? Back to Tapson for the closer:

The Democrat Party is the face of Moloch, the Canaanite god whom Milton called the “horrid King besmear’d with blood / Of human sacrifice.” It is a cult of criminality and death. On every political issue, Democrats take the side of chaos and destruction, crime and disorder. They hype the threat of white supremacism while whitewashing Islamic terrorism. They are actively engaged in erasing our history and undermining our rights. They support open borders over national security; sanctuary cities for criminal aliens and the abolishment of ICE over law-abiding citizens and legal immigration; infanticide over the sacredness of human life; the dismantling of Western civilization over its preservation. This is not simply wrong – this is evil.

Conservatives who believe that it is still possible to reason with the left and engage them in fair-and-square policy debates are clinging to a failed strategy, sadly.

They’re doing more than just that, I’m afraid: they’re averting their eyes from an admittedly grim and grisly reality, either for convenience’s and/or comfort’s sake or out of abject cowardice. The hard truth is nonetheless simple: one doesn’t negotiate with evil. Nor does one compromise with it. One seeks to destroy it, to remove its influence, and to undo its fetid works.

Share

No sacrifice too great!

Hard Easy pass.

I had a great dinner at a local Red Lobster the other night. The crab cakes were excellent, the staff and service friendly and terrific.

But alas that was my last meal at the Red Lobster.

The Red Lobster, which I thought was in the business of selling seafood dinners and lunches, is in another business altogether: leftwing politics.

The company, owned by an outfit in San Francisco called Golden Gate Capital, is run by a slew of Hillary Clinton supporters who have decided to follow a prompting from an ex-Clinton staffer and make censorship their main product, joining the anti-free press jihad that has made it their business to silence conservatives in the media. The latest example is the targeting of Fox’s Tucker Carlson, with the Red Lobster officiously and piously announcing the following:

Red Lobster’s advertising buying guidelines reflect our core values and commitment to supporting programming that represents the highest standards of good taste, fair practice and objectivity.

Unmentioned in the announcement from Red Lobster was this, per a report in the Washington Times:

Activists like ThinkProgress founder Judd Legum renewed the boycott, specifically calling on Red Lobster to pull its ads.

Ahhh, but of course. Once again the extreme far-Left is on yet another anti-free press and free speech jihad, this time bullying Red Lobster.

Then again, maybe it isn’t bullying after all. In plunging into politics by joining the side of the leftwing thugs, a closer look at those running Red Lobster reveals that there is, in fact, a built in leftward bias at the very top of the company that owns Red Lobster — Golden Gate Capital.

Giving up Red Lobster will be the easiest protest-slash-boycott “divestment” I ever made: I can’t stand the place, their food is terrible. I used to eat there regularly years and years ago, when I was a kid and my palate was a lot less, umm, refined. Maybe they’ve improved since then; I don’t know and don’t care. But as far as I’m concerned, they had nowhere to go but up. And wherever they’re going, they’ll be going without me…which I’m sure suits the both of us just fine, thqnks.

Share

Gonna need another wall

Portland shows us the way to liberal Utopia.

It was a big year in Portland where the murder rate rose 18.6%. That was the perfect time for Portland’s progressive politburo to spend over $1 million on unarmed cops armed only with pepper spray.

There was a little bit of excitement when it was learned that their 200 hours of training would include “Taser Orientation” suggesting that they might be allowed to carry tasers. But Mayor Wheeler’s office explained that the weaponless cops weren’t being trained to use tasers, but “how to avoid being tased”.

Portland property crimes rose 15% in 2017. Its property crime rates easily outpace Boston and Denver, and put it on a par with dangerous cities like Atlanta.  Its homeless blight has put Portland on the same path as San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles. Portland’s Downtown Clean and Safe had picked up less than 9,897 used needles in 2015. This year it’s 39,000. Garbage and biohazards have also increased.

But Mayor Wheeler emphasized Portland was working on a more “inclusive” and diverse” police force, even as he admitted that the city was caught in a crime wave where, “assaults, homicides, sex offenses, etc. – have increased and are rising at a higher rate than last year; property crimes have also increased and are rising at a higher rate than last year.”

“Chief Outlaw leads a bureau with fewer officers today than a decade ago, despite a 10 percent increase in Portland’s population,” Wheeler whined.

Mayor Wheeler had picked Danielle Outlaw as the first African-American police chief. Outlaw was meant to be the face of Portland’s new inclusive and diverse force. She inherited the thankless job of trying to control homeless crime, without offending homeless advocates, and reining in political street violence without offending Antifa. And soon white hipsters were outraged at Chief Outlaw’s contemptuous dismissal of Antifa as schoolyard brats who, “come with the intention to fight. And then you get mad because I kicked your butt. And then you go back and you wail off and whine and complain.”

Portland’s white radicals soon began accusing the city’s first African-American police chief of being a white supremacist while campaigning to get her fired.

“The fact that I, as a very obvious African American female police chief, have been accused by those within that group or those who support that group, as being a supporter and protector of those who are believed to be white supremacists—if that’s even the case—is ridiculous. Right?” she asked.

Ridiculous is the only way that anything works in Portland.

For certain values of “working,” I guess. I just about busted a gut laughing at this…right up until I got to the end.

It’s no wonder that Portland’s formerly hot housing market is cooling off and home values are falling. As housing prices increase, not everyone wants to pay record prices to live next to a needle exchange.

The escape from Portland has begun.

OH HELL NO. You Portland Progtards can just stay right the hell where you’re at, every last one of you. You fouled your own fucking nest, now live in the shithole you created for yourselves and leave the rest of us alone. Ain’t no market for you out here. Trust me, you wouldn’t like living amongst us bigoted racist homophobic Islamophobic H8TRRR gun-nuts out here in lily-white Jesusland anyway.

Share

An open letter to Mittens

From the comments, Skeptic unloads, and every word’s a gem.

Dear Senator Romney:

Mitt….buddy….pal. We gotta talk.

First of all, congratulations on winning the Senate seat in Massachusetts….uh, I mean New Hampshire….wait, Utah, that’s right, it was Utah. Winning your second election in seven tries had to feel good. I mean, “two and five” beats the hell out of “one and five,” am I right? And hey, even though you carpetbagged your way to perhaps the safest Republican Senate seat in the country when Orrin Hatch finally retired, it’s an accomplishment of sorts.

The best news was that you didn’t have to face a debate where you’d fold up like a cheap suit, like you did against Obama and Candy Crowley in 2012. Remember 2012, Mitt? When the media called you a racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe, murderer, anti-gay bully, and even a dog abuser? Aw, who can remember ancient history like that? Certainly not you – because if you did, you wouldn’t be sucking media ass before even sitting down in your Senate office.

Which brings me to the reason for writing this, Mitt. What’s the deal with that op-ed attacking Trump? Look, we get it. We know that you hate Trump. Well, you hate Trump, except for all the times you asked him for campaign donations…or his endorsement in 2012…..or begged him for a Cabinet job after his election…or asked him for another endorsement in your Senate run. Again, ancient history – who can remember as far back as February? Now you’re bound and determined to take the John McCain Official Backstabbing Media Whore Republican job.

The problem, Mitt, is that when you do stuff like this, it reminds us of a lot of things. Like, for instance, how you got rich. Your dad, George, got rich building things. You got rich by destroying them. Your company, Bain Capital, essentially did a much-refined and legal version of what the Mob did when they took over a business – ran up the debt, sold everything that wasn’t nailed down, and hung creditors with the unpaid bills while killing the company and putting people out of work. Made you rich as hell, but left you open to all kinds of attacks in your Presidential run.

The bitch, Mitt, is that we Republicans DEFENDED you back then. And then you spit in our faces. Which reminds us of what you really are, Mitt. You’re a very, very bad man. You use people and then you throw them away the moment they cease to be useful to you. Like you did Trump. Or the people that worked at all those companies.

You preach about ethics and character, Mitt, but you have neither of those qualities. Some people say that you’re probably a good guy in your personal life, but I doubt it. Frankly, I think you’re probably the same scumbag in private that you are in public and business life – you’re just so filthy rich that your family just doesn’t want to be cut out of the will.

So, Mitt, enjoy your spots on CNN. Say hi to Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert when you go on their shows. And hey, keep that Senate seat warm. You’re a Mormon in Utah, it’ll be yours as long as you want it. It won’t be like Massachusetts, where you had to decline to run for re-election so you wouldn’t lose yet another election.

But know this, Mitt. You will never, ever, ever, ever be President of the United States. Your loss of an eminently winnable election in 2012 did incalculable damage to the United States, and you’ll never get another shot at it. And thank God for that.

I’d advise you to just lay low and keep your mouth shut and collect your salary, but you’re far to much of a narcissist for that. So I will smile knowing that your vote, and your mouth, are essentially irrelevant in the big picture. And since I’m significantly younger than you, know that someday I will piss on your grave.

Signed, a loyal Trump supporter

Ouch. I mean, just…OUCH. Romney is, was, and ever shall be part of the Deep State problem, not the solution.

Update! Walsh piles painfully on:

You remember Mitt: the man who a) courageously decided not to run for re-election as governor of Massachusetts because he knew he would lose, b) lost the GOP nomination in 2008 to the left-for-dead candidate John McCain, and c) lost the 2012 election to Obama after winning the first debate and refusing to challenge the obvious electoral hinkiness in Ohio that still has Karl Rove scratching his head.

In an op-ed in the Washington Post, the recrudescent Romney blasted the man he once begged to nominate him for secretary of state as he publicly announced his candidacy for the office of the Media’s Shadow President. That unpleasantness about the dog on the roof, or bullying the gay kid in prep school? All forgotten now!

And this from the guy who wanted Trump to give him a job in order to (as Bill Clinton famously said) “maintain [his] political viability within the system.” Mitt’s willingness to cozy up to Trump even had some completely disinterested reporters fretting: “The statesmanlike version of Mitt Romney has left the building, and the self-proclaimed ‘severely conservative’ one has returned,” wrote Karen Tumulty in the Washington Post last March after Mitt took a “harsh” line on illegal immigration.

But once rebuffed, Mitt pivoted, ran for the U.S. Senate, won, and now stands ready to inherit the mantle of Bob Corker and Jeff Flake as the only living Republicans the media will quote with approval. That both of their political careers ended thanks to their opposition to Trump doesn’t seem to have occurred to him.

Hopefully, that’s something our now-hobbled lame-duck President can still get done on his own. As for Mittens and those oddly pliant Severe Conservative Principles™ of his: hey, like Groucho Marx, if you don’t like those, he has others.

Invisible hand update! Pulling Mitt’s strings.

McConnell has a history of getting caught. However, fortunately for him people also have a tendency to forget [see McConnell’s scheme in the Mississippi 2014 Cochran race as an example]. Almost no-one remembers that U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, the founder of the Senate Conservative Fund, quit the Senate specifically because of the schemes and internal Machiavellian power moves of Mitch McConnell.

So when the carefully constructed, pre-planned, pre-scheduled, and pre-organized public op-ed by incoming Senator Mitt Romney was deployed in the Washington Post… for those who have watched McConnell work; we knew exactly who orchestrated it and why.

Senator Romney will be one (not the only) visible face of the opposition. However, just like former Senator Corker and current Senator Sasse, the instructions (direct and indirect), and/or the approvals, will come from Leader McConnell’s office.

Through his power structure McConnell directly controls about 8 to 15 republican senators; we have called them “The Decepticons” for years. [Cornyn, Thune, Porter, Blunt, Portman, Burr, Barasso, Crapo, Murkowski, Gardner, Roberts, Sasse, Tillis, Graham and now Romney]

McConnell needed to test Romney’s commitment to the Decepticon club. Romney passed the test. Romney was rewarded with placement on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Those Senators who sit on this committee get the most financial benefit from foreign lobbying.

Yes, Democrats are the opponents. However, the far more urgent MAGA enemy is Mitch McConnell.

Sundance notes that he “has followed and mapped how Mitch McConnell operates for over a decade.” Knowing how good he’s always been at digging this behind-the-curtain stuff up, I would hesitate to call him wrong on this one. And while we’re on the topic of Yertle McTurtle:

While McConnell and his team may bemoan their lack of the 60 votes needed to overcome Democrat opposition, the truth is, neither he nor his team has ever even tried. Because the wall, or anything else related to Trump’s immigration agenda, isn’t a McConnell priority.

This is obvious when you look at things that are among his priorities; that is, what happens when the congressional GOP and the White House align. On tax reform, McConnell clearly communicated his priorities, he worked closely with his House colleagues, he engaged K Street, Wall Street, Main Street, and the White House. He worked his Senate colleagues, horse-traded for votes, and made sure all of them were prepared to vote favorably.

Senate Republican leadership worked the tax bill for a solid year before getting it passed, using a reconciliation vehicle that only required 51 votes in the Senate (the same vehicle they could have used for the wall this year, but left untouched; effectively, a silver bullet left chambered).

In short, Republicans united with the president around tax reform, a priority they all wanted, which faced stiff opposition from Democrats, and for which they did not possess 60 votes in the Senate. They made the earth shake in pursuit of it. And they won.

The same effort could be applied to the wall. But McConnell has instead chosen to ignore it.

For Cocaine Mitch it’s a Swamp two-fer: he’s opposed to the wall, and he’s opposed to Trump too. So what’s not to like about a little quiet backroom skullduggery that snooters both at once?

Share

Deep dive into the Deep State sewer

It’s corruption, all the way down.

A collection of reports compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, the dossier is now engraved in contemporary U.S. history. First marketed as bedrock evidence that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, the dossier’s legitimacy took a hit after reports showed the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the work.

The revelation that the dossier was used to secure a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page compromised the integrity of the investigation the FBI had opened on Page and three other Trump associates by the end of July 2016. Nonetheless, that same probe continues today as the special counsel investigation.

The dossier plays a central role in Robert Mueller’s probe. In the unredacted portions of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memo outlining Mueller’s scope are allegations that Trump adviser Paul Manafort colluded with Russian government officials interfering in the 2016 race. That claim is found in no other known document but the dossier. It is unclear whether further dossier allegations are in the redacted portions of the scope memo.

The dossier operation has not only damaged institutions like the FBI and DOJ, it has also poisoned the public sphere, perhaps irremediably. As a result, it is now accepted journalistic practice to print, and reprint, any garish fantasy so long as it’s layered with Russian intrigue and Trump team treason. Even as the rest of the country sees an institution that has made itself a laughingstock, the press continues to salute itself for its bravery—or the courage and industry required to take leaks from law enforcement and intelligence officials and Democratic operatives in an effort to topple a president it doesn’t like, elected by neighbors it holds in contempt.

How did it come to this?

Easy: a bunch of goddamned Deep State liars cooked it up to cripple and/or unseat Trump for the sole purpose of preserving their own ill-gotten and illegitimate power, and to help Her Herness steal the 2016 election. After the unthinkable happened and it turned out her crippled, deranged, drunken ass couldn’t be dragged across the finish line by hook or (mostly) crook, Job One became covering hers and Obama’s busted attempt to rig the 2016 election—that, along with a whole slew of other criminal behavior besides.

Lee Smith does indeed dive deep into this stinking cesspool of Mordor On The Potomac malfeasance, and he deserves full props for his meticulous spelling-out of the details of the whole sordid tour de farce. It all amounts to a completely damning indictment of the Swamp entire; every single soulless blaggard who touched this turd is besmirched by his or her involvement in it, and prison ought to be the most minor of their worries. Actual revolutions have been sparked by less than has already been revealed of this mess, and we still don’t know the half of it. But for my money, the worst, the most damning part of all, lurks withing the wording of the godawful FISA law itself:

Title I of the 1978 Foreign Surveillance Act—“Electronic Surveillance within the United States for Foreign Intelligence Purposes”—lays it out. Under the definition of “agent of a foreign power,” there are two categories: “any person other than a United States person,” and “any person.” Since Page is an American citizen, he falls into the second category.

According to Wauck, the relevant parts are two paragraphs in Section 101 (b) (2). To obtain a FISA warrant on a U.S. person, the target either:

(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.

Get that? “Any person other than a United States person,” and “any person.” “…involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.” Gee, not much leeway allowed by that weasel-worded bafflegab, eh? FISA casts itself a pretty damned broad net, it seems, the better to be of use in any imaginable situation wherein the Deep State might wish to ensnare itself some prey, whether great or small.

The FISA law should be thrown out entire, immediately. It established one of the most unconscionable kangaroo-courts in history, an all-powerful, unaccountable, top-secret star-chamber of a sort that neither should nor could exist in any but the most brazen and corrupt of tyrannies. Its continued existence is a blight upon this nation, and a condemnation of any people that would countenance it. It is a crime and a disgrace. Its use in promoting the Steele dossiers and the ongoing coup attempt behind them is sickening…and is exactly the kind of thing FISA was designed to be used for from the start.

Share

True to form, true to nature

The other day I said this regarding the tragic, untimely death of Bre Payton:

And may the horrid, evil Lefty ghouls somehow restrain themselves from dancing on her grave like they usually do, just this once.

Of course, we all knew when I wrote it just how likely that would be.

Vile, loathsome, evil, worthless motherfuckers. Every goddamned one of these subhumans should be held underwater until they stop kicking, their carcasses stacked into a pile and burned to noisome cinders. The world would be a much better place for it.

That’s right, I fucking well said it. And what of it? Somebody had to.

Share

Dem JOOOZ!

An oldie but goodie from Derb, wherein he reviews a treatise by Kevin McDonald making the standard-issue, Mark-1 Mod-0 complaint about the Jews controlling everything, and destroying it all for their own Jew reasons.

The Culture of Critique includes many good things. There is a spirited defense of the scientific method, for example. One of the sub-themes of the book is that Jews are awfully good at creating pseudosciences—elaborate, plausible, and intellectually very challenging systems that do not, in fact, have any truth content—and that this peculiar talent must be connected somehow with the custom, persisted in through long pre-Enlightenment centuries, of immersing young men in the study of a vast body of argumentative writing, with status in the community—and marriage options, and breeding opportunities—awarded to those who have best mastered this mass of meaningless esoterica. (This is not an original observation, and the author does not claim it as such. In fact he quotes historian Paul Johnson to the same effect, and earlier comments along these lines were made by Arthur Koestler and Karl Popper.) MacDonald is very scathing about these circular and self-referential thought-systems, especially in the case of psychoanalysis and the “pathologization of Gentile culture” promoted by the Frankfurt School. Here he was precisely on my wavelength, and I found myself cheering him on. Whatever you may think of MacDonald and his theories, there is no doubt he believes himself to be doing careful objective science. The same could, of course, be said of Sheldon, Rhine, Kinsey, et al.

It is good to be reminded, too, with forceful supporting data, that the 1924 restrictions on immigration to the U.S. were not driven by any belief on the part of the restrictionists in their own racial superiority but by a desire to stabilize the nation’s ethnic balance, which is by no means the same thing. (In fact, as MacDonald points out, one of the worries of the restrictionists was that more clever and energetic races like the Japanese would, if allowed to enter, have negative effects on social harmony.) MacDonald’s chapter on “Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy” is a detailed survey of a topic I have not seen discussed elsewhere. If the Jews learned anything from the 20th century, it was surely the peril inherent in being the only identifiable minority in a society that is otherwise ethnically homogeneous. That thoughtful Jewish-Americans should seek to avoid this fate is understandable. That their agitation was the main determinant of postwar U.S. immigration policy seems to me more doubtful. And if it is true, we must believe that 97 percent of the U.S. population ended up dancing to the tune of the other three percent. If that is true, the only thing to say is the one Shakespeare’s Bianca would have said: “The more fool they.”

Similarly with MacDonald’s discussion of Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik takeover of the Russian Empire and the many horrors that ensued. This was until recently another taboo topic, though the aged Alexander Solzhenitsyn, presumably feeling he has nothing much to lose, has recently taken a crack at it. I believe MacDonald was driven by necessity here. Having posited that Jews are out to “destroy” (this is his own word) Gentile society, he was open to the riposte that if, after 2,000 years of trying, the Jews had failed to accomplish this objective in even one instance, Gentiles don’t actually have much to worry about. So: the Jews destroyed Russia. Though MacDonald’s discussion of this topic is interesting and illuminating, it left me unconvinced. As he says, “The issue of the Jewish identification of Bolsheviks who were Jews by birth is complex.” Paul Johnson gives only 15-20 percent of the delegates at early Party congresses as Jewish. If the other 80-85 percent were permitting themselves to be manipulated by such a small minority, then we are back with Bianca.

The aspect of Macdonald’s thesis that I find least digestible is his underlying assumption that group conflict is a zero-sum game rooted in an evolutionary tussle over finite resources. This is not even true on an international scale, as the growing wealth of the whole world during this past few decades has shown. On the scale of a single nation, it is absurd. These Jewish-inspired pseudoscientific phenomena that The Culture of Critique is concerned with—Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, and so on—were they a net negative for America? Yes, I agree with MacDonald, they were. Now conduct the following thought experiment. Suppose the great post-1881 immigration of Ashkenazi Jews had never occurred. Suppose the Jewish population of the U.S. in 2003 were not the two to four percent (depending on your definitions) that it is, but the 0.3 percent it was at the start of the Civil War. Would anything have been lost? Would America be richer or poorer? Would our cultural and intellectual life be busier or duller?

It seems incontrovertible to me that a great deal would have been lost: entrepreneurs, jurists, philanthropists, entertainers, publishers, and legions upon legions of scholars: not mere psychoanalysts and “critical theorists,” but physicists, mathematicians, medical research- ers, historians, economists—even, as MacDonald notes honestly in his new preface, evolutionary psychologists! The first American song whose words I knew was “White Christmas,” written by a first-generation Ashkenazi Jewish immigrant. The first boss I ever had in this country was a Jew who had served honorably in the U.S. Marine Corps. Perhaps it is true, as MacDonald claims, that “most of those prosecuted for spying for the Soviet Union [i.e., in the 1940s and 1950s] were Jews.” It is also true, however, that much of the secret research they betrayed to their country’s enemies was the work of Jewish scientists. The Rosenbergs sold the Bomb to the Soviets; but without Jewish physicists, there would have been no Bomb to sell. Last spring I attended a conference of mathematicians attempting to crack a particularly intractable problem in analytic number theory. A high proportion of the 200-some attendees were Jews, including at least two from Israel. Sowers of discord there have certainly been, but on balance I cannot see how anyone could deny that this country is enormously better off for the contributions of Jews. Similarly for every other nation that has liberated the energies and intelligence of Jewish citizens. Was Hungary better off, or worse off, after the 1867 Ausgleich? Was Spain better off, or worse off, before the 1492 expulsions? “To ask the question is to answer it.”

Now, Kevin MacDonald might argue that he, as a social scientist, is not obliged to provide any such balance in his works, any more than a clinical pathologist writing about disease should be expected to include an acknowledgment that most of his readers will be healthy for most of their lives. I agree. A scientist, even a social scientist, need not present any facts other than those he has uncovered by diligent inquiry in his particular narrow field. He is under no obligation, as a scientist, to soothe the feelings of those whose sensibilities might be offended by his discoveries. Given the highly combustible nature of MacDonald’s material, however, it wouldn’t have hurt to point out the huge, indisputably net-positive, contributions of Jews to America, right at the beginning of his book and again at the end. MacDonald has in any case been fairly free in CofC with his own opinions on such matters as U.S. support for Israel, immigration policy, and so on. He is entitled to those opinions, but having included them in this book, his claim to dwell only in the aery realm of cold scientific objectivity does not sound very convincing.

This is, after all, in the dictionary definition of the term, an anti-Semitic book. Its entire argument is that the Jews, collectively, are up to no good. This may of course be true, and MacDonald is entitled to say that the issue of whether his results are anti-Semitic is nugatory, from a social-science point of view, by comparison with the issue of their truth content. I agree with that, too: but given the well-known history of this topic, it seems singularly obtuse of MacDonald not to try to calm the troubled waters his work is bound to stir up. 

Of course he’s obtuse: he’s just another Jew-hating crank grinding away on that same old worn-out wheel—a guy who sees a big hooked nose and a yarmulka lurking behind every problem or setback. It’s exactly the same sort of easy, comforting deflection practiced by the dismaying number of black Americans eager to blame Whitey (or the Chinks, or the Mexicans, et al) for all their woes. People who really, truly believe that all the world’s problems can be laid at the feet of a sinister cabal of Dem JOOOZ! are intellectually lazy at best, and should probably get out more.

(Via Zman)

Share

Categories

Archives

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

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix