Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

So shut ’em down already

Heartiste spells out what’s up:

We’ve gone from:

THESE ARE THE FACTS

to

I WANT TO BELIEVE

to

I WANT YOU TO BELIEVE

to

YOU MUST BELIEVE

Next stop:

NON-BELIEVERS IN THE NEVER-WRONGNESS AND SAINTLINESS OF WOMEN WILL BE SHOT AT DAWN

Well, not precisely. They don’t seem too much interested in believing Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, or Karen Monahan, just to name a very few.

Update! Gotta include this:



Methinks it’s about time the Vichy GOPers stopped saying OK and got on with things, but I ain’t holding my breath. In fact, after seeing Grassley’s “deadline” (much akin to Obama’s “red line” fan-dance) prove to be about as firm as an overcooked noodle, I now predict that Kavanaugh will NOT be seated on the Court—certainly not in time for the next session, and very likely not at all. Meanwhile, speaking of Karen Monahan (from the link above):

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison pushed back Friday against allegations of domestic abuse, saying his accuser fabricated the story about him.

The Minnesota Democrat also dismissed a medical record that named him as the abuser, but said he can’t be sure more people won’t “cook up” allegations against him.

Yeah, I just bet. But he’s a Muslim, so thumping on his women is a-okay with you shitlibs, right? Right.

Share

Why bother?

The naked truth about feminism…and feminists.

At least with nuns, they have their faith in God and whatever else happens in the nunnery, to give them purpose in their lives. There is an upfront acceptance of their separation from the normal life of mankind. The nun stops being a woman in the conventional sense, so she stops expecting to be treated as a woman. As a result, most nuns I have met are stern about their duties, but otherwise pleasant people. It is a role for them that has well defined rules that addresses the sexual, as well as the social dynamics of life.

Feminists are always in the center of a great mental conflict between what they wish were true about the world and the ongoing reality around them. The woman in the aisle, while surrounded by shield maidens of the first order, was a rage of internal conflict. Her eyes kept darting around the cabin, as she was clearly uncomfortable. The feminist sense of entitlement forced her to make demands on everyone, while her biological instinct was to look for a man to come her rescue. Instead, she was rescued by women from the past.

The irrationality of the feminist, the tantrum aspect to it, cannot be discussed in the mass media, but that is the weak point of it. Feminism is, in many ways, someone choosing to live in the backyard, rather than the house, because they are nursing a grudge against the person who made the house for them. Instead of being good at the thing they can be good at, like being a wife and mother, they choose to be terrible at something no one wants and no society has ever needed. Feminism is the wrath of the unloved and unwanted woman.

That really is the shame of it. I’ve trod this earth for a long time and I have yet to hear a man say, “The trouble is we have too many good women from which to choose.” No man thinks there is a glut of good mothers or women who make excellent wives. It is the complete opposite. Most men lament the dire shortage of women they would want to have as a wife or the mother of his children. This is something men of my generation have been discussing our entire adult lives. It’s why so many of us are unmarried or never married.

All of this reminds me of something I’ve noticed when dealing with feminist women. The best thing is to dominate them. It is not only the best approach in the moment, but it opens a door for them to escape the torment of modernity. In the company of feminists, I often begin talking about repealing the 19th Amendment. I’m polite, but firm. The results are always positive. The reason is, modern women, like our feminist hero, are living lives of bitter isolation, an isolation from who they are as women. They are looking to escape it.

Phew; you’re a braver man than I, Z. I prefer to take a different approach myself: I leave ’em the hell alone, every chance I get. They got nothing to say that I’m interested in hearing anyway, and I’m quite sure that sentiment goes both ways.

Share

Liberalism: it’s the shit

Literally.

Enter the search term “San Francisco feces map” into Google and it comes back with 1,040,000 results. Yeah, it’s a thing. San Francisco was always grungy – back in the 1980s, I believe it was comic Bobby Slayton who called it “the city that makes its own gravy” – but it has gone from merely unwashed to actively unflushed.

Sure, it’s funny to the rest of us, in a horrifying and disgusting kind of way, just like the fact that the socialist geniuses in Venezuela are forcing the famished locals to gnaw on its zoo’s zebras and gnus for sustenance. You look at these examples of leftism in action and you have to laugh, but what’s not funny is that this is not some sort of aberration. This is the future our liberal elite wants for us, and it’s doing everything it can to make it a reeking reality.

You see, they could stop this nonsense any time. No one has to live with derelicts choking grumpies in public places. Most places don’t have this problem – yet. Hell, public sanitation was one of the great leaps forward that took the world out of the Dark Ages. It’s not hard to stop. You just don’t tolerate it. Drop a deuce, do a month in jail.

Simple. You just have to want to stop it, but our liberal overlords don’t want to stop it. They want this.

Look at what they are doing, so to speak. The commie mayor of New York is undoing the Rudy Giuliani Revolution and ushering in a return to the Big Apple of Serpico and Taxi Driver. The new Democrat DA candidate in Boston wants to stop prosecuting the petty crimes that make urban life unlivable. Here in Los Angeles, hordes of zombie freaks wander the streets, overrunning public spaces and breaking into cars, knowing they have a literal “get out of jail free” card because California rarely puts people in the slam for that sort of thing anymore. Oh, and California is getting rid of cash bail. By the way, a woman in my neighborhood just got raped by one of these creeps.

Oh well. It’s all for justice, you know. Justice for criminals. Justice for dirtbags. Justice for the mangy people who make it so you can’t even let your kids go outside to play.

But what about justice for us?

What about justice for the people who work, who support themselves, who try to raise decent families, who aren’t bipedal cro-mags who drop trou and crack a stink pickle wherever and whenever they feel like?

The fact is that this is the liberal elite’s blueprint for the future. It’s a future where crime goes unpunished, and pathological deviance is allowed to flourish. But not where the elite live and work. Just like none of their kids ever attend any of the pathology factories that are the urban public schools, their kids instead get to go to secure private schools, safe from the chaos their liberal mommies and daddies tolerate for the little minority kids across the freeway.

They want you playing hopscotch with human dung. They want you living in fear; you’re more pliable that way. All this shows you who’s boss.

Okay, I admit it: I don’t really give a shit (ahem) about San Francisco. Nor do I care what the shitlibs (ahem) living in any of a dozen squalid urban cesspools (ahem) choose to put up with in order to nurture their sense of smug, contemptuous superiority over the “drones” and “zombies” living in those godawful, soulless (and clean, and safe, and pretty much cholera-free) suburbs. No, I mainly wanted to excerpt this one because Kurt’s euphemisms for pinching a loaf are so damned funny.

Share

Toxic femininity

The poster child for it.

I stopped watching Hollywood movies sometime in the mid-1970s, so when the name “Asia Argento” started popping up amid the #MeToo vagina dentata feeding frenzy last fall, I needed to be informed who she was.

Born in the West, Asia—whose name is a common Italian name for girls, and is annoyingly pronounced “AH-see-ah”—is the child of wealth and privilege. Her father Dario is a famous Italian horror-movie director with an estimated net worth of $16 million, yet like many such types, poor Asia can’t seem to just appreciate being lucky and appears to feel the need to rail against “entitles [sic] westerners” as if she weren’t the very embodiment of an entitled, privileged Westerner.

Last fall, along with the obviously deranged actress Rose McGowan, Asia became one of the loudest barking poodles in the #MeToo movement, which declared that victims should always be believed and that perpetrators should always be destroyed.

As far as I can tell from piecing together the available narratives, both Argento and McGowan claimed that Weinstein “raped” them because they faked orgasms when he was performing oral sex on them. I am aware of no accusations that he physically restrained them or threatened them in any way. But it appears that part of what has driven #MeToo is to massively expand the definition of rape to include any sexual encounter a woman might later regret. For example, in the still pending rape charge against Julian Assange, it appears that his only crime was failing to call his alleged victim the next day.

In Argento’s case, she was apparently so appalled by Weinstein’s shoddy cunnilingual skills that she proceeded to have a sexual relationship with him that lasted four years. Maybe he gives good foot rubs—I don’t know. Or maybe she’ll try to claim that the fact she had to fake an orgasm with him left her so mentally ravaged that she couldn’t help but have sex with him for four more years.

Why not? Makes as much sense as anything else does these days. But incredible as it may seem, the Argento saga gets worse—much, much worse—which you’ll see if you read on. Argento is one of the vilest of harpies in a culture so besieged by them as to resemble a scene from Hitchcock’s The Birds—enough so that she inspires a brand new category here, named specially for this affliction.

Share

WHO’S the Nazi again, now?

Again: they didn’t call it the National SOCIALIST Workers’ Party for nothing, you know.

As Hayek stated in 1933, the year the Nazis took power: “[I]t is more than probable that the real meaning of the German revolution is that the long dreaded expansion of communism into the heart of Europe has taken place but is not recognized because the fundamental similarity of methods and ideas is hidden by the difference in phraseology and the privileged groups.”

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.

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.

Lots more here—LOTS—all of it completely damning for the Lyin’ Left. But the hanging of Hitler around Righty necks was no accident. This history recited in the article exposes that dismally-successful ploy as the manipulative, self-serving horseshit it always was.

The ironic thing is, the Left still embraces Naziism’s parent ideology while glossing over the millions of deaths attributable to it—way more than Hitler’s tally, and still counting. Stalin alone makes Hitler look like a piker, and that leaves out the plethora of other blood-soaked commie dictators. Just another example of the Left’s highly, umm, discriminating morality, I guess.

Share

More Fake News!

Another burning question of our age addressed.

While Donald Trump has become famous for railing on about “Fake News,” the media have become quick to defend their integrity. However, the depth of the media’s lies is apparent and may be deeper than most imagine.

Let’s start with what is probably one of the greatest cultural frauds in recent history, though it is mostly unknown today: Saturday Night Fever.

The movie, and the disco fad, were based on an article, “Inside the Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night,” that appeared in New York Magazine in June 1976.

Over the past few months, much of my time has been spent in watching this new generation. Moving from neighborhood to neighborhood, from disco to disco, an explorer out of my depth, I have tried to learn the patterns, the old/new tribal rites.

The problem was that the story was mostly made up.

Twenty years later came a bombshell. In December 1997 New York magazine published an article in which Cohn confessed that there never was a Vincent. There was no “Lisa”, “Billy”, “John James”, “Lorraine” or “Donna” either. While 2001 Odyssey existed, it wasn’t the way the writer described it in 1976. The whole scene of disco-loving Italians, as mythologised in Saturday Night Fever, was exaggerated. The most bizarre detail was that his disco protagonists were in fact based on mods Cohn had known in London.

So what? you might ask.

To those who remember, that fraud led to the glorification of a disco culture. But it was never as organic as the media portrayed it. It could be propped up for only so long. In 1979, the straw man was easily toppled.

It seems that Nik Cohn, the magazine writer who penned the purported true story of a Brooklyn dancer named “Vincent”– the basis for Travolta’s Tony Manero in Saturday Night Fever – for New York magazine, admitted this week in New York that he made the whole thing up.

Up to that point, disco had existed, to be sure, but it was a sideline. Occasionally, it could break through to the top, as with “The Hustle,” but it never would have become the cultural imperative it became without media lies. It was foisted on us.

Well, thanks a friggin’ pantload for that, assholes.

Actually, it’s reminiscent of another genre heavily influenced by disco: rap. Despite its seeming ubiquity in everything from the music press to movies to even TV commercials, it never did sell all that well, only in the last couple of years even beginning to approach rock and roll or…uhh, country? Nevertheless, it was pimped heavily from the start by music journalists gushing that it would be the death-knell for tired, sad old rock and roll:

Rap is the rock ‘n’ roll of the day. Rock ‘n’ roll was about attitude, rebellion, a big beat, sex and, sometimes, social comment. If that’s what you’re looking for now, you’re going to find it here.
— Bill Adler, Time, 1990

So how’d that work out for ya, Bill?

With the decline in recorded-music sales reaching something of a turning point in a number of markets, it seemed like a good time to analyze the retail sales of several music genres to see whether the downturn and subsequent stabilization have been equally divided across genres or whether some genres have suffered more than others. The analysis shows that pop and rock have strengthened their hold on music sales, while rap/hip-hop, the darling of the 1990s, has suffered a decline.

The results are, in part, not totally surprising, with pop and rock music tightening their grip on retail sales in the 2000s. But rap/hip-hop, which surged in the 1990s, slipped as public criticism mounted. Sales of jazz, classical and other smaller genres also fell off.

With pop and rock accounting for a combined retail-sales share of 55% in 2009, other genres have clearly underperformed when compared with the global sales decline. Music & Copyright has found that the retail value of rap/hip-hop sales dropped almost 50% between 2000 and 2009.

And it wasn’t all that high even in the 90s; rap’s cultural reach has always exceeded its sales grasp. Back to Konrad for our hy-larious conclusion:

That disco fell so fast in 1979 is evidence that it was artificial to begin with.

What is scary is that this admitted lie still holds a grip on the culture, especially in Brooklyn, where the image is still lauded, parodied, and beloved. Well, good luck with Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, where Tony Manero lived, ever regaining that faded glory. The neighborhood is now heavily Muslim.

Guess the obnoxious and annoying “call to prayer” lauded by His Most Puissant Majesty Barrack Hussein Mohammed Pahlavi Windsor Habsberg Ferdinand Winton Oblahblah as “the most beautiful sound in the world” is gonna be the Next Big Thing crammed down our throats by force and/or fraud.

Share

Reality bites

Weasel, weaseling.

In a segment on NPR’s “On Point” Friday, a fellow guest compared me to an Adolf Hitler supporter because I said something positive about President Trump’s tenure in office. Yes, seriously.

After I said some of Trump’s norm-breaking actions are good — namely his call for civil service reform and attempts to curtail some agencies’ powers and regulations — Norman Eisen, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and, ironically, co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said my support of Trump reminded him of the people who have supported authoritarian, mass-murdering regimes.

Our conversation begins around the 31-minute mark, here,where you can listen to what I said about President Trump that prompted this characterization from Eisen:

When Bre was speaking…I couldn’t help but think of those who greeted, don’t take offense, please, Bre, but those who greeted the other tyrants of the past 100 years. Whether they were of the left, like Lenin and Stalin, or the right, like Hitler — not saying Trump is Hitler, making those same claims about the evil that needed to be swept away and the change that needed to happen.

My favorite part of this is that he told me not to be offended right before he compared me to enthusiastic Nazis or Joseph Stalin supporters. He also says he’s “not saying Trump is Hitler,” then proceeds to make precisely that comparison. While Eisen is saying this, you can hear the host, David Folkenflik, try but fail to stop him. It’s like watching — or in this case, listening to — a car crash in slow motion.

I am writing this to draw attention to the tone from some of Trump’s critics. To them, everything merits a comparison to Hitler, and to make the “mistake” of saying a positive thing about President Trump — even when that positive thing is sandwiched between skeptical comments about him — is labeled as tantamount to helping the Nazis construct concentration camps. That’s so detached from reality and people who cannot see that should have no credibility.

So what is and what is not allowed to be said in public about the president without being called a Nazi? I said I wish Trump could tweet less and focus his lib-owning powers on regulatory rollbacks and taking down the administrative state. To Eisen, for some reason, that sounded like support for Nazis. One of us needs a reality check, and it’s not me.

Wouldn’t help any. Again: their argument isn’t with us. It’s with reality. They more of it they get, the harder they run from it, fingers stuffed deeply in ears every step of the way.

What amuses me here is Eisen’s gutless, cowardly attempt at having his cake and eating it too. By trying to forestall or at least deflect any righteous, wholly justified anger at these outrageous slanders (“Don’t take offense,” I’m not saying Trump’s a Nazi,” immediately before doing precisely that), Eisen establishes himself as King Of The Fucking Pussies.

Wear the crown proudly, Poindexter. It all leads me to ask yet again: how in the ever-lovin’ blue-eyed world did we ever allow such mincing nincompoops to steal our country from us?

Share

Inclusive?

Remember how I mentioned yesterday my lack of patience for the alt-right’s Jewhate? Well, here’s who those people advocate allying ourselves with.

No thanks.

On Friday afternoon, during one of the rare liberal media acknowledgements of Louis Farrakhan’s prominent presence at Aretha Franklin’s funeral, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell gave an odd underreaction as she cited it as evidence of an “inclusive group” being on stage.

She then pivoted to commenting on the aesthetics of the funeral procession: “We can see also on screen some of that parade of pink Cadillacs. I mean, the drama of this funeral and what Aretha Franklin means to the nation.”

So having a notorious racist and anti-Semite from the left prominently featured at an event alongside several high-profile liberals was treated as if it were just another normal day…

It IS just another normal day. Ed quotes this Tweet:



What can one say but: heh. Indeed™.

Share

Drop dead

Robert administers some due and proper Last Rites.

John McCain venerated the state, of which he was a product. His grandfather and father were admirals in the navy. He was a graduate of the Naval Academy and spent his entire career working for the government. His philosophy was consistent: there are no constraints on the state. As was his ambition: the accretion of state and personal power. Championing government both at home and abroad, he achieved bipartisan splendor.

He never met a US war, actual or prospective, he didn’t love. (Although he sort of admitted after the fact that Iraq might have been a mistake, and he came out against torture.) His was the deciding vote against repealing Obamacare. That put him at the Olympian summit of uniparty bipartisanship: the indefatigable champion of the warfare state, the welfare state, the surveillance state, and anything else the state might want to do.

That is why the flags flew at half-mast, his body lay in state in the US Capitol, Democrats and Republicans issued gushing commemoratives, and the mainstream media flowed with his praises. Powerful people’s florid eulogies were the verbal equivalent of the military’s twenty-one gun salute. McCain was the exemplar of the uniparty’s only consistent principle: the expansion of government and its power.

Which would go a long way towards explaining this tripe:



Actually, with the Uniparty now fighting Trump The Disrupter tooth, fang, and claw, it is EXACTLY how Washington still is now, how it has been for a long time. “Used to be” just flat isn’t so, and if it’s ever forced to progress to “no longer” it won’t be cause for lamentation except among Uniparty asswarts like McCain and Co; the Deep State malefactors they enable and protect; and the media spirit squad that cheers them on. To wit:

Now they’ve laid John’s body down, sad old men and women who run this town. Their sadness was feigned. One of the treasures exchanged for power is the capacity for honest and wholesome emotion. It’s all unbounded ambition, bloodless calculation, and reflexive insincerity. The “sad” is from the perspective of the wise and ethical. Many of the “mourners” are so warped, so corrupt, and so beyond redemption that they evoke profound despair among those who see them for what they are.

The “old” is real. The powers that be look and talk old. Their philosophy is ancient, tottering like Hillary Clinton falling into her van. For centuries, beneath the religious and patriotic dross, might wielded by central authority has made right. That philosophy and its adherents won’t go without an epic tantrum befitting the late McCain, but forces of decentralization beyond their control have been unleashed. The order they worship is Rome’s unaffordable, unmaintainable subjugation of its empire, undone by barbarians outside the gates and corruption within.

The future belongs to chaos as the unsustainable old order collapses. Someday an entirely different order and ethic, based on decentralized liberty, may prevail…somewhere.

This weekend John McCain has been laid to rest. Not, unfortunately, what he represents…but that will follow soon enough.

Unfortunately, they aren’t all old, and therefore won’t die soon enough. Or not naturally, anyway; they’ll have to be helped along somehow.

Update! Related? Oh, you just bet your ass it is.

The Senate adjourned this week amid self-administered backslaps for “working hard during August” (they worked a grand total of 6.5 days) and donning self-congratulatory laurels as they praised themselves for implementing “major Republican priorities.”

But for anyone paying attention, the Senate’s latest “work” session had all the characteristics of the 115th Congress: wildly exaggerated rhetoric, few actual results, a lot of excuses, and a stunning lack of urgency to accomplish anything they promised voters.

The duplicity of Senate Republicans is now a recurring theme. They claim to stand for something on the campaign trail, but then fail to support it when they get to Washington—instead hiding behind procedural excuses and “strategies” that are never intended to amount to anything.

In the case of Paul’s amendment, the Senate’s leadership claimed a vote would be counterproductive to their strategy of addressing the issue with the House in conference. Never mind that the House hasn’t even passed their Labor-HHS bill, or the fact that zero spending bills  have been conferenced successfully and sent to the president.

Moreover, the outcome of the spending process, as outlined above, will not be 12 individual bills enshrined in law. It will be yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar December omnibus. But that painfully obvious fact didn’t stop the Senate’s leadership from trying to convince conservatives that the leadership’s palpably insincere strategy was actually meaningful.

This reflects the approach of Senate leadership to nearly everything that conservatives and Trump supporters care about. Obamacare? “Well, we tried,” is the response. Meanwhile, senior Senate Republicans keep trying to bail out the failing law.

Time and again, Senate leadership has given lip service to our priorities while trying their hardest not to work with the president to accomplish real change.

And no, Senate leaders are not engaged in some masterful sort of grand strategy on behalf of voters’ priorities. This is not tactical brilliance or a game of four-dimensional chess incomprehensible to mere mortals. There is not some year-end master stroke that is going to emerge from the leader’s office in December to solve all the Senate’s policy problems. This is exactly what it appears: political cowardice.

I maintain that it isn’t really cowardice; it’s deception, deflection, and skullduggery, stalling for time until Trump either knuckles under and gets with the standard DC business-as-usual program or is removed, by whatever means they can contrive.

Share

America-hating shitlibs strike again

Hollywood is perfectly happy to bowdlerize their own output, so long as it advances the PC narrative.

The new Neil Armstrong film, First Man, got a boffo premiere at the prestigious Venice Film Festival, with rave reviews for the movie and its Canadian star, Ryan Gosling.

But if you go to the film looking for an interesting interpretation of history, don’t expect any American flag waving. In fact, one of the most iconic moments in history is missing. When Armstrong planted an American flag on the Moon, it acknowledged that while we went to the Moon for “all mankind,” getting there was a singular American achievement of astonishing proportions.

So why no Stars and Stripes?

Oh, I think we all know that well enough by now.

“First Man” is getting rave reviews at the Venice Film Festival, but critics noted the unpatriotically sanitized flick is missing something important, and Gosling explained he worked with French-Canadian director Damien Chazelle and the Armstrong family to decide on its key moments.

“I think this was widely regarded in the end as a human achievement (and) that’s how we chose to view it,” he said.  “I also think Neil was extremely humble, as were many of these astronauts, and time and time again he deferred the focus from himself to the 400,000 people who made the mission possible.”

A Navy fighter jock, test pilot, and astronaut, a “humble guy”? Not likely, chump. He might’ve been a polite guy, an unassuming guy, a considerate guy even. But I’ve known quite a few of them over the years myself, and I can tell you for sure that “humble guys” don’t excel in the business Armstrong was in. In fact, they don’t even enter it in the first place; arrogance—egotism, even—is pretty much a prerequisite, akin to a watch repairman’s steady hand and clear vision, a doctor’s empathy, or a veterinarian’s fondness for animals. As for that “human achievement” horseshit:

Was this really a “human achievement”? Sure, it was. So let’s send a bill to every country in the world to help pay the $200 billion we spent getting there ($25 billion in 1967 dollars).

American corporations designed the system that took us to the Moon. American workers built it. The American taxpayer paid for it. And Americans flew the damn bird. It is historically inaccurate and terribly, terribly unfair not to recognize the one nation that achieved the impossible dream of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth.

Ahh, but see, recognizing that is the very thing that frosts their nuts, and is why they have to rewrite history to avoid acknowledging it.

NASA strapped Armstrong and his fellow flyboys into a tiny, claustrophobic little capsule on top of what is basically an enormous (the equivalent of 36 stories tall) three-stage bomb, pointed it in the general direction of the Moon based on calculations done with slide rules, wished them good luck and bon voyage, and lit the fuse under their asses. When Armstrong dropped the lander on Luna, he had something 15 seconds of fuel left, having overflown the planned landing area because of unexpected boulders. They fucking did something that no other nation on the planet ever even dreamed of doing, and came back home safe and sound.

And now NASA is reduced to “Muslim outreach.” Meanwhile, our own domestic film industry thinks it’s a fine idea to just give away a purely and uniquely American glory to be spread around to all and sundry, for the wholly fucked-up reason that they hate their own country and just…just…just can’t even.

If this shit-flick propaganda movie doesn’t bomb to an absolutely record-setting proportion, if it makes a single dime for the twerps behind this disgusting insult to truth and history, then there is NO justice in this world.

If they weren’t going to tell the story straight, they shoulda left it alone altogether. Then again, I guess we should all just be grateful the Hollyweirdos didn’t remake him into a black female transgender lesbian dwarf or something.

Stolen glory update! Chuck Yeager responds:



Via Glenn. Reynolds, I mean, not John.

Humble pie update! Okay, I may have to grant “humble guy” after all. But with a big, fat caveat that renders the admission moot.

In 1988, while working at the Reagan White House, I was afforded the rare opportunity to sit down one-on-one with Armstrong in the White House and it was, and is, one of the highest honors of my life. I was conducting interviews at the time for my first book, “Footprints – The 12 Men who walked on the Moon Reflect on their Flights, their Lives, and the Future.”

Gosling is correct about one thing for sure. Armstrong was beyond humble. Weeks after our interview, he called me to ask that I not use it. He told me how very sorry he was to ask, but that upon further reflection, he was not comfortable talking about himself and did not want anyone to get the impression that the mission was about him.

I agreed immediately with his request.

While greatly disappointed – we ended up scrambling and using existing public quotes for the book – I was deeply impressed at how truly humble Armstrong was and how important it was to him that others receive the credit he believed they deserved.

On that subject, Gosling was only half correct when he speculated that: “…I don’t think that Neil viewed himself as an American hero.”

While Armstrong never viewed himself as a “hero,” he was incredibly proud to be an American. An American, who before becoming a test pilot and the first human on the moon, was a highly decorated naval aviator who flew 78 combat missions during the Korean War.

With regard to the slight against the United States and of the American flag being left out of “First Man,” Gosling jokes: “I’m Canadian, so might have cognitive bias.”

As someone who has more relatives in Canada than the U.S. – my family making its way from Nova Scotia to Boston decades ago – I would say his bias has nothing to do with Canada and everything to do with being liberal.

When I spoke with Armstrong back in 1988, he – along with all 11 other men who walked on the moon that I spoke with – very clearly saw the moon landing as an American achievement and was in fact, quite proud to plant the American flag in recognition of the American blood, sweat, and tears which helped get him and Buzz Aldrin to the surface.

Of course he did, and was—and damned well should have been, as should we all. No shame in that, nor is there any insult or derogation to anyone else implied. It’s just simple fact, which no amount of shitlib historical revision can change. As always, their argument isn’t really with us; it’s with reality.

(Via Ed)

Share

Reach across the aisle…

And blow me.

Who is the John McCain of the Democratic Party? The “maverick” who disagrees with his or her party’s orthodoxy and is willing to confront it? Is there such a figure?

Instead, an analysis of Congress by the Lugar Center found that, of the top 10 most bipartisan U.S. senators, just one—Joe Donnelly of Indiana—is a Democrat. Overwhelmingly, most of the “reaching across the aisle” is reaching from the Right.

In a piece that almost reads like parody, for example, the Washington Post just ran an article entitled “Five of John McCain’s most courageous political moments.” At the top of the list: The speech he gave when he lost to Barack Obama. (“Of course the media loved McCain,” one longtime Republican told me this week. “He’s a Republican who lost.”)

All the other moments involved McCain either attacking a Republican or defending a Democrat.   

The media can’t stop admiring the many times Sen. McCain took to the floor of the Senate to criticize Republican positions on issues like immigration or campaign finance reform. OK, fine. So where is the Democrat who’s done the same?

Can you imagine a Democratic senator giving a speech condemning the #AbolishICE, open-borders wing of his or her own party? Making the case, as economists have, that large-scale immigration by low-skill workers hurts the wages of Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder? A speech arguing, as labor unions did for decades, that the Democratic Party should be the party of strong borders in the name of economic justice?

That speech will never be given, because there isn’t a single “maverick” on the Democratic side of the aisle to give it.

A speech like that would actually help create the sort of bipartisanship we’ve been celebrating in the life of Sen. McCain. The tricky part: Finding a Democrat with the courage to give it. They would be ostracized from their own party.

Don’t believe me? Ask Joe Lieberman. In 2000, he was the Democrat’s nominee for Vice President of the United States. In 2006, he was driven out of his own party in a primary and had to run as an independent to hold onto his Connecticut U.S. Senate seat. What was Lieberman’s alleged sin? Working too closely with Republicans. One in particular: Sen. John McCain.

They’re fine with self-seeking schmucks like McCain, right up until they’re no longer useful to them or threaten them in any conceivable way. Then the knives come out again, until such time as the phony “Maverick” can be made use of once more. The Real Right ought to start treating its conciliatory “bipartisan” turncoats just like the Left does theirs…and the NeverTrumpTards would be a fine place to start.

(Via Ed)

Share

Deep (State) shit

Flush it all down.

Few outside their own little circus will argue that the media and politicians aren’t full of shit. Nobody will argue that Donald Trump is the fulfillment of Diogenes’ quest, but he questioned the shit, mocked the shit-peddlers, and presented an alternative to shit gone stale. When he told Clinton during a debate that she belonged in jail, he was saying what many Americans justifiably believed but were never going to hear from the mainstream shit-peddlers. When he said build a wall, he challenged a consensus that welcomed any brand of immigration “reform” as long as it welcomed any brand of illegal immigrant.

His willingness to say things many people believe, but which never make it to the mainstream, more than his positions on the issues, propelled Trump’s candidacy. Trump’s support came not from dispassionate intellectual analysis, but because he appealed to strong emotions, the strongest of which was: stick it to those assholes in the media and government.

Trump won. So much for the power of mainstream narratives; you can’t fool all the people all the time. Neck-deep in their own manure, the shitocracy went into paroxysms of puerile petulance. Their response: shovel more shit.

Once a person recognizes the shitocracy for what it is, there’s no reversal. You don’t say to yourself one day: “The media and the politicians are lying sacks of filth,” and the next day: “I think I’ll go back to believing them.”

Nope. Ain’t no unseeing this shit. The DC septic tank is overflowing; we’re probably gonna need Roto Rooter before all’s said and done.

Share

If you can’t say something nice…

John McCain is dead. And if I was capable of abiding by the principle expressed by my title phrase, I’d stop right there.

But I can’t, and y’all know I can’t. Hell, it’s a big part of the reason why you’re here in the first place. I’ll try to keep it short and…well. Anyways.

The godawful excess of veneration and exaltation of this small, vain man by his fellow Deep Staters in both government and media this week has been nothing short of sickening. Guess his perennial brown-nosing of Proggies both Democrat and Republican finally did pay off in the end.

Keating Five. Gang Of Eight. Gang Of Fourteen. McCain-Feingold. These are but a few of the long, long list of supposedly bedrock-conservative “principles” McCain betrayed over the course of his odious career. His colleagues knew him as “prickly” and “acerbic”; his employees knew him as a nasty, tyrannical, egotistical prick. Now he’s someone who “will never be forgotten,” as I saw someone or other quoted as saying earlier today. Pretty slick way of saying he was a right bastard without actually saying it, seems to me.

But the most sickening aspect of this blanket beatification has to be the “war hero” bit, the man who “stood up” under unspeakably hideous torture with nothing but his courage and iron to sustain him, to keep him from breaking.

Bullshit. Arrant bullshit. I will grant, he did serve in wartime, if incompetently, self-indulgently, recklessly, and to the general detriment of his shipmates in ways both great and small. Lots of folks have been quick to point out that he should be honored for not running off to Canada instead, but I don’t know how likely that ever was as the son of an admiral and the scion of a long line of Navy men. Nevertheless, serve he did, so a grudging tip of the cap for that. The one other compliment I can sincerely bring myself to pay the man is that he himself was honest enough to explicitly admit (eventually, after initially denying it) that the animals of Hoa Lo prison did indeed break him, and he felt the sting of shame deeply over it:

Eventually, McCain made an anti-U.S. propaganda “confession”. He had always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he later wrote, “I had learned what we all learned over there: every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.” Many U.S. POWs were tortured and maltreated in order to extract “confessions” and propaganda statements; virtually all of them eventually yielded something to their captors.

“Virtually”—but not quite all. Not hardly.

Fellow POW, Admiral James Stockdale, who was also held as a prisoner of war in the Hoa Lo prison and lead prisoner resistance, won the Medal of Honor for not allowing himself to be used in the manner McCain was. The citation for Stockdale’s Medal of Honor reads:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while senior naval officer in the Prisoner of War camps of North Vietnam. Recognized by his captors as the leader in the Prisoners’ of War resistance to interrogation and in their refusal to participate in propaganda exploitation, Rear Adm. Stockdale was singled out for interrogation and attendant torture after he was detected in a covert communications attempt. Sensing the start of another purge, and aware that his earlier efforts at self-disfiguration to dissuade his captors from exploiting him for propaganda purposes had resulted in cruel and agonizing punishment, Rear Adm. Stockdale resolved to make himself a symbol of resistance regardless of personal sacrifice. He deliberately inflicted a near-mortal wound to his person in order to convince his captors of his willingness to give up his life rather than capitulate. He was subsequently discovered and revived by the North Vietnamese who, convinced of his indomitable spirit, abated in their employment of excessive harassment and torture toward all of the Prisoners of War. By his heroic action, at great peril to himself, he earned the everlasting gratitude of his fellow prisoners and of his country. Rear Adm. Stockdale’s valiant leadership and extraordinary courage in a hostile environment sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

THAT’S what a real hero looks like. “Songbird” McCain? Umm…well…uhhhh…

When the communists learned that McCain’s father was Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., the soon-to-be commander of all U.S. Forces in the Pacific, he was rushed to Gai Lam military hospital (U.S. government documents), a medical facility normally unavailable for U.S. POWs.

The communist Vietnamese figured, because POW McCain’s father was of such high military rank, that he was of royalty or the governing circle. Thereafter the communists bragged that they had captured “the crown prince.”

For 23 combat missions (an estimated 20 hours over enemy territory), the U.S. Navy awarded McCain a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service medals.

“McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat,” explains Bill Bell, a veteran of Vietnam and former chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs — the first official U.S. representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall of Saigon. “Since McCain got 28 medals,” Bell continues, “that equals out to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys — grunts on the ground — who had more than 7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I’m sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down.”

For years, McCain has been an unchecked master at manipulating an overly friendly and biased news media. The former POW turned Congressman, turned U.S. Senator, has managed to gloss over his failures as a pilot and collaborations with the enemy by exaggerating his military service and lying about his feats of heroism.

Be all that as it may, it’s his long, sordid history of duplicity, betrayal, and low skullduggery throughout his overlong Senate career that truly and eternally condemns him. Aesop says it better than I can:

We note today the news from multiple sources that, after a long and brave struggle, the brain cancer in his head will finally succeed in removing from office the man the torpid and disgraceful voters of Arizona would not for over three decades in office, Sen. John Sidney McCain III. We salute the brain cancer in this long, valiant, and hard-won effort, and thank it for belatedly doing what mere voting should have done for AZ and the nation at least two decades prior.

Were we there when his casket passed us by, we’d render the hand salute, crisply and with military precision, to honor the flag on his coffin, that sacrifice he gave, and the sort of man who could and did undertake such service to his then-ungrateful and indifferent country.

But we did not undertake this to praise him, but to bury him. (We beseech the fates, please, soon.) So one fine day, his well-filled caisson shall pass, and he’d be laid to rest, and should we have the opportunity, we doubt we’d forego the chance to leave something on his grave site afterwards. A deposit that would not pass for flowers, nor from our heart, but rather from somewhere a foot or two lower down, to betoken what he spent the last 32 years on this earth doing: undercutting and backstabbing his constituents, and crapping on the state of Arizona, his party, his military record, the fallen shipmates who never made it home, his multiple oaths of office, and his country itself, in becoming one of the most petty, vindictive, backstabbing and cruel little pricks ever to befoul the halls of the United States Senate. Which, given the competition, is really saying something.

Everyone will remember with clarity the spiteful remarks, the gratuitously antagonistic and pugnacious demeanor, the outright duplicity, the barely concealed rage, the disloyalty to people who served him and were discard like used Charmin – the former governor of Alaska comes to mind – once he could get nothing more from them. The dictionary entry for “misanthrope” should bear his photographic likeness, and were he to pick up a cat in the dark, we have no doubt he’d pet it the wrong way out of sheer force of habit. We doubt even dogs liked him. Humans, however, will remember too the half-hearted, half-assed, and half-witted bumble for the presidency, inflicting by force of his own lacking humanity and manifest unfitness for the office, the last disastrous regime upon America, such that it could not be dislodged until the 22nd Amendment came to the rescue, just in the nick of time.

And most of all, they will remember the snarl of undisguised contempt he wore perpetually, and the demeanor and personality that gave it to him, and preventing even the most kind-hearted person from ever regarding him with well-deserved pity, rather than the justly earned disgust he’s finally enjoyed. That he is the sort of man who would drag himself to cast the deciding vote to thwart the will of the vast majority of Americans in ending the disastrous experiment in full socialism that was ObamaCare, contrary to his party, president, and simple mathematics, amidst the ravages of brain cancer, really tells you more about the man than anything that two thousand days of beating and torture at the hands of inhuman communist bastards ever could. He’ll probably enter eternity still more proud of that petty, vindictive, and traitorous act than he will of any day he ever spent in uniform.

And any obituary, come the happy day, cannot but note that the latter more than dwarfs the former.

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, and 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 politicans.” 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.

I mentioned last week the edifying coincidence of Aretha Franklin dying on the same day as Elvis; the same with Jefferson and Adams both dying on the 4th of July. But can it really be a coincidence that McCain joined the Choir Invisible on the same day as his kindred spirit and fellow predator-politician Ted Kennedy? Maybe the Almighty was giving us a strong hint as to where both of them will be spending eternity. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.

Share

Chutzpah

My God, the BALLS on this woman.

On CNN Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was asked to comment on the heartbreaking case of Mollie Tibbetts, the Iowa teenager who was allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant.

Rather than simply offer condolences to the Tibbetts family, Warren said they “have to remember” that it’s important for the country to focus on “real problems” like helping illegal immigrants. She then launched into a rote political diatribe lamenting the treatment of illegal aliens at the Mexican border.

Mollie Tibbetts has been separated from her mama forever because an illegal immigrant brutally murdered her. Unfortunately for Warren, there are no Democrat talking points to help her with that sad reality.

Yeah, sure, but how’s that going to help with beating us all over the head with the Democrat Socialist agenda?

Solway was right in the piece I excerpted below: they’re positively Luciferian. All they’re missing is the horns, tail, and cloven hooves. The sulfur stench they’ve definitely got covered, though; it wafts around freely every time they open their filthy yaps.

Update! Ace notes the Kermit Gosnell Strategy in full effect with the libmedia scum on this. Which in its turn brings us ’round to this: “And They Wonder Why We’re Angry.” If we weren’t, we’d be every bit as morally derelict, depraved, and despicable as they are.

Share

Reverse evolution

Wait, Miranda Veracuz de Jolla Cardinale Occasional-Cortex was actually right once?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist congressional candidate from New York who touts honesty and authenticity as her greatest strengths, used to describe herself as a follower of Adam Smith, the so-called father of capitalism — and said that terms like “feminism” and “empowerment” were “relics from the past.”

Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has come out as an unapologetic democratic socialist, wishing to see greater taxation and expansion and creation of wide-ranging social programs such as a single-payer health care system, free education, and housing as a right.

“I think my strength is I’m honest and authentic,” she told “The Daily Show” host Trevor Noah last week. Those qualities helped her in June to beat top Democrat Joe Crowley, whose name was floated as the next speaker of the U.S. House.

But not that long ago, 28-year-old Ocasio-Cortez harbored a lot milder if not radically different views.

So, if Churchill’s (apocryphal) proposition—if you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain—holds, it would seem that Occasional-Cortex, with her personal journey of intellectual de-evolution, has neither heart NOR brain, then.

Share

Draft horses of America, unite!

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

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

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

Always.

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

Just remember that you are an egg.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

A dubious luxury we can’t afford

Sooner or later, they run out of other people’s money.

Contemplating the silly pronouncements of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, self-declared socialist and surprise winner of Democratic primary in New York’s 14th congressional district, I wonder if this particular form of political stupidity requires a certain level of affluence to thrive.

Capitalism is the greatest engine for the production of wealth that the ingenuity of man has ever devised. But after it achieves a certain level of prosperity, it regularly excretes characters like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, beneficiaries of capitalism whose contempt for its strictures is equaled only by their ignorance of its tenets.

Margaret Thatcher famously observed that the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t grasped that yet. Thus she has campaigned for tuition-free universities and the forgiveness of all student loan debt in the United States, the price tag for which is well in excess of $1 trillion. She wants the United States to abandon fossil fuels and somehow (physics is not her forte) run the electric grid entirely on wind and solar power. Naturally, she advocates a single-payer health care system and wants to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

The implementation of any one of these proposals would seriously hurt US prosperity. Taken all together they would push the country far down the road towards penury, the inevitable result of socialism.

Calls for socialism recur like plagues of locusts every several years, most virulently, it seems, not when the economy is suffering but when it is booming.

That’s because socialism is parasitic in nature, unable to exist for long without the affluence provided by capitalism to feed on. Look at Europe, leeching off of America’s providing for its defense since WW2, for Exhibit A. The howls of fearful outrage over Trump DESTROYING NATO OMGOMGOMGELEVENTY!!! via his insistence that the freeloaders begin ponying up their share of the tab would be Exhibit B.

Meanwhile, the Democrat Socialist Party would like you to know that no, as a matter of fact they AREN’T socialist, despite their decades-old demands for pretty much everything Occasional-Cortex burped up above:

Both Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Elizabeth Warren got pressed on the issue this week by CNBC’s John Harwood, and both denied the “S” label.

“The Democratic Party is not a socialist party,” Waters said. But then she followed that up by saying of socialist Bernie Sanders, “I consider him basically a Democrat.”

Far-left Sen. Warren felt the need to make it clear that “I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets.”

For now, Democrats don’t want to admit what their party has turned into, because the “socialist” brand isn’t very popular.

But look at what it now stands for.

The Democratic base went head over heels for socialist Bernie Sanders in 2016, to the point where he nearly stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton — who said she struggled with her own party because they thought of her as a “capitalist.”

Democrats have by and large embraced a “Medicare for all” health plan that would outlaw private insurance and is to the left of every other health system in the world, except maybe Cuba.

Many of the 2020 presidential hopefuls are on board with “government-guaranteed jobs,” an idea last seen in the Soviet Union’s constitution.

And, as if that weren’t enough, Democratic Party Chairman Tom Perez called socialist Ocasio-Cortez “the future of our party.”

We don’t doubt that many Democrats are sincere in their belief that they are sensible centrists. And there’s no doubt that some still are.

Name three. More to the point: name three that would have any hope at all of successfully competing for their criminal-conspiracy of a political party’s nomination for President, or who weren’t effectively drummed out of said Party long ago.

Now let’s see: it walks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it quacks like a duck. But it says it’s not a duck. So who you gonna believe, the Democrat Socialists or your own lyin’ eyes?

Share

The Deep State is real

An excellent synopsis of the “Russia collusion” hoax.

Under questioning, Comey admitted to the Inspector General Michael Horowitz that he authored the May 2 statement and penned every word of it himself. But then he offered the implausible claim that “he did not recall that his original draft used the term ‘gross negligence,’ and did not recall discussions about that issue.”

Comey’s amnesia is preposterous. He would have us believe that, as FBI director, he memorialized in print his decision that the leading candidate for president of the United States had committed crimes, yet later could not recollect anything about the most important decision of his career.

The truth is that Comey well remembers what he wrote, because he participated in subsequent discussions with top officials at the FBI about Clinton’s “gross negligence.” Several meetings were held on the subject and contemporaneous notes prove that Comey was in attendance. Those records show that although Comey was convinced that Clinton was “grossly negligent” in violation of the law, he was determined to clear her notwithstanding. To achieve this somersault and absolve the soon-to-be Democratic nominee, the legally damning terminology would have to be stricken from his statement. 

Amnesia must be contagious at the FBI. Testifying before Congress, Strzok feigned no recollection of using his computer to make the critical alteration that cleared Clinton. He did, however, directly implicate the FBI director.

“Ultimately, he (Comey) made the decision to change that wording,” said Strzok.

But wait, how could Comey order a change in the words he doesn’t remember writing?  Their stories don’t jibe. At least one of them is lying.

Read all of it. As confusing and convoluted as the coup attempt may seem at first blush, it’s actually quite cut and dried. To wit: our government is assuredly NOT what we’ve all been led to believe since childhood. Its shadowy, unaccountable agencies operate with neither the “consent of the governed” nor its subjects’ best interests in mind; the minions of those misbegotten agencies possess not honor nor integrity nor humility nor a sense of duty nor respect for American values, traditions, and institutions to any discernable degree.

Our government, in short, is an affront to all the Founders revered and intended. To insist, as Democrat-Socialist shitwads do when it’s politically convenient for them, that real Americans owe such rogue abominations as the FBI, CIA, IRS, and the whole diseased host of alphabet agencies even the smallest dollop of allegiance or reverence is a grotesque insult—one that ought to resound across the fruited plain continuously, until every last sewer-rat therein is forced to flee for their very lives from the environs of Mordor On The Potomac lest the righteous rage of an abused populace descend upon them in the measure they deserve.

Share

Rule One

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ace draws the correct lesson from this teachable moment.

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

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

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

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

Share

The Old Grey Whore

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

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

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

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

The Times, alas, is not that journalistic organization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

All too happy to oblige

Gonna need some brain bleach over here, stat!

Thursday’s The View started off with an astounding nearly 10-minute-long meltdown over Justice Kennedy’s retirement from the Supreme Court, and the second chance for President Trump to appoint a judge for the highest court of the land, during his first two years in office. Liberal Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar were the most upset about the news with Whoopi angrily attacking host Meghan McCain, Republicans and Christians for potentially challenging Roe v Wade.

It was then Whoopi’s turn to rage that abortion rights we’re going to be “taken away” from Republicans who “don’t care” about women’s rights:

I don’t like hearing, again, that I’m trying to take your rights away. I have to tell you, as a woman, I think you’re trying to take my rights away. Okay? You don’t care.

Well, you got that bit right, at least.

And as a person, who believes in the constitution which tells me that I have the right to be myself and do the things I want to do,

Pretty sure that bit ain’t in there, actually. But then, the constitution you claim to “love” and “believe in” bears no resemblance to the one the Founders established anyway. You shitlibs have practically made a full-time career out of finding things in there that ain’t, while denying or ignoring the things that are.

and I don’t have to listen to what your religion is, and I don’t have to listen to what you want it to be I have to make sure that as an American citizen, I’m doing the right stuff and taking care of business.

I don’t like this line that I, as a Democrat, or an independent or whatever is trying to take away anything from you.

Except my liberty, my right to self-determination, my 2A rights, my freedom of speech, my right to be left alone, my right to hold conservative views free from harassment and assault and to have them respected, my right to elect a president of my own choosing without having the election overturned, my right to dissent from Left orthodoxy without enduring your scorn and derision, and one hell of a lot of others—yeah, you don’t want to take away a damned thing, do ya?

I’m trying to hold onto my personal rights so that you can have the rights you want. See? Because if you take mine, I feel like you’re the one with the problem. If you take my right away from me, to judge what I do for my family and my body

“Family”? WHAT family? You killed it a-borning in an abortion mill.

I got a little problem with that. You got a problem. You don’t want people to take your guns?

Slight but crucial distinction here: it’s not so much that we “don’t want” you to take our guns; we AREN’T GOING TO ALLOW liberal fascists like you to take our guns. There’s a difference, see. Another difference: my right to own guns is actually, y’know, quite specifically and clearly enshrined in the Constitution, supported by every single damned word every one of the Founders ever uttered on the topic both before and after it was written. Your “right” to heartlessly murder innocent unborn children because you consider them an inconvenience…umm, well, isn’t.

Get out of my behind! Get out of my vagina! Get out!

And there it is. Whoopi, I absolutely, categorically assure you that there ain’t enough money and/or booze on this planet to induce me to be anywhere near your vagina at any time, for even a moment. Full stop, end of story.

An aside: please understand something here, folks. Speaking strictly for myself, I do NOT support a blanket ban on abortion, everywhere and in all circumstances, and I doubt I ever will. I have no idea how many of us out there DO, honestly. There are instances—regrettable, tragic ones to be sure—where abortion is necessary, the lesser of two evils. Threat to the life of the mother would be one; it happened to some close friends of mine, in fact, and was an awful, shattering thing for all involved. I myself would say that cases of rape or incest might be another; I just can’t see forcing someone to bear a child produced by such severe trauma and violation against her wishes, myself. But YMMV, and probably does.

What most of us are arguing for, and have been from the start, is the return of such decisions to their proper Constitutional realm: the states. The above-mentioned are deep, highly personal matters, of great consequence to those involved, and as such are best handled by those closest to the situation and immediately affected by it. Which is, y’know, the exact reason the Constitution says what it says, and does what it does. The Founders knew all this, and agreed with it, and did their level best to restrict the ability of an overlarge, meddlesome federal government to botch things up with one-size-fits-all edicts from Mordor On The Potomac, just as they in their prescient wisdom knew it would.

This is why Roe V Wade was such a self-evident, ass-backwards screwup. By manufacturing a nonexistent “right” to unfettered, limitless abortion-on-demand, Roe stood the Constitution on its head, magicking the foundational principles behind it into their exact opposite. The incredible irony here is that with their insistence on a phony “living Constitution,” liberals provided for the eventual destruction of its flimsy, written-in-quicksand “guarantees” and denied themselves the protection, fragile though it may sometimes be, provided by the real one. Their ignorant, underhanded dismissal of a literal interpretation of the Constitution weakened it, just as they intended. Their establishment of a grotesque federal Superstate in its stead made all of us vulnerable to tyranny in direct consequence.

UNEXPECTED!™

None of which—the Constitution, states’ rights, limited government, respect for the rights of the individual—is what Whoopsie and her ilk are arguing for, which is why they have to lie about our position on abortion and other issues the way they do. In the case at hand specifically, what they really demand is abortion as a means of post-facto contraception—often enough, to be paid for by the tax dollars of people who find abortion morally repugnant, which is itself yet another kettle of stinky, rotting fish. On the larger issues, they’d have been a lot better off to insist not on a boundless federal government empowered to rule at its own whim, but on the greater responsiveness, flexibility, and accountability of the one the Founders set up. It’s kind of remarkable they can’t see it, when you think about it.

Share

Make it stop!

Why is it always the homeliest and dumpiest among ’em who just can’t refrain from getting themselves all nekkid in public, and will find any excuse at all to sound high-minded about indulging their exhibitionist kink?

Well, okay, I guess for a middle-aged Feminazi college professor, she ain’t all THAT bad, really. Considering the beached-whale gravy boats stripping off at Lefty protest-cum-riots from sea to shining sea in our own nation, we’ve all surely beheld worse. But still: nope, ain’t no unseeing that.

I have to believe that someday, a reasonably cute Lefty chick willing to let ’em breathe in broad daylight will surface, thus negating the endless parade of blubberous, screeching, pink-mohawked tuna schooners and making our long national nightmare worth all the suffering that led up to her welcome emergence. I hereby pledge to do my little all in securing her internet-sensationhood, should that frabjous day arrive while I’m still young enough to give a damn.

Thanks for nuthin’ to Heartiste, who quips: “Forget it, Jake, it’s Vaginatown.

Share

Big backfire coming

Bake me a fucking cake, retards.

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but HELL NO.

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

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

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

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

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

They will be ignored.

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

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

Bottom line:

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

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

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

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

Update! Aesop also provides a link to this:

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

Go somewhere else.

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

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

The Red Hen of Lexington? Not so much.

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

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

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

Share

All you need to know about them

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

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

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

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

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

Update! More from Daniel:

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

It’s been true for a long while now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Categories

Archives

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix