Tuesday, February 28

Interesting times

We live in interesting times.

The world seems divided into at least reasonably good people, and bad ones.  For lack of a better term we might call these folks the Light side and the Dark side.

Those on the Dark-Side would include beheaders, torturers of humans or animals, people who apparently get a perverse delight in inflicting pain.  They hate those who love freedom and self-determination.  This group surely includes ISIS, the regime ruling North Korea, Boko Haram and the like.

Those of the Dark Side have learned that those of the Light Side will not use their technical superiority to crush the Dark--even though the Dark is openly determined to destroy the Light.

And amazingly, within the Light side is an ignorant plurality--possibly even a slim majority--who would gladly help the Dark side crush the Light--even in their own country--because they think themselves somehow magically immune from the consequences of that destruction.

H/T Subotai Bahadur at Belmont.

DNC chair insists on photo ID for those voting for DNC chair--but hate photo ID for national elections

The Democrat party hates all state laws requiring voters to show photo ID--a measure designed to reduce the amount of fraudulent voting.  They file suit against any state law that requires photo ID.

On the other hand...when it comes to their OWN election for the person to chair the Dem National Committee, they had a sudden change of heart:  Yep, they required photo ID of anyone voting.

Not only photo ID, but paper ballots!

Yep.  As interim chair Donna Brazile said (to the applause of party members), 
“We have to make sure that we can not just count the ballots but verify every name and signature.  And I want to make sure that at the conclusion of all of our votes, that you, the members of this party, will be able to review those ballots.”
What utter, total, complete damn hypocrisy!  Dems want photo ID in their own precious election but hate it when states propose the same thing for electing congress and the president.

Hypocrites.  Total rat-bastards.

Sunday, February 26

Dems comparing Trump to Hitler note that Hitler ALSO built a wall!

Further to my previous post on Democrats or the Lying Media comparing Trump to Hitler virtually daily, take a look at the poster below, apparently created by an outfit called "Occupy Democrats."

Other than the obvious comparison, check the caption under Adolph:  "Hitler had his Berlin Wall."

For Democrats this makes perfect sense:  The most famous wall in the 20th century was the Berlin Wall--which was built by communist East Germany to keep their own people from fleeing to free, prosperous West Berlin.

(For those of you under 30 and educated in public schools, after WW2 Germany was divided into East and West, with the East run by the Soviet Union, under communism, while West Germany was free.  Germany's capital, Berlin, was similarly divided.  For some reason people in East Berlin kept risking their lives to make it to West Berlin.  There isn't a single case of someone wanting to go the other direction.  Which is odd, cuz the Dems keep telling you socialism is such a great system and all.)

So there was a Wall in Berlin--capital of Germany.  And Hitler was a German leader.  So since Trump = Hitler, and Trump has proposed a wall along our southern border, ergo Hitler must have build the Berlin Wall.

This is what passes for historical accuracy for Democrats--much like the notion that Lincoln (the dude who issued an executive order freeing all slaves in the U.S.) was a Democrat, or that the KKK was a Republican organization.  And on and on.

Okay, for the under-30 crowd:  The Berlin Wall was built in 1961.  Hitler committed suicide in his bunker in 1945.  So obviously Hitler didn't build the Berlin Wall.

But it's just too good a story for the Dems to bother with historical facts, eh?

Lying Media and Dems demonizing Trump personally, fanning flames in fevered brains

The extraordinary assaults by media, celebrities and jealous politicians against Trump have been unending.  Their attacks include questioning his mental health, repeatedly comparing him to Hitler, declaring him a fascist, insisting he’s a modern-day Manchurian candidate, that he’s a traitor (because Russians!), and on and on.

These aren't reasoned arguments against his policies, but entirely personal attacks.  They're accusations meant to inflame readers or listeners--to instill a sense of fear or anger against the president of the United States.

A great question to ask is, Why would the attackers want to do that?  What's the likely, foreseeable result of creating such a toxic environment?

The same people made the same personal attacks on President Reagan.  Steven Hayward noted “Democratic Rep. William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.”

(For those of you under 30 and educated in public schools, Mein Kampf was a book Hitler wrote before WW2.)

Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall.  (For those under 30, Hitler did that--and only Hitler.)  Harry Stein (who later became a conservative) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were like the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany."

After being endlessly demonized as Hitler by the media, it shouldn’t be surprising that within 90 days of Reagan's inauguration a crazy guy shot him.

John Hinckley shot Reagan to impress a movie star.

The girl had never indicated she disliked Reagan, but the media had so fanned the flames of hate toward Reagan in Democrats and the mentally ill that one of 'em thought he'd be a hero if he shot the president.  After all, everyone in the media and talk shows and Hollywood all agreed that Reagan was a dumb, unhinged fascist who would likely start a nuclear war simply because he was dumb. And evil, of course.

Sound familiar?  Yep, just like today.

So far the barrage of hate and demonization against Trump is virtually identical to what they threw at Reagan.  For example, the Washington Post didn't just go all-in for Hillary: in the middle of the campaign the Post printed an editorial titled,
“Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy.”
Just three days ago the same Post printed a story claiming "Demonic activity was palpable" at a recent Trump rally.

"Demonic activity"?  That's not journalism, it's pure propaganda.

Democrat leaders and the media claim Trump is Hitler or a fascist almost daily.  Leftist website The Hill posted
“A growing number of Democrats are openly questioning President Trump’s mental health. …. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., during a weekend interview with CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ said that ‘a few’ Republican colleagues have expressed concern to him about Trump’s mental health.”
The New Republic, a leftist rag, took the attack to a new low by posting that the president might have an undiagnosed case of syphilis.  Because…why not?  "And if we merely speculate, it's not fake news, hehehehe!"

If the media want to complain about Trump’s policies, fine, but constantly demonizing the president personally is fanning the flames of people who are already pretty far deranged.  It’s a danger to the president, and to all of us.

You'll note that not a single Democrat is standing up and saying "This is over the line!  Stop it."

Why haven't we seen a single Dem objecting?  Two reasons:  First, a huge number of 'em want Trump either impeached or killed.  And second, objecting to The Narrative gets you thrown out of the clan.  No party invites, no talk-show appearances, no air-time.  For a Dem leader that's death.

Friday, February 24

Another city decides not to help deport illegal aliens

Elections have consequences, and residents of Phoenix are learning some interesting ones after electing a sheriff supported by George Soros:  The new sheriff is releasing an average of 400 “criminal illegal immigrants” are being released every 10 days.

It’s part of sheriff Paul Penzone’s new policy to protect illegal aliens from deportation, even if they've committed serious state crimes.

Under a longtime partnership between the county and the feds, the sheriff's office notified Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when “aliens unlawfully present with additional Arizona charges” were released from the Maricopa County Jail.  That ended when Penzone, who refers to illegal immigrants as “guests,” took office this year.

Though the sheriff formally announced the change just last week, it was actually started much earlier.

Of course I'm sure the released illegals won't commit any more crimes, so probably a good idea, eh?

Dems have declared: they're all-in for open borders, letting anyone waltz in

Democrats, liberals and "progressives" have declared their allegiance:  they want open borders, under which anyone wanting to come to the U.S. and stay could do so.

Like all liberal ideas, this one has an immediate attraction:  People who support it feel good about themselves, because they're helping people less-fortunate than themselves.

Unfortunately, the experience of damn near every nation in the world shows that open borders--i.e. unrestricted immigration--turns the host society to shit.

Look at the huge increase in crime--particularly rape--in once-peaceful Sweden.  Same for Germany France and the U.K.  Ordinary citizens know it's a disaster, but unfortunately they can't prevent their dictatorial governments from doing what the elites damn well please.

"But..." libs sputter, "OUR immigration policy will be different.  We won't have crime or drugs or rapes here!"

Why? we ask.

"Well...well...well...because we Democrats have it all figured out, that's why.  And we say it'll be fine!"

Ah, I see.  So this would be...an assertion?  As in, totally unsupported by the experience of any other nation?  Y'know, that really sounds persuasive.

"Good!  Glad you're starting to see reason.  Now let us get back to work importing 2500 Somalians to Minot, North Dakota."

You bet.  Oh, just one more question:  If admitting 2500 unvetted Muslim immigrants is such a good thing, why send 'em to a small town in North Dakota?  Why not set up some Section 8 housing in your neighborhood?  Georgetown, is it?  Yes, that sounds perfect.  So, how about it?"

"Uh...well...well...you don't understand anything about...uh...sociology or neighborhood development or...things like that!  These people don't need to be in OUR neighborhoods but in small towns so they'll have a chance to, uh...assimilate better.  Yeah, that's it!"

Ah, I see.  Glad y'all explained that, cuz for awhile there we were starting to think y'all were just hypocritical rat-bastards.

WaPo article claims "demonic activity was palpable" at Trump rally. But they're not biased at all

How much has the Washington Post departed from "journalism" to 'get' Trump?  Consider this headline from just two days ago:

‘Demonic activity was palpable’ at Trump’s rally, pastor says

Yes, the WaPo is seriously quoting an American religious figure who claims "demonic activity was palpable' at Trump's recent rally in Florida.

Has the Post ever treated charges of "demonic activity" seriously before?  No.  But now, as with all the Democrats and Leftists, nothing's off-limits.

You have to dig way down in the comments to learn that the pastor who made the comments--and his remarks are the entire article--was loudly pro-Hillary and anti-Trump before the election.  When this was pointed out by several commenters, a single commenter replied 8 times "But that doesn't invalidate the man's observations," as if the Trump-hater could be counted on to be totally objective about sensing "demonic activity."

I'm not a Trump fan, but this sort of nakedly partisan propaganda posing as "journalism" got old a long time ago.  It's obvious that the WaPo and the rest of the left-wing lying media are trying their best to destroy Trump and his supporters.

Wednesday, February 22

Former Dem cabinet member implies Trump caused the riots in Sweden!

After the riots by muslim immigrants broke out in a suburb of the swedish capital a couple of days ago, pundits on the right were joking about how long it would take before the Left blamed the rioting on Trump--you know, for saying "It's unbelievable what's happening in Sweden."

It was a joke, but the evil wackos on the Left always sink to the challenge.  And sure enough, today Robert Reich tweeted this:
The clear implication of "Trump's lies have consequences" is that Trump's comments caused the riots in Sweden.  Someone should ask Reich--with video rolling--if he really believes this.

Stay classless, Dems.

MSNBC host says it's the media's job to "control exactly what people think"

How arrogant, how absurd, how controlling is the mainstream media?  Take a look.

Wednesday morning MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski brazenly declared that the media's job is to "control exactly what people think."

While discussing President Trump's suggestion that the media doesn't tell the truth and that the American people are right to be skeptical of the press, Bzezinski worried that Americans may end up trusting Trump more than the media.  Here's the exchange:

SCARBOROUGH: "Exactly. That is exactly what I hear. What Yamiche said is what I hear from all the Trump supporters that I talk to who were Trump voters and are still Trump supporters. They go, 'Yeah you guys are going crazy. He's doing -- what are you so surprised about? He is doing exactly what he said he is going to do.'"
BRZEZINSKI: "Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job."

There's no doubt whatsoever that the lying rat-bastards of the Mainstream Media want to "control exactly what people think."  They've done that for so long that even the faint prospect that they might lose that control has them all in fits.  Still, it's odd to hear one of MSNBC's rat-bastards actually slip and admit this on the air. 

Almost like they don't care if the public hears the admission.

Competition and the Left

The Left hates the idea of competition--in this case the intellectual competition between different theories of how a society or economy or nation should operate.

True, honest, fair competition is the engine that drives progress and success.  The Left hates that because in almost every area their ideas and policies produce bad results.

One of the Left's cherished policies is socialism.  They love it.  But if you want to see the outcome of socialism, take a look at Venezuela--which once the highest per-capita income in all South America.

Competition of ideas:  We haven't had it here for decades.  That's because for decades American politics has been run by what's been called the Uni-party.  The top priority of the uni-party is re-election, which they've found can be achieved by giving "free" stuff to voters.  (And yes, I'm including gifts to corporations.)

In this regard far too many Republicans have behaved and voted with the Democrats so they'd be liked, and re-elected. 

The hatred of Trump--and the baying of the mainstream media trying to impeach him barely a month into his term--is a reaction to the first real competition the Left and the uni-party have had for years.

The Left can't stand it, so their goal is to kill any competing ideas as soon as possible. Can't have voters being exposed to competing theories, eh?

Seems to me a good government would prioritize ideas like truth, morality, personal responsibility, self reliance, honor, trust, courtesy, gratitude-- even sound mathematics and common sense--over "Let's give things to people, by taking money from working people at gunpoint."

And "We shouldn't allow people to speak if they say things the Left doesn't like."

And "It's a great idea for the government to force schools to let guys use the girls' facilities."

And "The government should pay for sex-change surgery for inmates and the indigent."

In other words, the ideas that guided the founders of this exceptional country seem good.  The ideas of the Left?  Not so much.

Tuesday, February 21

Some teachers in Cali thought classes were far better without illegals last Thursday; they've been put on leave

Last Thursday illegal-immigrant students didn't go to classes to show support for the so-called "Day without immigrants."

First, what they meant was "day without illegal immigrants."  Not the same thing at all.  "But hey, we wanna make voters think people who oppose illegal immigration are anti-immigrant.  Xenophobes.  Knuckle-draggers who are too stupid to know what's best for the country.  So back the hell off!" 

In any case...in the high school in Jurupa Valley, California--a town with a very high percentage of illegal immigrants--several teachers noticed a huge difference in their classes with the illegals out.

They made the mistake of posting those observations on social media.

If they'd posted something like "It was so SAD not having our vibrant cultural-enrichers here!" there wouldn't have been any problem.  Unfortunately for them, what they noticed was that classes were much quieter and more productive without the illegals, so now they've been put on paid leave while the school district investigates what it calls "controversial" social media posts.

A science teacher posted that the walk-out proved “how much better things might be without all this overcrowding.  Best school day ever.”

Another said the 50 absences in her classes made it “a very pleasant day.”

Another wrote: “Quieter classes, more productive - let’s do this more often.”Another added: “Same here! Small classes, trouble makers were gone fantastic day!”

The district superintendent declined to say what further action might be taken against the teachers.

Head of journalism committee compares Trump to socialist dictator Hugo Chavez

Did you know there's actually a "Committee to Protect Journalism"?

No, I'm not kidding.  The poor darlings (well, maybe that wasn't my first thought) believe they need "protection." One wonders what they need protection from, eh? 

Now that mystery has been solved:  They need protection from...criticism by Trump.

Seriously.   In a column for the Columbia Journalism Review last Friday the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalism compared President Donald Trump to the late Venezuelan leftist dictator Hugo Chavez.

Snowflake Joel Simon wrote “What does Trump have in common with Hugo Chavez? A media strategy.” 

“Trump’s unrelenting attacks on the media and attempts to undermine its credibility and paint it as an opposition force are straight out the Latin American populists’ playbook,” he wrote. 

The fact that Chavez was a hard-core socialist and authoritarian doesn't daunt Simon's comparison.  He claims “there are remarkable similarities between the two in the rhetoric they employ to mobilize supporters.”

Gosh, sparky, would the use of heated rhetoric to mobilize supporters include statements like "If they bring a knife, you bring a gun"? 

Oooh, wait...that was your darling, the emperor Obozo.  So apparently rhetoric by folks you like is just ducky.

He added that leaders like Chavez believed it was crucial to stop the press from having the “ability to provide a shared, unifying narrative.”

Ah, yes.  We certainly see the importance of the press having a "shared, unifying narrative."  Like how awful Republicans are.  Wouldn't want the press to print different viewpoints, eh?  That might confuse voters!

Monday, February 20

Deporting Muslims is awful! Oh wait--some country did it and our media didn't say a critical word

While members of the Democrat party, liberals, leftists and the Lying Media were shrieking about how awful that Trump person was for ordering a temporary ban on travel from 7 muslim countries, another country was taking stronger action.

Without any notice by our Lying Media, Saudi Arabia has deported 40,000 Pakistani Muslims, citing "terror concerns."

But wait...a Muslim-run nation deporting other Muslims?  A bedrock law in Islam is that Muslims aren't supposed to kill other members of their faith.  They can kill members of any other faith, just not other Muzz.  So why would Saudi Arabia deport people who are barred from harming them?

The Saudi's simply said "terrorist concerns."

Naturally our media shills were outraged at this discrimination against people the Saudi security service merely suspected of being a threat, and proceeded to write outraged articles about how awful this was, because...

Hahahahahaha!  Just kidding.  Our media didn't say a word.  Cuz The Narrative is only about How Can We Scream About How Bad Trump Is, Yet Again.

But it's interesting:  Islam allows Muzz terrorists to kill YOU, infidel, but not other believers.  Yet the Saudis think this terrorism--from other Muslims--is enough reason to get 'em out.  And our media doesn't see anything amiss with that.  But when Trump orders a temporary ban on admitting people from seven Muslim nations, that's totally AWFUL!  Even though murders by fundamentalist Muslims of "unbelievers" is a real threat.

Wow.  Starting to see why Trump says the media doesn't have your interest at heart?

Media outraged about Flynn lying--but didn't even ask a single question after Obama's NSA lied about Benghazi

For 8 years of the emperor's reign no one in the media gave a damn about national security, nor asked Obozo or his minions any serious questions about it.  But now that Trump is prez, suddenly the press seems to have rediscovered the subject. 

Once again, double-standards.

On September 16, 2012--just four days after the attack on a U.S. consular annex in Benghazi resulted in the death of 4 Americans, including our ambassador--Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice went on five Sunday talk shows to peddle a story she and the entire Obama administration knew was a lie.

You can read most of her comments here, but Rice repeats the line that Benghazi attack was not premediated but was similar to the demonstrations in Cairo over a video posted on the internet.

In a press gaggle on Air Force One the next day, guess how many times the adoring reporters asked Press Secretary Josh Earnest any questions about Rice’s comments?

Ten times?  Five?  Once?

Not even once. Let me repeat that. The day after Obama’s national security advisor was on five news programs to blame a terrorist attack on a YouTube video, not one reporter asked the White House about the implausible claim.  The transcripts show Rice's name did not even come up.

No discussion about the investigation. No discussion about emerging evidence from around the world that Benghazi was indeed a terrorist attack. (The only time it was mentioned was when Jen Psaki criticized Mitt Romney’s comments about how the administration handled Benghazi and questioned whether he was ready for “primetime.”)

Instead reporters joked with Earnest about football and “Saturday Night Live.”

When Obama was prez the media acted like his press agents, avoiding hard questions and covering for his gaffes--like saying he'd been to almost all 57 U.S. states.  Suddenly they're on the attack, all the time.  Even about trivia.

Remember that the next time some so-called "journalist" wails about how Trump is undermining the "integrity and credibility" of the lying media.

NY Times prints op-ed titled "How can we get rid of Trump?"

If a conservative paper published an article 8 years ago saying "How can we get rid of Obama?" what do you think the reaction of Democrats and the entire mainstream lying media would have been?

Sure--they would have shrieked and screamed for three weeks about how awful! terrible! and raaacist! it was to print that!  They would have cried "It's un-American! to talk about "getting rid of" our new president!

Of course that was then.  Today, with a Republican president, the NY Times can print an op-ed with the headline "How can we get rid of Trump?" and Democrats think it's perfectly fine.  

No one in the Lying Media utters a peep of protest.  Something every one of the lying bastards would have shriekingly condemned if said about their emperor is perfectly fine to write when a Republican is president.

Oh, and note the header is just "Trump," not "President Trump."  Back when the emperor was occupying the presidency we heard libs protesting bitterly if a conservative paper used "Obama" without his title.  Now, I couldn't care less about titles but find it amusing how libs suddenly change the rules of civil behavior when the Republicans win one.

I suspect few reasonable people can believe the Times would write such a piece.  Well, click the link and see for yourself.  And in case we do get civil war and the Times decides to remove the article (cuz they'll want to deny they had any role whatsoever in causing it), it was Feb 18th by Nick Kristof

Thursday, February 16

Re: Flynn ouster

It's beginning to look as though there's a "shadow government," composed of entrenched Democrat government employees, members of the CIA and other intel agencies.  Some pundits are calling it Deep State, based on how deeply it's entrenched in the agencies.

The shadow government hates Trump, and thinks "populism" is a dangerous revolt by poorly-educated, unenlightened peasants against Better People Who Know Better.

Back in the 1800's a smart man said "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."  Because these Deep State bureaucrats hate Trump and his supporters, they're determined to remove him from power --whether by impeachment or merely blocking him at every turn.

The fact that this will destroy democracy in the U.S. bothers them not at all.  They're determined to save us from a Fascist Authoritarian, by any means. 

The whole Flynn episode seems to be evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America's democratic institutions.  Flynn's ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) executed by anonymous members of the intelligence community. They don't seem to have accused him of anything more serious than talking to the Russ ambassador before he was appointed by Trump.  With no official post, hard to see the problem.

Intel analysts are supposed to work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press -- mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

[N]o matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely.  This was a hit job, pure and simple.

Sitting back and letting shadowy, unaccountable agents of espionage do the job for us simply isn't an acceptable alternative.

Down that path lies the end of democracy in America.

Wednesday, February 15

More public-school teachers with Trump Derangement Syndrome

Yet another case of school teachers with Trump Derangement Syndrome -- this time in a high school in Camarillo, California.

A teacher at Campana High School told her class she'd lost a $100 bet because President Trump had not been shot on Inauguration Day. 

One student told his parents, who complained to the district superintendent--who hasn't replied.

A public school teacher telling students in her class that she'd bet that the president would be shot on Inauguration Day is reprehensible.  But I suspect the school district won't consider this a problem, cuz, leftists.

"Elite" Leftist (opinion shaper for the left) Sally K has plan to replace Trump with...Hilliary??

Sally Kohn is a far-left writer and speaker who's written for Salon and the Daily Beast.  She appears often on CNN.  Basically she's a nut with her head way up her ass, so naturally every leftist outlet loves her stuff.

Just three hours ago Crazy Sally tweeted her super-cunning plan to have Hilliary! replace Trump as president.  Here's her plan, in her own precious, brilliant, cunning words:
Wow, that's so...so...cunning amazingly stupid and totalitarian.  But look who we're talking about here:  a creature so dense that she makes Rachel Madcow and Chris Cuomo look like rocket scientists.

And ya gotta love her description of the plan as "straightforward from here."  Oh, definitely.

Wonder if part of this creature's totalitarian impulses and white-hot hate for Trump could be due to the fact that she's married to a woman, and thus has joined the rest of the Left in wailing that Trump hates lesbians or some such crap?  Some lesbians can be pretty cool, but Sally may give the whole group a bad rep.

To give you an idea how this person rolls, here's her take on the shooting of the 300-pound thug Mike Brown in Ferguson:
For those who aren't tuned into U.S. events, the autopsy showed Brown was shot from the front.  Also, an early witness who said he had his hand up was later shown to be lying.  Other witnesses said Brown was charging the officer who shot him--after Brown had tried to take the officer's gun while in his patrol car.  But *definitely,* Sally: you've got "the only sure facts."

Lessons from the Berkeley riots that prevented a conservative from speaking on campus

The liberals at UC Berkeley say they support free speech--totally, absolutely.

They're lying.  What they really want is free speech for them but not for any viewpoint they don't like.

Of course you think that can't be true, because it that was their position they'd be totally roasted by our media elites, right?  I mean, such bare, naked hypocrisy should prompt howls of derision and contempt.

Well...consider that the goal of the recent Berkeley riot was solely to prevent a gay conservative from speaking.

"Visiting assistant art professor" Samara Haplerin put the Left's position very well, telling the Daily Californian "I'm outraged that he's been given a platform at UC Berkeley.  There should be no place for him here.  He should be scared that people aren't going to stand for this."

Does that sound like supporting free speech?  Not only no but hell no.

The crowd hurled fireworks at police officers, smashed windows at the student union and damaged buildings in downtown Berkeley.  One member of the mob attacked a young lady wearing a Make America Great Again hat as she was being interviewed on television, pepper-spraying her in the face at close range.

University adminishits issued a statement blaming the violence on outsiders, and allegedly affirming their support for the conservative guy's right to speak on the liberal campus.  But that "affirmation" is worthless unless it's enforced--and according to the university not a single person was arrested.

Not one arrest.

Did someone order the police officers to stand down?  If so, who gave that order and why?

Universities have allowed this stuff to happen, and even in some cases encouraged it.  Berkeley should lose every dollar of federal funds for a year.  Then if every conservative who speaks there is treated courteously, resume federal funds.  If not, kill federal funds for another year.

Berkeley students can afford to make up any shortfall. 

Anti-Trump Americans have published 12,000 calls for Trump to be assassinated; U.S. media yawns

How unhinged are your fellow citizens?  Hugely.  Consider this:

More than 12,000 of leftists, Democrats, illegal aliens and the like have published tweets calling for President Donald Trump's assassination since his inauguration, according to Dataminr statistics.

How do you think the Lying Mainstream Media would have reacted if 12,000 Americans had called--in writing--for Obama to be assassinated?

Sure: the Mainstream Media would have been screaming to high heaven.  But when 12,000 call for the assassination of Trump, no one in the mainstream media utters a word of criticism.  You can't even find the story in the U.S. media--you have to go to a British paper to find it.

Which is why Twitter and Fakebook have decreed that the Daily Mail will no longer be regarded as a "reliable source" for news.  But it's funny:  The Daily Mail stories contain links to source polls or sources, so anyone can dig deeper and see if the DM faked anything.  So why do you suppose Twits and Fakebook decided to label DM "unreliable"?

Because they publish stories the U.S. Lying Media don't want you to read.

Question:  How many people *published* calls for Obama to be assassinated? 

I never read a single story of a documented account.  And do you believe for an instant that if there had been more than a handful of such calls, the Democrats and their media allies wouldn't have screamed like stuck pigs?

Tuesday, February 14

Britain's litter is a forecast

Theodore Dalrymple is the pen name of a man who has spent much of his life as a counselor to lower life forms in the U.K.  In City Journal he notes that most of today's Brits are moronic slobs.  And therein lies a parable for the United States.  I've edited his article below:
My country, Britain, is now the litter capital of Europe.  The thoroughness with which the country has been befouled, from the grandest city thoroughfares to the most remote country lanes, is astonishing.

What most struck me about the rubbish was that even when it was thrown into people’s front yards, no one bothered to remove it.  It was as if the residents of those houses were blind to it.  Tellingly, most of these homes were public housing.

For the new generation there is a time and a place for everything: the time is now, and the place is here. They dropped the packaging of what they ate as a cow defecates in a field, seemingly without awareness that any alternative existed.

Theoretically it should be possible to eat in the street without littering, merely by holding on to the packaging until one can dispose of it in less unsightly a manner. But in Britain, at least, many people do not bother to do this, the effort either beyond them or its worth not apparent to them. I have often observed people littering within easy reach of a trash bin.  [We see the same thing here in the U.S.]
Litter has spread even to remote places in the country mainly visited by those with adequate disposable income.  Either they think that someone will or ought to clean up after them, or they do not care.
Another way of disposing of litter in the country is to gather all one’s trash in a plastic bag, knot the bag’s handles and tie the bag to a hedge.  Freeing the inside of their cars from trash is more important to them than keeping the countryside free from it; and they probably think that, in confining all their garbage in a bag and tying it to a hedge, they have reached a reasonable compromise and done their bit for rural conservation.

Why is the trash not collected? It is, after all, one of the tasks of local governments. But far from fulfilling this duty, they often seem themselves to add to the mess.  There is an obvious lack of pride in the contractors and lack of diligence in the town councils.  Nobody cares—nobody, that is, whose job is to care.

I have long wondered whether litterers see the effect they have on the landscape or townscape. Are they so enclosed in their own personal bubble that nothing beyond its confines registers with them? Certainly the capacity of the human mind to screen out what it does not want to see is formidable.
The trash epidemic, which has arisen over the last two decades, raises the question of the legitimacy of public authority. I believe that the epidemic indicates a profound social ill.  Each piece of trash represents either an act of indifference to, or defiance of, civic or public order.  Litterers are acting out of their own selfish indifference.  Their littering forces omeone else to pick up after them--a matter of no concern to them because they do not belong to society.  They belong only to themselves.  In effect they're saying no public authority has the right—or the moral authority—to tell them how to dispose of their garbage.

As the litter mounts, those with a civic conscience are likely to withdraw more and more into their own private worlds.  A small fraction of responsible people can't undo the harm done by huge numbers of selfish or simply thoughtless swine.
I see something along these lines happening in the U.S. today:  Rioting and beating Trump supporters is totally fine with half the population, and tolerated by academics and their police.  The law can be and is ignored among "progressives" and their mobs of thugs.  No one in authority will raise a finger, and the acts are either praised or ignored by every single Lying Media organ.

Baltimore Sun rationalizes carjackings: We only have barely over one a day so it's tolerable. And don't blame...

Following article is from the Baltimore Sun just a couple of days ago.  You need to read it so you can see the ridiculous lengths liberals in shithole cities will go to to rationale thugs sticking guns in drivers' faces and carjacking 'em.
Carjackings in Baltimore have more than tripled since 2013, and the number has continued to climb in the first weeks of 2017, at a rate that has far outpaced other auto thefts.
Experts see several reasons for the spike.  The overwhelming majority of suspects are young men or juveniles who are emboldened by the relative ease of the crime, and a belief that if they're caught, the courts won't give them a serious punishment.

Some see the increase as an unintended consequence of better antitheft security. Electronic key fobs and codes, required to start newer-model cars, have made them more difficult to steal — unless the driver is present.  [This is nothing more than an effort to rationalize carjacking:  "It's because car-makers have made it harder to steal cars."  Ah, yes...forcing those poor thugs to carjack to survive.  Got it.]

The crime remains relatively rare in Baltimore — there were 402 carjackings in 2016, or little more than one a day.

[Note how the editors and reporter try to trivialize one carjacking a DAY.  This is outrageous.  In the similar-sized city where I live there aren't two a YEAR.  Why in the world are Baltimore's editors and "reporters" so determined to trivialize their city's atrocity?  Oh, now I get it:]

There were 5,161 auto thefts, or more than 14 per day.

Researchers have long predicted a shift toward carjacking.  A 2003 study noted "Stealing unoccupied cars has become increasingly difficult in recent years owing to improved anti-theft technology, and doing so can be both time-consuming and dangerous."

[By contrast, carjacking is only dangerous to the owner, since the thug has a gun and Baltimore doesn't allow concealed-carry for civilians.  Ooops, you mean the thugs are breaking the gun laws by carrying?  Why yes, yes they are.  Everyone who is surprised by this please leave.]

Carjacking is less common in Baltimore than many other crimes, and rarely does it result in death. But injuries can occur.  In December, police say, two teens approached then-City Councilwoman Rochelle "Rikki" Spector in a parking garage, threw her to the ground, beat her and stole her car.  Police arrested a 13-year-old and a 15-year-old in that attack.
A 1992 carjacking in Howard County drove a national scare.  A young mother was driving her 22-month-old daughter to her first day of nursery school when two males yanked her out of her BMW.  She tried to save her child but got caught in a seat belt and was dragged to death.

[Wow, sure am glad that carjacking "rarely results in death."  Cuz, y'know, if some poor young mother got killed then us politicians and editors would be...well...well, we would just be outraged!  We might even print something mildly critical of the thug culture that thinks this is a great way to operate!  On second thought, we probably wouldn't, cuz...well...we don't want people to call us racists or something.]
[Female police chief] said carjackers are mostly young men and teens looking for cars to ride around in at their leisure.  [See, citizen?  They're not bad kids, cuz they're just "riding around at their leisure."]
They roam in groups in Baltimore, she said, going on carjacking sprees until every person has his own car. In one case, she said, police recovered several key fobs in a house where suspects were holding onto multiple cars parked nearby.

Davis suspects young men are "preying" on teens, coercing or persuading them to carjack vehicles because they know juvenile courts are lenient on offenders. Burrus said some of the juveniles arrested for carjacking last year are back on the street, and detectives think they are committing more carjackings.

"When juveniles are caught, whatever consequences they receive is not enough to deter their behavior," police spokesman Lt. Jarron Jackson said.

"It's almost a sport now, honestly," Spector said. "I can tell you in my case, the 13-year-old had a 2-year-old rap sheet of carjacking in Federal Hill."

She said the she was stunned at how young the boys were. She said they were wearing school uniforms and carrying book bags when they approached her car.
Spector said she thought they might be asking her a question or seeking a few dollars. Instead, police say, they yanked her out of the car, got in and tried to drive out of the parking garage. They couldn't get past the gate of the parking garage, and two nearby workers intervened.

The case is in juvenile court, where proceedings are kept confidential.

Spector said the 15-year-old has pleaded guilty but has not been sentenced.  After the trial Spector said, she sat down with him and asked: "What were you thinking?"  The boy could only cry in response, she said. Spector said she hugged and kissed him.  "I just hope and pray that you will think next time and not even think to do something like this again," she told him.

Henry Marucut got carjacked.  In addition to having his car stolen he lost an iPad, a laptop computer, cash and personal items; he had to spend $500 to get new car keys, $300 to tow the car and $230 for the city impound fee.
Detectives ultimately arrested a 17-year-old. Marucut attended two juvenile court hearings in the hope he would see justice and receive restitution.  Didn't happen.

He said he was told the state would not press the felony charges — kidnapping, carjacking, grand theft — that an adult would face.  His request for restitution went nowhere, he said. The teen didn't work. His mother was disabled and on government assistance.

A professor who studies carjacking says it's easy to understand how carjacking can grow among teens in a city.  He says if one of them learns the consequences of being caught are minor, the others quickly learn.

Some might carjack someone because they feel a driver with a new or desirable car is "showing it off."  "Carjacking is a way to get really both things that they want," he said. "The carjacker takes you down a notch in terms of status and shows you that you're vulnerable, while stealing what you have."
If you're from a civilized city in flyover country this level of rationalizing serious, deadly crime by editors of a major paper sounds unbelievable.  Unfortunately this is how liberals think, and the avalanche of carjackings is the kind of result their policies inevitably must produce, time after ghastly time.

Blame the car makers.  Blame the cops.  Blame the victims.  Blame "root causes" or the economy.  But whatever you do, don't blame the thugs who do this shit.  Call 'em "naive teens" or whatever.  But don't seriously punish 'em, cuz...well, you know, that would be raaacist.

And if an 80-year-old woman is thrown into a concrete pillar or beaten on the ground by a 13 year-old and a 15-year-old, just look the other way.  Cuz you know, no one was actually killed, so...

And if a young mother does get dragged to death trying to save her baby strapped in the car-seat as thugs carjack her... well that was just "a carjacking gone wrong," so you can't blame the thugs.  Dumb woman should have just let the thugs take her kid, counting on 'em to drop the kid off a couple of miles down the road, right?  But whatever you do, don't blame the thugs.  Because....

Poor choice of major in college?

Never fear, darlin'--the Democrats will eventually regain power and will decree that you don't have to repay those loans.  Meaning, of course, that the rest of us will pay 'em FOR ya.

But by decreeing that you don't have to repay those loans, the Dems will have your vote forever.

Hellofa system, eh?

Sunday, February 12

Random thoughts 3 weeks into the new administration

Some random comments from a website whose commenters seem pretty perceptive.  As you'll see, all of 'em are very concerned about the future.

One of the big problems in the U.S. today is that there's no penalty for making crappy decisions or breaking the law.  When aggrieved "snowflakes" notice that no penalty applies, the see no reason to either make good choices or obey laws.

If you want to see what the Left will do if they succeed in recapturing the government, watch what they're doing right now in California (which has a Dem governor and Dem-controlled legislature).

Until a year or so ago I always believed we could once again work with the Left and they with us to make things work as well as possible.  But that requires a) the desire to work together for positive results; and 2) willingness to compromise.  It would appear that the Left doesn't want to do either.   The Left's idea of compromise is 'you give us exactly what we want and we won't order our followers to riot.'

[Re Berkeley riots:]  Hmm...People in masks intimidating others with violence.  Isn't that exactly what the KKK did?  And haven't liberals screamed forever about how awful that was  (and it was)?  But suddenly it's totes cool.  Why?  Oh, got it...

Various Federal and state benefits for the unlucky, the incompetent, the illiterate and the lazy provide a powerful disincentive to get a job.  Every time I see a woman with four or five kids in the grocery line using food stamps, and all the kids have a $200-$600 smart phone--with its accompanying monthly operating cost-- I know something is wrong.

20 years ago liberals totally trashed the idea that natural gas could be transported across the ocean in liquid form.  But today Japan imports 85 million tons of LNG a year, shipped on giant tankers.  Imported LNG produced 44% of Japan's electricity in the year ended March 2016.  But according to liberals, it could never be done economically.

The USGS upgraded their estimates of the natural gas in western colorado so that now they are roughly the same as estimates for natural gas in the Marcellus shale of Pennsylvania ohio and West Virginia. The only way to get the gas from the wellhead to consumers is via pipeline, so the Obama administration...refused to allow the pipeline that would have brought that natural gas to west coast gas terminals to be built.  So the energy program by the Democrats is: no new oil, no new gas, no coal at all, no new nuclear plants, no new dams.  Just lots of expensive, eagle-killing wind turbines.

In science, if you have valid proof of something, you publish your proof. All of it. Allow others to critique and test.

If you can't prove your theory you can bluster and bully.  By intimidation and coercion you can build a contrived "consensus" and claim the debate is over--that "the science is settled."

You maintain the deception by demonizing the skeptical, cutting off research funding to intellectually honest researchers, trying to get those of opposing views fired.  Call your opponents "climate deniers".

We see the same approach in political discourse. The left wants no part of reasoning and rationality. Now that academia has been purged of virtually all conservative professors and administrators, the left is working hard to ensure that no opposing arguments are allowed to be heard.

The modus operandi is bullying, intimidation, violence, and mockery. Don't even allow the opposing view to have a voice on campus.  The use of these strategies is the strongest evidence of the bankruptcy of the narrative.

You can judge how sound liberalism is by the fact that liberals--at all levels--keep making promises or predictions that are so quickly shown to be false.  Like...
  *"No American has ever been killed by a person from the seven countries named by the president's temporary travel ban."
  *"2016 was the hottest year ever."
  *"The polar bear population is shrinking."
  *"Global warming means every year there will be more severe weather events."
  *"Quantitative easing will help the economy recover, because every dollar the government prints generates 1.4 dollars in demand."
  *"The Arctic will be totally ice-free by 2015."
  *"The unfortunate events in Benghazi were due to a spontaneous demonstration caused by an inflammatory video on the internet."
  *"If you like your doctor can keep your own doctor."
  *"The ACA will save the average family $2500 every year on health care."
  *"Sea level is rising faster and faster due to global warming."
  *"The fact that Mount Kilimanjaro is losing snow proves that global warming is real.
  *"Obama spent TARP money on shovel-ready infrastructure projects."
  *"Donald Trump will never be President of the United States."

One can go on.  Liberals, "progressives" and Dems all believed ALL of these claims.  One begins to wonder about the actual intelligence of these people.

So if their policies are so bad, why do they keep on?  Because for leftists the 'win' comes from having their signaled virtue noticed and applauded by their peers.  No other results matter.

Most Americans pretty much like what they have and would like more. They notice when they lose what they have, and they don't like it.  In fact they look around for a reason.

When politicians don't deliver on the promises they made, or when things people like or need either vanish or become more costly, people naturally wonder why.  Pols always blame the opposition:  thus Dem leaders blamed the hideous failure of so many state "health exchanges" (20, I think) on "obstructionism" by Repubs.  But this excuse only works for awhile (and national repubs couldn't sabotage at the state level in any case).

Slowly-- too slowly for the Left to notice-- the temperature of popular discontent has risen to the point that it can no longer be blamed on Republicans, nor mollified by the pols making even more extravagant promises. People began to suspect a fraud.

Thus the Left has called for--and delivered--violence (riots) hoping people will be distracted and fall silent.  They're counting on this tactic to work.

What *does* the Left want?
  That everyone in the world be allowed to live in any country they want.
  That every liberal-arts grad--say, womens' studies--get a six-figure job right after graduation.
  That no one have to work more than three days a week, six hours per day.
  That all college be free for everyone.
  That everyone get a guaranteed income, regardless of whether they work or not.
  That U.S. defense spending be cut by 80 percent.
  That illegal drugs be de-criminalized.
  That all cities provide free high-speed internet service for all.
So-called "progressives" claim they want good things for all people everywhere.  If true, it follows that anyone who is a good person should fully support "progressives'" ideas and policies.

So conversely, anyone who opposes or obstructs the actions, demands, or desires of a "progressive" must be a bad person, since only a Bad Person would oppose the acts of someone trying to do Good for all people everywhere."

After 8 years of silence during Obama's faaabulous reign, the TV networks are suddenly re-discovering homelessness and joblessness.  Apparently neither existed when Duh Won was emperor, but suddenly after Trump's been in office for a whole 3 weeks, both those are AWFUL problems!

Commenter:  Training someone to proficiency with the gun is easy. The hard part is convincing them to actually use it when they should. Convincing someone that they actually need to overcome the culturally conditioned aversion to interpersonal violence that Americans have been spoonfed for the last sixty years, is far more challenging than teaching someone the mechanics of gunfighting.

Guess which side has already overcome that cultural conditioning? It’s the people who are already cracking their "enemies" in the head with bricks, then repeatedly kicking the unconscious victims before throwing a Molotov cocktail through their car window.

The Left has won far more dirty civil wars and insurgent conflicts than the Right has. There are many reasons for this but most notable is the conditioning folks on the Right have to to obeying the law.  As long as there is a politician telling them, “Now, now, let’s all stay calm and let the authorities handle it,” the Right is content to stay home and wait for the cops.

Meanwhile Leftists are screaming “FUCK THE MAN!  BURN THIS BITCH DOWN!” So while the Right is saying, “Let's let the police do their job” the Left is already killing.

The scary truth is that if shooting starts on a wide level, your government isn’t going to save you--not you, not your neighborhood nor your city.  To the extent that cops even show up for duty, their political bosses will deploy them to protect the politicians, not you.

When Obama won in 2008, I believed it was going to be a national disaster.  And IMO, it was.

I didn't dress in black and go assault some Obama voters.

Didn't firebomb anyone's car.

Didn't join a riot and break store windows.

Didn't scream and call Democrats names or unfriend them.

I believed America had made a disastrous choice-- one posing an existential threat to our Constitution and our country. But I respected the voters' choice--even though I thought it was insane.

But after the recent election upset we find that the idea of mutual respect for the other's candidate only goes one way:  Dems only respect the Constitution, the law and the rights of others when they *win.*  Then they invoke constitutional authority.  But when they lose, they behave like fascists--rioting, beating opponents, breaking things, torching cars--while calling *us* fascists. 

Every member of the lying mainstream media loved Obama, so their stories about him were uniformly slobbering.  They told us he was great, regardless of whether his programs were good and successful or bad or failures.

Money could be borrowed almost to infinity, wars could be lost, allies abandoned, and the media was thrilled. The enemy was always domestic--always some pathetic conservative whining that Obama's latest act was unconstitutional. The fights were easy to win; a flower shop owner, a small town pizza restaurant. Greenhouse gases?  Shut down any activity then borrow money to buy the stuff made somewhere else.

The answers were easy.  A bunch of black kids are killing each other in gang wars? Blame the cops. Cops are bad. Obamacare not turning out the way everyone was told it would?  Blame Republicans. Some crackpot shoots up a gay club shouting islamic slogans?  Must be because conservatives hate gay marriage.

By itself, the soft left is no match for the "deplorables" they despise, so they will welcome the young, tough, brutal Muslim men who are willing to terrorize the deplorables into obedience. 

Leftists are so contemptuous of religious Americans because they see the latter as stupid and willing to concede on every point to keep the peace.  The idea that members of a "religion" would happily kill them is totally outside their experience and understanding, so they think they can always buy off the true believers.

The tough, brutal Muslims will prove them dead wrong.  Of course by then it will be far too late.

Guy analyzing the court order--upheld by the 9th circus--blocking Trump's executive order travel ban:

"Actually for the Trump Admin this court ruling is good news, even if bad news for the country.  Reason is that now the State of Washington, the Democratic Party, the rioters at Berkeley et cetera will OWN any terrorist attack that occurs in the U.S.!
   The Dems backed a policy of allowing terrorists to come in unvetted, and if we get hit again people will blame them."

You'd think so, but with the Lying Media providing air cover, Americans will never learn of the connection.

Friday, February 10

3 Pakistani brothers running the computers of House Intelligence committee fired

For several years the computer systems of the House Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations committee have been managed by 3 Pakistani brothers--Imran Awan and brothers Jamal and Abid.  This is important because the members of those committees are regularly given detailed, Top-Secret briefings on proposed U.S. military operations, so they can exercise their oversight duties.

As a result, the computer systems used by those committees almost certainly hold Top-Secret information, if not higher.

A couple of days ago the 3 Pakistani (Muslim) computer managers were fired.

I suspected there was a hell of a story behind this, and sure enough it's coming out bit by bit.  Starts with the fact that last year eight Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence wrote a letter to House leaders demanding that their staffers be granted access to top-secret information.

The letter was signed by Andre Carson, Luis Guiterez, Jim Himes, Terri Sewell, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell and Patrick Murphy. All are Democrats, and some had a history of attempting to undermine national security.

Two of them have been linked to an emerging security breach.

Signs of trouble have long been visible in public records. The Congressional Credit Union repossessed Abid’s car in 2009, and he declared bankruptcy in 2012, facing multiple lawsuits.

Security-sensitive jobs typically require background checks for credit and legal problems that can create pressures to cash in on access to secret information and documents.

The odds of three Pakistani Muslims ending up managing top-secret info by random chance are virtually zero.  I suspect we'll eventually find that Carson--the second Muslim in congress--pushed to get the brothers hired-- and that the brothers have been sending top-secret intel stored on those computers to contacts in the Middle East since shortly after they were hired.

And that this info ended up being passed to ISIS.

These suspicions just got more likely, as the left-rag Politico reported the story with an entirely different twist.  See if you can spot it:
Five House employees are under criminal investigation amid allegations that they stole equipment from more than 20 member offices and accessed House IT systems without lawmakers' knowledge.

Access to the House network was terminated for the five employees — four men and a woman — on Thursday afternoon.  The staffers have not been arrested.

All lawmakers targeted by the alleged scam were victims and had no idea what crimes might have been committed by their employees, House sources said.

The identities of the staffers are still unknown...

The employees allegedly stole equipment from members' offices without their knowledge and committed serious, potentially illegal, violations of House IT policies.

House sources stressed the investigation, which has been ongoing since late 2016, is focused on equipment theft and not a network hacking issue.
The Politico article focuses on "equipment theft" and carefully lays the groundwork for allowing the Dem congresswhores who hired the 3 to claim "We din' have nuffin' to do with this!  We wuz victimized!  Oh, and it was all about simple theft, not top-secret info being stolen!"   The author makes no mention of the brothers being Muslim, or having worked for Rep. Carson--one of just two Muslims in congress--nor that they worked for many other Dems who were members of committees having a key role in intel and terrorism.

The two "over the top" clues are 1) that the staffers stole equipment "without the knowledge" of the congresswhores, and 2) that "House sources" stressed that the investigation was focused on "equipment theft" rather than "hacking issues"--i.e. sensitive / secret information being stolen.

It'll be interesting to see if the repubs manage to get to the bottom of this.  Of course even if the story turns out to be exactly as I've speculated above, the odds are that nothing more will be heard:  The 3 will get off with no punishment whatsoever.  Reason is that punishing the perps would reflect badly on the Democrats who hired 'em, and on Muslims.  Ooooh, can't have *that*!  So the Dems will offer the Repubs some minor, trivial concession that will allow the Repubs to let it all drop.

And yes, for you sharp folks, I realize I've just set up an un-falsifiable hypothesis.

Just like "CO2 released by humans is causing global warming 'climate change.'

Dem pols, Leftist leaders, professors and opinion-shapers continue to fan the flames of war

Influential leftists in the U.S.--Democrat congresswhores, college professors, editors, "journalists," TV newsreaders, BLM shriekers, Hollywood wailers et cetera-- are continuing to fan the flames of hate, envy and grievance among their followers at a frightening pace. 

Not a single day passes without one of the above assholes screaming about how horribly victimized their hapless followers are.  And the powers victimizing 'em are always the same: white males, corporations (always, always portrayed as evil), Republicans, conservatives and Christians.  (At first I wrote "anyone religious" instead of "Christians," but you may have noticed that not a SINGLE person among the group listed at the top has uttered a single word critical of...Islam.  Amazing, isn't it?  The only religion they hate and demonize is...Christianity.  Hmmm....)

The two 'grafs above are hugely, critically important-- because a huge number of the left's 'foot soldiers' are either stupid or uneducated.  So when their leaders scream about how the followers have been victimized and oppressed, the followers believe it completely.

That's a problem because a small percentage of all people--regardless of political philosophy--are literally crazy.  And statistically, some fraction of this group will pick up a weapon and stab or shoot or bomb whoever their leaders have told 'em are the people oppressing 'em--as happened last summer when blacks murdered of 5 cops in Dallas, 3 in Baton Rouge and several in NYC.

The leaders of the left--both official and mere opinion-shapers (professors, MSNBC hosts, actors, entertainers, "journalists"--are as guilty of murder as someone who torches an occupied building. 

Either they don't believe that their claims that their followers are oppressed/vicitimized motivate their followers to murder, or else they simply don't care.  Either way, I have a huge problem with that.

Short answer:  Bodies in the streets by August.  Not "demonstrations" (the euphemism the mainstream Lying Media uses for riots) but *dead* bodies.

Because leftist leaders and their followers think this country is awful, evil, oppressive or similar, they think killing is a necessary first step toward changing it completely to something they think will work "better."  But if you think this is a pretty damn great country as-is, you need to understand who's leading the march to inevitable civil war:  Leftist leaders and opinion-shapers.  You should realize who is trying to kill you and your kids.

Think this is hyperbole?  Half a dozen semi-influential leftists have *tweeted* some variation of "Trump should be assassinated."  (Tweets are significant because the author deny writing it or claim he or she was misquoted.)

My leftist friends immediately respond with "But that's exactly what the Right did when Obama was president!"

Really?  Show me a *single* *verifed* instance of a conservative *opinion-shaper* who did that.

Take all the time you like.  I'm happy to wait.  After all, if what you claimed actually happened then *surely* there would be some record on Google or some other search engine.

You can't find one *from an opinion-shaper*, because it didn't happen.  I don't doubt that some unknown said something along those lines, but the difference--and it's HUGE--is that today the people calling for Trump to be killed are *well-known opinion-shapers* who are read or heard by thousands.  So their exhortations are multiplied exponentially.

So if you're an ordinary American who loves this country, what can you do to change the nearly-certain outcome?  Not much, frankly.  You can't stop the Left's leaders from urging their followers to riot and kill.  What you can do is boycott the mainstream media, and companies that support the left.  Turn off the television--especially their so-called news programs.  If the newspaper in your city leans left, cancel your subscription and tell 'em why.

One other thing:  Leftists have called for a "national strike" on Feb 17th.  To show how much power they have, they urge people not to buy anything or spend money that day. If you can buy something or go out to a nice dinner that day, do it.

BTW, I'm not at all a Trump fan.  I'll readily admit that the guy makes dumb tweets every day, and has no sense of diplomacy or decorum.  He gives his opponents endless opportunities to roast him, and the Dems--understandably--don't miss a single one.  And I predict that the Left/Dems will indeed succeed in peeling away enough GOP support in congress [spit] to block most of his ideas and basically neutralize him.  But what the Left is moving toward with fanning the flames of envy, jealousy and alleged "oppression" by whites is...war.

Bodies in the streets by August.

Monday, February 6

Dems outdo themselves on double-standards yet again

If Democrats and Leftists didn't have double-standards, they would have any standards at all.

Dem representative calls for impeaching Trump

A black female Democrat representative from California--Maxine Waters--has called for impeaching Trump--then backing off ever so slightly by saying "eventually we'll have to."

Interestingly, one of the horrible things Maxine blames Trump for is "He supplied the bombs that killed all those women and children in Aleppo."  But of course that was her beloved leader the emperor Obama.  Of course Maxine didn't utter a whisper of criticism--let alone call for impeachment--when the leader of her own party (Obama) authorized strikes on Aleppo.  But now...HORRORS!

Video below:

Saturday, February 4

Rioters at Cal Berkeley force cancellation of conservative speech, then claim "This shows we support free speech!"

This is potentially the most revealing event I've posted about in awhile.  It shows that the Left wants to shut down anyone they disagre with, by any means possible.  Read the whole thing--long but chilling.  And informative.

Leftists *say* they support the idea of free speech--a freedom enshrined in the First Amendment.  But in reality, whenever possible they use every means they can to *prevent* conservatives from speaking.  A prime example is the recent riots at Cal Berkeley, organized to prevent a conservative from giving an invited speech.

The riot to shut down the speech was carefully organized over a period of months.  The "game plan" is set out in the text below, from the organizers of the riot.  It's their 'how-to' doc to prevent gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos from giving a speech he'd been invited to give.

The organizers call their plan "The official anti-Milo toolkit."

While most Leftists aren't too bright, they *are* extremely media-savvy, as well as cunning:  they know how to use friendly leftist reporters to manipulate public opinion.  Because if lots of people see that they're really fascists--that they want to use force and violence to shut down dissent--they'll lose support fast.

If you realize that their claim to support free speech is actually a total lie, and that what they're really trying to do is to *prevent* any speech that they don't like (as shown by the title, "The Official Anti-Milo Toolkit"), then as you read the following "script" you'll be able to see very clearly how cunningly they argue "Oh we're ALL about free speech...BUT it's really *complicated,* see, so all *good* people are *forced* to protest against *certain types of speech.*"
"Free-Speech Script for Role Plays"

INTRODUCTION: Today we’re talking about some common *myths* around the notion of free speech. In recent years, college campuses around the United States have seen heated debates about free speech. Student activists *have called for the cancellation of events that make our campuses unsafe spaces for some students.*  Others bemoan these actions as impeding free speech. What’s behind all the hype?

INTERVIEWER: When student groups protest or demand the cancellation of speakers’ events, they are censoring that speaker and suppressing free speech.

RESPONDENT: *Well, it’s not so simple as that.* [See?] Students and groups protest or demand the cancellation of events for a variety of reasons.  [Note that instead of answering the charge, the authors avoid responding by raising a totally different claim: 'we protest for a *variety of reasons.*'] Generally, these protests are meant to draw attention to something *problematic* about the speaker, including their incitements to violence against individuals or against those who belong to particular communities.

*Often* [a sophomoric debating tactic, like "Some say..."] these *problematic* things actually bear on *others’ ability to speak* and on their *access to free speech.*

[Note the deft counter, claiming 'These *problematic things* (i.e. someone wanting to give a speech the left doesn't want heard) "actually bear on *others' ability to speak.*  Note the use of the ambiguous term "bear on:"  They're implying that if they "let" someone they don't like give a speech, it'll somehow take away *their* right to same.  Of course they can't say this plainly because everyone would recognize it as obvious crap.  But this is a *standard tactic* of the left (and well known in debating).]

For example, when students and faculty at Haverford College raised concerns about then-UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s scheduled commencement speech in 2014, they did so because Birgeneau himself had recently suppressed the speech of student protestors at UC Berkeley who were involved in the Occupy movement.

In this case and others like it, it’s very important to keep in mind that *different people come to public spaces with different amounts of power and resources for making speech.* 
[Oh, I see:  that explains why you claim the right to shut down speech you don't like--due to the "difference in the amounts of power."  Bullshit."]

Birgeneau was an invited guest of Haverford College, set to receive an honorary degree from the university. *He had many other avenues available to him for expressing his political, personal, and intellectual positions.*
[This is classic, implying that because the speaker had "other avenues" available to express himself, he shouldn't have been allowed to speak at *this* event.]

The UC Berkeley students who were beaten by police with batons with Birgeneau’s support had themselves been exercising their right to free speech through protest. Relative to Birgeneau, they had fewer options for doing so.
[Classic mislead again:  The "students" have the absolute right of free speech--but because they're not the chancellor of a university, fewer people ask to hear them.  So in the Left's logic, this gives the Left the right to shut down the guy's speech, presumably to level the playing field.  Cuz, like, the Left is ostensibly all about fairness, right?  Bullshit.]

And actually, protests often occur because groups have tried other avenues of communicating concerns to no avail.
[Classic again:  "It's ever so reasonable for us to shut down speech we don't like *because* we "tried other avenues of communicating concerns to no avail."  Translation:  We didn't get what we demanded.]

When we consider these two moments of “free speech” alongside one another—an invited speech by a campus administrator and student protests—we see that *“free speech” is not a monolithic thing.*
[Ah, "not a monolithic thing."  This term certainly sounds intellectual to many, but in fact has no relevant meaning for this topic.  It's one of many examples of the left using meaningless terms (relative to the topic being debated) to try to intimidate opponents.]

Most importantly, everyone comes to speech with different amounts of power. For many people, organized protest is a way of *asserting their right to protected free speech in the face of disempowerment.*
[Ah, I see:  We agree that the Constitution recognizes the right to free speech.  But with the above statement you're clearly claiming that *you* have the right to use "organized protest" (you certainly have the "organized" part down) to shut down someone else's speech--speech you don't like, and don't want heard--ostensibly to 'assert your right to "protected free speech."'*  This is as clear an admission as you'll get from 'em.]

INTERVIEWER: But if we don’t let certain people speak on campus, then don’t we open ourselves up to being censored?

RESPONDENT: The argument that Milo Yiannopoulos is being singled out and denied access to free speech not only erases the many avenues he already has for circulating his ideologies [there's that rationalization again: "he has other ways to get his message out, so we can shut this one down"], but it masks the ways in which the university routinely censors political opinions with which its administrators disagree. For example, in 2016, UC Berkeley administrators called for the cancellation of a student-taught class on settler colonialism in Palestine. Only after significant public outcry about this act of political censorship was the class ultimately reinstated. We need to acknowledge the already *existing, uneven access to free speech on campus*...
[Total inability to recognize their own hypocrisy here...]

INTERVIEWER: Students are treated like snowflakes and they live in bubbles. It's good to be exposed to different points of view. 
[Of course that's not the purpose of free speech, merely a minor side-benefit.  So you can spot a rhetorical setup coming!]

RESPONDENT: The bubble rhetoric is flawed [yep, a setup], as the university is not a bubble separating us from reality but is itself a political space.
[Ah, well, that changes *everything*, eh?  Cuz, y'know, speech simply *must* be restricted in "political spaces," comrade.]

It is up to all of us to shape its values, understand its already existing exclusions *and inequalities*...
[Oh, certainly, comrade.  Cuz, we don't want *inequality* in the real world, right?  And we don't mean just inequality of opportunity, but also inequality of *outcome.*]

...and work to extend its resources to communities that have been historically excluded from university spaces. Furthermore, the notion that vigorous political debates should be relegated to “safer” private spaces not only de-politicizes the public sphere (including public university campuses) but also assumes that private spaces, like homes, are necessarily safer spaces to which we all have access. This is simply not true.
[Again, total inability to recognize their hypocrisy:  they're *complaining* that "vigorous political debates" should NOT be abolished" ("...have to be "relegated" to private spaces...").  But that's exactly what they're demanding:  No public debate allowed if they don't like the position being taken by the speaker.]

INTERVIEWER: You know the saying, “stick and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Aren’t students who don’t want certain speakers on campus being overly sensitive? Words aren’t going to hurt them, even if they communicate bad ideas.

RESPONDENT: Words have concrete effects on the world, and they can inspire others to commit violent acts and create a hostile environment for targeted groups. 
[Agreed.  As in, oh, calling for Trump to be killed--as MANY on the left have already done, in print, on social media (so they can't claim they were misquoted).  But of course those aren't the "words" or urges they're objecting to.  BTW, I'm not a Trump fan.]

Words can put people’s lives and well-being in danger. Take, for example, the spike in hate crimes following Trump’s inauguration, where in some cases, individuals have shouted “Trump” after committing these crimes.
[Every one of which was shown to be either a hoax or hyperbole--as when students at a northeastern university drove thru the campus yelling "Trump Trump!"  Y'all seriously think that's a hate crime?  Idiots.  Snowflakes.]

These instances make clear the links between Trump’s violent rhetoric and acts of harm committed against the communities he targets.
[But *our* violent rhetoric and acts of harm are fine, thanks.  Cuz you know, there's such a difference in *power.*  Oh, and we've tried to communicate our complaints, to no avail, so we have the absolute *right* to riot.  Er, demonstrate.]

Words embolden acts of hatred and violence...
[No kidding.  Total hypocrisy.  But hey, that's the whole level of the Left.]

INTERVIEWER: OK, but everyone has a right to free speech. It's in the Constitution.
[Do you see a setup coming?]

RESPONDENT: To address this, let’s turn to BeeBee Buchanan's recent article on the histories that underline the writing of the Constitution.
[Now this is funny:  Everyone knows BeeBee Buchanan, noted constitutional scholar, right?  No?  Ah, well...that's because this snowflake is the major author of this crap.  Click the link at top and go just past the "Free Speech Script for Role-Plays" to "Sample free-speech syllabus" and you'll see BeeBee's name at the top.  But the list isn't alphabetized.  Gosh, why would someone put this particular name at the top?  Cuz she was the main author of this shit.  Hardly a knock, but shows how they think:  "LISTEN TO MEeee!!!  I am *reeeally* relevant and important, and a deep thinker!"]

Their analysis [one guesses Buchanan's] *productively* reframes this question: “The Naturalization Act of 1790 extended citizenship to ‘free white men with property’ — meaning that citizens were required to have these social positions in order to be incorporated under the Constitution of the United States. For those of us outside of that frame, neither our speech nor our bodies were free. Black bodies and communities were enslaved to support the speech and interests of white capitalists; preoccupation with the free speech of landed whites occurred simultaneously with, and relied on, the subjugation of Black bodies — because we were not considered people.

*Freedom of speech, then, is NOT a universal, constant idea which has existed throughout history; it is deployed differently depending on time frame, and bestowed unequally based on social position. Understanding these discrepancies, *we cannot ‘defend free speech’* without examining by whom and for whom speech is free. Instead, let us ask: how does this idea defend the interests of the powerful and silence the oppressed?”

[And here we see the real point yet again:  So as BeeBee and the Left see it, "free speech" is NOT a universal right, despite being specified in the Constitution.  The alleged reason is that it has been "deployed" differently in the past.  So, you know, we can't allow it today--at least not for ideas we on the Left don't like.]

So the Left claims to be in favor of free speech, but actually demands that people not say anything in a public forum if it bothers the Left.  So there ya have it. 

And with that, read the following letter, titled "An open letter to Milo," that was published in the "daily Cal" paper.  See where the hate is coming from.  Hint: it's the Left--in this case a drag queen named Neil. 

Dear Milo,

I’m going to take my heels off so I can get down to your level. Let’s cover some basic ground: your bleach job and concealer several shades too light don’t make you Aryan, it just makes you look like Gerard Way failing to get into a frat party. You’ve taken all your self-hatred, warped it, and levelled it at vulnerable people. I think you’re pathetic and sad.

I’m not going to waste time telling you that you’re a bigot. The faculty has pretty well covered why you shouldn’t come here in their open letters to the chancellor. Besides, being called a Nazi doesn’t appear to stop you or anyone else on the alt-right from doing a goddamn thing.

I ought to sue your “Dangerous Faggot” tour for misleading the public. The only thing you’re dangerous to is a skinhead’s self-esteem. The world is full of very dangerous faggots, but you are not one of them. I raise a glass to the real dangerous faggots, from the AIDS survivors and queer anarchists to the gender warriors and the mincers of Fire Island. Here’s to every disobedient queer body to ever walk the streets in defiance of state and society.

If we, the gender deviant, were not dangerous, you would not be so clearly threatened by us.

As I write this, Milo, I’ve got terrible period cramps, and I’m a bigger fag than you’ll ever be.  Hell, I’m probably a better top than you.

I’ve hated you for a long time — being compared to you by some commenter on my column sent me into a rage for several hours — but the stunt you pulled against that young woman in Milwaukee was the last fucking straw.

If you’d like a transgender Berkeley student to direct your firehose of impotent rage at, I offer myself.  I’m a Jewish anarchist drag queen with no eyebrows. The jokes write themselves.  It’s a matter of public record that I look fantastic. Tell that crowd to laugh at me. I’m not ashamed of my face or my body or my politics or my life choices.

You can’t cut me down to size, I’m five foot two and chronically depressed. I dare you to say something about me that I haven’t already said about myself.

I’d like to address the real reason you’re coming here — Berkeley College Republicans, a pit of snakes, money and Pepe memes, agreed to host you, upping their game from the cardboard Trump cutout.  I am just happy that their tacit white supremacism is now completely undeniable. They bring you here and then complain that It’s Going Down compiled their members’ public information and that UCPD would like to be compensated for the heightened security your presence on our campus will require. Hey BCR, what happened to Blue Lives Matter?

Frankly, I hope BCR gets their dads’ checkbooks out and raises the coin to bring you here. I hope our chancellor remains spineless in the face of justified faculty and student outrage.

When you get here on Feb. 1, we will be waiting here to strip you of your gay identity. You can have sex with all the men you want, but you’re not gay anymore. You’ve used your sexual orientation as an excuse to spit bile and galvanize cowards for long enough. Put your badge and gun on my desk. The community rejects you. You have never been one of us.

You never should have booked this UC tour, Milo. But you want to come to my town? I say, welcome to Berkeley, motherfucker. I’m the meanest gay on this coast. I was assigned to raise hell at birth. You come through me.

Oh, and in case you had any doubts here's a pic of Neil Lawrence:

But wait!  There's more!  After a howling, burning, physically violent mob forced university administrators to cancel the speech, the editorial board of the campus newspaper published an editorial on the riot, absurdly titled "Protest shows presence of free speech on campus."  Of course what the rioters actually did--as any rational adult can easily see--was to *prevent* a speech from being given.  For the snowflakes on the paper to ludicrously claim the riot was an *example* of free speech is as ludicrous as claiming assassination demonstrates a respect for life.

Totally clueless and hypocritical.  But that's the Left.  Here's the propaganda piece:

Hours after the cancellation of an event where Breitbart technology editor Milo Yiannopoulos planned to target undocumented students at UC Berkeley, community members gathered to clean up shattered remains of the night’s chaos — largely the work of outside anarchist groups.

[Really?  Proof, please.  BTW, on the fake news cable channel CNN, former secretary of labor Robert Reich claimed he'd "heard some talk" that the riots were actually instigated by *conservatives* to make the Left look bad.  Yeah.]

Yiannopoulos, per usual, played the victim. After he fled protesters to the safe space of his hotel, he ranted on Facebook Live and whined to Tucker Carlson on Fox News. He and members of the Berkeley College Republicans mourned the “death of free speech.”

What they fail to realize, however, is that freedom of speech is not a pick-and-choose endeavor. The protest was a grand display of the same freedom of speech Yiannopoulos uses to justify his incendiary, useless harassment.

[You can't make this stuff up!  These slimy rat-bastard assholes are claiming rioting and burning and beating is actually "a grand display" of free speech, positively *gloating* over the fact that their riot prevented the speech they didn't like from being given.  Their rationale--at least at the moment, as shown in the 'graf above--is that the speech Yiannopoulos uses is "incendiary, useless harassment."  So once again, they deny others freedom of speech based on views they dislike.]

It wasn’t the way we had hoped the night would unravel. His opponents could have defeated him without sabotaging the protest and blemishing rational liberal resistance.  But one way or another, his supporters would have twisted the narrative to fit their agenda.

Yiannopoulos said the protest was proof that liberals fear conservative ideas, but...

[You've now been reading this leftist propaganda long enough to guess that the next phrase will be a total non-sequitur.  In other words, rather than trying to show that the Left--liberals--*don't* fear conservative ideas, they'll ignore the indefensible by instantly throwing out something entirely unrelated--like "...]

...but he was never going to accomplish ideological conversion with derogatory rhetoric.

[Ah, I see.  That absolutely rebuts the notion that the Left is unwilling to let the guy speak because they "fear" (hate) his ideas.  Yep yep yep.  Perfect logic--if you're a moonbat.]

The campus administration faced a lose-lose situation. Had they canceled the event, they would have neglected UC Berkeley’s commitment to free speech.

[Of course that's exactly what they did.  Thus showing how the U really feels about letting people give speeches their faculty and students hate/fear.]

But by inviting Yiannopoulos, they invited chaos. They should have seen this coming...

[Translation:  "Even though we *succeeded* in keeping this enemy of the Left from speaking, you can't blame us!  It's the fault of the U administrators, cuz they should have seen this coming and barred the campus conservatives from inviting him in the first place!]

There were still steps the administration could have taken, however, to avoid the violence. It could have scheduled the event for earlier in the day, for instance, when anarchists could not shroud themselves in darkness.

At the end of the day, Yiannopoulos and his repulsive demeanor never belonged here.  *He isn’t a productive member of society*...

[Ah.  But the folks who start fires in the street, throw gasoline bombs and fireworks at cops and smash shop windows ARE??]

...and he certainly doesn’t reflect the type of respectful and educated discourse UC Berkeley promotes.

[Ah yes..."respectful and educated discourse" is Left-speak for "howling mob smashing windows and beating suspected enemies with shovels" (which actually happened.)]

But students found a way to make the best of a losing situation. They gathered in droves on Sproul Plaza. They played YG and Rihanna. Trumpets blared. Although harmful outside groups co-opted the media narrative, the majority remained peaceful. At the end of the night, campus police made only one arrest, and the individual was not associated with our campus.

[This is classic propaganda:  The cops claim they were told to take no action.  So the true statement that only one person was arrested is utterly misleading, since the editorial board is using it to falsely claim there was virtually no violence ("the majority remained peaceful").]

BCR [College Republicans] had advertised the event as an opportunity for the campus to learn more about Yiannopoulos and what he stood for. But this was a teaching moment for Yiannopoulos as well. Had he paid any attention, he would have seen that free speech at UC Berkeley is still very much alive.

The paper's editors--presumably reasonably qualified to speak for the Left--are either totally deluded or deliberately lying:  By rioting, the Left was able to prevent a speech from being given.  To claim this shows that Berkeley's administration or faculty or student body supports "free speech" is absurd, and a total lie.