Here Come the Dirty Tricks (Part V)

Oops! I almost forgot one of their best! Serious, evil character assassination. The Democrats are the Babe Ruth’s of the politics of personal destruction. They invented it, perfected it, and use it without qualm or conscience.

One Barack Hussein Obama occupies a high elective office as we speak! because he was willing to destroy another candidate in order to obtain power.

During Obama’s Senate race against Jack Ryan (former husband of Jeri Ryan — fairly famous actress of Borg Seven of Nine fame), a newspaper sued to have the custodial records of the Ryans’ divorce agreement unsealed and made public. I wonder whom that newspaper was supporting in the election. Hmmmm…? Oddly enough, some thoroughly corrupt judge agreed that these private records could be unsealed. Surprise, surprise!

Shortly thereafter, the ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan accused her ex-husband of demanding that she accompany him to an odd place of public entertainment where people engaged in ummmm… unconventional intimate acts.

Jack Ryan denied it, but the damage was done, and he withdrew. The great Alan Keyes replaced the tarnished Ryan on the ballot and Obama beat him by a 70-27 margin.

Obama became the illegitimate Senator from Illinois. When was the last time you heard of a press outlet of any kind suing to open private confidential court records in a way that would favor a Republican candidate for office? I won’t hold my breath while you go research that. :)

It’s when they’re about to squash someone mercilessly like a bug that Democrats decry most operatically “the politics of personal destruction.”

Otherwise stated: how can you tell Democrats are about to do something disgusting and evil? They start braying their condemnation of the disgusting, evil thing they’re about to do. They telegraph it every time.

We should call ‘em on it.

When they start condemning something disgusting and evil, we should say, “Oh … looks as if the Democrats are preparing to do [insert disgusting and evil thing here.]!”

Hmmmmmm… they’ve been condemning Domestic Violence and rape on college campuses a lot lately. Might be time to see whom the Democrats are beating and assaulting. I’m going to predict: women and coeds.

– xPraetorius


Here Come the Dirty Tricks (Part IV)

And finally (at least I think): the courts.

If you ever win a close election — within the margin that triggers a recount — against a Democrat, you might as well just concede defeat right then and there. They bring in their staunch allies in the Trial Lawyers coven and manipulate the courts, and the recount process, and the press, and which judge will hear the whole thing, and the media — all the while pretending that they “want every vote to count.”


They want to count some votes and disqualify others and eliminate others and interpret others until they shoehorn and twist and tug and pull and distort and add and subtract enough votes to get to at least one more than you. And they’re so power hungry that they will not give up until they have found (really fabricated enough votes or disenfranchised enough other votes) to get to that golden number: one more than you.

Whether you really won handily or not. It was said that Lyndon Johnson never contested an election that he didn’t steal. They’ve been doing this for a very long time.

After that long, drawn-out arduous process, you will be tens of thousands of dollars in debt and unemployed.

As I said above, might as well concede defeat at the beginning — even if you won.

Al Franken — illegitimate Senator from Minnesota — is in the Senate today for that very reason. Christine Gregoire of Washington State was governor there for that same reason up until 2013.

Stolen elections, pure and simple.

An interesting story. Remember Bush-Gore in the Presidential Election of 2000? Me too. Did you know that Dan Rather called Florida for Gore at 8:00PM on the nose. Exactly an hour before polls closed in the the Republican-heavy Florida panhandle. The rough estimate is that this premature call by Rather cost Bush some 50,000 votes from those who — having heard the projection — didn’t bother to vote. Those 50,000 votes — even if it has been only half that amount would have made been far more than enough to prevent Gore from making the colossal jackass of himself that he did.

Of course, nothing could, apparently, prevent Gore from making a total jackass of himself after all that had blown over.

I challenge you to name the last time that a major “news” outlet called an election result prematurely, and as a result favored Republican interests. Just one, please. However, even if you were to name dozens, you’d never catch up to the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of elections the Democrats and their accomplices in the media have stolen/influenced.

– xPraetorius

Here Come the Dirty Tricks (Part III)

Another dirty trick for which Democrats are notorious? Manipulating the actual candidates in the race itself. They did this to get back the Senate seat that the hopelessly corrupt Robert Torricelli was about to lose in New Jersey, in favor the the long senile Frank Lautenberg, all the way back in 2002.

Torricelli, caught taking donations from a North Korean agent, had to withdraw from his own re-election race to prepare to defend himself in court against the charges. He withdrew well after the the deadline for replacing him on the ballot, meaning that the Republican would run unopposed. What did the Democrats do? They ran Frank Lautenberg anyway, in clear violation of New Jersey election law. The senile old coot Lautenberg’s eventual victory speaks ill of New Jersey voters’ intelligence.

In Connecticut, there’s a Democrat candidate and a Republican candidate, as usual. However, there were also two minor candidates. One was a hard-left candidate — a certain Jonathan Pelto — who was sure to siphon some votes away from the unpopular incumbent Democrat governor, Dan Malloy.

The other minor candidate is a gun rights advocate, who absolutely would make a better governor than Malloy, but then, so would a stick. However, at the last minute, Pelto’s petition signatures began to look fishy. So he dropped out with a gracious statement about how there wasn’t enough time to investigate the signatures before the election, so he’d just bow out.

That left, of course, only the right-wing minor candidate to siphon votes away from Republican candidate Tom Foley in the race.

How can you know that Pelto’s “withdrawal” was rigged? Simple: hard-left Democrats are incapable of gracious statements. If he really wanted to run for Governor of CT, Pelto would have done anything including lie, cheat, steal, bribe, then lie some more. No, someone pressured or paid Pelto to withdraw. Simple as that.

It’s also happening as we speak in Kansas, where incumbent Senator Pat Roberts was far, far ahead of his Democrat rival, Chad Taylor. Enter one Greg Orman, businessman and “Independent” candidate, who looks a lot like a Democrat, and likely would caucus with the Democrats if elected.

When Democrat Taylor saw how far behind he was, he tried  to withdraw (unsuccessfully so far — it’s against election rules in Kansas), prompting many of his boosters to throw their support to Orman. Orman’s victory would, of course, have the effect of potentially denying the GOP control of the Senate after the November elections. Needless to say, after the de facto withdrawal of Taylor — who’s now polling at 6% — there’s still a Libertarian candidate in the race as well! He would — you guessed it — siphon votes away from the Republican.

These things are all over the place this election cycle, and always represent at least several percentage points in every election where they play a role.

– xPraetorius

Here Come the Dirty Tricks (Part II)

What form will the Democrat dirty tricks take in this election cycle?

All sorts of things:

Fabricated scandals. Remember the faked National Guard records of George w. Bush? Dan Rather still believes that was true, despite the fact that the “documents’ were proven fakes.

Today’s fad for the left — remember: one part of the left’s modus operandi is to have the whining classes (Feminists, Race Grievance Industry, Environmentalists, Gays) always in a lather about something — Is “Domestic Violence.” Look for faked accusations or unsubstantiated rumors of domestic violence by GOP candidates this cycle

Old stand-bys: look for unsubstantiated — and unsubstantiatable or refutable — rumors of infidelity, of drug or alcohol abuse.

• Don’t forget the things the media don’t report. Example: highly respected journalist Sharyl Atkisson discovers that Hillary Clinton deliberately withheld important documents from Benghazi investigators. Cover-up? You bet. Also, nearly total silence from the legacy media. Remember it was a hint of a cover-up by Nixon — along with the immediate media frenzy — that brought him down.

Distractions: The press are “reporting” on a wild incident in which Sarah Palin and her family engaged in a drunken brawl in a bar somewhere in Alaska? The Palins, it seems, en famille rented stretch Hummer, and went to a bar where they proceeded to mix it up with the locals, and at one point, Sarah Palin shouted, “Do you know who I am?” Only thing is, it never happened. At least not as the press reported it. But, off they go with it, never worrying about the fact that their lies harm people.

Set-ups and Plants: Look for the left to plant their own people in GOP rallies, pretending to take part in the rally, and carrying signs that make Republicans appear racist, or sexist or homophobic of the rest of the litany. This happens a lot, and it always turns out to be a Democrat Party plant carrying the offending sign, but as we said in our first post (here) the Democrats doing the hoaxing, and engaging in the dirty tricks are not talking to you and me, they’re trying to get through to America’s low-information voters; voters they know belong to the Democrats if only they can get them to bestir themselves on Election Day.

The Democrats know for certain that if they can simply get a message out somewhere that they have this proof the Republicans are evil, they’ll have done their job. The inevitable exposure of the fraud, buried on page 52 of the newspaper, or in the final minutes of a newscast, doesn’t fall on nearly as many eyes and ears as the blaring 200 point headlines.

The usual media dishonesty: Media hacks like Candy Crowley will do their level best to swing debates to the Democrat. They will insert themselves into the debates, as Crowley did in 2012, as additional support for beleaguered Democrats forced to defend the indefensible.

Don’t forget: this is not an election pitting the Republicans and their ideas against the Democrats and theirs. If it were, the Republicans would win every time. When the question is posed honestly on just about any issue, the American people have shown time and time again, that they prefer Republican-type thinking overwhelmingly. This is an election pitting the Republicans against the unions, Academia, Hollywood, the media, nearly all of pop culture… and the Democrat candidates. It’s incredible the Republicans ever win anything!

Actual violence: There will be incidents like the New Black Panther Party denying access to polling places by white people. And, in the topsy-turvy world of Eric Holder’s “Justice Department,” they will get away with it, and the media will allow them to.

Their out-an-out favorite: Plain old lying about issues: Taxes — your money and mine — are “investments,” not transfers to takers, or payoffs to unions. Abortion — which no one has ever proven doesn’t kill an actual human being — is “choice.” Killing the future for entire generations through welfare dependency is “compassion.” Deficits twice as high as George W. Bush’s admittedly awful deficits is “cutting the deficit.” Because they’re down from their initial fourfold increase in the beginning of the Obama years. The list of euphemisms, tortured labeling and flat out wacky nomenclature is endless: How about “overseas contingency operations?” And many more. Who, after all, doesn’t want to invest? Who doesn’t like “choice?” Who doesn’t believe in compassion and reducing the deficit?

When the Democrats lie about something, the media report the lie as fact, and challenge Republicans: How do you respond to that?!? When Republicans say anything the media unleash those sad-faced “fact checkers” to challenge the assertion, and say, “How can you make this claim when so and so and such and such?”

• Finally: all else: The Democrats will do whatever it takes to obtain and maintain power. No matter what they do, up to and including rape (Bill Clinton), murder (Teddy Kennedy) and pillage (the tax code), they can count on someone in the media to do what it takes to let them skate, and somehow come out of it as the “victims” of those nasty, moralistic Republicans (Ken Starr).

The Democrats have long played politics for keeps, while Republicans have always had an “I’d never stoop to that level” frame of mind. The problem is that the fact that the Democrats are corrupt, and dishonest, and liars, and frauds never seems to make it out to the public in any meaningful way. This is the doing of the press.

Republicans have to fight back, and they have to fight back in the same gutter as the Democrats, because that’s the level of debate and discourse that the media are imposing. When a Democrat accuses a Republican of racism, the Republican should shoot right back, “And you’re a child molester.” Before the Democrat can pick his jaw back up, continue straightaway with, “I have every bit as much proof that you’re a child molester as you have that I’m a racist, so if you can’t stop that infantile tactic, that’s not worthy of an elementary school debate, as far as I’m concerned you’re a child molester.” Don’t stop there. Say also, “I’m prepared to accept your apology for calling me a racist, but if you don’t, you’ll have proven yourself unworthy and unserious as a debater, as a candidate and as a person.” Say it calmly, and don’t allow anyone to interrupt you. Don’t ever let them get away with that garbage without giving it back tenfold.

That’s how we have to beat them, by being better at their own game than they are. Shouldn’t be all that difficult; they’re not all that bright.

– xPraetorius

Here Come the Dirty Tricks

It’s almost time.

Time, that is for the vast and mighty Democrat Dirty Tricks Machine to get into gear and start laying waste to Republican candidacies all across the land.

The Republicans are poised to add to their majority in the House of Representatives, and to take over the Senate, thereby hastening President Obama’s status as a lame duck.

If the election were to be held today, all that would happen, and all the trends point to the Republican advantage only increasing over the next 50 days until the November mid-term election.

Time for the Democrats to trot out some fabricated allegations about National Guard Service, or secret mistresses, or 45-year old bullying incidents, or coded racist statements, or whatever the Current Big Thing is.

Well, as it turns out, the Current Big Thing is “Domestic Violence.”

Get ready to hear how the Republican candidates for the Senate in Lousiana, in North Carolina and elsewhere are somehow guilty of domestic violence.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz already trotted out that embarrassing trial balloon when she said, that Republicans are “grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.”

Yes, it was embarrassing, but she wasn’t talking to you and me. She was talking around you and me — to the Democrat Party’s hyper-low-information base. These are people who couldn’t find Florida on a map of Florida — if it was labeled “FLORIDA Here“… in Florida. And they’re locked-down, sure-thing, lead-pipe-cinch Democrat voters. If, that is, you can get them off their low-information backsides, and to the polls in November.

However, as Wasserman-Schultz knows all too well, on election day, these dim bulbs would much rather be in front of the telly, slogging back a six-pack, watching WWE Raw and pounding down the Doritos and dip, than schlepping  to the polls, waiting in line for who knows how long, and doing something they’re pretty sure has no real impact on their lives. Except, that is if DW-S can assure them that the Republicans are coming for their SNAP card.

And, truly, for a significant portion of the population — the record numbers on SNAP, the record numbers of permanently unemployed who despair of ever finding a job in Obama’s “Recovery” — a Republican victory would be a potentially tough thing. For many of these people, a guaranteed subsistence living has more appeal than the opportunity for much greater. Can you blame them, really? They’ve been hearing for who knows how long that they’re just entitled to it. Why shouldn’t they believe it?

If you offer a population a deal in which if they don’t work, you’ll never let them fall below a certain level of subsistence, a certain percentage of the population will take you up on it. They’ll reproduce, and have nothing of value to impart to their children. And their numbers will begin to grow.

Others will watch in dismay as the SNAPpers sit around and relax, while it seems they have to work ever harder just to stay where they are, much less get ahead. Some of those will peel off, drop out, tune in to WWE and join the growing crowd. Then more will “join” as it becomes obvious that not only is the living okay, but it’s no longer even socially embarrassing!

The Obama Administration is marketing it! They’re sending out aggressive people to get you and me to sign-up and join the cool crowd! It’s not embarrassing! Whatever gave you that idea! It’s hip! It’s now! It’s what’s hot! And all the really cool people are signing up!

The one bit of civic duty these  people will ever do thereafter is to go out and vote Democrat when they get scared enough that they might have to bestir themselves to find work.

That’s Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’ job — to scare these inert people into thinking that if they don’t get out there and vote, they might have stop being inert and become a bit more ert. It shouldn’t be all that hard for her. The longer the inert are on the take, the less likely they are to be able to find a job that’s anything more than menial, or that would make it worthwhile for them to detach their suckers from the Great Whale.

So, DW-S needs to scare ‘em a bit. She needs to fabricate some scandals that will knock the momentum out of the Republican tide. And you can be sure that if she so much as finds a Republican candidate for dog catcher who tickled his ex-wife and made her peevish, the national media will be all over it with features on Domestic Violence and Wife-Beating GOP Candidates, and who knows How Many More Are OUT THERE!!!

However, even Obama’s lock on the media can’t get through certain realities. National Public Radio’s constant, smiley happy-talk about the robust American “Recovery” doesn’t get through in low-information America. Give the low-information voters credit. They don’t listen to NPR. They may have almost no information, but they’re not overstuffed with false, flat-earth “information” as the NPR-listener is.

Even the low-information ones recognize that the country’s in a lot worse condition than not too long ago. Uncle John and Aunt Roberta and Cousin Archie and other Cousin Annabelle have been out of work forever it seems and they all went to college!

No one’s making enough money to do anything but barely scrape by, and the only ones gettin’ rich are the ones who were already rich. The bars are closing, the stores are closing, any business that’s not clothes, or food, or discount mega-chain, or mega-store… is closing. People see these things, and they pay attention when it starts to look like a pattern that’s going to affect them.

So, it’s time to look out for the dirty tricks campaign to come out. I figure it’s already started. It’s just a question of when the legacy media calculate it’ll be most effective to release the lies and slanders. Remember, a low-information Democrat voter has a short memory, quickly overwhelmed by the latest episode of Jersey Shore. If you were to release the fabrications now, fifty days before the election, you allow (1) someone to expose it for the horse guano it is, and (2) the low-info’s might forget it by Election Day.

Keep your eyes and ears open — you heard it here first.

– xPraetorius

The Callousness of the American Left

In 2007, George W. Bush made a now-famous prediction that if United States military forces departed from Iraq overly precipitously — as the American left and their political wing the Democrat Party — were prescribing, it would lead to the disaster that we see today in that region.

The recorded prediction is famous, because Bush seems to summarize, item by item by item, and in eerie detail, the entire ISIS/ISIL mess in Iraq.

Furthermore, the recording suggests, as everyone pretty much agrees now, that if America had left sufficient support in place to see the Iraqi democracy through to greater maturity, there would have been no ISIS/ISIL threat to deal with. It never would have got off the ground to gain any foothold anywhere in Iraq.

Was George W. Bush some kind of super genius? Some gifted, clairvoyant savant, able to see clearly the consequences of this action or that action far into the future?

Or, as is more likely, did he just know — as pretty much anyone who paid any attention at all could see — that Iraq was not yet ready for an American departure?

I’ll go with the latter as the more likely, because I was one of those predicting the very same thing as President Bush predicted.

So, pretty much everyone knew, or had been warned, that this was coming if we withdrew from the region too quickly. Everyone knew, even the Obama campaign in 2007 and 2008. Yet, Obama campaigned — and won — on a promise to do what he was pretty sure would result in a bloodbath in Iraq.

Who does that?

Well: Democrats. They do, after all, have some history of this kind of thing.

Way back when, in the early- and mid-1970’s, I was predicting the very same things for Southeast Asia, as we prepared to entrust the Vietnamese, the Laotians, the Cambodians and the entire region to the tender mercies of the North Vietnamese, the Pathet Lao and the Khmer Rouge.

Some, what, four million dead? later, and the Democrats are still counting that as one of their shining moments in American history. How, they “ended the war.” No, they ended no war. They just turned it over to people who would get slaughtered.

This is closely related to another characteristic of America’s left-wing: a deep-seated racism. They don’t mind when millions upon millions upon millions of little yellow ones, or little brown ones are being slaughtered in Southeast Asia, or in China, or in the Middle East, or in Africa — as long as Americans aren’t involved.

The most bloodthirsty mass-murderer in human history — Mao-tse Tung — responsible for the deaths of, some say, 80 million Chinese(!) is still referred to in American universities — longtime, solid redoubts of the left — as an “agrarian reformer.”

The left has a long tradition of either sitting back and watching — and approving! — as millions died in the Soviet Union in the 1920’s and ’30’s, in China after World War II, in Southeast Asia in the 1960’s and ’70’s, in Africa in the recent genocides in Rwanda and Burundi — or of actively abetting in the slaughter, by agitating for the removal of the armed forces of civilized nations that could have prevented the butchery.

I keep waiting for leftists or Democrats (largely the same critter) to declare that bike-riding, wispy-haired, comb-over, scrawny, goateed, John Lennon glasses-wearing, pasty-faced, Indigenous, and Environmental, and Womens Studies professors, are the Master Race.

I’m declaring that they’re cold-hearted, callous, merciless dastards, whose principal personality characteristic is the depraved indifference that allows them to sit by and watch as people perish by the millions, or actively to abet the killing process.

– xPraetorius

The Corruption of The American Left (Part XXIXCVIIIXXVIII)

Okay, I don’t know what that roman numeral is, or even if it’s anything. The point is that there are so many easily documented instances of corruption on the part of the American left that one would think we’d get around, as a society, to doing something about it. After all, they, the American left, are in power.

They own the White House and the American Senate. They own Academia, Hollywood, most of the American media. They own the big cities, and with those in their hands they control the eastern and western seaboards. The American left and their political wing, the Democrat Party, own the vast majority of America, and the parts they own, they rule with an iron fist, permitting neither dissent, nor free speech, nor opposition of any kind. If you were to dare to step off their reservation, they unleash on you what they pretend to loathe the most vociferously: censorship, silencing, blacklisting.

I know, I know, I know… I can hear you: there goes xPraetorius again, and he’s banging the drum of leftist corruption again. ** sigh! ** Will he ever let it go?

Well, no. Not while we still have our country and free speech. Ahhh, free speech! That quaint, inconvenient little thing that Harry Reid and the Democrats would just love to get rid of!

Kevin Williamson has written another piece in the continuing saga of the corruption of Democrats in the great states of Texas and now, Ohio. That piece is here.

Williamson’s writing is dense; loaded to the brim with salvo after salvo, and each salvo making a point in succinct, rapier-like fashion. Williamson thoroughly skewers the Texas — and Ohio — Democrats doing their level best to squash the free speech of American Conservatives, but he doesn’t pose the question that needs to be posed. How do we stop them from doing this?

Here are some key passages from Williamson’s essay:

 Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Dissent is the lowest form of crime. If you are a drone in the hive of the Left, it is possible — easy, in fact — to believe both of those things at the same time.

Yep. We’ve seen that a lot under Obama. Dissent was the highest form of patriotism under George W. Bush, but it was vile racism under Obama.

Here’s more:

Free speech just won an important victory in a federal courtroom, though it is shameful that the case ever even had to go to court. Ohio had enacted a plainly unconstitutional law that empowered a government panel to determine whether criticisms offered in political advertisements were sufficiently true to be permitted in the public discourse. Those who have followed the IRS scandal, the Travis County, Texas, prosecutorial scandals, or Harry Reid’s recent effort to repeal the First Amendment will not be surprised that this measure was used as a political weapon against a conservative group, in this case the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List. SBA List criticized a Democratic House member for having voted for the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA), noting that the law will implicate American taxpayers in the funding of abortions, an entanglement previously minimized through measures such as the Hyde Amendment. Despite the fact that the ACA regime would, among other things, permit federal subsidies for abortion-funding insurance plans, the Ohio Inquisition ruled the ad impermissible, and banned it.
So much for free speech.


The same Texas prosecutor behind the indictments of Governor Perry and Mr. Hall was also behind the indictments of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Representative Tom DeLay, both of which ultimately were laughed out of court. The point of these indictments is not to obtain convictions; the prosecutor did not even present a case against Senator Hutchison when the matter came to trial. And the point of the Ohio Inquisition was never to achieve a legal victory against the Susan B. Anthony List: The point was to bully the group, and the billboard company, into remaining silent and forgoing criticism of Democratic candidates. In that, the censors were successful: SBA List won in court, but those billboards never went up.

Bottom line: Free political speech against Democrat candidates was not, ultimately, forbidden, but it was squelched for long enough to get past the elections. In other words — free speech was denied.

Don’t forget, there is no record of any Conservative ever having tried to do this to anyone from the left — that’s not how we do things on the right; there are, however, all sorts of such incidents coming from the left.

Otherwise stated, all the garbage of political correctness, of speech and behavior codes, The IRS crimes, all prospective limits against free speech come  from the left, in attempts to limit the speech of the right — of Conservatives or Republicans.

Here’s some more from Williamson:

 Likewise, the point of indicting Governor Perry and Mr. Hall is not to send either man to jail, but to harass them, to bully them, to bankrupt them if possible, and to keep them from functioning as effective critics of entrenched Democratic political interests.
The only thing stopping federal authorities from suffocating free speech — not only by independent groups such as the SBA List, but by individuals, trade groups, National Review, and the New York Times — is the First Amendment.
And Harry Reid wants to gut it. Figure out why that is and you’ll know everything you need to know about the Democratic party, which with each passing day functions less and less like a political party and more like a crime syndicate.

It’s worth repeating: “The Democratic party, [] with each passing day functions less and less like a political party and more like a crime syndicate.”

Do yourself a favor and read Williamson’s piece, if you think that I’m a little over the top about leftist corruption.

– xPraetorius

This SHOULD Be The GOP Mantra Between Now and 2016

Sit down cross-legged with hands on knees, fingers in an “OK” position and repeat after me:

“Nothing anywhere in the world is better off for Barack Obama’s having been President for the past nearly six years.”

Make commercials. Write editorials. Get pundits to say it. Repeat it every day for the next 420 days (the time period encompassing the 2014 mid-term elections and the 2016 Presidentials).

Why? Because it’s true.

Dare anyone to prove you wrong. But tell them they probably shouldn’t mention any of the following things:

• Economy, Russia, Unemployment, Workforce participation, Crimea, Ukraine, NSA, Domestic spying, Iran, Nuclear Iran, Benghazi, Deficit, Debt, Military readiness, IS, Fast & Furious, ISIS, ISIL, Iraq, Afghanistan, IRS, Nuclear North Korea, Poverty, Race relations, Detroit…

Really, they probably should simply say something like, “We always said it was more important to elect a good President than to elect the first black one.” Why not just one more Big Lie, right? ‘Course, that leads to the inevitable next conclusion: “It’s vastly more important to elect a good or great President than it is to elect the first woman President.” Or the first gay one. Or the first Hispanic one. Or the first gay, black, Hispanic one… or whatever’s next in the interminable list of grievances the American left endlessly fabricates in order to bring down the greatest country that’s ever been.

– xPraetorius

We REALLY Hate to Say It, but…

We told ya so…

Twice! Here and here.

Take a look here. It’s the true story of two straight men who got “married” in order to score free tickets to watch New Zealand play in the 2015 Rugby World Cup.

According to the above-linked piece, Katherine Timpf’s feature in National Review Online, “Both conservatives and gay-rights activists have called the marriage a mockery.”

They’re wrong. It’s nothing less nor more than a perfectly logical, inevitable outgrowth of the “Gay Marriage” movement.

Read it well: If you’re going to allow two gay men to get married, surely you can’t possibly prevent two straight men — or women — from getting married … even if it’s just to score tickets to a rugby tournament.

You don’t ask a man and a woman why they’re getting married, do you? Of course not!

What we really told you was that in deciding that two men or two women could get married, you really eliminate marriage as a meaningful concept. The reason for the “gay marriage” movement had nothing to do with any abstract concepts of “equality” or “fairness” or “justice” … it was all about getting the most money possible after the death of one of the “spouses.” That was the reason for the lawsuit(s) that obtained the court rulings that now permit “gay marriage.”

In other words, and read this well: we could have winked the entire “Gay Marriage” movement out of existence in less than a day, with a simple adjustment of the tax code.

Well, if marriage no longer has anything to do with biological reproduction, and the care of a family, defined as a man and a woman and their children, then why not let two dudes get hitched for rugby tickets?

In one of my posts, I penned the following:

I’d get such a chuckle if there were all of a sudden a rash of “marriages” between well-to-do gay and straight dudes and dudettes and non-family — or family! — to maneuver tens of billions of tax dollars away from the government at inheritance time. How ironic would that be?!?

In my Alex Rodriguez-Derek Jeter essay, I said “When it comes down to it, you don’t really have any reason anymore whatsoever to deny any two adults who want one, a marriage license.”

How long do you think it would take the Democrats — those great defenders of “marriage equality” — to move against the marriage of two straight people for the purposes of paying lower taxes? All in the name of “fairness” and “justice,” and “respect for marriage,” of course.

– xPraetorius


Adolf Hitler – Right-Winger? Uhhh…No. (Part 7)

A while back we did a series that demonstrated that Adolf Hitler was truly a man of the left, not of the right.

Here’s someone else who agreed with us. His name was Vasily Grossman and he was a Soviet journalist and novelist who died in 1964 — to show you how long people who have studied this kind of thing have realized it.

Here are a couple of key passages from this review of Grossman’s novel: “Life and Fate”:

He first saw that Nazism was evil, then realized that Communism was the other side of the coin.


The transition from Jewish tragedy to all-encompassing human tragedy is abruptly made in Part II, Chapter 14. Here, Grossman has an old Bolshevik, who is now a political prisoner in a German POW camp, engage in a conversation with the camp’s SS representative. The Bolshevik expects to be interrogated by a mechanical SS officer, but instead faces an intelligent, unapologetic man who has, as a result of extensive contemplation, come to believe that National Socialism and Communism are indeed one and the same. Although the Bolshevik is loath to admit it, as the SS officer speaks — intermittently weaving in, not coincidentally, references to both Hegel and Spengler — the Bolshevik eventually comes to recognize himself in the Nazi sitting across the table as the latter concludes: “When we look one another in the face, we’re neither of us just looking at a face we hate — no, we’re gazing into a mirror. . . . Do you really not recognize yourselves in us — yourselves and the strength of your will? Isn’t it true that for you too the world is your will?”


There is no record of Grossman writing conversely about an ideal society or government, and no record of him attempting to flee the Soviet Union for the West. To claim Grossman politically as anything other than an opponent of totalitarianism, or as a man brave enough to publicly recognize the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as being essentially one and the same, is to stretch the bounds of honest deduction. But Grossman clearly recognized that, under totalitarian regimes, holocausts of any variety are possible, while in regimes that would, for instance, welcome the publishing of a book such as Life and Fate, they are not. It is not dishonest to claim he yearned for the latter.

In that last passage, it’s important to note that the reviewer — one Reggie Gibbs — says that he himself sees Communism and Nazism as the same thing, but that Grossman says it only through implication, not directly.

The review is fascinating, and I’ll go and purchase Grossman’s book(1) to see for myself.

– xPraetorius


(1) Sample Book Description:

Publication Date: June 13, 2012
A book judged so dangerous in the Soviet Union that not only the manuscript but the ribbons on which it had been typed were confiscated by the state, Life and Fate is an epic tale of World War II and a profound reckoning with the dark forces that dominated the twentieth century. Interweaving a transfixing account of the battle of Stalingrad with the story of a single middle-class family, the Shaposhnikovs, scattered by fortune from Germany to Siberia, Vasily Grossman fashions an immense, intricately detailed tapestry depicting a time of almost unimaginable horror and even stranger hope.Life and Fate juxtaposes bedrooms and snipers’ nests, scientific laboratories and the Gulag, taking us deep into the hearts and minds of characters ranging from a boy on his way to the gas chambers to Hitler and Stalin themselves. This novel of unsparing realism and visionary moral intensity is one of the supreme achievements of modern Russian literature.


Ray Rice and Domestic Violence — Perspectives You Won’t See In The Legacy Media (Part II)


There was a video.

It showed Ray Rice, now ex-football player for the Baltimore Ravens — punching his fiancée, and knocking her out. That’s not the whole story, but it’s the most important part.

In the video, Rice and his fiancée were in an elevator, and just before Rice punched, she charged at him. Presumably whatever she was about to do would not have been all that dangerous to Rice.

I offered some perspectives you probably won’t see in many other places, if at all. One of these was: if Ray Rice had punched out a man, (Additional note: particularly if, as in the video, the man had charged him!) there would be no controversy at all.

One quick additional perspective, to give an indication of where our society is on this kind of thing. What if Ray Rice had simply covered up and allowed his then-fiancée to do her worst? First thing is: Likely he would be largely uninjured and employed today. Second thing: she would suffer no ill effects in the public perception of her whatsoever.

In fact, it’s likely she would go on talk shows, where laughing, smirking hosts and hostettes would fete her, as “The Woman Who Beat up an NFL Running Back.” They’d have laughing exchanges in which someone would say something like, “What was it like to take on a big, strong NFL player?” She’d say something like, “Aw, he’s not all that tough. I could take him any day!” to the laughter and applause of an appreciative studio audience.

It’s possible that Ray Rice would be there too! Heck, he might just join in the fun in a self-deprecating way, then he might also say seriously, “I can see how a woman might sometimes be driven to beating me up. We were having an argument, and I was being stubborn like I am. Like I am on the football field.” All would laugh and that would be the end of it.

A while back I penned an essay (here) telling of a widespread, commonplace and nearly unknown phenomenon: domestic violence by women. Read this well: It’s likely that domestic violence by women is more commonplace than that by men. much more commonplace. Understand that the way things are now, women can punch, hit, slap, kick, throw things at men hundreds of times with no legal ramifications whatsoever, but if a man does any of those things just once, then off he goes to jail, divorce and the loss of his kids.

Now, I’m of two minds about this. First, the obvious: In a domestic situation, to lift a hand in anger, with the intent to injure ought never to be acceptable. Period. However, as a favorite blogger of mine puts it, there’s this thing called biology. Women are about two-thirds our size. For me the ratios are different, ’cause at 6’4″ and 280 lbs, I’m kind of a big dude. Many women are less than half my size (using mass as the unit of measure here. :) )

When my now ex-wife was doing that kind of thing to me, I was not in any danger of injury except a couple of times, when she threw bricks at me. At those times, you can be sure I ducked or caught the missile in question. When she threw anything else — books, shoes, assorted things close at hand at the time, I was in little danger. Still, I could have lost an eye, I guess.

The point is that of the potentially hundreds of times that women do it, to every one time that a man does it, he is in much less physical peril than she. So, the rule should be that a man should never commit domestic violence. And the laws should, and pretty much do, reflect this.

One thing I wonder… how many times in any domestic violence case today was the violence actually initiated by the woman? Furthermore, it’s possible that some huge percentage of cases never would happen at all if the woman didn’t first hit the man. I don’t know.

One more wrinkle: after our divorce my ex-wife confessed to me that she used to try to goad me into hitting her, recognizing that such a reaction on my part would instantly put all the cards in her hand. I never fell for it. Nor would even that absolve the man of his responsibility not ever to commit violence. However — and read this well — I have a feeling that “domestic violence” would go away to a huge extent if women would stop practicing it.

What probably really needs to happen — if we’re really going to be serious about diminishing domestic violence — is to focus great efforts on getting women to stop the abuse.

Oh, I can hear some of you saying, “Oh, boo hoo! Big man got beat up by an itty-bitty woman and now he’s all whining about it! Shut up, suck it up, and go back to work.” Well, that’s the message society gives to men, and that’s what they do. After all, there’s no such thing as recourse for men who get beat up by women, and there are no resources for those men.

Trust me… when things got bad with my then wife, I actually looked into it. In fact when I called a place to find out if there were resources for men, the woman took my information, then called my wife and asked her whether she needed assistance to defend herself from domestic violence.

People can jeer at men who suggest that maybe women ought not to beat their husbands, but it hurts. Oh, you get over the bumps and bruises quickly enough, but when someone who has vowed to cherish you all the days of her life, then shows you that she’d cause you injury if she could, there’s a hurt there that goes far deeper than bumps and bruises.

Sometimes people forget that men can and do hurt — deep down — every bit as much as women.

– xPraetorius

Ray Rice and Domestic Violence — Perspectives You Won’t See In The Legacy Media

There was a video.

It showed Ray Rice, now ex-football player for the Baltimore Ravens — punching his fiancée, and knocking her out. That’s not the whole story, but it’s the most important part.

In the video, Rice and his fiancée were in an elevator, and just before Rice punched, she charged at him. Presumably whatever she was about to do would not have been all that dangerous to Rice.

Here are some thoughts:

  • If Rice had punched out a man — almost any man — there would be no controversy now.
  • If Ray Rice were gay — might that be his best strategy now? To declare himself gay? — the controversy would be only: why are they picking on this gay guy? Homophobia! Bigotry!
  • If this had been a bar brawl, and Rice had beaten the tar out of some guy — rather than his having thrown one single punch at a woman — there would be no controversy. Rice would be suspended, but that would be the end of it.
  • Aren’t women supposed to be really strong and mighty and awesome so that we pathetic men would never dare to threaten them, because they’d beat the living fecal matter out of us. Yep. That’s the official line.
  • The official line rarely reflects the truth.
  • Absolutely, this country values the following people over others:
    • Relatively weaker people: handicapped, older, children, the sick, gays
    • The weird: gays, sexually confused, transgendered
    • Minorities: blacks, hispanics, immigrants, gays

And the most powerful, muscular, potent, dominant, “oppressed” group: women.

  • This bias by America in favor or the above groups is not necessarily a bad thing overall, but it is indisputably true.
  • Ray Rice’s wife — then his fiancée — begged someone to leave Ray Rice alone. I’m not sure to whom she was supposed to address her pleas, but she did kind of an “open video letter” thing. What are we to make of that?!? Honestly, I don’t know the answer. Maybe she’s just a golddigger, but there’s no law against Rice being an idiot and taking up with a golddigger.

And here’s the most controversial thing I will pen so far — and I’ve participated in over 10,000 posts: women are every bit the violent, merciless manipulators, every bit the “control freaks” that men are. In fact, they’re better at it, because they’re smarter, and more practiced, at it.

  • To make a very long story very much shorter. My then wife did to me — at least 300 times over 15 years — things that would have resulted in my arrest if I had done any one of them just once.

Yes, I’m talking about punching, kicking, throwing things (books, shoes, miscellaneous things — bricks). What did I do in the face of that kind of abuse? I covered up.

That’s it. I covered up so I wouldn’t be physically hurt.

Why? Because I’m an American man. Not just a man, but an American man. A real man, not what I used to be, never would have put up for that kind of garbage. And a real man never would have hit a woman. No contradiction.

I’m 6’4″ tall, and I used to be very well-muscled. I could have clocked my then wife — I had a thousand different opportunities — and I would have gone to jail for a very long time. She was perfectly confident — and she was right — that I never would have hit her.

As it turns out, my now ex-wife was trying to provoke me to hit her, but I didn’t fall for the bait. I never lifted a finger against her.

She did other things, did my ex-wife — obscene, disgusting, evil things — to me, and she did me a great favor. She demonstrated to me very clearly that — every bit as much as — if not more than — men, women have (1) a desire to control the men and children in their live, (2) the tools and weapons to accomplish it, and (3) that they are unafraid to use them.

– xPraetorius

Dinesh D’Souza — GREAT American Hero!

Do yourself a favor. Study Dinesh D’Souza. Study his  writing. Watch his movies. Dinesh D’Souza is a great, great man. In a thousand different ways.

Dinesh D’Souza is one of America’s all-time great patriotic Americans.


– xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 9/12/14

Or: why you should never take anything you hear on National Public Radio seriously.

The short response to the above headline is because they don’t take seriously what they report to us.

How so?

They were doing a feature on “The Crime Bill” that Bill Clinton signed into law in the 1990’s and were trying to make the case (1) that the said Crime Bill, which increased incarceration rates for criminal offenders, had far more negative effects than positive. Now, between you and me, that’s entirely possible, but the NPR report would have given you no — zero, zip, zilch, nada — useful information to move your thinking in any direction whatsoever.

NPR delights in the use of factoids

Here’s the factoid they used for this report: If you are born black, you have a one-in-three chance of being incarcerated in your lifetime; if Hispanic, it’s one-in-six; if white, one-in-seventeen.

Okay. I’ll buy that, but they then did not even address the obvious question that must be addressed for this report to have any useful meaning whatsoever: If you are born black, Hispanic or white, what are your respective probabilities of committing a crime for which incarceration is the legal remedy? Along with its obvious follow-up: Why? To answer that question, and its follow-up, honestly, is to take the study of the effects of incarceration rates seriously. Without at least attempting to answer those questions, you have no useful information whatsoever and, as usual, you just wasted five more minutes of your day listening to NPR “news.”

Curious Language Note:

Steve Inskeep, one of NPR’s national morning “news” anchors was interviewing the Queen of Mediocrities, Susan Rice, National Security Advisor to the King of Mediocrities, Barack Obama. In the interview, Rice kept pronouncing “ISIL” as if it were spelled “issel,” to rhyme with “missal” or “thistle.”

Rice is the only one I’ve ever heard pronounce I-S-I-L that way, and I’ve listened to hundreds of pundits expound on the topic. Isn’t that little affectation just a bit odd? And, I wonder, whence comes it? (speaking of odd affectations). I guess that if one thinks that the initial “I” stands for “Islamic” then one could conclude that the first “I” in ISIL should be a short one. However, no one else, apparently, looks at that combination of letters and pronounces it “ISS-il.” If my interpretation is correct — about the initial “I” being short because it stands for “Islamic” — then who wastes that kind of time trying to stand out from the crowd in such a trivial way? As National Security Advisor to the King of Mediocrities, doesn’t she have better things to do with her time? Is she really that awash in free time?

The rest of Rice’s interaction with Inskeep was interesting in that when she first referred to “ISIL” as “ISS-el” Inskeep seemed to become mildly uncomfortable with his pronunciation — as if Rice were trying to correct him. He referred to ISIS only one more time…as “ISIS, or ISIL (long ‘I’), or IS, or whatever you call them…”


Watch for the following to become a factoid in upcoming days: “Iraq needs to form an inclusive government, or they will never be able to defend their country successfully.” It will be repeated — and already has been repeated — ad infinitum by Obama Administration drones, droids and factotums at all levels.

Oh? It needs to include whom, pray tell? Representatives of ISIL? What on earth for?!? After World War II, did we insist that Germany “include” Nazis in their government so as to avoid bruising their tender sensibilities? Uhhhh… no.

Does it need to include both Sunnis and Shi’ites? Each considers the other to be the lowest form of scum. Each may be right. Iran is run by Shi’ites… who are scum. Al Qaeda, who are Sunnis… are scum. ISIS is just scum. You can wrap them all up in a nice little label: Islamic scum.(3)

So, whom, precisely should Iraq be sure to include in this inclusive government who will not be scum? Hmmmm…? It’s kind of an important question. The way things are now, if Sunnis “include” Shi’ites in a government, they will be always at each other’s throats. It would be the same in reverse.

No, “inclusivity” is a thing like “diversity.” It has no inherent value, unless the right people are included. Include a bunch of thugs and petty tyrants, and you have a recipe for more of the same as what we have now. The more inclusive, the greater the risk of bringing in scum like ISIS.

Besides, Obama himself doesn’t believe one jot in anything resembling “inclusivity.” He has been absolutely certain to distance Republicans or Conservative far, far from any input to his thinking or actions. He plainly doesn’t believe what he’s saying, or he’d do it himself. Why should anyone else believe him?

This all leads inexorably to only one possible place: at some point, someone somewhere is going to have to recognize that the real problem is … Islam. If you can form a stable, democratic, legitimate, civilian, republican form of government — supported by the military — that “includes” only that one simple understanding, you will have a successful country. All other roads lead to more of what we have now over there.

– xPraetorius


(1) By the way, since when do “news” organizations so transparently “try to make a case?” NPR does it — all the time.

(2) “factoid:” [1] an insignificant or trivial fact. [2] something fictitious or unsubstantiated (emphasis added) that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.


That second definition sure said a mouthful, eh? How about describing in one well-crafted sentence the entire modus operandi for the argumentation of America’s left.

Look at the movements that have produced massive societal dislocation, and mountains of legislation on factoids alone: Feminism, environmentalism, gay marriage. All based on fictitious or unsubstantiated factoids devised especially to gain publicity, and accepted because of constant repetition.

(3) Now, everybody go on out there and find some Islamic non-scum! Bring ‘em on back, ’cause we want to “include” them in the government! You may not need a school bus… a mini-van will probably do.

A Somber Anniversary

Just some quick thoughts from an America-loving, patriotic citizen and a father.

• Militant Islam revealed its hand 13 years ago today. Is there any reason for not developing a strategy that would wipe militant Islam off the face of the earth?

• Is there any reason to entrust the development of that strategy to the feckless, none-too-bright, directionless Barack Obama?

• It’ll be a long haul. There will be no way to “end the war,” short of winning or losing it. A common lie that Democrats tell is: “I was elected to end this war.” No, you think you were elected to end American involvement in the war, and to turn it over to others to fight. But no war ends, just because you, President Obama, turn America’s tail and flee. In fact, that’s usually when the war heats up, because the scum we were fighting know they have an open field now that we’re gone.

• Two years ago, my daughter approached me and told me she was thinking of joining the National Guard. I thought it was a good idea. I knew that we had a pathetically weak President who was going to bring American forces home, so I thought the risk to my daughter to be minimal. Now, Obama is going to pretend to be a war President, and I worry.

• Democrats waste American lives — by the tens of millions. Whether it’s the tens of millions they impoverish, then squash further by regulating any hope of upward mobility out of existence, or by playing at war.

• Is Obama preparing to do something that will waste my daughter’s life? I have a younger son contemplating a career in the military. Is Obama a threat to his life as well?

• If you read Dakota Meyer’s story — the one telling how he earned the Medal of Honor — you read the story of a battle “managed,” really mis-managed, remotely by Democrats. All sorts of “proportional this” and “no collateral damage” that, all while Americans were dying at the hands of bloodthirsty, raving lunatics. Giving control of a war, or of battles in a war, over to bureaucrats awash in political correctness is lunacy. Four American lives were wasted that day, because freakin’ military personnel didn’t understand the basic nature of war.

• Listening to National Public Radio on the way to work this morning. Thirteen years to the day after 9/11, and they still can’t get it right. NPR is supposed to be the cream of the “news” media crop. They’re idiots. The local anchorette twice referred to 9/11 as a “tragedy,” and to the terrorists’ victims as “victims of the ‘tragedy.'” The terrorist attacks were an atrocity, a crime against humanity, a war crime. A “tragedy” is an earthquake, or a flood, or a stove fire that gets out of control and burns the house down.

• The perpetrators of the atrocity of September 11, 2001, were not mad dogs. They were not barbarians. They were psychotic lunatics, under the control of a brainless, sick ideology. We should treat them — as in “ISIS” or “ISIL” or “IS” or Al Qaeda, or Al Shabaab, or Boko Haram, or Hezbollah, or whatever they call their whackjob selves — anywhere we encounter them, as if we’re the SWAT team in a hostage situation. We should give them a choice: surrender and get put away for a very long time, or get squashed like the bugs they are. By definition, any people in territory these psychos control are hostages, and the lunatics use anything that comes to hand as a weapon. We should go over there, sweep through the territory they control with irresistible force, roust them out from under their rocks and squash them. Then we should advertise that we’re sprinkling pig blood on their bodies and leaving them in the desert for the carrion feeders to enjoy. You cannot face psychotic lunatics with rational thought or actions. The only thing to do in the face of raving, spittle-flecked, brainless psychotics, the only thing those lunatics understand — is greater lunacy. Do that, and they will flee like the gibbering baboons they really are.

• “ISIS” is an object lesson in what happens when you give Democrats control of things. First, they squander — more like slam dunk into the garbage can — a clear military victory. Then, they pretend they “ended the war,” when all they really did was turn the war over to others to fight. Then, they watch as the whole thing burns to the ground, and threatens to bring America with it.

• In retrospect, George W. Bush’s really big mistake was in not recognizing that a Democrat could succeed him in the White House and flush any triumphs earned on the battlefield or elsewhere in the world right down the toilet.

• In further retrospect, Bush should have developed a plan to (1) win in Iraq and Afghanistan, (2) rout the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other such scum, (3) establish a United States-style Constitution in Iraq and Afghanistan, set up strong, good, honest leadership, and leave behind a General MacArthur-type governor general to make sure things didn’t fall apart. And he should have seen to it that all that happened in the first two years. Then, when the inevitable Democrat (aka “Natural Disaster”) comes into the White House, even he’d have trouble mucking it all up.

• Show some freakin’ spine, Obama — and America — or we’ll be fighting these bloodthirsty fruitcakes in our streets before long and wondering what happened.

• Obama is, of course, incapable of showing spine. He’s like the vast majority of Democrats: he thinks that you can civilize the uncivilizable, that you can sanitize war and make it pretty, and neat, and clean and a 9:00-5:00 thing, with drinks in front of the fireplace afterward. He thinks that our enemies believe that too, and that they will help us tidy up war if we just let them know that we’re doing it. All while they diligently evaluate “what side of history they’re on,” and whether what they’re doing really “fits in with the 21st Century.” He thinks that people who saw off the heads of others, who crucify other people, who rape women and children, are “people.” Well, the Christian in me recognizes they are people and that there’s never no hope for them, while the realist in me recognizes that if I were to go over there and just display my Christian love for them, they’d take me hostage and eventually saw my head off.

• Finally, this whole ISIS thing, and the tens of thousands of dead already, and the tens of thousands of dead soon to come are massive, overwhelming, deeply tragic reminders of vast Obama-Administration failure. The analysts were nice last night after Obama’s speech. It was a speech that could be summed up in two words: “I failed.” The analysts were nice, because the result of that failure is that we have some serious work to do now, and there’s no need to advertise overtly that we have an incompetent nitwit at the top of the U.S. government. The scum of ISIS are several things, but one of those is: not too bright. They might not yet have figured out that Obama’s an incompetent nitwit. (Yeah, and the sun doesn’t rise in the east in the Levant)

• All this work we have to do — this bloody, disgusting, violent, cruel work that Obama’s weakness and feckless incompetence have imposed on us — was completely unnecessary. All the lives already lost and those about to be lost were preventable. All that can be summed up in two words: “Obama’s failure.” Or, maybe two other words: “Obama’s legacy.”

• Even worse: it’s a typical Democrat’s legacy. Wherever they go, death and destruction, poverty, disease and despair follow them. Mosul, Iraq and Detroit, Michigan — both monuments to the Democrats who made them as they are today — look about the same: bombed-out hellholes where it’s safe for neither man nor beast… and the beasts have taken them both over.

– xPraetorius

The Obama Speech – Some Observations (Part III)

Is there anything funny in anything that Obama has said or done in the past nearly six years?

Oh, I dunno.

How about ISIS?

Well… Is ISIS ISIL? Is ISIL ISIS; is ISIL or ISIS IS? Or is ISIS IS or ISIL or, really … IS IS IS?

I guess that depends on what the definition of IS is.

Too soon?

– xPraetorius

The Obama Speech – Some Observations (Part II)

Thing 1:

One thing that struck me. Obama said something to the effect that the ISIL scum are not muslims. He was emphatic about it.

Oh? They say they are. Who is Obama that he can say that he’s right and the ones who call themselves muslims are wrong? When was the last time Obama was right about something?

Thing 2:

If Obama is right then there is one inescapable conclusion: Somewhere in  the texts or teachings of Islam, are just a whole bunch of things that an awful lot of people are appaently getting all wrong. What faith is that freakin’ ambiguous about what it takes to be a good believer in it?

What faith has central tenets that are so poorly expressed — over more than a thousand years — so that people are interpreting them to mean that (1) it’s okay to crucify and behead people, and to rape and pillage and murder wholesale, and (2) it’s absolutely not okay to do any of that stuff.

Oh, that’s right…it’s Islam!

Thing 3:

Someone has to have enough courage, integrity and honesty to go up to Obama and say, “Guess what, Sir, you have to face the fact that it’s just possibly Islam that’s the problem here.”

Thing 4:

The left still hasn’t admitted they were wrong about freakin’ Communism, — the single greatest cause of premature death — head and shoulders — in the 20th Century. They won’t admit they might be wrong about freakin’ Islam.

– xPraetorius

The Obama Speech – Some Observations

  • If only Obama could be counted on the defend Christianity as he made sure to defend Islam at the very beginning of this speech. You know, Christianity? The faith all about universal love, love for one’s neighbor and one’s enemy, the one all about universal mercy, universal redemption, peace and salvation? That one. I guess those are not values that Obama would be willing to defend.
  • Why on earth is he telling ISIL that he’s going to do air strikes?
  • Kerry was in Iraq. Oh, well… that’s the end of any chance of success.
  • “This is American leadership at its best.” Kind of vain, kind of pompous, no?
  • “It will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL” Sayyyy…who said that before? Oh, yes, George W. Bush. The point? If Obama had not withdrawn as precipitously as he did from Iraq, there would be no ISIL.
  • Obama: No combat troops. Only air power. Well! Now ISIL knows what they’ll face. One imagines the scum of ISIL erupting in cheers as they watched Obama say “no troops.” It’d be great if, as he so often does, he’s just lying about the tactics.
  • Talking about technology companies and universities? What’s that all about?!? Kind of off-topic, no?
  • Boasting about this awful economy? What a jerk!
  • Oh…okay. I get it. New topics!  Apparently this dude has never heard of a segue.
  • Now he’s taking credit for saving the Yazidis? Oh, yeah, the ones he didn’t save by sitting on his hands for so long are long dead.

– xPraetorius

The Fictitious “Gender Pay Gap”

I’ve been having a back and forth lately on another blog, with some feminists — both foreign and domestic — who have drunk the entire feminist canon Kool-Aid: America has a “Rape Culture;” one man in ten commits sexual assault in his life; colleges are awash in sexual abuse directed toward women, and, of course — women earn less than men.

Here we have a sterling example of the problem of the left. The teentsiest-weentsiest, tiniest bit of scrutiny makes their “arguments” crumple like dead leaves (Hey, it’s September! Time for the autumn metaphors!).

In my recent back-and-forths, one of my interlocutors, in addition to being sure to accuse me of disdain for women, and of (of course!) sexism, asserted hands-down that women are just as productive as men.

Okay, let’s stipulate to his argument entirely. Lock, stock and barrel. Women are every bit as productive as men, and are still paid somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% less! (the real figure is 77 cents on the dollar, but it’s easier to round to 3/4ths). Besides, my number represents even more of a concession to the feminists. They should welcome my number with open, downtrodden, long-suffering arms. :)

So, what does this mean? Well, first we have to understand a very basic thing about American businesses: their expense structure. The two greatest costs to American business are (1) personnel — employees — and (2) facilities. In that order. That’s across all industries.

So, the feminists would have you and me believe that there is a ginormous talent pool out there that is as productive as all other employees, but that costs 25% less than men! Feminists would have us believe further that we male employers — and female employers(*) — are so cussedly prejudiced against women that we will throw away the opportunity to cut our primary expense by a whopping, ginormous, astounding, massive, colossal 25% just to discriminate against women.

I don’t know about you, but I know of not a single man (or woman) who would toss away a quick few million bucks — and tens of billions across the country — just to cater to their prejudices.

If we truly were to stipulate to the feminists’ fabricated “77 cents on the dollar” thing, then there wouldn’t be a single man employed in America today.

I wish I could take credit for this little thought exercise, but I first saw it expressed, quite a few years ago, by the great Thomas Sowell, a man famous for actually doing the scrutiny on, and for finding the real implications of issues. Dr. Sowell does the actually important work that the American left is too lazy to do. Thomas Sowell does nothing more than ask himself, “Well, if that were true, what does that really mean? Then he follows that wherever it leads.

The point is that the “77 cents” canard has been known to be a fraud for a long time. Yet, it survives. National Public Radio continues to present it as a fact of American life.

Then, however, there’s this here.

And there’s also this here. The second piece is about uber-feminist Hanna Rosin who admits that the 77 cents thing is flat-out false.

If, says Rosin — in a rare bit of candor from a feminist — you were to look in-depth at real compensation, then you have to take into account things like the choices people make, and the different psychologies of men and women, and totally subjective things like that. That’s all well and good, but the real point is: if you set all things to equal, if you compare apples to apples, there is no pay gap between men and women.

So, how does the 77 cent fraud survive? Simple, the Big Lie theory. Feminists and the left can admit privately, or in little-read publications like that there is no wage gap, but if the low-information people — the media, academia, Hollywood, President Obama — continue to spout the 77 cents lie, then that is the story that will carry the day.

Yes, we did witness the spectacle of the President of the United States, one Barack Hussein Obama, insisting on national television(!) that “a women earns 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.”

There’s only one possible conclusion one can draw from that: Either the President is (1) a blithering idiot, or (2) the President knows that what he said was wrong, but said it anyway, and is a craven liar or (3) that the President of the United States has openly shown himself to be kind of a pathetic ignoramus.

Don’t rule out the distinct possibility that all three are correct.

Either way, there is no man-woman pay gap in America.

– xPraetorius


  • Ever hear of a “WOB?” WOB: “Woman-Owned Business.” If you can qualify as one of these, you will receive significant tax breaks in Connecticut and other states.

In a fascinating life-note: I worked for one of these businesses. The “woman owner” was a figurehead. We trotted her out from time to time for publicity purposes, and to prove that we were a WOB, but she didn’t do any real work for the company.

More to the point, she usually got in the way, and had the good sense to leave the real running of the company to her husband who was (and still is) a pretty shrewd businessman…but he was not (and still is not) a woman.

The woman owner told me flat out, that (1) she hired me because I looked like “a Greek god.” (direct quote) and (2) because I was so strong and could help her business “move things around.” As an IT support and repair company, there was a good deal of “moving things around” involved.

Oh, and yes, I took that opportunity to brag a bit. I used to be an underwear model in France in a long-ago previous professional incarnation. Therein lies a tale or two, I can assure you! Yes, there are still pictures of a scantily-clad xPraetorius floating around out there on the internet. :)

NPR Watch – 9/9/14

Ah, National Public Radio! Where the news is often not news, it’s not new, frequently not true, and even more frequently it’s perfectly meaningless.

Today’s breathless teaser headline — as given to us ever so earnestly by the hyper-earnest Diane Orson on the local NPR affiliate, WNPR: “Climate Change Threatens Half the Bird Species in the Northeast.” Or something like that. That’s the gist, the absolute details are unimportant.

So, really?!?

Half the bird species in the Northeast?!? What the heck! we must DO something!!! Anything!!!

Or must we? Let’s examine the statement a bit.

Well, we know certain things about the climate that we learned in the third grade. We know that there were massive and ongoing changes in the climate long before there were ever humans. Warming and cooling and warming again and cooling again… over and over and over and over again, in mini-, mega-, giga- and tera-cycles spanning millions upon millions of years.

Whole continents broke apart and drifted away from each other. An asteroid that collided with the planet, wiped out huge numbers of species, both plant and animal. There were other mass extinctions. Then mass flourishing of species! The introduction of millions of new creatures, and all this accompanying or following closely unimaginably dramatic changes in the climate of the planet. And all going on all the time over tens and tens of millions of years.

I remember once reading of a glacier that covered nearly all of North America, and was on average more than a mile thick!

I guess the planet could have used some good ol’ Global Warming at that point, eh? And guess what: it got it. That ice sheet melted away over a period of 4,000 years — a climatological blink-of-an-eye.

Why on earth would we think that all this unimaginably ginormous climatic dynamism would simply stop just because we’ve arrived? The dinosaurs were around for some 65 million or so years. Mankind has been around for something like a few tens of thousands of years. Maybe. If that number is 100,000 years, then that represents one 650th — or a tad more than one tenth of one percent of the time of the dinosaurs’ reign.

Then, one day all the dinosaurs were gone. Just like that, so the paleontologists say. Long before man arrived on the scene.

No, the earth and “climate” have been killing off species wholesale for eons.

So, a more accurate teaser headline from NPR this morning would have been something on the order of: “As Has Always Been True, Climate Change Threatens Half the Bird Species in the Northeast.

Or: “As Has Been True for Many Millions of Years, Climate Change Threatens Half the Bird Species in the Northeast.

Or: “As Has Been True Since There Have Been Two Things: Climate and Birds, Climate Change Threatens Half the Bird Species in the Northeast.

Or, the much more accurate headline: “As Has Been True Since There Has Been Climate, Climate Change Threatens All Species in the World… Unless, That Is, They Learn to Adapt.

There would have been no real need for an actual feature after that. The more accurate teaser could have been presented as a “Fun Fact!” or something like that, but statements of obvious truisms, that have always been true, are hardly anything we need on a so-called “news” program.

The half-wits at NPR are the absolute masters of presenting unthought-through, third-grade Earth Science and pretending it’s Urgent Breaking News. That shouldn’t be surprising, though, NPR is a dinosaur of the “news” industry. No wonder they fear “Climate Change!”

– xPraetorius

Extraordinary Admissions from Obama


This past weekend President Obama was interviewed by some friendly reporter or other. In that interview, Obama made some extraordinary statements of Presidential failure. They were ostensibly small things, but the admissions themselves were astonishing.

First Obama said that “perhaps it had been a mistake” to go golfing immediately after announcing the murder by beheading of journalist James Foley.

Then, Obama indicated that the circumstances or the politics of the moment were not favorable for him to act unilaterally regarding immigration — ie for him to make some vast, sweeping amnesty-type move for people in this country illegally.

First extraordinary thing: Regarding the Foley murder: Obama said that he was “supposed to pay attention to the optics,” and that “that’s his job.”

But, what are “the optics?” Well, simply, they’re the appearance of something. When Obama announced Foley’s murder, then went straight to the golf course, “the optics” suggested a President who didn’t really give a darn about what he had just said. Better “optics,” I guess, would have been to cancel the round of golf, go back to the Oval Office and start doing things that would pertain to addressing the murder.

But, here’s the rub. The “optics” frequently reflect reality. This is what Obama did not address. Obama went to the golf course because he really didn’t care all that much about ‘the optics.'” He might have been upset about Foley’s murder, but realized that there was nothing in particular that he could do about it right then and there, so why not continue with the planned round of golf?

So, why might Obama not care about “the optics?” Simple: here’s a President who has received a pass from any critical media attention for the better part of six years! He’s never had to pay even the teentsiest tiniest whit of a jot of a hint of a whiff of attention to “the optics.”

Don’t forget, this is a President who paid close attention to George W. Bush’s Presidency. When Bush was criticized for playing golf during wartime, Bush stopped playing golf. Immediately. He said something to the effect of, “No mother who’s just lost her son in Afghanistan should see the Commander-in-Chief on the golf course.”

Obama was perfectly aware of that, and didn’t care. No Commander-in-Chief has golfed as much in wartime as Obama.

This “optics” admission says one thing: Obama has heard the message from someone that he won’t continue to get a free pass from the media. If the left-left-wing legacy media are abandoning Obama — these are, don’t forget, the staunchest of his allies — then they have heard a message that America just might be starting to pay closer attention; that Obama’s skin color doesn’t automatically get him a free ride anymore; that he might actually have to do something Presidential — and this nearly six years into his Presidency! Look for more fallout from this in upcoming days, as the media try to sew together the tatters of this long-failed Presidency.

Extraordinary thing two:
The admission that the circumstances are not right for Obama to act unilaterally on immigration. Just out of curiosity, what does one call a leader who does things unilaterally, without consulting representative bodies of the people? Easy: a king.

Someone has transmitted the message that the “imperial Presidency” that we so feared when Richard Nixon was the President, actually came into being under Obama. That makes for bad “optics” too.

Here is a President who has, astonishingly, written laws without the approval of Congress, and enforced laws selectively, according to how he feels about the laws in question. Talk about an “imperial President!” Both of these things are completely unconstitutional and represent a power grab unprecedented in American history since the days of FDR. Only, FDR failed in his plan to pack the Supreme Court with judges of his political persuasion.

Extraordinary thing three:
Obama admitted he had done something wrong. This is a guy who has never admitted ever to having done anything wrong. It’s all Bush’s fault. It’s the fault of Congressional Republicans. He’s blamed the people, the media, the weather (remember how the Japanese tsunami prevented something or other that he wanted to do?), other countries… He, Obama, however, according to him, has never done anything wrong.

Now, nearly six years into his Presidency, he admits that “perhaps” he might have slipped up — and even then on something so incredibly simple.

This all demands the obvious question: What else has he done wrong.

It bears repeating: if Obama — nearly six years into his Presidency is still so bad at the really easy stuff, what about the tough, complicated stuff?

If Obama mucked up something so simple as the announcement of the Foley murder, how can anyone possibly imagine that he got the really complicated things right? Like, for example, healthcare? Race relations? The economy? Unemployment? The national debt? How are they all doing?

Look, I’ve never been President, but if I were, and I had just announced the gruesome murder of an American in the Middle East, you can be sure that I would have called off the golf game. Why? It would have been the right thing to do. It would have been (not “seemed”) perfectly cold and callous of me just to go out golfing. I wouldn’t have had the stomach to go golfing after such an announcement.

I don’t need my President to be a tear-gushing, pantywaist feeling everyone’s pain, but for crying out loud! This was a gruesome atrocity, a crime against humanity that he had just announced. A crime that signaled that our adversaries aren’t like anything we’ve dealt with before. To say they’re rabid dogs is to be unfair to rabid dogs.

Without using exactly those words, that is the announcement that Obama made that day. Then he went out golfing. Optics schmoptics, Obama is a cold, heartless man. Or an ignorant fool. Don’t rule out the possibility that he’s both.

This is the golfingest President in the history of the country. Coincidentally, it’s also a Presidency during which nothing whatsoever has improved anywhere in the world, despite the simple fact that Obama is the most powerful man in the world… the most powerful man in history.

Obama golfs as the world bursts into flames around him — largely due to his own actions or inaction. A closer parallel to Nero would be difficult to find.

– xPraetorius

GOP Challenger Hammers Brown in California Governor’s Debate | Truth Revolt

GOP Challenger Hammers Brown in California Governor’s Debate | Truth Revolt.

This should be no surprise. If we on the right can simply cut through the clutter of society’s white noise, to rout the left in debate is practically child’s play.

Once you get past the deflections and the childish accusations, the mind-reading, the jeering, sneering insults and invective, there’s nothing much of any real substance behind the left’s “thinking.”

In the above-linked video, we can watch as Neil Kashkari demolishes incumbent California governor Jerry Brown in their one debate.

One debate? Only one? What on earth for? Surely the people of California would demand that there be a thorough debate of the issues in California. After all, the economy in California has all but gone belly up.

It turns out that Brown doesn’t want another debate. I wonder why. Oh, yeah. He’s a leftist. Therefore, he’s a coward.

– xPraetorius

Young Red Sox fan gives away baseball, steals America’s heart |

Young Red Sox fan gives away baseball, steals America’s heart |

After all the stink bombs that America’s left lob all over the American landscape, sometimes I have to de-tox.

Sweetness, like in the above-linked baseball moment is a big help.


– xPraetorius

Okay, I Take It Back (About Joan Rivers)

was going to say something mildly peevish. She passed away, and all you heard was women this and women that and women the other thing.

I swear, feminist omphaloskepsis is so pervasive, so omni-present (I know, I know, it’s a superlative — go ‘way!), so ummmm… knee-jerk on the part of the media that they simply can’t allow someone to be meritorious in their own right. And certainly not a woman! If she’s not a crusading feminist such-and-such — the first woman  this, or the first woman that, or the first woman the other thing, then she’s just not worth anything.

What if she’s actually a fine this that or the other thing — and only happens to be a woman? What if she kind of resents that she has to do this or that politically when she’d rather just do that thing she’s really good at? What then? Well, NPR, and much of the media, (including, sadly, FOX News) just isn’t interested.

Joan Rivers was, apparently, not the whining, nitwit of a feminist that National Public Radio portrayed her to be, but rather a rock-ribbed Republican, fiscally conservative (1), had a libertarian/socially liberal streak, and was a great friend and supporter of the great Ronald Reagan… and an all-round good person.

To the world’s, and your, great good fortune, Peggy Noonan has turned her attention to Joan Rivers’ memory and, as always, has penned something you should read. Not just because it’s as eye-opening as it is, but because Peggy Noonan wrote it and she’s just one of the finest writers walking this good earth today.

Here’s the link.

– xPraetorius



(1) She once said: “if you have 19 children she will pay for the first four but no more” (In the Peggy Noonan feature linked above)

The Sheer Magnificence of Men

Listening to an unusual National Public Radio feature that I occasionally enjoy. It’s called “Radio Lab” and it’s occasionally interesting, occasionally tendentious, preachy and silly — like NPR.

This one was interesting. They were talking about the making of the various bridges and tunnels all around New York City. They were telling about how the men making the tunnels would be doing their thing, digging in the sand and the silt and stuff, fully mindful of the fact that 60 feet or so above their heads was the bottom of the Hudson River.

The narrator of the feature posed the question to one of the people who did this for a living: “What did you do to prevent all that mud and silt and water from crashing down on your heads and burying you deep under the river?”

What they did was to pump compressed air into the tunnels to such a level of compression that it would hold the roof of the tunnel up and prevent it from caving in — usually.

The narrator’s interviewee laughingly told of an award they present once in a while, and they had to present it this year to some dude. What happened was that, as sometimes happens, a weak spot revealed itself as a small hole in the roof of the tunnel, and because of the pressures involved, grew rapidly. When such a thing happens, everything not nailed down gets sucked up into the hole as the compressed air rockets outward. Hats, gloves, tools. As the hole grows, then men get sucked up into it. First one guy, then another. As this particular story went, two guys got sucked into the hole and were never seen again. Then a third guy — the “lucky one,” as the interviewee told it — got sucked up the hole, through the 60 feet of river mud, silt and sand, through the river itself, like the bullet from an air gun, then far into the air, and back down. This particular guy splashed down right next to a police boat. Then, the storyteller said matter-of-factly, the police cleaned up the guy, sent him home and he went back to work the next day.

Wait. Uhhhh… Whuuuuuhhhhh…?!? He went back to work the next day?!?

The feature continued, and revealed some extraordinary things. No one knows how many men they’ve lost under the river… certainly thousands.  Some of these men are buried forever deep under the city of New York; their remains will never be found — their gravestone in some cemetery somewhere sits atop an empty grave. The crew in the narrator’s interviewee’s department has a room devoted to “those they have lost since they started keeping keeping records — in 1970. Wait. They started keeping records on who gets killed in this line of work … in 1970?!?

The narrator described a photograph of the guy he was interviewing for the feature. The picture showed the interviewee as a smiling, fresh-faced — but soot- and grime-covered 19-year old — along with five or six other similarly mud-besmeared young guys. The interviewee pointed to each other guy in the snapshot, and intoned his fate: Dead. Dead. Dead. Dying of cancer. Dead.

I’ve been having a back-and-forth with some feminists who have long derided us men and what we do and how, allegedly, (I’ll quote one) we “are so ruled by our egos, our sex drives, our pride and our insecurities” that we are the jerks the feminists say that we are.

The anecdote above portrays real men, and most men are real men. Far from ruled by egos, sex drives, pride and insecurities, most of us are self-sacrificing, hard-working, good, decent blokes. Some of us, many  thousands of us, apparently, are even ready to go to work every day in incredibly dangerous, surreal conditions, just so that you are able to cross every day from Manhattan to New Jersey and back — by bridge or tunnel — for work.

In that NPR vignette, we understand better that there is a vast infrastructure under the cities, that supports the majestic skyscrapers above the cities. We learn that thousands of men die in horrible conditions, building and maintaining that infrastructure, that they work every day in astonishingly hostile and dangerous conditions, that they are injured, maimed and killed in droves, and that they do all this super-human labor to no fanfare, fame, recognition or renown whatsoever. Then, they go home, pet their dog, kiss their wife, tousle the heads of their children, go to sleep, wake up and do it all over again.

The fact that all those hundreds of millions of tons of rock, concrete, steel, glass and wood were dragged and hauled, bloody inch by bloody inch, from the hostile wilderness where it once lay as raw materials, is a testament to the grandeur and sheer magnificence of men.

Look at the big cities across the land and realize that they were all built, all flung aloft on the bruised, bloody, broken backs and bodies of men. Millions and millions and millions of men who went to work in the morning, never sure they’d make it back home that evening, or end up buried deep beneath the city, or fall from hundreds of feet in the air, leaving only an unrecognizable, crumpled mess for their families, or lose limbs to, and be forever crippled by, the unbelievably powerful machines helping him build the city.

This tale has repeated itself untold hundreds of millions of times, across all industries — construction, farming, mining, manufacturing — as men have bent their backs and labors to taming the world for everyone’s benefit.

The feminists came along in the 1960’s or so, surveyed the big cities, the skyscrapers, bridges and tunnels, and said, “We want to take it all over. We want to lead this. You men are jerks and you’ve been getting in the way of women forever. You need to step aside and let us run things now.”

That feminists have now waltzed in and belittled men’s incredible achievements, by describing them — the men who handed them the world — as craven, sex-crazed, ego-driven brutes, is a reflection of the pettiness, the myopia, the sheer small-mindedness that is feminism. Reminds me of another saying: Anyone who thinks it’s a man’s world has never been a man.

Maybe it is unfair that women haven’t had as much representation in the halls of power as men have. But never let it be said that we men didn’t pay our dues. We did — again, and again, and again, and again — in blood, toil, tears and sweat. And with our lives.

– xPraetorius



Win or go home


Wonderful as usual, Mr. Dooley! War is not a game. Participants are either in it to win it, or they’re in it to lose it. Things like “Proportional Response” and all that mind-numbing mumbo-jumbo all add up to “Not in it to win it.” They all add up to “okay with losing it.”

My simple question: what about the Taliban makes anyone think that it’s okay for that organization to survive as an organization? We had the sense to make sure that the Nazis disbanded in Germany after World War II. The Taliban are easily every bit as bad as the Nazis.

Worldwide, we should band them — and any evil offshoots — declaring them as anathema as we consider Nazis.

Come to think of it, we should do that with Communists too, except we’d have to shut down entire university departments in America. :)

Originally posted on :

It’s that simple. Kill the enemy, or retreat and fortify. It makes no sense to sacrifice blood and treasure without intending to finish the job you came to do.

We’ve done neither since President Obama announced the “surge”—and subsequently undermining it by announcing a withdrawal date—opting to stay in Afghanistan to train the enemy. It’s worse than being defeated. It’s being defeated and continuing to take on casualties after the fact.

In that sense, the murder of Major General Harold Greene is, to borrow from Jake Tapper, senseless. More senseless, indeed, than the disastrous Operation Red Wings. Victory in Afghanistan was still possible then, the will to win still present. The outcome was not yet determined. In Greene’s case, it was. Afghanistan is already reverting to type as the last American troops withdraw.

“We’ve got our teeth in the enemy’s jugular now, and we’re not going to let…

View original 74 more words

Estonia is Lost!

Obama has told them not to worry, all is just fine. He’ll see to it personally. All Estonians should start practicing their Russian, starting yesterday.

First Obama gave Syria the meaningless “red line” ultimatum. Twice.

Then, Obama allowed Russia’s Putin to broker a deal (that worked out ever so well, didn’t it?)

Then, by way of payment, Obama allowed Russia’s Putin just to waltz in and take the Crimea away from Ukraine

But Putin was not done extracting payment for his “good graces” in Syria that allowed Obama to back away from his meaningless chemical weapons “red line.” Seriously, though, did anyone really think that was a real trigger for any meaningful action from Obama? When was the last time that Obama’s word or his assurances actually meant anything?

Then Obama went to Estonia — everyone’s best guess for where the territorially ambitious Putin might turn his attentions next. After all, Estonia has a sizable ethnic Russian minority, and they could all of a sudden “decide” that they want to be part of Russia.

Estonia shares two stretches of border with Russia, and if the said Russian minority in Estonia became suddenly restive, the Russians could waltz in and take Estonia in a day.

Obama went to Estonia — a member of NATO, by the way — and announced that “Estonia would never lose its sovereignty!” Ringing words, surely. Or, are they? Were they simply announcing how Putin needs to do his dirty deed so that Obama can do nothing?

Could one envision a scenario in which Russia takes over Estonia without actually invading the country? Say, a “popular Russian uprising” occurs; the well-armed Russian “insurgents” overthrow the government and install a régime that is “friendlier to the Russian minority” and, of course, hand-picked by Putin.

That would allow Obama to do what he really wants to do — nothing — in response to a Russian takeover of the Baltic country.

Even if Russia were to roll in with tanks, Obama still would want to do nothing, because that’s who he is. But, that scenario would be more difficult, because NATO countries are obliged by treaty to defend other NATO countries in the event of invasion by an outsider.

Obama has also said that “NATO would respond!” if there were an invasion, but that means nothing. The U.S. and NATO responded also to all the Russian incursions into Ukraine. It was a pathetic, weak, ineffectual and empty response, but a response nonetheless. Obama is the absolute Babe Ruth, the king of the non-response response.

Estonia should face a grim fact: In the guise of giving them assurances that they’re safe from Russia, Obama has vowed that “NATO will respond” if the need arises. Estonia should consider all to be lost, and start making their peace with the idea of being absorbed back into Russia.

Obama’s real “red line” is the westernmost border of the old Red Empire creeping steadily westward toward Europe. Latvia and Lithuania should begin their preparations for being re-absorbed too.

Ukraine’s up now in the cross-hairs. Estonia’s on-deck. Poland? Belarus? Moldova? One of you is on double-deck!

I figure all this will begin rather quickly. Putin knows he has only two years left of the weakest, most impotent, most cowardly, most morally adrift Presidency in American history. Furthermore, Putin figures that a potential Republican wave election this coming November could hobble Obama even more. He’s thinking that he has two years, and that may be it. Look for a lot more Russian sabre-rattling in upcoming weeks and months.

– xPraetorius

Feminism Reveals Itself in its Pronouns

Remember way back when in the early days of feminism, when the feminists were really ticked off if you said “he” when referring to someone of unknown sex? “What if it’s a woman you’re referring to?” they moaned. You should be able to say, “she!”

So they did. You started to hear and read such things as “When a doctor finishes Medical School, she might have accumulated hundreds of thousands of dollars in debts.” And, at first, to this man’s ears that did sound a bit odd. But only for the first few times. A bit as if you started pronouncing the word “wall” to rhyme with “pal.” At first it would sound weird, then quickly not at all.

Back to he and she. Some of us went down the “he or she” road. Me, for instance. However, that just gets really awkward really fast, because you also have to do the “him or her,” “his or her” and “his or hers” thing. Ex.: “When a doctor finishes Medical School he or she might have accumulated hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. He or she can take years to pay that off, leaving him or her hobbled in terms of his or her career choices for decades.”

Yuck! That sure doesn’t work!

Others went down the s/he path. S/he? Clever, but how do you pronounce it? If it’s “she,” then you’re doing exactly the same thing you accuse others of doing, because people can’t tell whether you’re saying “s/he” or “she.”

Is it “sss•HE?” Well, that’s more than a bit weird! Did we all become snakes (and not just the left? :) )? How about “SSS•he” — accent on the “SSS”? Even more snake-like. Is it maybe “suh•HE?” Well, I’ve never heard it, so I doubt it. How about “SUH•he?” Ditto. Never heard it.

Then you have to deal with all the other inflections of the pronoun:

  • “Her/m?”
  • “Her/im?”
  • “Hisers?”
  • “Hersis?”
  • “S/him?” ”
  • S/his?”

Yikes! Mondo-confusing!

Some even made up their own pronoun and inflections for pronouns. I think they went with “zhe” or something. Whatever — that’ll never catch on.

Tying oneself into awful, awkward, ugly linguistic knots just to avoid offending the easily offended who might swoon at the sound of “he?” No thanks!

So, as is true of all things, If the thing you are doing is awful, and awkward and ugly, then the very premise behind what you are doing is almost certainly awful, awkward and ugly.

What basic premise did feminism miss in their effort to transform the language into something supposedly more “inclusive?”

Simple: there was never any sex or power or financial or any other advantage in belonging to the sex to which the generic pronoun “he” — and him and his — refers.

To the contrary, in fact. Because every time you refer to some generic doctor or lawyer or corporate CEO as “he,” you also refer to a generic thief, a rapist, a serial killer, a mass murderer, a sexual predator, a jerk, rapscallion, blatherskite, bounder, rotter, knave, varlet, tyrant or pillager as “he.”

I’ve tweaked the pronoun gender Nazis in these pages by referring to generic serial killers as “she” — trying to be inclusive, of course! — and there are female serial killers out there. Yes, yes, yes, I know, women are much underrepresented in the field of serial killing, but we have feminism in America today: that injustice will disappear before you know it.

Furthermore, there absolutely are female thieves, mass murderers, sexual predators, jerks, rapscallions, blatherskites, bounders, rotters, knaves, varlets, tyrants and pillagers out there as well. You don’t hear the feminists demanding that we use some “inclusive” pronoun to refer to them, do you? Nope. They are resolutely “he” at all times.

Where does this come from? I have a simple example with which we’re all familiar and that will illustrate feminism almost entirely. Remember when the feminists started to ask the question: “Why do we always refer to God as ‘He?'” Did you also notice that they didn’t then pose the only absolutely inevitable accompanying question; the one that they would have posed if feminism truly had ever been about equality and equal rights? “Why do we always refer to the devil as ‘he?'”

Unintentionally, in not asking that second question, and in not demanding that we also refer to all manner of low-life scum — as well as the high and mighty — as “she,” feminism reveals its true purpose: To permeate the culture with the message: “Man = bad, woman = good.” This would not be the message if the goal were equality. The only way this could possibly be the message of feminism is if the real goal is conquest.

None could possibly deny that feminism has disseminated (heh heh) this “bad-man-good-woman” message for some decades now, and has succeeded in inculcating a generally bleak view of men society-wide, while also turning women into caricaturish, two-dimensional Noble Victims, full of the goodness and kindness that humanity needs to be saved, if only those brutish men would get the heck out of the way.(1)

It’s a simplistic, moronic, superficial, inaccurate, Demoiselles-d’Avignon, cardboard-cutout, six-blind-men-and-the-elephant, swiss-cheese(2), nonsensical tableau — and it’s the standard feminist message.

It’s a bit like saying of Hitler that he was always kind to animals, great and small. As it turns out, he was, but there’s a bit more to the story of Hitler than that.

Now, you can put me into the camp of those who don’t give the tiniest hoot what the sex is of the person who sits atop the power pyramid — never did — just so long as he-she-zhe-s/he’s not a scumbag. The problem with this is: if feminism’s fundamental premise is a rather transparent lie, then why should we trust feminists when they say they’re possessed of a better belief system? That they have everyone’s best interests at heart? That they’re simply better people? I mean, they lied to us pretty egregiously right out of the starting gate! And they’ve maintained that lie for decades now.

The humble third-person pronoun reveals feminism for what it was, and remains to this day: a corrupt movement based on lies, with the goal not of equality, but the conquest of power.

Remember this well: all such movements, based on fraudulent premises and lies, when their leaders obtain power, or absolute power, institute totalitarian, often bloodthirsty tyrannies. Cf. eg: The Soviet Union, Mao’s China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, much of Eastern Europe.

You will say to me that those were men killing all those people (more than 120 million before the bloody 20th Century drew its last rattling gasp), but that is not true. In all these cases, there were women pulling the levers of power too.

As is always true through history, men did the dirty work, the actual killing — the pulling of the trigger — but there were very often women behind the orders to do the killing. No, women have proven that they can and will keep up with men just fine in terms of ruthlessness, mercilessness, the unhesitating ability to participate in the killing of huge numbers of people.

What was the basic stated premise behind all the above-mentioned movements? “Equality.” Especially of the sexes.

– xPraetorius


(1) of course, if men do just get out of the way, as they did, then that pretty much negates the entire “brutish man” narrative. Another characteristic of feminism: it is completely riddled with fatal contradictions. If, as the feminists say, men are the sex-crazed, Neanderthals they’re portrayed to be, then men would never relinquish power without a violent insurrection by women that men would put down easily.

If men can simply be shamed into turning over power, that says that the brutish, Neanderthal, sex-crazed man of the species has a strong conscience. Whuuuhhh? Everywhere you go, you see feminism perfectly unintentionally painting itself into the corner from which it gives the message that men are simultaneously sex-driven, brainless, thuggish despots, as well as kind, benevolent, generous, far-seeing benefactors, who have surrendered power and influence to women without a shot being fired, or so much as a punch being thrown. The perfectly bloodless “revolution” that was feminism represents an unintentional high tribute to the goodness and generosity of … men.

Can you imagine feminists now getting up, looking around and saying, “Thanks for all the power and prestige and influence, guys I guess we were wrong about you all along.”? Nope. I can’t either.
(2) Full of holes

NPR Watch — NPR Dishonesty — 9/2/14

I was listening to National Public Radio on the way in to work this morning, when they decided to do a puff piece on Obama’s having “officially launched the fall campaign season,” in Wisconsin.

They told of how Obama had heard nothing but bad news in recent months (as if somehow he had nothing to do with that, and no power to influence it!) but that the economy, really, was doing quite well.

The NPR “reporter” on the ground in Wisconsin gave several examples of how the economy was humming along. Jobs were coming back. Construction was coming back. A construction worker — a black man, by the sound of his voice and speech — told of how people were coming to Wisconsin from all over to find work.

The NPR piece unsubtly, unmistakably tied Wisconsin’s economic progress to Obama and his policies.

But, but, but… wait just a sec. Wisconsin…Wisconsin. Somehow that’s ringing a bell.

Oh, yeah! That’s where Republican Scott Walker — the anti-Obama — is the governor! Wisconsin’s economic progress has nothing at all to do with Obama. Wisconsin’s good economic situation is directly because of Scott Walker’s having beaten back — several times! — Wisconsin’s parasitical public unions, his having cleaned up Wisconsin’s finances and done everything exactly the opposite of how Obama and his cronies would have done!

Yet, there in Wisconsin, where Obama “officially launched the fall campaign season,” NPR mentioned the name “Scott Walker” … not even once. To repeat: NPR’s feature also absolutely tied the economic progress in Wisconsin to Obama, though Obama and his policies had precisely nothing to do with it.

NPR is the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.

Since we — you and I — pay for NPR with our tax dollars, this is an obscene breach of public trust. I have no problem with NPR’s being the dishonest, corrupt, hopelessly ideologically blinkered, left-wing nutcase organization (most definitely not a “news” organization) that they are, but I do have a problem — a big one — with paying for it.

I live in Connecticut. I pay for enough corruption.

– xPraetorius

Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives | FrontPage Magazine

Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives | FrontPage Magazine.

This is powerful.

It has lots of things we’ve been saying right along, and also from a first-hand perspective, and with great clarity and insight.

Here’s a passage from one of the meetings this writer had with the Marxist Feminists in the early days of the National Organization for Women (NOW):

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China.  We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears.  Was I on planet earth?  Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women.  It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution.  Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.
It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.
To me, this sounded silly.  I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses.  I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn’t care what anyone thought because they just hadn’t seen what I had or been where I had been.  I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.

Long ago we exposed “gay rights” and “same-sex marriage” for what they are: a ploy having nothing to do with any abstract notions of “equality” or “fairness,” but having everything to do with getting money. I wasn’t aware of a Marxist component to it as well, but this piece gives convincing evidence that it’s all tied together.

The rest of the piece is eye-opening too.

– xPraetorius

An Outbreak of Intelligent Reason From Women!

Hmmmm… what is this?!? Is it the long-awaited end to the dreary, pathetic, whackadoodle oozing, slimy, cesspool of “thought” that is feminism?

One can only hope.

Read this here. (Also linked above.) It’s good stuff, and it’s loaded with common sense, despite the fact that it comes from a woman in feminist America. :)

Needless to say, this comes from National Review Online. Needless to say also — though we’ll say it — we said it first.

– xPraetorius


One of Barry Goldwater’s BEST quips.

Here it is: “I spent last week in Washington, D.C,” said Goldwater. “It’s great to be back in America.”

Do you ever get the impression, as I do, that as great as they’ve been — the Republican Party always has to be dragged kicking and screaming to understanding the phenomenon, the astonishing difference, the spectacular, one-of-a-kind, never-to-be-seen-again, perfect uniqueness, the sheer awesomeness that is America?

Me too.

– xPraetorius

In Case You EVER Doubt Tommy Emannuel’s Almost Unearthly Talent…

Click here.

Tommy does this all the time. Just steps in with people he’s never played with before, and makes it seem as though he’s played with ‘em for twenty years.

Yes, yes, I know… I’m sure they rehearsed for days! Or did they?

It’s entirely possible that Tommy’s just that good.

I am. :)

– xPraetorius

David Phelps Seems to Have Two Speeds: “Knock It Outta The Park” or “Strike-out”

It’s when he uses his great voice to bring an audience to its feet — as here (the Battle Hymn of the Republic) — that he knocks it out of the park.

He strikes out in other places, as here, in the Star Spangled Banner.

One can do variations on the Star Spangled Banner, but it should be done as here. This is Sandi Patty — go ahead, watch and listen to this and try to prevent shivers and tears. I dare you.

Try to imagine, for instance, Whitney Houston doing what Sandi Patty does at the 5:55 — 6:00 mark. Music starts at about 30 seconds. It’s interesting that Peter Jennings didn’t think that Sandi Patty is a “famous person.”

Sandy Patti’s version is much, much, much, much better than Whitney Houston’s — which is really good — but don’t expect Sandy Patti to garner the same fame and renown. Sandi’s a Republican and a Christian. She’ll be ignored by pop culture, academia, the media in general and … much of America.

– xPraretorius

No Race, No Grievance, No Complaints, No Hostility — Just People Filled With Raw, Unvarnished, Open, Exposed, Surrendering, Sweet Joy and Love (Part II)

Same as in the previous post. Some sweet moments given to us by Southern Christians.

Click here to hear it too.

Note the very much interracial audience! Much more interracial than you’ll ever see in the North!

Here in the North, we just love black people, we just don’t want to hang around with them. And when they’ve finished cleaning the place we want them to go home.

Not in the South, though.

One day at a time, sweet Jesus! 
That’s all I’m asking of You
Just give me the strength to do everything that I have to do,
Yesterday’s gone, sweet Jesus, and tomorrow may never be mine
Oh, help me today, show me the way
One day at a time.

– xPraetorius

No Race, No Grievance, No Complaints, No Hostility — Just People Filled With Raw, Unvarnished, Open, Exposed, Surrendering, Sweet Joy and Love

We actually have the South to thank for the above-mentioned seemingly idyllic vision. It’s not idyllic. It’s real. And it lives abundantly and richly and wholeheartedly … in the hearts and minds of Southern Christians.

Whuhhh?!? I hear you say? Isn’t the South the heart of racism? The headquarters of white-people-hating-blacks-just–because-of-the-color-of-their-skin?


That’s the North.

Oh, there might have been a bunch of that in the South in the past, but it’s been long gone there, in any meaningful, way for a very long time. It lives only in the North, where liberal white folks consider themselves so much better and smarter than black Americans that we had to turn the United States into one gigantic day care center for them.

Oh, we didn’t call it that, but that’s what it is. With Affirmative Action, and speech codes, and coddling the rappers and the rapists and the killers and the screamers and shouters, liberals tell black people that it’s okay to behave like three-year olds. Liberals tell black Americans that it’s just okay when they behave according to all the stereotypes blacks claim so vociferously to reject.

Southern Christians very long ago recognized the basic humanity of all people and moved beyond such primitive, condescending racism.

Watch and listen to this.

The entire crowd — mostly white (like the country these past 238 years :) ) — adores the singer, Lynda Randle, a black woman who takes this song and makes it just beautiful. The people in the audience visibly love Lynda Randle, not because she’s black or a woman, but because she’s Lynda Randle, and she’s their friend and she’s just given them a sweet moment.

There’s nothing forced or artificial or phony about it. It’s honest, full-throated, sincere and … fun!

– xPraetorius

Freshly Squeezed Solipsism


I had to reblog this, because there is another characteristic of this blogger that I really enjoy: she elicits some of the best comments!

Originally posted on See, there's this thing called biology...:

So, solipsism, this philosophical idea that only you exist, that you orbit your own
little planet and others only exist as figments of your own perceptions and imagination.  The whole world revolves around me, in fact, I created it. I am the Captain of my soul and  the master of my universe. You create your own reality because nothing exists outside of your  own ego.

milkey way

Some men like to accuse women of being solipsistic. There are some elements of truth to that,  we are after all, an entirely different species. We orbit on our own planets and live with our  own biology. For the record however, I am not solipsistic nor am I riding the crazy train.  It’s much worse than that, I’m actually driving it. You might want to get off the tracks.


Female solipsism is a real thing in the world, I observe it all the time. You’ll…

View original 266 more words

There’s Just Nothing Like A Good Belter (Part III)

Here are two good  really good — belters: Guy Penrod and David Phelps.

– xPraetorius

There’s Just Nothing Like A Good Belter (Part II)

Here’s another great old hymn, done gospel belter style.

love this kind of thing, and I love this song done this way.

It’s always best to listen all the way through, but here are a few great moments:

  • 2:36 — lovely little family tableau.
  • 2:45 — Pretty little girl enjoying a beautiful song. Lovely image.
  • 3:20 — as he does, David Phelps brings ‘em to their feet.
  • 3:35-3:40 — Phelps does his thing. At almost exactly 3:40, Mark Lowry, behind Phelps, giggles as if to say, how does he do that?!?
  • 4:00 — patented David Phelps.
  • 4:10 — ditto the above.
  • 4:25 — the end. Phelps never seems to understand what he’s done to the hundreds who’ve heard him. The crowd is delirious, whooping and hollering, crying and laughing, and lifting their arms and yelling and shouting, thoroughly knocked out of their socks by what they’ve just heard, while Phelps gives the appearance of someone totally humbled by something much larger than himself. One has the impression that if you were to act like a gushing fan around him, and tell him how much you love his singing, he’d say something like, “Gosh, it wasn’t really me, but thanks!” I like that a lot about him.

Play it up loud.

– xPraetorius

There’s Just Nothing Like a Good Belter!

Sometimes, there’s just nothing like a little bit of gospel music. This is a “little bit of gospel music.”

The Gaither Vocal Band, and David Phelps, and others, sing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

David Phelps has a job in many of the songs that he sings: to bring the singers, and the crowd, to their feet. He has a big, powerful tenor voice, and the singers and crowd comply every time.

In the above-linked recording, David comes in at about 2:00. He bring’s ‘em to their feet at about 2:30 or so. However, the build-up is an important component to the power of Phelps’ singing.

As everyone rises to their feet, if you don’t get chills up and down your spine you are not human. :)

do love a good gospel belter, and David Phelps is a good — a great — gospel belter.

Here’s another one. You have to listen to this one all the way through, because it builds and builds and builds and builds to a very climactic finish that only David Phelps can pull off. The words are a bit hokey, but hokey can be good, and this song makes hokey just … hokay. :) Hint: Phelps starts to bring ‘em to their feet at about 3:00.

Again, if you don’t get chills, you should check your species, ’cause you just might not be human. :)

One teeny, tiny quibble: they don’t allow the appropriately delirious applause to continue long enough. This is the last song, and the crowd has been treated to several such songs, so they’re primed to applaud and yell and shout and scream and jump up and down for a very long time. It’d be nice to include that.

– xPraetorius



Common Core – Time to Give This Misshapen Piece of Putrefaction a Proper Burial

Read here, and if you’re a normal, sane person, you’ll agree: it’s time to deep six Common Core.

If, however, you’re not a normal, sane person you will agree that it’s just okay for the American left to disassemble the greatest, freest, biggest-hearted, most generous, kindest, head-and-shoulders-above-the-rest, finest, most caring, country history has ever seen.

The United States of America is nothing less than mankind’s finest achievement — by very, very far and away.

We did it only with our faith in God, and common sense, and hard work, and  and an open-spirited desire to do the best we possibly could for all people. 

We didn’t get it right all the time, but we got it right eventually. And we made it right eventually.

No other country ever has done what we have for every single person who lives within our borders. No other country has ever done all that we have for people who live outside our borders. No other country has ever done all that we have to beat back the forces of barbarism that threaten all people. No other country has ever done as much as we have to try to accommodate even those who have expressed an overt desire to destroy us!

Yeah, I guess maybe we should just get rid of all that.

Prove the left wrong. Flush Common Core down the toilet.

– xPraetorius

Feminism’s Victory Was Not Progress

A blogger whom I very much admire posted this post here.

As is her wont, the author larded the post with one pithy, well-expressed observation after another. Until, finally, as is also her wont, she had a wonderful, insightful, intelligent post. Here are some of her observations:

What I do want to speak out about however, is this whole concept of women as victims and
men as oppressors. Men, the patriarchy, our alien lizard overlords, aren’t entirely to
blame for the portrayals of women as sort of flat two dimensional sexual creatures. Yes,
I’m talking to you Beyonce, Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, all the women on the Bachlorette, the media,
the entertainment industry. Somewhere in our walk towards the female  empowerfullness of pole
dancing, things got all crazy. Men aren’t innocent bystanders, but this whole idea that feminism,
women, and shifting social mores, bears no responsibility what so ever, is just absurd. [Editor's Note: this is where the author begins one of the central themes of this post, and of much of her oeuvre: like it or not, men and women are joined at the hip by biology. There's very little that one does that the other doesn't either approve, participate in, aid and abet, or agree with.]

Here’s more:

This is an unpopular thing to say now days, but modesty, gender roles, and the protection of female
sexuality, rather than evidence of women’s oppression, used to serve a useful purpose in the world. [Editor's Note: Ummmmm... Yep. Especially in light of: Beyoncé, Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, et al!]

Still more:

Women, feminists in particular, often don’t even understand the nature of their own selves, let alone the
nature of men. Try explaining to women that the goal of social justice is to shame men into compliance and they’ll vehemently deny it. C’mon, it’s as plain as the light of day. The goal is to shame men into changing their behavior. That is simply the nature of women, it’s what’s we do, it’s how we try to get our voice heard in the world. Like it or not, the only tool we really have in life is to appeal to men’s honor. When that doesn’t work, we try to shame them into compliance. [Editor's Note: Is this on the nose or what?!?]

Last but not least:

Lastly, woven into this quest for social justice, is a very sexualized shaming tactic directed specifically towards men. It’s really not a good thing for the two genders to attempt to sexually shame each other, ever, because we so don’t walk in each other’s shoes. Intentional or not, what Sarkeesian is doing is trying to shame men into feeling bad about the way they’re treating their female avatars in video games, as if they are now going to treat real life women in exactly the same way. In a way, it is like policing thought, invading somebody’s fantasy world and judging them for it.

Not to be indelicate here girls, but in light the popularity of the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon, are you sure you really want to go there?? [Editor's Note: The original post was about the presentation of women in video games. Look, however, at the second sentence of the first paragraph. It's worth repeating: "It’s really not a good thing for the two genders to attempt to sexually shame each other, ever, because we so don’t walk in each other’s shoes."]

I was so impressed by the post, that I ended up posting a rather long response. This blogger tends to have that effect on me. When I had finished the post, I realized that it was in sufficient form to be its own post here at TPWG. With, of course, the background that I provided above. Below is that response.

I urge you all to go to insanitybytes’ blog and enjoy her writing. This is one intelligent, independent thinking, insightful blogger!

Below is my response to insanitybytes excellent blog post (here):

Really, really well said!

Especially: “It’s really not a good thing for the two genders to attempt to sexually shame each other, ever, because we so don’t walk in each other’s shoes.”

And: “Women, feminists in particular, often don’t even understand the nature of their own selves, let alone the nature of men. Try explaining to women that the goal of social justice is to shame men into compliance and they’ll vehemently deny it. C’mon, it’s as plain as the light of day. The goal is to shame men into changing their behavior. That is simply the nature of women, it’s what’s we do, it’s how we try to get our voice heard in the world. Like it or not, the only tool we really have in life is to appeal to men’s honor. When that doesn’t work, we try to shame them into compliance.”

This is something I often discuss with my daughter and my son. Much of men-women relations is governed simply by the vast size and physical strength differential between men and women. Men used to get their way by looming. Women by using their wits. Using wits beats looming — society-wide, anyway — every time. It’s why the society we live in today was ordered and configured mostly by women, not by men.

Feminism’s main problem (it had many) was that it was only secondarily a movement whose goal was to better the lot of women. It was primarily a tool for the left — generally men — to assemble support for putting them in power. This is true of most big category issues today.

Feminism has only one possible valid foundational premise: that the lot of women was worse than that of men. Absent compelling evidence of that conclusion, there was no reason whatsoever for feminism. Instead, feminists said only that things were really, really bad for women and that it was men’s fault and that men needed to do something about it. Interestingly feminists never even made the case that their lot was worse than that of men…. the only thing that could have justified a feminist movement in the first place.

Feminism’s other big, big BIG problem was that it achieved all its goals without men doing so much as a “wait-a-sec.”

The feminists said, “We have these thousands of demands and complaints and we absolutely insist that you acquiesce to our demands NOW! (pun intended :) )

Men said, “Uhhhhhhhhhh…Ok.” Then they went back to work, as they’d been doing for millennia, since the days of the family cave.

A simple historical fact: The vast majority of all political movements have always passed the vast majority of men by… they’ve always been way too busy doing what needed to be done to get their family and themselves from day-to-day. Feminism was no exception. It was a movement launched and run by the leisured political class and European and American women, newly in possession of something men have never had throughout history: free time.

When feminists and women — most of whom had drunk the feminist Kool-Aid at least to some extent — saw the world they had flipped upside down and turned inside out, they were deeply disappointed that it was not obviously better than the previous, and was arguably a good deal worse.

Well, at that point, feminists were in it for good, and it would be no good admitting they had been wrong. Feminism was always a scorched earth movement, so there was nothing to return to when cooler heads could prevail. To obtain feminism’s victory, men couldn’t be people in need of some adjustment, they had to be transformed into ravening, sex-crazed, abusive beasts, barely under control of their baser instincts. Every one a rapist; every one an abuser; every one an unreconstructed Neanderthal.

Well, while men were doing as they’d always done — getting up and going to work each day — they heard these messages and internalized these things. If you spend decades telling men that they are little more than snarling, violent beasts — in newspapers, media, college curricula across the land — guess what: men will figure, “Well, I guess we’re nothing more than snarling, violent beasts,” and they will live down to these abysmal expectations.

Every such message has two recipients: men and women. Men heard and understood that they were snarling, sex-crazed beasts; women heard that men were snarling, sex-crazed beasts.

Yet, the eternal truths are stronger than even the most powerful social engineers. Men still love women as they always have, and women still love men as they always have — and they both always will.

Now, however, women have internalized that the only way to appeal to these lesser animals, the only way to compete with other women for the attentions of these beasts whom they still, despite it all, love deeply — is to display a hyper-sexualized persona that says nothing more subtle than, “Come do me.” That is feminism’s victory.

Some victory. Some progress.


– x


Again: please, please, please, visit InsanityBytes’ blog. It’s a really good one!


Why Is The Left as Scummy As It Is?

No one on earth — except maybe ISIS or Al Qaeda — can match America’s left — you know, the caring, compassionate, “tolerant,” … the nice ones — for sneering, condescending, holier-than-thou, mean nastiness.

Why is that?

Why is it that the left use nuclear name-calling almost as soon as a topic for debate is brought up? You know, nuclear name-calling? Racist! Nazi! Bigot! Sexist! Homophobe! Hater! Child hater! These are part of the leftist pantheon of things which, if you are one in their eyes, you are scum.

These names aren’t meant to move the debate along to deeper understanding on the part of both participants. No, they’re meant to be sharp and quickly devastating, they’re meant to jab and stab at the recipient. To cause him pain and to shut him up.

They’re meant to turn the “debate” from “Here’s why I disagree with this position” to “You’re a [fill in nuclear name here] and that’s why you disagree with this position.” The point? To rock the debate opponent back on his heels, and force him to defend his own character, not the actual question at hand.

Why is this?

Shouldn’t the left embrace rigorous debate on the issues? Aren’t they confident in the correctness of their conclusions? Aren’t they the smart ones? The intellectuals? The ones so in touch with the nuances of everything?

There’s a reason why the right possess no such list, as enumerated above, of nuclear names that we might use to derail the debate. I think the worst we get is: “Limousine liberal!” or “Alinskyite!” Oooooooooo…!!! Tough stuff that! You can tell how the left fears those stingers!

The reason we on the right don’t have such a list of nuclear names is simple: we’re smarter, we’re nicer, we spend our time challenging our beliefs, and … we welcome real debate of the issues.

Leftists are just jerks.

And, they are not confident in the correctness of their positions. The 20th century was a monument to the failure of leftism in all its forms: communism, socialism, naziism, American liberalism, European social democracy, and all of leftism’s regional mutations: Castroism, Ho-ism, Kim-ism, Maoism.

The last century is strewn with the human wreckage caused by the leftist conceit that it’s possible to control everything centrally and bring about a Great Society. In reality, when the political left controlled things — and they often controlled everything — the 20th Century was the Century of the Left! — they were never once able even to bring about even “moderately adequate.”

In every case — bar absolutely none — as the central government increased its control over the lives of its citizens, living conditions in all aspects worsened. There was a direct relationship. The more central government control the worse the lives of the citizenry. If the central government obtained total power — as was the case with Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao in China, Hitler in Germany, Hoxha in Albania, and many more, the hapless country devolved into little more than an armed concentration camp filled with wretchedly poor, squashed, inmates with no more rights than a brood cow, constantly subject to the threat of either a quick, violent death, or a slow tortuous death, far from friends, family and home.

Every time the left seized total power, atop the power structure sat a paranoid, homicidal madman, willing to snuff out the life of anyone with the temerity to question the glorious future envisioned by the tyrant. Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Mengistu, Hoxha, North Korea’s Kims (you can add in Assad Junior and Senior, Hussein, Nasser and more) — all met or meet that description. And it happens every time! 

You’d think that the left, seeing how its ideas have always caused hell on earth; how every time they obtain full power in any country a bloodthirsty, raving lunatic works his way to the top; how after years of owning countries, the citizens are always more wretched and despairing than before the left obtained power — you’d think with all that, that leftists would begin to question leftism itself!

And some do.

You can see some of them here having second thoughts all the way back in 1987. This “second thoughts” movement — a sizable number of leftists who are shocked at the depredations of the left — has flourished. However, there remain vast numbers of leftists who have never challenged their beliefs, who have never allowed themselves to understand the extent to which the implementers of their beliefs have strewn death, misery, poverty and despair in their wake.

These leftists buttress their beliefs with a vast repertoire of perfectly off-topic tools meant to deflect the debate, to make their opponent feel guilty, to discredit the idea by discrediting the idea-holder, to establish their own moral superiority.

Still and all, they know that they’re just name-calling and not engaging in debate, and not defending their supposedly brilliant ideas. They know they’re intentionally trying to inflict hurt on those who disagree with them. They know they’re engaging in the very same behaviors that they condemn so vociferously with the nuclear name-calling. They know that they are, in short, being jerks. So, why do they do it?

Simple: Projection. They are the very jerks they accuse others of being. If I were such a jerk, I’d want to project too! A whole lot! If only to deflect away from my own jerkiness.

– xPraetorius


Michael Sam Cut by Rams (Part II)


Someone else at least hinted at it!

Michael Sam is the openly gay football player drafted by the St. Louis Rams in the seventh round of the NFL draft this year.

In a previous post — here — we stated an obvious truth that none in the land dare say publicly: “More than one other player on the team [The Rams] was more than a little bit skeeved out at the possibility of showering with Michael Sam after a game.”

We also said it way, way back here on May 14 of this year.

We followed that with another obvious truth that none dare say: “Michael Sam must have felt like a normal [yes, we meant: normal] dude would feel at the prospect of  showering each day after work with the Dallas Cowboys’ cheerleaders.”

We further said that no one else would dare say it in America, where to state just one of these self-evident truths publicly would be to end one’s career, and possibly force one to move to avoid things like death threats from oh-so-tolerant America.

Turns out there were other people figuring out the awkwardness of it all. See the article here on PFT (NBC Sports’ ProfootballTalk).

All the commentators take great pains to say that the various teams not picking up Sam are worried about the distractions caused by the media — particularly ESPN — but there is one salient passage that should be noted:

Last week ESPN apologized for a report that quoted an unnamed Rams player as saying that Sam hadn’t showered with teammates in training camp. [Editor's Note: I wonder whether there really was such an unnamed source, or whether the reporter made it up to deflect the attention from himself for "reporting" what he, and the rest of the world knew to be true -- but could never say out loud. Certainly if there were such a player, he would insist on deep cover anonymity, with no recording devices anywhere near, before saying it.]

Now, if it’s true that young Sam hadn’t showered with his teammates, you and I both know why that is. And you and I both know that the players and coaches got together in super-secret, cone-of-silence-protected meeting and someone let it be known that there was skeevage in the ranks at the thought of showering with a guy who would be looking at their naked, well-muscled physiques ummmm… pretty much the same way a woman would look at them. You and I also both know that someone made an observation similar to my Dallas Cowboys’ cheerleaders one, above.

It’s just that no one could ever say this, for fear of the aforementioned loss of career, complete with death threats and total life disruption.

And this in America! The land of the once free, and the now opposite of brave.

– xPraetorius

Ann Coulter – August 27, 2014 – WOULD IT KILL YOU TO HIRE MORE BLACK COPS? YES

Ann Coulter – August 27, 2014 – WOULD IT KILL YOU TO HIRE MORE BLACK COPS? YES.

Ann Coulter points out that Affirmative Action in hiring for police officers results in lower standards across the board, and more crime, and that these things disproportionately hurt the poor and minorities (often the same people).

As she poignantly puts it, “Someone’s got to say it, so it might as well be me: I’m against more black people being murdered, raped and assaulted.”

Me too.

However, it is significant to say that the Race Grievance Industry, including many prominent members of the media, are perfectly okay with more black people being murdered, raped and assaulted. 

That’s the only possible conclusion, given that this fact (which, by the way, no one disputes) about Affirmative Action in policing is readily available in public documents across the land.


– xPraetorius

Michael Sam Cut by Rams

He’s the gay football player who announced his sexual preference publicly before the NFL draft last year or so. I wish him all the success in the world. I hope he’s able to get his sex life out of the public eye after that ridiculous, publicity-seeking, grandstanding… and successful ploy to get a team to draft him.

Yes, there’ll be all the hoohah that the media fabricate around sillinesses like this.

However, I’m going to say what no one else has said (that I’ve seen). It’s something that is undeniably true.

Put it this way, if you were to ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to bet his entire fortune, on what I’m about to say, each would do it.

If you were to suggest to Barack Obama that he bet the success of the entire remainder of his Presidency that what I’m about to say is true, he’d do it.

If you were to suggest further that he bet the future of Obamacare that what I’m about to say is true, he’d do it in a heartbeat.

What I’m about to say is inflammatory, provocative, would cost anyone his career if he were to say it publicly.

It’s also self-evidently true.

Here it is:

More than one other player on the team was more than a little bit skeeved out at the possibility of showering with Michael Sam after a game.

Here’s another, worth repeating, that I said here: Michael Sam must have felt like a normal dude would feel at the prospect of  showering each day after work with the Dallas Cowboys’ cheerleaders.

– xPraetorius

Obama and Golf

We’ve said it before in these pages: Whether Obama’s on the golf course or in the Oval Office, the country is equally poorly served.

Or: the only thing worse than Obama golfing as much as he does, is Obama being in the Oval Office as much as he is.

Or: How could Obama be the best President he could possibly be? Simple: Go straight from the golf course to his next vacation. When the vacation’s over, he should head straight back to the golf course. Repeat as necessary to fill up the rest of his term.

I’m completely serious.

Besides, you know that the media and pop culture and academia would totally let him get away with it.

– xPraetorius

This Sums It Up (Part IV)

In a recent post, we mused a bit about how pop culture is either ignoring or somehow trying to turn into genius the many dumbnesses of Obama and his Administration. From 57 states to “corpse-man,” comedians have left Obama completely un-mocked, whereas they pounced all over George W. Bush if he so much as sneezed.

In my last paragraph, I said this:

One serious problem, I admit, is that when he says something that would produce gales of laughter if said by a Republican President, lots and lots and lots and lots of people die. For a sobering example: Imagine if, as Obama did, George W. Bush had said of ISIS: “We don’t yet have a strategy.”

I then reflected:

Maybe the comedians have a point. There’s really not too much funny in that.

Upon yet further reflection, maybe while the country lacks a strategy to deal with ISIS, the blood-soaked scumbags out there beheading and crucifying innocent people, the President might want to go play a round or 20 of golf, and leave the devising of said strategy to some people who are actually concerned about the safety of Americans.

Any strategy Obama might come up with, I’m sure, would be crammed with imaginary red lines, muddy “let me be clear’s,” (as he was to Assad) fictitious “holding accountable’s” (just like Putin), transparently meaningless soaring statements and a lot of wind.

Everyone in the world knows by now that with Obama all they have to do is wait him out and they’ll be just fine. There certainly no reason to take anything he says seriously.

Shouldn’t we all have learned by now? Obama’s all about standing up to and defeating only one country: America.

– xPraetorius

Stealing This From a Response I Wrote In Another Blog

It kinda summed up how I believe about science and God (with some edits). The post to which I responded is here. The blogger is one of my favorites, so she merits long responses like the one below.

Here’s the passage I wrote:

I remember once asking an ophthalmologist: “Who is really color-blind? Those of us with normal sight, or those we classify as ‘color-blind?’” He replied that there’s just no way to tell. The “science” that provides the definition is based only on the conclusion that the perceptions of the vast majority — who are defined as not color-blind — are correct. It’s absolutely possible that the “color-blind” are really perceiving colors correctly, and that everyone else is not.

Thus you have a vast body of “settled science” — rock-solid beliefs possessed by billions around the world — based on what is possibly an incorrect, but popular, corner-stone premise.

Furthermore, the eye-doctor said, if we wished, we could define “color” and “colors” based purely on the perceptions of the color-blind if we wished, and that would have every bit as much validity as what we have now. We then could turn that into “settled science,” if we so desired.

Apparently there is quite a bit out there that is called “settled science” that is purely subjective. There’s nothing wrong with that, but the idea that “science is the be-all and end-all as far as conclusive proof is concerned” is just a silly notion, and no real scientist — of which I’m one — believes it… except maybe when applying for grant monies.

This desire to “settle” science, ie to stop further inquiry and/or debate is strong. We all want to be “right,” and we all want others to acknowledge our rightness. Especially if we’re applying for grant monies! :)

Think of it: what is the proof even that atoms exist? No one’s ever seen one. Forget the fuzzy IBM pictures, those could have been fabricated in five minutes using PhotoShop. No, we have faith that they exist, because the math is beautifully elegant and seems to work (though it frequently changes) and the idea seems to make sense and the notion that everything is composed of building blocks is compelling (except atoms? Hmmmm…), and the science resulting from our faith in the existence of atoms seems to make sense. However, the actual conclusion that atoms exist is based purely on faith.

In fact, all science is based on nothing more than human observation, human integrity and … faith. That faith rests on a confidence that our human observations are accurate to the necessary degree, and that the observers have faithfully and honestly reported those observations. And then we must have faith that the conclusions drawn from those measurements and observations are correct! To believe the science, in the incredibly competitive world of scientific inquiry and the mad scrambling for funding, is to believe that in the pursuit of those monies, no scientist would ever, not ever, never, never, never fudge, manipulate, or mis-report any of his findings, observations or measurements. Furthermore, it is to believe that every scientist always draws the correct conclusions from his work.

Talk about a leap of faith!

The fact (in which I have faith) that so many scientific conclusions of the near, not-so-near and distant past are being “proven” wrong should give rise to the only obvious conclusion: there is no settled science. Furthermore faith in science is based on wildly shifting sands. Ask yourself: is coffee good for you? You’ll get a different answer from “science” every week. How about eggs?

Climatology, that sexy, oh-so-hot, oh-so-hoppin’, oh-so-current body of “science” is riddled with the corruption that I mentioned above. With manipulation and mis-reporting of measurements, with internal plots to squelch the many dissenting opinions, with e-mail trails loaded with plans to commit scientific fraud, even with temperature measurement devices placed on trees such that they would record temperatures (in the direct sun) up to an average of five degrees higher than the actual ambient temperatures. And all, apparently, in the pursuit of funding.

It would be astonishing if the rest of science were not riddled with the same corruption, especially those branches that are not as sexy and hot as climatology.

None of this discredits science in the least; it simply says that scientists are human too. Not some demi-deities wandering the world in white robes, blessing us with the deeper knowledge they possess. Nope. They’re just blokes like you and me out there trying to make a living… just like you and me.

Even atheists acknowledge God. If they didn’t — think about it — there’d be no, or very few, atheists today. There’d be thousands of atheist suicides every day, until their numbers diminished to very few. Because without God, there’s no reason not to succumb to that impulse that we all experience several (many?) times in our lives when things appear their bleakest. Without faith in Someone greater than we, and if we truly were convinced that there is just nothing afterward, again, there’s no reason not to succumb to the temptation to kill oneself. Yet, suicide — all over the world! — is still an extremely rare phenomenon.

Call it the “survival instinct” all you want, but the man who has banished God from his life, has easily overcome anything resembling a survival instinct.

A guy responded to my response. He said that I was anti-science, and that therefore, my “comment signifies a rejection of common sense and modern science.” And: “Such a broad-based rejection of the foundation of Western Civilization is a clarion call to the personal bias and superstition that plagued humanity’s pre-modern past.”

I disagreed… as follows:

@silence: thanks for your thoughtful comment. I may not have been clear enough, but color-blindness is not the inability to see color, but the perception of some colors as different colors. My dad was color-blind, and I forget which colors he mixed up — red and green maybe — but he saw other colors just fine. Bottom line: he couldn’t describe to me precisely what he saw for red, though he tried for years to.

Also, my friend the ophthalmologist said that my dad’s rods and cones were not defective — just different. He saw colors differently. He saw colors “incorrectly” only because we base everything we do with color on the perceptions of those we don’t define as “color-blind.” Red and green traffic lights, for example.

Yes, scientists “discovered” atoms long ago. Man “discovered” God long ago (the circumstances behind both discoveries differ :) ) … man has still seen neither God nor atoms. Yet, atoms are “settled science,” and God is constantly up for debate. I believe in both, but I admit that I have to have faith to believe in either.

Look at it this way: I could write a very convincing book telling of my discovery, for instance, of the building blocks of atoms. In that book. As I work my way up from these unimaginably tiny things to atoms to larger things, there would be an interface between my fictional “reality” and that believed by most scientists today — just as there is between the atomic world and ours.

That latter interface — the one believed by most scientists — is described elegantly and nicely by a system of formulae and axioms and hypotheses vouchsafed to us by the very scientists who would have us believe in atoms — as, by the way — I do. However, since I don’t have the full body of scientific knowledge necessary to make my sense of the probability that my belief is correct surpass 99.99%, I have to be stuck with that level of confidence — 99.99% — that my belief is correct.

Ask any scientist who studies atoms for a living and he will tell you that his confidence in his beliefs is something like 99.99999999% or thereabouts. No honest scientist will ever tell you that he believes in anything at 100%. Well, the difference between 99.99999999% and 100% is faith.

Back to my hypothetical description of “reality” at the atomic and sub-atomic level: The interface between my level of “understanding” and the atomic level would be perfectly undisprovable. I could even, fairly easily, make equipment that would “prove” my hypothesis by producing pictures and things that show what I want them to show. When I produce such outputs I could point to them and say, “See? See? This shows what I’m talking about!” Others can express skepticism all they want, but they can’t disprove the “science,” — no matter how fraudulent it might be — because they’re unfamiliar with it.

The point: Our — the people’s — belief in the scientific rests on those things I mentioned above: (1) human observation, (2) accurate communication of observations and measurements, (3) human integrity and honesty, (4) a scientist who can communicate his findings effectively(*) and even then (5) faith. Because we can never get to 100%. (**)(***) All that is a very, very tall order, up to which (Winston Churchill is laughing now) the stalwarts of the climatology branch of science, for example, proved unable to stand.

Common sense is a great thing, but the difference between common sense and certainty is, again, faith. Common sense tells me there’s a non-zero chance that I’ll get hit by a meteor when next I exit my residence. Faith allows me to go to the grocery store.

Please don’t misinterpret that I have any disdain for science. Far from it. I love science and respect it, and think it a spectacularly wonderful way to approach that delightful human pursuit: the inquiry into the unknown.

However, as a scientist, I recognize its limitations — all scientists do — and don’t expect more from it than it can deliver. For example, science has never been able to tell us what life is — just to measure it and describe it, but never to tell us what it is, what its nature is, how it comes about, where it comes from. That’s kind of a fundamental thing not to be able to do, no?

Nor has science ever been up to the task of proving or disproving God’s existence. Hmmmm… could the two be related?

As to your last paragraph. Under no circumstances do I reject science or commonsense or any other foundation of Western Civilization. But, if we are going to discuss science and its pluses and minuses, it’s important that we be talking about the same thing. Science is nothing but a structure meant to facilitate inquiry. Nothing more nor less. It has rules and processes and procedures and customs that are all designed, then implemented, by people. People are prone to all the temptations and foibles and distractions of every other human, at every step of the way. In theory, science is a beautiful, pure, pristine, shiny, clean, sparkling tool. In reality science is all too frequently a dirty, mud-caked, twisted, corrupted, slimy, ratty, tattered mess (cf. eg: “climatology” — global warming, climate change, etc.). But it isn’t always that way, and some of the things that come from science are beautiful, and spring from disinterested (not “uninterested”), honest efforts by men of integrity.

I do observe, furthermore, that the most superstitious people I’ve ever encountered have been atheists. I mean like holy mackerel! Over the top superstitious!

(*) And scientists are notoriously ineffective communicators!

(**) Cf, eg: Heisenberg, whose premise was simply: in observing something we act on it and change it.

(***) Which is why, even though there is evidence aplenty to produce a commonsense consensus, René Desartes was reduced to “I think therefore I am,” thereby saying, I can prove me to me, but I can’t prove you to me. To believe in you, he recognized that despite the evidence of all his senses and despite common sense, he still needed faith.

– xPraetorius

This Sums It Up (Part III)

Aaaaaaand… here’s the paragraph referred to in Part II (** blush**).

I plead that I had to go make lunch/breakfast for my 13-year old son, and get my 20-year old daughter with a headache squared away.

Here’s the paragraph:

Now that he has retired from the show and gained a little perspective, Downey comments in “Live from New York,” “I have to say, and even [Al] Franken agrees with me — I’ve talked to him about this — that the last couple seasons of the show were the only two in the show’s history where we were totally like every other comedy show: basically, an arm of the Hollywood Democratic establishment. . . . We just stopped doing anything which could even be misinterpreted as a criticism of Obama.[Editor's note: red emphasis added.]

Yeah, we noticed.

– xPraetorius