Lurch for Secretary of State!


Secretary of State, John “Lurch” Kerry.
FaceOfAnIdiot

Living proof that you can have really creepy looks, the voice of a zombie, the IQ of a peach(1), and become Rich and Powerful and Important. John “Lurch” Kerry strikes a pensive pose in “negotiations”(2) with Iran.

Some see him differently. For example:

john-kerry-herman-munster

I don’t know. I still think Lurch is the real twin.

All this while Lurch Kerry’s other doppelganger, Denis “Lurch” McDonough (shown below) points to the hole in his head out of which his brain had rolled just moments before, prompting a Secret Service scramble to find it. In the subsequent mélee, the pellet became covered with dust and dirt, which, when it was re-inserted proved to be a significant upgrade.

Denis "Lurch" McDonough

 

Here, after all that fol-de-rol and just plain fun is the real thing:

lurch

 

Accept no paltry substitutes!

Now, this guy would make a real Secretary of State! “Hello, Iranians. You freakin’ rang?!?”

Notes


(1) My apologies to peaches, noble fruits all, everywhere.

(2) When the French did it, it was called “surrender.” Now, though, we call it “negotiations,” and it’s all the rage. Let’s not forget that Lurch speaks French, after a fashion, so probably has some considerable affection (full disclosure: as do I) for the cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

American Apartheid


It’s where we’re headed. It’s where we are, really, right now.

Remember white Apartheid in South Africa? It’s when the small white minority discriminated systematically against the black majority of South Africans. We in America got all up in their grill about it. We were ticked off, and we demanded that the South African government cut it the heck out, free Nelson Mandela, get rid of Apartheid … and, so they did.

Now, to America.

Try to say something questioning the special rights accorded to the teentsy-weensty minority of people who engage in sex-like activities with members of the same sex(1). Now, look, I have nothing against those who engage in elaborate masturbation with members of the same sex, but it’s no reason to pretend [1] that it’s normal, or [2] that it constitutes some great and courageous behavior or [3] that practitioners deserve special rights based merely on that behavior in which this teeny-tiny minority of people indulge.

Anyway, go ahead and try to say something against that teeny-tiny minority. See what happens to your career, to your social life. Ask Michael Ovitz.

Now, go ahead and join a fraternity, get a bit tipsy and sing a stupid little ditty about whether or not you’re going to let black people join your fraternity. It’s in poor taste, and it’s stupid, but here’s the other thing it is: legal. Interestingly, there has never been, even once, the slightest hint that the frat boys were going to follow through with the sentiment of the lyrics of their tune and deny black people the opportunity to join their dumb fraternity.

But the ones who did sang the aforementioned offending tune? Might as well change their names right now, because their lives are ruined. Oh, what they did was stupid… as is a whole lot of stuff that happens at frat houses. But, I’d venture to say that the the ditty was not nearly as stupid as a whole lot of other things that happen at frat houses, generally involving copious amounts of alcohol or illicit drugs. This particular legal activity, though, singing the idiotic number, has damaged the lives of the frat boys more than an overdose of heroin could have. And why? Because they violated the new, unwritten, American Apartheid Laws.

Two things are obvious: [1] if the frat boys had knocked over a package store, and caved in the skull of the clerk behind the counter, and been caught, their lives would be much less ruined than when they were caught singing their stupid little legal ditty. And [2] if the frat boys had substituted “Christian” where they had warbled “ni**er,” the leftist overseers and commissars of the new American Apartheid would have applauded them, and made them folk heroes.

Why do I say that? Easy: at this very moment, the Apartheid bosses are transforming into folk heroes the racist rappers and hip hop “artists” who say that kind of thing about white people and Christians all the time. Also — you know it and I know it — there’s just no risk in saying the vilest things imaginable about straight, or white, or Christian people whenever and wherever you want. Go ahead and call them satan spawn and evil, and bigoted and racist and hateful, but don’t you even dare question what really weird thing that dude over there is doing with the other dude’s junk.

Want more proof? Part of the frat boys’ moronic ditty speaks darkly about “hanging them from a tree.” Yep, that’s grotesque. It is, however, instructive to remember that there are people in the Middle East right now, as we speak, nailing Christians to, and then hanging them from, trees… and no one in the “community” that’s ticked off at the frat boys is saying a word about it.

Back to the gay Apartheid Masters. Don’t believe me about that? Ask Brendan Eich, who paid the ultimate professional price, and he barely even hinted at thinking about anything even remotely uncharitable about the crowd-who-plays-with-the-wrong-people’s-private-parts. But Eich did contribute a small amount to the Keep Marriage Normal movement. When that became public, oh how the brave, courageous people-who-do-ummmm-offbeat-things-with-members-of-the-same-sex swooned at the sheer trauma of it all. And in as fascistic a purge as Nazi Germany ever imagined, Eich was gone in a blink from the web company that he had founded.

A tiny minority, that engages in surpassingly odd activities involving their genitalia, dictates to a vastly larger majority, that outnumbers them by a factor of at least 150-1, how said majority will speak of the minority, when and where they will hire members of that minority, the extent to which they will coddle, pamper, fuss over and spoil that minority… and no one blinks an eye.

A larger minority, but still a minority — based on skin color — does exactly the same thing, ruining those who purposefully or accidentally step out of line, dictating how Americans will speak and when, and changing daily what constitutes offense and what doesn’t, which words are okay and which are not, and no one blinks an eye.

I was listening to National Public Radio on the ride home from work the other day, and on came a promo for one of their local shows — the Colin McEnroe Show. The host does the promos and he wondered, what if you were one of the frat boys who had crooned the hyper politically incorrect ditty? This was so outside the pale, he implied, that it would take titanically extraordinary efforts on their part to “allow them to rejoin humanity.” (<– direct quote there)

These selfsame frat boys squawked a perfectly legal, but dumb, ditty about an activity that hasn’t taken place in more than 50 years. Now, though, they’re nailing Christians to trees today in the Middle East, and no one, who was upset about the frat boys’ ditty, is making a peep. Yet somehow, the frat boys have to take extraordinary, way-over-the-top measures to “rejoin humanity.”

We got royally ticked off when there was Apartheid in South Africa, but we don’t seem to mind it at all right here in America.

Poor treatment of a minority is wrong. It’s a really bad, toxic thing, and it’s something that every society does well to get rid of. However, replacing rotten treatment of a minority with rotten treatment of the majority does not constitute change for the better.

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) ‘Cause it ain’t sex. It’s more like elaborate masturbation. Or using someone of the same sex as a big sex toy. Just as being physically intimate with a fence post is Playing Around with a Fence Post and Sex Organs — but it’s not sex. The only time it’s real sex is when — ready for it? — when there’s the possibility of a baby resulting from it. Then it’s sex. Heck, we learned that in the sixth grade officially, and a lot earlier on the playground. The recent tsunamis of politically correct flapdoodle, Grievance Industry tommyrot and deconstructionist bilgewater haven’t even come close to changing basic biology.

That Murderous Co-Pilot of Germanwings Flight 4U9525


Without even knowing a single thing about him, you can come to some conclusions.

  • He wasn’t a Christian

The injunction against murder is pretty well known by all Christians from a very early age. Also pretty well-known are the injunctions against: worshipping other gods(1), making idols(2), swearing(3), forgetting to keep the sabbath day holy, disrespecting dad and mom, the murder thing, cheating on your husband or wife, taking what’s not yours to take, lying about someone else, wanting what’s not yours to have. Especially your neighbor’s hot wife (or husband) or girlfriend (or boyfriend).

What else do we know about the pilot?

  • He could have been an atheist.

For an atheist, all is permitted. You see, those pesky Ten Commandments — to the atheist, at least — were not divinely transmitted from God to Moses. No, they just came from some dude — Moses again — who said he got them from God.

The atheist doesn’t believe in God, so she believes in the worth of the Ten Commandments only to the extent that she feels they make sense for her. She then can make no value judgments whatsoever for the actions or beliefs of anyone else. After all, they’re simply interpreting things as they see them, without recourse to a higher, or goodness gracious, a highest Authority.

If there is no God, then the highest authority is oneself. For the atheist, there truly is no right or wrong. For the atheist, all is permitted.

Look at the countries where atheism was an official part of the country’s ideology (thereby, incidentally, intermingling “church and state” in a way no other country has ever tried to do so.). First they always established the new order in whatever shape or form they decided it needed to take, then they simply killed anyone whom they even slightly perceived as an obstacle to the continued construction or maintenance of that order. Every time.

Without God, they did nothing wrong. Heck, in retrospect, the vast majority of those dead would be dead now anyway, by virtue only of the passage of time.

Interestingly, what is the other belief system that has as a central tenet the idea of leaving people alone? Christianity. Oh, it’s a proselytizing faith, alright, but it is an absolutely crucial core principal that the convert come willingly to the faith, without coercion or force of any kind.

That’s a reason why Conservatives tend to gravitate to Christianity, while leftists head toward atheism and its lack of constraints on their desires for power, control or other gratification.

It’s also a reason for which, in reverse, Christians tend to see Conservatism as more congenial to them. Conservatism and Christianity are all about persuasion; leftism is all about control and coercion.

What else can we say almost certainly about the murderous co-pilot of Flight 4U9525?

  • Well, you certainly can’t rule out that he was a muslim. After all, there are millions of muslims around the world claiming official islamic justification for beheading, burning alive, crucifying and otherwise torturing and murdering men, women and children. There’s a very good chance this guy was a muslim.

Anything else? Sure. Europeans are very politically aware. We can look at this guy’s politics and see what we might find there.

  • Politically, it’s almost a sure thing that he’s not a right-winger.

A central tenet of the political right of today is leaving people alone. It’s safe to say that murdering them randomly does not constitute “leaving them alone.”

From all that we can say with near certainty above, if you are about to take a flight, you would be best off identifying planes whose flight crews consist of Conservative Christians. There’s about a bazillion to one chance against such a person ever getting it into his or her head to do what the murdering co-pilot of Flight 4U9525 did.

Anything else? Sure.

  • Maybe — probably? — he was chemically unbalanced.

Mike, over at makeaneffort makes the extremely interesting suggestion that the increasingly weird and potent mix of pro-psychotic drugs being used on psychiatric patients (as the co-pilot was) might have played a role. The psychiatric/psychological profession does, after all, play with the human mind.

Interestingly, it’s also true that Conservative Christians require far less recourse to the services of the psychiatric/psychological profession. The belief in a Supreme Being — particularly the Christian Supreme Being(4) — is anchoring, centering, grounding. It carries with it the perspective that there is help and succor way more powerful than the problems that bedevil us. Also, Christianity teaches Christians that their body is a gift from God, and that we should respect it for that reason alone. It is wrong, we Christians believe, to despoil chemically this most precious of God’s gifts.

Oh, we do it all the same; just a whole lot less than atheists.

One thing we can all say for an absolute certainty. The co-pilot of Flight 4U9525 was nuts. Bonkers. Completely out-in-left-field, off-his-rocker, whack-a-doodle, around-the-bend-out-to-sea-over-the-edge-and-waaaaaaaay-out-in-la-la-land crazy.

The Christian in me prays for his soul. At one time he was a beloved child of God too. Until something went horribly, terribly wrong. Christians all over the world pray for his soul, as well as for the souls of his victims on that awful Germanwings flight.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) We ought to be able to pull this one off pretty easily; there are no other gods. Still, somehow we manage to muck this one up all the time!

(2) This is how we muck up #1: we fabricate other make-believe gods, and then worship them. How rock-pile dumb is that?!?

(3) I never let my kids do the ubiquitous omigoooooood! and I teach them the difference between swearing and using dirty language or cuss words, or simply colorful language. Language is the most powerful communications tool we have. It’s best to master it to the extent one can.

(4) The one the muslims fabricated seems to give carte blanche to the most depraved, bloodthirsty, whack-a-doodle nutjobs around, to do whatever they want, whenever they want. You know, it’s easy to prove them, the muslims, wrong: Simply ask them: “What if you’re wrong?” Christianity — Jesus Christ — got that one right, by making it impossible for the Christian to be wrong. He’s simply forbidden to murder.

There you go. Christianity puts the decision of life or death in God’s hands. The Christian can never get it wrong, because he recognizes that it’s not his decision. There is nothing whatsoever anywhere in Christianity that could be cited as justification for what the co-pilot did. Neither islam nor atheism can say that.

You could solve a whole lot of the world’s problems nearly instantly if you were able to pose just that question — what if you’re wrong? — to people, and if they were to make an honest effort to answer it.

Ann Coulter Summarizes the American Media in one Well-Turned Phrase


Ann Coulter is an American Treasure. The other most readable pundit in America (along with Mark Steyn, Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, Victor Davis Hanson). This piece here is well worth the read, for a viewpoint on the nightly news that tells it like it is.

First some background. ABC’s nighttime anchor, David Muir, summarized l’affaire Ferguson thusly:

“Ferguson, Missouri: An unarmed black man, Michael Brown, is shot to death. The officer is not indicted.”

Muir conveniently left out the fact that the police officer in question, Darren Wilson wasn’t indicted because the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence indicated that he wasn’t guilty of anything.

However, despite the left’s best efforts, the overwhelming majority of Americans still believe that if a man isn’t guilty of anything, then he shouldn’t be indicted for anything. It’s an obstacle to the left’s acquisition of power and all, but there you have it.

In America, the expression goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. The expression about the ham sandwich simply leaves off the next, obvious, corollary: In America you can indict a ham sandwich … but you really shouldn’t.

Now, here’s Ann Coulter’s summary of American media, as she tells of David Muir’s blatantly misleading “news” about Ferguson (in red):

If Muir didn’t know his summary was a lie, then he doesn’t even have a passing familiarity with the news. In fact, after all the Sturm und Drang over Ferguson, it would mean that ABC’s evening news anchor has managed to keep himself so astonishingly ignorant of current events that he really should be filing reports about seat cushions in America.

We’ve been making the point for years that the people who feed us the “news” are nothing more than fairly skilled public performance readers.

Their presentations of the news are only public performances of copy reading. Dramatic reading, if you will.

Have you ever watched a local news anchor report, all somberly and subdued, on the death of a public person, then switch personas immediately to tell us about the opening of a playground at a local school. In the blink of an eye, she goes from quietly respectful and properly grave to cheerful, perky, ebullient and upbeat. That’s all training. It’s not real.

That means, of course, that the copy writers at ABC, NBC, CBS, et al, the obscure, unknown, drab, gray, dim-bulb, little eggheads with English degrees from Ivy League Universities, determine to a huge extent, public policy in America.

How’s that for scary?

— xPraetorius

Harry Reid is Retiring from the Senate – An Abused Country Breathes a Sigh of Relief (Part II)


And, Mark Steyn weighs in (here).

You owe it to yourself to read this, if only for the very end. But, everything that Mark Steyn writes is worth the read. He is the most readable pundit in America today.

Here’s a particularly delicious passage (among several):

“The mean-spirited bill, HR 1 … eliminates the National Endowment of the Humanities, National Endowment of the Arts,” said Senator Reid. “These programs create jobs. The National Endowment of the Humanities is the reason we have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist.”

“Tens of thousands” would “not exist”? There can’t be that many cowboy poets, can there? Oh, c’mon, don’t be naïve. Where there are taxpayer-funded cowboy poets, there must surely be cowboy poetry festival administrators, and a Bureau of Cowboy Poetry Festival Licensing, and cowboy poetry festival administration grant-writers, and a Department of Cowboy Poetry Festival Administration Grant Application Processing, and Professors of Cowboy Poetry Festival Educational Workshop Management at dozens of American colleges credentialing thousands of cowboy poetry festival workshop co-coordinating majors every year. It all adds up. In Western railroad halts where the Last Chance Saloon shuttered in 1893, dusty one-horse towns are now glittering one-grant towns, where elderly hoochie-koochie dancers are being retrained to lead rewarding lives as inspectors from the Agency of Cowboy-Poetry Festival Handicapped-Access Compliance. Used to be a man could ride the range for days on end under lonesome skies with nuthin’ on the horizon ‘cept a withered mesquite and a clump of sagebrush, but now all you see are clouds of dust and all you hear’s the mighty roar of thundering hooves as every gnarled ol’ wrangler in the territory races for the last hitching post outside creative-writing class.

Well, it’s easy to mock, and in the hours after Senator Reid’s effusions many of us on the Internet did. I liked Mary Katherine Ham’s channeling of Ted Kennedy:

John Boehner’s America is a land in which cowboys would be forced into back-alley poetry recitations.

Funny – although, being an example of private-sector non-government-funded wordsmithing, it obviously doesn’t “create jobs.”

But what’s more difficult to figure out is why everyone doesn’t mock – and why Senator Reid (and presumably senior flunkies in the bloated emir-sized retinues that now attend our “citizen-legislators”) thought this would be a persuasive line of argument. This year, the NEA will be giving $50,000 toward the exhibition “Ranchlines: Verses And Visions Of The Rural West” in Elko.

What’s the big deal? It’s 50 grand, a couple of saddlebags in small bills. Not a large sum. But then when you’re Harry Reid staggering around in your trillion-gallon hat, it’s all small potatoes, isn’t it? He and too many other Americans seem to be living their version of the old line: If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, you have a problem; if you owe the bank a million dollars, the bank has a problem. America owes the world $14 trillion, so the world has a problem.

No one can mock the doofus grandees of American leftism like Mark Steyn can (with a little help from Mary Katherine Ham).

— xPraetorius

Harry Reid is Retiring from the Senate – An Abused Country Breathes a Sigh of Relief


Kevin Williamson publishes the definitive article. I’ll bet you never knew all this about Harry Reid.

Here’s a telling passage — one of many:

Harry Reid is in some ways a laughable figure, and one of his few charms is that he is known to make self-deprecating observations about his own unprepossessing nature. His obsession with Koch Industries and the intimations of venality that surround him might be grounds for annoyed eye-rolling if they were not of a piece with his audacious war on the most important of our fundamental constitutional liberties. The cheap histrionics, the gross hypocrisy, the outright lies, misusing campaign funds to tip his staff at the Ritz $3,300 — all of that would be just about bearable, but the shocking fact is that Harry Reid and his Senate Democrats are quietly attempting to repeal the First Amendment. And that elevates Senator Reid’s shenanigans from buffoonery to villainy.

Here’s another one that manages to summarize the political landscape in America in the past more than a century:

But personal seems to be Harry Reid’s most comfortable mode. His dishonest tirades against the Koch brothers have been described as “McCarthyite,” but that is in many ways unfair to Tail Gunner Joe. For all of his shortcomings, McCarthy was concerned about the presence of Soviet operatives in the State Department, which was an entirely reasonable thing for a senator to be bothered about. Reid is busy denouncing private citizens for having the gall to exercise the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution, which include the right of engaging in political speech and petitioning the government for the redress of grievances, in ways that do not meet with the approval of Senator Harry Reid. There is no legitimate policy issue in question here. Charles and David Koch are simply doing what millions of Americans, including millions of Democrats and progressives, do all the time: putting their money in the service of their political priorities. The only reason for this activism to be a subject of vitriolic denunciation in the Senate is simple personal hatred, which Reid possesses in abundance, and the pursuit of political advantage, in which Reid is tireless.

Not only tireless, but ruthless. In the wake of the decision in the Citizens United case, which held that the federal government may not fine or imprison private citizens for showing a film critical of a political figure during a window of time deemed inappropriate by other political figures, Reid and the Democrats became agitated by their fear that the main currents of political discourse in these United States were moving outside of such Democrat-dominated institutions as newspapers and network news programs, as well as outside of federally regulated enterprises such as political parties and political campaigns conducted under the watchful eye of the Federal Election Commission. The Democrats have for a generation been able to fight the vast majority of national campaigns on friendly ground of their own choosing, the arbiters of political conversation being the editors of the New York Times and employees of the regulatory agencies. The Kochs, and others like them, had for decades been active at the ideas end of the political process, but once they started to take an interest in actual election outcomes, the hysteria set in. With the assistance of such feckless co-conspirators as Senator John McCain, the Left set about attempting to put practically all private political activism under federal regulation. Their greatest obstacle, as the Supreme Court has reminded them repeatedly, is the First Amendment.

As Harry Reid prepares to depart from the scene, it’s worth understanding better just what a toxic, polluting, abusive presence Dirty Harry Reid has been in the United States Senate. The entire essay is worth the read. As is everything that Kevin Williamson writes.

— xPraetorius

Wish I’D Said That! (3-25-15)


But I didn’t. Rather, the king of the bon mot, the all-supreme wizard of the well-turned phrase, Mark Steyn, said it.

What did he say, you ask? Why, this:

Yet one way to look at the current “leader of the free world” is this: If he were working for the other side, what exactly would he be doing differently?

It’s the phrase of the month… of the year! Of the last six bleak, dismal, dreary, sad, bedraggled years.

Even worse, yes, it’s a clever turn of phrase, but … it’s a serious question.

Go ahead, take a stab at answering it.

Steyn posed the above question here.

In that same piece Steyn also, quite indignantly, suggests that we all stop comparing Obama to Neville Chamberlain, and I think his point was well-made; at least Chamberlain was an honorable man.

Chamberlain, Steyn says, got the major issue of his day wrong, but no one ever questioned his abiding love for his own country. In other words, no one ever questioned the idea that Chamberlain was at least trying to get it right.

The very best that one can say about Obama is that he’s just not even trying. That he’s just mailing it in. The worst one can say about Obama is a whole heckuva lot worse, and more darkly disturbing, than that.

— xPraetorius

Drudge Headline: “HILLARY ‘WIPED HER SERVER CLEAN'”


Here’s a link to the article in Politico.

Some quick thoughts:

  • Okay. The act alone — of “wiping her server clean” — should send her to jail. A more obvious case of destruction of government property and, potentially, obstruction of justice, would be difficult to find. She’ll say that she wiped out only personal property, but who is she to be the judge of what is and is not government property on a server that she admits she used for vital government business? You and I could’t remotely get away with a pathetic argument like that.
  • That act alone would send any Republican to jail. Think of the context. Benghazi still simmering, and she wipes her server clean? The very definition of “appearance of impropriety.” The very definition of “prima facie evidence.” The very definition of “probable cause for subpoena.” Likely the very definition of “probable cause for arrest warrant.”
  • You can still get the e-mails from recipients. You can definitely get them from the NSA. Remember?
  • You can probably still get them from the server, unless she’s physically destroyed the disks.If she did that, I’m trying to imagine someone screaming “I’m freakin’ guilty!!!” louder than that. Nope. Can’t imagine it.
  • If she subjected the disks to erasure that would satisfy government standards, then she’s admitting that she’s guilty of wrongdoing. I know this. I’ve performed such deletions to get completely rid of confidential information.
  • There’s no excuse that makes this a legitimate act.
  • Who deletes all those personal e-mails? Remember when she said she wanted still to be able to write a book? Guess what. Those e-mails — both personal and professional — might have come in handy. There’s no reason under the sun for her to have erased those mails.
  • I have tens of thousands of personal e-mails, that have accrued over many years, that I wouldn’t dream of deleting, in case I might want to refer to some of them one day. I view the e-mails I get from my kids as sacred.
  • So, she just tossed thousands of e-mails pertaining to, as she says, “wedding plans for Chelsea, and things from her husband?” I doubt it. What kind of mother, grandmother and wife does that? None that I’ve ever heard of!’
  • There’s nothing about this typical Clinton skulduggery that doesn’t stink to high heaven. ‘Course, “stinky” is probably the one adjective that applies to absolutely everything the Clintons do. (I guess, you could also use “smelly,” “putrid,” “putrescent,” “corrupt,” “fetid,” “offensive,” “reeking” and “feculent.”)
  • Remember: if you or I had been caught doing any one of the numerous things that both Clintons have already gotten away with — including the e-mail putridness — we’d be looking at long jail terms.

— xPraetorius

Those Negotiations With Iran…


Dealing with the leaders of Iran, we’re treating these ghastly human tapeworms as serious interlocutors. As real negotiating partners whose word can be trusted. We keep hearing defenders of negotiations with these scum talking about “if we get a good deal.”

Now, it appears, that we’re giving them everything they want. I keep expecting Obama to announce that we’ve achieved “peace for our time.”

Ahhh, those wonderful agreements with disgusting, bloodthirsty, gibbering baboons who all of a sudden transform themselves into not disgusting, bloodthirsty, gibbering baboons when they put their names on a treaty.

This is a pretty picture, isn’t it?

That’s Neville Chamberlain there in the middle. He was the Prime Minister of England in 1938, and he’s waving the treaty he just signed with a certain Adolf Hitler. He was giddy with his shiny new accomplishment, having convinced the notoriously tough Herr Hitler to agree to avoid war.

Ahhhhhhh…what a relief! Whew! Wow! That was a close one! Once Chamberlain’s masterful negotiations maneuvered Hitler into signing that piece of paper — that glorious, all-sacred, holy piece of paper — that sure brought Hitler’s ambitions to a screeching halt, didn’t it? Because Hitler’s word was his sacred honor; his steadfast, ironclad vow, wasn’t it? I mean you could just rest easy with Hitler’s promise, couldn’t you?

Now, Obama’s maneuvering Iran into signing the very same type of mystical, magical piece of paper, and everyone knows that will just stop their ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon and blow Israel and American cities off the map, won’t it? Because their word on a sacred, glorious, holy piece of paper will be the gibbering baboons’ sacred honor, their steadfast ironclad vow, won’t it?

Whew! What a relief!

— xPraetorius

Black Americans Figuring It Out (Part II)


Right here we pointed out that black Americans are starting to figure out that maybe, just maybe, the Democrats are taking their votes for granted, and that maybe, just maybe, they might get more real love if they threatened to withhold those votes, or — goodness gracious! — vote Republican!

Lee Habeeb and Mike Leven point out (here) that some black people have also known about the real pathologies that have been afflicting black Americans for a long time.

Here’s a telling passage:

Much has been written about privilege in academic settings over the past few decades. There’s the privilege of wealth, and the advantages wealth confers if a baby is lucky enough to be born into it. Much too has been written about the advantages of being born into this world as a Caucasian — known in academia as “white privilege.

But not enough has been written about the most important advantage a baby can have in America: the advantage of being born with a mother and father who happen to be married. Call it “the marriage privilege” — the advantages are startling.

Here’s a bit more:

Reeve’s study revealed that this social-mobility advantage applied not just to the lower class: The middle class was impacted, too. The study revealed that children born into the middle class have a mere 11 percent chance of ending up in the bottom economic quintile with married parents, but that number rises to 38 percent if their parents are never married.

You’d think a finding like that would be headline news across the nation, or that the media might want to talk about the real reason for the wealth gap in America — the marriage gap.

And:

Finally, mobility is significantly lower in areas with weaker family structures, as measured e.g. by the fraction of single parents. As with race, parents’ marital status does not matter purely through its effects at the individual level. Children of married parents also have higher rates of upward mobility in communities with fewer single parents. Interestingly, we find no correlation between racial shares and upward mobility once we control for the fraction of single parents in an area.

That last sentence is worth including in every discussion we have about race and class in America. Because it turns out that once you control for the proportion of single parents in an area, the correlation between social mobility and race disappears.

Wow! That last bears repeating: “once you control for the proportion of single parents in an area, the correlation between social mobility and race disappears.

Disappears.

Doesn’t “diminish,” or “decrease,” but … disappears.

In other words, when black parents stay married, overwhelmingly their children prosper in America. At the same rate as all other races.

It’s not racism that keeps black people back, it’s the shattered black family.

Congratulations, Democrats and black “leaders!” You can pat yourselves on the back; by destroying the black family, you’ve caused more devastation to black people than any white racist could even fantasize about.

— xPraetorius

Yep… (of course)


xPraetorius:

In light of recent revelations that black Americans are starting to figure out that, maybe, just maybe they should be thinking of changing things up a bit, and voting Republican, this little thing that we tossed off almost a year ago is worth repeating.

Originally posted on The Praetorian Writers Group:

 Retweeted by 

Q:What do Democrats do when one of their senior leaders uses the word “Negroes?”

A: Make him Senate Mjority Leader

And…

Conservatives toss their racists to the curb. Leftists give theirs shows on MSNBC.


Yep.

Both these pithy tweets are right on the nose.

Soooooooo… what can we conclude from all this?

Well, at least one thing: People are finally catching up to what we’vebeen saying all along: the home of racism in America today is the political left-wing. We said it here. And in many other places, in many, many other internet jousts with the foot soldiers and pawns of the Race Grievance Industry.

Why is Cliven Bundy such big news? Easy. Because he’s so rare!

When he went off on his out-in-left-field rant…

View original 1,297 more words

Black Americans Figuring It Out


How long have we been suggesting that black people vote Republican so that the Democrats wouldn’t take them completely for granted as they do?

Why, for quite a long time.

Now, Stephen Smith is saying it. Imagine that! A black man suggesting that black people vote Republican!

It’s staaaaaaarting… the flagrantly fraudulent foundations of the Race Grievance Industry are cracking.

Here’s a thought-provoking passage:

We’ve bought it hook, line, and sinker … The vast majority of black Americans look at the Republican party as the enemy. We look at the Democrat party as our support base.

Because of it, they [the Democrats] have a license to take us for granted. The Republican party has a license to summarily dismiss us because they believe they’ll never get our vote anyway, [and they don’t] and then we end up finding ourselves devoid of any kind of representation whatsoever because nobody is really competing to garner our vote and our support.

— xPraetorius

Missing At Selma


Remember those great, heartwarming pictures of all the people marching in Selma. Did you see who was missing? The ones who made it all possible.

Yep, Republicans.

The party that overwhelmingly brought it about, the Republican Party, seemed not to have been invited. If you had watched all the footage of the coverage of the 50th anniversary commemorations of the Selma marches, you would have seen a whole lot of the children, and political heirs of those who did their level best to deny black Americans civil rights: Democrats.

Of course, Obama took center stage, and why not. He’s a black President. However, if he were a real man, he’d have thanked the Republican Party, without which civil rights for black Americans would have been greatly delayed.(1)

A black, Democrat President is a tribute to … Republicans. You know, the ones who made it all possible, but whom the media didn’t show you at Selma? Yep. Those Republicans.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – Nothing was going to stop civil rights. It’s just that the Republicans were the ones who made it happen, against the strident opposition of Obama’s own party, the Democrats.

 

I Was Wrong


And very happy to admit it!

Not all leftists are lousy, power-hungry, self-obsessed, closed-minded, narrow, pinched, crabbed little people.

Case-in-point: Kirsten Powers. Liberal in good standing, Powers is a contributor on FOX News, and wrote the upcoming book: The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.

I heard her in a debate (on National Public Radio of all places!) defending the motion that liberals are stifling intellectual diversity on college campuses. It was on a series with the hyper-pompous title: Intelligence Squared, and was the first high-quality programming I’d heard on NPR in quite some time.

Needless to say, the motion won the debate. Rather handily too. People trying to pretend that the left doesn’t stifle intellectual diversity — ie free speech — on college campuses, have a seriously uphill battle on their hands.

Look, all we Conservatives want is a chance to be heard. Then, we’re confident, our ideas will have no problem prevailing in debate. The left, however, who owns academia, have erected a wall around their own ideas, because they fear for their ability to survive a real debate. So they shout down, harass, scream at, assault, and otherwise do everything in their power to prevent Conservatives from even speaking on campus, much less engaging in debate.

Kirsten Powers would allow such  debates to go forward.

Look, I don’t pretend that we on the right are the exclusive holders of Truth. But, I always beat any leftist in debate handily, because they’re not used to having their ideas challenged, so they go straight to the accusation of racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, etc, etc… Then, if you point out the tactic, they invariably shut down the debate declaring both that they’ve won, and that you’re not worth their time, or the like. It’s a rather pathetic admission of surrender, but a surrender all the same.

If the left were actually to allow others to challenge their points-of-view, then it’s possible that their flabby, weak, flaccid ideas could get a real workout, and they could shed the rolls of useless fat around them to find they might have the germs of some good ideas; not just weak ideas and fascistic tactics. Because that’s what the left’s stifling of free speech is: fascistic.

We Conservatives have to work out, and challenge, and test our ideas all the time, because as soon as we have one, out come academia, Hollywood, pop culture and the vast majority of the media on the attack.

Powers knows this is happening, because in the above-mentioned NPR broadcast debate, she admitted, ashamedly, that she had participated in stifling free speech. Later, when she converted to Christianity, she had to recognize that she had willingly contributed to the left’s general pattern of squelching opposing points of view, and of abusing Christians.

Between you and me, I think that Kirsten Powers is a Conservative in the making. In the process of living, people choose when and whether they will stop maturing. To live correctly, one never stops maturing, but there are just so many who willingly stop their own growth at a very early age. In their adulthood, we call these people drunks, addicts, immature, self-obsessed, narcissistic … but we also call them Democrats and their voters.

Much to her credit, it’s plain that Kirsten Powers, leftist in good standing, never arrested her emotional or intellectual growth. She is one of the few good liberals out there, and likely will be one of us soon enough. After all, someone with an open mind can’t long carry leftism around, with all its contradictions and illogic, nastiness and vapidity, its dishonesty and corruption, without soon being disgusted by it.

Are there more such liberals out there? They’re certainly hard to find. Some have suggested that Mickey Kaus is one such liberal, and I think it might be good to investigate that.

So I will.

— xPraetorius

This Guitarist Can Play ANYTHING!


He’s Igor Presnyakov, and this little number — Take Five — shows only some of his versatility. He’s just wonderful.

When I play this song, I flat-pick it, so the sound is completely different. The sheer, laid-back mellowness of Presnyakov is a joy to watch as much as to listen to. He’s plainly thoroughly enjoying playing this great Paul Desmond jazz song.

— xPraetorius

Here’s The Real Problem with The Transgender Silliness


Listen to this here, if you choose. It’s an interview with Filipina singer Charice Pempengco and Oprah Winfrey.

Charice’s main point: “my soul is like a male.”

Oh?

How on earth would she know?

It’s not merely rhetorical. She’s a girl. How would she know what it is to “have the soul of a male?” Easy: she wouldn’t — couldn’t — have the slightest clue.

It’s just as patently ridiculous as if I were to say that I’m a woman. I’m a dude. How on earth could I possibly know?

Neither Charice, nor I, would have the teentsiest-weentsiest, tiniest, foggiest, littlest, ittiest-bittiest point of reference, except sheer guesswork, from which to draw the extremely dubious conclusion that we were anything other than the girl or the boy that we were born.

Why is this obvious fact, not obvious to everyone?

If you watch the video, you’ll hear the poor girl say something to the effect of, “When I was five, I watched a girl singer, and I felt, you know, different. It was then that I knew that I was gay.”

Really? Think of the sheer absurdity of that assertion. Needless to say, Oprah takes it perfectly seriously.

How did Charice’s feeling “different” automatically become: I’m gay? Maybe it was indigestion. Maybe it was nothing more than a passing thing. When I was five, I went through a phase where I wanted nothing more than to play with paper dolls. When my mother finally got me some, the phase lasted maybe five minutes more and was gone, never to return.

Who knows anything about the mature topics pertaining to life — especially sexual stuff — at age five?

Again, not a trick question and, again, a really easy answer: No one knows anything about the mature topics pertaining to life at age five. Who really knows things like that at age 55?!? We’re always questing after who, what and how we are.

My guess: Charice told someone about her “realization,” and met nothing but “affirming” support, which served to “prove” to her that her assessment — that she couldn’t possibly have known in the first place — was correct. Instead of simply passing through this damaging phase without being harmed, the support and affirmation help lock her into it.

After all, who doesn’t like to be told they’re right, and wise, and perspicacious when they’re five-years old?

The real point, though is this: when a woman tells you she feels like a man, or vice-versa, they can’t answer the simple, and obvious, question: How on earth could you possibly know?

— xPraetorius

Wash Post: “Hands Up Don’t Shoot!” All Just a Big Lie:


Read it here. The headline: ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ did not happen in Ferguson

Hard to be more plain than that. The whole “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” thing was all just a lie from the get-go. Of course, we called it too, but we called it when it all was going down, and the whole railroading of Officer Darren Wilson, before anyone knew anything, began to stink to high heaven.

Not that anyone should be surprised by the Post’s very much belated admission that there was no there there in the whole HUDS thing. I mean why let the truth or facts get in the way of a good faked racial incident? The media love nothing more than a good faked racial incident.

Needless to say, the Washington Post, still a prestigious member of the dinosaur, reactionary, dying old media comes out with their “Four Pinocchio” rating for the whole HUDS meme months after it could have done some good.

Even more to the point, the Post could have reported as actual news the leaping to judgment of the other dinosaur, reactionary, dying old media outlets who fell all over themselves in their rush to try, convict and sentence Darren Wilson. That would have been real journalistic courage. That would have been genuine journalistic integrity. That would have been real reporting.

You should never expect, however, to see courage, integrity or … actual reporting coming from the dinosaur media.

I get a chuckle out of the Post’s finger-wagging admonition in the final paragraph:

But we also care about setting the record straight. Investigators have overwhelmingly rejected witness accounts that Brown had his hands up in a surrender before being shot execution-style. The DOJ has concluded Wilson did not know whether Brown was armed, acted out of self-defense and was justified in killing Brown. The majority of witnesses told federal investigators that the initial claims that Brown’s hands were up were not accurate. “Hands up, don’t shoot” did not happen in Brown’s killing, and it is a characterization that deserves Four Pinocchios. Politicians should step carefully if they try to highlight this expression in the future.

Because, you see, the media themselves have already fallen all over themselves to gin up a fake racial incident and to ruin the lives and livelihoods of Darren Wilson as well as of hundreds of people in Ferguson, Missouri.

How do people think, after all, that the fraud took flight anyway?!?

I’d love to see Darren Wilson sue the living pants off the the media that ruined his life. After all, he was innocent of any wrongdoing in the Michael Brown incident, but still he lost his livelihood and, probably, his ability to gain employment in his chosen field. How much is that worth from, say, ABC-CBS-NBC-MSNBC? Oh, I don’t know… say a million for loss of livelihood, and maybe a cool billion in punitive damages after that.

That might serve as a deterrent in the future to the frauds in the dinosaur media.

— xPraetorius

The RGI Does It Again — Proves Our Points FOR Us!


As you all know, I’ve gone back and forth with the grunts of the Race Grievance Industry for some time now. They tend to give lots and lots of fodder for commentary, and we have accepted the challenge to provide some. However, this effort has not been restricted to the RGI alone. We’ve delved into relations between all identifiable groups, and have found some startling things.

After literally thousands of posts and comments and replies and reposts and the like, I have come to several inescapable conclusions:

  1. The most important cause of the tension between races is what I’m going to call “non-white racism.”
  2. There is white racism in America, but it is not a big problem for any group of non-whites. Rather racism within the non-white ranks is the 900-pound gorilla in the room about which nobody dares speak honestly. It’s the racism that dares not speak its name, if you will.
  3. Western white people are the least racist, in fact the least prejudiced people, probably on the face of the earth. At this point, white people are so open-minded that they’re unwilling even to demonstrate prejudice against things that are obviously not good, not decent and not healthful.

When one delves deeply into the topic of human relations in the world today, one can’t escape these conclusions.

This begs a question: If these things are obvious, why aren’t they widespread beliefs among the American people? Great question! The answer: the dishonesty of the press, who are deeply emotionally invested in ideas diametrically opposed to those realities, is the most important answer. They report the exact opposite, and allow a firestorm to develop, then, maybe, report the truth long after the firestorm has taken on a life of its own.

This is the case with the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson, MO. The press tried, convicted and all but sentenced policeman Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. Months later, after riots and mayhem and race-motivated violence, the press were forced to admit that Darren Wilson had acted properly, since all evidence indicated that Michael Brown had attacked him.

At that point, of course, it was far too late. There were already millions of people emotionally invested in the lie that the “unarmed black teen had been gunned down in cold blood by the racist white cop.”

Everyone remembers the doctored recordings of the 911 calls made to seem to demonstrate that George Zimmerman had killed Trayvon Martin because of racial animus.

If I say on camera that “I did not do that thing,” and you edit what I said to make it sound like “I did … that thing,” as the media did on the Zimmerman 911-call tape, then you can say that you reported accurately. I did say “I did … that thing.” The problem was that I also said “not do” at the point of the ellipsis, which kind of changes the meaning of what you reported. That’s precisely what the media did to George Zimmerman and to Darren Wilson.

Otherwise said: the media edited out the parts of the story and the quotes that didn’t support their preconceived narrative (white people racists; black people poor, downtrodden victims of white racists) and left in the parts that did.

This fraudulent “reporting” on the part of the press occurs numerous other times on the topic of race, and it produces stupid, moronic, misinformed, posts full of flat-out wrong assertions, like the one I’ve reproduced below.

Below is yet another post by “Brotha Wolf,” (I refer to him as “BW,” among other things.) an admitted racist, who excuses his racism by saying that “white people force him to be racist.”(1)

In his post, Brotha Wolf quite nicely demonstrates all that our small but increasingly influential think tank has been saying for some time now: The RGI is a fraud; continuing to leech off America by demonstrating that there remains plenty of money, glory, fame, prestige and power to be had by whining about how awful it is in America.

Brotha Wolf is a mindless pawn of the Race Grievance Industry; one of those on whom the leaders depend to go out into the streets when those same leaders feel the need to stir up some more racial animosity. He writes prolifically, but all of it has a theme: (1) white people bad… all of them, and (2) black and brown (though he’s recently embraced sexually neurotic) people good, and noble victims.

He has no actual rationale for these conclusions, and every time he’s challenged falls back on the hyper-lazy: I couldn’t come up with anything that you’d accept, so I’m not even going to bother.

In other words. He’s accepted what someone else told him, without questioning it, and refuses to accept any challenge to his now rigid orthodoxy.

Anyone remember who else did this same kind of uncritical, sheeplike following of charismatic demagogues? Why, sure — the Nazis. Also the Communists. Anyone remember the results of that? Why, sure: 120 million violently dead in the 20th Century alone.

That’s why we need to call the blind followers on their behavior when they do it today. There’s no excuse for it.

More to the point, there’s no excuse for our failure — the failure of decent people all over — to call these sheep on their behavior.

Below is Brotha Wolf’s post, with my commentary [in square brackets and in red font] in line with it.



— Brotha Wolf’s post, and comments, start here —

Conservatives, We Need To Talk

conservative

Recently, my den was invaded by a right-winger who was hellbent in making my post about the conservatives’ favorite angry white man Bill O’Reilly and the scandal surrounding his journalistic time line. [First of all, this last is incomprehensible. Presumably, BW is talking about “Snowman” who showed up at his site and absolutely demolished this post. Snowman was rude and direct and, pulling absolutely no punches, proved BW’s post was wrong. Snowman was so direct that even I had to call him to task and tell him to address BW’s idiotic post more politely. ] It seemed this dude was angry himself that I had the nerve to ask for conservatives to practice their mantra of personal responsibility, something Mr. O’Reilly has yet to do. [If you read the post, and Snowman’s commentary, you see precisely why O’Reilly hasn’t “practiced his mantra of self-responsibility” (whatever that mess means) — it’s because BW’s allegation is false, and Snowman proves it pretty conclusively.]

The funny thing is that he wanted me to prove that Bill was lying even though it’s all over cyber news. [It’s nowhere in the “news.” It’s on the sites of the people who’d love to bring O’Reilly down. “News” sites have nothing on them about BW’s alleged “O’Reilly scandal,” though it’s plain that they would love to bring O’Reilly down as well.] Of course, he deemed them all to be liberal and therefore didn’t count when it came to the argument he was trying to stir up. [Uhhhh…yep. Here’s where BW sites a bunch of crazies then tweaks Snowman (and therefore me, because I agree with Snowman, if not with the presentation of his ideas.) because, according to him, Snowman’s not willing to accept the product of crazy people’s fevered imaginations.] But the funny thing is that he seemed more concerned with winning the argument than anything else. [Well, Snowman did win the argument. Rather decisively.] You see, I had no proof, at least none that would convince him. [Credible proof is kind of important. Anyone can say anything on the internet, and BW quotes, literally, just anyone, then whines when Snowman didn’t accept the blatantly non-credible sources.] In the end, I banned him, not because of his passion for the truth, but because of his abrasive tone. [In the end he banned Snowman, because they disagreed and Snowman beat him decisively]

Conservatives, Republicans, right-wingers, whatever you want to call yourselves, here’s the deal with me and how my blog operates. I welcome opposing views, [Nope. He doesn’t. He’s positively terrified of opposing views.] but I DO NOT welcome insults and condemnations. [Of course, he doesn’t, but he indulges in them all the time. He bans people who do to him what he himself does to anyone he disagrees with.] Calling me names and talking to me like a dog [That doesn’t mean anything. What, is he saying that Snowman said “Here, Rover! C’mon fella! Fetch!” Snowman didn’t talk to BW “like a dog,” but he did talk down to him (for which I chastised him.).] won’t win the fight. [Well whatever Snowman did, he won the fight. He won it hands down, and he beat BW around the park, and up and down the sides of several buildings. Snowman left BW’s silly premise in a whimpering heap on the sidewalk in the July sun.] In the real world, they help keep it going to another level which you may not want to enter. Period. [What’s this, a threat?]

Listen, I know a lot of you are angry white men. [He knows  nothing of the sort.] I know you are angry at change and can’t stand to see this country changing against your favor. [Again, he knows nothing of the sort. If he’s talking about the election of the first black President, well, it was white people who did that. Sorry. No on else. Without white people, Barack Obama would have remained nothing more than an obscure, race-baiting demagogue in Chicago to this day.] In fact, most of you hate that than you love your country. [Presumably he means that we Conservatives hate change more than we love the country? What a moronic thing to say. First, how could he possibly know that, without pretending to be able to read minds. Oh, yes…. that’s right. They do pretend they can read minds. ] Let’s be real. [That’d be a first! :) ] At least some of you can’t go without one day to find something wrong with your President who’s a black man. [Wow! did this guy really just say this?!? I almost fell off my chair when I read this. If he means it, then he just proved conclusively, without a shadow of a doubt in his mind, that the Democrats’ constant, unending, unremitting, relentless, day-in-and-day-out horrific attacks on Bush were … nothing but racism! Ah, yes, let’s reminisce on all those days when Democrats and the left went all those many days and weeks without saying a horrific thing against George W. Bush. When you could go weeks without hearing a negative, horrible, disgusting thing about “your President, Mr. Bush” Oops. That’s right, that never happened.] 

That’s another thing, you didn’t have issues with where the President was born or what his religion is when he was Bush OR Clinton. [First, because there was never any doubt about where either Bush or Clinton was born. Second because Obama never actually addressed where he was born without a struggle. If it was obvious where he was born, why not just show it? I always believed he was born in the United States, but Obama did his level best to keep that controversy alive.] It seemed you treated Clinton more kindly than you do with Obama. [Oh, yeah…Clinton, the only impeached President in the history of the country, got all sorts of kind treatment from us Conservatives.] Whether you want to admit it or not, there’s an issue of race involved, especially with how some of you have been carrying on about him, his wife (Your First Lady) and his children. [Prove it. Name where Conservatives have done anything inappropriate with Michelle or the kids. Go ahead, prove it. One or two incidents won’t do… give me thousands. In a racist country, you should be able easily to find that many incidents of racial animosity toward Michelle Obama and the kids. So, BW, prove it. If you don’t you’re a coward and a dirty liar.] Come clean and just admit that it’s because he’s a black man and you’re scared as hell of him, [Why should I admit what’s obviously not true? What you don’t understand, BW, is that there’s not a person in the world who’s afraid of Obama. Except, perhaps, America’s allies.] because he doesn’t fit the demographics of what a leader of this country should look like. Just be honest. [Why? We elected him. What’s more honest than that? Again, without white people, Obama would be, nothing more than a race-baiting demagogue in Chicogo. ]

And while we’re talking about race, let’s get one thing straight. I admitted that I am a racist, at least to a certain extent. [Yeah? Well, cut it out! Racists are evil dirtbags. Don’t be an evil dirtbag.] I know I’m at least prejudice. [Yeah? Well, cut it out! Racists are evil dirtbags. Don’t be an evil dirtbag.]  However, many of you, who exhibit racial animosity won’t dare admit that many within your camp, possibly including you, are racist. [Because most of us are not. A very few are, but the vast majority of us simply are not racists. Why on earth would I “admit” something that’s not true?] When you refer to your President with negative stereotypes assigned to people of color, THAT’S RACIST. [Prove it. Name one. On second thought, name a thousand. Again, if it’s such a racist country, you should be able to find thousands of credible examples of people using “negative stereotypes assigned to people of color” when speaking of Obama. Prove it, or else you prove that you’re nothing but a dirty liar, or just a sheep; nothing but a blind follower of racist demagogues.] When you continue to believe that most welfare recipients are black even though evidence and proof shows that most of then are indeed white, THAT’S RACIST. [This is one of the lies that this poor, misinformed sheep believes. No one says that “most welfare recipients are black.” Most welfare recipients are white. However, blacks (and browns) are vastly disproportionately more likely to be on welfare than whites. ] When you continue to believe that black people commit the most crimes when it shows that most crime was committed by whites in this nation, THAT’S RACIST. [Another lie that this poor, misguided little sheep believes. No one says that most crime is committed by back people. However, it is true that blacks (and browns) commit vastly disproportionately more crime than whites. In other words, if you are a black person, you are approximately eight times more likely than a white person to commit a crime. However, it is true that more crime overall is committed by white people. Then, though, in raw numbers, much more violent crime is committed by black people.] I could go on and on, but that would be racist in your mind, wouldn’t it? [Well… you do admit that you’re a racist. I’m not a racist, so I don’t care if you “go on and on.”]

And by the way, don’t dictate what is and what is not racist. [Oh? I should let you, an admitted racist, “decide” what is and is not racist? Hah! I don’t think so!] Most of you know, but you try to change the definition not because it’s true, but because you do so in your favor. [Prove it. I used the dictionary. I’m open to a better source than that. Go ahead. Give me a better source, and prove to me that I was using the dictionary only because “I did so in my favor.”] You don’t want to associate yourself with overt racists who are proud to be racist even though you have that mindset. [Oh? Prove it. Go ahead and prove to me what my mindset is. What gives you these mystical, magical mind-reading abilities? Because if you say that you can, then you make it legitimate for me to say that I can tell you what your “mindset” is. So, go ahead… prove it. Keeping in mind, of course, that in “proving it,” you prove my point.]

Now, I know you want to drag liberals a.k.a. lefties a.k.a. ‘libtards’, but here’s the big difference between them and you. They can talk a good game and they’re smarter at hiding their bullshit, most of the time at least. [Wow! BW admits the leftists are liars!] If you don’t want to learn anything from them, at least learn that and maybe your racism will be better hidden and complex instead of the stale pre-1970’s racism that the late George Wallace would grin ear to ear over. [Oh? Prove it. Show me something that Conservatives have said or done that (Democrat) George Wallace would grin ear to ear over?” ] Or you could do something even better than that. STOP BEING RACIST PERIOD! [Well, we pretty much did that more than 60 years ago. If you like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act then… thank a Republican. More to the point, BW, when are you going to STOP BEING RACIST PERIOD? Hmmmm…? :) ]

Lastly, as far as some of you harping on the burden of proof, trying to win arguments and having an abusive attitude, all I can say is grow the f**k up. When there is proof out there and even in your face, [You keep saying that, and then you say that you’re not going bother to divulge any of it. You don’t really have any proof, do you, BW?] THERE IS NO F***IN’ ARGUMENT. [Oh? Then, why are you so hot under the collar? If there’s no argument, then that must mean that you have tons and tons of evidence, and that you can produce some that we can all agree is plainly in support of your point of view, right? ] You can’t argue with what is objective. [You’re right about one thing: No one can argue with it if you never show it to them, ya big dummy! :)] That’s the reality of life and I suggest you get with the program. [Maybe you should get with the program of understanding that your so-called arguments wouldn’t pass muster in the third grade.]

I don’t have the kind of “proof” you want to see because you CHOOSE not to see it. [Nope. You have no proof. Anyone can just say things. And that’s pretty much all you do, BW. You’ve never offered anything that wasn’t from other opinion floggers like you. That’s not proof, it’s opinion.] And I will be damned if I will waste precious time searching the world [Your first clue that you might be wrong is that you have to search the world to find things that will support your point of view. :) If there are so many, then you should be able to find them — lots of them — right here at home.] to give it to you only to have it rejected. Besides, why not engage in some research yourself instead of living by your own faith? [I’ve engaged in plenty of research, but you are making the accusations here, so the burden of proof is on your shoulders.] But alas, some of you are more likely to believe a groundhog than actual climate experts. [What? Climate experts? I thought we were talking about race! Oooookay… Yep, BW, we’re all believing the groundhog. You go ahead and keep on believing that, and then try to pretend that you’re a legitimate commentator on anything around you.]

I don’t know why many of you are angry as you continue to win and dominate. Hell, you trust Fox News [See what we said (here) about FOX News.] than any other news source, according to a recent poll. [Oh? What recent poll? And did you know that all Americans trust FOX News more than any other news outlet? Even lefty nut jobs. ] And I know than if you ain’t right then you’re left. To you there is no middle ground to speak of. [Whatever. That’s meaningless. However, if political arguments take place on a left-right continuum, then yes, if it’s ain’t right, then it’s left. Duh!]

Continue to believe what you want. I’m done. [No. You’re not done. You’re wrong, misguided, ill-informed, poorly read and a superficial, ovine thinker, but you’re not done. In life, no one is “done.” You have so much maturing to do, that you need to get on the stick right this moment, and stop being the sheeplike, blind follower that you are. You need desperately to learn to think for yourself, and to stop doing what you’re told by your masters. ] Continue to believe in a White Jesus, [No one believes this.] a White Santa Claus [Santa Claus is white :) Santa Claus is also a myth, and there’s no one under the sun who objects if he’s portrayed as non-white.], the criminal black man [No one believes this, except as explained above.], illegal immigrants [Everyone knows there are illegal immigrants.], that all cops are good [No one believes this.], that all rich people are great [no one believes this.], that white men are oppressed [No one believes this.], that rap music and black culture is to blame for everything [no one believes this.], that war is the answer [No one believes this, except when war is the answer as in World War II, and other instances.], that global warming is a myth [global warming is a myth, because no one’s saying it anymore… it’s all “climate change now! Duh! I thought I was supposed to “get with the program!” :) .], that America is a Christian nation [It still is.], that men need to control women’s bodies [No one believes this.], that homosexuality is a sin [Sin or not, that’s not my business, but it’s pretty obvious that it’s not normal.], that Islam is an evil religion [It is.], that the more guns, the better life will be [this is probably true], that everyone else is racist but you [No one believes this.] and that you love America even though your side has been trying to drive it into the ground for years [Lol! This coming from a card-carrying leftist member of the Race Grievance Industry is rich!.]. Continue to believe instead of learn while being angry at the world for not thinking like you. Like I said, I’m done. [Like I said, no you’re not. This is typical leftist. A bunch of strawmen; faked “beliefs” that we Conservatives supposedly all believe, that BW had received from his overlords on the great RGI mothership. Each is either blatantly false, or patently stupid, or completely counter-intuitive, and each is designed to be an accusation, but each accuses the accuser. If we were to take each one in turn, we’d find that:

  • While no one believes Jesus was white, the RGI believes that white people believe it. And,
  • Santa Claus, as a legend that came about in white areas, was indeed white. However, there’s not a white person in the world who objects to Santa’s being portrayed as a black, yellow, orange, brown, purple or polka-dotted man. He’s a myth, after all.
  • We discussed black crime above. There is a serious problem with black crime. However, whenever you talk honestly about black crime, the RGI brings up the strawman of “more crime is committed by white people than by black people.” The problem: No on says there is not a problem with white crime.
  • War isn’t the answer?  Okay, what would the BW’s of the world have proposed that we do about Hitler in the 1940’s? In other words: War isn’t the answer… except when war is the answer.
  • Illegal immigrants? What about them? If they’re illegal, then they’re illegal… what’s the problem?
  • All cops are good? No one believes — or says — this.
  • All rich people are great? No one believes — or says — this.
  • The burden of proof about Islam is on the islamists. It’s obvious, hwoever, that there’s something in its texts that seems to allow its followers to saw the heads off children, to crucify women and children, and to burn people alive. Doesn’t sound like anything good and decent to me.
  • No one ever believed that men had a need to control women’s bodies, or that they even had a pray of being able to. This is another moronic strawman. It’s simple: if a “fetus” is a human being, then no one on earth has the right to kill him or her. That’s not “controlling anyone’s body,” that’s preventing atrocities. Note: the RGI is perfectly okay with atrocities, as their failure to address black-on-black violence demonstrates conclusively.
  • And so on… there’s no real point in talking about the rest of BW’s last moronic rant.]

6 THOUGHTS ON “CONSERVATIVES, WE NEED TO TALK”

  1. “Continue to believe instead of learn while being angry at the world for not thinking like you. Like I said, I’m done”-just had to say, well said ‘Wolf!!! :D [Whatever. :) ]

  2. I’ve been reading your blog for a while now. You don’t come across as racist to anyone who thinks rationally instead of emotionally. Feelings of hostility and resentment toward another group does not make a person a racist, especially if you have personally been oppressed by that group or witnessed the oppression of your people at the hands of that group. [This is weird. Yes, feelings of resentment and hostility toward another group makes a person a racist… if that hostility is race-based. Duh!]

    In my mind a racist is someone who thinks they are inherently superior to other races by simple virtue of their own race (I’m not crazy about the concept of “race,” since there is no scientific basis for it, but it suits this discussion for now). [This is the RGI. They believe they are superior to other races, by virtue solely of their race.] A racist is someone who thinks his life and the lives of others in his race are inherently more valuable or meaningful than those of other races. And that his culture is inherently better, etc. [Again, black members of the RGI believe exactly this.]

    I’ve mentioned this before elsewhere, but it bears repeating: Race is a construct and nothing more. Both you and I have an X and a Y chromosome. We are configured with male bodies, male reproductive organs, male hormones, etc. Two random women, one black and one white, have two X chromosomes, female configured bodies, female reproductive organs, and female hormones. Thus, you and I have a lot more in common, physically, than we do to either of those women, whatever their skin color is. In other words, I share more genotypic similarity with you than I do with a white woman, even though she and I are described as being part of a “race.” Hair structure and skin color are fairly minor variations in genetic code compared to having different organs. [This actually makes a little sense. It’s wrong, and stupid, but it makes sense.]

    Of course, I tend to view the world in scientific, naturalistic terms, and I respect that you or anyone else may have a different way of framing things. I am also limiting my comment to the idea of race as an artificial construct in a biological sense, not implying that our experiences are in any way similar. [Huh? What in the world did this last mess mean?]

  3. @ericcjbaker, Very valid and poignantly said! [This moron understood the above mess? I doubt it. There is also a very strong pseudo-intellectual current in the RGI. Search for one “Dr. Llaila Afrika” on YouTube for an example of this.]

  4. It seems they teach their kids the same nonsense and get them started pretty early. It’s annoying that they think 1.) they must always get the last word 2.) they are always right. Truth is it seems like ever since they invaded and colonized North America they still feel the need to “school” lesser races because only their great whiteness is beneficial to everyone. [Another mind reader! This is why arguing with these people is like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s because all they do is say things. Things that are easy to debunk, because they’re untrue on their face. ]

    No matter how much proof you have to back it up [“proof” that they always talk about, but never actually get around to producing.] they keep foaming at the mouth to prove that they know everything. Even when none of their “facts” make sense. [Which they just say… and never actually get around to demonstrating.]

    At least you’re able to ban them. [Yep. That’s how they keep themselves ideologically pure. They’re like little children putting their hands over their ears and yelling, “Nonny nonny boo boo” at the tops of their lungs. They simply shut out the possibility of disagreement with them.] Just got into it myself with some young PETA loonies about my supposed practicing of “specieism” (sp?) towards dogs. Regardless of dogs being used as service animals, in our armed forces and protecting people – “shame on me” for being concerned about Dogs in China. [Huh?]

    I’m also not surprised that someone of Caucasian descent most likely made up this b.s. term “specieism”. They’re so convinced that they’re the victims but continue to support their belief in their superiority… [Huh?]

    I think abagond had a post about dealing with whitey [No racism there, eh? :) ] – 1.) they’re always right and 2.) they must always get the last word…. -.-” any trouble understanding their nonsense logic…reread #1 and #2..

    Can’t win for losing with them. Ridiculous.

  5. @xxmoskauxx: You’re wrong straight from the get go. “Banning someone” is nothing more than being sure that YOU get the last word. Duh! Brothawolf and Abagond engage frequently in the practice of banning people which makes absolutely sure that THEY will get the last word. So much for your dumb point #2. As for your point #1, that’s even stupider. EVERYONE thinks they’re right. That’s why they argue. Duh! When was the last time YOU tried to argue a point YOU thought was wrong? You should try to think about things a bit more, because your two points are dumber than a box of rocks, and obviously false. I have no doubt, though, that the race-obsessed readers of this race-obsessed web site will find what you say to be great wisdom, instead of the idiocy it really is. [And foursquare whacks poor “xxmoskauxx’s” pathetic argument right out of the park, like the stupid pile of steaming snorg that it is.]

    smh.

    • I ban people who come across as assholes, and you’re one of them. Goodbye. [As if to prove foursquare’s — and my — points, BW bans foursquare. Have to keep the blog ideologically pure, you know! Very fascist of him, though. ]

Herneithsaid:

These clowns never fail to inspire jocularity! 1. This is a personal blog, the owner is not obliged to let f**ktards such as this ‘foursquare’, post. 2. They can ban whomever they please. 3. They are not obliged to engage in ‘debates'(this is debatable!), with anyone unless they wish to. They are certainly not obliged to debate racist goofs such as yourself(I can’t figure out why anyone wants to to start). Is that a white thing? Debate me and any other jackass who passes by the blogs(s) written by black people? [We’d love to debate you, but you keep banning opposing viewpoints. What a bunch of chickens!] Anywho, toodles jackass. [Lol! I wonder who got the last word here. Oh, yes, the one who banned those who opposed him! Just like a good little fascist.]

— Brotha Wolf’s post, and comments, end here —


– xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – I’m trying to remember the last time anyone accepted from a white person the excuse that “black people force him to be racist.” Oh, that’s right… it’s never happened in the last 60 years.

Chicago’s Dying, and the Left Proposes: More Poison


In Chicago, idiot leftist mayor Rahm Emmanuel is in electoral trouble. Well, he probably should be. Chicago itself is in big trouble. Decades of rule by corrupt Democrat politicians, like Emmanuel, have turned the place into a hellhole, where people go to get shot. Chicago is awash in violent crime, poverty and general horrific dysfunction. Why on earth Emmanuel thinks he rates re-election is anyone’s guess. But, he’s a Democrat, so he doesn’t think like normal people. Or, maybe I should have stopped that last sentence at the word “think.”

Anyway, what is Rahm’s real problem, other than that he presides over a hellhole that he’s done nothing to improve? Well, you see, leftism — heavy-handed government interference in the minute details of everyone’s-s day-to-day life, along with punitive taxation on the productive classes — is what caused Chicago to become the dump that it is in the first place. Rahm Emmanuel’s problem is that he’s not leftist enough for the tastes of the hard-core nitwit leftists who serve as Chicago’s kingmakers: the unions. Emmanuel recognized that the education mafia — the teachers’ unions — were bleeding Chicago dry, so he closed a bunch of failing schools, and laid off a bunch of failing teachers.

Oops.

That ticked off the unions no end. They wanted to continue to leech off society, not educating children, and not doing their job, all the while taking home bunches of cash. And they would have continued to do all that fun stuff if, as Margaret Thatcher had warned, they weren’t running out of other people’s money with which to pay for the nice gravy train.

Enter Jésus “Chuy” Garcia. The unions chose this letists’ leftist to challenge Emmanuel, good hard leftist that he is, from even further left. It appears that the moron leftist Emmanuel just might be defeated by the even more moronic, even more leftist, Chuy Garcia!

That’s the way to solve a poisoned city’s problems: more poison!

This is the insanity of both the cities and the Democrat Party: their heavy-handed leftism destroys lives and livelihoods. So what do they do? They impose even more leftism on the downtrodden, dying people of the city.

As I mentioned above, Rahm Emmanuel is a leftist in good standing; it bothered him to lay off the leeches. Like any good leftist, Emmanuel is all about leeches. The problem is that when there are too many of them, they can start to kill the body out of which they’re sucking the life’s blood. So, Rahm figured that laying off a bunch of fat, lazy, soft, pampered teachers, was better, or at least less hazardous to his health, than going after, say, the Teamsters.

Still, leftists stick together. Until, that is, they take power… then, because they know what the other leftists are like, because they are leftists, naturally they go after each other like rabid dogs. It’s out of self-defense. Leftists are power-mad.

So, now we have in Chicago what we’ve seen in so many other places: a leftist isn’t leftist enough, so the other leftists put in place someone who’s even more leftist, to wreck the place even more.

I live in Connecticut. It’s all true here too. We have a law in our Capital city, Hartford, in which the  minority party (electorally speaking) has to have some representation on the City Council. That meant that there were always two Republicans on the City Council. However, this “minority representation” rule, was getting in the way of the Democrats’ total ownership of the city. So, the Democrat Party ingeniously corrupt as they are, split into two parties, one of which was called “the Working Families Party.”  They could have been called The Lefties and The Leftiers. Or the Democrats and the Non-Working Families Headed by Welfare-Seeking Single “Parents” Looking for a Handout. But that would have been (1) quite a mouthful, and (2) the truth.

Now, Hartford is like any capital city in the country. It’s been owned by the Democrat Party for decades, and it’s been run into the ground by decades of one-party rule, mismanagement, graft and corruption. Hartford has, as all American cities do, it’s really bad section; its north end, a violent crime- and drug- and gang-ridden, hellhole through which you must not travel if you value your life. Hartford’s north end, an open sore in the city, has done nothing but get worse under constant Democrat Party rule.

And still, the problem is pretty simple: leftism, in the form of Democrat Party rule takes over and trashes the place. Then, when it becomes obvious that the place is trashed beyond recognition, the leftists announce that the only solution is even more leftism. You can see it happening in Chicago now, as it happened in Detroit, as it’s happening in Baltimore and Hartford, and in so many other cities in America.

The one exception to all this was, of course, New York City. New York City was a violent crime-ridden dump, so, surprise! they thought they’d try something actually different, and elected Republican Rudy Giuliani. He literally saved the city. Needless to say, that was completely unacceptable to the left so, after the Bloomberg interregnum, they leaped into action and with the usual panoply of lies, slander and corruption, got the leftiest lefty of all lefty lefties into power: Bill DiBlasio. He’s busy taking the city back down the tubes where the left thinks it belongs so that its beaten and bedraggled citizens will be a lot more reliable about keeping leftists in power in the future. They must never be tempted again to vote for a Republican. The left’s motto is always ever further to the left, even to ruination, death and destruction.

Isn’t it interesting and tragic that the voters in America’s cities almost never choose something actually different from what they all know is killing their city and them.

So, back to Chicago. The poor place is now choosing between corrupt, blood-sucking leftist Rahm Emmanuel, and even more corrupt, blood-sucking “Chuy” Garcia. It looks as though they’re choosing the even more corrupt Garcia. Well, if you’re committing suicide as a city, I guess it’s best that it be quick.

— xPraetorius

A Thought About Hillary Clinton


Hillary has promised that as President she’d be “The Women’s President.”

Great.

Of course, we all know that would mean: “The Leftist Women’s President,” but she’d claim to be speaking for, and to represent, all women.

So, we’d go from “The Black President” who seemed to have mostly disdain for the 65% or so of his country that’s white, to the “Women’s President,” who could then show her contempt for only half the population!

Well, I guess that is some progress…

I wonder when we can get back to an American President.  It’d be nice if it could be before all the other “This Presidents” and “That Presidents” have turned the place into a third-world hellhole.

— xPraetorius

Bibi: Thanks, Barack!


When Barack Obama transparently lied about not wanting to influence the Israeli elections, when it became apparent that he was moving money and personnel to Israel to try unsubtly to influence the Israeli election in favor of the leftist opposition to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, that was precisely when Mr. Netanyahu should have had an inkling that, just maybe, he had it sewn up.

Netanyahu, and everyone else, are too polite to say it, but it’s pretty common knowledge worldwide — even among the international left, who glory in the bumbling and nitwittery of America’s weakest President ever — that Obama is a complete and utter muck-up, and that his support for the Israeli left very well could have been the kiss of death for their election chances.

— xPraetorius

Kevin Williamson’s Insight Into Hillary Clinton


In this excellent opinion column, Kevin Williamson of National Review penned this particularly arresting passage (red emphasis added):

The wheels came off of that as soon as she (Hillary) achieved proximity to real power: President Clinton put her in charge of his health-care program, and it was a catastrophe. She was never really allowed to have her hands on another substantive policy issue, and her most prominent role throughout the rest of her time in the White House was spent not basking in the glow of the presidency but obscured in its shadow, reduced to little more than helping her husband to avoid suffering the consequences of his sexual adventuring and his lying about that under oath. She marched into Washington a “co-president” and slithered out an appendage.

If you examine Hillary Clinton’s public life, the phrase “She marched into Washington a “co-president” and slithered out an appendage.” describes, with appropriate word adjustments, every major undertaking of her career.

Let’s review them:

  • First there’s: “She marched into Washington a “co-president” and slithered out an appendage.” as shown above.
  • Then: “She marched into the Senate a celebrated former First Lady and slithered out a do-nothing partisan hack.”
  • Then: “She marched into the 2008 Presidential primaries the inevitable Democrat nominee, and slithered out a beaten, dazed loser, while an empty suit strode into the winner’s circle in her place.”
  • Then: “She strode into the office of Secretary of State a confident senior political player, and slithered out the do-nothing mediocrity, whose inaction is forever attached to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.”
  • Then: she marched into the pre-campaign for the 2016 presidential primaries the inevitable nominee, and already is getting ready to slither out the clueless, secretive, vaguely paranoid, out-of-her-depth, unresponsive, old, tired-looking, exhausted has-been, brought low by … e-mails.

The irony in all this is that if she is to survive her own ineptitude and cluelessness, the only way to do that will be to get Bill to do it for her. Then she’ll be right back as his appendage.

Williamson’s piece is, as usual, a brilliant insight into his topic: Hillary Clinton as a monster of our own.

To go esoteric for only a brief moment: I’m reminded of Mikhail Lermontov’s “A Hero of Our Time” (Герой нашего времени) in which the “hero,” Pechorin, turns out to be, like Chatsky and Onegin, yet another superfluous man. Hillary, like these last three, breezes into town, bringing a pile of scorn and sneering derision for those who are obviously her inferiors, then leaves having accomplished little, or worse, having wrecked the place and the lives of the people in it.

Worse, she typically leaves under a cloud of suspicion that she’s guilty of the very things she was so stridently condemning when she arrived!

Members of the Democrat Party, and their voters, call this “progress,” while each of Hillary’s rather ignominious failures, catalogued above, they call “accomplishments,” and “proof of her great wisdom and intelligence.

— xPraetorius

Vlatko Stefanovski & Miroslav Tadic – Jovano Jovanke – YouTube


Vlatko Stefanovski & Miroslav Tadic – Jovano Jovanke – YouTube.

This is 10 minutes of sheer captivation.

I play like the guy on the left, who appears about 2:35 into the song. It’s an old Macedonian folk song, and if you’d like to hear a delightful vocal rendition of it, that’s here.

It’s deep and dark, richly melodic, highly evocative, deeply suggestive… as is so much Eastern European folk music.

I love the version with two guitars. Vlatko Stefanovski and Miroslav Tadic get every bit as much depth of sound and richness of melody as can be drawn from this gorgeous song. Furthermore, they impart a hypnotic quality that you can see on the faces of the audience as they listen in rapt attention.

At about 6:45 into the song, if your pulse has not quickened, you might want to check to be sure you still have one. :) And the minute leading through 8:05 is just delightful, with its successor passage being laugh-out-loud delightful.

— xPraetorius

Want to Cry? (Part II)


In this post, I introduced some of you to a pretty, sad song that caused my daughter to make me promise that I’d never play it for her again. It left her sobbing into my shoulder.

I like the song, but I’ve kept my promise.

But, then I played her this one.

Same singer, different topic. Same result. My daughter sobbing into my shoulder.

— xPraetorius.

Want to Cry?


The Old Man

No one does this better, that I’ve heard, than John McDermott. I played it once for my daughter, and she was sobbing on my shoulder at the end, and made me promise never to play it again.

When McDermott sings it, you can tell that he’s living it as he sings it. It’s a very, very simple tune, and McDermott’s voice is unspectacular, but still really nice, and just right for this song. A song about love, life and loss.

— xPraetorius

Remember the Obama Admin Objection to Netanyahu’s Speech Before Congress?


Everyone was tut-tutting and tsk-tsking. What a breach of protocol, they said! How rude, they said!

It was because, Obama said, “he didn’t want to be seen as trying to influence the upcoming Israeli elections.”

As it turns out, Obama’s been trying to influence Israel’s election for a very long time… to the detriment of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Of Obama, the old joke is actually a statement of reality:How can you tell he’s lying? His lips are moving.”

Obama can’t help himself. He lies because he can, because he likes to, because he knows that no one with any power will call him on it, because it always works for him.

— xPraetorius

Pat Caddell Just Said of the Obama Administration (Part II)


I forgot to add, here, that Pat Caddell is a very long-time Democrat operative and pollster.

— xPraetorius

Pat Caddell Just Said of the Obama Administration


Direct quote: “This is Nixon on steroids.”

— xPraetorius

Oh — YOU Watch FOX News!


Contents



The Accusation

We’ve all heard it. We Conservatives, that is. It’s the sneering, scornful, derisive accusation: “Oh, you watch FOX News!”

It’s meant to prove that your information is from a right-wing-biased, unreliable, slanted source, and that, therefore, your thoughts, beliefs and rationales can be discounted as unworthy of consideration.

But, what’s left unsaid in that accusation? It’s there, after all. And it’s important. Well, implied also in that charge are:

  • FOX News is all the accused consumes for information.
  • The accuser does not watch FOX News.

How do I know the second one? Simple: the derisive, sneering accusation is always followed by the obligatory self-satisfied grimace as though the speaker had just touched something gross. The “FOX News” accuser is not a consumer of FOX News.

However, the accusation indicts the accuser, not the accused. Why, you might ask? And well you should.

People want to know things. If it’s a topic that interests them, they want to know what’s what. Likewise, people tend to search for definitive arguments in support of their views. These are, they hope, facts and arguments that are so compelling, so devastating, that they immediately win an argument. Also, they make it easy for the holder of a belief to continue to hold that belief. Because, one more thing, no one likes to be wrong.

All that leads to a constant temptation to engage in confirmation bias; a tendency to seek out sources of information and thinking that we know will be congenial with our own closely-held beliefs. No one is immune. When I engage in confirmation bias, I tend to seek out Goldberg, Steyn, Coulter, Williamson, Sowell, Hanson, Lowry, Ponnuru and more.

So, yes, we Conservatives are grateful that there is FOX News, because before that slightly rightward-tilted media outlet, there was no one on television who would give air to our views. We, and America, were completely shut out.

The Un-Free Press

Still, all along, the left have owned academia, pop culture, Hollywood, and the vast majority of the broadcast and print media. Much of what we all consider common knowledge, or conventional wisdom, is nothing more than unproven, left-wing talking points that have (1) been repeated so many times that they’ve become lore, and (2) never been challenged, or actually tested. That is one of the really bad effects of America’s un-free media(1) that we’d had for so many decades: a leftward tilt is baked into American thinking. See here for some discussion of why that’s a very bad thing.

Another side effect of the un-free media in America: we Americans, Conservatives and Leftists alike, marinate 24-7-365 in a warm bath of runny, lumpy left-wing spittle. Believe me, we all know what the American left thinks. If we say we don’t, we’re lying. The left owns academia, pop culture, Hollywood, and the vast majority of the broadcast and print media. You can’t get away from leftist thought, no matter who you are.

So, finally, FOX News restored a tiny measure of rightward balance — in a veritable ocean of leftism — that had been missing for decades before. The overwhelming majority of the media are still biased leftward, but they can’t any longer shut out Conservative voices completely.

It’s a sure bet that if the “FOX News” accuser scorns FOX news, then he is also not listening to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham, or any of the other several openly Conservative media outlets out there, which would give him direct insight into Conservative thought.

The National Public Radio Example

I regularly deride, and rightly so, National Public Radio, because of their hard left-wing bias, but they do provide value in that I keep abreast of what, and how, the left is thinking. Since I’ve listened to them for so long, I can tell that they do not consume any media sources that give voice to Conservative ideas and thinking. They routinely get things just flat-out wrong when reporting on what they think the right is thinking or doing.

Environmentalism is one area where they do this. NPR routinely “reports” that Conservatives deny that “climate change is happening.” Nope. Everyone with more than a third-grade education knows that the climate does nothing but change. No one on the right, who questions environmentalist dogma, questions that the climate is changing.

Furthermore, NPR “reports” as fact that we rightists believe that man “does not cause climate change.” Nope again. And again, anyone with a third-grade education knows that everything causes climate change. Yes, everything… down to the movement of that earthworm 10 feet below the ground, and up to the most violent volcanic explosion, and all points in-between. No one on the right, who questions environmentalist dogma, questions that man causes climate change. The question is to what extent do these things cause the climate to change? It’s the only question that matters. Yet it, like others, is completely unknown to even the most influential thinkers on the left… the ones driving the “climate change debate” in the media and elsewhere.

Want another example? How about the 77 cents on a dollar myth. There has been extremely convincing evidence debunking 77/100 as a complete myth, but if you listen to NPR you would be convinced that the alleged pay gap is rock-solid, unshakable truth.

Thomas Sowell posed what one would think would be a basic question on the topic: “If you can pay women three-quarters of what you have to pay men, why aren’t businesses rushing to get rid of their men, so they can knock a whopping 25% off their greatest expense: payroll?”

If businesses really could save that much on their budget that easily, millions of businesses that have closed their doors, might have been able to remain open. You would think that a “news” organization that calls itself the crême de la crême of news organizations, would find some way to address that glaring contradiction to the myth. Nope. NPR treats the 77/100 myth as concrete fact, as they do with all leftist talking points. They’ve never mentioned, or even asked, to my knowledge, Dr. Sowell’s really simple question.

My Own Experience

When I began to liberate myself from parochial narrow-mindedness, was when I stopped minding being wrong. Oh, I still don’t like it, but I simply reevaluated my thinking toward being wrong, and therefore, toward being correctedNow, I view correction as a double victory for … myself. How’s that, you ask? Easy: if one allows oneself to be corrected then, one has lost a weak argument and gained a stronger one. Double-win!

When I was much younger, I had to be right. However, I found myself in too many encounters where what I thought was definitive evidence in support of my position either (1) was completely discounted or even disbelieved by an interlocutor, or (2) overmatched by a counter argument, both of which left me to bluster and shuck and jive… as the left does now.

For decades now, though, I’ve been seeking out strong counter arguments to my own; rationales that really test mine, giving me the opportunity to be wrong, and therefore, to find correction, and… growth.

The Conservative Solution

Here’s an important observation: That kind of methodology, the process of constantly testing one’s ideas and conclusions, will lead you steadily in the direction of Conservative thought. Why? Simple: As we’ve often said here: the facts of life, Margaret Thatcher observed, are Conservative, but society’s white noisewe observed, is leftist. You have to overcome the constant, unremitting and deafening din of society’s white noise — from academia, the media, Hollywood, pop culture, etc. — to arrive at Conservative thought.

By definition, therefore, everyone who pursues a relentless inquiry into his or her thoughts is left to conclude, inevitably, that Conservative thought is deeper than Leftist thought. We explored this — the layers involved in the analysis of the world around us — in some depth here.

There is another inevitable conclusion: Those who do not engage in the above-mentioned relentless inquiry will, by definition, be leftists. Those, therefore, whose conclusions are not based on a wide array of sources, who simply believe what they’re told, who engage only in confirmation bias, who do not… watch FOX News, are (1) ignorant, (2) superficial thinkers, and (3) leftists.

Why do I call this section “The Conservative Solution?” Because Conservative thought is generally a reliable sign that you are not ignorant. That you have the ability to learn and grow. That your thinking is not superficial, stunted, lacking in dimension and perspective, unsophisticated.

Want to solve ignorance, superficiality and speciousness in your life? Seek out the Conservative counter arguments to the cacophony of left-wing white noise that surrounds you 24/7/365.

There are very few “cradle Conservatives” who, in light of society’s ubiquitous white noise, remain “cradle Conservatives.” Because of society’s remorseless, mindless left-wing pressure, if a “cradle Conservative” remains a Conservative, it’s because he or she has really thought about it.

If, for example, you believe in the 77/100 pay gap, but can not answer Thomas Sowell’s question, then you’re just not an honest, or an informed, or a … legitimate holder of the belief. You’re only a repeater.

I used to be a repeater, and a typically ovine leftist, who just had to be right. Then I grew up and became a Conservative.

xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – If, as is the case, the country is roughly evenly divided between rightist and leftist tendencies, and the media are overwhelmingly leftist, that represents prima facie proof of employment discrimination against people who might exhibit right-wing tendencies. Such discrimination against thinking is very much illegal in employment law.(2)

“But, but, but,” you’ll say, “what about the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press?” The First Amendment supposedly guarantees that the government will not interfere with the media. You can certainly read into it the idea that therefore the First Amendment also allows the media to censor anyone they wish to, in direct opposition to the actual spirit of the Amendment itself.

Otherwise stated, The First Amendment says that the government won’t interfere with press freedom, but doesn’t prevent anyone else from interfering all they want. And they do; especially the press. The result is a decidedly un-free press, with rampant, illegal discrimination against those who think differently, or unacceptably.

Here’s the text of The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

(2) – In my humble opinion, there is a case to be made for employment discrimination lawsuits against publicly-financed universities. There’s no way under the sun it can be legal to force any taxpayers, Conservative or leftist, to fund left-wing indoctrination at taxpayer-financed universities. There have been such lawsuits (here for example), and they’re usually successful. Here’s another related lawsuit. Also successful.

It’s Worth Repeating (3/15/15)


(Original post here)

Imagine, if you will, a prominent Republican politician, an unannounced, but powerful name mentioned in terms of the next Presidential race. In my hypothetical, the GOP solon served in a high government post, dealing with hugely important and classified information. However, instead of doing official business on official government e-mail equipment, he used his own system, residing at his own home. Then, he got caught, and waited a long time before even commenting on all this, except with a lone, pretty lame-o Twitter tweet. All-in-all, everyone, including other Republicans can’t avoid the fact that at the very best it looks really bad. Like secrecy, like an insecure means to talk about or transmit classified stuff, like dishonesty… like corruption.

The above was, I think, a fair summary of the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal.

Given all that, does anyone honestly think that Hillary Clinton would accept from him, from Republican candidate dude, what she said about it all? Or, do you think that she’d demand in-depth inquiries into the matter? How soon do you think she would demand that the Republican government official turn over all relevant equipment so that it could be scrutinized at the bit and byte level?

If, as Hillary Clinton did, the Republican pol simply deleted the e-mails he thought were just fine to delete, how long do you think it would be before Clinton would demand that criminal charges be lodged against the scoundrel, for that act alone? How quickly do you think that everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, would declare that the pol must disqualify himself from consideration for the presidency?

— xPraetorius

Hillary Clinton’s E-mails (Part V)


Megyn Kelly (rough quote): “Doesn’t it stink to high heaven that she did all this State Department business on her home computer, using her personal e-mail account?”

Yep.

Brit Hume (rough quote): “This is what the Clintons do. They say and do things that fly in the face of what any sensible person would understand.”

Yep.

They’re still saying it in the media: “There’s no way to prove it! Once she’s deleted ‘em, it’s gone!” These are the Democrats thinking she got away with it (and secretly high-fiving each other) by deleting all the incriminating e-mails. Typically Republicans and Conservatives nod their heads sagely and sadly in response.

They’re Democrats, so they’re wrong. Those pesky e-mails live in about a dozen different places, not counting the recipient’s inbox. They can keep cropping up decades after she thinks she’s deleted them.

It struck me that a whole lot of Hillary’s case against going to jail for destruction of government property is : “Trust me. I deleted only personal e-mails.”

Oh?

Simple response: Prove it. That’s all. It’s easy to prove it or to disprove it, by simply allowing real computer experts to examine your server. In private, of course.

Do you, Hillary Clinton, think that you would accept that as a response from a Republican rival or critic? How quickly would you, HIllary Clinton, laugh that twaddle out of the room?

— xPraetorius

Reaction to the Racist Chant by Frat Boys – Some Very Frank Talk


Yep. Reprehensible. What does it show?

Nothing. Or nothing really important.

In fact, those ten seconds don’t even show you anything meaningful about the kids doing the stupid chanting.

It shows you some general things that everyone already knows, but beyond that… nothing. Here are some of those general things:

  • Frat boys can act really stupidly. Duh.
  • Many frat boys have very high intelligence, but they practically never demonstrate it in a fraternity setting.
  • Many frat boys have much lower intelligence, and a fraternity setting brings that out.
  • If you expect depth, intelligence, maturity, or dignity from frat boys, then maybe you should question your intelligence.
  • There is never any single segment of ten seconds that can tell anyone anything of any importance, meaning or depth about anyone.
  • We live in a gotcha culture that’s only going to dampen free speech, as people realize there’s a good chance their every waking moment is being recorded somewhere or by someone.
  • Frat boys can act really stupidly.

If you, yourself, were to have to defend 10 of the most moronic seconds of your life (in the category of race), how would you do? Are you the really disgusting, abominably bad person those ten seconds would seem to show you to be? Probably not.

I wouldn’t do very well if people were to see my worst ten seconds, and there isn’t a racist bone in my body. Guess what, you wouldn’t do very well either. Aren’t you glad there weren’t any surreptitious cell phone cameras around when you were doing your moronic ten seconds?

The reaction that the Urban League honcho had was vastly worse, and more racist than the frat boys’ stupid chant. The Urban League muckety-muck, in reaction to the shooting of the two Ferguson, MO cops, and after doing the obligatory and insincere-sounding tut-tutting, said, “Still, this shows that there needs to be change in Ferguson. Blan blah blah blah…”

No, it shows that there are real, harmful, sometimes fatal, consequences to racialist lies. And it shows that there are near-psychotic scumbags who await only these racialist lies to do the evil in their deranged pea brains. The entire “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” thing was built from a fraud. Now people are being shot because of it. The responsibility, the entire responsibility, is all on the shooter’s shoulders… but the Race Grievance Industry (the RGI) set the stage for it. And now they’re defending it.

The real lesson of the shooting of the Ferguson cops: (1) someone needs to be arrested and prosecuted for attempted murder, and (2) the RGI doesn’t care who is hurt for the lies that support their cause, and (3) unless someone calls them on it, ever more people will be hurt or killed by the perpetuation of their fraud.

So, why is the racism of the RGI worse than that of the SAE frat boys? Easy: there will be no negative consequences to anyone because of the frat boys’ nitwittery… except, that is, those negative consequences that are descending as we speak, like a wrecking ball, on the boys’ own careless noggins.

If they had any idea under the sun, that there was a camera rolling when they were doing their jackassery, they never, ever, not ever, not in a million years, would have done it. Nor would they ever have acted on their racist feelings, if they even had racist feelings. It’s vastly more likely that the frat boys were just doing what they thought was daring and transgressive and risky. Yep. it was all that, for sure. And more.

In today’s climate out there, you can’t be more transgressive than to taunt the Grievance Industry, and if you’re caught, you can expect your life to be ruined. A quick observation: the more ferocious the response to this kind of frat boy imbecility, the less secure are those who respond, in their beliefs.

The racism of the Race Grievance Industry is like a comfortable sweater for them. They’re vastly more comfortable with it, than they are without it. It injures, maims and kills people, but they love it. In fact they’re addicted to it, because it’s what they’ve worn all their lives. But they know it’s wrong. The problem is that there’s just too much power, influence, validation, applause and … money in their easy, breezy, comfy sweater racism.

Make no mistake, what the frat boys did was wrong, and stupid, but ten seconds of stupidity is hardly reason to ruin their lives. I hear a heckuva lot worse on the race-centered blogs I follow. Including here, where you will find someone actually fantasizing about a “solar assassination” of all white people on the planet.

Would I want those people’s lives ruined for their unsubtle and, frankly, genocidally racist fantasies? Even as they fantasize about my violent death, and the violent deaths of billions who look like me? Of course not. And these are people who do, say and write for public display(!) the same thing as the frat boys — all the time. 

If the whole SAE thing had been reversed, and black kids had been seen chanting racist things, I’d stand up for the black kids’ free speech rights too. But I don’t have to. Did you ever hear of something called “rap?” How about “hip hop?” If you’re looking for vile, disgusting, loathsome, idiotic, pathetic, and deeply racist speech, you need go no further than your local record/CD/MP3 store, or… YouTube.

Want some racist hate speech? Here’s some. There’s a bunch more on that same YouTube page. Are these people’s lives ruined after they release patently moronic, patently racist flapdoodle for all the world to see? Nope. In fact they’re celebrated! Many people follow and admire these brainless ignoramuses, whose every day is filled with talk, actions and recordings of exactly the same nature as the dumb frat boys’.

One last observation: by way of comparison, if the dumb frat boys had been apprehended, having held up a liquor store, and mugged the owner, their lives would be significantly less ruined, than after having done the stupid, but legal, thing that they did.

— xPraetorius

Hillary Clinton’s E-mails (Part IV)


Here’s a real transcript of Hillary Clinton’s performance in response to being caught red-handed doing a typically stoooooopid (Hillary Clinton-esque stoooopid!) thing:

Blah blah blah blah [You’re stupid] blah, blah [and I’m confident that you’re just stupid enough] blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah [to let me get away with it… again] blah blah blah blah.  Blah blah blah blah [Guess what: you’re stupid,] blah, blah [and I’m gonna get away with it again, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah] blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah [Why? ‘Cause you’re stupid. Really stupid.] blah blah blah blah.

Blah [Want to know how stupid you are?] blah blah blah blah.  Blah blah blah blah [You’re so stupid] blah blah blah blah blah [that I’m gonna get away with it again, you morons.] blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah [Why? ‘Cause you’re stupid.] blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah [Know what? you’re stupid.] blah, blah [And after this ridiculous little thing that I have to do because some of you yappy, little, right-wings dogs in the press are making me do it,] blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah [I’m gonna go out with some of my closest buds, get a few drinks and laugh and laugh and laugh at just how stupid you are.] blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Thank you! [you bunch of brain-dead, blankety-blank, piece of cr*p morons.]

You know what? If she does get away with it again, then she’s right. We are stupid. Really stupid.

We’re about a week or so into the “Hillary’s e-mails” scandal, which is about six days after any Republican presidential candidate, caught doing the same skulduggery, would have dropped out of the race, and slipped into well-deserved obscurity.

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 3/11/15


First of all, this is one of my all-time favorite features here at The Praetorian Writers’ Group. The NPR Watch feature is delightful because it practically writes itself, and because National Public Radio is such a rich vein of material for scornful derision and ridicule. They are National Pomposity Radio, or National Preachy Radio. But, really, they’re National Full-of-Themselves Radio.

However, lately they have been outdoing themselves. It’s been an embarrassment of riches and I have been too overwhelmed to write about it!

So, just bullet points today. Best I can do for now.

  • They give the “news” every half-hour from 4:00pm to 6:30pm each weekday. They have different news readers all the time. I think it was Jack Spear this time, who was telling us about the solar powered plane that was going to try to fly around the world or, as he put it, to “circumvent the globe.” I almost drove off the road I was laughing so hard. These are supposed to be the crême de la crême de la crême of newscasters, and when they make really silly mistakes like that, you realize that they’re really nothing more than hacks. Yes, the correct word is “circumnavigate.”
  • They’ve been going nuts about “climate change.” Jennifer Ludden treated us to a breathless account of how the “climate change deniers” have been obtaining funding from all sorts of conservative sources, etc. She regaled us with a particularly NPR-esque, breathlessly earnest passage about how the deniers “deny that climate change is happening,” (they don’t) and how they “deny that mankind is changing the climate.” (they also don’t) What’s positively weird is that what I’m saying is obviously true, while what Jennifer said was obviously false. No one denies that the climate is changing. That’s all it does. No one is denying that mankind affects climate change. Why? Simple: everything affects climate change. You just drew a breath as you read this, then you released it. You just caused climate change. A tiny bit of climate change, but real, genuine climate change nonetheless. Makes you wonder how credible a “news” organization can be when so many of their reports contain plainly false assertions. The question that the so-called deniers have is perfectly correct to pose: to what extent does man change the climate? By the way, it’s likely that compared to all the other factors there are, our influence over the climate is negligible. Non-zero, but negligible.
  • Did you know that NPR youth reporters are really great scientists too? Great psychologists and geneticists. They have to be. They report as fact that a “transgendered person” — let’s say a woman who says she’s a man — is indeed precisely what she says she is: a man. They refer to her as “he” and “him” for the rest of the feature, and if you didn’t hear the feature’s beginning, you would assume that you were hearing about someone who had, indeed, been a man all her life. Nope. Just a woman who says she’s a man. She’s got all the bumps, and curves and this’s and thats of a woman but, still, says she’s a man. And NPR swallows the bait, hook, line and sinker. Why? one wonders. If someone who is plainly a woman came up to you and announced that she was a man, would you just say, “Ok, you’re a dude.”? Of course not… why should you? The rest of the piece runs on about how “he” has such difficulty finding acceptance in the world and such. Ooooookay… So do people who sit in corners, rocking back and forth and talking with the furniture. It’s because they’re not all that attached to reality. You’re a woman who says you’re a guy! What did you think you were going to find?!? Any normal woman with whom you find yourself in a romantic clinch, and expects to find guy’s appurtenances, is going to be mighty surprised. Seriously, though, why is it that NPR gets to decide that what the LGBT people say about “gender identity” is true, and not just the delusions of unbalanced people? What’s the harm, you say? Well, if they were to get help, then maybe they could get away from their delusions. But if perfectly unqualified people like NPR reassure them that they’re perfectly normal, then they won’t even seek out help. NPR helps these poor people stay deluded and, frankly, crazy.
  • They did a story about the funding for a guy who said that the sun is the greatest cause of climate change. Turns out that he’s being funded by some suspect organization in NPR’s eyes. That was all they questioned about him. Not his research, not his conclusions… just his funding. Of course, you and I can put two and two together to understand that NPR was trying to imply that his findings were suspect, because the funding organization had a stake in his findings. Well, okay. Then you just eliminated all the studies funded by the environmentalists who have quite a stake in the findings of the studies they fund too, didn’t you? Furthermore, to imagine that the sun has the greatest effect on the climate is hardly a stretch. Let’s see what some real scientists say. Hmmmm… here’s something:

How large is the Sun compared to Earth?

Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot!

Gee… do ya think that might have some effect on the climate? But, you go ahead and drive your Priuses over there at NPR. I’m sure that’ll show that big ball of gas that could contain more than a million planet Earths who’s boss.

Needless to say, the rest of the NPR feature centered on how all those nasty climate change deniers were trying to kill us all just to make their corporate fat cat and Wall Street banker friends happy. Because, you see, those corporate fat cats and Wall Street banker types are all going to survive the coming climate change apocalypse, when no one else will. Then, when there’s no one left on earth except them, they’ll be rich, rich, rich beyond their wildest dreams because they can steal all the money from… or something. Whatever. Whenever you take the left to their inevitable logical conclusion, their arguments crumble into dust.

— xPraetorius

There’s Nothing Inherently Good About “Different.”


Between bringing kids to college, friends’ houses, basketball games and visiting in the hospital, I managed to get in about 15 minutes of watching golf. It’s the tournament that the ferociously long-hitting Dustin Johnson won by a stroke. It’s not about that nice effort by Johnson that I’m writing.

The tournament was on NBC, whose sole redeeming feature is that Johnny Miller is one of the announcers. They aired a commercial… one of those commercials: a commercial that tries desperately to show just how good and wise and knowing the sponsor is. Probably a car company.

The star of the commercial was a vaguely androgynous- and asian-looking youngish chap who told about how his mother (of course) used to encourage him to be different. Why, he said, she even let him wear dresses around sometimes! Then comes the really wise tag line at the end that’s supposed to educate and inform and enlighten and unbenight any troglodytes remaining out there, all while the rest of us cool, hip, with-it ones are supposed to nod our heads wisely thinking, “How wise, car company… well said.”

That really wise, insightful tag line? I’m glad you asked. It’s: “It takes people who aren’t afraid to be different to move the world forward.”

Oooooooo… I can just hear all the heads nodding sagely out there thinking to themselves, “Check. I knew that. It’s just that freakin’ car company that said it so well! But I knew it all along, ’cause I’m just as wise and insightful as that car company.”

Uhhhhh… except for that pesky other thing that’s out there and occasionally intrudes, and trips up the sagest-sounding apophthegms: reality.

Oh? What reality might that be, you ask? What reality can trip up our cutesy little world full of platitudes and clichés and pithy bons mots? Why, this reality: The reverse is true as well: “It takes people who aren’t afraid to be different to muck the place up real good.”

Adolf Hitler was different. And he managed to make a real hash of Germany for about 12 years. Josef Stalin was different. He managed to muck up Russia for 25 years. Mao in China? Very different. Most prolific mass murderer in history. He killed more people than the bubonic plague and the black death… combined! You’ll grant me, I’m sure: that’s pretty different.

Lots of really different people are wandering around mucking up the world, making it so that really, really good (not just different) people have to come in and clean up after them.

Anyone can be different; “different” is nothing more than being a standard deviation or two right or left of the center of the Bell Curve. There’s just nothing inherently good about being different. The trick is being good. And that just ain’t as simple as Google (catchphrase: Don’t be evil), or any car company with syrupy broadcast platitudes makes it out to be.

— xPraetorius

Hillary Clinton’s E-mails (Part III)


An observation: As soon as it became evident that Hillary had done something really very stupid, and obviously very wrong, out of the woodwork crawled a plethora of leftist stooges to defend what they know is patently bad behavior.

If a Republican had done the same thing — a Republican boasting of all his or her accomplishments as Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice, for example), (1) the media would have laughed his or her excuses out of the room the same day, and (2) not a single Republican would leap to his or her defense.

Everyone knows that what Hillary Clinton did was sleazy — at its very best — and that at its very worst, what she did was, well, just Hillary being Hillary.

In this post, we called her Dirty Hillary. Her news conference this afternoon can be summed up as: “Do ya feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”

— xPraetorius

Hillary Clinton’s E-mails (Part II)


Does anyone really believe her when she says she “deleted only personal e-mails?” Two simple words in reaction: Prove it. Let a computer expert examine the servers, ’cause you know what? You can delete them all you want, but they’re still out there. And, because they’re from a personal e-mail account, they’re all at the NSA!

‘Course, does anyone really believe her whenever she opens her mouth? She could be at the North Pole, and say, “It’s snowing,” and I’d look out the igloo window.

Some quick observations:

  • Any Republican hopeful for President would have been knocked clean out of the race by this — in the first two days.
  • This stinks of:
    • hyper-arrogance
    • hyper-élitism
    • hyper leftist-privilege. (Going through her mind as she arranged the “homebrewed” e-mail system: “I do these seemingly irrational, preposterous, brainless, dippy, loony, dim-witted, dopey surreally block-headed things because I’m sure I can get away with them. I always have! Heck most of the words out of my mouth are irrational, preposterous, brainless, dippy… okay, okay… you get the point.”)
    • hyper-stupidity
    • typical leftism
    • hyper-aristocrat wannabe-ism
    • Fill in any of a number of other nouns and adjectives that mean close to (but not exactly the same as) the above. For example:
      • imperious, vain, hubristic, insolent, proud, pompous, scornful, derisive, dictatorial, scummy, brazen, disrespectful, condescending, toweringly egotistical, cocksure, fatheaded, half-witted, lard-brained, sneering disdain for all Americans. Surprised? Not me.
  • Hillary’s entire career has consisted of getting away with things. The only thing she ever accomplished is being the dirtiest, sleaziest, creepiest, slimiest politician never to spend a day in jail. Actually, for all the filth and gunk in which she’s enmired herself for the past 30 years, that’s not really half bad.
  • Can’t we ever be rid of these two? They’re like herpes, for cryin’ out loud.
    • Dr. (gravely): I’m sorry, Mrs. Jones, you’ll have to live either with Hillary Clinton always somewhere being her usual twit self, or herpes … for the rest of your life. You must choose.
    • Mrs. Jones (sobbing): Give me the herpes! Give me the herpes! For the love of all that is good and decent, give me the herpes!
    • Dr.: Ok, but you’ll still have to deal with the Clinton thing too. No one’s ever figured out how to get rid of them.
    • Mrs. Jones: Noooooooo…!!!

— xPraetorius

Understanding Hillary’s E-Mails – They’re Easy to Find


Hillary Clinton, in what was either a breathtakingly stoooopid, or a jaw-droppingly arrogant move (don’t rule out that it could have been both), did all her official business with a personal e-mail account when she was the Secretary of State.

One quick observation: The media commenting on this need to consult with more computer experts. I happen to be a computer expert. Among other things.

Here’s why the media need to consult a computer expert from time-to-time: I’m hearing a lot of flat-out wrong things about the ability of Hillary Clinton to control these e-mails that live on her server at her Chappaqua home. The media are bemoaning the “fact” that Hillary can simply delete those e-mails from the server that lived at the Clinton’s Chappaqua mansion. Wrong! Or, more to the point: yes, she can delete the e-mails from her Chappaqua mansion’s server, but those e-mails reside in a whole lot of other places as well. Places where the long arm of even Hillary can’t reach them. And certainly not without breaking the law.

Look: she’s cornered now. Those e-mails are obtainable. Fairly easily. If she starts a wholesale deletion of incriminating e-mails, that’s easy to discover. If she tries to delete just a couple of e-mails, that’s easy to discover. The path that any e-mail took is easy to discover, and it’s easy also to obtain that e-mail on any of the many hops it has to traverse from her keyboard to the recipient’s inbox. It’s pretty simple: if there is an e-mail on any one of those hops, and not one on Hillary’s server, then she has broken the law.

The point: She can not completely control those e-mails. Has everyone already forgotten the NSA thing, where everyone was in a lather because you can never completely get rid of your e-mails? Here’s why Hillary can’t just get rid of the e-mails associated with “Clintonemail.com”

  • First and foremost the NSA has them! Remember when we learned just a few short months ago that they get all our e-mails? So, go get ‘em from the NSA! And that’s not all.
  • Here’s a quick, very basic, lesson in how e-mail works:

howemailworks

  • The e-mail now lives in at least five locations: (1) in the sender’s “Sent Items” folder, (2) on the Sender’s Mail Server, (3) on the Recipient’s Mail Server(s), (4) in the Recipient’s e-mail inbox, and (5) at the NSA. It also lives in the inboxes and mail server(s) of all cc’ed and bcc’ed recipients!  (h/t: Kavi Mailing List Manager Help – Chapter 7. How Email Really Works – Part I. Concepts for that nice picture.)
  • The sender, Hillary, directly controls only her mail client. Even there, if she doesn’t delete it permanently — and, remember, Hillary’s dumb as a stump — it still can live in her “Deleted Items” folder. She can exercise some control over the “Sender’s Mail Server,” but that’s only if her e-mail account was set up correctly.
  • After she sends it, Hillary’s e-mail still lives in a bunch of different places. As well as at the NSA!
  • Any other e-mails and e-mailers who might want to conceal their official communications coming to your mind? Why, sure! Lois Lerner’s! We said way back here, and herethat her e-mails weren’t gone, weren’t lost. Surprise, surprise! They found ‘em… and yet another surprise! After enough time had passed that the patsy press can all snivel, “Oh, that old thing? That’s old news! Why can’t you just let that drop?!?” Never forget: Richard Nixon was on the verge of being impeached for merely mentioning what Obama’s and Lois Lerner’s IRS actually did, and is still doing.
  • Back to the above graphic. The media think that the top portion of the graphic accurately describes the e-mail process. However, it is really the bottom half that describes it — and all the various resting places of Hillary’s e-mails once she sent them on their merry way. News Flash: those e-mails don’t leave those places unless and until someone or some program orders them deleted. Of course, such deletion would be against the law, so surely Hillary would never do such a thing.

Hillary’s e-mails, despite her obvious attempts to conceal them, are easily obtainable. And, if not(1) — here is where the legality issue comes in — she broke the law.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – If you conceal or destroy official government communications, you have broken the law. Since all Hillary’s official e-mails went out from the clintonemail.com domain, she must turn them — all of them — over to the government, or she’s in violation of the law. If she deleted even one of them, she’s in violation of the law.

Obama Sets the Bar Loooooooowwwwww…


After the Obama Administration, the next President ought to be able to do absolutely anything he wishes and get away with it.

If someone in Congress objects, believe me there will be an example in very recent memory where either Obama or someone in his administration did something a lot more egregious and got clean away with it.

Some Observations:

  • A kumquat would have been a better President than Obama. I’m completely serious.
    • Why? Simple: a kumquat would not have made naked power grabs via “Executive Orders;” a kumquat would have had the exact same, to the letter, foreign policy as Obama; President Quat would not have rammed KumquatCare down America’s throat; it would not have worsened fruit-human relations; Mr. Quat wouldn’t have sicced the IRS on political opponents; He would not have done massive spying on the American people. Better yet, if left unrefrigerated, President Quat simply would have dried up and gone away, a lesson in excellent presidenting, and post-presidenting that a goodly number of Presidents should have followed.
  • People tend to measure things on a scale of 0, or 1, to something. Example: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Barack Obama as President? This is the wrong scale: the correct scale should be something like -10 to 10, where 0 would represent a neutral assessment.
  • If, on the usual scale, you were to give Obama a zero, that would not preclude a conclusion that he was a lousy President by virtue of, say, doing nothing. If, however, you were to assign a -10 rating, then you’re saying that Obama’s tenure as President was as bad as it could be both by action and inaction.
  • My grade for Obama: -8. It is indisputable that the country is worse off as a result. How much worse off? Some of the signs — the permanently unemployed, the international situation, race relations, Islam’s expansion in Africa and the Middle East, Russia/Ukraine/Crimea, Syria, and more — are truly dire. Obama’s inaction around the world has always been catastrophic, while his actions, when he has taken them, have also been disasters. Obamacare fundamentally restructured the economy toward greater regulation, while the single greatest need the economy had in 2008 was: less regulation. The first black President spent all his time, through the proxy of his deeply racialist Attorney General, being the first black President; forgetting that the overwhelming majority of his country is still white, and that he needed to be their President too.
  • If you’re a teacher, you’d give Obama an A minus, because he’s a union stooge, a dyed-in-the-wool leftist, and an ignorant doofus, like most teachers. However, his real, his correct grade, would be a minus A minus.
  • Why didn’t he get a -10 from me? Easy: that would indicate that you couldn’t get worse than Obama. Not to worry, the Democrats have even more execrable candidates in their awesome arsenal of asininity. ** cough Bernie Sanders cough ** cough Elizabeth Warren cough ** cough sputter gag Hillary Clinton cough hack choke(1) **

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) Because, despite her fabricated reputation as a centrist, she’s every bit as leftist as Obama, every bit as much an identity politician (She’s all about the “history” of electing a woman President) she’s dumb as a stump and, by definition, one thing worse than Barack Obama after the witless Barack Obama, is: yet another witless Barack Obama.

Hilarious Exchange with the RGI (Part II)


There’s even more in the growing exchange between the gaggle at Brotha Wolf’s blog and the newcomer on the scene, SnowMan (here). Even I weighed in! Yep. Little ol’ me! The banned xPraetorius.

In the beginning of the set-to, SnowMan challenged Brotha Wolf and, by definition, his followers to backup BW’s claim that Bill O’Reilly is embroiled in a scandal similar to that which sank Brian Williams — the revelation that Williams lied about being in a helicopter that was forced down by rocket fire in Afghanistan.

O’Reilly, the allegation goes, didn’t actually get close to combat during the Falklands War (all the way back in 1982 — nearly 33 years ago!) as he says he did. Nor did he, the story continues, rescue his own cameraman from rioting Argentines during that same conflict.

Well, as it turns out, O’Reilly was right and those who are accusing him are wrong. SnowMan very bluntly gave BW that message, then proved it with chapter and verse. The exchange is instructive because, other than the passion exhibited by SnowMan, it is a typical argument between the right and the left. The guy on the right trots out chapter and verse, and the guy on the left interrupts, and evades, and insults, and talks over him, and jeers, and interrupts some more, and evades some more, before storming out saying that the guy on the right just isn’t worth his time.

The argument follows exactly the template of so many left-right arguments. The left always does this, especially when they’re way overmatched, as they were in this exchange. However, the left can never be wrong. Their entire intellectual edifice is based on a massive collection of lies, fraudulent “facts,” (77 cents on a dollar; one in five women sexually assaulted, racism, etc.), inventions and other smoke and mirrors.

If the left were to lose one argument, then they know full well that their entire rickety, contradiction-riddled, people-squashing house of cards risks falling down around them. It’s this house of dirty, slime-dripping cards that gives them their power. It’s how Obama was elected — twice! — and how they hope to elect a Democrat to the White House in 2016. It’s why the left shout down opponents, block them from speaking at universities, talk over them, make ludicrous accusations, exclude them from the media, censor them and more.

SnowMan smashed through all that and pulverized the arguments thrown at him. In the beginning, I was enjoying the argument, and the rather obvious fact that Brotha Wolf and his flock were completely unarmed before The Man of Snow.

However, as brilliant as SnowMan was, he was equally obnoxious, with his insults and his name-calling. It diminished, I thought, the impact of his obviously superior argumentation. I think this little exchange can serve as an example of close to how we should conduct ourselves with (in this case) the Race Grievance Industry, and the left in general.

It’s certain that we can dominate these exchanges, but that we must not start the gutter behavior. We can engage in it, if the left goes there, as they almost always do, but we should never start it. Furthermore, we should start off by admonishing them preemptively not to start the gutter behavior; then call them out — immediately – when they do, and only then engage in it only if they ignore our polite warning not to do it. Then, we should have at it with gusto, because we can beat them in that as well. Never forget: there’s a simple reason we beat them every time if a debate stays on topic: they’re not too bright.

There. That was SnowMan’s infraction. He started the sniping. He beat the living snorg out of Brotha Wolf and his followers’ arguments, but he, SnowMan, started the name-calling, and nullified his victory by engaging in the disreputable tactics of the left first.

I think we should always start out on the high road, for a lot of reasons, the most important of which is: we have the facts and the best arguments. We’re poorly served when there are useless, or irrelevant, or subject-changing distractions. That’s exactly why the left do it!

Otherwise stated: the left is in big trouble when debates stay on-topic, and focused, and deal with the facts instead of irrelevancies. That’s why they immediately go for the accusation of racism. Or of lying, or a thousand other slanders. They’re laying the groundwork for when the debate starts to go sour for them, as it inevitably does. At that point they can dismiss you as a racist, lying scoundrel, so your point of view is wrong too.

<BRIEF DIGRESSION>

You see, the left has a track record! This country has been moving steadily leftward since its founding, but much more rapidly so in the past seventy or eighty years. The left understands that, and read this well, every major initiative they have launched, ostensibly to resolve a stated problem — poverty, hunger, drugs, unemployment, corruption, crime — has failed miserably.

The measure of success for these things is simple: what is the extent to which the initial effort has shrunk or grown since its inception. If the effort, and its accompanying departments and bureaus and Agencies have shrunk, it can be only from success in its endeavors. If it, and its hangers-on, have grown, it can be only because it has all failed. How are the various wars — on poverty, on crime, on hunger, on drugs — going? Yuh. Not so well.

</BRIEF DIGRESSION>

I then joined in! To admonish SnowMan to moderate his tone. SnowMan’s points were right on the nose, and he demolished Brotha Wolf and the couple of others of his acolytes, who, true to form, joined in with only the accusations of racism, and the usual evasions and deflections.

However, SnowMan broke my cardinal rule: don’t be the one to start the name-calling.

I don’t much blame him… it’s pretty much inevitable when you engage the Race Grievance Industry or other bastions of the left. They don’t have the arguments, so they jump immediately into irrelevancies and name-calling.(1) SnowMan might have been acting preemptively. That’s fine for war, but this is not war, but debate.

We don’t have to be on the defensive even if the left are going to call us names. We can respond with withering replies, if we’re on our toes.

If someone calls you a racist, you could say something like “Only a moron would make that accusation. Are you a moron?” Or, “I won’t even dignify that steaming pile of demented tommyrot with a response,” and go right on with your point. Or: “Okay, let’s pretend I’m a racist. Why not? After all, I’m pretending you’re not a half-wit by being here. However my qualities as a human being have no bearing whatsoever on the correctness of my arguments. What’s your excuse for your jaw-droppingly stupid arguments?” Then smile politely. Or, (the daring, give-‘em-a-taste-of-their-own-medicine) “Everyone knows that the Race Grievance Industry, of which you’re a proud member, is full of frothing, unbalanced racists — needless to say, a true racist would accuse others of racism; it’s just projection.” And go on with your next point.

Never let the scurrilous accusation go unanswered except with something that pounds it into the dust.

I’ll repeat it: We don’t ever have to be on the defensive even if the left are going to call us names. We can perform debate jiu-jitsu. Their thoughts and ideas are old, faded, fat, flabby, feeble, flaccid failures… if some blubbery thing like that comes waddling at you wheezing, “Racist!” Just step aside, let the old gasbag lumber chuffing by, and respond as mentioned above. Take the air out of these garbage accusations!

SnowMan did exactly that. If only he hadn’t started the name-calling!

Now, this SnowMan chap is an excellent writer, and I wish he were in our stable of writers. Though, I wonder whether I’d have to edit his output so much that it wouldn’t be worth it. I can’t know that because I know him only through this one, ultimately very entertaining, exchange, which I’ve reproduced in its entirety, below.

My post is the last one, in which I excoriated SnowMan for his approach.


 — BEGINNING OF THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN SNOWMAN AND BROTHA WOLF —

When Conservatives Face the Music

This Bill O’Reilly scandal, and that’s what it is naysayers, has gotten worse and worse for the conservative commentator. In fact, you know it’s gotten bad when even your fellow conservatives call you out on your lies. After Brian Williams got caught in a fib, O’Reilly saw fit to scold him. And then, you know what happened after that. It was all downhill for the man who loved pointing fingers at the world, but too full of himself, along with something else, to admit his own flaws, one of them being that he’s apparently a pathological liar.

Now, it seems that conservatives, for the most part, are trying to distance themselves from the mess that is Bill O’Reilly, especially when he’s going around threatening those who had the balls to call him out. MSN reports:

The editors in chief at Mother Jones this morning sent this email/letter to Fox News Channel’s primetime star Bill O’Reilly and one of the network’s communications execs, saying it is concerned for its Washington bureau chief’s safety after O’Reilly called for him to be “in the kill zone.”

“Mother Jones writer David Corn yesterday responded to Bill O’Reilly’s comments on the magazine’s piece about O’Reilly’s claims regarding his work for CBS News covering the Falklands war, saying “A discerning reader of Deadline can easily see that Bill O’Reilly is hiding behind name-calling, rather than dealing with the substance of the matter,” and that Mother Jones sent O’Reilly a long list of detailed questions about his comments regarding his experience as a war reporter. ” He and Fox News declined to respond. Instead, O’Reilly hurls invective, seemingly to distract,” Corn told Deadline.

“It’s a total hit piece,” Bill O’Reilly told Deadline about the report Corn wrote in Mother Jones about O’Reilly’s claims in re his coverage of Falklands war. In the post, Corn said some of O’Reilly’s stories “don’t withstand scrutiny — even claiming he acted heroically in a war zone that he apparently never set foot in.”

O’Reilly blasted the piece to other news outlets as well, and is continuing to do so today — during which he has been quoted by at least one outlet, TV Newser, as saying he expected those reporters with whom he spoke to “verify what I’m saying, because it’s easily verifiable, then I expect David Corn to be in the kill zone.”

Wow! And the scariest part is that O’Reilly’s supporters and Fox News disciples will be angry enough not only to agree, but will find ways to carry it out. So yes, I too would be worried for David Corn.

The bottom line is that those who worship the insidiousness and caveman-like mentalities of modern-day conservatism who believe in personal responsibility need to practice what they preach and take accountability for one of their own who’s going off the deep end with lies and anger management problems and not blame everyone else for their fuck ups. Rather, O’Reilly needs to man up and own his mistakes. His reputation has always been shady, but now there is proof. It is not a liberal plot to undermine the “purity” of America and go after a proud American. This is what real journalism is about, going after corruption. And Bill O’Reilly, through the years has proven just how corrupt he is.

  1. SnowMan said:

    March 1, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    Just another moronic post, Brotha Wolf. There is no O’Reilly scandal.

    What O’Reilly said has already been corroborated, so your whining is just silly. I’m enjoying your desperation, though.

    You and I both know that the nitwit David Corn has nothing to fear from Bill O’Reilly, or from anyone else at FOX News. It’s funny to hear you left-wing dealers in fake hysteria fabricating the sillinesses that you know will get your sheep followers all in a lather. Go ahead, name the last time that someone in the media was physically harmed by someone on the right. Go ahead. I’ll wait, but I won’t hold my breath.

    Want more proof? O’Reilly is the biggest name in cable talk. If there were really something there, it would be all over the news, and especially on all the rivals of FOX. They all SALIVATE to bring O’Reilly down.

    But there’s nothing. Anywhere

    Go ahead. Go to http://www.msnbc.com. Search “O’Reilly” on the site. You come up with something from back in august of 2013 — nearly two years ago.

    CNN has something, and it’s all the stuff that has already been shown to be false. See if you can guess which two cable networks would be the most eager to get rid of O’Reilly. Yup. MSNBC and CNN, and CNN has become the National Enquirer of cable.
    So, again, nothing anywhere.

    Either way, even if it were to be true, it would be the odd exception that proves the rule that America’s political right-wing is the least corrupt political group in America, while the left is by far the most corrupt. Why? Because this happens all the time on the left, going back to Dan Rather and his fraudulent reporting on George W. Bush, and before.

    The other proof is that the odd time that it happens on the right, you whining lot on the left jump all over it, because, FINALLY, you think, you have something.

    Last, and most convincing proof: if there were something there, it would have been broken by Drudge, and there’s nothing on Drudge.

    It happens a thousand times on the left, and all you lot say is, “nothing to see here.” It happens just once on the right and somehow it’s proof that it’s everywhere on the right.

    You called O’Reilly corrupt. Prove it. Examples. Otherwise, you’re just a cowardly liar.

  2. Snowman,

    There are articles to have shown that O’Reilly has lied numerous times. And O’Reilly has shown that he can’t take the news.

    In any case, this has shown how far downhill journalism and news has gotten. Whether it’s Bill O’Reilly or Brian Williams, it proves that there must be some kind of reform where people can trust the news again. Period. That in itself is not a liberal or conservative matter. But conservatives are at the forefront in trying to destroy truth. That is something that can not be overlooked. Period. You can get upset and angry all you want, but the truth is that O’Reilly and Fox News represent the worst news has to offer.

  3. Exactly, ‘Wolf-the lack of journalistic integrity and actual, Qualified reporters with a true sense of dignity and above all Honesty are neither a “Left” nor “Right” issue, but rather a pressing matter that every citizen should be concerned about (for those who give a rat’s azz about Real news, that is)!!!

  4. SnowMan said:

    March 2, 2015 at 5:40 am

    Two things: (1) Point me to one such article, and please make it a credible one. The ones at CNN were nothing… already debunked. And obviously nothing from Corn would do. Something credible.

    (2) You said that “conservatives are at the forefront in trying to destroy truth.” That’s a bunch of hogwash. Again, offer credible evidence, or you’re either proving that you’re completely ignorant or lying.

    Credible evidence is not “Everyone knows,” or “This non-credible publication said.” Credible is facts from credible sources. At this point, you’re just saying things.

    Left-wing media is OFTEN caught just making things up. Remember Dan Rather? The right-wing media, or FOX News has never been credibly accused of making things up.

    So again prove it.

    • I have a feeling any kind of source I cite will be immediately dismissed by you as being “leftist” and therefore untrue by default in your view. I can’t prove something to someone who automatically dismisses opposing opinions based on facts. So, why bother? By th way, I know you’re type. So, don’t think I’m naive enough to fall for your trap of me going out of my way to cite sources you will discount anyway because they’re simply not conservative. Nice try.

      • Why oh why, do these white racists presume that all black people posting here are ‘liberal’? Oh, I know why, if they had two brains they would be twice as stupid. Ideologues of the world unite!

      • SnowMan said:

        March 3, 2015 at 1:12 pm

        Again, failing to name such “facts” proves that you’re engaging in nothing but AT BEST conjecture.

        I’ll make it easier for you. A fact is something that we all agree is a fact. That DOES rule out everything from the ideological media. Example: when Dan Rather smeared George W. Bush, eventually it came out that he HAD smeared George W. Bush. It’s an accepted fact now. The document he used was forged, and there were ways to determine that and they were made public. You say there are “articles to have shown that O’Reilly has lied numerous times.” Okay point to one. Not an opinion piece like the bilge you posted above, but an actual article containing actual facts.

      • A fact is something that is objectively proven to be true. Why don’t you show me proof of your claims and we’ll see if they are objective or biased in favor of you? Since you’re so hung up on proof, why not make the first move? Provide links or something, instead of ranting.

      • And if you want articles to see, go to my twitter page and take your pick. In case you missed it, it’s on the left side of the blog.

        Also, don’t assume that I’m “leftist” simply because I disagree with all that modern-day conservatism is about. I also have a problem with modern-day liberalism. So, don’t assume that just because I disagree with one, I agree with the other.

      • SnowMan said:

        March 3, 2015 at 1:20 pm

        Herneith, you’re either a blithering idiot, or you just play one on blogs. You have no idea what color I am or even what country I’m from. If YOU had two brains, that would be three more than you have now. Better put something over your ears, or that howling vacuum between them will suck in even more debris.

        You DO have one point though. You might not be a liberal. You’re just not bright enough to realize you’re one of their stooges..

        Morons of the world unite!

      • Hold up! So you assume that just because she’s not a conservative that means she plays for the other side? You know what they say about those who assume. They make asses out of themselves. And yet, you seem to be proud of being one. More power to ya.

      • Herneith, you’re either a blithering idiot, or you just play one on blogs.

        Is that you Scott Walker?

      • SnowMan said:

        March 4, 2015 at 1:00 am

        You flunked, Brotha Wolf. You made the accusations, you have to provide the proof.

        If you look at the top, you’ll see that it’s YOUR name on the topmost post. Not mine. Your evasion shows you have only baseless accusations. Anyone can just repeat things … like sheep. That’s disgusting behavior, even for a racist like you.

        About Herneith. And about you. Whether both of you like it or not the DEBATE takes place on the left-right axis. You spend all your time attacking the right. You’re not attacking the right from the further right. Furthermore, you say nothing against the left. Your pretense that you’re part of some “third way” is transparently false. A lie? Simple ignorance? Who knows? Who can read another’s heart?

        I peruse your blog quite a bit just to find out what the blind followers are saying, and Herneith is a regular poster (not a contributor). She’s the same way: one who has the vanity to think she’s some brave, independent thinker, when she’s nothing more than a tiresome, preening, leftist dupe.

        As regards my challenge, the burden of proof is yours, since you made the accusations. I’m telling you that you have no ACTUAL proof. The fact that you offer none proves my point.

        I win.

      • You win? Fine. Whatever makes you feel happy and superior. That doesn’t change the basic theme of this blog that even conservatives need to hold themselves accountable for their actions. And Bill O’Reilly needs to man up and do some soul searching seeing as how he’s been lying for years.

        So, you can boast about how you’ve “won” all you want. It doesn’t change the truth that O’Reilly is a liar, and overall asshole to boot. Then again, seeing as how you’ve been behaving in my blog, I can see why you’re defending him.

        I attack the right mostly because the right attacks people like me, which is true. Only the right is bold enough to do so.

        In any case, I see you’re nothing more than a troll who’s too immature to have an intellectual conversation with. Like I said, if that means you’ve won, go ahead and think that. But it doesn’t change my point that your side, and a certain someone on your side, need to be held responsible for your actions.

        Oh, and if you think that I’ve allowed liberals to get away with their BS, it shows you haven’t been reading my blog until recently.

        Anyway, I’m done. Good bye.

      • snowMan said:

        March 5, 2015 at 1:24 pm

        Yep, BrothWolf, you’re done alright. And before you even started! Pretty pathetic. You didn’t offer one single thing in support of your accusations and somehow you think that passes for an argument? Are you a moron?

        Again, I challenge you. You made another assertion. You said that the right attacks people like you.

        Again, prove it. Give me one REAL piece of evidence that the right attacks people like you.

        If you don’t prove it, then you show yourself to be nothing but a cowardly, racist, narcissistic bully, taking cheap pot shots at innocent people for kicks, and hiding behind all the other racialist whiners out there.

      • snowMan said:

        March 5, 2015 at 1:26 pm

        Go ahead, point me to where you somehow take the left to task.

        I already know the answer to that. You take the left to task only when they’re not leftist enough for your taste. And when they don’t grovel enough before your race-obsessed, reactionary, whining bullsh*t. And you pretend you’re not on the left? You’re not too bright, are you?

      • I’m not going to bend over backwards for a troll.

      • Now, go ahead and still act like an asshole showing the world your bullying attitude, and beg me to kick you off my blog.

      • snowman said:

        March 6, 2015 at 1:24 pm

        Let’s see, let’s see. Rolling Stone. Wasn’t that where we learned all about all that rape going on? Oh, yeah. That was faked. Strike 1.

        Raw story and Keith Olbermann? More fraudsters. Strike 2

        Politifact? You mean Politi-FICTION, don’t you? Left-wing organization known for getting it wrong? Lying? I don’t know. Who can read another’s heart? It’s pretty well known they’re always wrong, though. Strike 3.

        Newshounds? Same as Raw story and Politi-fiction. Always wrong due to an ideological obsession. Strike 4.

        Congratulations, Brotha Wolf. You got more strikes against you than you’re even allowed!

        I did mention, didn’t I, that the ideological press were out of bounds? Why, yes I did. Just above.

        How about some REAL facts? Facts you and I can BOTH agree on: #1: O’Reilly denied the allegations. #2: A military guy backed up O’Reilly’s story IMMEDIATELY. #3: O’Reilly’s still on the air, having, apparently NOT faced any music. #4: Brian Williams IMMEDIATELY admitted it because he knew he was caught. #5: ABC did NOT back up Williams, while #5: FOX News IMMEDIATELY backed up O’Reilly. #6: no one else in the non-ideological press is talking about it. #7: CNN and MSNBC would be ALL over this if there were something there, since their deepest fantasy is to depose O’Reilly.

        Look, I have nothing but respect for the ideological press — both left and right-wing. They are honest, if sometimes overzealous. But, their zeal gets the better of them too frequently. So, that leads to fact #8: your “scandal” is going nowhere, because there’s nothing there, and you have nothing, but just spouting the wishful thinking of others. And, again, you have provided nothing in the way of credible support for your original hypothesis. That makes you nothing more than a vicious rumor-monger. Sorry, but that’s the lowest of the low on the internet.

        I extended another challenge to you: prove to me where, as you say, “the right attacks people like me.”

        First: who are “people like you?” Second: How does the right attack you?

        Then there’s my other challenge to you: How do you criticize the left? Show me an example. (And I’ll bet you that I can show YOU an example of where you simply criticize the left from even FURTHER left.)

        You call me a troll, but my questions are really very simple. Yet, you haven’t been able to answer one single question with anything but garbage. You really don’t like to challenge your preconceived notions, do you? That’s just a recipe for always getting it wrong. Well, you racists are all living in the past anyway. I shouldn’t be surprised at this.

      • You are banned. Goodbye.

  5. @Snowman; did I strike a chord? I don’t debate white racist deluded loons such as yourself. You are only fit for derision. You froth at the mouth!

    • snowMan said:

      March 5, 2015 at 1:16 pm

      @Herneith: You don’t debate anyone. I’ve read your material. It’s vapid, self-obsessed, moronic, devoid of substance and juvenile. It probably reflects its author. But, you are right about one thing, you don’t debate. You’re pretty much incapable of it, since you lack the necessary tools between your ears.

  6. LmaOoooooooooooooo, Tell ‘em!!! X-D

  7. Whoa, whoa, whoa there, Snowman!

    Look, I sympathize with your point-of-view, but you are waaaaayyy out of line with your sneering tone and your name-calling.

    I’ve been banned from this blog, but I have to extend support to my erstwhile friend Brotha Wolf, and call foul on SnowMan. I hope Brotha Wolf will print this in the interest of increasing civility in these and other forums!

    Just because you hold a certain point-of-view, Snowman, doesn’t mean that someone else can’t disagree with you because they sincerely hold a different point of view. The name-calling, the snide tone and sneering have to stop. They only damage your credibility, and makes you come off as a jerk.

    BW, I hope you’ll allow this to appear, as I was kind of enjoying the exchange. As you know, this Snowman character has ideas that seem more or less compatible with some of mine, but his tone is intolerable, and I’m writing this in support of you.

    As you also know, I tried always to be respectful here with people who were respectful with me. However, Snowman didn’t give you or anyone else a chance before dumping all over you! That’s not my way, and I’d like to let Snowman know that it shouldn’t be his way either.

    Best,

    — x

— END OF THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN SNOWMAN AND BROTHA WOLF —

 


 

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – We did an extensive analysis of leftist debate evasions here. Search for “Compendium of reasons for editing content from the RGI.” In the rather long post, it’s about three-quarters of the way down. That compendium lists all the ways the RGI, and the left in general, duck and avoid actually talking about an issue. It’s a list of things they do in writing, but they do the same things is speaking as well.

Hilarious Exchange with the RGI


As you all know pretty well, I spend some time last year duking it out with some of the pawns of the Race Grievance Industry. These people are the stooges who take to the airwaves, social media, publications, the blogs and the street, with all sorts of frothing imprecations and lunatic accusations of racism, all at the command of their leadership.

I went at it with them for some months last year and the previous year, before they tacitly admitted they were out of gas, and, indirectly at least, conceded defeat. How, you might ask? By banning me from their pages.

I was nearly unfailingly polite, but I was firm, logical, backed up what I said, and they had nothing to counter it except to cry racism and run away, tails between legs.

Well, since my banishment, I’ve continued to follow some of their blogs — here are two of them: Brotha Wolf and Abagond — because the topic of race relations has always been of great interest to me. There have been some interesting posts, generally by insightful respondents to typically mediocre or boilerplate posts by the owners of the blogs.

However that all changed today. What appears to be shaping up as an interesting exchange is happening there now! Brotha Wolf — aka Brotha Cryin’ Wolf — had a typically stupid post. It’s here.

In it, BW thinks he has caught Bill O’Reilly in a gotcha moment, when O’Reilly — à la Brian Williams — supposedly lied about his whereabouts during the Falklands War in order to make it seem as if he were in the thick of battle. The problem is that someone immediately came forward and corroborated O’Reilly’s story. Furthermore, there seems to be no hint of anything else like that in O’Reilly’s past, while Williams appears to have been a serial exaggerator.

Let’s face it, the left are all serial exaggerators. Aka: liars.

But, wait! The first response to Brotha Wolf’s dumb post was from a commentator calling himself “SnowMan.” He (presumably a “he”(1)) simply eviscerated Brotha Cryin’ Wolf’s premise. To his credit, the good Brotha didn’t immediately ban SnowMan, but rather tried to engage him. That was probably a mistake, as BW was plainly over-matched. Another of BW’s acolytes, the brainless Herneith joined in as well. She has one speed with people who disagree with her: racism! She was true to form, but SnowMan wiped her out in the very next post. It was a delicious little exchange. I’ve reproduced it below, [with Editor’s Notes in red and square brackets] because I wonder whether Brotha Wolf will leave the embarrassing exchange up for long.

Typically Brotha Wolf bans people who get too uppity in their disagreement with him, and SnowMan is nothing if not uppity! However, if he’s allowed to stay around for a while, the fireworks ought to be fun to watch! I’m thinking I’d like to recruit SnowMan to contribute to our blog, but I suspect he has his own.

Again, here’s the link. Enjoy!

The blog thread is below:


*** BEGINNING OF BROTHA WOLF’S BLOG POST AND COMMENTS ***

When Conservatives Face the Music

This Bill O’Reilly scandal, and that’s what it is naysayers, has gotten worse and worse for the conservative commentator. In fact, you know it’s gotten bad when even your fellow conservatives call you out on your lies. After Brian Williams got caught in a fib, O’Reilly saw fit to scold him. And then, you know what happened after that. It was all downhill for the man who loved pointing fingers at the world, but too full of himself, along with something else, to admit his own flaws, one of them being that he’s apparently a pathological liar.

Now, it seems that conservatives, for the most part, are trying to distance themselves from the mess that is Bill O’Reilly, especially when he’s going around threatening those who had the balls to call him out. MSN reports:

The editors in chief at Mother Jones this morning sent this email/letter to Fox News Channel’s primetime star Bill O’Reilly and one of the network’s communications execs, saying it is concerned for its Washington bureau chief’s safety after O’Reilly called for him to be “in the kill zone.”

“Mother Jones writer David Corn yesterday responded to Bill O’Reilly’s comments on the magazine’s piece about O’Reilly’s claims regarding his work for CBS News covering the Falklands war, saying “A discerning reader of Deadline can easily see that Bill O’Reilly is hiding behind name-calling, rather than dealing with the substance of the matter,” and that Mother Jones sent O’Reilly a long list of detailed questions about his comments regarding his experience as a war reporter. ” He and Fox News declined to respond. Instead, O’Reilly hurls invective, seemingly to distract,” Corn told Deadline.

“It’s a total hit piece,” Bill O’Reilly told Deadline about the report Corn wrote in Mother Jones about O’Reilly’s claims in re his coverage of Falklands war. In the post, Corn said some of O’Reilly’s stories “don’t withstand scrutiny — even claiming he acted heroically in a war zone that he apparently never set foot in.”

O’Reilly blasted the piece to other news outlets as well, and is continuing to do so today — during which he has been quoted by at least one outlet, TV Newser, as saying he expected those reporters with whom he spoke to “verify what I’m saying, because it’s easily verifiable, then I expect David Corn to be in the kill zone.”

Wow! And the scariest part is that O’Reilly’s supporters and Fox News disciples will be angry enough not only to agree, but will find ways to carry it out. So yes, I too would be worried for David Corn.

The bottom line is that those who worship the insidiousness and caveman-like mentalities of modern-day conservatism who believe in personal responsibility need to practice what they preach and take accountability for one of their own who’s going off the deep end with lies and anger management problems and not blame everyone else for their fuck ups. Rather, O’Reilly needs to man up and own his mistakes. His reputation has always been shady, but now there is proof. It is not a liberal plot to undermine the “purity” of America and go after a proud American. This is what real journalism is about, going after corruption. And Bill O’Reilly, through the years has proven just how corrupt he is.

11 THOUGHTS ON “WHEN CONSERVATIVES FACE THE MUSIC”

  1.  SnowMan said:

    March 1, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    Just another moronic post, Brotha Wolf. There is no O’Reilly scandal.

    What O’Reilly said has already been corroborated, so your whining is just silly. I’m enjoying your desperation, though. [Edtior’s Note: Wow! Derisive start. I might even be forced to tell SnowMan to tone it down on my own blog. I don’t allow overly hostile exchanges on these pages.]

    You and I both know that the nitwit David Corn [Editor’s Note: And I typically don’t allow name-calling on my pages. However, Brotha Wolf does, so SnowMan is not out of line here in calling columnist David Corn a “nitwit.” It also happens to be true.] has nothing to fear from Bill O’Reilly, or from anyone else at FOX News. [Editor’s Note: This is true. And obvious. Brotha Wolf’s point that David Corn fears bodily harm from O’Reilly is just as stupid as a rock.] It’s funny to hear you left-wing dealers in fake hysteria fabricating the sillinesses that you know will get your sheep followers all in a lather. Go ahead, name the last time that someone in the media was physically harmed by someone on the right. Go ahead. I’ll wait, but I won’t hold my breath. [Editor’s Note: Good point. No one in America has anything to fear from the right.]

    Want more proof? O’Reilly is the biggest name in cable talk. If there were really something there, it would be all over the news, and especially on all the rivals of FOX. They all SALIVATE to bring O’Reilly down. [Editor’s Note: Yep. That’s for sure.]

    But there’s nothing. Anywhere

    Go ahead. Go to http://www.msnbc.com. Search “O’Reilly” on the site. You come up with something from back in august of 2013 — nearly two years ago. [Editor’s Note: Below, BW demands that SnowMan “back it up.” This is “backing it up.”]

    CNN has something, and it’s all the stuff that has already been shown to be false. See if you can guess which two cable networks would be the most eager to get rid of O’Reilly. Yup. MSNBC and CNN, and CNN has become the National Enquirer of cable.
    So, again, nothing anywhere.

    Either way, even if it were to be true, it would be the odd exception that proves the rule that America’s political right-wing is the least corrupt political group in America, while the left is by far the most corrupt. Why? [Editor’s Note: Yep. This is obvious.] Because this happens all the time on the left, going back to Dan Rather and his fraudulent reporting on George W. Bush, and before. [Editor’s Note: Another good point. ]

    The other proof is that the odd time that it happens on the right, you whining lot on the left jump all over it, because, FINALLY, you think, you have something. [Editor’s Note: Pow!]

    Last, and most convincing proof: if there were something there, it would have been broken by Drudge, and there’s nothing on Drudge.

    It happens a thousand times on the left, and all you lot say is, “nothing to see here.” It happens just once on the right and somehow it’s proof that it’s everywhere on the right.

    You called O’Reilly corrupt. Prove it. Examples. Otherwise, you’re just a cowardly liar. [Editor’s Note: Double Pow!]

    This SnowMan guy just took apart Brotha Wolf’s post!

  2. Snowman,

    There are articles to have shown that O’Reilly has lied numerous times. And O’Reilly has shown that he can’t take the news. [Editor’s Note: Brotha Wolf just says things. No indication that he has any real basis for saying them, but he says them anyway. This is an important modus operandi or the left. Why? Well, one reason is that any moron can just say things, and the left is full of just any morons.]

    In any case, this has shown how far downhill journalism and news has gotten. Whether it’s Bill O’Reilly or Brian Williams, it proves that there must be some kind of reform where people can trust the news again. Period. That in itself is not a liberal or conservative matter. [Editor’s Note: He’s wrong here, of course. Media corruption is very much a left-wing problem.] But conservatives are at the forefront in trying to destroy truth. [Editor’s Note: Another thing that BW just says. No proof.] That is something that can not be overlooked. Period. You can get upset and angry all you want, but the truth is that O’Reilly and Fox News represent the worst news has to offer. [Editor’s Note: And, of course, O’Reilly has nothing to do with news. He’s a commentator.]

  3. Exactly, ‘Wolf-the lack of journalistic integrity and actual, Qualified reporters with a true sense of dignity and above all Honesty are neither a “Left” nor “Right” issue, but rather a pressing matter that every citizen should be concerned about (for those who give a rat’s azz about Real news, that is)!!!  [Editor’s Note: And, of course, O’Reilly has nothing to do with news. He’s a commentator. Mz. Nikita’s none too bright either.]

  4.  SnowMan said:

    March 2, 2015 at 5:40 am

    Two things: (1) Point me to one such article, and please make it a credible one. The ones at CNN were nothing… already debunked. And obviously nothing from Corn would do. Something credible.

    (2) You said that “conservatives are at the forefront in trying to destroy truth.” That’s a bunch of hogwash. Again, offer credible evidence, or you’re either proving that you’re completely ignorant or lying. [Editor’s Note: I love it! SnowMan calls him out. Down below, you’ll see that Brotha Wolf doesn’t, can’t rise to the challenge. ]

    Credible evidence is not “Everyone knows,” or “This non-credible publication said.” Credible is facts from credible sources. At this point, you’re just saying things.

    Left-wing media is OFTEN caught just making things up. Remember Dan Rather? The right-wing media, or FOX News has never been credibly accused of making things up.

    So again prove it. [Editor’s Note: So, SnowMan provides a real example that everyone knows as fact.]

    • I have a feeling any kind of source I cite will be immediately dismissed by you as being “leftist” and therefore untrue by default in your view. I can’t prove something to someone who automatically dismisses opposing opinions based on facts. So, why bother? By th way, I know you’re type. So, don’t think I’m naive enough to fall for your trap of me going out of my way to cite sources you will discount anyway because they’re simply not conservative. Nice try. [Editor’s Note: Just a weak evasion. Not unexpected, though.]

      1. Why oh why, do these white racists presume that all black people posting here are ‘liberal’? Oh, I know why, if they had two brains they would be twice as stupid. Ideologues of the world unite! [Editor’s Note: Here’s the brainless Herneith. Needless to say the very first thing out of her is “Racist!” What a moron. SnowMan shreds her below, in one of the more enjoyable posts I’ve ever read.]

      2.  SnowMan said:

        March 3, 2015 at 1:12 pm

        Again, failing to name such “facts” proves that you’re engaging in nothing but AT BEST conjecture.

        I’ll make it easier for you. A fact is something that we all agree is a fact. That DOES rule out everything from the ideological media. Example: when Dan Rather smeared George W. Bush, eventually it came out that he HAD smeared George W. Bush. It’s an accepted fact now. The document he used was forged, and there were ways to determine that and they were made public. You say there are “articles to have shown that O’Reilly has lied numerous times.” Okay point to one. Not an opinion piece like the bilge you posted above, but an actual article containing actual facts.  [Editor’s Note: Oof! SnowMan seems to take no prisoners. Kind of refreshing, actually.]

      3. A fact is something that is objectively proven to be true. Why don’t you show me proof of your claims and we’ll see if they are objective or biased in favor of you? Since you’re so hung up on proof, why not make the first move? Provide links or something, instead of ranting. [Editor’s Note: More weak evasion. I’m under no burden of proof, even though I offered an example above, in support of my point.]

      4. And if you want articles to see, go to my twitter page and take your pick. In case you missed it, it’s on the left side of the blog.

        Also, don’t assume that I’m “leftist” simply because I disagree with all that modern-day conservatism is about. I also have a problem with modern-day liberalism. So, don’t assume that just because I disagree with one, I agree with the other.

      5.  SnowMan said:

        March 3, 2015 at 1:20 pm

        Herneith, you’re either a blithering idiot, or you just play one on blogs. You have no idea what color I am or even what country I’m from. If YOU had two brains, that would be three more than you have now. Better put something over your ears, or that howling vacuum between them will suck in even more debris.

        You DO have one point though. You might not be a liberal. You’re just not bright enough to realize you’re one of their stooges..

        Morons of the world unite! [Editor’s Note: Wow! Herneith is taken down! Having faced Herneith’s brainless accusations, this was just a whole lotta fun to read! I’m guessing that Herneith will bow out here.]

      6. Hold up! So you assume that just because she’s not a conservative that means she plays for the other side? You know what they say about those who assume. They make asses out of themselves. And yet, you seem to be proud of being one. More power to ya. [Editor’s Note: Brotha Wolf’s just been mailing it in here.]

  SnowMan said:

March 4, 2015 at 1:00 am
You flunked, Brotha Wolf. You made the accusations, you have to provide the proof.
If you look at the top, you’ll see that it’s YOUR name on the topmost post. Not mine. Your evasion shows you have only baseless accusations. Anyone can just repeat things … like sheep. That’s disgusting behavior, even for a racist like you.

About Herneith. And about you. Whether both of you like it or not the DEBATE takes place on the left-right axis. You spend all your time attacking the right. You’re not attacking the right from the further right. Furthermore, you say nothing against the left. Your pretense that you’re part of some “third way” is transparently false. A lie? Simple ignorance? Who knows? Who can read another’s heart?

I peruse your blog quite a bit just to find out what the blind followers are saying, and Herneith is a regular poster (not a contributor). She’s the same way: one who has the vanity to think she’s some brave, independent thinker, when she’s nothing more than a tiresome, preening, leftist dupe.

As regards my challenge, the burden of proof is yours, since you made the accusations. I’m telling you that you have no ACTUAL proof. The fact that you offer none proves my point.

I win.

*** END OF BROTHA WOLF’S BLOG POST AND COMMENTS ***


We’ll see whether this fun exchange continues! Courage is not a characteristic of BW’s. I suspect he’ll bail soon enough pretending he’s just too smart, too insightful … too good for SnowMan, when, really, BW’s just … overmatched. I sure wish I could jump in and help out, even though it’s a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – A colleague of mine, for example, a petite, brilliant black woman, engaged Brotha Wolf and was able to conceal both her sex and her color from the braying herds at Brotha Wolf’s site for most of the very long exchange before she, too, was banned. I can’t conclude definitively that “SnowMan” is a he, but for the nonce I’ll assume he’s a he.

Hillary Clinton’s E-Mails


This says it all (over at the National Journal):

Transparency isn’t the only issue. Clinton exposed confidential and potentially dangerous information to a nonsecure, commercial email system. She gave Chinese spies a better shot at reading her emails than U.S. taxpayers. [Editor’s Note: emphasis added]

Uhhhhh… whuh?!?!? Let’s read that back: As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton gave Chinese spies a better shot at reading her emails than U.S. taxpayers.

Look, let’s be serious here. Some of us have known here for years that Hillary is an empty pantsuit. She apparently used this private e-mail system throughout her time as American Secretary of State. Why would she do that? Sounds pretty darned stupid, huh? Well, there are potentially thousands of answers, none of them good ones.

However, one thing is absolutely undeniable: She was certain she wouldn’t be caught. 

This twit is a woman:

  • who made a one hundred thousand dollars dollars from a thousand dollars — because someone did it for her.
  • who came to prominence only on her husband’s coattails.
  • who accomplished nothing of note in her time as First Lady.
  • who ran for Senator in New York, where they’d elect a fungus if it had a (D) next to its name on the ballot. (and they often do)
  • who accomplished nothing of note as a Senator.
  • who ran against the emptiest of suits in the 2008 Presidential primaries for her party’s nomination for the Presidency … and lost. Decisively.
  • who was appointed Secretary of State under the aforementioned emptiest of suits, and … accomplished nothing.
  • whose only saving grace is that an even emptier suit became Secretary of State after her. Her successor is an airhead of such staggering numbskullery, such howling vacuum-headedness, that Joe Biden looks positively not too dull by comparison.
  • who hasn’t accomplished a single, solitary thing of note that wasn’t handed to her, or done for her, by a man.
  • who wants to be known as Madame President.

Another thing that some of us have known about Hillary Clinton for years? She’s not too bright.

— xPraetorius

Congratulations Senator Mikulski


Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland has announced that she will not run for re-election in 2016.

She said something to the effect that, “I had to decide whether I wanted to spend my time raising money or raising hell.”

It’s rare that a member of Congress actually achieves what he or she wants to achieve in life. However, it’s undeniable that Senator Mikulski has been a success: the world is indeed a good deal more hellish as a result of her tenure in Congress.

Few things are worse than a focused, high-energy, purposeful, driven, bull horn-mouth, with a pea-brain, like Senator Mikulski. That she hung around Congress for 40 years is disgraceful.

— xPraetorius

The Government Is Killing The Poor


Contents:


First, Some Background

Look, let’s speak honestly. The poor are poor for a lot of reasons. There is, however, a simple, ironclad truth: if you want not to be poor, the recipe is fairly simple:

  1. Get an education and obtain marketable skills(1)
  2. Learn to speak well.
  3. Don’t produce any children out-of-wedlock.(2)

That’s it.

All studies show that of the people who adhere to, really, just #’s 1 and 3, the percentage in poverty is in the single digits. I added #2. It’s a strong differentiator. There’s no difference in that statistic between races, sexes or any other human grouping either. All people who adhere to at least #’s 1 and 3, have a greater than 90% chance of success in America. Period.

So, poor people are generally poor for at least one simple reason: They didn’t do #1 and #3 in the above list.

And there’s another reason. Let’s call it weak will. Not doing #’s 1 and 3 in the above list is generally caused by choosing not to do #’s 1 and 3 in the above list. Simple as that.

Society explains very, very clearly that an education is a prerequisite for obtaining a good job in America. Furthermore, just about everybody’s very well aware that having children out-of-wedlock is not conducive to doing well in America.

More: if you’re a person of little means, society provides numerous ways for you to attend college and not pay for it.

You’re even luckier in this regard if you can demonstrate black or Hispanic heritage. If that’s the case, you won the education lottery! Colleges are begging for you to attend them, and are perfectly willing to fob off their cost of your free education onto others.

Inescapable Bottom Line: If you’re poor in America, and you have no education, it’s because you choose to have no education. If you choose to have no education, then you are likely (not certain) to be a person of weak will and/or character. It means that almost certainly you haven’t spent sufficient time understanding yourself, your future, and what and who you want to be in that future. Well, what did you do with all that time? Party?

Again, speaking honestly, all this means that the people answering to the description of “poor” are also much more prone to those other predictors of poverty: Substance abuse, smoking, and a raft of other unhealthy lifestyle components.

One More Important Truth

The government knows all this. Perfectly well. When Congressmen and women, state representatives, governors and other officials say, “We need to raise taxes on cigarettes to lessen the extent to which people smoke,” they’re really saying: “We know that a huge chunk of smokers are going to go right on smoking anyway, and we’re going to get a pot full of their money that way. Too bad if they’re poor.”

If they go ahead with the tax increases, they’re also saying, “We con’t care if poor people die as a result of this law.”

If some of them are honest, as the person in the “Kevin Williamson” section below was, then they’re saying, “It’s okay to enact this law because it will kill poor people.”

Everyone knows that these so-called “sin taxes” land most heavily on those least able to pay them.

I might add that all the people trying to raise taxes on the poor are Democrats and leftists. Raising taxes is just not a big policy goal of the right. Hasn’t been for more than a century.

How the Government Kills Poor People

As we know, the government does happily raise taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol. Nowadays it costs the poor saps who keep on smoking just about ten bucks a pack for cigarettes, and a whole bunch for even cheap booze. I don’t know the details because I don’t smoke or drink.

But my ex-wife does. She’s an alcoholic and a smoker. And she’s killing herself slowly. When I was married to her, I was much younger and more naïve and allowed her to “manage” the money for a while. I was making a pretty good living, but I always wondered why we were always living paycheck to paycheck, and simply assumed that it was because she wasn’t working, and the cost of living, and all that. One day it hit me. I came home from a week-long business trip and went to the refrigerator to get a glass of orange juice. There was nothing in the fridge but a full, unopened magnum of wine.

That observation began a long period of frequently finding the refrigerator nearly or completely empty except for the ever-present magnum of wine which reappeared each day. We might not have food, or juice, or bread or anything else, but we always had that magnum of wine ready for my wife’s afternoon and evening’s drinking.

That began a period of many years filled with unsuccessful attempts to get my wife to quit. Finally, I simply cut off the booze money, and she had divorce papers in my hands within two weeks.

I knew what would happen after that. She would get a very favorable arrangement (she did), the kids would live with me (they did, and do), and she would spend all the money I was going to pay her on booze and she would head rapidly downward physically (she did).

Policy makers know that huge percentages of the poor are a lot like my ex-wife: people who for whatever reason simply choose not to quit smoking or drinking. 

I used to think that addiction was a powerful thing, and I still do, but there are, also, weak people out there, and they’re generally poor. Policy makers know full well that they are going to take money for food, medicine, transportation, heating, lighting, and other necessities out of poor people’s hands when they raise the “sin taxes.”

In the case of my ex, who hasn’t had a steady job since we divorced more than 10 years ago, she is choosing to buy the wine, pay the taxes and skip the meals. And she’s dying. Between you and me, I’d be surprised if she were to last the year. But, that’s okay. You see she’s really of no more use to society, so where’s the value, for society, in keeping her around?

Don’t imagine for a moment that policy makers don’t know that this happens, and that they’re helping it to happen.

Kevin Williamson Catches A Really Powerful Government Employee Admitting It

Don’t believe me? Read this by the indispensable Kevin Williamson of National Review. In that column, Williamson quotes Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as she candidly admits to believing that the government should limit the poor’s numbers. Not, of course, by making them less poor; no — by encouraging them to pursue abortions. Here’s part of Williamson’s piece:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, having decided for some inexplicable reason to do a long interview with a fashion magazine (maybe it is her celebrated collection of lace collars), reaffirmed the most important things we know about her: her partisanship, her elevation of politics over law, and her desire to see as many poor children killed as is feasibly possible.

Speaking about such modest restrictions on abortion as have been enacted over the past several years, Justice Ginsburg lamented that “the impact of all these restrictions is on poor women.” Then she added: “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”

This is not her first time weighing in on the question of what by any intellectually honest standard must be described as eugenics. In an earlier interview, she described the Roe v. Wade decision as being intended to control population growth, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” She was correct in her assessment of Roe; the co-counsel in that case, Ron Weddington, would later advise President Bill Clinton: “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country,” by making abortifacients cheap and universally available. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it.”

Let’s Speak Honestly

The government is killing poor people, and they know it perfectly well.

Whether it’s from killing them in the womb, or hastening their demise by grabbing their money, leaving them just enough to fuel their addictions, they’re being killed. That they participate in their own murders doesn’t change the immorality of what the government does. If a man is standing on a ledge threatening to jump, sure there is something wrong with him, but that doesn’t make it any less grotesque to yell, “Jump!”

We said this before in these very pages, but we said it in a more theoretical sense. That column is here. In that essay, in the form of a conversation between two leftists, we predicted that there would be discussions as to which segments of the population were more or less useful, so were more or less likely to be targets of “incentives” to abort their babies and/or euthanize their old an infirm. And all this in order to control the very mix of the population.

Here’s a key passage:

You tell people that their loved one is in pain, that they’re suffering…you tell them that they would want it this way…even if the old folks object. You advise the kids how to let their loved ones know how not to “be a burden to them and their family.” You show the old folks’ kids how to drop hints that caring for them is taking food or care or time away from their grandchildren, or their grandchildren’s future. You show them how to drop the right hints that their elderly one’s continued care is a real hardship for his or her grandchildren. Let me tell you, social pressures are every bit as powerful as monetary incentives. Look we convinced women to … kill… their… own… babies. They won’t think twice about sending their parents and grandparents off to die. 

Lay it on thick enough and the old fogies will be lining up for the needle! There’s not a grandmother or grandfather in the world who could resist the “it’s for their grandchildren” thing!

Look: all we do is simply ummm exert certain “pressures” — which we call “incentives” — on certain populations and we get the desired results. If we can freely manipulate the number of abortions and the number of “compassionate deaths,” then we control,just about exactly, the population mix of our society. If we do that in every country, then we get exactly the world we want. You thought “population control” meant keeping population numbers down? Nope. That’s only a small part of it, but “population control” means exactly that: controlling the population. In every aspect of their lives that we need to control, such as: birth, life, freedom, economic activity, death…[smiles mischievously] Just kidding! Lighten up! We need to control only their birth and death…everything else takes care of itself from there.

And, “ballast” is the most important. With the proper amount of ballast in the population, we can control the rate of development of society. More ballast and we slow things down, ’cause the working segments have to work that much harder just to support the non-working ones. Less ballast and things move forward more quickly. We control the ballast with “Reproductive Choice” and “Compassionate Care.” We simply fine tune birth and death rates ’til we get the ones we want. And, don’t forget…the ballast votes something like 98% for us, so we need to be really in control of their numbers!

You see: If we control the population — down to when they have babies, what babies they have, and when they die — then we get the society we want, and isn’t that really what we all want?

At the very top of this section we said that the government is killing poor people, and that policy makers know it full well. There’s a reason this is even possible: the poor allow it. Every time some poor slob drops down 10 bucks for a pack of smokes she is saying that it’s just okay to kill her. She could stop it this very moment. And she should. And, importantly, some will. But most won’t. Their lack of will, focus, intelligence, character, or whatever, is what made them poor in the first place. 

For those of you who thought that the repugnant pseudo-science of eugenics had been buried, forever to be reviled by civilized people, you were wrong. The Democrats have embraced it as an unofficial policy position.

Still don’t believe me? Here’s another one: Amanda Marcotte, Eugenicist. Here’s a passage from the column, again by Kevin Williamson:

The main reason that the abortion movement cannot quite disentangle itself from its roots in 19th-century eugenics is the niggling, persistent fact that it doesn’t really want to. Consider this from Amanda Marcotte, who is clutching her ironically worn thrift-store pearls over the fact that Indiana may pass a law that would make it a crime for parents to kill their children over a disability.

No one is well served when children with disabilities are forced on families that know they don’t have the emotional or financial resources to help them. And this entire bill, which is supported by anti-choice groups in Indiana, would only truly impact the most vulnerable families—those who don’t have the money or ability to travel out of state to get these abortions elsewhere.

This is familiar, ancient, nasty stuff: that sick people and disabled people are a burden, that this burden outweighs their humanity, that the poor cannot be trusted to care for the children they have, etc. That “no one is well served,” the inescapable implication of which is that the children in question are better off dead.

All of this is based upon the reduction of human life to an accounting entry. There is an occasion upon which the state and its representatives are in fact legitimately called upon to go about the grim business of accounting for human lives and human deaths on a ledger—war. War is a poor operating model for family life, but those who advocate abortion as a means to some desirable social outcome — all of whom are eugenicists, whether they understand themselves as such or do not — bring war into the obstetrician’s office, into the nursery, and into the family.

Who lives? Who dies? Who is fit to be born? Would any sane human being leave those questions to Amanda Marcotte et al.?

Williamson draws a compelling parallel between today’s new eugenicists in the Democrat Party, and war. I think there’s another, even better metaphor: Agriculture. Or, Dairy Farming, if you prefer. The left view you and me and your family as little more than farm animals whose numbers need to be controlled as precisely as possible. They have, obviously, seen that we easily control nearly the exact number of each type of cow, or horse, or pig or chickens that we have by breeding more or fewer, and “harvesting” more or fewer.

Think of cattle: We decide how many Holsteins, or Guernseys, Jerseys or Angus, or Herefords, or thisses or thats that we produce and/or keep around. If one gives more milk, we keep more of those around where there is a higher demand for milk. If another produces more meat (per pound of feed, of course) then we keep more of those where there’s greater demand for beef.

We do all that with farm animals and fowl, ocean fish, birds, deer… you name it. Why wouldn’t we do it with humans?

Well, simply put: we do. It’s called, in brief, abortion, tax policy and the growing movement in support of euthanasia. Oops: I mean, “Death with Dignity.”

In the eugenecists’ brave new world, if certain races of women produce more milk, we’ll keep more of ‘em around to feed babies. If certain races of women produce larger babies or more babies per time period, we’ll keep them around ’til such time as we need fewer or smaller babies. Then we’ll just thin the herd a bit by aging their numbers and reducing the population. Are certain races more docile? Fine, we’ll keep them around for the grunt work. Need more or less human “ballast?” Nothing to it! Incentivize abortion and euthanasia in their midst to a greater of lesser extent. Are certain races more intellectual? Well, we’ll use them to run things, but better not have too many of them. And we’ll definitely control the percentages of women and men that we keep around.

While this is unwritten public policy fantasy in Democrat Party circles, it’s written theory in eugenics circles.

Still don’t believe me? Do you really think that the Chinese didn’t know they were going to overwhelm their country with swarms of young men by instituting their “one-child policy?” Of course they did. Furthermore, it’s been obvious that they’ve been producing men like crazy over there since the policy went into effect. Chinese leaders are well aware of this. Why on earth do you think they’d do that if not for one thing: they consider these men coming into adulthood now, to be a potentially important export.

We already control when and whether people come into this world. When we control their exit date as well, we’ll have instituted the Democrat Party’s dream. Perfect population control. How much the better if the population asks for it in the name of “caring” and “compassion” and “dignity” and choice!”

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – Obtaining a Masters Degree, or even a doctorate, in say, “Womens’ Studies” doesn’t constitute getting an education. That’s just learning about one of the current fads. That’s why I put in the second phrase: “obtain marketable skills.” These are skills that would allow you to work anywhere in the country, and many parts of the world. Nursing, for example. Teaching, Computer skills, Engineering… things like that. If you obtain a real degree in a real discipline focused on producing real goods and/or services, then you have obtained both an education, and marketable skills.

(2) – Absolutely produce children — they will be the most beautiful parts of your life — just wait ’til you’re married, and intend to stay married,(3) before you do.

(3) – How sad that I’d have to put in that qualifier!

Make Obama Prove It


President Obama is always saying, of ISIS/ISIL, that “they’re not islamic,” that they’re only “perverting a great religion.”

Okay.

Prove it.

What in the freakin’ world has happened to the press?!? Can you imagine a Republican administration trying to assert that, as if the speaker were some kind of learned islamic theologian?!?

Can you imagine Tony Snow, or Dana Perino having been allowed to get away with such assertions, as if what they said were simply true on the face of it?

You and I both know that the sneering questions from the Washington press corps to those very assertions from a spokesperson for a Republican President would have followed … rapid-fire:

  • Who in the world are you to tell anyone what islam is and is not?
  • Oh? Prove it. Tell us — chapter and verse, please — what parts of Islam these people are violating in doing what they do.
  • What are your credentials for saying the murderers are not islamic?
  • What are the President’s credentials for saying the murderers are not islamic?
  • If the President is not an islamic theologian, then what are the credentials of the people telling you that these people are not islamic? Who are the people telling you or the President about what is Islam and what is not? Where are their sympathies? There are plenty of people saying this, but it’s plain that for many, their sympathies lie with the murderers. Are you using any of those people as sources?
  • Whenever anyone perpetrates violence ostensibly in the name of Christianity, or of Judaism (<– has that ever happened in your recollection?), the very first people to leap to condemn the violence are Christians and Jews. Furthermore, by far the most vociferous condemnation of the violence comes from Christians and Jews. They always move immediately to expunge the perpetrators of violence from their midst, and from their faith. Where are the so-called moderate muslims you say are so worried about the offense to their faith?
  • Why are all these so-called “moderate muslims” not leaping forward with detailed explanations as to why all these beheadings and other gruesome murders are against their faith? Where are they?
  • What is the wording in Islam’s texts that expressly forbids them from what they’re doing?
  • In Christianity, the Bible expressly commands the Christian to love his enemy. Everyone knows that. Can you quote me something like that in the text of the Koran that forbids a muslim from killing someone else?
  • Judaism is legendary for being on the wrong end of whatever weapons a society has used through the ages. Islam is legendary for being on the business end of those weapons. Again, throughout the ages. The notorious thuggees of india murdered hundreds of thousands over a span of nearly 500 years, all in the name of Islam. Are you saying that muslims have been “perverting Islam for more than a millennium?
  • It’s been more than 1,000 years. This is more than a little ridiculous. At what point is this bloody murder spree no longer a perversion of Islam, but the actual religion itself?

I remember when George W. Bush was the President, the form of the questions to his spokespeople (like the above-mentioned Snow and Perino) was adversarial, combative and preachy… similar to my examples above. The questioner would often begin with a long introductory preamble, designed to box the spokesperson in, setting a stage, and drawing conclusions with which the respondent does not agree, then leading into a question demanding to know why the administration has done something that, in light of all the beginning of the question, was plainly wrong, evil, or at best, idiotic. Whew!

It would be something like: “We know that this that and the other thing, and we also know that blah, blah and blah are true. Furthermore, we know that blah did this and blah did that. It’s clear from all that, that blah, blah and blah. In light of all that, why does the Administration continue to follow this policy that sure seems to be a failure?(1)

Now, however, with the Obama Administration, I’ve never in my life seen a President or an Administration go so un-scrutinized, so un-tested, so un-questioned. Following, as it does, the Administration of George W. Bush, which was scrutinized at the proctocological level, it’s all a bit surreal. How could it happen? Only one way: The press are herd animals. bleating, mindless sheep, who follow the leader docilely. Their leader, the one who must be followed and protected, is Obama.

I was listening to National Public Radio on the ride home from work on Friday, when Audie “Eeyore” Cornish was interviewing some spokesdoofus for some islamic grievance group or other. You know the type: as soon as some gibbering muslim baboon perpetrates some hideous atrocity somewhere, people like this moron come out of the woodwork decrying an imaginary “backlash” against muslims or against islam itself. A backlash that never happens; that never has happened.

Well this spokesdoofus said something like this: “Only 7% of all extremist violence is done by people calling themselves muslims.” The quote is approximate; the statistic is not. The plainly brainless Eeyore just let that assertion sit there without follow-up! Can you imagine that? Holy mackerel! Only seven percent of all “extremist violence” is perpetrated by people calling themselves muslims?!? How did the spokesdoofus get there?!?

We’ll never know, because that statistic — plainly an Obama Administration-friendly statistic — just sat there, unquestioned, unchallenged, unexamined. Good ol’ NPR! You can always count on them to give you a “news” broadcast that leaves you less informed than before you heard it!

Gibbering baboons from ISIS are surely coming here, are already here, to kill you and me — without qualm or reservation. Obama is using his conclusion that they’re not real muslims as one of his many excuses for inaction. Okay. It’s kind of important, then, that Obama tell us in detail just why he thinks that the ISIS is not islamic. Then, when he can’t, at least you will know that he doesn’t consider ISIS to be a real enemy, but rather at worst an inconsequential group that he has to call an enemy for purposes of political expediency.

Some have long suspected that Obama secretly sympathizes with the islamist agenda. That number is growing. Rapidly.

xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) Or: [1] Assertion #1 that might or might not be true. [2] Assertion #2 that might or might not be true. [3] Assertion #3 that might or might not be true. [4] Consequently, conclusion #1 — resulting inevitably from the previous three assertions — that therefore might or might not be true. [5] Will you now admit that what the Administration has been [insert bad thing here]? The spokespeople for Republican Administrations have always faced that template for questions during press briefings.

Hypocrites


Hypocrites.

I lost the above link to this from a couple of days back. Here it is again. The cartoon in the above-linked page makes a good point.

I don’t have a great problem with hypocrisy, in that it doesn’t change the validity of a hypocrite’s message. The message is either true or false, it’s good, bad or indifferent. The particular moral standing of the message bringer has nothing to do with it.

What is relevant in hypocrisy is the extent to which the hypocritical message deliverer actually believes her message. To be a bit more plainspoken: a hypocrite leaves herself open to charges of being a liar.

— xPraetorius

Didja Ever Notice…(*)


…how the American left, and its dear leader, Barack Obama, goes straight from we’re-as-dumb-as-stumps stupid thing directly to we’re-dumber-than-boxes-of-rocks moronic thing right to we’re-so-stupid-you-can’t-possibly-believe-it idiotic thing immediately to we-just-set-yet-another-record-for-plain-ol’-nitwittery dumb thing right to how-low-can-we-go-just-watch-us brain-dead thing?

It’s truly mind-boggling. You’d think that Obama would do something right at least once

If only by accident.

Nope.

You and I both know the old “even a blind pig roots the occasional truffle” joke. Somehow our blind pig has never located that bashful truffle.

You’d think that just by blind luck something, somewhere, somewhen, somehow would have turned out right, or even improved just a little, during the Obama tenure. ** cough Iraq cough ** Yet throughout the world, everything that could go wrong has gone wrong. Everything that could get better has gotten worse. ** cough Ukraine  cough ** More to the point: Anything that Obama has touted as a success has immediately turned to Chris Ofili art material. ** cough Yemen cough **

It’s as if Murphy saved up absolutely everything in his formidable arsenal for our dear Barack Obama.

You have to work hard to be that wrong that often and to keep the streak going for that long a time. Obama’s been stinkingly, smellily, odoriferously, unceasingly, relentlessly, unremittingly bad for the entire time he’s been in office. That has to be impossible, and might be a sign of the end of times.

No one — except possibly the Chicago Cubs, or the Washington Generals, or Charlie Brown trying to kick a field goal — can point to that kind of abject, constant, Oh-For-Everything… failure. One is forced to speculate that, just possibly, the failure is intentional, and therefore … success!

Obama’s been more devastating to New Orleans than Hurricane Katrina, to New York than SuperStorm Sandy, to Los Angeles than the 1994 earthquake, to Siberia than the meteor of Tunguska, to Detroit than the Democrats, to music than Justin Bieber, to Europe than the bubonic plague, to the American people than depression, migraines, the flu and disco … combined.

It seems as if you you can’t possibly be that bad, that constantly and that relentlessly, without actually trying to. As I mentioned in the above-linked post, Obama doesn’t love America. Rudy Giuliani was right on the nose, and we should be ready to defend him from the inevitable accusations of racism.

Okay, not more devastating to music than Justin Bieber.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(*) – I started this post before writing this post here. In that post, the indispensable Artaxes added a comment that said much of what I’ve said in the above post. I was tempted, therefore, not to post this one. However, there is one item, that I’ve not addressed significantly, that is a significant development: Yemen. The loss of that country to Iranian-sponsored jihadists represents a (yet another) devastating defeat for the Obama Administration (if, that is, you continue to believe that Obama somehow opposes islamic terrorism — something that’s just not at all clear.(1)).

(1) – Don’t believe it? Do a little thought exercise with me: Imagine if some violent, militant group overtly calling itself “Christian” were to appear, and start shooting, crucifying, burning or burying people alive. Or, a hypothetical such group loudly calling itself “Jewish.” Does anyone think that the Obama Administration would have the slightest qualm about decrying “Christian extremism?” or “Radical Christianity?” Do you think that anyone in the Obama Administration would do all the linguistic gyrations and acrobatics to protect the good name of either Christianity or Judaism? Can you imagine anyone in the Obama Administration saying, “These aren’t Christians. These are people who have twisted and perverted a great religion!”? Even though it would be obviously true? Of course not.

Taking this one step further: the very first people to condemn such people would be … Christians or Jews. Long before even the Christian-averse and the Judaism-averse Obama Administration. Christians and Jews would be, also, by far the most vociferous in their condemnation of such a hypothetical group. By far the fastest to expel them from the ranks of actual Christianity or Judiasm (Hint, hint, all you “moderate muslims” … You’re freakin’ late!)

Everyone Piles on Giuliani for Saying it Like It Is about Obama


Obama doesn’t love America. That’s what Rudy Giuliani said the other day. Giuliani was right, of course.

Obama’s like those people in Nazi Germany who — while the Nazis were in charge — hated Germany. Yes, Germany had produced Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Brahms and a host of other astonishing geniuses, but the Nazis were in charge in the 1930’s and ’40’s, and lots of Germans hated Germany then.

Outside of Germany at the time, I suspect they made no bones about it either.

Obama and his flunkies hated America for one simple reason: they were not then in charge of it.

When he got to the top of the heap, Obama then went around the world telling everyone how awful America has always been. And how he was setting out to bring about “fundamental change.”

“Fundamental change” means changing the very nature of the country. A simple truth: you don’t change the very nature of something or someone you love.

There’s also a fine tradition, in places like the former Soviet Union, of loving Russia, but of loathing her leaders. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was that current of thought’s finest exponent.

Sometimes we confound the country with its leaders. They are, indeed, two different things.

People today hate Iran, not even suspecting that the people of Iran are some of the most pro-American people on Earth. More pro-American, often, than most Americans. More pro-American, certainly, than Barack Obama. However, the leadership of Iran — the thugs who currently illegitimately occupy the seat of power there — are a bunch of scum-sucking, bloodthirsty, anti-American dirtbags.

When Rudi Giuliani said that Obama simply doesn’t love America, he was right on the nose. Furthermore, if Obama were honest, he would have said that Giuliani was right. However, asking Obama to be honest is like asking Shaquille O’Neal to be short. He can’t. He’s the exact opposite of short; just as Obama is the exact opposite of honest.

The entire kerfuffle about Giuliani’s plainspokenness is really about one thing and one thing only: the Alinsky playbook.

Saul Alinsky told leftists to: “Make the enemy (Republicans and Conservatives) live up to their own book of rules.” This is what I call the “Hypocrisy Allowance.”

The left are allowed — by the media, by other leftists, and, sadly, by many on the right — to be ridiculous hypocrites, because everyone knows they’re vile, dishonest people. Hence, everyone’s expectations of them are through the floor. In short, when leftists act like dirtbags, the media nearly unanimously say, “Well, that’s just the left being the left.” When the right, however, do something that’s seen as even slightly low-brow, everyone — including many on the right — comes down on them like a ton of bricks.

No leftist would have the slightest qualm about making the harshest charges of anti-American-ness, or un-American-ness against a Conservative or a Republican, but let a right-winger do the same, and the left goes immediately and unanimously all righteously indignant, and high-and-mighty, and how-dare-you!!!

Why?

The left’s use of things like generally faked hysterical charges is just one part of a larger strategy that can be described in two words: Play dirty.

It’s what gives the left their advantage, and it’s how the left has prospered in America, despite an unprecedented record of failure, since the early 1900’s. So, when they do something that’s vile or disgusting — such as falsely accusing someone of something — it’s okay, because it’s all in service of the “greater good” of bringing them to power. If their enemy (as they consider opponents) use the same tactic — even if the accusation is true! — then it’s vile and disgusting, and all the left get on board to denounce it, in highest dudgeon, as vile and disgusting. Get it?

Saul Alinsky did, and so did Barack Obama and his unsavory Administration.

I think that we need to announce a counter to the leftist playbook, aka Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

The counter for this particular rule: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.” is what I call: “Play-by-Play.” Tell them what they’re doing. Tell the world what the left is doing, then ridicule them for it (ridicule is one of Alinsky’s greatest weapons). Try something like: “Listen to the condemnation coming our way from the very people who invented the false accusation, the bald-faced slander. They’re upset only because they’ve been caught. They’ve long called us Conservatives or Republicans far worse than anything I’ve ever said about President Obama, and now they’re getting upset? What a bunch of immature, pantywaist babies.”

We’ll explore the counters to Alinsky’s “Rules” in future such posts as well.

— xPraetorius

 

It’s Worth Repeating (2/21/15)


From this post here:

Oh, yeah! Now I remember! There were 24 total charges against Saddam Hussein [Editor: to justify American involvement in Iraq], only one of which was … WMD’s.

Now, we find out (from the same above-linked post) that Bush never lied about WMD’s in Iraq, and that the other 23 items in the list of charges against Saddam Hussein were never challenged by anyone in the so-called “anti-Iraq war” movement.

Bottom line: 23 out of 24 charges against Saddam Hussein, used to justify American involvement in Iraq, were accepted as true by everyone in the world, and the one, single, lone challenge to the WMD’s charge turned out to be fraudulent.

Agree with Bush about going into Iraq or not, the #1 contantly-stated reason given to oppose that involvement … was a lie. While the other twenty-three reasons given by the Bush Administration were simply accepted by everyone as simple fact.

— xPraetorius

The Shameful List of Obama Muck-ups


Did you ever have a day that was just so lousy that you can’t even remember all the lousy details to complain about them to your family?

We’ve had an entire presidential term and a half like that. Six plus years of dismal, dreary, cartoonish, buffoonish, surreal, moronic, whining, amateurish, sniveling, excuse-laden failure.

So much failure, in fact, that it seems impossible to catalog it all.

The invaluable national treasure, Victor Davis Hanson, has, however, done us the important service of cataloging it all for us. Here.

In his column, Hanson gives us chapter and verse. It’s a great, if dispiriting, read. Hanson is a great writer; one of the finest in the world today.

Here are some key passages (some emphasis added):

The very mention of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Iraq was toxic for Republicans by 2005. They wanted to forget about the supposed absence of recently manufactured WMD in great quantities in Iraq; Democrats saw Republican defensiveness as key to their recovery in 2006. By the time Obama was elected, the issue had been demagogued to death, was no longer of any political utility, and so vanished.

So why all of a sudden is the New York Times strangely focused on old WMD stockpiles showing up in Iraq? Is the subtext perhaps that the rise of ISIS poses an existential threat in such a dangerous landscape (and by extension offers an explanation for the current bombing)? Or are we to be reminded that Bush stirred up a WMD hornets’ nest that Obama was forced to deal with? Or is the sudden interest intended to preempt the story now before we learn that ISIS routinely employs WMD against the Kurds? How strange that Iraq, WMD, bombing, and preemption reappear in the news, but now without the hysteria of the Bush era.

Indeed, for the last two years, reports of WMD of some sort have popped up weekly in Syria and Iraq. Bashar Assad has used them, apparently with strategic profit, both in deterring his enemies and in embarrassing the red lines of Barack Obama, who had threatened to bomb him if he dared use them.

Some more:

ISIS is rumored to have attempted to use mustard gas against the Kurds. Iraqi depots are periodically found, even as they are often dismissed as ossified beyond the point of easy use, or as already calibrated and rendered inert by either U.N. inspectors or U.S. occupation forces. But where did all the WMD come from, and why the sudden fright now about these stockpiles’ being deployed?

For much of the Bush administration we heard from the Left the refrain, “Bush lied, thousands died,” as if the president had cooked intelligence reports to conjure up a nonexistent threat from Saddam Hussein’s stockpiles of WMD — stockpiles that Bill Clinton had insisted until his last days in office posed an existential threat to the United States. Apparently if a horde of gas shells of 20th-century vintage was found, it was then deemed irrelevant — as if WMD in Iraq could only be defined as huge Iraqi plants turning out 21st-century stockpiles weeks before the invasion.

Yes, bottom line: there were WMD’s there, and Saddam Hussein had used them, and I don’t think there was a person alive who wasn’t absolutely certain that Hussein would use them again. However, as Hanson points out, the fact that Bush didn’t lie. Nor, therefore, did all those hundreds of powerful Democrats who also said that Saddam Hussein had plenty of WMD’s, and was surely willing to use them. No, those powerful Democrats subsequently lied very, very purposefully afterward, and only when it was politically advantageous for them.

Here’s a bit more from Hanson:

The smear of Bush was the bookend of another popular canard, the anti-Bush slogan “No blood for oil.” Once the fact that the U.S. did not want Iraqi oil was indisputable, that slander metamorphosed. Almost immediately the Left pivoted and charged that we were not so much oil sinister as oil stupid. If the Iraqi oil ministry, for the first time in its history, was both acting transparently and selling oil concessions to almost anyone except American companies, it was now cast as typically ungracious in not appreciating the huge American expenditure of blood and treasure that had allowed it such latitude. Was the Iraq War then a stupid war that helped Russia and the Chinese? Poor Bush ended up not so much sinister as a naïf.

Although we don’t hear much any more about “No blood for oil,” the lie about “Bush lied, thousands died” has never been put to rest.

Yet a tad more:

What was odd about the untruth was not just that Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and the anti-war street crowd become popular icons through spreading such lies, but that the Democratic party — whose kingpins (Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, et al.) had all given fiery speeches in favor of invading Iraq — refined the slur into an effective 2006 talking point. That Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid had looked at the same intelligence from CIA Director (and Clinton appointee) George “slam-dunk” Tenet (who authored a self-serving memoir ankle-biting George W. Bush while still in office), and had agreed with Tenet’s assessments, at least until the insurgency destroyed public support for the war, was conveniently forgotten.

The Bush administration did not help much. It never replied to its critics that fear of stockpiled WMD had originally been a Clinton-administration fear, a congressional fear, an international fear — and a legitimate fear. I suppose that the Bush people wanted the issue of WMD to just go away, given the insurgency raging in Iraq and the effective Democratic campaign to reinvent fear of WMD as a sinister Bush conspiracy. (Do we remember Colin Powell’s U.N. testimony and the years that followed — cf. the Valerie Plame/Richard Armitage fiasco — in which he licked his wounds while harboring anger at his former associates for his own career-ending presentation?) In sum, the Bush White House certainly did not remind the country that most of the Clinton-era liberal politicians in the 1990s had warned us about Iraqi WMD (do we even remember the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act?).

Here’s a bit more. Hanson delivers a flurry of body-blows to the entire left-wing narrative about the Iraq War —  a narrative whose spokes-drones are the leaders of the Democrat Party:

Nor were we reminded that foreign leaders like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak had predicted mass death for any invaders who challenged Saddam’s WMD arsenal. (“General Franks, you must be very, very careful. We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has WMD — biologicals, actually — and he will use them on your troops.”) Was part of the Bush administration’s WMD conspiracy forcing tens of thousands of U.S. troops to lug about chemical suits and masks in the desert? No one, of course, noted that the initial success in Iraq also helped shut down Moammar Qaddafi’s WMD program in Libya and pressured the Pakistanis to arrest (for a while) the father of their bomb, Dr. A. Q. Khan. The latter nations apparently feared that the U.S. was considering removing dictators who they knew had stockpiled WMD.

But enough about WMD’s. The bottom line is simple: Bush didn’t lie; Saddam Hussein had WMD’s — plenty of them — and likely would have loved to use them. We’ve been finding them since we went over there.

Here’s the larger point. It’s a point that I’ve made in these pages. The point: WMD’s were only one point — among quite a few — in the bill of particulars that the Bush Administration used to make the case for action in Iraq:

There were all sorts of untold amnesias about Iraq. No one remembers the 23 writs that were part of the 2002 authorizations that apparently Obama believes are still in effect. They included genocide, bounties for suicide bombers, an attempt to kill a former U.S. president, the harboring of terrorists (among them one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers), and a whole litany of charges that transcended WMD and were utterly unaffected by the latter controversy. How surreal is it that Obama is preemptively bombing Iraq on twelve-year-old congressional authorizations that he opposed as trumped up and now may be relevant in relationship to dealing with Syrian and Iraqi stockpiles of WMD?

Well.

Oh, yeah! Now I remember! There were 24 total charges against Saddam Hussein, only one of which was … WMD’s.

— xPraetorius

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: