‘It’s Not That We Love Donald Trump So Much. It’s That We Can’t Stand You.’

Dear confused liberal,

If you are a liberal who can’t stand Trump, and cannot possibly fathom why conservatives would ever vote for him let me finally fill you in.

It’s not that we love Donald Trump so much. It’s that we can’t stand you. And we will do whatever it takes — even if that means electing a rude obnoxious unpredictable narcissist (your words not ours) to the office of President of the United States — because the only thing we find more dangerous to this nation than Donald Trump is you.

How is that possible you might ask? Well, you have done everything in your power to destroy our country. From tearing down the police, to tearing down our history, to tearing down our borders. From systematically destroying our schools and brainwashing our kids into believing socialism is the answer to anything (despite being an unmitigated failure everywhere), while demonizing religion and faith, and glorifying abortion, violence, and thug culture.

From calling us racists every time we expect everyone of any skin color to follow our laws equally, to telling us that our “tolerance” of lifestyles we don’t agree with isn’t nearly enough — no we must “celebrate” any lifestyle choice or gender option (forget science) you throw our direction or you think it’s fine to calls us homophobic or some other degrading slur you decide is okay to call us — ironically all while lecturing us on hate speech. While you gaslight us about 52 genders, polyamory, grown men in dresses sharing public locker rooms with little girls, and normalize the sexualization of young children, you simultaneously ridicule us for having the audacity to wish someone a “Merry Christmas” or hang a flag on the 4th of July, stand for the national anthem, or (horror or horrors) don a MAGA hat in public. So much for your “tolerance.” (See why we think you are just hypocrites??) Continue reading “”

Biden: Oh, never mind about that national mask mandate too.

The primaries are behind us and we’re well into the season of candidates attempting to shove everything they said up until the conventions down the memory hole and replace those statements with new positions more salable to voters in swing states. Uncle Joe has been on a roll in this department lately, dragging Kamala Harris with him on this field trip into revisionist history. The latest example came to us this week in the form of a “reconsideration” of Biden’s previous promise to institute a national face mask mandate if elected. (As long as “the science” warranted it, of course.)

So is Sleepy Joe Biden still preparing to send out the brute squad and make sure every American is wearing a mask next year? Perish the thought! He never really intended any such thing because there are obvious “constitutional questions” about such a dictate. (NY Post) Continue reading “”

Professor on Antifa Execution of Trump Supporter in Portland: “He Killed a Fascist. I See Nothing Wrong With it”

University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis reacted to the execution of Trump supporter Aaron “Jay” Danielson on the streets of Portland by an Antifa extremist by commenting, “He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it.”

In an article entitled ‘Why was Michael Reinoehl killed?’ Loomis laments the fact that Danielson’s murderer died at the hands of police officers after brandishing a weapon.

“I am extremely anti-conspiracy theory,” wrote Loomis. “But it’s not a conspiracy theory at this point in time to wonder if the cops simply murdered him. The police is [sic] shot through with fascists from stem to stern. They were openly working with the fascists in Portland, as they were in Kenosha which led to dead protestors.”

Loomis was challenged in the comment section of the blog post, with one respondent telling the professor, “Erik, he shot and killed a guy.”

“He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective,” Loomis responded.

The professor went on to further justify Danielson’s execution by saying it was morally right for slaves to assassinate their slaveowners hundreds of years ago.

Notice how Loomis justifies cold blooded murder by dehumanizing Danielson as a “fascist,” ironically just as fascists justified the killing of Jews during World War II by dehumanizing them as “rats” and “less than human.”

Reminder; These are the people teaching your children.

BLUF:
It is fatuous to dismiss concerns over the rinsing-out of religious freedom as the overwrought fretting of culture warriors. The commitments in the Democratic platform are plain, and there can be no reasonable doubt that those commitments will be given legislative and regulatory effect by a Democratic administration in league with a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives and a Democratically-controlled Senate.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: BLEACHED, BLANCHED, AND RINSED OUT

Father Richard John Neuhaus put two Big Ideas into play in American public life. The first was that the pro-life movement (of which Neuhaus was an intellectual leader) was the natural heir to the moral convictions that had animated the classic civil rights movement (in which Neuhaus was also deeply involved). The second was that the First Amendment to the Constitution did not contain two “religions clauses” but one religion clause, in which “no establishment” (i.e., no official, state-sanctioned Church) was intended to serve the “free exercise” of religion. Neither of those Big Ideas is welcome in today’s Democratic Party, in which Neuhaus (then a Lutheran pastor) was once a congressional candidate, and of which he remained a registered member until his death in January 2009.

Those who point out that the 2020 Democratic platform has the most radical pro-abortion plank in American history, and that the same platform promises to hollow out religious freedom in service to lifestyle libertinism, risk being labeled “culture warriors.” Well, so be it. “Culture warrior” is snark masquerading as thought. Facts are facts. And one of the sad facts of this unhappy political moment is that Neuhaus’s effort to rescue the Democratic Party through two Big Ideas was frustrated because those two ideas got linked—and then rejected, thanks to the corruption of rights-talk that preceded, made possible, and was then accelerated by Roe v. Wade and its abortion license. Continue reading “”

Be Careful What You Wish For: Gun Grabbers Worry NRA’s Successor Would be More Far More Pro 2A

Alex Yablon is a former writer at Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitprop generation station, The Trace. In the Slate piece quote below, he indulges in a little wish-fulfilment fantasizing about what a post-NRA gun rights landscape might look like if the New York AG succeeds in taking the gun rights giant down.

Even the ACLU concedes that full dissolution of the NRA would be wrong and highly unlikely. And Yablon concludes that any successor organization to rise from the NRA’s ashes would likely be far more doctrinaire in its support of the Second Amendment than the NRA ever was.

If [New York Attorney General Letitia] James succeeds [in dissolving the National Rifle Association], the court will direct her to find other groups who could take control of the NRA’s infrastructure, which could restart a national gun rights advocacy group. She would be bound by law to solely consider whether successor groups share the NRA’s values and are free from any taint of corruption. “The groups would have to be absolutely squeaky clean, but they could have really aggressive Second Amendment politics,” [New York Council of Nonprofits attorney Michael] West said.

Continue reading “”

Making vaccines is hard. You’re trying to kill the bug, without making the patient sick, or worse, killing them.
It’s that ‘The cure can’t be worse then the disease‘ thing…….again.

AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine study halted after ‘potentially unexplained’ illness

Late-stage studies of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate are on temporary hold while the company investigates whether a recipient’s “potentially unexplained” illness is a side effect of the shot.

In a statement issued Tuesday evening, the company said its “standard review process triggered a pause to vaccination to allow review of safety data.”

AstraZeneca didn’t reveal any information about the possible side effect except to call it “a potentially unexplained illness.” The health news site STAT first reported the pause in testing, saying the possible side effect occurred in the United Kingdom. Continue reading “”

DAN RATHER TRIES A VARIATION ON “FAKE BUT ACCURATE”

Jeffrey Goldberg’s claim that President Trump disparaged American soldiers who died in Normandy is collapsing. As we have noted, John Bolton, no friend of Trump, was present when the president allegedly made the comment. Bolton says it didn’t happen.

Similarly, former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Zach Fuentes, who was also in the room, denies that Trump made the remarks attributed to him. He says:

I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather [in France]. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let anyone call fallen Marines losers?

Of course not. Fuentes, by the way, is unhappy with Trump over his treatment of Gen. Kelly. Thus, Fuentes has no incentive to defend Trump in this matter, other than regard for the truth.

Dan Rather inadvertently provides further evidence that Goldberg’s claim is falling apart. Earlier, as we noted, Rather tweeted that the story had seemingly been “confirmed” by other sources. Now, Rather is falling back on a variation of “fake but accurate” — the “defense” of Rather’s 2004 story about George W. Bush’s military service.

“Whether [Trump] said it or not, it is believable,” Rather told callers to a show he was hosting. Later, Rather cited the “terrible things” Trump said about Senator John McCain.

But Trump had a beef with McCain, whom he regarded as a rival and then a foe. Trump often disparages rivals and foes. There is no pattern of him disparaging bystanders, much less brave soldiers who have been dead for many decades.

In any case, the standard in journalism shouldn’t be whether a story is believable, but whether it is supported by non-fabricated evidence. Dan Rather was fired because he didn’t honor this distinction.

Clearly, he hasn’t learned his lesson. But then, he has little to lose these days.

“IN THE TRUMP ERA, ONE “INDEPENDENT” INSTITUTION AFTER ANOTHER HAS EXPOSED ITSELF AS FAITHLESS, CORRUPT, AND UTTERLY PARTISAN”

ACLU Official Attacks University For Admitting Nick Sandmann While Professor Denounces His “Anti-Intellectual” Views 

I have previously written, as a long supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), about my concern over how the venerable group has changed under its current leadership, including a departure from its long robust defense of free speech. Recently, the ACLU has abandoned its famed neutrality and has not supported some on the right while supporting those on the left. Now, the ACLU’s Samuel Crankshaw in Kentucky has targeted Transylvania University for admitting Nick Sandmann, who was falsely accused of abusing a Native American activist in front of Lincoln Memorial. (Crankshaw identifies as an ACLU staffer on social media) Despite various media organizations correcting the story and some settling with Sandmann, some in the media have continued to attack him.  Yet, it is far more alarming to see an ACLU official rallying people against a young man whose chief offense appears to be that he is publicly (and unapologetically) conservative and pro-life.

Crankshaw went to Facebook to alert people that Sandmann would be attending the college and expressing veiled outrage that the school would admit someone with his opposing views. He warns that this kid is “more dangerous” than figures like Milo Yiannopolous.  The “danger” is that a young freshman holds conservative views that are shared by roughly half of this country: Continue reading “”

Well, Claire always did have crap-for-brains.

FORMER SENATOR SAYS ‘WOMEN SICK OF ALL THESE GUNS.’ WOMEN SAY OTHERWISE

Former U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) was replaced by voters in 2018 and is now a political talk show pundit. During a discussion about the violence erupting in America’s communities, including Kenosha, Wisconsin, Portland, Oregon and her home-state St. Louis, Missouri, Sen. McCaskill opined women are “sick of all these guns.” Data shows she couldn’t be more mistaken.

Not So Show-Me Senator
Missouri is a state with strong Second Amendment approval and Sen. McCaskill tried to hide her antigun beliefs while in office. She was caught talking about her support for more gun control when she thought no voters would hear. Even her staff was recorded describing the senator’s Second Amendment voter deception. When pressed why she wasn’t more vocal for gun control, a staffer bluntly stated, “But she doesn’t openly go out and support groups like Moms Demand Action or just like other groups that are related to that. Because that could hurt, her ability to get elected.”

On gun control, Sen. McCaskill supported a grab-bag of favorites, including reinstating a so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” limiting so-called “large capacity magazines,” expanding background checks and even voting against a right-to-carry reciprocity bill. Continue reading “”

Paul’s comment on a post deserves its own post

WHAT IS GASLIGHTING?
The term originates in the systematic psychological manipulation of a victim by her husband in Patrick Hamilton’s 1938 stage play Gas Light, and the film adaptations released in 1940 and 1944. In the story, the husband attempts to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating small elements of their environment and insisting that she is mistaken, remembering things incorrectly, or delusional when she points out these changes.

The play’s title alludes to how the abusive husband slowly dims the gas lights in their home, while pretending nothing has changed, in an effort to make his wife doubt her own perceptions. The wife repeatedly asks her husband to confirm her perceptions about the dimming lights, but in defiance of reality, he keeps insisting that the lights are the same and instead it is she who is going insane.

We are living in a perpetual state of gaslighting. The reality that we are being told by the media is at complete odds with what we are seeing with our own two eyes. And when we question the false reality that we are being presented, or we claim that what we see is that actual reality, we are vilified as racist or bigots or just plain crazy. You’re not racist. You’re not crazy.
You’re being gaslighted.

New York State has twice as many deaths from Covid-19 than any other state, and New York has accounted for one fifth of all Covid-19 deaths, but we are told that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has handled the pandemic better than any other governor. But if we support policies of Governors whose states had only a fraction of the infections and deaths as New York, we’re called anti-science and want people to die. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy?
No, you’re being gaslighted.

We see mobs of people looting stores, smashing windows, setting cars on fire and burning down buildings, but we are told that these demonstrations are peaceful protests. And when we call this destruction of our cities, riots, we are called racists. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy?
No, you’re being gaslighted.

We see the major problem destroying many inner-cities is crime; murder, gang violence, drug dealing, drive-by shootings, armed robbery, but we are told that it is not crime, but the police that are the problem in the inner-cities. We are told we must defund the police and remove law enforcement from crime-riddled cities to make them safer. But if we advocate for more policing in cities overrun by crime, we are accused of being white supremacists and racists. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy?
No, you’re being gaslighted.

The United States of America accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world. The vast majority of the immigrants are “people of color”, and these immigrants are enjoying freedom and economic opportunity not available to them in their country of origin, but we are told that the United States is the most racist and oppressive country on the planet, and if we disagree, we are called racist and xenophobic. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy?
No, you’re being gaslighted.

Capitalist countries are the most prosperous countries in the world The standard of living is the highest in capitalist countries. We see more poor people move up the economic ladder to the middle and even the wealthy class through their effort and ability in capitalist countries than any other economic system in the world, but we are told capitalism is an oppressive system designed to keep people down. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy?
No, you’re being gaslighted.

Communist countries killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. Communist countries strip their citizens of basic hman rights, dictate every aspect of their lives, treat their citizens like slaves, and drive their economies into the ground, but we are told that Communism is the fairest, most equitable, freest and most prosperous economic system in the world. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy?
No, you’re being gaslighted.

The most egregious example of gaslighting is the concept of “white fragility”. You spend your life trying to be a good person, trying to treat people fairly and with respect. You disavow racism and bigotry in all its forms. You judge people solely on the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. You don’t discriminate based on race or ethnicity. But you are told you are a racist, not because of something you did or said, but solely because of the color of your skin. You know instinctively that charging someone with racism because of their skin color is itself racist. You know that you are not racist, so you defend yourself and your character, but you are told that your defense of yourself is proof of your racism. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy?
No, you’re being gaslighted.

Gaslighting has become one of the most pervasive and destructive tactics in American politics. It is the exact opposite of what our political system was meant to be. It deals in lies and psychological coercion, and not the truth and intellectual discourse. If you ever ask yourself if you’re crazy, you are not. Crazy people aren’t sane enough to ask themselves if they’re crazy. So, trust yourself, believe what’s in your heart. Trust your eyes over what you are told. Never listen to the people who tell you that you are crazy, because you are not,
you’re being gaslighted.

Sophocles said: “What people believe prevails over the truth.”
And that’s what the media are trying to exploit.

…..it’s important to understand how the coverage you are getting is being shaped, and by whom.

‘You’re Not Allowed To Film’: The Fight To Control Who Reports From Portland.

“YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO FILM!” is a cry you hear incessantly at protests in Portland, Oregon, always shouted at close range to your face by after-dark demonstrators. You can assert that, yes, you can film; you can point out that they themselves are filming incessantly; you can push their hands away from covering your phone; you can have your phone record them stealing your phone—all of these things have happened to me—and none will have any impact on their contention that “YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO FILM” and its occasional variation, “PHOTOGRAPHY EQUALS DEATH!”

I cannot say who came up with these anti-camera battle cries. But it’s easy to understand why protesters use them: to shape the narrative the country sees about the protests. And that narrative, in my estimation after many weeks covering street clashes in a city where I lived for 15 years, is 90 percent bs.

I wondered, the first time I attended the protests at the federal building back in July, who all these young people with PRESS emblazoned on their jackets or helmets were. I asked one such guy who he worked for.

“Independent Press Corps,” he told me. As it turned out, dozens of other young PRESS people happened to work for the same outfit, which I at first assumed was a fancy way of saying “I want to report stuff and stream it on my Instagram.”

This turned out to be naive. The IPC is an organized group in league with the activists, and it is usually their footage you see streamed online and recycled on the news: mostly innocent protestors being harassed and beaten by police. Continue reading “”

Cardinals legend Lou Brock dies Sunday afternoon at 81

St. Louis Cardinals’ Hall of Famer Lou Brock, who had fought through a number of medical conditions in recent years, died Sunday afternoon. He was 81.

Brock will be remembered for many accomplishments. He was the National League’s all-time leader in stolen bases with 938. He had 3,023 hits. He was a first-ballot electee into the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. Continue reading “”

Man wounded after kicking in door of Fort Worth residence in home invasion

A man was shot and wounded early Wednesday after he kicked in the front door of a Fort Worth home in what police say was a possible attempt to steal guns from the residence, police said.

The wounded suspect fled the scene and police continued their search for him Wednesday. The home invasion occurred just before 1:30 a.m. in the 700 block of Roaring Springs Road.

Witnesses told Fort Worth police that after he entered the home, the suspect began assaulting a woman. Her son shot the suspect in the leg.

The woman who had been assaulted in the home refused medical treatment, police said. The suspect jumped into a nearby vehicle, possibly accompanied by a woman, and drove to his sister’s home on Bonita Drive, but he fled again once he learned that his sister had called police. His companion was with him, Fort Worth police said.

Wonderful idiot copy writers. The homeowner shot to defend himself, not because the thug was trespassing.

Homeowner shoots man who trespassed on his Bangor Township property

BANGOR TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A homeowner shot a man in the foot after he trespassed on his Bangor Township property, Deputy Chief Hothman Misane said.

The homeowner confronted the 25-year-old Bangor man at his home in the 27000 block of 66th Street on Sept. 2, 2020.

The suspect then became aggressive and charged at the homeowner, Misane said. During the fight the suspect was shot in the foot.

The suspect was taken to South Haven Hospital for the injury

Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite.
Outlets claiming to have “confirmed” Jeffrey Goldberg’s story about Trump’s troops comments are again abusing that vital term

ONE OF THE MOST HUMILIATING journalism debacles of the Trump era played out on December 8, 2017, first on CNN and then on MSNBC. The spectacle kicked off on that Friday morning at 11:00 a.m. when CNN, deploying its most melodramatic music and graphics designed to convey that a real bombshell was about to be dropped, announced that anonymous sources had provided the network with a smoking gun proving the Trump/Russia conspiracy once and for all: during the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump, Jr. had received a September 4 email with a secret encryption key that gave him advanced access to WikiLeaks’ servers………

IT SEEMS THE SAME MISLEADING TACTIC is now driving the supremely dumb but all-consuming news cycle centered on whether President Trump, as first reported by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, made disparaging comments about The Troops. Goldberg claims that “four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day” — whom the magazine refuses to name because they fear “angry tweets” — told him that Trump made these comments. Trump, as well as former aides who were present that day (including Sarah Huckabee Sanders and John Bolton), deny that the report is accurate.

So we have anonymous sources making claims on one side, and Trump and former aides (including Bolton, now a harsh Trump critic) insisting that the story is inaccurate. Beyond deciding whether or not to believe Goldberg’s story based on what best advances one’s political interests, how can one resolve the factual dispute? If other media outlets could confirm the original claims from Goldberg, that would obviously be a significant advancement of the story.

Other media outlets — including Associated Press and Fox News — now claim that they did exactly that: “confirmed” the Atlantic story. But if one looks at what they actually did, at what this “confirmation” consists of, it is the opposite of what that word would mean, or should mean, in any minimally responsible sense. AP, for instance, merely claims that “a senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press,” while Fox merely said “a former senior Trump administration official who was in France traveling with the president in November 2018 did confirm other details surrounding that trip.”

In other words, all that likely happened is that the same sources who claimed to Jeffrey Goldberg, with no evidence, that Trump said this went to other outlets and repeated the same claims — the same tactic that enabled MSNBC and CBS to claim they had “confirmed” the fundamentally false CNN story about Trump Jr. receiving advanced access to the WikiLeaks archive. Or perhaps it was different sources aligned with those original sources and sharing their agenda who repeated these claims. Given that none of the sources making these claims have the courage to identify themselves, due to their fear of mean tweets, it is impossible to know. Continue reading “”