Friday, June 23, 2017

Question Asked

Content of character, or color of skin?

Fifty years on, what is dominant?
Carefully considered answers, if any, will be published.

It's Simple: They Are The Deep State - i.e., the Left. They Work For No One, Have No Consequences.

Who Does The FBI Work For?
There’s no reason to beat around the bush here: what the FBI is claiming is mind-boggling when they claim the shooter had no target in mind.


There’s no reason to beat around the bush here: what the FBI is claiming is mind-boggling when they claim the shooter had no target in mind.

That brings us to yesterday’s FBI briefing on the shooting targeting Republicans in Alexandria, a briefing that could not be more bizarre in its content and its conclusions. Mollie Hemingway has more:
“The FBI admits that Hodgkinson: vociferously raged against Republicans in online forums, had a piece of paper bearing the names of six members of Congress, was reported for doing target practice outside his home in recent months before moving to Alexandria, had mapped out a trip to the DC area, took multiple photos of the baseball field he would later shoot up, three days after the New York Times mentioned that Republicans practiced baseball at an Alexandria baseball field with little security, lived out of his van at the YMCA directly next door to the baseball field he shot up, legally purchased a rifle in March 2003 and 9 mm handgun “in November 2016,” modified the rifle at some point to accept a detachable magazine and replaced the original stock with a folding stock, rented a storage facility to hide hundreds of rounds of ammunition and additional rifle components, asked “Is this the Republican or Democrat baseball team?” before firing on the Republicans, ran a Google search for information on the “2017 Republican Convention” hours before the shooting, and took photos at high-profile Washington locations, including the east front plaza of the U.S. Capitol and the Dirksen Senate Office.

“We know from other reporting that the list was of six Republican Freedom Caucus members, including Rep. Mo Brooks, who was present at the practice.

“So what does the FBI decide this information means? Well, the takeaway of the briefing was characterized well by the Associated Press headline about it: “FBI: Gunman who shot congressman had no target in mind.” The Associated Press reported the FBI: believes the gunman “had no concrete plan to inflict violence” against Republicans, “had not yet clarified who, if anyone, he planned to target, or why,” believes he may have just “happened upon” the baseball game the morning of June 14, and that the attack appeared “spontaneous,” are unclear on the “context” of Hodgkinson’s note with six names of members of Congress, does not believe that photographs of the baseball field or other sites “represented surveillance of intended targets,” and “painted a picture of a down-on-his-luck man with few future prospects.”

“In fact, USA Today went with “FBI offers portrait of troubled Alexandria shooter with ‘anger management problem’” for their headline, since that’s what the FBI emphasized in the briefing.”
There’s also this incredible tidbit, which somehow has received little to no attention: “Hodgkinson also visited the office of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose campaign he had worked on as a volunteer, and was in email contact with the two Democratic senators from his home state.” If this was a shooter who had worked for Ted Cruz and was in contact via email with both of the Senators from Texas, wouldn’t we know about it?

[...]

...And this is how our faith in institutions is degraded: steadily, gradually, with incident after incident where men in suits stand in front of microphones and make claims we know are not the whole truth.
Well, we need those emails and conversations with Bernie Sanders et. al. do we not?

Johnny Depp Threatens Assassination

Not a direct threat. More like a Mafioso threat: appearing implied, yet to be taken seriously.
Johnny Depp apparently thought this was the ideal time to muse about presidential assassinations

Johnny Depp: "When was the last time an actor assassinated a President?

Crowd reaction? Cheers & laughter

GOP reps targeted/shot days ago
"
"When was the last time that a nice place like this burned down?"

This Should Not Need to be Said

Yet it must be a law - to protect laws from Islam.
Texas Enacts ‘Anti-Sharia’ Law
A number of states have had to fight off Sharia, as Muslims become legislators and introduce Sharia enactment bills. Oklahoma, of all places, has had such problems.

Befouling Everything He Touches: the Saga of Justice for Jeffry Epstein

BREAKING: Feds explain sweet deal for billionaire sex offender Epstein

Thursday, June 22, 2017

More in the Long, Long, Very Long History of Democrat Violence

We don’t have to go back more than century to note that every presidential assassin and attempted presidential assassin who had a political motive was a leftist, a socialist, a communist, or a member of a hippie commune. (Charles J. Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, Giuseppe Zangara, Lee Harvey Oswald, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, and Sara Jane Moore.) [John Wilkes Booth was a Democrat, of course]

Instead, we’ll start in the 1990s. Al Sharpton’s speeches helped inspire people to murder two people in Crown Heights in 1991 and seven people at Freddie’s Fashion Mart in 1995. As scary as David Duke and Richard Spencer are, I’ve never heard of anyone committing murder after listening to one of their speeches.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, among other acts of violence, Obama supporters Maced elderly volunteers in a McCain campaign office in Galax, Virginia. They threw Molotov cocktails at, stomped, and shredded McCain signs on a half-dozen families’ front yards around Portland. Another Obama supporter broke the McCain sign of a small middle-aged woman in midtown Manhattan, then hit her in the face with the stick.

(All this for John McCain!)

At the Republicans’ convention that year, hundreds of liberals were arrested for smashing police cars, slashing tires, and breaking store windows. Police seized Molotov cocktails, napalm bombs, and assorted firearms from the protesters. Elderly convention-goers were Maced and sent to the hospital after protesters threw bricks through the windows of convention buses. On the first day alone, the cops made 284 arrests, 130 for felonies.

That same year, California voters approved Proposition 8, banning gay marriage. In response, left-wing opponents of the measure ferociously attacked Mormon and Catholic churches, smashing glass doors, spray-painting the churches, and burning holy books on their front steps. The mayor of Fresno and his pastor received death threats serious enough to require around-the-clock police protection.
Voters' for Prop 8 addresses were doxxed by Democrat officials so that home invasions and attacks on old people could be and were implemented.

(Although the measure would not have passed without the support of black voters, liberals held black people blameless for their opposition to gay marriage. Mormons and Catholics were a much funner target.)
[homosexuals even left CA in order to attack Mormons in Utah]

In 2009, one conservative had his finger bitten off at a Tea Party rally in Thousand Oaks, California, by a man at a MoveOn.org counter-protest. At a St. Louis Tea Party rally, an African-American selling anti-Obama bumper stickers was beaten up by two Service Employees International Union thugs, resulting in charges.
[A wheelchair-bound black man against Obama was attacked brutally and hospitalized by SEIU thugs]

For the past few years, the media have enthusiastically promoted Black Lives Matter, hoping to galvanize the black vote. The mother of Michael Brown was even invited to appear on stage at the Democrats’ convention. But, as the British discovered with their Indian auxiliaries during the Revolutionary War, having ginned them up, they couldn’t calm them down.

As a result of the media’s tall tales about homicidal, racist cops, Black Lives Matter enthusiasts staged sneak attacks, executing two policemen in Brooklyn, five in Dallas, and three in Baton Rouge.

Liberals know damn well that their audience includes a not-insignificant portion of foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics, prepared, at the slightest provocation, to smash windows, burn down neighborhoods, physically attack, and even murder conservatives. But instead of toning down the rhetoric, the respectable left keeps throwing matches on the bone-dry tinder, and then indignantly asks, “Are you saying conservatives don’t do it, too?”

No, actually. We don’t.
Compiled by Ann Coulter with a few ["essential additions"] by Stan.

Stabber "Said Something in Arabic" sez MSM

The Michigan airport "Allahu Ackbar" stabber - We have no idea what his motivation was.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Paglia: Camille is Wrong. Here's Why.

Camille Paglia Blames Dems for Destroying Journalism — ‘It Is Going to Take Decades to Recover’

Tuesday on Sean Hannity’s nationally syndicated radio show, author and University of the Arts professor of humanities and media studies Camille Paglia railed against the current state of journalism in America.

Paglia called what she said the Democratic Party had done to journalism “absolutely grotesque” and warned it would take decades to recover.

“It’s obscene,” she said. “It’s outrageous, OK? It shows that the Democrats are nothing now but words and fantasy and hallucination and Hollywood. There’s no journalism left. What’s happened to The New York Times? What’s happened to the major networks? It’s an outrage.”

“I’m a professor of media studies, in addition to a professor of humanities, OK?” she continued. “And I think it’s absolutely grotesque the way my party has destroyed journalism. Right now, it is going to take decades to recover from this atrocity that’s going on where the news media have turned themselves over to the most childish fraternity, kind of buffoonish behavior.”
She is referring here to the MSM, not to the alternative journalists who resolutely take up the slack. The MSM will not recover, because they are hard Left and are managed by the hard Left, and the hard Left is their customer base. There is no chance that the hard Left will suddenly become dispassionate, discard their precious Hatred, begin to report objectively rather than create their narrative of intellectual superiority and moral utopia. So they would have to die off, collectively, from top to bottom. Then they would have to be replaced by intelligent, objective, fact reporting professionals - who would have to appear as if by magic, because there is no source for such creatures in today's society.

The universities would have to recant, and begin again to believe in the values of honesty, truthfulness, professionalism and objectivity. But: they are hard Leftists also. The Marxist utopia is their current ideology and few ever leave that ideology and still remain in the professoriat. Those who deviate are heretical, and are purged - the equivalent of the desaparecidos. They will not exist as champions leading the students into Professional Journalism rather than Useful Idiots for the Left.

Here's a question, Camille: Why in the world would you continue to be a Democrat??

It is more likely that new news sources continue to emerge, especially if the internet remains free. The MSM will become the Marginalized Statist Media, to which only deep blue ideologists turn in order to avoid reality.

But But But... Sputter... NRA... gag/phhhttt... Social Justice... sputter... RunAway!

Narrative Problems

Un-Biasing the Web

Brave; DuckDuckGo; Infogalactic; Gab.
Too much there to copy over, so go THERE.

Leftists Lose in Georgia

The Latest: Handel thanks Trump for support in key GOP win
The Leftist Moral Rage might just increase exponentially after this. The straining to appear civil for half a day after shooting up Republicans must be released, and the Leftocrats will return to their vomit in spades.

MSM Polls Its Pets

Monday, June 19, 2017

A Lefty Flags False News From All the MSM

The Media Have a Bad Case of the Trumps

And so I did what I, as a proud consumer of the mainstream liberal press, am not supposed to do. I second-guessed the mainstream liberal press. I watched the video of the cabinet meeting, all twenty-damn-five minutes of it, and I discovered that every story I had read or heard or seen that morning about the cabinet meeting was, as a whole, wrong or misleading, and in many particulars, just wrong.

For instance: Nobody showed signs of reading from a script. Priebus’s comment was made explicitly on behalf of the “senior staff,” not the whole cabinet, as CNN implied. The Times to the contrary, no one praised Trump’s “integrity.” Neither Priebus’s sycophancy nor Pence’s set the tone of the meeting. General Mattis did not “stand alone”; the sentiment he expressed was expressed by most of his colleagues. And so on and so on and so on.

Here’s what did happen. The meeting Monday was the first time that Donald Trump’s entire cabinet had been in one room, owing to delays in a couple of confirmations. (Democrats’ fault, said Trump.) The president gave an opening statement exaggerating his administration’s accomplishments. He mentioned initiatives begun by several of the cabinet members. Then, to “celebrate this group,” as Attorney General Jeff Sessions put it, Trump suggested they all introduce themselves, the way you do at a business conference or a group therapy session (so I hear).

“We’ll start with Mike,” Trump said, “and just go around and [give] your name and position, and then we’ll ask these folks [the press pool] to go back and have a nice day, and we’re going to discuss our various reports,” which is one of the nicest—meaning, most un‑Trumpian—ways he could have told the press to scram.

There was no hint from Trump that the members should praise him. The most plausible explanation for all the self-introductions was that Trump, knowing the meeting was going out live on cable TV, wanted the public to get a load of the greatest cabinet in the history of the entire solar system—and a lot of other solar systems too, some people are saying.

Pence, who seems most himself when servile, started the praise unprompted. But he didn’t “set the tone,” as the news reports said—his obsequiousness didn’t really catch on at all. In fact, by my count, 11 of the 23 members (counting Pence) didn’t mention Trump at all. The comment from Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was typical: “It’s a privilege to serve, to serve the students of this country, and to work to ensure that every child has an equal opportunity to get a great education, and therefore a great future.”

In a large majority of cases, when cabinet members did mention Trump, the “adulation” was all in the fevered imaginations of reporters. Tillerson: “Thank you for the honor to serve the country. It’s a great privilege you’ve given me.” (Reporter scribbles in her notebook: Suck-up!) Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, a financial adviser worth $2.5 billion: “Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to help fix the trade deficit and ... have a chance to help you live up to your campaign promises.” (Billionaire kiss-ass.) Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats: “It’s a joy to be working with the people that I have inherited, and we are going to continue to provide you with the very best intelligence we can, so you can formulate policies to deal with these issues.” (Boot-licking toady!)

“Their leader sat smiling, nodding his approval,” wrote the Times, but he didn’t. The footage was ill-lit, but Trump’s expression seemed to be the usual jut-jawed, slightly simian expression we’re all trying to get used to. Trump did say “thank you” a lot, as he should have, considering that nearly all of the secretaries said it was an “honor to serve”—not him, but the country, or some public or government constituency. (That’s where the NPR mashup came from, and it’s why it was thoroughly misleading. When a cabinet member says she isn’t honored to serve the public, NPR will have a genuine story.) If even a bare majority of the cabinet secretaries had adopted the tone of Priebus and Pence and Mnuchin, the cabinet meeting would indeed have resembled the Maoist reeducation session the press made it out to be. But they didn’t.

This small episode, this miniature, wholly unnecessary bit of dissembling or incompetence by the press, is a nice example of what Nicole Hemmer, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, has called “Trump Exceptionalism.” It is a disease that strikes journalists above all. In the eyes of the bright young things who work in the White House press corps, with their faulty educations and unearned world-weariness, everything Trump does must be nefarious, and if not nefarious, at least vulgar and unprecedented. It just has to be. So it is. Even when it’s not.

Trump, all by himself, is menacing enough. The press doesn’t help when it sets off undue alarms. After all, wrote Hemmer in Politico, “there’s a cost to getting this wrong. Cry wolf too many times, and readers are less likely to listen when the real dangers appear.”
The "crying wolf too many times" specification has long been exceeded. It's ALL crying wolf, constantly, for the MSM these days. They don't bother reporting; they falsify. Despicable.

A Perfect Win

Charles Glasser, at Instapundit:
SLANTING AN OPINION IN FAVOR OF FREE SPEECH: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal trademarks can be registered in most cases even if they are considered derogatory. The case involved an Asian rock band who tried to register the name “The Slants.” SJW’s lost their minds, but Justice Alito wrote for a unanimous Court that “It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” This bodes well for the Washington Redskins.
Too funny! Asians want to call themselves "The Slants"; SJWs won't have it, but have stepped into cultural appropriation by trying to dictate what another culture wants to do.

Mueller/Comey: The Buddy System at Work

Both of these guys will skate. The Deep State has no beef with them. It's hard to know if they are Leftists, but both obviously have ethical vacuums... which is the common denominator for denizens of the Deep State.
We need a Robert Mueller resignation or a second special counsel

The only way to avoid a tainted investigation or a political explosion is another counsel to investigate possible obstruction of justice.


Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a problem: He has a disqualifying conflict of interest regarding a large part of his work. It involves a choice between investigating or relying on former FBI director James Comey, a longtime close friend of Mueller’s.

Ideally, he’ll recognize that and resign. But if he doesn’t resign, Attorney General Jeff Sessions should appoint another special counsel to take over the obstruction-of-justice part of the investigation, where Mueller is disqualified.

At present, there are two investigations: One into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians (a claim that even Democrat Chris Matthews admitted fell apart after Comey’s recent testimony) and an investigation into whether, while being investigated for this claimed collusion, President Trump or someone else obstructed justice. That investigation is closely tied to Comey, and so is Mueller.

As Bill Otis wrote in these pages last week, Mueller is too close to Comey to be impartial, and that violates Justice Department conflict of interest rules. As Otis noted, “Comey and Mueller have been friends for nearly 15 years. They were partners in the episode that defined Comey's professional persona more than any other in his public service. It would be surprising if it had not also forged a permanent bond with Mueller ... Comey now finds himself at the center of the Russian investigation over which Mueller presides. Questions swirl around Comey — about whether the president wanted/hinted/hoped/asked/directed/or something else the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn to be stopped/abandoned/slowed/soft-peddled/something else. This is probably the central element of the obstruction of justice case that Trump's opponents would like to see made against him. Questions also swirl about Comey's notes about this conversation and why he gave them to a private individual (professor Dan Richman of Columbia Law) to convey to journalists. Additional questions have arisen about whether this curious and seemingly devious means of putting the contents of the notes in the public domain (leaking, in other words) was designed specifically to bring about the appointment of a special counsel outside the president's direct reach — and, indeed, whether Comey wanted, expected or intended his friend Mueller to get the job.”

Yes. Of Course I Do.

Remember the professor who said Republicans should be executed?