Gay Patriot Header Image

A Most Remarkable Weekend

A remarkable thing happened over the weekend; Democrats rediscovered their concern about the national debt, state’s rights, and voter fraud; and they have come around to believe that a Bible-based Theocracy would be a good thing.

The same Democrats who had no problem helping Barack Obama double the national debt to a mind-blowing $20 Trillion have attacked the Republican Senate’s limpwrist “tax reform” bill claiming it will add $1.5 Trillion to the national debt over ten years.

$1.5 Trillion represents less than 3% of Government spending over the next ten years. If that’s a problem, then, by all means, cut spending by 3%.

Also, progressives are pointing to the Bible and insisting that it commands people to support a Government that taxes heavily and spends profligately.

Democrats are also  suddenly hollering about “state’s rights” because Congress is looking to make concealed carry licenses valid across state lines; like driver’s licenses. (And, yes, most states require training and a background check before a concealed carry license is issued.) The Democrats have suddenly taken a position analogous to claiming Rosa Parks only had the right to sit in the front of the bus while she was in Alabama.

And, if I may circle back to the tax bill, if California leftists don’t want the tax cuts, then they can just do what they did with immigration law; make up their own rules, and continue to collect taxes at the old rate. Because “states’ rights.”

And, after denying for years that voter fraud exists, Progressive leftists are suddenly up in arms about alleged voter fraud.

A local Alabama chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) {Why do they still get to say ‘colored people?’ – Ed.} is alleging voter fraud in a nonpartisan city council race despite the organization’s national president claiming that voter fraud is a “myth.” Meanwhile, a progressive candidate in Minneapolis, Minn., who was endorsed by the local chapter of a national group linked to the Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) movement, is also accusing a fellow progressive opponent of voter fraud.

Like I said, it was a most remarkable weekend.

The Clinton-Franken Pass

New York Times: Al Franken and Other Democrats Should Be Given a Pass Because They Are Too Important to the Left-Wing Agenda.

It’s possible that feminists, in trying to hold Democrats to standards that they wish were universal, risk unilateral disarmament. Kate Harding made this case in The Washington Post last Friday, arguing against Franken’s resignation. If Democrats “set this precedent in the interest of demonstrating our party’s solidarity with harassed and abused women, we’re only going to drain the swamp of people who, however flawed, still regularly vote to protect women’s rights and freedoms,” she wrote. And when the next Democratic member of Congress goes down, there might not be a Democratic governor to choose his replacement.

It’s a strange political fiction that anyone can really separate partisanship from principle. In general, the character of the party that controls the government has a much greater impact on people’s lives than the character of individual representatives. Those who care about women’s rights shouldn’t be expected to prove it by being willing to hand power to people devoted to taking those rights away.

In other words, the same person who last week was calling for Franken’s resignation now has reaffirmed her loyalty to the Party above all else.

Oh, Sure… “Now” Is the Time to Discuss Bill Clinton’s Treatment of Women

Bill Clinton’s usefulness to the Democrat Party is at an end. Hillary Clinton’s campaign failed and she will never (Thank Ra) be president of the United States. Not only is the Clinton political dynasty over, but there is an active movement to purge the Clintonistas from the Democrat Party in favor of more radical leftists in the model of Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, and Kamala Harris.

Coincidentally, there are suddenly many calls on the Democrat Left to take a serious look at the rape and sexual harassment allegations against Bill Clinton.

Convenient timing, right?

These charges have been known about for decades, but as long as the Clintons were in power and Hillary was a presidential prospect, those charges were routinely brushed aside, and his accusers derided as trailer trash. Some elite liberal women even said, essentially, that Bill Clinton earned the right to sexually abuse women because of his support for abortion rights.

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

But now that Clinton is no longer has political power, now is the time to hold him “accountable.”

Hey, at this rate, maybe in 2038, Democrats will finally become suspicious about Uranium One and the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the Clinton Foundation from foreign donors while Hillary was Secretary of State.

As an aside, and slightly off-topic, you know what’s been missing from this “National Conversation” we’ve been having about sexual assault? The fact that Hillary Clinton once helped a child rapist avoid prison by claiming that his thirteen-year-old accuser was a dirty, dirty slut who fantasized the whole thing (even though Hillary admitted she thought the man was guilty). Interesting that isn’t a part of this “National Conversation.”

Times Change

Posted by V the K at 12:04 pm - October 19, 2017.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy

Remember when Mitt Romney was an out-of-touch rich guy who gave women cancer, kept women in binders, tortured his dog, wanted to give gay teenagers bad haircuts, and was going to outlaw contraception and tampons as part of the ‘War on Women?’

Now that he is a certified Republican loser, Democrats seem to have changed their tune.

At @LATimesEvents Summit @NancyPelosi says, “Wouldn’t it be nice if @MittRomney was President today?!” Huge applause.

Yeah, right.

Speaking of Republican losers, in 2008, Obama attacked John McCain as a bitter old man who would “sow hatred and division“, who wanted to take social security away from senior citizens, and who was not mentally up to the job of president. But then McCain used his vote to save Obamacare, and then gave a speech attacking Trump and saying that (essentially) American leadership meant starting a lot of foreign wars and he was in favor of that. Now, they love him and think he’s a great statesman and “patriot.” 

Update: Hey, even Chimpy McBushitler has found redemption in the eyes of the left… because he gave a speech attacking the current Republican president. As runningrn said.

The man who refused to defend himself while he was continuously attacked while in office and heard Obama criticize and blame him (while sitting in the audience even!) at every turn while destroying America, never said a peep. And then today, he unloaded on conservatives who voted for Trump and our President (without specifically naming anyone, but it was patently and painfully obvious). WTF!

Bush “unloaded” on the very people who defended him the eight years the left was comparing him to Hitler.

Two Harveys

Harvey Feirstein — the old, gravel voiced gay queen — is apparently being confused with Harvey Weinstein — the old, creepy, hetersexual predator. And he doesn’t like it.

That’s right! Be mad at Harvey, not HARVEY! Guys, We’re Mad @ Harvey WEINSTEIN, Not Harvey FIERSTEIN!

Here’s my thing though. Harvey Feirstein is fairly prominent in the Hollywood and New York theater circles, right? And he has been for several decades, right? And apparently, the fact that Harvey Weinstein was a creepy pervert who sexually abused women was well-known in ‘The Industry.’ But nobody in Hollywood said a word about it until after the rest of America found out. Now, they’re telling us how ‘mad’ they are. But for all of these years, Harvey Feirstein and the rest of ‘The Industry’ maintained a code of silence.

Apparently, exposing women to sexual abuse was a fair price to pay for protecting one’s career from a wealthy and powerful Hollywood executive. Right, Ashley Judd?

Truth to power my butt.

Progressive Privilege

Posted by V the K at 5:52 pm - September 21, 2017.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy

What it means to have Progressive-Left Privilege in seven quick points:

1. Assuming that you have the right to control what everyone else does, what they have, what they say, and how they think.

2. Assuming that you have the right never to hear any opinion that contradicts your own, and using intimidation and violence if necessary to protect your ideological bubble.

3. Assuming that feeling offended on your part constitutes a political crisis on the nation’s part.

4. It is your privilege to establish the standards by which others must live and to critique them at will, but any criticism of you is evidence of hatred.

5. Consistency is for other people. You are free to deny the existence of absolutes while imposing absolute standards that others must follow.

6. You must be judged only by your rhetoric and not by your results.

7. And finally, liberal privilege means never having to say “not guilty.” Laws that apply to everyone else do not apply to you.

Gee, does this sound like anyone or multiple anyones who comment here?

Youtube/Google censorship: It’s real

Black Pigeon Speaks has the details.

YouTube Preview Image

By NO means do I agree with all of BPS’ positions or statements. To cite just one difference of many: he favors government-run health care (and I don’t).

But I have found that, even where I find his views silly, his videos are good-faith (if somewhat sarcastic) attempts to support his positions with science and facts. That Youtube (which means Google/Alphabet) would censor him – and other content creators who happen to be politically incorrect – while continuing to allow a ton of Islamist terrorist content, is disturbing.

It seems that 4chan pushed back with malware bots that generate fake ad traffic. The fake, extra traffic causes Google/Youtube to overcharge their advertisers, making trouble for everyone. I don’t endorse that tactic at all. Still, one can’t help but admire the goal: to remind Google/Youtube that they, too, depend greatly on the goodwill of others for their fragile existence.

Lots of people seem to be moving to BitChute and Vid.me. But I like the new YouTube: they’ve been letting me watch my favorite content ad-free (since the first step in the censoring the scapegoated content is “de-monetize” it).

Controlled Media watch

  • Congress readies a bizarre resolution against WikiLeaks.

    It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States.

    “Resemble”? The resolution is saying that if you *look like* anything Congress doesn’t appreciate, they can strip your First Amendment protections and take the U.S. to war with you.

    WikiLeaks, remember, is non-profit journalist service. They publish leaks. The traditional, First Amendment approach is that *the leaker* commits a crime and can be punished, but *the journalist or publisher* does not. Someone wants an exception, it seems, for super-effective journalists whom the government can’t control.

    More from Julian Assange, here.

  • CNN endorses the undercover journalism of Project Veritas. Indirectly.

    A journalist snowed Breitbart employees by pretending to be someone they would trust. The journalist gave the story to CNN, who gladly reported it. Very embarrassing. But that is undercover “sting” journalism, like what James O’Keefe and Project Veritas do, and CNN and many lefties fulminate indignantly about them. Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s? 🙂

  • Google and Apple ban Gab (a Twitter competitor), censoring what you can do with your own phone.

    “Whatever is permissible under the First Amendment is what Gab allows onto its site.”

    …Gab’s Android app was available through Google’s app store until yesterday, when Google banned it, citing violations of its hate-speech policy

    While Android users can install unapproved apps, it’s a cumbersome process…

    It’s difficult to credit Gab as a white-supremacist site when its cofounder is a Turkish Kurd and Muslim…who says “I’ve never supported Trump for a minute in my entire life”…

    Google is being plain evil. They’re saying *you can’t use a non-Google app to say anything to anybody that Google would not like*. What’s next, Google censoring your private emails? Remember, email is a phone app.

  • Breitbart has more on Google’s other steps to punish conservative speech.

Flashback: When Facebook ex-employees admitted that Facebook routinely censors conservative news from their “Trending” section. Even if it was really trending.

Alt Left does violence & destruction; media silent

If you’re with the Alt Left Media, you’re outraged – outraged! – that anyone would compare the Alt Left to neo-Nazis. Because “One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.” (Mitt Romney, lying for them)

In the real world, it’s different. Recent example: Alt Left injures reporter, then blames the reporter.

Antifa protesters assaulted a reporter filming in Richmond, Va., on Sunday night, and later defiantly blamed him for the attack on their Facebook page.

The unnamed reporter at WTVR CBS 6 was filming the marchers, who were protesting a monument to Confederate general J.E.B. Stuart, when he was hit with a blunt object, WTVR reports. The protesters believed they could stop him from filming by “denying consent” even though they were in public, and video shows them blocking his iPhone camera before striking him in the back of the head…

An ambulance took the reporter to a hospital where he received four staples in his head…

According to the Antifa Seven Hills, the marchers were the real victims of the reporter who was “perpetuating rape culture” by ignoring their “denial of consent.”…

Antifa also argued that his presence as a white man was suspect…

“Due to the intensity and context of this time people are very scared of white men running full speed at them with iPhones as this is the exact behavior of a white supremacist [ed: or a responsible law enforcement officer]…,” Antifa Seven Hills wrote…

Antifa argued that the media does not have a right to report on them in ways they do not consent to.

Hey, Antifa: If you’re doing a public protest, by that action alone, you consent to be filmed. Too late to “deny consent”.

The media told us that, if Trump were President, reporters would be in danger! There it is…from the Left.

A quick search did not show this story covered on CNN, NYT, WaPo or any big-time outlet.

RELATED:

  • Missouri State Senator, Maria Chappelle-Nadal, calls for Trump’s assassination. To their credit, leading Missouri Democrats have called for her resignation. But she refuses.
  • A bust of President Lincoln is burned in Chicago. Locals say that locals did it, back on July 4. To his shame, a Chicago Democrat alderman now blames Trump via a fanciful tale of outside white extremists doing it.
  • Alt Left website, Vice, calls for the destruction of Mt. Rushmore.
  • Numerous Confederate monuments are attacked or destroyed.

    Remember, these monuments were put up to heal the vast wounds of the Civil War, making a statement that both sides were American and had fought well, with history worth remembering. To pull them down is to take a stand against national healing – and against America. Pat Buchanan is scathing about it:

    Two years ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe called the giant statues of Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson on Richmond’s Monument Avenue “parts of our heritage.” After Charlottesville, New York-born-and-bred McAuliffe, entertaining higher ambitions, went full scalawag, demanding the statues be pulled down as “flashpoints for hatred, division and violence.”

    Who hates the statues, Terry? Who’s going to cause the violence? Answer: The Democratic left whom Terry must now appease.

Barcelona car attacks

As you know, terrorists killed at least 14 people in Barcelona on Thursday with cars, and injured at least 100 more in multiple attacks.

A group called “Islamic State” claimed responsibility, making them explicitly political and Islamic attacks.

By any objective measure, this is a much worse tragedy and problem than what happened in Charlottesville last weekend, although our thoughts and prayers are with all victims of both.

The LA Times article above phrases it oddly. LAT’s title says the attack is “blamed on ‘jihadi terrorism'”. The internal scare-quotes are theirs. The body says:

Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said Barcelona was the victim of “jihadi terrorism”…

In other words, LA Times won’t call it jihadi terrorism; it will only report neutrally the fact that, oddly, for some strange reason that one might not be able to fathom, others choose to leap to that conclusion.

This fits in with the [Left] Media Complex Playbook that V mentioned a couple days ago.

  • If the car is driven by a mentally-ill white supremacist and kills 1 person, it’s proof that Republicans are Nazis, America is in the grip of an epidemic of racism, Trump is the KKKing of racists, and lefties are correct to physically bash their opponents.
  • But if the cars (multiple) are driven by consciously-religious Muslims and kill 14 people, it’s not proof of anything except that Muslims are victims of hate crimes by Republicans – and lefties are correct to physically bash their opponents.

Now, every 1st Amendment advocate is a Nazi

As V pointed out earlier, Now, Everybody Who Isn’t a Radical Is a Nazi. The same goes for First Amendment supporters.

Here is 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.

Among other things, it means that horrible Nazi-leaning citizens get to peaceably assemble and demonstrate. So do horrible Commie-leaning citizens (Antifa) – if it’s done “peaceably”.

And what does “peaceably” mean? It does NOT mean smiles, rainbows, unicorns, or coming all unarmed. Nope. It means:

  1. The demonstrators co-ordinate with local authorities to prevent problems. Including (but not limited to) them getting a permit.
  2. If problems occur anyway, they obey lawful commands to disperse (and can be prosecuted if they don’t).
  3. Others can show up and counter-demonstrate, but…
  4. those others have NO superior rights or authority. For example, counter-demonstrators have no right to attack. It is NEVER “understandable” or “justified” if they attack, no matter how odious are the demonstrators’ opinions, signs or speeches.

Under those terms: Nazis, KKK, or even Commies (Antifa) are allowed to assemble and do a little march. This is why, in 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, IL.

Here’s the point: EVERY American, no matter their color or background or life experience, must accept this. Because, that’s America. It’s how America rolls.

Now, what happened in Charlottesville last weekend?

  • Various groups, not limited to white racists, got a permit to assemble in a park.
  • They began to assemble peaceably.
  • BEFORE anything bad happened – indeed, even before the start time on their permit – Democrat Governor McAuliffe declared them unlawful and ordered them to disperse.
  • Counter-demonstrators did not have a permit, assembled anyway and, by many first-hand accounts and videos, physically attacked the demonstrators as they were dispersing.
    • Correction: The counter-demonstrators were permitted for 2 nearby parks; still NOT the park nor the streets where the demonstrators were.
  • After an hour or two of that: one person, possibly with the demonstrators or possibly mentally ill, rammed a car into the counter-demonstrators.

Horrific as that final crime was, are those counter-demonstrators who attacked people somehow “understandable” or “justified” or “morally better”? Not under the terms of the First Amendment.

So, should President Trump call out the demonstrators alone and give them all the blame? Not under the terms of the First Amendment.

Either you support the First Amendment, or you don’t. If you do, then you have to put your focus on neutrally defending everyone’s First Amendment rights, as President Trump does.

This goes for the colossal dummies Rubio, Romney, McCain, and all you Democrats and SJWs out there. If you believe in the First Amendment, you’ll unite behind the President’s approach. If you don’t, we know the truth about you.

It’s time to remember your Constitution and rally behind First Amendment rights (and other rights, like due process) for all citizens, especially the ones you can’t stand.

UPDATE – Icing it: Atlanta leftie mob tears down a Peace Monument. Because, yes, mobs are that stupid.

Triggering the media

I keep hearing that the media is heavily filtering President Trump’s comments yesterday. So let’s get a bit closer to the real thing.

Trump says why his statements on Charlottesville were the right statements, in the right way at the right time. A triggered melee of voices strives to interrupt him.

YouTube Preview Image

[before the extract above] “I didn’t wait long. I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct…It takes awhile to get the facts. You still don’t know [all] the facts.”

I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and his country. You can call it terrorism, you can call it murder… The driver of the car is a murderer, and what he did is a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing.”

“Senator McCain? You mean, the one who voted against Obamacare [replacement]? The one who voted against us getting good health care?”

“What about the Alt Left, that came charging at the Alt Right? …They came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging. Do they have any problem? I think they do… That was a horrible day…You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very violent.”

“This week, it’s [protesting a traditional statue of] Robert E. Lee. I notice that Stonewall Jackson’s coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

“You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was a horrible thing to watch…I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either, and if you reported it accurately, you would say it.”

“George Washington was a slave owner. So, will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down statues of him? How about Thomas Jefferson? …You’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people [who just wanted to keep the traditional statue], and the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also [who wanted the statue to come down], you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers…with the baseball bats.”

“There are two sides to a story. I thought that what took place was a horrible moment for our country.”

UPDATE: Added some highlighting, to help the cognitively-blind.


The one thing that I would regret in the above, is that President Trump should (and didn’t yet) call for a universal, national pledge against political violence, that Left and Right alike would be required to take – if they want to be regarded as moral or responsible.

The media (like CNN) and the Democrats must be made to disavow the violence and bigotry of Antifa and #BlackLivesMatter.

Having the Right disavow the violence and bigotry of the #WhiteLivesMatter types is easy, a small price to pay, something that I’m happy to do. Because anyone who believes in tradition or God or liberty for real will know instinctively that #AllLivesMatter. (Plus the fact that the #WhiteLivesMatter types are crypto-leftists anyway.)

More Google updates

Just to round out today’s earlier post, we also have new interviews in Breitbart’s Rebels of Google series.

UPDATE – Everyone we don’t like is Raaaaaaaaaysist: CNN falsely smears the planned March on Google as a “White Nationalist”, “Alt Right” event.

To begin with, the organizers of March on Google are known to be pro-peace, anti-racist and anti-Alt Right. But they also say it pointedly, at this link.

Code of Conduct for March on Google

The March on Google condemns and disavows violence, hatred, and bigotry and all groups that espouse it such as White Nationalists, KKK, Antifa, and NeoNazis.
We will not use messages that are designed to incite anger, hate, or violence.
We will respect the law and the police and cooperate in all matters.
Any violation of these tenets will not be tolerated.
Is this an “Alt-Right” event? The answer is no. This is an event for First Amendment supporters from across the country, from all backgrounds, ethnicity, and walks of life.

CNN could have checked it easily. Instead, CNN published a complete falsehood – once again attempting to smear anyone who challenges them, or Google or the hard Left, as racists.

Hey, lefties: This is why Trump won (be that good or bad). This is why rational, honest people reject and despise the Left.

UPDATE: Peaceful March on Google is postponed, due to Alt Left terrorist threats following the CNN slanders.

Google updates

A fair argument from Tucker that Google can no longer be trusted and, due to its out-sized influence, should be regulated as a public utility:

YouTube Preview Image

I don’t necessarily agree; competition to Google could still punish their evil ways. But I found Tucker’s case interesting.

An editorial from James Damore himself, in The Wall Street Journal.

In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment.

The March on Google is still on for this Saturday, August 19.

  • List of cities here and here.
  • Explicit disavowal of the so-called “Alt Right” – and Antifa – here.

Racism and violence are left-wing, part II

Our leftie commentors’ response to yesterday’s post on this was interesting – by what they never said. First, only 2 showed up. (Not that we have many to begin with, but on something big and controversial, usually they’ll support each other a bit more.) Second, they made zero effort to address the post’s main points:

  • that Nazis were/are socialists.
  • that, in all of American history (including today), the Democrats/Left have been the side of racist thinking (or racial categories), racial segregation, so-called “eugenics”, etc.
  • that there is nothing right-wing about the so-called Alt Right of 2017; excepting alone their choice to *claim* that they are somehow rightist.
    • (In 2016 or earlier, some actual rightists did adopt the “Alt Right” label thinking it was kicky and fun, but discarded the label when the #WhiteLivesMatter racists took it over.)
  • that, despite appearances, it’s ideologically and psychologically easy for white supremacists and hard leftists/Democrats to change into each other, pretend to be each other, etc.
  • Because the essence of both sides is tribal collectivism and the desire to punish one’s dissenting or dissimilar neighbor.

By contrast – What is it, to be conservative or right-wing? I’m no expert but the answers usually given will boil down to:

  1. Standing up for tradition. E.g., Catholic or other Christian rightists (whom, by the way, the Nazis hated). In the UK, it could mean monarchists supporting the Queen.
  2. Standing up for Liberty under the Rule of Law. In America, this means a love of everyone’s constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

Neither are what white supremacists stand for. What they stand for is their approximation of racism-with-socialism; in other words, left-wing politics.

When will we start labeling them, not on the basis of what they *claim* to be (for some horrible marketing purpose of their own), but on the basis of their actual views? “Alt Left” would be closer.

For dessert: Steven Crowder on The Top 3 Ways in which Antifa and white nationalists are the same. In brief:

  1. Both readily disregard the law and Constitution.
  2. Both promote identity politics and play the Victim card.
  3. Both support Big Government / left-liberal policies (e.g., both want nationalized / single-payer health care).
  4. Bonus round: Both hate Israel.

Also, V the K’s comment:

The other truth that must not be spoken: The left is absolutely thrilled and delighted with what happened in Charlottesville.

The only way it could have made them happier is if their Antifa protesters had been shot by an NRA member.

The truth that must not be spoken: Racism and violence are left-wing

Commenter Sarah kindly pointed us to this report about Jason Kessler, a leader of the #WhiteLivesMatter Charlottesville march.

Rumors abound on white nationalist forums that Kessler’s ideological pedigree before 2016…point[s] to involvement in the Occupy movement and past support for President Obama.

You do have to take it with a grain of salt, because it comes from the highly-dysfunctional Southern Poverty Law Center. Still, it’s plausible when you remember that in 2008, white supremacists tended to support then-Candidate Obama. (Original Esquire article here; in case that ever goes away, my comment here captures some bits.)

OK, so why would white supremacists (whether full-fledged, or just potential ones) align with left-wing causes, such as Occupy Wall Street and Barack Obama? The answer is in the linked Esquire article. In brief,

  • White supremacists know a fellow racist when they see one. (They admired President Obama’s “racial consciousness”.) And,
  • They admire fellow socialists.

That’s right. Racism and socialism go together, as the Nazis proved. The Nazis were socialists; if you don’t believe me, check out the list of evidence in this earlier post.

We also know it from American history. Democrats fought to preserve slavery (whereas the Republicans freed the slaves). Democrats formed and manned the KKK; instituted the Jim Crow laws; invented Planned Parenthood specifically to abort black babies (look into Margaret Sanger sometime); and defended racial segregation well into the 1970s. And the youngest, most “progressive” lefties are bringing back racial segregation, here in the 2010s.

At some point, Democrats did flip the racist script and turn into brown supremacists (rather than white supremacists), but the dynamic is the same: An obsession with racial categories and race preferences/stigmatizing. It stems from Tribalism, which goes hand-in-hand with Collectivism, which is the philosophical root of socialism.

That’s why racism is left-wing. As to the violence: The essence of the socialist or “progressive” project is the use of force – that is, violence – to punish one’s neighbor for being better-off AND/or for not submitting enough to leftist nonsense and virtue-signalling.

In other words: leftism is violent inherently. In its nature, left-wing politics is a wish to see violence being done to those of your neighbors who won’t be or do or say what you want. Whereas pro-liberty or genuine right-wing politics is a wish for people to be able to avoid each other when they want.

All of this makes it wrong to claim that violent racists are from the Right. And that is part of why I keep calling the Charlottesville march a #WhiteLivesMatter thing, rather than using the false and misleading “Unite the Right” name given by its organizers. What those guys stood for has nothing to do with the Right’s love of life, liberty and property.

But leftists will claim that violent racists are rightists anyway. Because every American knows instinctively that racism and political violence are both bad. To stay in business, the Left must, at all costs, deflect and project-away the blame for it.

Thus we get the accusational, virtue-signalling frenzies like the one against President Trump today, which I just noted.

A new frenzy in the push to overturn the 2016 election

In the wake of Charlottesville on Saturday, President Trump said things like this (from various news articles):

We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides. It’s been going on for a long time in our country. There’s no place in America (for this). What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives.

We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. We must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are ALL AMERICANS FIRST.

It’s exactly what needs saying. Because Antifa and #BlackLivesMatter are at least as bigoted and violent (and probably more so) than the detestable #WhiteLivesMatter types who marched in Charlottesville. All Americans should condemn all bigoted violence from all sides, because #AllLivesMatter.

Nonetheless, the Controlled Media and the Left (but I repeat myself) were furious, claiming that Trump had somehow *not* denounced white supremacists. Because he hadn’t done so “by name”, or something. Do you see the game, here? No matter what he says: complain. Keep claiming it’s not enough.

How do we know that’s the game? Because, as of this morning, Trump went even farther:

President Trump delivered a statement from the White House on Monday explicitly condemning violent white supremacists.

“Racism is evil,” Trump said from the White House Diplomatic Room. “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

“As I have said many times before, no matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws,” the president said. “We all salute the same great flag. And we are all made by the same almighty God.”

And is it enough for them, now? Of course it isn’t. You’ll never guess the new complaint:

In his statement Monday, Trump did not use the word “terrorism” to describe the car attack in Charlottesville.

That’s right: NOW, all the sudden, the media/Left luuuuuuuvv the word “terrorism” and want to see it used. Joining the pile-on are longtime Trump opponents who really should know better:

“It’s very important for the nation to hear @potus describe events in #Charlottesville for what they are, a terror attack by #whitesupremacists,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., tweeted.

OK, suppose Trump calls it terrorism. What happens next? They’ll come up with a new line of attack. This game is endless, it’s empty, and it’s only a new chapter in the Establishment’s effort to de-legitimize Trump and overturn the 2016 election.

It also shows the Establishment’s (and the Left’s – but I repeat myself) spectacular hypocrisy. Again, Antifa and #BlackLivesMatter are at least as bigoted and violent as the groups whom Trump condemned today. But the Establishment/Left won’t condemn those groups and don’t want their own hypocrisy and bigotry (in refusing to condemn) to be highlighted.

For dessert: This video shows that Trump called out David Duke as “a bigot, a racist, a problem, this is not exactly the people you want”…Years ago. He went there, he did that, long ago.

A tragedy staged? or at least allowed?

I’ve seen numerous reports and on-scene videos that, in Charlottesville yesterday, Antifa/BlackLivesMatter attacked the “WhiteLivesMatter” (for lack of a precise word) marchers freely, seeking trouble. Per Powerline, even a New York Times reporter agrees:

[A NYT journalist] was on the scene yesterday. She noted on Twitter: “The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park.”

None of which would ever justify James Alex Fields’ alleged murderous assault with his car; but the justice system will handle Fields. My point here is, the “other” relevant facts that may be lost in the media frenzy. As our fine commenters have noted,

  • The WLM marchers had a permit. (Which the ACLU had to help them get.)
  • Antifa/BLM didn’t.
  • Both sides showed up ready for trouble, armed with sticks, helmets, pepper spray, shields, rocks, etc.
  • Antifa/BLM started at least some of the trouble. (Some would say most.)
  • The police were careful about controlling the WLM marchers at first; but did nothing to control Antifa/BLM, and vanished (or dragged their feet or sat idly by) as conflicts broke out.

“[The police] had an opportunity to nip this thing in the bud, and chose not to”, says a different on-scene journalist:

YouTube Preview Image

You could build a story of the Left playing one of its old tricks: Instigate trouble, let it flourish (e.g., deny full police protection), then make sure the other side is blamed for everything. Like when VA Governor McAuliffe denounced the WLM types, but not Antifa/BLM.

It comes to mind because we saw it done in the Berkeley riots earlier this year. A controversial speaker was going to speak; leftie protestors made violent trouble; police held back; things got bad; authorities then said “Look, this proves we are right to shut down speakers whom the Left doesn’t like,” granting the Left a Heckler’s Veto to deny the rights of others.

Again, none of this excuses racist losers in any form. And none of this excuses the serious, alleged crime of James Alex Fields. It will be interesting to get more details on his deal. When I saw his picture, my gut reaction was “zombie” – but I couldn’t say whether mentally ill, on drugs, programmed, abuse victim, plain evil sociopath, or some combination.

It will also be interesting to see if Charlottesville police are going to be in for some lawsuits.

Antifa and #WhiteLivesMatter deserve each other

#WhiteLivesMatter is the term I’ll use here for the conglomeration of different “white identitarian”, “white nationalist”, “alt-Right”, “KKK”, “neo-Nazi” or “neo-Confederate” people who marched together in Charlottesville, VA on Saturday – and got into fights/riots with Antifa-type counter-marchers.

Gov. Terry McAullife declared a state of emergency shortly before 11 a.m. ET, moments before the rally was scheduled to begin at noon at Emancipation Park in Charlottesville, according to a tweet sent from the Democratic governor’s Twitter account. Using megaphones, police declared an unlawful assembly at about 11:40 a.m., and gave a five-minute warning to leave Emancipation Park, where hundreds of neoNazis, Ku Klux Klans members and other white nationalists had gathered to protest the removal of a Confederate statue. They were met by equal numbers of “counterprotesters,” including Black Lives Matter activists…

Apparently, the detestable Richard Spencer was there, got sucker-punched and/or maced, and that set off some of the melee. Several people reported other attacks by the BLM/Antifa side. Most horribly, someone from the #WhiteLivesMatter side drove a car into the BLM/Antifa crowd and injured people. (It’s unclear to me, how much related these incidents may be.) And two State police were killed in a helicopter crash.

Here’s my overall take.

  • Robert E. Lee is one of the important and fairly-honorable figures in American history; traditional statues of him either should not, or at least need not, be taken down. As such, the #WhiteLivesMatter types may have a point on that one, little issue.
  • Having said that: I run with #AllLivesMatter. I have no problem denouncing white nationalism or white ethnic identitarianism (like I did, here). Especially if the people turn violent. I hereby denounce it again.
  • And of course, I denounce Antifa and #BlackLivesMatter, especially if they turn violent.
  • An ideal outcome might be if any/all of those who committed crimes Saturday, on either side, will have to spend some jail time together. Paired in cells, if possible.
  • To the extent that many people (on either side) did NOT commit any crimes and expressed themselves peacefully: Kudos. Although, again, I probably don’t agree on many issues with either side.
  • President Trump has condemned hatred, bigotry and violence coming from any side…whoa, looks like I agree with Trump again! How does that keep happening?

P.S. The Controlled Media and the Left (but I repeat myself) are much to blame for what happened today, because they have pretty consistently failed to denounce Antifa, BLM, or violence coming from the Left. (Unlike we on the liberty-loving #AllLivesMatter Right, who have no problem denouncing violence from any or all sides.)

When the Left won’t properly stigmatize or denormalize violence from lefties, then both violent lefties and their krazier #WhiteLivesMatter type of opponents are going to feel agitated, and these fights will break out easily.

As always, feel free to post your take in the comments.

Flailing lefties (and: March on Google, Aug 19)

First, a sidebar: I’m changing my web browsers to use DuckDuckGo as default search engine. Just sayin’. It seems good. Doesn’t track your searches. And when you want to copy/paste a link address, it lets you have the real link right on the search-results page (unlike annoying Google).

DuckDuckGo - Because Google is so 1984

Anyway….A new entry in Breitbart’s “Rebels of Google” series: Google makes a big thing about tolerating its high-autism employee, then fires him when he questions ideology about gender not being either-or.

“There used to be a Googler very high on the autism spectrum. At our TGIFs (weekly propaganda sessions) he would always take up time during the question period with long, strange, frustrating questions.”

“This went on for months, and was always tolerated until one fateful LGBT-themed TGIF when he expressed skepticism about the gender “spectrum.” He was fired very shortly afterward.”

Before publishing, we checked with [another interviewee] to see if he recalled the incident and could corroborate. He did.

Meanwhile, Google’s CEO has doubled down:

Google CEO Sundar Pichai defended the dismissal of former Google employee James Damore in a blog post on Tuesday, where he called Damore’s manifesto “harmful.”

“First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it,” Pichai opined in the blog post. “However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

The contradiction is lost on Pichai. If you “strongly” support free expression and debate, you can’t fire employees for taking the other side in free expression and debate. Period. But especially given that Damore’s actual memo did not stereotype anyone and was almost milquetoast, as V noted.

“To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK,” says Pichai, which makes no sense because Damore’s memo did not remotely suggest that. RTFM, Mr. Pichai!

March on Google, August 19, 2017

Click on the image above, for updates and a map of locations.


For dessert, we have the Jennifer Lawrence train wreck. She tells President Trump “F— you!” (complete with dramatic middle finger), then tells an interviewer “We can’t continue this divide and anger.” Again, the contradiction is lost, on her.