Gay Patriot Header Image

The Left Actively Seeks Violence

It’s last year’s news, but worth remembering. George Soros, Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid (and probably still pay) protestors, not only to turn out and carry signs or chant slogans, but also to instigate violence.

YouTube Preview Image

Via Rush.

It’s on people’s radar in the last day or so because The Washington Post now says, who cares if these left-wing protestors are paid shills? So, what? Which is a shift: the Controlled Media used to simply deny that these left-wing protestors were paid shills.

Antifa: A Terrorist, Criminal Conspiracy as dangerous as the Mafia

Terrorists are people who:

  • won’t fight as part of a regular military; and who
  • mainly attack others who are not part of a regular military (that is, civilians); in order to
  • intimidate people into accepting (or not dissenting from) the terrorists’ political viewpoint.

Guess what? That’s Antifa.

Antifa is also a conspiracy to commit crimes. As one of our fine commentors recently suggested, they may be compared to other criminal conspiracies. Here’s my take.

  • On the one hand, Antifa “only” plans crimes of felony assault and vandalism (that could get out of hand and become manslaughter or murder, semi-accidentally). In that way, they’re a bit less dangerous than the Mafia (which plans specific murders).
  • On the other hand, many of the Mafia’s crimes are intra-Mafia. Not so with Antifa, ALL of whose crimes are directed at the larger society. In that way, they’re more dangerous than the Mafia.

Where is the FBI, on Antifa? Or the Department of Justice?

Remember when “Purity Tests” and “Litmus Tests” were bad?

The Chairman of the Democrat Party has informed pro-Life voters they are not welcome in the Democrat Party.

Previously, New York Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo told Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment voters they were not welcome in his state.

However, the black-masked head bashers and arsonists of the Antifa movement, still part of Team Democrat.

Stefan Molyneux on “Climate Change”

I find Molyneux’s video-enlarged, ranting bald head a bit creepy. But his content is often brilliant. I recently listened to this one from 2015.

Molyneux proposes the following thought experiment:

  1. Suppose stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs – whomever you view as corruptible) are in charge of calculating some important measure of the world.
  2. Let’s call it the Economy Rate (ER). It could go up or down. The stockbrokers fudge and massage the ER data, as they see fit.
  3. First, the stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going DOWN! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
  4. But over the years, the ER rises. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going UP! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
  5. But then the ER stops going up. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it could go UP OR DOWN! With unpredictable pauses! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”

At what point do you begin to see that the stockbrokers are taking you, in a racket?

  • Point 1 is climate scientists – who are a huge, publicly-funded industry. Each scientist profits (as wage/salary payments, benefits, etc.) from the grants she receives.
  • Point 2 is the world average temperature, which climate scientists derive from data that they themselves fudge and massage.
  • Point 3 is the 1970s, when climate scientists gave alarming predictions of a New Ice Age.
  • Point 4 is the 1980s to the 2000s, when their monster was Global Warming. The famous “hockey stick” upward graph.
  • Point 5 is recent years, when the “hockey stick” graph failed and they switched it to Climate Change – in whatever direction.

Do you believe that climate scientists are less corruptible than stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs)? That they’re somehow more objective and noble?

I don’t. You who do (lefties) have a RELIGIOUS FAITH in climate scientists, that you’re not admitting. And it’s exactly what climate scientists want you to have.

Your delusional, gullible faith is how they keep their tens of billions of taxpayer dollars coming. And of course they would have a “consensus” that they are objective and noble and deserve it and should be listened to and those dollars should keep coming. Of course they would.

Happy Earth Day!

Should the Government Legislate Morality?

A generation ago, the answer would have been. “No, of course not, what kind of a fascist are you?”

These days, the answer from the Democrat Progressive Left is an enthusiastic and obscenity-modified, “F–k, yeah!”

In fact, the Left is now claiming that Big Government is something we should all embrace on the moral principle “because that’s what Jesus would have wanted.”

We see it with cradle-to-grave entitlements, as they demand we must do it because “Jesus was a socialist!” We see it with amnesty, as they demand we must do it because “The pope says so!”

We see it when they insist that we adopt their version of “Who we are as a nation,” which always ends up meaning “Give more!” (Never mind that the phrase “Who we are as a nation” chills free speech and implies that we’re a monolith, thereby negating what we are, which is a nation of free and diverse individuals.)

And it’s mainly because when the Government forces *other people* to conform to the left’s moral choices, it relieves them of the responsibility.

Consider those who insist that health care is a right (it isn’t), but never bothered to ask their own insurers about putting their uninsured friends or neighbors on their own policies. Instead, they just sit around patting each other on the back for insisting that the government force us all to be as charitable as they never have been or will be individually.

AP says: the United Nations runs child sex rings

Via the Toronto Star.

By Paisley Dodds
The Associated Press
Wed., April 12, 2017

In the ruins of a tropical hideaway…abandoned children tried to make a life for themselves…they never could scrape together enough to beat back the hunger, until the UN peacekeepers moved in a few blocks away.

The men who came from a far-away place and spoke a strange language offered the Haitian children cookies and other snacks. Sometimes they gave them a few dollars. But the price was high: The Sri Lankan peacekeepers wanted sex from girls and boys as young as 12.

…An Associated Press investigation of UN missions during the past 12 years found nearly 2,000 allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers and other personnel around the world — signalling the crisis is much larger than previously known. More than 300 of the allegations involved children, the AP found, but only a fraction of the alleged perpetrators served jail time.

…Here in Haiti, at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers exploited nine children in a sex ring from 2004 to 2007, according to an internal UN report obtained by the AP.

RTWT.

My thoughts:

  • These were OFFICIAL U.N. PEACEKEEPERS. “Blue helmets”
  • We’ve had rumors about U.N. pedophilia and child trafficking, for years.
  • The Controlled Media usually either ignores/buries this story, or goes out of its way to discredit the people saying it. So, the rumors have been mostly “fringe”.
  • If the Controlled Media is reporting on it now as a legitimate topic… Whoa. Could this be a one-off story? Or will it grow?
  • Hmm, Haiti. Is there anyone in U.S. politics who visited Haiti a lot in the 2000s to “help the kids”? Anyone famous and corrupt, who might have overlooked a few things at the least? But I don’t want to name names. Especially no names involving “pizza”, a cluster-F of a story if there ever was one.

Women Are Fragile Creatures That Must Be Sheltered from Life say Feminists

A gang of six professors at Wellesley College (cough “Asylum” cough) (Annual cost of attendance: $66,966) calling themselves “the Commission for Ethnicity, Race, and Equity (CERE)” have authored a policy that would ban speakers from the college if their views are so controversial (i.e. conservative, libertarian, or anti-socialist) that snowflakes might be offended by them.

The nut of their argument is that the presence of speakers presenting opinions that social justice wankers disagree with traumatizes the minority groups privileged white people always claim to be concerned about — womyn, people without pale skin, and of course the LGBTQs — who then must (because they can’t just let these things go) — MUST invest valuable time and energy in making signs, smashing windows, putting together giant vagina costumes, making tearful YouTube videos and suchlike.

I am not making this up.

There is no doubt that the speakers in question impose on the liberty of students, staff, and faculty at Wellesley. We are especially concerned with the impact of speakers’ presentations on Wellesley students, who often feel the injury most acutely and invest time and energy in rebutting the speakers’ arguments. Students object in order to affirm their humanity.

Peak Feminism

Posted by V the K at 6:51 pm - March 23, 2017.
Filed under: Liberalism Run Amok

According to Cosmopolitan, it’s wrong for women to achieve orgasm with men because it makes men feel good for having satisfied their women.

I am not making this up.

“Despite increasing focus on women’s orgasms, research indicated that the increased attention to women’s orgasms may also serve men’s sexuality, complicating conceptualizations of women’s orgasms as women-centric,” researchers wrote.

In a separate statement from Chadwick and van Anders, they explained why it’s a bad thing for men to gain masculinity points for bringing female partners to orgasm. “One reason is that it might pressure some heterosexual men to feel like they have to ‘give’ women orgasms, as if orgasm is something men pulled out of a hat and presented to women,” they wrote. “This ties into cultural ideas of women as passive recipients of whatever men give them.”

What Makes Leftists Happy

Posted by V the K at 1:12 pm - March 23, 2017.
Filed under: Liberalism Run Amok

A media operative is overjoyed because the victim’s of yesterdays “Terror Attack Committed by Islamic Supremacists That Had Nothing to do with Islam” were so diverse!

A snapshot of London’s magnificent diversity in those injured: French, Romanian, Korean, German, Polish, Irish, Chinese, US, Italian, Greek.

Ace asks:

Why does a white racist killer somehow create an obligation in me to examine how my own internalized “white supremacy” might be part and parcel of the attack, whereas the terrorism committed by a Islamist is definitely not cause for any self-reflection within the Muslim community about how their own hatreds and ideas of Islamic Supremacy might have something to do with the latest jihadi rampage?

 

#Clovergender and #Agefluid

Posted by V the K at 7:35 pm - February 24, 2017.
Filed under: Liberalism Run Amok

Some wags on the Twitters created the hashtags #Clovergender and #Agefluid. #Clovergender means “a child trapped in a man’s body who is attracted to other children.” #Agefluid means your “real” age is the age you believe you are; on the inside, in your heart.

They did this as a deliberate troll against the Social Justice Genderwankers.

How much ya wanna bet #Clovergender and #agefluid are a real thing by the end of the year?

C1XSYF7UkAAtJMV

It is hard not to notice how much the “Transgender Rights” movement seems to be obsessed with children. Seems like any attention-seeking parent who can get her little boy to grow his hair, put on a dress, and mince is guaranteed a spot on a TV chat show. So, #clovergender and #agefluid seem like pretty natural next steps.

By the way, Conservative Supergenius Tucker Carlson confronted a paid shill who makes his living pimping Transgender virtue signaling to help the Democrat Party Trangender Rights Activist with a version of the #clovergender #agefluid argument. The guy kind of froze up like one of Harry Mudd’s androids when Captain Kirk confronted him with a logical paradox.

 

Irony, Chutzpah, or Gall?

A Berkeley liberal (with the usual complete lack of self-awareness) praises the success of her violent, Black Bloc/Antifa allies.

“I think shutting down and forcing the cancellation of a white supremacist like Milo Yiannopoulos was a stunning achievement….”

“It isn’t a question of free speech,” said Felarca. “This is about our right to be free of intimidation.” [Emphasis added.]

The person who said that is a public school teacher in the Berkeley Unified School District.

For every violent thug in a black mask at the Berkeley Riot, there were 5 “non-violent” protesters proving him cover; ten people who know who they are but won’t tell the police;  and ten or a hundred thousand liberals nodding and saying, “I don’t totally agree with their tactics, but I like the result.”

Say what you will about how “Antifa” is a violent minority; but it only takes 1 dog to move a thousand sheep.

It is notable that Milo Yiannopoulos — a gay, Jewish immigrant with a penchant for interracial coupling — is the object of the left’s Two-Minutes Hate. They hate him with such passion because he proves that two of the most dearly held beliefs of the American left are false. 1. That the right-wing hates gays and immigrants and would never accept one as their own. 2. That the left is open-minded, thoughtful, and tolerant.

Is This True?

Posted by V the K at 4:51 pm - February 6, 2017.
Filed under: Liberalism Run Amok

Hypothesis: The Left hates us, and we should act accordingly.

Leftists don’t merely disagree with you. They don’t merely feel you are misguided. They don’t think you are merely wrong. They hate you. They want you enslaved and obedient, if not dead. Once you get that, everything that is happening now will make sense. And you will understand what you need to be ready to do.

You are normal, and therefore a heretic. You refuse to bow to their idols, to subscribe to their twisted catechisms, to praise their false gods. This is unforgivable. You must burn.

When you look at what happened in Berkeley when the left literally set their own campus on fire and committed violent physical assaults in order to prevent a conservative speaker from expressing his opinion… yeah… that seems like deranged total hate to me.

What is the point of the riots, the protests, the angry rants in social media except to express hate; a highly personalized hatred toward people who think differently than they do. And yeah, the left *owns* this hate. Bill Ayers or Van Jones could speak at any college campus in the country and there would be no violent response from the right.

Also, elite universities indoctrinate students to hate each other based on race, religion, and sex.

This mandatory orientation event was designed to help us appreciate our diversity as a student body during the first week of classes. But what did it really accomplish? In compressing us into isolated communities based on our race, religion or gender, the minister belittled every other piece of our identities. He faced a crowd of singular young adults and essentially told them that their heritage outweighed their humanity. The message was clear: know your kind and stick to it. Don’t risk offending people from other backgrounds by trying to understand their worldviews.

Discuss.

Well, So Much for That Conspiracy Theory

Doing the detective work the Berkeley Police Department won’t do, a blogger may have identified one of the violent protesters at the Berkeley Anti-Free Speech riot. He brags about assaulting a Trump supporter on social media, and his accounts trace to an easily identified individual. Shockingly, it turns out to be a false-flag operative planted by the right-wing like the Young Turks and Robert Reich are claiming a university staff member.

I get why leftists latched onto this conspiracy theory; not all of them are on board with the violence that characterizes their movement. Some of them also realize that vandalism, arson, and assault looks bad to normal people.  So, they clung to a rather desperate and delusional conspiracy theory that someone else must have been responsible. And they told themselves, even if the conspiracy theory doesn’t turn out to be true, at least at shows how much I personally abhor violence to want to believe such a thing.

But by denying the violence that infests their movement, the “peaceful protesters” are only letting it fester.

By they way, it is not a conspiracy theory, but a fact that the group that organized the violent protest is funded by George Soros, because he’s a real-life James Bond villain. But also, Vermont commies Ben and Jerry did their part to fund the violence as well.

Oh, and the peaceful environmental protesters protesting the Dakota Access pipeline left behind a literal, not figurative, landfill-sized amount of garbage.

Nasty Women and the Messes They Leave Behind

In case you’re wondering if 200,000 self-centered, narcissistic, virtue-signaling leftists would trash the capitol city and leave a great huge mess for other people to clean up... .

16252386_1715736918452416_5588229419825021458_o

 

C2yKcFmXAAIJczH

 

C2vPmGdVEAAOZVA

 

C2yOGS2W8AAH-1Q

 

These women could have spent Saturday cleaning up a local park, participating in an inner-city literacy project, or helping out at a soup kitchen. But… no… they decided to get together and throw a big whiny tantrum about their fantasy of persecution. (And listen to Ashley Judd say that Trump is Hitler and Republicans are Nazis.) And to the women who spent Saturday doing useful activities, taking care of your families, or working… go you. You have my respect.

This trash heap will stand as the only thing 200K feminists really accomplished yesterday.

The City That Starship Built Is Turning Nasty

San Francisco continues to the world-capital of smug progressivism, but is increasingly the kind of city no sensible person would want to live in.

“With a crime rate of 70 per one thousand residents, San Francisco has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes,” says the data collection site Neighborhood Scout. “One’s chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 14. Within California, more than 98% of the communities have a lower crime rate than San Francisco.”

Smash-and-grab thefts from locked cars are so common that car repair shops have waiting lists. The city does not want to install surveillance cameras, and its aversion to tougher law enforcement had until recently left its police force at 1980s staffing levels.

On the hazardous waste side, the city is reporting an increase of syringes and feces sightings at 41 and 39 percent, respectively, over 2015 levels​. That’s just an average. The hardest-hit area reported a 77 percent rise in discarded syringes and a 140 percent rise in feces. The city spends about $2 million a year on urine and feces cleanup.

But the city’s smug, progressive leadership is too busy passing ‘Sanctuary City’ ordinances to worry about silly things like crime and public health. “We’re a world-class city and the scenery is beautiful,” proclaim the city’s progressive elite as they pause to scrape hobo dung from the bottom of their $600 cross-trainers.

Maybe to all of those “tech workers” from Hyderabad and Tijuana, it’s just natural to have to step around piles of human feces as you walk down the street. And only a retrograde deplorable would consider it uncivilized not to have his car broken into once a month.

But, y’know, it’s all worth it to live in such terrific weather with such iconic landmarks… like Alcatraz, Folsom Street, and Starfleet Headquarters.

The city’s finances are equally “progressive.”

Despite $9 billion in tourism revenue and $4 billion in tax revenue last year, San Francisco faces a perennial budget deficit in the billions factoring in generous pension costs, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Apparently, if you’re a trustafarian, a tech billionaire, or a wealthy Chinese/Arab immigrant, you can live well in San Francisco. For regular people, it sucks.

I remain baffled at why people choose to pay so much to endure a progressive, urban culture.

Easy Like Sunday Morning

Posted by V the K at 3:17 pm - December 4, 2016.
Filed under: Liberalism Run Amok

15241420_1275456012475197_5086456503062191491_n

 

Stole from here.

“Climate of Hate” update again

I hope future readers (if any) realize that the title is ironic. Left-liberals claim that we’re living in a climate of hate. If we are: It’s the hatred that is spewed by America’s Left.

First: Yesterday, President Obama clarified that he will NOT call off the anti-Trump protestors.

“I would not advise people who feel strongly or are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised over the course of the campaign, I would not advise them to be silent,” Obama said during a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Obama said protests are just something Trump would have to get used to as the leader of the free world.

“I’ve been the subject of protests during the course of my eight years,” he said. “And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests.”

…Obama [said] that the right of free speech should be exercised…

Let’s be clear: This is beyond baloney. Obama never faced protests where conservatives smashed windows, set fires, and physically attacked his supporters in the streets. Destroying property and people isn’t “free speech”.

As lefties told everyone last spring, when the Left’s paid agitators were trying to foment violence at Trump rallies: The leader’s duty to denounce the violence and insist on peaceful speech/protest from his supporters. That is Obama’s duty, now. Once more, the clown Obama disgraces America and himself.

And by the way: Obama didn’t face protestors in any number, until long after he was sworn in and did some (bad) things. While we’re at it, Merkel’s Germany does not let German citizens have free speech. The article describes Germans who were threatened with jail for criticizing Germany’s refugee influx on social media. Pathetic!

Some other items:

The Steve Bannon kerfuffle

I don’t know a great deal about it. This is a post where I’m not presenting information, so much as asking for it.

But, to set up the question: Via Instapundit we have this from The Hill: Breitbart News planning lawsuit against ‘major media company’.

Breitbart News is preparing a lawsuit against a “major media company” over claims that it is a white nationalist website…

The website has been under intense scrutiny since President-elect Donald Trump named Stephen Bannon as a senior White House counselor and strategist. Bannon is the former executive chairman of Breitbart News…

“…Breitbart News rejects racism in all its varied and ugly forms. Always has, always will,” [said a statement.] “The diversity of the company’s news coverage and its staff continue to embody Andrew Breitbart’s colorblind, distinctly American commitment to ‘E pluribus unum’—out of many, one.”

Critics have taken aim at the site’s coverage in recent days. While Bannon was executive chairman of Breitbart, the website published a story by David Horowitz referring to conservative commentator Bill Kristol as a “renegade Jew,” something that has been mentioned repeatedly in media coverage calling Breitbart a white nationalist website.

So, here’s what I “think I know”, at present.

  • Breitbart.com was one of the first to go all-in for Trump. They are pro-deportation of illegals, but in no way white-supremacist.
  • Just as the media’s knickers are in a twist over Trump and over the Alt-Right, they’re in a twist over Trump keeping Bannon as a senior, Karl Rove-type advisor.
  • But it’s ridiculous. If all that the media has is one Jew (David Horowitz) slagging another Jew (Bill Kristol) over something to do with Jewishness, on Breitbart.com while Bannon presided, let’s face it: They’ve got nothing.

Correct? Agree/disagree? What I would be most interested in here, is actual evidence – not mere assertion or opinion – that Steve Bannon and/or Breitbart are “white nationalists” or white supremacists. If any exists. (I have a gut-feeling against it.)

UPDATE – I didn’t see this coming: Trump Wants To Deport [Only] As Many Undocumented Immigrants As Obama Already Has.

UPDATE: Spengler (David P. Goldman) describes Bannon as “100% pro-Israel” – which would be unusual for a white supremacist. And the worst against Bannon that Jonah Goldberg can muster, is that Bannon is part of the alt-Right. Yawn, so is Milo. Sorry, Jonah. I do love you, most of the time.

I am open to a point suggested in the comments, that under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart.com has declined journalistically. But that’s a different matter. Being a poor journalist (arguably) doesn’t make you a racist.

Leftism can make you suicidal

According to The Hill, Suicide hotlines receive record number of calls after Trump win.

Phones have been ringing off the hook at suicide hotlines since Donald Trump was named president-elect Tuesday.

According to multiple reports, many of those calling or texting into hotlines are members of the LGBTQ community, minorities and victims of sexual assault who are worried about Trump’s victory…

The article, to its credit, at least attempts to mention real-world facts that could be relevant:

On the campaign trail, Trump told Fox News that he hoped to put Supreme Court judges on the bench who could “change things” in regards to current rulings on same-sex marriage, adding that he wished the ruling “was done by state.”

Trump’s multiple accusations of sexual assault have also been triggers for women, as well as the lewd 2005 tape recording of Trump in which he makes light of sexual assault saying, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

But notice the bad job it does: the hysterical framing. For example, the repeated and vague use of the term “sexual assault” to imply great danger to women.

Fact: Trump does not condone rape and, unlike Bill Clinton, Trump has never been credibly accused of rape. From what I remember of Trump’s comments, at worst, he condoned locker-room talk and leaning in for a kiss or proposition after the other party had signaled her interest. And yes, that could be bad – because mistakes could be made; advances could be unwanted; cheating or diseases or painful regrets could happen if things did consensually go farther. Even so, sane people must admit that Trump does not rise to the level of “Bill Clinton bad”.

So, why this hysteria of feeling unsafe or “triggered” with Trump elected and not, say, with Bill Clinton around? Or with a prospect of Hillary Clinton being elected – given that she allegedly devastated the lives of women in helping to cover up her husband’s alleged raping? By any objective standard, the Clintons endanger women more than Trump does.

As to the gay-marriage aspect: The Supreme Court decision to make it nationwide was only last year. For thousands of years, gay men, women and teenagers have survived without that particular U.S. court decision. Believing that gay marriage should be decided by the States is hardly a dangerous position. Again, why the hysteria – among some people?

I believe the answer is this. Leftism harms you. As a philosophy, leftism discourages personal responsibility – and is objectively unrealistic. Therefore, it makes you less able to think clearly about your life; more mentally and emotionally vulnerable. Plus, in the specific case of 2016 and the Hillary Clinton campaign, leftism exposes you to manipulation via many untruths and exaggerations.

To anyone who may be genuinely suicidal over Trump’s election victory: You have my pity. Yes, that’s the correct word.

pit·y
noun
1. the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others.

Because your suffering, at least in regard to Trump, is unnecessary.

To be clear: I did not support Trump for President. And I have my doubts about what will happen now, with him. But I’m not suicidal about him. Neither was I suicidal about Obama. Why not? Because, at a fairly young age, I made a conscious choice to value my own life, to make it better no matter what, and to develop common sense and my ability to think about reality clearly.

To all sufferers of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome): There is still time for you to make good choices to improve your mental health and your life. I hope and pray that you will.

Could these things be connected?

Item 1: Over 2 Million Hillary Supporters Sign Petition To Overturn Election Results. This is spectacular hypocrisy and as well, unawareness of American civic practices (or how American democracy is supposed to work).

Item 2: In October, John Podesta (Hillary campaign chair) had a lot of his emails exposed. In one, his associate oddly mentions how they all “conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry”.

Seeming to refer to the decades-long dumbing-down of America, Podesta’s associate said:

And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.

(Emphasis added) Could these 2 developments be connected?