The Internet home for American gay conservatives.
Via Papa Giorgio, Red Pill Black explains how it’s allllllllll just media drama:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S2TZOdXAtQ[/youtube]
Via McSimonus, Ali Velshi interviews Breitbart’s Joel Pollak on MSNBC. It’s not bad. Which shocks me. Velshi’s tone is respectful and he listens to Pollak’s answers. What a difference from, say, the Mad Cow.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zioep4n_es[/youtube]
Much of this is from Breitbart; they do a great job of covering it. But I added a few other things.
The list of names included Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks, South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan and Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, TheDC has confirmed. Fox News reported after this story that Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, Tennessee Rep. Scott DesJarlais and Virginia Rep. Morgan Griffith are also on the list. All six congressmen are members of the House Freedom Caucus…
But they still don’t know his motive.
In the tweets that followed, he repeated the Gabby Giffords blood libel (on Sarah Palin). Lefties do love that libel.
By the way, I think it’s no accident that lefties would perceive the House Freedom Caucus as an existential threat. I wrote not long ago that it’s Producers vs. Looters. Socialists are looters, and the House Freedom Caucus, though not perfect, comes the closest to expressing the rights and views of producers.
Pretending to be even-handed, he casts the matter in terms which simultaneously obscure that Republicans were the target and imply that Republicans are at fault. Blame the victim…while hiding her.
Lowlights include multiple unprovoked, physical attacks on Trump supporters (including vulnerables such as older people and high school kids); a firebombing on GOP a office; and multiple Antifa rampages.
It goes on to say, “This list is by no means exhaustive. Indeed, it does not even scratch the surface of calls for violence in rhetorical discourse. To give perspective, over 12,000 tweets have called for Trump’s assassination since his inauguration.”
That’s correct. For example, they left out when Loretta Lynch suggested more blood and death in the streets. (“[People] have always had to work to move this country forward…They’ve marched, they’ve bled, yes some of them have died. This is hard. Every good thing is.”)
And they left out many attempts at violence that have been thwarted; for example, when Antifas plotted to gas the DeploraBall with butyric acid.
For dessert:
Anthony Weiner is to plead guilty “to a single charge of transferring obscene material to a minor, pursuant to a plea agreement…”
This is the same Anthony Weiner who
It’s sad how Clintonites deflect the blame to Comey and Russia for all that, rather than putting it where it belongs on Weiner, Abedin and the Clintons themselves.
“A likely result of the plea is that Mr. Weiner would end up as a registered sex offender, although a final determination has yet to be made…”
UPDATE: Huma has finally just filed for divorce.
In other news, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange Rape Investigation Is Dropped in Sweden.
The accusations were always of a “he said, she said” nature, with Assange saying that he had met the alleged victim several times amicably, for consensual sex.
The announcement represents a victory for Mr. Assange, 45, an Australian…
[but] In Britain, he still faces a warrant for failing to appear in court, and the Metropolitan Police in London said on Friday that they would arrest Mr. Assange, who has maintained his innocence, if he were to try to leave the [Ecuadorian] embassy…
[U.S.] Prosecutors have long been exploring the idea of charging Mr. Assange as a conspirator in the underlying offense of illegal theft of documents…
[but] The Obama-era Justice Department, which had gone as far as to present some evidence about WikiLeaks to a grand jury in Alexandria, Va., was deterred from pursuing the case further because it proved difficult to distinguish what WikiLeaks had done in publishing the classified information provided by Ms. Manning from what The New York Times and many other mainstream news organizations do.
Most news organizations that cover national security and foreign affairs regularly publish information from sources that is considered classified by the United States government. By long-established tradition, however, only the government officials who provide such information have been prosecuted, not the journalists who publish it.
IN STILL OTHER NEWS: Evidence has emerged that, while still just a candidate, the President conspired with Iranian mullahs to undermine the foreign policy of the existing administration. Which meets a reasonable definition of treason!
Oh, wait – it was President Obama, while still just a candidate, conspiring with Iranian mullahs to undermine the foreign policy of the Bush administration. And lefties haven’t given the tiniest crap about it.
The last few weeks, I’ve explored the so-called “alt-Right” a little. Not joining it per se, just looking at material produced by people who are supposed to be it.
I keep having the same, strange experience. I’m told that these people are supposed to be neo-Nazi white nationalist fringies. But they aren’t! Milo, Mike Cernovich, the handsome Jack Posobiec, Rebel Media, Breitbart.com, Diamond and Silk, Jesse Lee Peterson – None of them are like that.
For sure, my search isn’t objective. When I come across some web site or material that starts to get racial – like, say, therightstuff dot biz – I go “Ugh!” and don’t look much further. Because assigning importance to race is dumb, whether it’s from the Left or the Right, I usually don’t want to waste my time on people/sites that do it. (Fuller comment in this thread.)
So I’m sure there must be some swathe of the alt-Right, somewhere, that gets racist. But again: left-wing protestors and media promised me that the names mentioned above would be that way… and they just aren’t.
As to the alt-Right: the names mentioned above talk about it in much the same way, like “I don’t know if I’m part of it. If it’s white nationalists, I’m out. If it’s challenging the Left / Deep State / Big Government / globalists in ways that are persuasive and fun, I’m in.” That’s roughly how I feel.
After Milo’s trouble in February, I knew he’d be back. He has a lot to say, he needs the attention, he’s fun and the camera loves him.
Via Breitbart.com, it’s MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK. (I think the all-caps are part of the shtick?)
In light of recent controversies, I am planning a huge multi-day event called MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK in Berkeley later this year. We will hold talks and rallies and throw massive parties, all in the name of free expression and the First Amendment. All will be welcome, regardless of political affiliation.
[…]
During MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK, we will give out a new free speech prize — the Mario Savio Award — to the person we believe has done most to protect free expression at UC Berkeley and its surrounding area. Each day will be dedicated to a different enemy of free speech, including feminism, Black Lives Matter and Islam.If UC Berkeley does not actively assist us in the planning and execution of this event, we will extend festivities to an entire month. We will establish a tent city on Sproul Plaza protesting the university’s total dereliction of its duty and encourage students at other universities to follow suit.
I intend to return Berkeley to its rightful place as the home of free speech — whether university administrators and violent far-left antifa thugs like it or not.
– MILO
Mario Savio was, per Wiki, “a key member in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. He is most famous for his passionate speeches, especially the ‘put your bodies upon the gears’ address given at Sproul Hall…on December 2, 1964.”
P.S. I respect and admire Ann Coulter, but do you want to know the difference between her and Milo? A penis and $20,000. (My understanding is that she charges 20K to speak to College Republicans, while he charges them zero. If that’s incorrect, I would be happy to hear it in the comments.)
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.
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.
It’s healthy to be skeptical of conspiracy theories; especially ones whose truth would require bad science, illogical motives, the implausible silence of thousands of people, etc. For example, the Rosie O’Donnell form of 9-11 Trooferism, in which absurd claims are made that fire somehow can’t melt nor weaken structural steel, that employees spanning vast security agencies of multiple nations conspired in vast deceptions, etc.
But occasionally, a conspiracy might be real, or partly so. I recently web-surfed to this interesting video from the folks at list25.com. They claim to list 25 true conspiracies.
Note: I DO NOT AGREE with, or vouch for, their entire list. For example, their item 18 (the Nayirah al-Sabah war propaganda case) specifically asserts a CIA connection that Wikipedia does not mention at all. Or their item 15 (about polio vaccine containing a cancer-inducing agent) appears to be weakly sourced.
Still, here are three of their items which were new to me – and which did seem to be supported, when I did quick Google searches for them. If true, they would be historically interesting. If untrue, please feel free to say so in the comments (hopefully with links).
25. Did the NSA in the early 1960s propose to foment war with Cuba, by means of false terrorist incidents that would kill Americans? Search for Operation Northwoods. Again, if this story is false, please let us know in the comments. ABC News reported it as true. If it was a real proposal, then President Kennedy deserves kudos for rejecting it.
24. Did technology exist, as early as the 1970s, to assassinate people ‘trace-free’? A senate.gov page says that:
At the first televised hearing [of the 1975 Church Committee]…Chairman Church dramatically displayed a CIA poison dart gun to highlight the committee’s discovery that the CIA directly violated a presidential order by maintaining stocks of shellfish toxin sufficient to kill thousands.
Some say the point was to deliver a tiny dart, and a toxin, that would decay on impact and become undetectable, after having induced a massive heart attack. I (Jeff) would add that, if the CIA had it in the 1970s, then surely others must have it in the 2000s; which must be why some people wonder about the sudden heart attack of Andrew Breitbart. [Read more…]
I know this clip is everywhere today, but it’s everywhere for a reason: Weiner’s angry cluelessness is almost too appalling for words.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDJA4h8T0D0[/youtube]
It shows one of life’s classic moral confrontations.
Hat tip, Michelle Malkin.