Sunday, August 02, 2015


Larry Correia fisks the Guardians diatribe about the Hugo imbroglio.

The post-modern leftist writer is all about diversity and inclusion for the Correct Demographic.

Then he gets to this:

//There’s no avoiding the politically partisan nature of this campaign.

Well yeah, considering that it all started because I wanted to demonstrate that there was political bias in the system, duh… Sadly for you guys, we had real success when Brad took over and pushed a group of politically diverse nominees this year.

Its leading lights range from respectable rightwingers such as US authors Larry Correia

Ha! The Guardian says I’m respectable. It must be crazy upside down day! Normally Damien just fabricates scare quotes to make me sound scared of gay people.

and Brad Torgerson,

Okay, seriously. My last name has double Rs and four vowels and you can manage to spell it correctly, but none of you can spell TorgersEn?

through to those with more outlandish views such as John C Wright

By “outlandish” you mean John is a devout Catholic who actually believes Catholic doctrine and doesn’t get all mushy and apologetic about it.

and Vox Day (also known as Theodore Beale).

Who is probably disappointed you only called him outlandish.//

You can just see how far that diversity extends.

Hard to improve on what this clown says.

Post-Modern leftism is beyond the ability to parody.

Saturday, August 01, 2015

There is literally no bottom to Clinton corruption.

Via Instapundit:

//HUMA ABEDIN’S “SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP”: The Washington Post reports that longtime Clinton confidant and aide, Huma Abedin (also wife of disgraced Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner) was overpaid by the State Department and may have violated the State Department’s conflict-of-interest rules due to her “special employment relationship” with the Clintons:

In letters sent Thursday to Abedin, Kerry and the Office of Inspector General, [Senator Chuck] Grassley wrote that staff of the inspector general had found “at least a reasonable suspicion of a violation” of the law concerning the “theft of public money through time and attendance fraud” as well as “conflicts of interest connected to her overlapping employment.”

Grassley also raised the possibility that efforts to investigate Abedin’s actions were thwarted because many of her exchanges were sent through Clinton’s private e-mail server. . . .

Since 2013, Grassley has been inquiring about Abedin’s “special government employee” status, which during her final six months at the State Department allowed her to take outside employment with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a firm led by longtime Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band.

 Paul Mirengoff over at PowerLine notes:

By allowing it, Clinton wasn’t just helping a friend boost her income. She was increasing the potential leverage of the Clinton machine, and in ways that could, and maybe did, benefit the Clinton Foundation.

The Abedin scandal is thus related to the “Clinton cash” scandal.

It is also related to Hillary’s email scandal. According to Grassley, the State Department investigators have “reason to believe that email evidence relevant to [its] inquiry was contained in emails sent and received from her account on Secretary Clinton’s non-government server, making them unavailable to [the investigators’ office] through its normal statutory right of access to records.”

It’s all just another thread in Clinton’s intertwined, rotten ball of corruption. The fact that her closest aide-de-camp has received special favors and status is par for the course.//

High School student debunks history professor ...

...which is probably more likely all the time as ideology is more important than scholarship.

The issue was whether the canard about anti-Irish prejudice in America was true.  The professor claimed that the signs reading "No Irish Need Apply" never existed, and that the story was an urban legend arising from Irish-Americans with chips on their collective shoulders.

As with other confidently stated claims, I bought this one too.

It turns out that the high school student unearthed all kinds of evidence of "NINA" advertisements and signs.

Professional scholarship - it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Interesting analysis by Prof. Volokh....

...concerning the prior restraint against showing the Planned Parenthood videos.

If this was a liberal group trying to out some shenanigan by a business - let's say dumping toxic waste in a community water supply - I suspect that the court would find that different kinds of speech are entitled to different kinds of protection. Thus, while NDAs might be sufficient to override the minimal First Amendment concern about business speech - for which proposition there is Supreme Court authority - when we are talking about a matter of public concern, the Court cannot enforce an NDA since that would violate the absolute bar of the First Amendment vis a vis a core concern of the First Amendment.

Of course, this is not that situation, so I suspect that analysis will never see the light of day.


We've created monsters.

This is a facebook post from Matt Walsh.

//The fourth Planned Parenthood video has been released. It's the worst so far. A few quick points about it:
1) This footage features Savita Ginde, the VP of a massive Planned Parenthood abortuary. In the video, she explicitly details how the selling of baby parts must be coordinated with the other clinics, so that they "have their stories straight" in case "they get caught." She conspires to file the transaction under "research," and explains that she "doesn't want to get called on selling fetal parts across states."
She also, like the serial killers from the other videos, directly states that abortion procedures are changed to preserve specimens for sale. This, along with selling them, is a violation of federal law.
There is just no question at all that Planned Parenthood has been caught breaking the law. We have executives on video literally describing how they break the law, and now saying that they're afraid they'll get caught. What else do you need? How can any conscious person watch these videos, listen to people plainly and clearly outline how they are breaking the law, but come away reassured that nobody is breaking the law?
Planned Parenthood executives: "Here's a five step outline of how we break the law..."
Planned Parenthood sycophant: "See! I told you they aren't breaking the law!"
Planned Parenthood apologists are staring at a brick wall and telling us there isn't a brick wall. But of course they've been doing that for forty years. The only difference is that now they're slamming their heads into the wall and still telling us the wall isn't there. The level of intellectual dishonesty is almost superhuman at this point. It's unlike anything I've ever seen.
2) The second part of the video shows Ginde dissecting an unborn child. She laughs and jokes throughout the process, and makes light of it as the camera catches the sound of a skull being cracked open by a knife. She talks about the different organs they can extract from the babies, saying often the brains come out intact. She then says they like to sell the parts individually because that way they can "see how much [money] they can get out of it."
At the end, a Planned Parenthood tech is sifting through the severed parts, apparently notices the child's reproductive organs, and shouts gleefully, "it's a boy!"
Everything I just described should enrage you. If it does not -- if that dead lion ticks you off more than Planned Parenthood butchers laughing over a vat of dismembered baby limbs -- you are a deeply disturbed and troubled person.
3) The most damning part of the video, if you can really call one part more damning then the other, is when Ginde explains how sometimes the patient "delivers before we get to see them for the procedure," in which case the baby "is intact." Do you know what that means? It means sometimes they baby is born alive, and then killed and harvested. That's what it means. It can't mean anything else.
Look, if you are still on Planned Parenthood's side, there is no debating anymore. You have chosen to ignore or deny the indisputable reality of the situation. I want to make it clear that I do blame you for this, and I hold you complicit. Enough of deflecting the blame to institutions and government bodies and so forth. Sure, the abortion industry and the government deserve all the blame in the world, but I'm tired of people letting the average pro-choice Planned Parenthood sympathizer off the hook.
You people are adults. You have brains, unlike the babies whose brains are sucked out and sold for profit. You have souls. You have the ability to understand simple moral concepts. Now put those capacities to work. Wake up. No more excuses. This is a moment in history where either you are right or you are wrong, and it is just not OK to be wrong about this. It's not OK.
And you are definitely wrong. One hundred percent. Black and white. Absolute. You're not even a little bit right. There isn't even a glimmer of rightness in your position. You are totally and indefensibly wrong, and you should be profoundly ashamed of yourself. I love you and I pray for you, but I am very angry at you. You are whistling past the concentration camp, pretending you can't smell the burning flesh, and I, for one, am done letting you off the hook for it. Get it together, alright?
4) The people that filmed these videos are heroes. They didn't break any law, but I wouldn't care if they did. Nobody has a God given right to privacy while they murder children. They forfeit that right. This group acted legally as investigative journalists, but laws that aid in the murder of children are not legitimate anyway, so it doesn't matter.
These people are absolute heroes and warriors for life and liberty. They have done something incredible here, and I thank God for them.//

Friday, July 31, 2015

Suckered again...

Watching  The Kelly File​ I saw some Planned Parenthood flack talk about the percentage of money that went to mammograms.  My initial reaction was "isn't that wrong," but no one called her out and so I thought, "must have been wrong."

Which is how political lies work.

According to the Washington Post:

//The problem here is that Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms or even possess the necessary equipment to do so. As such, the organization certainly does not “provide” mammograms in the strict sense. Instead, its clinics provide referrals and direct low-income women toward resources to help pay for the procedure.

These services are by no means unique to Planned Parenthood. In fact, the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the American Cancer Society provide them as well.//

So, it is necessary to keep remembering the truth.

Banana Republic on the Potomac.

Equal Protection - not for people guilty of thoughtcrime.

// The IRS sent an inquiry letter to a nonprofit group in order to buy time by preventing the group from complaining to Congress about their treatment by the agency, according to newly released Lois Lerner emails.

The emails, obtained by watchdog group Judicial Watch, show that Lerner and her colleagues were aware of mounting congressional pressure and sought to hold up one of the organizations from complaining by sending a letter of inquiry, The Washington Times reported Wednesday.

In an exchange dated Nov. 3, 2011 between Lerner and Cindy Thomas, a program manager in the Cincinnati office handling the cases, the IRS admitted they had hundreds of cases stacking up and waiting action, The Times reported.

“Just today, I instructed one of my managers to get an additional information letter out to one of these organizations — if nothing else to buy time so he didn’t contact his Congressional Office,” Thomas wrote to Lerner.

Thomas said she was concerned a judge would get involved and order to move the applications more quickly, the Times reported.

“This material shows that the IRS‘ cover-up began years ago,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said.

“We now have smoking-gun proof that top officials in the Obama IRS unlawfully harassed taxpayers just to keep them from complaining to Congress about IRS‘ targeting and abuse. No wonder the Obama IRS has had such little interest in preserving or finding Lois Lerner’s emails,” Fitton said.//

Mary Antoinette on the Potomac. 

Hillary Clinton surprised that the peasants don't have enough cake to eat.

//“Hillary Clinton admitted today that she was ‘surprised’ to learn that the people who told her small businesses have struggled in recent years were actually correct,” Joel Gehrke writes at NRO:

Clinton noted that small business creation has “stalled out,” to her chagrin. “I was very surprised to see that when I began to dig into it,” she said while campaigning in New Hampshire. “Because people were telling me this as I traveled around the country the last two years, but I didn’t know what they were saying and it turns out that we are not producing as many small businesses as we use to.”

The struggles of small businesses during President Obama’s administration are hardly a new subject on the campaign trail. Mitt Romney raised the issue throughout the 2012 presidential election.

“Small businesses lack the confidence they need to expand and hire new workers, and the President’s looming tax hikes are threatening to destroy another 700,000 jobs,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in September of 2012, for instance.

In a statement, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus mocked Clinton for expressing such surprise, pointing to reports of the cost increases Obamacare has imposed on small businesses.

”At every turn, Hillary Clinton has supported top-down Washington-driven policies that have stacked the deck against small businesses,” Priebus said. “Hillary Clinton can’t possibly be a champion for everyday Americans when she doesn’t understand their most basic economic concerns and was ‘surprised’ to learn that small businesses are struggling.”//

Sunday, July 26, 2015

America - now with more hope and change...

...what was once the fever swamp rantings of hardcore paranoic right-wingers is today's news:

//In rural, small-town Iowa, a group of parents and community leaders is seeking to prevent students from the local taxpayer-funded middle school and high school from attending future versions of an anti–bullying conference for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teens.

The last one — in April — left many of the denizens of Humboldt, Iowa up in arms, reports Des Moines NBC affiliate WHO-TV.

Iowa Safe Schools, an activist group out of Des Moines, hosted the conference.

It was quite something.

Among the nearly two dozen speakers, “only two” addressed bullying, one attendee estimated, according to

The rest of the sessions involved issues such as “how to pleasure their gay partners.”

Middle school girls from Humboldt (pop.: 4,690) had the opportunity to learn “how to sew fake testicles into their underwear in order to pass themselves off as boys.”

One speaker wore a dress made out of condoms to which could be “used as needed.” Another speaker raised the important middle-school issue of using the Internet to locate an orgy.

A father from Des Moines whose daughter attended the conference described the girl’s experience.

“She thought she was attending this conference to learn how students can be supportive of their homosexual peers,” he explained, according to EAGnews.

“When she got there, it wasn’t really on bullying; it was basically a sexual education class for same-sex couples,” the mad dad said. “It was crude. One presenter told students who asked whether anal sex hurt that, as a lesbian, it really depended on how big the device is that their partner straps on.”//

The Party of Slavery and Racism discovers its Tricky Dick.

Shot:  "Democrats have dropped even the pretense of giving a shit about transparency. And if you think that language is unduly harsh, don't take my word for it, take Paul Begala's:

Voters do not give a shit. They do not even give a fart… Find me one persuadable voter who agrees with HRC on the issues but will vote against her because she has a non-archival-compliant email system and I'll kiss your ass in Macy's window and say it smells like roses."


//A quick recap: Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, violated guidelines from the National Archives and her own State Department by using her own private email server for professional correspondence, and then destroying whatever messages she deemed destructible.

At first Clinton claimed that she needed a single non-governmental email account for "convenience," because she only had one phone. That claim turned out to be provably false. Next, she claimed that it didn’t matter much, because "The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department." The latter half of that claim turned out to be provably false, too. She further insisted that none of the emails contained classified information, a claim that many people with intimate knowledge of such things—such as a former senior State Department official—described with phrases like "hard to imagine." And her assertion in a CNN interview this month that she went "above and beyond" the email disclosure requirements was—wait for it—false.

In sum, the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential frontrunner brazenly violated government transparency policy, made a mockery of the Freedom of Information Act, placed her sensitive communications above the law, and then just lied about it, again and again. Now comes word that, unsurprisingly, two inspectors general are recommending that the Department of Justice open a criminal inquiry into the matter. One of their findings was that the private server, contrary to Clinton's repeated claims, contained "hundreds of potentially classified emails."*

So how much do Democrats value basic transparency, accountability, and honesty in their presidential candidates? Not bloody much, if you go by the handy polls over at RealClearPolitics. The six national polls taken this January and February, before the email scandal first broke, averaged out to a whopping 43 percentage-point lead for Hillary Clinton. How about the next six, in March and April? Plus 50. The 11 polls in May and June, when Berniementum first started sweeping the country, came in at +48, and the most recent five in July stand at +41.//

Saturday, July 25, 2015

What I am going to remember most about the Obama years is all the racial healing...

...because nothing says "we've put it all behind us" like grave desecration.
Marion Zimmer Bradley was a Monster.

Her daughter explains how her mother and father's "gay pagan lifestyle" made her an opponent of gay marriage.

//My observation of my father and mother’s actual belief is this: since everyone is naturally gay, it is the straight establishment that makes everyone hung up and therefore limited.  Sex early will make people willing to have sex with everyone, which will bring about the utopia while eliminating homophobia and helping people become “who they really are.” It will also destroy the hated nuclear family with its paternalism, sexism, ageism (yes, for pedophiles, that is a thing) and all other “isms.”  If enough children are sexualized young enough, gayness will suddenly be “normal” and accepted by everyone, and the old fashioned notions about fidelity will vanish.  As sex is integrated as a natural part of every single relationship, the barriers between people will vanish, and the utopia will appear, as “straight culture” goes the way of the dinosaur.  As my mother used to say: “Children are brainwashed into believing they don’t want sex.”

I know, I know.  The stupidity of that particular thesis is boundless, and the actual consequence is forty-year-olds in therapy for sexual abuse, many, many suicides, and ruined lives for just about EVERYONE.  But someone needed to say it.  Will anyone hear it?  There were six Johnny Does at my father’s trial, who would not testify, and two victims, who did.  One of the victims I am in touch with.  He was silenced so fiercely by fans of my mother years ago that he is not able to talk about it to this day.  I don’t know the fate of all the Johnny Does, but I do know one of them is dead in his forties from an eating disorder, never having been able to talk about what happened, and I know at least one of the people on the list of 22 names I gave the cops as a potential abuse victim died from suicide last year.  I also know a number of victims of my father who would not testify because they love him.  As a personal note, I can understand why: of my parents, he was by far the kinder one.  After all, he was only a serial rapist.  My mother was an icy, violent monster whose voice twisted up my stomach.

A very brief note on my “stepmother:” she now denies ever having been gay, after 22 years with my mother, and she has married a man.  So what was was she “born”?  Was she born gay, and is now living in “denial” of her “true nature” as the gays would have it, or was she besotted in a childish way with my mother, who did what celebrities do, and took advantage of her innocence and emotional infantility?  She was 26 when she got involved with my mother, and told me later she felt she had been “molested” by my mother.  I can’t use that word for her: she was 26.  But she DID call my mother “mommy” and most of the emotional content of their relationship was an attempt to prove that she was a “better daughter” than I was: a competition that for me, was over before it began.  I am my mother’s daughter.  It is a biological reality.  Giving my mother orgasms does not make my stepmother a better daughter, simply a fool.  And as it can be noted now, she MUST be the “better daughter” because I blew the whistle.  I don’t speak to her.

This March I met Katy Faust online: one of the six children of gays who filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court opposing gay marriage. We corresponded, and I left CA. I am still reeling from the death of my last bits of denial. It IS the homosexuality that is the problem. It IS the belief that all sex all the time will somehow cure problems instead of creating them that is the problem.

So I have begun to speak out against gay marriage, and in doing so, I have alienated most of even my strongest supporters. After all, they need to see my parents as wacky sex criminals, not as homosexuals following their deeply held ethical positions and trying to create a utopia according to a rather silly fantasy. They do not have the willingness to accept the possibility that homosexuality might actually have the result of destroying children and even destroying the adults who insist on remaining in its thrall.

Now for all well-meaning people who believe I am extrapolating from my experience to the wider gay community, I would like to explain why I believe this is so: From my experience in the gay community, the values in that community are very different: the assumption is that EVERYONE is gay and closeted, and early sexual experience will prevent gay children from being closeted, and that will make everyone happy.

If you doubt me, research “age of consent” “Twinks,” “ageism” and the writings of the NUMEROUS authors on the Left who believe that early sexuality is somehow “beneficial” for children.//

Policing by consent...

Stross's recent "The Annihilation Score" mentions the 9 Principles of Policing formulated by the founder of the London Metropolitan Police, one of which is that the police act by consent of the policed.

This article reminds us of why that is a good idea.

//My unit began to patrol on foot almost exclusively, which was exceptionally more dangerous than staying inside our armored vehicles. We relinquished much of our personal security by entering dimly lit homes in insurgent strongholds. We didn’t know if the hand we would shake at each door held a detonator to a suicide vest or a small glass of hot, sugary tea.

But as a result, we better understood our environment and earned the allegiance of some people in it. The benefits quickly became clear. One day during that bloody summer, insurgents loaded a car with hundreds of pounds of explosives and parked it by a school. They knew we searched every building for hidden weapons caches, and they waited for us to gather near the car. But as we turned the corner to head toward the school, several Iraqis told us about the danger. We evacuated civilians from the area and called in a helicopter gunship to fire at the vehicle.

The resulting explosion pulverized half the building and blasted the car’s engine block through two cement walls. Shrapnel dropped like jagged hail as far as a quarter-mile away.

If we had not risked our safety by patrolling the neighborhood on foot, trusting our sources and gathering intelligence, it would have been a massacre. But no one was hurt in the blast.

Domestic police forces would benefit from a similar change in strategy. Instead of relying on aggression, they should rely more on relationships. Rather than responding to a squatter call with guns raised, they should knock on the door and extend a hand. But unfortunately, my encounter with officers is just one in a stream of recent examples of police placing their own safety ahead of those they’re sworn to serve and protect.//

The best part of the Obama years have been all the racial healing...

...he was elected for one reason and he screwed it up.

//Seven years ago, in the gauzy afterglow of a stirring election night in Chicago, commentators dared ask whether the United States had finally begun to heal its divisions over race and atone for the original sin of slavery by electing its first black president. It has not. Not even close.

A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last week reveals that nearly six in 10 Americans, including heavy majorities of both whites and blacks, think race relations are generally bad, and that nearly four in 10 think the situation is getting worse. By comparison, two-thirds of Americans surveyed shortly after President Obama took office said they believed that race relations were generally good.

The swings in attitude have been particularly striking among African-Americans. During Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign, nearly 60 percent of blacks said race relations were generally bad, but that number was cut in half shortly after he won. It has now soared to 68 percent, the highest level of discontent among blacks during the Obama years and close to the numbers recorded in the aftermath of the riots that followed the 1992 acquittal of Los Angeles police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King.//

Friday, July 24, 2015

Anti-clericalism has been a constant factor in the history of liberalism.

In the early 20th century, France, then under the control of the liberal French parties, passed legislation outlawing Catholic religious orders, depriving nuns of occupations and driving the religious orders out of France. In 1870, German liberal parties waged the Kulturkampf, resulting in the imprisonment or exiles of most Catholic bishops and priests.  Mexico waged a war filled with atrocities against priests, and the poor who supported them, in the 1920s in the name of anti-clericalism.

This is, as they say, "serious shit" if history is any guide.

"This polarization is worrisome. Up till now, America has been spared the bitterness of religious politics. Unlike some countries in Europe, we have not had clerical and anti-clerical parties. True, particular religious groups have gravitated toward one or another political party. In New England, for example, Irish Catholics were historically Democrats and mainline Protestants Republicans, a conflict memorialized in films like John Ford’s The Last Hurrah.

But we have never had secular and religious parties as such. Both parties saw religion, in general, as a good thing, and religious liberty as a fundamental American value. Tocqueville noticed this and found it refreshing. “In the United States,” he observed, “if a politician attacks a sect, this may not prevent the partisans of that very sect from supporting him; but if he attacks all the sects together, everyone abandons him, and he remains alone.”//

Thursday, July 23, 2015

The best part of the Obama years has been the racial healing.

Black man shoves white jogger into traffic, shouting "I hate White people."
The best part of the Obama years has been the racial healing... and as far as the eyes can see.

Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)16%
 and Martin O’Malley came face to face with the tragic state of American progressivism last week, when an 11,000-strong rally of progressive activists was disrupted by #BlackLivesMatter protesters.
Activists marched into the room chanting protest songs before taking the stage in front of a bemused O’Malley to demand concrete commitments on police violence.
Never mind that O’Malley and Sanders are, among presidential candidates, by far the most sympathetic to the concerns of the Black Lives Matter movement: because they’re white, they cannot be trusted, and deserve to have whatever they’re talking about shoved off the agenda by thugs with placards.
It may sound racist and bizarre to be suspicious of candidates like Sanders and O’Malley on the basis of their ethnicity alone, but when you consider the primacy of identity politics in the progressive movement today, it really isn’t that surprising.
Since the 1970s, social psychologists have been aware that emphasising differences between groups leads to mistrust and hostility. In a series of landmark experiments, the psychologist Henri Tajfel found that even wearing different-coloured shirts was enough for groups to begin displaying signs of mistrust.
So guess what happens when you tell everyone that their worth, their ability, their right to speak on certain subjects and – shudder – their “privilege” is based on what they were born with, rather than any choices they’ve made or who they are?
It’s possible that feminists mistrust the likes of O’Malley and Sanders because they’re male. Or gay progressives mistrust them because they’re straight. Or trans activists mistrust them because they’re cis.
This is what the future of progressivism looks like: blacks fighting gays fighting lesbians fighting trans fighting everyone else. It’s the iron law of victimhood-driven identity politics. Someone has to win, and everyone else has to lose.
Identity politics is universally attractive because it enables failures and weaknesses to be spun as the products of oppression and historical injustice. But for legacy castes, it can be humiliating and deeply unfair. Take MTV’s White People, for instance: an hour of television designed to produce discomfort in those with the wrong skin colour.

Who links to me?