Friday, April 24, 2015

And he confirms he was not being sarcastic.

Lawrence O'Donnell is betting that the State Department's e-mail chain will absolve Hillary....

....of course, she destroyed the actual e-mails she received.

Probably just a coincidence.

The liberal sacrament of abortion.

Don't be like stuffy white women; be hip.

Be proud.

Abortion - it is no longer a regrettable choice; it's a money-making enterprise.

"Let's move on" because "vast rightwing conspiracy."

The latest Clinton scandals explained in bullet points.

"Let's move on" because "vast right wing conspiracy."

Who doesn't miss the 90s?

NYT Reporter: Clinton Officials Lied About a Meeting Taking Place, Unaware of Photo Evidence

In a Fox News preview of “The Tangled Clinton Web,” a New York Times reporter accused the Clinton Foundation of lying to her about a meeting Bill Clinton had with Kazatomprom officials regarding the sale of uranium to Russia.
“Frank Giustra arranged for officials to go to Bill Clinton’s house in Chappaqua,” reporter Jo Becker said.
“When I first contacted the Clinton Foundation, they denied any such meeting ever took place. And when we told them we have already talked to the head, who not only told us all about the meeting but actually has a picture of him and Bill at the home, that he proudly displays on his office wall, they then acknowledge the meeting had taken place.”
Becker’s scathing report based off of allegations in the book Clinton Cash found that the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in return for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approving the transaction of American uranium into Russian hands.
The New York Times, Fox News, and other media outlets have arranged an exclusive agreement to report on the stories referred to in Clinton Cash. The Clinton Foundation remains under a mountain of scandal accusations that will only get worse as more reports are sure to be filed in the coming weeks offering more examples of the Clintons’ blurred lines while in power.
Well, now that Mitt Romney mentions it... does look like bribery.

//HH: Governor Romney, I know you’ve had a chance to read, I assume you’ve had a chance to read the Jo Becker/Mike McIntire New York Times piece today about the cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from the Russians as they got control of Uranium One. What’s your reaction to this story?

MR: You know, I’ve got to tell you, I was stunned by it. I mean, it looks like bribery. I mean, there is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20% of America’s uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails. And you know, I presume we might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails. But this is a very, very serious series of facts, and it looks like bribery.

HH: I just asked Senator Lindsey Graham last hour if they would hold hearings into the donors to the Clinton Family Foundation, because if the Russians can give them that much money, is it possible the Iranians have as well, Governor Romney?

MR: Well, we don’t know who gave money, and the IRS apparently is making it known that the filings of the Clinton Foundation did not include the fact that foreign governments were making contributions. And they had misstated their filings over the past several years. This is obviously a very troubling setting. But even what we do know, based on what was written by the New York Times, and is being reported by Fox and others, it has every earmark of bribery. And this is from the office of Secretary of State. This is a very troubling set of facts, and clearly, there’s got to be some kind of investigation to find out what the truth is here, because around the world, people are going to look at Hillary Clinton, a potential candidate for president, a former Secretary of State, and say gosh, is this a person who could be trusted? And I think the American people are asking that question as well.//

But "let's move on" because "vast right wing conspiracy."

I mean, who doesn't miss the '90s?

Thursday, April 23, 2015

The plan for Progressive Fascism.

Step 1 - Mock the only news outlet that might cover Progressive Fascism.

Step 2 - Implement Progressive Fascism in a news black-out.

Now we know why Fox has been on the leftwing hit list for over a decade.

Secret police raids in Wisconsin targeted conservatives whose only crime seems to have been donating to conservative causes. Yet, the story, first reported in National Review, has been ignored by the networks. It was only Fox News that highlighted the story on Wednesday. Correspondent Trace Gallagher explained how Wisconsin's John Doe investigation allowed prosecutors to go after conservative groups, such as the Wisconsin Club for Growth. Then, it expanded to supporters. 
Appearing on The Kelly File,  Gallagher recounted, "Cindy Archer among them says late one night she was jolted awake by what she thought was a home invasion. It turned out to be a police raid. More than a dozen police officers holding a battering ram, yelling and pounding on her door. She said she was trying to calm down her dogs and get dressed with her body in full view of police. When she opened the door, she kept begging them not to shoot her dogs."
Clinton sleaze.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company
Simply stunning

Let's choose between incompetence, criminal conspiracy and/or attempt to mislead or all of the above.

//Related: Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors: “For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years. Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars.”//

Government is a thing we all do together - like sadomasochism.

This will only be outrageous under a Republican president.

House Report: IRS ‘Deliberately’ Cut Customer Service to Make Tax Season Painful for Taxpayers

//During the 2015 tax-filing season, the IRS provided what its own Commissioner described as “abysmal” customer service, blaming skyrocketing wait times for telephone and in-person assistance on agency budget cuts. The IRS even called budget cuts “a tax cut for tax cheats.” But a close review of the agency’s spending shows the IRS deliberately cut $134 million in funding for customer service to pay for other activities. Spending decisions entirely under the IRS’s control led to 16 million fewer taxpayers receiving IRS assistance this filling season. Other spending choices, including prioritizing employee bonuses and union activity on the taxpayer’s dime, used up resources that otherwise could have been used to assist another 10 million taxpayers.//

Release the dogs of law!!!

This could be a good development, and one in my wheelhouse:

//The Supreme Court is also being asked to consider the propriety of the Seventh Circuit’s alternative ruling that a viable First Amendment claim cannot be grounded in an assertion of retaliatory, bad faith investigation– a question the Supreme Court has unfortunately punted since its obscure footnote 9 in Hartman v. Moore (2006).   Since Hartman, five federal appellate courts have disagreed with the Seventh Circuit, and concluded that any retaliatory investigation that would deter a reasonable person from exercising his First Amendment rights is, in fact, actionable.  And this is as it should be:  just consider the IRS scandal, in which the agency has targeted tea party groups for investigation and scrutiny, all in an attempt to chill those groups’ First Amendment activities.  Retaliatory investigation is the quintessential abuse of government power, and it must be actionable lest John Doe-type investigations become a model for intimidating those who dare to participate in the political process.

If the Supreme Court cares about vigorously defending the First Amendment–and recent cases have suggested it does– the O’Keefe case warrants review, to set the record straight about abstention in federal civil rights cases, and to close the gaping First Amendment loophole (disallowing retaliatory claims) endorsed by the 7th Circuit.//

Given our "Everyone commits three crimes a day" justice system, we need a change in law that prevents ideologically driven prosecutors from targeting people to prosecute.

One problem with the partisan use of criminal law - other than that the injustice and the fact that it the tactic of totalitarianism - is that it engenders suspicion about the justice system across the board...

...and, maybe, for good reason:

//SADLY, THIS IS NEWS: Iowa Man Found Not Guilty Of Rape For Having Sex With Wife.

But I wonder if this isn’t the key bit: “Rayhons served 18 years as a Republican member of the Iowa House. He withdrew from the race for another term shortly before he was charged last year.” Related: “Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is a Democrat.” Note that Miller’s office tried to move the trial somewhere else, where there were fewer Republicans in the jury pool. Given the prosecutorial misbehavior we’ve seen in Wisconsin, this makes me suspicious. Has anyone asked Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller why this very unusual prosecution was brought, and if politics had anything to do with it?//

I was mentally "ho-humming" when I read the headline - operating on the assumption that there must have been a bona fide reason for the prosecution - but now I'm wondering.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

I know that my reading of 1930s era Nazi Kulturkamp documents has benefited greatly...

... from living in the era of hope and change.

//One silver lining of living during the Obama Era is that we get to witness something that many of us found inexplicable when we learned about it in school: How a civilized country can be brought to the heel of ideologues and thugs.  It’s always seemed a bizarre mystery why a large majority of reasonable people would let things that are so patently wrong, so clearly corrosive of everything we value, go on… and expand.

Two stories on National Review Online provide some evidence.  When the people in power — backed by the President of the United States — decide the rules don’t apply to them, it must be quite a game for them to watch the reasonable, civilized people attempt to battle them using the rules.  Here’s Quin Hillyer checking in on the case of the IRS promising a leftist group that it would spy on churches://

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

What is happening to...

..the political culture of this country?

//If you want to really appreciate what Democrats with guns and badges at their disposal will do in furthering their political interests, you will not find a more terrifying story than David French’s recent account of the Gestapo tactics used by Democratic prosecutors in Wisconsin against Scott Walker and conservative activists. It is nearly impossible to believe that this sort of thing is going on in the United States of America in 2015, but it is. We aren’t talking about petty politics here—we’re talking about using battering rams to knock down people’s doors and sticking guns in their faces because they supported a ballot initiative displeasing to Democratic authorities.

Harry Reid—and every Democrat in the Senate—voted to repeal the First Amendment to render the Supreme Court powerless to protect Americans from this sort of abuse. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to put Americans in prison for disagreeing with him about global warming—and many so-called progressives agree with him. Under the Obama administration, we have seen a weaponized IRS targeting conservative groups for persecution and a weaponized FBI leaning on conservative activists, followed up by a weaponized ATF.

And Democrats, individually and collectively, have supported and enabled every one of these gross abuses of power.

When a governor can be indicted for vetoing a bill, when a university regent can be threatened with criminal prosecution for exposing corruption, and when you have armed men kicking down your door because you signed the wrong petition, you don’t live in a free society—you live in a police state. And that is what Democrats are building, from Austin to Milwaukee to Washington.

Read more at:

The Eternal Marxist.

Gary Trudeau - Islamic-terror Apologist.

//Trudeau's biases reflect a common left-wing mindset that sees the world through the lens of "privilege" and "oppression" based on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and/or religion: non-privileged good, privileged bad (to paraphrase George Orwell). The result is a bizarre inverse caste system in which right and wrong depend almost entirely on the parties' places in the hierarchy of oppressions -- but only in the traditional Western social order.

From this perspective, because Muslims are a "non-privileged" group in the West, criticism of even the most militant forms of Islam is bigoted "hate speech."//

I am reading "Isaac and Isaiah" about the putative conflict between philosopher Isaiah Berlin and Marxist Isaac Deutscher.  The author describes Berlin's objection to Marxism:

"We believe, & the Marxists do not, that the value and truth of a man's opinions & activities does not wholly, or even decisively, depend on his place in the economic and social structure...." (p. 48.)

Trudeau is simply being true to Marxism without the economics, which was the hard part of Marxism.

Interesting statistics and interesting counter-intuitive narrative on the oppression of women by men.

Crack-down on women teachers:

//In U.S. schools last year, almost 800 school employees were prosecuted for sexual assault, nearly a third of them women. The proportion of women facing charges seems to be higher than in years past, when female teachers often got a pass, said Terry Abbott, a former chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Education, who tracked the cases.

This year's numbers are already slightly ahead of last year with 26 cases of female school employees accused of inappropriate relationships with male students in January compared to 19 cases the previous January.

Female educators who sexually abuse their students are facing tougher prosecution in part because there are more women police officers. There is also a greater awareness among prosecutors, judges and the general public that students who are victimized by an authority figure, regardless of gender, experience trauma with life-long consequences.

"Law enforcement is increasingly feminized, and women are much less prone to the old attitude: 'Oh, this is just some kid who got lucky,'" said David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center. "They recognize the issues involved and they go after women who violate the statutes."//

Monday, April 20, 2015


Marriage exists because it fits a need of most people, a need that stems from the brute biological fact that men can impregnate women and pregnant women can bear children.  That biology informs everything else, the rules of engagement between the sexes, age of consent, rules of virginity and chastity, rules about alimony and child support.

For pairings that are essentially alienated from child-production, those rules make no sense whatsoever.

//In a 2009 piece in The Weekly Standard, Sam Schulman argues that gay marriage replicates “a very limited, very modern, and very culture-bound version of marriage. Gay advocates have chosen wisely in this. They are replicating what we might call the ‘romantic marriage,' a kind of marriage that is chosen, determined, and defined by the couple that enters into it.”

This isn't what marriage has been through most of human history. Instead, marriage has taken the particular shape it has because it is part of a larger network, the kinship system.

One of the things marriage has done is to force men to respect the chastity of women until sex becomes socially acceptable within marriage. Schulman thinks that “it is a scandal that homosexual intercourse should ever have been illegal,” but adds that now that it is legal “there remains no extra sanction—the kind which fathers with shotguns enforce upon heterosexual lovers.” He comments sardonically, “I am not aware of any gay marriage activist who suggests that gay men and women should create a new category of disapproval for their own sexual relationships, after so recently having been freed from the onerous and bigoted legal blight on homosexual acts. . . . [D]eclaring gay marriage legal will not produce the habit of saving oneself for marriage or create a culture which places a value on virginity or chastity (concepts that are frequently mocked in gay culture precisely because they are so irrelevant to gay romantic life).”

Because gay marriage doesn't bear the burdens of virginity and chastity, it doesn't bear the burdens of real marriage which, Schulman argues, even today are “honored in spirit if not in letter, creating for women (women as modern as BeyoncĂ©) the right to demand a tangible sacrifice from the men who would adore them.”

Because gay marriage detached marriage from the kinship system, incest prohibitions have no weight: “If Tommy marries Bill, and they divorce, and Bill later marries a woman and has a daughter, no incest prohibition prevents Bill's daughter from marrying Tommy. The relationship between Bill and Tommy is a romantic fact, but it can't be fitted into the kinship system.”

In sum, “in gay marriage there are no virgins (actual or honorary), no incest, no illicit or licit sex, no merging of families, no creation of a new lineage. There's just my honey and me, and (in a rapidly increasing number of U.S. states) baby makes three.”Schulman doesn't think the experiment will last: “When, in spite of current enthusiasm, gay marriage turns out to disappoint or bore the couples now so eager for its creation, its failure will be utterly irrelevant for gay people. The happiness of gay relationships up to now has had nothing to do with being married or unmarried; nor will they in the future.”

The losers will be everyone else, everyone who benefits from the various restrictions, obligations, and sacrifices that marriage imposes: “As kinship fails to be relevant to gays, it will become fashionable to discredit it for everyone. The irrelevance of marriage to gay people will create a series of perfectly reasonable, perfectly unanswerable questions: If gays can aim at marriage, yet do without it equally well, who are we to demand it of one another? Who are women to demand it of men? Who are parents to demand it of their children's lovers—or to prohibit their children from taking lovers until parents decide arbitrarily they are ‘mature' or ‘ready'? By what right can government demand that citizens obey arbitrary and culturally specific kinship rules—rules about incest and the age of consent, rules that limit marriage to twosomes? Mediocre lawyers can create a fiction called gay marriage, but their idealism can't compel gay lovers to find it useful. But talented lawyers will be very efficient at challenging the complicated, incoherent, culturally relative survival from our most primitive social organization we call kinship. The whole set of fundamental, irrational assumptions that make marriage such a burden and such a civilizing force can easily be undone.”

This is a powerful argument, but doesn't give sufficient weight to a point that Schulman acknowledges early on: The fact that “romantic marriage” was invented by heterosexuals, and the detachment of sex from marriage and marriage from kinship was accomplished long before anyone began seriously proposing gay marriage. Gay marriage may further damage marriage; but heterosexuals damaged marriage nearly beyond recognition all on our own.//

The "men are the enemy mindset becomes a habit...

...and then it becomes a reality.

//‘Many women have been raised to think of men as the enemy,’ says Venker. ‘It’s precisely this dynamic — women good, men bad — that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes.

‘After decades of browbeating, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s their fault. The rise of women has not threatened men. It has just irritated them.’//

Let's Move On...

...we are going to exhaust ourselves if we have to pay attention to all the new Clinton financial scandals.

Besides they are all inventions of Fox News.

Menendez Co-conspirator hosted Bill and Hillary:

//The horndog eye surgeon indicted on corruption charges with Sen. Bob Menendez has hosted Bill and Hillary Clinton at a plush vacation getaway in the Dominican Republic.

Dr. Salomon Melgen entertained the ex-president and ex-secretary of state, now running for president, an ex-Melgen employee said.

Melgen, 60, is accused of giving the New Jersey Democrat nearly $1 million in campaign cash and gifts in exchange for favors that included visas for a bevy of girlfriends.//

Dr. King's dream has come to this.

Profs say women, black students should get to speak first in college classrooms

Why do white men - 37% of the electorate - vote Democrat?

They won't if they stop feeling guilty about things that happened before they were born; hence, the "white privilege" concept that is being rolled out.

//HUNTING THE WHITE MALE VOTER:  Democrats are beginning to reap the electoral effects of the hatred and divisiveness they’ve sown.  White, male voters are increasingly abandoning the Democrat party, which has shown disinterest in their concerns about economic opportunity and national security, preferring instead to focus on balkanizing Americans with the “war on women,” paranoia about/hostility toward police, and global warming climate change.

Good luck, Democrats.  With op-eds like this one from Charles Blow at the New York Times, I think you’ve got a lot of introspection and attitude readjustment to undertake before you will convince any Americans who define themselves as just “American” rather than “hyphen-American” to vote Democrat.  Blow’s attitude is typical:  Shut up and take it, white men.  You’re increasingly irrelevant, we think you are “privileged,” angry closet racists (talk about projection) and we don’t care about you.  Message received.

RELATED:  Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb has suggested he may challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination because he thinks her campaign isn’t capable of wooing white male voters.  His perspective is almost quaint.  The post-Obama Democrat party is incapable, at present, of realizing the damage it has done and reforming its “divide and conquer” strategy.//

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Determined...not angry.

//Justified finale: is Nick Searcy Hollywood's angriest conservative?

Sean Penn, 'fat liberals', anyone who dares call him a racist – nobody is safe from Justified actor Nick Searcy. As the FX series comes to an end, here are his greatest hits//

If there is a Culture War, we need to fight it.

6 years of "smart diplomacy" have brought us to this.

Russia and America: Stumbling to War

Hey, let's put the "Reset Lady" in charge!!!

California - The Death Spiral State.

The Left's water policies are causing pain:

//So, in the end, we are producing a California that is the polar opposite of Pat Brown’s creation. True, it has some virtues: greener, cleaner, and more “progressive” on social issues. But it’s also becoming increasingly feudal, defined by a super-affluent coastal class and an increasingly impoverished interior. As water prices rise, and farms and lawns are abandoned, there’s little thought about how to create a better future for the bulk of Californians. Like medieval peasants, millions of Californians have been force to submit to the theology of our elected high priest and his acolytes, leaving behind any aspirations that the Golden State can work for them too.//

Seems like a strange coincidence...

...three churches in Australia are burned during Easter.

At least it has made secular Australians happy.

Here is how they played up the news:

Melbourne church blaze sites house shameful history of abuse

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Enough of the "War on Women."

It is time to recognize that there is a "War on Men."

Across the Russell Group of Britain’s leading 20 universities, just three have a majority of male students.
This means your son will be more likely to join the ranks of the unemployed, the majority of whom are now — yes, you’ve guessed it — men.
The Office of National Statistics noted that in the summer of 2014 a total of 1,147,511 British men were out of work, compared with 887,892 women.
Psychologically, your son will be more likely to suffer from depression and attempt suicide than his sibling, but there’ll be less support in place to save him.
He’s also more likely to endure everyday violence than women, with the latest crime statistics for England and Wales noting that two-thirds of homicide victims were men.
If he’s seduced by his female teacher, she’ll leave court with a slapped wrist thanks to a legal system which is frequently lenient with women. But if your daughter has an affair with her male maths teacher he’ll be chalking up numbers on a prison wall before you can say: ‘burn your bra’.
By the time your son is 18, he will probably have absorbed the social message that his dad is much less valuable as a parent than his mother — that fathers in families are an added bonus, not a crucial cog.
Then, if he starts his own family and his relationship doesn’t last, he may become one of the four million UK men who have no access to their children, yet are forced to fund them.
To cap it all, he’ll be progressively neglected by British healthcare despite being more likely to get — and die from — nine out of the top ten killer diseases. You know, the biggies: these include cancer, heart conditions, strokes, pneumonia, diabetes and cirrhosis of the liver.
Fifteen years ago the UK Men’s Health Forum showed that, for every £1 spent on men’s health, £8 was spent on women’s. Since then little has changed, for no good reason. Or rather, one very bad reason: we live in a medical matriarchy. In other words, male life is cheap. Bargain basement, last-day-of-the-sale cheap.
The ultimate insult? It’s all done at our expense. The National Health Service is funded by the public purse, but it’s men — yes, men — who pay a whopping 70 per cent of UK income tax. Yet we are thrown nothing but crumbs in return.

If only women teacher could marry...

Try to imagine a man, let alone a priest getting away with probation.

So, is it a crime for an adult woman to have sex with a minor?

Apparently, it is a bad decision requiring three months of mental health treatment.

Who links to me?