On a day that sees the news look like news in Groundhog Day, with old stories endlessly repeating, today’s illustrated edition still brings fresh laughs.
For Sunday evening, just a few observations about Leftists — how they’re made, what they want, and just how crazy they really are.
What makes a Leftist. I was born a Leftist, in that I was raised in a family that voted Democrat. However, because my parents were Kennedy Democrats, when the Democrats took a hard Left turn and began the journey to becoming today’s Leftists, I bailed.
Today’s young people are becoming Leftists through the education system, as well as the media world in which they live. They’re indoctrinated and ignorant. One always hopes that they can gently be cajoled to conservativism if they are carefully introduced to logic and facts. Also, life in the real world, away from academia, has a way of helping people part ways with the factual fantasy that is socialism. It just doesn’t work as promised in the real world.
And then there are the ones who come to socialism through womanly wiles. Paul Krugman is repeatedly cited as an example of this kind of Leftist. Back in his heyday, when his economic ideas were sharp enough to win him a Nobel Prize, Krugman was a garden-variety Democrat. Somewhere along the line, though, Krugman lost his wits and became a socialist, guided by anger, pessimism, and paranoia.
Those who have followed Krugman’s career point to the likely cause: In 1996, he married Robin Wells, herself an economist. While Krugman was, as I said, a garden-variety Democrat, Wells is more of an actual Leftist who, among other things, has written sympathetically about the Occupy movement. You can get here a small sense here of the values that drive her economic worldview:
Give yourself a gift this weekend and read my Illustrated Edition. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll wonder what the heck is going on in America!
Steven Crowder politely asks passers-by to change his mind that there are more than two genders. Armed only with feelings, the youngsters struggle and fail.
One of my favorite sayings of all times is Dennis Prager’s maxim that he prefers clarity to agreement. When his show used to air on local radio here (and I was constantly in the car ferrying children about), I’d see his invariably respectful questions cause his guests either to collapse in an incoherent heap, get terribly defensive, or surprise themselves by discovering that they don’t agree with their own stated principles but, instead, agree with Prager’s.
Steven Crowder takes this approach to college campuses in his “change my mind” video series. Acting through the campus Republican organizations, he obtains permission to sit at a little table and ask passers-by to change his mind about hot topics. To date, he’s done these videos on guns, hate-speech, abortion, and the number of available genders. It’s this last one that caught my eye.
I’ve blogged frequently here about transgender madness. If you’d like a sense of my position on the number of available genders, you can check out this post,this one, or this one. In brief, I think there are two, aside from a very small number of genetically intersex people. I recognize that there are feminine men and masculine women — and people who wish they were a member of the opposite sex — but that does not mean that they are, in fact, members of the opposite sex or no sex whatsoever. I was therefore interested in Crowder’s experience. [Read more…]
An infamous Matt Lauer celebrity roast reveals that our self-appointed “betters” are misogynistic, racist, homophobic, hate-filled vulgarians.
They lecture us about how bad our guns are, even as they live in gated communities and surround themselves with armed guards. They lecture us about climate change, consigning us to crowded buses and to houses that are either punishingly hot or cold, even as they own several supersized houses and jet from one high-end venue to another. They insist on open borders that allow in millions of illiterate, low-skill migrants and refugees, even as they hold professional jobs that immigrants cannot undercut and live in sequestered neighborhoods that allow immigrants in only to clean the house and mow the lawn. They foist socialized medicine on us knowing that, when their own health is at risk, they’ll get the best privatized care.
Moreover, in a way especially relevant to this post, they lecture us on their values: We are evil if we do not support a woman’s unlimited right to commit infanticide. We are evil if we don’t jettison our belief that marriage is a religious covenant intended for one man and one woman. We are evil if we believe that there are two sexes — male and female — rather than the constantly escalating number of gender identities that can change from day to day or even hour to hour. We are evil if we believe that parents should have a say in their children’s lives, rather than allowing schools and government officials to make decisions for our children about sex, gender identity, and goodness knows what else. And of course, we are evil if we believe that America is good and, despite its imperfections, an exceptional nation.
As far as Leftist celebrities are concerned, those of us who disagree with them about matters both social and political are brainless, hate-filled mouth-breathers. They work hard, every single day, to try to control us by subjecting us to maximum government oversight. Only in that way can the world can be turned over to the goodness, light, and tremendous moral sense and compassion that each Leftist celebrity embodies.
I do not intended in this post to offer substantive arguments on any of these issues. Those of you familiar with my blog know that I have addressed all of them at length in past posts. Instead, I want to give you some insight into the values that characterize these people who believe themselves to be our “betters.”
To do that, I’m going to take you back, back, back . . . to 2008. That was the year that 1,900 beautiful people from Hollywood, Washington, D.C., and New York gathered for a friendly, non-televised Matt Lauer celebrity roast. The roast, which The Village Voice wrote about contemporaneously, is in the news today because it was filled with jokes about Matt Lauer’s sexual activities. It therefore proves what we’ve all known about the sex scandal accusations leveled at Leftist men; namely, that everyone knew.
If I were Lauer’s defense counsel, I would argue that these jokes prove nothing beyond the fact that, for whatever reason, Lauer’s sex life was the subject of much joshing amongst his friends. Indeed, they might have made the jokes to highlight that, in a socially liberal environment, he was a prudish model of rectitude who respected his marriage vows. What better way to embarrass someone than to touch upon a subject he likes to leave alone?
But I’m not Matt Lauer’s attorney (thank God) and I’m not interested in whether the jokes prove or disprove that “everyone knew” he was a sexual predator. What I find interesting about the jokes at the roast is the way they reveal the celebrities’ qualities as human beings. It turns out that our holier-than-thou, self-righteous, endlessly hectoring, sensitive, ethically tuned-in “betters” are, in fact, racist, sexist, homophobic, hate-filled, and obscene. Being too near them stains ones soul.
*** WARNING : INCREDIBLY NOT SAFE FOR WORK CONTENT AHEAD *** [Read more…]
Trump’s new Jerusalem policy, recognizes reality, ends a failed paradigm, begins a new era that finally promises peace in the Middle East.
— Tel Aviv (@TelAviv) December 6, 2017
I was all ready to celebrate the big news but Linda Sarsour’s bakery is refusing to top my cake with the words, “Jerusalem is, was, and always will be the capital of Israel.”
I need the Government to make her do what I ask. pic.twitter.com/NR77HH21s4
— Andrew L Griner (@fake_news_u_r) December 6, 2017
Today’s must-read: Vincent Phillip Muñoz’s article about Progressives’ and Conservatives’ different ideological approaches to equality.
To the extent we conservatives look to the Constitution as the alpha and omega of our political ideology, we’ve thought a lot about equality in theory and in practice. Problems arise, though, when Progressives push their version of “equality,” a notion that marches under the same name as the constitutional concept, but that has a very different meaning.
This different meaning is not a distinction without a difference. Instead, it goes to the very heart of every citizens’ relationship with the state. The first encourages the state to leave citizens alone. The second demands that the state force citizens to pay homage to other citizens. The Left’s understanding of the First Amendment is the ideological equivalent of the Obamacare mandate, in that it relies on state power to enforce Progressive ideas.
As you all know, and as I’ve obsessively pounded away at my keyboard to explain, the conservative notion of equality is grounded in our understanding of the nature of the relationship between citizen and state. The Constitution generally and the Bill of Rights specifically (with assist from the Declaration of Independence) establish that government is the servant of the people.
As such, government does not exist to place value judgments on which people are of greater or lesser worth (i.e., judgments based upon race, creed, a legal citizen’s country of national origin, etc.). Instead, it exists to apply limited law impartially to all citizens, to protect us against threats to our national security, and otherwise to leave us alone to do what we believe necessary to pursue our notion of happiness.
With respect to that last item (leaving us alone), a limited government does have a limited role in ensuring that neither individuals nor the states act affirmatively to prevent people from pursuing their own happiness. In other words, we cannot bake discrimination into the cake (cake reference intentional). Laws cannot apply to one race and not another; places of public accommodation cannot explicitly exclude people based upon characteristics tied solely to race, religion, etc. We citizens have therefore given the government power to ensure that we play fairly under the Constitutional rules; we have not given it the power to come down on one side or another. [Read more…]
Some weeks are so crazy, with reality outrunning satire, that it’s hard to find pictures for the illustrated edition. Still, this round-up works.
Reminder to all: tax rates are merely legal minimums. You are free to send as much as you’d like.
— Pat Sajak (@patsajak) December 2, 2017
In an email obtained by @JudicialWatch through a federal lawsuit, a top prosecutor (who is now a deputy for Mueller’s Russia probe) praised Sally Yates after she defied Trump travel ban order https://t.co/fFEQQSWAWM pic.twitter.com/uury79Ye9R
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 5, 2017
My best guess: Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to telling a lie about legal conduct because he was taking the fall for someone very important.
Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of lying about something that wasn’t a crime, earning himself the very real possibility of jail time. The interview in which he allegedly stated this lie was with FBI agent Peter Strzok.
Strzok is an interesting guy or, at least, has left an interesting trail of slime wherever he’s been. He was was relegated to desk duty in July when Mueller allegedly learned that Strzok had been sending seriously anti-Trump, pro-Hillary tweets to an FBI attorney with whom he’d been having an extramartial affair. I say Mueller “allegedly learned” because I wouldn’t be surprised if Strzok’s affair and his fanatical support for Hillary Clinton weren’t open secrets in the Progressive FBI bureaucracy, just as every Lefty in the business knew about people such as Harvey Weinstein or Matt Lauer.
Strzok was also the man who discretely downgraded Hillary’s overtly criminal act into just a little bit of passing carelessness and interviewed her without putting her under oath or recording the interview. And then, based upon Flynn’s failure to track perfectly conversations that may or may not have been rightfully recorded he ensured that Flynn is facing jail time.
Now that we have a pretty good handle on all of the Big Lies coming out of the FBI and Mueller’s investigation, the big question is this: Why did Michael Flynn plead guilty to lying about something that wasn’t a crime in the first instance?
I’m willing to bet big money that two things led to him pleading guilty: [Read more…]
For decades, American Leftists have hidden their close ties to fascism. Dinesh D’Souza’s PragerU video reveals those ties. His book lays them wide open.
Knowing that it was unlikely ever to show up at my local library, I treated myself to a new book this weekend: Dinesh D’Souza’s The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. I’m familiar with the larger outline — namely that fascism was and is a Leftist phenomenon — but the book is a delight in that it fleshes out that outline. It also exposes one of the American Left’s deepest secrets, which was the fact that Hitler drew some of his strongest inspiration from Democrat principles and policies regarding race.
If you want a preview of what D’Souza offers in his book, I recommend spending five minutes watching the latest PragerU video:
As I understand it, fascists envision America as a vast beehive, with every bee laboring unstintingly and unceasingly for the good of the hive. That each worker bee leads a miserable, constrained life is irrelevant. American Leftists all imagine themselves as Queen Bees, so each is able to avoid the disheartening thought that he or she is nothing more than a drone, destined to labor and die, without choice as to labor, without joy, without individual liberty. [Read more…]
Ignore the Left’s collective scream about the new tax bill — it will confer a benefit on those who are economically in the lower half of American earners.
I’m not an economist, but I was blessed with a fair amount of common sense. Despite Democrat hysteria, it’s obvious that “the little people” will fare better under the proposed tax bill than they do now — and for a reason the Republicans ought to be speaking about a lot but, because they’re bozos, they are not.
Before getting to the most significant benefit for the less wealthy under the new tax bill, let’s look at life under the current tax laws. First, it’s helpful to define terms and the two terms I want to look at are “progressive” and “regressive”.
A Progressive tax is one that sees tax rates increases proportionately to an individual’s increase in taxable wealth. The first X number of dollars are subject to a low tax rate, the next X+1 dollars are subject to a higher tax rate, and so on for each increase in X dollars. In other words, as you make money, the government demands a bigger and bigger cut. It’s a wealth tax.
The opposite of a Progressive tax is a Regressive tax. That is a tax that places a disproportionate burden on those least able to bear it. Back in the late 14th century, England enacted a poll tax, requiring every person in the kingdom to pay a fixed amount just for being alive. That led to a Peasants’ Revolt, because the amount of the tax placed a vastly disproportionate burden on the poor, to whom a shilling was a fortune, than on the rich, to whom a shilling was negligible.
Currently, America ostensibly does not have a “Regressive” tax system. This is a lie. America’s tax code is highly regressive. This is because we have the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world. Yay, say Lefties. Let’s stick it to the corporations. That sentiment proves that Lefties are either stupid or uninformed. [Read more…]
Given that Zarate was a felon with a gun in his hands when he killed Steinle, I’m perplexed he wasn’t convicted for felony murder.
I am as appalled as anyone else that Kate Steinle’s killer, Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, a man who was on his fifth or sixth illegal entry into the United States, walked out of the San Francisco courtroom a free man. I’m also confused, because California has a felony murder law on the books.
As a general rule, you cannot be convicted of murder if you kill someone by accident or even through extreme carelessness. Murder is an intentional act.
The one exception is felony murder. This holds that a person committing a felonious act causes someone’s death, even if the act of killing was accidental, has committed murder. There are wrinkles to the law, with the relevant one in this case being the requirement that the underlying felony has to be inherently dangerous(e.g., grand theft auto or robbery). As this excellent legal analysis shows, a defendant can avoid a felony murder charge by proving that he was not committing an inherently dangerous felony.
In the case of Zarate, he was definitely in a permanently felonious state. That is so because repeatedly entering the U.S. after repeatedly getting deported is a felony. His mere presence was a felony.
Of course, if I were Zarate’s attorney, I would try to blog a felony murder charge by arguing that repeated illegal entry, while felonious, is not inherently dangerous. True, but… [Read more…]
A friend told me a true parable for our times: Because she and others in her neighborhood were afraid of racist profiling, they failed to stop a robbery.
My friend was coming home from running errands. As she turned onto her street she carefully looked around, as she always does, in order to avoid any children who might be crossing without looking, as they so often do.
Because of the risk from children, my friend’s visual scan is low to the ground. This means that the first thing she saw was a pair of low hanging pants. Indeed, going by the chart, she described to me medium to major sagging, which is pretty blatant:
Those pants were out of place in her neighborhood, which is a solid middle class enclave. None of the homeowners, none of the kids, and none of the kids’ friends in that community wear sagging pants.
My friend then noticed two other things about the man: (1) he looked stoned and (2) he was black. And then she continued driving up her street to her house.
Once at her house, she unpacked her car and dragged out the garbage for early morning pick-up. She noticed that the same sagging pants man had walked along the street and was talking on his phone. Again, those pants were discordant, but he wasn’t doing anything wrong. It’s not a crime, even in safe, middle-class enclaves, to walk along the street wearing sagging pants. [Read more…]
Neither Lauer nor Moore are in court so neither has a right to legal due process. Both, tho’, are subject to either business or political due process.
Is there anyone out there reading this post who does not know that Matt Lauer was abruptly fired this morning for sexual improprieties while on the job? Here’s the official tweet, which is remarkably straight and to the point. NBC’s public relations department worked overtime on this one:
Matt Lauer has been terminated from NBC News. On Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer. As a result, we’ve decided to terminate his employment. pic.twitter.com/1A3UAZpvPb
— TODAY (@TODAYshow) November 29, 2017
The basis for Lauer’s firing was the fact that NBC “received a detailed complaint from a colleague. . . .” That must have been some complaint — and now that we’re hearing the whole “everybody knew” chorus about Lauer, it sounds as if the complaint wasn’t an isolated event; it was part of a continuing course of behavior that Lauer conducted with and before innumerable people.
The lawyer in me couldn’t help but imagine the decision-making process NBC had to go through. Only the naive would think the decision was made along the same lines as the decision-making process forced upon America’s colleges and universities thanks to Obama’s infamous edict, the one that insisted that all men were guilty as accused. That is, the NBC execs didn’t think “We’ve got this complaint before us and we have to assume it’s true, so let’s fire Lauer. We have no other option.”
Instead, NBC had to pay attention to two considerations. One is lawsuits. NBC had to balance the possibility that Lauer would turn around and sue them for wrongful discharge versus the possibility that the women harassed would (will?) sue them for an unsafe work environment. The second consideration was what NBC thought its audience would be willing to tolerate: Would the audience prefer that Lauer get discharged immediately or that he stay in place with NBC backing him during an investigation.
This two step analysis is “due process” business style. For simplicity’s sake, let’s call it “business due process.” This is the kind of thing the boss gets to do. [Read more…]