It’s only the Ides of March, not April Fools’ Day, but this jumbo illustrated edition, with all the Leftist craziness, shows Americans played for fools.
An illustrated edition focusing on the Dems’ weirdly ecumenical transition from anti-Black (slavery, Jim Crow, ghettoization) to untrammeled anti-Semitism.
(Plus other examples of the myriad threats socialists pose to America, and the way Trump is a bulwark against those threats.)
Before getting to the posters, a short video I urge you all to watch:
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), who is a Jewish member of Congress, explains why he did not vote for the Democrats’ resolution condemning hate
This is a must watchpic.twitter.com/Kocwj1WPZm
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) March 8, 2019
We now return to our regularly scheduled illustrated edition
Usually, I give these illustrated edition posts names that emphasize something; today, not so much. This is a delightful hodge-podge of idiocy and wisdom.
With the Left now gunning for Dr. Seuss, it’s tempting for conservatives reflexively to support him — but they may want to think twice about doing so.
I’m sure that you’ve already heard that, per the most recent Leftist purge of pre-woke people, ideas, and books, a new study states that Dr. Seuss (aka Theodor Seuss Geisel), probably the most famous children’s book writer in America, has now landed on the naughty list:
“[This study reveals] how racism spans across the entire Seuss collection, while debunking myths about how books like Horton Hears a Who! and The Sneetches can be used to promote tolerance, anti-bias, or anti-racism,” Katie Ishizuka and Ramón Stephens write in their February 2019 report, “The Cat is Out of the Bag: Orientalism, AntiBlackness, and White Supremacy in Dr. Seuss’ s Children’s Books,” as part of St. Catherine University’s Research on Diversity in Youth Literature.
They continue: “Findings from this study promote awareness of the racist narratives and images in Dr. Seuss’ children’s books and implications to the formation and reinforcement of racial biases in children.”
The study continues by explaining that some of the most iconic characters relay the troubling messages of Orientalism (the representation of Asia and Asian people based on colonialist stereotypes), anti-blackness and white supremacy.
“Notably, every character of color is male. Males of color are only presented in subservient, exotified, or dehumanized roles,” the authors write as part of their findings. “This also remains true in their relation to White characters. Most startling is the complete invisibility and absence of women and girls of color across Seuss’ entire children’s book collection.”
I know that conservatives will be tempted to cling more tightly to Dr. Seuss’s books now that he’s persona non grata on the Left, but I’m not sure that’s a good idea. I know he’s dead, but the fact is that, whether you’re coming at him from a leftist or a conservative perspective, he wasn’t that great a person and pouring more money into his estate may end up feeling as wrong for you as it does now for the lefties. Here are a few interesting points about Theodor Geisel the man, and Dr. Seuss the writer:
First, Geisel was a lifelong Democrat. [Read more…]
I always worry I won’t find Stupid Leftists posters, but every week, whether it’s abortion, borders, race, gender, guns, etc. they keep outdoing themselves.
Billy Porter’s Scarlett O’Hara attire at the Oscars thrilled fashionistas and depressed me, so it’s the lead entry in tonight’s illustrated edition.
The State of the Union speech was a triumph of principle over the ugliest and most divisive politics. I loved it and am very proud of President Trump.
I watched the State of the Union speech from beginning to end and thought it was marvelous. It was also a remarkably courageous speech. Despite all the attacks against him, Trump has not only not retreated from his principles, he’s doubled down, whether on the Wall, abortion (and wasn’t that a beautiful moment as Democrats stood strong for infanticide?), Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the evil that is North Korea, and NO SOCIALISM.
One of the best things about the speech was the fact that the state of the union is, as Trump, said “strong.” As he reeled off numbers about record low unemployment for all demographics, about trade successes, about military strength, about getting other NATO members to cough up money, etc., the Democrats were paralyzed. Because they couldn’t applaud Trump they also barred themselves from applauding Americans and American success. I especially enjoyed the resting bitch faces of the Democrat women in white who got enthusiastic only when they could applaud themselves.
Trump’s guests were also well chosen. Having a Dachau survivor and a Dachau liberator seated side-by-side was so moving. And the police officer who almost died at the Tree of Life synagogue. . . . And the little girl who survived cancer. . . . And the Hispanic border agent. . . . And Buzz Aldrin. . . . It was all good. Really good.
Stacey Abrams, a failed political candidate, sounded like the person at the end of the parade tasked with cleaning up the elephant poop. Trying to be upbeat but still buried in fecal matter.
I want this to be an open thread for you, so I’ll just say one more thing: America will never be a socialist nation! From Donald’s lips to God’s ears….
Abortion extremism, not a 35 year old disgusting racist photo, is what should drive Ralph Northam out of office — posters on that point, plus many more.
Because VA Gov. Northam is a Dem, it’s not clear if his career is dead. What is clear is that he’s fodder for funny, pointed, astute conservative tweets.
Now that the media has confirmed that the 1984 yearbook page showing Ralph Northam either in blackface or a KKK hood is real, the tweets are rolling in. My take is that Northam came of age in a non-woke time, when that conduct was not considered too outré. Nevertheless, considering that Northam’s current wokeness has seen him become the poster boy for a procedure that often kills more blacks in utero than are born in some black communities, that picture is nothing if not prescient.
Academia — that is, the world of colleges and universities — is the incubator for all of the worst ideas in America, with abortion as the latest example.
1. 1993, Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, a college text-book by Peter Singer, Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne:
n Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics – not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant – disabled or not – has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.
The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.
It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.
Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it. Some parents want even the most gravely disabled infant to live as long as possible, and this desire would then be a reason against killing the infant. But what if this is not the case? in the discussion that follows I shall assume that the parents do not want the disabled child to live. I shall also assume that the disability is so serious that – again in contrast to the situation of an unwanted but normal child today – there are no other couples keen to adopt the infant. This is a realistic assumption even in a society in which there is a long waiting- list of couples wishing to adopt normal babies. It is true that from time to time cases of infants who are severely disabled and are being allowed to die have reached the courts in a glare of publicity, and this has led to couples offering to adopt the child. Unfortunately such offers are the product of the highly publicised dramatic life-and-death situation, and do not extend to the less publicised but far more cormnon situations in which parents feel themselves unable to look after a severely disabled child, and the child then languishes in an institution.
Infants are sentient beings who are neither rational nor self- conscious. So if we turn to consider the infants in themselves, independently of the attitudes of their parents, since their species is not relevant to their moral status, the principles that govern the wrongness of killing non-human animals who are sentient but not rational or self-conscious must apply here too. As we saw, the most plausible arguments for attributing a right to life to a being apply only if there is some awareness of oneself as a being existing over time, or as a continuing mental self. Nor can respect for autonomy apply where there is no capacity for autonomy. The remaining principles identified in Chapter 4 are utilitarian. Hence the quality of life that the infant can be expected to have is important.
2. 2013, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa Lapolt Snow, testifying before the Florida House:
REP. JIM BOYD: So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?
SNOW: We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.
REP. DANIEL DAVIS: What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?
SNOW: I do not have that information. I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.
I can’t find biographical information on Snow, but I’m willing to bet she’s a college graduate and, judging by her look in the video, probably post 1985.
3. January 30, 2019, Ralph Northam (Dem), Governor of Virginia, educated at the Virginia Military Institute and Eastern Virginia Medical School, where he got an M.D. and after which he practiced as a pediatrician:
If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
AND NOW TO MY POINT: Whatever starts in academia does not stay in academia. Academia is where: [Read more…]
The government shutdown, anti-Semitism in the Democrat Party, abortion, and a mad, bad media — no matter I busy my day is, I must blog about them.
Did you know that a chicken without a head made it into an early edition of Ripley’s Believe It or Not? It’s true. The story goes back to 1945:
In a task he had done countless times before [i.e., lopping chickens’ heads off], [Farmer] Lloyd was caught completely off guard. Rather than succumbing to the fate of the cooking pot, this rooster without a head continued to “peck” the farm grounds for food.
And so, farmer Llyod began feeding this rooster who he named Mike. He fed him grain and gave him water through an eyedropper.
Over the next 18 months, Mike grew to an incredible size. He started out at as a solid two-and-a-half-pounds and flourished into a hefty eight-pound rooster.
Poor Mike died when he choked on some food but it is rather inspiring that, even without his head, he kept going and going, kind of like a headless chicken Energizer Bunny.
I don’t know whether people use the expression “running around like a chicken without a head” nowadays, but it’s definitely how I felt today. I’m planning for a trip and there’s so much I need to do before I leave. If I think about everything I need to do, I get a little panicky, but if I just put my head down (and yes, I do still have a head) and do one task after another, I can actually see myself make headway (if you’ll pardon the pun).
Anyway, that’s why I haven’t blogged today before now.
Headless chicken or not, I have been thinking about President Trump’s decision to suspend the government shutdown for three weeks. The usual members of the conservative chattering class (aka NeverTrumpers and their weak sisters) are saying “We told you he’s a poseur,” while the usual members of the hard Left Proggie class are saying, “Pelosi’s the real alpha in America and Trump’s a weak, pathetic moron.” I think they’re both wrong.
Trump doesn’t look like a loser; he looks like a reasonable man trying to strengthen American security without destroying federal workers. Never mind that the Proggies had no tears for the coal miners whose lives they gleefully destroyed nor do they ever have compassion for private sector people whose lives Big Government destroys.
Incidentally, with Buzzfeed and HuffPo laying off pathetically whining Proggies, many conservatives are engaging in pleasurable schadenfreude by suggesting that these newly unemployed workers learn computer coding. One of the thin-skinned Lefties who got laid off was so upset with my pointing out that she was a bathetic whiner that she blocked me. Woo-hoo!
Optimally, despite Pelosi ignoring the Constitution to say she really doesn’t see why there has to be a State of the Union speech, during the next three weeks Trump will (I hope) stand before the House and make his pitch to the American public. If there’s no deal in three weeks, Trump can then more freely than he would now exercise his emergency powers to build the wall. After all, if Obama could fund the murderous Mullahs, Trump can build a wall. Alternatively, if there is a deal, that’s good too, although I suspect the DACA kids will be here permanently. I hate that fact, but I’d still rather have a wall — and a deal would probably preclude years of litigation in the Ninth Circuit.
Also, remember that blame — and blame there is — doesn’t fall on Trump. It falls on lying Leftists who once ostensibly supported a wall, but walked away from the idea when they realized that, having abandoned America’s middle class and blue collar voters, they need votes from illegal aliens. Also, blame Paul Ryan who worked hard to keep the wall from coming to a vote during his tenure as Speaker. Ryan is a real piece of work, and there’s nothing good about that.
A few other points: [Read more…]
On abortion, I argue that Scott Adams, one of the smartest, most intellectually honest people in America, errs in thinking only women have a say.
I want to preface this post by saying that I am a great admirer of Scott Adams, I think he’s completely intellectually honest, I believe his insights into persuasion are extraordinary, and I always feel enriched after I’ve listened to his explanations about persuasion. It’s just that, with abortion, I think he’s made a mistake by buying into the pro-abortion premise.
The reason I’m writing this post is because I was listening to Scott Adams’ podcast about the dishonest, unprincipled, and violent Leftist attack on the Covington kids. In it, Adams apologizes for his initial error in accepting the media myth as true and breaks down how the media and other Leftists lied about the incident. He also talks about the way the Left has succeeded in convincing its base that a red MAGA hat (“Make America Great Again”) is every bit as racist as a KKK hood or a Nazi swastika. Adams doesn’t agree with that persuasion success; he just notes it for what it is. He’s right in every particular.
Where Adams goes off the rails though (at least in my opinion) is with his claim that Covington boys had no business being at the Right to Life rally to begin with. Adams believes that the only people who can opine about abortion are women. I get where he’s coming from — in my pro-abortion days I came from that same intellectual place — but having had children has made me realize that this viewpoint is unsustainable because . . . Nature. [Read more…]
This Bookworm Beat is a true potpourri of all sorts of things I’ve noted as interesting over the past few days. Even I cannot discern a common thread.
I didn’t anticipate that my weekend would be as busy as it’s proven to be. It’s almost ten on Sunday night, and my to-do list looks as long as it did when I started it. Sigh. Still, it’s been a good weekend, I’ve gotten a lot done, and I have a few things to offer here. Before I begin, you can see I’m trying out a slightly new format. There’s a long back story to the new format. Suffice to say this new format is easier to produce.
On immigration, do as I say, not as I do.
When it comes to hypocrisy, it’s hard to outdo a Leftist. That’s why, while I’m disgusted, I’m not shocked to learn that New York Mayor and open borders advocate Bill de Blasio has built a large privacy fence around Gracie Mansion, the home the city of New York provides for its mayors:
The new fence — constructed just inside an existing red brick wall and a wrought-iron fence ringing the historic property — was actually dubbed a “privacy fence” by de Blasio and first lady Chirlane McCray, sources told The Post.
“So much for being mayor of the people. That brick fence was good enough for Rudy Giuliani and his family, and for Ed Koch and all the mayors before him,” a law enforcement source said.
“They didn’t need a taller fence. That’s the same house where everybody else lived for years.”
Sources said the increasingly thin-skinned mayor demanded the extension because he was sick of nosy people in Carl Schurz Park peeping in while he hung out in the yard.
And just today, Trump reminded his Twitter followers that Barack and Michelle Obama are big fans of walls too – at least, when the walls are protecting them:
President and Mrs. Obama built/has a ten foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The U.S. needs the same thing, slightly larger version!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2018
Remembering that humor is a powerful weapon.
It’s always dangerous to underestimate your enemy so humor that makes people cease to take an enemy seriously can backfire badly. However, humor that exposes an enemy’s true face is very powerful.
That’s why I think this video, even though it goes on a bit too long, is a both an expose of and an attack on Islamism. It shows very clearly why Islamism is antithetical to American values:
The posters I gathered are overwhelmingly about Stupid Leftists and the stupid things they think and do, so this Bookworm Beat will make you laugh and cry.
It’s not losing seats that bothers me, it’s the fact that post-election counts and recounts invariably favor Democrats, which is banana republic stuff.
Post-election recounts and miscounts and discounts and God alone knows what else. I’m not actually going to blog too much about post-election recounts, despite using them as part of my post title today. The topic is just too depressing. You can kid yourself as much as you want about living in a constitutionally guided democratic republic, but if 27 of the last post-election counts and recounts miraculously favored the Democrats, if Democrats are openly registering illegal aliens, if Democrats coincidentally win in regions with more voters than residents, if the dead are walking and voting, and if many “voters” were alive during the Spanish-American War, you don’t have a constitutionally guided democratic republic; you simply have a banana republic with nice cars and XBoxes.
Look at Arizona: Either there’s voter fraud going on there or Arizona citizens willingly elected a woman who loathes them. Blech! Having said that, Ron Coleman points out that it might not have been a Democrat win so much as a shameless and unnecessary Republican loss:
Consider this before embracing conspiracy. https://t.co/vLrvCHIkiV
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) November 13, 2018
Consider the effect of John McCain on the Arizona GOP… and on the makeup of the electorate in that state as a whole.
Bastard got the last laugh after all. https://t.co/8vCoXQuyqE
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) November 13, 2018
Can American Jews be more stupid? When I grew up, my parents were so proud of Jewish brains. Einstein? Jewish. Hedy Lamar? Not only a Jewish brain, but gorgeous. A disproportionate number of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences? Jewish. Kissinger? Even if you didn’t like him, he was one smart Jew. Israel? A whole nation that’s smart and Jewish.
I attended an academic high school and, while Asian students were quickly becoming dominant in the school, we still had enough smart Jews for a joke: “If Chinese New Year and Yom Kippur fell on the same day, they’d have to close the school.”
This year, though, as in years past, Jews voted disproportionately for Democrats — 75% is what I heard. If you ask these Jews about their unswerving loyalty to the Democrat party, they’d give two reasons. First, Republicans are evil and Democrats are the party of kindness, empathy, and the lack of all nasty -isms (racism, sexism, etc.). That last, of course, would lead to the second, core Jewish vote issue: Jews insist that Republicans are the party of antisemitism and Democrats are not.
To believe that, Jews have to be stupid. Really, really stupid.
The Republicans are the pro-Israel party. The Republican president’s most beloved child is Jewish, as are her children, and she’s married to one of his chief campaign advisors. One of his closet friends is Jewish and is now ambassador to Israel. Israelis who aren’t marinated in Leftism view him as one of the most pro-Israel politicians ever. Heck, Trump finally acted on past presidents’ promises and moved the American embassy to Jerusalem. [Read more…]