When I cast my votes yesterday, I didn’t have a choice when it came to either my Senator or my Representative: It was Democrat-Dee versus Democrat-Dum in both cases, because open primaries in this Blue state had ensured that, by the time the election rolled around, Republicans had vanished entirely. It’s not only Republican candidates who are vanishing. As Kimberly Strassel explains, Democrats across America are repeating the strategies that Southern Democrats used in the old Jim Crow days: they’re harassing, prosecuting, and blackmailing conservatives into backing off from the free speech guaranteed them under the Constitution:
The American media suddenly discovers antisemitism in America. You know it’s not a coincidence when several mainstream media outlets that every non-conservative Jew reads suddenly announce that Donald Trump’s supporters are crazed antisemites. These are, of course, the same media outlets that have been silent for years about the antisemitism at the heart of the Democrat base. My friend JoshuaPundit has written an excellent post highlighting the Left’s despicable and manipulative hypocrisy when it comes to Jew hatred. He left out only one point, which I’ll illustrate with a poster:
In sum, a small, disfavored fringe of Trump voters are loathsome antisemites. Hillary’s antisemitism problem, however, starts at the top with the lady herself, and drips on down to the campuses, the Black Lives Matter activists, and the Muslims who are central to her constituency.
Is this a race between a crook and a monster? Scott Adams says that the race has been framed as one between a crook (Hillary) and a monster (Trump). Dropping for a moment his mask of complete neutrality, though, he points out that, while there is convincing evidence that Hillary is a crook, there’s no evidence that Trump is a monster — a not-very-nice-businessman, perhaps, but not a monster.
Hillary reiterates the Left’s assault on Free Speech. Kevin Williamson points out something that every American should fear: Hillary Clinton’s straightforward assault on free speech. Except that it’s only straightforward if you’re informed about the issues, something the Democrats avoid at all cost. You can change that as to yourself and any open-minded friends you have by reading, and having them read, Williamson’s article.
You know what those of us who are not opera fans really hate about opera? We hate the fact that, after the heroine has been dealt the fatal blow, it still takes her another half hour of frantic soprano singing before she dies. I suspect that the attenuated operatic death scene will be an apt metaphor for the last 27 days of America’s 2016 election cycle. Trump and his supporters are still singing as loudly and as strongly as they can, but the death-blow has already been dealt.
You see, it’s become very apparent that the American media has been sitting on information that might have affected the outcome of the Republican primaries. Had the media been genuinely interested in reporting the news and/or in ensuring that each party offered its finest candidate to the American people, the stories of Trump’s behavior towards women would have been in the news during the peak of the primary season.
The media, however, was not interested in serving America and its democracy. It was interested only in ensuring that Hillary, the most corrupt, incompetent person ever to run for president, would be facing the most vulnerable candidate possible. So, during the primaries, the media gave Trump all the airtime necessary to build him up and now it’s again giving him all the airtime necessary . . . only this time it’s releasing a steady stream of deadly poison that is the equivalent of the poison the precedes the last half hour of the soprano’s tragic, but lyrical, end.
Scott Adams, who has called the election with remarkable acuity, believes that this carefully planned coup (my phrasing, not his) means that the election is over and that Hillary wins:
If the latest groping/kissing allegations against Trump hold up – and I assume they will, based on quantity if not credibility – it won’t matter what Wikileaks says about Clinton. She will win easily.
Hillary Clinton is all yours, ladies. She and her alleged rapist husband are your brand now. Wear them well.
The same female cohort that brought us the scandal-ridden Warren G. Harding administration is on the verge of bringing us a Hillary administration that is mired in scandal even before it begins. I am, as I often have been in the last two decades, incredibly embarrassed to share XX chromosomes with so many morons.
Charlie Kirk’s hypothesis about millennials forces one to reach much the same conclusion about them that Adams reached about women: The young Bernie supporters who cannot get excited about Hillary have been trained like Pavlov’s dogs to get excited about accusations of men engaged in sexual misconduct. While they wouldn’t vote for Hillary, now that she fits into their hardwired victim algorithm, they will turn out in droves to punish Trump.
Two other things lead me to believe we’re in the last half-hour of an opera that ends with all the good people scattered about dead on the stage:
A Progressive friend is relentlessly pushing “Trump is awful” stories on me. I, a conservative, invariably counter by pointing out that Hillary’s list of sins and failures is infinitely worse.
I realized yesterday that my arguments are irrelevant. My friend will never vote for someone who is not 100% pro-abortion, pro-socialized medicine, or pro-open borders. Given a choice between a rotting dead body that is pro-Abortion and a genuine angel from Heaven that is pro-Choice, he’d vote for the rotting body every time.
Even as we endlessly talk down the other side’s candidates (because few people are really comfortable talking their own candidate up in this bizarre election year), what really matters is the ideological divide underlying this election. The following list might help you decide on which side of that divide you live. Once you decide, do remember that you will never get people to accept your candidate, no matter how flawed their own candidate, until you get them to accept your ideology.
I like free speech. I like to use good ideas to challenge bad ideas. I think the whole point of political correctness is to erase our ability even to entertain thoughts about freedom, justice, and our inherent (not government-given, but inherent) rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights. I therefore have been untroubled by the Alt-Right movement, even though I know some nasty people have slipped in on the fringes.
I’m just grateful that, being a conservative, these racists and antisemites do live only on the fringes of a freedom-based political movement. If you’re on the Left, the racists and antisemites sit dead center.
From their perch at the top of the Democrat political heap, the Leftist racists demean blacks by saying that blacks are so stupid and helpless that they can function only with government support and guidance. From that same perch, they also offer unflinching support for genocidal Palestinians and for the BDS movement that aids the Palestinians in their genocidal goals. Indeed, this antisemitic rage has become a central pillar of the modern Democrat movement.
Meanwhile, even as Hillary was castigating a group that likes to tweak noses and yank chains, and most especially make a mockery of political correctness, she was receiving an endorsement from the Communist Party of the United States. A little historic reminder is useful here: The Communist Party of the United States actively seeks to bring about the same regimes that killed more than a 100 million people in the 20th century, and that are still going strong in various parts of the world.
Once again that this blog’s motto is proven correct. My blog’s motto is “Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.” The only thing wrong with the motto is that the word “liberal” is a poor substitute for a whole category of Leftists and totalitarians of all political and religious stripes. Otherwise, it’s entirely accurate — as is beautifully shown by the story of Kasim Hafeez, who was raised on a steady diet of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic conclusions. These conclusions led him to being a rabid anti-Israel activist — something that changed dramatically when he read Alan Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel. Confronted with actual facts, Hafeez did a volte face on his previous prejudice and now tours campuses as a pro-Israel activist.
Facts favor conservativism, which is why the mainstream media works so hard to hide them.
How hard does this media work to hide facts? This hard: Larry Correia minces no words when he describes how appalling the American media is when it comes to reporting the news. He sees them as engaged in a four step dance of information death:
First, is there anything we can milk from this story to bolster our worldview? Y/N
Second, is there anything in this story which could potentially make democrats look bad? Y/N
Third, is there anything in this story which will make republicans look stupid or evil? Y/N
Fourth, does this event in some way affect us personally? Y/N
This algorithm explains why, when George Bush waited three days during Hurricane Katrina before making an official visit, so as not to disrupt rescue efforts, every outlet painted him as an out-of-touch racist. Meanwhile, when Obama refuses to leave the golf course, only to announce that, in the face of the worst Hurricane since Sandy, he’ll visit sometime next week, the media is utterly silent. Go here and read exactly how Correia’s questions play out in real time.
In the same vein, Ann Coulter details how the media relentlessly twists anything that a conservative says, throwing it before uninformed Americans as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when it is more often a combination of vicious lies (often leavened by gross ignorance and staggering laziness):
Last August, Trump said the following about the way he was treated at the first GOP debate: “(Megyn Kelly) starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions, and you know, you can see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever, but she was, in my opinion — she was off base.”
This was nearly identical to what Trump said about Chris Wallace a few sentences later: “There’s a big difference between Mike Wallace and Chris Wallace because I watched them last night, you know, blood pouring out of his eyes, too.”
Suddenly the words “her wherever” were being described as a clear-cut reference to Megyn’s menstrual blood! (I have it on good authority that Chris Wallace has never menstruated.)
Trump expressed shock, saying of his accusers, “They have all dirty minds — I never even thought about it … I was thinking of ears or nose.” (Accused by the same forces of something revolting, Whittaker Chambers gasped, “What kind of beasts am I dealing with?”)
The day after Trump allegedly referred to Megyn’s period, I happened to have a number of social engagements with people who hadn’t heard about the scandale. So I gave them Trump’s exact words, told them the media were in hysterics about it, and asked them to guess why.
None of them — an Obama-voter, a conservative actor and a union organizer — were able to guess the ludicrous interpretation being placed on Trump’s words. At least one was visibly angry about the accusation (probably because he was on his period). But after a few weeks of media propaganda, even he flipped and became totally convinced Trump was, in fact, referring to Megyn’s menstrual blood.
Most people are highly suggestible. That’s why companies spend billions of dollars on advertising.
It’s almost refreshing when a New York Times writer drops the charade and announces that he’s abandoned any pretense of “reporting” the news and is all in for pure advocacy aimed at destroying Donald Trump. And it’s gotten so bad that even the Rolling Stones’ hard Left partisan Matt Tabbibi is getting worried that modern American journalism is giving itself a bad name. Thus, he stops casting stones only at Fox news and starts throwing a few in the direction of his ideological fellows.
Just remember, when the Second Amendment goes, so does the First. And you know what it’s going to look like when the First Amendment comes under the same attacks as the Second, right? It’s going to look just as it appears in Like Frank Constanza’s subtle and brilliant “We need sensible speech control.” Jonathan Swift would have appreciated satire this good.
The class divide between #NeverTrumpers and the rest of us. On my mother’s side, both of her parents came from incredibly wealthy, upper-class European families, one Jewish, one Protestant. Although WWI and WWII destroyed the wealth, I was raised with manners that ensured I could consort with royalty, should I ever be invited to do so. On my father’s side, his mother came from a solidly upper middle class German Jewish family; his father was a charming ne’er-do-well from Romania. He always aspired to my mother’s level of class.
Put simply, I was born in a snobbish home and educated to be a snob. I was rigid, condescending, judgmental, and tied into an American class system which holds thata university degree, preferably from one of the “better” colleges , is the true measure of a person.
Real life taught me how wrong my values were. The best values are those from Judeo-Christian morality, which is not tied to wealth or education, but to a simple commitment to those values. The best people don’t come from the Ivy Leagues. Instead, they are people, no matter sex, race, religion, country of national origin, or level of education, who try to live up to Judeo-Christian morals; who are kind; who have sound common sense; who value America for her American values, rather than trying to turn her into a hierarchical European echo; and who look for those same qualities in other people — again, without regard to sex, race, religion, country of national, or level of education.
I mention all of the above because Jack Cashill nails about the class divide between those conservatives who however enthusiastically or reluctantly have come to embrace Trump and those who very enthusiastically reject him. Of course, this doesn’t mean all Trump supporters are “good” people and all NeverTrumpers are effete snobs. It does mean, though, that if you’re going to draw a bright line between the two groups, that’s the easiest line to draw. Back in 2008, the conservative elite swallowed hard and accepted Sarah Palin. Eight years later, though, Donald Trump is a working class bridge too far (and that’s true despite his wealth and the rarefied world in which he’s always traveled).
Roger Simon expands upon one of the many reasons the mainstream media loathes Trump. The most obvious reason that the media loathes Trump, of course, is that media members, all college educated, cling to Leftist shibboleths that Trump rejects. Another reason, Simon notes, is that the Obama era has been spectacularly good for the rich (and upper echelon media figures are all rich) and spectacularly bad for the blacks and other working class, lower class and unemployed class people that the media assures us can find social and economic succor only from Democrats. Read the whole thing. It’s good.
The Black Lives Matter movement is part of a grander Leftist plan. Pastor Stephen E. Broden argues compellingly (lots of facts and analysis, the way thinking people should argue) that the Black Lives Matter is turning American blacks into pawns as part of a grand plan to turn America into a truly socialist nation. (And Venezuela’s travails tell us how that will turn out.)
This seems like an appropriate place to address something I’ve long felt about the way in which Democrats treat blacks. They encourage them in vice, not just to keep them stuck on welfare and voting Democrat. They also do it to maintain their own sense of superiority, which is the educated Leftist’s underlying justification for refusing to demand that blacks live up to the same standards of behavior as these educated, elitist Leftists do themselves.
This thought, which has been floating in my brain for awhile, crystallized when Wolf Howling reminded me of something that Martin Luther King said: “Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that.” What he was telling his audience, of course, was that they had to be self-reliant and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, because the whites were not going to help them.
What occurred to me was that whites of the time liked this crime rate, even if they complained about it. That is, they weren’t only discriminating against blacks because they felt blacks to be inferior. Instead, they were encouraging criminal behavior because it proved their thesis that blacks were indeed inferior.
Democrats haven’t changed a single bit since then. You poor African Americans, they say. What would you do without us, they ask. The only thing keeping you from complete breakdown is our policies — the very same policies that encourage the breakdown of the family, the marginalization of black fathers, and the dearth of policing. America’s Leftist elites don’t just need blacks on the welfare plantation to buy black votes; they need blacks on that plantation to reinforce the whites’ own sense of superiority.
The media is desperately afraid that Donald Trump’s speeches to black Americans are letting the cat out of the bag. Because they cannot dare address the substance of his speeches, they’re castigating them as utterly meaningless because he gave them in white enclaves, rather than a black community — as if a black community, brainwashed by the Left, would give Trump the opportunity to speak. By getting the message out however he could, though, Trump put on the airways something blacks need to hear.
And what they need to hear is that conservatives respect blacks and believe that they are capable of every damn thing conservatives live in their own lives: getting educated, holding jobs, having stable marriages with children raised by both a mom and a dad, and being law abiding. It’s only the Left that assures blacks this is impossible, and then creates the political and economic circumstances that make this assurance seem like the truth.
The SJW race war invades science fiction. Yes, SJWs will leave no stone unturned when it comes to living in perpetual attack mode. This time the target is science fiction. Larry Correia ably fisks this nonsense. I’ll simply add that the SJWs aren’t making as much progress in the computer gaming and science fiction realms as they are in other places for two reasons: Reason number 1 is that the young men who are seriously into gaming and science fiction (and it is usually men) tend to be remarkably single-minded and don’t care much about being called out for alleged social sins. Reason number 2 is that many of these same young men pride themselves on having logical, engineer-style brains, so they’re willing to make the effort to deconstruct the illogical nonsense that powers every SJW campaign.
SJWs make their greatest headway against the gainfully employed. Another thing about the science fiction/gaming geeks (a term I use lovingly, not disrespectfully) is that they’re either not career oriented, or they’re working with like-minded folks, or they’re young enough not to have adult obligations (mortgages, children, etc.). The SJWs count their greatest successes amongst those who have the most to lose when they’re in the SJW crosshairs. There’s no one more vulnerable than an actual adult, with an actual job, and actual adult obligations and responsibilities. The case of Judge Ruth Neely is instructive.
More to come. My computer keeps freezing up and my family keeps calling me….
I disagree with Cleese when he says that political correctness was ever a good idea, and I hope he just said that as a polite pander in order to ensure that people stay and listen to the entire video. After all, Cleese never could have starred in this wonderful scene if any type of political correctness was around in 1979.
Otherwise, though, Cleese is right on the money when he says that today’s political correctness kills humor and, indeed, kills any form of communication. He’s especially on point when he says that those who can’t control themselves compensate by trying to control others:
If the video doesn’t load, you can see it here.
Once multiculturalism started losing its kick, cultural appropriation became the latest version of the Left’s endless assault on free speech, freedom of association, and free thought. It’s also part of the Left’s ongoing effort to Balkanize and destroy America. Bill Whittle treats it with the contempt it deserves:
Wolf Howling gave me permission to re-print in its entirety his splendid, insightful, intelligent, informed, far-reaching, and tightly-written rant about everything that’s wrong with the American political system as we head into the 2016 election. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you:
Caesar: Who is it in the press that calls on me? I hear a tongue shriller than all the music cry “Caesar!” Speak, Caesar is turn’d to hear.
Soothsayer: Beware the ides of March.
Caesar: What man is that?
Brutus: A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March.
Julius Caesar Act 1, scene 2, 15–19
On the 15th of March, 44 B.C., the Roman Republic signed its death warrant when the Senators conspired to kill Julius Caesar. It was perhaps the most famous political assassination in history. It certainly was an inflection point in world history, marking the demise of the Roman Republic and its degeneration into rule by emperors. Somehow, I think we are seeing a variant on that history play out today on both the left and the right. The election of Trump could well spell the end our Republic. The plot to steal the nomination from him at a contested convention would surely be the end of the Republican Party. And the refusal to indict Hillary would be a de facto end to our nation as a nation of laws existing under the Constitution.
The nation has just suffered through nearly eight years seeing what rule by a progressive left ideologue looks like — a combination of extra-constitutional rule, cronyism, and identity politics reaching to its ludicrous conclusions. We have an economy that is failing a declining middle class and has been propped up — barely and only — by a Fed running the printing presses non-stop and now considering negative interest rates. And Obama will leave the White House in 2017 with America in a much more precarious position in terms of national security — his insane deal to give Iran a glide path to a nuclear arsenal being the suicidal cherry on top.
Much of what the Obama and the progressive left have accomplished has been enabled by a Court system whose progressive members consider themselves a politburo not bound by the Constitution or democracy, by closed public sector unions that pump incredible sums of laundered taxpayer money back into politics on behalf of progressives, an education system that indoctrinates for progressivism, a system of crony capitalism that operates to disadvantage the middle class and crush entrepreneurship, and by a progressive regulatory bureaucracy that operates outside of the Constitution, passing rules – none voted on by Congress yet still with the force of law — that are working fundamental change to our nation.
I will admit to high hopes coming into the 2016 election. If you look hard at most of these issues, you will see that they are systemic problems that can only be solved by affirmative political action. Reining in the court system requires action by Congress, as does ending closed sector public unions and putting the regulatory bureaucracy wholly under Congressional control. And I had high hopes that this year, the pendulum would swing far enough to the right that we could elect a conservative for President who would address these systemic issues. Cruz, I thought and still think, understood all of these issues and would be most likely to address them. That said, we had 17 candidates on the Republican side at the start this year and almost all of them would have made decent presidents, if not as effective as Cruz. Rubio understood the national security picture best of all of them. Fiorina understood the problems with cronyism, regulation and Congressional accounting. Carson was an honorable man whose heart was in the right place. Even the weakest of the lot, Kasich and Bush, could have been expected to govern at least as milquetoast centrists, addressing none of the systemic problems but at least making none of them worse.
If you have time today to read only one thing, you must read Kevin Williamson’s The Democrats’ Theme for 2016 Is Totalitarianism. I’ll get you started, and then you have to click on the link to finish:
At the beginning of December, Rolling Stone writer Jeff Goodell asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether Charles and David Koch, two libertarian political activists, should be considered — his remarkable words — “an enemy of the state.” He posed the same question about Exxon, and John Kerry, who could have been president of these United States, said that he looked forward to the seizure of Exxon’s assets for the crime of “proselytizing” impermissibly about the question of global warming.
An enemy of the state? That’s the Democrats’ theme for the New Year: totalitarianism.
Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.
On the college campuses, they shout down unpopular ideas or simply forbid nonconforming views from being heard there in the first place. They have declared academic freedom an “outdated concept” and have gone the full Orwell, declaring that freedom is oppressive and that they should not be expected to tolerate ideas that they do not share. They are demanding mandatory ideological indoctrination sessions for nonconforming students. They have violently assaulted students studying in libraries and assaulted student journalists documenting their activities. They have staged dozens of phony hate crimes and sexual assaults as a pretext for persecuting unpopular organizations and people.
What they cannot achieve by legislation or litigation, they seek to achieve by simple violence, left-wing activists having smashed, looted, and burned portions of Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, where Koreans and other Asian minorities were specifically targeted. As on college campuses, they have made a point of assaulting journalists documenting their violence. They have rioted in Philadelphia and in other cities.
They are not backing away from that. Hillary Rodham Clinton may do her vice-principal shtick, but Bernie Sanders is calling for “revolution,” and by “revolution” he means crushing the economic and political rights of opponents in order to prevent them from having a say in political debate. Sounding oddly like Henry Ford, he seethes as he talks about scheming foreigners and international bankers working nefariously behind the scenes to undermine American interests, while his admirers brandish such traditional symbols of totalitarianism as the hammer-and-sickle flag.
Read the rest here.
Are you familiar with speed chess? I learned about it when I was at Cal. Since I worked at the Bancroft Library, I had access to an employee break room. Every day at lunch, two men would sit there, chess board in front of them, timer at their side, and make lightning swift moves, wrapping up a single game in minutes, not hours. What I’m going for here is speed blogging. I’ve got more than 20 links, and I’m going to try to share them with you in less than half an hour of writing. Here goes….
In 2006, Thomas Lifson wrote what I think is one of the best political articles ever. In it, he explained that there are two seasons in American politics — Attention Season and Inattention Season. The former has a remarkable way of concentrating American minds. Right now, with the election nearing and terrorism within our borders again, Americans are starting to shift from Inattention to Attention. I suspect this will change the polling dynamics substantially in the next few weeks.
Trump is the bad boy of this political season, by which I mean that he’s the cool guy in the leather jacket that all the girls want to date and to domesticate. Eventually, though, the girls discover that a bad boy may have a James Dean charm about him, but he’s still bad, meaning he’s bad for the girl (and he’s equally bad for the guys who want to run with his pack). Kurt Schlichter perfectly articulates why Donald Trump is one of those bad boys, and explains that he’s going to be a heart breaker for those conservatives who think that this lifelong Democrat is someone to hold on to during trying times. Rubio and Cruz are probably the best choice for the nice steady boys who will come in and save the day.
If you’d like a short but deep run-down of the last Republican debate, and one with which I happen to agree, check out Seraphic Secret’s post about the debate.
Millennials are not the next greatest generation: they want to see American troops defeat ISIS; they just don’t want to be among the troops doing the defeating. Having said that, I’m in no position to sneer. I am an armchair warrior at best and a coward at worst, and have always been incredibly grateful that there are men and women who are willing to do the necessary fighting that I’m scared to do.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. It was all the way back in June that Servo1969 sent me the link to Pat Condell’s First Amendment video. (Yes, I fell behind on my emails . . . again.)
Anyway, Condell recorded this before the explosive insanity on American campuses after Halloween. It’s more powerful now than it was in June:
UPDATE: Another friend sent me this article about killing free speech and creating mass delusions. It seems like a good pair-up with Condell’s video.
Still, people can break free and can, and do, change their minds.
It’s ironic that on the eve of the 74th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, our President announced that the only thing that is infamous is (a) the Constitution (with primary focus on the 1st and 2nd Amendments) and (b) the apparently boundless (but surprisingly never acted upon) racism, Islamophobia, and gun-loving violence of the American people. Honestly, if this were December 7, 1941, he’d be telling us that Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with Japan and that we need to examine our consciences to understand why an unaffiliated group of Japanese people in Japanese military aircraft would attack our arrogant, imperialist military. And on that note, here are the posters:
Only conservatives are paying attention
In an attempt to deflect attention of Muslim depredations in Paris, the Left and its foot soldiers (all of whom seem to be my Facebook friends) immediately attacked Americans and other Westerners for failing to pay attention to a bombing the day before in Lebanon (an ISIS v. Hezbollah bombing, so it was Horrible People v. Horrible People). I eventually got tired of commenting on their posts to the effect that I have been paying attention to all of these attacks, primarily because they are all different manifestations of a single radical Islamic entity, and I’ve been trying to get everyone to pay as much attention as I do.
Emma Kelly says what I was too polite to say explicitly to these Leftists: The reason you didn’t know about these other attacks isn’t because the newspapers didn’t report them, it’s because you weren’t paying attention.
I’ll add something that Kelly didn’t, though: You weren’t paying attention because American and European media outlets don’t want you to see that Islam is a problem, so they report on these incidents, but downplay them. Meanwhile you get loud noise about Ben Carson’s alleged lies, Hillary’s brilliance, Republicans’ meanness, Donald Trump’s hair, and Kim Kardashian’s pregnancy.
When my Leftie friends talk about getting the Big Money out of politics, they’re very explicit about whose money they want out: Money going to conservative and libertarian causes. They’re fine with Soros’s and Steyer’s money. Knowing that, I’m reflexively hostile to the campaign finance reform that Leftists demand is a predicate to freeing American politics from “big money.” George Will goes into greater depth than that, explaining that campaign finance reform inherently restricts free speech and serves only to prop up incumbent politicians’ hold on office: