Found it on Facebook — more stupid and/or dishonest posters from the Lefties
Between the Islamic terror attack on Nice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decision to go full Bulworth, and Hillary’s semi-pass from Comey (a scathing indictment followed by a “get out of jail free” card), there’s been a bumper crop of stupidity in the Facebook feeds of my Lefty friends. I have to go to work soon but before I do I wanted to share three emblematic examples with you. The first is from The World Post which is, as best as I can tell, an arm of the Huffington Post:
That’s it from the Left — not angry, not defiant, not determined, not militant, just “tired.” And of course, still unable to name the ideology that sends out its brainwashed troops to engage in myriad individual acts of war directed at civilian populations. If you’re a Lefty, you can name all the locations where Islamists have hit, and you can make vapid claims that you’re the living embodiment of those places, but you can’t make yourself name the poisonous ideology behind all these massacres, nor are you willing to fight against it.
Even as news comes that the Muslims behind the Bataclan massacre grotesquely mutilated their victims, with special attention to eyes and genitalia (the body parts Muslim mutilators have focused on for centuries) the media is starting to publish stories “proving” that, in life, the killer was a “bad Muslim.” (Except of course that, insofar as he beat his wife, he was a good Muslim, acting perfectly in accord with the Koran and the Imams who preach it.)
The luminaries in our media and political world haven’t yet grasped that it’s the worst Muslims, the ones who believe in the Koran but succumb to the sins of the flesh, who make the best killers. After all, they’re the ones with the most to gain by making a spectacular, bloody, and violent exit from this world. The point is, though, that they’re still devout Muslims insofar as their belief system goes, regardless of their earthly conduct. It’s their faith that drives them to violence so that, even if they failed as Muslims during this impermanent earthly life, they can spend eternity as a good Muslim in the arms of those virgins in Paradise.
My second poster illustrates the fact that, whenever the Left compares a Republican and a Democrat to the former’s detriment, there’s a lie going on. Take this poster:
That’s funny, I thought to myself. I’m damn certain that if Alito had gone full Ginsburg on us, it would have been headlined in every newspaper and been the lead story on every TV “news” show for days, if not weeks. There would have been cries for his impeachment, with a grotesque fringe calling for his assassination . . . but somehow that never happened. And it never happened because Alito never went full Ginsburg. Alito never announced in the lead-up to an election that the Democrat candidate was a “faker” and dangerous to the world order, nor did he explicitly state that it was time to do away with the First and Second Amendments’ protections for American citizens.
What really happened is that after Barack Obama’s reelection in 2012, Alito spoke, not to the New York Times, but to The Federalist Society, a legal society dedicated to constitutional principles. During the speech, he reiterated his already-established opinion that the Citizen’s United decision (which prevented the government from censoring speech critical of Hillary Clinton) was consistent with First Amendment protections. He highlighted the hypocritical Progressive campaign claiming that the decision wrongly gives First Amendment rights to corporations — a campaign led by such corporations as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, etc., all of which zealously protect their right to criticize Republican and conservative candidates.
But what about that supposed direct attack against Obama meant to sway the course of an election? Yeah, not true (of course). During the same speech — which means after Obama already won, Alito had this to say:
He also humorously recounted his experience at Yale Law School in the early 1970s when he was a student of constitutional law professor Charles Reich, who by then was more interested in American counterculture than the law.
He quoted from Reich’s bestselling “The Greening of America,” in which the author painted a frightening picture of a disintegrating society and called the era a “moment of utmost sterility, darkest night, most extreme peril.”
Here, Alito paused and, to the delight of a crowd dismayed by Obama’s re-election, added, “So our current situation is nothing new.”
In other words, said Alito, the side that loses in an election always has the feeling that Armageddon is just beyond the horizon, which is precisely how is audience felt immediately after Obama’s reelection. Alito did not insult Obama, either directly or indirectly. He spoke to his audience’s despair — a charming and subtle remark the Left is obviously incapable of understanding.
As for the last poster, this one attempts to paint Hillary as pure and so not-crooked, while attempting to tar Trump with that same brush:
It takes a lot of chutzpah to exonerate Hillary in the face of Comey’s 14-minute indictment, one followed by a non-prosecution recommendation that showed even the meanest intellect that the fix was in. No one who has followed Hillary’s career has missed the fact that, while it’s always irrefutable that she’s violated laws or departed from common decency and morality, she always walks.
Hillary’s avoiding the perp walk doesn’t mean she’s not crooked — she’s as crooked as the worst white-collar criminal in any prison anywhere. It just means that she knows where everybody’s bodies are buried, which gives her a Teflon coating protecting her in perpetuity from the consequences of her wrongful acts. And let me just remind all you who sit on the fence that, if conservatives or honest people decide to sit out this election, they are effectively casting a vote for Hillary and ensuring Americans that Justice (a term I use advisedly) Ginsburg will be joined by other justices who share her disdain for the Constitution. Kurt Schlichter has something to say to voters who cling to purity no matter the real fight on the ground:’
One thing matters. One thing only. That is restoring the rule of law, and only a Trump presidency can do that.Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their cabal have demonstrated that there is no one they cannot corrupt, or at least whose integrity they can’t twist and deform. John Roberts, James Comey – all we heard about was their lofty integrity right up until the moment they shoved their shivs in our collective kidney. We can’t rely on the honor of individuals. We need to return to a paradigm where the interests of factions work to check and balance each other.
There will be no check or balance on Hillary Clinton. Not the Congress (D or R), not the courts, not the media, not the bureaucrats. None. This Alinksyite corruptocrat, her second-rate mind twisted with hatred toward normal Americans, will reign unchallenged. She has already sought the power to jail those who criticize her; reversing Citizens United would only be the first step in an unopposed quest to eliminate all legitimate means of dissent, to bar all legitimate means of opposition. Which, of course, would leave only illegitimate means – something she is too dense and ignorant of normal Americans to imagine is possible.
Which leaves Donald Trump as the only alternative, not merely because he is less awful than Hillary Clinton – leprosy is less awful than Hillary Clinton – but because the election of a tacky jerk like Donald Trump is the only thing that could ever motivate the elite to rediscover checks and balances upon executive power.
As for the Lefty poster’s accusations against Trump, let me explain to the uninitiated how our civil legal system works. (Because, so far as I know, Trump has never, ever been the subject, serious or otherwise, of a criminal investigation.) When you are a wealthy man or a profitable corporation, you will be sued endlessly. That’s why wealthy people have lawyers on retainer and corporations have in-house legal departments. It’s not just to make sure that they conduct their business proactively in a legal way. It’s to have a frontline defense against the inevitable lawsuits.
Some of these lawsuits are well taken. Maybe a corporation really did cheat the public or a wealthy individual underpaid his personal assistants. But let me tell you what my experience in a Lefty legal system has shown me (and Trump’s businesses also take him into those Lefty legal systems): If you are a deep pocket, you will be sued by people who use the legal system for greenmail. These people sue because they know that the system is strongly biased against business interests, and that they can almost invariably either get a good settlement or a good judgment.
The judges are in on it. I can’t tell you the number of times judges on cases I’ve worked have expressly or impliedly said a milder version of “to Hell with the law; I’m ruling against your corporate client.” There was the judge who said, “You’re right about the law, but I still think there’s something here, so I’m denying your motion to dismiss this case” (a case we ultimately won before a more honest judge, $1.2 million in legal fees later). Then there was the judge who reluctantly granted a bank’s motion to dismiss a cause of action because there was no way around the law or facts, but who pulled the bank’s counsel into chambers with a warning: “You won this one, but remember that there’s more than one way to skin a cat.” We lost that one.
Those are just two examples in almost 30 years of litigation in Lefty venues. It’s ugly and unprincipled out there — and it’s the rare Lefty judge or juror that can resist the temptation to go after the capitalists.
What this means to me is the fact that someone like Trump — rich, associated with myriad corporations, and a public figure to boot — was sued over and over, and even lost some of those suits, says nothing about his principles, either personal or business. It just says that people saw dollar signs and went for them, because the legal system incentivizes assaults against individual or corporate wealth. Nor does it say anything that Trump himself is incredibly aggressive in defending against those suits or in bringing his own if necessary. Well, that’s not true. It says he’s learned, and what he’s learned is that you cannot show one second of vulnerability or the piranhas will use the legal system to strip you to the bone.