Wake up and smell reality

I'm worried that many people, on both the left and right wings of US politics and society, are sleep-walking through our present troubles, either ignoring or refusing to face up to the realities of our situation.  Things are ratcheting up, not down.  Those on the extremes - both extremes - are learning from past mistakes, mobilizing for present and future action, and doubling down on their positions.  That makes - and/or will make - life very difficult for those of us who don't live on those extremes.  We're going to have to defend the middle - our civilization, if you will - against both sides.

Here are a few articles that express real truths, the kind many of us are simply not prepared or willing to consider right now.  I most strongly urge you to read them all.

# # # # #

The Left Hates You.  Act Accordingly.

Understand that when they call Donald Trump “illegitimate,” what they are really saying is that our desire to govern ourselves is illegitimate. Their beef isn’t with him – it’s with us, the normal people who dared rise up and demand their right to participate in the rule of this country and this culture.

. . .

They are fanatics, and by not surrendering, by not kneeling, and by not obeying, you have committed an unpardonable sin. You have defied the Left, and you must be broken. They will take your job, slander your name, even beat or kill you – whatever it takes to break you and terrify others by making you an example. Your defiance cannot stand; they cannot allow this whole Trump/GOP majority thing to get out of control. They must crush this rebellion of the normal, and absolutely nothing is off the table.

We’ve seen them burn UC Berkeley and how the police controlled by the leftist state government of California stood by and watched as Americans were beaten by the mob. Why? Because the government of the State of California approves of the violence. Do you think it’s a coincidence that California is doing everything it can to disarm its normals?

The Left won’t say it out loud – at least not yet – but make no mistake. If violence is what it takes for the Left to prevail, then violence we will have. You saw it, and you were meant to. Berkeley was a message about the price of dissent where leftist hold sway. And they seek to hold sway everywhere.

# # # # #

Here a Nazi, There a Nazi, Everywhere a Nazi-Nazi!

There is a peculiar sadism at the very root of the leftist mindset, one made all the more foul because it’s buried underneath a fraudulent veneer of compassion and tolerance. There has been next to zero violence coming from the right, but leftists are justifying all their mob violence by saying Nazis want to exterminate everyone, so they’re just preemptively preventing another genocide. That’s a transparently false excuse, and they’d be hard-pressed to point to a single person they’ve attacked who advocates violence, but I realized only a few years ago that truth and facts simply do not matter to these cultists. But when it comes to violence, they should be very careful what they ask for.

. . .

I would like to believe that the recent spate of unhinged leftist rioting and violence is the loudest death rattle the world has ever heard. But if they keep shutting down free speech and punching anyone they deem a “Nazi,” they risk facing a violent backlash that unmasks them as the cowards they truly are.

Perhaps a major problem with the right these days is that there are too many suits and not enough boots. If the law won’t deal with this, it may be time to unleash the Saxon dogs.

# # # # #

Skull-Stomping Sacred Cows: Reality Isn’t Nice. It’s a 2×4 to the Teeth

It’s easy to sit in your lounger, with your laptop across your knees, and pontificate on the false motivations of the Leftist activists. “Oh, they’re just attention whores!” “Oh, they just want their safe spaces!” “Oh, they’re just useful idiots being played.” “Oh, they’ll quit as soon as the money stops.” There’s a very real problem with that though, and it’s called underestimating your enemy. If you don’t believe that a dude who is out, in wintertime, in a protest/riot, and eating some riot cop's baton, as he receives a solid washing with “hickory shampoo,” is not a dedicated True Believer, you’re deluding yourself.

If you think that some twenty-something kid, who just saw his buddy take a bean bag round from a PD riot gun, in the dick, and then ignored his friend’s screams, to continue advancing, is not dedicated, and a True Believer, you’re ****ing stupid.

If you think POTUS is going to magically save you? You’re dumb. Large urban areas and entire states are telling the federal government to go **** itself on the immigration issue ... Things are not normal, and if you’re still stuck in your normalcy bias about “Make America Great Again,” you’re WAY behind the learning the curve.

I’ve talked with a number of friends in recent days; police officers and public services personnel, in large urban areas, across the country. None of them are taking this **** lightly. A fireman friend, from a major urban enclave on the east coast, that has been the scene of a number of ethnic conflicts in the last year or two, posted the following on FB recently:

“They are organized, they are violent. The cops aren’t shooting back because when some Tumblr **** biscuit doxxes them, their kids will be targets. Molon Labia and snowflake bluster isn’t cutting it anymore. I’m a ****ing fireman and have had body armor issued. That should say something very loudly and clearly.”

# # # # #

Riot Control, Part 1 and Part 2 (with more to come)

(To those of you who've never been in a deadly serious, knock-down-and-drag-out, kill-the-bastards riot:  if you live in a major US city, you'd better be thinking about this right now.  I had the misfortune to be in three such situations before I came to this country.  It's no fun at all.  I only survived them by being harder than the rioters.  That's all I'll say about that.)

From Part 2:

And that’s how these kinds of riots can typically get out of hand. First a small group of hardcore, dedicated rioters either show up on their own or infiltrate a peaceful protest. If they’re not stopped there, they create the anarchy of which all the most intense fun is made. That is also intended to attract a crowd sufficient to provide cover for the next steps, which include breaking safeguards – windows and doors, plus alarm systems – to desirable, lootable property. I say that windows and doors are safeguards, but what they also are are “moral” safeguards. Nobody wants to do the time for breaking and entering, and few of us are willing or eager to break windows and doors, but if it’s already been done by someone else then that becomes a different matter. That brings out the larger numbers of more normal, profit-minded folks, ever fearful that someone may get the color TV that – by rights, they’re pretty sure – really belongs to them. Once that happens, there is no controlling the riot without massive bloodletting. There’s also no accounting for the innocent blood that’s going to be shed, or the lives ruined, if that out of control riot is not suppressed.

# # # # #

"I have seen first-hand the abuse and fraud in the U.S. refugee program"

(To all those who object to President Trump's executive order restricting refugee's access to the USA:  you need to read this.)

As a recently retired 25-year veteran of the U.S. Department of State who served almost eight years as a refugee coordinator throughout the Middle East, Africa, Russia and Cuba, I have seen first-hand the abuses and fraud that permeate the refugee program and know about the entrenched interests that fight every effort to implement much-needed reform. Despite claims of enhanced vetting, the reality is that it is virtually impossible to vet an individual who has no type of an official record, particularly in countries compromised by terrorism. U.S. immigration officials simply rely on the person’s often rehearsed and fabricated “testimony.” I have personally seen this on hundreds of occasions.

. . .

As an insider who understands its operations, politics and weaknesses, I believe the refugee program must change dramatically and the courts must allow the president to fully implement the order.

# # # # #

"Diversity is Our Strength"

"Diversity" must now join that legion of words appropriated and deformed almost beyond recognition by our progressive overlords. It joins "gay," "liberal," "male," "female," "fascist," "racist" and many more words that now form the core of modern progressivism's narrative. All perfectly good words that now have become unrecognizable and put into the service of the progressive "vision." When, for example, a college dean calls for more diversity in the institution, he or she is not calling for more conservatives and libertarians on staff to balance the school's overwhelmingly progressive bent. Same with corporations and government; it is a call for more "ethnic" and "gender" diversity; it is a call to label anybody who questions that as a "racist," a catch-all term of opprobrium and dismissal; it is increasingly a call for a form of "diversity" that seeks to destroy Western Civilization. It is a call for uniformity of thought.

# # # # #

The Spiritual Deadness of the Left

What’s next on the Holocaust prop list? We know Steve Bannon is Goebbels. Is Ivanka Eva Braun? Is Kushner Himmler? Is Ben Carson Mengele? Are Trump supporters the Hitler youth? When you are spiritually dead, the level of depravity, as to how you treat others, has no limits. There is no low to which you will not stoop. Let’s be clear. This is the left, not Democrats, not liberals, but the left. The problem with spiritual disease is the fact that it can spread very quickly. Sadly, more and more are getting infected.

. . .

Plain and simple, their goals are to bite and infect all those who come into contact with them. It is they who have unfriended. It is they who have labeled and ostracized others. It is they who have called for your prosecution, if you question their science. It is they who have shunned and mocked those who don’t conform. It is they, who will not hire or fire, if they find out you are a Yuden (Trump Supporter). By the way, why is it always Hitler? Are Assad, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot not hip enough? The definition of indoctrination is the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. Hey lefties, does that sound familiar?

# # # # #

Dispatches from the Front (Today in Mexico)

WARNING:  EXTREMELY GRAPHIC VIOLENCE

This article exemplifies precisely why we need President Trump's border wall.  It'll be horrifying to those who've never seen extreme violence, and the narrator has chosen images and video clips that don't spare readers from that horror.  For that reason, I won't embed any of them here.  I might add that the author is not exaggerating, and knows whereof he speaks from extensive career experience.  (So do I.)

DO NOT CLICK OVER THERE IF YOU AREN'T PREPARED TO SEE THOSE THINGS!

# # # # #

There.  Some enlightening, depressing, but very real information for your morning perusal.  Please, please, don't take it lightly.  It's the reality we're facing today.

Peter

Does this ... thing ... even qualify as a human being?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the self-proclaimed "professor" who called on police to assault a speaker at NYU:

Turns out she's a liar, not a professor. She's also the inventor of something called "lobster porn". Here she is in full cry (if lobsters cry, that is):

I don't intend to give her any more space in this blog than I have to.  If you'd like to read more about her, here's a selection:

• A PJ Media article;
• An admiring, but NSFW Huffington Post profile (well, what else would we expect from HuffPo?);
• A self-description of her "art" in a New York magazine (NSFW - scroll down to see it);
• A bio and a selection of her images at ReboGallery (NSFW);  and -
• Another blogger's mind-boggled perspective on her.

So . . . she's a liar, a porn performer with what appears to be grotesquely poor artistic sense (not to mention a total absence of anything resembling basic morals or ethics), and froths at the mouth when confronted with anyone whose views and perspectives on life differ from hers.

Does she have any redeeming features whatsoever?  And, yes, I ask that as a retired pastor, even though that may shock some people.  I can find nothing in this woman (?) that demonstrates even a tiny spark of real, sincere humanity;  therefore, why should we concede her that status?  To me, her actions (and what are passed off as her thoughts) appear to classify her along with any and every other rabid animal.  Am I missing something here?

If this . . . thing . . . is an example of what Hillary Clinton would have represented had she won the Presidential election last year, I can only give devout and most grateful thanks that she lost!  It looks like America has some house-cleaning to do, before the stench of putrid, unwashed lobster becomes unbearable!

Peter

Bollywood strikes again

We continue with our look at weird Bollywood fight scenes with this one from the 2006 film Anniyan.  It portrays "Ramanujam, an idealistic, law-abiding lawyer who suffers from multiple personality disorder and develops two other identities: a metrosexual fashion model Remo and a vigilante serial killer named Anniyan".  Sound weird?  Yes, it is - as this fight scene shows.  First, the 'fashion model' personality takes a pounding;  then the 'vigilante serial killer' takes over and returns the 'favor'.

Yep.  Bollywood.

Peter

Is it time to get rid of the Senate filibuster and super-majority?

I'm getting thoroughly annoyed by the whining and posturing from both sides in the Senate as they discuss - or disagree about - President Trump's Cabinet and judicial nominations.  I note that Senator Schumer has promised that it will take 60 votes to pass Supreme Court nominations, no matter what.

The problem is, that supermajority requirement - not to mention the filibuster - are not constitutionally protected.  They're derived from Senate rules that were passed some decades ago, but which are internal procedures - and they can be changed.  The US constitution establishes the need for supermajorities in only a few, very limited circumstances:

• Impeaching federal officials (Article 1, Section 3);
• Expelling a member of Congress (Article 1, Section 5);
• Overriding a veto (Article 1, Section 7);
• Amending the constitution (Article 5);
• Calling a constitutional convention (Article 5);
• Among the states ratifying an amendment (Article 5);
• Ratifying a treaty (Article 2, Section 2);
• After the Civil War, rehabilitating former rebels (14th Amendment, Section 3);
• Removing a President from office (25th Amendment, Section 4).

Article 1, Section 5 of the constitution states that "Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings."  That's the authority by which the Senate instituted the filibuster and supermajority rules for appointments.  However, such authority cannot make those rules permanent.  Just as the Senate established them, the Senate can amend or remove them.  They have no constitutional permanency, as do the other points noted above.

That being the case, why not get back to constitutional basics, and do away with the filibuster and supermajority requirements entirely, except for those put in place by the Founding Fathers?  I think it's time they were removed, so that we can get over the current nonsense and get on with the business of running the country.  What say you, readers?

Peter

He made us see our world in new and exciting ways

I was sad to learn that Hans Rosling, who's been called 'the Jedi Master of data visualization', died yesterday of cancer at the relatively young age of 68.  He had a profound impact on the way we see ourselves and our world, far outside the boundaries of his normally esoteric discipline.  The Telegraph reports:

A professor of global health at Sweden's Karolinska Institute, Professor Rosling decided to "drop out" in 2007 to devote his time to Gapminder, which allows users to create their own data visualisations.

He co-founded the foundation with his son Ola Rosling and daughter-in-law Anna Ronlund in 2005.

The Swede rose to fame in 2006 after showcasing his unique approach at a conference organised by TED, the forum for new ideas.

Professor Rosling staged a 20-minute presentation that was so original and unforgettable that he was forced to pause his lecture and wait for a round of applause or a roar of laughter to die down. He has since garnered a reputation as the “man in whose hands data sings”.

Bill Gates paid tribute to Professor Rosling on Twitter.

"A great friend, educator and true inspiration for our work. Melinda and I are saddened by the loss of Hans Rosling," said the philanthropist, who has said one of the main reasons behind his decision to donate billions of dollars to healthcare projects in the developing world was down to a Rosling presentation on the issue.

There's more at the link.

I admired Prof. Rosling for years.  He did the world a great service by teaching us to regard statistics and data as time-oriented rather than fixed and static.  Their change over time, represented graphically in appropriate ways, showed trends in the world that might otherwise be obscured by the raw numbers.  To illustrate, here's a brief presentation he made as part of a BBC production. It's titled "200 countries, 200 years, 4 minutes - The Joy of Stats".  I strongly recommend watching it in full-screen mode, to get the full impact of what he's demonstrating.

For a more detailed version, see his 2006 TED presentation, as well as his many other videos on YouTube.

Academics who can engage the man in the street, and excite him with a new perspective on our lived reality, are few and far between.  Prof. Rosling will be greatly missed.  I hope his son and daughter-in-law, and others who were inspired by him, will continue his good work.

Peter

Left-wing agitators have an infiltrator problem

Oath Keepers is a sometimes controversial organization, but it also espouses several causes with which many of us would agree.  It appears to have infiltrated a number of far-left and progressive organizations behind recent anti-Trump demonstrations.  One of their 'operators' has provided some details.

In my case, it took quite a while to become accepted into the groups that I was responsible for observing. I think a lot of this was because I am a little bit older than our other operatives. I dyed my hair and bought clothing appropriate for the assignment. By actually participating in a large number of protest activities, I was eventually “recruited” into a series of organizations with increasing levels of responsibility. It took a month of steady involvement before any of the really hard-core group leaders would even talk to me. My military and post-active duty DoD experience was extremely valuable.

I learned to behave as they behave and to “trigger” on appropriate issues. I also learned that the brain-washing that moves people into these organizations is mostly external to the organizations themselves. The people joining are brain-washed by numerous sources before they even participate in their first protest or direct action. The MSM, our colleges and universities, social media and leftist alternative news organizations are the primary sources of the initial brain-washing that is taking place. The radicalization process is unique to each person, but generally follows a pattern of being very rapid for those with little or no responsibilities in their daily life to long and laborious for those with a real life outside of the movement. Young, under-employed single white males are the vanguard of these movements.

There's more at the link.  Worthwhile reading.

The 'operator' claims that information was provided to several police forces and federal agencies, leading to some successes against the targeted organizations.  One worrying factor is that some forces appeared to ignore the information.

Of the major police departments we have worked with, Cleveland, Philadelphia and New York City were by far the most responsive. These departments appreciated the information we provided and took affirmative action to prevent property damage and violence. The Police Departments in cities including Portland, Seattle, San Diego, Chicago and Cincinnati were receptive to our reports but faced political pressure that may have undermined the overall effectiveness of our efforts. The police departments of Baltimore and Washington DC were severe disappointments. In every case except for one where we reported plans that could result in damage or injury, these departments took no preemptive or preparatory actions.

That figures.  The last two organizations named - or, perhaps more accurately, the city administrations controlling them - are notorious for their 'socially relevant' and 'progressive' stances on law enforcement.  People visiting those cities would do well to take note, and plan accordingly.

Peter

Staying safe during civil unrest

In the light of the Berkeley riots last weekend, and ongoing demonstrations and civil unrest surrounding President Trump's election, policies and agenda, it's good to remind ourselves of the basics of personal and family safety in such an environment.  Bearing Arms has published a useful list titled "15 Actionable Tips for Staying Safe During Times of Civil Unrest".  Here's a sample.

2.  Situational awareness: Always know what’s going on around you. Always. At the grocery store, at red lights, in your driveway, when you’re out in public, in a parking lot, at the ATM, anywhere. If you see something that looks odd, stay away. If you see some people who look like they’re planning something or up to no good, you’re probably right. Walk proud, keep your head on a swivel, and don’t look like a victim (more on that below). Lock your car doors. Pull your head out of your app, and know who is around you. More on that here.

. . .

6.  Know that you ARE NOT safe: These rioters who trash their own cities and attack women? They ARE NOT like you. The Antifa thugs, Communists, and far-left progressives don’t like people like you. They hate freedom. They don’t care if children get hurt, or if you’re with your family; so don’t try to reason with them, because it won’t work. They are not rational, so don’t expect any favors. Valueless people act in valueless ways, and you could be shown no mercy. Know your enemy.

. . .

8.  Don’t wait for the police: If things are out of control, don’t expect the police or military to save you. You need to protect yourself and your family. In riots like we’ve seen recently, the police don’t know who the good guys are and who the bad ones are at first glance. And, oftentimes, they can’t get to you anyways. You need to take action because the police may be overwhelmed and have no way to immediately help you.

There's much more at the link.  Useful and recommended reading.

I'd add to that John Farnam's timeless advice, which we've cited in these pages several times before.

The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don’t be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don’t go to stupid places. Don’t associate with stupid people. Don’t do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the “penalty” for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable.

Crowds of any kind, particularly those with an agenda, such as political rallies, demonstrations, picket lines, etc are good examples of “stupid places.” Any crowd with a high collective energy level harbors potential catastrophe. To a lesser degree, bank buildings, hospital emergency rooms, airports, government buildings, and bars (particularly crowded ones) fall into the same category. All should be avoided. When they can’t be avoided, we should make it a practice to spend only the minimum time necessary there and then quickly get out.

“A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills.”

Word.

Greg Ellifritz also has some useful advice, which confirms everything above and offers a different perspective.  It's worth reading.

Read all those articles and sources, think about it, and make plans before you have to go into places where you might run into these moonbat thugs . . . then act accordingly.

Peter

Heh

Found at Townhall.com:

Peter

For some at least, it's "Once rich, always rich"

There's some interesting news from Florence in Italy.

The richest families in Florence, Italy have had it good for a while—600 years to be precise.

That’s according to a recent study by two Italian economists, Guglielmo Barone and Sauro Mocetti, who after analyzing compared Florentine taxpayers way back in 1427 to those in 2011. Comparing the family wealth to those with the same surname today, they suggest the richest families in Florence 600 years ago remain the same now.

. . .

The study adds further evidence on how the rich remain rich. In England, researchers have previously demonstrated how a family’s status in England can persist for more than eight centuries, or more than 28 whole generations. It’s a trait shared by elite families in China, whose high status has persisted since the Mao years.

There's more at the link.

I found this interesting, for several reasons.  One is a study done in South Africa during the 1980's, which I'm sure has been replicated around the world in various ways.  A student at the Graduate School of Business at the University of the Witwatersrand (probably the premier business school in that country) wrote his thesis on the rise and fall of family-owned and -run companies.  His conclusion was that for most of them, it took three generations from "gutter to gutter".  The founder would start the business and build it;  his son (usually the son, anyway) would continue it, and perhaps grow it a little more;  but his grandson would run it into the ground, either through lack of business sense and ability, or by spending the "easy money" that the business represented to him.  After all, he'd never had to work for it, so he took it for granted.

If that's the case nowadays, was it different in earlier generations?  In the case of centuries-old noble families, with their traditional resistance to and distaste for "trade", how did they stop their younger offspring from squandering their inheritance?  I've read of many cases where the latter happened, so how did those families that maintained their wealth succeed in doing so?  Is there a strong ethos in such families that their patrimony is held in trust for their successors, and this ethos is handed down from generation to generation along with the money?

I'd love to know more about this subject, but I suspect it'll take years of research to get a handle on why this should be the case.  Sounds like an interesting history book project for someone with the time and interest to take it on.

Peter

The disgraceful military legacy of the Obama administration

A shocking article at Defense News shows how threadbare our defenses have become, after eight years under an administration whose priorities did not include our armed forces in any meaningful way.  This report concentrates on the Navy, but the other armed services are in a similar plight.

The U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet strike fighters are the tip of the spear, embodying most of the fierce striking power of the aircraft carrier strike group. But nearly two-thirds of the fleet’s strike fighters can’t fly — grounded because they’re either undergoing maintenance or simply waiting for parts or their turn in line on the aviation depot backlog.

Overall, more than half the Navy’s aircraft are grounded, most because there isn’t enough money to fix them.

Additionally, there isn’t enough money to fix the fleet’s ships, and the backlog of ships needing work continues to grow. Overhauls — “availabilities” in Navy parlance — are being canceled or deferred, and when ships do come in they need longer to refit. Every carrier overall for at least three years has run long, and some submarines are out of service for prolonged periods, as much as four years or more. One submarine, the Boise, has lost its diving certification and can’t operate pending shipyard work.

Leaders claim that if more money doesn’t become available, five more submarines will be in the same state by the end of this year.

. . .

Yet, for now, money is tight, due to several years of declining budgets mandated first by the Obama administration, then Congress, and to the chronic inability of lawmakers to provide uninterrupted funds to the military services and the government at large. Budgets have been cut despite no slackening in the demand for the fleet’s services; and the Navy, to preserve shipbuilding funds, made a conscious choice to slash maintenance and training budgets rather than eliminate ships, which take many years to build and can’t be produced promptly even when funding becomes available.

Congress has failed for the ninth straight year to produce a budget before the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2017, reverting to continuing resolutions that keep money flowing at prior year levels. CRs have numerous caveats, however, and many new projects or plans can’t be funded since they didn’t exist in the prior year. There is widespread agreement that CR funding creates havoc throughout the Pentagon and the industrial base that supports it — often substantially driving costs higher to recover from lengthy delays. Yet, like the proverbial weather that everyone talks about but no one can change, there seems to be little urgency in Congress to return to a more businesslike budget profile.

There's more at the link.  Go read the whole thing.

It's going to take years to recover from the backlog of maintenance and personnel issues, even without buying new equipment (some of which has still to be designed and tested).  This is the military legacy of the Obama administration.  I can only hope we're given enough time to get over it before the next major military crisis comes along . . . because our enemies, potential and actual, are certainly aware of these constraints on our ability to respond to their actions.




Peter

"I hope everyone in the White House is wearing body armor by now"

That's according to one observer, who has this to say about the current state of play in US politics.

What explains the unusual vitriol?

I believe it stems from the inability of many Democrats to accept their defeat in November, or to understand that the people of mainland America — that heartland between California and New York — overwhelmingly rejected their elitist vision and collectivist values.

During the campaign, Donald Trump made a number of specific promises to the American people. Over the past 10 days, he has been fulfilling them one by one and the Democrats are tearing out their hair, because they know what this means for 2018.

Democrats are terrified that Trump will succeed. They are terrified that his border wall will stem the tide of illegal immigration and dramatically reduce the flow of illegal drugs into this country.

They are terrified that his temporary ban on refugee resettlement that empowers Customs and Border Patrol agents to devise a more rigorous vetting process will keep America safe.

They are terrified that he will defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and forge stronger ties with Arab nations such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia who are on the front lines of that fight.

They are terrified that key European countries will turn to the right in this year’s elections, rejecting the new world order ruled by an unelected globalist elite.

They know that if Trump succeeds, as they fear, he will sweep the U.S. Senate and they will become a dwindling minority party representing the globalist, high-tech elite and an army of pajama boys based on the two coasts.

Democrats are going to war because their schemes have been exposed and they fear they are about to lose their jobs.

I hope everyone in the White House is wearing body armor by now, because this is going to get much worse.

There's more at the link.  Highly recommended reading.

The truly worrying thing is that all the anti-Trump vitriol and diatribes are producing the inevitable response from less balanced individuals.  Consider this recent headline:  "Over 12,000 tweets are calling for Trump's assassination".  Where do you think those making such tweets, or approving of them, or reposting them, got their ideas?  Who's fueling their paranoia?  I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

I don't think the Democratic Party has thought this through.  If they agitate so much that someone takes a shot at President Trump, they're absolutely certain to be blamed for it - at least in part - by those who voted for Mr. Trump.  There will be a reckoning for that.  It's inevitable.  It's human nature.  What's more, we - America as a whole - will be very fortunate if that reckoning is only at the ballot box.

Peter

Perhaps those moonbat demonstrators should take note . . .

Some weeks ago, I was amused to read about an 'Adulting School' in Portland, OR.

Adulting. It was nominated as the word of the year by the American Dialect Society, a word coined by a generation that has been shielded from the worst of growing up by living in their parents’ homes, and shut out of the best of it by a society that forces them to stay there. Reminiscent of Alan Partridge’s seminal boast that he’s been “pubic for 31 years”, “adulting”, the verb, is most commonly used to gloat over achievements such as making a dentist appointment, or going to Tesco and buying more than just Frosties.

The Adulting School’s first official session took place last week. During their early presentation, on time management, a number of 26-year-old attendees trickled in late. Reports from the summit make it sound not unlike an office party for dogs – participants waggily sniffing each other, being told when and where to sit. They’d been sent by their parents. There were cupcakes in the afternoon.

There's more at the link.

However, in the light of current events, the subject is no longer so amusing.  The more I look at the actions of anti-Trump demonstrators, and those throwing their weight around to suppress free speech by anyone except those of whom they approve - typified by the riots in Berkeley, CA last weekend - the more I'm reminded of little children having a temper tantrum and throwing their toys out of the pram.

• "Love Trumps Hate"?  Oh, no, it doesn't.  As one who's seen the bitter effects of hate in more than one country - and can measure it in terms of body count - love has damn-all to do with trumping hate.  You end up having to stop the haters by any and all means necessary, including lethal force.  That's the only way.  Just ask Tom Rogneby, who's also seen it at first hand, and learned the same lesson I did.  In most cases, you can't cure hate by love.  It doesn't work.  That's reality.  If you think otherwise, you've never encountered real hate.  I have - too often for comfort.
• "Free speech, but not hate speech"?  You've just made yourself a liar.  If you allow only some kind(s) of free speech, but not others, you've just restricted the right of free speech.  That means it's no longer a right.  It's now a privilege - one conferred by the powers that be according to their lights.  That may seem all very well to you when they're on your side, but sooner or later, they won't be.  What will you do then, when they silence you?
• Yelling "Peaceful protest", after you've attacked and injured someone from the 'other side'?  Oh, no, you don't.  What goes around, comes around.  If you feel free to use violence against those with whom you disagree, the latter are free to use it against you, too - primarily (one hopes) in legitimate self-defense, but also in terms of political 'discourse'.  That's the way it is.  You don't get to make the rules.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  That's the Golden Rule.  As you apply it to others, so they will apply it to you.  Good luck with that.

I think those Berkeley rioters could use an 'Adulting School' very soon, before their childish antics hurt anyone else - up to and including themselves.  It was sobering for me to watch video clips of events in Berkeley, and to realize that, in my semi-disabled condition, I'm now unable to fight off such violence by physical means alone.  That means "disparity of force" issues come into play.  I'd have to rely on my firearm - and, believe me, if it comes to my safety or that of my wife, I will.  I don't want to;  but if rioters leave me no choice, that changes the equation.  I'd much rather they grew up - rapidly - and thereby learned that there are better ways of expressing political disagreement than trying to beat up those with whom they disagree.  One hopes they learn it before someone else also has to solve his or her problem the hard way . . .

Peter

More about Trump Derangement Syndrome and its effects

Three blog articles caught my eye in recent days, and I'd like to share them with you.

The first should make your blood boil.  It appears that Comcast (or at least a local unit thereof - I don't know about the company as a whole) actually authorized its employees to participate in an anti-Trump demonstration . . . and then fired one of them who chose to counter-demonstrate.  I'm not going to steal the author's thunder;  I'll simply urge you to read his entire post for yourself.  Personally, I hope he sues the heck out of Comcast for its obvious and blatant discrimination.

(I can still hardly believe that a supposedly non-political company, trying to sell its products and services to all Americans, would willingly give its employees paid time off to demonstrate on a partisan political issue.  That's bound to bounce back on Comcast's head sooner or later . . . hopefully sooner.  I imagine that about half the country, on reading that article, will think very hard - and look for alternatives - before giving their hard-earned dollars and cents to Comcast.  I know I will.)

The second article is by my friend in meatspace and cyberspace, DaddyBear, writing about the apparent willingness on both sides of our political divide to propose violent revolution.  He's 'been there', as have I, and speaks from experience.  Here's an excerpt.

The one thing I think both sides are saying is that violent revolution, no matter who starts it, will be quick, clean, and productive.

They’re both wrong.  If we continue down this road, both rhetorically and politically, what we will create will make the Civil War of the 1860’s look like a rather unpleasant dust-up.

There is no “North/South” or “Free/Slave” geographic dichotomy.  Densely populated liberal counties are sprinkled across the continent.  Granted, they are more prevalent along the periphery of the country, but they aren’t remotely as contiguous as the Confederacy ever was.

In other words, enemy territory just might be a couple of blocks over for much of the country.  There will likely be no true safe areas, no matter how red or blue they are.

. . .

I doubt that we will get many Gettysburgs, but I guarantee that we will get a bushel full of Srebrenica’s and Beslans.  Our war against each other will more closely resemble The Troubles than The Wilderness.  If you think abuse of civil rights is bad now, just wait until middle America is worried that some jerk is going to throw a molotov cocktail in the foyer of their kids’ school. In the end, it will rend our nation apart.

There's more at the link.  I endorse his every word.  Go read the whole thing.

The third is by another friend, Cedar Sanderson.  In a guest post at Sarah Hoyt's place, she discusses the meaning of the term 'illegal' and how that applies to immigrants and immigration.  Her article is excellent in itself, but the over 400 comments that follow it are also well worth your time.  They lay out the ramifications of the issue very well.  Here's a brief excerpt from her article.

The word illegal is frequently used in discourse, and it means just what it means. It is not an optional modifier that you can discard when you’re tired of typing and don’t want to lift a finger to say what you actually mean. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law. Period, stop, end. Immigrants? Are working very hard to stay within the law, and should be justifiably pissed to be lumped in with the people who are smearing their good name by flouting immigration laws.

They are not the same. And no, you cannot say that they are. Legality makes a difference. If they choose to break one law, why wouldn’t they choose to break another? Ours is a nation that functions under rule of law, and if you want to come here and stay here, you need to learn what that means. It doesn’t mean that you can claim victimhood and wave that around as a get-out-of-jail-free card. It certainly doesn’t mean that you can come into our great nation, decide you don’t like our laws, so you’re only going to follow the ones you brought with you. Nope.

I’m all out of patience with memetic morons. If you can’t wrap your mind around more than the shortest possible message, you may want to rethink your life. Seriously.

Again, more at the link.  (As a legal immigrant myself, I endorse her sentiments wholeheartedly.)

As for the comments to Cedar's article, to give you an example, here's what 'Kirk' had to say:

Since we have so many Mexican citizens here in the US already, why not ask the question of the various Mexican states “Why don’t you guys just accept reality, recognize that your federal government in Mexico City is dominated by oligarchs not acting in your interest, and join the huge chunk of your citizenry as de facto Americans?”. Offer reasonable terms for the transition from Mexican statehood to American, and then watch heads explode in both Mexican and Canadian federal government.

I mean, hell… So many Mexicans apparently want to be American citizens, why don’t we just take America to them, instead? It would be cheaper, and a lot more cost-effective, in the end…

I’m thinking that the ensuing panic that would induce in the Mexican government would do more to get the illegal immigration problem under control than anything overt that we could do. And, the reaction would be priceless… “Well, gee… Since so many Mexicans are here in the US, why don’t we just make their home states in Mexico American…?”.

The Schadenfreude would be absolutely delicious. I bet they’d have the border patrolled by the Mexican Army with shoot-to-kill orders so quickly that your head would spin, and they’d start begging to run involuntary repatriation programs on our territory.

That would be schadenfreude indeed - an overdose thereof!  Again, go read the whole article, and the comments.  Some of them are thoughtful, some are over the top and go too far, but others are highly amusing.

Peter

Ouch!

Seen on Twitter (click the image for a larger view):

That's twisting the knife . . .




Peter

"Forged In Blood" is getting closer!

Last year I mentioned that Michael Z. Williamson, friend to Miss D. and myself in both meatspace and cyberspace, well-known author, and all-around good guy, was preparing a volume of stories about Kendra Pacelli's sword, made famous in his breakout novel, 'Freehold'.  Mike was kind enough to invite me to be one of the contributors.

I'm very glad to be able to tell you that the new volume, 'Forged in Blood', is now available for pre-order on Amazon.com.  It'll be published by Baen Books in September.  The initial edition will be in hardcover, with e-book and paperback to follow.

I'm still "Squeeeee!"-ing in delight at being included among the authors in this compilation.  I had a lot of fun writing my story.  Readers familiar with my African background will doubtless recognize several familiar touches.  I'm currently enjoying reading the stories by the other contributors as I join them in the pre-publication edit, to make sure that all mistakes have been dealt with.

I think you'll like this book.  History, science fiction and a touch of fantasy, all in one volume.

Peter

How social media censors what you see and hear

On his blog, Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, explains how social media - particularly Twitter - 'throttles' news they don't want disseminated, or that offends against their particular world view.  He calls it 'The Social Media Hive Mind'.

This morning I tweeted a link to a great video that describes in detail how Twitter “throttles” the tweets of any content that disagrees with their political views. The video describes how Twitter gives a fake message that some tweets are no longer available, to discourage you from clicking to them. The tweets still exist, and you can access them by directly clicking the links in the tweets, but most people would not think to do that.

If you don’t think that’s a real thing, here’s my tweet about the video. They did it to me. And this is common for my tweets about Trump or climate science. They throttle me to prevent them from going viral. And it only happens with certain types of content.

There's more at the link.

Scott links to this video, which explains things in more detail.  LANGUAGE ALERT - it's very profane, with lots of four-letter words flying around.  I almost decided not to embed it here, because I try to keep this blog family-friendly, but the subject's important enough that I decided to go ahead, albeit with a warning flag.  I highly recommend watching this, to learn how social views are imposed and/or censored by most of the major media companies out there.

That's happening even more since President Trump's election.  All the major social media companies, without any exception of which I'm aware, are doing this.  That's one reason why my only social media account (apart from this blog) is at Gab, a recent startup which explicitly promises not to censor anything or anybody, leaving it up to the individual user to decide (and control) for themselves what they'd like to see or hear.  For that reason, I recommend Gab as a Twitter replacement.

Peter

Why Calexit probably won't happen

I'm sure readers are aware that there's a growing groundswell of support in California for that state to leave the Union and declare its independence from the USA.

I just can't see that happening.  No way, no how.  This is why:

1. California currently has 55 electoral votes (i.e. in the electoral college).  They've gone reliably (very!) for the Democratic Party in every recent election.  If California leaves the union, that's 55 fewer reliable electoral votes for a Democrat presidential candidate, making it immensely more difficult for that party to ever win the Presidency again.
2. California has 53 congressional districts.  It currently sends 38 Democratic and 14 Republican representatives to Washington D.C., with one district vacant.  The Democratic Party Congressional delegation, presently with 193 members, would thus lose almost 20% of its current representatives if California were to leave the Union.  Again, that would make it much more difficult for Democrats to ever regain control of Congress.
3. Not only would Democrats lose the support described above, but it's almost certain that Republicans would gain support if California left the Union.  There's already a strong move in the more rural and/or conservative districts to form a new state, Jefferson, in order to escape the stifling voter dominance in the coastal, liberal enclaves.  Most of those districts already elect Republican representatives.  Given the legal precedent of the formation of West Virginia in 1861-2, and current Republican control of Congress, the Senate and the Presidency, it's very likely that the state of Jefferson would be approved on a federal level, even if the rest of California disapproved.  That would mean additional, very reliable Republican votes in the Electoral College, further disadvantaging the Democratic Party.  It might find itself down 70-75 votes in the College, compared to the most recent election.

Given those electoral realities, I just can't see the Democratic Party as a whole allowing its members in California (which the party currently controls) to succeed in separating from the USA.  It would cost the party too much.

On the other hand, if Democrats in California insist on pushing for independence, that might precipitate a split in the party, as many of its current leaders (including the Minority Leader in Congress) are from California, and would not want to give up their positions of leadership.  There'd be a free-for-all as Democrats from other states raced to get control of key positions.  It would make great entertainment for non-Democrats, but might rip apart the already stressed and fractured party.

Peter

That's one way to protect your family!

A Florida man found a unique way to prevent another from laying his hands on a gun.

The truck driver stopped at a red light and Aponte got out of his car, approached the vehicle and began punching the driver's face through the window, according to an arrest affidavit.

The victim's girlfriend screamed that there was a gun in the truck in an attempt to stop the attack when her boyfriend was unable to grab Aponte's hand. The girlfriend did not actually have a gun, police said.

Aponte told the family, "I'll show you a real gun," and then started to walk toward his vehicle. Traffic prevented the truck driver from moving forward, so instead, he backed up his truck and parked it on top of the Camry, so Aponte wouldn't get the gun and cause further harm to his family, police said.

Witnesses were able to confirm the victim's versions of events.

Aponte was arrested at the scene and charged with burglary, battery, criminal mischief and driving with a suspended license. The truck driver was not arrested.

There's more at the link, including pictures of the truck balanced neatly on top of the car.

Quick thinking on the part of the truck driver - and a good reason to have a lift kit on your truck, in case of emergency!

Peter

Daddy Hawk brings the smackdown to the news media

He blogs at 'Preachers and Horse Thieves', and has this to say.

Dear Mainstream Media,

While you are busy getting over having your pants yanked down around your ankles and your underwear pulled up to your ears by the new administration, can we have a moment to discuss a few things that the American public would like you to know?

There's more at the link.  Go read the whole thing.

Honestly, when the mainstream media are still deliberately skewing their opinion polls through over-sampling one side of popular opinion, despite having been caught doing so multiple times, how can anyone trust their 'facts' any more?  I'm reminded of the amusing progression of headlines upon the escape of Napoleon Bonaparte from the isle of Elba in 1815.  Truth was subject to other pressures then, and it's just as subject to them now.

The mainstream media are like a living definition of a lie.  When are they going to wake up?  Or are they finally going to sink under the weight of the ordure they're piling on themselves?

Peter

Superman as you've never seen him before

I wasn't aware that Bollywood had made its own version of a Superman movie.  It did, in 1980.  Here's how IMDb sums up the plot:

This is the South Indian version of Superman. The hero, Babu, witnesses the murder of his parents by - get this - Cowboys. He vows revenge, and spends the rest of the 2 hours and 15 minutes of the flick getting his revenge. Throw in some dance numbers, bad hairdos, outrageous acting, and you have yourself a classic of Indian Cinema few have ever seen. The actor, who plays Superman, Rama Rao Taraka Nandamuri, looks like a fat Elvis impersonator, complete with a Giant H on his chest (it stands for Hanuman the monkey god). In his over 50-year career in cinema, he made over 300 movies, and was a founder of his own political party!

The film features some of the worst acting I've ever seen (fortunately, I can't understand what the actors are saying, but just seeing them is bad enough!).  Here's the climactic (?) fight scene from the movie.

Horrible, isn't it?  If you want to see the entire movie (although I can't imagine why), it's available on YouTube.

Peter

About that free speech thing . . .

Someone claiming to be a member of Emerald City Antifa e-mailed me after I put up my previous post.  He denied that the poster it cited was from EFA, and claimed it was a forgery by 'provocators'.  He also took issue with my article yesterday about the demonstrations at UC Berkeley, and sent me the link to this XKCD cartoon.  (Click it for a larger view at XKCD's Web site.)

He argued that there is no First Amendment protection for 'hate speech', and that the demonstrators were therefore justified in shutting down Milo Yiannopoulos' presentation.

I replied that although he was technically correct about the First Amendment, it nevertheless applied to all speech, not just that which is 'politically correct'.  Furthermore, there's a much older law, one that applies even when the First Amendment doesn't.  That law is the Golden Rule, which is found in almost every major religion and philosophy of life (see the link for more information).  Briefly, it says that we should behave towards others in the way we wish them to behave towards us.  That means, if it's OK for you to disrupt a presentation of which you disapprove, then it's also OK for others to disrupt presentations of which you approve.  To put it another way, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  According to my correspondent's logic, if I'm confronted by (say) Black Lives Matter demonstrators, I'm therefore entitled to treat them in precisely the same way as the protestors at UC Berkeley treated Milo Yiannopoulos and his supporters.

He replied that I was a fascist, and therefore unable to understand.  (He didn't put it quite as politely as that, you understand, but I won't reproduce his actual language here.  This is a family-friendly blog, after all.)  I simply shrugged.  People like that - people from that background - are very vocal about 'respect'.  They demand that their views and their persons be respected - yet they refuse to respect other people and other views with whom/which they disagree.  It's got to be their way or the highway.

I invite readers to draw their own conclusions about who's unable to understand . . .


*Sigh*


Peter

Is this anti-white poster the real thing?

A reader referred me to this poster, which he says he found on Twitter:

I was suspicious at first, because of the misspelling of 'propagation' and the lack of other sources.  However, Emerald City Antifa is a real organization;  their Web page is here.  They look to be another in the same old, same old line of violent left-wing and progressive organizations who are intolerant of free speech and free association.

I haven't previously encountered sentiments such as this from any of the Antifa organizations, so before I condemn them out of hand, I'd like to be sure.  Can anyone confirm whether this poster is real, and whether it expresses the known views of Emerald City Antifa?  Seattle readers?  Anyone?

Please let us know in Comments.

Peter

Jobs: I believe we've passed a tipping point

I've been warning for years that many jobs are going to be replaced by automated solutions, and that most of the jobs currently available are candidates for automation.  I know many of my readers have said that they're 'insulated' from that by requirements for technical knowledge, or specialization, or other factors;  but things have now moved so far, so fast, that I believe we're 'over the edge'.  I now expect the number of jobs - and the number of people employed - to diminish on a regular basis as a percentage or proportion of our population.  The situation is going to be worse for those countries still heavily oriented towards manufacturing, such as China.  They're likely to lose jobs even faster.

I'm preparing a long article (which may become a series of articles) about what this implies for us as a nation and as a society.  It has potentially very serious consequences across a great many areas, from politics, to immigration, to social services, to the structure - even the type - of our communities.  Today, I'd like to give you some food for thought from two sources.

First, here's a 2014 video titled 'Humans Need Not Apply'.

Sobering, isn't it?  Bear in mind that it's more than two years old - and in the intervening period, every single thing it forecasts has become even more true.  For example, just yesterday I linked to IBM's Chef Watson artificial intelligence application, taking input about the ingredient(s) you have on hand and listing recipes or meals you might prepare with them.  That whole process is automated.  There are no human hands or brains involved.

The second source to spur your thinking is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled 'The End Of Employees'.  Here's an excerpt.

Never before have American companies tried so hard to employ so few people. The outsourcing wave that moved apparel-making jobs to China and call-center operations to India is now just as likely to happen inside companies across the U.S. and in almost every industry.

. . .

The shift is radically altering what it means to be a company and a worker. More flexibility for companies to shrink the size of their employee base, pay and benefits means less job security for workers. Rising from the mailroom to a corner office is harder now that outsourced jobs are no longer part of the workforce from which star performers are promoted.

For companies, the biggest allure of replacing employees with contract workers is more control over costs. Contractors help businesses keep their full-time, in-house staffing lean and flexible enough to adapt to new ideas or changes in demand.

For workers, the changes often lead to lower pay and make it surprisingly hard to answer the simple question “Where do you work?” Some economists say the parallel workforce created by the rise of contracting is helping to fuel income inequality between people who do the same jobs.

No one knows how many Americans work as contractors, because they don’t fit neatly into the job categories tracked by government agencies. Rough estimates by economists range from 3% to 14% of the nation’s workforce, or as many as 20 million people.

. . .

Eventually, some large companies could be pruned of all but the most essential employees. Consulting firm Accenture PLC predicted last year that one of the 2,000 largest companies in the world will have “no full-time employees outside of the C-suite” within 10 years.

. . .

Steven Berkenfeld, an investment banker who has spent his career evaluating corporate strategies, says companies of all shapes and sizes are increasingly thinking like this: “Can I automate it? If not, can I outsource it? If not, can I give it to an independent contractor or freelancer?”

Hiring an employee is a last resort, Mr. Berkenfeld adds, and “very few jobs make it through that obstacle course.”

There's more at the link.  I urge you to click over there and read the article in full.  It provides many examples across the spectrum of corporate activity, showing how 'normal' jobs have been outsourced, replaced, or done away with entirely.

As I said earlier, I'm working on an in-depth look at this problem, and what it's likely to mean for many of us.  The two sources above provide foundation material that's very important.  It's worth your while to go through them in full, and think about their implications for yourself.

Peter

"Bohemian Rhapsody" as you've never heard it before

Courtesy of a link provided by reader Glen W., here's Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" played on a century-old fairground organ.

You can read more about the performance here.

When you consider that some of those old fairground organs were actually powered by steam, it makes the 'steampunk' feel of Bohemian Rhapsody that much more real!

Peter

A Boeing 747 firefighting tanker aircraft at work

I see the Boeing 747 freighter that was converted into an aerial water tanker for firefighting is hard at work in Chile.  Popular Mechanics reports:

The Global Supertanker has been operating from Santiago and has relied on a team of local firefighters to fulfill the extraordinary logistics of loading nearly 20,000 gallons of retardant required to fill the eight large pressurized tanks. Each of the tanks hold 200 lbs. of compressed air and can disperse retardant with high pressure.

Since its arrival on Jan. 25, the tanker has performed multiple bombing missions every day while battling low visibility, rough turbulence, and harsh terrain all at very low altitudes.

There's more at the link.

There are a number of video clips on YouTube showing the tanker in action.  Here are a selection about how it's going about its job.  First, an interview with its owner.

This is how they fill the tanks on the ground, using the high-pressure water systems in fire engines to load 19,200 gallons within 15 minutes.

This is what the plane looks like inside, with its array of tanks for compressed air, water, and fire retardant chemicals.

Here it makes a pass over a ridgeline.

Here's a close-up of a water drop.

And here's a cockpit, pilots-eye view of a drop.

Impressive!

Peter

Computerized cooking with what you've got

I was amused to learn that IBM has applied its artificial intelligence engine to suggesting recipes you can cook with what you've got on hand (plus a few added bits and pieces, if necessary).  The company calls it "Chef Watson".

As an impromptu trial, I threw at it a few ingredients I had in the fridge.  The results were surprisingly innovative.  "Hummus" produced recipes for hummus green salad, hummus fruit salad, hummus vegetable dish, hummus cheese dish, and hummus pasta.  Entering "refried beans" drew forth recipes for stews, poultry, and even a beans-and-grits dish (that boggled my mind somewhat).  "Sharp cheddar cheese" produced a number of recipes one might expect, plus oddities like a sharp cheddar cheese tiramisu and a cheese trifle.

All in all, it looks like a rather interesting way to find new and tasty things to cook.  Give Chef Watson a try.  You might be pleasantly surprised.

Peter

Fascists, Nazis, Communists and Progressives have a lot in common

News and images from California last night gave me that sinking feeling once again.  Fanatical progressives, immune to logic and reason, have once again rioted and turned violent, rather than respect free speech and democratic rights.  The occasion was a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley, which was canceled due to the violence. It wasn't pretty.

I find some of Mr. Yiannopoulos' views to be, frankly, disgusting, and the way in which he expresses them to be morally outrageous.  I am, after all, a retired pastor.  I have my own standards, and his are far from mine in many respects.  Nevertheless, he has as much right to his opinions as I have;  and if I have the right to propagate my views by means of speaking and writing about them, he has the same right.  It can't be any other way.  I'm very unlikely to convert him, and he's just as unlikely to convert me, but that doesn't matter.  A right is a right is a right.  Once you put restrictions upon a right, it's no longer a right - it's a privilege.

The US constitution contains a 'Bill of Rights', not a 'List of Privileges'.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, also claims certain rights as inherent.  They're not optional.  They're not dependent upon the whim or political will of governments, nations or alliances.  They're basic, fundamental, and foundational to human society.

The Nazi Party in Germany was very efficient at trampling upon the rights of those who disagreed with Hitler's nightmarish philosophy.  Mussolini's Fascists did the same in Italy.  The Communists in the Soviet Union did the same and more, to an even greater extent, and Mao in China may have outdone even Stalin in the number of his own people that he killed in order to stamp out dissent and promote his fanatical ideology.  All of these groups and individuals had one thing in common;  they insisted on controlling expression.  There was no such thing as 'freedom of speech' unless it was in accord with the philosophies and views of the governing or controlling faction.  Any dissent was not tolerated, and was met with, at best, opprobrium and social isolation;  often, with imprisonment;  and not infrequently with murder.

I wonder if those protesters at UC Berkeley know - or even care - about the historical sewer of intolerance and ideological purity in which they've chosen to take their stand?  By their actions, they've demonstrated that they are just as anti-democratic and anti-human-rights as Nazis, or Fascists, or Communists, or Maoists.  There can be no justification whatsoever for their actions, no matter how passionately they believe in their cause.

A previous generation of protesters at UC Berkeley was dealt with firmly by then-California governor Ronald Reagan, who had this to say when challenged about his firm methods by UC Berkeley professors and journalists.

Then-Governor Reagan was criticized at the time for what some saw as an unreasonable crackdown;  but I think his words put the problem in a nutshell.  Laws are passed in the name of, and to protect, the people;  and they (usually) incorporate our Bill of Rights and other human rights considerations.  As soon as you allow anyone, of any political persuasion, to ignore them in the name of a different philosophy, then the rule of law breaks down - and so does our society.

Laws can be unjust.  They can be in breach of human rights.  When that happens, it's up to us to point that out, and if necessary to make our point all the more strongly by means of peaceful protest and civil disobedience - measures which have a rich history in these United States.  However, to inflict criminal violence and damage upon others and their possessions has no place in that process.  It makes the cure worse than the disease.  Furthermore, if the 'cure' seeks to take away from others the same human rights that the protesters use as a shield and an excuse for their actions, then it's no cure at all.

Peter

The man bankrolling the anti-Trump protests

This is more than you probably wanted to know about George Soros.  Nevertheless, on the principle of "know your enemy", this article is very important reading.

Soros’s global reach and influence far outstrip those of the Koch brothers or other liberal bogeymen—and ... underlying it all is a vision both dystopian and opportunistic. “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order,” Soros has declared, “is the United States.” Ergo, that constitutional republic must be weakened and its allies degraded. The Sorosian world order—one of open borders and global governance, antithetical to the ideals and experience of the West—could then assume command.

. . .

His political activism portfolio is well diversified. Backing organizations dedicated to social agitation and change-for-change’s-sake, Soros has caused tsunamis of upheaval, in the United States and around the world.

A few cases in point: last August, DC Leaks, a group of adroit hackers, got into the Soros files and released them. Perhaps the most notorious of the disclosures concerned Soros’s Open Society Foundations, named in honor of Sir Karl Popper. Underneath its lofty rhetoric, the organization was clearly devoted to the eradication of national sovereignty. A key Open Society paper, hacked in its entirety, described the Syrian refugee crisis as an opportunity to “shape conversations about rethinking migrations governance.” Translation: use agitprop to flood Europe and the U.S. with evacuees (among them some probable terrorists); make the old borders and institutions irrelevant; and, in the process, create a world liberated from the restraints of constitutionalism, American exceptionalism, free-market capitalism, and other obsolete isms.

One of Soros’s long-standing targets is the State of Israel. Providing funding for groups devoted to BDS (boycott, disinvestment, sanctions) against the Jewish State is only part of the equation. According to DC Leaks, Soros gave more than $2 million to Adalah, an “independent human rights organization.” As a matter of policy, Adalah demands that governments sever diplomatic relations with the only democracy in the Middle East. Soros also donated more than $1 million to the Palestinian media center I’lam, which regularly accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing. Though the Open Society Foundations’ biases are obvious, its members prefer to work under deep cover, as one of the leaked documents describes. “For a variety of reasons, we wanted to construct a diversified portfolio of grants dealing with Israel and Palestine . . . as well as building a portfolio of Palestinian grants and in all cases to maintain a low profile and relative distance—particularly on the advocacy front.”

Print reporters were enlisted in the cause of propagating the Soros mind-set. As recorded by WikiLeaks, Soros operatives, determined to shape media coverage of events in Ukraine, were instructed to “select journalists from the five target countries (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Greece) and offer them long stay reporting trips in Ukraine. Rather than specify what they should write about they should make suggestions for articles; we retain a veto on stories we think are counterproductive. Suggestion that we liaise directly with journalists to determine interest.”

In the United States, Soros bankrolls a broad range of political and cultural causes. One is to destabilize the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. In 2015, he dedicated $650,000 for the purpose of shaping Pope Francis’s U.S. visit, using left-leaning Catholic groups to promote gay marriage, abortion, and physician-assisted suicide. Leading the effort was Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, a self-professed Catholic. Bill Donohue, outspoken president of the Catholic League, vainly called for Podesta’s dismissal. “He is fomenting revolution in the Catholic Church, creating mutiny and is totally unethical,” Donohue said. “He is the front man for George Soros to create a host of phony anti-Catholic groups. These are not just bad comments, as some have suggested. These words are orchestrated, calculated and designed to create fissures in the Catholic Church.”

Another Soros favorite is Black Lives Matter, the radical protest group dedicated to the proposition that police are inherently racist. Working the streets with incendiary rhetoric, at odds with the truth about black-on-black crime, BLM has helped foster “depolicing,” as Heather Mac Donald describes it, in high-crime urban areas. In 2015, after days of rioting in Baltimore in response to the death of Freddie Gray in police custody, an Open Society Foundations memo excitedly commented that “recent events offer a unique opportunity to accelerate the dismantling of structural inequality generated and maintained by local law enforcement and to engage residents who have historically been disenfranchised in Baltimore City in shaping and monitoring reform.” Three straight acquittals of police officers involved in the matter left the prosecution’s case in shreds but made no difference to the Open Society Foundations. It has donated at least $650,000 to Black Lives Matter and pledged more assistance to antipolice factions across the country. These activities prompted the father of one of the Dallas police officers killed during a Black Lives Matter protest to sue Soros (along with other individuals and groups) for inspiring a “war on police.”

Soros’s open-borders obsessions can be seen in the $2 million he gave to opponents of Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff Joe Arpaio, an outspoken critic of illegal immigration. The sheriff’s “influence on the national conversation about immigration has been poisonous,” said a Soros spokesman. Arpaio fired back, calling the billionaire a “far-left globalist” who was trying to “buy a local race.” The sheriff failed to ride in on Trump’s November wagon, though, and Soros enjoyed one of his few election-night victories. Soros also spent millions backing liberal-minded district attorneys—they all opposed jail time for nonviolent drug offenders—in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, and Texas. Some of these candidates won; most lost.

. . .

As the postpresidential fever abates, Soros’s work carries on. In a New York City luxury hotel, Soros recently huddled with other devastated operatives in the so-called Democratic Alliance, including former House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, and Congressional Progressive Caucus cochairman Keith Ellison. According to Politico, they discussed strategies to combat President-elect Trump’s “terrifying assault on President’s Obama’s achievements.” Not all Democrats were pleased with the occasion. “The DA itself should be called into question,” said one attendee. “You can make a very good case it’s nothing more than a social club for a handful of wealthy white donors and labor union officials to drink wine and read memos, as the Democratic Party burns down around them.”

There's more at the link.  I strongly recommend that you read the whole thing.

Mr. Soros is not about to let up on President Trump - or on America, which he still regards as an enemy of all he holds dear.  He nearly succeeded in destroying the United States under President Obama.  We need to make sure he doesn't succeed in derailing the antidote to the past eight years.

Peter

Dealing with the mainstream news media - a lesson from the past

When you see how the mainstream media are covering the Trump administration - almost universally negatively, vituperatively and untruthfully - it's worth remembering that such tactics are nothing new.  They may be a lot more prevalent now, almost dominant in fact, but they've been around for decades.

Quin Hillyer remembers one occasion involving a nationally known media figure, back in 1993.

A 60 Minutes assistant producer finally contacted our office directly. To this day, I can remember the attitude: aggressive, imperious, accusatory ... A Republican congressman was in the show’s sights—oddly enough, not for being too heartless, but for supposedly pandering to touchy-feely animal rights extremists. And the producer was demanding an on-camera interview with Livingston.

I drew on my experience as a research assistant for a widely used text on journalistic ethics, The Virtuous Journalist by Stephen Klaidman and Tom Beauchamp, in which CBS News and 60 Minutes had been used in several case studies of what not to do. I advised Livingston that he should demand the right to have our own camera tape any interview ourselves, so we could have irrefutable evidence if the show unfairly spliced several interview segments together, out of context, to make him look bad. Livingston declined. He had nothing to hide, he said. Tell the producer he would gladly do the interview— as long as it was aired either live or entirely unedited. Pre-taped and edited, no. Live or full-length, fine.

I called the producer back with our terms. She laughed nastily. She said I’d regret it.

. . .

Some days later, CBS star Mike Wallace himself called me. He pretended to be my buddy. It was a tough act to carry off when his words carried a veiled threat.

Speaking in a faux-avuncular voice, Wallace said almost these exact words: “Look, how old are you?…. Just 28? Well, let me give you some advice. You seem like a smart young man. But let me tell you what I’ve learned in 50 years in this business. What I’ve learned is that you’re always better off answering all the questions. And you’re always better off if you cooperate with people who have a lot more experience than you. There’s a good reason why I and 60 Minutes have such an excellent reputation. Just cooperate with us, and you’ll be just fine.”

Gee, how nice.

I reiterated our terms. Live and unedited, or no dice. Wallace wasn’t happy. He said he never agreed to terms like that, “not even for Henry Kissinger.”

. . .

A MONTH OR SO LATER, after we sent a certified letter repeating our concerns about the story’s directions and Livingston’s offer to go on camera live or unedited, the segment on the cat-shooting finally aired. As expected, it was a hit job. It made the scientist sound like a saintly Albert Schweitzer. It made the protesters, none of whom amounted to any political threat to Livingston’s safe seat, sound more extreme than Greenpeace. Worse, it used footage of animal rights activists in high lather who were protesting some other subject at some other place—but with a voice-over making it seem like these were the protesters against the cat project. The deliberate impression was to make Livingston sound like a scared congressman pandering, fearfully, to those protesters.

Oh—and Wallace said, on air, that he had repeatedly offered Livingston a chance to discuss the situation, but that Livingston refused.

There's much more at the link.  It's worth reading the whole thing to understand how 'truth' is, at best, a highly elastic concept to most of the mainstream media.  It seems nothing's changed since then . . . more's the pity.

Peter

The Gorsuch butthurt is strong

One is forced to wonder how much sanity still prevails at editorial level in the New York Times.  It's exhibiting classic butthurt over the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacant seat (which the NYT calls a "stolen seat") on the US Supreme Court.  I've quoted some of its comments in regular text below, with my response in italics.

It’s been almost a year since Senate Republicans took an empty Supreme Court seat hostage, discarding a constitutional duty that both parties have honored throughout American history and hobbling an entire branch of government for partisan gain.

- True, they discarded a constitutional duty.  So did Senate (and House) Democrats when they were in the majority under the Obama administration, yet failed to submit or pass a budget, as required by law, for years in succession.  Pot, meet kettle.  Kettle, pot.  Both sides are as guilty as each other.

In normal times, Judge Gorsuch — a widely respected and, at 49, relatively young judge with a reliably conservative voting record — would be an obvious choice for a Republican president.

These are not normal times.

- What makes them other than normal?  Supreme Court appointments have been made in time of war and in time of peace, in economic times good and bad, with rancor or with unanimity.  What makes this nomination different from any other?

Judge Garland, a former federal prosecutor and 20-year veteran of the nation’s most important federal appeals court, is both more moderate and more qualified than Judge Gorsuch.

- I don't know about "more moderate" - he's certainly left of center, compared to Judge Gorsuch's right of center.  As for "more qualified", good luck with that.  Judge Gorsuch's academic and legal records are about as impeccable as both can get, by any standards.

The destructive lesson Senate Republicans taught is that obstruction pays off. Yet they seem to have short memories. After Senate Democrats refused to attend votes on two of Mr. Trump’s cabinet picks on Tuesday, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said, “We did not inflict this kind of obstructionism on President Obama.”

- Agreed.  Both sides are as hypocritical and partisan as each other.  A plague on both their parties.

Supreme Court nominations are among the most important decisions a president makes, and certainly the most enduring: A nominee like Judge Gorsuch could sit on the court for more than three decades. At a rally last summer Mr. Trump said: “Even if you can’t stand Donald Trump, you think Donald Trump is the worst, you’re going to vote for me. You know why? Justices of the Supreme Court.” That may have played well on the campaign trail, but Mr. Trump’s failure to choose a more moderate candidate is the latest example of his refusal to acknowledge his historic unpopularity and his nearly three-million-vote loss to Hillary Clinton. A wiser president faced with such circumstances would govern with humility and a respect for the views of all Americans.

- Oh, shut up!  A US President is not elected by popular vote:  therefore, by definition, Mr. Trump did not "lose" to Hillary Clinton by any number of votes at all.  He won in the only vote count that matters, constitutionally speaking:  in the Electoral College (just as former President Obama won in the same venue, irrespective of whether or not he also won the popular vote).  Any other vote count is constitutionally meaningless.

As for President Trump's "historic unpopularity", I wonder what Abraham Lincoln would say to that?  And as for "a respect for the views of all Americans", I can't help but wonder when former President Obama demonstrated that?  Yesterday I quoted his perspective on his first election victory.  Is President Trump doing anything different?

I daresay Mr. Trump will govern as almost all previous Presidents have governed - on the basis of what he promised to the constituency that voted him into office.

You can read the rest for yourself.

I'm expecting Judge Gorsuch's confirmation hearings to be extraordinarily partisan, rancorous and bitter.  I hope I'm wrong . . . but I doubt it.  The progressive left has dominated US politics for eight years.  It can't stand the thought that it's no longer in control - at least for a time, until the political pendulum swings again (as it undoubtedly will).

I can only hope that both sides can learn to work together once more, instead of trying to undo what the other has done every time they swap places in control of Congress and the Senate.  If they stick to the politics of destruction, they'll probably take the entire country down with them.  (Yes, that applies to Republicans as much as Democrats, and to the right wing as much as to the left wing of US politics.)

Peter