Category Archives: Politics on the left

Satire is absolutely forbidden until further notice

Posted on by
Reply

Lifted from Instapundit.

NEO: WOMEN LIED, BLACK MEN DIED.

Why didn’t it occur to Democrats that their approach to Kavanaugh might bother black men as well as white ones? My theory is that Democrats now think so completely along racial lines that it probably wouldn’t occur to them that a black man could identify with something happening to a white man, and a preppy white man at that. That must be why writer Jemele Hill of the Atlantic could write something like this [emphasis mine]:

On Tuesday night, I was in an auditorium with 100 black men in the city of Baltimore, when the subject pivoted to Brett Kavanaugh. I expected to hear frustration that the sexual-assault allegations against him had failed to derail his Supreme Court appointment. Instead, I encountered sympathy. One man stood up and asked, passionately, “What happened to due process?” He was met with a smattering of applause, and an array of head nods.

Hill, who is a black woman (formerly a sportswriter), assumed that these black men would identify with the woman’s story of sexual assault, rather than the man’s story of false accusation. She thought they would accept and perhaps join in with the Democrats’ ridicule and demonizing of Kavanaugh’s rage at being falsely accused.

On a related topic, note that the bill is coming due for American literature’s most celebrated rape apologist. A week ago, Steven Crowder posted this parody video:

And proving out Muggeridge’s Law, which as the late Tom Wolfe wrote, postulated that “We live in an age in which it is no longer possible to be funny. There is nothing you can imagine, no matter how ludicrous, that will not promptly be enacted before your very eyes, probably by someone well known,” on Thursday, Milwaukee’s Fox affiliate posted this headline: “Shorewood School District cancels ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ play due to potential protests.”

The stated reason was the school district getting last-minute jitters over the play’s use of the N-word, but it’s still memory holing what was an American classic. “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running around with lit matches,” Ray Bradbury wrote in the 50th anniversary edition of Fahrenheit 451.

If only logic had anything to do with it

Posted on by
Reply

Something to read and ponder: Four Reasons “Gender Theory” Is Ridiculous. Actually it’s a test: can you believe six impossible things before breakfast. And on the left they all can. Just one bit, but as funny as it is, a very depressing article when you think about it.

Never mind that any culture we could visit on a class field trip at any time in history would only present to us the binary male/female system we have in our own communities. And we will not have any difficulty determining the males from the females as they both have an unmistakable essence, even apart from body parts. Few things in nature are so obvious. So, as serious students, we must raise our hand and ask how all the diverse cultures of the world have just happened to “construct” the same exact two sexes, in the generally same ways. While it’s a totally legitimate question, your professor is starting to see you as a trouble-maker.

You can at least believe some women

Posted on by
Reply

From my home city, once again in the news. An example of another male oppressor. And as it says at the link: “If you didn’t notice this video was satirical, that’s a commentary on you.” Even has an Australian angle towards the end. And below, a bit more from the Old Dominion, the incomparable Janice Fiamengo.

Comes with this in the comments which is an issue all on its own:

YouTube is demonetizing videos that are critical of the Left. This makes it nearly impossible for critics of feminism to survive off of their work. A viral video like this one would normally gather $2,000 per day in ad revenue, but because it criticizes a feminist position this revenue is denied. This is part of the bias that we are fighting.

And there is then this. Stefan Molyneux is also from Canada, at least he is now anyways.

The anatomy of a smear: demonise then merchandise

Posted on by
Reply

How it’s done from an expert. This is the text of what she said:

Pelosi: It’s called the wrap-up smear. . . . You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest and then you merchandise it.

And then you [the media] write it, and they’ll say, see it’s reported in the press – that this, this, this and this – so they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it’s called a ‘wrap-up smear.’ And now I’m going to merchandize the press’s report on the smear that we made.

Here, for example, are more than enough reasons to understand Christine Ford was not playing straight with the truth, none of which was pointed out in the media that was merchandising all the falsehoods the Democrats could conjure:

She refused to hand over the results of her polygraph

She refused to hand over her 2012 therapist’s notes

She said she was afraid to fly, but has flown dozens of times. 

Since she did in fact fly, she offered no other reason for the delay

She said she wanted anonymity but contacted [the Washington Post] multiple times

Said she got advice from “beach friends” but didn’t mention that the primary one was a former FBI lawyer, Monica McLean, who worked for Preet Bharara, a man Trump fired.

She also failed to mention, when talking of her Beach friends at the hearing, that Monica was sitting right behind her. 

She had a perfect memory of 1982 but couldn’t remember basic things from the previous 10 weeks

She’d been drinking. 

She changed the year of the alleged attack

She named 4 people, but had no backers

She couldn’t remember how she got home even though her story had her escaping the house far from home, pre-cell phone.

She gave no location or any details that could be researched for verification.

She never told anyone and never claimed PTSD prior to Kavanaugh’s name circulating 30 years later.

She said that she put the 2nd door on her house because of PTSD, but evidence shows it was to get around zoning laws to create a rentable apartment.

She said she didn’t know that Grassley offered to come to her, even though it was broadcast nationally.

She feigned no knowledge of polygraphs even though her ex’s sworn statement said she’d coached Monica McLean how to beat it in the 1990s, and in any case her profession should have at least well acquainted her with it.

She co-authored a paper on repressed memory creation years before she claimed to have one

Nothing is known of her pharmacology, but given her past alcoholism, her visits to a therapist and her general presentation, odds are high that it’s extensive.

She scrubbed her social media. We know from a pussy hat photo that she was rabidly anti-Trump. 

She had zero family or friends with her, not from the 80s nor from today. She was surrounded only by Democrat Party handlers.

Constant cries of bravery & “nothing to gain” vs a $700,000 GoFundMe and a career boosted a la Anita Hill

Literally all there is her word vs all of the above. Not a shred of evidence.

All that is different this time is that you have seen it before your eyes. The parties of the left in cahoots with the media warp your perceptions of what is in reality taking place.

A political horror story

Posted on by
Reply

From The Oz: Brexit is diverting attention from Jeremy Corbyn’s red flag radicalism. And do not for a second think this might not happen here.

Jeremy Corbyn vowed to reverse Thatcherism at last month’s British Labour conference in Liverpool. Picture: AFP
Jeremy Corbyn vowed to reverse Thatcherism at last month’s British Labour conference in Liverpool. Picture: AFP

If next year Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister of Britain, this political figure, hitherto dwelling in the margins of politics, becomes a world historical figure.

Historic figure? After being in politics for 35 years and serving on the frontbench only when he became leader? But how else to view it? Corbyn is proposing the reversal of Thatcherism, the 1980s program of privatisation and union-busting implemented under the Iron Lady’s leadership, and thought by all to be irreversible.

One columnist has branded Corbyn’s program an “unapologetic onslaught on the crumbling neoliberal order”. He should have added, “And not just in Britain.” If Corbyn wins and starts peeling Thatcherism from the statutes, he will provide an irresistible model for other European centre-left parties being devoured by right-wing nationalists.

Given this, it’s surprising the reaction to his speech to the British Labour Party conference on September 26 was so muted. Here he was proposing the renationalisation of water, rail and the Royal Mail; a tax on second homes to fund expansion of public housing; board-level representation of employees; and pulling 65 per cent of workers under 25 on to a guaranteed minimum wage. Most radically, his government would appro­priate 10 per cent of every company’s shareholdings on behalf of employees and the state. Plus grant free childcare.

In 1983, the last time the Left controlled British Labour, MP Gerald Kaufman branded its explicitly socialist manifesto “the longest suicide note in history”. It helped Margaret Thatcher consign Labour to 27.6 per cent of the vote in her 1983 landslide.

Right now, however, the red flag radicalism is escaping attention because the debate over Brexit is sucking the air out of British politics. But there is another factor: a striking shift in opinion. Fear of nationalisation and chaotic economic management were, until Tony Blair, well-tested rallying cries against Labour. No more. Expanding the state is popular. Two-thirds of the electorate wants railways back in public ownership. Only 17 per cent of the electorate think capitalism is working for them. Voters born after Thatcher are Corbyn’s strongest supporters.

Only in open dialogue is there any hope that truth can be discovered

Posted on by
Reply

Ann and Milo will teach you how to save Australia.

Discovered last night – either from the Bolt Report or The Outsiders – that Ann Coulter will be coming to Australia!!!!!!

I therefore immediately bought tickets. But what is the venue, you might ask? This is what it said on the receipt.

Venue: Venue address will be announced by email on the day of the event.

Why will they not tell you. Because wherever it is will draw a crowd of thugs, so this at least gives the police a head start in getting the fences up.

But why stop us hearing them speak? If everything they say is nonsense, let them say it and discredit themselves. But if it’s not nonsense, then how will you know?

The point is that one way or the other, only in open dialogue is there any hope that the truth can be discovered.

“With all my love, Eve”

Posted on by
Reply

How I keep up with both sides of the political divide is through my moronic ex-friend in California, the one working in Silicon Valley who owns three Mercedes and a Porsche. Never a personal word in any of his near 1000 emails he has sent me with excerpts from all the unusual suspects. This one today is from Time: A Letter to White Women Who Support Brett Kavanaugh, written by:

Eve Ensler a Tony-winning playwright activist and author of The Vagina Monologues. She founded both V-Day, a global movement dedicated to ending violence against women, and the One Billion Rising campaign.

She joins the millions on her side who could not care less about whether Christine Blasey Ford is a liar or was telling the truth. Evidence and corroborating detail are nothing to her. Since no one is in favour of violence other than used in self defence, this is fantastically stupid, but also reveals the mind-set of these people:

On Oct. 2, I watched the President of the United States mock a woman who had recounted the trauma of being sexually assaulted in front of the world, on live television. And as he did so, a recent poll rattled around my head. The survey found that, while white men regularly supported Kavanaugh the most, white women also did so significantly more than Hispanic or black people overall. For example, 45% of white women said Kavanaugh should be confirmed, compared to 30% of Hispanic people and 11% of black people. Like so much of these recent weeks, it made me reflect. But even more so, it made me want to write to those women. Not lecture them. Not denigrate them. Just simply to speak to them directly and to try to explain my feelings.

You can read her open letter for yourself at the link, but among all the false notes, how it ended was the worst.

With all my love,

Eve

The fact is that it is people like her who are delegitimising accusations of rape by weaponising such accusations in such a political way. No one any longer believes that CBF was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is a scandal of the highest order and ought to make her and others using this trope deeply ashamed at what they have done.

THE FINE-FISCH INDEX ADDENDUM: This is the personal index I use based on the number of emails I am sent in a day which depend on whatever is around that can be scraped off the floor that is critical of PDT. I call it the Fine-Fisch Index based on his name, but anyone who knew him in the old days would see the connection. But here is the real point. Unlike the other side, there is some interest in reading what they write, if only just to gauge how insane they are. So here are the other links from today.

A Supreme Violation: Republicans want to ram Kavanaugh through no matter how many women object.

1,500 Law Professors Opposing Kavanaugh Took Issue With This Aspect Of His Testimony

Washington Post Editorial: Vote ‘No’ Kavanaugh

Here Are The People The FBI Didn’t Ask About Brett Kavanaugh

However this was never an issue: The Choom Gang: President Obama’s pot-smoking high school days detailed in Maraniss book.

This never seemed to matter to anyone, and as far as it goes, that was the least of the reasons I didn’t want to see him as President. But for these people to be going on about character based on Kavanaugh’s apparently prodigious beer drinking capacity when he was the quarterback for his high school football team shows a lack of self-awareness that is prodigious in itself. They don’t just lie to the rest of us; they lie to themselves. Like everyone on the left, they are beyond reason. Unlike this ridiculous Eve Ensler, pretending to wish to find some accommodation with people on the other side, the reality is that they are immune to debate and discussion. They never, and I do mean never, argue, as in you have said that and in return I say this. And the reason is they have nothing left to add to the conversation, which is why it is they who resort to violence from the very start. Dangerous times.

Perjury traps

Posted on by
Reply

The Fake Perjury Claims Against Kavanaugh Show Why Trump Won’t Talk To Mueller. The central point:

The alacrity with which the Kavanaugh story went from being about attempted rape to alleged perjury was surely not lost on him. For more than a year now, pressure has mounted for him to make himself available to the Robert Mueller probe into Russian interference in the election. His attorneys, most notably Rudy Giuliani, have again and again asserted that they will not allow the president to take part in a perjury trap.

While most on the left have laughed this off, and suggested that if the president just tells the truth he has nothing to worry about, what happened to Kavanaugh is incontrovertible evidence that such a position is stuff and nonsense. It is absolutely clear that Democrats and many in the media latched onto laughable examples of supposed lying under oath and ran with them until they ran out of gas. Can there be any doubt that the exact same thing would happen were Trump to testify without limitations to Mueller?

If Mueller asked Trump whether he has ever done drugs and Trump said no, does anyone think it’s unlikely that two people could come forward saying they saw him blowing lines at Studio 54? If questions about business dealings emerge, can we doubt that Democrats and their media allies would be pulling out shovels digging for anyone, regardless of how credible that could cast doubt on his claims?

Meanwhile, Christine Blasey Ford should go to jail for the barefaced lies she told. If this was a perjury trap, she sprung the trap herself.

If this is the standard of evidence required to ruin a life no one is safe

Posted on by
1

Interesting that it is posted by MSNBC which they would only do if they thought it works against PDT.

And then there’s this:

UH OH, IT MUST BE BAD FOR THE DEMOCRATS:

AND NOW LET ME ADD THIS: Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm. First para:

In a letter released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, seemingly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

And then lots more after that.

What’s evidence got to do with it?

Posted on by
Reply

Since only someone desperate to keep Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court using any means whatsoever could have actually believed Christine Ford’s story, this is not entirely a surprise: The Case against Kavanaugh Is Collapsing. As it says:

Yesterday, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell released a memorandum to all Republican senators summarizing Ford’s evidence against Kavanaugh. I’d urge you to read the entire thing. Democrats are describing it as a “partisan document,” but it refers to multiple, undisputed facts that should cause even Ford’s most zealous defenders to pause and reevaluate her claims.

Ford has no corroborating witnesses, and even the friend she says was at the party in question has denied being there or knowing Kavanaugh at all. She doesn’t know who invited her to the party, where it took place, how she got there, or how she got home after, by her account, Kavanaugh attacked her. But the problems go beyond gaps in memory. She has offered substantially different accounts about when the attack occurred (she’s previously said it happened in the “mid Eighties,” in her “late teens,” and in the “Eighties.” Now she’s saying it happened in 1982, when she was 15) and how it occurred (her therapist’s notes conflict with her story of the attack, and she has offered different accounts about who attended the party).

If you are still onside with CBF and actually capable of believing what she said, you are a one-eyed idiot with hardly a shred of visible interest in justice and the processes of a free society. You are content to live in a society that will throw you to the wolves if it suits the government at the time to do so. You are as politically and morally as low as it comes, but standard issue on the left. There are plenty around like it. The issue anyway has from the start been entirely about politics since there has never been a doubt in my mind that the Democrats in Congress have themselves never personally believed Ford; they have played the issue out because they know just how dumb and fundamentally immoral a large proportion of the people who vote for them are. The final question is how this will affect the outcome of the Congressional elections in November. Here is a straw in the wind, which I hope eventually becomes a full-scale tornado.

 

UPDATE: I read this in the Financial Review as I was wrapping the fish: Two senators show the Kavanaugh battle isn’t a total doom spiral. Go to the link for it all, but this will give you the flavour.

Two moments leapt out. The first was the bravery of Dr Christine Blasey Ford, who delivered a devastatingly credible account of her sexual assault when she was 15 years old, she says with “100 per cent” certainty, by Kavanaugh.

None but the most mean-spirited and twisted have doubted the sincerity of her testimony.

It was a landmark event.

What do “mean-spirited and twisted” have to do with it? It is about trying to sift out whether there is any truth in what she said, not whether we should be sorry for her. Try logical and fair minded instead, and then there are no end of doubts not just about the facts of her testimony but of her sincerity as well. Amazing to read this since I have no doubt about the sincerity of the reporter as well, but that is just the point.