Friday, May 11, 2018

2014: "Among the biggest obstacles to educating children are disruptive students whose antics, threats, and violence can make education virtually impossible": 4 Years Ago, Thomas Sowell Lambasted the Obama Policies that Would Lead to the Florida School Shooting

Four years ago, Thomas Sowell castigated the policies of the Obama administration that would lead, more or less directly to the Parkland school shooting. In April 2014, he wrote that
Of all the cynical frauds of the Obama administration, few are so despicable as sacrificing the education of poor and minority children to the interests of the teachers' unions.

Attorney General Eric Holder's attempt to suppress the spread of charter schools in Louisiana was just one of the signs of that cynicism. His nationwide threats of legal action against schools that discipline more black [and other minority] students than he thinks they should are at least as damaging.

Charter schools are hated by teachers' unions and by much of the educational establishment in general. They seem to be especially hated when they succeed in educating minority children whom the educational establishment says cannot be educated.

 … Fortunately, a court order prevented [the 2013] planned vindictive closing of this highly successful charter school [the American Indian Model Schools in Oakland, California] with minority students. But the attempt shows the animus and the cynical disregard of the education of children who have few other places to get a comparable education.

Attorney General Holder's threats of legal action against schools where minority students are disciplined more often than he wants are a much more sweeping and damaging blow to the education of poor and minority students across the country.

Among the biggest obstacles to educating children in many ghetto schools are disruptive students whose antics, threats and violence can make education virtually impossible. If only 10 percent of the students are this way, that sacrifices the education of the other 90 percent. 

The idea that Eric Holder, or anybody else, can sit in Washington and determine how many disciplinary actions against individual students are warranted or unwarranted in schools across the length and breadth of this country would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

Relying on racial statistics tells you nothing, unless you believe that black male students cannot possibly be more disruptive than Asian female students, or that students in crime-ridden neighborhoods cannot possibly require disciplinary actions more often than children in the most staid, middle-class neighborhoods.

Attorney General Holder is not fool enough to believe either of those things. Why then is he pursuing this numbers game?

The most obvious answer is politics. Anything that promotes a sense of grievance from charges of racial discrimination offers hope of energizing the black vote to turn out to vote for Democrats, which is especially needed when support from other voters is weakening in the wake of Obama administration scandals and fiascoes. …
Read the whole thing™…

Monday, May 07, 2018

Scandal in the UK after Policemen Infiltrate Protest Groups, and the Alpha Males End Up Bedding (and Even Marrying) Leftist Girls

Don't be fooled by the tone in Michael Gillard's Times article.

The crux of the "scandal" is not the outrage of several feminists and other activists (male and female alike) over two things — 1) the fact that they (especially some of the ladies!) were fooled, and 2) because of some fiddly-duddly judge, a 70-year-old who had the gall to suggest that married men (and women) are more likely to be in a stable relationship.

The crux is that all women, whatever their political leanings (and whatever their vocal protests over toxic masculinity), go for alpha males.

Police officers infiltrated a number of environmental and animal rights protest movements, and under the guise of fellow travellerdom, their alpha maleness apparently still shone through, as girls (aka "victims" of "professionally trained liars") went to bed with them and even ended up married to, and/or having children with, some of them!

Doesn't anyone know that (at least) half the male attendees in a protest march (without being undercover policemen, natch) have not much interest — alright, they may have a degree of sympathy — in whatever the object of the demonstration is and are really there only, or mainly, to meet a girl and get laid?!

, feel free to engage in jokes of undercover police…)

Michael Gillard and Eveline Lubbers:
Police officers working undercover may have been sleeping with political activists they were spying on for more than 40 years, according to newly released documents.

The public inquiry into the scandal disclosed the identity of an officer who is said to have had a sexual relationship with a radical student during the mid-Seventies. It is evidence to suggest that the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), set up in 1968, was a rogue Scotland Yard unit almost from the outset.

The undercover policing inquiry, led by Sir John Mitting, had thought that SDS officers were forming “deceitful relationships”, some of them resulting in the birth of children, from the Eighties. A woman has come forward, however, with evidence that an officer using the name Rick Gibson had had a relationship with her while on deployment between 1974 and 1976.

…/… In an interview with The Times “Mary” said … that her flatmate also slept with [an officer using the name Rick Gibson] and researchers have uncovered two other women with whom he had a sexual relationship.

In 2015 the Metropolitan Police apologised to eight women and acknowledged that officers who had relationships with targets were violating their human rights. The force did not contest the claims about Gibson.

Michael Gillard, earlier:
The judge chairing the public inquiry into undercover police who had sex with their activist targets has caused an outcry by saying that officers were less likely to enter illicit relationships if they were happily married.

Sir John Mitting’s “old-fashioned” views angered those who were duped into relationships, marriage and even having children with police officers who infiltrated the environmental and animal rights protest movements. His comments, and wider unease over his handling of the inquiry, are likely to lead to a boycott of proceedings by victims.

The inquiry has already cost more than £9 million but is not expected to hear any evidence until next year. It was ordered in 2014 by Theresa May as home secretary, but has been beset by delays.

Sir John, 70, said that his experience of life had shown that men who were in lengthy marriages were “less likely to have engaged in extramarital affairs”.

Victims told The Times that the remarks added to their concerns about the judge’s ability to carry out a proper investigation into police tactics that resulted in dozens of women being duped into relationships over three decades.

“Alison”, one of the eight women who successfully sued Scotland Yard, said: “How can someone who confesses to be so naive with regards to sexual politics be trusted as chair of a public inquiry tasked with exposing the truth about the deployment of professionally trained liars into the lives of female activists?”

Sajid Javid, the new home secretary, has been asked to appoint independent advisers to assist the judge. Core participants at the inquiry walked out in March over the judge’s unwillingness to release information, including cover names, about many of the officers. Another boycott is likely this week.

Sir John’s inquiry is scrutinising undercover policing and the activities of two covert units — Scotland Yard’s now defunct Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU).

Mrs May set up the inquiry after revelations that officers had formed relationships under false pretences with women they were spying on and used identities from dead children. There were also claims that officers spied on the family and supporters of Stephen Lawrence, 18, who was murdered in a racist attack in 1993. His father, Neville, was part of the recent walkout.

Sir John has been considering whether the cover names and real identities of officers should be released. Discussing an application in February, he indicated that he thought it was unlikely that the officer would have entered illicit relationships because he had a long marriage.

He said:
“We have had examples of undercover male officers who have gone through more than one long-term permanent relationship, sometimes simultaneously. There are also officers who have reached a ripe old age who are still married to the same woman that they were married to as a very young man. The experience of life tells one that the latter person is less likely to have engaged in extramarital affairs than the former.”
Phillippa Kaufmann, QC, who represents victims, said: “People do all sorts of things, specifically in relation to sexual issues, that many other people would never have expected of them.”

Sir John later said: “I may stand accused of being somewhat naive and a little old-fashioned,” adding that he would reconsider his views.

The Police Spies Out of Lives group, which has called for transparency, said that Sir John’s comments “shocked every person in the room”.
Be sure to read the comments…

“Sir John’s comment ‘shocked everyone in the room’”. His comment, carefully worded to allow for lots of exceptions, seems like common-sense. Who on earth was in the room?

How outrageous - an individual whose opinions do not match the pervading views of the self serving left leaning metropolitan liberal elite!

This judge appears to have acquired a dose of common sense.
Shouldn't be allowed.

… How dare you let reason get in the way of our right to be offended.

Hell hath no fury like a animal rights activist scorned.  I can't see the problem with the judge, nor his views, nor the thoughtful way he put them. The fact that he has publicly said he will reconsider his views is even more commendable.
He isn't a 30 somethings, he has not only had 70 years of experience, but experience as a judge seeing the problems we create for ourselves.
I am with the judge here!

Watch out all those guys out for drink, on a golf/rugby/cricket trip etc who dis ingenuously swear they are single, not committed in any way.
And the ladies who flirt in a similar way.
Are we now asking to criminalize sexual relations in order to save the niave and stupid?
Please don t quote the " I would not have consented if I had known the truth about him/her"
Just about every divorce must echo to that refrain

Friday, May 04, 2018

“Administrative incompetence” and “computer failures” “beyond belief”: the miracle of state-controlled health care in the UK led to the deaths of up to 270 patients

Hundreds of thousands of women face an “agonising wait” of up to six months to be checked for breast cancer
writes Chris Smyth in the Times of London,
after an IT blunder which meant they were not called for screening led to the deaths of as many as 270 patients.

NHS bosses were trying last night to contact 309,000 women who were not invited to breast cancer checks because of computer failures dating back almost a decade.

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, apologised for women’s lives being cut short by “administrative incompetence”, but said that some women affected would have to wait until the end of October for catch-up checks to avoid disrupting routine screening for those aged between 50 and 70.

Campaigners demanded that the NHS hire hundreds of extra staff or send women abroad to get the checks done. Labour said that the NHS should be given extra resources to carry out the checks, but the party’s response was tempered by the knowledge that it had been in power when the troubles began.

Public Health England, which runs the screening programme, is also facing questions. Mr Hunt told the Commons: “For many years oversight of [the] programme has not been good enough.”

 … Mr Hunt promised to write by the end of the month to all women affected, saying: “There may be some who receive a letter having had a recent terminal diagnosis. For them and others it is incredibly upsetting to know that you did not receive an invitation for screening at the correct time and totally devastating to hear you may have lost or be about to lose a loved one because of administrative incompetence.”

The NHS is promising to pay for staff overtime and to use the private sector to offer all women who missed out an appointment by the end of October.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, chief executive of the charity Breast Cancer Now, said it was “beyond belief” that the problem was undetected for so long.
“Beyond belief” is another way of saying Unexpected.

Peter O'Keefe: Misleading MSM Headlines Deliberately Obscure Both the Intent and the Merit in Trump's Policies

Guest editorial from Peter O'Keefe, an expatriate American in Paris and one of the earliest readers of No Pasarán (now in its 14th year):
Shortly after World War II, there was rarely a week that passed without someone in my social circle saying, ”You know … the Germans are perfectly nice people, just like you and me.

“It’s just that they were duped by the Nazi propaganda machine.”

Years passed before it occurred to me that if there was such a machine, every government on the planet, not to mention every business and every ambitious politician, would commit murder to get their hands on it.

A recent American headline was broadcast across the international wire services:
Most European readers immediately conclude that American President Donald Trump loves guns and hunters, hates forests and wildlife, and is abandoning the grizzly to the bloodlust of NRA zealots.

This interpretation was, of course, encouraged by the headline’s author, and endorsed by the editor(s).

This interpretation is, of course, entirely wrong.

Closer inspection of the article reveals that the Federal government is returning the responsibility for the management of wildlife to the various States. This is a deliberate Trump Policy, consistent with the stratification of authority outlined in the U.S. Constitution, and supported by two centuries of positive results.

The grizzly will again be cared for by people who know something about them.


Unfortunately, few readers will delve beyond a headline unless the subject is of particular interest to them.

They will, however, recognize the implied message, and place it upon the balance scale of their judgement.

Regrettably, there is no equivalent to Rush Limbaugh in France.

Thursday, May 03, 2018

Joy Reid wholeheartedly regrets writing that stuff she didn’t actually write; Also, she’s deeply remorseful for the pain she didn’t really cause

Joy Reid’s televised non-pology was perhaps the most awkward thing Benny Huang has seen all year.
The host of MSNBC’s AM Joy began her April 28th segment by delivering a mea culpa for “homophobic” blog posts she wrote years ago while simultaneously maintaining that
“I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things because they are completely alien to me.”
Reid had earlier asserted that somehow her blog had been hacked, though that claim was demonstrated to be a preposterous lie. So she apologized—while still clinging to the hacking story.

Joy Reid wholeheartedly regrets writing that stuff she didn’t actually write. Also, she’s deeply remorseful for the pain she didn’t really cause.

Let’s take a moment to recap the situation. Before Reid had her own program she was a mainstay on The Rachel Maddow Show. Maddow is of course a homosexual. And before that, Joy Reid was an obscure blogger who liked to call prominent Republicans “closet cases.”

Chalk these comments up to mindless mimicry. Years ago, when conservatives used to stand against the homosexual agenda, “gays” used to taunt them by claiming that their foes were “on the down low”—secretly homosexual. The whole culture war was apparently an internecine battle between two groups of homosexuals—one closeted and the other out in the open. The taunt worked well because the homosexuals didn’t consider it insulting but it left their targets red-faced and fuming. 

Homosexuals knew that nothing bothered their opponents more than to say, “You’re one of us, you just won’t admit it.”

The taunt doesn’t work quite the same way when Joy uses it. It doesn’t even make sense because none of her targets have ever given any indication that they are homosexuals. Also, the “gay” activists who made similar taunts didn’t really consider them degrading because they obviously saw nothing wrong with butt sex. But she does. And that’s why she’s in trouble.

It’s clear from Reid’s posts that she thinks homosexuality is disgusting. Good for her. Most people, if they were honest, would admit that they agree with her. But that means that her jabs at Republicans were actually delivered as insults not merely intended to be received as insults.

And for that Reid must pay. Not a high price, mind you—she isn’t being banned from the planet earth as we’ve done to people like Brendan Eich. She’ll survive but first she must grovel a little.

I’m not offended, of course, and I won’t pretend that to be. Some of the things she said were clearly incorrect—Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove are not closeted homosexuals, for example—but that’s not the same as being offensive.

Other statements she made were spot on. Wrote Reid:
“Most straight people had a hard time being convinced to watch ‘Broke Back Mountain.’ (I admit that I couldn’t go see the movie either, despite my sister’s ringing endorsement, because I didn’t want to watch the two male characters having sex.) Does that make me homophobic? Probably.”
I didn’t go see that flick either. Liberals loved it because they love anything that promotes homosexuality, especially in conservative milieus such as the macho cowboy culture. But most normal people didn’t want to pay eight bucks to see two dudes ramming each others’ sphincters.

In another post Reid writes about “gay” culture’s weird obsession with teens.
“And then there are concerns that adult gay men tend to be attracted to very young, post-pubescent types, ‘bringing them into the lifestyle’ in a way that many people consider to be immoral. (Ditto with gay rights groups that seek to organize very young, impressionable teens who may have an inclination they are gay…)”
She’s right about that. Why do you think your kid’s school has a Gay-Straight Alliance? It’s a recruitment center.

 … After reading some of her posts I can say that I liked the old Joy Reid. She was someone I could have had a beer with. …

Reid’s blog posts reveal an urban black woman grappling with the new reality of progressive politics. She is, after all, the daughter of two very religious black immigrants and a cradle Democrat who grew up at a time when there seemed to be no conflict between the two. (Except for the baby-killing, of course.) But as “gay rights” started to rise to prominence within the party the space for people who wouldn’t celebrate homosexuality began to shrink. Religion was no excuse.

Blacks were often the slowest to adapt primarily because they are America’s most religious ethnic group. They are also less likely to consider sexuality to be comparable to race. This gap between black liberals and other liberals has narrowed quite a bit over the last ten years but it’s still there.

Joy Reid isn’t the first black person I’ve encountered who’s exhibited symptoms of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the new “LGBT”-obsessed progressive movement. These often religious blacks come up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why they vote for candidates whom they know in their heart of hearts don’t represent their values. If they were honest with themselves they would admit that their values aren’t nearly as important to them as their self-determined interests. The Democrats are still handing out free money, aren’t they?

There’s something very hypocritical about a person who used to write “homophobic” blog posts going on to join America’s most “woke” news network, MSNBC, and lecturing the rest of us about our supposed intolerance. And if I know anything about liberals it’s that they despise hypocrisy. Or at least they hypocritically pretend that they do.

 … Anyone who thinks she’s changed should first ask what the media would say about a conservative family values champion who was revealed to have done “gay” porn ten years ago. Would anyone say that he’s not hypocritical because he’s obviously turned over a new leaf?

Personally, I don’t believe that Reid ever had any genuine conversion experience. If she did, I’d like to know how and when it happened.

When did you stop being revolted by the idea of two men having sex, Joy? Do you still think they recruit kids or did you just stop caring if they do?

In all likelihood, she just learned to shut up. Toeing the party line was imperative to keeping her friends and advancing her career in journalism so she did what a lot of people have done and joined the mob.

She must have seen the objects of the mob’s hatred—Dan Cathy, David and Jesse Benham, Jack Phillips—and understood that they were only being savaged for saying aloud what she believes too. The moral and courageous thing to do would have been to defend these people. But of course she didn’t do that.

In that regard, Joy Reid is something like the Larry Craig of the Left. For those of you who don’t remember, Craig was a Republican senator from Idaho whose career ended in 2007 after he was caught soliciting sex from strangers in a Minneapolis airport men’s room.

The Left ate it up. The common refrain was that Craig’s moral turpitude lay in his hypocrisy not his actual offense. Why? Because Craig had voted for the Defense of Marriage Act—just like supermajorities of both parties.

The real scandal was that he opposed the Left’s legislative agenda. And when you think about it, that’s always the scandal.

Much like Larry Craig, Joy Reid’s real failing is her hypocrisy. There’s really nothing scandalous about her ten year old blog posts but there is something contemptible about the way she’s acted since joining MSNBC. She’s wagged her finger at us, virtue-signaled her butt off, and held her nose aloft because of her supposed tolerance and open-mindedness.

Then we found out the truth: Joy Reid is one of us, she just won’t admit it. …

Monday, April 30, 2018

Homofascism: The closet hasn’t disappeared and gays don’t want it to; They just want someone else to live in it

Over at the Constitution website, Benny Huang has quite a provocative article:
Army chaplain Major Scott Squires brought the wrath of homosexuals and anti-theists upon himself when he recently opted himself out of a marriage retreat he was supposed to lead because a lesbian couple signed up. Squires, an ordained Southern Baptist minister stationed at Fort Bragg, believed that he was doing right by his faith and Army regulations when he rescheduled the event and asked another chaplain to lead it.

But the Army still slammed him for discrimination.

It was plainly obvious that scenarios like this would arise after the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and the demise of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). Neither of those “gay rights” milestones had anything to do with the privacy of anyone’s bedroom or even with the relationship of two people to each other. Both were about ruthlessly suppressing dissent.

Mikey Weinstein of the militantly anti-religious “Military Religious Freedom Foundation” summed up the attitude pretty well when he commented on the Squires affair:
“If you’re going to view same-sex couples as a sin against god, you can either hold your tongue, change your attitude, or get out of the military.”
Weinstein believes that any denomination that won’t accommodate same-sex couples on marriage retreats should not be allowed to endorse chaplains for military service. I glean from some of his other comments that he believes the same should also apply to denominations that don’t perform same-sex weddings. Weinstein’s exclusionary ban would impact most major denominations including Catholics and nearly all Evangelicals, leaving the military with a huge deficit of qualified chaplains—which also happens to be Mikey’s lifelong dream. That’s not a coincidence.

Make no mistake—Weinstein’s point-of-view is gaining momentum. Chaplains will very soon be forced to conduct same-sex nuptials or be kicked out. This was blatantly obvious eight years ago when the Defense Department was carefully “studying” the effects of DADT repeal and yet these concerns were pooh-poohed.

To be clear, Chaplain Squires did not exclude this couple from the retreat though he would have been within his rights to do that. He excluded himself so as not to run afoul of his conscience, the Southern Baptist Convention, and Army regulations which require him to remain in good standing with his sponsoring denomination.

But these two chicks still weren’t happy because attending a marriage retreat was never their intent.

Do they expect me to believe that they really wanted to attend a marriage retreat conducted by a Southern Baptist preacher? This seems incredible. For starters, the marriage retreat was presumably Bible-based. Secondly, most marriage retreats focus on the complementary nature of men and women—their similarities and differences, their synergy, etc. It’s yin and yang stuff that doesn’t apply to yin and yin.

I can say with a high degree of certainty that this couple didn’t really want to attend this retreat. What they wanted was to provoke this exact conundrum. More than that they wanted Squires to face disciplinary action and perhaps lose his commission.

So they ambushed him.

These kinds of ambushes are increasingly common.
[The equivalent in civilian life would be the bakers and the photographers ostracized, demonized, and sued for tens of thousands of dollars…]
Something similar happened to Navy chaplain Wes Modder. His ordeal began when a homosexual junior officer began to engage him in regular private conversations about sexual sin in which the junior officer asked direct questions about the morality of certain sexual practices including homosexuality. Modder confirmed the teaching of two thousand years of Christianity and told him that yes, God hasn’t crossed anal sodomy off the sin list as much as our fallen world would like Him to.

Little did Modder know that the junior officer was taking notes of their conversations. The backbiting snitch then proceeded to file an Equal Opportunity complaint against the chaplain. According to the five-page complaint the chaplain not only thought that homosexuality was wrong but masturbation and pre-marital sex too! Apparently believing these things makes a person unfit to be a chaplain in today’s military.

Note to Mikey Weinstein: This is why “holding your tongue” is not good enough. Not content with merely shaming religious people into silence, homofascists will literally interrogate others’ religious beliefs just to ruin them.

The military, like society as a whole, is becoming an increasingly hostile place for people of faith. Millions of people are living in fear that their constitutionally-protected religious beliefs (and the free exercise thereof!) will make them the homofascists’ next victims. So they keep mum. They wait until they think they are in like-minded company—at church perhaps—before feeling out the group to see if it’s safe to speak. Then they say what they really believe in hushed tones and with lots of apologetic caveats.

There’s a term for this. It’s called living “in the closet.”

Homosexuals won’t like me using this term of course, because they claim it for themselves. Central to homosexuals’ identity is their purported victimhood which they attribute to being a hated minority forced to pretend to be something they are not.

It’s hard to see how the closet that homosexuals claim to have emerged from is any different than the one that they force dissidents liked Chaplains Squires and Modder to live in. The closet hasn’t disappeared and they don’t want it to. They just want someone else to live in it.

I know there are some people who honestly wish for a world in which no one lives in the closet but I’m not sure that such a world can exist. Nothing I’ve witnessed in the last twenty years of intolerant homosexual activism has convinced me that homofascists can live side by side with people who express even the mildest disapproval. The search for a fleeting “third way” that leaves everyone feeling liberated is fruitless.
If someone has to be in the closet, which I believe to be the case, let it be the homosexuals.
I must give some credit for this idea to former congressman Ron Paul, the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president. For nearly two decades Paul published newsletters that contained some off-the-wall stuff mixed in with a few hard truths that many people just aren’t mature enough to handle. “Bring back the closet!” he bellowed in the August 1990 issue. In June of that same year he wrote:
“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
Amen to that, brother!

When homosexuals still lived in the closet they couldn’t harm us. During my time in the Army, for example, chaplains weren’t ambushed for their religious beliefs. No one was. But that’s because I served under DADT. Homosexuals in the ranks, of which I’m sure there were a few, couldn’t have been agitators and activists, much less bullies and tattletales, without calling attention to themselves.
Each day I wake up and read a news item about the homofascist assault on our freedoms and think to myself, ‘This wouldn’t be happening if they were all still hiding.’ Take for example the recent re-nomination of Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Feldblum is a militant lesbian who was originally appointed by President Obama and recently renominated by President Trump. Shame on him.

Feldblum does not respect the first amendment rights of anyone to disagree with or resist her movement’s agenda. Said Feldblum: “There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

She’s right that there can be a conflict between these two things but wrong to think that sexual liberty (if we can call it that) should supersede the unambiguous words of the Constitution.

But that’s really beside the point. What matters is that Chai Feldblum wouldn’t be a threat to our freedom if she had been born fifty years earlier. She might still have been a lesbian but she would have been a closeted one and her homofascist impulse would have been locked away in the depths of her heart where it couldn’t hurt a fly.
The “closet” that homosexuals whine so much about was a defensive apparatus for the rest of us. It ensured that the Chai Feldblums of this world couldn’t bind together and enact the kind of tyranny that they have succeeded in foisting upon us over the last two decades.

Under no circumstance should we apologize for using shame to defend ourselves. Society uses shame to disincentivize all sorts of behaviors including smoking, watching FOX News, telling racist jokes, and questioning global warming. We certainly shame people who won’t get in line with the homosexual agenda.

So what right do the shamers have to tell us we can’t shame them back?

Homosexuality was once the “love” that dare not speak its name—and if we try hard enough, it could be again. Ron Paul was right when he said society was better off when social pressure made these sexual deviants keep quiet.

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Twitter NSFW? While Conservatives (Alone) Are Banned From Twitter, Porn Stars' XXX-Rated Photos Make Quite a Splash ("Anyone want to see me get blasted?")

You are being forewarned: most of the links — and some of the quoted captions — in the second half of this post are Not Safe For Work (NSFW) as, indeed, they take you to some pretty steamy images, and by that we mean less X-rated than XXX-rated or, if you prefer, more Penthouse caliber than Playboy grade (if you catch our drift).

Okay, I'll be honest with you, I was not, I am not, scandalized by the torrid pictures linked below.

Indeed, I'll be quite frank — doing research for a blog post can be fun at times!

So, listen, I promise, I am not too much of a puritan, far from it, and offhand, I don't have an aversion to eye candy, as I think that there are fights more important to engage in.

In other words, this post is not — repeat, not — a call for Stormy, Brandy, Wifey, and their ilk to have their their posts deleted and/or to be banned from Twitter, permanently or otherwise.

In case you're wondering, I spent more time laughing while "researching" this post than hand-wringing (fun double entendre here) like an old schoolmarm, foaming at the mouth (another fun double entendre), and collapsing on the fainting couch (yet more fun double entendring).

Oh hell, I'll confess: I'm pretty much against censorship. 
Plus: I did like the eye candy.

At the same time I have to admit to feeling admiration for the strength in the bloke at CPAC who told me that if he arrived home and found the latest issue of his wife's women's beauty and fashion magazine subscription in the mailbox sporting a scantily-clad model on the cover (was it Elle? it was one of those), he would tear it off, just like that, and throw it in the garbage.

Yeah, I don't disagree, offhand that sounds kind of extremist but when you think about it (or when his wife thinks about it), that might turn out to be a pretty good man to be married to (at least in one aspect of life).
For me, what poses a problem — indeed, what does scandalize me — is the double standards of the left and of social networks like Twitter. Double standards like the fact that the groups of anti- or non-conservatives which neither Twitter nor the Twitter mobs (nor, for that matter, the members of the #metoo movement) show the least interest in keep growing. (In the case of porn stars, maybe the leftists think that they are not showing "hate" and "disrespect" but — ahem — "love" and — cough — "compassion"? Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it…)

So, we get conservatives such as Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, Sheriff Clarke, Mark Dice, and Breitbart reporters who see their accounts temporarily suspended, or conservatives like Stacy McCain and Milo Yiannopoulos, who see their accounts permanently banned, or conservatives like Kevin Williamson, who lose their job due to the Twitter mob. Stacy was told that his
account was suspended [by the “Trust and Safety Council”?] because it was found to be violating the Twitter Rules (, specifically our rules around participating in targeted abuse.
Meanwhile, there are rumors that a Senator of the United States and presidential candidate, no less, was shadow-banned (appreciate the openness and the transparency that the left is always boasting about), while a conservative artist like Sabo has been Banished from Twitter Permanently. (Aren't artists supposed to be transgressive, and isn't their art supposed to challenge our boundaries? — or is it only the boundaries of conservatives and their dirty capitalist pig cousins of the decadent bourgeoisie?) Twitter itself says that
Examples of what we do not tolerate includes, but is not limited to behavior that harasses individuals or groups of people with:
  • violent threats;
  • wishes for the physical harm, death, or disease of individuals or groups;
All of this, we (and they) are told — Wikipedia has the full list of the accursed — because their attitudes, their ideas, and their posts are hateful and offensive to people — quite unlike BLM members, leftist comedians, Democrat politicians, Nation of Islam leaders, et al who, with foul language galore, call for the death of Republicans, make threats against or pose with fake severed heads of a president (only when he is a Republican), vilify their deceased wives, vilify and demonize America, or demand totalitarian one-party rule in the United States — oh, wasn't that last one approved of by Jack Dorsey, none other than, uh, Twitter's CEO?!.

Indeed, as Powerline's John Hinderaker writes, Facebook and Twitter have acquired a dangerous ability to suppress conservative speech:
I never actually go on Twitter, in part because Twitter is a cesspool. Profane language is common, I often read about calls by liberals for conservatives to be murdered, and outrageous hate speech like the tweets I wrote about here is common. If you are on the Left, anything goes.

 … I can’t think of any reason why a Twitter employee would question the appropriateness of the tweet by Clear Energy Alliance other than the fact that it promotes a video that criticizes “green” energy cronyism, a sacred cow of the Left.
Whereas the aforementioned Kevin Williamson goes on to say that, even in the mass media with (far) more than 140 (or 280) characters, a liberal news outlet like
New York magazine, in the words of its own editor, prefers a truncated, incomplete account, which is of course easier to distort and to misrepresent. Whatever that is, it isn’t journalism.

A subject to which I expect to be returning in the near future is the way in which social media functions as a tool for the prevention of discourse rather than an instrument enabling it. One of the lessons of the 20th century is that authoritarian movements are happy to use the instruments of liberal democracy as weapons against liberal democracy …

 … social media is purportedly an instrument for the enabling of discourse that is in fact used to prevent actual exchange—and, unhappily, the same desire to preempt genuine dialogue can be found throughout the ordinary news media.
Let us end this first part with the take of The Declination's Thales on "a massive problem":
 … boilerplate Leftism … is seen, even by most Rightists, as the default position. It’s the ‘no thinking required’ setting. If you want to spout some kind of philosophical nonsense to make yourself look smart and cultured while your boob is falling out, you do Leftism. It’s easy rhetoric. Hey look, there’s a man with no fish. Saying “somebody should give him a fish, look he’s starving” is the easy rhetorical answer. Defeating this argument is simple with dialectic, but few people care about dialectic. It’s boring. Nerdy. Too many words. Better to just call somebody a bigot and move on.

Defeating Leftism with rhetoric is much more difficult. For not only must you use a convincing argument, that argument must be truthful and honest. The Leftist may use deceit without remorse, because to him the end justifies the means. You may not. Furthermore, Leftism itself is tailored toward sounding good. Rightism is full of unpleasant truths about human nature and the how things work in the real world. People don’t like to hear these things. …

 … It is the ease of this rhetoric, the reward for it, that really pushes people into Leftism.

 … It is the ease of this rhetoric that must be defeated more than the rhetoric itself.
Read the whole thing (especially since Thales brings up the subject of "bikini girl[s]" and "superficial Instagram would-be porn stars"…)

Okay, enough of that.

Admit it:

you want to get to the naughty parts.

Let's do it!

If you're like me, you would imagine (insofar as you think about the subject at all) that, sure, a porn star on a public website like Twitter would have some titillating images, but some that aren't much worse (or much better, if you prefer) than the risqué bikini photos that supermodels (or teenagers!) regularly post on Instagram ("posing provocatively, generally with the juicy bits only barely covered enough to avoid attracting the attention of the censors," writes Thales), or, at worst (at best?), stronger images (full frontal nudity, sex acts, etc?) with perhaps the naughty parts blurred or concealed by a smiley or something…

How naïve you are!

What a riot you are!

No, not every (ex?)porn star is like whose page, at first glance, seems pretty tame and who even retweets !

To be fair, the main purpose of most of the posts is to redirect visitors to links to porn websites (often for pay) — ain't it a business, after all? — but it turns out the actresses have Twitter images, GIFs, and trailers that show the worst of the worst (or the best of the best).

How does Twitter approach this?
We consider adult content to be any media that is pornographic and/or may be intended to cause sexual arousal. … Twitter allows some forms of graphic violence and/or adult content in Tweets marked as containing sensitive media.
The social media adds that 
Some examples include, but are not limited to, depictions of: full or partial nudity (including close-ups of genitals, buttocks, or breasts) … exceptions may be made for artistic, medical, health, or educational content.
Well, that's good to know. Be forewarned: I cannot embed what they consider "some forms of … adult content" here or this blog is likely to get banned
. They are eye-opening (yes, in every sense of the word) :) they leave little, if anything, to the imagination, and they include such things as money shots (if you don't know what that expression means, just click on one of the links below). In the list below, they go from relatively tame to progressively worse (or, depending on your take, progressively better).

Just remember not to worry: the good news is that neither you nor anyone else, as per Twitter's rules, will feel any kind of sexual arousal while peeking at the following NSFW photos. (Yeah, right…)

Warning: Did I mention that the best description for all the links below is "pornographic" and that they are NSFW?!
  1. I've been a baaaaad girl this week..
First, we have Wifey's World, in which we learn that, uh, "Wifey" (or Kate) is Having a little fun on a Friday night or has been (Uh-oh) a NAUGHTY girl (or a a NAUGHTY NAUGHTY girl) or has taken on one of the biggest [I believe this word needs to be redacted] I've sever seen or meets up with the MasterBlaster (what a MESS) or has been blasted with one of the biggest [perhaps it would be better to redact this word as well] ever seen on film (I was floored by his 12 shot output!!). Of course, Wifey did something REALLY naughty in the latest update (I hope my Hubby understands…).

Warning: Did I remember to tell you to watch out before clicking on the links that follow, since they are NSFW?!

Then there is Red MILF (My Hot Taboo Clips, For Your Stroking Pleasure), whose posts go from least raunchy — via one X-rated post after another after another after another after another (with GIFs) after another (with really hot GIFs) — to outright XXX-rated, with X-rated GIFs that leave little to the imagination, including one in which the GIF "cuts" appear so close to one another in time that they look like a colorized Charlie Chaplin movie (okay, not really) from the silent era.

Oh, wait, I finally did manage to find a film — not GIFs, real film, and with sound! — or, rather, the trailer (NSFW!!!) for a film ("The most brilliant casting job ever," thanks to PornMegaGold) that as far as I can tell does show just about everything, but that's OK, y'know, because it comes with a warning, one which says "If you are not of legal age you must close this now."

So, listen, to be frank, I live in Europe and these images don't bother me per se. (Hey! Admit it! Wifey and Rachel and Brenda are hot!)

Plus, I am not in favor of censorship.

Again: I'm NOT asking that anybody get outraged, I am NOT asking that anybody complain to Twitter, I do NOT demand to have anyone's twitter handle cancelled, or any of their posts censored (that, after all, is what leftists — see (cough) Twitter — are wont to do)… 

What I AM asking is for Twitter to admit to their double standards — the website's record in the matter is egregious enough without the addition of the porn examples, which for the record I consider little more than a distraction — or to at least stop (ab)using them. Once and for all…

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Boilerplate Leftism is the default position, the ‘no thinking required’ setting; It is the ease of this rhetoric that must be defeated more than the rhetoric itself

Excellent article by The Declination's Thales (obrigado para Sarah Hoyt) on "a massive problem":
 … boilerplate Leftism … is seen, even by most Rightists, as the default position. It’s the ‘no thinking required’ setting. If you want to spout some kind of philosophical nonsense to make yourself look smart and cultured while your boob is falling out, you do Leftism. It’s easy rhetoric. Hey look, there’s a man with no fish. Saying “somebody should give him a fish, look he’s starving” is the easy rhetorical answer. Defeating this argument is simple with dialectic, but few people care about dialectic. It’s boring. Nerdy. Too many words. Better to just call somebody a bigot and move on.

Defeating Leftism with rhetoric is much more difficult. For not only must you use a convincing argument, that argument must be truthful and honest. The Leftist may use deceit without remorse, because to him the end justifies the means. You may not. Furthermore, Leftism itself is tailored toward sounding good. Rightism is full of unpleasant truths about human nature and the how things work in the real world. People don’t like to hear these things. …

 … This means superficial Instagram would-be porn stars are going to spout Leftism. It requires minimal intellectual investment. And in order to please these attention-seekers, hordes of thirsty men will likewise spout Leftism.

… Delusional rhetoric is the centerpiece of Leftist thought. These people believe – or at least act like they believe – that we live in the most oppressive, terrible society ever, when it is far closer to the exact opposite. If a more tolerant society has existed, it certainly wasn’t for very long. … the point is, the oppression they crave, the oppression they rant about (not the contradiction it first seems) does not exist.

 … Just notice how much society rewards people who claim oppression. It’s actually a benefit. People compete and jockey for oppression points, because the more you have, the more attention you get.

 … It’s all mass delusion, but it’s a strange sort of self-reinforcing mass delusion. It’s like a brain virus, and once you have it, obtaining a cure is exceedingly difficult – because you have to realize that you are sick in the first place, something Leftism explicitly tries to avoid. Don’t question the narrative heretic… er… I mean racist. If there is any sort of religious dictatorship threatening to micromanage every facet of our lives, it’s coming from the Left, not the Christian Right. Of course, their dictatorship doesn’t make women wear strange red bonnets, but it does make you sign a consent form to have sex, so there’s that. The boob on Instagram is free, though.

 … It is the ease of this rhetoric, the reward for it, that really pushes people into Leftism. Oh, sure, there will always be welfare queens and hardcore Marxists who spout this crap, but the regular Joe is responding to a need to be accepted. The middle manager trying to angle for promotion to the upper tier is saying what he thinks people want him to say. And yes, even the flaky Instagram girl is just responding to what will get her the most likes and comments.

 … It is the ease of this rhetoric that must be defeated more than the rhetoric itself. Even if a Milo or Ben Shapiro gets in a slick comeback; even if Thomas Sowell comes to the party armed with every economic statistic known to man and has them on immediate tap, it won’t be enough. Such victories are short-lived, and the culture at large goes back to ‘if you want upvotes, talk about Islamophobia!’ Rightists are fighting an enormous cultural current, and are doing so admirably. But it is the current itself that must be changed.

The bikini girl on Instagram should be at least as likely to talk about taxation as theft as she is to take rhetorical dumps on Donald Trump. Only then will the rhetorical battle be on level ground.

Monday, April 23, 2018

Hammers & Nails? If all you have is discourse, every party to any round of talks looks like Socrates

A Herblock cartoon in the International Herald Tribune from November 11, 1998, has Iraq and Serbia's bloodthirsty leaders laughing at the Western countries' propensity for talks. Of course, both Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milošević would eventually be taken out, albeit after many years (in Milosevic's case, only after half a dozen years of war in Kosovo, and in Saddam's case, it could easily be argued, only because of the 9-11 attacks), so the Herbert Block cartoon cannot be said to be far from wrong.

In any case, doesn't it seem that the attitude is something that the Kims of North Korea have been doing for decades, right up until the arrival in the White House of a fellow by the name of Donald Trump?

Based on an Abraham Maslow thought, an old phrase regularly brandished by the left's pacifists against the Pentagon and its conservative backers goes like this:
"if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." 
 Well, if all you have is discourse and debate, every party to any round of talks looks like Socrates.

Sunday, April 22, 2018

What Matter Human Rights When Faced with Chinese Contracts with the West?

As Emmanuel Macron visited China a few months ago, Le Monde's Plantu let it be known that he did not seem too impressed with the French government's legendary devotion to human rights in the face of French-Chinese contracts…

Saturday, April 21, 2018

George Bush of Iraq, Meet Little Trump of Syria…

Imitation may indeed be the highest form of flattery, 
reports Hollie McKay from the Syrian town of Kobane,
but one Syrian-Kurdish father here has taken that concept to a whole new level.

“My son is 'Trump,'” Rezgar Ramadan, 40, a pharmacy drug representative, proudly told Fox News this week. “He likes his name so much, everywhere we go people always ask us, ‘How is little Trump?’”

Ramadan said he thought of renaming the boy, originally named Mustafa, back in 2016, after Donald Trump won the presidential election.

 … The boy has become a celebrity of sorts in the village of Kobane, in the nation's north, his dad said. "Everyone knows him now. I am teaching him about America. He is already so smart, and wants to lead his brother and sister.”
 … The couple are also parents to 8-year-old twins  Muhammed and Rula, and are planning to expand their family in the very near future. The names are already picked out.

“If it's a boy, it will be 'Rex Tillerson,'” Ramadan declared. “And if it a girl, she will be 'Nikki Haley.'”

“I like Rex Tillerson because I like his character,” Ramadan said, unfazed by the fact that Tillerson had recently lost his job as U.S. secretary of state. “And Nikki Haley fights a lot for the human rights, and speaking out against Russia, who have been committing a lot of crimes here in Syria.”

Naming children after foreign leaders is no longer so unusual in parts of the Middle East. Some supporters of the Syrian regime have named their babies “Putin,” in honor of the Russian president. And "Bush" became a popular name after the 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq under the administration of George W. Bush.

Ramadan insisted he hasn’t received any backlash over his decision to name his son after the U.S. president. …
Related: On July 11, George Bush turns 15 years old…
Related: There's a new George Bush in Baghdad,
six weeks old and screaming in a crib
Nadia Jergis Mohammed, 34, … told Associated Press Television News:
"I tell you all Iraqis hated Saddam's regime. It was only George Bush who liberated us, without him it wouldn't have happened. If he hadn't done it the sons of Saddam would have ruled us for years. He saved us from Saddam and that's why we named our son after him"

Friday, April 20, 2018

During the CPAC Convention, a Conservative in Europe Is Interviewed by Lars Larson from Radio Row

On the Lars Larson show during the CPAC get-together, write Carl Sundberg and Donovan Sargent,
Lars talks with ex-pat Erik Svane who emigrated to France, Erik tells us what conservativism is like in Europe and how some things are the same but some are very, very different.
Among other places, the Lars Larson interview appeared on FM News KXL and on iHeart Radio.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

It seems as if there’s no end of “scientific truths” that just ain’t so

Half the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are probably wrong 
write Peter Wood and David Randall in a Wall Street Journal piece entitled How Bad Is the Government’s Science? (thanks to Instapundit).
John Ioannidis, now a professor of medicine at Stanford, made headlines with that claim in 2005. Since then, researchers have confirmed his skepticism by trying—and often failing—to reproduce many influential journal articles.

 … It seems as if there’s no end of “scientific truths” that just aren’t so.

 … The chief cause of irreproducibility may be that scientists, whether wittingly or not, are fishing fake statistical significance out of noisy data. If a researcher looks long enough, he can turn any fluke correlation into a seemingly positive result. But other factors compound the problem: Scientists can make arbitrary decisions about research techniques, even changing procedures partway through an experiment. They are susceptible to groupthink and aren’t as skeptical of results that fit their biases. Negative results typically go into the file drawer. Exciting new findings are a route to tenure and fame, and there’s little reward for replication studies.

 … A deeper issue is that the irreproducibility crisis has remained largely invisible to the general public and policy makers. That’s a problem given how often the government relies on supposed scientific findings to inform its decisions. Every year the U.S. adds more laws and regulations that could be based on nothing more than statistical manipulations.

All government agencies should review the scientific justifications for their policies and regulations to ensure they meet strict reproducibility standards. The economics research that steers decisions at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department needs to be rechecked. The social psychology that informs education policy could be entirely irreproducible. The whole discipline of climate science is a farrago of unreliable statistics, arbitrary research techniques and politicized groupthink.
Mr. Wood is president of the National Association of Scholars. Mr. Randall is the NAS’s director of research and a co-author of its new report, “The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science.”