Opinion, Satire, and Logic

I count 4 nooses.
Is this Fake Noose?

Jan 13, 2020; Los Angeles, California, USA; Los Angeles Lakers forward LeBron James (23) high-fives teammate guard Alex Caruso (4) after scoring on the fourth quarter against the Cleveland Cavaliers at Staples Center. Mandatory Credit: Robert Hanashiro-USA TODAY Sports

Jan 13, 2020; Los Angeles, California, USA; Los Angeles Lakers forward LeBron James (23) high-fives teammate guard Alex Caruso (4) after scoring on the fourth quarter against the Cleveland Cavaliers at Staples Center. Mandatory Credit: Robert Hanashiro-USA TODAY Sports

Live tonight from the Circus Circus casino* in Las Vegas, newcomer Michael Bloomberg (remember that name; I won’t mention it again) enters a no-holds-barred cage match against the Medusa-headed,  Washington- insider majority faction of the Democrat party or, as he calls it, The Land Of The Giants.

*JK. It’s at Le Theatre des Arts at Paris Las Vegas, surely the most dissonantly monikered venue ever for a political debate; especially this one.

They will gang up on The Penguin by  5-, 4-, 3-, and 2-1 margins. But the best battles will be the one-on-ones. Look for:

1. Joe Biden to defile The Tiny Tyrant on his racist, white supremacist, and incredibly tone deaf opinions of minorities. I’m talking Hillary Clinton “basket of deplorables”-grade tone deafness. Seriously, there are videos of him saying things that would make George Wallace raise an eyebrow; the Mayor Of Lilliput may just as well be offering these voters berth numbers on the Lord Ligonier. Accordingly, Joe has the opportunity to fortify his traditional but wavering popularity with African-Americans, his firewall. And that’s no malarkey! But the way Joe orates, it’ll sound like just that. His river don’t go all the way to Aintry;  it probably don’t go to The White House either.

2. Bernie Sanders to cut Shorty Too Rich down to size on his wealth, capitalism, greed, carbon footprint, deluxe health care insurance, and, well, everything. It’s Lenin versus Tsar Nicholas II redux. But unlike everyone else on stage, Bernie is at least genuine in his commitment to his pet issues; I admire him for that much. He’s a true Socialist believer up against one of the wealthiest men on the planet, but I’d rather have to prepare Hillary Clinton’s daily Bristol Scale analysis than support his platform.

Wild card: Will Native American candidate Princess Land O’ Fakes bother to reprise her “I think you just called me a liar on national TV” smear against him? The public seems to have already dropped the gavel on that; I’m unconvinced that she realizes it.

3. Amy Klobuchar to blister Shorter Tom Cruise on his condescension to the farming and agriculture electorate*, including but not limited to “You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. I could teach anybody to be a farmer.”

Wild card: Will she tone it down in hopes of the VP nod I have predicted, or does she still think she actually has a shot at the title?

*Klobuchar is a member of the “Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party,” which is evidently a thing in Minnesota. Minnesota, the only state to go for Mondale in 1984 and, I believe the only state to ever be alone in its 1-49 position in a presidential election. A hole well dug, Gopher State.

4. Mayor Pete Buttigieg to unsuccessfully attempt to appeal to his own weakest demographic, the African-American vote, by gently nodding his head at all the comically inarticulate race issue gems with which Biden will shower Tyrion Lannisterberg, while ignoring the irony that the same gems apply equally to himself. He may break out with an original thought; or not.

Wild card: How many times will the DCO remind us he served in Afghanistan?

5. Lies-With-A-Fist Elizabeth Warren to ambush Bitesize DeVito on his well-documented, horrific treatment of his female employees, such as the many settlements against his company for sexual harassment, and the requirement for nondisclosure agreements regarding same. “Whenever my wife catches me eyeing some broad, she’s very careful to turn to me and say: ‘That’s the most expensive piece of ass in the world!’”

Crockagawea could just as easily go after him for telling a pregnant employee to “Kill it,” were she herself not so fond of the murder of unborn children. She is undoubtedly the most courageous prevaricator of the lot, a notable distinction considering she was never the field’s pasty-white lifeguard at a minority pool frequented by threatening gangstas with names like Corn Pop, Silky Johnson, Buc Nasty, Ashy Larry, Fat Reggie, Jackmerius Tacktheritrix, Stinky Nuts, X-Wing @Aliciousness, Booty Snatcher, Fartrell Cluggins, The Crying Game, Donkey Teeth, Lil Peni$, Kim Jong fUNk, Teen LaQueefa, Notorious NAACP, Lucille Deez Ballz, Don’t Chain Me Joe, and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Not present: Tulsi Gabbard. This is a travesty, as is the absence of the comic relief injected by Yang and Williamson. Kirsten, Kamala, Korey, Keto, and the rest of the runts in the herd? This is not.

None of which is to say that each of these bureaucrats will not pounce upon Miguelito Loveless for his other shortcomings, of course. His record is a target-rich environment for any comer, especially this field of Social Justice Warriors, and time grows short before Super Tuesday causes the withdrawal of at least 1 of his 5 opponents, and possibly as many as 3. Desperation may rear its head.

The fun news is this: None of it will do any good. At 11:01pm, The Ankle Biter may look like he could be arrested for impersonating a piñata, but he’s smarter and wealthier than all of his opposition combined, and this debate could give him a much-needed HGH boost (and a not-at-all needed ego boost). So why is this going to be fun? Because he will get the nomination, and it will be the result of a deliciously nasty, possibly contested convention, after which we the public will have front row seats for the main event:

In the blue corner, checking in at 5-6 without a box stand, with 62 billion dollars, and wearing a $12,000 bespoke Savile Row suit in 34” short, Yosemite Mike.  In the red corner, at 6-3 and 3 billion dollars, wearing a quart of Maybelline bronzer and an entire can of Layrite Grooming Spray, Bad Orange Man. Gloves off, Marquis De Mike Tyson Rules, Electoral College winner take all, as the Framers intended. And when it finally shakes out and we’ve scraped the entire season off the bottom of our shoes, it’ll be 4 more years of Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler whining and beeping about the injustice of that pesky nuisance the rest of us call a Constitutional Republic; and of Eric Swalwell farting on live television.

9pm, MSNBC.

Yeah, I know you’re reading this. Enjoy.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/02/21-reasons-not-to-believe-christine-blasey-fords-claims-about-justice-kavanaugh/

Takeaways from last night:

1. The leading candidate, Warren, doesn’t like admitting that taxes will be raised on the middle class for Medicare For All, but doesn’t dispute it when everyone including Bernie points it out.
She insists that they will end up with more money in their pockets due to lower insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses.
Does anyone really believe this?
Everyone’s going after the frontrunner.

2. Biden pointed out that MFA will cost $3 trillion/yr for 10 years, which is most of our current federal budget, and that you could eliminate the entire Department Of Defense and it would pay for MFA for…4 months.
Warren stinkeye. Later resurrects Obama’s “You Didn’t Build That.” Fail.

3. Amy Klobuchar looking for big laughs: I’m going to build a big blue wall around those midwestern states Trump won on 2016, and I’m gonna make him pay for it.
Crickets.

4. Kamala Harris keeps trying to make happen what is evidently her new campaign slogan: “Dude gotta go.”
It ain’t, and he don’t, sistah gurl.
Falls back on “Women’s reproductive rights” non sequitur for only bump of the night. But: “Women have been given the responsibility to perpetuate the human species. Our bodies were created to do that.”
Casual weed smokers, and pharma execs: Is there anyone she doesn’t want to imprison?

5. Tulsi Gabbard is inexplicably underrated. Still the most reasonable, statesmanlike, and best prospective Commander In Chief up there. “When I look out at our country, I don’t see deplorables. I see fellow Americans, people who I treat with respect even when we disagree and when we disagree strongly.”

6. Nothing on immigration. Nothing (except one de rigueur mention of caged children).

7. Ramblin’ Joe Biden miraculously remembers his faultless son’s name (proud of him!), but his oratory still manages to make Al Sharpton look like Frederick Douglass. Win: did not bleed from his eyeballs (butt possibly elsewhere). ↓↓↓
8. Tom Steyer does vertical planking move for entire debate.

9. HRC SMH WTF OMG, while trying to figure out how to walk back anti-transgender gaffe.

And take it awayyyyy, AB:

I watched Justice League last night, and the following question occurred to me.
I’m curious if Rashida Tlaib has watched any of the Wonder Woman movies. They’re all about woman power; this should appeal to her.
Or has she declined because they casted a beautiful ex-IDF combat instructor instead of an ugly, mannish Islamist terrorist in a suicide vest?

Oops, I apologize. This was insensitive and wrong of me.

It’s a homicide vest.

According to the woke:

Say Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

As promised

You may have noticed that in my previous post I managed to discuss the immigration issue without bringing up racism. If you didn’t, it’s probably because you agree with me that racism isn’t much involved except as a political expedient. If you did, you’re saying “WHAT?!”

Fine. Here’s what:

Through nothing more than geographical coincidence, it happens that the influx of aliens attempting to illegally enter our country are of a mostly different skin color than that of our current majority. This fact is now used by otherwise educated, intelligent people as not just permission, but a mandate to plausibly (they think) label “racist” all those who oppose such entry.  Are some them racist? Yes, as are some of those doing the name calling. The ones who are, are easily identified: they criticize exclusively people of color in their posts, tweets, and everyday discourse. Regarding those who also equally criticize whites for the same positions, it is ludicrous to single out the prior criticisms as proof that they are racists without more compelling evidence.

I submit that most of them are not racists; if you feel compelled to disagree, ask yourself when was the last time you called a person of color a racist for criticizing a white person, because that is your standard (“People of color cannot be racists!”, you say? Please). You have decreed that it is racist to criticize a person of color for…anything; it is a standard that demands that, if you’re white, YOU are a racist if you ever criticize—for any reason—Ben Carson, Alan West, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, David Clarke, or Candace Owens, to name just a few. And that includes when you call them Uncle and Aunt Tom, which is what I suspect you do—or think— when a person of color doesn’t “think like they’re supposed to.” More on that below.

If the mass illegal entries consisted primarily of white people from our northern neighbor, we would feel exactly the same way about their flaunting our laws as well as their abuse of our generosity. So please stop with the incessant blanket “racist” hysteria (and feel free to interchange “white supremacist” with “racist”).  Rob Reiner said exactly that on July 29^th: “If you support (Trump), there can be no distinction between you being a racist and a racist enabler. They are the same.” Amy Klobuchar, to her great credit, forcefully contested this idiocy in Tuesday night’s debate. But you’ve cried wolf too often; it doesn’t work anymore (except that—unlike in the fable—there is no downside to the lie. You get woke street cred, which may well be what you’re after. See “Jussie Smollett”).  You think we’re all James Fields; we are not. We hate the NeoNazi asshole and David Duke and their ilk as much as you do.

What we ARE is…well, we’re bored. Your blind adherence to Alinsky’s rules has made the accusation impotent, and has caused you to forget Rule 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” But if your identity politics yet still demands that you label us, then call us loyalists. At least then you would be consistently correct, because we were largely all loyalists under the last administration too.

Here is the essence of why we see racism where the opposition may not, because it is the best example of the most racist statement made by a government official in recent memory: “We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need any more black faces that don’t want to be a black voice.” But you know it, and I know it: what Ayanna Pressley means is that if you’re a certain color, you have to think as she insists certain colors are obligated to think, or you can’t be one of them. That is not diversity, and it’s worse than blind conformity; it is racism. Imagine if a white Congressperson had said that. And then, for fun, look at the racial demographics of the 2016 election. The identifiable race/ethnic group that was MOST DIVERSE in its political loyalty was, wait for it, whites, with only 58% for Trump. The race that was least diverse was…blacks, with 88% going for Clinton. Other people of color were also all over at least 65% in their nondiversity. I.e., Pressley is preaching to the choir. But don’t expect that to stop her.

How do we stop real racism? We condemn it wherever it raises its ugly head. We prosecute it when appropriate; we make it hurt, within the bounds of laws with bigger teeth, to include domestic terrorism charges. We vote it out of office. We demand equal opportunity for all, and we let the result speak for itself. But we don’t cheapen its ugliness and create unnecessary chaos by fabricating it for political purposes where it doesn’t exist. Victor Davis Hanson said it best of what he calls this “anti-enlightenment racism of the woke: It will cease only when the majority of Americans of all racial heritages are brave enough to call out those projectionists who are obsessed with constructing or promulgating racism as the purveyors of hate themselves, the sad and the pathetic dividers who seem to believe they are innately and collectively superior on the basis of their superficial appearance or creed.”

Recommended reading: https://quillette.com/2019/07/30/intersectionalism-is-nonsense-but-the-backlash-against-it-is-very-real/

“What truly makes our country great is its diversity. I’ve seen that beauty in so many ways over the years. Whether we are born here or seek refuge here, there’s a place for us all. We must remember it’s not my America or your America. It’s our America.”— Michelle Obama (@MichelleObama) July 19, 2019

This sounds great, doesn’t it? It sounds great to me, honestly. I’m sure Michelle Obama genuinely believes this, as do a large number of American citizens. But there is one problem: the basic premise is fundamentally, glaringly wrong.

It is wrong for 2 reasons:
1. It is wrong on its face—what “truly makes our country great” is the Constitution, the supreme law of the United States and the Bill of Rights which it establishes and protects for its citizens. It is only from this source that our diversity is even possible.
2. It is wrong in its intent because the diversity spoken of here is unqualified. It is undefined diversity for its own sake, without the essential qualifier of lawfulness; and it is referring to illegal immigration.

Let’s discuss Diversity and “seeking refuge here.”

Diversity, like almost everything else, is great only when It first willingly submits Itself to the rule of law. The corollary is also true: Anything that does not willingly submit itself to the rule of law is not great. To deny either of these statements is to not only tolerate, but to invite misery, anarchy and chaos. And it certainly seems that this is what some segments of our society are doing, and as a result we have all been rewarded with just that result. And they are, and should be, criticized for it. It is then both confusing and worth noting that, in other debates, what I will call the opposition has adopted as one of their main rallying cries, “No one is above the law.” Equally confusing is their admonishment of their adversaries for using this same tactic in the immigration debate. But most disturbing is that the admonishments are being hypocritically leveled at those who support policies that are almost identical to those practiced by the most revered elected representative of the admonishers. See President Obama below.

Once You, Diversity, agree to that one reasonable request for that one gesture of submission, that of lawfulness, You are literally allowed to do anything You want in this country, and have at it. And yes, this is not to say that some of Your practices will be necessarily welcomed by some U. S. citizens. But guess what, Diversity? That intolerant minority, those bigots (and it IS a minority), by virtue of Your mutual agreement to abide by the rule of law, are then in the same boat as You, and they also must suffer insult, ostracism, boycott, etc. And they do. What they (what all of us, in fact) should NOT endure—indeed, what they are obligated to oppose— is having their citizenship watered down by Your presence when illegal, especially when that presence is facilitated by both the unilateral dismissal (sanctuary cities) and the wrongful legislative removal, existing or proposed, of all lawful disincentives to Your unauthorized entry to and presence in their country.

“BUT THEY’RE SEEKING ASYLUM!” you reply. No, they are almost always not. They are fleeing from exactly the type of circumstances pointed out by President Obama as precisely NOT qualifying for asylum: “economic need, or because a family lives in a bad neighborhood, or poverty.” The only example I found that President Obama DID offer as valid for asylum is this: “You have a state, for example, that was targeting a political activist, and they need to get out of the country for fear of prosecution or even death.”  Such examples are exceedingly rare; most immigrants fall precisely into the category stated by Obama to NOT qualify for asylum.

So what then, you ask, DOES make Diversity great? There are any number of analogous ways to answer this question, by pointing out what happens when there is NO Diversity. Here are three:
1. When a country consciously strives to eliminate diversity, you get, in the worst case,  Nazism.
2. When a human gene pool is deprived of diversity, you get disease, and probably extinction.
3. Or, if you wish, imagine going to a barbeque where only barbeque is served.
Then imagine it with Diversity:  you now also get cole slaw, potato salad, deviled eggs, my crockpot macaroni and cheese, baked beans, hush puppies, your choice of sauces, and watermelon.

What makes Diversity great is when It’s a melting pot. This used to be taught in elementary school; I doubt the term is still used there, because it has been appropriated to mean the dilution of non-majority racial, religious, or ethnic identity. In fact a quick check reveals that the preferred terms are now mosaic, salad bowl, or kaleidoscope. Fine: you can now readily see the individual ingredients, and that’s good, even essential for this application. Whatever you want to call it, you cannot possibly look at our overall culture and conclude that minority identities are stifled, that their different subcultures are not identifiable. They are in fact widely celebrated, as they should be. And it’s a good thing too, because eventually we will ALL be minorities, and to a significant degree we already are. If that scares you, then you are part of the problem.

Is there room for improvement? You betcha. There is always room for improvement. But if you’re one of those who believe that this country hasn’t made much more progress in this direction than any in the history of mankind, then you are dazzlingly misinformed. Of course, there are going to be setbacks, and we are also going to disagree about what constitutes a setback (Welcome to free speech). We will always be a work in progress.

So, once more, what makes Diversity great is when It’s a melting pot, or a mosaic, salad, or kaleidoscope, something for which the ingredients work together to make the whole greater than the sum of Its parts. But it must be a law-abiding Diversity, or that mosaic is going to crash to the floor in its pieces; that salad will wilt and rot before you can enjoy it; and that kaleidoscope will have no light behind it to illuminate its components.  As Peter Thiel put it: “Diversity of ideas is to be valued, but you don’t have real diversity when you have people who look different and think alike. The diversity myth is that it’s not about diversity at all. It’s about conformity.”

The inscription inside the Statue of Liberty (The New Colossus poem) is not the law of the land; it is not even a policy statement. And it is certainly not, and was never intended as, an open invitation for aliens to enjoy the privileges of citizenship with no qualifications or barriers to entry. There is not, in fact, “a place for us all.”  The law of the land says as much. And it should remain so. A nation without enforced borders is doomed to imminent havoc and eventual dissolution and, oddly, it seems as though at this moment that a substantial number of the other nations on Earth realize this better than a lot of us do. Oddly, these primarily European countries are the same ones that the left holds up as examples of enlightenment in other areas of government policy and culture.

So, Diversity, welcome to the United States of America, but only if You come here legally and intend to continue to obey the laws which make it the one place so superior that You were willing to abandon Your own country to become a part of it. If You came to make it more like that which You deserted, then You’re not only coming under false pretenses (and certainly not asylum), but You’re plain just not making any sense. And thanks, but we already have plenty of that on our hands. But if You’re willing to play by our quite reasonable rules, You can be one of us, and You can pass that gift on to Your descendants, and most of us will embrace You. That’s the best we can ever do, but no one else can offer more.

And then, but only then, can You too say: “It’s our America.”

Recommended reading: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-downside-of-diversity-11564758009

Coming soon: Immigration and Racism

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/politics/false-flag-theory-mail-bombs-cnn-democrats/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0MctTASuVfog1WjxEniPLBgKZUyfmS20ghqcqXmcvv-rfBRJZESZKF40A

CNN’s Chris Cillizza fails miserably at debunking the false flag theory on the bomb scares. His point 1 inadvertently supports the theory; he just doesn’t follow up on why. Point 2 is flat out wrong; totally unnecessary. I guess the idea here is just to take a shot at Limbaugh, which of course is sometimes low-hanging fruit, but not in this case.

It now seems likely that these bombs were constructed to be purposely inert. I somehow doubt that someone so otherwise incompetent would also be so stupid as to be messing around with explosives if they clearly had no idea what they’re doing, although it’s possible.

So, assuming they’re purposely inert, consider the following:

Whoever is doing this will, after conviction, almost certainly spend life in prison. So there is nothing to lose for a right winger by going ahead and making the bombs so that they kill the victims. Of course there is that federal death penalty, but a plea bargain takes care of that. But, mission accomplished: kill a bunch of people you hate for political reasons. No false flag.

On the other hand, a left winger would not want to see those targets harmed, but the acts still create the desired perception that the other side is crazy and evil. So: impotent bombs.

Mission accomplished: Delay.

An 11th hour, forgotten-details (if indeed there were ever any to remember to begin with), repressed-memory (ditto), vicious allegation against Kavanaugh, which will taint him for the rest of his life (“Mommy, did Daddy rape someone?”). A letter requesting anonymity, and she sent it to a POLITICIAN?

Ford’s attorney Katz (who, apropos of nothing, proves that one can judge a book by its cover*) says Ford will testify. But then suddenly…nope; Ford says not unless the FBI (and it’s not a federal crime) investigates Kavanaugh’s past, which they’ve already done 6 times. That “under oath” thing is scary, isn’t it? But not so scary as to deter her from attempting  to dictate to the Justice Department the circumstances under which she will graciously agree to testify to a criminal (in more ways than one) accusation. I love the balls on that one. And even if the FBI did agree to her absurd proposal, she would be under no obligation to follow through without a subpoena, which would serve one purpose: to make the Senate committee look like bullies forcing this tortured soul to relive her alleged tragedy. Win/win.

The MSM, of course, takes it a ludicrous step further: Demand that the President of the United States order the FBI to comply (when all this time I thought their stance was that POTUS should not be meddling in federal investigations, which I figured including pressing for one). All of which is to say nothing of Feinstein’s weeks-long delay admitting receipt of Ford’s letter, as well as the leak of same. She could have asked Kavanaugh about it in their private meeting or, a more dramatic tactic, in the public hearing. Surprise! If Feinstein was interested in factfinding and reaching an evidence-supported conclusion in this case, the investigation should have started the moment she received it. All that screaming and beeping and Spartacussing about not having enough documents, and the whole time you were in possession of the only one that, it turns out, any of you give a shit about. Well played.

But it was evidently too early yet.

Ford has had 36 years to get her story straight, and still can’t (not won’t; can’t) say when, why, and where, but mirabile dictu, she’s got that who down (although she could or would not name him in therapy). And just for fun, throw in possible murder. He could have killed me! Kavanaugh and the 65 women who wrote in support of him (as well as pretty much everyone else who’s ever known him) had 1 day to get theirs straight, and it’s unanimous: No fucking way. Christine Blasey Ford, meet Crystal Gail Mangum and Jackie Coakley. Have a margarita, ladies. Hell, have 3: you have lots of reminiscing to do.

It’s the anti-Kavanaugh Democrat wet dream: an ancient, unverifiable accusation from one of their own, at a critical time in the confirmation process and at the apex of #MeToo, which allows them to plausibly, in their view, delay the Dem’s biggest crisis (they’re on the record about that) of this administration—a SCOTUS appointment. No, scratch that; it’s a full-on bukkake party at the Kavanaugh family’s expense (my apologies to bukkake enthusiasts). And it now also looks very much like a crock of shit. A powerful combination, that.

But not nearly as much of a crock of shit as watching Hillary Clinton, with a straight face, go to bat for her on Maddow, urging an investigation of alleged sexual assault against a woman by a prominent government figure. It doesn’t get any crockier than that. If we’re gonna go back decades (sorry, I know you have recently admonished me that the past shouldn’t be evoked to point out hypocrisy, but it is in fact often necessary and appropriate to “go there”) to investigate sexual assault allegations, why don’t we begin with, well, you know whom. And then let’s ask Ms. You-Know-Whom why this Ford allegation isn’t an almost infinitely more plausible left-“wing conspiracy” than the one she decried in 1998. There were mountains and stains of evidence then; there’s virtually nothing now. We can pose that question to her over some chardonnay. Chardonnay, I’m quite sure I read from an unimpeachable authority somewhere, helps.

Related: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/08/15/a-woman-who-accused-a-former-colonel-of-rape-will-be-forced-to-pay-millions-in-defamation-damages/

*

Sixties comics icon Herbie Popnecker lookalike and peace criminal Kim Jong Un, or seventies porn star mustachioed, chinless, and giraffe-necked war criminal Bashar al-Assad?