Wednesday, July 06, 2016

The Establishment Defends Its Own

Hillary Exonerated

One of the things that has bothered me about Republican response to Hillary's exoneration is the focus on whether the 'fix' was in. This is the concern behind the attention given to the meeting between Clinton and the AG and the focus on the question of whether there was some sort of specific quid pro quo with any official.

I think this is a mistake.

What we are dealing with is not so much a contest between parties but a contest between classes, in this case, the ruling class and the rest of us. It is less a narrow party machine and more a class or quasi aristocracy. The thing about a ruling class is that there does not have to be message or specific instruction. It is a good ol' boys club. You know what you are supposed to do. You know there are some people you are not supposed to touch.

The email server was known to be insecure by anyone that got an email from Hillary. Everyone could see there was a private server as the address rather than the .gov address that all other government officials used, but no one said anything. They knew they were supposed to keep their mouths shut, that there are certain people that you cannot tell to follow the rules.

By they way, when is someone going to ask how much money was spent on this two year investigation employing so many attorneys/agents? Shouldn't the Democrats be out there complaining about the time wasted on this investigation when no one ever believed that Hillary actually wanted to reveal secrets to America's adversaries? Since no one ever suggested that she wanted the Chinese or the Russian to be able to read her emails and the fact that it was not an intentional betrayal of the US why was there an investigation at all? 

Sunday, March 15, 2015

"... a punk, trying to sew discord."

Our Attorney General called the person that tried to assassinate two police officers "a punk, trying to sew discord."

The description could apply to the Attorney General himself. The Justice Department's own report on the Brown shooting shows the narrative of events behind the Ferguson protests to have been false: Brown attacked the officer, was not surrendering but charging the police officer and that his body was left on the ground for four hours not because of racist indifference but because the protesters and thugs kept the detectives from doing their job. And yet, the President and the Administration withheld these facts and even encouraged the protesters through months of chaos culminating in the destruction, at the hands of these same protesters, of a large part of the town.

We have witnessed something like a legal assault on a city. The President meets with the ring-leader of the protests--Al Sharpton--in the White House who then goes out and whips up more protests based on claims that the Administration itself knows is false. It is an Alinsky-ite dream. And when, finally, the career officials' report comes out potentially exposing the whole scam, you put out a parallel 'report' claiming 'systemic' racism, meaning a grab-bag of policies that great and the good do not like and the consequences of which fall more heavily on black people.

Of course, what really falls more heavily on black people are the consequences of the Administration's and Al Sharpton's thuggery. The burned out neighborhoods produced by the 'protesters' (punks and thieves would be more appropriate) will be destroying lives long after the rabble-rousers of the community organizer White House have moved on. 

Monday, March 02, 2015

Its almost like they are unpatriotic or something

British human rights lawyers knowingly pursue false accusations of human rights abuses against their own countrymen. It is not so much that the accusations turned out to be untrue, what is telling is that the lawyers wanted them to be true. That is what is unpatriotic.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Untrue Truisms in the War on Terror | Works and Days

Untrue Truisms in the War on Terror | Works and Days: Why aren't the cartoons in the Congressional Record? If we are going to take a stand why doesn't the Federal Government take the lead?

Friday, December 19, 2014

Paramount Bans Showing ‘Team America’ - The Daily Beast

OK, how can a company ban a movie theater showing its film? If I buy the print why can't I show it? Can they ban me watching it at home? Just a legal question. I am sure there is an answer. 

But what is really interesting is that the article mentions how the Czechs dealt with threats from the North Koreans over that same film over a decade ago: 

“Obviously, it’s absurd to demand that in a democratic country,” a spokesman for the Czech foreign ministry said at the time.

The new Europe is ahead of Old Europe and the New World. 

North Korea deep into cyber warfare, defector says -

I think that two things are being missed in this controversy. First, the role of China. Some of the attacks are executed through China and the North Korean regime is only able to stay afloat because the Chinese Communists bank role them.

The other culprits that are getting away unscathed are lawyers and our legal liability system. It is probably correct that the theaters had no choice given our liability laws but to cancel the showings of the movie, but that is the problem. We have a system that does not allow free born citizens to make their own decisions. Our own legal system is a threat to our freedoms as is terrorism.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Lefty Hate | Simple Justice

Hypocrisy on the Left in Academia:

"That Mahmood was met with the whine of the tenderhearted, his satire created a hostile environment at his other paper, was par for the silliness course.

And until recently, he enjoyed writing for both of the campus’s newspapers: the institutional, liberal paper, The Michigan Daily, and the conservative alternative paper, The Michigan Review.
After penning a satirical op-ed for The Review that mocked political correctness and trigger warnings, The Daily ordered him to apologize to an anonymous staffer who was offended and felt “threatened” by him. He refused and was fired."
The saddest thing about all this is that the one place where you should be freest to speak your mind is the one place where that is the most dangerous. The anonymous denunciation is a particularly nice touch. No confronting your accusers here, comrade.

Killing The Interview Opens Studios to Terrorist Manipulation | The Informer | Los Angeles | Los Angeles News and Events | LA Weekly

Killing The Interview Opens Studios to Terrorist Manipulation | The Informer | Los Angeles | Los Angeles News and Events | LA Weekly:

"Emily Carman, assistant professor of film and media arts at Chapman University, says Hollywood received pressure from the Chinese government in 1932 and 1933 with the releases of Shanghai Express and The Bitter Tea of General Yen, respectively.

The films featured white actors in yellowface as well as interracial relationships.

"It was a racist, Eurocentric view of China," Carman said.

Leaders threatened to block film distribution in China, but Hollywood did not back down, she said.

The Interview also hits a familiar note of insensitivity toward an Asian nation. Before that, in 2001, the Ben Stiller comedy Zoolander featured a plot about a fashion model recruited to assassinate the prime minister of Malaysia. That nation and neighboring Singapore banned its exhibition.

 "Can you imagine the outcry if North Korean released, Get Obama, about the assassination of a sitting president," asks Douglas Thomas, associate professor of communication at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

"It's amazing that this even got green-lit," Carman adds. "Wow, nothing's really changed. This is still a white male, Western-centric view of a small Asian nation."

Let me say that I think these points are wrong in every particular.

The movies from the 1930's were not racist, the characters were fully developed human beings on both sides of the racial divide. That is what made them compelling movies.

And no, I can't imagine the outcry if North Korea released a movie about the assassination of a sitting president because Hollywood itself has released precisely such a movie--not a comedy--where the assassination of a sitting president is envisaged and actually viewed approvingly. Of course, in that case the sitting president was a Republican, so it was ok.

The movie treats the assassination of the leader of a "small Asian nation" as something to laugh about not because of the color of the leader's skin but because of the monstrous nature of his regime. It is a measure of the absurd fetishization of race by our intellectuals that the salient feature of the controversy is not the totalitarian regime the monster runs but the color of the monster's skin.

The battle for freedom of thought and speech must be won in the hearts of the people if it is to survive in government. Sadly, it has already been lost among our tenured intellectual class.