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? 

Less is More Proven with....Bacon!!!

Less is more proved in one picture

From this

To this

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

"a punk, trying to sew discord."

Attorney General Holder called the person that tried to assassinate two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri, "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 are 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. 

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.

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?

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 - CNN.com

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.

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.

JustOneMinute: Raaaacism!

Michelle Obama tells of how she was mistaken for a Target employee and interprets it as racist. But a year or two before she told the same story on Letterman as just being asked for help because she was tall and related it as a happy memory.



There is no reason to think she is lying, though, given what we know about memory. People reinterpret when they remember and she may very well now remember it as being tinged with racism.

Australia vows to unearth why 'sick' extremist was at large - Yahoo News

Everyone seems to be outraged that he was 'on the street'. Maybe they should be outraged that he was in the country. You can let fanatics in your country and then try to follow them around 24 hours a day to make sure they don't do anything crazy or you can just not let them in in the first place. You end up transforming your country in either case.



It is not that he was allowed on the street, it is that he was allowed to vote. You let him transform your laws by voting and transform your law enforcement by creating a new class of citizens that are to be 'free but followed'? Why not just keep them out in the first place?

Eric Garner, criminalized to death - The Washington Post

I disagree with Will (and apparently just about everyone else on the planet). I think the Grand Jury in the Garner case was right. His death was a crime, but the crime was not committed by the police but by the state. He was not the victim of rogue cops but of a rogue law.

Abbas’s Nazi-Zionist Conspiracy Theory and the Western Dupes Who Avert Their Eyes « Commentary Magazine

I remember the other day someone answering the argument that the CEO of Mozilla who was fired for having been discovered to have contributed to the campaign against the gay marriage ballot initiative in California with the question "Would you allow a Holocaust denier to serve as a company president?"



I have to admit, it is a good question. I suppose that those who defended the right of the CEO to oppose gay marriage to would have to admit that it is not the proposition that any private view is acceptable in business, only that the line should be drawn a bit more broadly than it current seems to be. I would probably not want a Holocaust denier running my company and the fact that one was running a company probably would make me less inclined to support do business with that company.



Still, if that is the standard, what are we to make of people that want to keep doing business with the PLO and their leader Mahmoud Abbas? The great and good of the world insist not only that Israel do business with him, that the West continue to fund him, but that the Jewish state allow him to have an army parked at their doorstep. It is one thing to give a Holocaust denier your money, it is surely another to give him an army, an air force and a missile launch pad within a few miles of your capital.  

Orono students make robotic hand for boy born without fingers - KMSP-TV

The high school teacher who led the class said in the interview "to help someone--I don't want to call it--with a disability, but..." Well, if not having any fingers on your hand is not a disability what the hell is? It can't be an advantage. 

Here is this man who has done a great thing for other human beings, but he still has to bow to the gods of political correctness, mustn't say anything that suggests someone is not equal to someone else. You are allowed to correct the disability but you can't refer to it as a disability, lest you be fell upon by the squealers, those people who do nothing to actually help anyone but take it upon themselves to correct other's vocabulary. Their correctitude in language makes them morally superior to people that actually do something to help others. 

The aristocrats in the 18th century who ruled their times were less noxious than these self-appointed priests of proper diction. 

Beyond Parody: Irving Kristol Edition

Ed Driscoll » Student Mugged, Says He Deserved It Because of His ‘Privilege’: Kristol said that a neo-conservative was a liberal that had been mugged by reality and a liberal as one who was so broad minded that he wouldn't take his own side in a fight. It is hard to make fun of people that keep stealing your punchlines to congratulate themselves.

From Walter Russell Mead

Obama’s Big Miscalculation - The American Interest: "Latinos are the new blacks: a permanent racial minority or subgroup in the American political system that will always feel separate from the country’s white population and, like African-Americans, will vote Democratic. On this assumption, the Democratic approach to Hispanic Americans should be clear: the more the merrier. That is a particularly popular view on the more leftish side of the Democratic coalition, where there’s a deep and instinctive fear and loathing of Jacksonian America (those “bitterly clinging” to their guns, their Bibles, and their individualistic economic and social beliefs). The great shining hope of the American left is that a demographic transition through immigration and birthrates will finally make all those tiresome white people largely irrelevant in a new, post-American America. 

Of course, this is perfectly true. But if that is true aren't the members of the ethnic group scheduled from elimination from history in their own country right to be somewhat hostile to the new arrivals? Or, more precisely, to the elites that hope to use the new arrivals as a path to elimination of the bitter-clingers and their reactionary influence?



But that is the genius of modern liberalism, picking fights where any punching back from the other side is delegitimized as racism or sexism.



This is what makes the situation so reminiscent of the English Civil War.

From Walter Russell Mead

Obama’s Big Miscalculation - The American Interest: "Latinos are the new blacks: a permanent racial minority or subgroup in the American political system that will always feel separate from the country’s white population and, like African-Americans, will vote Democratic. On this assumption, the Democratic approach to Hispanic Americans should be clear: the more the merrier. That is a particularly popular view on the more leftish side of the Democratic coalition, where there’s a deep and instinctive fear and loathing of Jacksonian America (those “bitterly clinging” to their guns, their Bibles, and their individualistic economic and social beliefs). The great shining hope of the American left is that a demographic transition through immigration and birthrates will finally make all those tiresome white people largely irrelevant in a new, post-American America. 

Of course, this is perfectly true. But if that is true aren't the members of the ethnic group scheduled from elimination from history in their own country right to be somewhat hostile to the new arrivals? Or, more precisely, to the elites that hope to use the new arrivals as a path to elimination of the bitter-clingers and their reactionary influence?



But that is the genius of modern liberalism, picking fights where any punching back from the other side is delegitimized as racism or sexism.



This is what makes the situation so reminiscent of the English Civil War.

Most Heavy Drinkers Are Not Alcoholics - NYTimes.com

The standards that they use to define alcoholics would have included Churchill. I am sure that this would give the authors of such standards no cause for second thought. The fact that a great man from the past would be classified as suffering from a disease would only make them more confident in their own superiority.



What is so unpleasant about our age is that it crows about its tolerance while being the least tolerant of other societies, times and cultures that differ from our standards. It is not that our standards are different, it is that we are uniquely inclined to define deviations from our standards as pathological.

Teens Are Sharing Gross Pictures Of Their School Lunches With The Hashtag #ThanksMichelleObama

Thanks Michelle! And remind me again why the party that thinks Washington has to pick your lunch is the cool party?

Obama's wrong way to do the right thing: Our view

USA Today Editorial: "Obama was well aware of the issues raised by such sweeping unilateral action. More than a dozen times earlier in his presidency, he told those pushing for such an order that he couldn't responsibly sign one. "Believe me," he said in 2011, "the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.""

Someone should ask him what other things he has felt tempted to do and what, if anything, stops him from doing them now? Of course, that would require a press core composed of vertebrates.

The editorial draws a good parallel with the possibility of a future Republican president suspending enforcement of Obama-care tax mandates.