Posted on | January 22, 2017 | No Comments
There was a shooting Friday night during a riot outside an event at the University of Washington where Milo Yiannopoulos was speaking. Because the identity of the victim and suspected gunman were unknown, and we had no idea what motivated the shooting, I waited for facts to emerge before commenting on this incident. Seattle Times reports:
The man who surrendered to police in connection with the University of Washington shooting Friday night was released after telling investigators he fired in self-defense during a campus protest, according to two law-enforcement officials briefed on the case.
No details about any confrontation between him and the critically wounded man were available Saturday. But one of the law-enforcement officials said the man who fired the gun claimed he had been assaulted before shooting the other man, whom he believed to be some type of white supremacist.
The injured man, 34, was in critical condition Saturday at Harborview Medical Center, following surgery. His name was not released.
The shooting, which occurred during a protest of a Friday-night speech at Kane Hall by Breitbart News Network editor and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, remains under investigation.
Two people who said they are friends with the wounded man disputed the characterization of him as a supremacist. One said his friend supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary, and both said he sports an anti-hate tattoo that consists of a black swastika surrounded by a red circle with a slash through it.
Max Vohra of Seattle, who has known the man for seven years, said his friend got the tattoo more than a decade ago “when he was living in California, and had to deal with a lot of racists in the punk scene.” . . .
Daniel Herrera, who has worked and socialized with the man for three years, said he’s never seen his friend be aggressive.
“He has always been of the mind to be compassionate, empathetic and to educate. That’s his goal,” Herrera said.
UW police offered few details Saturday, saying in a news release that no suspects were being sought, and that the man who said he fired the gun was released pending investigation.
UW spokesman Norm Arkans defended the university’s handling of the event, saying that 80 Seattle police officers were brought in to supplement the 25 officers UW assigned to the event. . . .
Once the speech ended, police told audience members to remove their Donald Trump hats and other gear before leaving. Officers escorted the crowd out through an underground parking garage as a crowd of about 250 people remained outside the building.
So, it would appear, the shooter was part of the violent anti-Trump mob, who brought a pistol to this allegedly “peaceful” protest, and shot one of his fellow protesters — a Bernie Sanders supporter — in the mistaken belief that the victim was a white supremacist. This dangerous mob scene occurred on the campus of a state university, where a climate of violent hatred was instigated by soi-disant advocates of “social justice.”
Posted on | January 21, 2017 | No Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
Top linkers this week:
- EBL (24)
- Regular Right Guy (12)
- (tied) A View from the Beach and Proof Positive (6)
Thanks to eveyrone for their linkagery!
Posted on | January 21, 2017 | No Comments
Does that look like a mainstream political movement to you?
Ugly women holding up ugly signs expressing ugly sentiments — the #WomensMarch to protest Donald Trump’s presidency is perhaps the clearest explanation of why Donald Trump is president. The all-out feminist crusade mounted on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign reminded millions of Americans of why they hate feminism. Yet it is clear today that Democrats have learned nothing from their defeat:
Wearing pink, pointy-eared “pussyhats” to mock the new president, throngs of women descended on the nation’s capital and other cities around the globe Saturday for marches and demonstrations aimed at showing Donald Trump they won’t be silent over the next four years.
They carried signs with messages such as “Women won’t back down” and “Less fear more love” and decried Trump’s stand on such issues as abortion, diversity and climate change. . . .
The march attracted significant support from celebrities. America Ferrara led the artists’ contingent, and those scheduled to speak in Washington included Scarlett Johansson, Ashley Judd, Melissa Harris-Perry and Michael Moore. The promised performance lineup included Janelle Monae, Maxwell, Samantha Ronson, the Indigo Girls and Mary Chapin Carpenter. Cher, Katy Perry and Julianne Moore all were expected to attend.
Here’s a question: If “significant support from celebrities” has a political influence, then why is Hillary Clinton not president? Practically every celebrity in Hollywood lined up behind the Democrat candidate during the 2016 presidential election, but getting support from the rich and famous didn’t seem to help her win over working-class voters in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, did it?
Oh. let’s talk about “such issues as abortion, diversity and climate change” — say the wealthy show-business names and the powerful Democrat politicians and the spoiled-rotten rich girls who go to private liberal arts colleges where they major in Gender Studies. And then Democrats wonder why honest hard-working people vote Republican:
Women who cheered President Donald Trump and danced at the inaugural balls in Washington on Friday said the Women’s March scheduled for Saturday has them baffled and indignant that one group would presume to speak for all women.
“I think it’s great, do your thing, but I just don’t know what they’re doing it for. They’re talking about rights, women’s rights, but what rights are being taken away from any women?” asked Susan Clarke, 50, who came to the capital from Charlotte, North Carolina, and wore a blue, bedazzled “Tar Heel Deplorable” shirt. “I don’t understand what the point is.” . . .
“They can protest, it’s their right, but don’t call it the ‘Women’s March,’ ” said Ellie Todd, 23, who drove to the inauguration with two friends from Spartanburg, South Carolina. “That makes it sounds like it’s a big unified thing, when really they’re picking very divisive issues and protesting against Trump — who by the way is now our president — instead of for something that would bring us all together. It’s not all women.”
Democrats still haven’t processed the cause of their defeat and let’s hope they never figure out why their political power has evaporated:
What do Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have in common, other than being the swing states that flipped Donald Trump into the Presidency? All are among the many states in which Democrats lost control of their state legislature in the past decade. For Democrats, now at their lowest ebb in power since at least the 1920’s, the results of that loss in state-level influence have been both catastrophic and entirely predictable. . . .
Since 2008, Republicans have taken nine hundred legislative districts from Democrats, securing control not just in the South, where many voters oppose President Obama, but in such diverse locales as Michigan and Maine.
During the eight years when liberals were rallying around the symbol of Obama’s presidency, Republicans were quietly working state-by-state and district-by-district to organize conservative opposition. This was largely invisible to the liberal elite in New York, D.C., Boston, San Francisco and L.A., and on the campuses of universities where political discrimination prevents Republicans from being employed on the faculty. All the liberal journalists and progressive professors and Hollywood celebrities were so certain they were “on the right side of history,” they didn’t even notice that the Democrat Party had become increasingly irrelevant to the lives of millions of Americans who don’t live inside the liberal bubble.
Nowhere was this more evident than in the Democrat Party’s orchestrated propaganda campaign to popularize the Feminist™ brand. By summer 2014, it was apparent that a network of Democrat-funded tax-exempt groups was promoting a “feminist” message, especially targeted at college girls and 20-something millennials, in an effort aimed at making Hillary Clinton the “inevitable” Democrat presidential nominee for 2016.
A key component of this was White House-sponsored support for The Campus Rape Frenzy, to borrow the title of K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr.’s new book. Rolling Stone‘s rape hoax at the University of Virginia originated as an attempt by the pro-Hillary media to give a semblance of reality to the bogus “1-in-5” statistic promoted by feminists and their Democrat allies. More than 100 male students filed lawsuits claiming they were falsely accused and denied due-process rights as a result of this dishonest “rape culture” campaign.
By using false propaganda to demonize males, Democrats hoped first to defeat any male candidate who challenged Hillary Clinton for her party’s nomination, and then to ride this “feminist” momentum to victory in the 2016 general election campaign. How did that work out, Jessica?
Feminists have not merely lost. They have deserved defeat. Now they’re so desperate, they’re trying to import foreigners to protest Trump:
Would-be protesters heading to the Women’s March on Washington have said they were denied entry to the United States after telling border agents at a land crossing in Quebec their plans to attend the march.
Montrealer Sasha Dyck was part of a group of eight who had arranged online to travel together to Washington. Divided into two cars, the group — six Canadians and two French nationals — arrived at the border crossing that connects St Bernard de Lacolle in Quebec with Champlain, New York, on Thursday.
The group was upfront about their plans with border agents, Dyck said. “We said we were going to the women’s march on Saturday and they said, ‘Well, you’re going to have to pull over’.”
What followed was a two-hour ordeal. Their cars were searched and their mobile phones examined. Each member of the group was fingerprinted and had their photo taken.
Border agents first told the two French citizens that they had been denied entry to the US and informed them that any future visit to the US would now require a visa.
Go back to Canada, you filthy scum. We’re making America great again.
- Jan. 20: Trump Speaks, Liberals Hear Hitler
- Jan. 20: Fear and Loathing on Inauguration Day
- Jan. 19: The Worst People in America: Commie #DisruptJ20 Protests Led by Perverts
- Jan. 18: Blame @CNN: Liberals Becoming Unhinged as Trump Inauguration Nears
- Jan. 15: Marxists Shut Down Campus Speech — Is Trump Inauguration Their Next Target?
- Jan. 10: Race Divides #WomensMarch as Black Feminists Tell White Women to Shut Up
- Dec. 22: Why Do Feminists Hate Trump? Because Feminists Hate America
— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) January 21, 2017
Posted on | January 20, 2017 | 2 Comments
Donald Trump’s inauguration speech was a tribute to non-partisan populism: “What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.”
For the partisan hack Chris Matthews at MSNBC, however, Trump’s inauguration was an excuse to offer baseless insinuations of fascism. His co-host Rachel Maddow was shocked by Matthews’ deranged response to her mention of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner as a White House aide:
MADDOW: Reince Preibus and Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon will be an unusual triumvirate around this President and we don’t really know who will be first among those equals.
MATTHEWS: It’s hard to — Rachel — it’s hard to fire your son-in-law.
MATTHEWS: That’s tricky part although —
MADDOW: That’s why the nepotism laws are there.
MATTHEWS: — but Mussolini had a great solution to that. He had him executed. So, it’s —
MADDOW: Jesus, Chris!
MATTHEWS: So, if I were Jared, I’d be a little careful.
MADDOW: Well, all the people who are waiting for the reference to Mussolini have just started drinking.
Matthews’ predictable Hitler jab at Trump came later: “But I’m thinking when he said today ‘America First’ it was not just the racial, I mean the, um, I shouldn’t say racial, the Hitlerian background to it.”
This “background” existed only in Matthews’ demented imagination. Meanwhile, the Trump team wasted no time taking down a bunch of left-wing crap (“climate change” blah blah blah) from the White House web site, and replacing it with messages like “America First Foreign Policy,” “An America First Energy Plan” and “Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community.” Somewhere, I’m sure, Chris Matthews is downing his fifth cocktail of the evening, and mumbling that changing the White House website is a harbinger of a neo-holocaust.
Posted on | January 20, 2017 | No Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: INAUGURATION DAY
Twitchy: Sally Kohn Tweets Gnarly Meme That Backfires Hilariously After Trump’s Inauguration
Louder With Crowder: Dear Leftists – Accept It. Trump Is Your President Now.
Tom Kratman: Inauguration Day – The Great Triggering
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: The Truth Will Set The Dutch Free
American Power: Leftists Call For Trump’s Assassination On Twitter
American Thinker: What Has Obama Done To Us, And How Was He Able To Do It?
Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Inauguration Day Friday
Bring The HEAT: The Army’s Next Pistol Will Be The SIG Sauer
Da Tech Guy: Sarah Hoyt Perfectly Nails #disruptj20 and #disrupthate, et al
Don Surber: About That Nancy Sinatra Tweet – “Why Do You Lie, CNN?”
Dustbury: Standard Cab
Hogewash: Was Obama A Better President Than Buchanan?
Jammie Wearing Fools: Democrats’ Real Fury Is Over Their Own Collapse
Joe For America: Fourteen Busted For $16 Million Welfare Fraud – Guess Who?
Power Line: CA Democrats Advocate Criminal Resistance To Trump, also, Trump – If You Thought I Was Kidding, Think Again!
Shark Tank: Obama Concedes Defeat On Guantanamo Bay
Shot In The Dark: A Hit, A Laugh, And A Warning
STUMP: Chicago Bond Quickie – Not Wise To Scrap With Rating Agencies
The Geller Report: Muslim Screaming “Allahu Akbar” Plows Car Into Australian Pedestrians
The Jawa Report: Only Now At The End Do You Understand
The Lonely Conservative: At Last…
The Political Hat: Obama, Just Go Away
This Ain’t Hell: Devil Dog Firearms Rebuilding After Stolen Valor Scandal
War Is Boring: Surprise, Russia’s SAMs In Syria Aren’t As Capable As Believed
Weasel Zippers: Poll – 28% Of Federal Workers Say They Might Quit/Retire Because Of Trump, also, University Of Michigan Students Plan To Protest Trump By Taking Selfies In Their Panties
Megan McArdle: Obama Stayed Out Of The Swamp, And That Hurt Him
Mark Steyn: A New Dawn, A New Don
Posted on | January 20, 2017 | 1 Comment
Trump supporters, opponents clash
outside ‘DeploraBall’ in downtown D.C.
— Washington Post
Notice how (a) the anti-Trump protests are endorsed by the rich and famous, and (b) the violence of the anti-Trump mob attacking people in D.C. is depicted as a “clash” for which the victims of mob attack are made to seem equally responsible. Also (c) the violent mob getting pepper-sprayed by police is the headline, rather than the criminal activity of the mob which provoked this police crowd-control response.
The news media and the entertainment celebrities have chosen sides, and if any Trump supporters are injured as a result of the anti-Trump mob violence, the liberal elite will say, “They deserved it.”
— Deplorable Vet ?? (@KGBVeteran) January 20, 2017
Who is to blame for this unhinged left-wing madness?
The message drummed into the minds of students at America’s institutions of higher education is that all good people vote Democrat, and that anyone who votes Republican is a racist, sexist, homophobic ignoramus. This partisan prejudice accounts for the rage and despair reaction on campus to the election results.
You do not have to be a fan of Donald Trump to realize how absurdly unrealistic the academic reaction to the election has been. Some students actually seem to believe the partisan hype that depicts Trump’s election as a harbinger of incipient neo-fascism. There is no one on the faculty, apparently, who can explain to them that the Democrat propaganda churned out during the past presidential campaign was full of exaggeration and hyperbole. Aware that their candidate Hillary Clinton was widely unpopular among swing-state voters, Democrats resorted to fear-mongering rhetoric that depicted Hillary as The Last Hope to Save America From Republican/Nazi Trump/Hitler. . . .
ON HIS LAST DAY IN OFFICE, PRESIDENT OBAMA TURNS LOOSE HUNDREDS OF CONVICTED DOPE DEALERS https://t.co/QqyHG3UiBL
— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) January 20, 2017
"It wasn't Donald Trump that divided this country, this country has been divided for a long time!" Stated today by Reverend Franklin Graham.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 19, 2017
— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) January 19, 2017
Posted on | January 20, 2017 | No Comments
“Politics has replaced the pursuit of truth,” said a professor in the social sciences. “Ideology gets in the way of the pursuit of truth,” said a professor in literature. “It certainly lacks integrity to say I get to bring my political views to the table but someone else doesn’t,” said a professor in the humanities. . . .
A different professor in the social sciences believes that this problem stems from intellectual arrogance, “The problem is that whenever you are on the liberal left, to some degree, you don’t really see conservative ideas as even valid or worth the time and effort to allow because you have a sense that you know more and you know better.” This arrogance creates what another professor described as an “ideological vacuum.” In this vacuum he described, professors do not acknowledge counter-arguments on issues or challenge their own assumptions. . . .
One professor said that even if he tried to express his conservative views, his colleagues would suffer too much cognitive dissonance to recognize them. The assumption that all faculty are liberal has led to open derision and ridicule of Republicans and conservatism, according to a different professor in the social sciences, which has caused a sense of hostility against conservative faculty.
Posted on | January 19, 2017 | 1 Comment
“I am a danger to myself and others.”
— Hugo Schwyzer, Sept. 30, 2013
“Let’s be clear: Hugo Schwyzer is mentally ill, he has been mentally ill for a long time, and it is highly unlikely that someone suffering from such a chronic psychiatric disorder will ever be completely sane again. . . .
“Schwyzer’s indefensible behavior should alert us to the problematic nature of feminism as an ideology, especially when that ideology is embraced by men.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, June 17, 2014
You may remember Hugo Schwyzer, The Psychotic Professor, whose status as a “male feminist” was destroyed in 2013 when he had a breakdown after the exposure of his abusive behavior toward women, including the young community college students he was having sex with. His Twitter account hasn’t been active since March and his personal blog has disappeared, but Schwyzer has kept writing at Medium.com. And by “writing,” of course I mean, embarrassing himself.
For the benefit of Hugo Schwyzer or anyone else who hasn’t figured this out yet, let me explain that the reason men don’t talk about their feelings is because nobody cares about a man’s feelings. Sure, some women say they like “sensitive” guys who are “in touch with their feelings,” but what women actually mean by that it is much easier for them to manipulate a guy who’s stupid enough to expose his weaknesses. The last thing any sane woman wants to do is to have to deal with a guy who is constantly talking about his feelings. The guy’s job, insofar as he is “sensitive,” is listening to her talk about her feelings. What women want from men is simple:
A. Shut up;
B. Pay the bills.
Did I mention Hugo Schwyzer has been divorced four times? Did I mention that he nearly killed a woman in a September 2013 auto crash? Did I mention who he endorsed three days before Election Day?
Hillary won me over in 1995, with her speech at the Beijing Conference, declaring “women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are women’s rights.” And what won me over far more was the hatred she engendered on the right. . . .
Please join me in voting for this incandescently talented, immensely qualified, deeply compassionate candidate. Please join me in electing Hillary.
Yeah, that didn’t work out so good, did it, Professor?
Two days after Election Day, Schwyzer wrote this:
People are scared. They have every right to be. Trump’s words speak of an intent to violate fundamental liberties; Trump’s words inveigle violence; Trump’s words abrogate a social contract that says that we should quietly respect election results.
Professor Psycho Coed-Boner Felony DUI With Four Ex-Wives is worried about the “social contract” and “fundamental liberties.” How touching!
Beyond politics, however, Hugo has been embarrassing himself by writing about how awesome it was that his parents got divorced, and how awesome it was that his high-school girlfriend got an abortion in 1985, and a bunch of self-dramatic gush about his December breakup with a 27-year-old girlfriend in Texas: “I am older than her mother.”
However, these recent embarrassments are not why I’m writing about Hugo Schwyzer today. What happened was that, while perusing feminist Tumblr, I came across someone who had reblogged this:
Amid the general reaction of outrage, one blogger pointed out: “Hugo Schwyzer is also a rapist, a rape apologist, and an abuser so I’m sure that comes in to play with his ‘attraction’ to lesbians.” Ouch.
It turns out this was an article Schwyzer published in 2011, and the story focuses on Schwyzer’s second wife, whom he met circa 1993:
After a disastrous and brief first marriage, I met “Courtney,” the woman who would be my second wife. We met at a Twelve Step meeting, and became fast friends. I fell hard. . . .
Our mutual friends assured us we were perfect together. One, Jenny, remarked, “You guys make so much sense. Court’s just a little bit masculine, and Hugo, you’re just a little bit femmy in some ways. You two are meant to be!”
Well, not so much, as it turns out. Their sex life was abnormal, and two weeks after they got married, she lost interest completely, and Hugo had a relapse and an affair, and they divorced after less than two years of marriage, and she almost immediately moved in with her girlfriend.
Much of the article is devoted to Schwyzer’s navel-gazing about why he’s attracted to butch women. And the true answer is this: Hugo Schwyzer is a man who is keenly aware of his own inescapable inadequacy.
Hugo Schwyzer is a loser, and he knows it. He hates himself so much that he cannot respect anyone who admires him. Obviously, if a woman likes him, there must be something wrong with her. He find women who hate him to be more attractive. This is the “male feminist,” see?
Also, dude — you met your second wife at a Twelve Step meeting?
Just get “LOSER” tattooed on your forehead, OK?
It’s like the fact that you, at age 49, are still trying to date women who are in their 20s. That ship has sailed, Professor. All those years you spent having sex with your college students? Over. Finished. Gone.
I’ve been divorced three times. That doesn’t mean I’ve had three failed marriages. . . . Though all three of my divorces were painful, all three of my former marriages were, to my mind, ultimately successful in accomplishing the goal of facilitating the personal growth of the two parties involved. None were failures. I was not and am not a failure, and neither were my ex-wives.
Now, of course, his fourth marriage has ended in divorce, proving that the problem in all of Hugo Schwyzer’s marriages was Hugo Schwyzer.
“Male feminist” — a synonym for failure.
keep looking »