Category: Blogging

‘A Particularly Odd Argument’ by the Particularly Odd Bill Schmalfeldt

Posted on Comments

After Lee Stranahan filed online harassment charges against deranged cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt, the deranged cyberstalker argued:

You have the ability to block incoming messages from people you do not wish to hear from.

Aaron Walker observes:

This is a particularly odd argument for him to make because he has used four different Twitter handles and six different email addresses I know of. . . .
So how exactly does Lee block all six email addresses he is known to use? Is Lee supposed to be psychic? And given that a person can invent a new email in all of ten minutes on gmail or hotmail, and a new Twitter account with similar ease, why should anyone expect blocking to be a viable solution to harassment?

Walker demonstrates that Schmalfeldt’s defense is legally invalid.

John Hoge notices that Schmalfeldt has switched his Twitter account to “protected” status, the same move Neal Rauhauser made after “TwitterGate” blew up in Neal’s face. Such a gesture is the cyberstalker’s white flag of surrender.

Lee Stranahan has recorded a podcast discussing the harassment charges he filed against Schmalfeldt.

 

About Paul Ehrlich and ‘The Most Spectacularly Wrong Book Ever Written’

Posted on Comments

Cover of Time magazine, Jan. 11, 1960

“You’re f–king up our future. . . . What do you think we learn at school? This is what we learned about. . . . We’re the 99 percent.”
— 17-year-old student, St. Mary’s Academy, 2011

In an interview with Ed Driscoll, Jonathan V. Last discussed Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book, The Population Bomb:

[I]t’s one of these weird situations where everything we think we know is wrong, and it’s all wrong because of one guy, Paul Ehrlich. Paul Ehrlich is not a professional demographer. He only plays one on TV. And he wrote what I think of as the most spectacularly wrong book ever written.
He was wrong in the particulars. He said that within a couple years, hundreds of millions of people were going to starve to death, and that nothing could be done to stop this. He said the population growth was going to increase asymptotically to the moon. That — neither of these things happened.
But more to the point, he was wrong at the moment when the exact opposite thing was happening. He published his book in 1968. In 1968, the fertility rates across the Western countries fell off of the table and went into steep, prolonged, sustained decline; decline which they are still experiencing today. So he was exactly wrong.
And what’s funny — and also, you know, slightly frustrating — but funny, is that again, in the world of professional demographers, like the people who do this for a living, the people who are tenured professors and who work at the United Nations, they all — you know, for the last thirty-five, forty years, have basically ignored Ehrlich and viewed him as sort of a crank. And they’ve been actually focusing the bulk of their research on exactly the opposite question. . . .
It’s just that his books, I think, really touched a spot with the sort of deeply anti-humanist strain of the environmental movement.

Certainly, Ehrlich’s book was “spectacularly wrong,” and he was a ubiquitous media presence in the late 1960s and ’70s, appearing repeatedly as a guest on The Tonight Show, among other high-profile venues. However, Jonathan Last is incorrect to say that “one guy, Paul Ehrlich” was responsible for all this disinformation about demographics.

No, ultimately, that “one guy” is John D. (David) Rockfeller III, who became obsessed with neo-Malthusian worries about overpopulation in the 1930s. Ehrlich was merely one of the chief propagandists who helped popularize bad ideas Rockefeller promoted for decades. As I wrote in July 2009:

The population control movement . . . was largely the brainchild of John D. Rockefeller III. Rockefeller funded much of the movement himself and through a number of family trusts and foundations, and he encouraged other foundations (Ford, Scaife, Carnegie) to do the same. . . .
[B]etween 1959 and 1964 one organization alone, the Population Council, got more than $5 million from the Rockefellers, $8.4 million from the Ford Foundation and $2.1 million from Scaife. So that’s $15 million in five years, back when a million dollars was a lot of money.

Among other things, Rockefeller helped fund Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent sex research, as well as development of the birth-control pill, and created an organizational infrastructure that coordinated propaganda campaigns for population control and related issues. Historian Donald L. Critchlow chronicled this phenomenon in his excellent 2001 book, Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Goverment in Modern America:

[T]o raise the public’s consciousness about the threat of overpopulation . . . the population movement undertook a concerted public relations campaign through a steady stream of books, pamphlets, and magazine and newspaper articles. This campaign was aided by the involvement of key publishers and editors who were actively involved in the movement, including George Hecht, editor of Parents Magazine. The drumbeat around the population crisis reached crescendo by the early 1960s. Readers of popular magazines were faced with a barrage of articles warning of an impending population crisis . . . Women readers were inundated with articles like “Are We Overworking the Stork?” (Parents Magazine, 1961), “Why Americans Must Limit Their Families” (Redbook, 1963), “Intelligent Woman’s Guide to the Population Explosion” (McCall’s, February 1965), “Overpopulation: Threat to Survival” (Parents Magazine, 1967) and “Population Increase: A Grave Threat to Every American Family” (Parents Magazine, 1969).

Pierre Desrochers has examined the intellectual roots of Erhlich’s work in two 1948 bestsellers, Fairfield Osborn’s Our Plundered Planet and William Vogt’s Road to Survival. Vogt’s book inspired businessman Hugh Moore (another leader of the population-control movement) to write a 1954 pamphlet entitled, “The Population Bomb,” and Moore granted Ehrlich permission to use that title for Erhlich’s 1968 book. Years before Ehrlich published his book, “overpopulation” hype was sufficiently intense to be featured on the cover of Time magazine in January 1960.

The point is that Ehrlich was not the originator of this neo-Malthusian theme, but merely the most public advocate of an idea with which Rockefeller and a number of other rich “philanthropists” had been obsessed for decades before Erhlich published The Population Bomb in 1968. The money men behind the population-control movement helped promote Ehrlich’s book, purchasing thousands of copies to distribute to college and university students, and mounting the same kind of P.R. blitz on behalf of The Population Bomb they had previously unleashed in support of Kinsey’s sex research and “the Pill.”

What too many Americans today fail to understand is the extent to which popular ideas about many issues — ranging from contraception to environmentalism — are not organic, but were manufactured by this cabal of wealthy population-control fanatics led by David Rockefeller.

“In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators.”
— William F. Buckley Jr., Up From Liberalism (1959)

These skillful indoctrinators are still at it and, after many decades of propaganda from the population control movement, their ideas have been sufficiently diffused throughout our culture that the indoctrinators themselves don’t even know the etiology of their ideas, so that their students are entirely clueless.

In May 2009, the Times of London reported on a secretive gathering of billionaires who met “to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population”:

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey. . . .
Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority. . . .
[A] consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.
“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”

This is counterfactual lunacy, thoroughly discredited, and yet some of the world’s richest people believe it as gospel, in the same way that the teenage private-school students who identified with the “Occupy” movement believed they were the “99 percent.”

Such childish credulity — a stubborn refusal to examine evidence that contradicts fashionable belief — is nowadays considered the epitome of enlightenment: The truly smart people know that overpopulation is a crisis, and any skeptics who cite contravening data are dismissed as ignorant yahoos. And if you dare call attention to the fact that this phony “consensus” about overpopulation has been manufactured by a comparative handful of ultra-wealthy fanatics, you’ll be condemned as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

So I understand why Jonathan V. Last may have wished to avoid discussion of David Rockefeller’s role in fomenting the population-control ideas that Paul Erhlich helped popularize. Start telling the truth about this stuff, and people will call you a kook.

Please read the rest of Last’s interview with Ed Driscoll, and you should buy Last’s book, What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster.

 

Meet @BridgetteDunlap, Fordham’s Campus Commissar of ‘Human Rights’

Posted on Comments

“Ms. Dunlap, 31 … was raised a Catholic and was educated at parochial schools”
(Photo: Michael Nagle, New York Times)

You may recall this week I wrote an item called “Why Does @BridgetteDunlap Want to Suppress the Truth About Abortion?” describing a misguided effort to intimidate those who had written about the abortion-related death of Jennifer McKenna Morbelli. I closed that post by wishing Bridgette “good luck with your career as a commissar in the Thought Police.” Little did I realize Dunlap had already established quite a name for herself in that regard.

In November, College Republicans invited Ann Coulter to speak at Fordham University, where Dunlap is “Crowley Scholar in International Human Rights at the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice.” Apparently, this is the kind of sinecure that entitles the “scholar” to engage in radical mau-mauing wherever her fanatical obsessions are involved.

The College Republicans caved under pressure and disinvited Coulter — thus providing Fordham CRs valuable experience in the cherished Republican tactic of caving under pressure — but the campus radicals, no more satisfied than Hitler had been with the cession of the Sudetenland, decided to take it a step further: Demanding reparations merely for the school having entertained the possibility that Coulter might be permitted to speak at Fordham:

Though the College Republicans withdrew the invitation to Ms. Coulter in light of the outcry from their peers, the problem remains that the University was willing to allocate over $10,000 to this event even while denying funding to other student and departmental initiatives featuring speakers or topics with which it disagrees. We appreciate your statement distancing the University from Ms. Coulter’s hateful rhetoric and defending free speech and academic freedom. . . .
We would like you to explain how the decision was made to allow the College Republicans to use student activity funds to pay for the Coulter event while denying the use of such funds for other purposes deemed not to be in keeping with the University’s mission. For example, we understand that student groups may not use their budgets for the productions of the Vagina Monologues mounted by Fordham undergraduates each year to raise funds to combat violence against women. Along these same lines, Fordham’s anti-abortion club receives funding while pro-choice advocacy is censored. Why are these forms of student expression and association denied support while the Coulter event was not? Is pro-choice advocacy or the Vagina Monologues more inconsistent with the University’s mission than Coulter’s hate speech you rightly decry? Are they less entitled to respect in the free exchange of ideas in the Academy? . . .

This angry manifesto was written and circulated by Fordham Law professor Tracy Higgins and — you guessed it — Bridgette Dunlap.

At the time, William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection wrote:

A group of law professors at Fordham Law School exchanged high-fives over Coulter’s departure, then quickly segued into demanding that the University fund the Vagina Monologues, pro-abortion groups, and other oppressed, um, minorities at Catholic universities on the theory that if the University was willing to fund Coulter’s “hate speech,” it should fund the feminist agenda even if contrary to Catholic teachings.

Fordham is a Catholic university and somehow, in the twisted pretzel logic of Commissar Dunlap and Comrade Higgins, permitting student funds to be used for College Republicans to invite Coulter to campus — an invitation the mau-maus forced the CRs to withdraw — means that the Jesuits are obligated to fund Eve Ensler’s obscene farce in the name of “the free exchange of ideas.”

This is a concept that a friend of mine long ago dubbed “diversity through homogenization”: Radical egalitarianism requires that all institutions be equally diverse, so that traditionally all-male institutions must be forced to accept females, each university must have a certain quota of left-handed Latina lesbians, and so forth. This rigid insistence on universal conformity to the dogma of “diversity” is the mindset that led to the death of Kara Hultgreen and the ritual humiliation of Lawrence Summers at Harvard.

You will perhaps not be surprised to learn that Bridgette Dunlap staged a Sandra Fluke-style protest over the refusal of Fordham’s campus health center to prescribe contraceptives. Students at Catholic universities must be provided the exact same things that are provided to students at secular schools or else, to the radical egalitarian way of thinking, someone’s “rights” have been infringed.

This is a totalitarian worldview and the fact that a neo-Stalinist commissar like Bridgette Dunlap is honored with a scholarship in “human rights” at Fordham is an obvious clue as to what manner of indoctrination now prevails in American academia. 

Professor Jacobson responds to Dunlap’s threats to sue Jill Stanek and others who have reported on the Jennifer Morbelli case:

The legal accusations are frivolous.
If late-term abortion is defensible, why try to hide the reality that there are names and faces and lives destroyed [?] . . .
It’s not an esoteric law school discussion.
Defend the practice if you can, but don’t deny it. Or try to silence it.

As the Coulter controversy showed, Dunlap and her comrades are able to silence the truth at Fordham. Totalitarians are nothing if not ambitious: “Today the campus! Tomorrrow the world!”

UPDATE: How is it, Matthew Archbold of the Cardinal Newman Society wondered back in July, that Catholic schoolgirls grow up to be anti-Catholic Daily Kos contributors? Dunlap invoked her days as “a first-grader in plaid” while accusing Bishop William Lori of lying, and denouncing American bishops as “extremist, lacking in compassion and disconnected from our values.”

Clearly, Dunlap’s first-person possessive — “our values” — refers to the values of progressive feminists for Obama, i.e., MSNBC viewers.

 

Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt Charged With Deranged Cyberstalking

Posted on Comments

Bill Schmalfeldt of Elk Ridge, Maryland, a.k.a. “Liberal Grouch”

The charge is “electronic harassment” (Md. Code Crim. Law §3-805) according to Aaron Walker. The complainant is Lee Stranahan:

For the better part of a year, my family and I have have been under contestant siege from a small group of people who have worked together in a relentless attempt to humiliate, embarrass and inflict emotional stress on us in a clear attempt destroy my professional reputation and to silence my voice. Much of this appears to be related to stories I have written about such as Weinergate, Occupy Wall Street, the media’s handling of the Steubenville rape case and projects I’ve launched like Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day.
These attacks, however, have gone far beyond the realm of impassioned debate and into the realm of illegal harassment that serves no legitimate legal purpose.

Good luck getting to LeeStranahan.com tonight. Bill Schmalfeldt is evidently part of a troll crew organized by Neal Rauhauser to harass various individuals Neal hates, so we can expect the usual hacking/DOS tactics to be deployed against Lee’s site.

Two weeks ago, after yet another manifestation of Schmalfeldt’s obsessive harassment, I wrote:

When will law enforcement start taking this problem seriously? Will we have to wait until one of these cyberstalkers finally kills somebody?

What these people are doing is not “free speech.” In fact, it is the opposite of free speech: Harassment intended to silence (or, at least, distract, annoy and/or smear) bloggers and journalists whose work the cyberstalkers wish to suppress. Unless and until you’ve been targeted by this menacing kook-swarm, it’s very difficult for you to understand what they do and how they do it.

Point One: It’s not really about Lee Stranahan. That is to say, it doesn’t matter whether you like Lee Stranahan or don’t like Lee Stranahan or have never heard of Lee Stranahan. What is involved here is a pattern of harassing behavior systematically employed by certain people who are either (a) crazy, (b) evil, or quite possibly (c) both crazy and evil.

Point Two: It’s not really about politics. That is to say, it doesn’t matter whether you’re liberal or conservative or utterly indifferent to politics, the type of online stalking and harassment involved here cannot be tolerated and is, in fact, illegal.

It’s one thing to throw a few sharp Tweets at someone you dislike or with whom you disagree politically. It is another thing entirely to do to somebody what Bill Schmalfeldt has done to Lee Stranahan. And, in fact, Schmalfeldt has done it to several other people. (Last November, Schmalfeldt sent me more than 200 harassing messages in a single 48-hour span.) It just so happens that Stranahan has become Schmalfeldt’s latest idée fixe, and I guarantee you that Schmalfeldt can’t tell you how this sick obsession began. 

That’s what it’s like with these “Monsters on the Internet”: Once they become obsessed with someone, the etiology of their obsession is lost amid their persistent harassment. Go ahead and ask Schmalfeldt, “Why are you so fixated on Lee Stranahan?”

The answer you’ll get won’t be a coherent, factual narrative about the history of a personal conflict, but rather a lunatic screed about what a terrible person Stranahan is. Then you’ll say, “So what? Stipulate that Lee Stranahan is not a nice person. Why is it so necessary for you to persistently harass him this way?”

And when Schmalfeldt stops his angry rant in reply to that inquiry, you’ll realize you are not dealing with a rational person, but rather someone in the throes of a profound emotional disturbance.

Normal people don’t do what Bill Schmalfeldt does. Continue reading Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt Charged With Deranged Cyberstalking →

Media Embargo Slowly Crumbling on Jennifer McKenna Morbelli’s Death

Posted on Comments

Jennifer McKenna Morelli with her future husband in 2008

Jennifer Morbelli died last Thursday at Shady Grove Hospital in the Maryland suburbs of D.C. after undergoing a gruesome third-term abortion ordeal at Dr. LeRoy Carhart’s Germantown Reproductive Health clinic. A 29-year-old married kindergarten teacher in the affluent Westchester County suburbs of New York, Morbelli had actually named her unborn daughter Madison Leigh, but reportedly decided to seek an abortion in her 33rd week of pregnancy after prenatal testing diagnosed her baby as suffering from a disorder that causes seizures.

Both Morbelli and her daughter will be recognized at a funeral mass Wednesday — coincidentally, Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent — at Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church in New Rochelle.

Carhart has been called “likely the most prominent abortionist in America.” Carhart has been the plaintiff in two cases that reached the U.S. Supreme Court and was featured in a highly-praised documentary, After Tiller, about an abortionist who was assassinated in 2009.

Given these facts, ask yourself a question: How could any news editor look at the death of Jennifer Morbelli and say, “That”s not a story”?

This is not merely news, it’s got enough of a human-interest angle to deserve at least a two-hour network special or a magazine cover story.

Forget your opinion about the legal and political controversies involved and think about the basic journalistic news value of this story. Here is a profound human tragedy, a young woman who died in a heartbreaking circumstance which just happens to be a microcosm of a major national issue, and . . . that’s not a story? Turn in your press credentials, clean out your desk and find yourself another line of work.

This was why, last Friday, I called attention to the complete news blackout on the story: Jennifer Morbelli died in the Maryland suburbs of D.C., and yet neither the Washington Post nor the Baltimore Sun deemed it newsworthy? The illogic was glaring, and the Washington Post finally did a 350-word article inside the Metro section of Sunday’s paper. The media embargo crumbled further yesterday when the Journal News in Westchester County, N.Y., reported on the death of the local kindergarten teacher. And now the Washington Post has followed up with coverage of Monday’s press conference by pro-life activists:

The Maryland Office of Health Care Quality is investigating the death of a woman who visited a controversial abortion clinic in Germantown before dying last week at a local hospital.
More than 150 demonstrators gathered near the clinic Monday to step up their efforts to draw national attention to the case, asserting that the clinic’s leader, LeRoy Carhart, was directly responsible for the woman’s death and that she had come to his office for a multi-day abortion procedure when she was 33 weeks pregnant.
“We will not rest until this clinic is shut down and the license of LeRoy Carhart is revoked. God let it be so,” the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said at the demonstration.
The circumstances leading to the woman’s death remained unclear Monday. State and county officials confirmed that she had visited the abortion clinic and that she died Thursday morning at Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, but they offered no details.
Antiabortion demonstrators seized upon the incident to try to sway public opinion about late-term procedures. Many of their specific claims about the case could not be immediately verified. . . .

You can read the whole thing, and I could criticize how the reporter, Dan Morse, handled the story, making “antiabortion demonstrators” (rather than LeRoy Carhart or Jennifer Morbelli) the central characters of the narrative and insinuating that their version of events was unreliable. (As I pointed out Monday night, “If it weren’t for pro-life activists who keep constant vigil at this facility, we might not even know about Jennifer Morbelli’s painful death.”) But I’m not criticizing Morse, at least not at length, because at this point I really don’t care how much pro-abortion spin or liberal bias goes into mainstream media coverage of the story, just so long as they actually cover the story.

In the same spirit, therefore, let us applaud Roseann Moring and Robby Korth of the Omaha (Neb.) World-Herald for their coverage:

A New York woman’s death has put Bellevue abortion provider LeRoy Carhart back in the national spotlight.
Abortion opponents say a 29-year-old kindergarten teacher died Thursday after getting a late-term abortion at Carhart’s clinic in Germantown, Md.
Carhart did not return messages left on his cellphone Monday. A woman who answered the phone at his Bellevue clinic said he would not be available for comment.
Maryland authorities confirmed the woman’s death but said they still are investigating the cause. Montgomery County (Md.) Police and the Medical Examiner’s Office declined to say whether she had been at Carhart’s clinic.
So far, abortion opponents are the only ones who have publicly linked the death to Carhart’s clinic.
Carhart is one of the nation’s few doctors who perform late-term abortions. He had done so at Bellevue’s Abortion and Contraception Clinic until 2010, when the Nebraska Legislature banned abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation.
He then opened the Germantown Reproductive Health Services clinic about 30 miles north of Washington, D.C.
Carhart also considered opening a late-term abortion clinic in Council Bluffs.
In response, Iowa lawmakers proposed legislation aimed at keeping him out of the state. . . .

Read the whole thing and notice that, like the Washington Post‘s Dan Morse, the World-Herald reporters don’t name Jennifer Morbelli as the victim, and make clear that they are merely reporting the assertions made by “abortion opponents.” Heaven forbid that any mainstream reporter should actually do some actual journalism the way “just a blogger” Jill Stanek did on this story.

If you know anything about Jill Stanek (which, of course, no liberal reporter would) you know that she wouldn’t report something like this unless she was absolutely certain of the facts, and so this concern-troll attitude that Stanek’s reporting “could not be immediately verified” bespeaks the incompetence and sloth of reporters who can’t be bothered, at least, to contact Stanek as a source. (Hint: She’s on Twitter.)

However, I don’t want to complain too much about this, because I’m genuinely grateful for any mainstream media coverage of this story. In fact, if some left-wing feminist blogger like Amanda Marcotte or Elspeth Reeve decided to do a post condemning pro-life bloggers for their coverage of Jennifer Morbelli’s death, I would absolutely welcome it. Please, feel free to denounce me by name, call me a hateful misogynist or whatever, and I don’t care: Just stop ignoring the story.

There will be a funeral in New Rochelle tomorrow morning — Ash Wednesday — and I defy anyone to say that funeral isn’t legitimate news.

 

 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


Finally: Washington Post Covers Death of Woman at Maryland Abortion Clinic

Posted on Comments

Friday, I described a complete blackout by the mainstream media in regard to reports that a 29-year-old woman died after a late-term abortion at the clinic of the notorious Dr. LeRoy Carhart.

In particular, I called out the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun, because this clinic — run by a sort of celebrity abortionist — is in Germantown, Maryland, just 20 miles from the nation’s capital. Trust me, if some nut with a gun had opened fire on Carhart’s clinic, the Post and the Sun would devote front-page coverage to the story. If a woman dies after a botched abortion . . . eh, not so much.

Jeff Quinton reports that the Washington Post has now broken the mainstream media embargo of this story. The Post‘s Dan Morse reports:

The Maryland Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the Montgomery County Police Department are investigating the death of a woman who died at Shady Grove Adventist Hospital on Thursday — days after she was believed to have started an abortion procedure at a controversial clinic in Germantown. . . .
In this case, the 29-year-old woman, who has not been identified, died Thursday after being taken to Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, according to local and state officials.
The circumstances that led to her death are unclear. Carhart and clinic officials could not be reached. . . .
“At this point, there is no indication of any criminal activity in this case,” said Capt. Paul Starks, a spokesman for the Montgomery County Police Department.

OK, it’s only a 350-word item in the Metro section, but it’s something. Still nothing from the Baltimore Sun, the New York Times, USA Today or the Associated Press, but at least now one major news organization has grudgingly acknowledged that a 29-year-old woman has died after being treated at the clinic where “Doctor Death” was willing to perform an abortion in the 33rd week of pregnancy.

Yes, I said the 33rd week — eight months pregnant — which is actually legal in Maryland. So maybe “there is no indication of any criminal activity,” as the police spokesman said, but there is butchery and horror and evil. Lots and lots of evil. Also, a dead 29-year-old woman.

We mustn’t forget the #WarOnWomen.

 

 


Soopermexican Mocks Serious Academics With PhDs In 17th Century Belgian Lesbian Studies

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

This is an unacceptable New Tone violation:

This blog stands by its firm commitment to the expansion of all forms of human knowledge, from “Non-Linear Anti-Rational Propaganda Math” to “Aztec Heart Surgery Obsidian Tool Art History” to “Recreational Kitchen Chemistry Stimulants”.

Having rejected traditional wisdom in favor of Progress, the only way out of this ‘unexpected’ Dark Age is Forward! to knowledge.

Won’t somebody halt Soopermexican’s reign of mockery?

Is ‘Corrupt Democrat’ Redundant?

Posted on Comments

William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection reports on a congressional ethics investigation that has found “there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Owens accepted payment of travel expenses for an officially connected trip to Taiwan from an impermissible source, resulting in an impermissible gift, in violation of federal law and House Rules.”

And by “substantial reason,” they mean: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!