The #GamerGate Hate Hoax

Posted on Comments

Anita Sarkeesian (@femfreq) and Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) are feminist critics of the videogame industry who seem to be trying to cash in on the fact that they are feminist critics of the videogame industry. This involves portraying themselves as victims of horrific harassment and criminal threats. Who is engaging in this harassment? Who is making these threats? We don’t know, because it seems to be coming from a lot of anonymous online accounts, and I strongly suspect that some of these threats are fake. But whether it’s fake or real, the harassment is being blamed on the gamers who, using the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, have been blowing the whistle on some of the sleazy tactics by which feminists have been trying to turn gaming into a Political Correctness Zone and — oh, just by the way — cut themselves in on a slice of the multibillion-dollar videogame industry pie.

Thursday, the feminists got themselves a front-page puff-piece in the New York Times, after Sarkeesian cancelled a university speech in Utah claiming she felt unsafe because of a threat. Click here to see the threat. You tell me if that looks legit. It looks phony as hell to me, but here’s the thing: I DON’T CARE IF IT’S REAL OR FAKE.

What’s important to me is that we learn the truth. I want an all-out law-enforcement investigation of these threats, I want some arrests and prosecutions, and I want to know the names of the responsible parties, because I’m sick and tired of this bullshit about “Oh, we’re courageous feminists and people say mean things about us on the Internet! Help! Help! We’re victims!”

People say mean things about me on the Internet every day, but that’s not a front-page story in the New York Times, is it?

Either arrest some people, or else shut the hell up. But this Courageous Feminist Martyr act has become tedious and annoying.

 

Brother Of The World’s Youngest Blogger: It’s All Ducked Up

Posted on Comments

In The Mailbox: 10.16.14

Posted on Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Live at Five has been missing these last couple of days thanks to the Extension Filing Crush in the tax mines, which is now over.
Sorry about any inconvenience.


OVER THE TRANSOM
Louder With Crowder: Real Culture vs. Rape Culture
Proof Positive: Starring Democrat Wingers And Shirley MacLame
Michelle Malkin: The Centers For Everything But Disease Control
Twitchy: “Irony Is Dead” – Matt Yglesias Has A Self-Awareness Problem
The Quinton Report: GOP Candidate Compares Maryland Economy To Ebola
Cathy Young: GamerGate Part I – Sex, Lies, And Gender Games
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: More Americans Support Ground Troops To Fight ISIS
American Thinker: New Cure For Racial Violence In Minneapolis – Crack Down On The Victims
BLACKFIVE: NYT “Discovers” Iraq Had Chemical Weapons
Conservatives4Palin: Democrats On Defensive Over Role Of Government
Don Surber: The Most Confused Woman In America
Jammie Wearing Fools: Dutch Bikers Join Fight Against ISIS
Joe For America: The Great Catholic Cave-In That Wasn’t
JustOneMinute: The Health Scare That’s Always There
Pamela Geller: The Battle For Baghdad Has Begun
Protein Wisdom: A Black South African On Israel And Apartheid
Shot In The Dark: Doug Grow, Narrative Policeman
The Gateway Pundit: CDC Director Says If US Bans Flights From West Africa Ebola Will Spread
The Jawa Report: Obama’s Coalition Partner Bombs The Kurds
The Lonely Conservative: Obamacare Site Won’t Show 2015 Premium Costs Until After The Election
This Ain’t Hell: Commandant Amos Padded His Record
Weasel Zippers: Obama Administration To Spend $100 Million Fighting Discrimination – In Mexico
Megan McArdle: Why DVR’s Didn’t Kill TV


Texas Lesbian Democrat Reveals Her Party’s Anti-Christian Agenda

Posted on Comments

Texas Democrats haven’t won a statewide election in recent memory, and it’s becoming obvious why they have no hope in the future:

Earlier this year [Houston Mayor Annise] Parker, a Democrat, spearheaded the passage of an “Equal Rights Ordinance” (ERO) that added “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the city’s non-discrimination provision, which includes, among other things, “public accommodations” — for example, restrooms. Citizens, among them church leaders, balked. They launched a referendum petition that, with the requisite 17,269 signatures, would require the city council to repeal the ERO, or to put the measure up for a vote. They obtained 55,000 signatures. The city secretary, who has sole responsibility for certifying such petitions, signed off.
Enter Houston city attorney David Feldman, who, with no legal authority, disqualified 38,000 signatures. Names that were printed, rather than written in cursive, were discarded; names that were written in cursive were considered illegible — just enough names to get the petition below the 17,000-signature requirement, at which point the city council and Mayor Parker rejected it. And several citizens sued.
But the city’s shenanigans had only just begun. Unsatisfied with violating the rights of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the City of Houston has subpoenaed privileged communications of five pastors (none of them party to the lawsuit) who helped to organize the petition drive. Among other information, the city is requesting communications between the pastors and their attorneys pertaining to the ERO lawsuit, communications between the pastors and their congregants, and even the pastors’ sermons. . . .

You can read the whole thing and see how, in the post-Windsor era, Democrats have decided that “equality” automatically voids every right guaranteed by the First Amendment: Opposition to the radical agenda is now effectively illegal, according to the Supreme Court’s 2013 Windsor decision as interpreted by Democrats. More details:

A subpoena on Pastor Steve Riggle, senior pastor of Grace Community Church, asks for “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to [the equal rights ordinance], the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”
Alliance Defending Freedom, a national conservative legal group, filed a motion on Monday in Harris County district court objecting to the records request on First Amendment grounds.
“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” ADF senior legal counsel Erik Stanley said. “In this case, they have embarked upon a witch-hunt, and we are asking the court to put a stop to it.”

This has legal ramifications far beyond Houston, and is by no means limited to the issue of same-sex marriage. What you see, if you look at this in a larger legal and cultural context, is that liberals have decided the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment trumps everything else in the Constitution or in Anglo-American common-law tradition, and that there is no protection whatsoever to those who oppose the “emerging awareness” doctrine proclaimed by the Supreme Court in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case.

Christians in Texas are not going to surrender without a fight, and every Democrat in Texas ought to be held accountable for what radical Democrats led by Annise Parker are doing in Houston. Every Democrat in the state should be publicly challenged by Republicans either to endorse Mayor Parker’s extremist agenda, or else to denounce it. And every Texas Democrat who claims to oppose Mayor Parker’s agenda should then be called upon to condemn any Texas Democrat who supports Mayor Parker’s agenda. It is high time, you see, that “moderate Democrats” stop pretending to be moderates, because the Democrat Party is not a moderate party.

Mayor Parker’s radical agenda is the agenda of the Democrat Party, not only in Houston, not only in Texas, but everywhere. The sooner Democrats are forced to admit this, the sooner the American people can decide whether they want to follow the Democrat Party down this highway to hell that Democrats are paving at taxpayer expense.

 

Michelle Nunn Pulls a Grimes?

Posted on Comments

Trouble for Democrats in Georgia:

Another Democratic Senate candidate has refused to say whether she voted for President Obama: This time it was Michelle Nunn in Georgia.
The same question has tripped up other red-state Democrats on the campaign trail. On two occasions over the past week, Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes has been panned for her refusal to answer the question, twice citing the “sanctity of the ballot box” as her reason for keeping mum.
Nunn was approached by a tracker who asked her if she voted for the president in 2008 or 2012. Nunn did not respond and kept walking towards the venue she was headed to. In the video captured, a member of her entourage faces the tracker and asks, “Would you leave her alone?”?

This could sabotage all hope for Democrats to maintain control of the Senate in next month’s election. After Grimes got “tripped up” over whether she voted for Obama, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pulled its TV ads off the air in Kentucky. Although the Grimes campaign says they’ve still got plenty of money ($4 million), the DSCC move was a clear signal that Grimes’ blunder is viewed as a fatal error. There was only one TV debate between Grimes and Mitch McConnell, she blew it, and Democrats know she blew it. If we can now therefore say Mitch has got Kentucky in the bag, that changes the map in the Senate mid-term campaign.

As of today, 10 Senate races are rated toss-ups by Real Clear Politics, where the ratings are based on poll averages. Of those 10 seats, seven are held by Democrats and three by Republicans, while each party holds 46 seats rated either “likely” or “leaning.” If we rule out any unexpected meltdowns in one of those “likely/leaning” races, we see that the odds of a Republican takeover are roughly 2-to-1: The GOP must get to 51 seats to control a Senate majority; 46 seats are more or less locked up for them; and of the 10 “toss-ups,” 70% are held by Democrats, who are more that twice as vulnerable of losing half of those 10.

The seven toss-up states where the Senate seat is currently held by Democrats are: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.  The three toss-up states where the Senate seat is currently held by Republicans are: Georgia, Kansas and Kentucky. But as we have seen, Kentucky just started looking like a loser for Democrats; if so, that would effectively put Republicans at 47 seats; and what if Nunn’s blunder takes Georgia off the map?

Polls had shown Nunn, daughter of Georgia’s legendary Democrat Sen. Sam Nunn, gaining ground against Republican businessman David Perdue. The difficulty facing the GOP in Georgia is that Michelle Nunn doesn’t have a prior legislative record, so she can play the “moderate” card and thereby avoid debating any issue where Democrat policies are controversial. However, now the question is asked, “Did you vote for Obama?” She can’t run away from it, you see, and if she tries to run away from it, she looks like a phony.

It’s too early to tell whether Nunn can recover in Georgia, but if she can’t, a Perdue win there and a McConnell win in Kentucky — assuming all the “likely/leaning” states break as predicted — puts the GOP at 48 seats, meaning they only need to win three of the remaining eight toss-up races to take control of the Senate. Now, let’s suppose that troubled Republican incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts can’t hang on in Kansas. That would be bad for the GOP, but it’s likely to be offset by Democrat Sen. Mark Begich’s defeat in Alaska.

Understand we’re counting hypotheticals now, but if the GOP wins both Kentucky and Georgia, if Roberts loses in Kansas and if Begich loses in Alaska, you would then have six remaining toss-ups and Republicans would need to win just two of those to get to 51 seats.

It’s hard to see Democrat Sen. Mark Pryor holding off the challenge from Tom Cotton in Arkansas, and Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu’s hope is obviously fading in Louisiana. Analyzing the battle for the Senate on a race-by-race basis, then, you see that Michelle Nunn’s problems in Georgia could be the crucial linchpin; if Nunn unravels in the final 19 days of the campaign, Harry Reid loses the gavel.

Overall, despite the many hypotheticals and contingencies, the trend is now running strongly against Democrats, in part because of factors beyond control of the rival parties. That is to say, the ISIS threat in Iraq and the Ebola threat here — both of which have made President Obama look incompetent — are undermining support for Democrats, no matter what happens in the day-to-day battles between GOP and Democrat candidates in each of the key states.

The latest poll in Iowa, for example, shows Republican Joni Ernst widening her lead over Democrat Bruce Braley. Is that a result of Ernst’s campaign strategy and a reflection of her good qualities as a candidate? Yes and yes. However, Ernst is also a beneficiary of the general trend nationwide, which is anti-Obama and anti-Democrat.

It’s by no means safe to predict a Republican victory on Nov. 4, but Democrats have just two chances of holding the Senate majority — and Slim keeps checking his watch and looking toward the door.

 

The #Ebola Media Epidemic

Posted on Comments

It was probably only a matter of time before CNN producers figured out that Ebola is cable-news ratings gold. Today I was babysitting my infant grandson and, on a whim, turned the TV to CNN and left it there all day, while they were wall-to-wall with URGENT BREAKING EBOLA UPDATES the way they do with a major news story — a school shooting, a missing Malaysian commercial jet or a Republican congressman talking about rape and abortion.

You get the idea, really, of a symbiosis between the media and the administration. Personally, I’m not panicked over Ebola, nor do I care to interpret the problem through the warped lens of a political blame game. But the White House and the Democrat-Media Complex? They’re sweating like a whore in church. Ace of Spades nails it cold:

Meanwhile, you know this is now officially serious, because President Golf n’ Fundraise has cancelled planned fundraisers in NJ and Connecticut to actually trouble himself to pretend to do his job for a day.
He’ll be having some briefings on ebola. Not a minute too soon,either.
Just the right time for briefings on ebola.
Any sooner? Premature, and signs of irrational panic.


You see, it’s always politics first with this administration. Everything is about polls and perceptions and — given that the Democrat Party just hit a historic low in terms of their popularity rating, three weeks before Election Day — the Competence Test Tag-Team of Ebola and ISIS have inspired . . . Well, DEFCON ONE: “We must look like we know what we’re doing and are busy as hell doing it!”

Please excuse my sarcasm. I’m not laughing at Ebola, I’m laughing at halfwits who think the most important thing about this deadly virus is its potential impact on the Democrat Party. Also, sarcasm is the only sane reaction to the Left’s “Ebola Racism” meme.

 

The Curse of Beauty

Posted on Comments

Her name was Gia Carangi and she was, for a couple of years in the late 1970s, the hottest model in the fashion industry.

Only 18 when she arrived in New York and rocketed to success, appearing on the covers of magazines like Cosmopolitan and Vogue, she was the favorite model of legendary photographer Francesco Scavullo. “I have never known anyone so excitingly free and spontaneous, constantly changing, moving — she’s like photographing a stream of consciousness,” Scavullo raved in 1982.

By then, however, Gia Carangi’s career was nearing its tragic end. Her heroin addiction and erratic, unprofessional behavior had already gotten her blacklisted by many major names in the industry. By 1983, she was finished as a model. By 1986, she was dead.

Her sad story was brought to my attention by a commenter on my earlier post about Cara Delevingne, who is not the first lesbian supermodel — Gia was an open (and very aggressive) lesbian. At 15, she was already going to gay bars in her native Philadelphia:

“Gia just loved women and she fell for them whether they were straight or gay,” says one high school friend. “And the problem was that everyone fell in love with her, whether they were straight or not, male or female. She went after people and she always got them.”

Did you catch that? “The problem was that everyone fell in love with her” — why was this a problem? Isn’t this the kind of “problem” everybody wishes they had? Alas, Gia was a broken soul:

“Gia was prone to needing someone around all the time,” says another of her lovers. “Sometimes it was almost like she needed a baby sitter.”
“I think she mistook caring as sexual,” says one of the many straight women with whom Gia fell in unrequited love. “She needed people so badly that she pushed them away by putting expectations on them they couldn’t possibly fulfill.”

You can read the whole thing, which is full of bitter ironies. For example, Gia took delight in turning down propositions from men — she once turned down Jack Nicholson — but her heroin habit meant she associated with dangerous people in dangerous places:

“There were times in New York when people just took advantage of her. I guess you wouldn’t really call it rape because she wasn’t screaming, but there were a lot of times when that happened and she didn’t want it to happen. Being as high as she was, she couldn’t argue, she didn’t even know what planet she was on. She had a lot of anger about that.”

She turned down movie stars, but a junkie  isn’t usually in much of a condition to turn down anything. Gia died of AIDS at age 26.

Is there a moral to the story, other than “stay the hell away from heroin”? Maybe. Probably feminists will find a way to blame Gia’s fate on the patriarchy, because they blame everything on the patriarchy. But I think we have to look at how a blessing can be a burden.

To be one of the most beautiful women in the world — well, how many girls dream of the glamorous life of a famous supermodel? Yet we should not envy the beautiful woman, who is always to some degree trapped by her beauty, and we should not imagine that their beauty exempts them from the tragic dimensions of human life.

 

Lesbian Supermodel?

Posted on Comments

Cara Delevingne (@Caradelevingne) is a lesbian. Allegedly, I hasten to add, but this has been the press reaction after the 22-year-old supermodel celebrated “National Coming Out Day”:

She has never commented on her sexuality despite being linked to stars of both sexes — but it appears as if Cara Delevingne is finally ready to open up.
The 22-year-old supermodel — whose last serious relationship was with bisexual actress Michelle Rodriguez — shared a picture of herself wearing a ‘We Are You’ T-shirt in honour of National Coming Out Day and added an enigmatic message.
She wrote: ‘Doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe it, we are one! Go get yourself one of these shirts right now!’
‘I’m late for National Coming Out Day but better late then never. Don’t be scared to be who you are. Please follow @iolovesyou and @selfevidentproject because #WEAREYOU.’
Cara’s message was posted on Monday, two days after National Coming Out Day but her ‘better late than never’ message has been interpreted by some fans to mean she was actually coming out.

Whoa! What the hell is happening here? You’re telling me that with 3.5 billion men on this planet, there’s not one of them interested in dating Cara Delevingne? Or are you telling me that, of these 3.5 billion men, not one of them is good enough for Cara Delevingne? Or are you telling me that Cara Delevingne is hopelessly dysfunctional?

Some background on Cara’s ex-lover, 36-year-old Michelle Rodriguez:

In July 2006, Rodriguez told Cosmopolitan magazine that she is not a lesbian, but had “experimented with both sexes.” In November 2006, her openly bisexual Bloodrayne co-star Kristanna Loken made comments to The Advocate that were widely interpreted by the media as an admission that the two were in a relationship. . . . In June 2007, the lesbian magazine Curve ran a cover story that claimed Rodriguez to be bisexual. . . .
In October 2013, Entertainment Weekly quoted her saying: “I’ve gone both ways. I do as I please. I am too curious to sit here and not try when I can. Men are intriguing. So are chicks.”

Anyway, after hooking up with the young supermodel, the bisexual Rodriguez then decided Zac Efron was more “intriguing,” but you know what they say: Once you go Rodriguez, you never go back.

So it appears that Cara is now “playing for the other team.”

Gentlemen, this is a crisis for the heteronormative patriarchy.

We could afford to shrug off a few lesbian celebrities — Melissa Etheridge, Jodie Foster, Ellen DeGeneres, etc. — and say, “Who cares?” But when Victoria’s Secret supermodels start deciding they’d rather be having dinner at the All-You-Can-Eat Seafood Buffet? This indicates an existential menace to our male-supremacist franchise.

Obviously, one of you guys is going to have to take one for the team here. Sure, I know, these supermodel types are “difficult,” high-maintenance, prone to dramatic outbursts and emotional instability. But unless and until Cara Delevingne is properly oppressed, she’s going to be causing trouble for Team Hetero. Ask Justin Bieber: Selena Gomez allegedly hooked up with Cara in St. Tropez. And Cara may be making moves on Suki Waterhouse. An international supermodel turned predatory lesbian? Something must be done, and you know what it is.

Patriarchy requires sacrifices, and a conversion/rehab job like this won’t be easy. Cara Delevingne is damaged goods. Heck, she probably doesn’t even know how to make a sandwich. But 5,000 years of worldwide male domination is at stake, and one of you guys has got to do this job. Good luck. Everyone here at Team Hetero headquarters is counting on you.