Rule 5 Sunday: Labor Day Weekend Lovelies

Posted on | August 31, 2014 | 11 Comments

Three Beers Later returns, this time in the leadoff spot, with Rule 5 – The Dirty Side, and Daytime TV Porn. Next up, Goodstuff with Kari Byron and other attractive ladies, Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Blue-Eyed Blonde Beauty, Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Girls with Bows. Animal Magnetism chips in with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, Laughing Conservative contributes a Symphony in Pink, Blackmailers Don’t Shoot adds a Rule 5 Linkfest with Demi Lovato, and First Street JOurnal has Ukrainian women in uniform, because The Russians Are Coming.

EBL’s herd of heifers this week includes vampires, Women of Marvel, Sofia Vergara, women of Burning Man, Labor Day women, Polygamy Rule 5, and more Burning Man rule 5.

A View from the Beach has Cemetary Woman: Anna Falchi, “Shake it Off”, Chesapeake Bay Spear Point Poses Puzzle (cave girls), “Wade in the Water”, Snockered Supermodel Throws Better than Preznit, Don’t Kiss the Seals!, Swimming with Swordfish, and Book Review: “Poop, Booze and Bikinis”.

At Soylent Refuge, they have nice cupcakes, Afternooner Tan Line Tag Team, Overnighty Rachel, Monday Motivationer Jessica, Overnighty Sheer, Tuesday Titillation Sideboob, Evening Awesome, Humpday Hawtness Subduction Seduction, Afternooner Because Leanna, Falconsword Fursday POV, Corsetness, T-GIF Friday SPROING, Happy Hour Hawtness, Weekender Awesome, and Bath Night with Jessica.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Viviana Greco, his vintage babe is Valerie Leon, Sex in Advertising is covered by Teri Garr, and of course there’s the obligatory 49ers cheerleader. At Dustbury this week, it’s Jessica Alba and Debbie Gibson.

Thanks to everyone for their linakgery! Deadline to send submissions to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next week’s Rule 5 roundup is midnight on Saturday, September 6.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Memo From the Thought Police

Posted on | August 31, 2014 | 106 Comments

Years ago, an episode of Seinfeld showed a stand-up sequence in which Jerry Seinfeld discussed catcalling, including one common variation seen in New York City, the “car honk.” A man in a car is sitting at a red light, a good-looking woman crosses the street in the crosswalk ahead of him, and the guy starts honking his horn — “beep!” “beep!” “beep!” — to get the woman’s attention or, at least, to signal his appreciation of her beauty. Obviously, as a mating strategy, this is a hopeless failure. No woman has ever responded to the car honk (or the wolf whistle or any other form of what feminists call “street harassment”) by approaching the harasser and saying, “Hi, you’re very attractive, let me give you my phone number so we can have lunch sometime.” No man with half a brain could imagine that such tactics “work” in terms of attracting females, so why does this atavistic behavior persist?

Jerry Seinfeld concluded his stand-up riff with the punch-line: “These are the best ideas we’ve come up with.”

That line got a huge laugh, because it’s so true: When it comes to figuring out how to get women, guys are generally clueless. Why do you think the “Pick-Up Artist” phenomenon turned into such a cult thing? Because there is a vast potential market of clueless guys, and if some guy claims to have a clue — if he can convince clueless guys that his methods of scoring with women actually work — he’ll become a millionaire. And, as everybody knows, chicks dig millionaires.

Anyway, Molly Powell wrote a column at National Review to say that, within limits, the wolf-whistle/”hey baby” reaction can be regarded as flattering. Left-wingers flipped out at Powell’s contradiction of the Official Feminist Line, and Jazz Shaw writes at Hot Air:

While it’s apparently absolutely verboten to say such things out loud today, there is a difference — particularly for women — between dressing to look good and dressing to look hot. Seriously … does any woman go to the beach wearing a tiny bikini top and a thong because it’s just so comfortable to swim in? Nonsense. You do it because you think you look good and you want people to see that. If you didn’t, there are a wide variety of attractive one piece suits to choose from.
Men like looking at attractive women, and the more they work on dressing up the display, the more likely we are to notice. That’s been true across the history of man. There are clearly lines of decorum which most of us wish would not be crossed, but having the thought police try to turn every pair of males eyes following a shapely pair of legs into a micro-agresssion, rape society assault turns the entire discussion into a parody.

(Hat-tip: Mememorandum.) The issue here, of course, is not to defend or justify boorish behavior. Rather, the issue is feminists (a) trying to turn this into a political crusade, and (b) accusing anyone who disagrees of being an ignorant woman-hating bigot.

Beep! Beep! Beep!

That’s a hate crime now, the moral equivalent of rape. It’s heteronormative patriarchy, which is worse than slavery, genocide and nuclear war. And if you don’t agree, then obviously you haven’t been paying attention in Women’s Studies class.

Category: Feminism

FMJRA 2.0: Out Standing In Her Field

Posted on | August 30, 2014 | 14 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

The honored bloggress as a young heifer.

Normally the FMJRA post is just a compilation of links back to those who have linked The Other McCain in the preceding week (Saturday through Friday) but this week I wanted to call attention to one of our more prolific linkers, someone who has thrown literally dozens of links our way every week from a number of blogs, most notably Batshit Crazy News – a joint effort with Zilla of the Resistance*. She was understandably miffed at being left off last week’s list of top linkers, and so by way of reducing my workload and giving credit where credit is due, I am retiring Evil Blogger Lady’s number. This is a little difficult, since we don’t exactly have numbered jerseys here (or Holsteins, for that matter :v) but I am at a loss as to how else to express my thanks for all the links. Maybe sending her one of these, as a tribute. I’ll think of something. In the meantime, this week’s linkagery.

*Who is currently suffering difficulties; your prayers and other help are requested.

Will Brett Kimberlin Ever Learn?

Posted on | August 30, 2014 | 25 Comments

Dave Weigel has finally published his account of the Kimberlin v. Walker trial, and it’s amazing that it ends with this:

“These guys are going to come out today and say I’m a pedophile,” said Kimberlin. “And tomorrow, I can file another lawsuit against them. And now I know what I need to do. It’s going to be endless lawsuits for the rest of their lives. And that’s what it ends up being. I sue them. They sue me. They come into court. I sue them. They come into court. That’s the way it is.”

Insanity, is what it is. After the December 2012 hearing in Manassas, Virginia, where a state judge dismissed Aaron Walker’s lawsuit against Kimberlin, I remember eating dinner with Walker, his family and John Hoge, and the question was, “Is this story over?”

Walker’s plight, as well as the involvement of notorious troll Neal Rauhauser, was what originally drew my interest in the Kimberlin story in May 2012. The subsequent escalation — “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day” — was astonishing. But after a few weeks, interest in the story dwindled, I returned to covering the 2012 presidential campaign and, by the time Walker’s Virginia lawsuit was dismissed in December 2012, it seemed that the story had fizzled.

The fact that we’re still talking about Brett Kimberlin in August 2014 is basically a result of actions by Kimberlin and his allies:

Neal Rauhauser’s obsessive persistence in harassing various of his chosen enemies (including the defendants in Kimberlin’s lawsuits) continued to kindle resentment. The association between Kimberlin and Rauhauser is a proven fact, although the exact nature of their relationship remains mysterious. Because Rauhauser has used the word “client” to describe Kimberlin, it has been generally assumed that Neal was on Brett’s payroll somehow. Anyone hassled by Neal (who has boasted of his exploits as “iron Troll of the Year”) immediately wonders, “Who is paying Neal’s bills?” This casts a shadow of suspicion on Kimberlin.
Bill Schmalfeldt made a nuisance of himself by harassing Lee Stranahan, the instigator of “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day.” John Hoge assisted Stranahan in trying to stop Schmalfeldt’s harassment, which led to a war between Hoge and Schmalfeldt. Given that Kimberlin was clearly supporting Schmalfeldt (hiring a lawyer for one of the Hoge-Schmalfeldt hearings), this helped keep alive interest in Kimberlin throughout 2013.
In July 2013, Kimberlin went to court trying to get a protective order against his estranged wife, and tried to get criminal charges filed against his wife’s boyfriend Jay Elliott. Court proceedings are a matter of public record, so these actions — which were entirely Brett’s doing — created an entirely new “angle” on the story.
In late August 2013, Kimberlin sued five of us in Maryland state court, then in October 2013, filed a federal lawsuit against about two dozen defendants. These lawsuits are newsworthy in their own right, and therefore generated more attention to Kimberlin, none of it good for him.

So now Kimberlin has lost his state case and, based on what I’ve seen of the filings in the federal lawsuit, the judge is just waiting for the case to become “ripe” (as the lawyers say) before dismissing that hopeless mess of a pro se bungle. When that is done, Kimberlin will be 0-for-2 and the smart thing for him to do, as hunters say down home, would be to “call in the dogs and piss on the fire.”

Is he that smart? I don’t know. One of my posts that seemed to piss him off the worst was where I called him “evil,” describing Kimberlin’s sadistic appetite for vengeance. That’s a judgment based on studying and researching the guy, and I think anyone else would reach the same conclusion about him. Kimberlin cannot stand the sense of shame and humiliation he associates with failure. He obviously has a strong sense of self-righteousness, and seems to feel that he is so special that he should never fail at anything. (I blame this tendency on his mother, who obviously spoiled Brett as a child.) Therefore, when Brett does fail, he seems to fixate on “enemies” as the scapegoats for his failures, and seeks to avenge himself by attempting to destroy them. Or so I’ve deduced from observation.

Why not just let it go? Weigel captures a glimpse from the trial:

Once the proceedings had begun, it became very clear, very quickly, why Kimberlin was better off in court than in the wilds of the Internet. In a courtroom, he could control what was known about his past, and what a jury was allowed to consider. He could, theoretically, present himself as a model citizen who made a mistake while obscuring what the mistakes been.
But Kimberlin overreached early and often. The “pedophile” trolling from the blogosphere was based on a few distinct stories. One: Mark Singer’s book had made Kimberlin’s interest in one young girl look downright creepy. Two: A post-prison Kimberlin had written songs about sex with teenage girls, explaining to a reporter that “every guy who’s seen a good-looking teenage girl has thought about it.” Three: In 2013, as the blog war raged, Kimberlin’s wife filed charges against him, alleging that her husband had sex with her, before marriage, when she was 15 years old, and attempted to have sex with her 12-year old cousin.
In court, Kimberlin was both outraged at the “pedophile” claims and slippery about whether they were defamatory.
“Were you ever arrested for a sexual child abuse charge?” asked the judge at one point. “Did they say you were arrested for that?”
“They say I am a pedophile,” said Kimberlin.
“If you’re charged, it’s an arrest. Is that what they say?”
They had not said that. Kimberlin paused before repeating himself. “They say I am a pedophile.”
“My question is, do they say you were charged with being a pedophile? It’s not a hard question.”
“It kind of is,” said Kimberlin.
“If they say you are something you are not, that’s one thing,” said the judge. “If they say you were arrested, that’s another thing.”

You see that it was Kimberlin himself who turned this into the “Brett Kimberlin Pedophile Trial” — and he lost. Oops.

Read the whole thing at the Daily Beast.

Category: The Kimberlin Files

Feminists Courageously Defending Their Right to Another Red Solo Cup

Posted on | August 30, 2014 | 50 Comments

Having long ago noted the connection between (a) college girls getting drunk and (b) college girls getting raped, I knew that the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria would ultimately compel feminists to defend the right of underage girls to get completely blitzed:

The former president of George Washington University had some practical advice for college women dealing with aggressive men at campus parties, speaking Tuesday on the public radio program The Diane Rehm Show.
It boils down to “don’t get sh*t-faced.” And it’s getting him a lot of sh*t from feminists, according to The GW Hatchet.
Stephen Trachtenberg’s Cro-Magnon remarks?

“Without making the victims responsible for what happens, one of the groups that have to be trained not to drink in excess are women. They need to be in a position to punch the guys in the nose if they misbehave,” Trachtenberg said on the show. “And so part of the problem is you have men who take advantage of women who drink too much and there are women who drink too much. And we need to educate our daughters and our children in that regard.”

Feminist blog Jezebel‘s Erin Gloria Ryan, who can apparently get sloshed without losing her judgment in any way, calls Trachtenberg’s advice “jaw-droppingly stupid” and sarcastically calls it “a failproof solution” and “real fresh thinking.”

Stephen Trachtenberg’s liberal credentials are impeccable, but then again, the same was true of Lawrence Summers before feminists chased him out of Harvard University for daring to suggest there are “innate” differences between men and women.

The Orwellian Nightmare of university life in the 21st century has re-defined everything to conform to radical feminist doctrine. Students arriving at college ought to be greeted by signs warning them that the Bill of Rights does not apply on campus. It is against the law for an 18-year-old to possess or consume alcohol. Yet if a freshman girl gets illegally drunk at a party, where she meets a freshman boy who is also illegally drunk, and if they proceed to do together what drunk college freshmen have been doing since time immemorial, only the male can be held responsible for this activity. (The penis is synonymous with sexual power, according to feminist theory.) Thus, if the drunken activity is unsatisfactory to the female participant — or if her memories of it are too vague for her to remember whether she enjoyed it, or if the guy isn’t as nice in the morning as he seemed the night before when she was guzzling vodka and grinding with him in the dimly lit frat-house cellar — she will accuse him of rape, and he must be presumed guilty.

“Empowerment” for women thus means utter irresponsibility, and anyone who disagrees is a misogynist defending “rape culture,” according to feminists, who consider common sense an oppressive social construct of the heteronormative patriarchy.

I can only imagine how a 19-year-old woman who’s being handed Red Solo cups of unknown composition — in a crowded, loud and sweltering frat house that may be (intentionally or negligently) low on food to slow alcohol absorption — is going to fare by the end of the night.

Feminism requires victims. Don’t become one.

IT'S COME TO THIS: Colleges Buying 'Rape Insurance' http://t.co/BMV6z0MQtG via @AmericanGlob #tcot #fem2 #radfem #YesAllWomen #tcot

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 30, 2014

.@yidwithlid Indeed. Freshman orientation should be re-named, "Introduction to the Orwellian Nightmare." @instapundit

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 28, 2014

<br />

Category: Education, Feminism

Thank You, Professor Kitzinger!

Posted on | August 30, 2014 | 18 Comments

“[R]adical feminism offers a theory central to which is an analysis of lesbianism and heterosexuality as political institutions and a rejection of personalized interpretations. . . .
“Central to radical feminism is the belief that the patriarchy (not capitalism or sex roles or socialization or individual sexist men) is the root of all forms of oppression; that all men benefit from and maintain it and are, therefore, our political enemies. Within this framework, heterosexuality, far from existing as a ‘natural state,’ ‘personal choice’ or ‘sexual orientation,’ is described as a socially constructed and institutionalized structure which is instrumental in the perpetuation of male supremacy. . . .
“Radical feminism thus contradicts each of the tenets of liberal humanistic theorizing about lesbianism. . . .
“The major impact of the radical feminist approach to lesbianism is in reasserting the political implications of lesbianism and replacing the so-called ‘personal’ back into the realm of the public and political.”
— Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism (1987)

Here we have a bold and clear statement as to the meaning of the term “radical feminism,” which sets the term in distinction to “liberal humanistic theorizing,” and I am profoundly grateful for Professor Kitzinger’s candor. Ever since I began analyzing radical feminist theory in January, I’ve had to deal with the usual aspersions that feminists hurl toward any critic (especially any male critic) who points out the ultimate significance of the famed feminist phrase, “The personal is political.”

A male critic of feminism who notes the movement’s implacable hostility to men is accused of being ignorant of real feminism and, if he comments on the association between feminism and lesbianism, he is condemned as a homophobe, allegedly expressing irrational fear and insecurity. Yet I am neither ignorant, fearful nor insecure, and am merely stating the fact that feminism means exactly what Professor Kitzinger says it means. If all feminists were as intellectually consistent as Professor Kitzinger, at least critics like myself wouldn’t have to deal with the pervasive dishonesty and self-contradicting claims of soi-disant “feminists” who think their philosophy is compatible with heterosexuality.

Feminism is fixated on equality between the sexes, and views systematic domination by males as a group (i.e., patriarchy) as the source of an inequality that is oppressive to women as a group. That is to say, the difficulties experienced by individual women are not really personal, nor can blame for such difficulties be limited to any individual man. Rather, each woman’s difficulties result from her membership in the collective group “women,” which exposes her to oppression by the collective group “men.” If a woman is raped, therefore, it is not sufficient from a feminist perspective that the criminal perpetrator be apprehended and punished; rather, this crime is viewed by feminists as essentially political, intrinsic to the male-dominated patriarchal system, from which all men benefit and for which all men are responsible.

“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them, and that lesbians, in rejecting male definitions of sexuality, are undermining the patriarchy. . . .
“Lesbianism is . . . fundamentally a challenge to patriarchal definitions of women.”
— Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism (1987)

This collectivist, systematic concept (female oppression under patriarchy) is what “feminism” means as a political philosophy. This is what is expressed in talk of “rape culture.” This is what the slogan “Yes All Women” is about. This is why lesbian feminists who have never had sex with men (and with whom it is unlikely any man would ever want to have sex) nevertheless adamantly support abortion and contraception as fundamental “women’s rights.” If the personal is political, if women are viewed as a collective group, and if all males are part of the oppressive patriarchy, then lesbians have a political voice in how heterosexual women live their lives. Indeed, feminist theory implies, lesbians have a greater stake in a heterosexual woman’s life than does her own husband.

Such is the implicit logic of feminism, at any rate, yet most people (male or female) who accept the “feminist” label have not followed the premises of this collectivist/egalitarian worldview to their logical conclusion. Most people who accept the feminist label think it’s just about “fairness,” a feminism defined mainly by women’s advancement in education and professional careers. However, this “liberal humanistic” perspective is ultimately illogical, if the fundamental premises of feminist ideology are actually true.

Nor is “liberal humanistic” feminism what is generally taught today in university Women’s Studies programs. In the past 20 years, radicals have increasingly come to dominate Women’s Studies, so that when Carmen Rios describes how she became a “raging lesbian feminist” in the Women Studies program at American University, nobody really thinks of this as unusual. Nor is anyone really surprised to learn that Feminist Frontiers, the most commonly assigned anthology of feminist literature, a basic textbook for introductory Women’s Studies classes, is edited by three radical lesbians. This is simply what “feminism” signifies within academia in the 21st century, and this feminism — so clearly described by Celia Kitzinger in 1987 — does not seek toleration and compromise. When radical feminists say they want to “smash patriarchy,” what do you think they mean? And what do you think that means for the future?

“Men are the enemy. Heterosexual women are collaborators with the enemy. . . . Every women who lives with or f–ks a man helps to maintain the oppression of her sisters and hinders our struggle.”
— Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group, “Political Lesbianism: The Case Against Heterosexuality,” 1981

You tell ’em, sisters! This is not something I agree with, of course. I do not think of myself as an enemy of women, nor do I think my wife is helping “maintain the oppression of her sisters.” But if feminism’s basic ideology is true — if all women (collectively) are oppressed by all men (collectively) — then the radical lesbians are right, and at least one can respect their honesty in stating it clearly. If feminism is true, then the woman who denounces heterosexuality as an “institutionalized structure which is instrumental in the perpetuation of male supremacy” deserves credit for having the courage to challenge “male supremacy” directly.

Ah, but feminism is not true — these women are hopelessly deranged, and the patriarchy that Professor Kitzinger describes as “the root of all forms of oppression” is a sort of paranoid delusion. Not only do heterosexual women laugh at this madness, but even most lesbians don’t buy into this political “struggle” against “male supremacy.” When its principles are stated explicitly, feminism is recognized as a joke, which is exactly why most feminists are so tangled up in contradictions, unable to state their feminist politics as meaning much more than (a) legal abortion and (b) vote Democrat!

That kind of dumbed-down “feminism” might be helpful in electing Democrats, but it’s never really going to change women’s lives, certainly not for the better. (If you want to know what kind of change you get by voting Democrat, take a look at Detroit.) This kind of “feminism” — Jessica Valenti’s kind of feminism — is little more than a vehicle for the careers of female journalists who want to get paid to complain about men. Women who buy into this peevish petulance and call it “feminism” are too dumb to see through the scam.

What’s weird is that radical feminists, despite their delusions, occasionally find some actual truth. Say what you will about Cathy Brennan, at least she knows that someone with XY chromosomes and a penis can’t become a “woman” by putting on a dress and a wig. And say anything you want about Julie Bindel, but she had the guts to tell the truth about the Pakistani rape gangs in England.

Not for a minute do I accede to the claims of such radical lesbians that my four sons and I, as men, are the “political enemies” of my wife and two daughters, as women. Are we the patriarchy? Is my daughter being oppressed by my son-in-law? Sane normal people don’t think in such terms, but feminists are neither sane nor normal.

We must therefore be grateful when insane abnormal women like Professor Celia Kitzinger state their beliefs honestly. It’s the truthless hired liars like Jessica Valenti who do real harm, telling foolish women that feminism is compatible with heterosexuality.

Feminism tells women they're oppressed. If women don't feel oppressed, feminism tells women their feelings are wrong.

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 28, 2014

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

Homelessness: Myth and Menace

Posted on | August 29, 2014 | 106 Comments

Years ago, the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case brought attention to a fact of which social scientists have long been aware, but which the high priests of political correctness have attempted to conceal from the public: Homeless people are dangerous.

Brian David Mitchell, the perverted self-proclaimed “prophet” who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart, had been a homeless panhandler for years. Like many other homeless people, Mitchell had a history of drug abuse, crime and mental illness. But because of political correctness in the media, this point was obscured in the coverage of the story. Now, we have further evidence of the problem. Miley Cyrus decided to have a homeless man as her “date” to the MTV Video Music Awards. An aspiring model, Jesse Helt accepted Miley’s VMA trophy and lectured the national television audience:

“My name is Jesse and I am accepting this award on behalf of 1.6 million runaway and homeless youth in the United States, who are starving, lost, and scared for their lives right now. I know this because I am one of these people. . . .
“I’ve survived in shelters all over this city. I’ve cleaned your hotel rooms. I’ve been an extra in your movies. I’ve been an extra in your life. Though I may have been invisible to you on the streets, I have a lot of the same dreams that brought many of you here tonight.”

He forgot to add, “Oops.”

Miley Cyrus’s homeless VMAs date Jesse
turns himself in after being sought
by police for violating his probation
Miley Cyrus’ homeless VMA date finally turned himself in to police Thursday night and was formally arrested for violating the conditions of his probation.
Jesse Helt walked in to Polk County Jail in Dallas, Oregon just before 8pm and was booked in by duty officers.
Helt had been on the run from the authorities for three years and lived homeless on the streets of Los Angeles before he shot to fame at the MTV Video Music Awards last Sunday.
Martin Silbernagel, Polk County Director of Community Corrections, said the 22-year-old is expected to post $2,500 bail and will be released within hours.
‘He turned himself in and was arrested, we expect a court date in two weeks,’ he said.
Homeless Helt has been on the run from police since moving to Los Angeles, where he lived on the streets after breaking probation following a drugs test back in 2011.
A judge in his home state of Oregon issued a warrant for his arrest for repeatedly violating the terms of his probation. . . .

Larry O’Connor at the Free Beacon:

So Jesse has a criminal record, an open warrant for his arrest, a drug problem, and is homeless because he took the brilliant career path into the safe and secure world of modeling. . . .
The fact is, Jesse deserves to be homeless. I don’t care if that sounds cold-hearted or mean-spirited, it’s the truth.
Instead of propagandizing young people with the fear-mongering lie how a homeless person is just the same as anyone else but for a few bad breaks, Miley would have done our culture a greater service by having her prop (let’s be real, he wasn’t really her date) admit to all of the awful life choices he made that led him to living on the streets.

That’s pretty harsh, but it does point to a larger issue that has long been neglected in discussions of “homelessness.” Back in the 1980s, this became an “issue” because Democrats wanted to leverage homelessness as a way to impugn Ronald Reagan’s policies. But the problem had nothing to do with Reagan and everything to do with a series of court decisions that had made it more difficult to lock up insane people in lunatic asylums, and nearly impossible to enforce laws against vagrancy. The so-called “deinstitutionalization” of the mentally ill was a policy that had been pursued by the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberals during the 1970s. This coincided with other trends — including rising rates of divorce and drug abuse — that had the combined effect of creating a population of dopeheads, alcoholics and crazies who had no families to take care of them, and no place to go.

Furthermore, once the media jumped on the bandwagon of hyping the “homeless crisis,” ginning up lots of ignorant public sympathy, bums and petty criminals realized they could cash in on this, panhandling on the streets, often falsely claiming to be Vietnam War veterans. State and local governments started throwing money at the problem, and non-profit agencies reaped a bonanza of grant money to help deal with the “homeless crisis.” This created what was in effect an industry of professional activists — Homelessness, Inc. — who made their living from the misperceptions of the problem, misperceptions that the activists themselves helped create in order to gain the political clout necessary to shake down government agencies for more money.

It was a racket, one of the most shameless hoaxes ever imposed on the American public, and the media still refuse to tell the truth about the problem. Everything you need to know about homelessness, you can learn from reading Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed, Fred Siegel’s The Future Once Happened Here and Myron Magnet’s The Dream and the Nightmare. You might also want to read P.J. O’Rourke’s Parliament of Whores, which has an excellent (and hilarious) chapter on how the “homeless crisis” was invented. That’s four books — just four — and if you read what they have to say about homelessness, you’ll know more about the reality of this problem than do 99% of reporters and editors in the liberal media.

Miley Cyrus’s stunt at the VMAs was a perfect example of how vastly ignorant liberals are about the real world. She seems to have actually believed Jesse Helt was a helpless victim, and she gave him a platform to insult Americans with his dishonest lecture.

Miley Cyrus should be ashamed of herself. But if liberals had any sense of shame, they wouldn’t be liberals, would they?

<br />

Category: Celebrities, Liberals, Media Bias

LIVE AT FIVE: 08.29.14

Posted on | August 29, 2014 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

TOP NEWS
Ukraine Accuses Russia Of Invasion

Russian self-propelled artillery in the Ukraine

Obama rules out military response
Pro-Moscow rebels say they’ll allow trapped Ukraine forces to withdraw
Invasion of Ukraine prompts UN Security Council meeting
Poroshenko accuses Russian soldiers of backing rebel attack

Fighting In Syria Spawns Civil War In Jihadist Movement
Islamic State and Al-Qaeda: sworn enemies?

Nawaz Sharif Seeks Army’s Help To Resolve Pakistan’s Political Crisis
Opposition parties accept Army as mediator

POLITICS
GOP Bonus In NH As Brown Gains On Shaheen?

Scott Brown closing the gap?

Shaheen’s lead shrinks to 46-44% in latest WMUR poll

Closing Arguments Set In McDonnell Trial

Texas Judge Rules State Is Underfunding Schools

US May Bring Thousands Of Deported Mexicans Back Under Court Settlement

Census: More Than One-Third Of Americans Getting Welfare Benefits

Suds, Faith Found At California Laundromat

VA Whistleblower Condemns IG Report

THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Asian Crude Up On Ukraine Tension, Rosy US Data: WTI $94.66, Brent $102.70
Teens Dump Expensive Expensive Fashion Brands Hollister, Abercrombie & Fitch
Commerce Department Claims Economy Grew At 4.2% In Second Quarter
European Shares Inch Up Early; Tesco Tumbles
Asia Stocks Mixed On Ukraine Risks
Barclays Provides $275 Million Financing To Detroit
Google Unveils Drone For Disaster Relief
Twitter Opens Up Analytics Dashboard For All Users
Google X Exec May Be Contender For Next US CTO
T-Mobile For Sale: $35/Share
NY State Carries Big Stick In Review Of Comcast Deal

SPORTS
Tony Stewart Returns To NASCAR After Three-Week Hiatus

Tony before February’s Daytona 500

Returns to racing at Atlanta; charges over death of Kevin Ward still possible

Castro Hits Grand Slam, Astros Top Rangers 4-2

Johnny Who? Aggies Rip Cocks 52-28

Minor Dominates On Mound, Plate As Braves Crush Mets 6-1

Avila’s Sayonara Homer Salvages Win For Tigers Against Yankees

A’s Protest After Wacky 9th Leads To Angels Win In 10th

Orioles Play Small Ball, Edge Rays 5-4

Twins Snap Skid, Avert Sweep With 11-5 Thumping Of Royals

Tribe Edges Pale Hose 3-2

Nationals Piling Up Minor League Awards

FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Joan Rivers Hospitalized, In Coma After Vocal Cord Surgery Goes Awry

Comedienne widely credited with helping women find their place in comedy

To be awakened this weekend as docs assess damage

Nikki Finke: Watch This Space

Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt Wed Privately At Chateau In France

Britney Spears, BF David Lucado Split

Shakira Expecting Bebe Numero Dos

Katie Couric On Diane Sawyer: “I Wonder Who She Blew This Time”

Jenny McCarthy And Donnie Wahlberg Tying The Knot This Weekend

“Duck Dynasty” Star Sadie Robertson Joining “Dancing With The Stars”

“Underworld” Reboot In The Works?

Character Actor Stephen Lee Dies, 58

FOREIGNERS
Japan’s Economy Stagnates After Sales Tax Hike
UN: Syrian Refugees Top Three Million; Half Of All Syrians Displaced
43 UN Peacekeepers Captured By Jihadis In Golan Heights, Another 81 Trapped
Islamic State Slaughters Dozens Of Captive Syrian Soldiers
New Turkish Cabinet Unlikely To Signal Policy Shift
Chicoms Show Off Latest Attack Helicopters, Tanks At Multinational Military Exercise
UN Says Afghan Election Audit Won’t Be Done Until September 10
France Rules Out Assad As Partner In Terror Fight
Tory Leads, But Ford Gaining Ground In New Poll
Media Positive On Modi’s Visit To Japan
With Eye On China, Japan Defense Planners Seek Spending Boost

BLOGS & STUFF
First Street Journal: And You Wonder Why I Think Palestinians Are Stupid?
Doug Powers: Obama Calls Press Conference To Announce Lack Of Strategy Against ISIS
Twitchy: Does Krystal Ball Have A Strategy To Forget About This 2012 Tweet?
WSJ: Net Neutrality Vs. Free Speech
American Power: Election Models Converging On GOP Senate Majority
American Thinker: It Isn’t Their 21st Century, Mr. President!
BLACKFIVE: “We Don’t Have A Strategy Yet”
Conservatives4Palin: Gov. Palin – No-Drama Obama’s Summer Casual Agenda For America
Don Surber: “Anymore” Acknowledges At One Time We Did
Jammie Wearing Fools: Thanks, Obama! Labor Day Weekend Fundraising Blitz To Ground Air Traffic Into Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket
Joe For America: Black NYT Journalist Bullied Into Recanting Description Of Michael Brown
Protein Wisdom: Consigliere Eric Holder Cuts Left-Wing Groups In On $17 Billion Deal
Shot In The Dark: Trulbert! Part VIII – We Don’t Need No Water
The Gateway Pundit: Obama Amnesty Fraud Exposed – 2012 Deportations Down 50% From Bush Average
The Jawa Report: ISIS American Jihadis Dropping Like Flies
Lonely Conservative: Will Dems Shut Down Government In Effort To Save The Senate?
This Ain’t Hell: Fort Lee Shooter – Another Crazed Vet
Weasel Zippers: Not News – Man Waving ISIS Flag From Car Threatens To Kill Police; News – In Chicago
Megan McArdle: No Easy Exit From The Euro

Need some light reading for the weekend? The Last Falangist still available for just $1.99!

14 days until the September 12 Smittypalooza!

Shop Amazon – 50% or More Off Swimwear

Category: Live at Five

« go back — keep looking »

About

This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Rule 5 Sunday: Labor Day Weekend Lovelies

Memo From the Thought Police

FMJRA 2.0: Out Standing In Her Field

Will Brett Kimberlin Ever Learn?

Feminists Courageously Defending Their Right to Another Red Solo Cup

Thank You, Professor Kitzinger!

Homelessness: Myth and Menace

LIVE AT FIVE: 08.29.14

THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Search

Recent Posts

RSS reader subscription

MEMEORANDUM

Recent Comments

THE AMAZING GONZO FEED

Major Leagues

Archives

Free Agents

SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

Triple-A Franchises

Blogroll

About

Subscribe to our feed

Search

Admin