The Canadian Menace: Facebook Censors Critics of CBC’s Homosexual Propaganda

Posted on | July 5, 2018 | Comments Off on The Canadian Menace: Facebook Censors Critics of CBC’s Homosexual Propaganda

Jessi Cruickshank is a personality on the Canadian government’s official propaganda channel, the CBC, which promotes homosexuality.

On June 1, Ms. Cruickshank hosted a number of young children on her CBC program, encouraging them to celebrate homosexuality. Robert Gagnon of the Federalist describes this bizarre Canadian propaganda:

Jessi Cruikshank sits at a table with a garland of rainbow balloons, providing lead-in questions to two girls and two boys, who seem to be ages five to eight. The purpose of the video is simple: to proselytize for support of “Gay Pride Month.”
Cruikshank started by proclaiming, “Happy pride, everybody!” and asked, “Who knows what ‘gay pride’ means?” After getting an answer she gushed with glee: “It’s a celebration of sexual diversity!” Then she enlisted them in the “LGBTQ” cause by telling them: “So I’m not gay, but I’m a gay ally.” As an authority figure, she coaxed them to join her, asking, “Are you gay allies?” Subtext: You better be, if you know what is good for you.
Not being entirely corrupted at such a tender age, one girl thought that Cruikshank was referring to the game of Hide and Go Seek (bless her innocent heart) when asked, “What does it mean to come out of the closet?” Cruikshank pressed on: “What do you think about gay marriage?” “Do you think it would be cool to have two moms?” “What would it be like to have two dads?” Cruikshank worked to foster a view of “advantages” to same-sex parents.
Cruikshank launched into a litany of “gay celebrities” or “gay icons,” most of whom the children did not know. When a girl asked who Jodie Foster is, Cruikshank outdid even herself: “Jody Foster is a woman and she made me question my sexuality when I was a child because I liked her so much. And she was nude in a film ‘Nell,’ not that I remember watching several times as a child.”
How creepy is that? One of the two little girls answered with an awkward “Wow,” accompanied by an eyeroll, as if to say, “I didn’t need to hear that.” She didn’t. Cruikshank then summed up for the children: “Remember: What are we to the gay community?” She was expecting to hear “gay allies,” but some in their confusion responded, “Gay icons.” To this Cruikshank added: “Everybody should grow up and aspire to be a gay icon.”
Throughout the presentation, Cruikshank fulfilled the Orwellian role of reinforcing “correct” responses with: “Great answer!” “Makes sense.” “Right!” There was one and only one right response to the presentation: Complete, unequivocal agreement with “LGBTQ” ideology.

This video of Ms. Cruickshank promoting homosexuality to children was posted to Facebook, and Facebook censored Gagnon’s criticism:

On June 14 at 1:09 PM I learned that Facebook blocked me for 24 hours because of my alleged “hate speech.” . . . I was directed to the “community standards” that prohibited “a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — . . . sexual orientation . . . gender identity.” . . .
My posting on this video was straightforward:

This clip is about celebrating sexual perversity, not ‘sexual diversity.’ Brought to you by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian equivalent to our PBS, paid for by tax dollars. No indoctrination or recruitment going on here (or on PBS), right? Any resemblance to Orwell’s Big Brother (or Kim Jong-un) is purely coincidental? It is a measure of how corrupt things have become that this woman is not vilified throughout Canada and legislators are not threatening to remove funding from the CBC. By the end the woman is talking to little children about Jody Foster helping her to question her own sexuality as a child and about Foster’s nudity in a film.

I consider my post a reasonable response to corrupt indoctrination of children. It is certainly a stance in line with my religious beliefs. Associating “sexual perversity” with “sexual diversity” is consistent with the Christian stance on homosexual practice as “abhorrent” and intrinsically self-“dishonoring” activity (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:24-27). . . .
Facebook violated its own community standards by attacking my “protected characteristic” of “religious affiliation”: treating a central belief and practice of historic Christian faith as “hate speech.” Facebook members can say virtually anything about Christians who uphold a male-female foundation for sexual ethics, without fear of “Facebook jail.” But I can’t do the same thing from my own religious perspective.

(Hat-tip: Jeanette Runyon on Twitter.)

It should not be necessary to say — and I think every intelligent person can see — that there is a vast difference between (a) encouraging an attitude of tolerance, civility and kindness toward others, and (b) advocating sexually deviant behaviors to impressionable children.

Different people have different beliefs. Some of my friends are Catholic and, as a Protestant, I avoid discussions of theology with my Catholic friends as a matter of courtesy. What would happen, however, if our government were to promote Catholicism, and if criticism of Catholic theology were classified as “hate speech”? It is wrong to assert that I “hate” Catholics, or wish any harm to befall them, but by the same principle whereby Facebook censors criticism of the LGBT agenda as “hate speech,” they might also prohibit a Protestant from posting a Bible-based critique of the papacy. If Facebook can censor criticism of Ms. Cruickshank’s pro-gay propaganda as a “direct attack” on homosexuals, what other “direct attacks” will soon be forbidden?

This highlights the problem with making behavior a basis of identity (equivalent to race) for the purpose of “civil rights” legislation. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed the emergence of what I’ve called “The Compulsory Approval Doctrine,” whereby everyone is expected to engage in the enthusiastic celebration of homosexuality — imposing a mandatory conformity of opinion about sexual behavior.

It should be obvious why this attitude is dangerous, and I will not further belabor the point. Responsible adults do not need any lectures on the virtues of minding one’s own business, which I think is the most common attitude toward homosexuals. In our everyday lives, we do not meddle in the privacy of others and if, for example, you’ve got a BDSM dungeon in your basement, it only concerns us if someone gets tortured to death. However, it would be an infringement of free speech if, as a matter of policy, I were forbidden to say that I disapprove of BDSM, or prohibited from criticizing the sick freaks who advocate that kinky stuff.

Minding one’s own business, however, is not what Jessi Cruickshank and her Canadian propaganda were about. Canadians are anti-freedom — they have no First Amendment — and while my contempt for Canada is so complete that I do not care what happens to them one way or another, it is another thing when, in defense of Canadian pro-homosexual propaganda, Facebook silences the voices of patriotic Americans.

By the way, remember when Rosie O’Donnell promised to move to Canada if Donald Trump was elected? Has she left yet?

Category: Canada, Gays

In The Mailbox: 07.04.18

Posted on | July 4, 2018 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 07.04.18

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
Ninety Miles From Tyranny: The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #306
EBL: Declaration Of Independence
Twitchy: Vox Explains Why The American Revolution Was A Mistake And July 4 Should Be A Day Of Mourning
Louder With Crowder: America Is Superior (To All Other Countries) – CHANGE MY MIND

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: The Boys Are Back In Town
American Power: Kate Upton In Aruba
American Thinker: Hamilton v. Jefferson
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Patriotic Hump Day News
BattleSwarm: Happy Independence Day!
CDR Salamander: …And A Good 4th To You
Da Tech Guy: Exhortation From John Adams, 1777
Don Surber: Media’s Self-Importance Never Dies
Dustbury: You Will Be Required To Care
The Geller Report: Polish Official – “If You Are Asking Me About Illegal Muslim Immigrants, None, Not Even One, Will Come To Poland.” also, Iranian General Accuses Israel Of Climate Change & Stealing Iran’s Clouds
Hogewash: North America, also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
JustOneMinute: Have A Happy Fourth
Legal Insurrection: San Francisco Is Becoming The Model Progressive City And It’s Sad, also, Vandals Smash Nebraska GOP Office Windows, Paint “Abolish ICE” On Sidewalk
Michelle Malkin: The Reason For The Season – Happy Independence Day!
The PanAm Post: Colombian Guerrilla Groups Recruit Desperate Venezuelans To Fill Their Ranks
Power Line: Why Do Democrats Hate America? also, The Eternal Meaning Of Independence Day (Lincoln) and (Coolidge)
Shark Tank: Donald Trump Jr. To Campaign For DeSantis, Goetz
Shot In The Dark: The Moral Arc
The Jawa Report: Where’s Dr. Rusty? Space Man Edition
The Political Hat: When In The Course Of Human Events…
This Ain’t Hell: NYT FOIA Lawsuit Rejected, also, A Brief Fourth Of July Message
Victory Girls: Boycott The Fourth, But Don’t Crash My Cookout
Volokh Conspiracy: What The Declaration Of Independence Said And Meant
Weasel Zippers: Nationwide Manhunt For Three (Illegal Aliens?) Accused Of Raping Ohio Teens, also, FLOTUS Visits Injured Servicemen At Walter Reed
Megan McArdle: America Needs More Patriotism
Mark Steyn:

Help Kirby McCain!
Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Flashback: Feminists Hate ‘Nice Guys’

Posted on | July 4, 2018 | 1 Comment

Amanda Marcotte has been lately busy promoting her book Troll Nation: How The Right Became Trump-Worshipping Monsters Set on Rat-F*cking Liberals, America, and Truth Itself, which is perhaps the most unnecessarily far-fetched explanation of why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. Even more weird than the “Russians hacked the election” conspiracy theory, Marcotte wants us to believe that #GamerGate (and the phenomenon of online “trolling” in general) explains what happened in 2016. Asking a feminist to familiarize herself with Occam’s Razor is probably sexist — “Logic is a tool of the oppressive heteropatriarchy!” — but why can’t Marcotte simply accept the ordinary nature of Hillary’s defeat? Isn’t it obvious that a substantial number of working-class white voters were simply tired of politics as usual? Prior to 2008, we’d had 20 years of Bushes and Clintons in the White House, and the idea of electing Hillary in 2016 seemed to strike many people as a step backwards.

Barack Obama had represented a departure from the past, and if many people who voted for “Hope and Change” were disappointed by the result — no one could claim the industrial heartland had experienced a miraculous economic revival during Obama’s presidency — why did so many pundits assume these voters would buy the argument that they could improve their lives by voting for Hillary? There is no doubt that Trump was sharply different, both in terms of policy and personality, than any nominee in the GOP’s history. Something about him appealed to voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in a way that no Republican presidential candidate had been able to do in more than two decades, and this was sufficient to defeat Hillary Clinton. You don’t need any conspiracy theory to explain what happened in 2016, and so Marcotte’s argument about “Trump-Worshipping Monsters” is as superfluous as anything in the Steele dossier about Kremlin agents.

If someone asked me to write a book about what happened in 2016, I might call it Blame Yourself: How Lunatic Feminists and Other Crazy SJW Weirdos Cost Hillary Clinton the Election. My theory is that a lot of Americans got a close look at the kind of extremist wackjobs who were supporting Hillary and said to themselves, “No way I’m voting to put those people in charge of the federal government.” But I digress . . .

Amanda Marcotte came to my attention today while I was searching for something else and stumbled onto a column she wrote in 2012. A writer for Cracked, Jason Pargin (a/k/a “David Wong”), wrote an article with a pro-feminist theme, “5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women.” This article was widely popular, and many people emailed to Marcotte, who was so annoyed by it that she wrote an entire column denouncing it:

The [Cracked] piece starts off on a good foot, explaining that men are taught from the cradle that they’re entitled to women’s affection, and he even touches on how women who aren’t considered beautiful are often not considered at all. He’s 100% right on this. This is the underpinning of the Nice Guy® complaint. They say that “women” overlook the “nice” guys because they’re not as attractive or whatever, but if you scratch them, you’ll find that they exclude a huge percentage of women from the category “women” for not fitting their beauty standards. Thus, the whine only makes sense if you assume that men are entitled to beauty, but women should settle for “nice”, and give up on physical attraction.
The rest of the piece is based on the iffy theory that only men really know what it’s like to feel horny. This is why liberal dudes were licking it up, since it was a purportedly anti-sexist piece, but it still had a soothing message that men still somehow are more than women, because they are more alive, you know. They have more desire. They really like sex, in a way that you women can never understand. . . .
I think men become misogynists not because their intense horniness short circuits their brain. It’s because they feel entitled to have women in a submissive position to them. . . . They want to control women sexually, not because they’re more horny, but because sexual control is just one more form of control. . . .
More importantly, men get to feel hornier because they’re socially supported in this. The whole of society is geared toward titillating men and discouraging female sexual desire. It’s inherent to the Nice Guy® complaint, where men are entitled to feel physical attraction, but a woman who wants more than “nice” is shallow.. . . Men seem hornier in no small part because their sexuality is celebrated and codified. It’s easy for men to know right away how to be sexual, whereas women are still largely expected to figure it out for themselves — and even that’s a recent invention, because pre-feminism, women were mostly just expected to do what men wanted. . . .

You can read the rest of that dispatch from Planet Marcotte, which is rather like a science-fiction alternative universe.

As weird as her argument is, the more important point is that, like every other feminist, Amanda Marcotte cannot stand to let a man have the last word about anything, including his own sexual feelings.

No, only feminists possess the omniscient psychic power to discern men’s real motives, so that very simple things — e.g., guys wanting to have sex with good-looking women — get twisted into a complex argument about how our unjust society is built on “discouraging female sexual desire” because men crave “sexual control” over women.

Remember that Marcotte’s rant was inspired by an article written by a liberal guy who was trying to make a pro-feminist argument. Notice how she takes a sharp jab at “liberal dudes” who endorsed this “purportedly anti-sexist piece” which — using her feminist psychic powers — Marcotte perceives as actually expressing male-supremacist beliefs.

And what about her repeated shots at “nice guys”? Is Marcotte correct in saying that such men “exclude a huge percentage of women from the category ‘women’ for not fitting their beauty standards” because society makes these men feel “entitled” to beautiful women? Having spent some time pondering the “nice guy” phenomenon, my general belief is that such men are mostly clueless, incapable of accurately assessing their own attractiveness, and thus don’t understand why they keep striking out. Suppose that a guy rates a “6” on a 10-scale of overall attractiveness. It is unlikely that he will have any luck chasing women who rate “8” or higher. Why would a highly attractive woman date a mediocre scrub? The “nice guy” is too clueless to recognize his own mediocrity, however, and clueless guys are also prone to paying more attention to what women say than what women actually do. This is a key difference between losers and winners, and it’s what guys in “Red Pill” forums are at least trying to develop into a useful body of knowledge about female behavior.

While I’m always willing to listen to women talk about sex, only a fool would imagine that women are always honest in such discussions. It is a natural human tendency to justify our own selfish behaviors by rationalizations. Because feminist influence is so pervasive in our culture, many women believe that their own desires are inherently moral (whatever she wants is always good) whereas male sexuality is always viewed negatively, as being tainted by “sexism,” “privilege,” etc.

“SJWs Always Project,” as Vox Day says, and what should we therefore intuit about Amanda Marcotte’s accusation that men (all men, especially including “nice guys”) secretly crave “sexual control” over women? Shouldn’t we deduce that Marcotte desires to sexually control men?

Indeed, isn’t this the basic agenda of feminism? Isn’t it the case that what feminists hate most about men is their independence?

Feminism isn’t about equality, it’s about power — an authoritarian impulse on the part of emotionally warped women who crave the power to inflict sadistic punishment on men. This explains why feminists despise “nice guys” so much. The well-meaning man who hopes to ingratiate himself with the feminist only inspires her with contempt for his weakness. The feminist takes pleasure in humiliating the “nice guy,” because his niceness — as a strategy aimed at gaining sexual access — marks him as desperate and undesirable to other women: “If he could get laid by anyone else, he wouldn’t bother being nice to me.”

Feminists have zero pity for the luckless loser, and enjoy mocking male failure. Insofar as any feminist is heterosexual (which is seldom a safe assumption) she is only sexually attracted to men who are viewed as desirable by other women. In other words, she’s trophy-hunting, seeking the interest of a high-status male as validation of her own attractiveness.

Anyone who expects Amanda Marcotte to provide an honest explanation of her own motives is a fool. Even if she were cognizant of her underlying psychological motivations (which I doubt she is), she knows she would not enhance her reputation by telling the truth about herself. Nobody who actually knows Marcotte likes her, because she is not a likable person. She is a very bad person, even by liberal standards, and is only tolerated because she is somewhat useful as a Democrat propagandist.

If you want to understand people, watch what they actually do, and don’t let yourself be deceived by their self-justifying explanations.

Notice that when I write about feminists, I avoid making generalizations about women. Obviously, there are many different types of women, and certainly not all women are feminists. Many women are decent, honest and kind, whereas feminists . . . Well, finish that sentence yourself, you “Trump-Worshipping Monsters.”

Category: Sex Trouble

Murder, Lies and Feminism

Posted on | July 4, 2018 | Comments Off on Murder, Lies and Feminism

1994: L.A. police pursue murder suspect O.J. Simpson.

The word “mansplaining” was inspired (although not coined) by Rebecca Solnit, whose book Men Explain Things to Me became a bestseller. In this book, Ms. Solnit writes: “So many men murder their partners and former partners that we have well over a thousand homicides of that kind a year — meaning that every three years the death toll tops 9/11’s casualties, though no one declares a war on this particular kind of terror.”

Here we have an actual fact — that the U.S. annually records “well over a thousand homicides” in which women are killed by their male partners or ex-partners — supporting a dishonest insinuation, i.e., that “this particular kind of terror” is a pervasive reality of American life, a widespread form of oppression which our sexist society ignores.

It should not be necessary to say this: Murder is a rare crime, for which our criminal justice system metes out the harshest punishments.

Furthermore, criminal violence — including murder, including rape, including every species of crime against women — is disproportionately a phenomenon of the social and economic underclass.

This is not something that feminists like Ms. Solnit wish to acknowledge, because their political allegiance to the Left requires them to believe that members of the underclass (especially those who are black and Hispanic) are victims of systemic social injustice. After the Ferguson riots of 2014, for example, every feminist began hashtagging #BlackLivesMatter as a gesture of solidarity against allegedly racist police. It is asserted by feminists that the “intersectionality” of oppression in American society is such that women and racial minorities are both victimized by systemic injustice, thus uniting them in a common cause — the struggle against “capitalist imperialist white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy,” in the words of Vanessa Diaz, former executive director of the University of Southern California Women’s Student Assembly.

Feminism’s devotion to an “intersectional” concept of oppression serves to obscure the messy reality of American life, which does not conform to such tidy ideological categories. Blaming all social problems on systemic causes (capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, etc.) is a way of denying individual responsibility for wrongdoing, while suggesting that every problem is political and can be solved by left-wing policies.

If feminists wish to reduce violent crime against women, how did it make sense for them to support #BlackLivesMatter, a movement that demonized police officers? How can we prevent violence, without police to enforce the law and arrest criminals? Ideology triumphs over common sense among intellectuals, and Ms. Solnit’s comments about the murder of women are typical of how feminism produces confusion.

Who is murdering whom in America? According to the FBI’s Crime in the United States report, there were 15,070 homicide victims in 2016, of whom 11,821 (78.4%) were male. In other words, for every woman murdered in America, 3.63 men were murdered. The fact that male homicide victims outnumber female victims nearly 4-to-1, however, doesn’t fit Rebecca Solnit’s belief about violence against women as a “particular kind of terror” comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Murder is a rare crime, as I say. While 15,070 homicides a year is a large number, the U.S. population is 325 million, which means that the average American has less than a 1-in-20,000 chance of being murdered in a typical year. However, murder in the United States is not randomly distributed over the general population; homicide is overwhelmingly an urban phenomenon that disproportionately affects African Americans.

Of the 15,070 U.S. homicide victims in 2016, more than half — 7,881 (52.3%) — were black. As to the perpetrators, the FBI reports: “When the race of the offender was known, 53.5 percent were Black or African American, 43.9 percent were White, and 2.6 percent were of other races.” Black people are 12.7% of the U.S. population, and are over-represented in murder statistics — both as victims and perpetrators — by a factor of more than 4-to-1. The reality of violent crime in America does not conform to the ideological beliefs of Ms. Solnit and other feminists, who insist that women, racial minorities and homosexuals are united in an “intersectional” struggle against the systemic oppression perpetrated by heterosexual white males. It isn’t white guys murdering all those black people in urban America, however, nor is there any reason to suspect that white men are disproportionately responsible for the murder of women by their partners and ex-partners; quite the opposite is more likely true.

The gun an Arizona man used to kill at least four of his six victims was a .40-caliber Glock that he was lawfully allowed to own — despite a 2009 arrest for domestic violence, a federal agent says.
Dwight Lamon Jones, 56, was not the original purchaser of the semiautomatic handgun that was found [June 4] in the suburban Phoenix hotel room where he fatally shot himself. . . .
Jones used that weapon to kill prominent forensic psychiatrist Steven Pitt, psychologist Marshall Levine, and paralegals Veleria Sharp and Laura Anderson, Mangan said.
But police have not confirmed whether the Glock was used in two other killings that have been blamed on Jones — the murders of Mary Simmons, 70, and Byron Thomas, 72, who were found fatally shot in a Fountain Hills, Arizona, home. . . .
Jones is believed to have been targeting people who played a part in his bitter divorce from his ex-wife, Connie Jones — a radiologist at a mammography center now married to a former Phoenix police detective — when he embarked on the deadly rampage [May 31].
Shortly before Connie Jones filed for divorce in 2009, Jones was charged with misdemeanor assault, threats and intimidation, and disorderly conduct. He later pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.
At one point, Connie Jones sought an order of protection from her husband, who acted as his own lawyer in a divorce case that was not settled until 2017.

Murder is a rare crime. It is wrong to pluck one story from the headlines and exploit it as anecdotal “evidence” for political purposes. Yet this is what feminists and their allies on the Left do routinely, seizing on statistically unusual incidents (e.g., police shooting an unarmed black man) as symbols in a “social justice” crusade. I’ve described this as the “Atrocity Narrative” method of propaganda, which the Left uses to portray America as a place where racism, sexism and homophobia are pervasive menaces. By selectively highlighting stories that fit this ideological narrative, media outlets like CNN present the public with a warped image of American society, distorted by a left-wing political agenda. The difference between those crimes that get 24/7 saturation coverage on CNN and crimes that are considered just “local news” is a matter of politics. Consider how the recent mass murder at a newspaper office in Maryland was covered by the national media.

CNN provided wall-to-wall coverage of the shootings at the Annapolis Capital, as liberals on the Internet ran wild with speculation that this attack might have been inspired by President Trump’s frequent criticisms of the “fake news” media. Overnight, however, the story changed. It turned out that the perpetrator was a man who bore a personal grudge against this particular newspaper, which had reported on his conviction for criminally harassing a woman. Not only that, but the suspect was (a) Hispanic and (b) a former federal employee. Had the gunman been a white Republican inspired by Trump’s anti-media rhetoric, the shootings in Annapolis might have dominated CNN’s coverage for weeks; as it was, however, the network dropped the story as soon as the facts about the accused perpetrator and his motive became evident.

Annapolis massacre suspect Jarrod Ramos.

Given the reasons why Jarrod Ramos had originally come to the attention of the Annapolis Capital, you might have thought feminists would find some sort of lesson in this story. The way Ramos had cyberstalked and threatened a woman is the kind of story that perfectly fits the feminist worldview, and his murderous rampage at the newspaper office suggests Ramos represented a real danger of “male violence.” Alas, because Ramos is Hispanic, and because “intersectionality” means feminists must never criticize Hispanic men, his crimes didn’t quite fit the narrative in which all evil is attributed to “privileged” white males.

Realism requires that our beliefs must conform to the facts, but feminists are ideologues who prefer unreality, persisting in their warped political beliefs no matter what the facts may be. Genuinely newsworthy stories of male violence — like Dwight Jones, who killed six people in Arizona because of his bitterness over his divorce — are just “local news,” if the suspect doesn’t fit the profile of “privileged” white male evil.

Who is murdering whom? Feminists don’t want us to start seriously researching this question, because the answers might not support the categorical identity-politics “oppression” narrative of the Left.

Nicole Brown Simpson could not be reached for comment.

Category: Crime, Sex Trouble, Violence Against Women

In The Mailbox: 07.03.18

Posted on | July 3, 2018 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 07.03.18

— compiled by Wombat-socho

For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it’s still not yet two o’clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it’s all in the balance, it hasn’t happened yet, it hasn’t even begun yet, it not only hasn’t begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it’s going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn’t need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago.
– William Faulkner, Intruder In The Dust

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Manslator (Women’s Language Translator)
Twitchy: Center For American Progress BUSTED For This Lie About Possible SCOTUS Nominee Amy Coney Barrett
Louder With Crowder: Broadly Publishes July 4th Recommendations For Leftists

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Feeding The Female Fantasy
American Power: Collapse Of The Never Trumpers, also, Democrats & Leftists Hate America
American Thinker: How To Read The News – A Guide For Truth-Seekers
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily Tree Chicken News
BattleSwarm: Morgan Stanley Banker Who Wants To Start “Third Party” Donates Exclusively To Democrats
CDR Salamander: The Syrian End Game
Da Tech Guy: Intolerance of Opposing Views Has A Home Here, also, Tomorrow’s Cookout Invaders
Don Surber: New President Of Mexico Wants To Reduce Immigration To The U.S.
Dustbury: The Captain Still Kicks It
First Street Journal: As Independence Day Approaches, It’s The Trump Administration Defending Individual Rights & The Constitution
The Geller Report: Muslim Spy-Ring Leader Plea Bargains Treason Down To Bank Fraud In Deal With Justice Department, also, Is Anyone Surprised Obama Gave Citizenship To 2500 Iranians?
Hogewash: Gilmore v. Jones, Et Al News
JustOneMinute: A Big Win For The Department Of Hail Marys
Legal Insurrection: Merkel Strikes Deal To Avert Government Collapse, Agrees To Tighten Borders, also, House Democratic Caucus Server Vanished When It Became Evidence In Awan Probe
The PanAm Post: Socialists Debut New Justifications For Old Hypocrisy With Attacks On Free Speech
Power Line: Tweet Of The Week, also, Awan Walks
Shark Tank: Democrats Threaten Vote Against Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee
Shot In The Dark: Cultural Genocide!
STUMP: Taxing Tuesday, also, Mornings With Meep
The Jawa Report: America! Islamic State Of Losers Ministry Of Finance Thunderstruck!
The Political Hat: Freedom Is Slavery
This Ain’t Hell: Lonnie Crim Saving The World, also, Marietta Officers In Action
Victory Girls: Strike Three – Man Threatens To Murder Senator Rand Paul And His Family With An Ax
Volokh Conspiracy: The Case Against Court-Packing Revisited
Weasel Zippers: Rachel Dolezal Arrested For Welfare Fraud, also, Sidwell Friends Teacher Harasses EPA Chief Scott Pruitt In A Restaurant
Megan McArdle: Let Roe Go
Mark Steyn: Cloudy With A Chance Of Jewish Conspiracies

Help Kirby McCain!
Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Bisexual ‘Gender-Fluid’ 7th-Grader Leads Pride March in Maryland Capital

Posted on | July 3, 2018 | 4 Comments

Late Night With Rule 5 Monday: Kaya Jones

Posted on | July 3, 2018 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

This week our appetizer is fellow Las Vegas resident, singer, and outspoken Trump supporter Kaya Jones. Miss Jones is no stranger to controversy, having been hassled over her membership in the Pussycat Dolls band, her allegations of widespread sex abuse in the LA music industry, and whether she actually has Apache ancestry or not. This pic is from her 2015 album release party at the Bank nightclub in the Bellagio casino/resort.

At the release party for her album The Chrystal Neria

Leading off, it’s Ninety Miles From Tyranny with Hot Pick Of The Late Night, The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #300, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns. Animal Magnetism wraps up June with Rule Five Utter Horseshit Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon.

EBL checks in with Pecan Pralines, Ali Watkins, Welcome Summer, Evan Rachel Wood (Freeze All Moral Posturing!), The Hussys, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, National Sunglasses Day, Tamra Maiochi, Vintage Hollywood 4th Of July, Oh Canada, and Happy Canada Day,

American Power returns with Kaya Jones, Lucie Watson, Charlotte Flair, Kate Upton with Alexis Ren, and Demi Rose.

A View From The Beach brings us A Few Minutes of Reverie, Wet Shirt Friday?, Crabs Down, But Authorities Swear Not Overfished, Model Bares Difference Between Arab and Israeli Justice, “Sultans of Swing”, “Puss in Boots”, Reasonably Sized Russiagate, Goal! and You Know, There’s a Fix for That.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Halston Sage, his Vintage Babe is Lizabeth Scott, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Guess. At Dustbury, it’s Dolly Parton and Asma Al-Assad.

Thanks to everyone for all the luscious links!

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Amazon Fashion – Jewelry For Women

Category: Rule 5