The Other McCain

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

SPLC Busted for Lying, Pays $3.3 Million

Posted on | June 18, 2018 | 1 Comment

Let’s talk about sweet cosmic justice:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, has apologized for including the Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism group, and its founder, Maajid Nawaz, in its Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. “Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have made valuable and important contributions to public discourse, including by promoting pluralism and condemning both anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism,” the SPLC wrote in a statement. The SPLC will also pay a $3.375 million settlement to Quilliam that will be used to fight “anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism,” according to a Quilliam press release. “We were able to fight back against the Regressive Left and show them that moderate Muslims will not be silenced,” Nawaz said in the release.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.)

 

Category: Racism

Preferences Are Not Oppression

Posted on | June 17, 2018 | 1 Comment

 

The last time I paid attention to Lindy West was in February 2017, when I mentioned her role in the 2015 #ShoutYourAbortion campaign, which was about ending the “stigma” of abortion. You see, your belief that some things are good (e.g., human life) and other things are bad (e.g., murdering babies), that there is a difference between right and wrong — between good and evil — is a problem for the “progressive” Left:

The totalitarian can never be appeased.
If you give Hitler the Sudetenland today, next he will demand the rest of Czechoslovakia, and after that, he’ll begin threatening Poland. Likewise with feminists — grant them everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with a new list of demands. Feminists have an appetite for power that is ultimately insatiable. . . .
What does feminism share with the occult? Both are about seeking power. Study the life of Aleister Crowley (or Madame Blavatsky or Marion Zimmer Bradley or any other prominent figure in occult movements) and the pattern is clear. What the occultist craves is a lawless power in defiance of the natural order, for the satisfaction of selfish desire. . . .
What is the basis of authority in a godless society? Power.
By power, the rich shall rule the poor and the strong shall rule the weak. The majority can impose its will upon everyone or, by capturing the influential centers of power — in media, in academia, in politics and in the courts — a decadent elite can subvert constitutional law and thereby gain the power to rule by seemingly “democratic” processes.

Feminists are anti-Christian, attacking religion to undermine our sense of morality, in order to arrogate to themselves unlimited power, and so Lindy West wishes to erase the “stigma” of abortion. Q.E.D.

 

In May 2016, Lindy West published a book, Shrill, which rode a tidal wave of critical acclaim to bestseller status. What does she say in this book? A Tumblr blogger has some quotes, including this one:

“America’s monomanical fixation on female thinness isn’t a distant abstraction, something to be pulled apart by academics in women’s studies classrooms or leveraged for traffic in shallow ‘body-positive’ listicles — it is a constant, pervasive taint that warps every single woman’s life.“

Really? How is it that America (evidently unique among all nations) stands accused of a “monomanical fixation” with being thin, while at the same time we’re experiencing an obesity epidemic? And does Lindy West actually believe this “warps every single woman’s life”?

My daughters are not fat. My two daughters-in-law are not fat. My teenage sons’ girlfriends are not fat. If their lives are being “warped” by a “monomanical fixation,” they haven’t mentioned it. Some people are just naturally thin, more or less, and thus suffer no hardship because of the general preference for thinness. “Fat feminism” is a movement organized to convince us that our normal preferences are wrong. If you think a skinny woman is more attractive than Lindy West, your preference oppresses Lindy West, in much the same way (and for much the same reason) that she considers “stigma” against abortion oppressive.

Whatever she wants is “social justice.” Whatever you want is wrong. Lindy West is a feminist, and therefore is beyond criticism, and anyone who disagrees with her is beneath contempt, der untermensch.

Some people have advantages in life. If I could throw a 95-mph fastball, I’d be a millionaire, but my lack of major-league baseball skills does not make me a victim of oppression. Similarly, skinny girls benefit from the general preference for thinness, and fat women are disadvantaged, but this is not oppression, it’s just the way life is — and no amount of feminist rhetoric will alter this reality of human life. All that will be achieved by such rhetoric is to encourage unrealistic beliefs and self-defeating behaviors that lead to disappointment and failure. Speaking of which, here is another quote from Lindy West:

“Women matter. Women are half of us. When you raise every woman to believe that we are insignificant, we are broken, that we are sick, that the only cure is starvation and restraint and smallness, when you pit women against one another, keep us shackled by shame and hunger, obsessing over our flaws rather than our power and potential; when you leverage all of that to sap our money and our time — that moves the rudder of the world. It steers humanity towards conservatism and walls and the narrow interests of men, and it keeps us adrift in water where women’s safety and humanity are secondary to men’s pleasure and convenience.”

Who is raising “every woman to believe that [women] are insignificant”? And why does Lindy West associate this with “conservatism”? In point of fact, she knows nothing about conservatism or child-raising, for that matter. She is from the liberal cocoon of Seattle and she had an abortion the only time she ever got pregnant. Her prejudice against skinny people, who she imagines only remain thin by “starvation,” is as irrational as her prejudice against men and their allegedly “narrow interests.”

Are my daughters and daughters-in-law “shackled by shame and hunger”? Are they unjustly deprived of their “power and potential”? Only in the irrational self-pitying worldview of perpetual victimhood (to call feminist ideology what it is) is it possible to take these claims seriously.

Feminists still don’t understand why Trump won and, as Vox Day says, “SJWs always double down.” Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 has only inspired feminists to believe that if they just intensify their activism — becoming angrier and more extreme in their anti-male rhetoric — they’ll win next time. May God give them the disappointment they deserve.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

The Democrat Immigration Agenda

Posted on | June 17, 2018 | 1 Comment

The White House sent me this press release:

RESULTS OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS’ DANGEROUS IMMIGRATION POLICIES

“We must restore integrity and the rule of law at our borders.” – President Donald J. Trump

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS’ FAMILY SEPARATION POLICY: Too many American families have been permanently separated from loved ones lost to illegal alien crime.

·        Open border laws and policies are responsible for the permanent separation of too many American families whose loved ones have been lost to illegal alien crime.

·        President Trump has met with family members whose loved ones have fallen victim to illegal alien crime.

o   Juan Pina was permanently separated from his daughter after she was strangled, raped, and murdered by an illegal alien.

o   Laura Wilkerson was permanently separated from her son, who was brutally murdered by an illegal alien classmate.

o   Jamiel Shaw, Sr. was permanently separated from his son, who was tragically murdered by an illegal alien gang member.

·        Congressional Democrats have repeatedly voted against common sense immigration legislation that would help make our communities safer.

o   In 2017, 174 House Democrats voted against legislation that would have helped ensure aliens associated with a gang are not admitted into the United States and would have empowered officials to more effectively remove those already here.

o   In 2017, 166 House Democrats voted against Kate’s Law, named after Kate Steinle who was killed by a previously deported illegal alien with a lengthy criminal history.

o   In February 2018, Senate Democrats blocked legislation that would have cracked down on dangerous sanctuary cities.

OPEN BORDER POLICIES: American communities have suffered from illegal alien crime and illegal drugs flooding our country due to open border policies and immigration enforcement loopholes. 

·        Drugs have flooded across our porous borders, poisoning our communities, and costing American lives.

o   The Southwest border is a major source of illegal drugs entering the United States. 

o   Most heroin entering the United States is produced in Mexico, and production levels there continue to rise.

·        A total of 57,820 known or suspected aliens were in Department of Justice custody at the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2018, 60 percent of whom were aliens with orders of removal.

·        A 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found nearly 3 million criminal arrest offenses tied to incarcerated criminal aliens, including 25,000 homicide offenses.

·        Transnational gangs, such as MS-13, take advantage of our open borders and the loopholes in our immigration system.  

o   MS-13 and other gangs have bolstered their ranks by exploiting the influx of Unaccompanied Alien Children entering the United States.

Democrats and their media allies are portraying President Trump as responsible for the suffering of innocent people, This is dishonest propaganda, intended to shift the blame away from Democrats, who did nothing to solve the immigration problem during the eight years of Obama’s presidency and seek to scapegoat Trump for their failure.

 

Category: Democrats, Donald Trump, Immigration

Tip: Pentagon Covering Up Fact That Female Officers Nearly Sank Navy Ship

Posted on | June 17, 2018 | 13 Comments

The USS Fitzgerald after a deadly collision with a freighter in June 2017.

An anonymous email came in over the transom this morning:

Hi, Stacy.
During the early weeks after the USS Fitzgerald was speared by a lumbering Philippine container ship, it was noteworthy that the captain and a couple of admirals were publically named, but not the actual officer in charge, the officer of the deck. (OOD) The other person who should have kept the Fitz out of trouble is the person in charge of the combat information center, the Tactical Action Officer. That individual is supposed to be monitoring the combat radar, which can detect a swimmer at a distance of two miles.
Not until a year later, when the final reports are made public and the guilty parties have been court-martialed, does the truth come out. The OOD was named Sarah, and the Tactical Action Officer was named Natalie, and they weren’t speaking to each other!!! The Tactical Action Officer would normally be in near constant communication with the OOD, but there is no record of any communication between them that entire shift!
Another fun fact: In the Navy that won WWII, the damage control officers were usually some of the biggest and strongest men aboard, able to close hatches, shore up damaged areas with timbers, etc. The Fitz’s damage control officer was also a woman, and she never left the bridge. She handled the aftermath of the accident remotely, without lifting a finger herself!
Look it up: The OOD was Sarah Coppock, Tactical Action Officer was Natalie Combs. . . .
When I noticed last year that they were doing all they could to keep the OOD’s name out of the headlines, I speculated to my son that it was a she. Turns out all the key people (except one officer in the CIC) were female!

Indeed, I did some searching, and Lt. Coppock pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty. Lt. Combs faced a hearing last month:

In an 11-hour hearing, prosecutors painted a picture of Lt. Irian Woodley, the ship’s surface warfare coordinator, and Lt. Natalie Combs, the tactical action officer, as failing at their jobs, not using the tools at their disposal properly and not communicating adequately. They became complacent with faulty equipment and did not seek to get it fixed, and they failed to communicate with the bridge, the prosecution argued. Had they done those things, the government contended, they would have been able to avert the collision.

That two of the officers — Coppock and Combs — involved in this fatal incident were female suggests that discipline and training standards have been lowered for the sake of “gender integration,” which was a major policy push at the Pentagon during the Obama administration. It could be that senior officers, knowing their promotions may hinge on enthusiastic support for “gender integration,” are reluctant to enforce standards for the women under their command.

This was the story of Kara Hultgreen, the Navy pilot who died in a 1994 F-14 crash. Investigation showed that Hultgreen had been allowed to proceed in her training after errors that would have meant a washout for any male pilot. But the Clinton administration was pushing for female fighter pilots, which resulted in a competition between the Navy and Air Force to put women into these combat roles. It is not necessary to believe that (a) women shouldn’t be fighter pilots, in order to believe (b) lowering standards for the sake of quotas is a bad idea. Of course, you may believe both (a) and (b), but it is (b) that gets people killed.

It seems obvious that the Pentagon (and the liberal media) sought to suppress full knowledge of what happened to the Fitzgerald in the immediate aftermath of the June 2017 incident that killed seven sailors, in the same way the details of Kara Hultgreen’s death were suppressed. It took investigative reporters like Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times a lot of hard work to find out what actually happened to Hultgreen. Let’s hope other reporters will dig into what’s happening in our military with the “gender intergration” agenda at the Pentagon now.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!



 

 

Category: Media Bias, Military, Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Rubycon

Posted on | June 16, 2018 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Late Night With Rule 5 Monday: Eunice Gayson, RIP
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

Another Reason to Avoid Massachusetts
Ordinary Citizen
The Political Hat
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: Lost In America
The Pirate’s Cove
357 Magnum
EBL

Progressive Perversion: Poet’s Daughters Describe ‘Brothel Without Payment’
Ordinary Citizen
EBL

Late Night With In The Mailbox: 06.11.18
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

Trump Wins, and the Left Complains
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

‘Operation Broken Heart’: Feds Bust More Than 2,300 Online Sexual Predators
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

In The Mailbox: 06.12.18
Proof Positive
EBL

Report: Brett Kimberlin and DNC Staffer Helped Push ‘Russiagate’ to Feds
A View From The Beach

In The Mailbox: 06.13.18
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

Tyler O’Neil Strives To Paint Corey Stewart As A White *YAWN* Supremacist
EBL

Yes, CNN Hates America
EBL

In The Mailbox: 06.14.18
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
EBL

In The Mailbox: 06.15.18
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

Fire Bogus Idiots
Fomenting Blatant, Irredeemable,
Flagrant Betrayals–Immediately!
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

Top linkers this week:

  1. EBL (15)
  2. (tied) A View From The Beach and Proof Positive (6)

Thanks to everyone for all the links!


Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Prime Members Start Your Free Trial of Britbox with Prime Video Channels

Category: FMJRA Award

The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved: White Self-Hatred as ‘Social Justice’

Posted on | June 16, 2018 | 1 Comment

 

The University of Pennsylvania is a member of the prestigious Ivy League and, of course, employs only degenerates like Professor Ali Michael:

A white Ivy League professor has taken to the pages of the Huffington Post to condemn her own race, declaring that she chose never to reproduce because her children would simply inherit white privilege. . . .
“There was a time in my 20s when everything I learned about the history of racism made me hate myself, my Whiteness, my ancestors… and my descendants. I remember deciding that I couldn’t have biological children because I didn’t want to propagate my privilege biologically.”

That was in June 2015, and if you want to know why Donald Trump is president, this is as good an example as any. Our “progressive” elite — in academia, in media, in politics — have become hopelessly decadent, corrupted by the “social justice” ideology of the Democrat Party. Given a chance to fight back against these depraved intellectual perverts, the American people rejected Hillary and elected Trump — an electoral middle finger brandished in the faces of people like Professor Michael.

Did I mention she’s a professor of education? That’s right — taxpayers in Pennsylvania employ Professor Michael to teach the teachers who will teach their children this deranged belief system. The day after the 2016 election, Professor Michael published another column:

What Do We Tell The Children?
“What should I say to my students after the election if Trump wins?” a principal asked me recently. Good question. What should we tell our children?
Tell them, first, that we will protect them. Tell them that we have democratic processes in the U.S. that make it impossible for one mean person to do too much damage. Tell them that we will protect those democratic processes ? and we will use them ? so that Trump is unable to act on many of the false promises he made during his campaign.
Tell them, second, that you will honor the outcome of the election, but that you will fight bigotry. Tell them bigotry is not a democratic value, and that it will not be tolerated at your school. Tell them you stand by your Muslim families. Your same-sex parent families. Your gay students. Your Black families. Your female students. Your Mexican families. Your disabled students. Your immigrant families. Your trans students. Your Native students. Tell them you won’t let anyone hurt them or deport them or threaten them without having to contend with you first. Say that you will stand united as a school community, and that you will protect one another.

In other words, according to Professor Michael, the public education system must indoctrinate children with political propaganda, teaching young people to hate Republicans, including their own parents.

Tonight at 7 p.m. ET, I’m sure this will be among the topics that John Hoge and I will discuss on The Other Podcast. And while we’re at it, we might even discuss how beautiful California girls used to be. Beau Albrecht called attention to this in a post Friday at Return of Kings, showing the lovely girls at a 1977 concert in Oakland.

 

Y’all might want to hit the tip jar.



 

 

Category: The Ivy League Is Depraved and Decadent, The Other Podcast

The Freedom to Hate

Posted on | June 16, 2018 | 1 Comment

Phil Donahue debated Jared Taylor on MSNBC in 2003.

Jared Taylor won a court victory Thursday in California, when Judge Harold Kahn rejected Twitter’s motion to dismiss Taylor’s lawsuit claiming the social media giant acted illegally in banning the American Renaissance publisher, along with other “white nationalist” accounts:

Taylor claims Twitter permanently suspended accounts belonging to him and hundreds of other far-right users in December based solely on their political views and affiliations.
The judge described Taylor’s case as a “classic public interest lawsuit” and said it “goes to the heart of free speech principles that long precede our constitution,” according to a transcript of the hearing.
“Now, it may be speech that you and I don’t wish to enjoy, but that’s not germane to the determination of whether it’s public interest. Public interest doesn’t have a flavor of ideology to it; public interest is whether it benefits the public,” Kahn said. . . .
Taylor is a Yale-educated, self-described “race realist” who founded an Oakton, Virginia-based, tax-exempt nonprofit called the New Century Foundation. He operates American Renaissance, an online magazine that touts a philosophy that it’s “entirely normal” for whites to want to be a majority race.
Taylor’s lawyers argue access to Twitter is “essential for meaningful participation in modern-day American democracy.”
“At all times, Mr. Taylor has expressed his views with respect and civility,” they wrote in a court filing. “At no time did Mr. Taylor or American Renaissance engage in insults, threats, or harassment, nor did they ever encourage anyone else to engage in such activity.”

Permit me to vouch for Jared Taylor’s “respect and civility,” as I have known him for 20 years. He is remarkably well-mannered, which made an impression on me the first time I met him. He is fluent in multiple languages, having grown up in Japan, where his parents were Christian missionaries, and he engaged in postgraduate studies at the Sorbonne. He speaks with a noticeable formality, which at first struck me as stilted or artificial, but which I eventually realized was simply a matter of lifelong habit. As to Taylor’s “race realist” identification, he is not a David Duke-type personality. Taylor is not a conspiracy theorist or a hate-monger, but is instead devoted to calling attention to facts about race relations in America (and elsewhere) that the liberal media ignore.

Before there was Twitter or Facebook, before there was a blogosphere, before there was Breitbart or InfoWars or any other online venue for reporting facts about immigration and crime that the liberal media wanted to suppress, there was American Renaissance (AR), a small monthly magazine that was usually just 16 to 24 pages, but wow! AR was covering the problems related to immigration in Europe 15 years ago, before most Americans imagined how bad the situation had become. Indeed, it may be said, liberals might not have been so dumbfounded by the rise of Donald Trump and the so-called “alt-right” is they had paid attention to what Jared Taylor was publishing 15 or 20 years ago.

As I’ve told Taylor more than once, I disagree with some of his opinions and ideas about policy, but his mastery of facts is beyond dispute. Liberals are so eager to suppress Taylor by smearing him as a proponent of “hate” because they cannot stand the truth. One of his legendary exploits was in 2003, when Taylor was invited onto Phil Donahue’s MSNBC program and absolutely ran circles around Donahue. It was the biggest blowout since Georgia Tech crushed Cumberland 222-0. Taylor had spent more than a decade accumulating facts, and was thoroughly prepared to rebut Donahue’s arguments. This clearly flustered the liberal host, which caused Donahue to invite Taylor back for a rematch, and again Donahue suffered an embarrassing defeat.

What are the consequences of ignoring unpleasant facts, and basing public policy on wishful thinking? If some facts are deemed “racist,” and therefore excluded from discussions about issues like immigration, welfare, crime, education, etc., what will be the result? What problems will be caused by policies based on childish make-believe?

You can disagree with Jared Taylor’s opinions about race and public policy, but it is foolish to ignore the facts to which he calls attention.

“Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself . . . [Truth] is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson

There is no one with whom I agree 100% about everything. There are regular commenters here whom I consider friends and allies — people who’ve hit my tip jar to keep me going — who disagree strongly with me about all kinds of subjects. I have Catholic friends, but I’m against Catholicism, and I have gay friends, but I’m against homosexuality. Believe it or not, I even have friends who are Democrats!

Long before I ever imagined my career as a journalist, my teachers taught me that journalism is about facts — who, what, when, where, why and how. It was in defense of an unpopular cause — British soldiers accused of murdering innocent civilians in Boston — that John Adams famously said: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” As I argued in the case of Tommy Robinson (“Why Freedom of Speech Matters (And Why ‘Hate Speech’ Is Protected, Too),” May 31), the dangers of suppressing free speech are certainly not limited to issues of race:

What has happened . . . is that our institutions of higher education have been taken over by soi-disant “progressives” who have taught a generation of young Americans to believe that certain facts are “hate speech.” This problem has concerned me ever since I began researching radical feminism four years ago, and discovered how far academia has gone to enshrine Third Wave feminist “gender theory” as an Official Truth which no one on campus is permitted to criticize. . . .
The suppression of disagreement and criticism as “hate speech” on university campuses has had consequences far beyond academia.

The fact that radical feminist Julie Bindel was writing more than a decade ago about the same issues that got Tommy Robinson arrested, and that Bindel is banned from British university campuses because she is a critic of “gender theory,” should make intelligent people pause to think. What results from suppressing unpopular facts as “hate speech” is that the people who make the rules (on university campuses, on Twitter or Facebook, in newspaper offices or TV news studios) thereby create a bubble of unreality, an echo chamber of ideological conformity that excludes dissent and thereby gives rise to a cult mentality.

Once you stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, there is a danger that you might become a “far-right” extremist, and I’ve seen a few sad cases of people who got sucked into the gravitational vortex of the lunatic fringe. What I have tried to do is to protect the right flank, so to speak, of the larger conservative movement. There is an unfortunate “urge to purge” tendency on the Right, where respectable conservative intellectuals begin to care more about their respectability than they do about actually conserving anything. William F. Buckley Jr.’s purge of the John Birch Society in the 1960s has become an inspiration for some of Buckley’s would-be heirs (looking at you, Bill Kristol) who seem to believe that a successful political coalition can be built by a process of subtraction.

Welcome to the Trump Age, my friends. Say what you will about our President, he doesn’t care about “respectability.” He’s about winning.

My friend John Hoge has the transcript of the Taylor v. Twitter hearing, and I’m sure we’ll discuss this tonight on The Other Podcast.



 

Category: Neutral Objective Journalism, Racism

Fire Bogus Idiots
Fomenting Blatant, Irredeemable,
Flagrant Betrayals–Immediately!

Posted on | June 15, 2018 | Comments Off on Fire Bogus Idiots
Fomenting Blatant, Irredeemable,
Flagrant Betrayals–Immediately!

by Smitty

Have we had enough rectal sunsine yet? Mollie Hemingway offers a relatively calm depiction of the kidney-load down the back that the Deep State would have us believe is merely a summer drizzle.

Oh, did I say “Deep State”? We’ve still got those who are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees:

Erickson summarizes precisely the sort of obedient gaze-averting that the IG desires. Andrew McCarthy helpfully breaks this down for us:

In every criminal trial, the defense lawyer tries to sow reasonable doubt by depicting every allegation, every factual transaction, as if it stood alone. In a drug case, if the defendant was photographed delivering a brown paper bag on Wednesday, the lawyer argues, “Well, we don’t have X-ray vision, how do we really know there was heroin in the bag?” The jurors are urged that when they consider what happened Wednesday, there is only Wednesday; they must put out of their minds that text from Tuesday, when the defendant told his girlfriend, “I always deliver the ‘product’ in paper bags.”

Fortunately, the judge ends up explaining to the jury that, down here on Planet Earth, common sense applies. In our everyday lives, we don’t look at related events in isolation; we view them in conjunction because they read on each other.

We are to adjured to conspire with Michael Horowitz that 568 pages of sentences detailing deep-seated bias against Trump did not amount to a conspiracy against Trump. In much the same way we, back at Faber College, pounded beer all night without ever getting legally drunk.Didn’t we? I mean, if we were drunk, such news would be as shocking as the discovery that Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin got married in July, 2010.

Andrew Klavan summarizes the FBI response well:

Current Director Christopher Wray responded to the IG’s report at a press conference and promised there’d be consequences for bad behavior. But he also said, “nothing in this report impugns the integrity of our workforce as a whole or the FBI as an institution.” Like hell it doesn’t. What the report describes is a morally bankrupt clown show, and the fact that Wray won’t admit that means the show goes on.

I’m ready for a full purge of all of these senior FBI, DOJ, CIA, IRS, TLA, AFU, KMA, ETC pencil necks who think themselves some sort of petty arisocratic clique that calls the shots in this country (i.e. the Deep State whose shoes Erickson apparently prefers to shine).

This is not even about Trump, other than his incidental proximity in exposing this cancerous. This is about “Democracy Dies in Deep State Darkness”. This is Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy pointing Checkov’s Gun at our heads. I certainly hope all of these malevolent Clinton boot-lickers repent, but such a change of heart is irrelevant to the point that they cannot ever be wielding U.S. Government power again, ever, if we care about our liberties.

Category: Uncategorized
« go back — keep looking »