The Other McCain

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

In The Mailbox: 01.27.17

Posted on | January 27, 2017 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 01.27.17

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
BattleSwarm: Ted Cruz/Deadspin Followup
EBL: Why Twitter Is Failing – #FreeSargonOfAkkad
Twitchy: People Are Noticing What ISN’T Happening At The March For Life
Louder With Crowder: Anti-Cop Protesters Block Traffic, Get Taken Down By Police As Crowd Cheers


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: The Friday Links And Hawt Chicks Thread
American Power: The National Elite Nervous Breakdown
American Thinker: Trump Playing Rope-A-Dope With The Media
Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Citizenship Friday
Bring The HEAT: Soviet Small Arms Training Film
Da Tech Guy: Fausta – It’s March For Life Day, also, Echoing Pius VII On Trump – Et Tu, Erick Erickson?
Don Surber: The Instapresident, also, Democrats Keep Ignoring White Voters
Dustbury: And Then The Cycle Repeats
Hogewash: Democrats Should Support A Scalia-Like SCOTUS Nominee
Jammie Wearing Fools: Black Panthers Planning Armed March In NC – Without A Permit
Joe For America: Crazed Liberal Hits Conservative Reporter In He Face As Cameras Roll
Power Line: Voters Like What Trump Is Doing, And They Can’t Stand The Press
Shark Tank: The Democrat Plan To Counter Trump’s Agenda
Shot In The Dark: We Tried To Warn You
STUMP: Connecticut Pensions – Putting Off Payments Until Later Ain’t Reform
The Geller Report: Finally, It Begins – 90 Somalis, 2 Kenyans Deported After Trump Takes Office
The Jawa Report: Younes Abdullah Mohammed AKA Jesse Morton Headed Back To Federal Prison
The Lonely Conservative: Book Signing Events With Dr. Owens
The Political Hat: Scientists Set Foundation For Genetically Engineered Prehistoric Catgirls
This Ain’t Hell: Don’t Weep For Poor Ol’ Venezuela, also, Army Vet For SecNav
War Is Boring: RAF Fighters Buzz Russia’s Creaky Old Carrier
Weasel Zippers: EPA Employees “Coming To Work In Tears” After Trump Win, also, Pelosi Rips Christian Republicans
Megan McArdle: Both Parties Can Agree On Infrastructure – Sort Of
Mark Steyn: Cry Me A Wetland


Today’s Digital Deals

Category: Linkagery

Steve Bannon, Andrew Breitbart and the ‘Humiliating Defeat’ of the Elite Media

Posted on | January 27, 2017 | 1 Comment

 

First, the quotes that are being quoted everywhere:

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” Mr. Bannon said during a telephone call.
“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.” . . .
“The elite media got it dead wrong, 100 percent dead wrong,” Mr. Bannon said of the election, calling it “a humiliating defeat that they will never wash away, that will always be there.” . . .
Asked if he was concerned that Mr. Spicer had lost credibility with the news media, Mr. Bannon chortled. “Are you kidding me?” he said. “We think that’s a badge of honor. ‘Questioning his integrity’ — are you kidding me? The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work.”
“You’re the opposition party,” Mr. Bannon said. “Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.”

My teenage son was somewhat puzzled yesterday by Trump press secretary Sean Spicer’s antagonism toward the White House press corps, and I just laughed: “No, you don’t get it — everybody hates the media. The only people in America who don’t hate the media are the media.”

When I woke up Thursday morning and switched on CNN, the chyron across the bottom of the screen was: “TRUMP’S OBSESSION WITH CROWD SIZE” — nearly a week after the inauguration, CNN was still trying to “win” that argument. But who was “obsessed”? Trump or CNN?

“Turn the camera around” — that was one of Andrew Breitbart’s mantras. Force the people behind the camera to explain themselves and make the media’s own biases the subject of the story. The Trump team, with Breitbart’s buddy Bannon as chief of staff, has made it happen. While the grassroots Left is shrieking in a hysterical mood of rage and fear, unable to understand how Hillary lost or what Trump’s presidency means, the elite media continue trying to pretend that the problem is Trump, when the problem is actually in the executive suites and TV control rooms of CNN and other soi-disant “mainstream” news organizations.

Allahpundit at Hot Air:

When I read [Bannon’s quotes to the New York Times], in my mind I hear the quotes in Andrew Breitbart’s voice, not Bannon’s. Conservatives who dislike Breitbart.com’s Trump cheerleading like to complain that the site would have looked different last year if Andrew were in charge, but I’ve always thought that was overstated. Bannon is giving you pure #WAR here. Their goals may be different — Bannon is a nationalist while Breitbart, as I understood him, was more of a libertarian — but the idea of the media as the archenemy of the right is the thread that tied them together, and tied both to the rest of conservative media. The line between Breitbart and Bannon is thinner than anti-Trump righties would like to believe. If you don’t like the #WAR attitude from a Republican White House, at least don’t pretend that it’s all Bannon’s doing.

While a lot of Breitbart’s friends and admirers might share this belief that the difference between the late Breitbart and Bannon is a matter of ideology (i.e., nationalist vs. libertarian), I think that might be overstated. What Bannon brought to the Breitbart operation was the mentality of a guy from a blue-collar Irish-Catholic background with a seven-year Navy career and a Harvard MBA — a natural-born ass-kicker, a populist with a Reaganesque kind of Cold War patriotism. The first time I met Bannon, at RightOnline in 2011, he was promoting a documentary about Sarah Palin, the populist darling of the Tea Party movement. The  “nationalist” label has been invoked by the Left as a smear to imply that Trump has an affinity to Hitler and, seeing it applied to Bannon, I must ask: “How can a patriotic American populist avoid this insulting comparison?” Wouldn’t today’s elite media also make such claims against Democrats like Andrew Jackson and Harry Truman? Can anyone oppose the Soros-funded progressive Left and escape being smeared as a Nazi?

Yes, Breitbart was arguably more “libertarian” than Bannon, but that’s not the real distinction between them. Breitbart was Hollywood, and Bannon is Norfolk, Virginia. That is to say, Breitbart’s political attitudes were formed in opposition to the decadent snobbery of the show-business elite, and his playful sense of mischief — his gifts as a prankster and entertainer — reflected that background. Steve Bannon came from an earlier era (born in 1953, whereas Breitbart was born in 1969) and his attitude is of a guy from a working-class background who succeeded in highly competitive environments — Virginia Tech, the U.S. Navy, Georgetown, Harvard, Wall Street.

A lot of people who worked with Breitbart resented Bannon’s old-school Vince Lombardi/George Patton kick-ass-and-take-names approach. Steve Bannon is not a guy who gives a damn about your hurt feelings, OK? No, ma’am, Steve Bannon is about winning,  He’s the guy that Mitch and Murray send to tell you that first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado, second prize is a set of steak knives, and third prize is you’re fired.

“Put that coffee down. Coffee’s for closers only.”

 

 

Winning is about teamwork, and every team needs a Steve Bannon — someone who’s willing to be Blake from downtown, or Andy Sipowicz, the angry Bad Cop in the interrogation room. You may not like that guy, but his job is not about being liked, it’s about getting results. The addition of Steve Bannon to the Breitbart team freed Andrew Breitbart of the onerous responsibility of being the Bad Cop, the guy who said, “No.” The question of what Andrew would have thought of everything that went on at Breitbart.com the past five years, or what Andrew would say about Trump, must be forever moot. Many people have claimed to speak as the rightful inheritors of Andrew’s vision, but that’s above my pay-grade. My understanding of Bannon’s role at Breitbart.com, and his subsequent ascent to power in the Trump White House, is constructed from inferences based on evidence in the public record, secondhand anecdotes and my own direct observation. The first time I met Andrew Breitbart nearly 10 years ago, at CPAC 2007, I hung out with him in his hotel room at the Omni Shoreham, listening to him talk until 4 a.m., while his roommates Evan Sayet and Joel Mowbray were trying to sleep. Andrew was an inspirational genius whose untimely death was an irreparable loss to the conservative movement, and all any of us have done the past five years is what little we could to keep burning the flame that he ignited.

So now Steve Bannon gets on the phone from the White House and tells the New York Times they’ve suffered a “humiliating defeat,” and the reporters are obliged to quote Bannon’s words verbatim, and you ask me what Andrew would think? Oh, I can hear Andrew laughing loudly.

“Put that coffee down.” The media is losing, and America is winning.



 

 

Category: Andrew Breitbart, Donald Trump, Media Bias

F–k You, @CAwkward

Posted on | January 26, 2017 | 2 Comments

Jennifer Peepas, a/k/a “Captain Awkward.”

Captain Awkward (@CAwkward on Twitter) is a feminist blog run by Jennifer Peepas, “a woman whose plan for paying back $100K in grad school debt is ‘be an indie filmmaker.’” It would be uncouth for me to sling personal putdowns at Ms. Peepas, and also unnecessary, as I’m sure the commenters will find plenty of rude things to say about her.

Anyway, today Captain Awkward decided to share some advice:

 

Excuse me for omitting some of the tweets in her enumerated rant, but do I really need to explain what’s wrong with this advice?

Here’s a hint, guys: If a woman likes you — I mean, if she is totally into you — she’s not thinking about contraception. No, if she’s totally into you, she’s gonna be like, “Inseminate me, please! I want to have your babies!”

 

The kind of spontaneous female reaction inspired by her recognition of a man’s reproductive fitness, where she’s hearing wedding bells and thinking about how she’s going to decorate the nursery the first time you offer to buy her a cup of coffee, has nothing to do with mere politics.

What is commonly called “love” operates at the level of natural instinct, involving autonomous reflexes beyond rational control. However, as it is proverbially said, it takes two to tango. Philosophers have spent years pondering the question, “What do women want?” And I believe the only possible answer is, women want to be wanted, like the song says:

I want you to want me.
I need you to need me.
I’d love you to love me.
I’m beggin’ you to beg me.

A woman wants to feel that she is indispensible and irreplaceable, uniquely cherished by a man worthy of her admiration. This is why women want to see evidence of male romantic ardour. When a man starts doing the peacock strut of male ostentation, going out of his way to impress her, his willingness to put some effort into the courtship process communicates to her that he is willing to risk a real commitment.

Too many guys misunderstand this. The pickup artist (PUA) community is always telling guys to act contemptuous toward women (“negging”) as a way of conveying superiority and exploiting her insecurity. However, if a guy is genuinely superior, why bother playing silly mind games like that? This is kind of like the often misunderstood idea that women like confidence. So just act confident, right? No, what women really like is competence — savoir-faire — a guy who really knows what he’s doing, and if you don’t know what you’re doing, your attempt to fake it will make you seem pompous and phony. Better to let her underestimate you at first, and then be impressed later, than to have it the other way around. And always remember, the object of the game is not to score, but to win. That is to say, it’s not about how many times the cowboy rides the rodeo circuit, but whether he takes home that big championship buckle. Some guys are lucky enough to marry their high-school sweetheart and live happily ever after, and that’s winning, whereas other guys screw around with dozens of women and end up as lonely losers.

Well, that’s just my advice and what do I know, besides having been married 27 years and raising six kids, three of whom are already married? Whereas, by contrast, what has Jennifer Peepas accomplished that would inspire anyone to have confidence in her advice? That’s why I keep saying never take advice from feminists — where’s the evidence that we should trust feminism as a roadmap to happiness? If a girl wants to grow up to live in an apartment in Brooklyn with her cat, OK, be a feminist. However, if she hopes for a life that includes a husband and babies, she probably shouldn’t take advice from Marxist lesbian man-haters. And certainly no guy should ever take advice from feminists. That’s like a Jew seeking advice from Hezbollah. Feminists are women who hate men, and who therefore are never going to offer a man any advice that would actually help him be happy and successful, because the whole point of feminism is to prevent male success and abolish male happiness.

So, let’s go point-by-point here:

  1. Never seek advice from a loser like Jennifer Peepas.
  2. Don’t bother to “immerse yourself” in books by women, unless you enjoy hanging around women who write books for a living. Most guys would probably be more interested in women who work in the food-service industry. Show of hands, guys, would you marry (a) a novelist, or (b) that friendly waitress at IHOP? I rest my case.
  3. If a woman is too “distracted” by the outcome an election to be interested in dating, you don’t want to date her anyway.
  4. Don’t wear hats, period. The only guys who wear hats are (a) bald guys, (b) guys who are too lazy to style their hair fashionably, and (c) middle-aged guys whose wide-brimmed fedoras make them look distinguished. Back when I was a young bachelor, my hair was always stylish. Go and do thou likewise.
  5. Anytime you hear a woman use the phrase “reproductive rights,” you’re obviously hanging around the wrong women;
    and
  6. Only evil women support Planned Parenthood. Avoid them.

That should pretty much cover it. Now the comments are open, if you want to make rude comments about Jennifer Peepas, as I’m sure you do.

 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 01.26.17

Posted on | January 26, 2017 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 01.26.17

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: President Trump Promises His Wall Will Be Way Greater Than Matt Damon’s
Twitchy: GayPatriot Destroys The Left’s Fearmongering In The LGBT Community Regarding Trump #DeportDramaQueens
Louder With Crowder: Congress To Reverse Obama’s Awful Social Security Gun Restrictions


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Podcast #33 – The Holiday Episode
American Power: Unindicted Council On Islamic-American Relations Furious After Trump Bans Muslim Immigration
American Thinker: The DC Empire Strikes Back
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily Special Relationship News
Bring The HEAT: World Of Warships – Rusty’s Best Montana, And Mine Too!
Da Tech Guy: Trump Takes Two DaTechGuy Ideas And Runs With Them – Time To Panic, MSM
Don Surber: Drop #theresistance Crap, Media
Dustbury: The Petries Of New Rochelle
Fred On Everything: New York Times Replaced By Black Box, World Relieved
Hogewash: What Presidential Honeymoon?
Jammie Wearing Fools: That Was Fast – Trump Surges To 59% Approval, Angry Left Hardest Hit
Joe For America: Twitter Goes Nuts Over What Melania Trump Did After Blind Singer Finished Hymn
JustOneMinute: Here We Go Again
Power Line: Meltdown On The Left – Where To Begin?, also, Did Donald Trump Carry Minnesota?
Shark Tank: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Banned In Miami, For Now
Shot In The Dark: Yelling And Breaking Things
STUMP: Kentucky Pension Liabilities – Trends In ERS, County, And Teachers Plans
The Geller Report: Mexican President Vows To Protect Illegals Living In U.S. From Trump
The Jawa Report: Meanwhile In Austria
The Political Hat: School Indoctrination, School Stupefaction, School Neurosis
This Ain’t Hell: The Army Is Looking For A Few Good Cyberpeeps
War Is Boring: Singapore’s YouTubers Take On PRC Over Seized Armored Vehicles
Weasel Zippers: President Trump To Sign Executive Order Dramatically Slashing UN Funding, also, Surprise! Bay Area Restaurants Vanishing After Minimum Wage Hike
Megan McArdle: In Defense Of Trump’s “Day of Patriotic Devotion”
Mark Steyn: Fighting Fire With Fire


Today’s Digital Deals

Category: Linkagery

Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt Continues His Descent into Madness

Posted on | January 26, 2017 | Comments Off on Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt Continues His Descent into Madness

Bill Schmalfeldt, ranting on YouTube, circa 2011.

Years of working in “file-it-and-forget-it” mode — today’s newspaper is tomorrow’s fishwrapper — means that stories I once covered on an almost daily basis are routinely consigned to the archives. For a few months in 2013, for example, I covered the Kate Hunt saga in a thorough and relentless manner until she was finally sentenced to jail, at which point I dusted off my hands and moved on to other stories.

Likewise, I spent nearly two years covering every angle of the Brett Kimberlin saga until, in August 2014, the Pro Se Perjurer was defeated in the $1 million Maryland defamation lawsuit, Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.

Most unwisely, the Pipsqueak Pipe Bomber decided to turn that case into the Brett Kimberlin Pedophile Trial and when he lost . . . Well, what more could any Neutral Objective Journalist say? “Case closed.”

My erstwhile co-defendant John Hoge, however, has not been so forgiving of the Notorious Nuisance Litigator. Kimberlin has continued picking fights with Mr. Hoge, who has repeatedly defeated Kimberlin in court, much to the embarrassment of a certain obese Kimberlin fanboy.

Google “deranged cyberstalker” and Bill Schmalfeldt‘s name comes up for some reason, perhaps because in November 2012, the neckless lunatic decided that it would be a clever idea to target my wife for harassment.

Because there are many other more interesting stories my readers care about, I’ve more or less ignored the otherwise obscure Schmalfeldt the past couple of years. Probably the last time I mentioned him was in October (“Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt Is Still Deranged and, Yes, Cyberstalking”) when the fat fool recycled a particularly wretched falsehood. However, we must ask, what does it say about Bill Schmalfeldt that he has continued his obsessive attacks against John Hoge?

Here is the thing that Bill Schmalfeldt can’t seem to understand: Whereas I am a Neutral Objective Journalist who is only interested in reporting and commenting on newsworthy events and personalities, John Hoge is a private citizen who just happened to take offense at Brett Kimberlin’s cruel vendetta against the lawyer Aaron Walker. My gonzo approach to the Kimberlin saga led to some personal involvement on my part, but I nevertheless kept reminding myself that I was a journalist covering a story, which is why I never sued anybody or filed for any restraining orders, etc. By contrast, the private citizen John Hoge is not constrained by any such consideration — unfortunately for Bill Schmalfeldt.

Judging from what my friend John Hoge has written lately on this subject, it would seem that Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t comprehend the meaning of the word “plagiarism” and, by incorrectly applying this word to Mr. Hoge’s work, Schmalfeldt has committed torts against Mr. Hoge — allegedly, I hasten to add, because far be it from me to claim any specific knowledge of all the legal matters involved in this dispute. Knowing the character of the participants, however, I can safely say:

  1. If Bill Schmalfeldt were wise, he would leave Mr. Hoge alone;
    but
  2. Bill Schmalfeldt is a fool, and will be unable to restrain himself from further inciting Mr. Hoge’s ire;
    and therefore
  3. Mr. Hoge will continue to inflict humiliating defeats on Schmalfeldt.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

By the way, it probably isn’t Neutral Objective Journalism to encourage readers to hit the tip jar at Hogewash. But really, you should.

 

Category: Bill Schmalfeldt

‘Our Political Opponents’: Notorious Traitor Declares ‘Progressive’ Loyalty

Posted on | January 26, 2017 | Comments Off on ‘Our Political Opponents’: Notorious Traitor Declares ‘Progressive’ Loyalty

 

The headline on today’s Guardian column:

Chelsea Manning: Compromise does not work
with our political opponents. When will we learn?

In case you forgot, Bradley “Chelsea” Manning is the mentally ill coward and traitor who deserved to be shot by a firing squad, but was instead sentenced to serve 35 years in Fort Leavenworth, a sentence that was commuted last week by The Worst President in History.

 

There are no words strong enough to convey the contempt that every patriotic American must feel toward Bradley “Chelsea” Manning. If one of his/“her” fellow inmates at Leavenworth had murdered Manning in cold blood, I would advocate a presidential pardon for that inmate. And so, I think, we may draw our own conclusions about Manning’s use of first-person plural pronouns in this column:

Barack Obama left behind hints of a progressive legacy. Unfortunately, despite his faith in our system and his positive track record on many issues over the last eight years, there have been very few permanent accomplishments.
This vulnerable legacy should remind us that what we really need is a strong and unapologetic progressive to lead us. What we need as well is a relentless grassroots movement to hold that leadership accountable. . . .
The one simple lesson to draw from President Obama’s legacy: do not start off with a compromise. They won’t meet you in the middle. Instead, what we need is an unapologetic progressive leader.
We need someone who is unafraid to be criticized, since you will inevitably be criticized. We need someone willing to face all of the vitriol, hatred and dogged determination of those opposed to us. Our opponents will not support us nor will they stop thwarting the march toward a just system that gives people a fighting chance to live. Our lives are at risk — especially for immigrants, Muslim people and black people.
We need to stop asking them to give us our rights. We need to stop hoping that our systems will right themselves. We need to actually take the reins of government and fix our institutions. We need to save lives by making change at every level.

Who is this “we”/“us”/“our” for whom Manning speaks? Democrats.

Just keep it up, Democrats. The American people are watching you.



 

Category: Democrats, Military

The Clinton News Network

Posted on | January 26, 2017 | 1 Comment

Gabriel Sherman at New York magazine:

Shortly after 9 p.m. [Tuesday] night, Donald Trump launched another salvo at CNN, tweeting: “Congratulations to @FoxNews for being number one in inauguration ratings. They were many times higher than FAKE NEWS @CNN — public is smart!” CNN tweeted back that they had matched Fox in Nielsen numbers: “Those are the facts.”
Trump’s attacks on CNN may be a response to the network’s recent coverage, which Trump views as biased and unfair. But sources say there may also be a personal dimension at play: According to people close to both sides, Trump has told White House staffers that he feels personally betrayed by CNN chief Jeff Zucker.
Trump complains that Zucker should be programming CNN more favorably toward him because of their long relationship, which can be traced back to 2004 when Zucker put The Apprentice on NBC. Trump has also said to White House staffers that Zucker owes him because Trump helped get him the job at CNN.

The bias at CNN is not a matter of personal perception. The network clearly made a choice, several years ago, to challenge MSNBC for the loyalty of left-wing voters, and it did so in very cynical way: First, by treating the Tea Party movement of 2009-2010 as illegitimate, and second, by turning the 2012 Trayvon Martin story into national news.

Some of this was arguably defensible as a business decision. If Fox News dominates among Republican-leaning voters, it would seem logical that the two other major cable networks — CNN and MSNBC — are vying mainly for Democrat-leaning voters. During the Bush presidency, MSNBC boosted its ratings by positioning Keith Olbermann as the spokesman for anti-Bush sentiment. Olbermann’s “Angriest Man on TV” act, however, lost much of its raison d’etre once Obama became president. When Olbermann left MSNBC in 2011, this created an opportunity for CNN, and they have exploited it quite irresponsibly.

CNN’s coverage of the Trayvon Martin story, treating this shooting as emblematic of American race relations, was clearly an election-year attempt to mobilize black voters in support of Obama’s re-election campaign. Nothing else could explain why, in a nation where young black men are rather routinely murdered by other young black men, CNN should devote so much coverage to this local crime story from Sanford, Florida, merely because the shooter was “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman. And having discovered they could exploit racial hostility for ratings, CNN then doubled down in 2014 with its biased coverage of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

“According to one analysis, of all the people shot and killed in the U.S. by police so far in 2016, only 24 percent, or 122, were black. Black people are only about 13 percent of the population but they commit around half of all violent crimes. So far this year 47 percent of people shot and killed by police, or 235 individuals, were white.
“Only 3 percent, or 13 people shot and killed by police year to date were black and unarmed.”
— Matthew Vadum, July 8, 2016

The “Black Lives Matter” movement was to a great extent created by CNN. Every time a cop shot a black suspect anywhere in America, it seemed, CNN went into round-the-clock coverage mode, and we might ask whether the riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and Charlotte would have happened had it not been for CNN.

Race riots and politics — that’s what CNN has been about, and their coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign was so blatantly one-sided that they certainly earned their title as the “Clinton News Network.”

What would truly objective TV journalism look like? We don’t know. The claim by Fox News that their network is “fair and balanced” has long been scoffed at by liberals, but if Fox is pro-Republican in its bias, is it therefore necessary that CNN be anti-Republican? And what about the real-life consequences of such biased coverage?

How can CNN justify its deliberate incitement of racial hostility — which is the only accurate way to describe the network’s coverage of Ferguson, etc. — when this foments an anti-police bias that endangers the lives of citizens, including innocent black people who suffer from a wave of criminal violence? And isn’t it also the case that CNN, by promoting the Democrat Party’s narrative of Trump as a dangerous villain, helped incite the violence that erupted during the inauguration protests in D.C.?

 

Because most conservatives watch Fox News, they may not realize how extreme the partisan bias at CNN has become in recent years. If you are a Republican who hasn’t watched CNN lately, you should try watching it occasionally, just to see the alternative universe that CNN presents to its audience. The producers at CNN seem to assume that their viewers are all Democrats who hate Trump. The producers’ concept of who is watching CNN dictates the network’s coverage. It’s not just politics, but CNN’s coverage of everything which is made to conform to this partisan worldview. CNN would never knowingly hire a Republican as a producer, writer, director, editor or reporter. Everyone in any position of influence at CNN is a Democrat, and the network’s coverage is scripted and edited by Democrats for Democrats. Whenever any news event happens that might tend to contradict this partisan weltanschauung, CNN immediately convenes a panel of pundits to spin it around the other way, to explain and interpret the news according to the officially-approved talking points issued from Democrat Party headquarters. Anyone who watches CNN closely cannot help but perceive that most of the network’s anchors — Chris Cuomo, John Berman, Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, et al. — are motivated by a deep personal hatred of the Republican Party. Everyone in Chris Cuomo’s circle of family and friends hates everything Ronald Reagan stood for, and Erin Burnett would spit on any Republican voter who even so much as tried to speak to her.

It is impossible to exaggerate how wildly biased CNN actually is, and the fact that other liberal journalists are complaining about the way Donald Trump is calling out CNN tells you that the Democrat-controlled media machinery understands the importance of CNN to their collective mission of producing partisan propaganda.

 

Category: CNN, Donald Trump, Media Bias

Probably Not a Trump Voter

Posted on | January 25, 2017 | 1 Comment

Browsing around feminist Tumblr blogs, I encountered this headline:

DC Metro Rape Highlights Why
Women Are Always Aware of Rape

The blog links a Huffington Post column by Soraya Chemaly last May:

This rape has made the police and media sit up and pay attention to street harassment, which is common on DC streets and elsewhere. While the DC Metro system can be faulted for many egregious and dangerous faults, in point of fact, the system is pioneering in it efforts to understand and address the risks that users, particularly women, face in public transit.
For more than a year now the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMTA) has been working with Stop Street Harassment and Collective Action for Safe Spaces (CASS) to raise awareness and develop responses to the problem. . . .
Most men I talk to don’t think the threat of rape is a real consideration on a regular basis for the women they know and many openly dismiss the idea that women think of rape when they experience street harassment.

About 20 years ago, I moved to the D.C. area and for many years, rode the Metro system to work almost every day, on the Red Line from Shady Grove to Union Station near the Capital. Anyone familiar with the area around Union Station knows that aggressive panhandlers (i.e., the “homeless”) are a common nuisance, and the D.C. government doesn’t seem to care about this problem. Being a Caucasian in business attire makes you an automatic target for these dope-addled moochers, who evidently believe that any white guy wearing a tie must be rich.

The D.C. government seems indifferent to the negative impact that these hordes of persistent beggars have on perceptions of the city, and if it bothered me, certainly it is not difficult to imagine that women in Washington fear for their safety. It’s the “Broken Windows” phenomenon, where tolerating minor public disorder sends a signal that the community is not serious about enforcing the law. And, of course, racial identity politics is a factor because the panhandlers in D.C. are black, and one can imagine the uproar that might be caused by a crackdown on Washington’s “homeless” population. So day after day, people endure these hassles and I don’t doubt that the problem of “street harassment” for women in D.C. is as bad as Soraya Chemaly describes it.

Well, Soraya Chemaly is not only a feminist, but also a liberal Democrat, and when such people talk about “street harassment,” they do the kind of politically correct tiptoe dance that requires them to ignore the, uh, demographics of this problem. Everyone remembers the 2014 video of a woman walking through New York City and being catcalled. This video was intended to be the great “a-ha!” moment proving the pervasiveness of misogyny and objectification in American society, but then people started noticing the ethnicity of the catcallers. Hannah Rosin at Slate:

But the video also unintentionally makes another point: that harassers are mostly black and Latino, and hanging out on the streets in midday in clothes that suggest they are not on their lunch break. As Roxane Gay tweeted, “The racial politics of the video are f–ked up. Like, she didn’t walk through any white neighborhoods?”

“It’s a racist production about white women not wanting attention from black and Latino men,” as Professor Glenn Reynolds observed. And that was the last we heard from the feminist “street harassment” discourse, because the Race Card always trumps every other card in the identity-politics deck. So when I was browsing the “rape culture” tag on Tumblr, in my daily search for fresh feminist craziness, this Soraya Chemaly column from May 2016 caught my eye:

Rape is what gives pervasive and damaging harassment its power. Thirty-seven percent of girls in high school report not wanting to go to school because of harassment. . . . Between 65% and 85% of women in the US report experiencing street harassment.

And the headline item which Soraya Chemaly employed as the hook for her diatribe about “harassment” was a rape on the D.C. Metro. Hmmm.

 

A 39-year-old woman was raped at knifepoint on a moving Metro train just before 10 a.m. [April 12] in the Wheaton-­Glenmont area of Montgomery County, prosecutors said in court [May 23].
“This is a horrifically terrifying experience. It certainly was for the victim in this case,” Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Haynos said in court. . . .
The suspect, John Prentice Hicks, 39, of Northeast Washington, was making his first court appearance in Montgomery County District Court in the case. . . .
According to Haynos and Metro Transit Police, on April 12, Hicks approached a seated passenger aboard a northbound Red Line train and began speaking to her. He allegedly pulled out a knife, forced her to a different part of the car, raped her, then ordered her to another area of the car, and forced her to perform a sex act, court statements and records allege. . . .
According to an arrest document signed by Metro Transit Detective C.H. Dorrity, investigators used high-definition surveillance video inside the Glenmont station, records from the suspect’s Metro SmarTrip card, and the woman’s recollection to identify Hicks.
Metro police officers also recognized him as the suspect in an indecent-exposure case that took place on Metro, according to Haynos.

Now, according to Chemaly’s column, what makes this relevant is that indecent exposure is “an every day form of street harassment.”

Every day? Really? But never mind that. More importantly:

The man accused of raping a woman aboard a moving D.C. Metro train in April dodged arrest just a week before the brutal attack for an indecent exposure charge aboard the Metro. . . .
Court records revealed the Metropolitan Transit Police Department positively identified Hicks as the likely culprit of an indecent exposure incident on a Metro car April 2, reports The Washington Post.
Despite reportedly having strong evidence to arrest and charge Hicks for the April 2 crime, police failed to get a warrant for Hick’s arrest. It is unclear why authorities failed to arrest Hicks in the week before the April 12 rape.

In other words, this is a story about the failure of law enforcement to apprehend a dangerous criminal. But wait — there’s more:

In court Monday, Haynos cited a series of earlier convictions for Hicks: first-degree sexual abuse in 1995, attempted second-degree child sexual abuse in 2000, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in 2000 and 2007.

This guy already had three criminal convictions on his record, including two sexual abuse charges, and yet when he allegedly committed indecent exposure on the Metro, police failed to put him in jail?

Beyond providing further proof of how shoddy the police are in D.C., what this story (and Soraya Chemaly’s column about it) shows is the way liberal arguments create distorted perceptions of reality. Feminists want to use “street harassment” as a way to demonize men and why? To encourage women to support the feminist cause and vote Democrat. But when we start taking a closer look at the facts of “street harassment,” we notice that the perpetrators aren’t likely Republican voters.

It’s all about the narrative, as the late Andrew Breitbart used to say. One of the incidents that caused Andrew to rethink his youthful liberalism was the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing. Here was a highly accomplished black man, nominated for the Supreme Court by a Republican president and yet, because Democrats had cynically calculated that “harassment” was an issue that could help them get a large share of the women’s vote, Thomas was subjected to what he called a “high-tech lynching.” If the GOP had done to a black Democrat what Democrats did to Clarence Thomas, we never would have heard the end of the accusations of “racism” from liberals. There is a partisan double-standard in the media, confirmed a few years later when liberals circled the wagons to protect President Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

This kind of dishonest and manipulative exploitation of divisive issues is entirely partisan. It’s about electing Democrats. The crude “feminist” messaging that accompanied the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign was transparently an exercise in political propaganda. As last weekend’s Women’s March on Washington showed, “feminism” is now simply a partisan movement which seeks to convince women that they are “systematically oppressed,” that their oppressors are Republicans, and therefore, women should vote Democrat.

Well, OK, fine — let’s turn rape into a political issue and just start grabbing stories about rape arrests to prove our point: Timothy Wayne McLean Jr. (Durham, N.C.), Marco Antonio Garcia Perez (Highland, Calif.), Allen Mays (Lincoln Parrish, La.), Arturo Bedolla (Memphis, Tenn.), Toney Moore (Harlan, Ky.), Kamai Clerveaux (Miami, Fla.) and Rafael Alfredo Pabon (Cabarrus County, N.C.). That’s seven rape stories from around the country this week, and so far I haven’t seen a single feminist blogger or columnist mention any of these crimes. Why do you think feminists don’t want to talk about these accused rapists? My hunch is that it’s because the suspects are probably not Trump voters.



 

 

Category: Crime, Sex Trouble
« 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.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin