The Real Problem With Ilhan Omar

Some of my conservative – and in some cases “conservative” – circle of acquaintances are exercised over Ilhan Omar’s Muslim faith. Some of the more hysterical believe she’s the vanguard of an invasion bringing “Sharia” law to the United States.

In its time, the US has withstood attacks by the greatest empire the world has ever known, by international socialism, Naziism and Communism. A seventh-century ideology that can barely feed its own people isn’t going to conquer us. And Muslims make up less than half a percent of the American population; if they manage to impose Sharia on the other 99.5% of the population, the majority will probably deserve what befalls them.

But the problem with Ilhan Omar isn’t that she’s Muslim. It’s that she’s a “progressive“:

Ilhan Omar attended a 2017 conference in Istanbul with left-wing advocates, including a pro-abortion group that calls for “abortions beyond laws and borders,” and activists who aim to “challenge patriarchal structures.”
Rolling Stone recently lauded the congresswoman, who has repeatedly made anti-Semitic comments, as “everything Trump is trying to ban.” Omar told the magazine she was afraid to leave the country in early 2017 after President Donald Trump signed an executive order restricting travel from seven Middle Eastern countries the administration identified as terrorist hotbeds.
“I had just gotten sworn in [to the Minnesota Legislature] two weeks before,” Omar said, remarking on the executive order 13769, signed on Jan. 27, 2017. “There was lots of chaos, people being stopped at the airports. I had a flight scheduled a week after to speak at a human-rights conference in Turkey. I didn’t know whether I could go.”…The conference was in Istanbul, Turkey, which was not affected by the travel ban. Nevertheless, Omar used her upcoming appearance at the International Human Rights Defenders Conference, which was organized by the local Turkish government and the British Embassy in Ankara, as a cudgel to attack the president.

“Progressivism” will destroy this country long before Islam will.

“But she’s an anti-Semite!”

So are “Progressives”. Any antisemitism that comes from her Muslim background is an intersection with her real religion, “progressivism” – not an addition.

The Black And Pink Cloud

Is it just me, or are people getting worse?

I worked at a job once upon a time – decades before #MeToo – where the boss took a lot of indecent liberties, verbally if not physically, with the women at work. This was in the 1980s.

And he wound up as the subject of seven sexual harassment lawsuits, and lost his job after about a year.

Again – 1988.

And as I’ve slogged through three decades in the working world since then, I’ve listened to a lot of pundits bemoaning that there just aren’t enough female managers, and enough respect for women. I’ve also worked for a lot of women; my first field after radio, technical writing, was pretty much dominated by women. My current field, perhaps less so.

I’ve also heard few stories from women about predatory bosses and coworkers. A few, to be sure – I’ve had a few good female friends who’ve related some shocking stories of coworkers and sexual predation on at least a rhetorical level…

…all pretty much followed up by a visit to HR, and some sort of consequence for the guy, commensurate with the severity of the indiscretion.

Let me sum up; over thirty years in the workforce, and a generalized knowledge that there are consequences, at least in the civilized world (forget about ad agencies and showbiz) for guys acting like neanderthals.

And so since then, as I have watched the #MeToo “movement” make sexual harassment a part of the “national conversation” yet again (that’s right, kids – it’s not the first time), and read stories like this…”

All woman live on a spectrum of misery because, we can only assume, we are women. I have endured attempted rape, and sexual assault on public transport. I have been fired from jobs for not being demure or flirtatious enough (because only two female archetypes are acceptable, and both have terrible pitfalls.) On my first day of work at a famous newspaper, a famous male journalist invited me to place a cigar in a place from which no words come. I giggled, and that giggle – it was a tragic giggle – tells you everything.

via, ironically, “Unherd

I’ve had to wonder – am I (or, really, the decades of female friends I’ve had in the work force) been unshakeable pollyannas? Have I managed, at random, to steer a course through the working world without encountering my share of predatory guys? Have I – who spent most of the past 20 years neck-deep in raising kids – just been too buried to notice?

It’s possible.

Or is it the industries that’ve spawned “#MeToo” – the “elite” reaches of showbiz, the media, academia and politics, where power is one of the perks (for men and women), and the sense of entitlement that comes with the career for people who’ve never really known anything else?

Or is it the current generation, the millennials who as adults collect grievances and diagnoses the way they used to collect Pokemon cards? And for whom, like the raft of fake hate-crime hoaxers that’ve plagued our campuses, the perception of grievance is the same as an offense?

It’s not a rhetorical question.

The World Academic / Intellectual War

The barring and harassment of conservative speakers on campus – even campuses like Grand Canyon and Northwestern in Saint Paul, which recently got heartburn over Star Parker – isn’t just a series of random snowflakes yelling themselves hoarse:

Lefties call this kind of challenge a structure test. It’s an evaluation of capacity. Organizations (or people) can either pass a structure test, or they can fail. In the case of the [Grand Canyon University] challenge, [Young America Foundation] passed. So, the next question is whether YAF has the capacity and willingness to pass that structure test somewhere else for the sake of Parker, who is a less prominent name than Shapiro.
After that, the question will be whether YAF can pass that test again, and again, and again. It’s an unending series of questions: Are you willing to fight? How much? For how long? How many fights can you sustain? How many fights can you keep track of? How many lawsuits can you afford to file?

Even I lose track.

The answer?

Organize – finally, once and for all. Of course, it’s easier said than done:

First off, let me stress that this kind of organization isn’t something just anybody can do. Some people are better placed to do it than others. The ideal person to be involved in this work is somebody who’s active in her alumni network, was active in campus life as a student, and has a good number of healthy contacts, preferably among people who are active donors.
If that’s you: sit down and make a list of people you know personally, who donate time and money to the university, who are unhappy with the way things are. Call them up on the phone—don’t text, don’t email, don’t Facebook. You’re using a personal connection here, and the human voice is important.
Sound them out, make sure they’re on your side, then make it clear you’re putting together a group of donors who want to pressure the university to make it a better place for conservatives. They should ideally be of a variety of ages — that way their networks will consist of different graduating cohorts. Discuss what you’re doing, what your demands will be, and get people to sign on.
This is your organizing committee

Read the whole thing. It’s worth it.

The Democrat Conundrum

How do you lecture the rest of the country about “racism” when one of the people in charge of your foreign policy is a corrosive racist who exudes antisemitism more often than Gerald Ford stumbled?

When you’re today’s Democrats, that’s a bit of a problem. House Dems put together a resolution saying “No Anti-Semites Here, Nossirreebob”:

The resolution, which began circulating to members Monday night, comes after a backlash from top Democrats who accused [Minneapolis representative Ilhan] Omar of anti-Semitism for referring to pro-Israel advocates’ “allegiance to a foreign country.”

Omar, not being the brightest crayon in the package, is doubling down:

[Congresswoman Nita] Lowey condemned Omar’s use of “offensive, painful stereotypes,” leading to a fight on Twitter as Omar dug in on her comments and was cheered by some on the left.
“Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman!” Omar wrote, later adding, “I have not mischaracterized our relationship with Israel, I have questioned it and that has been clear from my end.”

She’s “just asking questions” about all them Jiiiews.

Where have we heard that?

Good job, Minneapolis. We’re proud of you.

Open Letter To My Pro-“Choice” Friends

To: My Various Pro-“Choice” Friends
From: Mitch Berg, Disgusted Peasant
Re: WTF

So when we had our discussions over the years about abortion, I responded to your palaver about “women owning their bodies” with an incisive “Yeah, but let’s give some moral weight to the fact that the fetus is intended to become a human.

To which you responded “Look, nobody wants an abortion” – which seemed fair enough – and the ever-threadbare “We want abortion to be safe, legal and rare“.

To which I nodded my head, not really believing you believed it.

Monday, my misgivings got strapped to the top of a rocket and shot straight into the Capitol: the Senate failed on a procedural vote to pass a law that would have protected babies that were already born alive. Not inviable; not inches from emerging from the birth canal.

Alive. Human, even according to the infanticide industry’s orthodoxy of, it seems, mere weeks ago.

One after another, Democratic senators took to the floor to smear the bill as an attack on women’s health care, a baseless criticism that they failed to substantiate. In the process, they revealed their belief that allowing unwanted infants to perish after birth constitutes a form of women’s health care.
Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) reintroduced his Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in direct response to Virginia governor Ralph Northam’s endorsement of permitting mothers and doctors to let infants die of neglect. “The infant would be delivered,” Northam said, explaining a hypothetical case in which a woman in labor wanted an abortion. “The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
This “discussion” is what Democrats voted on Monday to preserve — a discussion not about health-care options for women but about whether or not to extend health care of any kind to newborn infants. With their votes and their speeches, 44 U.S. senators embraced Ralph Northam’s position, which, despite attempting to clarify, he has never retracted.
“I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we’re okay with infanticide,” Sasse said at the start of floor debate on Monday. “This language is blunt. I recognize that. It is too blunt for many people in this body. But frankly, that is what we’re talking about here today. Infanticide is what [the bill] is actually about.”

I gotta say it – after the bloodbath of the midterms, I predicted the Democrats, in MInnesota and DC, would overreach.

As bad as the party of Tide Pod Eviita has been on soooo many issues, this one may be the nauseating acme.

That is all, baby-killers.

It’s Raining Blood On Vandalia

Planned Parenthood – bloodthirsty ghouls. Emphasis added:

In 2017, a Planned Parenthood client came forward to share her story of wanting an abortion at 22-weeks and seeking that procedure from Planned Parenthood. The abortionists at the clinic walked her through the procedure and stated if they were “to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likely we would break the baby’s neck.”
This practice carried out by Planned Parenthood abortionists in Minnesota directly violates the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, that states if the baby “breathes or has a beating heart” regardless of “whether the umbilical cord has been cut” or if birth occurred by “induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”
The Planned Parenthood client who came forward engaged in a two-day abortion procedure. On the second day, she had a change of heart and decided she wanted to keep her baby and continue her pregnancy. She expressed how insistent the abortionists were on continuing the abortion and felt “as if they were trying to sell me this abortion.” She finally convinced them to let her keep her baby and now has a happy and healthy child.

I try to keep calm and collected about this kind of thing, but my disgust is starting to grow claws.

Conservative Is The New Open-Minded Liberal

Not-especially-seemly confession; I’ve never been to a strip club.

But there are a few photos circulating from thirty years ago that, I suspect, a few lefty social media gerbils would flog their nether bits into frenzies of microturgidity if they could find ’em; I’m talking with a couple of strippers in a bar.

We’re all working in the bar (including them – clothed. It was a promotion for the sleazy DJ service I worked for). And they were friends of mine; we shared a stretch of our lives working in bars entertaining drunks in widely varying ways.

I thought about that when I saw an article recently about a Buzzfeed piece in which the “writer” “slut-shamed” Tucker Carlson for sharing a friendly (literally, nothing more) moment with a “Sex Worker” at the funeral of a mutual friend. It was a display of the sort of moral cretinousness that today’s left is perfecting.

And the responses have been interesting; Big Leftymedia tittered like a bunch of fourth-graders (or perhaps fourth-graders titter like “liberal” “journalists”); in the meantime, the conservative commentary site “The Federalist” gave the woman a forum:

That it was made an issue speaks to the fact that a progressive journalist believed that a man to whom she has ascribed a belief system would be shamed by being in this photo. She attempted to call out his hypocrisy, as journalists so often do. But the hypocrisy didn’t exist. Moreover, if Aurthur, as a good leftist, has no problem with sex work then why would she have an issue with someone else not being troubled by it either?
Christina Parreira, the sex worker featured in the photo, found a place to speak her truth in The Federalist, a conservative outlet long derided by the progressive left for mostly vacuous reasons. The fact that a sex worker had to set the record straight in The Federalist about a Twitter-based kink shaming hoax speaks to the change that has been happening throughout our media. Outlets that were once considered to be beacons of free expression are now more prudish and censorious than the outlets they critique.

Their only real morality is “tear down the ‘opposition'”.

Comforting The Comfortable, Afflicting The Afflicted

I don’t know about you – but these days, when a accusation of a “hate crime” gets massive, immediate coverage, I’ve started to assume it’s a hoax until proven otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong – hate crimes exist. But the more publicity the unproven allegations get, and the more lurid the charges against someone in a MAGA cap, the more likely it seems the whole story turns out to have all the substance and integrity or a Ryan Winkler presentation on Black History Month.

Jussie Who?:Three weeks ago, I had not heard of Jussie Smollett. I’ve never had occasion to watch Empire, and I doubt I ever will.

But when I heard the story of the “Hate Crime” that reached out and, per his story, caught him a few weeks ago, nothing, even to my rather cursory listening, seemed to add up.

Kyle Smith – not a cop, but rather a writer at National Reviewnoticed the same things, and has 27 questions for the “journalists” who presumed Smollett’s story – of “MAGA”-screaming rednecks who attacked him without really attacking him – was unassailably true.

8 . How likely do you think it is that attackers would shout, “This is MAGA country” in Chicago, a place that no one thinks is MAGA country?

There are 26 more – the sort of thing “journalists”, ostensibly being the curious sort, should have asked.

13. Don’t you think it strange that his attackers fled without much harming Smollett or robbing him?

14. Related to (13), did it not occur to you that the whole alleged attack looked a bit like the criminal equivalent of a press release, meant to send a message rather than accomplish anything?

15. If you were beaten up, would you somehow remember to pick up your Subway purchase afterward?

Goalposts Moved: Over the weekend, as Smollett’s story began to collapse, the narrative changed; Smollett’s actions weren’t themselves a publicity “hate crime” against deplorables; they were “starting a conversation”:

I don’t know about you, but I think Jussie Smollett, and especially all the #Resitance media sycophants who parroted the story because, if you hate the MAGAs, it’s just too good to fact-check, just made life a lot harder for people who actually do wind up on the wrong side of bigotry.

Other than deplorables, obviously.

Everything’s A Conflict

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

In the latest Bar Association magazine, there’s an article calling on lawyers to provide more free legal work to help society, especially people who have been neglected or underrepresented or oppressed. 
In the same magazine, there’s an article telling lawyers: “Misgendering a person – such as referring to someone as “sir” or “she” when they are not – is an act of gender violence.
So I should volunteer to help someone who will be offended by my help?  Wouldn’t it be better for both of us if I did nothing? 

Big Left these days reminds me of a cop who gives out contradictory orders, to assure the person they’re yelling at does something they can arrest them for.

Comforting The Comfortable

To: Andrew Zimmern, Celebrity Chef
From: Mitch Berg, irascible peasant
Re: Appreciation!

Chef,

I caught this on Twitter over the past weekend:

Glad to see you’ll be giving “Free” food to people who missed two checks…

…well, no. Wait. They had two checks delayed before getting it all paid back, amid a national welter of corporate virtue signaling of financial support – extremely low-interest loans, offers to skip payments, and, well, free food.

I and a few million private sector workers would have loved some of that ‘compassion” when we were struggling.

Know what I heard from one bill collector when I was out of work back in 2003? “Get a job”.

Hold that thought, Chef.

That is all.

Heads We Come Here, Tails We Move Here

Last week, I was listening to NPR.

I know, I know. Worth with me, here.

I can’t find it online – I didn’t try all that hard, but then I suspect it’s not the only piece like this. that’s going to turn up if you look hard enough.

An earnest-sounding SEIU leader – y’know, a non-biased, politically-objective source, solemnly intoned:

“We don’t want to politicize the border and immigration issue . We just want policy to reflect the changing patterns of migration”

In other words: we want “ignore the national boundary so that people can migrate north to join our power base” to become the new normal.

Oddly, the NPR host said nothing about this.

“Die, Apostates!”

I’ve observed in the past that there’s nothing Big Left hates more than one of “their” constituents – women, minorities (other than Asians), gays and the like – leaving the proverbial Progressive Plantation. 

It’s not uncommon;  religious fundamentalists frequently hate apostates worse than infidels (see also – the danger involved in being a “Moderate” Muslim).  

Of course, some of the apostates are noticing it, too.

There’s a reason for those, of course; it’s absolutely true

How The Other Half Fumes

Many years ago, I went out on a date with a woman who was a pretty “out” DFLer.  Public employee union member, second generation DFL activist (at least), and predictably emotion-driven in her approach to all things political.

We went out 3-4 times – “dates” that almost always involved being out with quite a number of her friends, and an amazing paucity of one on one conversation.

Nonetheless, when “fish or cut bait” time came along, she said “I’m just not sure I can trust you to be kind”.

Bear in mind, nothing about me or my senses and practice of kindness, charity or anything of the sort had ever come up.  But my conservatism had.  Literally, the only thing she knew about me was the stereotypes she had of conservatives.

It was, if unwittingly, one of the nastiest things anyone’s ever said to me.

I thought about that when reading this New York Magazine piece about women who are abandoning relationships and marriages in a flurry of “Lifetime Network”-caliber pique and huff…

…Because Trump.

David Thompson fisks one of the interview subjects to a fine sheen – go and read it – but that was by no means all:

[the writer] goes on to share other tales of bedlamite sorrow. A woman named Samantha complains that her husband of 25 years, a fellow lefty, has “much less rage” than she does, specifically about “white privileged men,” and doesn’t wish to spend every evening equally infuriated by the existence of people whose politics differ somewhat. “Anger,” says Samantha, is her “de facto mode.” Though she’s trying to “get rid of it through therapy.”

A Brooklynite named Betsy boasts that “cultural change is like a steamroller. It flattens distinctions, and some people will get hurt,” by which she means men falsely and maliciously accused of rape, before adding, “and I’m okay with that.” Betsy and her husband are currently in counselling.

Another lady named Sarah tells us that her marriage became unsustainable “after the 2016 election, when I ramped up my political activism.” Sarah’s husband is described as “completely aligned” politically, a feminist, even, albeit one who doesn’t care to spend every waking hour raging about politics. “Talking about the Trump election,” says Sarah, “makes me more emotional than the end of my marriage.” And presumably, more emotional than the thought of her children losing the stability and reassurance of a family structure. But hey, priorities.

It’s not a new, original observation to say that progressivism is to the left what faith is to the cultural right.  Far from it.

But some parts of “progressivism” are becoming downright cult-like.

SIDE NOTE to Minnesota Republicans fussing about “Sharia Law”:   Progressivism will destroy this nation long, long before anything else will.

Fet Ish

British “socialist dominatrix” claims to turn “white, right wing” men into socialists.

For many of her clientele, who are almost exclusively white right-wing men because she finds herself unable “to be even fictionally cruel to any other type of man,”

Of course they are, and of course she does.

that fetish is serving a powerful woman. Maybury derives her pleasure comes from forcing those men to see the contradiction between their love of powerful women and their support for political parties that actively work to limit women’s rights and empowerment. In her book, Dining with Humpty Dumpty, she detailed conversations with a man she said exhibited the “disgusting contradiction” of claiming to be both “a ‘female supremacist’ and a Tory.’”

A cursory Google search of Ms. Maybury shows no indication that she’s actually successfully “converted” anyone, but that she is the sort of D-list pseudo-academic (but increasingly, academic) “celebrity” that does pop up on NPR “arts and culture” programming often enough to get talked about…

…and this post would indicate it worked.

Some of my “progressive” friends over the weekend were chortling over this one, naturally, the way they usually do over this sort of pseudo-story.

My first reaction:  it says more about the nature of socialist men than about “right wing white” guys; they make Pajama Boy look like Chuck Norris.

The second?   This is such a complement to Berg’s Seventh Law that I am inaugurating a new one:  The Maybury Corollary to Berg’s Seventh Law.  To wit:  When a “progressive” makes a mocking or defamatory pronoucement about the deviance, depravity, deceit, dissipation or lack of a conservative’s sexuality, it is invariably a combination of their own insecurities and what they desperately want to believe about those who believe differently than them.

Progs want to believe that all it takes to convert a conservative male into a socialist…er, being is a little highly-stylized pseudo-sex from a modern pseudo-academic phrenologist.

And perception is reality, among the “evidence-based” set.

But it’s called Berg’s Law for a reason.

Why, It’s Almost As If That Were The Plan

Booming foreign-born populations, highly dependent on big government, lead to electoral sweeps.

The biggest problem with the huge numbers of Somali immigrants isn’t that they’re Muslim, or the possibility that less than a percent of Minnesota’s population might “impose Sharia law”.  ‘

It’s that they support “progressivism” today.  And “progressivism” is the one ideology that can destroy America.

Berg’s Seventh Law – Ripped From The Headlines

“Anti”-Fa thugs terrorize Tucker Carlson’s family.

And then journalistic Dash OK, “journalistic” Dash thugs justify it:

The reason Big Left talks so much about the “wave of right ing terror” that’s sure to be coming any day now for the past twenty years is that they desperately need something to actually fit their narrative; raw projection alone only carries you so far outside the Democrat base…

Grab Your Transfer

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Fox News reports that the ‘caravan’ migrants are boarding busses chartered by the local government in Mexico.  They don’t want the migrants in their area so they’re paying for busses to ship the migrants North, passing the buck to America.

Can’t blame them.  Can we hire busses to ship them to Canada?

Nice idea – but the Canadians actually enforce their borders and immigration rules.

The Human Shell Game

A friend of the blog writes:

Looking at the video footage of the “Caravan” I was reminded of the Carter tenure when the Mariel Boatlift happened. Then as now a compliant MSM was thrilled at the prospect of capturing all the touching, even heart-wrenching, human interest stories of photogenic brown-skinned people being pulled from the drink while the likes of Dan Rather or David Brinkley uttered cliched platitudes in the voiceover.It was campaign gold for the Democrats who could burnish their bona fides with the non-white voting block they wished to keep on the plantation.

The Marielitos were the solution to a few problems for Castro too. In the process Castro dumped 127,000 of his citizens;  all his mentally ill, incorrigible criminals, homosexuals, anti-socialists, and political disidents onto the US. He was also able to smuggle, according to one congressional hearing source nearly 7,000 intelligence agents and drug running logistics experts into the US for long term intelligence gathering, while locking up and exploiting the burgeoning drug market.  At least 300 of the spies were rolled up in the 1st couple years which lead to “The Year of the Spy”. The NYT addresses the Marielito spies in this article(paywall):

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/01/us/cuban-ties-boatlift-to-drug-trade.html
here’s a pull quote:
“The Cuban Government used the 1980 Mariel boatlift to send as many as 7,000 spies to the United States, some of whom were ordered to help drug smugglers ”flood” this country with illegal narcotics, one such spy said today.
The Cuban agent, Mario Estevez Gonzalez, testifying at a United States Senate hearing here, said some of the spies travel freely in small boats between their Communist homeland and the United States. Mr. Estevez, who has been convicted of drug smuggling, said some agents were in this country for propaganda purposes and others were to create ”chaos” in the event of war.”

The Miami Herald from the same date had this story;
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/drugs/testimony.htm
this pull quote underscores the issue
“The U.S. ambassador to Colombia, Thomas Boyatt, was more blunt.
“I’m telling you that it happened,” he insisted during an interview before his testimony. “The Cuban government, as a matter of policy, for a long period of time, until exposed, was involved in drug smuggling.
“It was a [Cuban intelligence] operation with the blessing of Fidel,” he said. “

Leftists suffer from severely retarded imaginations (just look at Hollywood’s output for the last 10 years) but when they hit on something that seems to work they do it over and over. The Mariel Boatlift worked and would have been even more successful had Jimmy Carter not lost his re-election bid. Reagan wasn’t having any.
There is no reason to believe that the current Caravan is not another form of the Mariel Boatlift, already another Caravan has formed in El Salvador,  soon there will be another. The Socialists(Communists)and Castro proteges, Maduro, Castro and Ortega, all recognize that the Mariel Boatlift was a hugely successful intelligence operation and they profited enormously from the spy networks established in the 80s by Castro that survived Reagan’s spy hunt.

This Caravan solves a problem that the Tyrannical Troika has been struggling with; how to get identities and access to the US for their agents. The Caravan made up seemingly of compasinos with little or no documentation show up “seeking asylum” and the first thing the US govt does is generate identity paperwork for them, those who survive the asylum vetting process are embraced without further suspicion and best of all in 5 or 7 years when they become active they’ll have USA passports and identities. That’ll all work out well.

Now am I just a cynical bastard for thinking that 300-400 of these Caravanistas are actually intelligence agents from Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador? Time will tell.
Just because you’re cynical doesn’t mean you’re not right.

Darn All That Republican Rhetoric

I’ve become convinced that the greatest ever in rotation of Berg’s 7th law has been this past two decades’ drum beat of promises that there is “an avalanche of right wing terrorism” just around the corner.

Any day now.

Honest.

Actor James Cromwell predicts – I would say it’s more like “calls for” – “revolution” if the Republicans win the midterms:

Speaking to Variety at the event, he warned of the turn that he sees America taking and cautioned there will be “blood in the streets” if Republicans remain in control.

“This is nascent fascism. We always had a turnkey, totalitarian state — all we needed was an excuse, and all the institutions were in place to turn this into pure fascism,” Cromwell said. “If we don’t stop [President Trump] now, then we will have a revolution for real. Then there will be blood in the streets.”

The star, who previously played George H.W. Bush in Oliver Stone’s “W,” echoed these sentiments during his acceptance speech, where he warned that he believes the country is headed toward the possibility of a violent revolution.

“We’re living in very curious times, and something is coming up which is desperately important to this country and to this planet, and that is an election, in which hopefully in some measure we are going to take back our democracy,” he said. “We will have a government that represents us and not the donor class. We will cut through the corruption, [and] we won’t have to do what comes next, which is either a non-violent revolution or a violent one, because this has got to end.”

I don’t think members of the “elite” Realize how many Americans are ready to take him up on that. I don’t think it’s going to go nearly as well as they – Cromwell – think it will.

A Failure To Communicate

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is sitting in a cafe, doing his taxes on his laptop.   Avery LIBRELLE walks in, and notices BERG before he can look away. 

LIBRELLE:   Merg!

BERG:   Oh…hey, Avery.

LIBRELLE.   Words have meanings! Less stable followers will take those words and use them to justify violence!

BERG: So you people call yourself “the Resistance” – appropriating the name of a movement that violently assassinated members of an occupying military, blew up their trains and trucks, sank their ships, gunned them down and hand-grenaded them in cafes and on public transit, set bombs in their offices and factories, threw molotov cocktails into their trucks, and murdered those they saw as “collaborators” to ensure nobody would collaborate.

LIBRELLE: No, no no, Merg. YOUR side’s words have meanings. OURS don’t.

And SCENE