Points of Order

For three and a half years, President Woodrow Wilson had envisioned himself as Europe’s peacemaker.  From the earliest days of the conflict, through and even beyond his re-election campaign, Wilson had repeatedly held himself out as a potential mediator.  The President had taken a number of steps to try and intervene in Europe’s war, including trying to negotiate aid to starving Polish refugees on the Eastern Front and even drafting a peace memorandum which was delivered to the Entente in February of 1916.

The interest from Europe was not reciprocated.  The Germans and Russians had no interest in American aid to Polish citizens and the British and the French believed Wilson’s 1916 memorandum was little more than an election-year stunt.  To the rulers of Europe’s warring parties, the American President was either woefully naïve about the nature of the conflict or deeply politically cynical.  Wilson’s push for “peace without victory” had no support among the war’s leadership, but Wilson did raise a consequential point for the populaces of Europe – why was the war being fought in the first place?  And what did the combatants hope to get out of it?

On January 8th, 1918 before the U.S. Congress, Wilson would provide an American answer to the question of Europe’s conflict – fourteen points upon which peace, and a post-war world, could be built.

Part of the roots of the end of the conflict were laid with Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.”  Germany assumed the Allies final peace terms would mimic the less punitive terms of Wilson’s address


By the beginning of 1918, it had become apparent for Europe’s nations that support for the Great War – among civilian and soldier alike – had all but vanished.  Revolts, rebellions, mutinies and food riots had increasingly become standard as Europeans were demanding peace, or at least a worthy cause to explain the hardships they had endured.  The war’s leaders had no real response.   Continue reading

The Voice Of Minnesota!

Minnesota’s various gun grabber groups – “Protect” Minnesota and Mom Want Action (A wholly owned and financially a really dependent subsidiary of Every town) held a huge rally out in Excelsior yesterday.

They rented (as I’ve been told) the cities bandshell on the shores of Lake Minnetonka, to gather together the overwhelming force of the Twin Cities gun control movement in one place, to make the foundations of the “gun lobby and proud to Shudder in fear.

Oh, yes they did:

Can you feel the foundations shaking?

The funny part? This picture was taken by a second amendment activist. But “Protect“ Minnesota is on camera and violates the first rules of propaganda videos; “when your people are talking to a tiny crowd, do nothing but close ups“. He penned out to a “wired“ shot… Of a couple of dozen people listening to one of their do ranged speakers

At the event’s “peak “, there may have been 70 people at the “rally”.

Between rental and other costs, the “event” is estimated to have cost $18,000 to produce. That’s roughly $300 per attendee.

In comparison, the Minnesota gun carcasses/NRA rally at the state capital on April 23 cost $500, and drew close to 4000 Real Americans.

That’s right – the total cost of the Real American rally was blessed in the per capita cost of the grabbers event for two people.

Do The Right Thing…

One Anne Vetter writes in the Strib that she is reporting the perpetrators of two sexual assaults against hes

…sort of:

The day after the Brett Kavanaugh hearing, I spent the morning on the phone with the Title IX coordinator from my college. I’d never spoken to her before, but I recounted in excruciating detail the two times men raped me while I was in school.

Not a cop.   A school bureaucrat, representative of a system that often repudiates due process and starts from a presumption of guilt (for men).

But it’s a start.

Now I see that reporting has a purpose, even if it’s not about the pursuit of legal justice. The report may be confidential, and the perpetrator may not suffer immediate consequences. But Kavanaugh defenders doubted Ford’s credibility because there was no contemporaneous evidence of any misdeeds. If she’d been able to point to paperwork she’d filled out in the early 1980s, this conversation – and Kavanaugh’s candidacy for the Supreme Court – would probably have ended weeks ago. Reporting an incident as soon as possible puts contemporaneous testimony into the record, in case it is ever needed.

On the one hand, at least it’s a report.  Who knows – she may protect some other woman in the future.

On the other hand – what does she want?  A oookie?  I mean, good on ya, Anne, for doing what you’re supposed to do.

I get it.   It’s hard to do – similar to men reporting being victims of domestic abuse.   Perhaps I’m being insensitive.

Could be.

I Was Sitting In The NARN Hawaiian Hotel…

Join me from 1-3PM today on the NARN!

Today on the show:

  • Jim Hagedorn and, maybe with a little luck, Rep. Jason Lewis, will join us to talk about their races, the impact of the Trump visit ,and the events of this past few weeks.
  • Eternal Cultural Warfare

Don’t forget – King Banaian is on from 9-11AM on AM1440, and Brad Carlson is  on “The Closer” edition of the NARN Sundays from 2-3PM.

So tune in the Northern Alliance! You have so many options:

Join us!

Narrative

A friend of the blog writes:

A couple of days ago on nextdoor.com I saw this posting.

Neighbor, Lynnhurst
Racially charged attack by Southwest Minneapolis teens
It breaks my heart to have to tell you all about what happened tonight in our beloved neighborhood.
At approximately 9:30 pm while my son was walking our dogs around Lake Harriet on the west side at the intersection of 47th St W and Lake Harriet Parkway he was approached by two white teenage boys on bikes. These boys harrassed him, shouted at him and threw rocks at both him and the dogs. Several rocks made contact with both the dogs and him. At this same time, another man who was black, present in the same area, and who was also walking his dog endured the same harassment from the teens. My son confronted them, exchanged some choice words with them and almost got into a fight. After a few minutes of this, the teens took off on their bikes. My son was shaken up about all this mainly because he just could not believe the racism in these boys.
To quote my 23-year-old son “South Mpls isn’t what it used to be. There are so many more privileged kids that don’t understand how good they have it and how valuable other cultures are. We used to hang out with everyone no matter what you were about or where you were from. As long as there was no hate kids could hang out and chill. I feel that this has changed drastically.
I do not want to believe him. I don’t want to believe that we have kids like this in our neighborhood. Kids that have the inability to feel empathy, understanding, and tolerance of others. Or worse yet, are we raising them to be like this?
Sadly he did not call the police and report this. In his eyes, this just would not be of interest to the Minneapolis police and they wouldn’t give it their time.
2d ago

At first I thought it might be a spoof as a 23 year old stating “South Mpls isn’t what it used to be.” As a seasoned citizen who’s lived in south Minneapolis for 40 years…well this cracked me up.

Of course the enlightened responded by blaming Trump for this racially-charged attack. Previously it would have been blamed on global warming climate change.
Then there was a ray of hope as today this response was made.

AXXXXXX GXXXXX, Kenny·11h ago
It is sad to read about such nasty racial behavior in today’s world of divisiveness. Sorry to hear about your sons experience. As a black male in the South MPLS area, I’m trying to figure out how i can say this nicely to my mostly white neighbors. Anyone blaming our current Administration, you are very sad (I hope that was pretty nice!), you are actually ridiculous and insulting to many black folks, not speaking for all, but many do agree with me. Racism has been around ever since i was born as a black male and to try and fit this into your political mindset (agenda) makes you blind and very naive. Who knows maybe you never noticed us before Obama got in office, but we were here long before (just as racism was). Teach your kids at home from birth about racism and this issue will be minimized (not the responsibility of schools), racism will never end but can be suffocated if you stop passing the puck to take care of your own! I know many police officers that are white and black and can say those I’ve encountered have not been racist, so pigeonholing them all into racism is unrealistic just like assuming a black lives matter sign clears you of being a racist (I’ve met some fake BLM people). Could conversation from parents with kids at home have anything to do with this? This might come as a surprise but i and many other black people (not all) noticed more racism when Obama was in office, forcing us black people to look at white peoples treatment towards us and pegging it as a color (race) issue vs. prejudice treatments (not racist treatments, but also not acceptable). Being black can be difficult as is when living in a mostly white neighborhood, but spinning it with administrative garbage is just simply placing blame on something other then yourself for raising crappy kids. Sorry for spewing my rant but let’s get real with what is truly going on here!

Wow! Many people thank him, but a few of the enlightened try to argue a bit with him. He makes another post.

AXXXXXX GXXXXXX, Kenny·9h ago
Cindi – not trying to pick on you but i’m guessing you are very much into politics and you probably have a genuine good heart, but your 2016 comment…please stop. Not sure if you have to be black to understand what i’m going to say, and if you are also black you may not have even noticed this….but please try to follow. Prior to Obama getting into office, black people would mumble under their breath how the white man would keep them/us down. I actually kicked a black friend out of my car once for talking about white supremacy and how the white man is bad….I don’t condone that type of talk. Now, Obama got into office black people spoke it out loud because he asked us to, this was stated to any white person listening because Obama stirred the racial divide pot. I have never felt so much racism since those days, that crap effected my daily work environment like you wouldn’t believe. While I know there is a lot of racism in this world, as a black person it is better to focus on positives vs. negatives, since negatives will always be there anyway. I’ve had other white people stir the pot with me in the past, they’ll say something like “that white person said this or that about another black person…oooooh he is so racist” Really? Why bring negative garbage to me like you saved my life or something. Gossip is bad, always has been. People will always talk behind other peoples backs, they do it with Gay, Fat, Tall, short, religion and other ethnicity’s. For people to bring up the president and that is why America got racist is absolutely stupid, it shows true ignorance. I’ll go a bit personal on how prejudiced society has become. While I’m not a Republican, i’m also not a Democrat…I stand in the middle with my beliefs. So this means i’m not a Kanye West supporter, yet i’m also not a Colin Kaepernick supporter either. I bring this up because when people ask me about my political view points they automatically assume that i’m a liberal democrat (far from either side), when they find out that i’m not, i’m instantly viewed as an Uncle Tom….Hmmmmm, this is by your BLM sign holders (pathetic), these are the same people that have all are welcome signs up….yet when i oppose their political view points I or my family are ousted for thinking differently. You should never assume anything because of a persons color, accept people for whom and what they are. Understand that to be different is OK! Being the same as everyone else would make for a boring world! Does anyone here seem to understand what racism is? Do you understand that it comes from both sides? This was started much before Trump era!!! It was even before Obama, although it was heightened to a whole new level then. If you teach your kids from little people up, right from wrong…you will then have taken ownership of creating good citizens….Stop blaming the teachers, Trump, others, etc. Take blame for your own wrong doings and correct yourself and your family before looking for others. I’m done with this post….sorry for rambling on! GENUINELY LOVE THY NEIGHBOR!!!!

As you might imagine the posting was halted a couple hours after this response.

The narrative must be protected, in fora big and small.

The Seventh Seal

In the modern era, there’s nothing to see in Santa Fe, Kansas.  The tiny town is now abandoned, with only a large feed lot marking what is otherwise considered a “ghost town” in the 21st Century.  There wouldn’t have been much more to notice in January of 1918, as Santa Fe was already crumbling, only two years away from disappearing completely.  But something within the town had caught the eye of Dr. Loring Milner – a flu-like virus unlike anything he had ever seen or read about.

In 1918, like today, influenza threatened the very young and the very old.  Those with compromised immune systems would typically be at risk for fighting off the worst strains of the flu.  What Milner was witnessing was the reversal of that script – a flu that attacked the healthiest adults and killed within days.  Those who were ill would develop a fever and become short of breath, with their faces turning blue from a lack of proper oxygen.  Lungs would fill with blood and caused catastrophic vomiting and nosebleeds, with victims literally drowning in their own fluids.  Milner and others suspected the virus might have come from the region’s livestock, but couldn’t be sure.  What Milner did know is that the virus was a killer and needed to be contained quickly, writing to and being published in Public Health Reports, the predominate medical journal of the day.  Few sources – in medicine or the media – paid attention.

The influenza Dr. Loring Milner discovered would soon blanket the globe with a death rate comparable to “The Black Death” of the bubonic plague.  What would become known as the “Spanish Flu” would spread over every continent, from major cities to tiny Pacific Islands and even the Arctic.  Amid a global war that would kill 20 million, an estimated additional 100 million people – 5% of the world’s population – would fall victim to the deadliest outbreak in human history.

Public gatherings all but shut down in the face of the deadly “Spanish Flu”


At every step, the narrative of the “Spanish Flu” meets misconception – from the origin, to the name, to even precisely what made this form of influenza so historically fatal.   Continue reading

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory?

My usual disclaimer: I’m not a Trump fan, and have never been. The deficit and debt Numbers are intensely troubling, so it’s not like my dislike is completely unwarranted.

But you’ve got to hand it to Trump – he gets politics. Better, it seems, than most politicians. Certainly better than the press, or the late-night infotainment howler monkeys.

But the latest ABD/PP poll indicates his handling – and, perhaps, staging dash of the Brett Kavanaugh nomination might be one of the most brilliant political traps (whether that trap was sprung by the president or the opposition, I don’t know) of all time. I will add a bit of emphasis here and there:

The latest IBD/TIPP poll finds that President Donald Trump’s approval ratings made a strong rebound this month, with a four-point gain to 40%, reversing almost the entire loss he suffered the month before. His disapproval rating went from 56% last month to 54% now.

What’s more, the Democrats’ advantage on the generic ballot question plunged from 11 points last month to just 2 points this month.

A Bullish Wind

The President’s party always loses seats in the midterms.

Trump is a polarizing figure who will drive Democrat turnout like nothing since Obama’s first election.

The GOP is doomed, and Triump will be a lame duck starting in January.

We’ve all heard it.  Truth be told, while I think the GOP has a great chance to pick up congressional seats in Minnesota this fall, I  – as naturally pessimistic as any other Scandinavian-American and urban Conservative – have been mentally buckling myself in for a brutal, 2006-like night on election night.

Much as I was about this time two years ago.

We know how that went.

And while I don’t get sanguine over much of anything, Conrad Black says there’s room for hope in the wake of the Democrats’ Kavenaugh show trial and Trump’s canny, intensive campaigning:

Just as he calculated that by speaking for all those who despised the entire incumbent political system he could win the Republican nomination, and that he could win by designing a campaign to exploit the possibilities of gaining a majority in the Electoral College rather than the popular vote (as five of his predecessors did, by design or otherwise), he is now exploiting the fact that there is no leader of the opposition in the American system, and between presidential elections he has no rival. The likely outcome is the most favorable midterm result since Franklin D. Roosevelt won nine additional congressional districts and gained nine senators in 1934. Even now, though the bunk about impeachment has subsided, Trump’s enemies have little idea of how profoundly hated the OBushinton era, 1989 to 2017, had become, as a time of sleaze and incompetence and stagnation. Now, in what is practically a full-employment economy, wages for the least well-paid are rising. Amazon and other retailers grumble about $15 an hour for unskilled work, but it is the first time people in that economic bracket have had real increases of purchasing power and the lack of fear of joblessness in more than 20 years.

Time will tell — and not much time, as luck would have it.

Michael Bloomberg’s Open Racism

A friend of the blog writes:

Bloomberg makes it clear:
“guns need to be kept out of the hands of minorities in order to keep them alive.” -M. Bloomberg

Since 1968 the left has pushed gun control measures for the primary purpose of disarming minorities. Til now they have always couched their arguments in broad neutral terms so it wouldn’t be obvious to the low-information citizens that their target is and always was to make sure minorities, especially blacks, would not have access to firearms for self defense.
Now Bloomberg is making it clear who he is intending to deprive of their civil rights:
Michael Bloomberg suggests disarming minorities to ‘keep them alive’: report

Michael Bloomberg suggests disarming minorities to ‘keep them alive’: re...o go ahead vote for gun-control politicians, its only blacks who will be affected.
They don’t even bother to hide their racism anymore!

“Hiding” has never been the word for it; gun control has always been about disarming black people (before they added working class whites to the target list).

Cold For Now

In 1932, when the leadership of the German parliament decided to try empaneling a cabinet under the leader of the largest party in the Reichstag, one Adolf HItler, one of the groups that lent the new idea strong support was…

…the German Kommunist Party.

This bit of cognitive dissonance startles a  lot of modern Ameircans, with their exceedingly pat, linear understanding of political history.  In the context of the times, it made perfect sense.  And not without reason.  The Communists believed that a coalition run by a Nazi would drive everyone in the middle to one extreme or the other – which would redound, conventionally, to their benefit.  They stood to gain from the violence they believed would ensue.

And barring a major change in German political life, it might have worked.

But Hitler outmaneuvered them Commies, and everyone else.   He promised Germans an end to politics – and, numbed by a decade and a half of depression, political violence and fractiousness, Germans bought it.  And he got the allegiance of the German Army, which allowed him to sustain his seizure of complete control of all the levers of German government.

But that was all in the future.  In the fall of 1932, the Commies beheld the spectre of (more) political violence, and chortled merrily.   Division – in the form of a low-grade, cold-to-warm state of conflict – was in their interests, or so they thought.


To the best of my knowledge, Dennis Prager was the first to call our current national impasse a “civil war”.   It’s a cold one – so far.

I despair, occasionally, of it staying that way;

He notes the propensity of today’s left toward violence:

Today, we watch leftist mobs scream profanities at professors and deans and shut down conservative and pro-Israel speakers at colleges. We routinely witness left-wing protesters as they block highways and bridges; scream in front of the homes of conservative business and political leaders; and surround conservatives’ tables at restaurants while shouting and chanting at them.

Conservatives don’t do these things. They don’t close highways, yell obscenities at left-wing politicians, work to ban left-wing speakers at colleges, smash the windows of businesses, etc.

Why do leftists feel entitled do all these things? Because they have thoroughly rejected middle-class, bourgeois, and Judeo-Christian religious values. Leftists are the only source of their values. Leftists not only believe they know what is right — conservatives, too, believe they are right — but they also believe they are morally superior to all others. Leftists are Übermenschen — people on such a high moral plane that they do not consider themselves bound by the normal conventions of civics and decency. Leftists don’t need such guidelines; only the non-Left — the “deplorables” — need them.

Like the Communists of 1932, they are hoping with every Antifa outrage, with every clogged freeway, with every mob scene in a store or restaurant or place of business, to provoke a response.   It will, they think, redound to their advantage.   Given that they control the means of information distribution in this country every bit as thoroughly as the Nazis did 86 years ago, it’s not a bad plan.

 

Krokodile Tearz For The Kidz

My kids were a little older – probably 9 and 7, which was not long before I started this blog, now that I think about it – when I first encountered “Kidz Bop”, an endless series of current pop songs, sung by a rotating but always identical-sounding group of pre-teens, bowdlerized for a pre-teen audience.

It always annoyed me – and made sure I never got any for the kids.  I figured that’d come early enough.

Now that my kids are in their twenties, it’s really not .an issue for me; the loathsome nature of modern pop music became one of the lesser problems, although the laothsome pop music of the day was the soundtrack to the worst of the teenage years.

But others did buy them – enough to put several of the compilations on the Billboard Hot 100 Albums over the past decade and a half.

This piece in Vox (motto:  “The WaPo Libsplains America!) has issues with the series – for similar reasons to mine, but not at all the same.

A 2017 study on the effects of censorship in Kidz Bop found that replacing phrases does not actually wipe lyrical recognition from children’s minds if they have already heard the original song.

I’m trying to imagine anyone who thought it might.  Given the way kids – and kidz – pass on information they;re not supposed to know about the grownup world, it’s pretty inevitable, at least among people who have, or have been, actual kids.

Even if it did, what Kidz Bop is enforcing is also not kid-appropriate: The study says the music perpetuates the sociological phenomenon of “kids getting older younger” (KGOY), which claims that marketing is pushing kids out of their childhood earlier and earlier. The study says that repackaging adult music as kids’ music doesn’t eliminate the adult messages, even though some words and phrases are changed.

One source quoted in the study is Christopher Bell, an associate professor of media studies at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs who is an expert on how race, class, and gender intersect with children’s media.

Of courses he is.   Else, he wouldn’t have been in Vox.

He has hosted a TED talk on female superheroes, is currently consulting on an upcoming Pixar movie (which he cannot talk about because of a very long NDA), and is an avowed Kidz Bop hater.

He sees the product as both lazy and emblematic of our mistaken views on what censorship accomplishes. Kids’ media may take out “bad words,” but it doesn’t fix the problem of violence and oversexualization of women in media and pop culture.

They – the author and Mr. Belll – come periliously close to an insight in the rest of the article (which is worth a read, sort of);

Censorship doesn’t fix the problem of “over-sexualization of women in media” – because children themselves are over-sexualized.    Eight is the new thirteen…

…thanks, largely, to the popular culture that Vox (and the WaPo, which holds Vox’s leash) have been promoting and profiting off of.

Get Woke Go Broke

As much as society’s institutions – the media, bureaucracy, the academy, the educational-industrial complex and so much government at so many levels – seem to be boarding the left’s crazy train, it’s good to know that when push comes to shove the Free Market is still utterly  A VIrginia tourism board notes with alarm that tourists are “Unexpectedly” staying away from the restaurant that refused to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders – and the entire area around it:

The Roanoke Times reported Sunday that a regional tourism board is pulling together emergency funds to boost its digital marketing campaign.

The Red Hen incident in June prompted thousands of calls and emails to the tourism office. They’re still coming in. The office received a letter on Thursday from a Georgia family that wrote to say it would never return because of what happened.

Why, it’s almost as if there’s a majority out there who…doesn’t get heard much.   Who are indeed silent.

Wonder what we can call that group?

Believe Facts

A friend of the blog writes:

And here we have an example of a liberal who chooses to not believe someone when they are accusing a Democrat. I wonder what reaction the blogger would get if she wrote this about Kavanaugh?

But, maybe the blogger is not too far from where we all ought to be. I mostly roll my eyes when I hear about a new accusation against a politician. These accusations certainly all seem set up to distract from real issues. Let’s vow not to be distracted. Let’s vow to make sure accusers have solid evidence before we hear about it night and day.

Perhaps the real movement should be to encourage people to report incidents when they happen and investigate then, rather than when they are politically expedient.

Of course, counter to what the blogger writes, I have heard reports that Karen Monahan did try to report it at the hospital. If true, this is far more evidence than we get from most accusers and this is one woman we ought to believe.

The blogger at the link would seem to be a reliable relater of Democrat party chanting points. But as my correspondent correctly notes, I laud the (late breaking, selective’ sudden) concern for facts as a better arbiter of justice than raw, focused emotion (dutifully applied by a biased media).

Long Term Plans

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Why the vicious fight over the Kavanaugh nomination? Because there’s so much at stake.

When the Constitution was written, the Supreme Court did not have the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. The Court grabbed that power in Marbury v. Madison, 1803.

For the first hundred years, everyone assumed the Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution according to the original intent of the people who wrote it. If the public didn’t like what the original Constitution said, they could amend the Constitution as they did after the Civil War. The Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment extended the constitutional limitations on federal government action to state governments.

Starting in 1912, Woodrow Wilson promoted the idea that government must grow and develop, must evolve with the times but without Constitutional limitations and without going through the cumbersome formal Constitutional amendment process. The idea caught on with judges who liked the thought of being the ultimate guardians of good sense and civic virtue, a check on excesses of state legislatures, philosopher-kings. That’s how we got abortion-on-demand and gay marriage: Supreme Court justices decided the time was ripe for those new ‘rights’ to be discovered and imposed nation-wide. The four Liberal justices on the court are committed to this method of Constitutional interpretation. Whatever is popular today, is the law.

Kavanaugh follows the Original Intent method which, indeed, is the standard applied to every document in every lawsuit by every court except the Liberal justices. If your mortgage company wants to double your interest rate, the case will turn on what was intended in the original documents – fixed rate or adjustable rate – regardless of the economic conditions at the time of the lawsuit.

Applying Original Intent to the Constitution, ask yourself this: what do you think the Founding Fathers would have thought of homosexual marriage? Of women wanting to abort their unborn children? Would the Founders have considered these as fundamental rights like the right to choose your own religion, the right to speak up about politics, the right to a trial by jury? I don’t think so.

And what would the Founders have thought about the right of ordinary citizens to carry firearms to protect themselves at home, on the roads, and against a tyrannical government? Remember, the Founders weren’t always the graceful statutes and paintings you see in museums, they were the people who planned and carried out a revolution to overthrow their own government. I suspect they thought the people’s right to own military-grade weapons was essential to protecting the rest of the people’s rights from encroachment by the government.

That’s what’s at stake in this confirmation. Kavanaugh will be the fifth Original Intent seat on the Court. He’ll give the traditional, conservative method a majority. Roe v. Wade is at risk of being overturned, as it should be, being entirely made up law with no historical support at all. And Obergefell v. Hodges is such a perversion that Justice Kennedy should hide his head in a bag.

That’s why Democrats are being savage. They see their path to subverting the nation blocked. They can’t win at the polls if they declare their goals honestly, they can’t win in the courts with Kavanaugh on the bench, the next step in fomenting revolution is violence. Assassination is not out of the question. Whoever provides security for Republicans in Washington should double their details.

That last bit seems like it’s more and more likely ever week.

Believe Accusers (Of Republicans)

Michael Moore’s ex-wife Suing the filmmaker for allegedly squirreling away profits from movies on which they collaborated:

Earlier this month Glynn filed a lawsuit against Moore in Manhattan Supreme Court claiming that he was stiffing her on profits from their joint movie projects.

Moore’s lawyer, Kenneth Warner, wrote in court papers filed Friday that Glynn sued in order to publicize information that would have remained sealed and confidential if their case had stayed in the Michigan court.

Of course, this is not The kind of “abuse”, much less “assault”, that’s been in the news lately.

But it does, perhaps (very, very perhaps), highlight another fact that the social justice pimps would just as soon not I have us talking about; a lot of what is reported as “abuse” – and what the heck, let’s call this “alleged financial abuse”– Is actually maneuvering in court.

That court might be a court of law, or a court of public opinion, but the tactic is the same.

Better Than To Receive?

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Got this in the mail.  Not going.  Annoying.

 

“Give back.”  To whom, the beneficiaries of this fundraiser?  The county bar association and the local Legal Aid office?  The phrase ‘give back’ implies I once received something of value from them, for which I did not pay on the spot.  The phrase ‘give back’ implies an obligation, a debt.  Searching my memory (insert Star Trek computer voice: “Working. Working.”).  Nope, can’t think of anything either of them ever gave me for free.  Don’t see that I have any obligation to give either of them anything in return.

“Pay it Forward.”  Cute movie, silly slogan, worse reasoning.  Somebody once did something nice for me, so that burdens me with an obligation to give money to someone else.  And lucky for me, they’ve pre-selected the people I’ll be paying, all good Liberal Democrats, no doubt.  At $85 a plate, plus having to sit through do-gooders giving each other feel-good awards to signal their virtue?  I don’t think so.  If that’s the cost of people doing nice things for me, stop doing nice things for me, I can’t afford it.

This is not an appeal for charity, it’s shaming.  I’ve been shamed enough.  I get it every day.  I’m an old White male.  We’re the bane of society.  Racists.  Sexists.  Rapists.  We didn’t build anything, we never accomplished anything, we’re oppressors who stole our ill-gotten gains and don’t deserve to keep them.  So Give Back the money or Pay it Forward to our pet programs so we can work to further shame old White men.

You know what?  That argument doesn’t motivate me to give money, doesn’t inspire my generosity.

If you want me to give you money, convince me you deserve it.  Offer programs I want to watch (Dr. Who on public television).  Give me something I want to have (salvation, from my church).  Show me you’re helping people I want to help and give me a little reward (Girl Scout cookies).  Hell, stand at the stoplight in the pouring rain holding a cardboard sign to make me feel glad I’m not you.  I keep a dozen ones in the center console for precisely those people.  But not for Legal Aid lawyers.  And not because I’ve got some fake obligation that I should be ashamed I haven’t paid.

The hardest part of establishing an entitlement is convincing those who’ll pay that you are in fact entitled to their money.

It seems MN Democrats have done a fine job of this.

 

#MeThree

SCENE:   Mitch BERG is shopping for a suit.  As he pokes through a rack of jackets, Avery LIBRELLE wanders around the corner, distacted, nearly bumping into him. 

LIBRELLE:  Merg!

BERG:  Oh, sh…shuper amazing to see you, Avery.

LIBRELLE:  Don’t give me the happy talk.  What about the charges against you?

BERG:  Charges?   Oh, do tell.

LIBRELLE:  Miss Lyudmila Korolevska says you tried to kiss her against her will, and told her an unwelcome dirty joke at a party.

BERG: Huh.  Never met anyone named Lyud…er, Korolevska.

LIBRELLE:   It was at a party in either Yalta, Kilpyavr or Novisibirsk in 1983.

BERG: Huh.  I was in college in rural North Dakota in 1983.   Nowhere near Russia.

LIBRELLE:   Don’t evade the question!

BERG: What question?

LIBRELLE:  Why did you sexually assault Miss Shtolipinska?

BERG: Wasn’t her name just Korolevska

LIBRELLE:  She goes back and forth on that.

BERG:  Huh.  So you don’t know her name, it took place in one of three places…

LIBRELLE:  Or maybe Smolensk.

BERG: …four places that I have never been, at times when I couldn’t have been there, doing things I just don’t do.

LIBRELLE:  I believe accusers!

BERG:  Of course you do.  Accusers like Karen Monahan?

LIBRELLE:  SLUT!  WHORE!  CAPITALIST TOOL!

BERG:  Of course she is.

STORE STAFFER:  Er, Ma’am…(Confused)…sir…um [Looks at BERG, perplexed.  BERG shrugs], er, loud person?

LIBRELLE:  [Exasperated, to both]  Oh, you people and your privilege!

And SCENE

Scorched Dearth

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Republicans keep warning Democrats they shouldn’t use vicious tactics against Kavanaugh because Democrats won’t like living under the new rules.  Nonsense, Democrats use vicious tactics because they know the new rules won’t apply to them.

There are stronger allegations against Keith Ellison than Brett Kavanaugh, but Democrats choose to believe Ellison, not the accusers.  The official Democrat Party line is those women are lying.  It’s the same line they took with Bill Clinton’s accusers.  The media won’t call out Democrats for hypocrisy, the media is complicit. From this, we can conclude Democrats will continue to use vicious tactics because THEY WORK.

Democrats are different from Republicans on a fundamental level.  Democrats don’t have principles, they are partisans.  They don’t care about victims, they care about victory.  They do not have morals, they have mobs.  They don’t have scruples, they have Screw You.  With a complicit mainstream media aided by SJW dominated social media who are careful to hide stories that make Democrats look bad while ceaselessly trumpeting stories that make Republicans look bad – even news stories they have investigated and know are false – Democrats only need a couple of useful idiots to derail any Republican plan.

I’m looking at you, Jeff Flake of Arizona, you, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and you, Susan Collins of Maine.

When Lindsay Graham loses his cool with the Dems, you know things are getting ugly.