Cuts Both Ways, Assholes

Apparently, we conservatives are Beyond The Pale.  Saith Jennifer Rubin:

There is no way to “understand” MAGA voters, nor is there is any possibility of reaching political agreement with them. They are beyond the bounds of rational political debate.

Hey, Jen:  substitute “socialist voters” for “MAGA voters”, and you’ll have an idea of what we think of you lot.  The only thing you need to understand about us is that we hate your putrid political philosophy and your criminal voting practices.

And then some other Lenin-lickspittle chimes in with:

There is no longer any reason to try to “understand” these people. Nor should there be any compunction about doing whatever we can to read them out of American politics…

…by any means available, you mean?

Noted.

Explanation

Via Insty, I read this:

Stephen Collinson is well-known among conservatives as the most hackneyed of the hacks at CNN. The CNN Politics Twitter account promoted his latest online essay with the words “President Biden to showcase his moderate radicalism in his big congressional address.”
“Moderate radicalism”? Doesn’t that make about as much sense as “quiet loudness”?

Well, no.  Basically, “moderate radicalism” is when radical ideas and positions (i.e. extreme leftwing, in this case) are talked about and explored, but there are no actions associated with the activity.  Here’s an example:

“Racial equity is going to be our social goal and policy”  —  moderate radicalism.  Then there’s this:

“Racial equity is going to be our social goal and policy, and anyone not supporting it will be sent to reeducation camps”  — that’s pure (immoderate) radicalism.

Just don’t kid yourself that the latter is an impossibility in these here United States.

Never forget that socialists, of whatever variant, are utterly convinced of the rightness and purity of their ideas, and that opponents thereof are evil and should be suppressed, by force if necessary.

Blindingly Obvious

It’s not often that I feel the need to chide Insty, but he asks a silly question of a Michael Barone article.  Barone states:

When public policies have produced disastrous results and when alternative policies have resulted in immediate, seemingly miraculous improvement, why would anyone want to go back to the earlier policies? Is there any reason to suppose that this time will be different?

We know where such policies led before. Is there any reason this time will be different?

Whereupon Insty states, correctly:

The explanation is that Democrats don’t care about the downsides to these policies, because they feel like the upsides offset them.

But he then falls into the standard trap of the intelligent person by asking:

So what are the upsides that they see?

Silly rabbit.  The upside to any policy proposal or implementation by the Left (Marxists) is that it makes them feel virtuous.  (The only other significant upside is if said policy increases the Left’s grip on power.)  In the face of those two features, downsides pale into insignificance.

I will now quote again the late-and-very-much-missed Acidman:

“I could tolerate leftists if they had any coherent ideas for a better way to do things.  But they don’t.  They cling stubbornly to failed brain-fart dreams that have been attempted over and over again with disastrous results, but they never learn.  When better ideas come along, they simply screech and holler at them, then fling feces like the monkeys they are.”

The reason they do that is because better ideas underline their (many) failures.  And that gives them Teh Sadz.

News Roundup

With commentary, spicy like Odalys Garcia:


apparently there was some Hollywood awards show, and a few trendies and old Commies sounded off, like anyone outside their own circle cares what they think anymore.  Viewership was 5.1 million, compared to Trump’s CPAC speech with 31 million online viewers.  LOL


a great idea for spending a whole bunch of other people’s money on a movie that maybe 0.0000005% of the Western world will actually pay to see, e.g. the previous such effort, Ballbusters.  And speaking of which:

A mother-of-three spat pepper spray into a police officer’s eye after it was fired into her face and mouth as she was arrested in Bristol
for some reason, I just can’t seem to find any sympathy for P.C. Pepperspray.


how about the “politics of fuck you”, you racist hustler.

Never mind, President Bigbucks is riding to the rescue:


and as a real African American, I cannot wait for you honkies to gimme wass ri’ fooey mine.


yeah, why IS that, President Braindead?  


which would be like saying that someone’s cough has got better, now that he’s dead.  More to the point:  WTF is the “World Economic Forum” and why should anyone be listening to them anyway?


and no doubt, the next Republican president is going to make him as dead as Bin Laden (because President Mail Fraud sure as hell won’t).


surprising as it may seem to some Brits, not everyone in the world cares about the antics of some titled twat.


[insert cock joke here]


in Portland-Am-Rhein.


and yet Over Here, we can’t even indict the bureaucrats who tried to undermine a legally-elected Republican President.  And speaking of which:


as if just being John Brennan wasn’t embarrassing enough.

Did someone say, “More Odalys Garcia”?

Thought so.

New Day, Same Problem, Different Group

So let’s take a look at this new warning from the .dotgov.  Here’s the summary:

The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security has issued a National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin due to a heightened threat environment across the United States, which DHS believes will persist in the weeks following the successful Presidential Inauguration.  Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence.

What interests me about this diktat  is not that it’s spurious bullshit (it is), but in terms of this language it could have been equally applicable after Trump was elected President.  Let’s parse the thing, to get the parallels to 2017.

  • “Some ideologically-motivated violent extremists”  — Antifa?  Most definitely.
  • “Objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition” — Anyone remember the Washington D.C. riots during and after Trump’s inauguration?
  • “Other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives” — that would be the completely false Russian “involvement” of 2017.

All these and more could have been good reasons for Trump to invoke this very kind of action, back in early 2017.

But he didn’t.

Yet because a couple hundred idiots invaded the Capitol, walked off with Nancy Pelosi’s lectern and sat behind her desk, now it’s Defcon-3 and BOLOs for “terrorists”?  Just a reminder:  the “insurgents” who broke into the Capitol weren’t carrying weapons, didn’t throw Molotov cocktails around in the streets or public places, didn’t burn and pillage shops and office buildings, and didn’t beat up innocent people in the streets.  Even the ones arrested were released within hours, and if any effort was made to identify and charge the instigators of said riots, I don’t remember it and nothing ever came of it if there was such an effort.

Also, I don’t recall any of the 2021 “ringleaders” actually saying things like Black Lives Matter’s co-founder Patrisse Cullors, who said in 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists”.

So which group is more likely to want to violently overthrow our republican form of government:  the “Proud Boys” / Trumpist conservatives or BLM / Antifa?

Anyone who suggests the conservatives, I would suggest, is the enemy of the United States and should be the ones targeted by the National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin of January 27, 2021 — because if ever there is a “false narrative”, it’s the one contained in the bulletin’s summary at the top of this post.

It’s an age-old tactic of the Left:  accuse your opponents of doing what you’re doing, or plan to do.