McCarthy 1 DNC/Liberall Media 0

At least McCarthy found some collusion between commies and celebrities and others.

The media has yet to find squat between Putin/Russia and Trump/America.

Zilch.

Zero.

You probably have more on Hillary and Podesta and than on Trump.

Pay close attention. Progressives are now in seditious territory with their faux-righteous outrage. When you have fricken Lew Rockwell defending Trump (and soon conservatives I reckon), you know you're jumping multiple sharks.

This oft-baseless narrative the media and the left are punish is going to spin out of control.

They Have The Blood Of Children On Their Hands

It's come out the suspects (or at least one of them) who carried out the gross, murderous, cowardly act at an Ariane Grande concert in Manchester were known to police having been reported by people who attended the same Mosque. They had told police the person (s) had become radicalized.

Yet, the police did nothing.

They sat on their stupid, politically correct asses choosing instead to play politics and political correctness by going after people on Twitter for hate speech.

This is what's become of Great Britain; the West. Where we go after our own before the perpetuators.

Now. This is not to say the blame falls squarely on the those who committed the crimes. They possessed their own moral agency and chose to do it. I'm just pouting out the failure of law enforcement to protect citizens possibly made harder by the absurdity of political correctness.

It's worth noting Muslims are not victims and do not face anywhere near the levels of hare the Jews do. And Christians around the world. 

Why have we given them victim status? Why are we turning a blind eye to their activities?

They have children's blood on their hands. 

British law enforcement and politicians do thanks to the cesspool of political correctness they've hideously engineered.

Rotherham or Manchester.

There's something wrong. 

About That Reporter Who Was Body Slammed

Ben Jacobs‏Verified account @Bencjacobs

Left, right and center, straight news and opinion, journalists at CPAC have one thing in common, the overwhelming urge to punch Benji Backer

Now you know what it feels like to be punched, right Ben?

Violence is unacceptable. Until the left call for it.
File under: Progressives admire and tolerate violence reason #405050506.

Of course, this won't stop the left from running with the 'See, I told you so! Trump has made the world angry and violent!'

As far as we know, there's only a video that may or may not have been edited (Hello NBC and Zimmerman!), of an encounter between a Republican politician (who was way ahead in the election polls) and a reporter for The Guardian who was in a private room to which he was not invited. According to accounts, he was being aggressive and holding his stance which led to a physicals altercation where Gianforte was said to have 'body slammed' Jacobs.

This part makes me suspicious. It doesn't sound in the video like Jacobs was body slammed as he just claims his glasses were broken. Now, I don't know what any of you know of pro-wrestling but if you're body slammed, and I've been body-slammed, you ain't talking about your glasses afterwards. Rather, your asking yourself 'what the fuck as you catch your breath likely under a cloud of confusion'.


And if I were to conclude anything given what we know of how the DNC and left works, this guy is probably just another provocative left-wing journalist doing some dirty work on behalf of his Democrat tribe.

Gianforte won by the way. Thus continuing the Democrats losses in special elections.

The other thing I wonder

Fear And Ignorance 1 History And Reason 0

I read the story of New Orleans removing a Robert E. Lee statue with much dismay.

I can but nod my head at how shallow are supposed advanced intelligence is. How removing a statue makes anyone feel better in any meaningful manner is beyond comprehension for me.

N-O is by no means unique when it comes to this sort of symbolic flatulence. Quebec quietly has, where possibly, moved to remove the English fact in the province. Where they can erase by removing or replacing, they will do it.

It's upsetting but it's how it goes with insecure nationalist forces.

In the United States, it's an obscure obsession with erasing the slavery fact and the current discourse on race - which is going nowhere. It's not a national conversation on the way; it's one side simply telling the other to shut their white privileged asses up, listen and do what they're told because slavery. Even though the vast majority of these people have never experienced and aren't connected to anyone who went through the institution. It's a little like if the Irish demand reparations for indentured servants.

Never mind that when we consult the history and facts of human slavery throughout the centuries, America's slavery periods was among the least violent despite its evilness. It's worth noting it was the 'white' American society that abolished it while slavery today continues unabated in other parts of the world.

It was a moment in history and continuing to rehash rather than letting lie in the back pages of history is not healthy. The black community is not going to progress if it focuses too much on something that's long since past and demanding whites be fed a lard of guilt is most certainly going to backfire.

People, as a whole, mean well. Push even the non-racist people and they will push back. It's a matter for principle and respect at some point. Keep broadly painting everyone as racist - even to the point of claiming we're unaware of our racism - and there will be unintended consequences and a backlash; probably it's already underway.

Removed from the meek symbolic gesture of removing a statue it actually teaches people not to explore the full story of an event and the figures behind it.

You can remove the statue, but you can't run from the heritage. Nor is it a sign of moral advancement to continue to pummel the losing side.

This is the crux of the problem as I see it. When people read history, they tend to impose their modern sensibilities on the era they're reading. Of course, the past will always look 'barbaric' to us. In fact, we commit the same moral and intellectual posture as people who asserted in the past their own era was superior to the previous; which usually was indeed the case. It's only normal. We tend to be an advancing species as technology, health and wealth improves.

Back to Lee.

"The city of New Orleans on Friday dismantled its statue of Robert E. Lee, the last of four Confederate monuments to come down. The removals have divided the community along familiar lines. One camp denounces the monuments as tributes to white supremacists. The other argues the memorials honor men who protected their states from an intrusive federal government. Is it possible that both sides have a point?"

It's rather tragic really. Robert E. Lee was an interesting figure from a momentous moment in American history. In knocking him down, we forget the work he did forever condemned for his position during the war. Obama was against gay marriage and was said to evolve into accepting it and everyone applauded his change of heart (whether it was sincere is another matter).

Yet, we seem to choose who we extend this applaud to.

For example, Lee following the war he spent much of his post-war life working towards reconciliation between the North and South, and between whites and blacks.

Nathan Bedford Forrest, for his part, eventually repudiated the KKK and also worked for racial reconciliation.

Is this not something they should be commended for?

Contrast this to documented facts of Lincoln who thought blacks were inferior and that they be sent back to Liberia.

Yet, his statue is safe and sound.

This is the problem when you go political. You spin out of control and lose any sense of perspective.

We see this with how The Constitution is treated. It goes something like going from 'You mean they had slaves' to 'Why do we need it?' in under five seconds. The faulty premise leads to an untenable conclusion.

Perhaps Lee should have known better given he was well-read and had to have known of the Abolutionist movement, but this is why we examine history carefully understanding all the factors and conditions of the period free of our judgment.

History is a fragile art form. It's vulnerable to the whims and perceptions of the reader; and quite frankly historians with an ideological bent, as the one in the article, are no better and don't advance the spirit of history. Carefully examine the primary, secondary and tertiary sources (oft subjective and without firm representation other than the authors) can be a challenge but along the way, you see the picture and images develop. And it is here where an astute reader will begin to drop their personal modern thoughts and stop imposing it on the past. If they do this, they just unlocked a better understanding of their past.

If we keep the deception up, we may as well erect statues of athletes and celebrities (and of course, we won't consider their past or backgrounds provided they fit the narratives).

The author in the link above concludes:

"And so we spiral down this Stalinist path of history-flattening and monument-erasure, one side waving a battle flag that Robert E. Lee himself renounced, the other insisting that every man who wore gray was little different than Leonardo DiCaprio’s caricature in “Django Unchained.” Americans long ago abandoned Lincoln’s admonition—malice toward none, charity for all—and in some important ways the U.S. is less united today than in 1866.

In a world of demons and angels, we can’t agree on who’s which. And we don’t have the charity in our hearts to admit most of us are somewhere in between."

Idiocracy indeed.

 

'

Quote Of The Day

"We have to understand that cultural appropriation is institutionalized, it is the very foundation of what Canada is built on," said Jesse Wente, an indigenous critic for CBC News. "And not just cultural appropriation, but appropriation of all things Indigenous: our lives, our lands. This is what this nation was founded on. It was the policy of the government to do this. To ignore, to pretend now, that we somehow have moved on beyond this and that somehow we're all on equal footing and thus we can all share equitably is to fail in your responsibility as a storyteller."

What a load of crap. Tell you what Jesse. Since you feel I *appropriated* your existence, how's about you hand over your cell phone or computer or any other invention by us white appropriators.

After all, can we not argue 'reverse cultural appropriation?'

Not that I want part of that dance. Cultural appropriation is a concept for remedial minds with pointless axes to grind. It's lazy as hell too.

If you think for one second I'm going to be made to feel guilty, you're kinda on the wrong side of the track, pal.

History, in case you haven't noticed, is but one gigantic cultural appropriated process. Never mind you can't *own* culture. If you could, it means you have to own people; the minds, soul and body.

Sounds like, erm, slavery.

Culture isn't a piece of tangible property. Sure there are works of arts the form a nation's patrimony but this is not what we're talking about here. The point is, as a Quebecer, I can't prevent someone from eating poutine. I don't have that kind of power; the nation-state gives itself this sort of power but that's another matter altogether.

Think Madame Butterfly. It's a French novel about a Japanese girl that was made into an Italian libretto. Opera, by extension, is not exclusively performed by Italians but singers often sing in Italian. And in the opera a bunch of Americans wear kimonos.

And yet it's a landmark piece of art loved by millions around the world.

Why do you hate opera Jesse? I think Jesse needs to read 'I, Pencil'.

Or are we to rewrite this like some dopes in the States with Huckleberry Finn because it's offensive and racist.

And while we're at it, Shakespeare set his novels in Italy. This triggers me.

It's all so reminiscent of Tipper Gore with her dumb crusades in the 80s. People always gotta find something to bitch about.

As for storytelling, you get to set the parameters, right Jesse? You get to project your arbitrary and subjective values onto someone else, correct? 'You can't write like that. You gotta do it like this!'

Next thing you know, you have shitty writing thanks to your kind. This is how imagination and great storytelling gets stunted and even recedes. And when you push for Native literature isn't that cultural appropriation too? Native American (not Mesoamerica since this is not the focus of the discussion) history is oral and not a written word civilization. Writing is something that belonged to other civilizations. 

The Jesse's of this world are looking to set a narrative and in the process eliminate those who don't kow-tow to it. The bottom line being offended is something you choose to do or be. 

Don't let Jesse (and his appeal to emotion) have power over you via nonsensical anti-intellectual l gibberish like cultural appropriation.

What a silly, sad state of affairs our intellectual discourse is at the moment. 

History Clip Of The Night

The next Daily Derp is gon'be a doozy.

And I'm mounting a take down of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Be on the look out for it.

In the mean time enjoy this:

Comic Of The Night

 Enjoy

Trump Is Not An 'Existential Threat'

The hysterical and irrational reaction to his every move without scant evidence, however, is more so.

Mother, What Is Irony?

Predictably, the media isn't setting the record straight in keeping citizens informed in the case of James Comey. Rather, it chose to delve into 'why' and 'why now?' and all other irrelevant questions meant to deflect from the facts of his record.

Here's the thing I find most interesting. Both Democrats and Republicans, former Deputy Attorney-Generals and AG's who either would have fired or agreed with the dismissal of Comey.

It sounds like he did serious damage to the FBI and failed to recognize he did such harm to the Bureau's reputation and image. It is more than likely Hillary would have fired him had she won (which I guarantee would have garnered a different spin from the media. Masnbridge on the CBC the other day made the sly connection to Nixon).

When you look at the facts, every serious scholar and observer agrees Comey needed to go.

So what is the issue?

As it always is. My guy or gal did or did not do it.

Molyneux does a great job of juxtaposing before and after the firing comments of top Democrats including Pelosi, Sanders and others. That they even manage to function as a party and to keep straight faces is a marvel only God can answer at this point. They literally went from 'fire Comey' to 'Trump acted brazenly' for firing him. Even though the dismissal was warranted.

That's all it is. The rest is all noise.

And the noise has reached absurd, if not dangerous levels. The left better chill a little because their fake resistance panic is going to go too far. So far Trump has not done a single thing to garner such reactions. The reactionary impulses is due to the perceived dislike of Trump and little to do with reason and policy.

The Yelp Of The Unhinged

Lol.

Had the TV on mute during the hockey game last night and the CBC's Peter Mansbridge came on. Without hearing a single word the images revealed to me how the left was going to handle Trump's firing of Comey - yet another non-event the left are irrationally losing their flimsy, delicate minds over. One second you see Trump and the next you see old black and white footage of Richard Milhouse Nixon.

You see, the con game is to somehow link Trump, Nixon and sleaze. Except, you know, Watergate has absolutely fuck all to do with the firing of a Federal employee.

Hillary's corrupted shenanigans were worse but hey. All of a sudden the media demanded 'proof' without ever going to seek it themselves because, well, they tilt progressive.

Whatever.

What a bunch of clowns.

Stop watching and reading the mainstream media for facts and truth. You watch it to see how they spin and what the other side is thinking.

Rid yourself of the poison.

Quote Of The Day

"Socialism is either the unluckiest political movement in the history of political movements, one that just happens to keep intersecting with the careers of monsters, or there is something about socialism itself that throws up monsters. There is nothing wrong with Venezuelans, and nothing unusual about them: Here at home, our own progressives dream of imprisoning people for holding unpopular political views, nationalizing key industries, and shutting down opposition media. They have black-shirted terrorists attacking people with explosives on college campuses for the crime of holding non-conforming political views. And they aren’t averse to a little old-fashioned Stalinism, either, provided there’s a degree or two of separation: Bernie Sanders, once an elector for the Socialist Workers party, remains the grumpy Muppet pin-up of the American Left."

Kevin D. Williamson, NRO

Obama To Speak At Montreal Board Of Trade; Prepare To Be Wowed; Promises To Fix Potholes

Attention hogger Obama is set to speak to, get this, Montreal's Board of Trade.

Gotta give credit to Captain You Didn't Build That. Despite his railings against capitalism, he sure knows how to capitalize on a good moment. With all the faux-righteous and outrage angst against Trump driving pant shitting babies he knows the time is right to go on his 'I talk shit' tour.

What, Justin wasn't available?

They pretty much hold the same vacuous views on business, economics and finance. 

Asking him to speak on trade is a little like how the Nobel committee bestowed upon him a fricken Peace prize. A prize that presumably sits on a shelf somewhere as he dropped 100 000 bombs on seven countries killing scores of people as well as destabilizing a region through his 'chess playing' antics.

Here are some 'intellectual' gems the BofT will be ridiculously paying for.

My personal favorites from this 'orator':

“So sue me. Uh, I, uh, as long as they're doing nothing, I'm not gonna apologize for trying to do something.”

"His pies, I don't know what he does, whether he puts crack in them.”

“In the VA health care system, once people get in, the quality of care, the satisfaction rates for customers are actually better then in private sector health care.”

“And they might end up having to switch doctors, in part because they're saving money.”

“I guess what I would say is, if you looked at that person's budget, and you looked at their cable bill, their telephone, uh, their cell phone bill, uh other things that they're spending on, it may turn out that it's just they haven't prioritized health care because right now everybody is healthy.”

“I, I like it. I, I don't mind. And I tell you, five years from now, when everybody's saying, 'Man, I'm sure glad we got healthcare,' there are gonna be a whole bunch of people who don't call it Obamacare anymore because they don't want me to get the credit.”

“I wish things were that ruthlessly efficient. It’s true. It’s like Kevin Spacey, man this guy’s getting a lot of stuff done.” (Figures he'd admire Frank Underwood).

“On the website, I was not informed directly that the website would not be working as — the way it was supposed to. Had I been informed, I wouldn’t be going out saying, boy, this is going to be great. Um, you know, uh I’m accused of a lot of things, but uh I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying, this is going to be like uh shopping on Amazon or Travelocity, uh a week before the website opens, if I thought that it wasn’t going to work.” (Take note BoT; industry leaders accept responsibility. They don't pass the buck. Something Obama was a master of)

“I say, imagine in your private life if you decided that I'm not going to pay my mortgage for a month or two. First of all, you're not saving money by not saving your mortgage. You're just a deadbeat. And you can anticipate that will hurt your credit, which means that in addition to debt collectors calling, you're going to have trouble borrowing in the future. And if you are able to borrow in the future, you're going to have to borrow at a higher rate. What's true for individuals is also true for nations, even the most powerful nation on earth.” (Because it's always effective to call your opponents as 'deadbeats'.)

“I think it’s fair to say that — during the course of my presidency — I have bent over backwards to work with the Republican Party. And have purposely kept my rhetoric down.” (lol)

“First of all, I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said uh the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line uh when it indicated that uh in a uh piece of uh legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that uh some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there uh need to be answered for. Uh and so, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming uh consensus of humanity says is wrong, um that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. Uh, there's a reason for it.” (lol)

“I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.” (America is a democratic republic/representative democracy. Mr. Scholar)

“[W]e discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by uh the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.” (lol)

“My great friend, Patrick Kennedy, when he was running for reelection back in 2006, he could have avoided talking about his struggles with bipolar disorder and addiction. Let’s face it, he’s a Kennedy.” (lol)

“Governor Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years.” (lol)

“If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.” (wtf? lol)

“Here's what happened. You, you had a video that was released by uh somebody who lives here, uh sort of a shadowy character who who uh has a extremely offensive video directed at the uh at Mohammed and Islam. Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, uh this caused great offense uh in much of the Muslim world. Uh, but what also happened, extremists and terrorists uh used this as an excuse uh to uh attack uh a variety of our embassies, including the one, uh the consulate in Libya.” (remember that this upstanding man then turned around and arrested the poor sucker and through him in prison for something that had NOTHING to do with the video).

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” (Shhh! lol)

“Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.” (Classic arrogance from a guy who overlooked a foreign policy that looked something Mr. Magoo came up with)

“[I'm] really good at killing people”

“I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president - with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln - just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history.”

“Listen, Abraham Lincoln helped to build the interstate, uh, er, er, the intercontinental railroad in the middle of the Civil War, because he understood this was gonna be important.”

“You know, uh, I I thought that uh, you know, the truth is that a lot of the Cubs I like too, uh, but uh, I did not become a Sox fan until I moved to Chicago. Because, I uh, you know, I was I was growing up uh in Hawaii, and so I actually ended up actually being uh an Oakland A's fan. But when I moved to Chicago, I was living close to what was then Cominsky Park and went to a couple of games and just fell in love and the nice thing about the Sox is it's real blue collar baseball. You know, we always tease about the Cubs, they, you know, they're up at Wrigley, and, sipping wine, and playing those day games, they're having a good time.”

“And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.”

“First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”

“All I'm saying is let's take the example of something like diabetes, one of, uh, a disease that's skyrocketing, partly because of uh obesity, partly because it's not uh treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family...if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they're taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we're also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money.”

“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

“I've been practicing bowling. I uh bowled a 129. I have, this is like Special Olympics or something. The uh. No, no listen, I I uh I'm making progress on on the bowling.”

“Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.”

“Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma. They end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs when, if you, they just gave, you gave, treatment early, and they got some treatment, and uhhh a breathalyzer, or uhh, an inhalator, not a breathalyzer.”

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, and I see many of them in the audience here today.”

“John McCain has repeated this notion that I'm prepared to negotiate with terrorists. I have never said that.” (lol. Bergdahl)

“It is just wonderful to be back in Oregon and over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled uh to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not uh justify it.

“The point I was making was not that my grandmother uh harbors uh any racial animosity, she doesn't. But she is a uh typical white person, who if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know there's a reaction bread into uh our experiences that that don't go away and that sometimes uh come out in the wrong way.”

“But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.” (Read that carefully)

“By the way, Canada did not start off immediately with a single payer system. They had a similar transition step.”

“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy).” (Remember the story about Romney and his dog on the car roof? Yeh well, Obama ate Fido)

And la piece de resistance:

"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.  In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again. There will be growth in the spring. "

He musta been a sparkling joy in university class. One of those guys who raised his hand and loved to hear himself speak as others rolled their eyes. Hey, dude got elected twice so...whatever.

Enjoy him BofT. It's your money.

Soros: The Anti-Humanist

How evil is George Soros?

Have a look.

This is no humanist. He's a powerful sower of discord (and there will be a special place for him in Dante's Inferno) and then steps in to be a white angel. In reality, this person is a black angel with a black soul. He profits off the misery (by his hand) of people and nations.

And he represents the progressive movement.

"The recipe is simple. Find a worthwhile business goal. Send forth your civilians (NGOs), destabilize the area and organize an appropriate media tailwind. Go for chaos, and if you have it, you will be the one to organize the assistance for reconstruction, while cherry-picking the most profitable businesses. Break down the borders, so they do not obstruct your movement. Break down national sovereignty, so the interests of the locals and residents will not slow you down. Buy all the experts, with money, scholarships, awards, fame, recognition, hype — whatever the price of someone is. Call them experts; independent; democrat and progressive. Prevent anybody from uncovering their backing, hide their professional incompetence, just as we have seen it in the scandal about the second time they faked global warming data, as it was an obvious organized forgery. So buy the local media: TV, radio, daily and weekly newspapers and the Internet portals, rename them as independent too, and pay them to work towards some goals identified by you. Make them ballyhooed and reward them well. The media stuffed with money by Soros can be recognized from the way they follow the old Leninist tactic: they always use personal attacks. They never present the case, or the allegations; they never argue about the issues; they do not fatigue themselves or the audience with the refutation of ideas. They intimidate people, and if that’s not enough, destroy them; therefore their journalists and activists are specialists in character assassination."

Colbert-Hillary Law Of Faux Righteousness And Derp

One way to determine the true natural state of a position or belief system is to observe how it reacts to events it disagrees with. I will attempt to argue here blame and justified violence is the end game for the progressive left. It's not by design (at least I hope it isn't; although progressive policies often are) but a result of their poorly thought out musings. They don't necessarily realize where their reactions can all end up.

For example, for this let's consider Hillary Clinton and Stephen Colbert. Those purveyors of progressive thought; the torch bearers for all that is decent and just. I think I will ordain this the Colbert-Hilary dictum - which, as you will see, includes Antfa and climate change supporters.

In the aftermath of the election ushering in Donald Trump, the reaction didn't lead to an introspection of where and why things went wrong. Rather, it was a straight, full blown attack principally focused on the people (deplorables), the system (electoral college), outside influences (Russia), and inside influences (Comey).

Clinton and her supporters, as well as Obama who after the election ensured the smooth transition was anything but, didn't once help to calm people's fears and concerns. They cynically permitted emotion and passion to drive the narrative to help deflect from the facts as to why she lost. If there wasn't already plenty in Hillary's resume that suggested she was a leader, this said much of her character.

True leaders as we've come to understand it, don't let the people get riled up like this. Obama knowingly played this up during race riots and Hillary did it after the election.

One can argue that emotions were hight and she was just expressing herself. Perhaps, but four months after the election they still cling on to it. If anything, they've double-down on the 'blame' strategy.

I don't know if this is by design or just the prevailing attitude and belief system that resides within the progressive Democrat ranks.

The more we find out why she lost, the more they double-down.

In the case of Colbert, he has yet to issue an apology. This doesn't surprise me because I've observed a certain indignant sense of faux-righteousness among progressives since Trump. As one person I know said, 'I am smarter than Trump supporters'.

When I took issue with his hysterical reaction laced with racism and emotional drivel, I called him out and asked him to settled down and apply the logic he holds dear - so he claimed.

I haven't heard from him since.

Never challenge a progressive. They will choose the narrative over you.

To me, even if Colbert apologizes it likely won't be contrite. From what we've come to see - as per their own actions and words - what's more probable is he truly believes what he said.

In their minds, Trump is so foul calling him names is a legitimate tactic; a tool of intellect.

Consider Antifa. Whoever these people are, they've created a pool of justifications in defense of their actions. Since Trump is so clearly a Nazi-Fascist, his supporters deserve to be 'punched in the face' and to have their property damaged or destroyed. And if they defend themselves, use that as proof of their 'racism' and 'violence'. Provoke and shame is their tactic.

I trust most level headed individuals see right through this.

But if you're the type that's employing a variation of 'I can see why' this is no different than thinking 'I believe in free speech but...'

The bottom line is we are all taught violence is not acceptable under any any circumstance. This development is especially absurd given they're doing so against a democratically elected official.

When you push progressives into a corner, the mask slips off.

They advocate for violence and hate in the name of the narrative posing as an intellectual position.

If you think this is not manifesting itself outside the movement, you may be in for a surprise. Just visit progressive threads and listen to celebrities (who always took the side of the left-wing from fascists to communists). Did you not notice the speech given recently by a cast member of 'Stranger Things'? Or if you think 'cooler heads' will prevail just pay close attention to Elizabeth Warren's 'fight'  analogies.

Or how they remove piece of history as is the case now with Confederate artifacts. This is not progress; this causes ill-will and friction. It's unenlightened 'fuck you that's why'. Nothing else.

Or, more recently, how suddenly it's okay to mock a woman as they've done after Le Pen shed tears after her defeats. Nope. No misogyny here! We were literally told that under no circumstances were there any literal reason to not vote for Hillary. But Marie Le Pen is different'. It's always different for an ideology with no principles.

Yes. There's friction. There was under Obama and there is under Trump.

But if you care to notice, progressive Democrats thrive under such conditions.

It's their aphrodisiac; their heroin.

Blame and violence. A toxic mix the progressive left have become a tad too skillful at.

A Question And A Quip

What's more real the alimony gap or the wage gap?

Feminism ends when the alimony dispute begins and then it resumes when settled.

The Fake Resistance And The Vile Acts That Follow; Obama Thinks We Care What He Thinks

Hillary says she will 'join the resistance'.

Isn't that special.

A moral and intellectually bankrupted, corrupted, inept, self-entitled careerist is out to act as if she's part of a resistance.

A resistance to what exactly? A democratically elected government?

There is no resistance. There is no violence. Rights won't be taken away. The country will move on.

She never ceases to amaze me.

Another individual who can't seem to get out of the way and shut up is the marvellously mediocre Barack Obama who recently said, 'I support Macron to lead you forward.'

Awesome.

Let's hope the result is like when he supported the 'No' side in Britain when he threatened them with a 'back of the queue' quip.

Of Kimmel And Colbert

Very simple.

One, Kimmel, is an appeal to emotion and the other, Colbert, an ad hominen.

With the former, it's a little dicey but it's still designed to work your emotions. Just stick a sick child in your argument and dare someone to challenge it lest they look like a monster. Focusing on one anecdotal emotional example doesn't detract from the overall concerns against the law.

Stated another way, he used his child as a pawn in politics to defend a policy in public. As such, he is not above any criticism that comes his way. You don't get to use such a tactic and not be questioned.

Appeals to emotions are tricky -with all due respect to Hume who believe emotions were at the centre of our moral agency - and can be useful in politics. Notice when Obama tried to push gun control in the aftermath of Sandy Hook making a passionate plea surrounded by children. We're usually told it's not wise to make decisions in the heat of the moment, yet we seem prepared to accept this with policy; particularly those that impact liberty. In the case of Obamacare, it also demands one takes the labor of another.

Tricky because it can lead to rhetorical constructs to build an argument. One filled with projection based on a personal experience. This is not the foundation, I think, of how public policy should be written. For every personal anecdote there's real people affected by this law - so filled with exemptions and confusion. It's also unhelpful to the extent it blocks a discussion of why costs have spiralled upwards: government intervention.

Says Kimmel:

“Let’s stop this nonsense,” he said. “This isn’t football; there are no teams. We are the team — it’s the United States. Don’t let their partisan squabbles divide us on something every decent person wants.”

As in, listen to our side only because we're decent and no decent person could ever want to repeal this law. Don't be political even though that's exactly what I'm doing here. Never mind he just asked someone else to foot his bill; one in which he could, presumably, afford.

The latter is an example of a position that lost its ability to present a reason argument. With Colbert, he comes from the faulty premise of *believing* his world view is the correct one thus permitting him to enter the world of ad hominen. Leave aside for a second the sobering fact had a celebrity talk show host had done the same to Obama...I'll let you ponder the rest. Colbert needs to apologize quick and without reservation. In other words, he was being an asshole.

I don't know how anyone who claims to possess critical thinking skills can tolerate and digest all this noise in the celebrity (and corporate ranks i.e. Marvel Comics and ESPN) ranks.

It's mere partisan smugness of shallow proportions.