ISIS Rules: It's What You Think

ISIS's 'do and don't' list.

It's, erm, interesting. Of course, it reveals the utter disconnect leftists and progressives have regarding ISIS.

They'd rather engage in shallow interpretations of history (Crooooosades!) and moral and intellectual relativism much like the outgoing President in The White House.

"...After Islamic State conquered villages in northern Iraq, it spelled out in minute detail the rules of its self-proclaimed caliphate, from beard length to alms to guidelines for taking women as sex slaves.

Islamic State documents and posters, obtained in villages captured by Iraqi forces, highlight a tight and comprehensive system of rule by the militants, who went to great lengths to explain their extremist philosophy."

"...A pink and red pamphlet includes 32 questions and answers on how to deal with female captives.

A senior Islamic State cleric has the authority to distribute female captives among its fighters, it said.

"Non-Muslim women can be taken as concubines," according to the leaflet.

Militants can own two sisters as concubines but only have sex with one.

"Pre-pubescent girls can be taken as concubines. You cannot have penetrative sex but you can still enjoy them," the leaflet added."

Definitely not fit for Chrystia Freeland's default generic progressive stance. By me bringing this up, apparently makes me hostile to multiculturalism and Muslims as a whole. You can't separate the two. No siree.

I bet you, though, she thinks it's possible to criticize Israel and not be anti-Semitic. 

Nor do feminists actually care about those women. Much easier to act like a bunch of crazed loons bitching about all the men under their beds ready to rape them. See Jezebel for this sort of nutty thinking. I mean, to actually defend the cause with any meaningful intellectualism is hard, man! I'm just a girl teehee!

Sigh. Idiots are gonna idiot though. Like the idiot academic who claimed Mohammed was a feminist. No names here. I don't want to give them notoriety. Just watch it here (about half-way through if you so desire to see a rebuttal).

Phrases I Hate: Mixed Economy; Electric Cars Not Clean; 'I Fucking Love Science' Phoniness

When they began teaching economics in junior high and high school we taught Canada possesses a 'mixed economy'. It was presented as a matter of fact that this was healthy and proof that compromise and cooperation works....for the 'common good' or 'greater good' - jots down notes on other Phrases I hate. 

First, a definition.

"A mixed economic system is an economic system that features characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system protects private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to interfere in economic activities in order to achieve social aims."

"...Mixed economic systems are not laissez-faire systems, because the government is involved in planning the use of some resources and can exert control over businesses in the private sector. Governments may seek to redistribute wealth by taxing the private sector, and using funds from taxes to promote social objectives. Trade protection, subsidies, targeted tax credits, fiscal stimulus and public-private partnerships are common examples of government intervention in mixed economies. These usually do not generate massive economic distortions, but instead are instruments to achieve specific goals...."

And this is where the 'mix' actually becomes over-regulated. We don't see it but what is the cost of regulation? 

Staggeringly significant actually. According to some studies, American's are 75% poorer because of it. Its $17 trillion economy could be estimated at $54 trillion.

Now if you're predisposed to believe or think markets are inherently greedy and inefficient then you may accept government interventionism. If you think the natural state of economic interaction is voluntary, then free markets are the only way to go - warts and all. I subscribe to the latter.

Regardless, the challenge is to get people to start considering the 'unseen' of all government intervention. 

The bold part is another way of saying 'vulnerable to cronyism' (by the way, lobbying is not cronyism. 

***

Of course, we also vastly over estimate and over value politicians who contribute their fair share to holding back progress.

Consider one Anne Castro Chair of the Broward County Planning Council who said, "Until you make it so painful that people want to come out of their cars, they're not going to come out of their cars...We're going to make them suffer first, and then we're going to figure out ways to move them after that because they're going to scream at us to help them move."

This is the sort of short-sighted, arrogant, middling minds that run things across the continent.

It's quite a stunning statement when you think of the contempt she holds for people who don't live their lives according to the needs of public transit. 

But what does she care, right? You actually think this air headed parasite is going to use public transit? 

***

Which brings me to a quick point about the environment where public transportation is concerned. Dunno 'bout you Willis, but despite all the doom and gloom and hysterics by environmentalist two trends contradict their claims where cars are concerned.

For example, EV cars are highly inefficient (we do not have economies of scale) and bad for the environment (the battery creation and disposing of question alone is a massive issue not yet fully understood not too mention contributing to air pollution ) whereas gas powered cars have never been cleaner - and technology continues to make it better just as is the case with fossil fuels.

Truth is, EV cars, though growing, just isn't at a point of maturation for mass consumption. It's possible it can one day but who knows what will happen by the time it does? For all we know, we may find or develop better alternatives.

EV's in cars is one thing. But North America is a vast continent where transportation is critical to our integrated economies. We need this to continue safely and without interruption. An EV version of a Chevy Silverado, Dodge Ram, Ford F-150, or Toyota Tacoma is long off. Never mind about vans and trailers. 

Same can be said of climate global apocalypse. My guess is a shift in Mother Nature's attitude and improving technology will once again have the last say over the 'settled science' cult.

***

Speaking of which, I was pointed to 'I fucking love science' FB page the other.

Basically it's a page for non-science people who love science things who seem to have a penchant to share pictures and act like their blinded by science.

In other words, it's fucking lame and has little to do with actual science and its methods.

My suspicion is it was started by 'look at all those crazy climate deniers we should start something to show we fucking love science!'. Wouldn't surprise me if they believe stupid statements like the 'science is settled!"

But what do you expect in a time where it's accepted non-scientists like Bill Nye and astro-physicists but poor philosophical intellectuals like De Grasse-Tyson re revered for making it 'easy'.

Who died and let these two in charge of science? At this point, if you're citing them, I'm guessing you're not that into science. At all.

What's next? 'I fucking love history?' 'I fucking love chemistry?' 'I fucking love home ec?'

What really really fucken bothers me about all this shit is whenever you talk to one of these glaze for brains dipshits, they project their nonsense and ignorance on to you. They presume because this is the extent of which they want to engage in science they can't fathom people go a step further and actually understand things on a deeper level.

Worse, they're more political than they are scientific. Attacking people you disagree with by posting some bull shit, vapid De Grasse quote is not fucking science you assholes. It's just a bunch of hipster douches pretending to be cool by latching on to 'science' things.

Along the lines of: OMG! AND LOL! Trump supporters are sooo stooopid check this pic about creationism here! LOL, LOL!

Idiots.

Which is where we're at with the pants hitting climate retards crowd versus the skeptics.

They lost me at 'we must imprison skeptics'. For that, may they drown in a tsunami of their own smug  totalitarianism; with a cherry on top.

SPVM Spy On Montreal Journalist

This story of Montreal police spying on La Presse journalist Patrick Lagace is not good and quite disturbing.

There should be professional and public outrage.

Hillary Is Worse Than Trump: And It's Not Even A Debate

At this point, I can't understand how anyone could support Hillary let alone vote for her.

As if we haven't heard enough about how amoral and thoroughly without scruples or principles this incompetent fiend is:

"It seems that Hillary Clinton and lying have been intimately acquainted with each other for decades, long before her role in the recent Benghazi cover up.
Perhaps all of this practice accounts for how good she’s become at it, and why violating the Constitution doesn’t appear to bother her conscience.
In her younger days, Clinton served as an attorney during the Watergate investigation, but was apparently fired for her bad behavior.

Jerry Zeifman, described as a lifelong Democrat, served as Clinton’s supervisor and gave her the boot immediately after the investigation concluded. He was so dissatisfied with Hillary’s performance that he also refused to give her a good recommendation.

When pressed for reasons as to why he fired her, Zeifman said it was because she was a liar, completely unethical, dishonest, and conspired to violate the Constitution."

It's enough. Send her away already. She's trouble.

Such a disingenuous sociopath is dangerous. The question shouldn't be whether Trump will start a war.


The question should be pointed directly at her.

What If Trump Wins?; FBI Reopens Hillary Email Investigation - MSM Silent

Just thought about something.

*If* Trump wins, will the left escalate their crimes from petty vandalism?

Right now, wikileaks and Project Veritas have revealed the shenanigans from Democrat insiders.

And Hillary supporters aren't even hiding their criminal behavior but flaunting it as some sort of self-righteous act with the tacit help of the mainstream press.

As one commenter put it to describe the shallow and infantile mindset of the leftist activist, 'Me right! Me smash!'

It's all in their own words. They commit crimes and engage in corruption right in the open. This is how they view things. This is how much they respect people.

So if Trump running elicits so much anger what will they do when he wins?

***

Also. This thing about the nuclear button. Please.

Just stop if you bought into that bit.

***

It probably won't lead anywhere but the timing is interesting. Still...

Explain once again to me how the mainstream press are not in cahoots with the Democrat party again?

The FBI reopened its investigation of Hilary's emails (one would hope they weren't willing to stake their reputations on Hillary of all people) and not one of them reported it. Did they find intent because I think this is what tenuously was protecting her?

WaPo, NYT, NBC - whatever. They shouldn't even be in your browser anymore.

Anyway. This is about to give Krugman a stroke so....there's that.

The Jews Made Them Do It: Palestinians Continue To Be Morally Bankrupted

And thoroughly deserve to have no country.

Over the years I've come to believe a Palestinian nation-state would likely be just another hostile, dysfunctional Arab country contributing nothing to the advancement of humanity. They'd still likely maintain their deranged and destructive stance against Israel. Palestine will never be at peace if they don't change their thinking.

"The Palestinian Authority has dedicated a new school to the mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) reported Tuesday.

A school in the West Bank city of Tulkarem has been named “the Martyr Salah Khalaf School” in memory of the leader of the Black September terrorist group. Khalaf, who was also known as Abu Iyad, planned the attack on the Israeli Olympic compound at the 1972 Munich Olympics, during which 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were tortured and killed. Khalaf also had a role in the 1973 takeover of the American embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, which ended in the murder of two American diplomats and a Belgian envoy."

Disgusting.

These buffoons (and their idiot supporters in the West) claim to want to have peace but don't seem willing to do all the little things that can get them there.

How can they come to any peace negotiation table with a straight face and how can anyone take them seriously?

A troublesome and violent people, rooted in violent rhetoric and education, this is what they do.

Obama Commutes Sentences

Finally, we find something Obama using his pen to good use.

Sure we bash him around here, but when you act as a humanist, you will be given credit.

Although they're not pardons. It will be very hard for these people to find jobs, vote or even own a gun as is their right. So, it's all tepid praise.

"...Obama clearly is trying hard to make up for lost time. In a speech on Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said there will be "many more [commutations] to come." Yesterday White House Counsel Neil Eggleston said Obama is committed to "using his clemency authority through the remainder of his time in office." If he maintains this month's rate in November, December, and January, his total will be around 1,500. If he picks up the pace, he could still reach the "thousands" predicted in 2014.
Even 2,000 commutations would represent just 6.9 percent of the 29,000 or so petitions Obama has received, making him slightly more merciful than Richard Nixon by that measure. That nevertheless would represent a huge improvement from where Obama stood just six months ago."

Artificial Intelligence Likes Trump

AI system has Trump more popular than Obama in 2008.

Look. If he does win it will be more because the American voting public decided Hillary is just plain bad news and carries too much baggage. It will be as much a sober vote as it would be a protest one.

The calculation, I presume, would be simple: We see and know what Hillary (who speaking of artificial thinking, wants to spend - among other dubious things passing off as progressive, $500 million on bullying. May as well waste it on something fun if you're going to waste money) is. She has a track record - 30 years they say; though I believe it's actually, what, 18 as a public servant?

Public servant. Two words that describe exactly what she is. She neither cares for the public and you can bet she doesn't see herself as a servant. A master more but not servant.

Anyway.

We don't know what Trump would be like because all we have are his words.

Trump is an awful option. But it wouldn't be irrational to vote for him all things considered.

Canadian Liberal Governance: Amateur Emotionalism

I was reading about Trudeau's first 100 days report card where he garnered on average a 'B' and a majority of Canadians feel he's doing an 'adequate' job. Whatever that means.

He's adequate.

From where I sit, it's a D. As in dud. Very amateurish and emotional. Never mind he's shown a passive-aggressive stance and dictatorial impulse (see carbon tax threat to the provinces).

Once again, I can't but disagree with my fellow Canadians.

It's a rule rather than an exception these days.

Innovation Survives Obamacare Tax; For Now

Among the many controversial (read bad for progress and innovation) features of Obamacare (the pathway to single payer) was the 2.3% tax on revenues (not profits; revenues) on medical devices.

Thankfully, after push back it's been suspended - hopefully for good.

It would have had a chilling effect on R&D and innovation.

But hey. Who cares right? You get to read Obama and his thoughts on human progress (which by the way, happens ins spite of his progressive outlook. This is more like his legacy) over at Wired magazine - who are all wild eyed giddy over this guy.

How disingenuous is this smart alec narcissist?

"Let's start with the big picture. By almost every measure, this country is better, and the world is better, than it was 50 years ago, 30 years ago, or even eight years ago. Leave aside the sepia tones of the 1950s, a time when women, minorities, and ­people with disabilities were shut out of huge parts of American life."

I'll let you see the neat trick he's trying to pass over you.

Unlike him, I respect my readers and people in general.

Daily Derp: How Does It Feel?

Post-irony



***

Bob Dylan, looks like, has concluded Nobel Prizes are no different than winning a prize at the amusement park.

Plus he has a view on Israel that runs contrary to the left's take. How long before they turn on him?

How does it feel to be on your own?

***

That good old tolerant progressivism.

Being gay Trump supporters is grounds for threats.

Sorts of like stories we read about pseudo-self-righteous, hyper partisan assholes who justify committing acts of vandalizing because Trump is evil. What a sad, sordid state of affairs and points straight into the minds of progressives and their seething intolerance sometimes graduating into acts of violence.

Remember all those alleged acts of violence by Trump supporters? Turns out it was the Democratic campaign as exposed by Wikileaks who orchestrated - which should not surprise people.

These people have no principles and need to seriously grow up.

***

When I found out Chrystia Freeland was a Rhodes Scholar I wondered are they giving those things out like candy?

Looks like they're not big on character either.

I am thoroughly not impressed by what I see from graduates from famous post-secondary education.

Freeland reasons like a 12 year-old.

***

 It's not being a hack journalist when you serve your Hilary master.

***

'We should have nominated Rand Paul'. 

No shit.

***

Investment in infrastructure government style.

We must tear things down twice to progress - and jobs!

Drink!

The Romans are wondering what the fuck is wrong with us.

***

Millennials have an impressive understanding of history. I pulled this gem off the internet.

"I'd argue that more people died under Bush than Stalin. It's all due to the strange double standard we use when defining who a victim of capitalism is, versus a victim of communism.

Today, thousands of people, most of them children, will die of easily prevented diseases the world over. Their governments are powerless to help because they're in debt to the World Bank, the ultimate tool of capitalism's ability to grab a country by the balls. All the 'low cost, high return' infrastructure projects that they persuaded developing countries to invest in turned out to be the opposite of all of that, and soon they're struggling just to make interest payments.

When that happens, the World Bank can force the country to make whatever concessions they like. Mining precious natural resources and selling them for a fraction of their value. International corporations controlling water and gas. Healthy and nutritious traditional crops ploughed over and replaced with quick cash crops like coffee. Healthcare and education go to ruin, and why? Because they're not profitable for the World Bank.

Sure, we can point to 40 million people who Stalin shipped off to the gulags. But it's more difficult to point to 10 milllion needless deaths per year in the developing world and call them victims of capitalism, because: either there's no figurehead to point at, or worse, the figurehead is us.

No word on Obama's (and Hilary's) murders.

Very ignorant minds.

*** 

It makes me Angery!



***

Are you ready for the cultural appropriation threat meter?

Fall of the West reason 3949555677888.

When the stupid outnumber even the mildly intelligent that's a problem.

***

Hillary asserts Russia is not interested in fighting ISIS (not exactly true) but rather, is interested in keeping Assad in power. But Assad is fighting ISIS. She lied. And for what?

How would Politifact rate this disingenuous assertion?

Here's the problem. When Putin can articulate a clearer action plan on Syria than Obama ever did, that's a check mate moment. Now Hillary is talking insane agitating for war against Russia. I know the Russian military is no match for the Americans but come on! Nor do I condone the actions of Russia and the Syrian army in East Aleppo which the U.S. is set to do something similar in Mosul.



Remember when she joked about having killed Khaddafy? A true statesman with respect doesn't do stuff like that. You do the deed and don't brag about it (no matter how bad the idiot was) like a petulant little twirp.

***

Trump would prosecute Hillary!

OMG!

Remember when Democrats did it?

***

Top Ten battles in world history.

Millennials, listen up. Learn something.

***

Science must fall.

Because science and economics are 'white'. You didn't know that?

Come on! STOP BEING SO RACIST!

Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very stupid, ignorant and dangerous stupid girl.

***

No, no. Nothing to worry about, right Merkel?

***

No, Diana Carew - you don't know how economics works thank you very much.

And notice the usual progressive smile-smirk whenever someone dares challenges their untenable positions.

People don't owe people a post-secondary education. It's illogical to think the economy can keep up with the sense of entitlement. In any event, the economy could be more dynamic if not, you know, for all the excessive regulations that slow down the pace of creativity. Regulations I'm sure her ilk would support.

Quote Of The Day

"The Seider/Richardson events could not have given Samuel Adams a better tool for kicking the revolutionary propaganda campaign into a higher gear. It was a cold dreary winter day when Christopher Seider was murdered. Christopher Seider along with a dozen other school boys were among an angry mob in front of a building throwing rocks at the shop of a Loyalist merchant. Ebenezer Richardson, a rather unsavory Loyalist who had worked as a confidential informant to the Attorney General and Customs and friend of Lilly came along, and tried to defend the merchant but was hit in the head with a rock. Ebenezer went back to his house for his musket. From there he climbed up a two story building and aiming his musket into the mob began to fire at random. In doing that Ebenezer shot Christopher Seider. Christopher Seider died with two bullets inserted in him, one right above the heart and the other in the eye at approximately 9pm that evening. After Christopher was shot the angry mob dragged Ebenezer to jail. Christopher Seider's body was taken to Faneuil Hall."

"....Sam Adams called Christopher "the first martyr to American liberty". As for Ebenezer Richardson the judge found him “not guilty”, but was later tortured by local Patriots....Christopher Seider's death united the citizens of Boston against the British."

--Boston Massacre Historical Society

Dilbert's Scott Adams Fights The Bully Party

Long excerpt:

'I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.

If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.

If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car. If you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.

On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.

We know from Project Veritas that Clinton supporters tried to incite violence at Trump rallies. The media downplays it.

We also know Clinton’s side hired paid trolls to bully online. You don’t hear much about that.
Yesterday, by no coincidence, Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published similar-sounding hit pieces on me, presumably to lower my influence. (That reason, plus jealousy, are the only reasons writers write about other writers.)

Joe Biden said he wanted to take Trump behind the bleachers and beat him up. No one on Clinton’s side disavowed that call to violence because, I assume, they consider it justified hyperbole. 
Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?

Some Trump supporters online have suggested that people who intend to vote for Trump should wear their Trump hats on election day. That is a dangerous idea, and I strongly discourage it. There would be riots in the streets because we already know the bullies would attack. But on election day, inviting those attacks is an extra-dangerous idea. Violence is bad on any day, but on election day, Republicans are far more likely to unholster in an effort to protect their voting rights. Things will get wet fast.

Yes, yes, I realize Trump supporters say bad things about Clinton supporters too. I don’t defend the bad apples on either side. I’ll just point out that Trump’s message is about uniting all Americans under one flag. The Clinton message is that some Americans are good people and the other 40% are some form of deplorables, deserving of shame, vandalism, punishing taxation, and violence. She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do.

I’ll say that again. 

As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.

Intentionally...."

Perfect.

And pretty much what I've been observimg.

Hillary and the Democrats are bullies. Maybe she should spend the $500 million on bullying on herself and her party.

Rethinking The Non-Aggression Principle

By Julian Sanchez.

As one person I know - an Objectivist - libertarianism isn't a philosophy but a loose code of principles.

Personally, to understand libertarianism, it takes intelligence. The one thing I like about them is they're viciously consistent and have a keen understanding of 'the unseen' unintended consequences of government interventionism. If anything, they're a talented group of skeptical minds who know how to spot bull shit from a mile away.

It's, I think, also about making aware of trade-offs with our laws. If you accept a law, then you have to accept the government will forcefully enforce it and this means death to innocence sometimes. They argue too many laws are bad for society and many of our vices (ie drug use) is best left to free people acting as their own free and moral agents. Once the government gets involved, well, you get the war on drugs. They understand better than any group Tacitus's dictum of 'the more numerous the laws, the more corrupted the society.'

Or, as PJ O'Rourke put it 'would you kill your mother to pave I-95?'

As for a philosophical outlook, it complements well with classical liberalism; the Latin language of philosophy.

Liberalism may be dead and taken over by the dark, short-sighted, mean-spirited and stupid mind of a progressive, but classical liberalism has but a faint pulse among contemporary minds.

It's a shame because what took over is a disgrace and dishonors the liberal tradition that forms the base of Western civilization and excellence.

Hillary Is Corrupt Reason 49595669777998

Amusing how the story about Wikileaks exposing Hillary's emails is less about her and more about Julian Assange.

It goes something like 'why is he doing it?' and 'what's his angle?' and 'why isn't he doing the same to the GOP?'

The last one is especially intriguing given there is no GOP candidate who had an unsecured private server. There's nothing to go after but apparently Assange is *supposed* to just do it. It's all character assassination and shooting the messenger with little actual examination of, you know, the content of the emails by the person committing the crime.

Whatever.

Make what you will of it.

All I know is you will vote for an obviously contemptible and corrupted individual who thinks little of people and rules and laws. And you will not get to call others for their corruption for you've - by your vote - tacitly approved of such behavior.

Here are some leaks.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.


The last link had this:

“Do we actually know who told Hillary she could use a private email? And has that person been drawn and quartered?” Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden, a longtime Clinton ally who has a close relationship with Podesta, declared in a July email, saying the "whole thing is f---ing insane.”Podesta and the Clinton campaign have not authenticated the emails' veracity. National security experts have said the emails, like internal emails at the Democratic National Committee, were all but certainly stolen by Russian-aligned hackers and given to WikiLeaks in order to try to influence the election and hurt Clinton."

There they go again. It's always someone's fault. Russia, Assange.

How about next time you fucking follow the law and don't try to be an arrogant, disingenuous asshole?

That way, the charge the Russians are behind it may be more credible.

Oh. And

Here. 

"Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.

The emails, published by WikiLeaks after a hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s private account, also show Clinton campaign officials and Democratic leaders disparaging supporters of Sen. Bernard Sanders as “self-righteous” whiners, calling Hispanic party leaders such as Bill Richardson “needy Latinos,” labeling CNN anchor Jake Tapper “a d—k” and even lambasting longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal.

The sheer number of insults in the email trove has left the Clinton campaign, along with outside organizations such as the Center for American Progress that were routinely involved in the brutal bad-mouthing, unable or unwilling to respond. Instead, they have blamed the hack on Russia and have refused to even confirm that the emails are genuine, though they also haven’t denied their authenticity.

The Clinton campaign’s biggest problem may be its assault on Catholics. Prominent Catholic organizations called on Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri to resign after the surfacing of messages showing her making fun of the faith. The campaign of Republican nominee Donald Trump seized on the opportunity to appeal to religious voters."

Democrats are so enlightened and rational it literally is leaving me in tears!

But keep telling yourself Trump is more vile and she's cut out or qualified to lead.

Ga'head.

Climate Change Cultists Are Nasty Anti-Humanist

Climate change cultists are nasty people.

Neither rational nor humanist.

It's amazing how many articles I read where people daring to challenge climate change orthodoxy (in all its magnificent manipulations and bull shit) are often told to die. The less violent will simply charge you're in the back pocket of big business or some other gibberish.

And the worst offenders aren't on blogs.

Nope.

They lurk in the comments section of mainstream places like The Washington Post and New York Times.

Don't you dare ever challenge them.

Sorta like Tesla cultists.

It's impossible to reason with them.

Mostly because, as noted, we're in a Dark Age.

See, a Dark Age isn't a period where everything turns literally black. It manifests itself in, well, stuff like discussions where one side merely looks to silence another; to censor and even imprison.

Interesting because they're always telling us how humanist they are. Which they aren't. They're just little fascists pretending 'science is settled'.

That's their shtick. Believe in something, call it settled and squash all opposition. Never does it enter their pompous minds they could be wrong. Never does it occur to this arrogant little anti-humanist Luddites their whole prevailing models and calculations could be off. Nor can they accept that when manipulation and falsification takes place and endless streams of failed apocalyptic predictions (you know, like when Al Gore said England would drown by 2000 or thereabouts), it's only normal skeptics will point to credibility.

As we ought to.

But you can't do this with such aggressive, unthinking minds.

Folly of man indeed.

This whole thing, in the latest saga of Witches versus the people, about Democrat AG's going after Exxon is nothing but that - a witch hunt; an exercise in pant shitting stupidity; a shakedown.

It's not unreasonable to figure like how government shakes down Big Tabacky they have a live one with with oil companies.

In a nutshell, they're chasing ghosts in hope of an 'a-ha' moment. Only, they're less on a path to finding criminals and crooks and more on eventually imprisoning scientists who don't share the prevailing climate change view.

Crazy? Tell that to the scientists in Italy who are doing time for failing to predict earthquakes.

THAT'S what you idiots who blindingly support this crap are setting yourselves up for.

There's more than enough valid literature questioning whether man is solely at fault and it's enough to make pause the path we're on - which isn't a good one. It's not a stretch to be at a point where we do imprison people only to find out - oh, oh - maybe man wasn't at fault after all!

Anyway. I got this from Reason's comments:

"There are three different allegations to date that I know of:
 
Allegation 1: Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was dangerous and tried to cover it up from their shareholders. Reality according to the documents - Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and were concerned it might be dangerous. They funded development of some early primitive GCM's that showed it might be a problem, it might not. There is no evidence they tried to manipulate the GCM's to make CO2 benign and plenty of evidence that they did not. As the IPCC became ever more politicized they withdrew gradually from funding research. Their warnings to shareholders were based on IPCC summaries.
So that allegation collapsed
 
Allegation 2: Exxon knew recently that they would probably be unable to pump all the oil reserved they had, due to the Paris Accord. Thus valuing these stranded assets above 0 was misleading to shareholders about the value of the company.
 
Exxon's response: We can't predict what politicians will do, but governments closing off oil fields has been happening ever since the oil industry started, and we warn investors that we operate at a risk of governments shutting down components of our business.
That allegation has collapsed


• Allegation 3: The recent collapse of oil prices has had companies writing down the value of their oil reserves. Exxon has not joined the pack. Ergo Exxon is misleading investors into thinking they are worth more than they actually are.
   
  Exxon's response: We conservatively value our oil reserves ($65 per barrell IIRC). These valuations are consistent with the expected price of oil a few years out (true last I checked). Ergo we didn't write them down because we didn't write them up when oil prices were high.
  I expect that Schneiderman is desperately searching for something, anything(!) to pin on Exxon in an effort to claim they misled shareholders.
   
  Because his original plan - to unearth documents that Al Gore's crowd could use to leverage a version of the Tobacco settlement that would provide Al Gore's empire of anti-fossil fuel activist orgs a steady source of income is in tatters. At this point he is tryign to save himself, because he's pretty much in Nifong territory and he knows it."

The way I see it, if you're not asking enough questions and just accepting, then you're not doing your job. 

Now if you don't mind, I have to go cash my Exxon check before I do left-wing nut cases a favor and die.

***

Long story short.

Climate change cultists present 'global warming because man. Act now or die. Because consensus.'

Sound minds say, 'Oh. Okay. Let me look into this because sounds important.'

Sound increasingly informed mind starts to see troubling and contradictory information begins to ask questions about methodology, interpretation of data etc.

Climate change cultists have a chance to respond in healthy exchange of ideas since they presented the argument. They do for a while.

Sound mind gives way to skeptical query as responses not standing up to scrutiny.

Climate change go on attack demanding censorship and imprisonment because how dare they be challenged.

And this is where we fucking are. A politicized mess where too much money and reputations are staked in climate change.

It's not about earth and it's not about you. Al Gore couldn't care less about either. Understand?

Ask and be skeptical. 

CUI BONO?

Climate Change Cultists Are Nasty Anti-Humanist

Climate change cultists are nasty people.

Neither rational nor humanist.

It's amazing how many articles I read where people daring to challenge climate change orthodoxy (in all its magnificent manipulations and bull shit) are often told to die. The less violent will simply charge you're in the back pocket of big business or some other gibberish.

And the worst offenders aren't on blogs.

Nope.

They lurk in the comments section of mainstream places like The Washington Post and New York Times.

Don't you dare ever challenge them.

Sorta like Tesla cultists.

It's impossible to reason with them.

Mostly because, as noted, we're in a Dark Age.

See, a Dark Age isn't a period where everything turns literally black. It manifests itself in, well, stuff like discussions where one side merely looks to silence another; to censor and even imprison.

Interesting because they're always telling us how humanist they are. Which they aren't. They're just little fascists pretending 'science is settled'.

That's their shtick. Believe in something, call it settled and squash all opposition. Never does it enter their fucking, middling, pompous minds they could be wrong. Never does it occur to this arrogant little anti-humanist Luddites their whole prevailing models and calculations could be off. Nor can they accept that when manipulation and falsification takes place and endless streams of failed apocalyptic predictions (you know, like when Al Gore said England would drown by 2000 or thereabouts), it's only normal skeptics will point to credibility.

As we ought to.

But you can't do this with such aggressive, unthinking minds.

Folly of man indeed.

This whole thing, in the latest saga of Witches versus the people, about Democrat AG's going after Exxon is nothing but that - a witch hunt; an exercise in pant shitting stupidity; a shakedown.

It's not unreasonable to figure like how government shakes down Big Tabacky they have a live one with with oil companies. Why does it smell like Al Gore is sniffing around this?

In a nutshell, they're chasing ghosts in hope of an 'a-ha' moment. Only, they're less on a path to finding criminals and crooks and more on eventually imprisoning scientists who don't share the prevailing climate change view.

Crazy? Tell that to the scientists in Italy who are doing time for failing to predict earthquakes.

THAT'S what you idiots who blindingly support this crap are setting yourselves up for.

Anyway. I got this from Reason's comments:

"There are three different allegations to date that I know of:
Allegation 1: Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was dangerous and tried to cover it up from their shareholders. Reality according to the documents - Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and were concerned it might be dangerous. They funded development of some early primitive GCM's that showed it might be a problem, it might not. There is no evidence they tried to manipulate the GCM's to make CO2 benign and plenty of evidence that they did not. As the IPCC became ever more politicized they withdrew gradually from funding research. Their warnings to shareholders were based on IPCC summaries.
So that allegation collapsed
Allegation 2: Exxon knew recently that they would probably be unable to pump all the oil reserved they had, due to the Paris Accord. Thus valuing these stranded assets above 0 was misleading to shareholders about the value of the company.
Exxon's response: We can't predict what politicians will do, but governments closing off oil fields has been happening ever since the oil industry started, and we warn investors that we operate at a risk of governments shutting down components of our business.
That allegation has collapsed


• Allegation 3: The recent collapse of oil prices has had companies writing down the value of their oil reserves. Exxon has not joined the pack. Ergo Exxon is misleading investors into thinking they are worth more than they actually are.
  Exxon's response: We conservatively value our oil reserves ($65 per barrell IIRC). These valuations are consistent with the expected price of oil a few years out (true last I checked). Ergo we didn't write them down because we didn't write them up when oil prices were high.
  I expect that Schneiderman is desperately searching for something, anything(!) to pin on Exxon in an effort to claim they misled shareholders.
  Because his original plan - to unearth documents that Al Gore's crowd could use to leverage a version of the Tobacco settlement that would provide Al Gore's empire of anti-fossil fuel activist orgs a steady source of income is in tatters. At this point he is tryign to save himself, because he's pretty much in Nifong territory and he knows it."

Now if you don't mind, I have to go cash my Exxon check before I do left-wing nut cases a favor and die.

***

Long story short.

Climate change cultists present 'global warming because man. Act now or die. Because consensus.'

Sound minds say, 'Oh. Okay. Let me look into this because sounds important.'

Sound increasingly informed mind starts to see troubling and contradictory information begins to ask questions about methodology, interpretation of data etc.

Climate change cultists have a chance to respond in healthy exchange of ideas since they presented the argument. They do for a while.

Sound mind gives way to skeptical query as responses not standing up to scrutiny.

Climate change go on attack demanding censorship and imprisonment because how dare they be challenged.

And this is where we fucking are. A politicized mess where too much money and reputations are staked in climate change.

It's not about earth and it's not about you. Al Gore couldn't care less about either. Understand?

Ask and be skeptical. 

CUI BONO?

 

Meet The Most Vile Man In America: Hint Not Donald Trump

Jonathan Gruber:


"Look, once again, there's no sense of oh it just has to be fixed. The law is working as designed; however, it could work better, and I think probably the most important thing experts would agree on is that we need a larger mandate penalty. We have individuals who are essentially free riding on the system. They're essentially waiting until they get sick and then getting health insurance. The whole idea of this plan which was pioneered in Massachusetts was that the individual mandate penalty would bring those people into the system and have them participate. The penalty right now is probably too low and that's something ideally we would fix."

I remember when Rush Limbaugh asserted all this was by design and the brain dead hyenas on the left mobilized to engage in the usual character assassination. But he has been proven right every single step of the way. The end game always was single payer and therefore socialized medicine at the end of the line. Always.

But notice how utterly despicable the way they go about achieving it.

While you point out all the flaws, errors, faulty premises, concerns etc., they scoff it off and demonize and dismiss your arguments, but then once it does turn into law and operates as people who criticized it thought it was, they turn around and say, 'yeh. Like, duh!'

One of the last nations on earth where health care services of the highest order exists, is on a path to....Canadian style universal care.

And you're trying to tell me we're not in a dark age when we accept mediocrity in order to achieve 'equality'?

Lotsa People Been Born

How many people have ever lived?

Belated Sports Post: Ali And Howe

Bare with me. This is an old post about the passing of Muhammad Ali and Gordie Howe I never got around to. So, forgive me if it sounds a little dated but it still deserves some time.

I never did quite discuss Ali's passing the way I wanted to. It was a subject that deserved a little bit of thought but it came at a time where I couldn't spare the time while Louisville, Kentucky; Floral, Saskatchewan and Detroit, Michigan mourned their sporting legends.

Best I could offer is an interview I heard with his long-time biographer who had been around Ali more than anyone. 

Anyway.



I can't possibly add more to what's been said about Ali already.
Nonetheless, allow me to offer a couple brief thoughts.

Ali is more complex than Howe because his persona extended beyond boxing laced with political overtones whereas Howe was your typical understated Canadian hockey player.

Ali obviously means many things to different people but let me stick to boxing as my comments aren't going to offer anything original on the socio-political front. I heard New York Times writer Dave Anderson on the radio the other day and expertly (and soberly) wading through Ali's life and times he agreed that Ali was perhaps 'over loved' possibly because he was an incredible self-promoter.

This larger than life image possibly obscured his actual boxing legacy. Though I'm no expert, based on what I've read by experts over the years, he isn't always considered the best ever. The overall *consensus* has him in the top 5 for sure.



Where there's much debate about Ali's placing among the greatest,  there isn't much doubt Howe is in the conversation as the greatest ever. He, along with Gretzky and Orr, each have their legion of supporters. You can easily make the claim he was the greatest hockey player more than Ali as the greatest boxer. And judging by those arms, he would have done okay in the ring looks like. Lord me.

Whatever.

There's no debating they helped change their respective sports forever.





***

Quick word about the Copa America that took place for the first time on U.S. soil. And not surprisingly, it went off without any violence. American sports culture is amazing that way.

It simply isn't the case in Europe with soccer.

I know this may and possibly will ruffle feathers with the inevitable 'it's a small percentage of people causing the trouble' (which is not exactly true. European violence is persistent and large enough to cause significant property damage, injuries and sometimes deaths along with the occasional postponement of matches), the fact is you don't even get that in North America as a whole.

The violence we see in South America and Europe is simply absent here.

Pseudo-Intellectual Professors Are Gonna Pseudo

And now another installment of Derpy Professors say the darndest things!'

"Forget Halloween costumes and yoga, there’s a new symbol of cultural appropriation—the canoe.
According to Misao Dean, Professor of English at the University of Victoria, the canoe can be a symbol of colonialism, imperialism and genocide due to history. She also accused the canoers of cultural appropriation because they are primarily white men and have a privileged place in society."

Ah.

Yeah, but what's her opinion on kayaks?

***

Canoe from wiki:

"The word canoe comes from the Carib kenu (dugout), via the Spanish canoa.^[4]
Constructed between 8200 and 7600 BC, and found in the Netherlands, the Pesse canoe may be the oldest known canoe. Excavations in Denmark reveal the use of dugouts and paddles during the Ertebølle period, (ca 5300 BC – 3950 BC).<sup>[5]"

Fricken Dutch! Ruining a perfectly sound narrative!

I swear, if I ever catch these over paid, pseudo-intellectual professor-social-warriors eating Italian food...</sup>

***

Recently some celebrity named Vanessa Hudgeons was mauled by idiots for having braids.

One commenter said, 'She wasn't offended, by an African-American, by it'.

While we can applaud her good sense and grace, I don't give a shit she's not offended since braids and dreadlocks are not African or black in origin. So, in a sense, we can actually argue by the facts of history, it was culturally appropriated from elsewhere! And another thing, since I'm on it and need to knock sense into this misplaced nonsense, there's nothing original in rap music. So who gives a shit about white musicians who rap? I'll be sure to heckle some random black SJW about the Marsalis brothers and their classical music training  and the next time I see Wynton playing the trumpet:

"The earliest trumpets date back to 1500 BC and earlier. The bronze and silver trumpets from Tutankhamun's grave in Egypt, bronze lurs from Scandinavia, and metal trumpets from China date back to this period.^[2] Trumpets from the Oxus civilization (3rd millennium BC) of Central Asia have decorated swellings in the middle, yet are made out of one sheet of metal, which is considered a technical wonder.^[3]"

Whatever.

As I've mentioned before, anyone who uses the term is profoundly ignorant and anti-humanist.

Now if you don't mind, I may want to go listen to some FUCKING JAZZ.

Scandinavia's Success Is Not A Secret

Progressives love to leverage Scandinavia (and Europe at large) to guilt ride and extort North Americans into accepting more welfare is the civilized thing to do.

Not in my view it is.



It's actually barbaric to offer welfare to those who don't need it. It's called enabling. And this is how we enslave humans and bludgeon their spirit. It's anti-humanist.

But this is not the point of my post.

Often we hear about how if socialism is so bad, how come Scandinavia (and no, Finland is not part of Scandinavia! But Iceland is) is successful?

Simple really.

And for the sake of argument let's use Sweden.

The Industrial Revolution, propelled by the legacy of the Age of Reason (where true genius actually kept idiots at bay) and classical liberalism, came late to Sweden. But once smart Swedes figured out the blueprint, it soon became a wild success story. By the early 20th century, its economy was on the move (as was their impressive sports record. Sweden may not  have won a World Cup but it does have in its record a finals appearance. Its soccer legacy is substantial and nothing to sneer at) as confirmed by traditional metrics used to assess an economy.

Scandinavia as a whole succeeded because it embraced classical liberal concepts of free markets and free minds.

Once times were good, it was time to rape and pillage the coffers. This is where socialists and progressives enter. They used the money to expand the welfare state and entrenched themselves (the idiots overtook the smart people by now) in all aspects of Scandinavian life.

However, Scandinavians seem to have a mean pragmatic streak in them (they recognize where the gravy train originates) because each time they begin to run out of money, they seem to know how to revert back to the methods that enrich them. This has been the key to them staying afloat.

And so the cycle goes. 

Free markets and minds lead to wealth and prosperity. This can't be denied or refuted.

Closed markets and minds reverse this. This can't be denied or refuted as well.

No. There is no in between.

There is only one degree of freedom. 

Dark Clouds Forming And A Call To Classical Entrepreneurship

Troubling trends for the Canadian economy.

As we all know, the Liberals predictably tabled a spending budget - drink! - soon after they seized power. At the time, I wasn't the only one who noticed it was all spend with little provisions on how to pay it back. In addition, if you're going to increase government spending, it's important the economy grows at a healthy pace - which isn't the case at the moment. Government revenues have also dropped off.

With the sluggish U.S. economy basically in recession - drink! - it's bound to have a negative impact on the Canadian economy.

Dark clouds are forming.

***

Word on entrepreneurship. Finance Minister Bill Morneau recently said Canadians would have to get used to having on average three careers in their lifetimes making it crucial they garner different skills in order to make changes. Read, not jobs but careers.

That put a lot of strain on future generations for sure.

Increasingly gone is the notion of an employee making a lifetime commitment to a company.  The new economy and ever changing, confused and unsettled mindset among millennials has all but assured its end as its currently formulated.

I'm sure something will happen to reset the trajectory - it always does - that few if any of us can foresee - unless you're a sci-fi writer. They always seem to know the future.

But in the meantime, I repeat my assertion we should be teaching finance, bookkeeping and business early in school ( I see way too much economic and financial illiteracy and it now has reached disturbing levels for me) so that students naturally endowed with an entrepreneurial spirit receive the proper skills to start a business.

One way to encourage more entrepreneurs is to remove the anti-business rhetoric from our discourse, lessen the tax and regulatory burden and not place obstacles in front of innovative companies that upset the market.

Many of the great and dynamic ideas of our times come from the United States. It doesn't have to.

My personal view is we should ditch the 'top down' idea government 'spurns innovation' and leave in the hands of those best suited for it: Free individuals.

***

There's an ideological, I submit, component to this. 

Millennials for their part, need to read more and knock it off with their flirtation with Marxist and Communist bull shit. If they want to work and contribute, they will have to embrace capitalism and get acquainted with its basic tenets free of all the left-wing gibberish.

There's no time to entertain bull shit anymore. Leave that to trust fund and career politicians and academics. They have nothing to lose and have enough connections to ensure they're well taken care of.

Not so much for the average person.

Smarten up I say. Think for yourself. Save your money. Invest it wisely. Don't rely on anyone or the government.  Don't wait for the government to give you the signal. You carve your own path. Don't make them believe your future and success is in someone's hands. This is not true and unhelpful. So ignore the Obamas and Warrens and other fearists of this world and their dated progressive nonsense who scream '1% of the population is stealing from you or preventing you from moving forward'. There is no bloody Koch - or any - conspiracy. Such talk is for natural born losers.

Only you prevent yourself from progressing. YOU.

It's all doable. A little self-belief and drive and away you go. I believe in you. Trust me. These words will help you more than any current progressive will. Remember, to a progressive, you're a means to a collectivist end.

Classical entrepreneurship demands you act in self-interest. Only once you and your lot are secured can you contribute to strengthening your community at large.

Just get it done.

No excuses.

Thought (s) Of The Day

Censorship of any kind should anger and insult you. Profoundly and personally.

***

Every time minimum wage goes up - as mandated - someone is frozen out of entering the labor market.

Congratulations.

***

Every time Hillary smiles an orphan dies. 

Deep Thoughts With Obama

Upon being asked by Jimmy Kimmel about why people distrust Hillary, Obama offered a garden snake variety type of response along the lines of, 'well, when you're around 30 years it's bound to happen people are gonna dig up stuff about you'.

Huh. Is that a fact?

It's an interesting comment and I admit it's got some level of truth to it. Stick around long enough and well, stories.

But here's the thing. The stories around Hillary are largely of her own doing and choices and it's a reflection of a healthy and engaged citizenry or journalism it be investigated and exposed. She doesn't get to do things any citizen would have been locked up for and then be shielded by such an excuse put forth by Obama.

I don't see how, for example, the fact she used her Foundation to enrich herself while SofS or setting up an unsecured private server, or insult people calling them 'deplorables' can qualify under Obama's claim.

People do work in one place for the same amount of time and manage to, you know, not engage in questionable activities. It's astonishing how much of a long leash we give politicians.

His position, while makes sense on the surface, doesn't pass the sniff test with Hillary.

She's thoroughly corrupted and in it for the cold, hard cash and power.

A classic public servant she ain't.

Early Week Music

A couple of versions of Petty's The Waiting:

I've Come To Freeland's Emotional Rescue

You may have heard the story of Canada's seven year trade deal negotiation (CETA) with the EU started under Harper's Conservatives (which wasn't terribly, interestingly, popular among Canadians either) and continued by the Liberals.

It didn't go too well. And International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland made sure to let us all know where she stood: 

"Canada worked really hard, and me personally, I worked very hard," she said in French, expressing Canada's disappointment — as well as her own — at this turn of events.

"It's become evident for me, for Canada, that the European Union isn't capable now to have an international treaty even with a country that has very European values like Canada. And even with a country so nice, with a lot of patience like Canada."
....
We have decided to return home. I am very sad. It is emotional for me," she told reporters. "The only good thing I can say is that tomorrow morning I will be at home with my three kids."

Good grief. See it here.

Geez, Chrystia get it together.  Kleenex tissues are .59 cents at Shoppers. 

But what did you expect from someone who made a lot of money writing a book covering all the left-wing talking points of our times. Plutocrats? Check! Income inequality? Check! Fair wages and rigged systems? Check! But she does it from the lofty position of the classes said to be destroying the rest of us. It read a little like, well, her outburst. It didn't feel all that much thinking went into it.

It goes without saying, me being a psycho extremist, if I'd write a book telling tales opposite to this narrative you'd hear the lone monkey in the crowd coughing. It's just not in. None of the cool kids are doing it!

Never mind she's your run of the mill progressive who hated such trade deals until she came to like them. But it won prizes (as if those are worth anything these days) - PRIZES, ANDY! - so she must be saying something good, T.C. unlike you!

Look, it's simple. Take a touchy emotional and vapid subject like 'Income inequality' or 'climate change' or 'peace' and write a book and watch the prize panelists shower you with gifts. She had all that access and this is what she came up with?

Cynical even for me, I know, but it's all more about principals than principles.

Anyway.

You're representing an entire nation for crying out loud. Okay. Wrong choice of phrase.

And heeeeere's Justin Zoolander and The Shiny Pony Riders!

I don't profess to know the details of CETA having read it on and off for years and couldn't get too worked up about it. I've grown to realize trade deals don't benefit me all that much. It's just another trade deal that apparently if not signed signals the end of business and trade as we know it. Or some crap like that.

Trade deals are soooo over rated and passe.

In any event, I'm not going to bash Canada because quite frankly Wallonia is a socialist mistake enclave. And judging from what I've read out of Europe, they ain't too happy about it either.

Which probably means the Walloons - ack! - did something right.

I mean, to piss off so many elites has to be a good thing, no?

And nothing is better salty tears than elitist salty tears.

Whatever. I never saw what everyone seems to see in Freeland. She came off as wooden and awkward and without much of an original or deep thought whenever she appeared on The McLaughlin Group. Her defense in Parliament only cemented my view of her not being much of a speaker. I really hope she's better in private.

Her bio says she's a Rhodes Scholar - but so is Rachel Maddow, you know? Being a RS doesn't give a license to be a free and critical thinker  - and a former managing editor of the Financial Times - which baffles me because I never got a glimpse of all the knowledge whenever she had a chance to show it.

Now she's Canada's International Trade Minister. Come to think of it, it makes sense why Trudeau would have selected her.

Who cries when she puts in an honest day's work but to with no results.
 
Welcome to the real world, pal. 

***

Freeland is the sort of tart (with all the appropriate degrees) that just follows the intellectual trends believing them to be healthy and rational discourse. She's scripted in her head leaving her little room to wiggle around when confronted with substantial debate.

Much like her boss I guess.

Barbara Kay of The National Post got to the heart of it.  Kay was able to put into perfect words how a progressive mindset operates.

Excerpts. Warning: Trigger warning for the intelligent:

"Maher went on to blast multiculturalism: “this idea that somehow we do share values that all religions are alike is bullshit, and we need to call it bullshit.” That galvanized Freeland who “now more than ever” called for respect for “diversity,” because — here’s where she lost the thread — “we in Canada are not going to say Muslims are worse than Christians, or are worse than Jews, or worse than atheists.” Maher shot back, “Not as people, the ideas are worse.”

Maher and his other guests were keen to talk about those ideas, but Freeland just couldn’t bring herself to go there. You could almost see alarm bells ringing in her brain: “Offensive to Muslims! Abort! Abort!” It was as though an automatic pilot had overridden her manual controls. Unable to engage, she remained doggedly on script: “it is incredibly dangerous, and very wrong, to … say there is something wrong with being a Muslim,” which nobody on the panel had said; in fact, both King and Domenech spoke sympathetically of Muslim victims of jihadism.

Finally — and it was kind of funny/sad to see her incredulity — the penny dropped, and she asked, “Are you guys saying the Muslim faith is by definition worse than other people’s?” Maher answered, “Yes, the ideas.” A troubled Freeland, one could see, felt way out of her Canadian comfort zone. She flailed, accusing Maher of “demonizing” Islam. Maher retorted: “I’m not demonizing, I’m just reporting. You are making it a demonization.”

And so it went. Soothing multiculti platitudes that would have had CBC’s Peter Mansbridge gravely nodding agreement weren’t doing the trick with Maher. He just kept lobbing disturbing statistical grenades at Freeland, such as Pew polls that put support for honour killings, even in moderately Islamic Indonesia, at 18 per cent. Lamely, Freeland bunted with the Bible’s “an eye for an eye.” “Well, we don’t listen to the Bible,” Maher crisply returned.

Clearly Maher (as well as King and Domenech) and Freeland were talking past each other. The American panelists, intellectually marinated in First Amendment rights, understood that while it is wrong to defame any faith group collectively (like, say, “Muslim men hate women”), it is impossible under U.S. law to demonize an idea ( “Sharia law is misogynistic”). But Western progressives, splendidly represented by Freeland, no longer grasp the distinction. They have internalized the pernicious, anti-democratic, dangerous notion of “Islamophobia” — the very concept was invented and promoted by stealth-jihad strategists — which interprets as defamation criticism of Islam itself."

This is the key sentence. It's why when someone, say, suggest police or education reform, they're told they 'hate' cops or teacher - and the children. Always the children.

Canada has no impulse or cherished laws protecting free speech. It doesn't exist and don't think or take for granted this country would defend your right to free speech or expression.

America is the last nation on earth to fight that battle.

And they're hanging on.

For now.

***