Wednesday, December 12, 2018

What sparked the explosion of "les déplorables" in flyover France was an ever-growing skein of nanny-state regulations


Paris … hunkered down for the latest Yellow Saturday,the fourth in a row that has brought tens of thousands of yellow-jacketed protesters — the gilets jaunes — into the streets.
Thus reports Anne-Elisabeth Moutet from Paris in the New York Post.
(See also How Fake News Has Misrepresented the Yellow Vest Revolt in France and
BLOGGER IN PARIS IN THE MIDST OF TEAR GAS CANISTERS RAINING DOWN ON THE CROWDS (video))
Many come from the provinces, where President Emmanuel Macron’s gas tax would hit hardest. But their ranks also include growing numbers of violent activists from both political extremes — think antifa side-by-side with Charlottesville white supremacists. They [all converged] on the City of Light to scream at our aloof young leader that they’re mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Call them les déplorables.
Still, Macron says nothing. Instead, he sent out Prime Minister Édouard Philippe to promise technical measures that satisfy no one. The disintegration of Macron, once the president the world supposedly envied, is perhaps the most amazing part of this current flyover-France revolt.

He ticked all the boxes. He wanted more integration in the European Union. He’d fight populists at home and abroad. He’d put France back to work after three decades of 10 percent unemployment. He’d welcome more refugees. He’d save the planet!

Macron lectured President Trump, in good English, before Congress last spring. Save the Iran deal, he enjoined, and the Paris accord on climate. Concrete results? There were none, but the speech was broadcast live on all French news channels.

More recently, Macron pledged to sign an open-borders UN pact on world migration, which the US, Australia, Israel and a handful of European nations reject. He said France’s cherished secularist 1905 laws should be revised, largely to help the country’s newest religion, Islam, integrate within French society. Worst of all: Members of his party have indicated that Macron is willing to give up France’s UN Security Council seat to the European Union.

None of these decisions please anyone in the country, save the clone-like Macronista hipsters in Paris and a few large cities. They are men and women in their 30s and 40s — affluent, well-educated, in competitive jobs, able to afford the crazy rents in places like Paris, Bordeaux or Lyon.

Safe in gentrified neighborhoods, they welcome “diversity” and see themselves as morally superior. They welcomed a president in their own image, especially as he faced the National Front’s Marine Le Pen, the perfect foil, in last year’s election.

A new face, the people mistook Macron for a new broom: After all, he kicked out all the old, tired incumbents, left and right. Voters discounted the fact that he himself is a former top technocrat, bred in the most elite schools in the country. He believes in all the Davos pieties.

It was Macron’s green obsession that eventually sparked the explosion. The gilets jaunes are a grassroots movement, born in hundreds of provincial small towns and villages across the country. They are farmers, small businessmen, truck drivers, waiters, nurses — or jobless. They have no official spokespersons. It was on Facebook that they resolved to adopt as their symbol the yellow, high-visibility jackets that the French are required to keep in their cars in case of accidents.

For years, they have seen their livelihoods threatened — by plant closures, inflation, the disappearance of public services like small train lines, hospitals, schools and local post offices. They need their cars, however old and beat-up, to drive their kids to school, to shop, to find and hold a job.

Their lives are fenced in by an ever-growing skein of nanny-state regulations. Before the fuel tax, there was the unpopular rollback of the speed limit on France’s roads to 80 kilometers (49 miles) per hour from 90 (56). The same week, bureaucrats added dozens of new requirements for vehicles, forcing many cars off the road.

Macron’s government offered drivers a $4,500 bonus to buy electric cars: a Marie-Antoinette moment seen as an insult by les déplorables.

Resisting pressure to cave in, Macron conceded too little, too late … His job is secure; it would take a lot to remove him. But the time for the great reforms he was elected to make now seems past: All that’ll remain, hidden in his Élysée Palace, will be the youngest lame-duck president of the Fifth Republic.

Saturday, December 01, 2018

BLOGGER IN PARIS IN THE MIDST OF TEAR GAS CANISTERS RAINING DOWN ON THE CROWDS (video)

 
The webmaster of No Pasarán almost felt he was being deliberately targeted as the tear gas canisters started raining down on the yellow vest protesters around him on the Avenue de Friedland, one of the roads leading up to the Place Charles de Gaulle l'Étoile, already covered not in fog but in tear gas.

Whether it was related or simply a coincidence, the crowds had started chanting "Macron ! Démission| (Macron resign!) when the bombardment started.





As I wrote last week, in How Fake News Has Misrepresented the Yellow Vest Revolt in France:

There is nary a single media report about the Yellow Vest demonstrations in Paris and France that I’ve read or watched that has not been slanted by Fake News.

It has (usually) not been deliberate, I gather, and nobody has said anything factually wrong; what is the problem is the fact that (very) important stuff has been omitted. (Update: merci au Professeur Glenn Reynolds.)

It is not wrong to say that the demonstrations were caused by the government's decision to raise gas prices. What is missing is that this is just one of several draconian measures dating back half a year, i.e., ‘tis the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

For the past four to five months, the French government has done nothing but double down on bringing more and more gratuitous oppression and more and more unwarranted persecution measures down on the necks the nation's drivers and motorcycle riders.

In fact, the imposition of ever harsher rules has been going on for the past decade and a half or so — whether the government was on the right or on the left …/…

 …/… What has been most irksome for les Français since the turn of the century has been the ubiquitous radars, which, like red-light cameras in the United States, are accused of having (far) more to do with bringing revenue to the state than with road safety.

And just like the arms industry in the Soviet Union, if there was one area of France where the technology was always moving forward, it was the radar business.

Over the years, the radars have become evermore stealthy and insidious. …/… What has happened since shows the Deep State at work in Europe just as much as, if not more than, in North America — and this leftist statism is the kind of news that has been ignored by the mainstream media, in France itself as much as abroad. …/…

WE ARE NOT MILCH COWS!

All of which brings us to 2018. This year, as mentioned, Emmanuel Macron's government has doubled down on the repressive measures.

• On July 1, Prime Minister Édouard Philippe did what no other country in Europe or in the West (or, as far as I  know, on the planet) has done: go against the march of progress and lower the slowness limit (sorry, the speed limit) on secondary (country) roads by 10 km/h, decreasing the limit from 90 km/h (56 mph) to 80 km/h (50 mph).
.
• At about the same time came the contracts that the government decided to write with private corporations, handing the business of the state's (plainclothes) gendarmes over to their company employees, to take over the business of the mobile radars in their shiny new fleets of vehicles. (Meanwhile, other private companies have been getting similar contracts from city governments, meaning wage earners doing mostly nothing but driving up and down the city streets, while a license plate reader decides which cars' owners will be getting automatically-generated fines.)

This is actually the point at which the first protests started. During the summer, the country saw a huge increase in instances of destruction (or incapacitation) of radars on the roadside. Many were defaced with paint, others were set on fire, while still others were simply covered with something like a garbage bag (one man arrested while covering a radar was let free by a judge who decided that since the garbage bag hadn't actually brought any physical harm to the machine in any way, the defendant could not be accused of destroying it).

• More recently, the government added more gratuitous sanctions to the driver’s license point system, which is already far more punitive than that of most European countries, not least neighboring Germany's.

Finally, with the announcement of the gas prise rise, the French said "Enough is enough." And that was when the entire nation seemed to get together via the internet to mount the Yellow Vest revolt.

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Guess What: Don't Democrats such as Beto in Fact Agree — 100%! — with Trump that Central American Countries Are Shitholes?!


As supporters call on Beto O'Rourke to run for president in 2020,
writes Chantal Da Silva in Newsweek (gracias por Instapundit—y tambien por Stephen Green),
the Texas Democrat slammed  Donald Trump administration's handling of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a message posted online to Medium on Sunday, O'Rourke called on the U.S. government to handle the situation at the southern border "the right way" after U.S. Border Patrol agents fired teargas at hundreds of Central American migrants who had rushed the U.S.-Mexico border.

"It should tell us something about her home country that a mother is willing to travel 2,000 miles with her 4-month old son to come here," O'Rourke, who lost his Senate bid against Republican incumbent Ted Cruz in the midterm elections, wrote in a message posted online to Medium.
Repeat after me: "It should tell us something about her home country that a mother is willing to travel 2,000 miles with her 4-month old son to come here."

Doesn't Robert Francis O'Rourke, in other words, agree — doesn't he agree 100% — with none other than… Donald Trump?!

When they moan the fate of the migrants and of the refugees, what are all Democrats and all leftists, American or foreign, doing if not essentially agreeing with the sentiment (if not the choice of words) allegedly expressed by Donald Trump — that those countries are (wait for it)… sh*tholes?

In fact, what are the very migrants, legal or otherwise, and refugees from Central America and, in Europe, from the Middle East and Africa, saying — with their feet — if it isn't that the places they were born and have been living in are sh*tholes?!

As I write in What Kind of Startling Groups Might Tend to Agree with Trump About "Shithole Countries"?,
What kind of surprising groups might tend to agree with President Donald Trump on calling places like Haiti, El Salvador, and various nations in Africa "shithole countries", not to mention many others?

No, no, you're wrong: the answer is not those revolting racists who belong to the despicable Republican party.

1) The first jaw-dropping answer is (wait for it) the citizens of Haiti, the citizens of El Salvador, and the citizens of various nations in Africa, not to mention the citizens of many others.

 … you would be surprised to hear how many individuals agree if not with the wording itself, certainly with the sentiment behind it.

Indeed, isn't the very fact that so many of these citizens are emigrating to America, or to the West, in the first place a pretty strong sign of what they think, if not in those exact terms, of the regions they were born in?
Wittingly or otherwise, the Texas congressman from El Paso goes on to confirm as much:
"People are leaving violent countries where they fear for their lives," the Democrat wrote. "Without money, they are subsisting on hope for their kids, for themselves, that they can get to safety. After being denied the ability to lawfully petition for asylum for the last 10 days, they are desperate."
O'Rourke said that in the "longer term," the U.S. government must also "work with the people of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador," where many asylum seekers have traveled from over fears of violence and economic and political instability, "to address underlying conditions that are causing them to flee in the first place." 
Check out Beto's words again: "It should tell us something about [a refugee's] home country" [with its] "underlying conditions that are causing them to flee in the first place"; "People are desperate" to get out of the "violent countries where they fear for their lives"…

Translation: I, Beto O'Rourke; we, members of the Democrat Party; we, leftists all over the world, I/we agree with Donald Trump 100% that countries in Latin America are sh*tholes.
• Related: Even liberals know that Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa are “shitholes”; in fact, it seems to be their recurring argument for why we need to prioritize citizens of those nations in our immigration policy (!)

Furthermore:
"Those applicants ultimately granted asylum will then live in the U.S., make us a better country for being here"
If all these migrants are such outstanding citizens, why — why on Earth — would leftists not want them to go home for that very reason, in order to make their nations — their own nations (rather than the USA, which hardly needs those outstanding citizens) — better countries?!

Speaking of which: and to change the subject to gun violence: If los Estados Unidos is such a violent place, shouldn't Latin Americans be staying put?! Indeed, shouldn't the migratory movements be reversed, i.e., shouldn't masses of U.S. citizens be doing their utmost to escape the U.S. and be trying to immigrate, by any ways possible — legally or otherwise — to Mexico, to Honduras, to El Salvador?!

Monday, November 26, 2018

How Fake News Has Misrepresented the Yellow Vest Revolt in France


Demonstrating with the Yellow Jackets on the Champs Élysées against la répression du gouvernement. It was quite festive in the beginning; but cats are not partial to tear gas, so when the tear gas grenades started raining around us, the bicycle cats said Enough and we pedaled home.
There is not a single media report about the Yellow Vest demonstrations in Paris and France that I’ve read or watched that has not been slanted by Fake News.

It has (usually) not been deliberate, I gather, and nobody has said anything factually wrong; what is the problem is the fact that (very) important stuff has been omitted. (Update: merci au Professeur Glenn Reynolds, à Monsieur Pierre le Tech Mec, et à Monsieur Francis Turner)

It is not wrong to say that the demonstrations were caused by the government's decision to raise gas prices. What is missing is that this is just one of several draconian measures dating back half a year, i.e., ‘tis the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

For the past four to five months, the nation's drivers and motorcycle riders have been growing increasingly irate at the "bloodsuckers" in the French government who seem to do little else, road-security-wise, but double down on bringing more and more gratuitous oppression and more and more unwarranted persecution measures down on their necks.

In fact, the imposition of ever harsher rules has been going on for the past decade and a half or so — whether the government was on the right or on the left — and that is why the choice of les gilets jaunes (the yellow jackets) by the demonstrators is particularly ironic.

The 2008 law (under the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy) requiring the presence of high-visibility vests (gilets de haute visibilité) aka security vests (gilets de sécurité) in every vehicle — hardly an unreasonable rule, for sure, as similar ones exist throughout the continent — was just another example of the myriad of evermore-onerous rules for car and motorcycle owners over the past 15 years, and so the government in effect provided the 2018 rebels with their uniforms.

What has been most irksome for les Français since the turn of the century has been the ubiquitous radars, which, like red-light cameras in the United States, are accused of having (far) more to do with bringing revenue to the state's coffers than with road safety.

And just like the arms industry in the Soviet Union, if there is one area of France where the technology was always moving forward, it is the radar business.

Over the years, the radars have become evermore stealthy and insidious. For instance, radars have gone from contraptions being able to photograph a single car on only one side on the road, in the lane closest to the machine (with a burst of white flash quite jolting to the driver at nighttime), to taking multiple pictures over the entire roadway simultaneously of several cars driving in both directions.

The first radars were installed in 2003 under President Jacques Chirac and his interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, and in the beginning, drivers were always warned beforehand when a radar could be expected ahead (which brought about what allegedly was the desired goal, to get French cars to slow down).

What has happened since shows the Deep State at work in Europe just as much as, if not more than, in North America — and this leftist statism is the kind of news that has been ignored by the mainstream media, in France itself as much as abroad.

Eventually — in spite of the insistent promises of then-interior minister Sarkozy — new radars were installed without the signs announcing their presence.

The attempts to make the rules harsher have been so outrageous that pushback led to their demise. For instance, the attempt to have cyclists breaking the law (running a red light, for instance) lose points on their driver's licenses; or the attempt to require all cars to be equipped with a breathalyzer. (Not surprisingly, it emerged that a breathalyzer manufacturer who, naturally, was a close friend of a number of politicians, was behind the bill.)

Recently came the news of mobile radars, meaning unmarked cars loaded with a radar-installed contraption driven by gendarmes dressed in civilian clothes. (Everywhere, young boys daydream of wearing a shiny uniform and going into action to fight crime; imagine, then, a policeman being asked to put on plainclothes to do nothing but drive up and down the road or highway in order to trick otherwise honest citizens who have done nothing but "violate" a rather arbitrary administrative rule, one that has barely changed, if at all, in almost 50 years).

Meanwhile, crony capitalism has given rise to a side economy, a side economy whose only purpose revolves around the punishment of citizens with cars or motorcycles — not least with blossoming (and very expensive) driving schools for drivers to regain some of the points they have lost on their driver's licenses (again, for violations of a rather arbitrary malum prohibitum rule). If that's impossible, they lose the driver's license itself, for a year or more, which leads in turn to job losses for some 80,000 Frenchmen every year, since they can no longer drive to work.

WE ARE NOT MILCH COWS!

All of which brings us to 2018. This year, as mentioned, Emmanuel Macron's government has doubled down on the repressive measures.

• On July 1, Prime Minister Édouard Philippe did what no other country in Europe or in the West (or, as far as I  know, on the planet) has done: go against the march of progress and lower the slowness limit (sorry, the speed limit) on secondary (country) roads by 10 km/h, decreasing the limit from 90 km/h (56 mph) to 80 km/h (50 mph).
.
• At about the same time came the contracts that the government decided to write with private corporations, handing the business of the state's (plainclothes) gendarmes over to their company employees, to take over the business of the mobile radars in their shiny new fleets of vehicles. (Meanwhile, other private companies have been getting similar contracts from city governments, meaning wage earners doing mostly nothing but driving up and down the city streets, while a license plate reader decides which cars' owners will be getting automatically-generated fines.)

This is actually the point at which the first protests started. During the summer, the country saw a huge increase in instances of destruction (or incapacitation) of radars on the roadside. Many were defaced with paint, others were set on fire, while still others were simply covered with something like a garbage bag (one man arrested while covering a radar was let free by a judge who decided that since the garbage bag hadn't actually brought any physical harm to the machine in any way, the defendant could not be accused of destroying it).

• The national legislature also revoked the amount for parking tickets, handing the issue to the country''s town halls, who proceeded to increase the amounts of the tickets, in some instances doubling or even tripling them.

• More recently, the government added more gratuitous sanctions to the driver’s license point system, which is already far more punitive than that of most European countries, not least neighboring Germany's.

• Finally, with the announcement of the gas prise rise, the French said "Enough is enough." And that was when the entire nation seemed to get together via the internet to mount the Yellow Vest revolt.
Lire mes articles sur la répression, la persécution, et le matraquage des conducteurs :
https://www.contrepoints.org/author/erik-svane

Il y du Fake News ici — Les médias (francaises et internationales) rapportent que les manifestations sont contre la hausse des prix de l’essence.

Ce n’est pas faux, mais le Fake News, c’est ce qu’on ne dit pas.

En fait, ces hausses ne sont que la goutte qui fait déborder la vase, le dernier exemple de répression, de persécution, et de matraquage depuis 4-5 mois.

• D’abord Édouard Philippe a fait ce qu’aucun gouvernement d’Europe ou de l'Occident (ou de la planète) a fait — baisser la limite de lenteur (pardon, la limite de vitesse)

• Ensuite, il y a eu la multiplication des radars, des radars de plus en plus sournois

En fait, c’est durant l’été, à la suite de ces mesures, que les protestations ont commencé :
Par une hausse impressionnante des instances de destruction des radars sur le bas-côté de la route dans tout l'Hexagone

• Par la suite, le gouvernement a endurci le permis à points, de façon gratuite, avec des punitions grotesques

• Enfin, la hausse des prix de l’essence

Qu’est la démocratie si ce n’est
le pouvoir de dire aux autorités :
Nous ne sommes pas des vaches à lait !

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Midterms Are the Main Topic of French Radio Show on Trump and America

Le 21 novembre 2018, le patron d'émission du Libre journal du Nouveau Monde recevait deux invités à Radio Courtoisie pour aborder “Le point sur l’actualité aux Etats-Unis”. Le blog Instapundit a notamment été évoqué (31:27)…

Cliquez sur le lien pour entendre l'émission d'une heure et demie…
Evelyne Joslain, assistée de Stanislas, reçoit : 
  • Paul Reen, membre du groupe des Républicains américains à Paris
  • Erik Svane, membre du groupe des Républicains américains à Paris
Thème : “Le point sur l’actualité aux Etats-Unis”
Quelques jours plus tôt, l'auteur d'une poignée de livres sur les États-Unis apparaissait sur Balance ton Poste, un talk-show de Cyril Hanouna sur Canal +.
"Donald Trump est trop bien élevé" estime Evelyne Joslain, essayiste pro-Trump

Chaque vendredi en deuxième partie de soirée, Cyril Hanouna anime un nouveau talk-show... Qui ne parlera pas que de médias ! Cyril et sa nouvelle bande l'aborderont d'une manière divertissante autour de grands débats avec des rubriques originales et étonnantes.

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

The 4 Key Facts About Obama's Birth Certificate Issue that Nobody Tells You


As Michelle Obama vows that she can never forgive President Donald Trump for spreading rumors that her husband was not born in America (deriding in her memoir, Becoming, the so-called "birther" conspiracy as thinly-veiled racism), there is one certain bet about the Barack Obama birth certificate issue over the past ten years (and counting).

It is that you do not know — and that Barack and Michelle (deliberately?) ignore — the four key issues involved, and/or that you do not realize the extent of their importance.

First, a(n unfortunately) necessary disclaimer: Out of over 13,333 posts in the past 14 years, less than 10 on this blog have been about the so-called "Birther" issue (and in a couple of those, it was never even the main subject). That amounts to more than 99.925% of No Pasarán posts that do not treat Obama's birth Certificate in any way. Just so you know that you can hardly accuse (or dismiss) No Pasarán or any one of its webmasters of being associated with alleged nutjobs (at least not with regards to that issue).

Having put that out of the way, let's get started:

1) The "Birther" issue did not rise among Republicans, conservatives, and/or the unruly rubes of flyover country

(aka the bitter clingers to guns and religion; or, if you prefer, aka the basket of deplorable and irredeemable racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and Islamophobes). It started with the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2008, involving — you know the tune — the compassionate, intelligent, humanistic, forward-looking fellow members of Obama's (and the Clintons') Democrat Party.


2) Far from being totally racist, twisted, dangerous, and/or simply abnormal, the ideas brought up by the alleged "Birther" issue (whether leveled by a Democrat or a Republican) turn out to be pretty conventional and run-of-the-mill.
And, that, on a ho-hum issue of secondary importance (aka a distraction).

May we be allowed to examine this issue — what MSM outlets like The Economist want us to dismiss instantly and categorically as "the absurd “birther” controversy" — fairly, coolly, and dispassionately?

As I wrote a few years ago, in a lengthy, an in-depth, and a dispassionate examination of the facts, of the nutjobs, and of Obama's youth:
 … Recall that Jesse Jackson tried running for president twice (in 1984 and 1988), and although he did not manage to become the Democratic Party's candidate, noone suggested that he was born abroad, and that for the simple reason that the Greenville, SC, native did not have a foreigner for a father (or for a mother) nor did he spend numerous years abroad. [Neither did Herman Cain or Ben Carson have to deal with such charges in their respective elections about a quarter century later, be it by Democrats or by the supporters of their GOP competitors.]
 … to believe that an American citizen (whatever the color of his skin) born to a foreign father who lived much of his childhood abroad may indeed have been born in a foreign country turns out not to be that far-fetched at all.

Indeed, the difference between the Truthers and the Birthers is that in the first case, we are being asked to believe that 1) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials were approached with a view to conspire to kill thousands of their fellow citizens, all (or most) of them innocent civilians, that 2) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials agreed (apparently without a moment of hesitation) to conspire to murder thousands of innocent civilians, and that 3) none of these hundreds (thousands) of government officials has ever had a single, even fleeting feeling of remorse, or let the cat out of the bag, say while having too much to drink (no remorse?) during a Saturday outing to a local bar.

In the second case, we do not even have a conspiracy, but basically one single man hypothetically telling a falsehood — although it might even be termed a lie of omission — a lie about what offhand is a personal matter, but has turned into the only thing (allegedly) keeping him from power (Update: The New York Times' Double Standard on Conspiracy Theories).

Most damning of all, when you pause to think of it, the castigators' proof — if it can be called that — all lies in one fact (beyond the recently released certificate of live birth): and that fact is that Obama is a man, a person, a saint whose word should never be doubted, who is capable of no lying, no evil, no chicanery. If he tells you that, say, he is a Christian, then how dare you deny he is a religious man?! How dare you imply that he is a Muslim?! How dare you state he is a socialist?!

The person who ridicules the "Birther" theory as inane has no more proof than the born-in-Hawaii skeptic of where Obama was actually born [or didn't have any more proof until over two years into Obama's presidency]: his only argument — beyond the contention that the certificate of live birth and the newspaper clipping are incontrovertible proof that are not, can not be, fakes, bureaucratic mistakes, or misinterpretations — is the indisputable "truth" that Obama is someone whose honesty should not — should never — be questioned. (Whether in regards to his private life or to his political plans for America's future.)
[Update: As it happens, we would learn in 2012 (over four years after Obama was first a candidate and over three years after he entered the White House) that a "New Book Raises Questions About Obama's Memoir" (The New York Times' Michael Shear) and that, indeed, it turns out that Obama's memories were a "fantasy (like most of the President's own memoir)" (The Daily Mail). Adds Toby Harnden: "'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book 'Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance'. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama’s life."]

When you think about it, it might be less worrying that some do not believe Obama was born in the United States (because of the circumstances linked to his entire childhood, much of it abroad) than that some are utterly convinced he must be born in the United States (because the Chicago pol is allegedly a sainted figure who can do, who can say no evil, who is incapable of or of lying or of falsifying documents). Again, remember the desires of some of his followers who want(ed) the constitution to be changed, only so Obama could win one election after another and end up, in one way or another and in the best of all possible outcomes, as (de facto if not de jure) president-for-life? Let me ask everybody a simple question: Who is the truly terrifying fanatic, here?
Moreover, in the past two or three election cycles, there have been (entirely valid) questions about the place of birth of… (get this) white male Republican candidates!

Imagine, if in 2008, someone raised questions about John McCain, pointing out that he spent a lot of his youth outside the United States. Indeed, it turns out that the senator from Arizona was born in Panama. What if, in 2016, someone raised questions about Ted Cruz, pointing out that he seems to have spent a lot of his youth north of the border? And, indeed, it turns out that the senator from Texas was born in Canada. (Still, it turns out that both men qualified, or qualify, as natural-born citizens and thus as U.S. presidents — as, presumably would… Barack Obama (!), even if he indeed had been born abroad!)

There have been rumors that Obama may have attended college as a "foreign student" and that his book editor listed him as born in Kenya. Even if they are piddling issues, occasionally proven false, the point has nothing to with Obama per se. (As Breitbart states, "It is evidence — not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.") The point is that the mainstream media never bothered to devote even a minute to investigate the issue (or the strategy behind the different public personas); only new online media (Breitbart and Snopes) did so.
 
3) Here comes the kicker: the so-called "Birther" charge (whether brought by a Democrat or a Republican) was never a charge leveled primarily at a man called Barack Obama or, for that matter, against a member of a minority or a person of a particular race.

It was a charge against the media. 

Indeed, as in 2) above, the "birther" charge was, and is, an entirely justifiable charge against the mainstream media. It was never about birth certificates per se. It was about the double standards that the MSM demonstrate again and again, first, between a Republican and a Democrat, and, second, between the other members of the Donkey Party and the media's preferred (i.e., its "dream") candidate.

(See Instapundit for a myriad of examples of why Glenn Reynolds refers to reporters and journalists as Democrats with bylines; or, as I call them, the fellow travelers in the (self-serving) drama queen view of America and the world.)
 
Recall Hillary Clinton referring to the SNL sketch journalists asking "Barack" if he is comfortable and needs another pillow. Here was a candidate (whatever the color of his skin) with, again, a foreign father and with long years of his childhood spent abroad (oh, and by the way, running a campaign extolling transparency): why not have a reporter or two (briefly) ask this person to (quickly) prove his credentials for the Oval Office (once and for all) — y'know, in the process of challenging politicians on their merits)?

4) The fact that the "Birther" issue was an (entirely justifiable) attack (by a Democrat or a Republican) on the mainstream media offering undeniable proof of its double standards is the very reason that it was—deliberately—turned into a scandal of humongous proportions depicting unspeakable hatred spewed by vicious packs of deranged, loony, and fanatic Neanderthals.

It was not by accident that the title of my "lengthy, in-depth, and dispassionate examination of the facts, of the nutjobs, and of Obama's youth" was The JournoList Issue No One Is Bringing Up. The reason I keep referring to the "alleged" and to the "so-called" "Birther" issue in quotation marks is that it is an entirely fabricated story (or narrative, to use the MSM's preferred expression), by members of the mainstream media itself, with an entirely fabricated cast of nasty and dangerous villains, consisting of mobs of zealous trouble-makers and despicable enemies of the people. 

The ensuing pearl-clutching "omigod-don't-tell-us-that-you-are-one-of-those-racist-clods?!" attitude was, and is, in no way a defense of Obama or the occupant of the White House; it was, and it is, a defense of the mainstream media.

It was and is certainly not a gallant and high-principled attack on hate and bigotry, in defense of a minority member sitting in the White House.  

It was and is a shameful, a disgusting, and an un-American attempt to shut down debate by shaming anyone wishing to take a deeper look into the biggest single piece of evidence exposing the MSM's (bogus) credentials of neutrality and impartiality.

Thursday, November 08, 2018

Great minds think alike: Pope Francis Asks to See Michael Moore in Private and Tells Him that "Capitalism is a sin"

"Capitalism is a sin" Pope Francis said to the director of Capitalism during a visit to the Vatican. In the Valeurs Actuelles weekly, Amaury Brelet reported that
The far left American director and the pontiff, who met a few weeks ago at the Vatican, seem to share, without surprise, the same radical opinions.
 
Great minds think alike


Michael Moore spoke with Pope Francis a few weeks ago at the Vatican. The far-right American director even detailed their interview while a guest on the show "Late Night with Seth Meyers". "I went to the general audience and asked to speak to me privately…"
In French:
Le réalisateur américain d’extrême gauche et le souverain pontife, qui se sont rencontrés il y a quelques semaines au Vatican, semblent partager, sans surprise, les mêmes opinions radicales.
Les grands esprits se rencontrent. 

Michael Moore s’est entretenu avec le pape François, il y a quelques semaines au Vatican. Le réalisateur américain d’extrême gauche a même raconté en détails leur entrevue alors qu’il était invité du show “ Late Night avec Seth Meyers ”. « Je me suis rendu à l’audience générale, et il a demandé à me parler en privé... »
Flashback: In an interview with a foreign-language newspaper never disclosed by America's MSM, Michael Moore, the director of Sicko and Capitalism (A Love Story), admits in so many words — "Dude, I am on Marx's Tomb!" — to being nothing less than a Marxist

UpdateGeorge Neumayr:
James Grein said what the bishops [of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)] wouldn’t:
“It is not Francis’s church; it is Jesus Christ’s church.”

Tuesday, November 06, 2018

Forked-Tongue Reptiles — That's How You Appear to Leftists and Europeans if You Don't Share Their Self-Serving Viewpoints


• Uncle Sam: Darn it! It's contagious!
Last weekend, Le Monde treated us to a typical cartoon from Serguei: as Donald Trump rants and raves about a single solitary harmless illegal immigrant (not 7,000, or 12,000, or 11 million, or 22 million), that he may be trying to squish under his Godzilla-lie foot, in a carte blanche entry titled The Strategy of Hatred, the president, Uncle Sam, and Lady Liberty all appear as reptiles with a snake's forked tongue…

Flashback: In 2010, James Carville called Republicans reptiles.

Second flashback (way back, to… 1860!) —
Abraham Lincoln attempting to speak to members of the Democrat party:
… when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to [Republicans]. In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of [Republicanism] as the first thing to be attended to.
Related: Republicans Denounced as "Lizards" (in 2015), as "Reptiles" (in 2010), and as "Reptiles" (in… 1860!)

More — PJMedia's Stephen Kruiser on a New York Times Election Eve Op-Ed Likening Trump to Hitler:
It is, after all, a given among liberals who never interact with people who don't think like them that everyone who doesn't is a racist Nazi science-denier.
Or some other kind of monster. Or a reptile.

Monday, October 22, 2018

4 Answers: Why did the chicken cross the road?


To the question, Why did the chicken cross the road, Pat Cross provides a cartoon explaining the answers of a conservative, a liberal, a moderate, and a libertarian…

Monday, October 15, 2018

Pat Cross on the Separation of Church and State According to Conservatives and According to Liberals


On his website (Because I enjoy Drawing, America, and a few other things too…), Pat Cross (you can hardly find a better name for a Christian cartoonist) presents a cartoon on the separation of church and state according to conservatives and according to liberals…

• Pat Cross on Socialism IV: European Socialism Works — The Proof…
• Pat Cross on Socialism III: We'll Just Try a Tiny Bit
• Pat Cross on Socialism II: Where Everything Is Free… Except
• Pat Cross on Socialism I: Everyone Else Who Tried This Got Hurt
More:
• Pat Cross on the Left's Double Standards
• Pat Cross on the Outlook of the Democrat Party, i.e.,
America's Alleged Problem with Racist Bigots and Other Would-Be Hitlers…

Friday, October 12, 2018

Pat Cross (IV): European Socialism Works — The Proof


On his website (Because I enjoy Drawing, America, and a few other things too…), Pat Cross has a cartoon on socialism

• Pat Cross on Socialism III: We'll Just Try a Tiny Bit
• Pat Cross on Socialism II: Where Everything Is Free… Except
• Pat Cross on Socialism I: Everyone Else Who Tried This Got Hurt
More:
• Pat Cross on the Left's Double Standards
• Pat Cross on the Outlook of the Democrat Party, i.e.,
America's Alleged Problem with Racist Bigots and Other Would-Be Hitlers…
• Pat Cross on the Separation of Church and StateAccording to Conservatives and According to Liberals

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Those Ghastly Men! The Bloody Bastards Oppressed Our Sisters and Our Mothers and Our Mothers' Mothers and Our… (with Apologies to Monty Python)


The Oppressive Male Sketch:
In a modern-day classroom, somewhere in North America or Europe, a TEACHER is duly doing her job (as well as her duty) and teaching the younger generation about all the evils, all the abuses, and all the lies of Western civilization in general and of America in particular. Today's subject matter is the horrific treatment and the intolerable oppression of women throughout the ages at the hands of the patriarchy. (Here, the TEACHER is a woman, but, with slight changes to her lines, the character could just as well be a male feminist played by a male.) With apologies to the Monty Python gang
(Related: Monty Python on Colonialism and U.S. Imperialism)
TEACHER: They bled us white, the bastards! They’ve taken everything we have! They did nothing but oppress us! And not just us! They oppressed our mothers! And our mothers' mothers—
LITTLE GIRL CHIMES IN: And our mothers' mothers' mothers!
TEACHER: Yeah—
LITTLE GIRL KEEPS GOING: And our mothers' mothers' mothers' mothers!
TEACHER: Alright, Fran. Don't belabor the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
Silence…

Another little girl timidly raises a finger.
LITTLE GIRL Nº 2: This classroom…
TEACHER: Whut?
LITTLE GIRL 2: This classroom;  Every object in this classroom, they made.
TEACHER: Oh yeah yeah they did do that for us, uh-huh that’s true…
LITTLE BOY 1: And every object in my home, and [pointing to the classmate who just spoke] in her home…
LITTLE GIRL 3: And also in your home, Mrs. Fotzbinkle…
TEACHER: Yeah, alright, I'll grant you that the objects in this school and in our homes are two things the members of the male species have done—
LITTLE BOY 2: And also the homes themselves, the very buildings, and the cities that they form…
TEACHER: Oh well obviously the cities, I mean the cities go without saying, don’t they?! … But apart from the homes, the buildings, and the cities…
Other KIDS, none of whom seem to have understood the purpose of the TEACHER's speech and of her (thoroughly) rhetorical question, start chatting amongst themselves
VOICES FROM AROUND THE CLASSROOM: The machines… The factories… The motors… The cars… The vehicles… The ships… The locomotives… The airplanes… The rockets…The medicine… The hospitals… In olden days, the sail ships and the horse carriages…

TEACHER: Yeah, alright, fair enough—
But women were oppressed! They were denied the right to vote!!
LITTLE GIRL 2: Well, for most of history, most men around the globe didn't have the vote either.
LITTLE BOY 3: In fact, Mrs. Fotzbinkle, most men — and women — were so dirt-poor, they rarely had anything to do but try to survive and they never got around to leaving the farm beyond — what was it? — a 20-km radius…
LITTLE GIRL 1: Unless they went to war
LITTLE BOY 4: That's true
LITTLE GIRL 2: Yes, Mrs. Fotzbinkle, if we can vote we have the capitalists to thank for that…
LITTLE BOY 3: Didn't men used to cast their votes for their entire families?
LITTLE GIRL 3: And far from being the patriarchy and oppressive — aren't most of men, at least in the West, like, in fact loving and… obedient and acting like milquetoasts?
LITTLE BOY 5: Remember the Grace Bedell story that you read to us, Mrs. Fotzbinkle?
The little girl who informed Abe Lincoln that if he grew a beard women would get their husbands, their sons, and their brothers to vote for him, simply by "teasing" them to do so…

TEACHER: Alright, fair enough, but don't you dare start diminishing the contributions of women! Don't forget women used to sew all the clothes and all the garments that we —
LITTLE BOY 3: — and they!
TEACHER: — and they — used to wear!
LITTLE GIRL 1: But the tools to make the clothes — the needles and the thread and the scissors and all the other instruments in the sewing kit —
LITTLE BOY 3: The sewing machine!!
LITTLE GIRL 1: —those were made by men, who also gathered the wool and manufactured the fabric.
LITTLE GIRL 4: In fact, men invented the machines that made farming easy, that made poverty retreat, and that prevented a man from destroying his health and dying at an early age
LITTLE GIRL 5: plus all the gadgets in the modern kitchen and the modern home that prevented a woman from ever leaving the home
LITTLE BOY 4: In fact, when you think about it, all or most of these inventions were invented, or were improved, by the people who are the most hated today around the globe — males, capitalists, and Americans

LITTLE GIRL 2: And thanks to men, it's safe to walk in the streets
TEACHER: What are you saying?! For centuries, women were kept in the kitchen!!
LITTLE BOY 2: Well, while women were in the kitchen, Mrs. Fotzbinkle, with a roof over their heads, men were not exactly out partying in town
LITTLE GIRL 5: Nor were they going to the brothel
LITTLE GIRL 1: The "brothel'? What's that?
EVERYBODY ELSE (in unison): Never mind!
LITTLE BOY 1: True enough: They were out in the fields, whatever the weather — boiling sun or freezing rain —
LITTLE GIRL 6: Or they were off going to war!
LITTLE BOY 2: No wonder women live longer than men

TEACHER: No brothels?! Men could go out and be sluts and frolic with loose women! Women were banned from doing the equivalent! How about that?! Huh?! Huh?! How about that?!
LITTLE BOY 3: Well, in the olden days, it was necessary because there were few methods to prevent a girl from getting pregnant…
LITTLE GIRL 2: Plus, it wasn't the men per se who kept women per se from going out, it was a given girl's father, her brothers, and her uncles…
TEACHER: See?! See?!
LITTLE GIRL 2: …ANNND her mother, ANNND her aunts, ANNND her grand-mother…
LITTLE BOY 1: And don't forget, Mrs. Fotzbinkle: the pill, and other forms of contraception, were all invented by men
LITTLE GIRL 6: like all the medicine
LITTLE BOY 4: like all the medicine that has made everyone — males and females alike — healthier and unlikely to die at an early age…
LITTLE GIRL 3: The medicine that has rid mothers and babies alike from the common risk of dying in childbirth…

That's it! The TEACHER has had enough!
TEACHER: Alright!! But apart from the homes! — the buildings! — the cities! — the factories! — the kitchens! — the cars! — the horse carriages! — the ships! — the planes! — the motors! — the machines! — the hospitals! — the medicine! — and the contraceptives! (pause) — what have men ever done for us?!?!
Timidly, a little girl raises her a finger…
LITTLE GIRL 1: They cherish us, and they shower us with love
TEACHER: "Love"?!?! Oh, SHUT UP!!

Non, No, Just a Tad: Pat Cross on Socialism (III)


On his website (Because I enjoy Drawing, America, and a few other things too…), Pat Cross has a cartoon on socialism


• Pat Cross on Socialism IV: European Socialism Works — The Proof…
• Pat Cross on Socialism II: Where Everything Is Free… Except
• Pat Cross on Socialism I: Everyone Else Who Tried This Got Hurt
More:
• Pat Cross on the Left's Double Standards
• Pat Cross on the Outlook of the Democrat Party, i.e.,
America's Alleged Problem with Racist Bigots and Other Would-Be Hitlers…
• Pat Cross on the Separation of Church and StateAccording to Conservatives and According to Liberals

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Where Everything Is Free… Except You: Pat Cross on Socialism (II)


On his website (Because I enjoy Drawing, America, and a few other things too…), Pat Cross has a few choice cartoons on socialism

• Pat Cross on Socialism IV: European Socialism Works — The Proof…
• Pat Cross on Socialism III: We'll Just Try a Tiny Bit
• Pat Cross on Socialism I: Everyone Else Who Tried This Got Hurt
More:
• Pat Cross on the Left's Double Standards
• Pat Cross on the Outlook of the Democrat Party, i.e.,
America's Alleged Problem with Racist Bigots and Other Would-Be Hitlers…
• Pat Cross on the Separation of Church and StateAccording to Conservatives and According to Liberals

Tuesday, October 09, 2018

Whether implemented by a mob or a single strongman, collectivism is a poverty generator, an attack on human dignity, and a destroyer of individual rights


On the same day that Venezuela’s “democratically” elected socialist president, Nicolas Maduro, whose once-wealthy nation now has citizens foraging for food, announced he was lopping five zeros off the country’s currency to create a “stable financial and monetary system,” Meghan McCain of “The View” was the target of internet-wide condemnation for having stated some obvious truths about collectivism.
Thus writes David Harsanyi in the Daily Signal in a piece entitled Sorry If You’re Offended, but Socialism Leads to Misery and Destitution.
During the same week we learned that the democratic socialist president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, is accused of massacring hundreds of protesters whose economic futures have been decimated by his economic policies, Soledad O’Brien and writers at outlets ranging from GQ, to BuzzFeed, to the Daily Beast were telling McCain to cool her jets.

In truth, McCain was being far too calm. After all, socialism is the leading man-made cause of death and misery in human existence. Whether implemented by a mob or a single strongman, collectivism is a poverty generator, an attack on human dignity, and a destroyer of individual rights.

It’s true that not all socialism ends in the tyranny of Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism or Castroism or Ba’athism or Chavezism or the Khmer Rouge—only most of it does. And no, New York primary winner Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t intend to set up gulags in Alaska. Most so-called democratic socialists—the qualifier affixed to denote that they live in a democratic system and have no choice but to ask for votes—aren’t consciously or explicitly endorsing violence or tyranny.

But when they adopt the term “socialism” and the ideas associated with it, they deserve to be treated with the kind of contempt and derision that all those adopting authoritarian philosophies deserve.

But look: Norway!

Socialism is perhaps the only ideology that Americans are asked to judge solely based on its piddling “successes.” Don’t you dare mention Albania or Algeria or Angola or Burma or Congo or Cuba or Ethiopia or Laos or Somalia or Vietnam or Yemen or, well, any other of the dozens of other inconvenient places socialism has been tried. Not when there are a handful of Scandinavian countries operating generous welfare state programs propped up by underlying vibrant capitalism and natural resources.

Of course, socialism exists on a spectrum, and even if we accept that the Nordic social program experiments are the most benign iteration of collectivism, they are certainly not the only version. Pretending otherwise would be like saying, “The police state of Singapore is more successful than Denmark. Let’s give it a spin.”

It turns out, though, that the “Denmark is awesome!” talking point is only the second-most preposterous one used by socialists. It goes something like this: If you’re a fan of “roads, schools, libraries, and such,” although you may not even be aware of it, you are also a supporter of socialism.

This might come as a surprise to some, but every penny of the $21,206 spent in Ocasio-Cortez’s district each year on each student, rich or poor, is provided with the profits derived from capitalism.

There is no welfare system, no library that subsists on your good intentions. Having the state take over the entire health care system could rightly be called a socialistic endeavor, but pooling local tax dollars to put books in a building is called local government.

It should also be noted that today’s socialists get their yucks by pretending collectivist policies only lead to innocuous outcomes like local libraries. But for many years they were also praising the dictators of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the nation’s most successful socialist, isn’t merely impressed with the goings-on in Denmark. Not very long ago, he lauded Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela as an embodiment of the “American dream,” even more so than the United States.

Socialists like to blame every inequity, the actions of every greedy criminal, every downturn, and every social ill on the injustice of capitalism. But none of them admit that capitalism has been the most effective way to eliminate poverty in history.

Today, in former socialist states like India, there have been big reductions in poverty thanks to increased capitalism. In China, where communism sadly still deprives more than a billion people of their basic rights, hundreds of millions benefit from a system that is slowly shedding socialism. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the extreme poverty rate in the world has been cut in half. And it didn’t happen because Southeast Asians were raising the minimum wage.

In the United States, only 5 percent of people are even aware that poverty has fallen in the world, according to the Gapminder Foundation, which is almost certainly in part due to the left’s obsession with “inequality” and normalization of “socialism.”

Nearly half of American millennials would rather live in a socialist society than in a capitalist one, according to a YouGov poll. That said, only 71 percent of those asked were able to properly identify either. We can now see the manifestation of this ignorance in our elections and “The View” co-host Joy Behar.

But if all you really champion are some higher taxes and more generous social welfare, stop associating yourself with a philosophy that usually brings destitution and death. Call it something else. If not, McCain has every right to associate you with the ideology you embrace.

Pat Cross on the Outlook of the Democrat Party, i.e., America's Alleged Problem with Racist Bigots and Other Would-Be Hitlers


Pat Cross has a handful of cartoons dealing with the outlook of the Democrat Party…

• Pat Cross on Socialism IV: European Socialism Works — The Proof…
• Pat Cross on Socialism III: We'll Just Try a Tiny Bit
• Pat Cross on Socialism II: Where Everything Is Free… Except
• Pat Cross on Socialism I: Everyone Else Who Tried This Got Hurt
More:
• Pat Cross on the Left's Double Standards
• Pat Cross on the Separation of Church and State
According to Conservatives and According to Liberals

Monday, October 08, 2018

Pat Cross on the Left's Double Standards


In a couple of cartoons almost two years apart, Pat Cross provides light on the double standards of the left (progressive politicians and mainstream media alike).

• Pat Cross on Socialism IV: European Socialism Works — The Proof…
• Pat Cross on Socialism III: We'll Just Try a Tiny Bit
• Pat Cross on Socialism II: Where Everything Is Free… Except
• Pat Cross on Socialism I: Everyone Else Who Tried This Got Hurt
More:
• Pat Cross on the Outlook of the Democrat Party, i.e.,
America's Alleged Problem with Racist Bigots and Other Would-Be Hitlers…
• Pat Cross on the Separation of Church and StateAccording to Conservatives and According to Liberals

Pat Cross on Socialism (I)


On his website (Because I enjoy Drawing, America, and a few other things too…), Pat Cross has a handful of choice cartoons on socialism

• Pat Cross on Socialism IV: European Socialism Works — The Proof…
• Pat Cross on Socialism III: We'll Just Try a Tiny Bit
• Pat Cross on Socialism II: Where Everything Is Free… Except
More:
• Pat Cross on the Left's Double Standards
• Pat Cross on the Outlook of the Democrat Party, i.e.,
America's Alleged Problem with Racist Bigots and Other Would-Be Hitlers…
• Pat Cross on the Separation of Church and StateAccording to Conservatives and According to Liberals

Thursday, October 04, 2018

Arguments: The Svane Law

I have thought about this for the past several years — time and time again it has been proven correct — and, speaking of time, it is time to define it formally once and for all:

Here is the Svane Law:

If your only argument, or if your main argument, is that your adversary's position is outdated (or unfashionable, or antiquated, or passé, or medieval, or so 13th century, etc, etc…) — notably in passive voices alleging objectivity and neutrality such as "Norms since those times have changed" — you have de facto lost the debate for the simple reason that you are wrong.

Monday, October 01, 2018

The idea that Kavanaugh can’t be a Supreme Court justice because he wasn’t dispassionate in the face of multiple bogus allegations that he’s a rapist is grotesquely dumb


The best thing I have read about the Brett Kavanaugh hearings comes from Trump-disliker Jonah Goldberg:
This wasn’t a brouhaha about Trump or any of the usual stuff. The issue here was that the Democrats and their abettors in the media simply behaved atrociously.

For example, on Thursday, nearly every conservative and Republican was respectful towards Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, finding her testimony moving and credible. But when Brett Kavanaugh spoke, also movingly and credibly, the instantaneous response from much of the liberal and Democratic chorus was “Ermahgod! Raaaaaapist!” or “How dare he be angry!” or “You can’t have a partisan madman like this on the Court!”

Look, I actually agree that Kavanaugh’s anger towards Democrats in the hearing — though morally and emotionally justified — isn’t a good thing over the long run if he were to make it on the Court. But this idea that he can’t be a Supreme Court justice because he wasn’t dispassionate in the face of multiple bogus allegations that he’s a rapist is both grotesque and grotesquely dumb.

First of all, is there any doubt in your mind that, if Kavanaugh had been coldly dispassionate, dismissive, and reserved, the Jen Rubins of the world would be screaming,
“See! He’s an emotionless monster! He doesn’t even have the basic human decency to take offense at being called a rapist!”?
Second, contrary to the tsunami of smug sorrowful opining, judges are not expected to be cold and dispassionate in the face of charges about themselves. That’s [precisely the reason] why they recuse themselves from cases in which they have personal interests. Here’s an idea for you: The next time you’re in a court of law, shout at the judge that he’s biased because he’s an alcoholic rapist perv. See what happens.

Dianne Feinstein — who is more to blame for this three-ring-fecal-festival than any other actor — began her questioning of Kavanaugh by raising an allegation that he ran a rape gang. He responded angrily. And now she’s offended by the partisanship? Please. Judicial nominees aren’t supposed to be like the guards at Buckingham Palace:
“Let’s see how many absolutely horrible things we can say to his face before he loses his temper — and then when he does, let’s berate him for not doing his job.”