BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon radio show, Tuesday, August 29th, 2017

Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show each Wednesday evening.

Tonight in the Saloon:

  • Unfortunately Dan Butcher was unable to phone into the Saloon with a Texas update on Hurricane Harvey; telephone issues;
  • Harvey victims become frustrated with the American Media Maggots;
  • Texas Governor Greg Abbott thanks President Trump for the advance work done by the Trump administration and cabinet members, as well as coordination;
  • ABC reporter condemned as a “looter snitch” by Leftist media for turning in criminals sacking a nearby supermarket; what a comment is that on the media;
  • North Korea fires a missile directly over the Japanese island of Hokkaido;
  • What to do about North Korea aggression? Sooner or later we must address it;
  • Russia is moving citizens away from the Russia/North Korea border; a clue;
  • I cork off on Antifa;
  • I cork off on Leftists;
  • I cork off on Demorats;
  • I cork off on anarchists;
  • I cork off on the City of Berkeley Police Department;
  • We finally discover: they were ordered to stand down in the face of Antifa.

If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on start.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, August 29th, 2017” on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on start. Disregard the mistaken title; it really is the Berserk Bobcat Saloon radio show.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here.

BZ

Antifa, journalists, city administrators, government bureaucrats and police removing your Constitutional rights

And I’ve had enough.

I am particularly disgusted by the continuing insertion of police departments as obstructionists to our civil rights, namely our First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceful protest. Note: peaceful protest.

You police departments, police administrators and local bureaucrats who enable Antifa, never forget this Antifa phrase. They mean it quite seriously.

Let’s not forget that Leftists and Antifa despise you and oppose law enforcement. When you stand back you are at cross-purposes with yourselves and the oaths you took to protect life and property.

Let’s also not forget that SCOTUS recently ruled on free speech and so-called “hate speech.”  As I wrote on July 13th.

SCOTUS ruling on the First Amendment

The US Supreme just recently released a terribly important opinion on a First Amendment case,

One that will and has upset and pissed off Leftists nationally and globally.

From the WashingtonPost.com:

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

by Eugene Volokh

From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

This flies directly in the fact of what Leftists, Demorats, the American Media Maggots, globalists and even a few Republicans are saying: there is “hate speech” and it is a crime.

False. So sayeth the US Supreme Court.

Leftists, however, predicate their bleats about so-called “hate speech” but upon feelings and emotions, not upon facts or reality. I wrote this back on July 31st.

Leftists: speech is brutality

As long as it fails to correspond to their version and values attached to speech. Any speech. All speech.

And to think we once had a First Amendment.

Stop. Did you realize that the United States is the only major Western country that does not have an official and onerous “hate speech” criminal law on its books?

In my mind, that bespeaks much more about all of those other countries than it does about the United States.

But isn’t some speech the equivalent of brutality? Can’t much of speech be the equivalent of brutality? Let’s consult a Leftist psychology professor.

When Is Speech Violence?

by Lisa Feldmann Barrett

Imagine that a bully threatens to punch you in the face. A week later, he walks up to you and breaks your nose with his fist. Which is more harmful: the punch or the threat?

The answer might seem obvious: Physical violence is physically damaging; verbal statements aren’t. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.

Wait. So can eggs. Cow farts. A blue ringed octopus. Loose lug nuts. The cargo door from a 747. A bee. Bad spinach.

If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. 

You might even say that, in the eyes of Leftists, Demorats, Antifa, anarchists, the next sentence encapsulates it all, fervently embossed and endorsed by Howard Dean.

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks.

This is nothing more than one of the most brain-dead statements ever made. The writer and its jejune sympathizers fail to properly load the difference between the words “speech” and “action” into their fetid and fissured brain housing groups.

This is free speech and I support Olbermann’s right to write it. He utilized expletives. But he did not advocate outright violence as in today’s vernacular. Olbermann is insane, yes, but he has the same rights as Nazis to disagree with issues.

Leftists now believe that they can no longer even be “questioned” and, if they are, that in and of itself constitutes “hate speech.”

Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

With that as background, the City of San Francisco decided to outright cancel this past Saturday’s (August 26th) rally organized by Patriot Prayer, a group typified by most all the American Media Maggots as Nazi-like in nature and purely evil in intent. The AMM quantified it is a “controversial free speech rally.”

Stop. You see? Free speech is now labeled “controversial.”

Stop. What is the group “Patriot Prayer” anyway? Leftist-oriented Wikipedia writes:

Patriot Prayer is an American conservative advocacy group whose stated aim is to support free speech and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[1] The group is known for organizing rallies and protests in predominately liberal areas. Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, though the group’s founder Joey Gibson has disavowed them and denounced racism.[2]

Stop. Wait. Let’s list the numerous ways this group is inherently evil, yes?

  • Anything conservative is evil;
  • Anything or anyone advocating conservatism is evil;
  • Supporting free speech is evil;
  • Supporting the First Amendment is evil;
  • Supporting the US Constitution is evil;
  • Organizing rallies and protests in predominantly liberal areas is evil;
  • Joey Gibson is evil for disavowing white nationalists and denouncing racism.

You see? Rampant and unmitigated evil which must be immediately shut down.

Immediately immediately immediately!

And shut down it was.

Aided and abetted by the Berkeley Police Department. From Breitbart.com:

Berkeley Police Allowed Antifa to Jump Barricades, Assault Demonstrators

by Joel B. Pollak

Berkeley police deliberately allowed masked “Antifa” anarchists to jump a barricade and attack a demonstration by a peaceful right-wing group on Sunday, leading to five assaults, including on Patriot Prayer group leader Joey Gibson.

The counter-demonstration had reportedly been “largely peaceful” until that point.

The police later defended their decision by arguing that keeping the anarchists out would have led to greater violence. There was “no need for a confrontation over a grass patch,” Berkeley police chief Andrew Greenwood said, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

Note how Leftist Chief Greenwood inartfully and clumsily crafted his biased response in terms of “keeping the anarchists (he admits that’s what they are and their nature) out would have led to greater violence,” thusly “over a grass patch.”

This is called a cowardly excuse for not doing his job. By the way, what is the City of Berkeley paying this chief to execute their city council’s non-interventionist policy and that of its Antifa-embracing Mayor Arreguin? Right. $210,000. Not including benefits.

Check this:

Berkeley Mayor Is Member of Antifa Facebook Group that Organized Riots

by Tom Ciccotta

Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin is a member of the anti-fascist Facebook group, By Any Means Necessary, which orchestrated the riots that occurred ahead of a scheduled lecture by Milo Yiannopoulos.

Facts in evidence. Please read my quite in-depth post about the corruption of the Berkeley Police Department here.

I continue.

The original “No to Marxism” protest had been denied a permit by the city, but a small group of protesters showed up anyway, as did 2,000 “largely peaceful” counter-demonstrators, the Mercury News reported. SFGate.com reported that there were 400 police on hand to prevent violence.

But wait. There’s more.

But (Berkeley Police) stepped aside, the Mercury News reported, when over 100 masked anarchists “busted through police lines, avoiding security checks by officers to take away possible weapons.”

The result was several severe beatings of those who had gathered to protest against Marxism. Thirteen of the anarchists were arrested, the Chronicle reported.

Again, how many times do I have to point this out? In my opinion, I would submit that the City of Berkeley, Mayor Arreguin, the city council and Chief Andrew Greenwood are all complicit in a conspiracy, 182 PC, to allow lawful citizens of the State of California and the United States to become injured by indifference, and to allow private and public property to be damaged and destroyed, having received their marching orders not to interfere if the forces of Antifa were having their way.

I would submit that these forces possess a history sufficient to instigate both a federal RICO investigation of the entire Bay Area bureaucracy, and a 42 USC § 1983 “deprivation of civil rights” action.

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 197993 Stat. 1284Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996110 Stat. 3853.)

It’s long past time for Leftists to be subject to the same lawful scrutiny others are.

In the meantime, this past weekend was simply another excuse for Antifa anarchist elements to riot, strike, injure and act violently because, after all, at their base they simply enjoy it.

I continue.

But the Mercury News report, citing Berkeley law enforcement authorities directly, made it clear that police knew that “Antifa” intended to cause violence, and allowed it to happen:

Berkeley police chief Andrew Greenwood defended how police handled the protest, saying they made a strategic decision to let the anarchists enter to avoid more violence.

Greenwood said “the potential use of force became very problematic” given the thousands of peaceful protesters in the park. Once anarchists arrived, it was clear there would not be dueling protests between left and right so he ordered his officers out of the park and allowed the anarchists to march in.

He ordered his officers out of the park.

Let that sink in. By the way, for those not yet aware, it’s 2017. Not 1923. There is no Beer Hall Putsch. Or is there?

The Associated Press corroborated that report: “Berkeley Police Chief Andrew Greenwood said officers were told not to actively confront the anarchists. He applauded officers’ restraint, saying it forestalled greater violence.”

I say to the apparently scattered few police officers on the Berkeley Police Department who actually wish to uphold their law enforcement oaths — and there are obviously a shockingly-deficient number of you now — it is long past due time to make a stand. But at some point you must. Do you stay or do you go? Do you fellate the Leftist cock of your local government or do you leave it to do some actual good for a department that will appreciate your talents, your training, your education and your experience?

Because, frankly, Berkeley PD never will.

It is not unlike this:

  • DISPATCHER: Attention all units, 211 in progress, Bank of America, Main and 51st, two masked males with handguns, units to respond?
  • UNIT: Paul 17 enroute from Franklin and 17th Ave.
  • UNIT: Paul 19 enroute from Josiah and Henry.
  • UNIT: Sam 5 from Henry and Stockton.
  • CHIEF: Units stand down, reduce code, clear the call. Citizens and suspects could be injured by your response and interference.

No. I am not kidding. This is apparently where we are today in some departments, in some areas, in some municipalities, in some Leftist states.

And the above. Berkeley PD obviously standing and watching. One wants to go, one does not.

Okay, and?”

Okay and, how about you honor the law enforcement oath you took when your badge was pinned on by your wife, husband, parents, a loved one upon graduation:

“I, ______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and Constitution of the State of California, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

It’s called an oath. And it is what you swore to uphold.

Not anarchy. Not Antifa. Not chaos. Not insurrection. But calm and order and the rule of law.

Some people got slapped out of Antifa as they deserved.

Some people bitched about having violated the law but not yet afforded their rights to incredible luxuries afforded nowhere else on the planet. Note to bitcher: perhaps you should have left your “service dog” at home. But no. You’re a “Four-Fer.” A black. A female. A Leftist. A recipient of a service dog. All at Taxpayer Expense, yes? Because I’m sure you had the thousands and thousands of dollars required to have your claimed dog trained, did you not? Oh wait. That was on the taxpayer’s hook, was it?

But wait. Stop. Bestill my clotted heart. Am I hearing what I think I may be hearing”

But only for a microsecond or three.

Then there were the people who had the temerity and naked audacity to suggest they had a a right to protest non-violently. Note: non-violently.

Let’s go to Tucker Carlson.

“Using the police forces for their own political gain.”

This literally makes me heartsick. Physically nauseous. But the ultimate realization makes me even more concerned.

You have two legs and at least something of a brain. You can decide to leave the room, turn off the television, stop reading, leave the website, put down the magazine, turn off the iPad, etc. Any number of logical adult decisions can be made. Logical. Adult. Decisions.

You are not a Stegosaurus. It required a semi-brain, and a ganglion of nerves in its hips to make the legs move.

And that’s my ultimate point.

Who has control? The receptor of the message? Who is forced to, say: Click on. Click off?

Even Noam Chomsky believes in free speech, and on campuses.

The United States of America is one of the very, very few Western Civilization countries left that does not have a “hate speech” law guaranteeing prosecution of that vastly nebulous phrase.

Be thankful.

Be very, very thankful.

But be very, very mindful.

Moreover: be vigilant. And be prepared to defend your Constitutional rights.

That aspect is looming.

BZ

 

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon radio show, Tuesday, August 15th, 2017, with guests Dan Butcher and Dave Milner

Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.

Our guests were Dan Butcher of High Plains Pundit Media/Radio/TV, who weighed in on Charlottesville and its implications, as well as Dave Milner, the Unpleasant Blind Guy, who weighed in on the English Defense League and Islam’s plan for Europe and beyond.

 

Tonight in the Saloon:

  • We speak to Dan Butcher about all aspects of the recent Charlottesville protest/riots;
  • Where were the local and state police during this incident?
  • I cannot begin to express my disappointment in law enforcement
  • What does this mean for Antifa?
  • What does this mean for white supremacist groups?
  • Both of these sides showed up for a fight, that much is clearly evident;
  • Dave Milner discusses the origin of the English Defense League;
  • Dave illustrates the relationship between EDL and UK law enforcement;
  • Angela Merkel wants 40,000 more migrants into Europe;
  • A new book: NO GO ZONES. There ARE Muslim No Go Zones in Europe;
  • Haitians migrants think Canada is cheap and demand more Free Cheese;

If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on start.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, August 15th, 2017” on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on start.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here.

BZ

Leftists: speech is brutality

As long as it fails to correspond to their version and values attached to speech. Any speech. All speech.

And to think we once had a First Amendment.

Stop. Did you realize that the United States is the only major Western country that does not have an official and onerous “hate speech” criminal law on its books?

In my mind, that bespeaks much more about all of those other countries than it does about the United States.

But isn’t some speech the equivalent of brutality? Can’t much of speech be the equivalent of brutality? Let’s consult a Leftist psychology professor.

When Is Speech Violence?

by Lisa Feldmann Barrett

Imagine that a bully threatens to punch you in the face. A week later, he walks up to you and breaks your nose with his fist. Which is more harmful: the punch or the threat?

The answer might seem obvious: Physical violence is physically damaging; verbal statements aren’t. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.

Wait. So can eggs. Cow farts. A blue ringed octopus. Loose lug nuts. The cargo door from a 747. A bee. Bad spinach.

If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. But which types?

There you go. Speech is in fact violent. With that in mind, I wonder just what kinds of speech Leftists will consider violent because, after all, the author is quite the Leftist herself? Moreover, who will make these weighty decisions?

This question has taken on some urgency in the past few years, as professed defenders of social justice have clashed with professed defenders of free speech on college campuses. Student advocates have protested vigorously, even violently, against invited speakers whose views they consider not just offensive but harmful — hence the desire to silence, not debate, the speaker. “Trigger warnings” are based on a similar principle: that discussions of certain topics will trigger, or reproduce, past trauma — as opposed to merely challenging or discomfiting the student. The same goes for “microaggressions.”

Ah, here we go. Safe spaces. Coloring books. Safety pins, trigger warnings and microaggressions. The only things truly required at universities any more are drool cups. And sippy cups.

The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn’t be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.

Again: define “abusive.” In whose eyes? And who makes that ultimate determination?

What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.

Wait. Are these hateful words. Is this an advocacy of violence?

A history of violence? On whose side?

What of the loving and peaceful Diablo College professor Eric Clanton? Correct me if I’m wrong, but this appears to be actual violence committed by a Leftist on camera.

Then there is Leftist professor Kevin Allred from Montclair State University who Tweeted last Friday night, July 28th: “Trump is a fucking joke. This is all a sham. I wish someone would just shoot him outright.”

What does that sound like to you? Just a wee tinge of violent speech? Enough to nut up a snowflake? Not necessarily for, you see, it is all quite topic-dependent.

To me it sounds like the environment one customarily encounters on any given campus in the United States when any student, singly or in a group, begins speech which is conservative in nature. In this aspect Barrett makes a perfect point. But not the one she intended.

That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.

Let me unpack the obvious here, something few people point out. Milo is or isn’t anyone’s particular cup of tea. Frankly, I enjoy his willingness to display pushback right in the revered houses of “education” so unfailingly determined to restrict speech. But the reason debate isn’t generally acquired in a Milo campus presentation is because of two aspects: 1. He thinks on his feet with remarkable rapidity, and 2. He is quick to throw facts and situations back at the commenters and questioners in the audience. Leftists don’t operate in the sphere of facts but instead of emotions.

That was pretty emotional, I’d wager. Thanks, professor. Nice advocacy of violence.

By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.

Then Barrett encountered a problem. She appeared on the Tucker Carlson show.

Leftists are at least nothing if not consistent. They only deign to answer questions fitting their narrative. And certainly not the questions I posed as did Tucker: define abuse and tell me who becomes the ultimate determinant of same?

Leftists would resoundingly answer in unison to the one question: government should be the determinant by way of laws restricting speech. Damn that First Amendment.

Oddly enough an article exists in New York magazine countering Barrett’s argument.

Stop Telling Students Free Speech Is Traumatizing Them

by Jesse Singal

One fairly common idea that pops up again and again during the endless national conversation about college campuses, free speech, and political correctness is the notion that certain forms of speech do such psychological harm to students that administrators have an obligation to eradicate them — or, failing that, that students have an obligation to step in and do so themselves (as has happened during recent, high-profile episodes involving Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos, which turned violent).

Agreed. Just ask snowflakes. I love that word. It’s so apropos.

So it’s weird, in light of all this, to see the claim that free speech on campus leads to serious psychological harm being taken seriously in the New York Times, and weirder still to see it argued in a manner draped in pseudoscience. Yet that’s what happened. In a Sunday Review column headlined “When Is Speech Violence?” Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, explains that “scientifically speaking,” the idea that physical violence is more harmful than emotional violence is an oversimplification. “Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.” Chronic stress can also shrink your telomeres, she writes — “little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes” — bringing you closer to death.

Is this the same science to which Al Gore shakingly refers? The same science the Australian Weather Bureau used to cobble together false climate numbers?

This is a weak and confused argument. Setting aside the fact that no one will ever be able to agree on what’s “abusive” versus what’s “merely offensive,” the articles Barrett links to are mostly about chronic stress — the stress elicited by, for example, spending one’s childhood in an impoverished environment of serious neglect and violence. Growing up in a dangerous neighborhood with a poor single mother who has to work so much she doesn’t have time to nurture you is not the same as being a college student at a campus where Yiannopoulos is coming to speak, and where you are free to ignore him or to protest his presence there.

Thank you. Finally, someone points out the Captain Obvious aspects of campus speech and pretty much speech everywhere.

And that’s this. You have two legs and at least something of a brain. You can decide to leave the room, turn off the television, stop reading, leave the website, put down the magazine, turn off the iPad, etc. Any number of logical adult decisions can be made. Logical. Adult. Decisions.

This is apparently a concept with which Leftists, snowflakes, raindrops and all makes and models of emos are stultifyingly unfamiliar.

Nowhere does Barrett fully explain how the presence on campus of a speaker like Yiannopoulos for a couple of hours is going to lead to students being afflicted with the sort of serious, chronic stress correlated with health difficulties. It’s simply disingenuous to compare the two types of situations — in a way, it’s an insult both to people who do deal with chronic stress and to student activists.

Thank you. Again more shocking clarity and honesty.

Now, it would be just as much of a stretch to say that a single column like Barrett’s could cause students to self-traumatize as it would be to say that an upcoming Yiannopoulos appearance could traumatize them. But in the aggregate, if you tell students over and over and over that certain variants of free speech — variants which are ugly, but which are aired every moment of every day on talk radio — are traumatizing them, it really could do harm. 

Yes. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

And there’s no reason to go down this road, because there’s no evidence that the mere presence of a conservative speaker on campus is harming students in some deep psychological or physiological way (with the exception of outlying cases involving preexisting mental-health problems). This is a silly idea that should be retired from the conversation about free speech on campus.

From whom does trauma occur to others? Leftists.

From whom does violence on campus occur? Leftists.

Who cannot brook or tolerate opposing viewpoints, thoughts or exposition?

Leftists.

BZ

 

Why DC has turned to shite

I’ve said it for over six months and, despite that, some elements of the media are just now beginning to catch up. And that is this.

The Demorats, the DNC, Leftists and the American Media Maggots themselves have not been able to psychologically migrate from November 8th, 2016 to November 9th, 2016.

As in: Hillary Rodham Clinton should be president and we — all of us — cannot possibly believe that the man with the dead orange cat on his head is in charge of anything at all.

From the WashingtonFreeBeacon.com:

The One Sentence That Explains Washington Dysfunction

by Matthew Continetti

The other day Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania explained why Republicans are having such trouble with health care. Speaking at a town hall during the July 4 recess, Toomey said, “I didn’t expect Donald Trump to win. I think most of my colleagues didn’t. So we didn’t expect to be in this situation.”

No kidding. I too can report that, from June 16, 2015, to November 8, 2016, the feeling among the elected officials, party functionaries, consultants, strategists, and journalists in our nation’s capital was that Donald J. Trump stood no chance of becoming president of the United States. And because the political elite held this view with such self-assurance, with all the egotism and snobbery and moral puffery and snarkiness that distinguishes itself as a class, it did not spend more than a second, if that, thinking through the possible consequences of a Trump victory.

I repeat, at the risk of being repetitive, live and direct from the Department of Redundancy Dept., what I’ve said for at least nine months. Absolutely no one was prepared for or anticipated Donald Trump to win.

“I didn’t expect Donald Trump to win. I think most of my colleagues didn’t. So we didn’t expect to be in this situation.”

Please allow me to translate EstabliHack GOP Speak for you: “we didn’t expect Donald Trump to win so we essentially prepared nothing, thinking we’d be riding on more of the standard ‘talk much/do little’ strategy so customary with Establishment Republicans.”

That also accounts, you see, for the GOP having no cogent, conservative, logical alternative to ObamaKare prepared on paper though all of the candidates swore — as did the entire GOP itself — to repeal and replace the ACA.

Just as the Demorats were convinced Hillary Clinton would clap her canky little ankles up the White House steps, so were the Republicans convinced that Meb Bushney or Lindike Grahabee would settle a derriere behind the Resolution desk.

Not so, boys and girls, not so.

Further, all the oinking DC piglets lining up at the trough on both sides of the aisle have had their muzzles occasionally pulled from the DC nipple in a most disconcerting fashion and they are anything but pleased. The man with the dead orange cat on his head has most certainly upset the proverbial apple cart and, frankly, couldn’t care less who is affected, donk or phant.

This accounts for the true underminers on both sides to have wound up and pitched their most hellish opposition to damn near everything Trump has wanted to do. Internal squabbles Inside Power don’t help, either.

Despite all of this ridiculous shite President Trump has managed to do just a bit of politicking and directing which has resulted in any number of corporations deciding to stay stateside, a nice stock market, an uptick in jobs, an accountable VA, an exquisite Supreme Court selection, a reduction in illegal immigration from Mexico, an increase in deportations, the curtains finally having been pulled back on the American Media Maggots, an improvement in military and national confidence and the wholesale elimination of any number of executive orders penned by one Barack Hussein Obama.

All in six months.

Then there’s this: the absolute stark explosion of raving moonbattery from the Demorats and Leftists.

Why stop there? Pelosi so perfectly typifies and embodies the current status of the Demorats today: disjointed, stuttering, rambling, going nowhere and accomplishing nothing yet making a loud noise doing so. The abject moonbattery is quite delicious.

To that I can only add that I’ll gladly do for the Demorats what I’ve offered to do for the American Media Maggots: pleasantly allow them to commit seppuku. I’ll cheerfully be their second as well and suggest lovingly where and how to make that second very important sword cut.

Impeachment for Trump? Hardly. All the Demorats are doing is, thankfully, unraveling and unfocusing. 2018 is starting to look better and better.

Bravo, Demorats and GOP EstabliHacks.

We see you.

BZ