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.
I termed Tuesday night’s show the Racist/Leftist Insanity Special for reasons to be patently obvious upon listening and/or watching.
Tonight in the Saloon:
Jersey Joe is back in studio, having survived Hurricane Irma in Florida; apparently all the blessings sent his way did in fact function appropriately;
Happy Stories: SCOTUS upholds Trump’s travel stay; more to come;
I tell the terrible truth about 9/11, as this show occurred one day after; listener discretion is advised. Seriously.
The FEC wants to remove your freedom of speech once again;
BLM has 10 demands for Caucasoids;
Melanie Collette pens a stolid and courageous article about blacks in America;
It was a racist Tweet which kept Colin Kaepernick from being hired by the Ravens;
Elbert Guillory on so-called “white privilege;”
This past Sunday the Cleveland Browns stood arm-in-arm with local law enforcement; this is an act to be emulated throughout the entire NFL;
ESPN pulls Asian broadcaster off sports venue because he’s named Robert Lee;
Tucker Carlson says President Trump’s watching the eclipse directly is “the most impressive thing any president has ever done.” Right;
Greg Gutfeld on the American Media Maggots;
ESPN throws Sergio Dipp to the wolves because of “diversity”;
Hillary Clinton announces: no more election campaigns for me. THANK GOD;
The media finally begins to recognize the Hillary Clinton email scandal;
If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on start.
If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on start. Disregard the labeling; it really is my show.
This Thursday we feature The Underground Professor himself, Dr Michael Jones, as he weighs in on Sanctuary Cities as well as the newest ruling by SCOTUS in re the Trump travel stay. Don’t miss it!
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.
The SHR Media Network Studio 7 from which BZ broadcasts Tuesdays and Thursdays.
I advocated for this on my August 29th and August 31st Berserk Bobcat Ballroom radio shows. I also wrote this post on August 31st indicating that lawsuits were well past due on behalf of those persons who were injured by the clear and obvious negligence displayed by certain specific law enforcement agencies when they purposely determined to step back as Antifa appeared, and shirk their law enforcement responsibilities. Their oaths. Their honor.
Then: Laura Ingraham picked up my mantra on Tucker Carlson’s show later in the week. Perhaps it’s time to remove some very select and pointed elements of “qualified immunity” that is commonly granted to law enforcement agencies.
Why does so-called “qualified immunity” exist? Because, on their faces, law enforcement agencies across the nation attempt to do the job to which they’ve been tasked. They try to do the “right thing.” An excellent article is here.
When they fail to do the jobs to which they’ve been tasked, then, in my opinion, qualified immunity should be lost.
That is to say, Leftist law enforcement agencies and their masters will not change their stripe and begin to do the jobs to which they’ve been tasked unless they are sued within inches of their lives. They must be made to pay, and they must be made to bleed.
If for no other reason than to set an example, provide a chilling effect and send a quite clear message.
If you happen to live within the jurisdictions I recommended in terms of suits — the San Jose PD, Charlottesville PD, Berkeley PD and UCD PD — well, sorry. It may possibly suck to be you in the future because I can only hope that your law enforcement agencies are going to be drained and their overarching entities — city and state administrations — will likewise be so as well.
There must be pain, there must be loss and there must be consequences. For what? you may ask.
For not doing your damned jobs.
But listen to this, from a CBS station. It questions yet attempts to justify Berkeley PD’s non-reactive responses.
I emphasize, though: cash must be diverted from customary necessary requirements to lawsuits. If you must suffer as a Leftist law enforcement agency, due to locale, so be it. You, as a local citizen, signed up for this. Your zip code is your vote.
Lawsuit alleges Charlottesville police were ordered to stand down at white supremacist rally
by Andrea Noble
Robert Sanchez Turner claims cops turned blind eye to violence on the ground at Aug. 12 rally.
A man who was assaulted during a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, is suing the city and state police, alleging that officers were ordered to stand down and failed to act even as they witnessed the attack.
According to the federal lawsuit, Robert Sanchez Turner was sprayed in the eye with pepper spray and beaten with canes, and had urine thrown on him during the Aug. 12 rally in Charlottesville, as police officers stood less than 10 feet away and did nothing to stop the assault or arrest the assailants.
“By commanding their subordinates to stand down while hundreds of white supremacists and their sympathizers assaulted and seriously injured counterprotesters, these defendants were essentially accessories to, and facilitators of, unconstitutional hate crime,” states the lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.
Nexus Caridades Attorneys, which filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, is expected to announce additional details about the case Friday.
This is just one lawsuit. But I ask: please let it grow and become a national debate.
Report: Lawsuit to target Charlottesville police over rally’s violence
by Josh Delk
Nexus Caridades, a Virginia-based law group, reportedly plans to sue Charlottesville police over the violence that resulted from a white supremacists’ rally earlier this month, citing a client who was injured in the violent clashes.
The case alleges that plaintiff Robert Sanchez Turner sustained injuries in the violence because of the police “standing down” and failing to intervene in the situation, in which white nationalist groups attacked anti-racist protesters, the attorneys told The Daily Progress.
But that’s just one case. On, frankly, the wrong side. The greatest number of potential suits exist on the side of, say, Patriot Prayer or those who are not Antifa-friendly. That is a vast untapped megabucks source for attorneys.
But still: Why?
Because some law enforcement agencies still purposely choose to not do their job in various venues across this nation. Not a decision made by line-level troops. No. But a decision made in concert with various other applicable government levels to include mayors, city managers, bureaucracies, bureaucrats, union members and those beyond civil service.
Those with a Leftist bent, weak of mind, unable to think for themselves, coat-tail hangers, sycophants, Those incapable in independent and/or true critical thinking. Because that is the last thing taught in any college today. Only Lockstep Thinking is promoted and encouraged. Non-variancy. Mindless response.
The pro-bono legal group plans to formally announce the litigation on Friday in Emancipation Park, where the Aug. 12 rally took place. Also targeted in the suit are the city of Charlottesville, its chief of police and the superintendent of the Virginia State Police.
And I say: excellent. Be general and then yet become quite very specific.
Name names. Most cops wear name tags, velcro tabs, name plates, possess badge numbers. Let them also be named. Specifically. Quite very specifically.
You either engage and do your job, or you stand back and allow chaos to ensue.
Because trust me, you beggars, the chaos you allow will soon come to visit itself upon your neighborhood and your family. Damn you for not seeing those consequences.
President Trump was correct. There was blame on both sides. He spoke the obvious truth yet was excoriated via Leftists and the American Media Maggots.
“Mr. Turner was assaulted while police officers watched but failed to act to keep him safe or arrest those responsible for the attacks,” the organization’s public relations director, Jen Little, told the Progress.
The lawsuit follows a report that federal authorities had warned Virginia law enforcement of potential violence at the rally, citing previous clashes between white supremacist groups and anti-fascist “antifa” protesters.
Guess what? True on both sides.
Finally: a Truism from President Trump that the American Media Maggots shan’t acknowledge in retrospect.
“What about the alt-left that came charging at the — as you say, the alt-right?” Trump asked three days after the deadly rally. “Do they have any semblance of guilt? What about the fact they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I am concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day.”
Purposeful indifference. Go RICO, go 182 PC, go 42 USC § 1983. The situation is screaming for it. Name agencies, name administrators and then name very specific individual officers. Go for broke. Break them down. Bankrupt them. Make them bleed.
Anyone remember a quote: “it takes two to tango” — ?
ESPN pulls Asian-American announcer from Virginia football game because he has a Confederate general’s name
In the wake of the events in Charlottesville, Va., ESPN decided to pull one of its announcers from calling a University of Virginia football game — because his name is Robert Lee.
Lee, an Asian-American sportscaster who started with the network in 2016, was moved to a different game “simply because of the coincidence of his name,” ESPN said, referencing the Confederate general Robert E. Lee.
No. I am not kidding. Watch.
Yes, precisely. ESPN believes its audience is so inherently daft that it cannot possibly begin to readily differentiate between a young Asian sports commentator and a dead, old Confederate Army Caucasoid general with a beard and long hair.
If you think that’s wondrous — but wait. There’s more.
The American Media Maggots actually believed that on Tucker Carlson’s Monday show he was gravely serious when he said that President Trump looking at the sun during the solar eclipse was “perhaps the most impressive thing any president has ever done.” YGBFKM.
No. I am as deadly serious as the man in this video.
It’s a joke but it’s not a joke. No, it’s much more serious than that. Wait, it’s perhaps the most seriously insightful thing in months.
Nathan McDermott of CNN bit. Big time.
The UK’s Claire Phipps at the Guardian also chomped.
Binkowski is even more serious. This is her specific Tweet. Grok that.
At least the bald dude had a semblance of a clue, but not much. Wait until you see and hear the reactions of the American Media Maggots who were truly and nakedly beyond stupid. Who best to point out said stupidity but Tucker Carlson himself and Greg Gutfeld.
Just as the humorless Leftists have time and again proven themselves bereft of facts, much less compassion, they continue to subvert America hand-in-bloody-hand with the American Media Maggots, Antifa, anarchists and the willing complicity of Demorats.
I’ve said before and continue to say: “you can’t write this shite.”
Still, the Left-embracing American Media Maggots fundamentally cannot believe anyone would deign to possess the temerity to label them Fake News.
As they simultaneously bleed cash, readers, advertising and — Leftist journalistas themselves. I wonder why the AMM doesn’t dare to speak about the heinous, slashing cuts in newsrooms all across the fruited plain? And the fact that their ponderous corporations pay for shite?
Older man struck and injured by Antifa rioters in Berkeley, early 2017, for wearing a red baseball cap which read “make America great again.” Where would the American Media Maggots be if this were an older black man struck down during an “alt right” rally?
After the recent forcible and violent removal of various statues across the nation by elements of Antifa and aligned sympathizers — to include the City of Baltimore removing the Taney, Lee, Jackson and Confederate women’s statues in literally the dead of night . . .
. . . I and many others knew that we had to do what I term the Logical Extension: the waters will build to the point where one can only assume this will lead to the greater call for anything even remotely aligned with our Founding Fathers.
Just as President Trump suspected.
Because, after all, there was no blame on both sides. It was only the white supremacists who were fighting and becoming violent. Apparently they must have been fighting each other. To me, a startling revelation but good to know.
Tucker Carlson spoke about what I said on my radio shows this past Tuesday and Thursday. Where are we going?
Would it shock you to know that the bulk of America — 62% — doesn’t want anything done with Confederate monuments, as in “let them be?”
But, for Leftists, it’s just the beginning. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” As I said, the Charlottesville event is peripheral to their ultimate goals. Goals that at once are clear and foggy, simultaneously. Clear because we know where Leftists wish to go. Foggy because much of their rhetoric and hate-filled bombast is predicated upon everything but history.
As I also said and wrote directly following Charlottesville, yes, this is about racism but actually — only peripherally. This is but one step in a prior set of steps and a continuing series of steps by Leftists. It’s all pointing to a much larger issue involving — just as Barack Hussein Obama publicly stated he wished to do — the fundamental changing of America.
Leftists, Antifa and BLM members are cheering nationwide. Have no doubt.
This is direct reflection on the temper of the times and has been brewing the prior 8 years under Mr Obama, who both tacitly condoned and openly supported these eventualities. Would anyone dare to intimate that Mr Obama could not see the eventual results of his words writ large across the land? We’re suggesting he was that daft?
A condemnation of Cambridge Police “before all the facts are in” by Mr Obama as he and Professor Gates appear to “match.”
An equally biased support of Trayvon Martin before the case was in and prior to a verdict, in which George Zimmermann, not a Caucasoid but an Hispanic, was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. FDLE, DOJ and FBI cases were dropped for lack of evidence.
This is called a trend, one of many biased statements, identified as a pattern.
How would the press react if President Trump said, regarding a case involving a black police officer shooting a young white suspect, that “if I had another son, he’d look like ______”? There would be chaos for days if not weeks, aided and abetted by our favorite American Media Maggots.
I am certain, and you cannot convince me otherwise, that Mr Obama isn’t looking upon the events of the past two weeks or so and not applauding and smiling, calling like-minded friends and politicians, confident in knowing that what he set in motion, despite the loss of Hillary Rodham Clinton, is still in play to a growing extent.
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.
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.
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 sick, alter 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.
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?