Encouraging Violence II

IT’S TRUMP’S FAULT!

Republican congressman says TRUMP is partly to blame for ‘demons that have been unleashed’ in lead up to baseball shooting

Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., talked about the role President Trump’s rhetoric played in the hostility that led up to Wednesday’s shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and others, in an Alexandria ball field.

‘I would argue that the president has unleashed, it’s partially, again not in any way totally, but partially to blame for demons that have been unleashed,’ Sanford said Thursday on Morning Joe.

The South Carolina congressman-turned-governor-turned-congressman said he’s noticed a discernible difference in how his constituents talk to each other, and thought they might be taking a cue from the top.

We’re at an inflection point,’ Sanford said. ‘There are forces at play that I’ve never seen before over the roughly 20 years I’ve been involved in politics.’

Sanford talked about a recent town hall he hosted at a senior center, which seemingly got out of control.

It ‘was like out of a movie,’ Sanford told the Morning Joe hosts, saying he was shocked by what his constituents said to one another.

Making a broader statement, he lumped some of Trump’s campaign rhetoric in.
‘Whether it’s what I saw at a senior center back home and people saying “FU” and “FU” and “FU” to each other … at a retirement center where they’re going to see each other playing croquet the next day,’ he said.

‘Or with what happened yesterday, again not with what happened, but the fact that, you know, you’ve got the top guy saying “I wish I could hit you in the face, and if not, why don’t you and I’ll pay your legal fees,” Sanford continued.

 

Guess what, cuck, some of us noticed this shift in tone years ago, long before Trump showed up.  People are sick of being constantly attacked and, because they have been, are getting very quick on the eff you draw.  After all, it’s the only argument that works anymore since reason and discussions go nowhere.

Is the GOP really bent on political suicide?

If they keep following the path they’re on, then apparently the answer is yes.  Here’s just another example of why the Republican Party deserves to die.

“How to Lose the Majority in One Easy Step.” That’s the book Republicans could write if they listen to their pro-abortion fringe over the millions of voters who put them in charge. As usual, the GOP is trying to balance the wishes of 52 senators with very different priorities on health care. But there’s one piece of the Obamacare repeal that has never been up for debate — and that’s the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Americans handed the keys to the Republican Party in November with the understanding that they’d finish the job they started in 2015: ending the forced partnership between taxpayers and America’s biggest abortion business. Now, with more than a dozen undercover videos of the group’s activities (most of which aren’t only callous, but lawless), there’s never been more urgency to cancel the half-billion dollar check to the organization.

***

But, despite the hours of tape and reams of evidence from the House’s Select Investigative Panel, there are still two “Republican” senators willing to torpedo the entire health care overhaul in support of a group caught laughing about the decapitation of unborn babies. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) flew to Planned Parenthood’s defense, telling reporters that defunding Richards’s business (which is rolling in $77.5 million in profits) shouldn’t “even be part of the discussion about health care.” She’s right. This should have never been part of the discussion. After all, abortion isn’t health care, and that’s the only thing Planned Parenthood seems to provide to women consistently. Three hundred twenty-eight thousand a year to be exact.

But in a disturbing new development, both Fox News and Politico are reporting that more Republicans may be willing to “give” on the pro-life provisions to pass the health care bill. I agree with my friend Todd Starnes: “That would be the end of the Republican Party. Period. Exclamation Point.” The only reason the American Health Care Act squeaked out of the House was because a number of conservatives thought gutting Planned Parenthood’s funding and ending taxpayer funding of abortion was important enough to override their other concerns. If that firewall is removed, the repeal will go down in flames. The strong support from pro-lifers in the House (and groups on the Hill) would vanish. Then what? The GOP would have failed once again to make good on their decade-old pledge to end Obamacare. And the American people wouldn’t nearly be as forgiving this time, because they’ll have had every tool at their disposal: control of Congress, the White House, and the backing of voters.

Liberal-Minded Businesses Never Learn

Kelloggs probably won’t learn the lesson sitting right in front of them any more than Target did: playing politics and alienating large groups of consumers isn’t wise.  You’d think that when presented with a blueprint of how to wreck sales growth that’s been proven effective, in the worst sense, by several other companies, executives wouldn’t choose to follow that blueprint for their company, but no, liberal virtue signaling trumps good business sense.

#DumpKelloggs pays off, but not for Kelloggs…

Although the company was already planning to downsize, new reports show the damage to Kellogg’s brand is much worse that executives are letting on. In addition to closing 39 distribution centers, the company has shifted from letting go of “several thousand employees” to as many as 11,000 and counting. Reporters for the Philadelphia Inquirer did a little digging and think the job loss is a lot more expansive than the cereal giant wants to admit. “He figures those losing their jobs include at least 1,500 sales reps, plus several support workers and merchandisers for each rep, plus Teamsters truck drivers, loaders, and warehouse support personnel.”

More than a half-million shoppers boycotted the company after its spokesman, Kris Charles, said the conservative Breitbart and its 45 million readers “aren’t aligned with” the cereal giant’s “values as a company.” From there, the #DumpKelloggs movement was born. You’d think more CEOs would connect the dots after the spectacular collapse of Target’s stock when they threw open bathrooms to both genders — or the fierce blowback to radical executives at GrubHub, Pepsi, ESPN, and Penzey’s Spices. It shouldn’t be too difficult for America’s top retailers to realize that declaring war on the values of half of America is not a secret recipe for success. On the contrary, it’s been a revenue-killing disaster for the companies who’ve joined the public rant against the White House and conservatives in general.

The message is simple: stay out of the culture wars or you’ll pay for it. These CEOs should stick to selling products — not politics. If CEOs want to use their profits to push the liberal agenda voters rejected, then they shouldn’t be surprised when consumers reject their products and send their dollars elsewhere.

The Trans-turian Candidate

Move over, Brianna Wu, you’ve got competition!

Will 2017 Be the ‘Year of the Trans Candidate’?

Virginia native Danica Roem is running for a seat in her state’s House of Delegates. Should she emerge victorious from the June 13 Democratic primary, the 32-year-old would challenge longtime Republican incumbent Bob Marshall to represent Virginia’s 13th district and become the first openly transgender representative in the chamber.

A win in the general election would also make Roem the third openly transgender state legislator to ever hold office in the U.S., and one of only a few openly trans elected officials in the world.
***
Despite facing three other Democrats in the primary, Roem is optimistic. She has received several endorsements, including one from the Victory Fund, a national LGBTQ political organization.

“We are making 2017 the year of the trans candidate,” Victory Fund President Aisha C. Moodie-Mills said. “We have more transgender people running this cycle than almost all other cycles combined.”

Roem is one of at least 20 transgender candidates currently running for office across the U.S., according to the LGBTQ Representation and Rights Initiative.

Dear old Brianna is also running against several other Democrats.  The party is so weak and degenerate that the crazies are coming out of the woodwork to eat it alive.

Buckley Should Have Listened

George Will notices that bad people are getting conservatism dirty.

Conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives

In 1950, the year before William F. Buckley burst into the national conversation, the literary critic Lionel Trilling revealed why the nation was ripe for Buckley’s high-spirited romp through its political and cultural controversies. Liberalism, Trilling declared, was “not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition” in mid-century America because conservatism was expressed merely in “irritable mental gestures.” Buckley would change that by infusing conservatism with brio, bringing elegance to its advocacy and altering the nation’s trajectory while having a grand time.

Today, conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives whose irritable gestures lack mental ingredients. America needs a reminder of conservatism before vulgarians hijacked it, and a hint of how it became susceptible to hijacking.
***
[Buckley], to his credit, befriended Whittaker Chambers, whose autobiography “Witness” became a canonical text of conservatism. Unfortunately, it injected conservatism with a sour, whiney, complaining, crybaby populism. It is the screechy and dominant tone of the loutish faux conservatism that today is erasing Buckley’s legacy of infectious cheerfulness and unapologetic embrace of high culture.

Chambers wallowed in cloying sentimentality and curdled resentment about “the plain men and women” — “my people, humble people, strong in common sense, in common goodness” — enduring the “musk of snobbism” emanating from the “socially formidable circles” of the “nicest people” produced by “certain collegiate eyries.” Buckley, a Bach aficionado from Yale and ocean mariner from the New York Yacht Club, was unembarrassed about having good taste and without guilt about savoring the good life.

Of course a Yalie elitist is so much better than a back-to-the-land bumpkin farmer–regardless of said bumkin’s own “good taste” or education.  There’s a funny thing, however, about him attacking the “sour, whiney, complaining, crybaby populism” of Whittaker Chambers.  First of all, the idea that Witness is the “canonical text of conservatism” is absurd.  Chambers described himself as “a man of the right” explicitly stating he was NOT a conservative.  There are more than a few passages in Witness that struck me as being close to a proto-alt-right take on things.  All the more reason for Will to hate him.  But most interesting of all is a quote from Chambers included in the forward to the 50th anniversary edition of Witness written by Buckley himself.

[I]f the Republican Party cannot get some grip on the actually world we live in and from it generalize and actively promote a program that means something to the masses of people–why somebody else will.  Then there will be nothing to argue.  The voters will simply vote Republicans into a singularity.  The Republican Party will became like one of those dark little shops which apparently never sell anything.  If, for any reason, you go in, you find at the back an old man, fingering for his own pleasure some oddments of cloth.  Nobody wants to buy them, which is fine because the old man is not really interested in selling.

It’s a wonder Buckley didn’t write him out of the conservative movement–perhaps it is Chambers denial of the lable that saved him.  But it’s more the wonder that Buckley could have included this in his reminiscence and been completely unaware of its implication.  Even fifty years ago Chambers could see where the Republicans were headed.  They haven’t got anything meaningful for the masses and they will be replaced.  Buckley should have listened.

Then again maybe he did.  Maybe he simply didn’t care.  For as Vox Day, one of those scowling primitives, writes, Buckley “was, without question, a significant part of the problem; he was no true soldier of the Right, but rather, the treacherous captain of the Left’s Cuckservative Guard.”  He built up conservatism all right–a conservatism doomed to failure.

Because Islam

Terrorism, Islam, and Immigration:

Whenever a new terrorist attack is reported, I’m reminded of that LifeLock commercial about a bank robbery. After a group of masked robbers smash into the bank, the uniformed officer on duty explains to frightened customers that he’s not a security guard, only a security monitor. He notifies people if there’s a robbery, but he doesn’t do anything to stop it.

Over in Europe, people are beginning to understand that their local and federal governments aren’t going to do anything about the terrorist problem. Oh, sure, the authorities will investigate the latest attack, identify the perpetrator, and, if they’re lucky, break up the cell to which he belonged. But on the most basic level, nothing changes, nothing is ever done.

What are the basics that are being ignored?

Well, in the first place, it would be helpful to recognize that these acts of terror are committed by Muslims, not by Methodists or Mormons. Moreover, the higher the concentration of Muslims in a given society, the more likely that terrorist attacks will occur. In Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic which have strict immigration laws and few Muslims, there have been no major terror attacks. In Germany, Belgium, France, and England, which have liberal immigration laws and large Muslim populations, terror attacks have become an almost weekly occurrence.

One of the primary ways to prevent terrorist attacks is to put a halt to Muslim immigration or else to curtail it sharply. But Europe’s governing class is committed to open borders. They’re also committed to the narrative that all cultures are created equal. So if Muslims are acting up, it can’t, by their reckoning, have anything to do with Islamic culture; it must be because of racial hatred or intolerance on the part of the natives. Like the security monitor in the LifeLock commercial, European authorities witness the invasion of their territory, but they don’t do anything to stop it. Indeed, many deny that terrorism has any connection to immigration.

***

There’s a lesson to be learned here, but for Europeans the lesson comes late in the game. Once the Muslim population of a country grows beyond a certain point, it becomes very difficult to control the terror problem. Yes, of course, not every Muslim is a terrorist. But it’s become something like a mathematical certainty that a certain percentage are. Thus, as the Muslim population grows, so does the number of terrorists and potential terrorists. You can belatedly close the borders, but if you wait too long the damage will already have been done. It’s not a matter of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped, but of closing it after the war horses and Trojan horses have gotten inside.

It’s a different matter for the U.S. In America it’s not too late to tighten up the borders, to curtail Muslim immigration, and to develop sophisticated vetting procedures. It’s not too late to put Muslim communities on notice that they need to do more to purge the terrorists from their midst, and to eliminate from their culture those elements that foster radicalization. None of this will happen, of course, without a radical change of mind—a realization that we are not just fighting ISIS or lone wolves, but that we are also engaged in a do-or-die culture war with people who are determined, either by violence or by stealth, to replace our culture with theirs.

Across the Atlantic, the substitution of one culture for another is well under way, and the Europeans don’t quite know what to do about it. It’s difficult to know what to do when the enemy is already within your borders and when he is practically indistinguishable from the non-violent practitioners of his faith. Because of years of inaction, many parts of Europe are now in a place where all the options are terrible to contemplate.

The lesson for us is that we can’t afford to let the Muslim immigration problem grow to the point where—as in large parts of Europe—it is nearly impossible to deal with the consequences. Because, beyond a certain point, no amount of concrete barriers and bomb-sniffing dogs will be able to stem the terrorist tide.

Will the British finally wake up?

I was surprised to read that maybe, just maybe the British may have had enough of “tolerance.”  I was not surprised to read that America’s liberals are as hypocritical and insane as ever, refusing to learn the obvious lessons the recent terror attacks are teaching.

London Undone by Terror

An ocean away, another seven caskets tell the story of a war the West is desperate to end. For the British, who’ve watched the tide of terrorism swell to three attacks in as many months, the time for sensitivity is over. There’s been “too much tolerance” of Islamic extremism, Prime Minister Theresa May warned, as police searched for clues to another ISIS-inspired rampage. Just days after families put 22 loved ones to rest after the Manchester Arena bombing, three men slammed their van into a crowd of people while others hacked through a local market with foot-long machetes.

“It is time to say enough is enough,” May said of the lax attitude that’s given radical Muslims a foothold on their soil. “Right now, through weak policies, we have allowed the fundamentalists to spoil it for the majority,” intelligence sources explained. After three bloody months, British officials are putting every option on the table — including burka bans and new citizenship rules. As far as May is concerned, political correctness is a luxury the U.K. can no longer afford.

Three thousand miles away, that’s a point Donald Trump has been trying to drive home since the earliest days of his candidacy. After eight years of letting foreigners stream into our country — with the barest of background checks — U.S. leaders have watched ISIS’s infiltration of Europe with an anxious eye. In his first week on the job, President Trump rolled out an executive order designed to keep what’s happening in England from coming here. Liberals came unglued, accusing the new administration of religious profiling — or worse. Now, months into a vicious court battle that’s stopped the president from keeping America safe, the Left’s protests seem more ridiculous than ever. While the London police rush to put up concrete barriers across its most beloved landmarks, the world has a choice: it can learn from Britain’s mistakes — or repeat them.

We know where this White House stands. “In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe,” the president tweeted. “We need the courts to give us back our rights.” While the Supreme Court decides whether to take the case against the president’s “travel ban,” President Trump is already asking for a tougher version. And there’s good reason for it, as Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) pointed out over the weekend. “You’ve got some [terror] groups that are looking at a big play like taking down an airliner. You’ve got others who need very little support, very little planning, and can do incredible damage, which is actually in many ways almost more of terrorism because you go anywhere, do anything, you wonder what could happen at any moment. It could happen here.”

Perhaps the most maddening part of the liberals’ effort is that they’re trying to tie Trump’s hands, when he has the benefit of intelligence that most people don’t — including the judges deciding this case. As someone who worked in counterterrorism and law enforcement, I understand that there’s a reason the president is entrusted with screening protocols, especially when they’re in the interest of national security. As David French wrote in National Review, there’s nothing extreme about that.

“We know that terrorists are trying to infiltrate the ranks of refugees and other visitors. We know that immigrants from Somalia, for example, have launched jihadist attacks here at home and have sought to leave the U.S. to join ISIS. Indeed, given the terrible recent track record of completed and attempted terror attacks by Muslim immigrants, it’s clear that our current approach is inadequate to control the threat. Unless we want to simply accept Muslim immigrant terror as a fact of American life, a short-term ban on entry from problematic countries combined with a systematic review of our security procedures is both reasonable and prudent.”

“The stakes are indisputably high,” White House officials warned in its brief to the Supreme Court. “The court of appeals concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism.” Is the Left going to take responsibility if its lawsuit succeeds and people are killed on American soil because no one could look into these foreigners’ backgrounds? Will they hide behind black robes when Britain’s terror lands at our shores, ushered in by eight years of Obama’s indifference?

Meanwhile, liberal hypocrites like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are daring to criticize President Trump for not doing enough on terrorism. That’s ironic, since Schumer’s party is the one standing in the way of the White House’s security overhaul! “Rigorous vetting and tightening up wherever we have to is essential in this new world,” he argued. Of course, this is the same man who in January decried Trump’s stricter immigration policy, insisting, “Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty.” Better the Statue of Liberty, British mourners would say, than thousands more grieving families who will never see their loved ones again because their government was more concerned about being politically correct than protecting their citizens.