A reporter from Rebel Media thrown out of a meeting by Andrew Scheer? Not “accredited”? Handcuffed by the police? For what crime?
We expect this outrageous behavior from the Liberals who are anxious to suppress reasoned discussion and criticism. We expect it from the Fake News Media, particularly the taxpayer-funded Liberal propaganda organization, the CBC. We expect it from the presstitutes in the dead tree press who hope to be fed some of the $600 million dollars that the Liberal syndicate plans to pay for their subservience.
But we don’t expect it from the Conservatives who are supposed to stand up for press freedom. “Accredited” reporters means those subservient to the political class; those that don’t ask difficult questions; those that are approved by the government. It’s all shades of a communist-style attitude to citizens that does not belong in a free society.
And where were the other reporters? Why weren’t they doing anything about it? It seems that Rebel Media is the only group worthy of the name of reporters these days.
Shape up Scheer! Maxime Bernier is looking better every day.
My Washington DC correspondent sent me a one-liner last week: “I told you it was going to get worse.” I confess I had not known what he meant when he said this mid-summer. Then Pelosi unleashed impeachment investigations. I asked for and received this explanation from my well-positioned Washington observer.
“It was clear even then [mid-summer] that the probability that Trump could/would be reelected was high and the Resistance was going to stop at nothing to prevent that. Remember a Trump reelection probably gives him 2 seats on the Supreme Court which would be a permanent shift to conservative principles.
The Democrats instinctively understand it is nearly impossible to unseat an incumbent president when the economy is humming along and unemployment is a record low levels…and Trump is ending the Forever Wars and has refused to fall into a trap with Iran.
This was confirmed watching the UK use trench warfare over Brexit.
I think this forthcoming book should explain the thesis. I read her stuff all the time.
Impeachment is just the beginning ..it is still going to get worse. The Democrats are playing a dangerous game but in their view they have nothing to lose. Inadvertently the Democrats have damaged Biden which Trump wants. Remember the 1972 election. The Watergate episode was in part to find damaging material on the Democrats in order to engineer the most unpalatable candidate to run against Nixon. They succeeded. Ed Muskie was discredited then this set up George McGovern and Nixon got 60% of the popular vote and 49 states.
In a Trump vs Warren election (where this is going) IMHO it looks like a 2016 respin. Warren cannot take PA, MI, WI, Ohio or Florida and lose the Electoral College . She will also win the popular vote since CA NY NJ and the liberal coasts will mount a massive effort and the cycle begins again.
The Spawn of the Devil vs the Commie Pinko.
News that the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has decided to proceed with hearings that would lead to the attempt to impeach Trump, shows the desperation of the Democrats to prevent an election where they would face Trump. We know how this will end. The Senate will not agree to any articles of impeachment, since it is Republican. Hence a crisis is being concocted by the Democrats to prevent there being an election where the Republicans have a viable candidate, namely Trump.
The political elites of the United States and the United Kingdom are in full rebellion against their embattled political leaders, Trump and Boris Johnson, and the electorates that have put them into power.
“Contempt of Parliament used to be a crime; it has now become a moral obligation” – David Starkey.
In this incisive interview, the historian David Starkey expounds why the current political class of the British isles is utterly contemptuous of the people who constitute the country. Make no mistake: we are witnessing a legal coup by the Establishment against the will of the people. The British Supreme Court and its Parliament is wrecking the constitution of the country.
Starkey is incandescent.
Every week, some new obscure feminoid pops up out of nowhere to bitch about men, particularly white men.
In an article originally in the Washington Post, quoted in the always interesting Unz Review, a certain Mary Rambaran-Olm, Woman of Color, addressed an academic conference of the International Society of Anglo Saxonists—an international academic group devoted to English Medieval Studies.
Naturally, the gripe was that:
“Anglo Saxon” is code for whiteness, a phrase that is co-opted today by white supremacists around the world to advance a false version of white-dominated history.
Despite being utter twaddle, any amount of lying about white men is acceptable in academic, or should I say pseudo-academic, circles. Apparently, now it’s the bespectacled professors of Medieval Studies, swapping their tweed jackets and pipes for Nazi brownshirts in the cloisters of academe.
What really annoys this Woman of Color is not the fact that English Medieval Studies necessarily involves the study of former white civilization and culture, but that all the modern world—science, music, literature, medicine—was created essentially by Men of White. From the Middle Ages emerged the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, the Industrial Revolution, aviation, the Space Age, the Atomic Age, computers and so on. Almost all the work of Men of White. Had not Western men explored the world and colonized Africa, Africa would still be in the Stone Age.
This is really what irks the second-rate pseudo-intellectuals. Now that their envy and spite are given free range in any venue, everyone is supposed to grovel before them. They can whine and moan about “white supremacy” but do they ever think about what that means? Do they ever think?
It was summed up very neatly by a commenter on the Unz Review (h/t Anon) who opined:
There are certain academics who, after a cluster of years in the field, begin to realize they’re never going to contribute very much, mainly because they’re intellectual lightweights. They’ve begun to notice that tenure and the good jobs at the more prestigious universities are going to their intellectual heavyweight colleagues. When they’re socializing with other professors, they notice that they sound stupid in comparison, and they can’t hold up their end in an intellectual argument with colleagues, and sometimes not even some of their students.
At this point, the lightweight, often a female minority, becomes frantic and desperate when she finally realizes she can’t keep pace with her more brilliant, mainly white male colleagues. The anguish is further compounded when she doesn’t land a white male husband, preferably high status, which is her escape plan if her academic career doesn’t work out. But quite often, the male she’s angling for has heard enough pseudo-intellectual blather from her that he’s disgusted by her stupidity and her underwater basket weaving-type papers in her field that he has read. He considers her an egotistical, screechy dud. Her failures cause her to start scheming like Lucretia Borgia. She delves into her female id and goes into full witch mode. She tries to backstab her colleagues and her entire intellectual field by screaming that everyone’s bigoted against her, and conjures up a media storm.
Quite often, these attempts occur after her employer has just given her a review of her work and failed to give her tenure. This is the academic world’s way of saying, “Eh, you’re really not that good. We made a mistake in hiring you, c’est la vie, now push off.”
Well, she could certainly get hired in the Bitching-About-Men Department at the University of Fatuous Drivel.
My reaction is: so what? All those opposed to political correctness should see this non-issue for what it is. In a few years people will wonder what an earth made this a “controversial” or embarrassing moment. I especially ask Conservatives to think about what trouble they create for themselves by empowering this kind of retroactive political correctness. Everyone in the past was guilty of something that PC condemns. It is all so 1984.
Failing to build pipelines – that is the issue for which Trudeau the Lesser should be deposed.
Words can describe the same thing at various levels of politeness and social acceptability. Moreover, as soon as the euphemism becomes too clear, the word can be changed to something less vulgar. Euphemism piles on euphemism. Thus the place where we void our noxious bodily effusions goes through various evolutions. The incompatibility of shitting with the maintenance of personal dignity causes a continuous slow migration of words to describe the place where the deed is done.
Likewise climate alarmism has changed the terms of the debate whenever it suited them. “Anthropogenic global warming” is a scientific theory. “Global warming” hides the crucial term that attributes human causation to the reality that the world has been warming since 1850. “Climate change” obscures the causal relationship even further. Anything that happens in nature is assumed to be human caused, without that realization ever consciously arising in one’s mind.
The Guardian announced a few months ago that it was changing its terms from “global warming” to “global heating”. They write:
“The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.
“Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.”
Not banned you say? How civilized of them!
The Guardian continues:
“Other terms that have been updated, including the use of “wildlife” rather than “biodiversity”, “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks” and “climate science denier” rather than “climate sceptic”. In September, the BBC accepted it gets coverage of climate change “wrong too often” and told staff: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”
“Updated”? The use of the term “climate science denier” is not an update, it is a slander.
Yes the climate has changed. 11,000 years ago, where I write was under 4,000 feet of ice. I deny nothing, I merely allow for a wider range of facts to impinge on my understanding of climate.
Over 2000 years ago, the Spartans gave the world the greatest story of Aryan heroism the world has seen. At Thermopylae 480 BC, Xerxes—the king of the Achaemenid Empire—ordered the Spartans to surrender their weapons. King Leonidas responded coolly, “Μολών λαβέ” (Molon Lave (molṑn labé)—come and take them).
In the ensuing battle, the Greeks, numbering about 7000 men and opposed by an army of over 100 000 Persians, fought for three days before being defeated. Crucially, the Greeks inflicted major damage on the Persian forces, giving the Athenians precious time to escape the city. Later in the year, Greek forces crushed the Persians at the Battle of Salamis, ending Xerxes’ dreams of conquest.
At the site of Thermopylae, there now stands a monument inscribed with these powerful words of King Leonidas.
Similar nefarious dreams of conquest emanate in the modern world from the militant left. In America, the boneless pseudo-men calling for the disarmament of free men take the form of the Democrat candidates for president. Beta O’Dork, the fake Hispanic, seems unable to understand the concise English of the American Constitution. He seems to think that he could simply undermine and ignore the freedoms guaranteed in that great document. What part of “shall not be infringed” does he not understand?
Over 200 years ago, it was clearly established that any law passed by any jurisdiction of the United States, if it contravenes the Constitution, is null and void (Marbury vs. Madison, 1803). All the prattle from the Democrats, aspiring to be the new Bolsheviks, is meaningless unless the US Constitution is violated. This is, of course, the aim of the communist and anarchist wing of the Democrat Party.
The Founding Fathers had the wisdom to understand that the Second Amendment protects the First. If the tyrants get their way, the suppression of free speech will be next on their list. In many other countries, Canada included, “hate-speech” laws are being ever expanded to suppress any ideas not approved by the political class. Criticism of immigration, Islam, is being suppressed all the time, aided by the leftist propaganda destroying our education system, and people can lose their jobs and livelihood if they make an “incorrect” remark. This is de facto tyranny—they’re just waiting until they can make it de jure.
So the courage of the Greeks at Thermopylae should stir our hearts once again. If the nouveau-tyrant Democrats want to try to violate the freedoms of Americans, let them hear just one thing…
A fine Model 1911 Sig Sauer in .45 ACP bearing the immortal words.
Warfare is an area of human endeavour constantly subject to innovation: how to fuck over your enemy at low cost, low risk, and ideally, without him knowing you were responsible. Drones have shown their worth, and I am awaiting the next Pearl Harbour via a force of drones. Why would you ever hit an enemy with an air force when you could almost without cost wipe out the US Pacific Fleet with drones.
The drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities this weekend were a case in point. It leads me to think that a great deal of military equipment, doctrine, training and investment is wasted, not in the sense that all military spending is wasted – of course it is, to a pacifist – but is wasted from a purely military point of view. Much may be useless under modern conditions.
I am reminded, uncomfortably, of a recent article by the always entertaining Fred Reed, in Unz review. The Unz Review is a collection of the most outrageous opinionators on the planet, and I cannot vouch for the sanity of many of them. But Fred Reed is reliably sane.
” In extended periods of peace, which includes the bombing of peasants, a military tends to assume that no major war will come during the careers of those now in uniform. Commanders consequently do what makes their lives easy, what they must do to get through the day and have reasonable fitness reports. This does not include pointing out inadequacies of training or equipment. Nor does it include recommending large expenditures to remedy deficiencies. Nor does it include recommending very expensive mobilization exercises that would divert money from new weapons….”
” An aircraft carrier is a bladder of jet fuel wrapped around high explosives.The implications are considerable. A plunging hypersonic terminally-guided ballistic missile, piercing the flight deck and exploding in the hangar deck, would require a year in the repair yards. The Russians and Chinese are developing–have developed–missiles specifically to take out carriers. Note that the range of some of these missiles is much greater than the combat radius of the carrier’s aviation. Oops. “
” This happens partly because militaries are overconfident as a job requirement. You can’t tell the Marines that they are at best mediocre light infantry or the Navy that it is essentially a target setl. Instead the American armed forces are always said to be the best equipped, best trained, bravest, most formidable military that the world has ever seen. Except they aren’t. “
I do not think that all those American carrier battle fleets will survive a modern missile attack, and I hope that American admirals are conscious of the problem.