U.C. Crybully was the site of yet another Leftista meltdown this week over a possible April 27 appearance by Ann Coulter. University brave hearts cancelled her appearance last week, citing “security threats.”
Coulter said she was coming anyway. But on Wednesday, Coulter said she was forced to cancel her Thursday speaking event amid concerns of violence. Basically, it went like this: Trump critics calling themselves “anti-fascists” deployed fascist tactics reminiscent of Kristallnacht to protest “fascism.”
Let me know when you figure that out.
Meanwhile, back at Beserkeley (still not a typo), lawless, cowardly thugs were essentially rewarded for being lawless, cowardly thugs. They got their way. Now all Antifa and its mommy basement dwellers need to do to stop the next conservative speaker who dares to challenge their safe spaces and coloring books is dress up like Snape look-alikes, make lots of noise, and act scary. Or stupid.
And university administrations all across the fruited plain will roll over and play dead.
There’s only one voice that does my #1 favorite Christmas carol justice: Andrea Bocelli. Aka: La Voce. Why? Cuz there’s nothing like hearing a world-class Italian tenor render O Holy Night like a world-class tenor. In the original French.
But, alas. Andrea has been dethroned by the Home Free vocal band. Watch their stunning a capella version of O Holy Night:
Not to get picky here or anythin’, Mr. Black Hat, but you’re in church. Kindly lose the Stetson. And Dear Tenor, please get that twitch fixed.
Find out more about the country a capella quintet Home Freehere.
*This post originally published in 2015, shortly after the Home Free vid first came out. I decided to re-post, based on the amount of positive feedback received. Enjoy the encore.
Some thoughts on the latest Disaster de Donald from guest author Sara Marks. Commentary by Yours Truly follows.
I have to say that I’m quite disappointed by this type of (shoulder shrug) reaction. I wasn’t going to say anything but I feel like I need to stand up for truth. What Trump talked about was awful. He crudely joked about SEXUALLY ASSAULTING women in a criminal way, and many Republicans are just giving him a pass. I served on a jury in which a 60ish-year-old man was accused of groping a teen girl on her crotch. We on the jury painstakingly went through the evidence and then came to the conclusion that this man had committed a crime and needed to pay the penalty for his wrongdoing. Unfortunately, Trump doesn’t have to pay for his crimes – he is above the law, and the way people are reacting to this shows that he will remain above the law, just liked he joked about. I was not willing to give the 60-year-old pervert a pass and I will not give 65-year-old (at the time) Trump a pass for his perverted behavior. Women deserve better. I’m ashamed at the women who are laughing this off. Sexual assault is NOT OKAY no matter who is doing it.
We can point at the wrong that the other side does all day long, but that still doesn’t make the wrong on our side go away. Are we not supposed to be the party of integrity and the party of Judeo-Christian values? Were we not rightly disgusted and repulsed by Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct when he was in office, but are we now so willing to give Trump a pass because he is running in our party? If we can not call out wrongdoing where we see it, we are no better than the Democrat party. I don’t care if they don’t do it themselves. We should. Principles and integrity matter, or at least they still should. (Emphasis added.)
And don’t give me this crap that he apologized and somehow that makes it all okay. First, any of you who are parents know you would never accept an apology like that from your own child! He minimized his behavior by reducing it to the term “locker room talk,” he tried to shift the attention to someone else who has done something worse, and then he did not apologize for the actual behavior but only “IF it offended.” Are you kidding me? That’s no an apology. (Emphasis added.)
But secondly, even if he had done a thorough and complete apology and showed true contrition…are we still okay with an old man sexual predator who was crudely bragging about how he can grope and sexually assault women as he pleases representing our party? Yes, in some sense, I care more about what Trump has done than what Bill and Hillary have done….because Trump represents my party and the Clintons do not.
If you still want to vote for him, okay, that’s your choice….but please, please, please don’t make excuses for his behavior. It’s not fair to all the women and girls who have been sexually assaulted while their predators laughingly got away with it.
I wasn’t going to weigh in on this here. But as one wag put it:
How far must we go to stop Hillary? If we need to endorse one who openly brags about sexual assault with a married woman in lewd terms (and with a fake apology afterwards without any sort of self-sacrifice or sign of remorse), must we also support a rapist? Exactly how far must we go? Is anything justified as long as it’s “better than Hillary?” When did morality become relative?
Yea, verily. Some of the best entertainment in town is watching Trumpsters twist themselves into semantic pretzels trying to defend this guy. The typical lines go something like: “Trump’s comments were made over a decade ago. So what?” Just “locker room braggadocio.” Or, “Everybody does it.” Or, “All men talk that way about women behind closed doors.”
Years ago? Really? Carly? Megyn? Melania? Ivanka? Hello? Many of Bill Clinton’s misdeeds occurred some 30 years ago, yet are still fair game. And should be. But he’s not running for president (more on that in a minute).
As for the “everybody/all” argument: Besides being patent nonsense, that doesn’t pass the straight-face test. What is this, junior high? Newsflash: “Everybody” isn’t running for president. A presidential nominee should be held to a higher standard. As for the rest: No. They. Don’t. (I can name names if you want.)
Let’s get one thing straight. As terrible a person as Bill Clinton is, Bill Clinton is not running for president. Bill Clinton’s name is not on the ballot anywhere. If someone wants to have a conversation about Hillary Clinton’s own personal treatment and degradation of women, let’s have the conversation. That could actually be a fruitful discussion.
But if we are going to fault a woman for simply being married to someone who turned out to be a bad man, we are opening the door to all the judgment the left has been placing on us for years. We are hypocrites, we are misogynists, we are simply holier-than-thou-jerks.
We cannot in good conscience go around touting the sanctity of marriage and the importance of marriage vows, and then turn around and judge a woman for staying in a marriage, for whatever reason. We cannot assign blame to Hillary Clinton for her husband’s indiscretions.
In fact, criticizing Hillary for staying married to Bill BECAUSE of his treatment of women, is only inadvertently admitting that this kind of behavior towards women is wrong. So bringing it up to minimize Donald Trump’s behavior is even more ridiculous and short-sighted.
Bill Clinton should not even come up when discussing Donald Trump’s behavior. He’s irrelevant to this conversation. If something is wrong, it is wrong. Period. At least have the courage and moral decency to call it what it is without the excuse that someone else’s spouse is worse.(Emphasis added.)
This is your guy. The guy you picked, despite our warnings. The guy who has a long and well-documented history of degrading others. The guy whose lack of morals was very well known at the beginning of the election cycle. You picked him anyway, and you never hesitated to throw that in the rest of our faces. So don’t you dare have the audacity to bring up Bill Clinton as if he has anything to do with Donald Trump being exactly the person we all said he was. (Emphasis added again.)
Again, if the argument is that Hillary Clinton also has a history of mistreating women, then have the conversation. If the argument is that Donald Trump’s actions are wrong, and as despicable as he is, you still find him better suited than his opponent, then have that argument. Disagreements will occur, but at least it’s an honest conversation.
But don’t push a false narrative where we’re comparing Donald Trump to Bill Clinton in the race for president. You picked Donald Trump. So own him. And enjoy your Hillary Clinton presidency.
If you’re still trying to defend The Donald: Shame on you. Get your head out of James Carville La La Land. Drop the Democrat play book. Character matters. “The issues?” Character is The Issue! You think a long-time Clinton crony and serial philanderer can be trusted with your tax dollars? The same guy who cheats on his wife, et.al, can be trusted on public policy? Or Supreme Court appointees? Based on what?
That’s one reason Sen. Ben Sasse, Carly Fiorina, Rep. Chaffetz, Condoleezza Riceand dozens of ex-GOP lawmakers have pulled their support for this clown. Ditto Senators Mike Crapo, John Thune, Rob Portman, Mark Kirk, and Mike Lee. In fact, several prominent Republicans are running from this guy like he has The Plague.
And well they should. The damage Il Duce-NY has done to the “R” brand – what’s left of it – could take years to repair, if it can be done at all. How much damage his candidacy may inflict down-ticket remains to be seen.
So, will untrustworthy and corrupt beat unstable and porcine? Because that’s what we’re left with. The good news – if there is any – is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Solution: Trump can step aside and make room for Pence. (But that would take character and integrity. So don’t hold your breath.)
Meanwhile, stop debasing yourself by trying to defend this swine. The fact is, bothnominees are unfit to serve. I didn’t pick Trump. I won’t pick Clinton. I won’t wallow in either pig sty. I would, however, vote for Mike Pence if he leads the ticket.
I’m not quite sure how support can go “through the rough,” but I guess it can. (You may also want to check out the endorsements for I-1491. Just for kicks and grins.)
Anyway, Initiative 1491 has to do with “extreme risk protection orders.” According to proponents, it will allow families and law enforcement to temporarily prevent access to firearms by people who, because of mental illness or other factors, may harm themselves or others. It’s an important next step in protecting Washington State communities from the devastating effects of gun violence.
Did you catch it? There are several issues here that oughtta give you cause for pause. Like, “or other factors.” What in the h-e double hockey sticks does that mean? Who decides? How? Based on what?
Also, this initiative “will allow families and law enforcement to temporarily prevent access to firearms…” What does that mean?
Let’s say you have a fight with your girlfriend. Or boyfriend. Or parent. Uncle Elmer or Aunt Flo. They accuse you of …. Whatever. And now they can “temporarily prevent” your access to a firearm? How long is “temporary”? Who decides? Call me cynical, but doesn’t this seem a wee bit ripe for abuse – or personal vendetta payback?
Here’s another part I have a wee bit of trouble with. Under Section 4. Read this first. Then I’ll tell you why:
(1) A petition for an extreme risk protection order may be filed by (a) a family or household member of the respondent or (b) a law enforcement officer or agency.
(2) An action under this chapter must be filed in the county where the petitioner resides or the county where the respondent resides.
(3) A petition must:
(a) Allege that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, and be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of future dangerous acts by the respondent.
Did you catch it again? Look at (3) (a): A person may “allege” that… Not prove. Not substantiate. But “allege.” (We all know that no one would ever file a false affidavit, right?) And how in the heck does one person crawl into another’s head and determine what “future dangerous acts” someone may have up his or her sleeve? What is this, Mind Readers of Washington, Unite?
Also, what does “a family or house member” mean? This is kinda important. It’s a pretty wide net:
(4) The court administrator shall verify the terms of any existing order governing the parties. The court may not delay granting relief because of the existence of a pending action between the parties or the necessity of verifying the terms of an existing order. A petition for an extreme risk protection order may be granted whether or not there is a pending action between the parties.
And so on. You can find the entire text of I-1491 here. It’s 21 pages.
Well, shoot (pun intended). How can this be? Wasn’t the last Chicken Little initiative, I-594, supposed to solve all our “gun violence” problems? Keep us safe? Stop domestic violence? “Close the gun show loop hole”? It passed. So what’s with another initiative to do pretty much the same thing, from a different angle? (You may want to connect those dots.)
I can appreciate the desire to protect folks from deranged nut cases. But how is an emotional knee-jerky ballot initiative going to address the core issue, which is a heart issue? How do you legislate – or anticipate – how someone else thinks or feels? (Don’t worry. The Marquise de Kleptocratia& Co. will try.)
So I have a few problems with I-1491. The short list includes violations of the Second and Fourth Amendments and the lack of due process. But who’s counting? Meanwhile, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility (don’t you just love that title?) is seeing its money well dry up. Oh, boo hoo.
Although constantly hunted by Nazis, the partisans build a school, a hospital, and a nursery in their camp and live in the forests for more than two years. Under Bielski protection, 1,236 Jews survived the war, making it one of many remarkable rescue missions in the Holocaust. Their story is told in the 2008 film, Defiance. (That title has quite the ring to it, doesn’t it?) Daniel Craig stars as Tuvia.
Out of conflict comes courage.
Out of battle comes brotherhood.
Out of desperation comes DEFIANCE.*
After the war Tuvia, Zus and Aron emigrated to America and formed a successful trucking firm in New York City. According to the Epilogue, the Bielski brothers never sought recognition for what they did. The descendants of the people they saved now number in the tens of thousands.
If you see just one film this fall, see Defiance. Available on disc through the Timberland Regional Library. There will be a quiz on Friday.
*Remember that the next time you’re facing down some liberal pinhead or RINO. Or a chihuahua.