Clinton-Machado 2016

Posted on September 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

Chateau: “In Post-America, fat-shaming is a mortal sin while cheating on your fiancé, being filmed on camera having illicit sex, driving your boyfriend’s getaway car from the scene of a murder, threatening the life of a judge, bearing the bastard spawn of a drug lord, and happily lying while under the direction of a presidential candidate and a colluding media about your “20 years of humiliation” from experiencing a gentle and encouraging chiding about your weight are trivial details that should not reflect poorly on an attention whore’s character.”

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Time for the campaign commercial:

“CLINTON: And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman “Miss Piggy.” Then he called her “Miss Housekeeping,” because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.

CLINTON: Her name is Alicia Machado.”

[Announcer]: Who is Alicia Machado?

1. Miss Universe who gained 50 pounds after winning title, managed to keep it because Donald Trump came up with a workable solution to the problem.

2. Alleged to have driven a getaway car from an attempted assassination at a funeral, but she couldn’t have, because she had not one, but two, alibis.

3. Threatened to kill a Mexican judge for charging her boyfriend with murder.

4. Had sex on a Spanish reality TV show, ruining her relationship with another man to whom she was engaged.

[Insert film clip of Alicia, with “oooh, tenges la pinga divina” — it will pass, because the FCC doesn’t know Spanish, either]

5. Dated and had a child with a notorious Mexican drug lord, and we have proof that the child was born in this country, and is a US citizen by birth …..

[Insert visual of Miami birth certificate]

So who is Alicia Machado?

She’s a new American Citizen! And

“CLINTON: She’s voting in November!”

Don’t let Donald Trump shame America over being overweight. Let’s find a better way.

Clinton-Machado 2016.

* Did anyone else notice that during the debate, Hillary said, “So we’re now on the precipice of having a potentially much better economy…” I heard this and confirmed it with the transcript.

“On the precipice” definition: The brink of a dangerous situation. A headlong fall or descent.

Perhaps an inadvertent truth from Hilltron?

* You know what Marvin Gaye’s father’s last words were to his son?

“Now you’re gonna listen to one of my 45′s.”

* His trans dad who killed him got off lightly. Six years suspended and five years probation.

* OT: Overton Window

First Douthat links to Steve with implicit approval…

Clinton’s Samantha Bee Problem

Then Robert Draper links to VDare!

How Donald Trump Set Off a Civil War Within the Right-Wing Media

First they ignore you, then they denounce you, then they hyperlink to you, …

* So now Trump is pissed and next time he is not going to listen to his advisers. Whether this will backfire or not I don’t know, but in the next debate I would bet you any amount that Trump is going to go after Hillary hammer and tongs and the moderators too. Trump won the primaries by being Trump, not by being “Presidential”. Anyone who wants a conventional figure is already voting for Hillary anyway. Trump has to sell himself as the change candidate.

* Steve, you noted the bitter resentments of the female writing staff on Law and Order populated the criminal casting as Rich White Men who as we know are always engaging in violence. And not the kind of “sexy domination” like the Tsarnaevs that led nurses to fist-fights over who would take care of Bob Dylan Tsarnaev.

Hillary lecturing White men plays well among White women. Its why Trump cannot win and the route of politics is a non-starter. Most educated White women are objectively anti-White, as much for personal disappointment in the men around them as anything else.

Rather, White men should take a page from Black activists. BLM and other stuff made a giant pain for Democrats until the desires of no policing at all for Black people is met. I would not advocate mass civil disobedience but rather various actions designed to inflict as much political pain while being distributed and deniable.

That means unearthing every unflattering thing about political leaders, their families, and social connections and making them public in the most humiliating time and fashion. It means disrupting events by technical and social means, it means a constant level of pressure and pain until elites figure it is easier to give White men what they want than fight.

* Hillary has not cracked 50%, neither has Trump. He has the winning hand. Trade, immigration, healthcare, breaking up the status quo are all his issues. He should be pounding that message into the ground 24/7. Every day he squanders defending himself over a personal attack or slight is wasted opportunity to put out the message that will resonate.

He has to understand that every big time politico will get bogus political attacks just like businesses get bogus lawsuits slapped against them all the time. He needs to remind himself that when a business gets hit with a ludicrous lawsuit, the CEO doesn’t drop everything, investigate the claim, accumulate evidence and then personally lead the defense team in court. No, when a business gets such a lawsuit, they turn it over to their hired gun law firm to take care of.

It’s the same for these bogus personal attacks. I still plan on voting for the guy, but this does show bad judgement.

* Your comment is eerily similar to what the similarly obtuse Alan Rapaport wrote in the NY Times today: “Fact-checkers have found no evidence that Ms. Machado, who was featured in Playboy, appeared in a sex tape. Her critics may be referring to a risqué scene that she appeared in on a reality television show.”

And indeed, this is what everyone is referring to. Nor was it merely “risque”: it was a real or faux real act of sexual intercourse on a Spanish reality TV show, replete with language from Alicia about how she loves being “f***ed like a perra“, and extolling the taste and the divinity of her partner’s penis.

In the same vein, the Times headline reads: Donald Trump Bashes Alicia Machado Again, Alleging a ‘Sex Tape’ (Without Evidence), and the article also quotes a tweet from Hillary, “What kind of man stays up all night to smear a woman with lies and conspiracy theories?”

The fundamental dishonesty of how they are handling this has got to get through to them at some point.

* I can see the argument that Trump shouldn’t be pursuing this Machado thing, but should focus instead on the issues.

But, of course, it’s been Hillary and the media who have been pushing at this as hard as they can, including even a New Yorker cover.

My instinct is that for him to push back hard is a very good thing to do, given all the variables, the fact that he still has over a month before the election, and the general facts of the case.

Machado as a spokesperson and icon for Hillary is completely indefensible. Shooting down her integrity is a slam dunk on a basket 5 ft high. It just requires of Joe Citizen a google to see how corrupt she is. And the chutzpah required of Hillary and the media to use her as an icon is just breathtaking — they really do think there’s no accountability when it comes to shaming people for allegedly politically incorrect behavior.

The Machado case shows not only Hillary’s vicious unfairness and incompetence. It shows how the media — including even the formerly august NY Times — is exactly as bad. You can’t put a pin between Hillary’s campaign and the media at this point, and this case illustrates like nothing else.

* Here is Vox’s desperate attempt at spin, under the headline “Donald Trump’s nasty, false tweetstorm against Alicia Machado proves how easy he is to bait”:

Trump’s mention of Machado’s past probably refers to the fact that she was once accused of threatening to murder a judge and driving a getaway car in an attempted murder. She was never charged with anything, but she doesn’t dispute the allegations, saying this week, “Everybody has a past. And I’m not a saint girl.”

The “sex tape” rumor, on the other hand, is completely false. Snopes looked into it and found that while Machado did once pose topless in Playboy and was portrayed having sex during a Real World-esque Spanish reality TV show, the footage from the show wasn’t explicit:

However, the so-called “sex tape” stemming from that incident, which is nothing more than some grainy, night-vision footage of a couple of covered figures writhing in a bed, hardly qualifies as explicit. And reality television being what it is, the scene the tape depicts was quite possibly staged or fabricated.

* I think Trump’s tweets were necessary and effective. Let’s remember the time line here.

Monday: Hillary, at the very end of the debate, rolls out Miss Piggy Machado, meant to be a death blow to Trump.

Tuesday: Consensus is that Trump did not lose the debate, and that polls show him edging upwards. The Hillary Camp (aka MSM) rolls out a series of pre-fab articles about Alicia Machado.

Wednesday-Thursday: The Alt Right (and the British Press) begin presenting answers to the question, “Who the heck is Alicia Machado?” The following series of revelations is almost entirely shut down by the MSM, who prefer to continue discussing Alicia as a victim.

Friday: Early AM, Trump sends out his tweets. The MSM _must_ respond to the content of Trump’s tweets, and as a result the cat is finally let out of the bag in all media, albeit barely landing on its feet as a result of the furious spinning, and here we are.

We can get back to pointing out Hilary’s incompetence tomorrow. Meanwhile, we can put Alicia in the same basket with Harambe and Pepe: the Untouchables of 2016.

* I’m no Trumpista, but it must be said: the election is rigged against Trump. The bad mic, the biased moderator, and the unflattering lighting constitute the proof. Almost makes me vote for the buffoon.

Posted in Alicia Machado | Comments Off on Clinton-Machado 2016

Hillary’s Debate Lies – With her comments about crime, policing, and race, the candidate helps push a false—and dangerous—narrative

Posted on September 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

Heather MacDonald writes:

Hillary Clinton repeated her incessant lie last night that the criminal justice system is infected with “systemic racism.” Race “determines” how people are “treated in the criminal justice system,” she said. Blacks are “more likely [than whites] to be arrested, charged, convicted and incarcerated” for “doing the same thing.” Such a dangerous falsehood, should Clinton act on it as president, would result not just in misguided policies but in the continued delegitimation of the criminal justice system. That delegitimation, with its attendant hostility and aggression toward police officers, has already produced the largest one-year surge in homicides in urban areas in nearly a half-century.

Criminologists have tried for decades to prove that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is due to criminal-justice racism. They have always come up short. They have been forced to the same conclusion as Michael Tonry in his book, Malign Neglect: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned,” Tonry wrote. In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They found overwhelming evidence establishing that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms.

To say, as Clinton did last night, that blacks are more likely to be incarcerated for doing the same thing as whites ignores the relevance of a defendant’s criminal history in determining his sentence, among other crucial sentencing factors. Just last week, an analysis of Delaware’s prison population presented to the Delaware Access to Justice Commission’s Committee on Fairness in the Criminal Justice System revealed that when juvenile and adult criminal records are taken into account, along with arrest charges and age, racial disparities in sentencing decisions are negligible to nonexistent.

Clinton also complained that “too many young African-American and Latino men end . . . up in jail for non-violent offenses.” In fact, the majority of prisoners in the U.S. are serving time for violent felonies. The enforcement of low-level public order offenses in New York City during the mayoralties of Rudolph Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg actually lowered New York State’s prison population by intervening in criminal behavior early, before it ripened into a serious felony. Even as misdemeanor arrests increased in the city, felony arrests and felony incarcerations dropped. The number of jail inmates and convicts under parole and probation supervision in New York City dropped as well. Hillary Clinton may think that low-level public-order enforcement (otherwise known as “broken windows” policing) is racist, but law-abiding residents of high-crime communities beg the police to enforce public-order laws because they know that out of street disorder erupts gun violence and other forms of predation.

Clinton reiterated her call for “implicit-bias” training for officers. The premise of such training is that police officers are shooting black males out of such bias. Yet, four studies have come out this year alone that demolish this charge. They show that if there is bias among police officers in their shooting decisions, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. “Implicit-bias” training, based on a lie, is a grotesque waste of resources at a time when officers are desperate for more hands-on tactical training that will help them make those crucial shoot/don’t shoot decisions in the field, or avoid being put into such an excruciating situation in the first place.

Clinton claimed that “stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional.” No federal judge would have the power to declare pedestrian stops unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court put its constitutional imprimatur on the practice in 1965. Stop-and-frisk remains a lawful and essential police tactic. Criminologist David Weisburd examined the practice in New York City and found that it reduced crime in shooting hot spots. Federal district court judge Shira Scheindlin did rule that the New York Police Department’s practice of stops was racially biased, but her ruling applied only to the New York Police Department. That ruling was wholly unjustified and would likely have been reversed on appeal, had newly elected New York City mayor Bill de Blasio not dropped the appeal. Judge Scheindlin used a population benchmark for measuring the lawfulness of police actions: if police stops didn’t match population ratios, they were unconstitutional, in Scheindlin’s view. Such a methodology ignores the massive disparities in criminal offending in New York City. Blacks commit over three-quarters of all shootings, though they are 23 percent of the city’s population. Add Hispanic shootings to black shootings and you account for 98 percent of all shootings in New York City. Whites are 34 percent of the city’s population; they commit less than 2 percent of all shootings. Such disparities in gun violence mean that virtually every time the police are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has been shot—they are called to minority neighborhoods on behalf of minority victims, and, if any witness or victim is cooperating with the police, being given a description of a minority suspect. The reality of crime, not phantom police racism, determines the incidence of police activity, including pedestrian stops.

Clinton claimed that stop-and-frisk was “ineffective” and “did not do what it needed to do.” Felony crime dropped 85 percent from the early 1990s to the mid-2010s in New York City; more than 10,000 minority males were spared the violent death that they would have experienced had homicides remained at their early 1990s levels. Stop-and-frisk was a crucial part of that crime drop, the longest and steepest on record; it’s hard to imagine anything more effective than New York’s proactive policing revolution. Stop-and-frisk deterred criminals from carrying guns. Equally importantly, it intervened in a range of other criminal behaviors. If an officer saw someone casing a store on a boulevard plagued with burglaries, or saw someone walking quickly behind an elderly lady in a neighborhood plagued with robberies, he would stop that person and ask a few questions. That stop may not have resulted in an arrest, but it could have averted the commission of a crime. Read on.

COMMENTS AT STEVE SAILER:

* I like a lot of her City Journal stuff, and she’s shown some HBD sympathies, but she’s an admitted atheist. That’s not going to go over well.

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Hillary’s Debate Lies – With her comments about crime, policing, and race, the candidate helps push a false—and dangerous—narrative

Trump Believes In Eugenics

Posted on September 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* This brouhaha over trump being a eugenicist….

Everyone is a eugenicist. If you used sperm from a sperm bank to produce your next child, wouldn’t you rather it came from a man who were tall, smart and athletic? Let’s not speculate, the facts clearly prove this true. Everyone would agree.

Some might say that it’s better to be safe than sorry, meaning that it can’t hurt, and could potentially be beneficial , to choose good sperm. Oh, well can we please apply that principle on a national level with regard to chaining the demographics of the West?

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Trump Believes In Eugenics

Was Crooked Hillary Duped About Alicia Machado?

Posted on September 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

Posted in Alicia Machado | Comments Off on Was Crooked Hillary Duped About Alicia Machado?

Hillary Navigates The Stairs With Help From The Secret Service

Posted on September 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

This woman is not well.

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Hillary Navigates The Stairs With Help From The Secret Service

Yair Rosenberg: ‘Jackie Walker Can’t Stop Saying Offensive Things About Jews’

Posted on September 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

I’ve never been offended by anything I have ever heard. What kind of wimp bases an essay on somebody’s ‘offensive’ words? Words are only offensive to those who choose to get offended. Whenever I see an argument based on ‘offense,’ I know I’m dealing with a writer whose moral foundation is his feelings. We expect this from women (which is one reason women cannot serve as witnesses in Jewish law), but when a man does it, it is pathetic.

There are only two honorable forms of argument — to contest facts and logic. This Tabletmag essay tries to construct an argument by heaping on the slurs and hurt feelz.

Yair Rosenberg writes:

Yesterday’s New York Times featured an illuminating profile of Momentum, the hard-left political activist organization that has effectively captured Britain’s Labour party for its radical leader Jeremy Corbyn. Co-written by reporter Stephen Castle and the Times‘ excellent London bureau chief Steven Erlanger, the article opened with an enthusiastic quote from the group’s vice chair, Jackie Walker, who exclaims, “We’re part of the biggest political movement in the last 50 years! The seeds we are sowing, who knows what fruit they will bring?”

What the piece does not mention is that Jackie Walker is an anti-Semite who blamed the Jews for being the “chief financiers” of the slave trade, falsely criticized Britain’s official Holocaust Memorial Day for not commemorating non-Jewish victims of genocide (it does), argued that Jewish schools do not need extra security in the face of threats, and said she hasn’t “heard a definition of anti-Semitism that I can work with.”

After her comment about Jews being behind the slave trade—a popular anti-Semitic conspiracy theory debunked by academics—Walker was suspended from the Labour party in May. But by the end of the month, she was reinstated, with no explanation from the party as to why she’d been cleared and no apology on her part. This week, Walker went after Holocaust Memorial Day and security at Jewish schools, provoking outrage across the political spectrum. (The recording of Walker’s most recent comments was leaked the day of the Times’ story, so it could not have been included.)

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Yair Rosenberg: ‘Jackie Walker Can’t Stop Saying Offensive Things About Jews’

Did Donald Trump Make His Biggest Mistake Yet by Fat-and-Slut-Shaming Alicia Machado?

Posted on September 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

The point of feminism is to expand sexual options for women and to reduce them for men.

I was watching last night the new Frontline documentary “The Choice” about Trump and Hillary, and one of Hillary’s university friends said it was said when she lost weight, dyed her hair, and dressed and comported herself in a more ladylike manner so her husband could succeed in Arkansas politics. Hillary’s makeover circa 1982 was stunning. She went from a frump to a stylish attractive woman. But to her feminist friends, this was sad.

Stefanie Iris Weiss writes for the Forward:

Yes, he went there.

Trump’s latest 3 a.m. Tweet rant is revolting, but not at all surprising, given what we know about his rabid, incessant sexism. Last night, four days after Hillary Clinton wiped the floor with him in the first debate of the general election, Trump began wildly tweeting about former Ms. Universe Alicia Machado, his latest archenemy.

The backstory: On Monday night, Hillary Clinton handily humiliated Trump by besting him on every single question, succeeding in making him look like a small, stupid man. But key moment in HRC’s big win – the moment she crushed him and basically handed him his testicles – was when she told Alicia Machado’s story…

Even after everything we know about Trump, his long and storied history of hatred toward women, people of color, immigrants, Muslims, and more, we should pay close attention to what Trump is saying now. If there was ever any question about what he thinks about women – this answers it. In the Trumpiverse, women exist solely to service him. If they do not fit his standards, if they do not comply, if they question his authority, they are “disgusting.”

Who cares if Machado made an alleged sex tape? Surely not women — 51 percent of the population going to the polls this November. We live in our bodies, whether they are fat or thin, whether they are up to patriarchal standards of beauty or not. We live in our bodies no matter how many sexual partners we’ve had. We live in our bodies if we’ve committed adultery or our spouses did. We live in our bodies if we are teachers, sex workers or housewives. We live in our OWN bodies, and we maintain agency over those bodies. We live in our bodies and we vote.

Let’s get this straight – no matter what Machado has chosen to do with her body, she should not be shamed. Not for her weight in 1997, and not for her sex life, private or public.

We already know that this man seems to relish calling woman pigs, rating them based on their breast size and admitting that he simply doesn’t respect them. This man has committed adultery and has five kids from three different wives, yet thinks it’s perfectly fine to talk about the sex lives of woman he feels threatened by. We might also recall that prior to a divorce settlement, his first wife, Ivanna Trump, accused him of marital rape.

Imagine if a woman who’d just won the GOP nomination trotted out their five kids from three different marriages on the convention floor. A woman with a past like that couldn’t even make it through her first primary.

We need to have a national discussion about women as autonomous beings with agency — we can be any size we want to be, and we can have sex with whom we want to, without being judged by the likes of Trump or those who admire him.

Posted in Feminism | Comments Off on Did Donald Trump Make His Biggest Mistake Yet by Fat-and-Slut-Shaming Alicia Machado?

Forward: Wealthy Orthodox Couples Charged in $1.3M Brooklyn Benefits Scam

Posted on September 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

Forward article.

Justice Department release:

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Mark G. Peters, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”), announced today the filing of criminal charges against six defendants for participating in long-running schemes to hide substantial assets and income obtained from significant business and real estate interests in order to attain government benefits designed for low-income individuals. In total, the defendants allegedly obtained more than $1.3 million of government benefits. SHLOMO KUBITSHUK, RACHEL KUBITSHUK, NAFTALI ENGLANDER, and HINDA ENGLANDER were charged in one complaint, and LEIB TEITELBAUM and DEVORAH TEITELBAUM were charged in a separate complaint. The defendants were arrested in Brooklyn this morning and are scheduled to appear in Manhattan federal court later today.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “For over a decade, this ring of six defendants allegedly lied to city and federal officials about their financial status in order to obtain benefits that were meant for the needy. The alleged schemes that netted them over a million dollars has been put to an end and the defendants now face federal fraud charges.”

Commissioner Mark G. Peters said: “These defendants were millionaires stealing from the poor, as charged. The defendants fraudulently concealed their wealth to obtain benefits, including Section 8 vouchers intended to help low income New Yorkers find housing, according to the allegations. At a time when affordable housing is scarce, and there is a waiting list for Section 8 vouchers, it is reprehensible that some New Yorkers went without so that these defendants could have still more.”

According to the allegations contained in the Complaints[1]:

From 2001 to 2016, SHLOMO KUBITSHUK, RACHEL KUBITSHUK, NAFTALI ENGLANDER, and HINDA ENGLANDER conspired and engaged in a scheme to obtain government benefits designed for low-income residents, including Section 8 housing subsidies, Medicaid health insurance, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) food stamps, totaling more than $980,000. In connection with applications for these benefits, they failed to disclose substantial income and financial assets, including a portfolio of multimillion-dollar residential real estate properties. The defendants also perpetrated the fraud by providing false income affidavits for each other.

From 2007 to 2016, LEIB TEITELBAUM and DEVORAH TEITELBAUM also conspired and engaged in a scheme to obtain government benefits designed for low-income residents, including Section 8 housing subsidies, Medicaid health insurance, and SNAP food stamps, totaling more than $330,000. In connection with applications for these benefits, they failed to disclose substantial income and financial assets, including a jewelry business and an apartment they owned.

* * *

SHLOMO KUBITSHUK, 38, RACHEL KUBITSHUK, 39, both from Brooklyn, New York, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to steal government funds, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and two counts of theft of government funds, each carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. NAFTALI ENGLANDER, 40, HINDA ENGLANDER, 41, LEIB TEITELBAUM, 39, and DEVORAH TEITELBAUM, 36, all from Brooklyn, New York, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to steal government funds, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, and three counts of theft of government funds, each carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

Posted in Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Forward: Wealthy Orthodox Couples Charged in $1.3M Brooklyn Benefits Scam

Does Trump Realize He Lost The First Debate?

Posted on September 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

My view is that over the past 40 years, all MSM pundits (George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Rich Lowry, etc) have been revealed as useless (except Ann Coulter in the past 18 months). Steve Sailer is worth more than every MSM pundit put together.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* I wish personally that Donald Trump had named Victor Orban as the world leader that he admired most. But it’s not a flip-flop or inconsistent to say that one might admire a leader or a person in general, but contend that a particular policy call (Merkel’s Boner) was a huge mistake. Sometimes even leaders themselves admit this. Ulysses Grant, generally regarded as a highly competent military commander, admitted in his memoirs that the 1864 attack at Cold Harbor, Virginia was a poor decision on his part. Merkel herself seems to be ambivalent about her own decision and the German people are definitely showing their dissatisfaction at the polls. But the MSM have simply abandoned even the pretense of objectivity and are now doing everything in their power to get Hillary Clinton elected. It’s sickening.

* I haven’t been following Frum closely. I am aware he seems to have come around on immigration. But is he a Trump supporter or a #nevertrumper?

PS. Rush Limbaugh was discussing the idea you tweeted a couple days ago that if Trump thinks he won the debate, he won’t prepare for the next one. He was asking who on Trump’s staff would have both the courage and standing with Trump to tell him he really lost, and that he really needs to bear down on the second one

* Frum’s been one of the strongest immigration restrictionists in the MSM for years, but he’s #NeverTrump, unfortunately.

Glad to hear that about Rush. Along those lines, it sounds like reality might have seeped in a bit since the debate…

* Trump is obsessed with media coverage about himself & watches cables news religiously. He knows the debate didn’t go well that’s why he’s been blaming the moderator.

In a downturn, and I’m not convinced this is one, he seems to acknowledge and makes some shifts. Nothing has fundamentally shifted since the debate. He appears to be in solid command in OH & IA. It’s close in FL, NC & NV if he wins all of the 5 he still needs another state. The remaining states seem to be difficult to win but aren’t slipping away from him.

He needs to listen to Coulter, ignore the personal stuff and focus on the issues. If he can do that he’ll be fine. If not, it’ll be President Clinton.

* Trump is both a) a proud (part) German-American and b) not particularly well-read. So perhaps it’s not a coincidence that he’s said his favorite book is Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet On The Western Front (I’m guessing he was assigned read it in high school, like I was) and his favorite foreign leader was Merkel. Both seemed like safe, non-stupid answers.

Trump may not have heard of Viktor Orban, but there is another foreign leader who’s known for being strong on borders, and Trump just met with him recently: Benjamin Netanyahu. If Trump had thought to say Netanyahu, he could have launched right into a discussion of Israel’s border fence and how it stopped 99% of Israel’s illegal immigration and tie it in to his proposed wall. A missed opportunity.

* I thought #nevertrumpers were propositional nation type guys. I thought #nevertrumpers were OK with invade-invite the world.

Seems like if immigration is big for you, there is no choice but Trump. Hillary is for moar immigration. The Greens won’t touch it even if it wrecks the environment due to their fearing the ‘Greening of Hate’ more than their fear of environmental degradation. And Gary Johnson is a textbook, batshit crazy Libertarian when it comes to borders.

So how could Frum be #nevertrump if immigration is his thing? By process of elimination, there is no other choice.

* Soothsayer Aaron Blake was one of the first to realize the inevitability of the 2016 Carly Fiorina campaign. He nailed it.

But she’s been talking to a lot of very important people. Almost all of them had very nice things to say about her.

This kid is going places.

Am I the only one that thinks Carly Fiorina’s “momentum” among the Pundit Class during the Summer of 2015 was some sort of failed intelligence psy-op? This all seems so staged.

* Most establishment Republicans are “cucks”. They really believe, or believed, that jumping on the feminist bandwagon would help them. Witness Ted Cruz’s comical Hail Mary picking Fiorina as his “VP”.

* He could have named Nigel Farage, who showed how to humiliate the leftist media.

* Remember when it comes to Trump the MSM has a hard time with rhetorical devices like sarcasm, irony, etc.

Recall when he asked the Russians to find Hillary’s 30K missing emails, he added this punchline, “I am sure the media will give you an award, NOT.” This was supposed to be sarcastic in the sense that everyone knows that the media doesn’t want those emails found, and thus would not give an award like the Pulitzer to the Russians if they did find them. But the MSM said he was inviting Russia to hack American servers. The fact that those servers where offline for years was also too hard for them to comprehend.

Later Trump was trying to show how hypocritical Hillary was in regards to guns. While pointing out that she wants to limit our rights have guns, he suggested she instead have her security detail give up theirs. Most native English speakers understood Trump was highlighting her hypocrisy. But the MSM said he was calling for her assassination.

So despite Trump’s poor grammar, it is not surprising the MSM cannot understand how someone can think somebody is good until that somebody does something that is bad.

The surprising thing is that as professional journalists one would think these people scored near lawyers on their SAT verbal section, and thus, should be able to understand things more complex than “Jack goes up the hill.”

* Frum’s not the only one. Michael Dougherty seems to oppose unskilled immigration at least and he’s a NeverTrumper too. Douthat’s a NeverTrumper as well, and I don’t think he’s an open borders guy.

Their logic seems to be:

1) Trump is a bad person/untrustworthy/unqualified for the office.

2) Hillary will be unpopular, and Republicans can come back with a better champion in 4 or 8 years.

See Dougherty below.

It takes unusual cleverness to convince yourself a septuagenarian lecher with no discernible virtues or attention span will MAGA.

— Michael B Dougherty

* I really like praising Israeli policy as a model for the USA. Americans love Israel, and it is a nice appeal to Jews in Florida and Pennsylvania, now a swing state and with plenty of Jews around Philadelphia.

How about some nice words for Slovak president Robert “Not One Single Muslim Refugee” Fico too? While pretty thin on the ground in most of the USA, Slovak-Americans are all over the rust belt swing states.

* Frum has matured from those days, and is a rare anti-mass-migration voice in the respectable MSM and Beltway GOP crowd. There are plenty of unrepentant invade/invite the worlders out there better to attack.

* This again reminds me of 2008, specifically how the media treated Palin’s speaking. The media attacked her answers at press conferences not as if they were unprepared oral statements, but as if they were written on a teleprompter.

In other words, when she would pause or stutter mid-answer or have some irony or wit in her response or slur a syllable or two, or her sentence would run on—as all people answering press queries do—the media would pounce as if her words were those she’d labored for days on using multiple dictionaries and formatted for a formal speech.

And then they went after her accent and folksy-metaphors, claiming that they’d “never” heard anything like it, and speculating about her being brain damaged. When, in fact, they always heard that crap—from lefties when they spoke to blacks (droppin’ their g’s) and to rural whites. It was just that Palin didn’t change her accent or style when talking to the corporate news crowd.

Palin was a fine speaker. Too folksy for my taste-it seemed a bit put on–but strong.

It’s the same thing with Trump: the media pretends it can’t understand sarcasm, irony, or nuance; and that his way of speaking is “bizarre” (when it was good enough to have a hit TV show) and they pretend he’s horrible at speaking when it’s one of his best assets.

I tell you, the soros bought-and-paid-for media is trying some 1984-style rewriting of reality.

* Frum presumably is one of those people who doesn’t prioritize immigration correctly. They’ll place the dignity of the office or the short-term interests of the Republican Party ahead of it. I can understand their position, except I think we’re probably out of time already. Certainly waiting out four years of Clinton is too risky, especially considering the awesome power of SCOTUS.

Along with the debt, empire, and the money issue, it’s the thing that might very well destroy our civilization. Avoiding an uncouth president is in about one billionth place on my list of priorities.

* Charles Murray is another unfortunate example of realist who doesn’t like Trump.

I don’t follow him close enough to know for sure, but Frum seems to be anti-Trump in his MSM long form work but more mixed on Twitter. On one hand he keeps retweeting various conservative anti-Trumpers. On the other, he also keeps hitting Hillary and Gary Johnson, and at the moment he seems aware of and wants to promote the alt-right counter-story about Fatty Miss Universe, snarking about “gettaway-car-shaming” her and retweeting this:

Funny CNN exchange w former Miss Universe “Did you threaten to kill a judge?” “What matters is my self-esteem.”

I’d say Frum’s anti-Trumpism is a combination of Charles Murray type intellectual snobbery, wanting to stay respectable in the beltway, and his strong Jewish identification and dislike of Trump’s playing nice with right wing anti-Semites.

I feel him a little bit on the snobbery and Jewish thing, but those are such minor and insignificant things compared to the question of whether or not we elect in 5 weeks someone who will cause heavy and permanent damage to the American ethnie and put us on the road to speech codes and gun confiscations and someone who at worst will hold the line and at best may even reverse these processes.

If you are about the American middle class, our future demographics, or the protection of our Constitutional liberties, the logic breaks down.

I think Trump will lose and Hillary will either be reelected in 2020 or will pass the miter over to Kaine who will win. I have some hope that Kris Kobach will run and be elected governor of Kansas in 2018 and then run of president in 2020, but I don’t think he’s even taken that initial step of running in 2018, and I can’t think of anyone else with unquestionable opposition to mass migration who could plausibly run and win in 2020. I’ve looked at the Senate roster and list of governors, and I just don’t see anyone else.

It is easy to forget is that Trump’s primary win was hardly resounding. All the prior races ended up being a divided hard right and single center rightest using those divisions and big financial advantage to win. This time it was the GOPe that was divided and a hard right that was increasingly woke to the demographic issues more than distractions like the details of their hopeless plans for national abortion bans. We could easily revert to form in 2020, with a bunch of craven Ted Cruz types faking concern about our borders and talking about fetuses and a great moderate hope winning the nomination. Or maybe Ryan will run and win, the GOPe’s depraved lust for that man knows no bounds.

* Snobbery seems to be the main reason for most NeverTrumpers. Career concern is probably a factor for some (e.g., Dougherty), but Frum I think is independently wealthy. I don’t know if right wing anti-Semites come into play much on this.

* Cernovich was somehow allowed to appeared once on Red Eye, Fox’s 3 am comedy panel discussion show. The next day the Daily Beast ran a hit piece on him and Fox said they wouldn’t have him on again.

* I think the first step, as the demographic disaster nears the point of no return, is accepting we’re in a corrupt oligarchy and figuring out which oligarchs we can deal with.

There are six men I am aware of who have spent more than $20 million of their own money on a single presidential election. (Please correct me if I’ve missed any)

2000 Steve Forbes spends $37 million to lose the GOP nomination
2004 George Soros spends $24 million funding America Coming Together, a pro-Kerry group
2008 Sheldon Adelson spends $30 million supporting McCain and GOP senators
2012 Sheldon Adelson spends $92 million, roughly split between supporting Gingrich in the primaries and Romney in the general
2016 Trump loans his campaign $50 million, then forgives the loan

The Kochs are in a class by themselves. They’ve spend about as much as all these guys put together, but they generally avoid the most direct campaign spending in favor of building up local parties or shadow parties.

* Maybe Frum prioritizes his niche at The Atlantic over his concerns about immigration. Kind words for Trump might jeopardize that.

* Trump isn’t popular because he was a TV personality that pushed a refreshingly populist platform. He became a popular TV personality because was well known for decades and was the epitome of success. A flashy billionaire with his name on the skyline of cities around the world. Coulter hasn’t really done anything but talk and write books. Trump’s a business guy, a billionaire titan who doesn’t sit and BS but gets thing done. This is why he is an enemy of the pundits and writers, even those who claim to be conservative, because their whole life, their world, is based on bullshitting.

* I can appreciate what Cernovich is doing- though he kind of lost me when he tweeted a screencap of the pollen count in Cleveland when Clinton had a coughing fit earlier this month.

“Pollen count in Cleveland is low today, allergies do not explain coughing fit. Media lied!” You look at the actual image and it says: “Moderate.” Okay, Mike.

Anyway, there’s something about his personality that makes it difficult for me to listen to him for more than five minutes. Clinton is probably like that for a lot of people, but I’ve been listening her my whole life, so I’m mostly immune to it.

That being said, given a few lucky breaks, I could see Cernovich beating lazy-eyed Kaine. Surely there must be more viable candidates out there…

* “Americans love Israel.”

No. Jewish Americans and some evangelical Christians love Israel. The rest of us are just told that we do.

* All of these people that are NeverTrump aren’t really opposed to open borders to any significant degree. There are only two choices: Trump or Hillary. One of those two will be the next president.

If you are NeverTrump, you are for Hillary. Even if you believe that Trump can’t be trusted, he is the only one of the two options that gives you any chance to restrict immigration. If Hillary is elected, she will continue Obama’s policy of open borders and importing so-called refugees. The opposition of a Republican Congress will continue to be totally ineffective. You can’t logically be anti-open borders and NeverTrump.

Anything is possible. But based on all of the information that we have, if Trump is not elected, how is a “better” Republican candidate going to win in four or eight years when the U.S. is even less white? Assuming Trump loses, that means that neither McCain, Romney, nor Trump was able to turn out enough white voters to win. It gets harder every election. I’m not a fan of the GOP establishment but they should realize that a Trump loss makes their chances of getting an acceptable establishment candidate elected in following elections that much more difficult. Of course, to think about this rationally is heresy because you have to acknowledge that Republicans get their votes mostly from white people and immigration is making the county less white.

* In an interview on the NPR program “On Point,” Frum claimed that Trump’s accusations of bias from that Mexican-American judge in the Trump University case, could lead to similar accusations against Jewish judges and people from other ethnic backgrounds in American society. In contrast, I would have thought that the “all white jury” argument and the assignment of people like Judge Ito to the OJ trial would have been proof that such considerations were already acceptable, at least in certain cases.

Angela Merkel’s measured response to Russia during the beginning of the Ukrainian Crisis probably made a favorable impression on Trump, especially considering the language coming from other Western leaders and politicians like Hillary. It’s pretty likely that Trump doesn’t speak German and doesn’t spend a lot of time following German politics beyond what he reads in places like the WSJ or sees on cable news. Merkel is probably the most important leader in the EU and one of the most important in the world; she now has pretty good name recognition in the US, she’s highly intelligent (or so we thought), and it’s pretty clear she didn’t get to where she is thanks to her performance in swimsuit competitions (at least not lately). Merkel was not a bad choice for Trump to name.

Posted in America, Journalism | Comments Off on Does Trump Realize He Lost The First Debate?

Daily Beast Tries To Take Down Mike Cernovich

Posted on September 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

I think this is a disgusting piece. None of the quotes from Cernovich in this Lloyd Grove article are heinous. They strike me as within the range of normal and healthy opinion.

I am neither a Cernovich fan or detractor. I followed him for a while on Twitter, but tired of the self-promotion. So I rely on others to retweet him when he says something important, which does seem to be often.

It seems like the point of Daily Beast articles such as this is to shut down dissent. They will go to great lengths to destroy those who challenge the Narrative.

Daily Beast:

Why Did Fox News Welcome Date Rape Apologist Mike Cernovich?

As Roger Ailes’s sexual harassment scandal continues to unfold, Fox News is being forced to answer why Mike Cernovich was invited to be a guest on ‘Red Eye.’

…So some folks, especially conservative activists and pundits who are normally sympathetic to the Fox News brand, are expressing disbelief that male-centric blogger, Twitter troll and ardent Donald Trump fan Mike Cernovich was booked as a guest last week on the cable channel’s popular Red Eye show.
“You’ve got to be kidding me. He’s a nutcase,” said right-wing author and radio host Ben Shapiro. “Granting any legitimacy to a fringe kook like Mike Cernovich, and all of the attendant nastiness and problems, is close to insane by any cable network.”
“Are you serious?” asked Ben Howe, a writer and editor of the conservative blog RedState, when informed of Cernovich’s Fox News appearance. “He was a guest on fucking Red Eye? They’re giving this motherfucker legitimacy? Oh my god!”
A Fox News spokesperson said Red Eye’s producers didn’t know about their guest’s extensive Internet footprint and history of ugly online disputes (including with #NeverTrump pundits Shapiro and Howe). The spokesperson added that Cernovich isn’t a paid contributor, and won’t be invited back.
Yet Red Eye host Tom Shillue slathered Cernovich with on-air praise when he appeared on the 3 a.m. August 4 episode to fervently defend Trump and trash Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who has reluctantly endorsed the Republican presidential nominee, as a politician who “doesn’t care about America. He wants open borders. He’s a globalist.”

“I love this guy,” Tom Shillue told viewers. “Michael, can you be back here tomorrow night?”

Whether or not Shillue was aware of Cernovich’s gamey reputation, the 38-year-old non-practicing California lawyer—a self-described “radical free speech proponent,” and the author of Gorilla Mindset, a self-published self-help book promoting male empowerment—is famous to his 78,000-plus Twitter followers for his steady output of offensive and incendiary remarks, a veritable inferno of political incorrectness.

“Have you guys ever tried ‘raping’ a girl without using force?” he tweeted in August 2012. “Try it. It’s basically impossible. Date rape does not exist.”

More recently, last February, he tweeted: “Not being a slut is the only proven way to avoid AIDS. If you love black women, slut shame them.”

And last month, after five police officers were killed by a sniper during a Black Lives Matter protest in Texas, Cernovich tweeted: “The ‘alt-right’ hasn’t killed anyone, but #BlackLivesMatter regularly slaughters the innocent. Know the real threat. Think! ‪#Dallas.”

All the above are readily available to anybody with access to Cernovich’s Twitter feed.

Then there’s Cernovich’s blog, Danger & Play, in which he endorses various conspiracy theories (“The Orlando Shooter Did Not Act Alone”); muses about an “Expert Analysis of Hillary Clinton’s Physical and Mental Breakdown”; slams the “dishonest website called The Daily Beast”; calls out “16 Feminists Who Have Taken Over ‘Conservative’ Media”; and provides helpful hints on how to avoid being convicted of rape (apparently based on Cernovich’s own experience of beating a felony rape charge, by his own account, after a sexual encounter in college).

Avoid SJWs [Social Justice Warriors]. If a girl you’re on a date with expresses ideals similar to those expressed by social justice bullies, end the date. Stable, emotionally [sic] girls do not become social justice bullies. Smile, pay the bill, and leave immediately.”

*“Film it. Four Hofstra college students were accused of gang-raping a fellow student. They were thrown into jail, and held without bail. Had they gone to trial, they’d have been convicted.

Yet the men were released from prison, after one of the defendant’s lawyers produced a cell phone video of the encounter, proving it was consensual.

*“If the police call, don’t answer. Did you know that the police can lie to you? Did you know that the police will lie about what you tell them? Police will claim that you confessed to rape, even when you denied it to them. NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE.

It’s a dangerous world out there, guys. Be vigilant. Protect yourselves at all time [sic].”

A Fox News spokesperson told The Daily Beast that Cernovich “was a onetime guest…He has nothing to do with the Fox News Channel. The network has no plans to book him for a future appearance.”

Red Eye’s booking of Mike Cernovich is simply another ingredient in a toxic stew.
“That’s horrifying,” said conservative writer Bethany Mandel, who has also tangled with Cernovich on Twitter. “They should not be giving him any platform of legitimacy whatsoever. It’s a very troubling thing in a post-Ailes Fox.”
In a phone interview, the Los Angeles-based Cernovich told The Daily Beast that he was invited on Red Eye through a “college kid on Reddit” who heard the show was searching for a Trump supporter and recommended him.
Cernovich described the show’s preparation for his appearance—taped on the evening of August 3—as “pretty intense,” adding, “They sent me an email saying ‘here’s 10 articles were going to discuss,’ and when the camera goes on it’s almost live with no editing.”
He said he believes there should be no limits to what can and should be said in public discourse, even if it’s inflammatory or bigoted, and that he frequently tweets something outrageous “just to get a conversation going.”
His observations about sexual assault, he said, were from “a time when I had 40 Twitter followers, and we were talking about girls’ rape fantasies…It’s really hard to explain five years later without context. It looks like I’m advocating rape… People bring up tweets that I don’t even remember, and my general response is ‘I don’t know if I said it. I probably said it.’ It’s just part of what I do. People try to use it to discredit me. That’s just the game.”
Cernovich said his Red Eye appearance was a rousing success, but he acknowledged a return engagement is doubtful because “powerful haters sent emails [to Fox News] saying this person is persona non grata. My appearance went great, but it made a lot of people mad that I was allowed on TV.”

Posted in Mike Cernovich | Comments Off on Daily Beast Tries To Take Down Mike Cernovich