Posts

The Crybaby Leftist Mind

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Modern progressives assume moral and intellectual authority.

Consequently, their supposedly superior ends naturally justify almost any means necessary to achieve them.

Among the elite, the Democrats’ “blue wall” states were once considered a testament to the wisdom of the Electoral College. When that wall crumbled in 2016 to Donald Trump, the Electoral College suddenly was blasted as a relic of our anti-democratic Founders.

The nine-person Supreme Court was once beloved. On issues like abortion, school prayer, same-sex marriage, pornography, and Miranda rights, the left cheered the court as it made the law and ignored legislatures and presidents. . .

Suddenly a narrow constructionist majority has returned matters of abortion to the states. And the once-beloved court is being slandered by leftist insurrectionists as illegitimate. (Read more from “The Crybaby Leftist Mind” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Leftists Call for Removal of 3 Army Bases

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Southern Poverty Law Center has declared three of America’s largest Army bases Confederate monuments “with the potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed” if activists don’t “take down” the Army bases.

The SPLC included Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Benning in Georgia on a list of 1,500 “Confederate monuments” that the SPLC claims could inspire more violence like what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia last month. All three bases are named after Confederate military leaders.

The list makes no mention of renaming namesakes of Confederate monuments; taking the monuments down is presented as the only option. The recent leftist campaign against Confederate namesakes and monuments has included a willingness among some far-left actors to destroy government property to accomplish their goals.

“More than 1,500 Confederate monuments stand in communities like Charlottesville with the potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed,” the SPLC website states. “It’s time to take them down.” (Read more from “Leftists Call for Removal of 3 Army Bases” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Leftists Ramping up the Violence: How Long Until They Kill Somebody?

/0 Comments/in , /by

How long before somebody gets killed by an enraged leftist? Let’s start a pool. I’ll be the bookie (the only sure way to make money).

Odds on a killing in the next six months, 7 to 1 against; from six months to a year, 4 to 1; after a year 2 to 1. Get your bets in early. These odds might tighten.

Some friends of mine, Roy Spencer and John Christy, were shot at. Both men are bona fide atmospheric scientists. They have actually studied and contributed greatly to their field. They also express skepticism that global-warming-of-doom will kill us all unless we put the government in charge of all aspects of our lives.

Spencer wrote:

A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at [the University of Alabama Huntsville] over the weekend.

All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building).

Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence.

The UAH police, with lickety split speed, classified the violence as a “random shooting.”

The bullets must have just showed up out of nowhere.

Storming the Heritage Foundation

So the violent folks at People’s Action — why do communists always say their violence is done in the name of the people? — attacked the Heritage Foundation offices. Stormed right on in.

Media accounts call the violent actors “protesters.” The proper word is, of course, thugs, though violent rabble would do as well. The media does not use proper labels because, as everybody knows, the media is delighted by the attacks.

Why did these violent individuals storm a think tank? In their own fantastical words, “We’re shutting it down at @Heritage because it continues to be @realDonaldTrump’s think tank. #RiseUp2017 #Budget4ThePeople”

Well, what more justification is needed since the think tank expresses (tepid) support for a sitting President? Off with their heads, amirite?

We’ve already seen the well ensconced culture of violence on university and college campuses, now places of strict and unthinking intolerance. Just as a for-example, students, many with those dead-alive eyes familiar from social media posts, attacked author Charles Murray and a professor at Middlebury College. The professor was sent to the hospital.

The media sighed a slight sigh and then hinted the woman with Murray had it coming because, said the Washington Post, the Southern Poverty Law Center “considers Murray a white nationalist who uses ‘racist pseudoscience. …’”

Students at Wellesley penned an article that said, in effect, that if they have to keep hearing talk from people on the right, “hostility may be warranted” to shut them up.

The mercurial Ann Coulter was invited to speak at Berkeley, ground zero for fingers stuck in ears, but was told by the university officials she couldn’t come, because why? Because of concerns over her safety.

Now I ask you, is that not tacit admission that student violence is expected and seen as natural, and perhaps even desirable? I’ll answer for you: yes it is.

Coulter is still coming, and daring Berkeley, an institution that boasts of it free speech heritage, to shut her up. Police forces have begun mustering. Update (26 April, 6:15 PM): Coulter, losing even her supporters, herself canceled her speech.

But will the police be allowed to intervene should violence begin? At the so-called Battle of Berkeley, pro- and anti-Trump supporters clashed, and police infamously sat on their thumbs. (They are even “training for violence.” The antifa forces lost, and so they are now actively “training” for the next battle.)

Why this inaction? It’s a good bet that the politicians anticipating the event thought it would be yet another instance of leftists causing mayhem, violent acts they could “officially” condemn after they occurred, but which they were not unhappy to see. Yet this time, the other side fought back. And won.

Now that the right is fighting, it’s an even better wager that the politicians will have the police move in quickly at the first hint of violence.

Free speech is dead on the American campus. How do we know? Leftists tell us so. Dead, and good riddance, they say. The New York Times and the New Republic say students are right to insist they should not have to hear ideas which might cause them pain.

Author Heather Mac Donald was chased off a campus by a violent mob recently. She noted that some students at Berkeley “opined that physical attacks against supporters of Mr. Yiannopoulos and President Trump were ‘not acts of violence. They were acts of self-defense.’”

There you have it. When the killing comes, it will be called “self defense.” It will be called “necessary.” Those reporting on it will express sadness, yes, but they will, oh so regretfully, say it couldn’t be helped.

How are those odds above looking to you now? (For more from the author of “Leftists Ramping up the Violence: How Long Until They Kill Somebody?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Question for Leftists and Progressives: Is This What You Mean by ‘Equality’?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I did not intend to write about this story, but when I saw a picture of the teenager in question, I had to. He is 15-years-old, clearly a biological male. Look at his picture for yourself, mustache and all. As Joy Pullman notes on The Federalist, he has “not taken drugs nor undergone surgery to mimic femininity.” Yet he was allowed to compete against girls in a recent sporting event, and to no one’s surprise, he won — quite handily, at that. Is this what is meant by “equality”?

In recent weeks, we’ve read about a female high-school wrestler who identifies as male and who has been taking testosterone to prepare to “transition” to male. Unsurprisingly, she defeated the other girls, all of whom are not taking testosterone.

We also read about a male weightlifter who now identifies as female. Unsurprisingly, he defeated the women he competed against, setting a new record along the way.

Other examples could be supplied as well, since this is becoming more and more common.

How is This Fair?

How is this fair? How can progressives and liberals and leftists and LGBT activists and their allies think this is right? And do the feminists of the world really want to engage in head-to-head athletic competition with their male peers?

If this was done in the world of professional sports, there would not be a single woman winning, let alone playing at the elite, highest levels.

Not one female basketball player would earn a berth in the NBA. Not one female athlete would make it to the Olympics — in swimming or rowing or weightlifting or skiing or running or jumping or hurdling or boxing. Not one.

Men would dominate in every event, and women would be relegated to cheerleading.

That’s why we have men’s sports and women’s sports, men’s world records and women’s world records. And that why we celebrate the accomplishments of female athletes as females rather than comparing them to males.

There is nothing sexist about this. There is nothing hateful about this. There is nothing condescending about this. This is a matter of fairness, equality and common sense.

At least it should be. Today, common sense is in danger of extinction, and concepts like fairness and equality are turned upside down.

Beat by a Boy

The 15-year-old in question goes by the name of Andraya Yearwood, and as the Hartford Courant reported, Andraya’s first event with female peers was a cause for celebration:

With family, friends and teammates cheering her on at her first high school track meet, Andraya won the girls 100- and 200-meter dashes, and helped her 4×100-meter relay team take second place.

What did this look like in person? One picture says it all, as Andraya leaves the other girls behind, girls who trained so hard for these events, only to be beaten by a boy. And I mean beaten decisively.

But Andraya’s mother had a response to anyone would protest the event:

I know they’ll say it is unfair and not right, but my counter to that is: Why not? She is competing and practicing and giving her all and performing and excelling based on her skills. Let that be enough. Let her do that, and be proud of that.

What kind of logic is that? Because this 15-year-old biological male is competing and practicing and giving his all, that makes it fair and right for him to compete with his female peers? No matter what these other girls do, no matter how hard they try, no matter how much they push themselves, they will not be able to keep up with an equally devoted male peer. How is this fair and right to them?

Andraya’s father is also supportive, saying that his son is competing just where he should be competing, also explaining that you are born into a particular body but you grow into being a particular person.

But athletic events are conducted in the body, regardless of how the person inside that body identifies. Yet when people ask Mr. Yearwood, “Why is your daughter running with the girls?”, his response is, “Because she’s my daughter, much like the reason your daughter is running with girls.”

Not Like the Other Girls

With all respect to the Yearwood family, and with understanding that for them, this was a matter of life and death for their child, what Mr. Yearwood is saying is patently false. His child is not running with the other girls the same way the other daughters are running, just like his child does not have to deal with monthly periods or female hormonal changes, since Andraya is not like the other girls.

“But,” you ask, “what about Andraya? What if Andraya has gender dysphoria? What if identifying as female will save her life?”

That is between Andraya and his family and the Lord. But Andraya’s personal struggles cannot be imposed on everyone else, meaning, as a biological male, he has no business competing with other girls, or, for that matter, sharing their locker rooms and shower stalls. That is not the meaning of equality.

Even according to activist ideology, gender is a social construct but sex is biological. And when it comes to male and female athletic competition, we divide based on biological sex.

The Inevitable Trajectory of LBGT Activism

In the end, this is just one more example of why I believe LGBT activism will ultimately defeat itself.

You cannot wage a winning war against gender distinctions any more than you can redefine marriage while preserving its integrity. As expressed by Joy Pullmann,

It’s a pretty sure bet Americans did not expect tolerance for two consenting adults doing whatever behind closed doors to become a spearhead for forcing naked boys to shower next to naked girls and make girls second-class players on their own fields.

Exactly.

And so, I appeal to progressivists, leftists, feminists, and LGBT allies and their allies, along with all those who cherish fairness, equality, and justice. Look carefully at the trajectory of your activism, and ask yourself: Is this really the kind of world that you want? (For more from the author of “A Question for Leftists and Progressives: Is This What You Mean by ‘Equality’?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.