The left’s ‘crossing state lines’ canard

T.R. Clancy:

It seems the Left cares about borders after all, depending on the border and who crossed it.

Consider Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial and how the continuing progressive slanders about white supremacism and murder always include the unspeakable fact that he crossed the state line with a rifle.

Rittenhouse didn’t cross the state line with a rifle. And if he had, it wouldn’t have been illegal.

….

Now consider that last week, ten FBI agents with a battering ram showed up before dawn to handcuff the underwear-clad Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and search his house and cell phone, after having done the same to his fellow journalists. The pretext was a search for Ashley Biden’s diary, but the FBI already knew O’Keefe didn’t have it or have anything to do with its disappearance. Besides, since when does a petty-larceny case local police would manage with a stolen-property report rate a federal investigation?

….

Just before the Project Veritas operation, Attorney General Merrick Garland sicced his FBI on uppity parents who dared to question the hive-mind wisdom of school boards. In what has now been exposed as the product of collusion between the White House and the progressive National School Boards Association, the NSBA sent a letter to Biden claiming the nationwide upsurge in angry parents showing up at school-board meetings made the parents domestic terrorists, requiring an aggressive Security State to stop them.

….

All this makes it no surprise that an obstreperous Rep. Jerry Nadler would immediately claim the Rittenhouse verdict “justifies federal review by DOJ.” This wasn’t just Jerry being spontaneous. The Biden administration always intended to use the DOJ to destroy Rittenhouse on the slimmest pretext if the mob didn’t get its way. Between a brave American jury and a raging mob, the jury cannot be allowed to win. And we can never forget that, like the Pinkertons’ unblinking eye, the Left never sleeps.

Source: The left’s ‘crossing state lines’ canard

The Second Civil War, 26: Alternatives — Stately McDaniel Manor

I spend a great deal of time, gentle readers, reading.  I read because I enjoy reading, because I find inspiration there, and because as I’ve gotten older, I’ve become just barely wise enough to realize how very, very much I don’t know and will never learn.  I do, however, do what I can to try […]

The Second Civil War, 26: Alternatives — Stately McDaniel Manor

Also this piece by Larry Correia

KURT SCHLICHTER GIVES JOURNALISTS SOME QUESTIONS TO ASK THE PRESIDENT

KURT SCHLICHTER GIVES JOURNALISTS SOME QUESTIONS TO ASK THE PRESIDENT AFTER HIS COMMENTS ABOUT NEEDING F-15S AND NUKES TO FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): This is bold talk from a military, and a government, that hasn’t won a war in my lifetime. Not even the War On Poverty . . . But the Transgender Awareness Training is up-to-date, I’m sure.

Seriously, this kind of threat is not just absurd and unseemly, but a disqualification for public office. One of many, I realize.

And I guess the ammo shortage will be back on.

ANOTHER UPDATE (FROM GLENN): Larry Correia: So you want to nuke Omaha? “For those of you who don’t know me, I’m a novelist now, but I retired from the Evil Military Industrial Complex, where I helped maintain those various advanced weapon systems you expect to bomb me with. Before that I was a gun dealer and firearms instructor. So basically I sold guns to the people you expect the people I trained to take them from.”

Plus: “In something that I find profoundly troubling, when I’ve had this discussion before, I’ve had a Caring Liberal tell me that the example of Iraq doesn’t apply, because ‘we kept the gloves on’, whereas fighting America’s gun nuts would be a righteous total war with nothing held back… Holy shit, I’ve got to wonder about the mentality of people who demand rigorous ROEs to prevent civilian casualties in a foreign country, are blood thirsty enough to carpet bomb Texas. You really hate us, and then act confused why we want to keep our guns?”

In a U.S. civil war, the first targets would be politicians, and media figures, and they’re all soft targets. Which is odd, because they seem the most eager to get things started.

Also: “The congressman’s suggestion was incredibly stupid, but it was nice to see one of you guys being honest about it for once. In order to maybe, hypothetically save thousands, you’d be willing to slaughter millions. Either you really suck at math, or the ugly truth is that you just hate the other side so much that you think killing millions of people is worth it to make them fall in line. And if that’s the case, you’re a sick bastard, and a great example of why the rest of us aren’t ever going to give up our guns.”

Source: KURT SCHLICHTER GIVES JOURNALISTS SOME QUESTIONS TO ASK THE PRESIDENT AFTER HIS COMMENTS ABOUT NEEDI…

ANN ALTHOUSE RESPONDS TO CHARLES BLOW: If “most people” lack “any real concept of what critical r…

ANN ALTHOUSE RESPONDS TO CHARLES BLOW:

If “most people” lack “any real concept of what critical race theory is,” then why don’t Democrats and others communicate the information? Instead, as Blow describes in his column, Republicans use the term to generate anxiety about what those terrible left-wingers want to do to us.

I challenge proponents of Critical Race Theory to speak to ordinary people in terms they can understand and explain the theory, why it’s a theory, and what is meant by “critical.” Don’t just tell us conclusions and demand that we accept them and don’t just introduce another confusing term. That is, don’t just say that there is “systemic racism.” Explain the theory and what is critical about the theory.

Why can’t that be done clearly and straightforwardly? People are right to feel anxious and suspicious about something so big and powerful that can’t be talked about. To say “In fact, I don’t even believe that most people have any real concept of what critical race theory is” is to blame the people for failing to understand what isn’t being discussed clearly. That’s perverse and elitist.

Well, most “woke” stuff is perverse and elitist. And Critical Race Theory can’t be discussed clearly and straightforwardly because if it were, the vast majority of people would reject it. Hence the smoke and mirrors and charges of bigotry aimed at critics in place of reasoned argument.

Related, the Critical Race Theory Motte and Bailey:

Source: ANN ALTHOUSE RESPONDS TO CHARLES BLOW: If “most people” lack “any real concept of what critical r…

The Whiteness of Woke

“If You’re Not Outraged, You’re Not Paying Attention” the bumper stickers on a thousand SUVs in the upscale bedroom communities of dysfunctional cities read. “Deutschland Erwache,” the National Socialists used to shout in the streets of Munich. Woke compresses it all to one word.

Wokeness means believing that politics is all there is to life. And nothing is whiter than that.

….

What’s whiteness? As the Smithsonian Museum of African-American Culture’s chart of “white culture” put it, whiteness covers everything from a serious work ethic to self-reliance, rational thinking, delayed gratification, achieving goals, being on time, and, finally, “competition”.

Get rid of academic standards, intellectual seriousness, punish success, and the mediocre woke white elites who first created quota systems a century ago have much more of a shot at the top.

The inherent assumption of class warfare was that the proles were too backward to be a competitive threat. The racist assumption behind critical race theory is that black people can’t compete. If the wokes thought otherwise, they would be denouncing black people as racist the way that Asian-Americans and Jews are repeatedly accused of racism and privilege.

Being accused of group privilege isn’t an insult: it’s a backhanded compliment. Wokes pander to those groups they think of as inferior and attack those groups they see as competition.

Source: The Whiteness of Woke

The left exposed as racist on Voter ID

Just so we’re not throwing around numbers arbitrarily, Crowder’s site lined up the stats for you to see for yourself:

  • Majorities of whites (74%), blacks (73%), and other minorities (82%) say voters should be required to show photo identification before being allowed to vote. SOURCE: Rasmussen
  • 87% of black people have some form of confirmed photo ID. SOURCE: ProjectVote (pg. 3)
  • 90% of Latin Americans have a form of confirmed photo ID. SOURCE: ProjectVote (pg. 3)
  • Percentage of Americans who have ID vs. percentage who vote. SOURCE: CNN
    • 87% of black people have ID, only 13% voted in the 2020 Election.
    • 90% of Latin Americans have ID, only 13% voted in the 2020 Elections.
    • 95% of white people have ID, only 67% voted in 2020 Elections.
  • 97% of registered voters in Georgia have a valid ID. SOURCE: AJC
  • Voter ID laws have been shown to actually INCREASE turnout in states that recommend them, such as Georgia and Indiana. SOURCES: HeritageHeritage
    • Specifically in Georgia from 2004 to 2008, turnout increased
      • 140% among Hispanic/Latino voters
      • 42% among Black voters
      • Compared to 8% of Whites

This confirms what I have been saying all along about the racism of those who think blacks are incapable of getting an ID.  It is absurdly racist on its face.  The real reason Democrats oppose voter ID is that it makes it harder for them to cheat.  It makes it harder to stuff the ballot boxes.

Source: The left exposed as racist on Voter ID

Official cause of Officer Sicknick’s death finally announced – and it’s about as you suspected

No, Officer Sicknick didn’t die from a fire extinguisher to the head, thrown by Trump supporters on January 6th. Nor did he die from an allergic reaction to bear spray wielded by those same protestors. Here’s the actual story as announced by the medical examiner – which conforms to what for quite some time has seemed the most likely cause of his death to anyone paying attention to the facts:

Francisco Diaz, the chief medical examiner for Washington, D.C., told the Washington Post that Sicknick died on Jan. 7 after suffering two strokes and that he did not suffer an allergic reaction to any chemical irritants.

The medical examiner’s office told the Washington Examiner that Sicknick’s “cause of death” was “acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis” — a stroke — and the “manner of death” was “natural.” The office said Sicknick was sprayed with a chemical substance around 2:20 p.m. on Jan. 6, collapsed at the Capitol around 10 p.m. that evening, and was transported by emergency services to a local hospital. He died around 9:30 p.m. on Jan. 7, the office added.

But the political damage was done by the Times reporting the lies about Sicknick’s death, and those lies almost immediately getting halfway around the world. I bet a lot of people will never read Officer Sicknick’s actual cause of death, and will instead continue to believe the lies.

And that’s the purpose of the lies in the first place.

….

The WaPo story from yesterday that announced Diaz’s findings also says this:

The ruling, released Monday, likely will make it difficult for prosecutors to pursue homicide charges in the officer’s death.

Yes indeed, it’s often “difficult to pursue homicide charges” when no homicide has occurred. But where there’s a will, there’s a way – as we’ve seen in the Chauvin trial, for example.

….

[NOTE: Glenn Greenwald, who has written a lot about the Sicknick case, has an excellent article about yesterday’s announcement, in which he states this:

It was crucial for liberal sectors of the media to invent and disseminate a harrowing lie about how Officer Brian Sicknick died. That is because he is the only one they could claim was killed by pro-Trump protesters at the January 6 riot at the Capitol…

…[C]able outlets and other media platforms repeated this lie over and over in the most emotionally manipulative way possible…

As I detailed over and over when examining this story, there were so many reasons to doubt this storyline from the start. Nobody on the record claimed it happened. The autopsy found no blunt trauma to the head. Sicknick’s own family kept urging the press to stop spreading this story because he called them the night of January 6 and told them he was fine — obviously inconsistent with the media’s claim that he died by having his skull bashed in — and his own mother kept saying that she believed he died of a stroke.

But the gruesome story of Sicknick’s “murder” was too valuable to allow any questioning. It was weaponized over and over to depict the pro-Trump mob not as just violent but barbaric and murderous, because if Sicknick weren’t murdered by them, then nobody was.

Much more at the link, including the fact that Greenwald had been derisively labeled by MSM reporters as a “Sicknick truther.” They will not be saying any mea culpas about that, either, nor about the other lies they promulgated. They will just move on to the next one.]

Source: Official cause of Officer Sicknick’s death finally announced – and it’s about as you suspected