Have a comment?

Information on BDS can be found at legalinsurrection.com:

In an article everyone should read, MAJ David French writes:

The New York Times has peered into Pamela Geller's heart -- and found it full of hate... Rich Lowry has offered a convincing argument that Geller was motivated not by hate, but rather "defiance."

Let me instead offer a defense of hatred...

I've seen jihad up-close, in an Iraqi province where jihadists raped women to shame them into becoming suicide bombers, where they put bombs in little boys' backpacks then remotely detonated them at family gatherings, where they beheaded innocent civilians while cheering wildly like they were at a soccer match, and where they shot babies in the face to "send a message" to their parents...

Isn't genocide worth hating? Isn't the systematic oppression of women? The selling of children into slavery?...

As the writer of Proverbs states, there are "six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him" among those "abominations" are "hands that shed innocent blood." Those are jihadist hands -- hands even God hates.

Blacks riot
destroying black businesses
after a black guy dies in police custody
because of three black officers
in a 43% black police department
under a black female mayor
with a black female state attorney
in a city ruled by Democrats for over 50 years,
so the first black female U.S. attorney
appointed by the first black president
blames "racism" -- and conservatives.

http://soopermexican.com/2015/05/08/how-to-explain-the-baltimore-riots-in-one-sentence/

"This is a War". Pam Geller:

Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.

Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not stand for being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed, while everyone else lives in fear.

Islamic law as it's interpreted by extremists forbids criticism of Islam, the Quran, and Muhammad. If they cannot be criticized in the United States, we are in effect accepting Islamic law as overriding the freedom of speech. This would establish Muslims as a protected class and prevent honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence.

Some say that "hate speech" should be censored. But what constitutes "hate speech" is a subjective judgment that is unavoidably influenced by the political perspective of the one doing the judging.

Allowing this sort of censorship would mean nothing less civilizational suicide. Many in the media and academic elite assign no blame to an ideology that calls for death to blasphemers -- i.e., those who criticize or offend Islam. Instead, they target and blame those who expose this fanaticism. If the cultural elites directed their barbs and attacks at the extremist doctrine of jihad, the world would be a vastly safer place.

There was a youtube embedded here of a CNN moderator justifiably being trashed by Pam Geller. The video went viral all over the internet. As with much of the media, the "journalist" repeatedly asserted that somehow what Pam Geller had done by holding a "Draw Mohammed" cartoon contest was hate speech and/or provocation and/or in some way to blame -- instead of raging against this assault on our liberties by American jihadis who traveled 1000 miles with the intent of murdering people for "offending" Islam.

To even make the claim that Geller was "provoking" is to admit that Geller is right about these issues. (Piss Christ "art"? The Book of Mormon "movie"? The Nazi march through Skokie "free speech"? -- see any resulting terrorism from "offended" Christians, Mormons, or Jews?) It didn't long for the embarrassed network to complain to youtube and get the account cancelled for "multiple reports of copyright violation".

Set a date 12-24 months in the future, to be well-publicized, in which the following rules will be implemented:

No more benefits for new children born out-of-wedlock; no more benefits for children whose parents are illegal aliens; no more paternity rights or responsibilities for unmarried men (which both disincentivizes marriage and also traps abused women in the relationship); and no more foodstamps for anyone that are usable (for starters) for soft drinks, "energy" drinks, candy, cake, cookies, crackers, or any processed foods that contain "high-fructose corn syrup".

(But we should lower standards so they can go into Marine infantry combat?)

The student "feminist" on the right is warning her fellow hothouse flowers that they might be "triggered" and unable to handle a scheduled Christina Hoff Sommers speech at Georgetown University. Eeek, eeek, eeek, it's not a "safe space". Vapors!

This is not to endorse everything or even close to everything that Hoff Sommers has to say, such as her misguided embracing of Warren Farrell nonsense, or her concessions to diversity crap. But some of her points, such as about feminism having become blinders-on hostility against (white) men have validity, and the thinking person will consider them.

We are raising a generation of incompetent excuse-making nincompoops who parrot party lines. Equality of opportunity does not mean (or require) equality of outcome. Moreover, men and women are not the same. And never will be.

Just something to think about when it feels like a drag
to have to get in the car and drive 20 miles.

and MORE.

Robert Oscar Lopez, a California professor, is the lead editor of Jephthah's Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family 'Equality'. He was raised as a child in a same-sex household.

The issue as he sees it, is not about anyone's "rights" to be left alone and live with whomever one chooses without government interference. The issue is the children.

Here is the brief.

Six good men died because Bowe Bergdahl is a traitor and a selfish immature asshole. Excuse him? Pension? Medical benefits? Honorable discharge? Let his parents provide for him. I'm sure that the parents of his now-deceased or maimed brothers in arms would be happy to trade places.

The word "vaccinations" misleadingly conjures up the vision of the grand old medical breakthroughs such as smallpox vaccine and polio vaccine, which did amazing good in helping to eradicate very serious dread diseases. (Although in the 60s there were some problems even with polio vaccine's then new oral version.)

Today, however, many, many vaccines are quick-fix, under-researched pharmaceutical money-making machines that are partially or wholly ineffective, useless, or worse -- some even more dangerous than helpful, e.g. some of the flu vaccines. Many vaccines are only somewhat helpful against diseases that really aren't all that bad to begin with or are of unlikely prevalence. Some vaccines have potentially toxic components. And there is a scary dearth of research on the effects of giving babies and little kids so very many vaccines of different kinds all at one time.

We don't have the kind of objective data we could use in part because federal law protects vaccine manufacturers from ALL liability, and in part because most of the research is moved by the industry itself, and is not independent.

That there's plenty of damage, though, is proved by so many vaccine victim recipients of compensation from the federal compensation program. The program stands in lieu of manufacturer liability -- which has the counterproductive effect of incentivizing the manufacture of more and more crap for more and more less-than-compelling reasons, as well as lobbying for the passage of more and more laws requiring people to subject themselves to being vaccinated for all kinds of reasons. This has become a gravy train for the no-liability pharmaceutical companies, and thus vaccine lobbying and the astroturfing of propaganda is rampant.

Sharyl Attkisson on vaccines. More.