Fake Protests based on Fake Rationales

Cheryl K. Chumley: People’s Climate March — rally of the ridiculous – “Forgive the yawns. It’s just that after 100 days of anti-President Donald Trump protesting, which came on the heels of 200 or so days of anti-Candidate Donald Trump protesting, the Hate Trump message is getting a bit stale.

Valerie Richardson: The people’s billionaire: George Soros gave $36M to groups behind People’s Climate March – “Media Research Center report finds steering committee groups benefited from Soros’ largesse.”

The People’s Climate March scheduled for Saturday has a powerful billionaire behind it: Democratic Party donor George Soros.

Mr. Soros, who heads the Open Society Foundations, contributed over $36 million between 2000 and 2014 to 18 of the 55 organizations on the march’s steering committee, according to an analysis released Friday by the conservative Media Research Center.

“The presence of many non-climate related organizations leading the march indicated that this climate march (just like the March for Science and the Women’s March) is not about a single issue, but about attacking the new administration,” MRC’s Aly Nielsen said.

She pointed to the march’s “usual checklist of liberal policy priorities,” such as labor-union rights, a minimum-wage increase, and a halt to “attacks on immigrants.”

Anthony Watts: Saturday’s “climate march” in Washington turns into another wrongheaded farce that has little to do with climate – “Even full-on warmists are panning it, and it hasn’t even started yet.” Watts provides some pretty graphics about the causes and logistics from sponsoring organizations.

David Sherfinski: Sheriff David Clarke: ‘Rat bastards’ on the left never give up – people are beginning to notice and some are rather colorful in their observations.

“No, I didn’t misspeak.

“You see, for them defeat is never final. Election defeats don’t matter,” he said. “It’s simply a time to regroup and continue their assault on our Constitution, the rule of law, liberty, and American exceptionalism.

“Now, why would I call them rat bastards?” he said. “First of all, because I can. Second, as you know I call ‘em as I see ‘em. But third and more importantly, just listen to Saul Alinsky, a socialist professor who admired Lucifer, for heaven’s sake. And Alinsky’s admired by the left.”

VDH: How the Obama Precedent Empowered Trump – “A number of the things that explain Trump’s election also point to unique opportunities to overturn the Obama legacy.”

The Left is understandably apprehensive of Trump because Obama set the modern precedent that a contemporary president can do almost anything he pleases by executive orders (and in Nixonian fashion can weaponize federal agencies, from the NSA to the IRS, in order to monitor and hound political rivals and perceived enemies). Sen. Harry Reid’s near suicidal destruction of the Senate filibuster captured the unreality of the times, as if Obama progressivism most certainly would be America’s new orthodoxy for generations to come.

A supposedly disinterested media’s ecstasy over Obama’s election ensured that its subsequent revulsion at Trump could be taken no more seriously.

A critical media is not a mere reset button that one turns on and off at one’s convenience. Instead, once it was short-circuited after 2008, its burned-out switch cannot be flipped back on in 2017. In sum, there is no longer a believable media that can offer credible critiques of the Trump presidency.

There is as yet no credible response to Trump and certainly no opposing coherent agenda. Instead, the “Resistance” is being waged by cherry-picking liberal federal judges in hopes of delaying and slowing down executive orders in the courts, along with states-rights nullifications, organized advertising boycotts of conservative media figures, media collusion, jamming town hall meetings of conservative representatives, campus antics, and waging war on social media.

David French: California Is Seceding from the Constitution – “Is there no end to the harm progressives will do our republic in the name of ‘social justice’?”

why should a state bother seceding when it can simply nullify the portions of the Constitution it doesn’t like? A troubling trend is emerging: California is imposing its own vision of free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of the press on its citizens, and it’s daring the courts to stop it.

The rot extends far beyond Berkeley.

In short, California public officials at every level of state and local government have taken it upon themselves to replace core constitutional protections with their own radical vision of social justice. This isn’t federalism; it’s lawlessness. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and every state law, ordinance, regulation, or practice that conflicts its guarantees of individual liberty must be struck down.

Social-justice warriors may demand #Resistance, but they cannot opt an entire state out of the Constitution. It’s time for the courts and Congress to protect liberty, and it’s time for California to remember that membership in our constitutional republic carries with it constitutional obligations. California, you can’t nullify the Bill of Rights.

OregonMuse says That’s the Way You Do It – A grand jury has approximately 212 people facing felony charges for rioting during the inauguration in January.

The way to stop rioting is by vigorous, aggressive police action. Of course, everybody knows this. The mayor of Baltimore knows this. The mayor of Ferguson knows this. Even that adipose porker who runs Berkeley knows this. But they chose to not make any attempt to restrain the rioting because, bottom line, they have more sympathy for the goals and aspirations of the circus freak show rioters than they do with law-abiding citizens, i.e. normal people of their communities. So the cities burned.

I only wish there was a way to tell the normal people, “hey, the authorities are not on your side. They will sit back and watch you and everything you’ve built burn if it means they can further their agenda.”

You would think Berkeley would at least be receptive, but the people there keep electing the same crew year after year. And pride themselves on how progressive they are.

CBD cites: “J.J. Sefton has been telling us that Daniel Greenfield is very good writer, and I finally listened. The Left’s Culture of Contempt: Saving America by hating everyone.” Greenfield describes what has happened to what used to be an entertainment – “Comedy is creative. Contempt isn’t comedy. Ultimately it’s just contemptible.”

Steven Hayward: NY Times Readers Lose Their Minds – “Bret Stephens recently left the Wall Street Journal editorial page to become an op-ed columnist at the New York Times.” The first column at the new gig was about climate change and, boy, did it set off the climate alarmists. Luboš Motl picks up on the fracas: Bret Stephens’ skepticism will spread from NYT to other mainstream sources – “The content of the op-ed is simple. Stephens – who looks like a classic lukewarmer to me here, not too much more skeptical than Andy Revkin – says that it’s wrong to expect that one is 100% certain. Only fanatics do so, sane people know that they’re 65% right if they’re really good, and the climate alarmists claiming certainty should be ashamed.”

Fine. People have reacted. On Twitter, Gavin Schmidt and a few other fanatics have claimed that Stephens is fighting a straw man. I don’t think it is the case. The fanatical claims about the certainty of destruction by man-made climate change are omnipresent – and you may find lots of them written by the brainwashed or activist commenters under Stephens’ article, too.

But I found many comments that agreed with Stephens in the New York Times, many reasonable comments (these two sets are overlapping but not identical), and I do believe that Stephens’ first op-ed made the New York Times more attractive.

You should have figured out that the conventional wisdom is rubbish, dear newspaper managers, many years ago. But behaving just like all the other mediocre managers elsewhere looked like a good enough and comfortable enough strategy to you. It was easier than to do your job well, wasn’t it?

Just to be sure, I am bored by the articles saying that “certainty is politically incorrect” (such as this Stephens’ op-ed), too. To make me intrigued, The New York Times would have to publish something much more original and brilliant.

For the other side of this ‘debate’ see Greg Laden: Out of the gate, Bret Stephens punches the hippies, says dumb things – “Right in the middle, between the Trump-inspired March for Science, and the Trump-inspired People’s Climate March, the New York times managed to come down firmly on the side of climate and science denial, in its editorial pages.” It’s loaded. Consider the hubris and judgment dripping from statements like “other right wing positions,” “consider this all too cute sentence with which he attempts to dazzle his readers,” “ a dynamic, rapidly changing field like climate change,” “hold them to any standard at all with respect to fact checking,” “still think the Earth is round, with hemispheres, right?,” “never mind the pesky details such as facts,” “His overall argument is utterly stupid,” “involves some very attractive conspiratorial ideation,” “perhaps heeding his masters’ voice,” … do you still wonder why these folks avoid honest debate?

Consider Armando Simon on The Left’s Vicious Intolerance in Science – “the media has deliberately downplayed, or altogether ignored, the vicious attacks on science by liberals. And these attacks have been going on for decades.” Consider the case studies: E. O. Wilson, Charles Murray, Paul Cameron and the ‘fashionable research’ intended to support ideological fantasies.

So any scientist that carries out research on this topic and comes to these conclusions is (as usual) called “racist,” “fascist,” “Nazi,” etc. …Liberals went ballistic on hearing of this theory and insisted that it be suppressed. While delivering a lecture on the subject, the International Committee Against Racism, a front group of the Marxist Progressive Labor Party, invaded the stage and attacked him.

The bottomless hatred of liberals is not confined to people. It extends to plants. Genetically modified foods are plants which have been tweaked genetically so that these plants can survive drought conditions, or render a bigger yield of crops. You know, just what farmers have been doing for centuries. Except now they are evil.

Eugene Volokh lists The Jefferson Muzzles 2017 for ‘egregious and or ridiculous affronts to free expression’ – “judged by the center to be improper or excessive reactions to people’s expression.” Note the patterns.

Comments are closed.