Anti Antifa, At Last!

There was this astounding headline Monday in the Washington Post:  “Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley.”

Put aside the question of how the Post determined that the demonstrators were “right-wing.”  What makes the headline remarkable is that a major liberal newspaper finally and accurately denounced the thugs.  Antifa may be short for “anti-fascist,” but it is in fact just the opposite.

The Los Angeles Times soon chimed in, decrying “violence by far-left protesters.”  And on MSNBC, of all places, Joe Scarborough blasted the antifa goons as “fascists in their behavior.”

A few far-left politicians have also joined the anti-antifa chorus.  Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, who actually applauded the mob that shut down Milo Yiannopoulos in February, now wants antifa officially classified as a gang.  “They come dressed in uniforms,” he observed, “and they have weapons, almost like a militia.”  Hey, Mayor Arreguin, good of you to finally notice.

And the most stunning turnaround came Tuesday, when Democrat Nancy Pelosi issued a statement condemning the “people calling themselves antifa.”  She added that they “deserve unequivocal condemnation.”

What makes all this notable is that just over a week ago Reuters referred to the antifa agitators as “peace activists,” while Democrats refused to say anything mean about the masked warriors.  So what happened to turn the tide?  Let us put forth some educated speculation.

First, professor and philosopher Noam Chomsky openly questioned antifa’s goals and tactics.  Chomsky, always anti-capitalist and often anti-American, has been the guru of the radical left for decades.  When he speaks, progressives listen.

Two weeks ago Chomsky described antifa as “a miniscule fringe of the Left,” and called their violence “a major gift to the right.”  The professor also hammered antifa for shutting down speakers with whom it disagrees.

A few days later, professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz, another lion of the left, warned that antifa-like groups are “trying to tear down America.”  He denigrated antifa as “radical, anti-American, anti-free market, socialist, communist, hard left censorial organization.”

All this criticism was pre-Berkeley, which was another black mark against the black clad antifa crew.  Last weekend the left-wing gangsters assaulted a handful of people who gathered in Berkeley to march against Marxism.

The antifa radicals, their faces masked as always, chased and beat down people whom they considered Trump supporters.  It was an especially ugly scene, even by antifa standards, after which more than a dozen radicals were arrested.

If antifa and other self-styled anti-fascist groups occupied the moral high ground after Charlottesville, they surrendered it last weekend in Berkeley.

But perhaps the biggest reason for the recent opinion shift is old-fashioned politics.  Democrats can read polls as well as anyone else, probably better.  They know that most Americans do not are repulsed by masked marauders running wild in the streets.  That could explain Nancy Pelosi’s surprising statement.  She desperately wants a Democratic majority in 2018, and she won’t get it by ignoring or endorsing violence.

In the Senate, the two darlings of the far left – Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders – have yet to call out antifa by name, although Senator Sanders did speak out against lefties who shout down campus speakers.

Antifa will always have supporters, especially on elite campuses.  A Dartmouth lecturer named Mark Bray has become a frequent guest on mainstream networks, where he rationalizes and defends violence.  Dartmouth’s president actually criticized Bray for “supporting violent protest,” a rare show of courage from a university administrator.  Naturally, the left-wing Dartmouth faculty was angry not with Bray, but with the president.

But college professors aside, antifa may have overplayed its ugly hand with all the recent violence and vitriol.  Pay close attention the next time there are masked antifa protesters fomenting violence and pelting cops with urine.

Law enforcement, which once looked the other way, might step in to quickly stop the madness.  And Democrats, who were once acquiescent, might rise up in unison to denounce antifa.

That may be wishful thinking, but it would be a very welcome sign in extremely troubled times.

Advertisements

Why the US Hasn’t Brought “Fire and Fury” to North Korea

As the world ponders the meaning of President Donald Trump’s threat of “fire and fury” on North Korea, it’s worth asking why his predecessors never took those steps to stop its nuclear program. Trump isn’t the first president to threaten North Korea. The others were all bluffing.

When Bill Clinton was confronted with the threat of North Korea’s exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, he considered military force. But he ended up going for negotiations in what became known as the Joint Framework Agreement. The North Koreans froze their plutonium program in exchange for fuel shipments and a light water reactor from the U.S. Neither side ever fully delivered.

Then there was George W. Bush. He didn’t like North Korea. He put the nation in the original “axis of evil.” On his watch, the U.S. discovered Pyongyang had a secret uranium enrichment program, in violation of the spirit of Clinton’s deal. Then in 2006, North Korea tested its first nuclear device. By 2007, Bush had lifted crippling sanctions on the regime’s elites and entered into new negotiations. And surprise: The North Koreans backed out of those talks at the end, too.

By the time Barack Obama came into power, the North Koreans were back to building up their program. They perfected missiles, sunk a South Korean ship and shelled a South Korean island. The current tyrant, Kim Jong Un, ascended to power and proceeded to consolidate his position, killing his uncle and later his half brother. All the while, Obama pursued a policy of “strategic patience,” aimed at not rewarding Kim’s regime for its provocations and rogue behavior.

Now Trump has inherited a mess. Not only is Kim testing ballistic missiles at an alarming rate, as the Washington Post reported this week, but also the Defense Intelligence Agency now assesses North Korea can miniaturize a nuclear warhead so that it can fit inside a missile. Game, set, match.

So why didn’t the last three presidents take out North Korea’s nuclear facilities when they had the chance? The answer is Seoul, the thriving capital of South Korea. The North has enough artillery pieces within range of this metropolis to kill hundreds of thousands of people, which could very well begin a world war and throw the global economy into a tailspin.

Past presidents have understandably feared the North would retaliate in this way. But for some today, that fear is fading. John Plumb, a former director of defense policy and strategy for Obama’s National Security Council, told the Atlantic last month: “If I were the Trump administration, I would be looking at the threat to incinerate Seoul and trying to figure out how real it is. Because to me, it’s become such a catchphrase, and it almost — it starts to lose credibility. Attacking Seoul, a civilian population center, is different from attacking a remote military outpost. It’s dicey, there’s no doubt about it.”

Intelligence officials have said in recent months that this threat remains very real. While there are steps the U.S. can take to mitigate the problem, such as dropping cluster munitions on the big guns, it’s an imperfect and high-risk strategy. An attack on North Korea would be unpredictable and could unleash far worse on U.S. forces (which have been stationed in South Korea for more than 60 years), not to mention allies like Japan.

All of this gets back to Trump’s bluster. At this point we as Americans ought to expect more careful words from the president. At the same time, nothing Trump said was that different from the implicit threat against North Korea, or any power that threatens American cities with nuclear destruction.

Don’t get me wrong: There are few people on the planet more deserving of “fire and fury” than Kim Jong Un. But would such a strike even eliminate its nuclear program? How far is Trump willing to go? Will he order an invasion of North Korea to topple the regime? And if he does, would he commit the manpower, capital and time to stabilize the country once the Kim dynasty falls?

According to retired Admiral William Perry, Clinton’s second secretary of defense, the U.S. couldn’t even take out North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure with military strikes, given how much it has expanded in the last 20 years. What’s more, the price paid by South Koreans would be unacceptable. This is what he told a group of journalists this spring at an event sponsored by the Hoover Institution.

It’s possible that Trump is counting on his reputation as an impetuous novice — one who Kim just might fear would roll the dice by attacking North Korea. But Trump’s ultimatum allows the boy-tyrant in Pyongyang to test the president’s mettle. (Already the North Korean state media has threatened Guam.) We can expect more taunts and threats in the coming days, proving Trump’s threat was hollow. As hollow as past presidents’ pledges to do the same.

Man Who Identifies as 6-year-old Dominates CrossFit Kids Class (Satire)

Local CrossFit enthusiast Anthony Neff walked out of his local CrossFit affiliate with a smile on his face after his 4pm class on Tuesday. He had just dominated another workout, not only setting a personal record in the snatch, but besting the next strongest athlete in the class by over 185 pounds.

Neff, who works as a sales associate at Target, was born in 1983 but is currently transitioning to a birth year of 2011. He is the first transaged individual to participate in his gym’s CrossFit Kids program.

“I wouldn’t be here today if it weren’t for everyone who has been supporting my transition,” Neff told The Associated Press as he boosted a fellow athlete up to the gym’s water fountain to help him take a drink. “Science has come a long way in recognizing that age isn’t just a matter of how old you are. ”

Neff began to publicly identify as a six-year-old three years ago, but didn’t tell his wife Angela until months later.

“Anthony has always been a little immature, but I thought he would grow out of it,” She explained. But over time, Angela noticed her husband playing with toy trucks instead of going to work, watching hours of Octonauts, and laughing at the words like ‘poop’ and ‘booger.’

“This is who he is, and celebrating that is more important than pressing him to conform to reality.”

The change hasn’t been easy, but Neff says he’s been treated “well and kind” at his affiliate. “The coaches are all very supportive,” he said. His treatment has included increased growth hormones to match the levels found in the bodies of growing children.

“If he has been taking hormones, or steroids, he should be training and competing against actual children,” said Melissa Jones, mother of one of the other children in Neff’s CrossFit Kids class.

Jones is not alone in her concerns, but Neff’s coach, Travis Miller disagrees.

“I asked him if he thought the growth hormones were giving him an unfair advantage against the other children in the class,” Miller told the Associated Press. “He looked right at me and said he ‘didn’t identify’ as someone who was taking growth hormones. What kind of hateful bigot would question that logic?”

At time of press, Neff was consuming a bowl of Fruit Loops and looking forward to a CrossFit Kids session consisting of front-squats and a game of burpee dodgeball.

“All I know is when I get the ball everybody on the other side better watch out.”

Calm Down Democrats, The Holy Grail of a Trump Crime Remains Missing

What has really happened since Donald Trump Jr. released his email chain setting up a meeting last June with a Russian lawyer? Are Democrats and their allies in the media any closer to having their high crime or misdemeanor?

Answer: No.

As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz stated on July 11,

“It is unlikely that attendance at the meeting violated any criminal statute.”

Well said, Mr. Dershowitz.

And yet, the media would have you believe that the meeting Trump Jr. described as “literally just a wasted twenty minutes” is a smoking gun that will inevitably take President Trump, his administration, and his entire family down forever.

In reality, Trump Jr.’s emails show he has nothing to hide.

Further to this point, Trump Jr. recently went on “Hannity” to speak specifically about his actions. Granted, Fox News host Sean Hannity is not always interested in giving a complete, unvarnished account of what happens in Trump World and his questions are softballs, but Trump Jr. made some important points nonetheless– namely, the fact that there was no subsequent follow-up contact with the Russian lawyer and “nothing to tell” then-candidate Trump. Therefore, unless you decide to believe he is lying, there was no “collusion.” The holy grail is still missing.

I don’t think Trump Jr. went on national television and told a bunch of lies. Undoubtedly, the president’s enemies will believe that they are justified in feeling otherwise. But Trump Jr. has little incentive to do anything but tell the truth at this point.

Even if we suppose there was a follow-up from the campaign with the Russian lawyer, it is hard to say that more conversations or meetings would have amounted to a crime. And yes, something can be wrong but not illegal. However, that is not the argument Democrats and their allies in the media want to make. They want this to crack the foundation of the Trump presidency. They want it to crumble.

Blinded by disdain for the president, liberals are the media are mostly trying to create credibility for accusations of criminal violations and impeachable offenses. They embellish everything just so that they can keep the story moving. Maybe they will get a break and someone will stumble into a crime during the investigation into the non-crimes from the fall campaign.

In their search for a nonexistent smoking gun, Trump’s opponents appear at least partially satisfied by the constant hounding of the White House and the president’s family.

In politics, being innocent is just an advantage. It is not determinative. And although the fact’s do not support the left’s pursuit of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the Trump family, Trump Jr. is sure to face a lot of harassment, and he may make more “mistakes.” But that is far from being in the crosshairs of an American law enforcement investigation that could bring down a president. Sorry to the Trump haters for being such a buzzkill.

If Trump Jr. is guilty of anything, it is letting someone so lacking credibility have unfettered access to his schedule. Danger. You usually see your enemies coming, but it is your friends who will blindside you and get you in trouble.

Anyway, Trump’s enemies are desperate for something impeachable. But remember, there is no such thing as the crime of collusion. It’s not even a misdemeanor. And unless the Russian lawyer provided an illegal contribution, stolen probably, etc., to the Trump campaign, there is no crime that will take this story where the media want it to go. But that doesn’t mean they will quit trying.

My Reaction to the “Smoking Gun” of Don Jr.’s Meeting

I don’t care. I honestly don’t care. The more alarmed the press becomes, the more I believe America is becoming exhausted. These stories are becoming so intense and so over-the-top. The press is so interested in re-litagating the past, instead of the future. We know as Americans, it is not about collusion, it is about settling the score. I would also think some conservatives and Republicans might do the same thing, because we’d be angry over an election, but at some point, you have to let it go. I could redefine “collusion” as collusion between media, academia, and the entertainment industry who have been trying to brainwash us for the decades over the dumbest ideologies. We’ve all been victims of “collusions” of our lives. The narrative here is that the Trump presidency is in disarray: that’s what we know because that’s what we the people elected. We are okay with disarray, we elected someone because they don’t have any experience in politics; therefore, President Trump is surrounded by people who are not as adapted to controlling the narrative. Maybe that’s their fault, and he should have known better, but the bottom line is this: if you didn’t want this to happen, you could have had a Kasich or a Rubio, but you wouldn’t have this Trump “phenomenon/revolution” in the polling booths. We elected a bunch of outsiders, so there isn’t a bug in the system, this is the system and we (and the media) just have to deal with it and get over it. And the hyperventilation on the other networks is insane. Have you seen them recently? I worry about their health.

Heres a dumb question: How come a citizen cannot engage in a practice that a reporter can? A reporter can go to a meeting and he gets some information and he becomes a whistleblower, a hero (i.e. the Pentagon Papers and Snowden). But Donald Trump Jr., who is a citizen, not involved directly in a campaign, does it and it called collusion, but when in fact if he had found something, Trump Jr. could have been our Chelsea Manning, a hero.

The issue is that some liberals can’t grasp the idea that no matter what happens, Hillary Clinton can’t win the 2016 presidential election, it is completely impossible. Even if some evidence magically appears that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, Ms. Clinton would not be in the White House.

So here’s the big question of the day: What’s the point in bringing up all of these collusion stories and over-analyzing and over-investigating? To get President Trump removed from office? Are these liberals really going to be satisfied with a more (from an ideology standpoint) conservative President Pence? The answer is probably not. So then, some liberals say that they don’t want Trump impeached, all they want to show is how ignorant Trump and his administration are. So here’s the rewritten big question of the day: What does showing President Trump’s “ignorance” accomplish? The only answer that I can think of is more polarized, divided nation.

Fourth of July Message

My one of my main men, Bill O’Reilly, posted this on his website, and I thought it would also be a great idea to share it with all of you too:

We Pledge to you an Honest Presentation

A new Gallup poll says just 27 percent of Americans trust newspapers and 24 percent have confidence in TV news.
Those numbers are actually up a bit from the recent past, if you can believe it.  The reason for the slight improvement is some Trump-hating Americans are satisfied that the press despises the president as well.
The distrust of the media is both good and bad.  Above all, the national media no longer seeks the truth and the folks know it.  Ideology and money now drive news coverage.  The mission to bring facts to the populace has vanished.
The fact that many Americans understand this – is a good thing.
The big downside of distrusting the press is cynicism.  No longer can we make decisions based upon information we are confident about.  Now, we have to seek out individuals for perspective.  Some of those people are honest, many are not.
As we approach Independence Day, it is a shame that the American press has fallen apart.  The Founders would be sad to see that.  They wanted an honest press to protect Americans from powerful people who might harm them.
We on this website pledge to you an honest presentation.  And we wish you a great July 4th.
I would also like to wish all of you a great, smart, fun, safe, and conservative July 4th, as we celebrate this great country that we all live in. May God bless our President and may God bless this great country.
Have a conservative day,
The Reagan Conservative 🇺🇸

Why Do They Keep Losing? (the Democrats, I mean)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Despite spending millions and millions of dollars, the Democrats still lost in Georgia’s 6th District.

You could see the pain on their faces: they thought they had this one.

But they didn’t.

Here’s why.

Let’s return to the shooting of Steve Scalise – or rather, the liberal reaction to it.

On MSNBC, and its twin sister, the campus lounge – we saw a ghoulish reiteration of one sad take:  the shooting wasn’t entirely unjustified. In fact, given Scalise’s voting record, it all makes sense!  Joy Reid rushed to point out the victim’s past, Hollywood trolls like George Takei echoed her assumptions, and a Connecticut professor actually thought it a mistake that a black officer helped save white people’s lives.

Johnny Eric Williams, a sociology professor from Trinity College, posted on Facebook a number of declarations, including that blacks shouldn’t help white people when they’re in danger. As Campus Reform reports, he wrote, “The time is now to confront these inhuman a**holes and end this now.” He was referring to whites.

How does this relate to the election? Good question. I’m getting there.

Such harmful and destructive comments do not impact the election directly, but create a detour from a winning strategy. Imagine you’re driving to work, and your car decides, independently, to go in the wrong direction, taking you further and further away from your destination.  For Democrats, that car is identity politics, and it’s taking their party further and further from a place where they might still resonate with the rest of America.

It’s steering the party down a destructive path that makes any correction or improvement impossible.

Today, more people are seeing the wrath of identity politics up close. It’s getting more coverage, and receiving more mockery.  Take for example, the identity cultists at Evergreen College who ran a professor out of town because he objected to their acceptable anti-Caucasian racism. Even liberals were shaken up by this. For a laugh, google “President of Evergreen College George Sumner Bridges” and click on the videos of him kowtowing to students – some of whom held him captive during the ordeal, even accompanying him to the bathroom.

Identity activists pretend to seek rights for the “collective,” but each day they become more like hardened fascists who desire a race and/or religion war.

The destructive impulse of young so-called minds is a tedious, immature one, which is why it’s so disgusting to see academics indulging it.  Instead of challenging the unformed and uninformed minds, teachers feed into their hysterical, unbending desires, resulting in a new world where life experience takes a back seat to identity.

The campus is now a place where the wisdom of a man or woman with a decade of military experience, plus another decade in the work world, takes a back seat to the infantile blathering of a 17-year-old with a nose ring. A self-indulgent whiner with no real challenges in life gets more respect than people who make things, defend things, value things.

In normal life, if a college freshman rejected civil discourse, got in your face and told you to shut up, he would be suspended, perhaps expelled. Now they are applauded, and allowed to harass another day. The campuses are under new management: the mob.

Because campus administrators have long ago abdicated their responsibilities in challenging bad ideas, those bad ideas graduate along with the students, spilling into the real world. The graduate, still angry and self-obsessed, can do nothing but spout bumper sticker slogans and blame everyone for everything.

No one will hire that.

So, their only refuge is either to return to school, or to enter political activism as a vocation – and perpetuate their non-productivity. As a result, campuses and political bodies become even more strident and intolerant, infecting all.

Which is why the Democratic Party is in trouble. For the last four decades they’ve bought the myth that America is the actual problem, and that the solution is to replace a single identity (American), with hundreds of sparring tribes. Now they must feed those tribes.

So when a party stands for nothing but envy, anger and retribution – how long before people decide it’s enough? If the Democratic Party were an actual party, their punch bowl has been spiked with rat poison.  Until they drain that bowl, the party’s candidates will continue to drop like flies.