Fight fiercely, Harvard

Fight fiercely, Harvard
fight, fight, fight!
Demonstrate to them our skill
Albeit they possess the might
Nonetheless we have the will

-Tom Lehrer

While the majority of the Maim Scream Media™ is parroting Chinese Communist Party talking points because of the Trump Derangement Syndrome Pandemic, it’s worthwhile to review the general tenor of Communist China.

China’s Coming Upheaval

Xi Jinping has implemented precisely the agenda of which the Progs accuse Trump

In 2018, Xi decided to abolish presidential term limits, signaling his intention to stay in power indefinitely. He has indulged in heavy-handed purges, ousting prominent party officials under the guise of an anticorruption drive. What is more, Xi has suppressed protests in Hong Kong, arrested hundreds of human rights lawyers and activists, and imposed the tightest media censorship of the post-Mao era. His government has constructed “reeducation” camps in Xinjiang, where it has incarcerated more than a million Uighurs, Kazakhs, and other Muslim minorities. And it has centralized economic and political decision-making, pouring government resources into state-owned enterprises and honing its surveillance technologies.

…but that’s OK because at least Harvard can prevent individual Chinese students from admittance because they display “poorer personal qualities than white applicants”… or something. By that, they do not mean “we prefer football players to those suspected of eating bat soup and pangolin fritters.”

Sometimes individuals must be sacrificed for the greater good of collectives to which they do not belong. That’s not racist if you have ‘reasons,’ while the phrase “Wuhan virus” is racist if uttered by the Orange Man. Place names are racist as required.

As is Harvard.

John Kerry, belatedly, proven right

Qasem Soleimani, deceased commander of the Quds Force (Iran’s amalgam of the CIA and Navy Seals), a division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps – designated as a terrorist organization last year – has a long history of conducting war against the United States.

He helped plan the attack on our Benghazi diplomatic facilities. He armed dozens of militia groups enabling them to kill hundreds of Americans. He was responsible for the Dec. 27th attack near Kirkuk that killed an American contractor. He organized the recent attack on the American embassy (i.e., American soil) in Baghdad by Quds Force proxy Kata’ib Hezbollah; who raised their flags on its walls.

He had been sanctioned by the previous administration in 2011:
Flashback: Obama Sanctioned Soleimani for Attempted Terror Attack in Washington, DC

“Under Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, Soleimani was to be removed from international sanctions after eight years, though then-Secretary of State John Kerry promised that sanctions against Soleimani would be in place “forever.””

Now, John Kerry is right. If not about the sanctions he was thinking about.

Soleimani was traveling when he died after a very short illness.

Our Maim Scream Media is describing Soleimani as a “revered figure” and a “war hero.” One Progressive wag suggested Soleimani’s demise was like the killing of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Captain America “all in one.”

This person was referring to the sentiments of Iranians, most of whom, au contraire, are glad the asshole is in pieces. Still, I can’t help but consider that promoting such concern over a terrorist is like the Confederate press favorably noting the North’s mourning of Lincoln’s assassination, the British press happily detailing celebrations of Washington’s victories, and the Red Skull posting excerpts of Captain America’s eulogy on his blog.

So, the parallel with the American press is accurate.

Pantsuit under the jitney

A friend forwarded me a link titled (by a Progressive friend of his) “Did you see this on Fox?“.

The link goes to the Huffington Post, where if you only read the headline:
Clinton Email Probe Finds No Deliberate Mishandling Of Classified Information,
it sounds as if Hillary’s misadventure with a technologically unsecured email server in a physically unsecured bathroom was just alright.

I guess the implication is that Fox News would suppress this story because Fox is biased. Somehow distinguishing Fox from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc..

The first paragraph of the story, however, is:

“A U.S. State Department investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state has found no evidence of deliberate mishandling of classified information by department employees.”

Full disclosure, I don’t watch any TV news or opinion shows whatsoever, so I did not see it on any network.

I had no trouble finding an answer about whether Fox covered it, however:
State Department completes internal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email, here and here.

All I needed to know, though, is in that first HuffPo paragraph; the State Department ran the investigation of the State Department regarding the former Secretary of State‘s email peccadillo which they claim “employees” didn’t notice, while the State Department has inexplicable, continuing difficulty in locating information responsive to FOIA demands – about which those State Department “employees” certainly had knowledge.

Oh, and this is the same former SecState currently accusing Democrat Presidential candidates of being Russian assets, who also thinks the Constitutional provision of an Electoral College is unconstitional.

So, parsing that opening HuffPo sentence:
1- Hillary Clinton was not a “department employee.” She was a presidential appointee. She wasn’t exonerated along with the peons.

2- We know classified information passed through that server. Some of it in back-and-forth with “employees.”

3- The State Department investigated the career civil servants in their employ and found no intentional wrongdoing involving the incontestably deliberate installation by Hillary Clinton of a begging-to-be-hacked server that necessarily mishandled everything passing through it.

We know those civil servants knew they were using a non “.gov” email address… as did the President at the time. In violation of policy.

So we cannot go there.

Laughable. Under the jitney, Ms. Pants Suit. The conclusion can only be: All these career naifs were duped by Hillary.

I’m having trouble understanding why a Progressive Hillary booster would want any coverage of this at all.

In the interest of balance, I wonder if Rachel Maddow will mention this (Oct 21, 2019):
Judicial Watch: New Benghazi Documents Confirm Clinton Email Cover-Up

“Judicial Watch today released new Clinton emails on the Benghazi controversy that had been covered up for years and would have exposed Hillary Clinton’s email account if they had been released when the State Department first uncovered them in 2014. The long withheld email, clearly responsive to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack,” contains Clinton’s private email address and a conversation about the YouTube video that sparked the Benghazi talking points scandal…”

The State Department has participated in, even orchestrated, the cover up since before we knew about Hillary’s illicit server. They’ve been deliberately mishandling that information for over 5 years.

It’s their asses they need to cover. Not Hillary’s.

Since she’s, thank God, not President.

A teaching moment for Nathan Phillips

What can we learn about masculinity from the Covington Catholic High School foofaraw? Who acted like a Man? How would we decide?

Let’s start with what it means to be a Man by revisiting a bit from an earlier post; the Feminist list of toxic masculine traits – stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression. Feminists focus solely on the negative aspects, but there are also positive behaviors associated with that list:

Stoicism. Self-control and fortitude. Overcoming adversity. The absence of whining, enabling men to work in dirty, dangerous, uncomfortable jobs.
Competitiveness. The entrepreneurial impulse. The urge to scientific curiosity. The drive to co-operate by winning within the rules.
Dominance. Negotiating skill. Drive to succeed. Good leadership.
Aggression. Protecting the weak. Response to threats.

Who demonstrated the plus side of those traits? Our competitors are Nathan Phillips, ‘Vietnam era’ Marine and long time Leftist “activist,” and Nick Sandmann, a high school student.

The focus of the SJW ire was (amazingly still is, in many cases) on Sandmann.  They want to destroy his life.

But, it was Sandmann who stood calmly while Phillips approached him, chanting and glaring, and continually beating a drum inches from Sandmann’s nose. It was Sandmann, while engaged with Phillips, who signaled to another student to knock off arguing with another protestor after that protestor had said, “Go back to Europe, you don’t belong here.”

There’s little argument that Mr. Sandmann was stoic. After an hour of filthy verbal abuse from the Black supremacists protesting on the Mall, the chaos escalated. In Mr. Phillips, Sandmann suddenly faced an even more confusing and potentially dangerous situation. He did so without complaint. He wasn’t stone faced, you could see the emotions flashing across his face when Mr. Phillips rudely challenged him, but Sandmann controlled them. Mr. Phillips claim he was trying to protect the Black supremacists is ludicrous on its face. Which bring us to competitiveness

Mr. Phillips’ game was, “I get to play the victim.  You get to play the oppressor.  1) I’m going to force you to move, or 2) make you push my drum away from your face. I win when you retreat. I get bonus points if you get physical.”

Turning away is potentially dangerous. If you ‘run,’ you look like prey. If you touch the drum, all hell is likely to break loose.  Mr. Sandmann was forced to play, but, seeking a peaceful outcome, he recognized the rules permitted a third choice. Stoic tolerance.

Dominance? Well, Nathan Phillips was obviously trying to incite Mr. Sandmann. Mr. Sandmann peacefully stood his ground despite having his personal space noisily invaded. And, he showed leadership in urging a classmate to cease an argument with one of Mr. Phillips’ fellow protestors.

Finally, aggression. Mr. Phillips was clearly the aggressor. Mr. Sandmann’s response to the threat was controlled and appropriate. Particularly for his age. His parents should be proud of him.  Mr. Sandmann’s performance under fire was exemplary.

The Man here was Mr. Sandmann. Mr. Phillips was the toxic adult.

I score it 4-0.

The Maim Scream Media™ should be ejected for the season.