Search This Blog

Thursday, May 4, 2017

"Le Pen: France Will Be Led By A Woman — Either Me Or Merkel"



Marine Le Pen, French National Front (FN) candidate for 2017 presidential election, poses before an interview with Reuters in Paris, France, May 2, 2017. REUTERS/Charles Platiau
Le Pen: France Will Be Led By A Woman — Either Me Or Merkel
By Alex Pfeiffer
03 May 2017, 06:42 PM

French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen said at the final debate Wednesday that France will be lead by a woman regardless of the election results — it just depends on whether it is Le Pen or German chancellor Angela Merkel.

Le Pen wants France to leave the European Union, promising a referendum on the matter if she were to win. The nationalist candidate has attacked Merkel throughout the election, as she believes Germany has inordinate power over the EU. “France will be led by a woman, either me or Mrs. Merkel,” Le Pensaid.

Candidates for the 2017 presidential election, Emmanuel Macron (R), head of the political movement En Marche !, or Onwards !, and Marine Le Pen, of the French National Front (FN) party, pose prior to the start of a live prime-time debate in the studios of French television station France 2, and French private station TF1 in La Plaine-Saint-Denis, near Paris, France, May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Eric Feferberg/Pool

Candidates for the 2017 presidential election, Emmanuel Macron (R), head of the political movement En Marche !, or Onwards !, and Marine Le Pen, of the French National Front (FN) party, pose prior to the start of a live prime-time debate in the studios of French television station France 2, and French private station TF1 in La Plaine-Saint-Denis, near Paris, France, May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Eric Feferberg/Pool

She faced off against independent candidate Emmanuel Macron ahead of the Sunday election. Macron, a former banker, wants France to stay in the EU and said during the debate that Le Pen plays “with fear.”

Polling shows Macron leading Le Pen 59 percent to 41 percent.

"Anti-Fascist" Militia Training Video Shows Leftists Are Preparing For Armed Confrontation


Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Following the Berkeley protests last month, where numerous Anti-Fa(scist) activists complained of getting a beatdown after they attempted to intimidate peacefully assembling Trump supporters, we learned that the left-leaning organizations are taking their organization efforts to the next level. Among other things, they have called for more combat training, better equipment, and even guns in an effort to scare those who disagree with their message of forced tolerance, equal rights and inclusion.

Today, we get a better look at what that means, with somewhat hilarious results.

The Conservative Tribune explains:

Poorly-regulated militias, it seems, are good for only one thing: laughs.

 

In case you missed our previous reportage on the Phoenix John Brown Gun Club, it’s a “militia” made up of Arizona liberals who conspicuously rediscovered the Second Amendment right about the time that Donald Trump had become the clear front-runner for the Republican nomination.

 

 

This militia, in case you hadn’t noticed, is named after abolitionist John Brown. For those of you who have gone through Common Core American history and are unfamiliar with the name, he was an insurrectionist who was hanged after an armed rebellion against the Democrat-backed slave owners of the antebellum South. Say what you will about his methods, he was a man of conviction and bravery.

 

These idiots, meanwhile, are nothing more than cowardly defenders of the modern incarnation of the party Brown died fighting. They back an ideology that has no respect for gun rights, but they’re willing to compromise that in order to intimidate Americans into giving up their freedom of speech and assembly.

 

Perhaps it’s unsurprising that individuals with such negligible convictions and morals also have such negligible skill at handling a firearm. These dress-up militia members couldn’t hit the side of a Chick-fil-A from 20 feet, though I fear that may not be for lack of trying.

 

Full report: Lib Militia Releases “Range Day” Footage… And It’s a Complete Joke

Watch the full video:

As noted near the end of the video, the Phoenix John Brown Gun Club is:

Working to stem the tide of reactionary recruitment within white working class communities, fight white supremacy, and build community defense.

Curiously and all of a sudden, the left supports the Second Amendment.

With lyrics like “we’re getting organized… you fascists are bound to lose” playing in the background, it doesn’t take that much of a stretch of the imagination to realize that what these people are training for is armed conflict.

Just last week a family friendly Rose Parade was cancelled in Portland, Oregon after AntiFa groups threatened to violently attack parade goers, including children who would have attended.

Make no mistake: These people want war. They want blood. And anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their special brand of crazy will be a target.



Read More Here

Hillary’s Defeat Tour Will Never End


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

It’s May. The flowers are blooming. Young couples stroll through the park holding hands. And Hillary Clinton continues to tour the country explaining that she would have won if only it hadn’t been for the vast FBI-Russian-Misogynist conspiracy that shamelessly robbed her of an inevitable victory.

It’s not a campaign. It’s an anti-campaign. In our political tradition, losers go away. But the Clintons are the cockroaches of American politics. Getting nuked 306 to 232 won’t get rid of them. Instead they crawl out of the rubble, greedy antennas twitching, to cash in on their latest disaster.

Wearing one of Elton John’s used leather pantsuits, her latest act of fashion revenge on the nation that had spurned her, Hillary showed up at 583 Park Avenue in the sixth month leg of her Defeat Tour.

"If you drive around in some of the places that beat the heck out of me, you cannot get cell coverage for miles," she told a horrified Manhattan audience that included Meryl Streep and Donna Karan who can no more imagine going out without cell phone coverage than without their personal assistants.

And people without cell phone coverage, unlike Los Angeles and New York, which accounted for her “popular vote” that Hillary always brings up, don’t matter. Except around election time when even people without cell phone coverage, personal assistants and Netflix accounts are still allowed to vote.

If it’s anyone’s fault that Hillary lost, it’s the “States” part of the United States.

Is it fair that 3 million progressive Hillary voters in New York City and Los Angeles County should be outvoted by a bunch of hicks in flyover country who can’t even get 4G on their iPhone 7S?

As another defeated candidate once said, “This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." That’s the position that the #Resistance, whose newest member is Hillary herself, embodies.

But as always, she was there to take responsibility. Absolute responsibility. Nothing relative about it.

"I take absolute personal responsibility," Hillary declared. Then she blamed the FBI-Russian conspiracy. Not to mention misogyny.  And lack of cell phone coverage.

Absolute personal responsibility, indeed. At this sad stage in Hillary’s career, students of the English language are forced to ponder whether she’s a liar or just doesn’t understand what words mean.

During the campaign, Hillary had taken “responsibility” for setting up a private email server full of classified emails after weeks of pressure from her people. Before blaming it on aides and Colin Powell.

She also took responsibility for Benghazi, before blaming it on lower staffers, a YouTube video and Congress. Somehow Colin Powell, cell phones and misogyny escaped the blame that time around.

For the Clintons, “I take responsibility” is one of those things you say, but don’t really mean. Like, “I want to hear everything”, “Good game” or “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Instead of taking responsibility, Hillary blames her defeat on her classified emails being found on the laptop of the husband of a close aide being investigated by the FBI for child pornography.

That is a perfectly legitimate reason to lose an election, go to prison and be hounded by dogs across upstate New York. It’s hard to think of a worse scandal than the combination of endangering national security and child pornography. It’s a scandal that would bury any merely human politician.

But Hillary isn’t really taking responsibility. She’s assigning responsibility.

Responsibility is something that Hillary takes only to pass it along to someone else. When Hillary says that she takes responsibility, she means taking on the authority to assign it to someone else.

Like Colin Powell.

“If the election had been on Oct. 27,” Hillary insisted, “I would be your president.”

And if the 2012 election had taken place on Oct 21, President Romney would be on his second term. Also if the outcome of WW2 had been decided on December 7, 1941, Japan would have won.

Instead, America avoided a date that would have lived in “in infamy” and Hillary lost.

Hillary insists that the pre-election scandals "raised doubts in the minds of people inclined to vote for me but got scared off." If those voters were ready to vote for her on Oct 27, did they suddenly turn into misogynists under the influence of the FBI? Was it because they don’t have cell phones?

If misogyny is the issue, then the dates don’t matter. If the FBI is the issue, the email scandal had been running for years. And Hillary had been lying about it for years. During the election year, two-thirds rated her as untrustworthy. Anyone who was willing to vote for her despite being untrustworthy wouldn’t have had their minds changed by the Comey letter. Finally, the majority of voters had no idea who Podesta was. Only conservatives, government reporters and Bernie backers even cared.

Hillary’s excuses are self-contradictory and retroactive attempts to explain her defeat. As November rolled in, she was so confident that she was planning a fireworks victory celebration. Clinton was so certain she would win that she didn’t even bother to campaign in Wisconsin or run a proper ad campaign in Michigan. She did not believe that either scandal had dealt her campaign a major blow.

Instead she expected to easily crush Trump. So did the entire media.

Now as Shattered, the new campaign book, reveals how she mismanaged her campaign, Hillary is doubling down on blaming everyone else. It’s not just the notorious Clinton narcissism.

Hillary is prepping two books. And a new PAC. The Clinton Foundation isn’t doing the business it used to.  And fewer lobbies will pay six figures while falling asleep through another rambling Hillary discourse on how expensive it is to lease private jets these days. So the Clintons need a new gimmick to avoid ending up flat broke in one of their mansions. Why not a PAC? There’s lots of money in them.

But who would donate money to the PAC of a politician who burned through $1.2 billion? The sorts of suckers who think she’s the victim of a vast FBI-Russian-Misogynist-Powell-Cell phone conspiracy.

If only the election had been held on Oct. 27 instead of Election Day. If only Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Florida and 24 other states didn’t exist. If only Hillary Clinton had been someone other the politician who never won a competitive election in her nepotistic political life

But Hillary can’t be anyone other than her unlikable and untrustworthy self. As she put it, “I can't be anything other than who I am.”

Even in defeat, she was still plagiarizing her speeches from Popeye.

CNN’s David Chalian called Hillary's appearance “most authentic”. This Hillary, in a leathery mud-colored pantsuit set off with a bright orange necktie that looked like it had been stolen from the window of a Chinese restaurant, was almost lifelike. And trying to understand why the humans didn’t vote for her.

Beyond the FBI and cell phones and misogyny, there were also robots and artificial intelligence.

“I can't be anything other than who I am, and I spent decades learning about what it would take to move our country forward, including people who, you know, clearly didn't vote for me, to try to make sure we dealt with a lot these hard issues that are right around the corner, like robotics and artificial intelligence,” she explained.

But we have nothing to worry about. Unlike the transparently fake robot artificial intelligence candidates of tomorrow whose attempts at passing for human would be readily apparent from their lack of emotion and the flies crawling on their faces during nationally televised debates, she is authentic.

And Hillary Clinton can’t be anything other than what she truly is. A poor black abuela from the South who loves the Yankees and the Cubs, carries hot sauce in her pursue and is a member of the Resistance.

"I'm now back to being an activist citizen and part of the resistance,” Hillary proclaimed.

Hillary is taking full and total responsibility for losing an election by joining the resistance against the politician who won the election. Some resist by smashing store windows in Portland or seizing power with judicial coups. But you can resist the Clinton way by buying her book and giving her PAC money.

And one day, when #Calexit and NYexit become a reality and the red flag flies over the People’s Republic of Californewyorkistan, who could be a better choice to rule it with an iron fist than the corrupt, unlikable and untrustworthy politician who won the popular vote in New York and California?

Clintonism may be as dead as Communism. But Hillary’s Defeat Tour will never end.



Read More Here

The Death Of Facts


Authored by Douglas Murray via The Gatestone Institute,

  • Needless to say, none of this is true. Nowhere has Heather Mac Donald suggested that black people or any other type of person has "no right to exist". The accusation is levelled without evidence. But as with all anti-free-speech activists today, the line is blurred not merely between actual words and violence, but between wholly imagined words and violence.

Every week in America brings another spate of defeats for freedom of speech. This past week it was Ann Coulter's turn (yet again) to be banned from speaking at Berkeley for what the university authorities purport to be "health and safety" reasons -- meaning the health and safety of the speaker.

Each time this happens, there are similar responses. Those who broadly agree with the views of the speaker complain about the loss of one of the fundamental rights which the Founding Fathers bestowed on the American people. Those who may be on the same political side but find the speaker somewhat distasteful find a way to be slightly muted or silent. Those who disagree with the speaker's views applaud the banning as an appropriate response to apparently imminent incitement.

The problem throughout all of this is that the reasons why people should be supporting freedom of speech (to correct themselves where they are in error, and strengthen their arguments where they are not) are actually becoming lost in America.

No greater demonstration of this muddle exists than a letter put together by a group of students at Claremont McKenna College earlier this month to protest the appearance on their campus of a speaker with whom they disagreed.

Heather Mac Donald is a conservative author, journalist and fellow of the Manhattan Institute in New York. Her work has appeared in some of the world's most prestigious journals. Of course, none of that was enough to deter students at Claremont from libelling her as much as possible in advance of her speech and then preventing her speech from taking place. At Claremont McKenna College, where Mac Donald was due to speak about her recent book, The War on Cops, angry students surrounded the building, screamed obscene words and banged on the windows. Mac Donald ended up giving the speech to a mainly empty room via live video-streaming and then fleeing the university under the protection of campus security. As recent events, such as the hospitalisation of a professor at Charles Murray's recent speech at Middlebury College have shown, intimidation and violence are clearly regarded by today's North American students as legitimate means to stop people from speaking.


Heather Mac Donald, speaking at Claremont McKenna College on April 6, addressed a mainly empty room via live video-streaming, as angry student protesters surrounded the building. She then fled the college under the protection of campus security. (Image source: Claremont McKenna College video screenshot)

The reason, if any, may well come down to the possibility that facts have become diminished in importance on American campuses and have gradually lost out to the greater imperative of short-term political "narratives" and victories that come from thuggish intimidation. A letter sent to university authorities at Claremont ahead of Mac Donald's speech is one of the most important recent documents chronicling the descent of this most crucial American value, freedom of speech.

The letter to university authorities from "We, few of the Black students here at Pomona College and the Claremont Colleges" loses no time in libelling their subject:

"If engaged, Heather Mac Donald would not be debating on mere difference of opinion, but the right of Black people to exist. Heather Mac Donald is a fascist, a white supremacist, a warhawk, a transphobe, a queerphobe, a classist, and ignorant of interlocking systems of domination that produce the lethal conditions under which oppressed peoples are forced to live."

Needless to say, none of this is true. Nowhere has Mac Donald suggested that black people or any other type of person has "no right to exist". The accusation is levelled without evidence. But as with all anti-free-speech activists today, the line is blurred not merely between actual words and violence, but between wholly imagined words and violence. Thus the students write:

"Advocating for white supremacy and giving white supremacists platforms wherefrom their toxic and deadly illogic may be disseminated is condoning violence against Black people. Heather Mac Donald does not have the right to an audience at the Athenaeum, a private venue wherefrom she received compensation. Dictating and condemning non-respectable forms of protest while parroting the phrase that 'protest has a celebrated' place on campus is contradictory at best and anti-Black at worst."

Amid the semi-literacy, linguistic ostentation and intellectual dishonesty, it is hard to single out what is worst about this letter. But, against stiff competition, what is worst is that the whole thing is built on one massive misunderstanding which might also be described as a false premise.

"Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of 'subjectivity vs. objectivity' as a means of silencing oppressed peoples. The idea that there is a single truth--'the Truth'--is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples."

As the English philosopher Roger Scruton wrote in his book Modern Philosophy, "A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative,' is asking you not to believe him. So don't."

Of course, the students at Claremont go farther than this. They make claims about people that are lies, yet state them as though they are categorical truths. And then they declare that "truth" is a "construct" -- and one that they do not believe in. Their letter makes that plain, without them having any need to state the fact. But that they have stated it is convenient; it saves any honest observer from having to expend much energy considering the validity of their other claims. Anyone studying the decline of education in privileged Western democracies in the early 21st century will find documents like this immensely rewarding as historical testaments, and also a warning of what can happen when the thinking goes wrong.



Read More Here

FBI: Media, Black Lives Matter Behind Spike in Anti-Cop Violence


Read More Here

Kellyanne Conway Swings Back at Hillary Clinton's Lame Excuses For Losing

Katie Pavlich

In case you missed it, former Secretary of State and Democrat President candidate Hillary Clinton is still whining about her loss to President Donald Trump in November. During an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour Tuesday, Clinton blamed her loss on the Russians, sexist Americans who she says refuse to vote for a woman and FBI Director James Comey. 

Former Trump Campaign Manager and White House Special Counselor Kellyanne Conway is having none of it and took to Twitter in response. 

Conway is the first female campaign manager in history to get a presidential candidate into the Oval Office. 

Tennessee, Iowa close to banning abortions after 20 weeks

By Tim Ghianni

NASHVILLE, Tenn (Reuters) - Two U.S. states drew closer on Wednesday to legislating tougher restrictions on abortion with both Iowa and Tennessee seeking governors' signatures that would ban the procedure after 20 weeks.

Women in the United States have the right under the Constitution to end a pregnancy, but abortion opponents have pushed for tougher regulations, particularly in conservative states.

A Tennessee bill banning abortions after 20 weeks was sent to the desk of Governor Bill Haslam after it was passed by the state's Republican-controlled House on Wednesday.

Haslam, a Republican, has not made a decision on whether he will sign the measure into law and will discuss the bill with the state's attorney general, his spokeswoman Jennifer Donnals said.

Attorney General Herbert Slatery could not be reached for comment.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, also a Republican, said he would sign on Friday a 20-week abortion ban. The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled House and Senate last month. 

There are 24 states that impose prohibitions on abortions after a certain number of weeks, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive policy.

Seventeen of these states ban abortion at about 20 weeks.

The Tennessee bill would require women to undergo a test of viability and gestational age before a doctor performed an abortion. Doctors who violate the law could face felony charges. The bill does not make exceptions for rape or incest. It does allow for abortions if the mother's life or health is at risk.

“We've made significant progress as a legislative body in recent years to give a voice to the unborn,” Republican representative Matthew Hill said in a statement.

Iowa's bill bans abortions once a pregnancy reaches 20 weeks and stipulates a three-day waiting period before a woman can undergo any abortion. It does not make exceptions for instances of rape or incest. It does allow for abortions if the mother's life or health is at risk.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, a group that provides family planning services, including abortions, filed a lawsuit challenging Iowa's waiting period.

"The governor, lieutenant governor and Iowa legislators have waged an outright war on women's access to safe and legal abortions," said Suzanna de Baca, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.

(Additional reporting and writing by Timothy Mclaughlin in Chicago; editing by Grant McCool)