The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichelle Malkin Archive
Why Some of Us Can't Dine in Peace
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Fifteen years ago, when I still lived in the D.C. swamp, I took my elementary school-daughter and toddler son out for one of our regular weekend breakfasts at IHOP. But we couldn’t be left alone to enjoy our meal. As my kids dug into their funny-face pancakes, a fuming-faced liberal marched to our booth and started ranting about my anti-open-borders commentaries on Fox News. The incident occurred not long after Geraldo Rivera told a Boston Globe reporter that I was the “most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met in my life” and that “it’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in New York” because “I’d spit on her if I saw her.”

Fifteen years later, I’m blacklisted by the “fair and balanced” network, while fork-tongued cable news reptile Geraldo Rivera remains a heavily promoted Fox News contributor who regularly attacks everyone else (including his former friend Donald Trump) for inciting violence. File under “chutzpah.”

Fifteen years later, organized mobs in the nation’s capital are targeting Supreme Court justices in their homes.

Fifteen years later, the goons of ShutDownDC, leading instigators of “direct action” (translation: domestic terrorism) against the far left’s political enemies, have now offered bounties of up to \$200 on Twitter to stalk and harass Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts. In a Twitter post that brazenly violates the social media giant’s own rules against targeted harassment and incitements to violence, ShutDownDC called on D.C.-area service industry workers to expose the whereabouts of the conservative justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. The call to arms came after Kavanaugh was hounded out of Morton’s steakhouse in D.C.

In a rare display of business defiance of the mob, Morton’s responded in a statement that Kavanaugh and other patrons “were unduly harassed by unruly protestors” and that politics “should not trample … the right to congregate and eat dinner.”

Or to eat an IHOP breakfast with children!

One outlet characterized the latest intimidation campaign against the SCOTUS judges as a “troubling escalation.” But I know from both professional and up-close-and-personal experience that all this ugliness is a continuation of years and years of abuse of, and violence against, conservative public figures in both public and private spaces. See, for example, my 2006 encyclopedia of left-wing loons, “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.”

ORDER IT NOW

Naturally, militant abortion zealots cheered the Morton’s ambush and mocked the justices who are under siege — even as Kavanaugh’s would-be assassin faces attempted murder charges after flying from California to the judge’s home in the D.C. area to kill him. On cue, the Biden administration defended and encouraged more such protest for abortion on demand. But ShutDownDC’s summer of staged rage isn’t about any sincerely held despair over the right to murder unborn babies, just as the attacks on Trump officials at their homes and in restaurants in 2018 weren’t really, in the end, merely about Trump or America First populism or borders.

Remember: ShutDownDC is a full-time, deep-pocketed front group for wealthy woke heiresses like Aileen Getty and Rory Kennedy who hop from “progressive” cause celebre to cause celebre. As I’ve reported previously, their compadres in the invasive Sunrise Movement are a parallel disruption outfit backed by the Sierra Club that agitated for the Green New Deal, Black Lives Matter and the Defund the Police movement before mobilizing to attack the private homes of Senate Republicans who confirmed Trump’s judges. Even more alarming: the presence of ShutDownDC subversives embedded in federal government agencies including Takoma Park Mobilization, Alt U.S. National Park Service, Alt Ed, Alt FDA, Alt NOAA, Alt U.S. Forest Service, Alt EPA, and BadHombreLands National Park Service.

Reminder: The Sierra Club (annual budget: \$100 million; top donors: Michael Bloomberg, George Soros) provided five-figure initial seed grants to Sunrise’s educational arm, as well as Beltway office space. Other original funders of Sunrise: The Rockefeller Foundation and Wallace Global Fund (which also contributed to the George Soros-subsidized Tides Center, Color of Change cancel culture guerilla warriors, and far-left legal policy groups Alliance for Justice and the Brennan Center for Justice). The Sunrise Movement’s co-founder, Evan Weber, is a former Occupy Wall Street organizer. Two others, Sara Blazevic and Varshini Prakash, are Green New Deal zealots and Sen. Bernie Sanders activists. Prakash serves as an advisory board member of Climate Power 2020 along with Soros-funded Center for American Progress head John Podesta, former Obama administration environmental czar Carol Browner, former Obama administration science czar John Holdren, former Obama administration Secretary of State John Kerry, former Obama administration EPA head Gina McCarthy, and former Obama administration U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.

Some of us can’t dine in peace because our simple existence is a threat to the “liberal world order.” If you can’t be controlled, you must be de-personed. “Tolerance” is only for the intolerant. The rules of civility don’t apply to the self-righteous monsters sporting “empathy” bumper stickers on their cars and “love is love” banners in the windows of their homes and businesses that will always be safe from pot-bangers, Molotov cocktail-hurlers and billionaire-funded dissent-crushers.

Bon appetit, end-stage America.

Michelle Malkin’s email address is [email protected]

 
Hide 60 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Why can’t we fight fire from fire? What the Hell is stopping us from doing so?

    • Replies: @Realist
    @LinusPresley


    Why can’t we fight fire from fire? What the Hell is stopping us from doing so?
     
    The term is fight fire with fire.

    But I agree.
    , @Cave
    @LinusPresley

    Jews.

    She's married to one. No comment otherwise on what she said. But it's jews.

    Same reason Unz publishes all these folks who are totally deplatformed. They said something about jews.

  2. DC is the world’s anus. Nothing good can come from there. Let the Bolshevik perverts have DC and all the shithole cities. Vote with your feet. Come home to Red America where it’s OK to be White and you can still dine in peace.

    • Replies: @Ben Andrews
    @WorkingClass

    Appreciate your comment, WorkingClass. DC may be the world's anus but believe me Philadelphia, where I live, is the runner-up. It has become so disgusting and crime-ridden, it is a lost cause. It is to the point where it seems that one risks one’s life on the streets, even in the daytime. Is there anywhere in the USA that is entirely or mostly white that a senior-aged white man, without much money, could move to? Would you be comfortable talking about the area of Red America where you are, WorkingClass? Or do you know of any current books or articles written specifically for senior with fixed incomes on the subject on relocating to predominantly white areas? Thanks in advance for any info or suggestions. Blue America is giving me the blues.

    Replies: @Icy Blast, @WorkingClass

  3. It is called the First Amendment and it is reasonable that aggrieved individuals may express themselves. The problem plainly is that Ms Malkin’s friends are not well-funded or well-organized to return the favor. Northwestern University Professor and First Amendment Scholar Franklyn Haiman long taught that the antidote to bad speech was more speech. Those on the left understand what more speech means and how to direct their “more speech.” Those on the “right,” such as Ms Malkin, fail to understand what more speech means. More speech does not mean storm the capital, more speech does not mean walk around with your assault rifles, more speech means finding those folks who are troubling and repeatedly addressing them with your speech.

    The failure in Ms Malkin’s case is the IHOP, a private establishment, failed to enforce rules for how its patrons could use the property. Private establishments, such as restaurants, are free to regulate the behavior of those who are on their property. That is not a problem with the speech.

    Fox News is also free, as a private broadcast network no longer bound by the fairness doctrine, to blackball Ms Malkin. That is a failure of conservatives because it was the Republicans who ended the fairness doctrine and net neutrality. The Republicans are the party who wrote the rules that entrenched network bias.

    At the end of the day, I would not expect the conservatives to mount speaking campaigns because the reality is they are unwilling to spend their money on their causes. They are not really principled.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    @Harry Huntington

    Bullshit. There are only two types in this country, collectivist agitators and Americans. The collectivist agitators, i.e. Harry Huntington, are busy body Karens who try to agitate for governmental coercion against those who do not subscribe to latest doctrines of collectivism. Then there are Americans, generally speaking Jeffersionian, who want to lead peaceable lives enjoying their individual liberties.

    So, naturally, Americans will be less inclined to engage in collectivist "speech".

    Harry have you ever considered becoming American?

    Replies: @Harry Huntington, @Angharad

    , @anarchyst
    @Harry Huntington

    Your lament at the demise of the so-called "fairness doctrine" is noted. However, the "fairness doctrine" was still being abused by those on the left.
    Example: Take "gun control" for instance...
    The media outlet will almost always find someone on the left (pro-gun control) who is polished, articulate and "speaks a good game" while his opposition will be an unpolished, inarticulate individual, unable to get his valid points across.
    This was always by design when the "fairness doctrine" was in effect and made those on the right appear to be "unorganized, unsophisticated rabble".
    When the "fairness doctrine was repealed, those on the right took advantage of it and promoted many highly successful program hosts. For a while, the right blindsided those on the left by hosting highly successful talk show programs--something that those on the left had trouble with.

    Replies: @Pcj70

    , @Sollipsist
    @Harry Huntington

    How about you give us your real name, home address and a rough itinerary so that anybody who would care to express themselves concerning any of your posts can do so to you in person?

    Right. Thought so.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    , @Realist
    @Harry Huntington


    Northwestern University Professor and First Amendment Scholar Franklyn Haiman long taught that the antidote to bad speech was more speech. Those on the left understand what more speech means and how to direct their “more speech.” Those on the “right,” such as Ms Malkin, fail to understand what more speech means. More speech does not mean storm the capital, more speech does not mean walk around with your assault rifles, more speech means finding those folks who are troubling and repeatedly addressing them with your speech.
     
    Talk is cheap...time for action.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

    , @James N. Kennett
    @Harry Huntington


    It is called the First Amendment and it is reasonable that aggrieved individuals may express themselves.
     
    Their violence is protected speech.

    Our speech is violence. Even our silence is violence.

    It is not a lot to ask that speech is treated as speech, and violence as violence.
    , @Pcj70
    @Harry Huntington

    It’s a shame that no conservatives rampage the capital with rifles, net neutrality was always a joke, To most of us conservatives and libertarians, any networks it’s hard Donna Brazile Geraldo Rivera or Juan Williams is probably not a bastion of conservatism (name me a conservative on NPR or CNN ect that the conservative claim). Considering that antifa desecrated federal buildings and were release the next day, in contrast January 6 (a broken window, some feet on the desk and supposedly a heart attack and a stroke several days later, that are somehow the protesters fault) we’re still in jail two years later, I don’t think we’re playing on a level playing field.

    Majority of the problem is that herd minded bureaucracy and middle-management have a liberal, Anti-competency Bias. Cheer up, won. You got Biden for president we’re printing all the money you could want, I bet before the summers over you morons will bring the mask back and I’m sure the electrical cars will be a wonderful wonderful addition to the world, it won’t catch on fire and be a total waste of money. The green policy won’t have us running in full brown out mode if not complete power outages throughout the World (Germany, Texas green energy problem never heard of it) . They won’t be in pregnancies throughout the women’s prison because you can’t use the correct pronouns for man or woman, The start of liberal paradise is here . Aren’t you proud of yourself.

    , @MrPete
    @Harry Huntington


    That is a failure of conservatives because it was the Republicans who ended the fairness doctrine and net neutrality. The Republicans are the party who wrote the rules that entrenched network bias.
     
    You clearly do not understand the real issues behind net neutrality. It had NOTHING to do with content, everything to do with one vendor (netflix) abusing Internet Peering contracts.

    In brief: all high end Internet backbone contracts assume a balance of traffic in both directions. That's "Balanced Peering." But Netflix pushes out as much as 1/3 of all Internet traffic in one direction. Which means the balanced peering assumption is violated. Someone has to pay for all that data... and it ought to be Netflix. But they want non-customers to pay for it... so they accused the ISP's of slowing down their data on purpose.

    I wrote about this long ago. Here's material with authoritative links. https://www.mrpete.info/2015/02/10/net-neutrality-reality-vs-imagination/

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

  4. It must have been nice to have seen that Washington FS* swamp in the RH side-view mirror, Mrs. Malkin! I don’t know for sure if the term was coined by VDare’s James Kirkpatrick (such as here), but Peak Stupidity has taken to calling the government in residence there “The Potomac Regime”.

    It’s even got its own flag, as we noted in “Potomac Regime lets its freak flag fly” yesterday. Some say the flag was designed by Brett Ross, but using a dead-name like that is basically violence, so please use his real name, Betsy Ross.

    Wave that flag…
    Wave it wide and high …
    Saner times have come and gone,
    my oh my…


    Our apologies to Jerry, Bob, Phil, and the gang for lifting “Them US Blues” lyrics.

    .

    * = Federal Shithole. (The mail still gets there.)

  5. I have no sympathy for the Supremes. They refused to look at any of the questionable 2020 election results. Maybe, just maybe, “this will learn them”.

    • Replies: @Emslander
    @George Weinbaum

    Maybe it's why the court has accepted a case that could clean the boards of court and bureaucrat rules that turn elections over to the scum. Legislatures are the only bodies permitted under the US constitution to regulate Federal elections. The 2020 election fiasco was manufactured by non-legislative forces.

    Replies: @Old Brown Fool

  6. @Harry Huntington
    It is called the First Amendment and it is reasonable that aggrieved individuals may express themselves. The problem plainly is that Ms Malkin's friends are not well-funded or well-organized to return the favor. Northwestern University Professor and First Amendment Scholar Franklyn Haiman long taught that the antidote to bad speech was more speech. Those on the left understand what more speech means and how to direct their "more speech." Those on the "right," such as Ms Malkin, fail to understand what more speech means. More speech does not mean storm the capital, more speech does not mean walk around with your assault rifles, more speech means finding those folks who are troubling and repeatedly addressing them with your speech.

    The failure in Ms Malkin's case is the IHOP, a private establishment, failed to enforce rules for how its patrons could use the property. Private establishments, such as restaurants, are free to regulate the behavior of those who are on their property. That is not a problem with the speech.

    Fox News is also free, as a private broadcast network no longer bound by the fairness doctrine, to blackball Ms Malkin. That is a failure of conservatives because it was the Republicans who ended the fairness doctrine and net neutrality. The Republicans are the party who wrote the rules that entrenched network bias.

    At the end of the day, I would not expect the conservatives to mount speaking campaigns because the reality is they are unwilling to spend their money on their causes. They are not really principled.

    Replies: @Cowboy, @anarchyst, @Sollipsist, @Realist, @James N. Kennett, @Pcj70, @MrPete

    Bullshit. There are only two types in this country, collectivist agitators and Americans. The collectivist agitators, i.e. Harry Huntington, are busy body Karens who try to agitate for governmental coercion against those who do not subscribe to latest doctrines of collectivism. Then there are Americans, generally speaking Jeffersionian, who want to lead peaceable lives enjoying their individual liberties.

    So, naturally, Americans will be less inclined to engage in collectivist “speech”.

    Harry have you ever considered becoming American?

    • Agree: Emslander
    • Replies: @Harry Huntington
    @Cowboy

    Actually, all types are the same. You need to read a bit of Ronald Coase. EVERYTHING the government does is "distributive." ALL government rules pick winners. Thus what you call the two groups are really just different folks agitating for different distributive outcomes. Likewise, what you would call government in action, is every bit as coercive as what you call coercion. Just that in action coerces to different ends.

    Also, oddly what you call "collectivism" in 19th century classical economic thinking actually was free market thinking because it stripped the economy of economic rents and the rentier class.

    Replies: @Cowboy, @Mark G.

    , @Angharad
    @Cowboy

    No. It's Jews vs HUMANS. And it's not "Karens". It's Ruth's, Shoshona's and Yael's.

  7. anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    They can’t engage in open debate which is why they have to physically shut sown and muzzle opposing views. If they had such strong and logical stances there wouldn’t be any need for all this. The weaker their case the louder they scream.

  8. Was Mrs. Malkin’s family ever accosted in a restaurant for her writing things like this (February 22, 2011)?

    Gaddafi vowed to stay in the country and “die a martyr.”

    May he get his bloody wish.

    Not likely, especially around Washington, D.C. See also, Ukraine/Russia/NATO.

    • LOL: Hacienda
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    @Greta Handel

    Agreed. But that was then and this is now.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

  9. @Cowboy
    @Harry Huntington

    Bullshit. There are only two types in this country, collectivist agitators and Americans. The collectivist agitators, i.e. Harry Huntington, are busy body Karens who try to agitate for governmental coercion against those who do not subscribe to latest doctrines of collectivism. Then there are Americans, generally speaking Jeffersionian, who want to lead peaceable lives enjoying their individual liberties.

    So, naturally, Americans will be less inclined to engage in collectivist "speech".

    Harry have you ever considered becoming American?

    Replies: @Harry Huntington, @Angharad

    Actually, all types are the same. You need to read a bit of Ronald Coase. EVERYTHING the government does is “distributive.” ALL government rules pick winners. Thus what you call the two groups are really just different folks agitating for different distributive outcomes. Likewise, what you would call government in action, is every bit as coercive as what you call coercion. Just that in action coerces to different ends.

    Also, oddly what you call “collectivism” in 19th century classical economic thinking actually was free market thinking because it stripped the economy of economic rents and the rentier class.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    @Harry Huntington

    First, I will agree that there are two groups agitating for different distrubutive outcomes but it is not the two I that I defined. Clearly, the two political parties vie for the power for distrubutive outcomes. In some cases those outcomes coincide as is the case today where both part parties enthusiastically support the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex. As to the nature of the disagreements, well, you got to know your market.

    The cosmopolitan market reflects both the need for security due to being confined in small spaces with a large population of which many of whom have gone feral and the obvious marxist indoctrination many of them suckled at university.

    The Agarian/Bougie class is generally less fearful because they live in lower density population areas or through higher taxation afford themselves better state security and they are usually cheerleaders for empire.

    So we see in both cases that empire is the consensus on which MIC is built. The other issues are merely carnival acts to keep the party faithful interested and distracted so they don't ask too many questions about MIC. The Robber Barons in Congress divide up the stash between themselves.

    In a sense the Demonrats are more moral because they honestly tell you exactly what sort of malevolence they would like perpetrated. The Repukecrats are more devious and will sometimes talk a good Jeffersonian game but will give up the soul of the country for their own pot of porrage.

    So yes, both parties hate Americans.

    , @Mark G.
    @Harry Huntington


    EVERYTHING the government does is “distributive.” ALL government rules pick winners. Thus what you call the two groups are really just different folks agitating for different distributive outcomes.
     
    People who just want to keep the money they earned are not morally in the same category as people who want the government to take that money and give it to someone else. Everything the government does is not distributive unless you are using that word in a different meaning than most people use it. Also, something isn't true just because you put it in all caps and people who do that are engaging in a form of verbal aggressiveness and trying to intimidate others.

    It's common for leftists to muddy the waters and engage in obfuscation because they don't want people to engage in clear thinking on this subject. They want people to think there is some sort of moral equivalency between parasites and producers and anyone who wants to keep the money they earn is somehow selfish or immoral. You need to keep the focus on who is advocating the government to use force for any reason other than to protect the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its citizens to see who is morally wrong.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

  10. @Harry Huntington
    It is called the First Amendment and it is reasonable that aggrieved individuals may express themselves. The problem plainly is that Ms Malkin's friends are not well-funded or well-organized to return the favor. Northwestern University Professor and First Amendment Scholar Franklyn Haiman long taught that the antidote to bad speech was more speech. Those on the left understand what more speech means and how to direct their "more speech." Those on the "right," such as Ms Malkin, fail to understand what more speech means. More speech does not mean storm the capital, more speech does not mean walk around with your assault rifles, more speech means finding those folks who are troubling and repeatedly addressing them with your speech.

    The failure in Ms Malkin's case is the IHOP, a private establishment, failed to enforce rules for how its patrons could use the property. Private establishments, such as restaurants, are free to regulate the behavior of those who are on their property. That is not a problem with the speech.

    Fox News is also free, as a private broadcast network no longer bound by the fairness doctrine, to blackball Ms Malkin. That is a failure of conservatives because it was the Republicans who ended the fairness doctrine and net neutrality. The Republicans are the party who wrote the rules that entrenched network bias.

    At the end of the day, I would not expect the conservatives to mount speaking campaigns because the reality is they are unwilling to spend their money on their causes. They are not really principled.

    Replies: @Cowboy, @anarchyst, @Sollipsist, @Realist, @James N. Kennett, @Pcj70, @MrPete

    Your lament at the demise of the so-called “fairness doctrine” is noted. However, the “fairness doctrine” was still being abused by those on the left.
    Example: Take “gun control” for instance…
    The media outlet will almost always find someone on the left (pro-gun control) who is polished, articulate and “speaks a good game” while his opposition will be an unpolished, inarticulate individual, unable to get his valid points across.
    This was always by design when the “fairness doctrine” was in effect and made those on the right appear to be “unorganized, unsophisticated rabble”.
    When the “fairness doctrine was repealed, those on the right took advantage of it and promoted many highly successful program hosts. For a while, the right blindsided those on the left by hosting highly successful talk show programs–something that those on the left had trouble with.

    • Replies: @Pcj70
    @anarchyst

    Do this jerk that’s a feature not a fault

    Replies: @anarchyst

  11. @Harry Huntington
    It is called the First Amendment and it is reasonable that aggrieved individuals may express themselves. The problem plainly is that Ms Malkin's friends are not well-funded or well-organized to return the favor. Northwestern University Professor and First Amendment Scholar Franklyn Haiman long taught that the antidote to bad speech was more speech. Those on the left understand what more speech means and how to direct their "more speech." Those on the "right," such as Ms Malkin, fail to understand what more speech means. More speech does not mean storm the capital, more speech does not mean walk around with your assault rifles, more speech means finding those folks who are troubling and repeatedly addressing them with your speech.

    The failure in Ms Malkin's case is the IHOP, a private establishment, failed to enforce rules for how its patrons could use the property. Private establishments, such as restaurants, are free to regulate the behavior of those who are on their property. That is not a problem with the speech.

    Fox News is also free, as a private broadcast network no longer bound by the fairness doctrine, to blackball Ms Malkin. That is a failure of conservatives because it was the Republicans who ended the fairness doctrine and net neutrality. The Republicans are the party who wrote the rules that entrenched network bias.

    At the end of the day, I would not expect the conservatives to mount speaking campaigns because the reality is they are unwilling to spend their money on their causes. They are not really principled.

    Replies: @Cowboy, @anarchyst, @Sollipsist, @Realist, @James N. Kennett, @Pcj70, @MrPete

    How about you give us your real name, home address and a rough itinerary so that anybody who would care to express themselves concerning any of your posts can do so to you in person?

    Right. Thought so.

    • LOL: Bro43rd
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Sollipsist

    'Harry Huntington' is not a BlackRobed lickspittle who has a tax-funded life-tenured sinecure - at least, as far as I'm aware.

    The SCOTUS judges' entire professional lives are based on a set of falsehoods, but for some stupid reason people defer to them like mediaeval Catholics deferred to Cardinals.

    Imbeciles require repositories of faith, is probably the best guess: the vast bulk of the livestock have been conditioned to believe that the monstrosity that emerged from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was consistent with Jeffersonian principles - when in fact it was a coup d'état, pure and simple.

    Doubtless there are also some mouth-breathers who think it's unacceptable for the peons in Sri Lanka to have voiced their discontent with their 'rulers': in my view it's unacceptable that the President and Prime Minister managed to escape with their lives.

  12. The “left” and “right” died long ago. What Ms Malkin calls “the left” are the useful idiots of the globalists who want to turn the world into owners and slaves. There are plenty of those types on “the right” as well.

  13. @LinusPresley
    Why can’t we fight fire from fire? What the Hell is stopping us from doing so?

    Replies: @Realist, @Cave

    Why can’t we fight fire from fire? What the Hell is stopping us from doing so?

    The term is fight fire with fire.

    But I agree.

  14. @Harry Huntington
    It is called the First Amendment and it is reasonable that aggrieved individuals may express themselves. The problem plainly is that Ms Malkin's friends are not well-funded or well-organized to return the favor. Northwestern University Professor and First Amendment Scholar Franklyn Haiman long taught that the antidote to bad speech was more speech. Those on the left understand what more speech means and how to direct their "more speech." Those on the "right," such as Ms Malkin, fail to understand what more speech means. More speech does not mean storm the capital, more speech does not mean walk around with your assault rifles, more speech means finding those folks who are troubling and repeatedly addressing them with your speech.

    The failure in Ms Malkin's case is the IHOP, a private establishment, failed to enforce rules for how its patrons could use the property. Private establishments, such as restaurants, are free to regulate the behavior of those who are on their property. That is not a problem with the speech.

    Fox News is also free, as a private broadcast network no longer bound by the fairness doctrine, to blackball Ms Malkin. That is a failure of conservatives because it was the Republicans who ended the fairness doctrine and net neutrality. The Republicans are the party who wrote the rules that entrenched network bias.

    At the end of the day, I would not expect the conservatives to mount speaking campaigns because the reality is they are unwilling to spend their money on their causes. They are not really principled.

    Replies: @Cowboy, @anarchyst, @Sollipsist, @Realist, @James N. Kennett, @Pcj70, @MrPete

    Northwestern University Professor and First Amendment Scholar Franklyn Haiman long taught that the antidote to bad speech was more speech. Those on the left understand what more speech means and how to direct their “more speech.” Those on the “right,” such as Ms Malkin, fail to understand what more speech means. More speech does not mean storm the capital, more speech does not mean walk around with your assault rifles, more speech means finding those folks who are troubling and repeatedly addressing them with your speech.

    Talk is cheap…time for action.

    • Replies: @Harry Huntington
    @Realist

    Speech is action. That has been commonly accepted since J. L. Austin wrote "Speech Act Theory."

    The left understands that talking is doing. Professor Richard Vatz, I think now retired from Towson State, taught that speech frames and defines situations. No situation has an absolute meaning. If you walk into a room and see an older gentleman, balding, scantily clad, and tied up is that a good thing or a bad thing? I am sure that depends on what speech acts are used to create our understanding of the situation.

    Thus we are left with the fact that the left understands that words matter and that more speech is the antidote to bad speech. And the right is left calling it a good day when a Wisconsin jury nullifies criminal charges levied against a teenage boy with a military assault weapon.

    Replies: @Realist, @Durruti

  15. @Realist
    @Harry Huntington


    Northwestern University Professor and First Amendment Scholar Franklyn Haiman long taught that the antidote to bad speech was more speech. Those on the left understand what more speech means and how to direct their “more speech.” Those on the “right,” such as Ms Malkin, fail to understand what more speech means. More speech does not mean storm the capital, more speech does not mean walk around with your assault rifles, more speech means finding those folks who are troubling and repeatedly addressing them with your speech.
     
    Talk is cheap...time for action.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

    Speech is action. That has been commonly accepted since J. L. Austin wrote “Speech Act Theory.”

    The left understands that talking is doing. Professor Richard Vatz, I think now retired from Towson State, taught that speech frames and defines situations. No situation has an absolute meaning. If you walk into a room and see an older gentleman, balding, scantily clad, and tied up is that a good thing or a bad thing? I am sure that depends on what speech acts are used to create our understanding of the situation.

    Thus we are left with the fact that the left understands that words matter and that more speech is the antidote to bad speech. And the right is left calling it a good day when a Wisconsin jury nullifies criminal charges levied against a teenage boy with a military assault weapon.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Harry Huntington

    Too touchy-feely.

    , @Durruti
    @Harry Huntington


    Thus we are left with the fact that the left understands that words matter and that more speech is the antidote to bad speech. And the right is left calling it a good day when a Wisconsin jury nullifies criminal charges levied against a teenage boy with a military assault weapon.
     
    Your labeling opponents as 'left,' or, 'right.' is a standard MisDirection tactic. So called 'left' right' and 'center' are meaningless names utilized by those who worship at the Financial Temple of the Zionist Money Changers. Casino Trump, or Ukraine Biden, both follow the directions of their owners. Their administration's policies differ/ed in no significant way.

    As gauleiters, their words do not matter. Their deeds do matter. From Vietnam, to the Dominican Republic, to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Palestine (let's not forget the Palestinians), to the Harvard/Corona/Covid/Epstein Virus, to the murderous Vaccines, to the Murder Most Foul - of the Kennedys, of Malcolm X, ML King, the Musical Lennon, and now, once again the Drums of War are beating in East Europe, -Do I need a verb? Repubs, Dems, Greens, all lined up on these horrors. Three years ago, 72 Traitor gauleiters from Congress kissed the asses of their Masters in Tel Aviv.

    72 on Official Congressional Tour Express Bipartisan …


    www.5tjt.com
    /in-largest-ever-delegation-72...
    Aug 12, 2019 · 41 Republicans and 31 Democrats are in Israel on overlapping party tours, to get a firsthand view of the complex security challenges Israel faces and to express their unconditional, bi-partisan support for the Jewish State. …

    Say "Palestinian People." Say "Occupied Territories," Say "Senator Rand Paul - for President."

    Words- do matter "Committees of Correspondence."

    Physical Actions- matter more "Sons (and Daughters) of Liberty."

    The Rising- matters the most "Minutemen."

  16. It’s precisely the reason that a certain German politician of the early twentieth century formed a defensive force of young men in dark colored shirts. When conservatives in Germany were able to speak without being beaten or killed by Communists, they won elections and reformed the country.

    All we need is to be heard peacefully.

    • Replies: @William Brennan
    @Emslander

    I'm not going to argue with you about who "started" the political violence, because it's moot - both now, and for Germans at the time. What is undeniably true is that that chain of events ended very badly for both the people of Germany and right-wing ideology. The end result of a movement formed against Bolshevism was Bolsheviks ruling half of Europe. In other words, it's best not to start fights you aren't sure you can win.

  17. @George Weinbaum
    I have no sympathy for the Supremes. They refused to look at any of the questionable 2020 election results. Maybe, just maybe, "this will learn them".

    Replies: @Emslander

    Maybe it’s why the court has accepted a case that could clean the boards of court and bureaucrat rules that turn elections over to the scum. Legislatures are the only bodies permitted under the US constitution to regulate Federal elections. The 2020 election fiasco was manufactured by non-legislative forces.

    • Replies: @Old Brown Fool
    @Emslander

    A legislature that is not jealously guarding its powers and privileges will cease to exercise those sooner.

  18. @Harry Huntington
    @Cowboy

    Actually, all types are the same. You need to read a bit of Ronald Coase. EVERYTHING the government does is "distributive." ALL government rules pick winners. Thus what you call the two groups are really just different folks agitating for different distributive outcomes. Likewise, what you would call government in action, is every bit as coercive as what you call coercion. Just that in action coerces to different ends.

    Also, oddly what you call "collectivism" in 19th century classical economic thinking actually was free market thinking because it stripped the economy of economic rents and the rentier class.

    Replies: @Cowboy, @Mark G.

    First, I will agree that there are two groups agitating for different distrubutive outcomes but it is not the two I that I defined. Clearly, the two political parties vie for the power for distrubutive outcomes. In some cases those outcomes coincide as is the case today where both part parties enthusiastically support the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex. As to the nature of the disagreements, well, you got to know your market.

    The cosmopolitan market reflects both the need for security due to being confined in small spaces with a large population of which many of whom have gone feral and the obvious marxist indoctrination many of them suckled at university.

    The Agarian/Bougie class is generally less fearful because they live in lower density population areas or through higher taxation afford themselves better state security and they are usually cheerleaders for empire.

    So we see in both cases that empire is the consensus on which MIC is built. The other issues are merely carnival acts to keep the party faithful interested and distracted so they don’t ask too many questions about MIC. The Robber Barons in Congress divide up the stash between themselves.

    In a sense the Demonrats are more moral because they honestly tell you exactly what sort of malevolence they would like perpetrated. The Repukecrats are more devious and will sometimes talk a good Jeffersonian game but will give up the soul of the country for their own pot of porrage.

    So yes, both parties hate Americans.

  19. @WorkingClass
    DC is the world's anus. Nothing good can come from there. Let the Bolshevik perverts have DC and all the shithole cities. Vote with your feet. Come home to Red America where it's OK to be White and you can still dine in peace.

    Replies: @Ben Andrews

    Appreciate your comment, WorkingClass. DC may be the world’s anus but believe me Philadelphia, where I live, is the runner-up. It has become so disgusting and crime-ridden, it is a lost cause. It is to the point where it seems that one risks one’s life on the streets, even in the daytime. Is there anywhere in the USA that is entirely or mostly white that a senior-aged white man, without much money, could move to? Would you be comfortable talking about the area of Red America where you are, WorkingClass? Or do you know of any current books or articles written specifically for senior with fixed incomes on the subject on relocating to predominantly white areas? Thanks in advance for any info or suggestions. Blue America is giving me the blues.

    • Replies: @Icy Blast
    @Ben Andrews

    CDA or somewhere in the general area. Also places in Montana and Wyoming.

    , @WorkingClass
    @Ben Andrews

    I am on the edge of a small town in Texas. I am 78 years old. My wife and I are living on Social Security. We came here from a majority black city in Louisiana just before the death of Fentanyl Floyd. Since then conditions have deteriorated in our former city. We have friends here who helped us relocate. We had enough money for necessary deposits and first month rent.

    You don't have to move all the way to Texas. Red America is HUGE. Get a map of red and blue counties from a recent election. Start with Pennselvania. Find some red counties surrounded by other red counties. Talk to people you know and people you don't know. Ask them where they are from. If you are able, get in your car and drive out into the countryside. Talk to the guy next to you at the lunch counter about moving to his town. Sooner or later you will pick up a thread that will lead you to your new home.

    You can do it Ben. You can get yourself out of the city. You will be glad you did.

    Replies: @Ben Andrews

  20. @Harry Huntington
    @Realist

    Speech is action. That has been commonly accepted since J. L. Austin wrote "Speech Act Theory."

    The left understands that talking is doing. Professor Richard Vatz, I think now retired from Towson State, taught that speech frames and defines situations. No situation has an absolute meaning. If you walk into a room and see an older gentleman, balding, scantily clad, and tied up is that a good thing or a bad thing? I am sure that depends on what speech acts are used to create our understanding of the situation.

    Thus we are left with the fact that the left understands that words matter and that more speech is the antidote to bad speech. And the right is left calling it a good day when a Wisconsin jury nullifies criminal charges levied against a teenage boy with a military assault weapon.

    Replies: @Realist, @Durruti

    Too touchy-feely.

  21. Geraldo is half-jewish, half-Puerto Rican. Trust me Michelle, with those genetics he was pretty much destined to be an amoral, anti-white, far-left nut. In spite of being married to one, you surely by now have some understanding of the JQ (having named some of the culture vultures right here in this article).

  22. @Harry Huntington
    It is called the First Amendment and it is reasonable that aggrieved individuals may express themselves. The problem plainly is that Ms Malkin's friends are not well-funded or well-organized to return the favor. Northwestern University Professor and First Amendment Scholar Franklyn Haiman long taught that the antidote to bad speech was more speech. Those on the left understand what more speech means and how to direct their "more speech." Those on the "right," such as Ms Malkin, fail to understand what more speech means. More speech does not mean storm the capital, more speech does not mean walk around with your assault rifles, more speech means finding those folks who are troubling and repeatedly addressing them with your speech.

    The failure in Ms Malkin's case is the IHOP, a private establishment, failed to enforce rules for how its patrons could use the property. Private establishments, such as restaurants, are free to regulate the behavior of those who are on their property. That is not a problem with the speech.

    Fox News is also free, as a private broadcast network no longer bound by the fairness doctrine, to blackball Ms Malkin. That is a failure of conservatives because it was the Republicans who ended the fairness doctrine and net neutrality. The Republicans are the party who wrote the rules that entrenched network bias.

    At the end of the day, I would not expect the conservatives to mount speaking campaigns because the reality is they are unwilling to spend their money on their causes. They are not really principled.

    Replies: @Cowboy, @anarchyst, @Sollipsist, @Realist, @James N. Kennett, @Pcj70, @MrPete

    It is called the First Amendment and it is reasonable that aggrieved individuals may express themselves.

    Their violence is protected speech.

    Our speech is violence. Even our silence is violence.

    It is not a lot to ask that speech is treated as speech, and violence as violence.

    • Agree: WorkingClass
  23. It is amazing that violent protests are funded by wealthy organizations, which are in turn financed by very wealthy individuals.

    How do they get away with it? Doesn’t anybody care? Why are they not prosecuted under the RICO act?

  24. Michelle Malkin’s article contains a devastating (sizeable yet only partial) list of corrupt links of the American Government’s political servants to the Ruling Oligarchs.

    Reminder: The Sierra Club (annual budget: \$100 million; top donors: Michael Bloomberg, George Soros) provided five-figure initial seed grants to Sunrise’s educational arm, as well as Beltway office space. Other original funders of Sunrise: The Rockefeller Foundation and Wallace Global Fund (which also contributed to the George Soros-subsidized Tides Center, Color of Change cancel culture guerilla warriors, and far-left legal policy groups Alliance for Justice and the Brennan Center for Justice).

    This is only a piece of her exposé.

    We live as SLAVES in an occupied Country.

    We might Restore our Republic, that which was destroyed in the Coup D’état of November 22, 1963, along with our Last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy.

    Dr. Peter J. Antonsen – nom de guerre, Durruti

    • Agree: René Fries
  25. @Harry Huntington
    @Realist

    Speech is action. That has been commonly accepted since J. L. Austin wrote "Speech Act Theory."

    The left understands that talking is doing. Professor Richard Vatz, I think now retired from Towson State, taught that speech frames and defines situations. No situation has an absolute meaning. If you walk into a room and see an older gentleman, balding, scantily clad, and tied up is that a good thing or a bad thing? I am sure that depends on what speech acts are used to create our understanding of the situation.

    Thus we are left with the fact that the left understands that words matter and that more speech is the antidote to bad speech. And the right is left calling it a good day when a Wisconsin jury nullifies criminal charges levied against a teenage boy with a military assault weapon.

    Replies: @Realist, @Durruti

    Thus we are left with the fact that the left understands that words matter and that more speech is the antidote to bad speech. And the right is left calling it a good day when a Wisconsin jury nullifies criminal charges levied against a teenage boy with a military assault weapon.

    Your labeling opponents as ‘left,’ or, ‘right.’ is a standard MisDirection tactic. So called ‘left’ right’ and ‘center’ are meaningless names utilized by those who worship at the Financial Temple of the Zionist Money Changers. Casino Trump, or Ukraine Biden, both follow the directions of their owners. Their administration’s policies differ/ed in no significant way.

    As gauleiters, their words do not matter. Their deeds do matter. From Vietnam, to the Dominican Republic, to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Palestine (let’s not forget the Palestinians), to the Harvard/Corona/Covid/Epstein Virus, to the murderous Vaccines, to the Murder Most Foul – of the Kennedys, of Malcolm X, ML King, the Musical Lennon, and now, once again the Drums of War are beating in East Europe, -Do I need a verb? Repubs, Dems, Greens, all lined up on these horrors. Three years ago, 72 Traitor gauleiters from Congress kissed the asses of their Masters in Tel Aviv.

    72 on Official Congressional Tour Express Bipartisan …


    http://www.5tjt.com/in-largest-ever-delegation-72…
    Aug 12, 2019 · 41 Republicans and 31 Democrats are in Israel on overlapping party tours, to get a firsthand view of the complex security challenges Israel faces and to express their unconditional, bi-partisan support for the Jewish State. …

    Say “Palestinian People.” Say “Occupied Territories,” Say “Senator Rand Paul – for President.”

    Words- do matter “Committees of Correspondence.”

    Physical Actions- matter more “Sons (and Daughters) of Liberty.”

    The Rising- matters the most “Minutemen.”

  26. The backlash, when it happens, will be horrible. As with the German persecution of all Jews for the crimes of a few, the majority of victims will be innocent. The phony “persecution” the Left whines about will become real.

  27. @Ben Andrews
    @WorkingClass

    Appreciate your comment, WorkingClass. DC may be the world's anus but believe me Philadelphia, where I live, is the runner-up. It has become so disgusting and crime-ridden, it is a lost cause. It is to the point where it seems that one risks one’s life on the streets, even in the daytime. Is there anywhere in the USA that is entirely or mostly white that a senior-aged white man, without much money, could move to? Would you be comfortable talking about the area of Red America where you are, WorkingClass? Or do you know of any current books or articles written specifically for senior with fixed incomes on the subject on relocating to predominantly white areas? Thanks in advance for any info or suggestions. Blue America is giving me the blues.

    Replies: @Icy Blast, @WorkingClass

    CDA or somewhere in the general area. Also places in Montana and Wyoming.

  28. @Ben Andrews
    @WorkingClass

    Appreciate your comment, WorkingClass. DC may be the world's anus but believe me Philadelphia, where I live, is the runner-up. It has become so disgusting and crime-ridden, it is a lost cause. It is to the point where it seems that one risks one’s life on the streets, even in the daytime. Is there anywhere in the USA that is entirely or mostly white that a senior-aged white man, without much money, could move to? Would you be comfortable talking about the area of Red America where you are, WorkingClass? Or do you know of any current books or articles written specifically for senior with fixed incomes on the subject on relocating to predominantly white areas? Thanks in advance for any info or suggestions. Blue America is giving me the blues.

    Replies: @Icy Blast, @WorkingClass

    I am on the edge of a small town in Texas. I am 78 years old. My wife and I are living on Social Security. We came here from a majority black city in Louisiana just before the death of Fentanyl Floyd. Since then conditions have deteriorated in our former city. We have friends here who helped us relocate. We had enough money for necessary deposits and first month rent.

    You don’t have to move all the way to Texas. Red America is HUGE. Get a map of red and blue counties from a recent election. Start with Pennselvania. Find some red counties surrounded by other red counties. Talk to people you know and people you don’t know. Ask them where they are from. If you are able, get in your car and drive out into the countryside. Talk to the guy next to you at the lunch counter about moving to his town. Sooner or later you will pick up a thread that will lead you to your new home.

    You can do it Ben. You can get yourself out of the city. You will be glad you did.

    • Replies: @Ben Andrews
    @WorkingClass

    Thank you very much, WorkingClass. I will follow up on your suggestions!

  29. Cancel-Culture is THE right wing thing.
    It just is very silent.

    Because the Boomers scream so loud at ‘current boomer thing’, be it Greta, Mudslimes, Nazis (good when you enjoy your cancelmasters value system), tranny hours, election fraud.

    There is a Southpark episode on Fags Bommers, pretty good.

  30. Some points opposite perspective on part of article, the false images put at us are many, which the supreme cons are not ‘justices’ they are posers, and the con as if being protested is a scripted act, also supposed ‘attempt’ at kavenaugh was bogus. There are over a half miln in the con gang, can put on any fake protest, as dupes refuse to stop ‘watching’ teevee or make effort themselves. Even if people knocked them off there are a hundred thousand others that must be seen. The cabalist cons made layers of their govrmnt con, including courts, so cons use their phony systems to claim ‘authority’, then point away at ‘others’ as the problem as they take turns scribbling paper ‘law’ or fake arguing to distract. Proof, nearly none did anything to stop ‘lockdowns’ or mask dictates, pointing instead at bogus ‘health officials’, same with state cons, also notice most lawyers did nothing. Maybe clue, why didn’t supposed judges or lawyers do anything about those or poison by vaxs, hmm. It is fact that many are part of schemes. Of course the mass who sit instead of go out on street corners and protest to wake others are as much how smiling tyrants continue.

    That’s what this distraction is, to pose the supreme cons as if ‘poor them’ as they sit on theiving scribble ‘laws’ and do ‘abortion’ distraction, after decades, or supposed ‘looking at gun laws’ as if to ‘help’ -same time others scribbling ‘red flag laws’. Remember they scribbled ‘law’ to take property rights, kelo case, and refused to hear Hedges ndaa suit. This beside the pile of con judges and attorneys injuring masses in their false ‘courts’. The bottom line is, distractions are many and the problems are where we live, including each person who fails to make effort, and no one in the con systems is going to stop anything, and no supposed protest or similar act is real unless we are doing it ourself.

    Failing to share info, or make small groups where we live, that aren’t infiltrated by cons, is also failure, also failing to recognize half the cons are females. Every bogus ‘city’ meeting there are cons in ‘crowd’ to steer or spy. People have to grow up, make own effort. Last, please dont copy paste any of my comment, if want to remember something use pen paper.

    Also Michelle shouldn’t have been going to ihop since they use gmo corn syrup or who knows what on their pancakes. Real maple syrup or nothing.

    .

  31. @Sollipsist
    @Harry Huntington

    How about you give us your real name, home address and a rough itinerary so that anybody who would care to express themselves concerning any of your posts can do so to you in person?

    Right. Thought so.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    ‘Harry Huntington’ is not a BlackRobed lickspittle who has a tax-funded life-tenured sinecure – at least, as far as I’m aware.

    The SCOTUS judges’ entire professional lives are based on a set of falsehoods, but for some stupid reason people defer to them like mediaeval Catholics deferred to Cardinals.

    Imbeciles require repositories of faith, is probably the best guess: the vast bulk of the livestock have been conditioned to believe that the monstrosity that emerged from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was consistent with Jeffersonian principles – when in fact it was a coup d’état, pure and simple.

    Doubtless there are also some mouth-breathers who think it’s unacceptable for the peons in Sri Lanka to have voiced their discontent with their ‘rulers’: in my view it’s unacceptable that the President and Prime Minister managed to escape with their lives.

  32. @Greta Handel
    Was Mrs. Malkin’s family ever accosted in a restaurant for her writing things like this (February 22, 2011)?

    Gaddafi vowed to stay in the country and “die a martyr.”

    May he get his bloody wish.
     

    Not likely, especially around Washington, D.C. See also, Ukraine/Russia/NATO.

    Replies: @WorkingClass

    Agreed. But that was then and this is now.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @WorkingClass

    I respect your contributions to this website. However, readers should bear in mind Ms. Malkin’s background before she rebranded to focus on immigration and what used to be lumped together as “family values.” She knows what people here want to hear, and what most of us have come to see through.

    Her silence about Ukraine/Russia/NATO has been awkward, as she has published recycled placeholders about persecuted, sympathetic activists — never antiwar activists — instead of saying anything negative about her Uncle Sam who she used to Exceptionally! serve as cheerleader. Yet even since landing here at TUR, her unrepentant neoconservativism has dribbled out with Chinadidit smears and a cluelessly patronizing veneration of uniformed warriors and the Pledge of Allegiance.

    Why do Mrs. Malkin’s columns annoy me enough to post so many critical comments? Because pundits like her effectively serve an Establishment that wants to keep people at home angry at each other while trying to destroy whatever remains unconquered elsewhere. With the Red&Blue pillowfighters unanimously voting to fund the carnage by counterfeiting more $$$, Ukraine is now a litmus test for true dissidence.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  33. You forgot to mention that all of these Leftist monsters are controlled, funded and organized by Jews. BLM and Defund the Police are nothing but extensions of the ADL.

    • Thanks: Angharad
  34. @Emslander
    @George Weinbaum

    Maybe it's why the court has accepted a case that could clean the boards of court and bureaucrat rules that turn elections over to the scum. Legislatures are the only bodies permitted under the US constitution to regulate Federal elections. The 2020 election fiasco was manufactured by non-legislative forces.

    Replies: @Old Brown Fool

    A legislature that is not jealously guarding its powers and privileges will cease to exercise those sooner.

  35. @WorkingClass
    @Ben Andrews

    I am on the edge of a small town in Texas. I am 78 years old. My wife and I are living on Social Security. We came here from a majority black city in Louisiana just before the death of Fentanyl Floyd. Since then conditions have deteriorated in our former city. We have friends here who helped us relocate. We had enough money for necessary deposits and first month rent.

    You don't have to move all the way to Texas. Red America is HUGE. Get a map of red and blue counties from a recent election. Start with Pennselvania. Find some red counties surrounded by other red counties. Talk to people you know and people you don't know. Ask them where they are from. If you are able, get in your car and drive out into the countryside. Talk to the guy next to you at the lunch counter about moving to his town. Sooner or later you will pick up a thread that will lead you to your new home.

    You can do it Ben. You can get yourself out of the city. You will be glad you did.

    Replies: @Ben Andrews

    Thank you very much, WorkingClass. I will follow up on your suggestions!

  36. @LinusPresley
    Why can’t we fight fire from fire? What the Hell is stopping us from doing so?

    Replies: @Realist, @Cave

    Jews.

    She’s married to one. No comment otherwise on what she said. But it’s jews.

    Same reason Unz publishes all these folks who are totally deplatformed. They said something about jews.

    • Thanks: Angharad
  37. @WorkingClass
    @Greta Handel

    Agreed. But that was then and this is now.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    I respect your contributions to this website. However, readers should bear in mind Ms. Malkin’s background before she rebranded to focus on immigration and what used to be lumped together as “family values.” She knows what people here want to hear, and what most of us have come to see through.

    Her silence about Ukraine/Russia/NATO has been awkward, as she has published recycled placeholders about persecuted, sympathetic activists — never antiwar activists — instead of saying anything negative about her Uncle Sam who she used to Exceptionally! serve as cheerleader. Yet even since landing here at TUR, her unrepentant neoconservativism has dribbled out with Chinadidit smears and a cluelessly patronizing veneration of uniformed warriors and the Pledge of Allegiance.

    Why do Mrs. Malkin’s columns annoy me enough to post so many critical comments? Because pundits like her effectively serve an Establishment that wants to keep people at home angry at each other while trying to destroy whatever remains unconquered elsewhere. With the Red&Blue pillowfighters unanimously voting to fund the carnage by counterfeiting more \$\$\$, Ukraine is now a litmus test for true dissidence.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Greta Handel


    Because pundits like her effectively serve an Establishment that wants to keep people at home angry at each other while trying to destroy whatever remains unconquered elsewhere.
     
    Whether she was to some degree 20 years ago is one thing (WorkingClass' point), but Mrs. Malkin is ANYTHING BUT a part of the Establishment now, Greta. You should keep up with what's she actually been doing and who her enemies are, not just her writing.

    Regarding your Ukraine litmus test, here's my take on this litmus test: If you don't give a crap about what's going on there in relation to your concern about the stupidity in THIS country, then, you've passed, Greta.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

  38. @Harry Huntington
    @Cowboy

    Actually, all types are the same. You need to read a bit of Ronald Coase. EVERYTHING the government does is "distributive." ALL government rules pick winners. Thus what you call the two groups are really just different folks agitating for different distributive outcomes. Likewise, what you would call government in action, is every bit as coercive as what you call coercion. Just that in action coerces to different ends.

    Also, oddly what you call "collectivism" in 19th century classical economic thinking actually was free market thinking because it stripped the economy of economic rents and the rentier class.

    Replies: @Cowboy, @Mark G.

    EVERYTHING the government does is “distributive.” ALL government rules pick winners. Thus what you call the two groups are really just different folks agitating for different distributive outcomes.

    People who just want to keep the money they earned are not morally in the same category as people who want the government to take that money and give it to someone else. Everything the government does is not distributive unless you are using that word in a different meaning than most people use it. Also, something isn’t true just because you put it in all caps and people who do that are engaging in a form of verbal aggressiveness and trying to intimidate others.

    It’s common for leftists to muddy the waters and engage in obfuscation because they don’t want people to engage in clear thinking on this subject. They want people to think there is some sort of moral equivalency between parasites and producers and anyone who wants to keep the money they earn is somehow selfish or immoral. You need to keep the focus on who is advocating the government to use force for any reason other than to protect the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its citizens to see who is morally wrong.

    • Replies: @Harry Huntington
    @Mark G.

    Actually, if you understand economics, everything the government does (lower case to avoid troubling your eyes) is distributive. As Ronald Coase demonstrated long ago (I forget the exact issue, but article in Journal of Law and Economics), government rules about property (which are all government rules) always prefigure the outcome of anything. Thus, even something as simple as the US constitution standing alone, prefigures a certain distributive outcome. Every other law changes that outcome.

    What you call "money earned" is a legal fiction. We could describe it in any number of other terms but that description you use is already derived from a particular set of government rules. For example, in Feudal Systems, you earned no money. You OWED labor. If you understand current rules, we are moving back to feudal rules. If you are a typical college graduate you will "owe labor" to repay college loans. If you want a place to live, you will "owe labor" to your landlord to pay rent. Under Obama care, you "owe labor" to your health insurance company even if you do not work. To make that all work, you "barter time" to others in exchange for cash which you then use to pay off your labor obligations to others. You don't "earn" anything.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not US law and never have been. They are in a document written by a misogynist racist to inspire solders to sign up to fight a war so the colonial 1% could steal the North American estate of the King of England.

    Recall, after 1066, the English King owned ALL of the property in England, and US law derives from English law. ALL property in the US is owned ultimately by the sovereign. Economics is actually about what duties are owed by you to the sovereign, and what property will the sovereign give you leave to use and on what terms.

    Those who pretend otherwise are lying to take advantage of you.

    Replies: @Mark G.

  39. @Greta Handel
    @WorkingClass

    I respect your contributions to this website. However, readers should bear in mind Ms. Malkin’s background before she rebranded to focus on immigration and what used to be lumped together as “family values.” She knows what people here want to hear, and what most of us have come to see through.

    Her silence about Ukraine/Russia/NATO has been awkward, as she has published recycled placeholders about persecuted, sympathetic activists — never antiwar activists — instead of saying anything negative about her Uncle Sam who she used to Exceptionally! serve as cheerleader. Yet even since landing here at TUR, her unrepentant neoconservativism has dribbled out with Chinadidit smears and a cluelessly patronizing veneration of uniformed warriors and the Pledge of Allegiance.

    Why do Mrs. Malkin’s columns annoy me enough to post so many critical comments? Because pundits like her effectively serve an Establishment that wants to keep people at home angry at each other while trying to destroy whatever remains unconquered elsewhere. With the Red&Blue pillowfighters unanimously voting to fund the carnage by counterfeiting more $$$, Ukraine is now a litmus test for true dissidence.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Because pundits like her effectively serve an Establishment that wants to keep people at home angry at each other while trying to destroy whatever remains unconquered elsewhere.

    Whether she was to some degree 20 years ago is one thing (WorkingClass’ point), but Mrs. Malkin is ANYTHING BUT a part of the Establishment now, Greta. You should keep up with what’s she actually been doing and who her enemies are, not just her writing.

    Regarding your Ukraine litmus test, here’s my take on this litmus test: If you don’t give a crap about what’s going on there in relation to your concern about the stupidity in THIS country, then, you’ve passed, Greta.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You’ve not refuted my comment. In fact, your last paragraph exemplifies the sentence from mine that you’ve blockquoted — domestic rancor distracts as Uncle Sam destroys another country about which you proudly “don’t give a crap.”

    As to this,


    You should keep up with what’s she actually been doing and who her enemies are, not just her writing.
     
    what actual deeds and enemies are you talking about? I guess you mean those campus brouhahas — which she loves to write about — where she’s attacked by shrieking godless Progressives for standing with brave Christian Patriots. All part of the show, sir.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  40. @Mark G.
    @Harry Huntington


    EVERYTHING the government does is “distributive.” ALL government rules pick winners. Thus what you call the two groups are really just different folks agitating for different distributive outcomes.
     
    People who just want to keep the money they earned are not morally in the same category as people who want the government to take that money and give it to someone else. Everything the government does is not distributive unless you are using that word in a different meaning than most people use it. Also, something isn't true just because you put it in all caps and people who do that are engaging in a form of verbal aggressiveness and trying to intimidate others.

    It's common for leftists to muddy the waters and engage in obfuscation because they don't want people to engage in clear thinking on this subject. They want people to think there is some sort of moral equivalency between parasites and producers and anyone who wants to keep the money they earn is somehow selfish or immoral. You need to keep the focus on who is advocating the government to use force for any reason other than to protect the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its citizens to see who is morally wrong.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

    Actually, if you understand economics, everything the government does (lower case to avoid troubling your eyes) is distributive. As Ronald Coase demonstrated long ago (I forget the exact issue, but article in Journal of Law and Economics), government rules about property (which are all government rules) always prefigure the outcome of anything. Thus, even something as simple as the US constitution standing alone, prefigures a certain distributive outcome. Every other law changes that outcome.

    What you call “money earned” is a legal fiction. We could describe it in any number of other terms but that description you use is already derived from a particular set of government rules. For example, in Feudal Systems, you earned no money. You OWED labor. If you understand current rules, we are moving back to feudal rules. If you are a typical college graduate you will “owe labor” to repay college loans. If you want a place to live, you will “owe labor” to your landlord to pay rent. Under Obama care, you “owe labor” to your health insurance company even if you do not work. To make that all work, you “barter time” to others in exchange for cash which you then use to pay off your labor obligations to others. You don’t “earn” anything.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not US law and never have been. They are in a document written by a misogynist racist to inspire solders to sign up to fight a war so the colonial 1% could steal the North American estate of the King of England.

    Recall, after 1066, the English King owned ALL of the property in England, and US law derives from English law. ALL property in the US is owned ultimately by the sovereign. Economics is actually about what duties are owed by you to the sovereign, and what property will the sovereign give you leave to use and on what terms.

    Those who pretend otherwise are lying to take advantage of you.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Harry Huntington


    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not US law and never have been.
     
    The Declaration of Independence states the principles the U.S. is founded on: the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The founders then used the Constitution to create a government that would protect those rights.

    Rights precede government. Governments are instituted to protect rights people already have. That is the only valid justification for government. Any government that doesn't protect our rights has no justification for existing and can be justifiably overthrown.

    The U.S. at the beginning was inconsistent in its application of rights, notably on the slavery issue, but over the years people have worked to bring us closer to the ideas of the Declaration. The Declaration is not a law, but it states the philosophical principles that underlies our government or any valid government. Those principles do not allow any tyrant to take away our rights. This includes a king, a dictator, or a dictatorship of the majority that you would have under an unlimited democracy. Any arguments to the contrary are an attempt to create an intellectual environment that would speed the slide into tyranny.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

  41. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Greta Handel


    Because pundits like her effectively serve an Establishment that wants to keep people at home angry at each other while trying to destroy whatever remains unconquered elsewhere.
     
    Whether she was to some degree 20 years ago is one thing (WorkingClass' point), but Mrs. Malkin is ANYTHING BUT a part of the Establishment now, Greta. You should keep up with what's she actually been doing and who her enemies are, not just her writing.

    Regarding your Ukraine litmus test, here's my take on this litmus test: If you don't give a crap about what's going on there in relation to your concern about the stupidity in THIS country, then, you've passed, Greta.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    You’ve not refuted my comment. In fact, your last paragraph exemplifies the sentence from mine that you’ve blockquoted — domestic rancor distracts as Uncle Sam destroys another country about which you proudly “don’t give a crap.”

    As to this,

    You should keep up with what’s she actually been doing and who her enemies are, not just her writing.

    what actual deeds and enemies are you talking about? I guess you mean those campus brouhahas — which she loves to write about — where she’s attacked by shrieking godless Progressives for standing with brave Christian Patriots. All part of the show, sir.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Greta Handel

    Michelle Malkin stands by VDare. She doesn't disavow them like the rest of the cucks. If this is a show, it's all hopeless. It's not, though, Greta.

    Finally, you did not comprehend my comment. I didn't say "don't give a crap about the Ukraine." I don't give a crap about the war there, because I proudly care more about my country than that neocon stuff. I don't "stand with Ukraine". I don't "stand with Russia". It's a big distraction.

    What I blockquoted from you is wrong. It's not that the Establishment wants to keep people angry at each other. I already have plenty of reason to be angry - at the Establishment Commies, that is. They want people distracted from that and focused on "the Donbass" or whatever. Focus, Greta!

    Are you ever on ANYONE's side but that of your own commentary? You remind me of the people on-line who make anyone who's on their side, but more well-known, into "controlled opposition". The only people I think just might be "controlled opposition" are these worthless naysayers.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

  42. The entire world and all of the people of this world are in some deep shit right now, and I believe it’s because of the fact that one tiny tribe is trying to control all of humanity……and many people know about this…..which makes the tiny paranoid tribe even MORE paranoid and crazy…..so they start doing really really crazy shit to try to get control at any cost.

    Keep in mind that the Bolsheviks slaughtered and starved MILLIONS of innocent people in Russia and Ukraine, and the people running the show right now are the direct descendants of those loony Bolsheviks.

    I would not be surprised if they unleash another bio-weapon or cause mass starvation….and obviously they are trying to start a world war.

    This might very well be one of the most fucked up times in American history….it’s certainly the stupidest craziest shit I have ever seen.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  43. @Emslander
    It's precisely the reason that a certain German politician of the early twentieth century formed a defensive force of young men in dark colored shirts. When conservatives in Germany were able to speak without being beaten or killed by Communists, they won elections and reformed the country.

    All we need is to be heard peacefully.

    Replies: @William Brennan

    I’m not going to argue with you about who “started” the political violence, because it’s moot – both now, and for Germans at the time. What is undeniably true is that that chain of events ended very badly for both the people of Germany and right-wing ideology. The end result of a movement formed against Bolshevism was Bolsheviks ruling half of Europe. In other words, it’s best not to start fights you aren’t sure you can win.

  44. @Greta Handel
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You’ve not refuted my comment. In fact, your last paragraph exemplifies the sentence from mine that you’ve blockquoted — domestic rancor distracts as Uncle Sam destroys another country about which you proudly “don’t give a crap.”

    As to this,


    You should keep up with what’s she actually been doing and who her enemies are, not just her writing.
     
    what actual deeds and enemies are you talking about? I guess you mean those campus brouhahas — which she loves to write about — where she’s attacked by shrieking godless Progressives for standing with brave Christian Patriots. All part of the show, sir.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Michelle Malkin stands by VDare. She doesn’t disavow them like the rest of the cucks. If this is a show, it’s all hopeless. It’s not, though, Greta.

    Finally, you did not comprehend my comment. I didn’t say “don’t give a crap about the Ukraine.” I don’t give a crap about the war there, because I proudly care more about my country than that neocon stuff. I don’t “stand with Ukraine”. I don’t “stand with Russia”. It’s a big distraction.

    What I blockquoted from you is wrong. It’s not that the Establishment wants to keep people angry at each other. I already have plenty of reason to be angry – at the Establishment Commies, that is. They want people distracted from that and focused on “the Donbass” or whatever. Focus, Greta!

    Are you ever on ANYONE’s side but that of your own commentary? You remind me of the people on-line who make anyone who’s on their side, but more well-known, into “controlled opposition”. The only people I think just might be “controlled opposition” are these worthless naysayers.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I assume you consider yourself among the “more well known”:


    Are you ever on ANYONE’s side but that of your own commentary? You remind me of the people on-line who make anyone who’s on their side, but more well-known, into “controlled opposition”. The only people I think just might be “controlled opposition” are these worthless naysayers.
     
    If it’s important to you for some reason, have a look at my comment history since being “nudged” by Mr. Unz to get a handle — it’s easily searchable. You’ll see many Thanks, Agrees, and positive comments in exchanges with authors and other commenters. (And I’ve had many people whose contributions here are worthwhile endorse mine.)

    You’ll also see many critical comments about and under the work of authors like Buchanan, Derbyshire, Malkin, Mercer, and Sailer. Which may explain why all I seem able to do with you is pique stupidity.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  45. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Greta Handel

    Michelle Malkin stands by VDare. She doesn't disavow them like the rest of the cucks. If this is a show, it's all hopeless. It's not, though, Greta.

    Finally, you did not comprehend my comment. I didn't say "don't give a crap about the Ukraine." I don't give a crap about the war there, because I proudly care more about my country than that neocon stuff. I don't "stand with Ukraine". I don't "stand with Russia". It's a big distraction.

    What I blockquoted from you is wrong. It's not that the Establishment wants to keep people angry at each other. I already have plenty of reason to be angry - at the Establishment Commies, that is. They want people distracted from that and focused on "the Donbass" or whatever. Focus, Greta!

    Are you ever on ANYONE's side but that of your own commentary? You remind me of the people on-line who make anyone who's on their side, but more well-known, into "controlled opposition". The only people I think just might be "controlled opposition" are these worthless naysayers.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    I assume you consider yourself among the “more well known”:

    Are you ever on ANYONE’s side but that of your own commentary? You remind me of the people on-line who make anyone who’s on their side, but more well-known, into “controlled opposition”. The only people I think just might be “controlled opposition” are these worthless naysayers.

    If it’s important to you for some reason, have a look at my comment history since being “nudged” by Mr. Unz to get a handle — it’s easily searchable. You’ll see many Thanks, Agrees, and positive comments in exchanges with authors and other commenters. (And I’ve had many people whose contributions here are worthwhile endorse mine.)

    You’ll also see many critical comments about and under the work of authors like Buchanan, Derbyshire, Malkin, Mercer, and Sailer. Which may explain why all I seem able to do with you is pique stupidity.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Greta Handel


    I assume you consider yourself among the “more well known"
     
    Reading comprehension is important. No, not me, the writer here, Michelle Malkin! For cryin' out loud, all I've seen you write here is stuff about how she was (may have been?) a Neocon in the past.

    Maybe that's the case, but she hasn't been writing about anything in which your points, if true, apply. You write nothing but critical stuff when you, I, and Michelle Malkin are ON THE SAME SIDE.

    What I meant with the comment you blockquoted is this: People will comment "Tucker Carlson, he didn't mention this (very particular) point. He's controlled opposition!". Those people need to get off their asses and help the people who are on their side. Focus!

    "pique stupidity", huh? Clever, I gotta say.

    Replies: @Richard B

  46. @Harry Huntington
    @Mark G.

    Actually, if you understand economics, everything the government does (lower case to avoid troubling your eyes) is distributive. As Ronald Coase demonstrated long ago (I forget the exact issue, but article in Journal of Law and Economics), government rules about property (which are all government rules) always prefigure the outcome of anything. Thus, even something as simple as the US constitution standing alone, prefigures a certain distributive outcome. Every other law changes that outcome.

    What you call "money earned" is a legal fiction. We could describe it in any number of other terms but that description you use is already derived from a particular set of government rules. For example, in Feudal Systems, you earned no money. You OWED labor. If you understand current rules, we are moving back to feudal rules. If you are a typical college graduate you will "owe labor" to repay college loans. If you want a place to live, you will "owe labor" to your landlord to pay rent. Under Obama care, you "owe labor" to your health insurance company even if you do not work. To make that all work, you "barter time" to others in exchange for cash which you then use to pay off your labor obligations to others. You don't "earn" anything.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not US law and never have been. They are in a document written by a misogynist racist to inspire solders to sign up to fight a war so the colonial 1% could steal the North American estate of the King of England.

    Recall, after 1066, the English King owned ALL of the property in England, and US law derives from English law. ALL property in the US is owned ultimately by the sovereign. Economics is actually about what duties are owed by you to the sovereign, and what property will the sovereign give you leave to use and on what terms.

    Those who pretend otherwise are lying to take advantage of you.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not US law and never have been.

    The Declaration of Independence states the principles the U.S. is founded on: the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The founders then used the Constitution to create a government that would protect those rights.

    Rights precede government. Governments are instituted to protect rights people already have. That is the only valid justification for government. Any government that doesn’t protect our rights has no justification for existing and can be justifiably overthrown.

    The U.S. at the beginning was inconsistent in its application of rights, notably on the slavery issue, but over the years people have worked to bring us closer to the ideas of the Declaration. The Declaration is not a law, but it states the philosophical principles that underlies our government or any valid government. Those principles do not allow any tyrant to take away our rights. This includes a king, a dictator, or a dictatorship of the majority that you would have under an unlimited democracy. Any arguments to the contrary are an attempt to create an intellectual environment that would speed the slide into tyranny.

    • Replies: @Harry Huntington
    @Mark G.

    There is plainly no right to life or a right to "pursuit of happiness" any where in the Constitution. There are some constitutional protections of what can be called "liberty interests" but they are quite limited in scope. Plainly without money your ability to protect your liberty interests are quite limited--which is why rich people tend to get better results than poor people in court systems.

    The Declaration is a propaganda document not grounded in anything. It is absurd that people rely on it. It is a tool used in schools to build "assent" among the governed.

    The modern public school system in the US, by the way, was developed to immerse immigrant children in a patriotic American culture that does not actually exist.

    Governments exist to protect the property interests of the 1%. That certainly was true with the American government. The American Revolution is referred to as a "top down" Revolution led by the 1% to take property from the King of England. The Founders had no interest in protecting anyone's liberty but their own. The "tells" on that point: slavery, the alien and sedition acts, the First and Second Banks of the United States, land grants to railroads. The key to understand on land grants to railroads. That meant the government took land from property owners and gave it to those people who owned railroads.

    A public can make a better government, but they must do that by pushing the 1% out of any position of control and by taking and distributing the property controlled by the 1%. You cannot have liberty or democracy without equality of wealth and outcomes.

    Replies: @Mark G.

  47. @Greta Handel
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I assume you consider yourself among the “more well known”:


    Are you ever on ANYONE’s side but that of your own commentary? You remind me of the people on-line who make anyone who’s on their side, but more well-known, into “controlled opposition”. The only people I think just might be “controlled opposition” are these worthless naysayers.
     
    If it’s important to you for some reason, have a look at my comment history since being “nudged” by Mr. Unz to get a handle — it’s easily searchable. You’ll see many Thanks, Agrees, and positive comments in exchanges with authors and other commenters. (And I’ve had many people whose contributions here are worthwhile endorse mine.)

    You’ll also see many critical comments about and under the work of authors like Buchanan, Derbyshire, Malkin, Mercer, and Sailer. Which may explain why all I seem able to do with you is pique stupidity.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I assume you consider yourself among the “more well known”

    Reading comprehension is important. No, not me, the writer here, Michelle Malkin! For cryin’ out loud, all I’ve seen you write here is stuff about how she was (may have been?) a Neocon in the past.

    Maybe that’s the case, but she hasn’t been writing about anything in which your points, if true, apply. You write nothing but critical stuff when you, I, and Michelle Malkin are ON THE SAME SIDE.

    What I meant with the comment you blockquoted is this: People will comment “Tucker Carlson, he didn’t mention this (very particular) point. He’s controlled opposition!”. Those people need to get off their asses and help the people who are on their side. Focus!

    “pique stupidity”, huh? Clever, I gotta say.

    • Replies: @Richard B
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Great exchange between you two. Thanks!

    You may have gotten the better of it, but still, great exchange and some good points made all around.

    The comment section is one of the reasons I value TUR as much as I do (that and the library and not a few of the articles and essays, and above all, the free speech). But lately, the past year or so, the Trolls seem to be coming out of the woodwork, unfortunately.

    We need less of them and more of exchanges like this one.

  48. @Mark G.
    @Harry Huntington


    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not US law and never have been.
     
    The Declaration of Independence states the principles the U.S. is founded on: the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The founders then used the Constitution to create a government that would protect those rights.

    Rights precede government. Governments are instituted to protect rights people already have. That is the only valid justification for government. Any government that doesn't protect our rights has no justification for existing and can be justifiably overthrown.

    The U.S. at the beginning was inconsistent in its application of rights, notably on the slavery issue, but over the years people have worked to bring us closer to the ideas of the Declaration. The Declaration is not a law, but it states the philosophical principles that underlies our government or any valid government. Those principles do not allow any tyrant to take away our rights. This includes a king, a dictator, or a dictatorship of the majority that you would have under an unlimited democracy. Any arguments to the contrary are an attempt to create an intellectual environment that would speed the slide into tyranny.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

    There is plainly no right to life or a right to “pursuit of happiness” any where in the Constitution. There are some constitutional protections of what can be called “liberty interests” but they are quite limited in scope. Plainly without money your ability to protect your liberty interests are quite limited–which is why rich people tend to get better results than poor people in court systems.

    The Declaration is a propaganda document not grounded in anything. It is absurd that people rely on it. It is a tool used in schools to build “assent” among the governed.

    The modern public school system in the US, by the way, was developed to immerse immigrant children in a patriotic American culture that does not actually exist.

    Governments exist to protect the property interests of the 1%. That certainly was true with the American government. The American Revolution is referred to as a “top down” Revolution led by the 1% to take property from the King of England. The Founders had no interest in protecting anyone’s liberty but their own. The “tells” on that point: slavery, the alien and sedition acts, the First and Second Banks of the United States, land grants to railroads. The key to understand on land grants to railroads. That meant the government took land from property owners and gave it to those people who owned railroads.

    A public can make a better government, but they must do that by pushing the 1% out of any position of control and by taking and distributing the property controlled by the 1%. You cannot have liberty or democracy without equality of wealth and outcomes.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Harry Huntington


    You cannot have liberty or democracy without equality of wealth and outcomes.
     
    That philosophy led to Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. It's an unworkable system, as shown by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the pragmatist Deng moving China away from such an unworkable system. The proponents of such a system say it would work if only the right people were in charge with them, of course, being the people who should be in charge of ordering everyone else around. The ideas of the original American government, while imperfectly applied, were based on the belief that there is not one group of intellectually and morally superior human beings who should have the power to order everyone else around. Everyone is equal and, since everyone is equal, everyone has the same right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It is moving away from this that is causing our current problems.

    Proponents of your system always see themselves at the top running things. It never occurs to them that there might be someone even more of an amoral, ruthless sociopath than they are who will claw his way to the top over them and, once in power, exterminate them. For example, many of Stalin's associates were quite unpleasantly surprised to find themselves ending up in Stalin's torture cells.

  49. @Harry Huntington
    @Mark G.

    There is plainly no right to life or a right to "pursuit of happiness" any where in the Constitution. There are some constitutional protections of what can be called "liberty interests" but they are quite limited in scope. Plainly without money your ability to protect your liberty interests are quite limited--which is why rich people tend to get better results than poor people in court systems.

    The Declaration is a propaganda document not grounded in anything. It is absurd that people rely on it. It is a tool used in schools to build "assent" among the governed.

    The modern public school system in the US, by the way, was developed to immerse immigrant children in a patriotic American culture that does not actually exist.

    Governments exist to protect the property interests of the 1%. That certainly was true with the American government. The American Revolution is referred to as a "top down" Revolution led by the 1% to take property from the King of England. The Founders had no interest in protecting anyone's liberty but their own. The "tells" on that point: slavery, the alien and sedition acts, the First and Second Banks of the United States, land grants to railroads. The key to understand on land grants to railroads. That meant the government took land from property owners and gave it to those people who owned railroads.

    A public can make a better government, but they must do that by pushing the 1% out of any position of control and by taking and distributing the property controlled by the 1%. You cannot have liberty or democracy without equality of wealth and outcomes.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    You cannot have liberty or democracy without equality of wealth and outcomes.

    That philosophy led to Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. It’s an unworkable system, as shown by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the pragmatist Deng moving China away from such an unworkable system. The proponents of such a system say it would work if only the right people were in charge with them, of course, being the people who should be in charge of ordering everyone else around. The ideas of the original American government, while imperfectly applied, were based on the belief that there is not one group of intellectually and morally superior human beings who should have the power to order everyone else around. Everyone is equal and, since everyone is equal, everyone has the same right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It is moving away from this that is causing our current problems.

    Proponents of your system always see themselves at the top running things. It never occurs to them that there might be someone even more of an amoral, ruthless sociopath than they are who will claw his way to the top over them and, once in power, exterminate them. For example, many of Stalin’s associates were quite unpleasantly surprised to find themselves ending up in Stalin’s torture cells.

  50. @Harry Huntington
    It is called the First Amendment and it is reasonable that aggrieved individuals may express themselves. The problem plainly is that Ms Malkin's friends are not well-funded or well-organized to return the favor. Northwestern University Professor and First Amendment Scholar Franklyn Haiman long taught that the antidote to bad speech was more speech. Those on the left understand what more speech means and how to direct their "more speech." Those on the "right," such as Ms Malkin, fail to understand what more speech means. More speech does not mean storm the capital, more speech does not mean walk around with your assault rifles, more speech means finding those folks who are troubling and repeatedly addressing them with your speech.

    The failure in Ms Malkin's case is the IHOP, a private establishment, failed to enforce rules for how its patrons could use the property. Private establishments, such as restaurants, are free to regulate the behavior of those who are on their property. That is not a problem with the speech.

    Fox News is also free, as a private broadcast network no longer bound by the fairness doctrine, to blackball Ms Malkin. That is a failure of conservatives because it was the Republicans who ended the fairness doctrine and net neutrality. The Republicans are the party who wrote the rules that entrenched network bias.

    At the end of the day, I would not expect the conservatives to mount speaking campaigns because the reality is they are unwilling to spend their money on their causes. They are not really principled.

    Replies: @Cowboy, @anarchyst, @Sollipsist, @Realist, @James N. Kennett, @Pcj70, @MrPete

    It’s a shame that no conservatives rampage the capital with rifles, net neutrality was always a joke, To most of us conservatives and libertarians, any networks it’s hard Donna Brazile Geraldo Rivera or Juan Williams is probably not a bastion of conservatism (name me a conservative on NPR or CNN ect that the conservative claim). Considering that antifa desecrated federal buildings and were release the next day, in contrast January 6 (a broken window, some feet on the desk and supposedly a heart attack and a stroke several days later, that are somehow the protesters fault) we’re still in jail two years later, I don’t think we’re playing on a level playing field.

    Majority of the problem is that herd minded bureaucracy and middle-management have a liberal, Anti-competency Bias. Cheer up, won. You got Biden for president we’re printing all the money you could want, I bet before the summers over you morons will bring the mask back and I’m sure the electrical cars will be a wonderful wonderful addition to the world, it won’t catch on fire and be a total waste of money. The green policy won’t have us running in full brown out mode if not complete power outages throughout the World (Germany, Texas green energy problem never heard of it) . They won’t be in pregnancies throughout the women’s prison because you can’t use the correct pronouns for man or woman, The start of liberal paradise is here . Aren’t you proud of yourself.

  51. @anarchyst
    @Harry Huntington

    Your lament at the demise of the so-called "fairness doctrine" is noted. However, the "fairness doctrine" was still being abused by those on the left.
    Example: Take "gun control" for instance...
    The media outlet will almost always find someone on the left (pro-gun control) who is polished, articulate and "speaks a good game" while his opposition will be an unpolished, inarticulate individual, unable to get his valid points across.
    This was always by design when the "fairness doctrine" was in effect and made those on the right appear to be "unorganized, unsophisticated rabble".
    When the "fairness doctrine was repealed, those on the right took advantage of it and promoted many highly successful program hosts. For a while, the right blindsided those on the left by hosting highly successful talk show programs--something that those on the left had trouble with.

    Replies: @Pcj70

    Do this jerk that’s a feature not a fault

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    @Pcj70

    ??
    please explain
    thanks

  52. Your knowledge of the creatures behind the scenes always astounds me. Thank you for all the great work that you do

  53. @Pcj70
    @anarchyst

    Do this jerk that’s a feature not a fault

    Replies: @anarchyst

    ??
    please explain
    thanks

  54. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Greta Handel


    I assume you consider yourself among the “more well known"
     
    Reading comprehension is important. No, not me, the writer here, Michelle Malkin! For cryin' out loud, all I've seen you write here is stuff about how she was (may have been?) a Neocon in the past.

    Maybe that's the case, but she hasn't been writing about anything in which your points, if true, apply. You write nothing but critical stuff when you, I, and Michelle Malkin are ON THE SAME SIDE.

    What I meant with the comment you blockquoted is this: People will comment "Tucker Carlson, he didn't mention this (very particular) point. He's controlled opposition!". Those people need to get off their asses and help the people who are on their side. Focus!

    "pique stupidity", huh? Clever, I gotta say.

    Replies: @Richard B

    Great exchange between you two. Thanks!

    You may have gotten the better of it, but still, great exchange and some good points made all around.

    The comment section is one of the reasons I value TUR as much as I do (that and the library and not a few of the articles and essays, and above all, the free speech). But lately, the past year or so, the Trolls seem to be coming out of the woodwork, unfortunately.

    We need less of them and more of exchanges like this one.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  55. @Harry Huntington
    It is called the First Amendment and it is reasonable that aggrieved individuals may express themselves. The problem plainly is that Ms Malkin's friends are not well-funded or well-organized to return the favor. Northwestern University Professor and First Amendment Scholar Franklyn Haiman long taught that the antidote to bad speech was more speech. Those on the left understand what more speech means and how to direct their "more speech." Those on the "right," such as Ms Malkin, fail to understand what more speech means. More speech does not mean storm the capital, more speech does not mean walk around with your assault rifles, more speech means finding those folks who are troubling and repeatedly addressing them with your speech.

    The failure in Ms Malkin's case is the IHOP, a private establishment, failed to enforce rules for how its patrons could use the property. Private establishments, such as restaurants, are free to regulate the behavior of those who are on their property. That is not a problem with the speech.

    Fox News is also free, as a private broadcast network no longer bound by the fairness doctrine, to blackball Ms Malkin. That is a failure of conservatives because it was the Republicans who ended the fairness doctrine and net neutrality. The Republicans are the party who wrote the rules that entrenched network bias.

    At the end of the day, I would not expect the conservatives to mount speaking campaigns because the reality is they are unwilling to spend their money on their causes. They are not really principled.

    Replies: @Cowboy, @anarchyst, @Sollipsist, @Realist, @James N. Kennett, @Pcj70, @MrPete

    That is a failure of conservatives because it was the Republicans who ended the fairness doctrine and net neutrality. The Republicans are the party who wrote the rules that entrenched network bias.

    You clearly do not understand the real issues behind net neutrality. It had NOTHING to do with content, everything to do with one vendor (netflix) abusing Internet Peering contracts.

    In brief: all high end Internet backbone contracts assume a balance of traffic in both directions. That’s “Balanced Peering.” But Netflix pushes out as much as 1/3 of all Internet traffic in one direction. Which means the balanced peering assumption is violated. Someone has to pay for all that data… and it ought to be Netflix. But they want non-customers to pay for it… so they accused the ISP’s of slowing down their data on purpose.

    I wrote about this long ago. Here’s material with authoritative links. https://www.mrpete.info/2015/02/10/net-neutrality-reality-vs-imagination/

    • Replies: @Harry Huntington
    @MrPete

    You need to begin by reading the endangered species act, its regulations, and then read wetlands regulations. Then go back and read the net neutrality rules.

    If one interprets net neutrality rules the same was as agencies interpret endangered species rules and wetlands rules, net neutrality becomes a content regulation that can be applied to all carriers of all content. Thus one can require a Netflix to be treated the same as others, but only if Netflix is itself neutral as to the content it carries. Recall, the reason the pollution in your ditch at home, or your back yard pond can be regulated is because that pollution may affect the pollution in navigable waters. Thus, Netflix own lack of neutrality may affect its quantity of data, thus that too can be regulated. That is, Netflix itself cannot throttle content, if it demands its own content not be throttled. The same with Google, You Tube, Facebook, etc.

    Republicans always wanted to throttle content because they believed they would be in a position to throttle liberal content. That got that entirely backwards.

    Never look at the initial purpose of the regulation, look at the possibility in the language.

  56. @MrPete
    @Harry Huntington


    That is a failure of conservatives because it was the Republicans who ended the fairness doctrine and net neutrality. The Republicans are the party who wrote the rules that entrenched network bias.
     
    You clearly do not understand the real issues behind net neutrality. It had NOTHING to do with content, everything to do with one vendor (netflix) abusing Internet Peering contracts.

    In brief: all high end Internet backbone contracts assume a balance of traffic in both directions. That's "Balanced Peering." But Netflix pushes out as much as 1/3 of all Internet traffic in one direction. Which means the balanced peering assumption is violated. Someone has to pay for all that data... and it ought to be Netflix. But they want non-customers to pay for it... so they accused the ISP's of slowing down their data on purpose.

    I wrote about this long ago. Here's material with authoritative links. https://www.mrpete.info/2015/02/10/net-neutrality-reality-vs-imagination/

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

    You need to begin by reading the endangered species act, its regulations, and then read wetlands regulations. Then go back and read the net neutrality rules.

    If one interprets net neutrality rules the same was as agencies interpret endangered species rules and wetlands rules, net neutrality becomes a content regulation that can be applied to all carriers of all content. Thus one can require a Netflix to be treated the same as others, but only if Netflix is itself neutral as to the content it carries. Recall, the reason the pollution in your ditch at home, or your back yard pond can be regulated is because that pollution may affect the pollution in navigable waters. Thus, Netflix own lack of neutrality may affect its quantity of data, thus that too can be regulated. That is, Netflix itself cannot throttle content, if it demands its own content not be throttled. The same with Google, You Tube, Facebook, etc.

    Republicans always wanted to throttle content because they believed they would be in a position to throttle liberal content. That got that entirely backwards.

    Never look at the initial purpose of the regulation, look at the possibility in the language.

  57. @Cowboy
    @Harry Huntington

    Bullshit. There are only two types in this country, collectivist agitators and Americans. The collectivist agitators, i.e. Harry Huntington, are busy body Karens who try to agitate for governmental coercion against those who do not subscribe to latest doctrines of collectivism. Then there are Americans, generally speaking Jeffersionian, who want to lead peaceable lives enjoying their individual liberties.

    So, naturally, Americans will be less inclined to engage in collectivist "speech".

    Harry have you ever considered becoming American?

    Replies: @Harry Huntington, @Angharad

    No. It’s Jews vs HUMANS. And it’s not “Karens”. It’s Ruth’s, Shoshona’s and Yael’s.

  58. No mention of Jews in the article, 18 in comments.

  59. Fifteen years later, I’m blacklisted by the “fair and balanced” network, while fork-tongued cable news reptile Geraldo Rivera remains a heavily promoted Fox News contributor who regularly attacks everyone else

    As have Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage as well as a few others. FOX is a joke and fair and balanced should be replaced with centrist and cucky.

    This is even an indictment of Tucker Carlson who routinely brags that he can say what he wants and have anybody as a guest yet has never add Michell Malkin on.

    I still laugh when Geraldo Rivera got his half Jewish ass kicked by the skinheads during his show. He richly deserved it since he was always antagonizing pro-whites.

  60. Boy Howdy, but it sure sounds like Michelle is particularly jealous of Jerry Rivers, aka Geraldo Rivera. If Michelle didn’t spread so much hate, she wouldn’t be harassed and once again, play the victim card. Your daughters are embarrassed by you. Just stop.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Michelle Malkin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism