All errors should be reported to

Monday, March 13, 2017

Resisting democracy

In the wake of unprecedented riots on the Inauguration Day of a new president, the New York Times refused to condemn the violence -- or demand that Democrats condemn the violence.

Instead, the newspaper encouraged it.

Oh, the New York Times couched its cheerleading in the form of a question.
Attack on Alt-Right Leader Has Internet Asking: Is It O.K. to Punch a Nazi?
But passive-aggressiveness aside, the Newspaper of Discord has made it clear that bullying, violence, and other forms of fascism are OK because the New York Times has rejected the election of Donald John Trump as president.

So has the Democratic Party, which continues to delay the appointment of his Cabinet members.

So have many Politically Correct Fake Conservatives in Washington, and John Podhoretz of Commentary.

I would call them childish, but their encouragement of a resistance -- which harkens to the saboteurs, snipers, and assassins of the 1940s -- makes them accessories to the crimes of the violence the New York Times encourages.

From that New York Times article on January 21:
There was little substantive debate online about the ethics of punching Mr. Spencer. Twitter is not a place where minds are often changed, and the supporters and opponents of the sucker punch were unmoved by one another’s quips.
Opponents of the punch tended to say that violence had no place in political debate. Supporters tended to say the punch was funny, and more than a few compared Mr. Spencer’s attacker to famous Nazi punchers from pop culture, like Indiana Jones and Captain America.
The refusal to accept the will of the people -- many of whom voted for Obama earlier -- breaks the gentlemen's agreement to a peaceful transfer of power.

A punch in the nose is not peaceful.

These reflect a sentiment that credentialed people in Versailles D.C. are entitled to rule as benevolent lords over the ungentrified.

Paul Krugman expressed bewilderment at the election result on November 25:
To be honest, I don’t fully understand this resentment. In particular, I don’t know why imagined liberal disdain inspires so much more anger than the very real disdain of conservatives who see the poverty of places like eastern Kentucky as a sign of the personal and moral inadequacy of their residents.
But stripped of power on November 8, their nostrils flair, their rage grows, and they roar with anger.

From Charles Blow on January 23:
If my difference frightens you, you have a problem, not me. If my discussion of my pain makes you ill at ease, you have a problem, not me. If you feel that the excavation of my history presages the burial of yours, then you have a problem, not me.
Me, me, me, me.

For the first time in his life, someone has told Blow no and His Pain is all that matters. They see themselves as Spartacus -- the headline read: "We Are Dissidents; We Are Legion" -- but they are Gaius Claudius Glaber, defeated by the real Spartacus at Mount Vesuvius 73 years before the birth of Our Christ.

The people spoke on November 8. The elitists rage against that. The elitists are willing to destroy our Constitutional Republic to regain power.

That is ugly. That is unhealthy. And that is entirely too dangerous to go without people willing to stand up and speak out -- even at the risk of being physically assaulted by this New York Times endorse "resistance."

"Trump the Establishment" is now on Kindle.

"Trump the Establishment" is also available in paperback.

This is the sequel to "Trump the Press," which covered the nomination. The original -- "Trump the Press" -- is available on Kindle, or in paperback on Amazon.

Autographed copies are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.


  1. Let them sow the wind. They will reap the whirlwind. There are many of us who have taken an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. And believe me, we will. - Elric

    1. Agree. 20 million vets and most will defend the Constitution.

    2. Agree. 20 million vets and most will defend the Constitution.

  2. It's ugly, unhealthy and I would add, most of all, downright scary.

  3. "Is It O.K. to Punch a Nazi?", that's the first question. The second one should be: "How do YOU know is a Nazi the one you're going to punch?" The next one: "It is because you said so?" And finally "Do you always take your marching orders from the NYT?" -- I know, I'm asking to much from the wannabe punchers, otherwise they woudn't be reading the NYT, for starters.

  4. ACLU is getting in on the act by holding classes on how to imtimidate Republicans. They call it "peaceful" protesting, but it is anything but peaceful. When are we going to us the same tactics against them? When are we going to shout down their speakers? When When When?

  5. What happens when the so-called 'Nazi' punches you back twice as hard?

  6. It's also apparently okay for Trump Deniers to fantasize about assassinating him. How the Times has changed its position on political violence since Sarah Palin used a surveyor's mark in her campaign. I never liked true believer Democrats all that much before, but now I'm getting to really loathe them.

  7. Clearly, they don't want a peaceable transfer of power FROM them; only TO them.
    Our memories will be looooooooong.

  8. This is easy. Call libs Nazis and start our own version of the knockout game.

  9. I want to see some of the Narzis punch back.

    Let's see how tough they are then.

  10. The one thing about elitists who endorse violence is, it always comes full circle.

    Just think of the Committee of Public Safety.