One of my favorites pic.twitter.com/GbVzutErcC

— A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) May 8, 2024

Sen. Jon Tester On How To Handle Trump: ‘Punch Him In The Face’

Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester said Thursday the best way for Democrats to beat President Trump in 2020 is to “go back and punch him in the face” in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“I don’t think, even in states where Donald Trump won big, that it did you any good running away from Donald Trump,” he said. “I think you need to go back and punch him in the face. The truth is this guy is bad for this country.”

Remember this when Democrats and the media (but i repeat myself) call for civility and old Peggy Noonan calls for tact.

Walk Away: Leftists Abuse St. Jude Family Who Thanked Eric Trump For Raising Millions of Dollars to Help Children With Cancer

Mark Steyn on hate speech laws, Weimar and "Bray New World"

What's scary is that laws banning hate speech can be invoked, and were invoked, by Hitler.  He didn't have to pass laws to outlaw his opponents.  All he had to do is invoke the laws passed before he became head of the German government.

Bucknell Professor Threatened His Conservative Students. This One Fired Back.

DON’T FORCE OUR HAND

From Men of the West...

I have argued that we of the Hard Right should not actively seek open confrontation with the enemies of our culture. I have tried to advocate for a legal, ethical procedure to rid our communities of those who would wish us harm, as I find that preferable to bloodshed. In the comments, we have repeatedly argued back and forth about what has to happen, with some positing that we should not eschew violence so readily (and I realize that no one is calling for wholesale genocide or anything like that).

Honestly, I still hope and pray that this can be resolved as peacefully as possible, but I am beginning to have my doubts that it can happen. Not because our side is not willing to follow this path, but because the other side is doing everything they can to force our hand.

It reminds me of the climactic scene in the Tom Selleck movie Quigly Down Under, where the evil land baron, played by Alan Rickman, forces Quigly to face him in a gun fight. Quigly, known for his sharpshooter skills with a rifle, has repeatedly stated that he had little use for handguns, leading Rickman’s character to wrongly assume that Quigly is not proficient with one. Of course, Quigly is quite capable, killing the bad guy. As the evil man lies dying, Quigly points out, “I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn’t know how to use it.” (See the video clip below).

It seems to me that a similar scenario is being played out in real life.

Look, the Hard Right has no desire to fight in the streets. No sane person wants to live in a society where there is constant, realistic expectations of ongoing bloodshed. That is why we advocate the removal of undesirables. We do not want to kill anyone. We want them to simply go away. Go home. Go back where you came from. Just leave us alone. In fact, if there is an overarching theme to the Hard Right position, it is that we just want to be left alone to live our lives as we see fit.

Unfortunately, the left has horribly misread the situation. Rather than realize the superiority of our position, they have chosen to bring the fight to us. They have mistaken our forbearance to this point for weakness. That is dead wrong. It is not that we are not capable. It is that we do not want open conflict. But if we are forced into a corner, all hell is going to break loose, and the left is not going to like the result.

It is each person’s legal right, in this country, to assemble peaceably. This is true for both right and left. But if the other side is going to incite violence, I can categorically state that the Hard Right is more than able to finish the fight.

I pray the left realizes this before it is too late. If their past performance is any indication, however, they are going to have to learn this the hard way.

Are you a White man? Is it funny when you die?

Democrats in a public, political meeting cheer and laugh at the mention of the increased number of white men committing suicide.

The speaker says, maybe I should not say this in public, but when I heard more White men are committing suicide, I almost said “yeah, great!”.

But he does say it, and the crowd likes it, as he knew they would.

The speaker knows that he is talking about a group that has no organized capacity to oppose his despicable, dehumanizing, eliminationist hate speech. Attacking those who are not (yet) organized to resist is easy and fun.

About which other ethno-cultural community is it permitted to laugh and clap when they die by their own hands in larger numbers?

The despair that leads to this horrible increase in suicides is a gauge of the success of the policies the people in this video espouse. They are jeering over a defeated enemy. So for this crowd laughter and clapping is appropriate.

Crucifix, Trump chalkings reported as 'hate incidents' at UW-L

A report released by the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse’s “Hate Response Team” shows that more than 10 percent of reported hate incidents were determined to be fake or frivolous.

In fact, the report notes that 28 of 192 reports were found to be either completely fake or “not a bias/hate incident,” accounting for 14 percent of all incidents reported.

A Crucifix was reported for representing “oppression and hate of the LGBT+ community.” Tweet This

Meanwhile, of the reports that were legitimate, students complained about everything from images of the crucifix to a blog post about life on campus as a white student.

According to The La Crosse Tribune, one student reported feeling unsafe when discovering a Campus Crusade for Christ poster on campus, claiming that the cross represents “oppression and hate of the LGBT+ community.”

[RELATED: Oregon rebrands Bias Response Team to avoid ‘thought police’ claims]

Two other students turned in one of their peers for publishing a blog post about life as a white student, calling his post offensive to students of color, and even saying that the proximity of the author’s off-campus residence made them feel unsafe living on campus.

After the infamous “chalkening” had spread to UW La Crosse’s campus, several students reported the incident to the Hate Response Team, whose report shows a drastic increase in activity over the few days it occurred—18 reports in just three days.

The school had initially responded to the chalkening with a Facebook post that called it “contradictory to our mission as a university,” but later deleted the post after facing national criticism.

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

By Eugene Volokh May 7

I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term.