Category Archives: Insanity

This is Chiraq: Two girls, ages 11 and 12, shot in the south side over the weekend of violence

blacks protesting black-on-black crimes

Paging the good mayor, those who voted for him and #BLM. “Crickets.”

From MyFoxChicago: An 11-year-old girl was shot in the head Saturday night in the Parkway Gardens neighborhood on the South Side.

The girl was sitting in the rear seat of a vehicle about 7:40 p.m. in the 6500 block of South King Drive when gunfire was heard and she was discovered with a gunshot wound to her head, Chicago Police said. She was taken to Comer Children’s Hospital in critical condition, police said. No one was in custody as Area Central detectives investigate.

Also Saturday night, a 12-year-old girl was shot and critically wounded in West Englewood. She was playing with friends about 7:15 p.m. outside in the 1900 block of West 57th Street when gunfire erupted and she was shot in the head, according to Chicago Police.

The girl, who was not thought to be the intended target of the shooting, was taken in critical condition to Stroger Hospital. Police initially said the victim was a woman, between 35 and 40 years old. No one was in custody as Area South detectives investigate.

The girls were among 18 shot in Chicago over the weekend, including three fatally. During the second weekend of February 2016, which was Presidents Day weekend, six people were killed and 19 wounded in shootings.

So far in 2017, 313 people have been shot in Chicago, according to Sun-Times records. At least ten of the victims have been children under the age of 14.

DCG

Advertisements

United Airlines pilot frightened passengers to tears with her anti-Trump meltdown

A United Airlines pilot took the Trump Derangement Syndrome to a whole new level on Saturday, Feb. 11.

The pilot, who showed up late to UA flight 455 set to depart for San Francisco from Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, boarded the plane in street clothes instead of her United pilot uniform. Standing at the front of the cabin, she told the passengers on the intercom:

“Sorry I’m late. The reason I’m late is I’m going through a divorce. Look, I don’t care if you voted for Trump or Clinton, they’re both assholes…. I’ll stop and we’ll fly the airplane. Don’t worry, I’m going to let my co-pilot fly it. He’s a man. Okay?”

At this point, a passenger seated in front of her says something inaudible. The pilot laughs and says:

“Okay, if you don’t feel safe, get off the airplane, but otherwise we can go. Okay. This is all set up! Okay, come on up.”

A male passenger in a blue short-sleeves shirt gets up, removes his bag from the overhead compartment, and begins to leave. To another passenger in front of her, the pilot says:

“Alright. So I purposely offended you. Did I offend you? Okay, did I purposely offend you? I did! The answer’s yes.”

The pilot then instructs the flight attendants to check on doors to ready for take-off.

A passenger took this video:

According to The Sun, “The whole episode left some passengers weeping.

The tall guy in the blue shirt who deplaned is Randy Reiss.

In a series of tweets (@undeadsinatra), Reiss said that nearly half the passengers followed his lead and deplaned. He said “That was scary as f*ck”, that the pilot “was crying. She apologized. I wished her well & said I hope she gets the help she needs,” and “I kid u not, her parting words: ‘We should be on show together. We should write a book.’ OMG.”.

Reiss posted a picture of police talking to the pilot after she was removed from the plane.

ua-pilot-who-had-a-meltdown

United Airlines spokesman Charlie Hobart confirmed that the pilot was removed and the crew was replaced before the plane continued on to San Francisco. He said: “We hold our employees to the highest standards and we removed that pilot from that flight. We brought in a new crew and they operated that flight. We removed her from the flight, (and) we’re going to discuss this matter with her. We were looking out for our customers to get them to where they needed to be.”

The flight departed Austin, Texas, approximately two hours late and passengers were given snacks and a meal voucher to compensate for the delay.

That pilot should be charged with committing an act of terrorism.

Sources: Sun; The Blaze, Austin-American Statesman

~Eowyn

Pro-abort womyn shoves a bloody sanitary pad into pro-life activist’s mouth

valerie

The maxi-pad throwing, foul-mouthed womyn

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

From KOBi5.com: A woman who is accused of shoving a wet maxi-pad into a protester’s mouth has turned herself in to police.

Ashland Police said 21-year-old Valerie Starushok is cooperating with police. She will be lodged in the Jackson County Jail on one count of harassment.

The incident occurred during an Ashland protest where the young woman allegedly shoved a wet maxi-pad into a protester’s mouth.

According to the Ashland Police Department, an organized protest was being held in front of Planned Parenthood on January 27. During the protest, an unknown woman approached a man who was protesting and “struck him in the face with a wet sanitary napkin.” The woman then ran off toward the rear of the building.

According to Breitbart, the womyn said, “Eat this [expletive] pad, you c**k face!”

Video of the incident taken by the protester was shared on YouTube. It shows the woman coming toward the protester while he was arguing with another individual. The protester said the woman caught him unaware and “shoved her bloody maxi pad into my mouth” as she yelled profanities.

See the video here at Free Beacon.

DCG

97 companies sue President Trump over temporary ban on immigrants and refugees from dangerous countries

On January 27, 2016, President Trump fulfilled another campaign promise of barring terrorists from being brought as “refugees’ into the United States by signing Executive Order: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.

The executive order states clearly the problem:

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.

“In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles,” and by the authority vested in President Trump “by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America” and in adherence with already established laws of the United States — the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code — “it is hereby ordered” that the issuance of visas and other immigration benefits to nationals of “countries of particular concern” be suspended.

Those “countries of particular concern” are referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the Immigraton and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). These are the Muslim-majority countries of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

Why those countries?

Is it because President Trump is picking on a particular religion, Islam?

No.

Those countries are selected  not because they’re Muslim, but because the foreign-born individuals who have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001 are Muslims.

My only quarrel with the visa ban on the 7 countries is that Saudi Arabia is, strangely, not included.

terrorists

Suspending the issuance of visas from certain terrorist-exporting countries is a means to an end — so that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, undertake “a review” to determine and obtain the information needed from any country to determine nationals from that country who seek to enter the U.S. as refugees or immigrants are who they say they are and “not a security or public-safety threat.”

In other words, the visa ban on those 7 countries is TEMPORARY.

President Trump’s temporary visa ban executive order has already sparked judges across the country issuing stays on the temporary ban, as well as a lawsuit by 97 companies as amici curiae or “friends of the court”.

In other words, those judges and the 97 companies are against the vetting or screening of immigrants and refugees to ensure they are not terrorists.

Let that thought sink into your head . . . .

muslim-terrorists

Here is the list of the 97 companies (source: Gateway Pundit).

  1. AdRoll, Inc.
  2. Aeris Communications, Inc.
  3. Airbnb, Inc.
  4. AltSchool, PBC
  5. Ancestry.com, LLC
  6. Appboy, Inc.
  7. Apple Inc.
  8. AppNexus Inc.
  9. Asana, Inc.
  10. Atlassian Corp Plc
  11. Autodesk, Inc.
  12. Automattic Inc.
  13. Box, Inc.
  14. Brightcove Inc.
  15. Brit + Co
  16. CareZone Inc.
  17. Castlight Health
  18. Checkr, Inc.
  19. Chobani, LLC
  20. Citrix Systems, Inc.
  21. Cloudera, Inc.
  22. Cloudflare, Inc.
  23. Copia Institute
  24. DocuSign, Inc.
  25. DoorDash, Inc.
  26. Dropbox, Inc.
  27. Dynatrace LLC
  28. eBay Inc.
  29. Engine Advocacy
  30. Etsy Inc.
  31. Facebook, Inc.
  32. Fastly, Inc.
  33. Flipboard, Inc.
  34. Foursquare Labs, Inc.
  35. Fuze, Inc.
  36. General Assembly
  37. GitHub
  38. Glassdoor, Inc.
  39. Google Inc.
  40. GoPro, Inc.
  41. Harmonic Inc.
  42. Hipmunk, Inc.
  43. Indiegogo, Inc.
  44. Intel Corporation
  45. JAND, Inc. d/b/a Warby Parker
  46. Kargo Global, Inc.
  47. Kickstarter, PBC
  48. KIND, LLC
  49. Knotel
  50. Levi Strauss & Co.
  51. LinkedIn Corporation
  52. Lithium Technologies, Inc.
  53. Lyft, Inc.
  54. Mapbox, Inc.
  55. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart
  56. Marin Software Incorporated
  57. Medallia, Inc.
  58. A Medium Corporation
  59. Meetup, Inc.
  60. Microsoft Corporation
  61. Motivate International Inc.
  62. Mozilla Corporation
  63. Netflix, Inc.
  64. NETGEAR, Inc.
  65. NewsCred, Inc.
  66. Patreon, Inc.
  67. PayPal Holdings, Inc.
  68. Pinterest, Inc.
  69. Quora, Inc.
  70. Reddit, Inc.
  71. Rocket Fuel Inc.
  72. SaaStr Inc.
  73. Salesforce.com, Inc.
  74. Scopely, Inc.
  75. Shutterstock, Inc.
  76. Snap Inc.
  77. Spokeo, Inc.
  78. Spotify USA Inc.
  79. Square, Inc.
  80. Squarespace, Inc.
  81. Strava, Inc.
  82. Stripe, Inc.
  83. SurveyMonkey Inc.
  84. TaskRabbit, Inc
  85. Tech:NYC
  86. Thumbtack, Inc.
  87. Turn Inc.
  88. Twilio Inc.
  89. Twitter Inc.
  90. Turn Inc.
  91. Uber Technologies, Inc.
  92. Via
  93. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
  94. Workday
  95. Y Combinator Management, LLC
  96. Yelp Inc.
  97. Zynga Inc.

H/t FOTM‘s TPR

~Eowyn

Student senators under fire for bill abolishing safe spaces

safe-space

From Campus Reform: Student senators at Texas State University recently introduced a bill that would place a permanent ban on “safe spaces,” but are facing predictably intense criticism over the “detrimental” legislation.

According to a copy of the bill obtained by Campus Reform, its passage would result in a ban on “all safe spaces and equivalent spaces,” and promote a campus where students can “be open to other concepts without ‘trigger warnings.’”

“It has become a nationwide trend for colleges to allow students to escape from views and concepts that might be deemed controversial, dangerous, or offensive,” the resolution argues, explaining that “upon graduating, students will experience views that differ from their own and will not be able to retreat to safe spaces.”

The bill, set to be voted on Monday night, is facing strident opposition from left-leaning organizations and students, including a candidate for the school’s Student Body President, who shamed the sponsors of the resolution for their “detrimental piece of legislation.”

“Not only is this detrimental to the social safety of many groups here at Texas State, but a clear obstruction of our core values as a university,” Russell Boyd wrote in a statement. “As representatives of the student body, it is imperative that the student government take into account the many students that will be greatly impacted by this detrimental piece of legislation.”

Meanwhile, the school’s Pan African Action Committee also rebuked the controversial bill, publicly reprimanding one of its four cosponsors, Student Senator Alex Sherman.

“Underdeveloped and undefined, this senator has administered a relatively weak challenge to the diverse student body of Texas State,” the group protested in a statement on its Facebook page, arguing that “a school with such a diverse population deserves not fewer but more ‘safe spaces’ to facilitate dialogue and education about the communities Alex Sherman is clearly detached from.”

Another group of students, identifying themselves simply as “the student organizers” who recently circulated a sanctuary campus petition, have now drafted a letter that urges students to “testify in opposition to the bill” Monday evening, and vote for candidates who support their movement.

“Our student government has many members that scoff at the idea of helping minorities and the [sanctuary campus] petition itself,” the letter contends, noting that “allies to the petition feel like they have a target on their backs,” and once again singling out Sherman for his support of abolishing safe spaces.

While Sherman has been repeatedly, and almost exclusively, called out by his peers, the primary author of the resolution is actually Student Senator Mason McKie, who told Campus Reform that he was not “surprised by the negative reactions” to his bill, since “colleges across the country have been experiencing similar reactions when conservative views are brought to the table.”

“This piece of legislation isn’t just important for my campus, but it could be a cornerstone for many more things to come,” he continued. “Students have the right to freely express themselves. College is a time to be open to new ideas and learn from others that might not necessarily agree with you.”

DCG

American presidents are required to love the Jewish people

Imagine if a Brit demands that American presidents are required to love the British people. Or a French demanding that American presidents are required to love the French people. Or a Mexican demanding that American presidents are required to love the Mexican people. Or a Chinese demanding that American presidents are required to love the Chinese people.

You would react to the demands by scratching your head, followed by outrage.

bernard-henri-levy

But that’s precisely what a Jewish intellectual named Bernard-Henri Lévy wrote in an op/ed for the New York Times on January 19, 2017. Wikipedia describes Lévy as being named in 2010 by The Jerusalem Post as 45th on a list of the world’s 50 most influential Jews; The Boston Globe said Lévy is “perhaps the most prominent intellectual in France today”.

In his op/ed, Lévy writes that:

  • There is a “law” that “love of the Jewish people” is “required of an American president in dealings affecting Israel”.
  • Despite admitting that he doesn’t know Trump’s “heart,” Lévy regards President Trump’s acts of friendship toward Israel with suspicion and accuses Trump of not being “sincere” in his love for Israel. In other words, President Trump is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t — which, in psychological parlance, is a classic example of “make crazy”.
  • Despite admitting that he doesn’t know Trump’s “heart,” Lévy perceives in Trump’s past words and behaviors a “contempt” toward Jews, which makes Trump an anti-Semite and may lead him to “quietly taking revenge” against Jews.
  • Lévy calls President Trump “the kitschy builder with his flamboyant hair” who labors under an inferiority complex vis-à-vis Jews, a “pig farmer” and a “swineherd” (which of course implies Americans who had voted for Trump are “swine”): it is “the triumph of nihilism” in America that could “enable a pig farmer — anybody — to become emperor,” who is “eager for revenge” and will show “Jews that he indeed is smarter than they are.”
  • Lévy regards the 2016 election wherein the “swineherds” voted Trump as President as a symptom of an America where “thought is attacked” and “lies” flourish “with arrogance and flamboyance”.
  • Lévy then calls on his fellow Jews in the U.S. not to believe in or trust President Trump because any “capitulation” is “tantamount to suicide” — in order words, Lévy is calling on Jewish-Americans to oppose President Trump.
  • The essay is also full of narcissism: Lévy refers to Jews as highly intelligent, bringing light to civilization, and exceptional in their “wisdom” and “intellectual, moral and human excellence“.
  • After insulting President Trump by calling him a “pig farmer,” and insulting Trump voters by calling us “swineherds,” Lévy has the audacity to say he only has “love” in his heart for America.

To call Lévy and his op/ed insane is being kind.

Read it for yourself. Below is the entirety of Lévy’s essay. I supplied the bold red emphasis:

Bernard-Henri Lévy: Jews, Be Wary of Trump

Bernard-Henri Lévy
THE STONE JAN. 19, 2017

A few weeks back, both Israel and American Jews were betrayed by Barack Obama. By allowing the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning Israeli settlement building, the outgoing president took the easy way out at their expense.

But today the risk is that Israel and America’s Jews (as well as those of other countries) should harbor the same illusions of true support that they did during the Obama administration, and be strung along before being betrayed again, this time by President Donald J. Trump.

One might object that Mr. Trump has given ample evidence of his benevolence — for example, by naming a friend of Israel to serve as ambassador, by promising the transfer of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and by asking his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, an orthodox Jew and the grandson of Holocaust survivors, to advise him on the peace process in the White House. Aren’t these decisive steps that should reassure Jews who support Israel?

Yes and no.

There is a law that governs the relations between the Jews and the rest of the world. That law was articulated in one form at the time of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, when the great Jewish thinker Gershom Scholem faulted Hannah Arendt for falling short of “ahavat Israel” — for showing insufficient “love of the Jewish people.”

This love is precisely what is required of an American president in dealings affecting Israel.

In such circumstances, and contrary to the adage that applies in most ordinary circumstances of life, that law says that demonstrations of love count for less, paradoxically, than love itself. It says, to be precise, that gestures of friendship, when they do not come from the bottom of the heart and are not built on sincere love — that is, finally, on a deep and true knowledge of the love object — are gestures that eventually may turn into their opposite.

To put an even finer point on it, we cannot rule out the possibility that Trump’s series of ostentatiously promising signals directed at Israel may have sinister effects in the long or even short term.

Those signals may, for example, strengthen the most shortsighted and therefore suicidal fringe of Israeli politics. It may send the wrong signal to those who would be only too happy to see the United States set the example of making unilateral, unnegotiated decisions, thereby opening the way to other shows of force. In the United States, it may generate an overly enthusiastic embrace by pro-Israel Jews of a volatile president (one likely, depending on the needs of his deals, to change his mind), one who is so deeply unpopular with so many Americans that his embrace of Israel, however fleeting, could endanger the bipartisan consensus that has been so beneficial to Israel over the decades.

I cannot claim any knowledge of Donald Trump’s “heart” or of the sincerity of his commitment to the Jewish state. But there have been indications going back decades.

One was provided by John O’Donnell, a former chief operating officer of Trump’s Atlantic City casino, who, in his 1991 book “Trumped!” quoted Trump as saying: “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

More recently, there was a 2013 tweet storm in which, desperate to show that he was “smarter” than the “overrated” Jon Stewart, Trump saw fit to rip off the mask behind which stood Jonathan Leibowitz, the Jewish name Stewart was born with.

And then, in mid-campaign, there was the meeting in which Trump told donors from the Republican Jewish Coalition: “I know why you’re not going to support me! It’s because I don’t want your money.”

These statements suggest, to say the least, a certain contempt.

More precisely, they reflect that well-known variety of contempt that, according to Freud, serves to anticipate and defend the ego against the presumed contempt of the other.

Whether the original disdain is real or imaginary matters little.

Whether Jon Stewart or the Jewish Republican donors disdained the kitschy builder with his flamboyant hair, his money, his bling and his properties, including the now world-famous Trump Tower, is obviously not the question.

The essential thing is that President Trump thinks they did, that he seems to see Jews as the caricature of the New York establishment that, for decades, took him for an agreeable but vulgar showman.

This is a perfect example of the self-defensive contempt that has so often fed anti-Semitism, with the Jews appearing, once again, as representatives of an elite that patronized him and against whom he can, now that he is in power, quietly take his revenge.

It reminds me of a story from the Talmud that illustrates this logic well.

It is the story — part history and part “aggadic” embellishment — of Rabbi Yehudah Nessia, one of the foremost figures of Jewish thought of the third century.

Rabbi Yehudah ran a school that a young Roman swineherd would pass by nearly every day. The students at the school, their heads full of knowledge and a sense of their own superiority, never missed a chance to mock and beat the pig farmer.

Years later, Rabbi Yehudah was summoned to the distant city of Caesarea Philippi, to appear before Roman Emperor Diocletian. It seemed that the emperor was full of consideration for his guest. He sent to him one of his most distinguished ambassadors and ordered that a sumptuous bath be provided to allow his guest to cleanse himself after his dusty voyage.

But Diocletian also sent his ambassador on a Friday, so that Rabbi Yehudah would be forced to travel on the Sabbath, violating the most important of commandments.

The emperor also heated the baths to such a degree that the rabbi would have been boiled to death — a fate from which the rabbi was saved by the last-minute intervention of an angel, who cooled the waters.

When the rabbi appeared before Diocletian, he recognized the former swineherd, who said to him with spite, “Just because your god performs miracles, you think you can scorn the emperor?”

I cite this story because it provides a good metaphor for the West today, where, as in ancient Rome, the triumph of nihilism can enable a pig farmer — anybody — to become emperor.

It is a good example, too, of Jewish wisdom, which responds to the situation as follows: “We had contempt for Diocletian the swineherd, but we are ready to honor Diocletian the emperor provided he, like Saul — who, before becoming king had tended donkeys — heeds the prophecy, rises to his office, and becomes a new man.”

And, above all, it is a good allegory of the double-edged favors, or, if you will, the poison apples, proffered by a humiliated swineherd, eager for revenge, who decides to show Jon Stewart and his fellow Jews that he is indeed smarter than they are.

In the face of this situation, nothing is more important, it seems to me, than to maintain a measure of distance.

Like all other American citizens, Jews must respect the president-elect in the forms provided in the Constitution. But they must not fall into the trap of believing in his inconsistent and ultimately double-edged benevolence. They must not forget that, no matter how many times Mr. Trump declares his love for Israel, for Benjamin Netanyahu or anyone else, he will remain a bad shepherd who respects only power, money and the perquisites of his palaces, while caring nothing for miracles, of course, and not a whit for the vocation of study and the cultivation of intelligence that are the light of the Jewish tradition.

And they should be aware, finally, that in this period that has been labeled, for lack of a better word, populist, and of which the American election is but an outsize symptom; in a time when thought is attacked from all sides and when lies are flourished with unparalleled arrogance and aplomb; in this new political culture that has now encircled the earth, one in which, from the American plutocrats to their Russian oligarch cousins, the swineherds slap their pedigree shamelessly on imperial palaces, the little Jewish nation has no part to play.

To ally with that sort of “populism” would be to betray Israel’s calling.

To surrender to Diocletian would be to betray oneself and to take the terrible risk of no longer being who one is.

For the heirs of a people whose endurance over millenniums was because of the miracle of a tradition of thought nourished, rekindled and resown with each generation and through a constantly refined body of commentary, the challenge is clear: Any sacrifice of the calling to intellectual, moral and human excellence; any renunciation of the duty of exceptionalism that — from Rabbi Yehuda to Kafka and from Rashi to Proust and Levinas — has provided the ferment for its almost incomprehensible resistance; any concession, in a word, to Trumpian nihilism would be the most atrocious of capitulations, one tantamount to suicide.

I say this out of an old and enduring love that forms the core of my being, love not only for Israel but also for the world’s greatest democracy, the United States of America.

________

Bernard-Henri Lévy is a French philosopher, filmmaker and activist. His most recent book is “The Genius of Judaism.”

Lévy’s op/ed was republished WITHOUT comment by Steve Sailer for The Unz Review on January 19, 2017. The republishing of Lévy’s essay WITHOUT comment by Sailer elicited this comment from someone who identifies himself as Leon Feldman, Director of the Cyber-Hate Division of the Anti-Defamation League, in which Feldman accuses the republishing of Lévy’s op/ed to be anti-semitism and demands that The Unz Review take down the essay in 24 hours. Here’s the screenshot I took of Feldman’s comment:

comment-by-loren-feldman-of-adl

See also:

~Eowyn

Trump Derangement Syndrome

anita-yavich-gives-double-f-you-at-trump-inaugurationjudge-wears-pussy-hattexas_hi_school_teacher_payal_modi_mock_assassinates_president_trumpobese-woman-says-dont-grab-my-pussyvagina-suitsrape-wannabe

H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV

~Eowyn