"They Make the Law"

The Jeopardy Category is FASCISM

The Final Jeopardy Answer is "They Make the Law"

You have 30 seconds. Remember to put your response in the form of a question.

(The correct response is below the break)

It's All In the Cards

First the shorter version of this analysis.

In conversation with Og, he made reference to our current boat load of "natural leaders." Yes dear reader, Og used scorn quotes.

He's right of course.

It's not that they are leaders in any real sense of the word. It's simply that they have bought their microphone, and so they are all we hear and we are permitted to assume they are leaders of a sort. Ask Michael Bloomberg's microphone what it costs since Bloomie ain't gonna talk.

His is not leadership. He's like someone who buys the pot in every poker hand. In a poker game without raise limits, all a well financed player need do is raise the bet until nobody else has enough money to match it. He doesn't even need do anything but hold cards in his hand -- nobody can afford to call his bluff. It doesn't take any time at all for a savvy poker player to know there is no point in putting in his ante in such a game. So the buyer of pots soon discovers he has nobody to play with. Good; that is as it should be.

But in politics we are supposed to have a choice. When there is someone who acts like a pot buyer, those who are forced to live under his rule are left with only with hope and prayer that he is not completely nuts, or faced with a messier solution if he is. Our founders fought to free us from the haphazard system of divine rights of kings and aristocratic rule -- only so we could allow this to happen on our watch? Sad to say, it looks like their spirits are shrugging "well, we gave them 200 years more or less."

In NYC politics, Bloomy scared off the opposition from the start. Nobody who wanted to be NYC mayor could afford to run against him. Essentially nobody could afford to "call" his bluster.

Going on, there is a lesson to be learned.This is a sign that maybe there was some truth in the progressive income tax. Had Bloomie been taxed at 95%, he'd not have had the money and power to get himself elected 3 times. And, in keeping with traditional political behavior, moneyed backers would not have been inclined to pave the path of someone too much like themselves. Why? Because other big money would not trust someone who has been, or could easily become, in competition with them. Another one of those features of checks and balances.

You might say that due to the tax law loopholes anyway, the big money could always find ways to keep it. But it was much harder when the top rate was high. Many charitable" foundations are what is left of 19th century robber baron's wealth -- and they live on to torment us. They have funded 501c3s and c4s that do all sorts of mischief. And the power brokers know it, which is surely one reason why TEA Parties were having such difficulty getting their paper work approved at the corrupted IRS.

The power to tax is the power to destroy all but your friends.
Well, until THEY become troublesome that is. Or no longer useful. Period.
Utilitarian nutcases will wipe them all out too when they are no longer needed.

Of course the wealthier ones will sneer: "Well, we had fun while it lasted, unlike you losers."

See, the diff between the foundations and today's office buying pols is that before they had to launder the foundation money by arranging all those non-profits to carry their water and buy votes that way.

Now that they have been able to accumulate wealth themselves, the Dem corridors are filled with those who could "buy the pot."

In other words, they need less to buy the loyalty of lower beings.

I think that has to eventually blow up on them. At least it is on us now that the public sector unions are insisting on bringing down the house of cards just to pay out pensions.

And this was the Soviet influenced plan to destroy us: Cloward-Piven. A house of cards has to fall.

A more detailed version of this analysis, that I hope answers some of your questions, is below the break.

Proofs It Is Happening Here

First let me pass along an observation of a friend of mine being dismissed by a long-time friend of his.

A woman (an anarcho-libertarian atheist) closed her ears to my friend (a religious conservative) because she insisted that evidence he introduced had happened in EU and could not happen here. She said she refused to let him trouble her any further.

What is more troubling is I have similar problems with people close to me. They are nowhere near the type who would label themselves atheist, let alone anarcho anything. But they are equally as determined not to hear news that would shatter their personal world-view.

So, I hope you know how to be a better diplomat than either me or my friend, because the world needs more courageous people to help shatter the delusions of such frightened souls. Help get them in fight rather than fright mode. And let there be no doubt, the dilemma facing you is that you want them aiding you to fight your mutual enemy and NOT turning on YOU. (Such is the terrible situation when you realize how much influence is carried by our SSM -- soviet-style media.)

Two stories go a long way to illuminate how badly that woman is deluded by saying what happens in Europe cannot happen here.

Headline 1. 8th Grader Suspended Over NRA T-Shirt Could Get Jail Time
excerpt:

Fox News reports that on June 13 Marcum appeared before a judge "and was officially charged with obstructing an officer." Moreover, the judge has allowed "the prosecution to move forward" with its case against Marcum.

Logan City Police officer James Adkins says that Marcum refused to quit talking when asked to remove the shirt. The officer said this hindered his ability to do his job.

In short, there are undoubtedly a number of civil right organizations who might come to Marcum's defense.

Headline 2. Rewriting the Past
excerpt:

I also got into trouble because when asked by a Moslem school pupil, ‘Why were Moslems not in the Roman Army?’ I replied ‘because Islam came into existence 500 years after the period’ I was talking about. My Archaeological Society received a letter stating I had made a racist comment. These events rook place some years ago but now it is all too commonplace. And people simply put up with it.

How are these related? Aside from freedom of speech, there is a sense of creeping outrageousness by those in authority. What used to be known as common sense and not making mountains out of molehills will be totally out the door once the autocrat believes that higher ups will simply let them get away with their going overboard.

See, there are more troubling implications to story number 1, especially in light of story number 2.  Story number 2 did not happen here YET, but it will once the police-state seeker's intended effects become reality.

What one needs to ask is how a police state gets established in the first place?

• What police state architects would be seeking to achieve is wide-scale compliance to them violating one of your rights after another.  
• It would be wise to see that they know that they are making an example of this kid even if they lose in court. 
• What they want is that a whole slew of people will give up their rights next time rather than be forced into Marcum's position (which common sheeple will be indoctrinated to see as unnecessary and stupid). 

Why do the power seekers dare take the risk of doing it? Because the tactic proves time and again over history that it works. As the man who related story 2, Guy Leven-Torres, said "People simply put up with it."

If you have any success, please pass it along. Tell me HOW you succeeded if even only a little. I need to learn.

Skirting Godwin at AoSHQ: No Smoking Gun

Really.

Oregon Muse makes a nice case, in my opinion, why Hitler might have skated at Nuremberg. Because he needed no documentation to further his will, as summarized here:

[After all that] They knew what der Fuhrer wanted, and der Fuhrer knew he could trust his henchman to get the job done -- no matter how, no matter what may be the law -- and to not bother him with the gory details.

Then  he goes on to summarize what we are witnessing with the Sgt. Schultz style testimony.

So all Obama has to do is publicly castigate and demonize his [sic] those who oppose his policies (which he has done many times), and thugs like Eric Holder and Lois Lerner swing into action. 

Worth reading the whole thing. Can it legitimately be called a conspiracy when nearly the whole country has witnessed some of this and so cannot rightly say they have no inkling of what is going on?

How extensive is the brazenness that we are witnessing? I think it is best summarized with a 3-D video playing in your imagination. In it Obama is poking his finger at you with his eyes piercing:

"Watcha gonna do about it punk?"

------
P.S.: Dear reader. Do you like summaries like this? Then please click the "do more" box below.

Conspiracies

No matter what anyone says, I am not a conspiracy nut. I've simply never allowed the common fear of such charges intimidate me into silence. Today I will try to provide you with ammunition so that you don't have to feel the need to shut up either.

Michael Medved and a few others have made a grand living providing microphones to actual conspiracy nuts, and of course, the effect is to undermine the very idea of looking into actual conspiracies. Maybe only because it is entertaining. Maybe because they don't like how past false conspiracies have hurt innocent people and don't want to see it happen again. And maybe because they are paid by special interests to prevent revelations of some specific conspiracy. Perhaps there are other reasons, but motive is unimportant here.

See, it should never be forgotten that history is replete with conspiracies. To me the most consequential one took place in a once great republic similar in many ways to our own. It was the famous* First Triumvirate of ancient Rome. Lesser ones occurred in our own country, and were what brought about legislation like anti-trust and institutions like the FBI. Conspiracies have existed; they can always be created anew no matter what fool-proof preventive measures we  believe we've forged; therefore there will always be some. So the frequent knee-jerk laugh at the idea of conspiracy can only be the product of relentless propaganda and indoctrination and not sober understanding of history and the risks from letting it be repeated. The indoctrination is so great I am sure this paragraph will be met with worse than merely deaf ears. But the fact remains.

Now don't go overboard. There are examples aplenty of those who do. The most useful thing to come out of considering how conspiracy might be present is discovering ways to counter it. You can't defeat what you never consider.

------
*It was notorious only to loyal republicans such as Cicero. I wrote famous because it was a conspiracy that was widely accepted by the time the three generals revealed their fait accompli and announced that their previous battling had been a smokescreen to hide their partnership. 

We Laughed With Sgt Schultz

I've a question to ask FBI Director Mueller:

Can you tell us who wrote your "I know nutting" line today?

A Cassandra In Denial of His Own Vision?

A pessimistic bon mot of author Jerry Pournelle was made quote of the day by Kevin Baker last week.

Sort of a twofer:

I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.

John Adams, letter to John Taylor (15 April 1814).

The remedy, of course, was to form a Republic, and for over two hundred years the Republic endured. Now it is to be converted into a democracy, and the result is predictable and predicted. There are many good studies of what happens when a democracy commits suicide. If it is fortunate it gets a Claudius Caesar, but more often it must first endure a Caligula so that Claudius seems a blessed relief. And after Claudius as likely as not comes Nero. But I digress. For the moment we do not yet have Marius.[Highlighting by PF]

For the record, on 10 June I sent the following request to Mr. Pournelle.

Please explain why you say we do not yet have Marius. Aside from the fact we do not have as head of state the general of his own army, there is a long list of benchmark achievements in the last dozen years that come close to Marius'. (If you'd like an absolute: I'd say it is clear that there is no Sulla in sight.)

Maybe, as you consider a response, you might provide your opinion as to what fraction of Marius' standard we are currently enduring.

No reply yet.

Maybe he meant there is not one man -- a Marius -- and didn't think the question worthy. But just because we cannot point to one man, that does not mean we haven't endured the same sort of inroads on our republic and our individual sovereignty that are associated with Marius and the ancient republic.

Or maybe it was his way of dismissing his own worries about the further degradations to Caligua/Claudius/Nero -- by denying that we are knee deep in the sort of cultural destruction that Marius introduced.

One more thing.
Should amnesty ever be passed, we will have matched (ironically?)  Marius' granting the Latins (of Italy) Roman citizenship, and then that will have changed our status from near knee deep to about neck deep.

Liartime

Lying in the morning,
Scamming in the evening
Cov'ups at suppertime
That's what our media gives us
They hate us all the time.

Busted: Washington Post Stealth Edits PRISM Story

It's gotten to be habitual.

Statist Tools: Plan B

Doncha just love the way our patriarchal Statists (through the man in the president's office and his cadres) use language?

Here's the Drudge headline that prompted today's warning.

Plan B: In latenight announcement, Obama allows morning-after abortion pill for under-17s...

All the while play-acting like they are the defenders of women, they are actively scheming (clandestinely even -- as suggested by the "late-night" announcement) to push sterilization pills (said to be temporary, unh, huh) into the mouths of minor girls.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, backed off her virulent eugenics program (Plan A) after she became involved with H.G. Wells. It was Wells who pointed out to her that her "worthwhile" goals would be resisted if forced on the target populations. He convinced her that what was needed was to disguise the idea as something desirable; a Plan B. "Choice."  The rest, paraphrasing the "as they say," is the end of history. The end of history, at least, of many of those young women suckered into volunteering the end of their lines.

The misanthropically nurtured Malthusians have switched from Plan A to Plan B and our side hardly ever gets the message out. More is our shame than our pity. It is not safe to follow leaders who never have a harsh word for Malthusian, Utilitarian, and Green nut-cases.

And doncha also love how the Statists are flogging our side by actually calling this pill "Plan B." God bless 'em, they are a boastful lot.

Why Is This The Soviet Style Media?

Because the spinning by the media (WaPo here) is such that the ghosts of the old Soviet Politburo  would be bursting with pride with the following.

A large majority of Americans say the federal government should focus on investigating possible terrorist threats even if personal privacy is compromised, and most support the blanket tracking of telephone records in an effort to uncover terrorist activity, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll.

Fully 45 percent [under 50% is a large majority at WaPo, and doncha love their fully tack-on] of all Americans say the government should be able to go further than it is, saying that it should be able to monitor everyone’s online activity if doing so would prevent terrorist attacks. A slender majority, 52 percent, [if true, this is too small, so their "slender" is crowing, but it is STILL a majority unlike "fully 45 percent"] say no such broad-based monitoring should occur.

Hat tip JWF.

Patriots: here's another instance to prove that there is no news in Izvestia and no truth in Pravda. Pass it along.

Traitors: You will be remembered.

I Am Honored and Grateful

Og published today "In conversation with Pascal." Due to my frequent inability to get to the point quickly, I am very grateful he did .

My contribution was simply to observe that King Solomon set the liberal standard when he chose not to execute the covetous, lying, murderous, false mother for attempted murder-by-the-state, the moral equivalent of the mastermind behind a hired assassin.

Og explains quickly and clearly how the ripple effect from that decision works. And he also came up with a very cogent conclusion of his own.

And this has been the gold standard for liberalism since; consequence free nastiness for people who act out.
It certainly does explain the progression of a lot of things. [emphasis mine]

Yeah, the consequences have fallen not on the miscreants within every Western cultural center whose "kings" have gone overboard with tolerance since that time, but to those of us who now suffer for still honoring that culture, under God, in gratitude for the immense number of good things it has engendered far beyond that of other cultures.

My insight germinated out of a written debate he'd been having with RobertaX over the past week (and maybe years.), so it is doubly fitting he published it rather than I. I'm simply his cheering section today.

What Date Do You Want In the Pool?

Holy Congressional sanctity Batman.




Seeing as how Holder just about admitted to spying on Congress, what is your guess before he is gone? I hesitate to add:  before he has a chance to tell us who put him up to it?

-----
For when this video disappears, it's title was: "Eric Holder Refuses To Answer If DOJ Monitored Phones for Members of Congress."

Oh, and hat tip to Ace: Sen. Kirk Asks Holder if He Spied on Congress; Holder Says He Can't Answer That In An Open Forum.

The Sus Nuts Behind ObamaCare

The Sustainability nuts that I routinely warn against are finally being noticed. I pray it is not too late to break their monstrous stranglehold on what remains of America's once outstanding healthcare system.

I point you to this conversation at Breitbart Obamacare: We Will All Be Sarah Murnaghan Soon Enough.

It was Ace's link at his own site to his contribution that really pissed me off.  "I predicted it. It was an easy call."  Too bad he's not made his "understanding" a major factor that ties into all the other dangers to our freedoms. Probably too worried about his reputation.

When I say that the Sus nuts and their scheming tie into everything it's because they fit so well as an answer to a whole lot of questions. I'm talking about seemingly odd political actions that leave people stumped -- "that makes no sense"-- and leaves them asking seeming unanswerable things like "how can someone so smart behave so stupidly?" and "Is there nobody in Washington with the balls and the sense to speak out?" To arrive at answers that make sense, I think all that is needed is to recognize that there has been a paradigm shift in the meaning of public servant that is not generally discussed, but for which the risk to human life is quite great if it is as widespread as the evidence suggests.

See: if the people in power are guided by a moral code that does not seek to protect citizens, then their actions will appear to be odd if you think they are still abiding by the old moral code. So to get on the same page as I am on, all you have to ask yourself: "Considering how much other moral foundations have been eroded, dare I ignore the likelihood that those in power believe exactly the opposite of those who hold human life to be sacred?"

I know it sounds really insane to say "they are out to kill us all." But that is mostly because so many of us who hear such words still cling to the basic theme of the Judeo-Christian ethic no matter how much we personally fall short daily. That basic theme -- "do nothing that is hateful" -- conforms pretty much to the Hippocratic Oath as well -- "first do no harm." Thus only madmen would seek to kill others for whatever reason. And so too, would it not also mean that only madmen would eliminate the Hippocratic Oath? But beginning in the 1990s, one medical school after the other did exactly that. That so few know of this is just one more piece bit of evidence to add to the indictment I consider worthy of wider consideration.

Morality is not the same for the Sus worshipers. Their moral code is centered upon limiting human growth so as to save humanity from itself. They are never openly chastised for it like other groups the soviet style media portrays as hateful, so many people know nothing about them and their plans. And as far as I'm concerned, they have been secretly nurtured by those who hate people long before the Progressive movement was formed. The misanthropes loved Malthus and his theory. So even after Malthus himself said he was wrong, they have been using his ideas to hide their lethal, immoral lust.

I have tried repeatedly to get more people to speak up and force the movement out into the open. This particular conversation at Breitbart looks like another opportunity to drive home my point. And again, I pray it is not too late.

Brother Og has mused on a clear-headed start for a plan that stands to aid you should it be too late.

On the Road to America's End

In Obama’s Henchmen, Selwyn Duke has analyzed the workings of Obama and his administration in a way I'd not seen before. I find it intriguing even if I'm not sure I accept some of his premises. (For instance, when the Sustainability angle is not considered in the mix of premises, what seems bizarre isn't really, and that is due to the misanthropic morality that the Sus crowd has embraced.)

But it is well composed, so I thought I should pass it along to my readers who are upset with the decline of America.

Why do I recommend reading it? I direct your eyes to the troubling if accurate closing paragraph of his analysis.

While it’s clear that he [Obama] doesn’t have traditional America’s best interests at heart, the reality is that his corrupted judgment ensures he couldn’t choose good appointees even if he wanted to. But the real problem is a people that, clearly, couldn’t choose a good president even if they wanted to.  This intellectual and moral decay is the real scandal in America — and it ensures political scandal till the end of the republic. [emphasis added]

Dear reader, even if that dire prediction is inevitable whatever the ultimate reason for it, is the reason he gives entirely outside of our control? Have we simply given up because we are frustrated by all the idiocy we see around us? I hate giving up, accepting that our nation's fate is sealed. So what might we do to help remedy this people problem?

For Better Grokking "Fundamentally Changing America"

I have not in a long while pointed to a Fran Porretto post. Although he regularly provides penetrating and even trenchant thoughts, there is more Ayn Rand novelist than Walter Williams essayist in his works, so it is often too hard to identify all of them and how they interact in the kind of short essay I prefer to compose.

Today, however, he is quite singly focused. I wholly recommend you read all of The Debunking: Public Safety. It makes clear that the forces who are fundamentally changing the meaning of freedom in America will do it at your extreme expense and none for themselves.

In particular, take note of the doughnut shop exception. The cynicism of the Left in their bold assaults on our reason is, from my point of view, a form of childish daring of us to respond in a manner to their liking. Consequently,  I firmly suggest that you serve them -- any response -- cold.

The Left Protects Wildlife to the Extreme; Babies, Nah

Commenting on the Soviet Style Media's avoidance of the Gosnel (baby mass-murdering abortionist) verdicts last week, Open Blogger (at Ace of Spades) "Krakatoa" made the following observation.

If one of the byproducts of abortions was a dead environmentally insignificant fish or three in some river delta or perhaps a few well-lubricated pelicans [in] the Gulf of Mexico, there would have been a moratorium on them years ago.

This sadly reinforces my observation that most bloggers are shocked when the misanthropics of an issue become obvious. The entire Progressive movement grew out of Malthusianism and Utilitarianism, both of which looks with a murderous eye towards sub-races and their natalism. Thus the Gosnel atrocity (these were Black babies) should be doubly concerning towards Blacks. That white leftist/progressives dominate the media is no surprise.

They who call conservatives racist are proven here to be the most deadly racists in America.

Pass this observation and my commentary on. It pains me to see Blacks so misled, and it should any decent human being. But then again, the decent human being is the most endangered species on Earth based on the lack of them.

**Update**
Og brought to my attention that Baldilocks has indeed made attempts and endured trolls for trying to inform Blacks about anti-natalism -- the ultimate form of racism -- against them. I always find it hopeful when I see people who do not Politically Cower. They have the stuff from which real leaders are made.

Some of her discussion about Margaret Sanger inspired to me to compile a lengthy comment which included with some obcure links* (and of which contains some items upon which to base a larger essay here) she may or may not have been aware of before, but of which I always hope others will learn.

-----
*Groan: both links I left there are messed up because I couldn't get the < a href= > to work. So  I left actual url links between brackets. Baldilocks' site turns them hot -- but incorrectly included the closing bracket as part of the url, and they don't work properly. They need to be copied; pasted in the url line, and edited to delete the trailing nonsense. What's worse is that I previewed the post before publishing and tested to see that both links worked. After publication the closing brackets became an issue. Just damn. Just adding to my day that was not a good one.

Here's a Fine Example

About 8 months ago I published the short post The Most Dreadful Phrases about some hard learned wisdom.  Among the dreadful phrases is "I thought you were smart."   Today I saw this headline in my sweep of news (h/t Newsbusters by way of  JWF).

Luke Russert: ‘Smart’ House Republicans Aren’t The ‘God, Guns & Guts People’

Money quote:

...they got to keep it serious, they can't make this into a witch hunt because they lose the political high ground. The best committee to have out of the gate in order to have these types of questions, Joe [Scarborough], is the House Ways and Means committee. You remember from your time up here, that's where the party puts its stars. It's not the God, guns and guts people on the Ways and Means committee, it's the smart people, it's the people that understand the true mechanisms of government. 

Let me interpret this the way little Russert meant it. "The party that is allegedly [wink, wink] the home of those representatives who know that government needs to be kept on a short leash, that's the one where the smart people know which way the wind blows and what side butters their bread."

Like I said last August, "I thought you were smart" is the kind of line you hear from those who are disappointed you don't fall in line with the corruption that "everybody else" is a part of.

Levin -- "Eliminate the IRS"

Our Soviet Style Media has been dragged kicking and screaming into covering the Obama scandals. The most eagerly reported of these are the excesses of the IRS in persecuting Rightist not-for-profit organizations (like Heritage) but doing nothing against Leftist ones (such as Media Matters).

In the wake of this "new" awareness, Mark Levin tonight vehemently demanded the IRS be eliminated. [I will provide a link after the show is over.] LINK

@2:25 "Folks: It's time to kill the IRS."

Nonetheless folks, once again Mr. Levin is not extreme enough. It really shouldn't need that much explanation for regular readers, because you are already aware of the one-two dance that the Dems and the GOP do to increase Fed powers. The SKUNCs in congress will simply work with the Democrats organized Leftists in Congress to cut back on such demands. They will wind up squandering the public outrage by compromising away from "eliminated" into "reforms."

In order to actually achieve elimination of the IRS, someone like Levin needs to make more extreme suggestions. Only by making more Draconian demands do we have a real chance to actually achieve elimination of any corrupt and dangerous wing of government. You know I'm right.
 

Congressional Scholar Bleg

My question arises due to the news that the Senate passed an Internet sales tax bill today. 

Amidst all the moaning and gnashing of teeth about how this is unconstitutional (I agree), there is another constitutional matter that I am curious about. I must be missing something. How is it possible that this bill originates in the Senate? Doesn't our Constitution require all tax bills be initiated in the House of Representatives?

Please direct you favorite constitutional lawyer to this question. For Mark Levin's 3 hours he never addressed that part. Maybe he's aligned with the other SKUNCs and think this question deserves a response like Nancy Pelosi's "you must be joking."

I'm not joking.

And You Thought *I* Was Tough On Progressives

Pat Condell is not a web commentator that I favor consistently. However, the following video is particularly worth directing your eyes toward. He makes many of the same observations I have made over the decades about "Progressives" -- or, as I prefer to call them, Incrementalcases -- but he also provides you with many fine and currently hidden (by our soviet-style media) examples as to how the they are a curse on humanity, particularly towards heroic individuals.

In my opinion, Condell's Title: The Truth is Incorrect does not do it justice.



Hat tip Gates of Vienna, whose title Progressives Always Know Best also does not do it justice.

It is also a frustration bordering on criminal that so many well-meaning liberals will never see and be counseled by this video.

A prime quote (you'll remember what prompted it):
"Statistically one in four Swedish women will now be raped during their lifetime, and every one of them can thank a progressive journalist [for hiding the truth from the public because it is incorrect]."

And he has a special riff for a Danish pair (reporter and photographer) who tailed the van of a Dane who was moving after surviving a failed Jihadi assassination so they could tell the world of his new home.