Righteous Riots and the Heckler’s Veto

From a fairly left-wing blog:


Don’t blame your lawlessness on others.


Even in our politically-correct, ultra-sensitive-to-verbiage times, folks have every right to express their feelings and beliefs about others, even the nasty ones, but only if they don’t trigger violence. Absolutely a paper-thin difference at times, right?

My response:
Wrong. The threshold is not speech that triggers violence, but speech which encourages violence. The right will not allow the left to target Milo or Trump w/violence, then turn around and say their supposed hate speech caused it.

The majority of the violence in the post-election America has been by progressives, angry because they did not get their way…or convinced that their righteous riots are justified somehow. It’s called the heckler’s veto, and the right is correct to oppose you on this. People who figure they are anti-fascists have become fascists…hoping the government, Twitter, Google or some adult organization starts shutting people up.

Be careful what you wish for.

Real Headline

State Department writes anti-leak memo, which promptly leaks

The State Department legal office prepared a four-page memo for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warning of the dangers of leaking by State Department employees. It promptly leaked, to me. That’s only the latest sign that the relationship between the Trump administration political appointees and the State Department professional workforce is still very much a work in progress.

Hope it was worth it. You all got a slightly different version.*

Image result for state department


*Not really, but that’s how I would have played it.

A Brutal and True Depiction

Update: Krendler adds this wisdom:

Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar.  Bill Schmalfeldt cannot be trusted.  Bill Schmalfeldt is a worthless pig.  Bill Schmalfeldt is due for a lesson in manners and consequences.

For what it’s worth, I once tried to impress upon this fat piece of shit that our CHOICES determine our ACTIONS, our ACTIONS lead to CONSEQUENCES, and the RESPONSIBILITY for the CONSEQUENCES lies squarely with the person who made the CHOICES in the first place.

Here’s a shock:  it didn’t take.


John Hoge reports that a motion to compel discovery from Bill Schmalfeldt has been filed with the court overseeing Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al.  It also appears that Schmalfeldt’s offer to settlethe case has been rejected by John Hoge. I have not read the offer. Since part of John Hoge’s issue with Schmalfeldt has to do with a previous agreement which was not honored, we can all see why Hoge might wish to let a judge decide who is right.

By the way, in this dispute John Hoge has the facts on his side, in my opinion. 

After years of Peace Orders and harassment, this lawsuit might hold Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt to task for their internet activities. Oddly enough, Schmalfeldt might be undone by one simple comment among thousands of more vile comments he has posted online. 

Bill Schmalfeldt_Scrotum

Nope. Not that one.

Bill Schmalfeldt’s own words:

I agreed with a blog entry on someone else’s blog that called Hoge out for stalking Kimberlin’s daughter. NO JUDGE IN THE WORLD IS GOING TO FIND ME GUILTY OF DEFAMATION FOR THAT EXPRESSION OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

The text of this now-deleted post has been archived and is available should someone claim these are not the words of Bill Schmalfeldt. I am not linking to the document, but it is available.

He did much more than agree, he endorsed the truthfulness of the article.

From John Hoge’s complaint:


Paragraph 43 includes a correct quotation of the comment in question. I saw it the week it was posted, and have seen it on BU since.

In general, I think the author should be responsible for their own words. On the other hand, if you endorse the truth of another person’s writing, you have an obligation to back that up. Every fact in the article must be correct, and the tone of the article should match the event described.

Again, Bill Schmalfeldt:

I am also being sued for being part of a conspiracy to defame Hoge. He has no proof of this, nor was there anything even resembling the legal definition of conspiracy going on here.

It is my understanding that discovery isn’t going smoothly in this case. Please reread the Bart Simpson style comment above. “I didn’t do it and you can’t prove it,” is not a solid legal foundation.

Emails between conspirators might help prove John’s point.

Mr. Hoge might have a very hard time proving a conspiracy between a handful of actors in Team Kimberlin, if the participants refuse to cooperate. On the other hand, a judge might just figure that attempts to hide evidence of conspiracy is in fact a data point proving a conspiracy.


bowl of popcorn

Help Us Find a Cure

While this a serious situation, it reminded me of something:

rare disease day.png

Fakinsons, malingering and illnesses of convenience are all on the rise. Millions of people suffer (or enjoy) diseases which seem to defy actual medical science. For years on end, they are nearly crippled by symptoms which force them to rely on spouses to perform routine tasks, like walking the dogs or mailing unintentionally humorous court pleadings. Some of the symptoms include impulsiveness, poor hygiene and obsessive behavior. Later, the spouses can no longer help, these poor souls are forced to buy cars, drink liquor and carry on as if they had never been ill.

Help us, won’t you, to stamp out the phony maladies and the fakers? 

Then, medical science can find resources to investigate real, actual illnesses. 

You Could Write “Nunna yer Damned Bidness” on the Whole Thing

Or, you could write “Get a warrant.” 

The Rutherford Institute — which also tracks violence by police — is keeping an eye on Census Bureau. Like all federal agencies, it seems to have mission creep.

Unlike the traditional census, which is limited to a simple head count every ten years for the purpose of establishing representation in Congress, the ACS is sent on an ongoing basis to about 3 million homes every year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to potentially significant monetary penalties. At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire. These concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among others. As Rutherford Institute attorneys point out, the real danger with the ACS is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.

There might actually be great reasons for the government to compile data on communities — like to determine where resources should go, or what programs are successful. We really should look at the War on Poverty, and the related War on Drugs, as well as other programs.

On the other hand, get off my lawn. Data-based lawn, I mean.

Celebrity and Politics

I smirk at celebrities testifying at government hearings, pontificating from awards shows or even spreading nonsense on Twitter.

Comb. Fix tie.

If you really think Woody Harrelson, Ashton Kutcher and  Meryl Streep are more knowledgeable about social issues than the average citizen, fine. Obviously, they have a right to their opinions.

Sam White notes some British examples of celebrities spouting, and then says this:

Aloof, blinkered, and dismissive of ordinary people’s opinions, they seem willing to put lives and liberties in danger for no other reason than to preserve their own warped ideology.

But take a breather and you remember that they’re not deliberately nefarious. They believe earnestly that they’re doing the correct, moral thing. And that is at once chilling, and simultaneously a paradoxical reminder of all that needs protecting in Western democracies.

It’s chilling because it illustrates their unknowing indoctrination into the rigid cultural orthodoxy of the modern left.

If we’ve learned anything about the modern left it is that they have filled the swimming pool bit by bit with their nonsense. We are floating is a container of silly notions: guns are bad, peace activists make a difference, religion means intolerance, (except Native American shams. They’re cool!) Earning a PhD is some nonsense means you know something useful. Somebody else should pay. Violence is fine if you are trying to prevent future hypothetical violence. Punching a Nazi? Good. Saying ‘punch’ in a room full of people who may or may not have ever been punched? Even when the punch is orange, and served in a large bowl? That’s a micro-aggressive trigger. 

It’s going to take some real work to get back to other ways of thinking. We also have to remind ourselves that the bulk of liberalism isn’t nefarious, but earnest. They think they’re right, while thinking we’re evil. we’re not, and they should know it.