This was a better effort than the first one. Production values remain excellent. More superhero characters are still being introduced but this time, the comic does a better job of presenting motivations and abilities. In #1, the protagonist was introduced as a ready-made superhero able to fend off a large paramilitary ambush before being recruited into a government superhero program with so many supers that the plot became a confusing blur. I don’t even remember Super Redhead’s name, she was that forgettable.

Not so in #2. The protagonist, Michael Martel, is introduced in a way that both develops his character and draws in the reader: vigilantism against illegal immigrants. If his name’s similarity to Charles Martel wasn’t enough of a tip-off, Alt-Hero has a very obvious political motivation. I approve. Relevancy to current events is critical in comics, otherwise the reader has no connection with the events and people. We have enough harmlessly ‘noble’ superheroes, not to mention generically brooding superheroes. Pick a team and wear the uniform, yes?

Curiously, the issue did not take the opportunity to introduce a villain. Ah, well. It’s still only #2.

The main fight scene was also done better this time around, focusing on a couple specific characters instead of an ensemble fan service like the Marvel movies I’ve long stopped watching. There’s still work to be done; superpowers still aren’t well-defined, for example, although a couple pages were dedicated to a potential backstage conspiracy. My theory here, developed from extensive experience as an RPG gamemaster, is that superpowers only open the door; they make the characters significant enough to operate at the appropriate level of significance to the plot and context. Beyond that, weaknesses and beliefs become more important than strengths. In D&D, I let the players enjoy their strengths in the weaker fights against generic enemies, a reward for developing their characters, and then have the Named Bad Guy throw them curve balls that force them to improvise and stretch for the next level of character/story development. That would be a good formula here also, I think, and I’m waiting for one of those defining trials to appear. That point will make or break Alt-Hero for me.

Arguably, it was already done here by Martel’s recruitment into a ‘powered’ vigilante cell. A marriage of mutual convenience and shared ideology, much better than #1’s tired “the gov’t will pay you megabucks to fight on our side”. The cell needed a brute for a jailbreak and Martel needed protection from official retaliation for breaking (literally) a migrant rape gang. Now we’re telling a story!

I’ll close by picking an unwinnable fight: what’s up with the attractive female superheroes? Any red-pill man should know by now that women aren’t supposed to be heroes, they’re supposed to appreciate heroes. Alt-Hero is following Disney’s lead on kung-fu warrior princesses and no good will come of that. Maybe most men just aren’t as burned out on sex as me. Does any other man have the reaction to a pretty girl of “She would never have one kind word for me, get out of my face, don’t tempt me with something I cannot have”? I bet Alt-Hero #3 will introduce a third large-breasted ninja princess and me, I just won’t be able to turn the page quickly enough. Female sexuality is weaponized cancer and some of us don’t want our scars picked at.

 

Several media outlets have recently been complaining that hate crimes are systematically under-reported. California even passed legislation trying to force police to increase their discovery rates of hate crimes. Behold glorious pushback!

Cops Arrested a Black Man. He Called Them Nazis, So He Was Charged With a Hate Crime.

Police officers in Crafton, Pennsylvania, arrested a 52-year-old black man, Robbie Sanderson, for shoplifting at a CVS in September of 2016. He called them Nazis, skinheads, and Gestapo as they cuffed him.

Because of those epithets, Sanderson was charged with “ethnic intimidation.” Insulting the officers in such terms was an anti-white hate crime, from the perspective of the authorities. Sanderson had made bias-motivated “terroristic threats,” they claimed. The alleged motivation increased the seriousness of Sanderson’s crime from a first-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony. …

“This is not what the hate crime statute was for,” says the ACLU’s Mary Catherine Roper. “This is criminalizing pure speech and that violates the First Amendment.”

I love the sound of liberals getting screwed by their own tools. Sounds like… the dentist.

As an example of the kind of thing that should be prosecuted as a hate crime, Pennlive.com’s editorial board recalled a 2016 incident involving a white teenager who made cruel, racist remarks about a black kid and “shared the result of his disgusting handiwork to Snapchat.” The teenager was charged with cyber-bullying and harassment, but the authorities didn’t immediately think to add a hate crime charge.

Hate crime laws work when they punish the white kid talking smack but not the black shoplifter resisting arrest? Are we still pretending that this sort of thing will bring us a colorblind society? Not according to US Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow:

[Kirsanow] directed his questions to all of us, and invited anyone who possessed the information to answer.

“Are you aware of any data, studies, or other evidence, that shows designating a crime a hate crime deters, prevents, or reduces that crime, and second, whether designating a crime a federal hate crime reduces, deters, or prevents incidents of that crime?” he asked.

Neither I nor any of the other panelists were aware of such information, and so the panel fell silent.

Kirsanow continued. “Then, one other question: are you aware of any databases, study, or other evidence that shows designating a crime a hate crime, whether a municipal, federal, or state crime, assists in the resolution of that crime or the apprehension of the perpetrator?” he asked.

Again, silence.

“Thank you, Madame Chair,” he said, yielding the floor.

Knife. Twist.

I guess we’ll see if all those NRA “from my cold, dead fingers” types actually meant it.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/28/california-high-court-tosses-suit-over-bullet-stamping-law/

SAN FRANCISCO . The California Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a lawsuit that sought to invalidate a state law requiring new models of semi-automatic handguns to stamp identifying information on bullet casings.

The court ruled unanimously that gun rights groups could not overturn the law on the grounds that complying with it was impossible. The groups argued that technology did not exist to meet the stamping requirements, and a law couldn’t mandate something that was not possible.

Writing for six of the justices, Associate Justice Goodwin Liu said impossibility can sometimes lead courts to excuse a failure to comply with a law, but it can’t be the basis for invalidating it. The ruling overturned a lower court ruling that allowed the suit to move forward.

Here’s a picture of the California Supreme Court from Wikipedia:

Majority female. Fried ice isn’t funny anymore.

 

 

I wasn’t going to cover the story of Alison Ettel because it was one of them “virtue signaling dilemmas”. A San Francisco feminist called the cops on a 8yo black girl selling bottled water without a business license. Who’s the victim? Should society care more about female empowerment or black privilege? I expected the resolution of this would take months of virtue-signaling while BLM and MeToo fight each other like Highlander immortals.

Recap here:

https://nypost.com/2018/06/24/outrage-after-woman-reportedly-called-cops-on-black-girl-selling-water/

But this time, there was shockingly little debate before she got tarred with the moniker Permit Patty. That turned out to be a double entendre:

http://nypost.com/2018/06/27/woman-who-called-cops-on-black-girl-selling-water-resigns-as-ceo-of-pot-company/

The San Francisco woman who called police on an 8-year-old girl who was selling bottled water has resigned from her position at a cannabis company amid an onslaught of criticism, the company said.

Alison Ettel, who has been dubbed “Permit Patty,. left her position as CEO of TreatWell Health after several San Francisco dispensaries refused to sell it their products, a spokesperson said Tuesday.

Out-virtued by marijuana farmers. Feel the burn, Ettel! More from Heavy.com:

Alison Ettel, ‘Permit Patty’: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Now known virally as #PermitPatty, Ettel has two master’s degrees, one in urban planning, was an equity trader, a Brookings Institution researcher and CEO of a medical marijuana business.

You can tell from her appearance that she totally earned those achievements. Two chins, two master’s degrees, right?

Many on social media are also mentioning how Ettel runs a cannabis company that operates in a legal gray area.

In a 2015 SFGATE.com article headlined “Pot for your pup? Startups cash in on cannabis trend,. the safety and appropriateness of dosing dogs and cats with cannabis was examined in light of the pot shops for pets popping up. In the piece, Ettel said her policy is .don’t ask, don’t tell..

Invest in cannabis, the catnip of choice for crazy cat ladies. …Don’t ask.

The article described using marijuana as a medicine for dogs as “controversial” and said the practice “has drawn criticism from everyone from the ASPCA to the Food and Drug Administration to the American Veterinary Medical Association..

Ettel was interviewed and said then that her business “is growing ” by about two customers each day . despite its questionable legality..

.It.s kind of like .don’t ask, don’t tell,.. Ettel was quoted as saying. .We haven’t gotten any pushback yet..

And then she causes trouble for a little kid raising pocket money. I can read between the lines. “I almost went to jail before the gov’t let me get a permit for my roach habit. And you just sell stuff in public with no fear of the cops at all? I’m gonna turn you in, little girl.”

Heavy.com confirms this!

.Despite questions of legality and perpetual gray areas, Alison Ettel TreatWell’s CEO and co-founder is hell bent on spreading the word about cannabis, a treatment that has helped many patients herself included,. Erin Kirkpatrick wrote.

Ettel, who said she has only been in the business a few years has a partner who’s been in the cannabis industry for more than two decades. Ettel said she comes from a “very professional background, doing everything from Wall Street think tanks and software companies, and I started getting into cannabis after I recovered from a coma caused by meningitis. I’m not supposed to be alive today..

Ettel said she has “never gotten high, still haven’t gotten high, and have no interest in that..

Yeah, and Slick Willie Clinton never inhaled. Listen and believe!

 

 

The following was posted on Davis Aurini’s blog with the notation that it had been scrubbed off LinkedIn after two weeks of popularity. Taking him at his word, I’m reposting it here for archival purposes… but I still gotta be me and fisk it good.

http://www.staresattheworld.com/2018/06/congratulations-metoo-youve-made-women-employees-radioactive/

Congratulations #Metoo.You.ve Made Women Employees Radioactive
Published on June 10, 2018

As a corporate CEO I now have a fiduciary duty to avoid hiring women

We. Told. You. So. Signed, your every male employee with fuck-you money.

I was having lunch the other day with my group of fellow CEOs.some current and some former. I asked the question: .Well, who has gotten that visit from the corporate lawyer, advising you to avoid hiring women executives.” Every one in the group groaned and looked away. The message was clear. They had ALL gotten that visit.

As a corporate CEO, I have an fiduciary and moral obligation to my employees, NOT to do something stupid that will destroy the company and throw them out into a very hard and dangerous world. The streets of Silicon Valley are full of RVs and campers with homeless former engineers and former managers, many with no health insurance. I am obligated by law and by custom not to add my people to that list.

A bit of an exaggeration but not by much. It’s mostly technicians and service workers–food, hotel, schoolteachers, law enforcement–living la vida dumpster. I can tell this guy is a flaming liberal of a CEO because he talks about health insurance as if it was equally important to shelter.

That.s why I can’t hire women.

Are you apologizing? Please don’t tell me you WANT to hire women instead of men, you… flaming liberal… uh-oh.

Even before #Metoo, hiring women came with a significant risk. I’ve seen several small companies wiped out by some angry ex-employee claiming some sort of sexual harassment. In each and every case, the company leaders honestly tried to prevent the problem, but were wiped out anyway. .$150K just to walk in the front door. says any law firm. That’s enough to destroy most startups.

Any law firm that doesn’t want to live in an RV. It’s actually not a bad idea–everybody can have a corner office!

As a CEO I have a legal obligation to avoid risk. Because of #Mettoo, women walk in the door with the metaphorical equivalent of a suicide bomb strapped to their back. The slightest wrong move, the slightest insult, and BANG. Everybody is dead.

In the past it was just a few women who had this tendency to use lawsuits to destroy. Now in the era of #Metoo, it has become fashionable. Even the not-so-bright receptionist I hire as a temp is on the lookout for her moment of perceived fame.

As a CEO there is absolutely nothing I can do to prevent a clash, when women are so eager to take offense. Human sexuality is wired into every man and women. Even if I install webcams and watch every single second of every interaction, having training classes, and instill fear in my male employees, there will inevitably be some action that some man will take, maybe on purpose, maybe accidentally, that will cause some woman to take offense and sue. I am unable to prevent it, just as I can’t prevent someone from passing gas after lunch.

Three words: Sexual Harassment Waiver. Call that corporate lawyer back into the room and order him to make it happen. Or, require a $150k deposit from new female hires void upon the filing of a lawsuit. Now you aren’t refusing to hire women; they’re refusing to work for you! Not your fault!

Litigation is the business equivalent of nuclear war. It only destroys. Now every woman walking into my HR department is carrying a nuclear launch button on her sleeve, and is being goaded by their friends to USE IT! Every other employee in that company . male and female . has a mortgage and family expenses, and is looking with fear at that new female hire.

This is what generals call an “asymmetric threat.. I have zero control, almost no preventative measures, and huge, deadly risk.

That leaves me and other smart CEOs with only one solution: stop hiring women. And that is what’s happening, quickly or slowly, at every small startup all over the country. Will we be sued for not hiring women? Nope. Hard to prove. Penalties actually quite unlikely.

Good point. I’ve noticed that men are so eager to please women that the incidence of civil disobedience is nil in USA. Forget about a hot civil war, I’d be happy to see business leaders simply ignore gov’t decrees and see if it ever notices.

To my granddaughters who are just entering the workforce, and to the many wonderful women who long ago learned to ignore male clumsiness and just get the job done . I can only say how sorry and sad I am to see this. Unfortunately, you women have been betrayed by a group of radical women who are, to put it bluntly, fools. They are dragging you into a conflict which will leave you burned and the men in your lives burned. Everyone will get burned except the lawyers and the activists who will, as always, sit back and profit from the war they created.

You pussy-slurping white knight. You ARE apologizing for not being able to continue hiring women instead of men! “The many wonderful women who long ago learned to ignore male clumsiness,” bah. Here, let me help with with your man card. *rip*

Maybe there will be comments from women telling me .I don’t get it. or .You.ll get sued.” Um, no. I get it just fine. I’m just speaking a harsh truth, that people don’t like. Listen.

And that’s why you posted this anonymously, because ‘maybe’ there’ll be ‘a group of radical women’ threatening to sue you. You know who the enemy is–women wanting to compete against men in the workplace instead of serving them in the kitchen & bed–and you’re upset you cannot safely continue to underwrite their destructive behavior.

 

Having large families in times of crisis/instability is BAD. Not a sin, mind, but something you want to consider very carefully before going against God’s advice to not marry (ref. 1 Corinthians 7). It’s quite possible that the swiftly declining birth rate among whites today will prove to be God’s final kindness to the human race.

But hey, everybody needs a hobby.

With this for a backdrop, let’s dig into a an op-ed from WND trading contemptuous barbs with liberals.

THE CONTEMPT FOR ‘BREEDERS’: Exclusive: Patrice Lewis urges progressives not to have children … to save the country

http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/the-contempt-for-breeders/

Right off the bat, we see this is going to be a two-way street of contempt. Fun! But Lewis is too busy humblebragging about huge, happy families to recognize the danger of Progs not having kids.

We had some friends over for dinner a few weeks ago. They brought with them their 3.5 youngest kids. Three were already born; the youngest was still in the oven.

This deeply religious family is expecting their eighth child in August, and we hope they top out at a dozen. Why? Because I don’t think I’ve ever met a more “perfect” family.

I mean seriously, this couple puts most peoples. parenting skills to shame. In their quiet, modest way, they have produced a brood of some of the most charming, polite, well-educated and contented children we’ve ever met. Packed into a 1,600-square-foot house, the kids share bedrooms, toys, adventures, love, friendship, work, prayer and meals. The boys swarm around their father and engage in engine repair, construction projects and livestock care. The girls help with the youngest children and generally do traditionally feminine activities (they.ve won county fair awards for their exquisite sewing skills). Needless to say, the children are homeschooled.

This actually sounds bad. Having watched the entire Protestant Church sit down and stop breathing with barely a complaint, your appearance of success means less than nothing to me. It means you’re hiding something.

A pastoral scene like this is not the way to communicate faith in Christ because it’s based upon ignorance, habit and too often, the belief that keeping kids too busy to do evil is the same thing as teaching them virtue. The father’s leadership in a rural family may go unquestioned for many years but inevitably, his kids will be exposed to evil and make the unfortunate discovery that evil is fun and rewarding. That’s a benefit of growing up in the city: your kids cannot remain ignorant of evil so instead of sheltering them as your Daddy hormones demand, you teach them to recognize and resist it.

Remember Peter Singer? A tenured college professor who openly advocated eugenics via infanticide. I approved of his tenure. Exposing college kids to True Evil under controlled circumstances was an excellent way to teach moral fortitude. Me growing up, my parents pointed out evil and trouble, what it looked like, how to respond to it and so on. It wasn’t a sermon or class. They worked with the opportunities my normal, urban life provided.

I doubt such ‘learning opportunities’ are common on rural farms because those people took up that life specifically because they aren’t common. But my advice is hard to follow because the damage comes early along with the morality. I myself have seen friends and family decide against God from a young age. Drugs, gangs, frivorce & all its victims and so on. Those farmkids missed out.

I am surrounded by .breeders.” Here in the rural heartland of America, families are sometimes breathtakingly large . we’re talking 12 kids and sometimes more. … Large families aren’t for everyone; but for those who have them, they seem to have a special gift for calmness, patience and efficiency that would leave any CEO in awe.

I’m glad she admits large families aren’t for everyone. Most breeders are happy to snub all childless not just the antinatalists. Less glad that she think 12 kids is a comparable achievement to a highly successful career. You gonna lay off some children when the next recession hits?

Even many feminists dislike the term. .It’s possibly one of the less attractive aspects of radical feminism,. notes a radical lesbian feminist (who is also a mother).

That unnamed lesbian is a child molester. No point in reporting her, though. Note she isn’t disagreeing with the antinatalist position described by the author; she’s just saying it’s a “less attractive aspect”. Lewis is not showing awareness of sodomy’s implications when she cites this monster for support.

[Lesbian continues]”To apply such a term to fellow sisters, a term that reduces them down to their reproductive capabilities is, without argument, pretty offensive and dehumanizing. Not only that, but it flies in the face of what I perceive to be feminism. A love for your sisters shouldn’t manifest itself in offensive terms such as that. A commitment to make the world safer and more supportive for women does not include a sneering disparagement of their choices or circumstances..

This is a running debate among feminists. Is a woman getting pregnant rape or empowerment?

The world is not “safer and more supportive for women” when entire generations die. Isn.t it better to have loving close-knit families who will contribute to society, than to kill off our native children and resort to importing violent, radical people (ironically, who breed like rabbits among multiple wives) whose children grow up to oppress women (at best) or become terrorists (at worst)?

When pressed to verbalize their objection to large families (or children in general), many progressives fall back on the .It’s bad for the environment. argument, though they’re curiously silent about the huge number of children the aforementioned immigrants have. More and more progressives are electing to remain childless or forgo biological children”

Now THIS is an excellent observation. All these antinatalists are in fact, more than happy to import breeders from every Third World hellpit they can find and directly subsidize their babymaking. It’s not about the environment. It’s not about the “planetary carrying capacity”. It’s not about potential food shortages or maximizing one’s self-fulfillment or whatever.

It’s the top-down, politically motivated genocide of Christian America. These feminists don’t want their own people to have kids because they want America to die out and be replaced with voodoo Belizian Honduro-Hindus.

Well, I guess that solves the “is getting pregnant rape or empowerment” debate. It’s anti-globalism and therefore doubleplusungood. I mean, rape.

…these morally educated children produced and nurtured by upright, intact and traditional families could well turn the tide back to the values that made America the shining city on the hill.

Again, moral education without testing is questionable. The druggie who kicked the habit is much more moral and upright than a homeschooled prodigy from the middle of nowhere. Intact, traditional families did not make America great; all nations that survived for any length of time had intact families.

You want to make families big again, get shaggy. You want to make America great again, follow Christ and suffer for Him. Suffering and big families don’t mix well.

So, liberals, I stand with you on this: Don’t have children. It may be the best way you can save the Earth . or at least America.

This would work if evil was a genetic condition. Alas. Feminists have never recruited by reproduction, not today and not in the days of Baal worship. They recruit by taking your children away from you to be violated and destroyed. Lewis apparently doesn’t know this.

That’s why having kids these days is a bad idea. You cannot outbreed evil. You cannot keep a family safe with ignorance, distance and farm chores. To be blunt, you cannot keep a family safe, period, when evil is ascendant. Those rural farms might be the last to go but they will go, too.

Lewis herself showed dangerous ignorance of evil by citing that lesbian. Me being a California urbanite, I know full well the consequences of sodomy. Suffice to say, you’re better off recriminalizing homosexuality than having lots of kids.

 

This is an epitaph for Roseanne Bar, who just had a public, final meltdown while apologizing on a Jewish rabbi’s show.

Roseanne Barr Breaks Down While Explaining Her Racist Tweet: ‘I’ve Lost Everything’

http://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/roseanne-barr-breaks-down-while-170007543.html

Roseanne Barr broke down in tears during a podcast interview posted on Saturday, as she apologized for her racist tweet that resulted in the cancellation of her hit television show, Roseanne.

Calling in to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s podcast, the 65-year-old comedian reflected on her Jewish values and expressed deep remorse over her damaging social media postregarding former Barack Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.

.God, it’s really hard to say all of this,. Barr started.. .I didn’t mean what they think I meant, and that’s what’s so painful. But I have to face that this hurt people — and when you hurt people, even unwittingly, there’s no excuse, so I don’t want to blabber off on excuses. I apologize to anyone who felt offended and thought that I meant something that I, in fact, did not mean to my own ignorance..

Don’t apologize, Roseanne. It won’t protect you from your friends and we your enemies kinda agreed with you. But you can’t cross over because you won’t repent of your hatred of us boring, unsexy men.

.I.m a lot of things. I’m a loudmouth and all that stuff, but I’m not stupid, for God’s sake,” she stressed. “I never would have wittingly called any black person. say they are a monkey. I never would do that! And I didn’t do that.”

You would. You did. It’s okay. The race card has been expired since those BLM activists ambushed white cops in Dallas & Baton Rogue.

Barr revealed once again that the upsetting tweet was posted in the early hour of 2 a.m. while she was on Ambien, admitting that while it’s “no excuse,” she was indeed “impaired.”

I bet Ambien wasn’t the only drug she was on. Behold the face of the successful, celebrity feminist:

Barr’s apology comes a few weeks after she was fired by ABC on May 29, resulting in the immediate cancellation of her successful ’90s sitcom reboot, which premiered in March to record ratings. The network later announced a spinoff dubbed The Conners, starring the remainder of the original cast, set to hit this fall.

Her former allies didn’t just abandon her, they replaced her, too. Total destruction and ostracism of a major celebrity because of… one drunken tweet at 2am?

It’s good to be on our side. We don’t savage each other like this. How curious that they would destroy an ally over such a trivial offense? This is what happens when one untethers himself from truth, philosophy and objective reality to swim in emotional thrills & drama.

Why do they do this even to themselves? Because they’re parasites. They’ll team up to get what they want, both resources and tingles, but at the end of their zero-sum day all they care about is their own appetites. These people don’t have an objective. They aren’t trying to build something. It’s Current Year and the only thing they fear more than delayed gratification is being seen as a meal by their allies.

Proverbs 27:6 never loomed so large. “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”

 

Just a Sunday quickie on liberal hypocrisy. Actually not hypocrisy–dual standards are not double standards. Their agenda is pretty obviously disarming their enemies but not their allies and mouthing whatever words are most likely to make that happen.

Anyway, the American Mirror has a better rundown on this than anything I can do because it’s mostly Twitter twatter. FWIW, Hogg is obviously with bodyguards in the pictures but I can’t tell if they’re armed. They must not be packing their heat in their buttocks, unlike the FBI… that’s the second link offered for your puerile weekend entertainment.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/anti-gun-protester-david-hogg-struts-through-nyc-with-armed-guards/

Dancing FBI agent charged with assault after dropping gun during backflip; Chase Bishop charged with second-degree assault, more charges pending alcohol tests

http://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/12/dancing-fbi-agent-arrest/

Now on video!

A woman on Dalrock’s requested a review of the Eurydice Dixon murder in Melbourne. It’s tame by Los Angeles standards but I do enjoy true-crime stories and it’s significant to MGTOW, so I’ll break my rule and give advice to women. One time.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/19/eurydice-dixon-death-male-rage-australia-women-men-attitudes

When Eurydice Dixon finished her comedy gig at a Melbourne bar last Tuesday she was reportedly in high spirits, sharing a drink with her boyfriend before heading home.

She bought some food and walked through an area she knew well: Princes Park in an affluent northern suburb of the city. Just before midnight, she sent her boyfriend a message: .I.m almost home safe..

A passerby found Dixon’s body in the middle of a football pitch just before 3am on Wednesday, a few hundred metres from her home.

Eurydice Dixon (Woof! She reminds me of Jim Carrey in Dumb & Dumber.)

Honestly, there’s nothing to analyze. A young feminist walked through a deserted urban park at midnight after having drinks at a bar and became a crime statistic. Cause of death: toxic stupidity.

Memo to all women, you are prey. Smaller, weaker, less aggressive, your instinctive response to violence is sex instead of lex talionis. You can be smart about it and not wander alone in the dark with alcohol in your brain or you can be stupid about it and flirt with danger while simultaneously demanding the “authorities” protect you without fail.

Look, just…. just DON’T BE STUPID! DON’T ACT MALE! YOU ARE NOT MALE! Be feminine. Accept you’re vulnerable and either avoid danger or appreciate whatever man you can find to keep you safe. That’s the exact opposite of how feminists are responding to the murder. They’re calling for ramped-up emasculation of men… punishing all men everywhere for one rapist-murderer’s night out. They even picked on a cop who said what I just did, only half-heartedly because he knew it wouldn’t make a difference.

The flashpoint was caused by comments by a senior police officer. Supt David Clayton said on the day Dixon’s body was found . and before an arrest was made . that people needed to “take responsibility for your safety..

.So just make sure you have situational awareness, that you’re aware of your surroundings,. he said. .If you’ve got a mobile phone, carry it; if you’ve got any concerns, call the police..

It’s time for women to accept that men aren’t going to be there when you need us anymore. We’ve been used, abused, accused, abandoned, frivorced and hated until we went MGTOW just to eat & sleep in peace.

You should live in fear. Avoid dangerous situations. Don’t drink around strangers. Keep your husband happy. Do that and you’ll be safe.

Or, you can make yourself ugly and keep blaming us men for everything you can think of and act surprised when we don’t rescue your ugly, cruel, spoiled-brat carcass from your bad decisions.

 

Keith on Dalrock’s has this to say about sex preferences during a crisis:

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/06/22/killing-her-with-chivalry/#comment-276690

“I believe that you are correct that men transmit culture to future generations. But a civilization needs to meet one criteria before that happens: survival.

“I think that’s the whole point about preferring female lives over those of men. Giving your population the best chance of survival by producing as many offspring as possible. During times of crisis that is the primary concern.”

But this isn’t true. That’s what Dalrock was saying in his OP. During the Titanic’s sinking, the effort to prioritize women and children first directly caused women and children to be hurt because they panicked over their man’s absence. It’s also what I said in a digression on evolution there. When you prioritize the survival of non-men over men, you get FAILURE at all levels. Not survival. I linked to the Survivor television series to make my point:

http://www.returnofkings.com/32053/this-accidental-experiment-shows-the-superiority-of-patriarchy

Would a village of 100 women and one man be able to sustain a healthy birth rate? It’s a trick question because all them will starve before any children are born, excepting the man and as many women as he can/cares to provide for.

Our society has maximized the living standards and empowerment of women, with child support as the governing principle in all sexual/marital relations…men are now considered disposable and fathers are, in fact, regularly disposed of… and as a direct result the birth rate has cratered. The exact opposite of evolution’s prediction.

Women don’t naturally want to have babies. Instead, they envy men and want to displace us; that’s where all these career women are coming from. Also, mothers will kill their own babies for their personal convenience: abortion. Every single abortion in the West happens only with the mother’s voluntary signature on her child’s literal death warrant.

Evolution says that survival is only a matter of fertilized eggs in wombs but actual human experience is that women are helpless without men in any context and given the chance, won’t want to reproduce anyway. That torpedoes evolution dead center.

This also gives reason to reexamine why men value female life over male life. Isn’t it curious that having built civilization, we aren’t concerned with being its primary beneficiary? That we’re often okay with not just risking our lives for Barbie but willingly dying for her instead of just finding another girl? Once again, evolution’s prediction fails us.

Evolution says men are, or at least should be, concerned with bedding as many women as possible instead of fidelity to just one or two. But this is not how men behave. Men are ruined by frivorce emotionally as well as financially. Why does Barbie kicking us out of our family’s lives hurt so much when we “should” be moving on to other women anyway?

The gap between evolutionary psychology and reality is so vast that many atheists, including Manospherians such as Rollo Tomassi, openly admit they’re “descriptive, not prescriptive”. Because evo-psych’s prescription is that men should be shameless fornicators, women should be shameless thieves and society will be optimally healthy as a result!

The truth of human nature is simple: we know what the right thing to do is and we don’t want to do it. A humble yet profound reason why one should be Christian.

Maybe I can’t explain this well. No evolutionist ever thought I had a point. But maybe I’m not supposed to be able to explain this. Evolution is updated yearly to accommodate new evidence, which itself is good proof it’s wrong. If we had to update the theory of gravitation every year because we kept finding new circumstances in which it didn’t work then it would be scientific trash.

I just don’t know what to say anymore. Modern humans are a species in denial. Evolution does not accurately describe human behavior, the fossil record, the extent of biodiversity, how biologically unnecessary systems like vision came into existence… and the principles of evolution just happen to preach the dark gospel of “do what thou wilt, the only virtue is victory”… and it’s become the dominant global religion so completely that many Christians believe God evolved life on Earth in defiance of God’s documented claim to have created life.

It’s a rough time to believe in the Author of Life.

 

Vox Day turned my attention to Rev. Robert Schenck: the founding president of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute, co-founder & president of the National Clergy Council, member of many NGO charities, an on-call member of the U.S. Senate Chaplain’s Pastoral Response Team [all per Wikipedia], a professional gun-banner and a race perjurer. [GQ’s two additions]

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-infiltrated-evangelicals.html

Schenck started out as a Jew and converted to Christianity in his teens. Okay so far, Messianic Jews are a thing, but then he converted to Reganism and later converted again to banning guns. I use conversion here in the religious sense because Schenck used it in the religious sense during this interview with NPR:

‘My Third Conversion’: Rev. Rob Schenck On Why He Took On Gun Control

http://www.npr.org/2018/05/27/614886515/-my-third-conversion-rev-rob-schenck-on-why-he-took-on-gun-control

Reverend Rob Schenck was once a high-profile figure in the militant battle against abortion, a master of provocative tactics such as displaying fetal remains and blocking clinics. Now, though, he’s parted ways with many fellow evangelical ministers and taken his pro-life message to the fight to reduce gun violence. … I asked what he and his brother were looking for when they converted.

ROB SCHENCK: You know, I think – as all people do – I was looking for meaning, something beyond the kind of two-dimensional existence that we all share. I was looking for some contact with the transcendent, with something beyond ourselves. But I was just as much looking for a surrogate family because at the time, my family was dysfunctional. And there was a lot of conflict and tension in my family. And it kind of left me feeling like I didn’t have a communal anchor.

So a Churchian, not a Christian. Not once while researching him did I find a declarative statement of faith in Christ Resurrected. He was ordained by Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination and once of the easier paths to ordination. However, he seems to identify primarily as a Methodist-Episcopal, from whom he received an honorary degree later in life. Pretty shallow theological roots.

But I digress.

SCHENCK: You know, I set up [my memoir “Costly Grace”] in three conversions. There was my first conversion to Christ, the Jesus I met through the Sermon on the Mount – this very compassionate, empathetic soul. And then I had a second conversion, and that was to what I call Reagan-Republican religion. And during that phase, I really lost that dimension of Jesus that empathized with others, that felt the anguish of others. And I had to be brought back to it. And that’s the story of my third conversion. … And those things, as well as others, would pull me across the finish line on calling into question my own evangelicals community’s passion for second amendment, unfettered gun rights. I thought that was really the sign of a deep spiritual failing in our community.

His third conversion was just in time to become a Never-Trumper. That seems to have happened a lot in Republican circles around 2015. Read more of the interview and make your own assessment.

A remarkably consistent theme in his biographies is upholding the Ten Commandments. Christians aren’t required to obey them along with the rest of the Mosaic Law… come on, they were brought down the mountainside by Moses himself. TWICE. They’re totally Mosaic Law. However, many “Judeo-Christians” absolutely worship them. I think that’s why Schenck made a big deal of them also, because it was a point his Jewish heritage and Christian pseudofaith could agree on.

As always, the critical point about Judeo-Christianity is that the Jews murdered Christ.

The Sojourners Article

In several places, I found an anecdote of Schenck’s that prompted my accusation of race perjury. The most complete version is in this article from Sojurner’s Magazine:

Should Christians Own Guns?

http://sojo.net/magazine/may-2016/white-evangelicals-have-one-highest-rates-gun-ownership-us

SITTING AT A DINING-ROOM TABLE full of fellow evangelical pastors, I asked how many were “carrying” (a euphemism for being armed with a concealed handgun). They all raised their hands. Then I asked, .What determines when you draw your gun and prepare to shoot another human being?. There was awkward body language and mumbling. After a few seconds passed, one older man said, .I.ll tell you what determines whether I draw the gun or not. It’s the man’s skin color..

I was left speechless by the pastor’s jarring, blatant racism. Still, as respectfully as possible, I asked him to please clarify what he meant.

.Well, we got a big city nearby, and, you know, the black people there are always killin. people. Now, if a colored man comes into this county, I know he means trouble because he knows he doesn’t belong here. That makes him more dangerous than a white man. That’s why I’d pull my gun..

The man who was speaking, and the others nodding their heads in agreement, are my colleagues. I am one of them when it comes to a statement of faith.but not when it comes to race and guns.

This is total fucking bullshit. A complete lie, a FALSE FLAG to serve Reverend Schenck’s political ambitions. A roomful of white male clergy are all carrying concealed to a dinner party and ALL admit, with no dissent, that they carry specifically to kill “colored people” if they’re found where “he knows he doesn’t belong here”? Zero credibility. Even in its bad days the Deep South, where I presume this “story” took place, was never known for middle-aged white men gunning down random colored people for being “where they don’t belong”. If one single skinhead did that one single time, it would be national news.

Rev. Schenck is a bald-faced, race-baiting liar.

This is why I’m deeply concerned about American evangelicals. I believe the increased presence of firearms among American evangelicals, including pastors that are now armed in the pulpit and ready to shoot into the congregation if necessary, signals a serious moral crisis in the church. Those who should be all about the good news of God’s saving love for humanity are instead being led astray by a popular gun culture that contradicts the teaching and model of Jesus and the apostles.

Schenck claims to be worried about clergy opening fire on their own congregations from the pulpit… why? Has that happened one single time in the American Church’s history?

White evangelicals, as a subgroup, have one of the highest rates of gun ownership and are least likely to support any type of gun regulation. We are also overwhelmingly Republican and politically conservative, making us particularly good recruitment prospects for pro-gun affinity organizations and lobby groups.

RAYYYYYCIST! Call the SPLC! The FBI! The Clinton Foundation! But I repeat myself….

This pro-gun enthusiasm presents us with a temptation to abandon our faith in the one true God and trade it for a neo-pagan, fear-driven, earth-bound religion. This theological crisis is why I agreed to become one of the subjects of a documentary film exploring evangelicals and the gun-culture phenomenon. Since its release in 2015, The Armor of Light, by director Abigail Disney, has been screened at film festivals and in theaters and churches, and it is part of a PBS primetime Independent Lens series on faith, deceit, guns, and power.

This appears to be a popular movie in certain circles. I haven’t seen it myself so can’t comment.

Again, there’s much more to be read in the linked article.

In another interview with NPR, this one in 2015, Schenck gives what I believe to be the closest-to-honesty reason for his gun-banning attitude.

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/10/447250761/an-evangelical-leaders-changing-views-on-gun-ownership

On whether or not he owns a gun and why

I do not … on principle; I’ve made the decision not to own a weapon. There’s a lot of reasons for that. One is, I think it does create an ethical crisis for a Christian. Secondly, I don’t necessarily trust myself, and maybe more of us would be better off to question what we will do in the heat of anger, fear, or God forbid, depression. My own family has a history of gun suicide due to depression. I know depression runs in families, and I don’t want to take that risk.

A compelling reason I’ve heard why liberals fear gun-owning conservatives is that liberals tend to have severe anger- and impulse-management issues. If your average Trigglypuff carried heat then she’d be painfully tempted to use it at every perceived outrage. Naturally, she assumes everybody else is as deranged as herself. Thankfully not, but part of the damage that results in liberalism is believing that you’re the best of humanity. How can a Trump supporter be trusted with a gun if a guy as great as YOU can’t be trusted?

But that directly implies that Rev. Schenck is a liberal who infiltrated the Republican party in the aspect of moral & Christian guidance. Whether that’s true or not, Rev. Schenck today clearly twists Scripture into a violated-theology weapon of disarming white male Christians.

And closing on a fun note:

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/10/447250761/an-evangelical-leaders-changing-views-on-gun-ownership

Leading evangelical spokesman, the Reverend Dr. Rob Schenck (pronounced .Shank.), a long-time Christian minister to top government officials in Washington, DC, and president of The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute, appeared on Fox News Fox & Friends today to commend decisions by retailers Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart for their change on gun sales.

Dick.s Sporting Goods will no longer sell high capacity, rapid-fire, semi-automatic rifles and Walmart has raised the purchase age for all guns to 21. Rev. Schenck, who holds an NRA life membership and votes on nominees to its board of directors, said today these actions are “morally courageous, highly ethical, and socially responsible decisions..

He went on to say, .There is no need for these battle-field inspired weapons . . . they are the guns of choice for mass murderers and terrorists..

Schenck adds to his televised comments, .I agree with the call by Dick’s CEO Edward Stack to outright ban assault style weapons. There are plenty of options for sports shooting and hunting. The AR15, AK47, Bushmaster, and other high-capacity, rapid-fire, semi-auto long guns are designed to hunt humans, not animals. They are fast becoming the weapons of choice for mass murderers and terrorists.

.In states like Arkansas, hunters understand this. For Duck hunting, you are limited to three rounds in your chamber. Add a fourth bullet when hunting a duck, and your gun will be confiscated, your hunting license will be revoked, you may even have to surrender your truck. Hunters understand that these restrictions are in their best interest.

.Why do we accept limitations on duck hunting, but not on human hunting? You can use three bullets to hunt ducks, but you can use an unlimited number of bullets to hunt humans. That’s supremely immoral.”

Heh, “fully loaded” must be cop-talk meaning “four bullets”. And supremely immoral! With apologies to Monty Python, “Three shells shalt thou have in thine shotgun, not four, not two, save that thou thenst jacks in a third, unless thine shotgun be’s a double-barrel shotgun…”

 

Listening to Coltaine at my work for inspiration–Father’s Day season is a low point for MGTOWs as well as many fathers–he made a side accusation against Christians that is worth consideration. He complained that the reasons Christians give for believing as we do are not the reasons we believe; that we’re only giving reasons to justify what we would believe anyway. (Context was the alt-right’s “race realism” fixations.)

On one hand, this is what you’d expect in a debate. The purpose of debate is to convince other people, not yourself, so you use arguments that other people might find convincing whether you do or not. On the other hand, I look at the holy ground wasteland of certified emo-manginas and it’s not hard at all to believe they’re Christian because they believe in free child care, happy feelings and a guaranteed pension. If the Sky God turns out to be real, too, then happy coincidences all around. Consequently, fraud and deceit have become the new normal of Christendom.

I follow Christ for two reasons. One, life on Earth was created; it is not plausibly the result of random events. Two, women will destroy themselves rebelling against men and men will destroy themselves to follow women in their rebellion. Only Christianity can account for this fatal flaw in the human soul.

Note that my reasons are falsifiable. If someone shows me how random mutations could easily have created life as we know it, or if someone proves that dominant women & submissive men is actually good for society, then my faith in Christ would collapse. I doubt such proofs will appear but they could. My ultimate loyalty is to truth, not Jesus, so I’m open to my beliefs being proven wrong. Jesus Himself is okay with this, having claimed to be the embodiment of truth, and thus far His claim seems correct.

It’s plausible for someone to follow Christ for reasons that can’t be proven, for example visions & dreams. This worked for no less than Saint Paul on the famous Road to Damascus, whereas God living as an easily verifiable man and miracle worker was barely convincing for Saint Peter. In fact, hallucinations seem more effective at convincing people to believe in Christ than facts. For all my careful reasoning, I’ve not converted a single soul that I know of.

I have the same complaint about atheists. Too many times, I’ve explained away one objection after another only to watch the goalposts move like Mexican jumping beans. The level of ego protection with respect to religion is insane for all sides.

Have a reason for whatever you believe but please, stop a moment and ensure it is the real reason. The world has enough insanity and hidden motives already.

 

I discovered a new news source, http://www.capoliticalreview.com. If you want to feel better about your own government then give it a look. By way of introduction, they have an article on a solution for homelessness that has been proposed up and down the Left Coast and it’s hard to say whether the concept is dangerously naive, a backdoor for funding illegal immigration or the ugly bastard of care-based morality and hipster trendiness.

“What Could go Wrong in Building Tiny Houses for Homeless?”

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/what-could-go-wrong-in-building-tiny-houses-for-homeless/

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors just voted to go forward with a pilot program to house homeless people in tiny houses in the backyards of single-family homes. And if you pay taxes in L.A. County, you’re going to pay for it.

The program will pay $75,000 to homeowners who agree to have a tiny house constructed on their property, or $50,000 to upgrade an illegal dwelling unit, like a converted garage. The selected homeless person or family will pay rent, covered by low-income vouchers. Tenants would contribute 30 percent of their incomes. Taxpayers, presumably, would make up the difference.

That’s the gist of it. The government puts a microhome in your backyard, gives a homeless person rent money and the homeless dude rents it from you. Homeless problem solved!

Now that your head has stopped spinning, let’s go down the list of abovementioned possibilities beginning with dangerous naivete. Best efforts of globalism notwithstanding, the two main causes of homelessness are still mental illness and drug abuse. (“Registered sex offender” is sometimes #3.) Allowing one of these groups to live in your literal backyard cannot possibly have a happy ending.

Second possibility, funding illegal immigration. Illegals are infamous for housing illegal numbers of people in a home. This program gives them the option to legalize that housing situation at taxpayer expense.

These days, it’s hard to know if a politician is malevolent or ditsy. It’s possible that the driving force behind “microhomes for the homeless” is female/mangina politicians fascinated with microhomes and how they can cure homeless so cheaply. After all, if you give a homeless a home then they aren’t homeless anymore! Never mind that many homeless already have soft-shelled microhomes called “tents”.

Fortunately, the efforts have been mostly futile. The linked article describes the failure of a Portland program. Reading between the lines, the gov’t zoning commission went to war against the gov’t welfare commission, leaving the gov’t paralyzed because both side’s lawyers are taxpayer-funded into eternity.

Seriously, apart from issues of more crime and more welfare and more incentive for more homeless to move here, these politicians shouldn’t try to overburden residential infrastructure like this. Microhome or McMansion, more people means more power/water/sewage needs, more congestion and similar ills that plague the poorly planned urban community. Therefore, I’m rooting for the zoning commission.

 

Levi Tillemann, political hopeful and former Obama butt-kisser, gets pepper-sprayed voluntarily to demonstrate its suitability as a replacement for firearms. It’s worth watching just for the lulz:

I must say, the demonstration was convincing… at showing how useless pepper spray is. Please contrast it to this randomly chosen demonstration of the suitability of the firearm as a gun violence deterrent:

In one of these demonstrations, the affected target remains capable of running to a bucket of water, rinsing off and worst of all, complaining about how much it hurts. In the other demonstration, the target stops and doesn’t move or talk again until the meat wagon pick-up. Which do you think would be more effective at stopping a school shooting?

The “gun control issue” has been iterated to the point we can all acknowledge what it’s really about: liberals want law-abiding citizens disarmed so the Elites’ dark utopia can be coerced upon us. They’ve been using Orwell’s 1984 as a how-to manual long enough that nobody keeping up the pretenses of “public safety” can possibly be honest.

The simple fact that Mr. Tillemann was willing to be sprayed in the first place demonstrates how weak pepper is at disabling a man. I will not be demonstrating the effectiveness of my guns upon myself because they ARE effective at disabling a man. Meanwhile, leave pepper spray to its primary job of dispersing mobs.

Police: “Protesters! Go home! You are blocking the streets!”

SJWs: [chanting] “No justice no peace!”

*Police deploy pepper*

SJWs: “IT BURNS! I’m going home to wash it off.” *drives away*

And that’s about all it’s good for.

 

Confusion between faith and works is perennial because the two can’t be separated. Humans are irrational. We tend to do what we believe and believe in whatever we happen to do. The simplest way to make sense of it is this: God owes you nothing, ever. You can live an amazing life and accomplish great things for God but it’s never anything God couldn’t have done for Himself with nil effort. You can never go to Christ and say, “You owe me.”

Look at how the religious non-Christians live. They make sacrifices to nature gods in return for their assistance with growing crops. Muslims murder Allah’s designated enemies in return for Allah giving them a harem in paradise. You want to sack Troy, the price is your daughter Iphigenia. Everything the believers do with their deities is a transaction. It’s all economics. Timmy wants Vishnu to do him a favor and Vishnu wants a goat. Let’s deal.

That’s where my criticism of Pascal’s wager on Boxer’s blog came from. “I don’t believe God is real but on the off chance He is, I’ll put enough coins in His parking meter that my soul doesn’t get towed.” That’s economics, an exchange of goods & services. This doesn’t work with Christ because Christ is post-scarcity and doesn’t value any resource or service we have to offer. He still appreciates us doing what He likes but now we’re talking relationships instead of economics. Salvation must be given to us as a gift because we have nothing to purchase it with.

Protestants call this “Sola Fide”, the belief that salvation comes through faith alone. Let’s back up a step: what did you want to be saved from in the first place? Hell? Why would God send you to Hell? Because you are a rebel against God, realize the imminent punishment for rebellion and want to stop being a rebel. Zap, Christ takes your punishment and you now have peace with God.

Why should the Protestant bother to do good if he’s already saved? My answer is, BECAUSE he is saved. Salvation doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It happens in a context of “Disobeying God has brought me nothing but ruin. I regret the evil I’ve done and want to stop doing it.” Why would that attitude change to “Sin is great!” at the moment of amnesty?

If God saves us from the consequences of our disobedience but we want to continue that disobedience, well, that’s disgusting and hypocritical. That’s a murderer laughing at the governor for being a soft-hearted chump and returning to his wicked deeds. There will obviously be no second pardon for him. If we truly want the disobedience to end, which is why we wanted salvation in the first place, then we’ll try to obey even after we’re safe.

God wants that attitude more than anything we might do for him. Actions are a mere indicator of what we believe and a poor one at that because it must be a “before & after” comparison. A total freak who reduces his immoralities to only free porn may well be a more accomplished, harder-working Christian than Mother Theresa.

But I must give the Catholic some credit, the Protestant church in the West today is a stinking cesspit of pointless forgiveness. This is because our leaders have given up on public morality in compliance with their 501c3 status. The public school next door could Sodomize the kids and they wouldn’t even notice. (In fact, it did and they didn’t.) They teach that everybody has this magical “forgiven” status in Christ without giving more than lip service to the idea that anybody, especially those in power, have done anything that might be deserving of Hell in the first place. We’re all just sad people who want to be happy… *puke*

It is good the Churchians’ attendance has been falling because without a Hell to be saved from, there’s no need for salvation, no need for Christ Jesus and no need for them. The doctrine of Sola Healthy? Only healthy people need a doctor, to ensure they don’t end up sick?

Salvation is like a life preserver thrown to a drowning man. It’s all he needs to survive until rescue and nobody is there to take it away from him, but if he ever pushes the life preserver away then he’s still going to drown. Whoever willingly persists in doing evil after being saved never wanted to be saved in the first place.

 

An opinion piece from The Hill clues me in to a quiet yet ominous vote:

http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/392121-our-police-deserve-to-be-protected-but-congress-proposes-wrong-idea

The House of Representatives recently observed Police Week by passing the Protect and Serve Act. The vote, at 382-35, was as lopsided as the bill is misguided. Although paved with good intentions, the bill would duplicate state laws, erode federalism, and do little to advance its stated aim of supporting local police. The Senate should think long and hard about whether to follow the lower chamber’s lead.

Under the House bill, knowingly assaulting or attempting to assault a law enforcement officer causing “serious bodily injury” would be punishable by fines and up to 10 years imprisonment. Offenses that involve kidnapping or result in death could bring up to life in prison.

The Senate proposal adopts the federal hate crime framework to proscribe “knowingly caus[ing] bodily injury to any person, or attempt[ing] to do so, because of the actual or perceived status of the person as a law enforcement officer,. and carries the same penalties.

While both intend to address the tragic rise in targeted ambush attacks against police, neither would meaningfully help to resolve that problem. Federal laws already reach any assault that the government would have a compelling reason to prosecute, such as attacks on federal property or against federal employees, including federal law enforcement officers.

All 50 states, meanwhile, criminally punish attacks against state or local police officers. The odds are nil that any state or locality would refuse to prosecute such crimes. …

I agree entirely. More than that, you read it right: the Senate wants to make violence against a police officer of any jurisdiction a Federal hate crime. We go to the source:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr5698/summary

What the bill does

The Protect and Serve Act would categorize crimes against law enforcement as hate crimes, and significantly increase penalties accordingly.

The House bill makes any intentional attempt to physically harm a law enforcement officer a federal crime, and would imprison all offenders for a maximum of 10 years. That increases to life in prison if the officer is killed.

The Senate version goes a step further, by classifying such attacks against law enforcement not just as a federal crime but as a hate crime. However, the prison sentences would still be the same.

This is a power grab of monumental proportions. It doesn’t look like a power grab because Congress is seizing responsibility instead of power but the two are really the same thing. Once you have responsibility for something then you’re entitled to the power to carry out your responsibility.

Once the Feds are, by their unsolicited decree, the ones to investigate & punish crimes against cops, they’ll have authority over how cops do business. Standard Operating Procedures are the staple of police work (any bureaucracy, really) and once the Feds give themselves an interest in every use-of-force situation, they’ll have significant authority over those SOPs.

And using hate crime legislation for a template? “Hate crimes” are crimes committed against politically protected groups. Their usage is notoriously corrupt. “Thought crimes”, more like. What’s to stop Congress from passing this law and then redefining “attempting to cause bodily injury to law enforcement” to include verbal statements? It’s already sexual assault to notice a woman is pretty. And when’s the last time a white man survived using the word “nigger” in public?

Not that you should hit a cop but if you do, should that be a Federal hate crime? It wasn’t long ago that hitting a cop was punished by the cop grinning and hitting you back. Cheap, fun and effective! But now we hire Disney Princesses instead of giant chunks of meat. Ohhh… right. Barbie must be protected, even when she puts on a badge and goes looking for trouble. No wonder the voting was near-unanimous. Even getting reelected can’t unite Congress as completely as pandering to feminists.

91% of our Representatives have violated their oaths of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution with this vote alone. Forget about making America great again; let’s make perjury a crime again.