Tag Archives: Babylon Bee

Hold On To Your Country: Vote Down the Leftists

27 Tuesday Oct 2026

Posted by in Election, Socialism, Tyranny

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Babylon Bee has it just about right. But putting aside important medical, ethical and cultural issues for the moment, lots of voters are pissed off about “affordability”, or a lack thereof. Will that, or something else, keep GOP voters away from the polls? Or will it cause them to switch allegiance to Democrats, or persuade independents to swing left this time? That would be a huge mistake.

Dumb Policies and Own-Party Turnout

The trend of rising prices isn’t new, of course, and it will continue as long as federal spending continues to escalate. In that context, voters should recall that Democrats, enabled by the Fed, left us with much higher prices after Joe Biden’s term in office, and Dems aren’t offering workable solutions to reduce the cost of living — they don’t have any.

But for his part, Trump hasn’t exactly restrained the growth of government, and his protectionist (and almost certainly illegal) tariff policies have taxed businesses and consumers. The Iran war and blockade have completely washed out the price effects of other pro-energy policies, at least for now, though it would be crazy to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons.

I’m unhappy with Trump on a number of other scores, such as his push for the federal government to take wasteful and ultimately coercive equity stakes in hitherto private companies, which might ultimately offer Democrats a treasure chest to fund their favorite NGOs. Furthermore, Trump’s political motivations are so baldly obvious, like his promise to have the Treasury pay every American $5,000 if both houses of Congress remain in GOP hands for the next two years.

So yes, there are reasons to wonder whether the GOP will struggle in this year’s midterms that go well beyond the usual explanations for incumbent underperformance (own-party apathy and a motivated opposition).

What Motivates Me

Since I’m not drooling over the prospect of a $5k payout, and in fact I hate the profligacy it would represent, what do I care if the Democrats take control of Congress? Well, there’s plenty to fear from a Congress controlled by Democrats, and I will discuss some of risks below. I fully confess that what follows is a rant, but right now it needs to be said.

The Democrats have become preoccupied with fervid anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, and vengeance against their political enemies. (Don’t tell me about Trump’s Justice Department… what do you expect after years of immigration fraud and criminally bogus government actions against him.) The Dem’s platform this time is largely focused on the chanting of words like “affordability”, “government health care”, and “Free Palestine”, without explaining exactly what policies they’d implement. But their real agenda is far worse than any of that sounds.

The thing is that ultimately Trump will move along. Disenchanted Trump voters should keep that in mind, even as they keep a suspicious eye on him and potential successors. Despite Trump’s penchant for expanded executive power, I believe that in the long run our public and private institutions, and our constitutional order, are in much safer hands with a Republicans majority in Congress than a Democrat majority. As a matter of fact, certain Democrats have as much as promised to demolish many of our key institutions if they are elected or control Congress. They would pull out all the stops to eliminate anything they think might place the left at a disadvantage.

Even Dumber Policies

I’ve dealt with the pros and cons of most of the following issues in the past, so I won’t elaborate much on any of them. And it is by no means a complete list! Suffice it to say that the kinds of positions shown below would be disastrous for the nation, our prosperity, and for the cause of individual liberty. Just so I’m not accused of painting with too broad a brush, let me qualify this by noting that there are centrist democrats who do not support all of the listed positions. Nevertheless, this is where their party is headed, as it’s members continue to normalize and drift toward ever-more extreme positions:

  • Abolish the Senate? This would destroy the key basis of the Great Compromise that enabled the founding of our nation. Without it, a simple majority in the House could enable a tyrannical regime or destabilize the country.
  • Abolish the electoral college? Again, an effort to destroy a compromise that was and is critical to our union.
  • Pad the Supreme Court with extra justices? Get a Democrat supermajority? Like hell!
  • Rewrite the constitution? Well, only if you want to remove limits on the power of the federal government to confiscate, regulate, and spend without restraint.
  • Restrict speech? Because the left does not recognize the distinction between words (opinions or honest disagreement) and violence, or pretends not to. Hurting feelings is not violence!
  • Legalize abortion? It’s somebody else’s body in your body. A person. Let them live!
  • Legalize infanticide? Because they view children as inconvenient and basically worthless!
  • Confiscate the means of production? Sure, and the victims of this theft will simply have to explain to these geniuses how it all works. Break out the Richard Scarry books. No problem!
  • Tax wealth? Goodbye standard of living.
  • Impeach Trump? For being elected and for governing!
  • Demonize success? Because they think profit has nothing to do with creating value.
  • Prosecute Elon Musk? Because we must punish the most productive man on Earth! This threat long preceded the Starlink shutdown in Ukraine, which was arguably justified.
  • Assassinate Elon Musk? Because we must eliminate the most productive man on Earth!
  • Universal healthcare? As PJ O’Roarke once said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.” People aren’t as crazy about it when they learn the details.
  • Stop the data centers? No one should fall for this. Data centers can be great opportunities for local communities, so why prohibit them outright? No, they seldom use much water and they aren’t pushing up retail power costs. Negotiate!
  • Abolish ICE? Zero immigration enforcement. Get real!
  • Wide open borders and no vetting? Please, take my land, my home, my daughters!
  • Defund the police? Guess what’s coming to your neighborhood. Who you gonna call?
  • Abolish prisons? Same.
  • Crime and Release: Sympathy for aggressors. Victims… meh.
  • Revoke gun rights? You can forget about self-defense. But disarm and conquer is the final objective.
  • Outlaw voter ID? Kiss electoral integrity goodbye.
  • Abandon Israel? Exterminating Jews, from the river to the sea. Oh, and apparently here too! Genocide in Gaza is a fiction enabled by Hamas’ strategic ploy to forcibly embed with civilians.
  • Higher oil prices? Yes, much higher than even now, because the left hates fossil fuels.
  • Publicly ostracize Republicans to diminish their career and social prospects? Because they differ!
  • “Reeducate” Republicans? Because they differ!
  • Shoot Republicans? Because they differ!

Much of this adds up to a putsch for a one-party state. Don’t tell me I’m exaggerating: I’ve heard members of my own extended family engage in eliminationist rhetoric. And I’m far from alone. It’s not a joke. Yes, those are just words, but nevertheless, the left is actively normalizing even the most extreme and nonsensical positions. These people are insane.

The Clown Car

Who do the Democrats wish to elect in November? Well, for starters, a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool, big government lefties who would push for many of the agenda items listed above. This includes Senate candidates such as Roy Cooper (NC), Sherrod Brown (OH), and DSA member Angie Nixon (FL). But the worst of the worst for the Senate might be Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, a fake physician with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (see this ridiculous ad from a supportive PAC, especially the end). Then we have James Talarico in Texas, a wokie who has played up his pastoral ambitions and has flipped on critical issues (youth transgender medical care and sports, abortion, and energy). And what about Graham Platner? … Oops, no, the Maine Oystergrüppenführer had to drop out due to accusations of sexual abuse — but this guy received 70% of Maine Democrats’ vote in the primary and support from prominent Democrats elsewhere. Nice people!

Some of the Democratic House candidates are even more extreme, including Democratic Socialists Darializa Avila Chevalier (NY), Melat Kiros (CO), Donavan McKinney (MI), William Lawrence (MI), and DSA-backed Claire Valdez (NY). Don’t allow them to waste the next two years of congressional time and energy trying to make ridiculous charges against Trump stick, or even worse, waste our time debating a socialist policy agenda.

The Democrats’ gubernatorial candidates include another collection of radical nut cases. Oregon Governor Tina Kotec is one of them. So is Gina Hinojosa of Texas, who has received an endorsement from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which in turn defends Sharia law. Others include Amanda Janoo (VT), Deb Haaland (NM), and Hannah Pingree (ME), all for big taxation and grandiose plans for big government.

These Democrats are cheered on by such luminaries as:

  • the noted anti-Semite and socialist Hasan Piker;
  • Kamala Harris, whose patter is nearly 100% vapid drivel;
  • the oily, DSA worshiping Gavin Newsom;
  • the inimitable socialist Bernie Sanders, who has never done an honest day’s work in his life;
  • the former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, who thinks highways are racist; and
  • the former narcissist-in-chief Barack Hussein Obama, who has played an instrumental role in radicalizing Democrats over the past two decades and would love to have another opportunity to pull strings.

Electoral Mischief

One of the policy issues bulleted above requires elaboration: our country has a major lack of election integrity. Our electoral process is not free and fair. It is rife with fraud. Already, well before Election Day, we have a major scandal with noncitizens voting, and you can be assured that it’s not confined to LA or California (see here for the latest case). In Georgia, various kinds of voter fraud in this election have already been identified, which may interfere with certification of the results. Cybersecurity has now become an additional concern with respect to electronic voting.

Of course, the manipulation of elections is nothing new. Local vote counts in jurisdictions dominated by a single political party are the most vulnerable to shenanigans, and those areas tend to be heavily urban with reliable Democrat majorities. These distorted and exaggerated vote counts can certainly have an impact on national results. The best means of bringing this kind of manipulation under control is voter identification, strict deadlines, and eliminating cyber threats via paper ballots. Of course, the election process is once again a major issue this cycle. If you want secure elections, DO NOT sit this one out!

Seditious Conspiracy?

Finally, in a dramatic illustration of how crazy and seditious some high-level Democrats have become, there is strong evidence that insiders, including prominent office holders, are attempting to lay plans for a so-called color revolution after the mid-term election. Here is Glenn Reynolds’ summary of the alleged plan:

“If the Democrats take the House and Senate (and maybe if they don’t), various leftist groups will stage violent protests, intended to press Trump into invoking the Insurrection Act and sending in troops. Once he does, Democratic governors in blue states will denounce his acts as illegal (whether they are or not) and mount resistance on various levels. The goal is to destabilize things enough that they can seize power and replace the Constitution.“

This might sound far-fetched, but again, there is solid documentation to back up the allegations. Chuck Devore in The Federalist gives more detail here (and there is more here). The Trump Administration certainly knows about this plot, but the excellent X poster Cynical Publius believes they want to avoid abetting these plans by deferring any necessary actions until after the midterms.

Final Thoughts

The people behind the plan to stage a color revolution are skunks, and one hopes they’ll be punished. But Democrats have other broad problems, I mean, other than the sheer stupidity of expecting big government to solve problems and protect basic liberties. Factions like the DSA, and a significant share of Democrats overall, really do want a one-party state. But today, the far left wing includes an Islamist faction whose beliefs are fundamentally at odds with ideals the left had championed for decades, like the rights of women, gays, lesbians and more recently, the trans community. Left-wing Jews need a loud wakeup call as well.

I think this clip from Bill Maher and Justine Bateman represents a pretty accurate take on what could happen if the leftist Democrats “get it all”. Do not allow them to take control of our country. They will bring disaster. Get out and vote, and make your vote count against Democrats, even against more moderate Democrats, because they are unlikely to present an obstacle to the radical agenda. Hold your nose if you have to, but you just might help to preserve our safety, our liberties, and our country.

Great Moments In Projection: Il Doofe Says His Opponents Are Anti-Democratic, Fascist

06 Tuesday Sep 2022

Posted by in Democracy, fascism, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When partisans want to make sure they get their way, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to hear them claim their opponents are “anti-democratic”. Well, one-party rule is not democratic, just in case that’s unclear to leftists prattling about “hunting down” the opposition. We now have those forces hurling cries of “fascism” and “semi-fascism” at political adversaries for opposing their use of the state’s coercive power to get their way and to punish political enemies.

Restrained Democracy

The U.S. is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic. The reason it’s not a democracy is that the nation’s founders were wary of the dangers of majoritarianism. There are many checks on unbridled majoritarianism built into our system of government, including the many protections and guarantees of individual rights in the Constitution, as well as federalism and three branches of government intended as coequals.

In a short essay on democracy, Dan Klein refers to a mythology that has developed around the presumed democratic ideal, quoting Friedrich Hayek on the “fantasy of consensus” that tends to afflict democratic absolutists. Broad consensus is possible on many issues, but it might have been an imperative within small bands of primitive humans, when survival of the band was of paramount concern. That’s not the case in modern societies, however. Classical liberals are often derided as “anti-democratic”, but like the founders, their distaste for pure democracy stems from a recognition of the potential for tyrannies of the majority. Klein notes that the liberal emphasis on individual rights is naturally at tension with democracy. Obviously, a majority might selfishly prefer actions that would be very much to the detriment of individuals in the minority, so certain safeguards are necessary.

However, the trepidation of classical liberals for democracy also has to do with the propensity for majorities to “governmentalize” affairs so as to codify their preferences. As Klein says, this often means regulation of many details of life and social interactions. These are encroachments to which classical liberals have a strong aversion. One might fairly say “small government” types like me are “anti-pure democracy”, and as the founders believed, democratic processes are desirable if governing power is distributed and restrained by constitutional principles and guarantees of individual rights.

Democracy has vulnerabilities beyond the danger posed by majoritarian dominance, however. Elections mean nothing if they can be manipulated, and they are easily corrupted at local levels by compromises to the administration of the election process. Indeed, today powerful national interests are seeking to influence voting for local election officials across the country, contributing substantial sums to progressive candidates. It’s therefore ironic to hear charges of racism and anti-democracy leveled at those who advocate measures to protect election integrity or institutions such as federalism.

And here we have the White House Press Secretary insisting that those in the “minority” on certain issues (dependent, of course, on how pollsters phrase the question) are “extremists”! To charge that someone or some policy is “anti-democratic” usually means you didn’t get your way or you’re otherwise motivated by political animus.

Fascism

Biden and others are throwing around the term fascism as well, though few of these partisans can define the term with any precision. Most who pretend to know its meaning imagine that fascism evokes some sort of conservative authoritarianism. Promoting that impression has been the purpose of many years of leftist efforts to redefine fascism to suit their political ends. Stalin actually promoted the view that anything to the right of the Communist Party was inherently fascist. But today, fascism is an accurate description of much of Western governance, dominated as it is by the administrative state.

I quote here from my post “The Fascist Roader” from 2016:

“A large government bureaucracy can coexist with heavily regulated, privately-owned businesses, who are rewarded by their administrative overlords for expending resources on compliance and participating in favored activities. The rewards can take the form of rich subsidies, status-enhancing revolving doors between industry and powerful government appointments, and steady profits afforded by monopoly power, as less monied and politically-adept competitors drop out of the competition for customers. We often call this “corporatism”, or “crony capitalism”, but it is classic fascism, as pioneered by Benito Mussolini’s government in Italy in the 1920s. Here is Sheldon Richman on the term’s derivation:

‘As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax.’”

Meanwhile, Hitler’s style of governing shared some of the characteristics of Mussolini’s fascism, but there were important differences: Hitler persecuted Jews, blaming them for all manner of social problems, and he ultimately had them slaughtered across much of Europe. Mussolini was often brutal with his political enemies. At the same time, he sought to unite an Italian people who were otherwise a fairly diverse lot, but once Mussolini was under Hitler’s thumb, Italian Jews were persecuted as well.

Angelo M. Codevilla provides an excellent account of Mussolini’s political career and the turns in his social philosophy over the years. He always considered himself a dedicated socialist, but the views he professed evolved as dictated by political expediency. So did his definition of fascism. As he took power in Italy with the aid of “street fighters”, fascism came to mean nationalism combined with rule by the administrative state and a corresponding preemption of legislative authority. And there were concerted efforts by Mussolini to control the media and censor critics. Sound familiar? Here’s a quote from Il Duce himself on this matter:

“Because the nature of peoples is variable, and it is easy to persuade them of things, but difficult to keep them thus persuaded. Hence one must make sure that, when they no longer believe, one may be able then to force them to believe.”

Here is Codevilla quoting Mussolini from 1919 on his philosophy of fascism:

“The fascist movement, he said, is ‘a group of people who join together for a time to accomplish certain ends.’ ‘It is about helping any proletarian groups who want to harmonize defense of their class with the national interest.’ ‘We are not, a priori, for class struggle or for class-cooperation. Either may be necessary for the nation according to circumstances.’”

This framing underlies another basic definition of fascism: a system whereby government coercion is used to extract private benefits, whether by class or individual. Codevilla states that Mussolini was focused on formal “representation of labor” in policy-making circles. Today, western labor unions seem to have an important, though indirect, influence on policy, and labor is of course the presumed beneficiary of many modern workplace regulations.

Modern corporatism is directly descended from Mussolini’s fascist state. The symbiosis that exists between large corporations and government has several dimensions, including regulatory capture, subsidies and taxes to direct flows of resources, high rates of government consumption, rich government contracts, and of course cronyism. This carries high social costs, as government dominance of economic affairs gives rise to a culture of rent seeking and diminished real productivity. Here is Codevilla’s brief description of the transition:

“Hegel, as well as the positivist and Progressive movements, had argued for the sovereignty of expert administrators. Fascist Italy was the first country in which the elected legislature gave up its essential powers to the executive, thus abandoning the principle, first enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, by which people are rightly governed only through laws made by elected representatives. By the outbreak of World War II, most Western countries’ legislatures—the U.S. Congress included—had granted the executive something like ‘full powers,’ each by its own path, thus establishing the modern administrative state.”

Mussolini saw Italian fascism as the forerunner to FDR’s New Deal and took great pride in that. On this point, he said:

“… the state is responsible for the people’s economic well-being, it no longer allows economic forces to run according to their own nature.”

The Babylon Bee’s take on Biden and fascism would have been more accurate had it alluded to Mussolini, but not nearly as funny! The following link (and photoshopped image) is obviously satire, but it has a whiff of eerie truth.

Biden Condemns Fascism in Speech While Also Debuting Attractive New Mustache

Conclusion

Biden’s slur that Republicans are “anti-democratic” is an obvious distortion, and it’s rather ironic at that. The nation’s support for democratic institutions has always been qualified for good reasons: strict majoritarianism tends to disenfranchise voters in the minority, and in fact it can pose real dangers to their lives and liberties. Our constitutional republic offers “relief valves”, such as “voting with your feet”, constitutional protections, and seeking recourse in court. Biden’s party, however, has a suspicious advantage via control of election supervision in many key urban areas of the country. This can be exploited in national elections to win more races as long as the rules on election administration are sufficiently lax. This is a true corruption of democracy, unlike the earnest efforts to improve election integrity now condemned by democrats.

Joe Biden hasn’t the faintest understanding of what fascism means. He uses the term mostly to suggest that Trump, and perhaps most Republicans, have authoritarian and racist sympathies. Meanwhile, he works to entrench the machinery and the breadth of our own fascist state, usurping legislative authority. He is buttressed by a treacherous security apparatus, “street fighters” under the guise of Antifa and BLM, and the private media acting as a propaganda arm of the administration. Joe Biden, you’re our fascist now.

Snopes Attacks Satire In Ominous Self-Satirization

12 Monday Aug 2019

Posted by in Censorship, Free Speech

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Snopes.com began as an investigator of urban legends and rumors, exposing myths in an exercise that was useful and often fascinating. More recently, despite its founder’s weak argument to the contrary, Snopes has fully revealed its bias against certain political viewpoints, along with a tendency to avoid reporting some actual facts as facts when it suits itself. Lately this has reached a pathetic level, with the site drawing amused reaction to its confusion over the satiric nature of The Babylon Bee. The Bee is a truly funny site similar to The Onion, but it bills itself as “Christian Satire”. If you find that off-putting or think it means the humor must be cornpone, think again. Of course, there is no doubt that the Bee’s humor often pokes fun at the Left, which probably explains Snopes’ motives.

Snopes itself has not been above a bit of fibbing. Its “political fact-checker”, Kim Lacapria, is a former leftist blogger, known to have maligned the Tea Party as “Teahadists”, a funny mischaracterization of the unquestionably peaceful movement as violent. She’s not exactly a person you’d trust as an impartial arbiter of political “fact”. Linda Sue Grimes wrote an informative article with several prominent examples of bias by Snopes. There have also been reports of sordid personal and financial exploits  by one of Snopes’ founders, much of which stands up to scrutiny. 

In its latest misadventure in fact-weaving, Snopes’ has charged that the Bee published a story “intended to deceive” readers, and it claimed the Bee  had done so in the past. The story was entitled “Georgia Lawmaker Claims Chick-Fil-A Employee Told Her To Go Back To Her Country, Later Clarifies He Actually Said ‘My Pleasure“. It was inspired by an incident in which the same Georgia lawmaker apparently had too many items in the express checkout at a Publix grocery store. She claimed that an angry white man told her to “go back to where you came from”. However, the Publix clerk with whom she had the altercation, who happens to be Cuban, denies having said any such thing, though he did admit to calling her a bitch. The lawmaker’s allegation seems suspiciously coincidental, having come in the immediate wake of Donald Trump’s controversial tweet that the quartet of federal lawmakers known as “The Squad” should “go back to where they came from”.

Apparently, the humor in the Bee’s article was just a bit too subtle for Snopes, whose “woke” employees have particularly vivid imaginations. The Bee article was funny precisely because it ridiculed those who hear racial “dog whistles” everywhere. The idea that a Chinese employee working a drive-through at Chick-Fil-A would say such a thing is unlikely to say the least. Anyone who has ever visited a Chick-Fil-A knows it. Too many of those with whistles in their ears haven’t had the pleasure.

Has the Bee intended to deceive its readers in the past? Perhaps Snopes was referring to an article entitled “CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News Before Publication“. Snopes went to the trouble of calling that story false and bringing it to Facebook’s attention. Facebook actually issued a warning to the Bee (for which FB later apologized). But here’s the thing, in Grimes’ words:

“Debunking a piece of satire renders the debunker as functionally illiterate, appearing too ignorant to understand that a piece of satire does not function to relay information as a news report would.”

It’s actually much worse than that. If Snopes wants to to assess the objective truth of claims, that’s one thing, but it has drifted into the assessment of literary and authorial intent. That’s ominous for the cause of free discourse, especially to the extent that social media sites rely on Snopes as a filter to deplatform certain voices or silence points of view. Snopes has no business attempting to draw distinctions between satire and “fake news” or any intent to deceive, because it’s bound to get it wrong and already has. They might as well fact-check stand-up comics whose routines might confuse a few dimwitted members of the public, and Snopes just might do so if the comic doesn’t support its preferred political narrative. Snopes’ role is not to protect the unsophisticated from satire, and apparently its fact-checkers feel no compulsion to debunk the satire produced by The Onion, for example. The Bee’s pointed satire often serves the purpose of exposing the Left for its congenital stupidity, but that is anything but an effort to deceive, as much as Snopes might wish it was so.