Pope Francis Praises Sweden as a Positive Example of Integration

Tweet

In an interview with the "homeless" magazine Scarp de’ tenis (Sneakers), released today, Pope Francis cited, of all places, Sweden as a positive example of integration:

Regarding the 13 refugees who arrived from Lesbos, the Pope pointed out that the families have integrated well into society, with the children being enrolled in schools and their parents having found work. This, according to Pope Francis, is an example of immigrants wanting to fit into and contribute to a new country, and achieving that desire.

To further underline his point, the Pope highlighted the case of Sweden, where almost 10% of the population, including the Minister for Culture, are immigrants. During his own life, in the difficult years of the military dictatorship in Argentina, the Pope often looked to the Swedish as a positive example of integration.

The article in Vatican News from which the above excerpt was taken, does not make it clear why then Father Bergoglio was motivated to ponder Sweden and the issue of immigration during the rule of the Generals in late 1970's and early 1980's Argentina. His claim is especially odd considering that Sweden only became explicitly pro-immigrant in 1975 and thus its integration "experiment" was only in its very initial stages during the era the Pope referenced.

Today, of course, Sweden is about as far from a successful example of integration as it can be possible to imagine. In the years since 1975, Sweden has gone from having one of the lowest crime rates in the West to being one of the rape capitals of the world. Large sections of its major cities are now "no-go" areas where police and other city workers rarely venture. And large scale urban riots involving the torching of cars, among other things, are regular occurrences.

Most of the Jewish residents of Malmo, Sweden's third largest city, have left the city or emigrated from Sweden entirely due to a hostile Muslim population approaching 50% of Malmo's total.

Some believe that Sweden is close to civil war.

The Pope, who once admitted that his only formal source of news is reading the leftist newspaper La Repubblica for ten minutes a day, is completely clueless.

Or not.

Like many Catholics these days, I don't really trust anything he says. He clearly is just as hostile to traditional European civilization as he is to traditional Catholic teaching. And he certainly has an affectation for promoting the interests of Muslims.

Civil war, or if not, a largely Islamized Europe?

Could it be that Francis knows perfectly well where his "pro-migrant" stance is leading?

New DNC Chair and FrancisChurch Model Tom Perez Hounded Pro-Life Activist in Bizarre Case - Judge Fined his Department $120,000

Tweet

According to America magazine, Tom Perez, the new Chair of the Democratic National Committee, has "deep Jesuit connections."

And once again, Antonio "Sock-Puppet" Spadaro, the Jesuit and close confidante of Francis, who many have called the "Vice-Pope," cannot hide his Twitter glee.

Perez is a radical leftist lawyer and fallen away Catholic who nevertheless salts his political activism with the occasional "spiritual" quote:

(My parents told me) In order to get to heaven, you have to have letters of reference from poor people.

Perez mentioned that in a 2016 interview, but the sentiment is a paraphrase from a well-noticed comment made by the non-denominational pastor of Riverside Church in 2004.

I think that was after Perez had left home.

It's no wonder that others have noticed his "glaring inability to tell the truth."

But one of the things that Perez is also known for, as assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, is leading Obama administration efforts to harass pro-life advocates using the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The extended campaign yielded zero convictions as well as an embarrassing rebuke and fine from a Federal Judge.

LifeSiteNews reported in 2013:

Last September Perez boasted, “We have opened 20 civil investigations under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, and filed eight complaints under the Act – compared to just one civil FACE Act case in the eight years of the previous administration.”

But his dogged pursuit of pro-life activists has earned his department a hefty fine – and a federal judge's suspicion he was colluding with abortion providers. 

In April, the Justice Department paid Mary Susan Pine $120,000 in lawyers’ fees after wrongly accusing her of violating the 1994 FACE law.

Federal Judge Kenneth Ryskamp pointedly questioned whether the prosecution “was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and the [abortion provider], which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities.” On the merits, he wrote, he was “at a loss” to explain how the case ever came to be prosecuted.

The case ended the way it did in large part due to the courage and commitment of Pine:

The prosecuting attorneys repeatedly offered plea bargains in exchange for Pine to agree to end her witness for the unborn. “For awhile they wanted $10,000,” Pine said. “Then they decided would drop the $10,000 if I didn’t go in front of any [abortion] clinic in the country.”

“There was no question that I would fight it. I didn’t want to make any kind of deals like they had suggested during mediation,” she said.

According to Pine, the pressure made her more resilient than ever. “I didn’t stop,” Pine said. “I continued to do exactly what I had been doing for the past 20 years and didn’t change anything.”

Pine is a Christian heroine and crusader for the lives of innocents. So, naturally, the players and leaders of the mutation that we call FrancisChurch are lauding her persecutors.

The Monty-Pythonesque association of "deep Jesuit connections" would almost be funny if the situation wasn't so grotesque and tragic.

When Sammy Davis Jr. was Handed the Wrong Envelope at the Oscars - "Wait till the NAACP hears about this!"

Tweet

By now, everyone knows about last night's epic gaffe at the Academy Awards. The most political Oscars ever - where hardly a moment went by without an anti-Trump joke, hymn to the "marginalized" or hushed reading from the Holy Koran - couldn't even get the most basic and important thing right - giving out the award for Best Picture.

After opening the envelope, Warren Beatty visibly hesitated over reading the card. In fact Beatty had been given the wrong envelope - a second and unopened version of the Best Actress Award winner. He knew something was up, but his presenting partner Faye Dunaway, who had tussled with Beatty before the performance on who would get to read the winner, practically grabbed the card out of his hand and blurted out La La Land. It took two minutes before the actual winner, Moonlight, was identified, and by that time three representatives of La La Land had made their "acceptance" speeches.

The flub was symbolic of how far the Oscars have sunk over the last few years. Very few people actually saw the Awards, and even fewer had seen more than one of the nominated films. This year's Best Picture was an independent film made over only a few days, about growing up black and gay. But even the notable social angle - Moonlight was the first "LBGTQ themed" film to win Best Picture - was overshadowed by the envelope gaffe and the incessant political virtue signaling of the previous hours.

Actually, last night wasn't the first envelope gaffe. But you have to go back pretty far to find another one. In 1964, Sammy Davis Jr. was handed the wrong envelope for the Best Musical Score Adaption. He read the card, and there was brief applause, but as the "winner" hadn't been one of the nominees for the award in question, it was quickly obvious that there had been a mistake. Davis saved the day with a quip - "Wait till the NAACP hears about this!"

"I ain't gonna make no mistake this time, baby," he said, putting on his reading glasses as a new envelope was handed to him.

It was a more innocent time.

The Church Welcomes Cohabitation

Tweet

Antonio "Sock-Puppet" Spadaro is at it again, this time with a pro-cohabitation tweet.

Actually, in true Spadaro fashion, the tweet is in fact a retweet of his own original tweet. He realized that the first tweet didn't pick up the evocative photo centered on the "back" of the young women, so he added it on the retweet. I'm not kidding about that. Take a look at the stream.

Don't blame me, man. I didn't even notice it at first. I was looking at the Pope's welcoming expression.

The picture heads a short article in Spadaro's CyberTeologia titled (you guessed it), "The welcoming of those young people who prefer to live together without getting married..." The piece seems to classify cohabitation as a sort of potentially benign stepping stone (made all the more pervasive by the uncertainties caused by modern capitalism or whatever):

And this is why he [Pope Francis] asks for the welcoming of those young people who prefer to live together without getting married.

But the Pope has done nothing more than to repeat what the Synod of Bishops 2016 approved with more than an 80% consensus . . . and that is that one realizes that simply cohabiting is often chosen due to a general mentality against definitive commitments, but also because the couple is waiting for existential security (work and a fixed salary).

All these situations must be addressed in a constructive manner, trying to transform them into an opportunity to journey towards the fullness of marriage and family in the light of the Gospel.

Rather, in many circumstances, the decision to live together is a sign of a relationship that needs to be directed to an outlook of stability to which it is important to focus.

In my experience, living together as a sort of stepping stone is how most cohabitating couples view things anyway: "We're not ready yet." "We're going to try it and see what happens." "He might get transferred." And so on. Very few couples, again in my experience, would brand cohabitation itself as a permanent arrangement.

So, Spadaro's novel interpretation of Church teaching appears to be nothing more than the outlook of the average indecisive twenty-seven year-old.

But of course, it's not simply Spadaro's novel interpretation, but that of Pope Francis. Spadaro's article was no doubt written at the direction or blessing of the Pope, and is taken from an address that the Pope gave to priests on the "new matrimonial process" just the day before:

“At the same time, be neighbours in the style proper to the Gospel, in encounter and welcome, to those young people who prefer to cohabit without getting married”, he said, “because on a spiritual and moral level they are among the poorest and the least, for whom the Church, following in the footsteps of her Master and Lord, wishes to be a mother who does not abandon them, but rather who approaches and cares for them. Christ also loves these people with all His heart. Look upon them with tenderness and compassion. This care for the least, precisely because it emanates from the Gospel, is an essential part of your task of promoting and defending the sacrament of marriage”.

Sorry, I meant to give you the more illuminating shortened version:

welcom(ing) those young people who prefer to cohabit without getting married . . . is an essential part of your task of promoting and defending the sacrament of marriage”.

As to whether Francis/Spadaro believes that cohabitating couples should take communion: based on that photo and the texts, what do you think?

There's a hidden irony here. The photo above is not a recent one. It was taken in the first year of the Pope's pontificate at a "Valentine's Day" audience with "20,000 engaged couples" in St. Peter's Square.

In other words, the unidentified young woman whose un-jacket-covered bum Antonio Spadaro saw fit to appropriate for his religious magazine was not "living together without getting married," but was instead engaged to the young man holding her hand.

Spadaro wrote a book on cyberethics.

Let me end on an obvious but serious point. The Church has always believed that premarital sex is a grave sin. The proper response to grave sin is not "maybe it will develop into something else" but "stop."

The Pope clearly does not believe the Church's teaching. He doesn't want that couple to believe it. He doesn't want you to believe it.

Either he's wrong and this is therefore another example of why he either isn't or shouldn't be Pope. Or else, on this subject, what the Church has taught for the last 2,000 years, going all the way back to the words of our Lord, is a lie.

Which do you think it is?

That's Original: Oscars Open with Kimmel Calling Trump a Racist

Tweet

How edgy.

Update: Sorry, they removed the video. You can probably find a similar one on YouTube by searching for "Kimmel Oscars racist Trump" or some such. Obviously, however, all Oscar news now pales before the climatic La La Land/Moonlight gaffe. The most politicized Academy Awards in history couldn't even get the Best Picture Award right.

Here's Another Iranian Who Won't be Attending the Oscars

Tweet

Zeinab Sekaanvand

Asghar Farhadi, the Iranian director of "The Salesman" - nominated for an Oscar in the best foreign-language film category - won't be attending the Oscar ceremony. He decided not to come to the United States in order to protest President Donald Trump's executive order on travel. And along with the five other director nominees, he decried the growing "climate of fanaticism" in the United States. For this, he has won more international plaudits, adding to his fame and mystique as perhaps Iran's best known film director.

Here's another Iranian who won't be attending the Oscars:

Her name is Zeinab Sekaanvand and she is scheduled to be hanged.

A child bride, she was convicted of stabbing her husband to death.

She claimed he beat and abused her, that her complaints to the police were ignored, that her husband rejected her requests for divorce and that she was subsequently disowned by her conservative family.

After being arrested she was tortured by police officers. She confessed to the killing without benefit of a lawyer.

Later, she retracted her confession and claimed that her husband's brother had committed the crime, asking her to take the blame for it and promising to pardon her for it if she did - a practice permissible under Iranian law.

While on death row, Sekaanvand married a fellow prisoner and became pregnant. After her cellmate was taken away for execution, her baby was stillborn, apparently having died from shock.

Zeinab Sekaanvand's case has become somewhat of a cause celebre in the international human rights community. That might save her, although judging from recent history, it probably won't.

Iran now leads the world in executions per capita. One thousand people were executed last year. Since the 1979 Revolution tens of thousands have been executed, many thousands of them political opponents, religious minorities or people running afoul of sharia law penalties for adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy and so on.

It is estimated that 70 women have been stoned to death. They won't be attending the Oscars.

4,000 homosexuals have been killed, in many cases publicly hanged. They won't be attending the Oscars.

5,000 political prisoners - mainly leftists and communists - were executed in a five month period during 1988, a ferocious and massive purge which the government still denies ever existed. They won't be attending the Oscars.

200 Bahais have been killed. They won't be attending.

Many jews, scientists and government officials have been convicted of "espionage" and executed after dubious trials. They won't be attending either.

But I want to return to Asghar Farhadi. Here he is posing with the Oscar for best Foreign Film in 2012.

Farhadi is a sort of "hip" director. You can read long intellectual analyses of his work in cinema journals. Some of his films have been interpreted as veiled criticisms of Iranian government or society, but he also appears to have enough support within government circles to have furthered and protected his career and person.

He has become wealthy and famous, and he travels abroad regularly, hobnobbing with the likes of Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem.

Other Iranian directors have been jailed or been banned from filmmaking due to alleged dissident activities.

But Asghar Farhadi has always kept his nose clean. As far as I know, he has never explicitly condemned his country's human rights record nor lobbied for those imprisoned or on death row.

The name Zeinab Sekaanvand has never publicly passed his well-coiffed lips.

When Sekaanvand is hanged, what suit will he be wearing?

Austrian Woman Denies Holocaust on Facebook. Police then Search Her House and Find Nazi Slogan affixed to Her Toilet. She is Fined $1,280 and Given a Suspended Sentence. However, Police Don't Release Her Name Due to the Country's Privacy Laws.

Tweet

"Excuse me, can we use your bathroom?"

Mahound's Paradise is not in favor of Holocaust denial.

We think it's ignorant, irrational and potentially hateful - if that term still has any meaning after years of abuse by the left.

But we also believe it's silly and dangerous to make it illegal.

Germany and Austria had a legitimate reason to censor pro-Nazi sentiments after the war, but that time has long past.

And of course, against the background of the Islamification of Europe, where a raid on literally any mosque would turn up nasty anti-semitic literature, and where Jews are being driven out of their neighborhoods not by Nazis but Muslims - who have in practice been enthusiastically invited in by European governments - prosecuting a naive, non-violent 53-year-old German woman for "pro-Nazi" sympathies is pretty misdirected and sick.

But what got me, of course, was the clincher: after the police search her house and charge her for a small sign displayed on her own toilet, they then do not release her name due to privacy laws.

From the Jewish Press, February 20:

Austrian Woman Fined for Denying Holocaust in Bathroom

A court in Feldkirch, Austria, on Friday fined a woman $1,280 and gave her a suspended jail sentence for calling the Holocaust “lies” and placing a pro-Nazi sign above her toilet, AP reported. The woman accused of “spreading lies” a German soccer club that commemorated the victims of Auschwitz on its Facebook page. Police then searched her house and discovered the sign in her toilet. However, according to AP, because of Austria’s privacy laws police did not release her name.

And here is the story in The Local:

'Hitlerine' who denied Holocaust given suspended jail sentence

A woman who denied that the Holocaust took place and displayed a sign over her toilet saying “This Hitlerine needs a clean latrine” has been found guilty of breaking Austria’s anti-Nazi law and given a seven month suspended jail sentence.

A court in the western city of Feldkirch in Vorarlberg also handed the 53-year-old a €1,200 fine.

The woman was charged after she criticized a Facebook posting made by a German football club commemorating the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp and paying homage to the victims. In a response, she accused the club of “spreading lies”.

An anonymous internet user tipped off the police, who searched the woman’s house and found the sign in the toilet.

It is illegal in Austria to praise the Nazi era or to deny its crimes.

The woman’s lawyer described her as a “simple housewife” who had never heard of Austria’s Prohibition Act.

The woman, who has not been named, said she regretted the comments she made online, and that she had been misinformed about the Holocaust after watching a TV documentary. She added that the sign in the toilet was “just a joke”.

The Strange, Imaginary World of TradCatKnight

Tweet

TradCatKnight is insane.

I'm not saying that based on his views or positions per se.

I'm not even sure what his views really are, beyond some variation on traditionalist Catholicism. Nor do I care.

Rather, I'm referring to the fact that he's constructed an imaginary social media world for himself based on fake friends, followers, subscribers, page views, likes and comments.

He incessantly bills himself as the "most popular traditional Catholic social media site on the web." This is partly "true," I guess, in so far as it's based on certain automatic rankings and metrics. But those are in turn based on the fact that he's purchased the likes, etc. from sites that sell them.

Yeah, you can actually do that, and it's much cheaper than you would think.

The video below highlights the scam in detail. The video has been out for a while but was just reposted by the blog CallMeJorge. Also, Frank Walker of Canon212 just referred to it, as well as revealing that TradCatKnight had just subjected him to an assault of threatening emails.

99% of TradCatKnight's social media interactions are fake. You can easily verify this for yourself by going to his Facebook page.

Check out, for example, his Facebook post headlined "TradCatKnight: Latest Endtime Videos (May 28th, 2016)." It has 479 likes (or hearts or shocked faces, etc.), but only 1 share and 2 comments.

Don't you think that's a bit odd?

Now, look at the likes. Many of the "people" have no profile pictures and have similar sounding names - "Donna Taylor," "Sharon Taylor" and "Helen Taylor" in rapid succession. These follow a bunch of thin accounts from third-world countries that appear to have no links to Catholicism whatsoever.

You'd think the "click farms" could do better than that. I mean, come on, $10 for 1,000 fake likes only buys you Taylors?

This sort of pattern is repeated across all of his social media platforms, such as for example, Twitter, where he supposedly has 302k followers.

Right.

It's absolutely indisputable what is happening.

Okay, so what does TradCatKnight get out of this?

Well, he's constantly soliciting donations. But to be honest, he appears to have so few actual followers, I can't imagine he raises much money from them.

If I had ten real followers but lied to them that I really had a million followers, I assume that still wouldn't help me very much.

The one thing TradCatKnight has done is to lure (based on his pumped up popularity) a number of well-known and respectable Catholics to participate in his podcasts. To be fair, some of those podcasts are informative and worthwhile, as one might imagine they would be since they are, after all, interviews with well-known and respectable Catholics.

TradCatKnight has also used his "fame" to get himself on a number of other radio shows and podcasts.

Here's one with David Duke.

Sorry, that was a low blow.

But other than that, as far as I can tell, TradCatKnight seems to have channeled whatever small amount of donations he gets into buying more fake followers.

So, he's not a fraudster per se, at least if you define "fraudster" as someone who actually makes money.

Rather, he has constructed an imaginary social media empire for himself in his own mind.

Now, obviously, he has harmed some people - the Catholics who have wasted their time on his shows and the (probably very few) Catholics who have donated to his "apostolate."

But on the main, it's a castle built on air. He can brag about his castle, sure. But there are very few real people listening to hear that brag.

So, one might ask, what's the point?

There is no point. TradCatKnight is insane.

The video, above, claims that he's doing the work of Satan. With respect, I think that's over the top. Or maybe there are other things going on that I'm not aware of.

What I do know is that TradCatKnight is an obviously intelligent man who may very well be a faithful Catholic. But somewhere along the way, he lost it.

It happens, I guess.

Hey, I gained two (two!) Twitter followers, yesterday, and it didn't cost me a cent.

Borgia Pope

Tweet

I'm the cat with the bass and drum. Going 'round like bom, bom, bom!

Today, internet checking Catholics awoke to a snapshot of two-scantily clad "cat woman" dancers doing a sexy split in front of Pope Francis.

That was curious enough. But one really had to watch the full 2:27 minute video of today's papal performance of the Rony Roller Circus to take in the full bizarreness of the scene.

What's grooving? I'm moving. I like your style of womping.

Mundabor nailed it:

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how the Evil Clown “celebrates” the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter.

Please observe:

1. The people, or actually the almost total absence of them. The Romans have more sensus catholicus than this old, lewd idiot.
2. The nudity and revealing outfits, and the moves of the young women.
3. The music. Again, this is the feast of the chair of Saint Peter. Please, Lord, make the man die soon.
4. The prelates. Embarrassed and embarrassing. I think they were thinking point 3 above.
5. The old creep wants to kiss the little girl at the end. Someone call the police.

I want 16 pints of rum and then I go bom, bom!

Some of the Borgia popes were imperfect men. But myths have grown up around them that are probably false. For example, Alexander VI almost certainly did not preside over an orgy called "The Banquet of Chestnuts."

But one imagines that if he had, the ambience might have been a bit like this. No, no one actually had sex today in St. Peter's square (as far as I know). But the women did look like strippers, and they writhed and jiggled and lightly touched each other's bums (to which were affixed cat tails) to a pulsating disco beat.

Glowing up in the dark of the night. And so I go ooh, ah-ah-ah-ah!

And in full cheesy burlesque show fashion, just when the "excitement" was at its peak, the strippers yielded to a fat fire eater and a little girl twirling a hoop.

Through it all, the Pope appeared to me to be half-scowling, half-bored, sitting on his lonely throne, a jaded veteran of too many such performances. Maybe this time he'll like the cat theme, his two lieutenants, one on the right, one on the left, idly speculated.

I'm so cool and I'm so groovy. When I go bom, bom, bom!

And a captive row of twelve prelates nervously smiled, perhaps afraid the wrong body language would get them thrown into the papal dungeons.

Most of the people in the small audience laughed. A few looked like they were holding back tears.

I'm the cat with the bass and drum. Going 'round like bom, bom, bom!

Also, today, the Pope made a "tweet":

Jesus entrusted to Peter the keys to open the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, and not to close it.

That is open to multiple interpretations, I think, none of them very good.

Some took it as "pro-migrant."

I took it as: I, the heir of St. Peter, can do anything, including holding the doors of heaven open if I choose.

So don't cross me.

Bom, bom, bom.

Etc.

MAHOUND FLASHBACK: Gaddafi and Berlusconi Together in Pictures

Tweet

"It feels good to be a gangsta."

For the fun of it, I occasionally republish posts from the first twelve-months of this blog. I was fond of this one for the pictures (obviously).

Original publication date: April 18, 2015.

With Libya all but in the hands of ISIS, and Italy under sea-borne invasion by Muslims using Libya as a jumping off point (and they're now murdering Christian hangers-on in transit), I thought it would be appropriate to remember in images two former leaders from a more innocent time. It was only a few years ago...

"Damn! The casual look upstages me again!"

"Before I formally address the nude, could I please hold your hand?"

"You always look different!"
"You always look the same!"

"Is that Old Spice?"

"It IS Old Spice!"

"A potpourri gift basket from the Libyan people to the Italian people!"

"Is it permitted?"
"Of course, Orrence, you're one of us now!"

"I can't release my hand."
"I can't release my hand either. I think my joker of an assistant put superglue on the gun barrel."

"I want to introduce those of you at this pool party to my homeless uncle."

"No fair. The deal was I would dress up as Crockett and YOU would dress up as Tubbs."

Anti-Milo "Pedophile" Hit Piece Was From Never Trump PAC

Tweet

The left hates Milo Yiannopoulos. Many will do anything to stop him from writing and speaking, including using physical violence, as we saw recently in Berkeley.

I don't think anyone on the right hates Milo. A few do not like him. Some are uncomfortable with him. Many are skeptical or at least neutral.

However, there is a large contingent on the right that hates Donald Trump. Call them (as they like calling themselves), "principled conservatives."

A few days ago, some principled conservatives decided to get back at Donald Trump by trying to ruin the career of Milo Yiannopoulos.

That doesn't sound very principled or conservative, does it?

It doesn't even really make sense.

Or to put it more strongly: what sort of foul excuses for human beings would involve themselves in an effort as nasty and sick as that?

From Gateway Pundit:

On Sunday a #NeverTrump website called the Reagan Battalion released shocking audio of Milo Yiannopolous allegedly promoting sex with 13 year-olds. The audio was a clip from a 3 hour long podcast interview Milo had in early 2016.

Obviously, the Reagan Battalion was out to get Milo.

And they did.

Around noon on Monday CPAC announced Milo would no longer be speaking at their conference this year. [And later that day, Simon & Schuster canceled Milo's upcoming book Dangerous, even though it had been trending at #1 on Amazon through pre-orders.]

The Reagan Battalion – a group that pretends to be conservative – then gloated at the news that they had helped end Milo’s career.

The Gateway Pundit goes on to identify Reagan Battalion as a Never Trump PAC that served wholly or in large part to promote the Quixotic anti-Trump candidacy of Evan McMullin.

And indeed, the "About" tab on their Facebook page yields this URL:

www.stopdonaldtrumppac.com

Here is Reagan Battalion's gloat:

The blurb is telling. They don't even explicitly mention the "pedophilia" allegations. Instead they accuse Yiannopoulos of making "anti-semitic and hateful comments," and "spreading hateful views." In the manner of the most illiberal SJW they praise free speech but then claim that "hate, racism and intolerance" should not be given a "platform."

They might as well have put on their leather and bashed Milo's head in with a metal pipe.

But the last sentence reveals that it wasn't really about Milo after all:

This incident is proof that thorough vetting is required by conservative entities before they decide to elevate and promise (sic) people as conservative standard bearers.

Gee, who do you think they're really talking about there?

They couldn't touch Trump. He won, after all. So in a kind of hissy fit, they decided to go after Milo in an attempt to prove their stupid point about Trump.

Somehow, I doubt Ronald Reagan would have thought very much of Reagan Battalion or their tactics.

And by tactics, I mean lynching people.

But then, maybe I don't understand principled conservatism.