Duke Lacrosse was Nazi propaganda

 

Echoes of Mein Kampf

Stephen Miller's words at the Kirk memorial.

Steven L. Taylor · Friday, October 3, 2025

“Stephen Miller at Kirk Memorial” by Gage Skidmore is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Idid not initially watch Stephen Miller’s speech at the Charlie Kirk memorial, although Michael Bailey and Kingdaddy both commented to me that it was concerning. I finally got around to it a few days ago, and I will start by saying that if Miller doesn’t want to be compared to Nazis, he really shouldn’t sound like he is cribbing Mein Kampf.

For context on my views of the entire Charlie Kirk situation, please see my post Centering My Thoughts on Kirk’s Assassination. This post is not about Kirk, and Kirk is only mentioned because his memorial was the context for Miller’s words.

Note that I usually talk about fascism and only pull out Hitler/Nazi comparisons sparingly, so here we go.*

Miller (transcript source) said the following with the emphases being mine:

Our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello. Our ancestors built the cities. They produced the art and architecture. They built the industry.

Erika stands on the shoulders of thousands of years of warriors, of women who raised up families, raised up city, raised up industry, raised up civilization, who pulled us out of the caves and the darkness into the light. The light will defeat the dark. We will prevail over the forces of wickedness and evil. They cannot imagine what they have awakened.

They cannot conceive of the army that they have arisen in all of us because we stand for what is good, what is virtuous, what is noble. And to those trying to incite violence against us, those trying to foment hatred against us, what do you have? You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness. You are jealousy. You are envy. You are hatred. You are nothing. You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing.

We are the ones who build. We are the ones who create. We are the ones who lift up humanity. 

[…]

You have no idea how determined we will be to save the civilization, to save the West, to save this republic, because our children are strong and our grandchildren will be strong. And our children’s children’s children will be strong.

[…]

And what will you leave behind? Nothing. Nothing. To our enemies, you have nothing to give. You have nothing to offer. You have nothing to share but bitterness. We have beauty. We have light. We have goodness. We have determination. We have vision. We have strength. We built the world that we inhabit now, generation by generation.

And we will defend this world. We will defend goodness. We will defend light. We will defend virtue. You cannot terrify us. You cannot frighten us. You cannot threaten us. Because we are on the side of goodness. We are on the side of God.

[…]

we will achieve victory for our children, for our families, for our civilization, and for every patriot who stands with us.

It is important, for context, to remember two things. First, there is no evidence that the person accused of killing Kirk was part of any broader group. Second, Miller and his allies in the administration have continually painted the entire Democratic Party as “the radical left.” Further,

I would likewise suggest the senior senator from Alabama is playing along as well.

As is the VP.

So, let’s note the elements above in his speech.

First, it is Miller who is using Kirk’s death as a means of incitement against a vague enemy. An enemy he has identified with the Democrats writ large. The echoes of Horst Wessel are not hard to hear. But that is just one parallel.

Second, it is worth highlighting the clear politics of Us v. Them in his speech. It is stark.

Third, if you know anything about Hitler’s worldview, as recorded in Mein Kampf, the highlighted phrases should have leaped out at you even without my bolding of them.

Hitler wrote the following:*

All the human culture, all the results of are, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan.

[…]

If we were to divide mankind into three groups, the founders of culture, the bearers of culture, the destroyers of culture, only the Aryan would be representative of the first group…He provides the mightiest building stones and plans for all human progress… (315).

Hitler puts “Asiatics” in the category of culture-bearers, but firmly places Europeans and Americans (of the white, US variety), i.e., Western civilization, in the category of “Aryan peoples” (315).

And, of course, Jews, whom he calls “The mightiest counterpart to the Aryan” (318), belong to the culture-destroying group. He states that “the Jew possesses no culture-creating force of any sort” (319). He also notes “Negroes” as part of the problem and how Jews brought them to the Rhineland with “the clear aim of ruining the hated white race” (322). *** Elsewhere, he also rails against Gypsies and homosexuals, but I don’t think those specifics are in the excerpt I am quoting from.

Hitler continues about Jews:

Culturally he contaminates art, literature, the theater, makes a mockery of natural feelings, overthrows all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drags men down into he sphere of his own base nature.

Religion is ridiculed, ethics and morality represented as outmoded, until the past props of a nation in its struggle for existence in this world has fallen.

Quite frankly, that all sounds an awful lot like the current GOP rhetoric about trans rights, the entertainment industry, and education, among other things.

So, back to Miller. Here is how he describes his version of “we:/Us:

“We are the ones who build. We are the ones who create. We are the ones who lift up humanity.”

[…]

thousands of years of warriors, of women who raised up families, raised up city, raised up industry, raised up civilization, who pulled us out of the caves and the darkness into the light.

[…]

We have beauty. We have light. We have goodness. We have determination. We have vision. We have strength. We built the world that we inhabit now, generation by generation.

And here is “you”/Them:

You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness. You are jealousy. You are envy. You are hatred. You are nothing. You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing.

[…]

To our enemies, you have nothing to give. You have nothing to offer. You have nothing to share but bitterness.

Go back and read the Hitler excerpts and tell me that Miller’s words don’t track almost perfectly with them.

tl;dr: Miller says about his side, “We are the ones who create,” and about the Other side, “You can create nothing.” And this is about the most condensed version of Hitler’s view of Aryans v. Jews one could conjure.

Again, this is the man who, roughly a month ago, called the entire Democratic Party “a domestic extremist organization.” And Trump keeps equating the Democrats to the “radical left.” It is not a leap to say that the “You” in Miller’s speech is the legitimate opposition party, and by extension, the millions of Americans who voted for it.

This is all rather stark and clear indications of the fascistic leanings of this administration, is it not?

Certainly, if Miller would prefer not to be compared to Nazis and fascists, the first step would be to stop constantly sounding like one.

---

A side note, Miller started the above remarks with this:

…When I see Erika and her strength and her courage, I’m reminded of a famous expression. The storm whispers to the warrior that you cannot withstand my strength and the warrior whispers back, I am the storm.

Erika is the storm. We are the storm. And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion.

This maps directly onto QAnon-speak about “the storm.” It stretches credulity that that is a coincidence.

---

*A reminder: Nazism is a subset of a broader category, fascism. They are related terms, but not direct synonyms.

**All quotations from Mein Kampf are from a translation by Ralph Manheim in Terrance Ball and Richard Dagger, Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader. The page numbers correspond to the copy. I am not sure which edition of the book it is from.

***This also echoes, I would not, variations on the Great Replacement Theory wherein the Jews facilitate the importation of persons to “poison the blood” of whites (via interbreeding) and such. It was what the Charlottesville marchers were carrying on about when they shouted, “Jews will not replace us.”

Screw Steven L. Taylor. Eat a bag of Dicks.

I noticed they tried to ignore the Assassination of Charlie Kirk just like the verboten subjects of Laken Riley, Iryna Zarutska Cliven Bundy, Duke Lacrosse, Ted Stevens case, FISA abuse, IRS targeting tea party groups and ATF Fast and Furious case.

In my assessment, Kirk was a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, a transphobe, a purveyor of the great replacement theory, and a white/Christian nationalist.

Centering My Thoughts on Kirk’s Assassination

As well as the politics that have followed.

Steven L. Taylor · Thursday, September 18, 2025 · 31 comments

Readers may or may not have noticed that I have not published much over the last several days. Indeed, in looking back at the site, I have had only two substantive posts and two shorter ones (ignoring the Fora and AG announcement posts), which is low for me. Three of those center on the Kirk assassination, although I haven’t actually written much about Kirk himself. I will confess to two long, incomplete drafts that also orbit this subject.

The period of time in question pretty much spans the week since Charlie Kirk was killed on the campus of Utah Valley University. I found the killing upsetting, as did many, and I have been filled with a disquietude, if not a sense of dread, since the event. I think, by the way, that part of why I have avoided writing too much is that I try not to write from a position of emotion (although, yes, much of the Trump administration’s actions do elicit emotional reactions as well).

I’ll start again where I started my post about Trump’s atrocious leadership on this topic. Kirk’s assassination was a tragedy. I know I got a little pushback on that characterization in the comments of that post, but allow me to elaborate. The bottom line is that it is always a tragedy when politics becomes violent, especially when people die.

First, regardless of any other factor, it should be obvious that a 31 one-year being shot in the neck and instantaneously dying is tragic. There is a life partner who is now a widow and two small children who won’t remember their father. This is, on a human level, a tragedy. And, yes, I understand that Kirk said a lot of hurtful and hateful things (more on that later). That doesn’t change the human element of this.

I would add that a lot of young people, sitting at what was for all practical purposes an entertainment event, had to witness a cold-blooded murder happen right in front of their eyes. Many will likely struggle with fear and anxiety as a result for years to come.

Second, and I will state that this is the main source of disquiet for me, this event was a tragedy for the nation because I knew from the moment I heard he had been shot, and even before I knew he was dead, that this event would be weaponized by the Trump administration.

The fact that there is any connection whatsoever to the trans issue puts a knot in my stomach because I know that that will fuel hatred and reaction across the country.

Trump’s initial reaction certainly confirmed my fear about the general tenor that was going to guide the present moment. To be honest, the way in which this administration and its allies have used this moment as an attack on free speech and to demonize opponents is stunning. I truly fear whatever the next flashpoint is.

The Jimmy Kimmel thing is worth thinking about. So, yes, Kimmel was wrong to state that the shooter belonged to MAGA, but since when is a comedian or commenter suspended for making a mistake (let alone one that more than one person was making at the time)? If errors led to indefinite suspensions, all of cable news (and cable sports) networks should be nothing more than test patterns.*

Having said that, it is actually stunning (and brazen!) that what Kimmel said (at the link in the previous paragraph) wasn’t some gross joke.  It wasn’t even about Kirk specifically (not that the government should be involved in that, either).  It isn’t as if he had said something off the chain, because at least the administration would have a fig leaf.  Instead, it is pretty much not even bothering to have much of any reason other than he was close enough to the Kirk topic to pretend like it was an outrage.

This is weaponizing a murder for political power. And don’t forget that there is, yet again, a merger issue that the FCC can rule on at the heart of this. Kimmel’s suspension is directly due to abuse of power by the FCC Chair. Further, I am now hearing demands that Kimmel apologize and donate money to Krik’s organization. That is just an attempt in a situation already now steeped in fear of many, many people losing their jobs, a demand that he bend the knee. Keep in mind that Kimmel doesn’t have to just worry about his job, but about all the people who work on the show. That is real pressure that may lead to capitulation. I suspect that Kimmel is probably financially set for life and could certainly find other gainful employment if he loses this show. But he is responsible for a lot of livelihoods here. This is all an authoritarian squeeze.

And please, do not liken it to whatever version of “cancel culture” one might have in one’s mind. This is not someone facing social or even workplace-based pressure over an impolitic statement. This is the FCC pressuring corporations to silence someone they don’t like. Remember that Trump stated on social media that Kimmel “was next” after Colbert’s show was cancelled (also with an FCC Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of a corporate merger). We can have a debate over what happened in the past, but this is a very different situation despite whatever surface similarities one can conjure..

This leads to the second major theme about all of this that I want to comment upon: the beatification of Charlie Kirk as a saint of free speech. James Joyner already wrote a version of a post that was rolling around in my head, Charlie Kirk Was No Ezra Klein.

By the way, lest someone think I am being hyperbolic with the phrase “the beatification of Charlie Kirk as a saint of free speech,” I am in part reacting to things like this:

Via WWSB: New College plans to erect statue of slain activist Charlie Kirk on campus.

Via Chron.com: Charlie Kirk statue frenzy sweeps Texas. “Efforts to construct a statue to memorialize Charlie Kirk are gaining steam across the state, with a sea of voices calling for monuments to be placed at Texas universities and the Capitol.” 

Via USAT: Republicans push for a monument to Charlie Kirk in the Capitol.

Via HuffPo: Glenn Beck Compares Charlie Kirk To MLK Jr., Wants Streets Renamed For Him. Beck is not the only one to make the MLK comparison, which is ironic given via the following via the CBC:

At a December 2023 political conference hosted by his Turning Points USA group, Wired magazine reported that Kirk decried not only Martin Luther King Jr., calling the civil rights leader “awful” and “not a good person,” but also the Civil Rights Act of 1965 that outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex and national origin, and prohibited segregation.  

Setting aside a strange desire to set Kirk in literal stone, I even think about (to link back to James’ post and to one by Matt Bernius) the following from Ezra Klein immediately after the assassination.

Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.

I will agree in part, but also strenuously dissent in part.

Yes, doing politics via words is the right way to do politics. But that is a low bar and also obscures what words are used, as well as the manner in which they are deployed. James’ post on the latter is worth a read. The fact of the matter is that Kirk was not a debater simply “showing up…and talking to anyone who would talk to him.” He was a performance artist making money off of these events. The word that has been in my brain since the day of the shooting has been provocateur. Kirk was not debating or engaging in a reasoned interchange of ideas. He was hoping to provoke college students into making social media content.

As such, Klein is flatly wrong to call him “one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion” because I do not believe his main goal was to persuade anybody. At best, like any ideologue, he was so certain of his own positions that he thought ridiculing others was actually “debate,” because he was just declaring truth as he saw it.** He reminds me of a travelling preacher who used to visit the university where I worked. There was an area where he was allowed to operate (and others as well), and he would mostly just try to goad the students into interacting. Even my predominantly conservative Christian students from central Alabama found him annoying on balance.

A more accurate statement would be to pick another topic Klein is very interested in, to state that Kirk is one of the era’s most effective practitioners of attention. Kirk was a master at getting attention and monetizing it. And yes, in using it for political goals. And yes, using attention for political purposes is thoroughly acceptable as a generic matter.

Indeed, that is what Trump is a master at, and I wouldn’t say, from perspective at least, that he is doing politics the right way, since I object to leaders who purposely divide citizens, militarize cities, engage in extralegal executions on the high seas, and deport people to torure prisons without due process (to name just a few of my problems with this administration).

Beyond the question of persuasion v. attention, Kirk’s words simply did not rise to the level of “practicing politics the right way” in the fullness of that phrase.

To wit, denigrating women is not practicing politics the “right way” nor is denigrating Blacks.

I mean, sure, those are certainly protected by the First Amendment, and speech is to be preferred to actual subjugation. But let’s not pretend that saying the following is persuasion or debate,

If we would have said three weeks ago […] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist. But now they’re comin’ out and they’re saying it for us! They’re comin’ out and they’re saying, “I’m only here because of affirmative action.

Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.

Or

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified. – The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

Or

If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024.

There is also a set of quotes about marriage and women submitting to their husbands, including Taylor Swift. On the one hand, do a lot of people have First Amendment-protected views about marriage that I would not agree with?*** Yes, of course. Is he free to say that Taylor Swift should take Travis Kelce’s name? Sure. But don’t tell me that any of that was debate or persuasion. It was all designed to preach to the choir or provoke others.

There are more here:

Via The Guardian: Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’

Via the CBC: Some of Charlie Kirk’s most controversial takes.

Via FactCheck.org: Viral Claims About Charlie Kirk’s Words.

Again, yes, using words is what we expect from normal politics. Kirk had every right to say what he said. But the notion that he was the pinnacle of persuasion and open debate is not accurate.

In my assessment, Kirk was a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, a transphobe, a purveyor of the great replacement theory, and a white/Christian nationalist.

He had every First Amendment right to hold all of those views. And I have the same right to oppose those views and to hold the view that having those views makes it a stretch to assess Kirk as benignly as Klein did in his column. Certainly, I would argue that such views cut against beatification. Granted, one’s miles may vary, given the free speech and free thought of it all.

To return to the notion of the travelling preacher, Kirk far more fits the mold of the roving evangelist than he does some wandering philosopher. The travelling preacher shows up, like the one on campus that I mentioned above, believing that he has come to a nest of apostasy to proclaim the truth. He does hope to save souls via his sermonizing and likely is happy to try and persuade the poor heathens on campus that they are bound for Hell. But the hallmark of such speech is not debate. It is not a reasoned interchange. The preacher knows he is right. The scripture is inerrant, and God has His message, for which the preacher is only a conduit.

Real intellectual interchange, and truly doing politics right, has to include the possibility of changing one’s own mind. Real debate contests seek facts and shared understanding.

Science and expertise (and therefore real debate) have to contain the possibility of being wrong.

The preacher seeks to stir the heart and convict the spirit of the received truth. It is not, ultimately, about reason. The evangelist wishes you to recognize your wretched, sinful state and to see that only Christ can save you. It isn’t a debate at all.

I know that the analogy to Kirk is not perfect, but the basics are quite similar. Kirk and people like him are not looking to learn. They may claim to wish to teach, but even then, it is more about received knowledge than debate and reasoned acceptance of new knowledge. They are looking to pummel the listener into compliance. And the way Kirk (or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Ben Shapiro) was a controlled environment using specific rhetorical tools to produce the outcome he wanted (again, see James’ post).

To be clear: it is perfectly legal and socially acceptable to proselytize. Creating social media content by being provocative is a business model that I may personally not be a fan of, but it is not some illegitimate enterprise. However, none of that is about persuasion and debate in any pure sense, let alone at the level of being “one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.”

I would note, not that it needs to be said, but I will say it anyway: none of this justifies, in any way, violence against Kirk. But just because violence was tragically deployed doesn’t mean we can’t be honest in assessing Kirk’s work.

I would note, too, that his Professor’s Watchlist, which I noted here, is not the act of a free speech champion. It is quite the opposite.

I could go on here, but this is already a long post.

A third point I want to place in this context: it is grotesque to watch the administration and its allies memory-hole political violence aimed at the left and/or perpetrated by those clearly identifiable as on the right. (I will note and confess I do not like such broad, sweeping categories, but they will have to do for now.)

It is almost cliché at this point to bring up the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband, not to mention the attempted murder of John Hoffman. But that was of a piece with a broader problem with political violence in the US. But more significantly, we are memory-holing the January 6th attack on the Capitol, which is the closest thing to a coordinated usage of political violence in recent history, and it came from the right. And, in the case of J6, it was formally, legally forgiven by this administration.

I am not sure that I have actually finished all my relevant thoughts, but I think I have gotten down some basics that will provide context for further posts. The dam of my mental processes may have been cleared.

In short:

I am opposed to political violence, most especially assassinations of figures with whom we disagree (this should go without saying, but such are the times we live in that I feel the need to say it anyway for a number of reasons).

Kirk’s killing was a tragedy on a personal level for his friends and family (don’t allow yourself to forget basic human compassion at a moment like this).

Kirk’s killing was a tragedy for us as a country because it is deepening Us v. Them notions and is allowing the Trump administration an excuse to act in further authoritarian ways.

Also, something that should go without saying, I will say I say for clarity: no one should celebrate an assassination, and a number of people should have just stayed the hell away from social media in the aftermath of the event.

The firing spree on this topic is not exactly a celebration of free speech (this seems worth noting given the overall context).

Yes, Kirk used words, and that is the proper way to do politics.

No, Kirk was not engaging in debate and persuasion. He was engaging in a combination of political evangelism, provocation, and monetized attention-gathering. Those are all perfectly fine, but none of them make him a free speech saint.

Political violence is a real problem in the US, and I fear it will get worse. Indeed, I know it will get worse if top leaders, such as the president, use this event to further divide us as well as to ignore/forgive violence done by his side (broadly defined).

Thanks to any who managed to read this far, as I needed to get these words out so that other words could come next.

One last thought. Under normal political conditions, the thing we would worry about after an act of violence like this was usually threefold: 1) with we know why the person did it, 2) will they face justice, and 3) did they work alone. Out focus is on the act and the perpetrator. Also under normal conditions, national leadership would be trying to calm things down. Instead, we find ourselves in a situation in which the sitting administration is using this event as an excuse to extend authoritarian power.

*Kids, ask your grandparents.

**I saw a clip the other day when he was talking to a trans student, and he shifted the “debate” to “what is a man?” He clearly wanted to make an essentialist biological argument. But just shouting “what is a man” as a way of avoiding the other things the student was saying isn’t a debate.

Indeed, I recently watched The Planet of the Apes, and there is a scene in which Taylor is trying to prove that he can reason, but the questions are all about scripture and doctrine. Just shouting a doctrinal position isn’t debate.

***See some of what I wrote about here, for example. Or, to pick another example, I know people who think that women should never seek a divorce from a man except for infidelity. I disagree with this notion.

Admin Tim Big Sarge projecting his Assclownerly

Assclown is homophobic. @6:14 "America's extermination of Native Americans through starvation and uneven combat." Uneven combat? @7:31 "Trump was criticized for these ideas leading up to two elections that he won allegedly back in the 2016 campaign." That sounds like election denial that I am told by Democrats undermines elections and democracy and is one of the worst speech crimes that currently not illegal and protected by the 1st amendment.

Jake minus Hugo will delete.

Are incels and white supremacists considered marginalized like LGBTQIAMXYZ++, the Carr Brothers, Karmelo Anthony and Jose Ibarrra. Women don't take Spoon seriously either? `Why did women and male feminists take White nationalist podcaster Nick Fuentes seriously for saying “your body, my choice,”

No national guard in State matters,

https://x.com/donkilmer/status/1931728410763767963

Poor retarded Governor Goofus. He doesn’t understand that it depends on why the National Guard was federalized. 

Let’s see if we can break this down for him. What if federalizing the National Guard of (oh say) Arkansas (+ the 101st Airborne) was done to enforce Brown v. Board of Education where Governor Orval Faubus and the state legislature declared itself a sanctuary state to perpetuate the racists status quo in public education?  What if that state refused to use local law enforcement to uphold the law of racial equality, and actually encouraged local law enforcement to “stand down” with the intention of defying federal policy to integrate public schools with all deliberate speed? 

Now perform the following substitutions: 

Arkansas Nation Guard + 101st AB = CA National Guard + USMC. 

Gov. Faubus = Gov. Newsom. 

Arkansas Legislature = California Legislature. 

Federal law enforcement of equal protection laws = 

Federal law enforcement of immigration laws. 

P.S.  Earlier this week @GavinNewsom

 was sounding very Jefferson Davis-y with his talk of an independent California, and diverting federal tax money to the California state government.  

Now if he was talking secession to establish a libertarian sanctuary state, that included: abolishing taxation, repealing all gun laws, and establishing a laissez-faire economic system, he might be saying something worth paying attention to.  But he’s not.  He’d turn California into vassal state of China in the blink of any eye, as long as he was named governor-for-life.  So 🖕 him.

LGBTQIAMXYZ++ hero Harvey Milk did nothing wrong.

 Left blames the Right for the Elliot Rodgers that killed more men than women attack so I blame them for the attacks on the draw Mohammad contest and Salman Rushdie.

@politicalmath

The renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk is such a perfect example of a smarter right-wing that has learned how to set a narrative trap
The Navy “leaks” that they are going to rename the ship, leveraging the volume and scale of the media to spread wide this info
The predictable outrage ensues. Nancy Pelosi calls it “shameful, vindictive erasure”, which is not a thing she said about people tearing down statues of the founding fathers
That’s where the trap is sprung. The Dem’s outrage machine has given the story legs and visibility. The right can leverage that visibility to sabotage Milk’s legacy
They can talk about how a 33-year-old Milk was sleeping with teenage boys Or they can talk about how Milk defended Jim Jones and helped keep a father from saving his 6-year-old son from the cult leader who would ultimately kill him If the right tried to bring all these skeletons about Milk up in isolation, they would seem obsessed and creepy But by using this ship re-name as bait, they got Dems to make praising Harvey Milk a part of their national platform & now Milk’s bad behavior is fair game

 @johncardillo

Schumer is a liar.

- Milk groomed, drugged, then raped a 16-year-old homeless boy.

- Milk’s discharge from the Navy was ‘other than honorable’

- Milk wasn’t “assassinated” because of his sexuality. He and then SF mayor Moscone were shot and killed by Dan White, a former political colleague with whom they had long-standing disagreements.

OTB goes full ‘Kill the Boer’ Klan on white refugees

 The Case of the Afrikaners

DEI,” like “CRT” before it and “woke” are just a myth.

 DEI,” like “CRT” before it and “woke” are just a myth.

 University of Delaware: Students Required to Undergo Ideological Reeducation

Mandatory thought reform program at the University of Delaware (UD) 

Before FIRE stepped in, approximately 7,000 students living in UD dorms were required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and even one-on-one sessions with student Resident Assistants (RAs) where they were pressured to comply with university-approved views on issues such as politics, sexuality, and moral philosophy—highly subjective and personal topics. UD’s program tried to erase the personal viewpoints held by individual students—those that make a student body truly diverse—and replace them with what the university deemed a “correct” ideology.

The RAs running these sessions were forced to go to “diversity facilitation meetings,” where they were taught UD-sanctioned views, including “[a] racist is one who is privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

 Did you catch that? According to UD materials, all white people are inherently and unavoidably racist simply because they are white, and RAs were forced to accept this indiscriminate definition as part of their reeducation.

Defended as some of the finest scholarship of noted black hertorical expert Dr. Shakti Butler, PhD

Dr. Shakti Butler is a distinguished and influential figure in the fields of social justice, racial equity, and documentary filmmaking. With a career spanning several decades, she has made significant contributions to the advancement of diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism efforts in both academia and the broader society.

Trump's Latin Passion

I remember when the Free Abrego Garcia, Karmelo Anthony and “Just Latin Passion against Gringos” Jose Ibarra and Victor Antonio Martinez-Hernandez crowd cheered the imprisonment of Gonzalo Lira.

Kathy, Choke with hatred on this outrage. I don’t understand how the evil rapist Trump had the self control to not bash all of his Sexual Assault victims heads in with a rock when he was in the throes of “Latin Passion” like Jose Ibarra.

Because Trump is far more evil than Ibarra and deserves a far worse punishment like execution. Jose Ibarra was found by a court to be not guilt of rape.

Only Aggravated battery, Aggravated assault with intent to rape, False imprisonment.

A Plea to Republicans

 

A Plea to Republicans

Michael Bailey · Friday, April 18, 2025 · 

“It’s human nature to tie yourself to a leader as much for the services you’ve done him as the good he’s done you.” —Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 10

A Plea to My Beautiful Republican Friends:

We need your help. We all do.

Our nation is in a dangerous place. The constitutional safeguards we rely on to check the ambitions of our President are fraying—some are already gone. Let me be direct: governance under President Trump is authoritarian in character. He has worked relentlessly to remove impediments to his control. He has wielded not only the full powers of the office, but also the powers of rhetoric, party loyalty, and media influence. Doing this much is not the decisive issue. The problem is that he has also employed legal intimidation, and has targeted judges, governors, universities, news organizations, and prosecutors. If unchecked, our electoral systems and civil liberties will be next—and “next” is now.

That may sound like the hysterical rant of an alarmist. And if that’s your first reaction, here’s what I hope: I hope you’re right, and I’m wrong. I hope the years of study I’ve poured into this topic are misguided. I would much rather be embarrassed for sounding extreme on social media than be proven right by a national catastrophe.

But if you do think I’m unhinged, I suspect it’s for one of three reasons.

First, perhaps you see nothing new here. Didn’t Presidents Obama and Biden also push executive power to the limit? Didn’t Obama issue unconstitutional executive orders on immigration? Didn’t Biden try to forgive $400 billion in student loans without congressional authorization? Where was the outrage then? Why now?

Second, maybe Trump’s actions don’t bother you because they substantively align with your policy preferences. He campaigned on tariffs, law and order, and border enforcement. He won the election—this time, even the popular vote. Isn’t he simply keeping his promises, something Democrats rarely do? Are we really supposed to get worked up because the IRS is a little less comfortable? Isn’t this just a policy dispute dressed up as a constitutional crisis?

Third, perhaps his actions don’t feel threatening because they haven’t touched your life. You’re here legally. You’re not a snobby professor with the privilege of tenure, or a whiny journalist, or a civil rights lawyer. You’ve worked hard and earned your place. You trust that Trump won’t come for you.

Neither of the first two points is entirely baseless.

Recent presidents from both parties have pushed—and sometimes exceeded—constitutional boundaries. That abuse should be called out wherever it occurs. If Democrats only care about overreach when the other team does it, their complaints ring hollow.

And yes, elections do have consequences. Policy victories like shrinking federal agencies or cutting taxes don’t necessarily signal a constitutional crisis. I may disagree with those policies, but they’re part of the democratic process—not a threat to it.

But as for the last point—your sense of security—I genuinely hope you’re right. I pray your trust is well-placed. But here’s where I believe you can make the greatest difference—and why we need your help so desperately.

Despite past abuses from both parties, we are now witnessing something unprecedented: a deliberate, systematic assault—not just on laws, but on the very norms and guardrails that hold the presidency accountable.

We are witnessing an ideology of retribution, of pure vindictiveness, that treats opposition as illegitimate and punishes it ruthlessly. Consider President Trump’s attack on our most iconic institution of higher education, Harvard University, founded in 1636. Frankly, I love hating on Harvard—as most spirited people do. But if I’m going to be honest, I must confess that Harvard is plausibly the single most successful institution of any kind within our nation’s borders. It preceded our nation, and it has been an intellectual haven to the world’s greatest minds. Its contributions to humanity are legion. And it’s taken less than four months for President Trump to effectively threaten its viability as a world-class institution and—like a classic abuser—to demand an apology from it.

Our slide into authoritarianism will not arrive with spectacle or fireworks. It will arrive with congressional votes, court decisions, and executive orders—all under the appearance of legality. And many Americans will mistake this coordinated erosion of checks and balances for legitimate governance, rather than the full-on abdication of constitutional duty these actions signify.

Right now, many in Congress—and not a few judges—fear President Trump more than they fear losing their institution’s authority. Our system only works when each branch jealously guards its own power. Madison wrote that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” But that only happens when officeholders believe they have more to gain from defending their institutions than from pleasing the president. Trump has mastered the politics of intimidation. His threats work as well—if not better—against his own party as they do against the opposition.

This is where you come in, my cherished Republican friends.

Republican lawmakers are terrified. Yes, some support Trump unreservedly. But many others support him only cautiously, or provisionally—or not at all. Some disagree with him deeply on constitutional grounds but stay silent because his disapproval could cost them their careers.

They will not act until you give them cover—until millions of Republican constituents tell them that you value free speech, judicial independence, and due process more than President Trump’s regimen of constitutional overreach.

Nothing about your demands requires you to abandon conservatism or the Republican Party. To the contrary, there is nothing “conservative” about abandoning due process. True conservatism fears government overreach. It respects limits. It honors the rule of law. It acknowledges that we live in a nation of competing needs and values. What could be more quintessentially conservative than sober and thoughtful grown-up adults acknowledging that no one in this world gets—or should get—everything they want?

You don’t need to change your ideology. You just need to return to it.

Liberals and Democrats can do very little at this moment. They do not control the presidency, the House, or the Senate. Most states are Republican-governed. The courts are majority Republican-appointed.

If the slide into tyranny is to be stopped, it will be because you stopped it.

And here’s the human truth that Machiavelli grasped, and why I began this plea with his quote: it’s hard to back away from someone we’ve publicly supported. Our endorsements bind us—emotionally, psychologically, relationally—to the people we make them for. I know the feeling. When I discover a student cheats after I’ve written them a letter of recommendation, I struggle to admit it. It feels like a betrayal of me, not just of them, and I am sorely tempted to turn my head, to look away. My success is wrapped up in their own, and it’s hard to acknowledge what has happened.

But I also know this: when you voted for President Trump, you simply wanted more efficient government. You wanted stronger borders. You wanted the nation to stand up for itself. You didn’t vote for Trump because you wanted him to punish universities, silence journalists, or rule by fiat. I believe that because I believe in your character.

I don’t believe you voted for Elon Musk to replace Congress. I don’t believe you hoped Trump would side with Putin over Ukraine. And I don’t believe you wanted a presidency that mocks the very constitutional norms you cherish.

Here’s where it gets personal for me.

If Trump’s power grab continues unchecked, it won’t be stopped just at the ballot box or in the courts. It will eventually spill into the streets, and though it cuts against my every instinct to stay behind a safe screen, I’ll be there on the streets as well. I love my country. Our country was born of protest, and from time to time, it must be defended through protest.

This I fear I must promise you: these protests will be messy. And as with virtually all protests, a few people will go too far. It’s inevitable. And in that moment, President Trump will have his excuse. A single regrettable act—or a handful of regrettable actions carried out by a tiny minority—will become the justification for a full-fledged crackdown. He has already justified dozens of his actions by legally claiming we have an emergency. If President Trump can locate an emergency with regard to sweet and lovely Canada’s posture toward the United States, imagine his wrath when his direct opposition moves in earnest to the street.

The most lawless president in our history will claim ultimate power in the name of “law and order.”

It doesn’t have to go that way. But I truly believe it’s in your hands to prevent it.

I know how much you revere the Constitution. I’m asking you now to honor not just its name—but its practice.

Banned for comparing LGBTQIAMXYZ++ to Incels and White Supremacists

All groups are human and marginalized. 

I guess I just want to if there are  transphobes watching like you do know that like trans people are people like like they they have feelings they are bullied they bleed they feel bad about themselves they strive they train you know they're like I I just wanted to make sure we're like we know they are people.

BTW: I have reached my limit with Paul L. He provided nothing of use and creates nothing but derailed threads and upset regular readers.

Adios, Paul L.

Red scare mccarthyism from OTB

 Stop the red scare mccarthyism. Trump is following in the giant steps of the great World War II Democrat Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. Uncle Joe Stalin.

“And yet the Hillary Clinton campaign financed and created one of the greatest works of fiction in living memory in the Steele Dossier,Despite it being total fiction, it enthralled the press, the Intel community, and federal law enforcement for years. And so I applaud her for that work of fiction and am excited about the work she does in the future on her totally fictional presidency,”

1. The Steele Dossier was always raw data, understood by its users as likely to have bad info mixed in with reality. Which it was, as expected, largely true with some bad info mixed in.

2. Where can I find a summary of what was largely true, verified and corroborated in the Steele dossier. In a press release from Sen Adam Schiff or the unredacted Trump FISA warrants that primarily referenced the Steele dossier as evidence that were signed, authorized and approved by FBI law enforcement heroes J. Comey, J. Baker, A. Weissman and A. McCabe?

3. @Steven L. Taylor:

4. Checking the approved official narratives from the main source of conventional wisdom woke thought.

A Red Scare is a form of moral panic provoked by fear of the rise, supposed or real, of left-wing ideologies in a society, especially communism and socialism.

According to wiki McCarthyism can only be applied to left wing ideologies similar to racism only applies to whites

.To my knowledge nothing in the Steele Dossier has been disproven. Which matters not one whit. The Mueller Report, the Senate Bi-Partisan Report, the Stone Trial Transcript, and Manafort’s own admissions all spell out the reality which MAGAts refuse to accept.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/steele-dossier-retrospective

@Daryl: Michael Cohen in Prague to set up Russia collusion for the 2016 presidential election.

Again, the current public official record does not affirmatively corroborate the assertion that Cohen spearheaded, even for a short time, efforts by the Trump team to obtain unlawful election assistance from the Russian government. But neither does the absence of such detail mean that the dossier is false. For what it’s worth, Cohen strenuously denied ever traveling to Prague, though that denial preceded his guilty plea and (spotty) cooperation with the government.

Is this the standard evidence required for FISA warrants?

The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.

PPPPP strikes again

It was an action that was investigated and deemed “lawful and within Department policy” and “potentially saved Members (of Congress) and staff from serious injury and possible death

Nothing warms my black cold heart more than Police and their defenders pulling off the mask and saying out loud that Policy, Protocol, Procedure, Process and Practice are more important than the law or constitutional rights.

“We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong but keep the public safe.”

While we deeply regret any distress or inconvenience caused …, our officers acted under the assumption that they were intervening in an emergency, with the safety of the community at the forefront of their actions. This was a decision made in good faith, with the intention of preventing further harm.

We are committed to transparency and accountability in all matters, including this incident, and will defend this new lawsuit. Our priority remains ensuring the safety and security of all individuals in our community, while also ensuring our officers are equipped with the appropriate training and guidance to handle challenging situations with professionalism.

We ask for understanding as we navigate this process and remain dedicated to upholding the trust and safety of the public we serve.”

Jack Smith report.

 This is the normal prosecutor bullshit of scream the indictment on the courthouse steps, maybe a small press release months later when the charges are dropped.

Claims that dismissal of his criminal cases signifies Mr. Ted Stevens’ “complete exoneration.” That is false . As the Office explained in its dismissal motions and in the Report, the Department’s view that prosecutorial misconduct is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution-all of which the Office stands fully behind.

OTB Trolling

 Whataboutism: I remember how the Democrats quashed and voted against any reports for the Clinton administration after Bill Clinton left office.

“I think it’s good that Hillary Clinton got the Presidential Medal of Freedom, because not a lot of novelists and fiction writers get the award, And yet the Hillary Clinton campaign financed and created one of the greatest works of fiction in living memory in the Steele Dossier, Despite it being total fiction, it enthralled the press, the Intel community, and federal law enforcement for years. And so I applaud her for that work of fiction and am excited about the work she does in the future on her totally fictional presidency,”

Qualified Immunity for the law enforcement caste
‘All Animals Are Equal but Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others’

While that seems to violate the “no person is above the law” precept, the fact of the matter is that high government officials—in this case, a Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed policymaker—is rightly accorded much more discretion. 

 @Scott:

Good for you using the conveniently memory holed talking point that was discredited and debunked.
The Clinton Campaign paid for the Steele dossier laddering the money using the Perkins Coie law firm lead by Marc Elias to protect it from disclosure as attorney client privilege and work product.
The Washington Free Beacon never hired or paid Christopher Steele.

Since its launch in February of 2012, the Washington Free Beacon has retained third party firms to conduct research on many individuals and institutions of interest to us and our readers. In that capacity, during the 2016 election cycle we retained Fusion GPS to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary, just as we retained other firms to assist in our research into Hillary Clinton. All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.
Representatives of the Free Beacon approached the House Intelligence Committee today and offered to answer what questions we can in their ongoing probe of Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier. But to be clear: We stand by our reporting, and we do not apologize for our methods. We consider it our duty to report verifiable information, not falsehoods or slander, and we believe that commitment has been well demonstrated by the quality of the journalism that we produce. The First Amendment guarantees our right to engage in news-gathering as we see fit, and we intend to continue doing just that as we have since the day we launched this project.