90 Miles From Tyranny

Monday, April 29, 2019

Rape Fantasy Essayist Bernie Sanders Has A New Idea!

New York Times Reduces Ocasio-Cortez To A Sex Object And It Is Hilarious

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was just treated like nothing more than a sex object by the most unlikely of sources.

The New York Times published an op ed on Sunday that reduced all of the 29-year-old’s, admittedly bonehead ideas, to her looks.

“The men at Fox News have a sickly obsession with AOC, partly because they resent her cleverness, charisma and moral vitality, but mostly because they suspect that in high school she was one of those girls they had no hope of getting a date with,” The Times wrote in a tweet.

“I realize that this has become axiomatic on America’s excitable right. I know also that in this country we employ terms like ‘socialism’ with wanton indifference to historical details and conceptual distinctions.

“I grasp too that many among us truly believe that, say, a higher marginal tax rate or a public subsidy for poor children’s dentistry is only a step away from the gulags.

“And I am painfully aware that the male Fox commentariat nurtures its sickly obsession with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez partly because they resent her cleverness, charisma and moral vitality, but mostly because they suspect that in high school she was one of those girls they had no hope of getting a date with (though, really, she comes across as someone who could look past a face of even the purest suet if she thought she glimpsed a healthy soul behind it),” the author wrote.

The worst part about it was that the op ed itself managed to somehow be worse than the tweet which got destroyed.

If You Get Infected With This Disease, It Will Lead To Income Confiscation, Tyranny, Starvation, And Finally: Mass Murder.

Hero Army vet instinctively ran right toward shooter in synagogue, made him drop gun: ‘I scared the hell out of him’

A good guy with a gun.

Heroes are emerging in the aftermath of the tragic shooting at the Chabad of Poway synagogue in San Diego last weekend. One of them is U.S. Army veteran Oscar Stewart, who served in the Navy from 1990 to 1994, then enlisted in the Army in 2001 after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

While worshipers took cover when shooter John Earnest started gunning people down inside the synagogue, Stewart leaped into action — fueled by a rage and an inner courage he didn’t know he had.

‘I Ran Toward the Gun Shots’

Oscar Stewart — now a construction worker — stood up and yelled at the shooter during his rampage, according to the Daily Caller.

“Get down!” Stewart yelled, according to several witnesses. “You motherf*cker! I’m going to kill you!” Stewart recounted:

“I knew I had to be within five feet of this guy so his rifle couldn’t get to me. So I ran immediately toward him, and I yelled as loud as I could. And he was scared. I scared the hell out of him.

Looking back, it was kind of a crazy idea to do, but I did it. I heard gunshots. And everybody got up and started trying to get out the back door, so I — for whatever reason — I didn’t do that. I ran the other way. I ran towards the gun shots.

When I came around the corner into the lobby area, I saw the individual with a gun, and he fired two rounds. And I yelled at him and I must have yelled very loud.

When I yelled at him he turned and looked at me, and he like froze. He saw me coming, and I was ready to do whatever I had to do to stop him.

He looked at me, and I must have had a really mean look on my face or something because he immediately dropped his weapon and turned and ran. And then I gave chase.”

‘It Takes a Good Guy with a Gun to Stop a Bad Guy with a Gun’

Stewart ran after the shooter into the parking lot and punched hard on his car.

That’s when a Border Patrol agent who’s a member of the synagogue ran toward the two, yelling for...

It's true that Joe Biden did his best to help Anita Hill, including concealing witnesses who would have been a disaster under examination. But even he admitted to his colleague that Hill was lying.

Former vice president Joe Biden repeatedly said on The View on Friday that he believed Anita Hill from the moment he heard her tale of sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas. But he previously told Sen. Arlen Specter that it was clear her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee included lies.

“Not only didn’t I vote for Clarence Thomas, I believed her from the beginning. I was against Clarence Thomas, I did everything in my power to defeat Clarence Thomas and he won by the smallest margin anyone ever won going on the Supreme Court,” Biden told “The View’s” Joy Behar.

But in 1998, Biden admitted to Specter that “It was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, [Hill] was lying” about a key part of her testimony. The exchange was published in Specter’s 2000 memoir, “Passion for Truth: From Finding JFK’s Single Bullet to Questioning Anita Hill to Impeaching Clinton.”

The issue is important, as the media and other partisans rewrite the historical record about Hill and her accusations. The widely watched hearings revealed inaccuracies in Hill’s various versions of events and ended with 58 percent of Americans believing Thomas and only 24 percent believing Hill. There was no gap between the sexes in the results. In the intervening years, activists have relentlessly attempted to change the narrative, writing fan fiction about Hill, bestowing honors on her, and asserting that her disputed allegations were credible.

On “The View,” Biden claimed, “If you go back and look at what I said and didn’t say, I don’t think I treated her badly. I took on her opposition. What I couldn’t figure out how to do — and we still haven’t figured it out – how do you stop people from asking inflammatory questions?”

Prominent media partisans attacked Specter for asking tough questions of Hill. Or really, just for asking simple questions she struggled to answer. He began by noting that many people had reported Hill had praised Thomas and his nomination to the Supreme Court. These included a former colleague at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where both Hill and Thomas had worked years prior. Another person corroborated the colleague’s claim.

Hill disputed their claims. She also disputed the former dean of her law school, who said she had praised Thomas as a “fine man and an excellent legal scholar.” Then she claimed she didn’t know a woman named Phyllis Barry, who had told The New York Times that Hill’s allegations “were the result of Ms. Hill’s disappointment and frustration that Mr. Thomas did not show any sexual interest in her.”

Under questioning from Specter, in which he mentioned that two colleagues had provided statements attesting that she knew Barry, Hill was forced to concede that she knew her and had worked with her at the EEOC.

Specter then asked about the major contradictions between her testimony to the Senate and her interviews with the FBI. Her testimony with the Senate was much more colorful and descriptive even though it took place just days after her FBI interviews.

Finally he asked Hill about a USA Today article that claimed, “Anita Hill was told by Senate staffers her signed affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas would be the instrument that ‘quietly and behind the scenes’ would force him to...