That Would Be Unthinkable

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print

News that I missed courtesy of The Babylon Bee:

U.S.—The Resistance movement, formed to oppose President Trump, has stepped up its efforts against the right’s “rapidly encroaching tyranny.” They have vowed to do whatever they can to stop Trump, other than showing even basic respect to the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him.

“This is unlike any other time in history,” said Adrienne Stokes, an activist and self-proclaimed member of the Resistance. “We have to be willing to do anything we can to bring down Trump and stop the rise of the alt-right. Spend every day protesting. Mob his cronies. Go to jail if we have to. Absolutely anything… as long as it doesn’t involve acknowledging the cares and concerns of people who don’t share our politics.”

“We will go the distance, up to the moment we’re asked to have a civil conversation—that would be a bridge too far.”

This is a sentiment widely shared by all the loudest opposition to Trump—antifa, Democrats, journalists—who see Trump as a challenge to this country unlike anything it has ever faced. To them, that means every strategy must be considered to stop the rising tide of fascism short of treating their political opponents as fellow human beings and not the cartoon villains they have dreamed up in their heads.


Go here to read the rest.


25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Trump supporter, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

More to explorer

No Mas, No Mas!

Please Democrats, I’m begging you, nominate Joe Biden.

September 17, 1787: A Republic Madam, If You Can Keep It

  A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor

America in History

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must


  1. One disturbing thing I’ve noticed about the left’s increasing
    acceptance of violence and intimidation as means to achieve
    its political ends is the silence of leaders on the left who might
    otherwise restore some sanity. Case in point: Obama.

    I recall Obama attempting to shut down opposition to his positions
    on immigration, Obamacare, education, voter ID, and national
    security by using the phrase “that’s not who we are”, over and over.
    By doing so, he implied that those who disagreed with him were
    somehow un-American. Yet I cannot recall a single instance of him
    saying that about the assaults, vandalism and intimidation done by the Occupy movement, or Black Lives Matter, or Antifa, or the so-called

    There is, of course, that old legal adage that “silence implies consent”.
    The Democrats’ leadership doesn’t denounce the normalization of
    violence as a political tool for the left because that is, in fact, “who
    they are”.

  2. “There is, of course, that old legal adage that ‘silence implies consent.'”

    As I recall, the full phrase is as follows:

    “Qui tacet consentire videtur ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.”

    Translated, it means, “Who is silent is seen to consent where he is able and ought to speak.”

  3. Clinton wrote of “the left’s increasing acceptance of violence and intimidation as means to achieve
    its political ends.”

    Surely, there is nothing new here. Just read Alain Badiou, the Grand Old Man of the French Left with his ridicule of those who want a “decaffeinated revolution – 1789 without 1793” and his insistence that “if you say A – equality, human rights and freedoms – you should not shirk from its consequences and gather the courage to say B – the terror needed to really defend and assert the A.”

    Hence, his remark that “Materialist dialectics assumes, without particular joy, that, until now, no political subject was able to arrive at the eternity of the truth it was deploying without moments of terror. Since, as Saint-Just asked: “What do those who want neither Virtue nor Terror want?” His answer is well known: they want corruption -another name for the subject’s defeat.”

  4. Surely, there is nothing new here.

    Administrators in higher education ca. 1969 could be hopelessly ineffectual in dealing with the rabble in their student body, but they were not (by and large) in cahoots with them. What’s nearly novel about the current situation is that the rabble and the administration are symbiotic and this often includes local politicians (in loci like Charlottesville and Berkeley). One place I frequent is a site where the staff moderator is a police officer. He’s offered the view that neither the police nor the campus security in these places is happy with it, because their vocation is to keep order.

    It’s not an accident that the advocates of fair play on the left have been those of the older cohorts (Nat Hentoff (RIP), Alan Dershowitz, and Jerilyn Merritt). They came of age where it wasn’t assumed you owned all the pieces on the board and the opposition has stolen them. Very few vociferous liberals can process actual discussion and argument over issues. It’s all status games, rhetorical games, and trash talk.

  5. “One disturbing thing I’ve noticed about the left’s increasing
    acceptance of violence and intimidation as means to achieve
    its political ends ”

    Ideas have consequences.
    IF you believe that killing babies is a form of form of “birth control” , abortion=no_baby, then any ends can be justified by any means. So to violence.

  6. The Right owns guns. The Left is stupid and fails to acknowledge this. It will not end pretty.

    In the late 1960 and early 1970s the Left was violent, too. Manson, the Weather Underground, SDS…..crazy people. Antifa is the same.

Comments are closed.