Child Abuse Commentary Emotional abuse Opinion

Fast Car, by Tracy Chapman — It’s even darker than you thought.

Hits: 52

Fast Car is a Grammy Award winner (1989).

It has been covered by several artists, the latest being Luke Combs.

By the summer of 2023, Luke Combs went to No. 1 on the Country Airplay chart and No. 2 on the Hot 100 with his cover of “Fast Car.’ Featured on his fourth album, Gettin’ Old, “Fast Car” was more than another cover song for the country singer, who shared that he would listen to the Chapman hit, and her entire debut album, while driving around with his father in a beat-up 1988 Ford F-150.

Most people realize that the song is not about the car. It is about the narrator and her living conditions: Poverty and despair and the desire to escape it. It is also about the generational cycles of the very poor.

You got a fast car
I want a ticket to anywhere
Maybe we make a deal
Maybe together we can get somewhere
Any place is better
Starting from zero, got nothing to lose
Maybe we’ll make something
Me, myself, I got nothing to prove


You got a fast car
I got a plan to get us out of here
I been working at the convenience store
Managed to save just a little bit of money
Won’t have to drive too far
Just ‘cross the border and into the city
You and I can both get jobs
And finally see what it means to be living

The first hint is in the following verse. Her dad is a drunk whose wife has left him and the narrator. Whether his drinking is the cause of her leaving or vice versa isn’t clear. What is clear is that the wife didn’t take her daughter with her.

See, my old man’s got a problem
He lives with the bottle, that’s the way it is
He says his body’s too old for working
His body’s too young to look like his
My mama went off and left him
She wanted more from life than he could give
I said, somebody’s got to take care of him
So I quit school and that’s what I did

While there is no indication that the narrator and her father were on welfare at the time, the last two lines reveal her descent into enablership. He didn’t need to be taken care of; he needed to get sober.

You got a fast car
Is it fast enough so we can fly away?
We gotta make a decision
Leave tonight or live and die this way


So I remember we were driving, driving in your car
Speed so fast, I felt like I was drunk
City lights lay out before us
And your arm felt nice wrapped ’round my shoulder
And I-I, had a feeling that I belonged
I-I had a feeling I could be someone, be someone, be someone.

Somewhere she hooked up with the owner of the car, who already shows some potential red flags — which she doesn’t see because he makes her feel special, like she could “be someone.”

They make the jump to the city. (If the father is dead, it isn’t stated.)

You got a fast car
We go cruising to entertain ourselves
You still ain’t got a job
And I work in a market as a checkout girl
I know things will get better
You’ll find work and I’ll get promoted
We’ll move out of the shelter
Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs

This verse indicates that they live in a homeless shelter and that she got a job as a cashier, while he hasn’t done squat. Red Flag, but again she doesn’t notice.

Later, in another verse, we see that she’s been pregnant several times by this guy, but that she’s  risen high enough to pay their bills by herself:

You got a fast car
I got a job that pays all our bills
You stay out drinking late at the bar
See more of your friends than you do of your kids
I’d always hoped for better
Thought maybe together you and me would find it
I got no plans, I ain’t going nowhere
So take your fast car and keep on driving

So, she’s basically married a twin of her father. And she’s been enabling him to not straighten up and amount to something.  She’s been caring for him now for years. He seems fine with the situation.

There’s also an implied warning: she is running out of patience with him. The first time she says “We’ve got to make a decision.” But the final verse is somewhat different.

You got a fast car
Is it fast enough so you can fly away?
You gotta make a decision
Leave tonight or live and die this way

A failed relationship that started for the wrong reasons, as Tracy herself has said. She said it’s not autobiographical, even though she did grow up near Cleveland, OH to a single mother.. Did the ‘Fast Car’ owner wake up and make amends, or did the narrator become yet another single mother? The song doesn’t say definitively whether things got better —

or worse…?


Biden Cartel Child Abuse Emotional abuse Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Sexual Abuse WOKE

RED ALERT! HHS proposes to remove minors from non “GENDER AFFIRMING” foster homes.

Hits: 23

Yes, you read that right: Biden Admin Proposal Would ‘Transfer’ Kids Out Of Foster Homes That Don’t Affirm Their ‘Gender Identity.’

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a proposed rule Wednesday that would require states to “transfer” foster children from families who do not support their “gender identity,” a copy of the rule showed.

Under the proposed rule, children in the foster care system will only be placed with families who the HHS classifies as a “safe and appropriate placement,” meaning families must use a child’s “identified pronouns” and “chosen name,” the rule said. “Safe” families will undergo extensive training to “provide” for the child’s “needs,” and the state will transfer fostered children away from families who do not “support” their “self-identified gender identity and expression,” upon completion of an investigation.

“In certain cases, we anticipate that a report from a LGBTQI+ youth that they feel their placement is not safe or appropriate should merit a response of great urgency from the agency,” HHS wrote in the proposed rule. “For example, given the extensive evidence that LGBTQI+ youth who face bullying, discrimination, or harassment related to their sexual orientation or gender identity are at significantly increased risk of violence or self-harm, we anticipate that agencies should respond with urgency when a LGBTQI+ child raises concerns that a placement that is not safe and appropriate.”

Evil made to sound innocent.

Families can apply for a religious exception, but the agency declares it has a “compelling government interest” that outweighs any “religious restrictions.”

Child abuse in its most insidious form,

The rule also clarifies that foster parents will be guilty of “neglect” or “abuse” if they “retaliate” against a child for their “gender identity,” including if they restrict the child’s access to “age-appropriate materials” such as “health care supportive of their sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.” 

Families will be required to help children go through sex-change surgeries or allow them to take puberty blockers, including children younger than 14.

President Joe Biden requested in June that the agency “take action” to “safeguard LGBTQI+ youth from dangerous practices,”

Families who have religious objections to changing genders or engaging in same-sex relationships will not be allowed to foster children who “identify” as “LGBTQIA,” because they will not fit under the definition of a “safe placement,” the rule clarifies. HHS says families can apply for a religious exception, but claimed that the agency has “compelling government interest” that outweighs any “religious restrictions.”

HHS created the rule after President Joe Biden requested in June that the agency “take action” to “safeguard LGBTQI+ youth from dangerous practices,” a White House press release said. Biden praised the HHS rule in a Wednesday press release and said the rule would give children “the services they need to thrive.”

HHS plans to publish the proposed rule on Thursday and will allow individuals to comment on the potential rule for the next 60 days.

Rules by the unelected are not laws.

First reported on The Daily Caller.


Censorship Commentary Free Speech Leftist Virtue(!)

SSDD 3: Banned from a Disqus channel while the eNVious just get a warning

Hits: 69


Toxic commenters (former Gold Stars) just get a warning.

On the other hand……..

I have no idea why I was banned. Could it be some of the behind-the-scenes actors at Disqus are still in bed with the Gold Stars of old?

Leftist trolls get a free pass, too. (Surprise, surprise!)

It’s no great loss to me, but it proves what I suspected from the get-go.



Back Door Power Grab Censorship Commentary Corruption Free Speech Government Overreach Gun Control Leftist Virtue(!) Reprints from others.

A Nation of Snitches: DHS Is Grooming Americans to Report on Each Other

Hits: 37


Back Door Power Grab Corruption Elections Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

NY Governor Goes Around Voters’ Backs, Signs Change in State Election Laws

Hits: 29


New York’s Democratic legislature and governor have decided to change election laws despite the fact that voters had previously rejected the idea.

On Wednesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul’s website announced that she had signed a series of election reforms designed to “strengthen democracy and protect voting rights.”

Among these new voting laws is S. 7394-A/A. 7632-A, which strengthens the controversial early voting by mail that caused so much uproar in the 2020 presidential election.

“This legislation will create a process allowing all eligible, registered New York State voters the opportunity to vote early by mail in advance of an election,” a statement on the governor’s website reads. “This legislation represents a significant expansion of ballot access in New York State, and will provide millions of New York voters with an easy, safe, and secure means of voting early by mail ballot.”

Yet for all their talk about protecting “democracy” and “voting rights,” the leftist Democrats who run New York State seem to have forgotten one big thing: The people of New York do not want this.

According to Just the News, in 2021, voters in New York rejected a measure that would have enshrined early voting by mail into the state’s constitution.

Nevertheless, Hochul and her fellow Democrats have decided to push ahead anyway, in defiance of the will of the very people they claim to serve. It’s a strange form of “democracy,” if you ask me.

Hochul’s new laws are not without pushback, however, and several Republican lawmakers at both the state and federal levels have filed a lawsuit against the governor for violating the state’s constitution.

Among those suing the governor are Rep. Elise Stefanik, the Republican National Committee, and the New York Republican State Committee. All allege that this new law is unconstitutional.

“The Mail-Voting Law is a blatant violation of Article II, § 2 of the New York State Constitution, which requires qualified voters to cast their vote in any election in person at their designated polling places unless they will be unable to do so,” the lawsuit says. The only exceptions to voting in person allowed by law are absence from the county of residence or being unable to go to their polling place because of illness or physical disability.

The lawsuit is also careful to mention that the people of New York voted against this very thing two years ago.

“The Mail-Voting Law was enacted by the Legislature in open and knowing defiance of Article II, § 2, ignoring and subverting the will of the People whom the Legislature is supposed to represent. Only two years earlier at the general election held in November 2021, the voters of the State soundly rejected a constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature entitled “Authorizing No-Excuse Absentee Ballot Voting,” which had sought to amend Article II, § 2 by deleting the requirements for absentee voting in order to allow all qualified voters to vote by mail without providing a specific reason.”

Robert Ortt, New York State Senate Minority Leader, called the vote-by-mail scheme “yet another attempt by the far-left to keep themselves in power in New York State.”

Honestly, this situation is really infuriating. The governor and legislature are  not only violating the laws of their own state, they are also going against the will of the people and are trying to push this agenda through anyway.

Yet this is hardly surprising. The left always loves to talk about “defending democracy,” but more often than not, that just means defending the liberal agenda and advancing their ideology.

The people of New York are learning the hard way that in the world of the left, just because you vote a certain way, it does not mean that the leftist authorities are going to respect your decision.

The Republicans have every right to take Hochul and her state election officials to court because what they are doing is illegal.

Let’s hope the people of New York will not forget this illegal act and will vote differently in the next election.


Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Opinion Reprints from others.

It’s Not Just Here: The woke mob is ruining Oktoberfest

Hits: 44

Waitresses of the Hofbräu tent pose with 1-liter beer mugs on the opening day of the 2023 Munich Oktoberfest on September 16, 2023 in Munich, Germany (Getty Images)

Cockburn wouldn’t be so skeptical of the radical left nearly as much if they didn’t have an insatiable need to suck the joy out of holidays. First they replaced the Christmas tree with the Kwanzaa bush. Then they told us that tofurkey tastes just as good as the real thing. Now, they are attempting to crush Oktoberfest too.

The two-century-old German tradition, which kicked-off in Munich on September 16, is under attack for its skimpy costumes and environmental impact. The man leading the charge: Luitpold Rupprecht Heinrich, the seventy-two-year-old Prince of Bavaria whose great-grandfather was the last Bavarian king.

“When I see Chinese-made folk costumes made of plastic, pseudo-costumes with tight dirndls, then the whole thing becomes a carnival. We all talk about cultural appropriation today,” Heinrich said. “Here it’s happening to us Bavarians!”

Heinrich added that wearing a costume to get drunk in degrades the festival’s tradition. Cockburn, who has stumbled out of many beer tents, would apologize for cultural appropriation, but feels his ambiguous European heritage protects him. And while he isn’t one to question royal authority, he feels he must correct Heinrich’s account of the festival. The first Oktoberfest celebrated the wedding of a 19th-century Bavarian prince. And what is a wedding if not an excuse to dress up and drink?

As if the removal of busty women weren’t enough, environmentalists are driving up the cost of festivities. Traditionally, revelers have enjoyed whole rotisserie chickens sold by vendors lining the streets. But this year, the Paulaner festival tent, a historic Oktoberfest tent in Munich, serves organic chicken only, costing 20.50 euros ($22). Paulaner’s chickens are 50 percent more expensive than non-organic ones, meaning many a reveler will go chickenless. An Oktoberfest official and a Green Party member told the Wall Street Journal that the changes are part of the city’s goal of becoming climate neutral by 2035 — and also zero fun, apparently.

Despite activists’ attempts to institute food mandates at the festival, Munich officials have yet to impose them. The spirit of Oktoberfest is protected by a coalition of innkeepers opposing the measures. “I don’t think anyone really wants a planned economy in which a small group decides what is good for the people and what is not,” said Thomas Geppert, head of the Bavarian Hotel and Restaurant Association.

Prost! to that.

Orignally published in The Spectator.


Corruption Free Speech Government Overreach Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Judge: Biden Admin Violated Doctor’s First Amendment Rights

Hits: 25

Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University, where he serves as director of the Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging.

Exerting a pressure campaign on social media companies to censor COVID-19 skeptics

A federal appeals court ruled that the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, and the surgeon general violated a Stanford doctor’s First Amendment rights by using social media to silence him by exerting a pressure campaign on social media companies to censor COVID-19 skeptics — including Stanford epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

“I think this ruling is akin to the second Enlightenment,” Bhattacharya told The Post. “It’s a ruling that says there’s a democracy of ideas. The issue is not whether the ideas are wrong or right. The question is who gets to control what ideas are expressed in the public square?”

The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech.

Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020 with professors from Harvard and Oxford.

The epidemiologists advocated for “focused protection” — safeguarding the most vulnerable Americans while cautiously allowing others to function as normally as possible — rather than broad pandemic lockdowns.

The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech.

The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech.

Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020 with professors from Harvard and Oxford.

The epidemiologists advocated for “focused protection” — safeguarding the most vulnerable Americans while cautiously allowing others to function as normally as possible — rather than broad pandemic lockdowns.

“The government had a vast censorship enterprise,” Bhattacharya said. “It was systematically used to threaten and coerce and jawbone and tell all these social media companies, ‘You better listen to us: Censor these people, censor these ideas, or else.’”

It was later revealed that then-NIH director Dr. Francis Collins called for a “swift and devastating takedown” of Bhattacharya and his co-authors — whom Collins dubbed “fringe epidemiologists” — in an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Subsequent reporting from Elon Musk’s so-called Twitter Files — internal documents and communications released by Musk, after he bought the platform, to expose Twitter’s inner workings — revealed that Bhattachrya’s profile was being suppressed on the platform.

 A landmark case in curbing the influence the government has over social media

“It’s akin to the efforts by governments to suppress the printing press when it first was invented, when books represented an enormous threat to power,” Bhattacharya said, referring to efforts by King Henry VIII and the Catholic Church to curb use of the printing press in the 16th century.

“There’s an analogous fight that’s currently going on with social media, which makes it vastly easier for anybody to express their ideas, and very powerful people find that incredibly threatening.”

The September 8 ruling affirmed but narrowed a lower court order, issued on July 4 by US District Judge Terry Doughty, which found that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “engaged in a years-long pressure campaign [on social media outlets] designed to ensure that the censorship aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints” and that “the platforms, in capitulation to state-sponsored pressure, changed their moderation policies.

Bhattacharya says the first victory, although in a lower court, was the most exciting to him.

“I was just absolutely thrilled, especially to have it on July 4th,” he said. “I think that judge was sending a message by issuing this ruling on July 4th that we’re going to restore free speech in this country.”

The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday — a move that Bhattacharya anticipated.

But he believes it’s “unlikely” the Supreme Court will overturn the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

He feels his is a landmark case in curbing the influence the government has over social media — on matters that extend far beyond just COVID-19 and lockdowns.

“This new technology has created enormous opportunities for people to participate in debate in the public square,” Bhattacharya said. “And I hope that this is the beginning of a legal infrastructure that enables that to happen rather than the opposite, which is a dark age where the government gets to decide what’s true and what’s allowed to be said.”


Back Door Power Grab Corruption Crime Elections Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Democrat Mayoral Candidate John Gomes Files Lawsuit to Block Certification of Stolen Connecticut Primary Race That Was Caught on Video

Hits: 13

Geter-Pataky dropped stacks of ‘illegal’ ballots into an absentee ballot box

On Monday, Democrat Mayoral candidate John Gomes filed a lawsuit challenging the results of his party’s primary in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and requesting a new Democratic primary.

This comes after a video surfaced showing a Democrat clerk inserting illegal ballots into a drop box, which prompted an investigation by the Bridgeport Police Department for “possible misconduct.”

The Gateway Pundit reported that Gomes’ campaign released a damning video on Saturday showing evidence of election fraud in the recent Bridgeport Democratic primary.

The video posted on Gomes campaign’s Facebook page shows a woman dropping stacks of ‘illegal’ ballots into an absentee ballot box outside the Bridgeport government center, where the city’s Registrar of Voters office is located, CT Mirror reported.

The Gomes campaign was able to identify the woman in the footage as Wanda Geter-Pataky, the Vice Chairwoman of the Democratic Town Clerk and a vocal supporter of incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim, who is seeking reelection.

Geter-Pataky sent one of her employees to make the fourth ballot drop while she watched

Gomes’ campaign claims that the video shows Geter-Pataky dropping off stacks of absentee ballots ahead of the September 12th primary.

“Video surveillance proving that the mayoral election was unequivocally stolen through corruption within City Hall by tampering with absentee ballots,” John Gomes said in a statement.

“This is an undeniable act of voter suppression and a huge civil rights violation. It’s time to restore lasting credibility to our city’s democracy. Once and for ALL. Enough is enough!” he added.

Gomes lost to incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim in the Democratic primary by a narrow margin of 251 votes, according to the most recent preliminary count posted on the Secretary of the State’s website. Ganim won the absentee vote tally 1,545 to 779, while Gomes led on the voting machines.

The Bridgeport Police Department confirmed that they are actively investigating the actions shown in the video.

“The Bridgeport Police Department are actively investigating information regarding possible misconduct based upon a video that has surfaced on social media,” the department told CT Mirror.

The police department is investigating how the video was obtained and released to the public.

“The Bridgeport Police Department immediately initiated an investigation to determine if any criminal wrongdoing has occurred. In addition, an internal investigation is being conducted to determine if any possible breach to our security video management system has occurred,” it added.

Bridgeport Police Chief Roderick Porter said the department takes “these actions seriously and we will pursue possible criminal prosecution and/or administrative discipline as it relates to any such security violations.”

In a press conference held on Monday, Christine Bartlett-Jose, the campaign manager for Democrat Mayoral candidate John Gomes, laid out a compelling case for why the recent Democratic primary election results in Bridgeport should be scrutinized and possibly invalidated.

“In this primary alone, the city of Bridgeport received over 4,000 absentee ballot applications, an unprecedented number in the city and possibly the state,” said Bartlett-Jose. She pointed out that the city had a lead of 470 votes based on incoming results on primary night. However, as absentee ballots were tabulated, their lead dramatically eroded, resulting in a two-to-one loss margin with an ultimate election difference of 251 votes.

Bartlett-Jose stated that the campaign has gathered evidence indicating voter suppression and absentee ballot fraud. “Multiple complaints have been filed with the State Election Enforcement Commission, including the most recent and irrefutable piece of evidence—an incriminating video from City Hall security footage showing Wanda Gita Pasky, the vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee, depositing absentee ballots,” she said.

Gita Pasky’s involvement in this election is deeply concerning, according to Bartlett-Jose.

“She has been named in various complaints across many districts related to harassment, bullying, promises of Section Eight, rent rebate, groceries, just to name a few,” she added.

Gita Pasky was recommended by the State Election Enforcement Commission to the State’s Attorney’s Office for criminal investigation regarding the alleged misuse of absentee ballots in the 2019 primary election.

The campaign will be petitioning the court to file an injunction against the primary election results, which have yet to be certified by the Secretary of State.

“This step is essential to prevent potential tainted results from being finalized,” Bartlett-Jose emphasized. They will also be seeking a restraining order against the distribution of any additional absentee ballot applications from the Town Clerk’s Office.

John Gomes, the Democratic challenger, said, “Right now there is a black cloud over Bridgeport, there is no trust. We walk around and I don’t know what to tell the people.”

He added that the evidence is overwhelming and speaks for itself, especially the video footage. Gomes and his campaign are filing a lawsuit, not only seeking a judge to prevent last week’s election results from being certified but also asking for a new Democratic primary.


So, if they (Conn State Election Enforcement Commission) recommended a prosecution regarding absentee ballots for an election in 2019, doesn’t that suggest that Trump was correct about the 2020 election? — TPR


Back Door Power Grab Censorship Free Speech How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke

SSDD Part Two: Disqus channels are selectively censoring again.

Hits: 66

I expect to be kicked off of ‘Breaking News’ soon.

Pud is supposed to be a mod there, but his name doesn’t appear as a mod there. I asked Finn, a gold star with a closed profile, about it. That will probably get me kicked off. Anyone still displaying a gold star in their screen name is likely not to be trusted. Several of our lurkers still display their gold star and brag about their “All Star” status.

Disqus is the AI bot. Fate is a gold star with a closed profile, and then there’s Finn:

So, where is Pud’s name in that list????

He’s already stated although he was made a moderator on Breaking News and Chit Chat, he can’t override the Disqus Bot  “decisions.” Numerous users have complained about innocuous posts getting deleted over there. (I can attest to that!)

But Leftists have free reign to insult every other poster on a thread. Why is that? Disqus is up to its old tricks.

Finally, they are also auto-censoring OP’s with no REAL reason given. Seriously? (You may need to enlarge the screencap below, even though it is full-size and easily readable IRL.)

Auto refused—no way to appeal.

The only POSSIBLE “rule” I am breaking there is #1: “Targeted Harassment”….hmm.

So, who am I targeting? Mod bots? Or maybe it’s the trolls showing up who call those who disagree with them MAGAts, Trumpers, commies, and assorted personal insults? As I say in the screencap, they are following the same tactics Media Mattress-trained trolls did eight years ago.

It’s strange how all those OP’s and comments attacking Trump (and conservatives in general) are fine and dandy with the Gods of Disqus.

Pud, aka The Coconut Whisperer, seems to be window-dressing to fool conservatives. He doesn’t seem to have any real power that Disqus can’t override without reason or explanation.

Remember when the original (and promoted by Disqus) NEWS VIEWS was the #1  channel — despite banning hundreds of unwary newbies who posted the wrong opinion there?

I do. I was one of them. This raises the specter of the same censorship starting all over again.




Commentary How funny is this? Politics Stupid things people say or do.

OOPS! ‘Revolutionary Communists’ Target Jason Aldean Concert, Aren’t So Tough When Police Show Up

Hits: 21

If you need any further proof that America is the freest country in the world, look no further than the type of idiocy this country tolerates.

A brazen incident at a Jason Aldean concert was crystal clear proof of that fact.

Aldean was performing in Tinley Park, Illinois, just outside Chicago, on Saturday night when a group calling themselves “Revolutionary Communists” (yes, they have a website, and yes, it looks like it’s been built with pre-Soviet Union era computers) showed up to make some sort of statement.

The statement? Oh, just your typical communist nonsense whilst burning the American flag.

Reporter Ford Fischer took to X, formerly Twitter, and shared some video of the “revolutionaries” burning the flag, and the police response to it.

In the first video Fischer shared, the small group of communists set fire to the American flag while chanting a variety of nonsense.

“F*** the U.S. and all its lies!” you can hear in the video. You can barely make out whatever other perceived grievances this group claims it has.

Eventually, you can hear the police declaring this group’s antics constituted “unlawful assembly.”

But this is where some wildly unintentional comedy rears its funny head.

This band of “revolutionaries” … packed up and left, with nary a fuss.

Could you imagine if these ingrates had been around during the American Revolution? This country would still be eating crumpets and drinking (unfairly taxed) tea.

A second video from Fischer shows that instead of taking up their arms and fighting back against this perceived fascism, these “revolutionaries” opted for cute little chants and phrases — perhaps the most emblematic microcosm imaginable for the current state of the country.

You can hear the communists declare “We did it in a small town,” which is a clear reference to Aldean’s wildly popular and equally controversial song, “Try That in a Small Town.”

If by “we did it,” they meant that they stood around and burned the U.S. flag before meekly kowtowing to the police, then sure. They absolutely “did it.”

But if they’re trying to affect any actual change?

They honestly probably could’ve gotten more done with a “one, two, three, four, I declare a thumb war” chant.

Adding to the unintentional comedy of this all, the “RevComs” took to their 1994 GeoCities-inspired web site to — gloat?

“In the weeks leading up to the Jason Aldean concert in the Chicago suburb of Tinley Park, the Revcoms pledged that we would CALL OUT fascist country singer Jason Aldean and burn an American flag at his concert in defiance of his Lynch mob anthem, ‘Try That in a Small Town.’ And that is exactly what we did this past Saturday,” the group bragged on Monday.

From their website which, incidentally, calls for the overthrow of the government. BUT THEY’LL TAKE YOUR FILTHY CAPITALIST MONEY! — TPR

Couple of quick points here:

  1. For the love of vocabulary, can someone please buy leftists dictionaries and thesauruses? Fascism does not mean people you disagree with. To quote the great fictional philosopher Iñigo Montoya, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”
  2. Color this writer skeptical, but a demonstration is typically more effective when it’s actually presented in front of the alleged “fascist,” no? Bragging you got to stand out in the streets before bending the knee to the police isn’t exactly a “revolution.”

At the end of the day, this incident does capture so much of what’s wrong with this country: It’s filled with idiotic ingrates.

Is America perfect? Heck no. Should America constantly seek to improve itself? Heck yes.

America is still the best and freest country in the world (perhaps to a fault, but that’s a different story for a different time). The fact that these buffoons get to share their idiocy with the world in such a public manner, while burning the flag of this country, is a testament to that.

But just as they have the right to show their rears to the world, so too does the rest of the country have the right to point at laugh at them.

And between their horrid website, spineless rhetoric and utter lack of vocabulary, you’d be hard pressed not to guffaw at these “revolutionaries.”

They sure made a good impression, didn’t they?

Having trouble getting ‘X’ links to open on the page. –TPR


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights