I don’t usually get into Twitter Debates these days but something interesting happened yesterday that illustrated the liberal mindset.

A few days ago I wrote about the Cheesecake factory here and I sent out a tweet concerning it which days later is still getting retweets and likes

Lots of people replied that we should boycott but It was my thought that the cheesecake factory should get a chance to answer my question first.

One response came from a person known as Gennaerphone

I replied pointing out that their ability to go to the Cheesecake factory is completely independent of a conservative boycott (and making what some might consider a startling confession)

Yes it’s true I just can’t stand cheesecake! Our liberal friend replied thus

Now in one sense it’s not a bad point concerning self censorship and considering others although I’ve found the left tends to be rather one sided in terms of such censorship, but there was something in that reply that I was not going to let pass.

Hundreds of thousand died because of the Confederate Flag both in the war and afterwards, Millions died both in war and via extermination under the swastika once the Nazi’s appropriated it. To equate a Trump voter to this is not only obscene but could be used to justify any action, even violent action, against a member of the GOP in general or a Trump supporter in particular.

Again look at the argument here, if you support Donald Trump you are part of a cult, and if you had never encountered Trump supporters, of it your only source of info was the MSM one might believe it.

But I have seen the opponents of Trump enmass in Boston. I have watched a mob go after Trump supporters and I have interviewed Trump voter. Such an argument is contrary to facts I have seen and recorded and I said so.

note I should have said election 2016 but the point is made and I issued the following challenge

You won’t be surprised at the answer to my invitation

At this point I prepared a link so people following my timeline and his would be able to see my coverage, but when I tried to reply with it, it failed. You can guess why

But I sent out the tweet anyways

That he would block me was not a surprise because it’s an action built on fear

How afraid was he that even one of his followers might see my post, watch those videos and see the left and himself int he light of truth? He didn’t just block me, he deleted every single one of HIS tweets in that exchange so that no trace of me would be in his timeline..

How sad must it be to have so little faith in one’s own argument and so much fear that it be challenged? It what turns normal people into stuff life this

For the record my post on the subject is here my videos both interviews with members of the crowd and their actions are unedited shown as they are.

And that’s why folks like Gennaerphone are so afraid of it and why I submit and suggest that it’s worthy of your support




Please consider subscribing, That pays the bills and my writers


Choose a Subscription level



Apparently the owners of Starbucks have never read these words from Kipling:

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

Otherwise they would have never started this new policy

Starbucks baristas and store managers have long found the coffee company’s guidelines on how to treat lingering nonpaying guests vague at best. One company executive told the Journal the guidance on nonpaying guests had long been a gray area, which the Philadelphia incident brought to the forefront.

The company said at the time that it had different guidelines for its 28,000 stores globally, depending on the market. The new policy will apply to its more than 8,000 U.S. company-operated cafes.

On Saturday, the company told its employees in a letter that “any person who enters our spaces, including patios, cafes and restrooms, regardless of whether they make a purchase, is considered a customer.”

Jazz Shaw is exactly right about the abuse of the policy that is coming

This “woke” policy is an invitation to abuse, and history has shown us that when you roll out such an invitation, there will be someone coming along to take advantage of it soon enough. This is particularly true in larger cities where business owners regularly have to deal with individuals looking for a place to pass the time, either to escape the heat or the cold or to find a free bathroom. If the word gets out that Starbucks can’t stop anyone from hanging out there, some of the stores are going to turn into impromptu homeless shelters and that’s not going to do much for the store’s prospects in terms of paying customers.

And he is likely right concerning the goal as well

Starbucks may believe that they’re going to get the SJW crowd off their backs with this policy change. And for a short time they might. But I would wager that many of their outlets will come to regret the new policy in short order.

They will regret it not just because of what will happen, but because SJW’s are never satisfied.  One concession will require another and another and still another.

If the owners of Starbucks read either history or Kipling they would know this, but then again if they read Kipling, the SJW community would likely object to that too.

Loves the world, except for all the people

Men at work Dr. Heckyll and Mr. Jive 1982

I think Ace has nailed it when it comes to starbucks.

25. That’ll be great for Starbucks’ business. Their yuppie douchebag clientele love the homeless in the abstract, but we’ll see how much they appreciate their coffee shops being jammed with them, close-up-like, occupying most tables and chairs.

26. I don’t even want to defend Starbucks; I want them to have the full taste of Social Justice Warrior progressivism. If this is the company’s ideology, then they should live that ideology to the full.

27. I have a feeling Starbucks is just claiming this policy until the Social Justice Warrior locusts find a new business to harass, and then, when they do move on, they’ll quietly shift the policy back to “Paying Customers Only,” but I think it would be a hoot if conservatives monitored them to make sure they’re sticking with this new, idiotic policy of letting anyone just sit and lounge without actually buying anything.

28. I think it would be funny if rightwing blogs made sure they were continuing this policy and made sure everyone knew they were backsliding when they do, inevitably, backslide into a non-insane position.

Starbucks has caught themselves between a rock and a hard place.  The gated community crowd that lives in neighborhood far removed from those they agitate for are unlikely to be anxious to share a coffee shop with the great unwashed as they mutter to themselves.  Nor will they be anxious to avail themselves of the facilities as the homeless gather.

Even better with thousands of locations around the nation  the first time a homeless person, particularly one of color is turned away from either a bathroom or a table they can be sure that even an Obamaphone video of such an act will be made viral by the first conservative who sees it, presuming of course a conservatives isn’t ready to shoot such a video themselves.

If I owned a Starbucks franchise, I’d sell now because one they make it policy to reject the “unconscious desire to keep vagrants and transients from just parking themselves in their shops all damn day.”  I suspect nobody will have any interest in buying.

Win the Abortion BattleI’ve often argued that the Democrat position on Abortion is the Same as their historical position on Slavery and Jim Crow. At best they considered unborn children as subhuman just as they once considered blacks subhuman and at worst they consider unborn children property to be disposed as they see fit, just as they once considered black slaves.

So when I heard that Kevin Williamson was fired by the Atlantic for daring to consider the murder of the unborn just as heinous as the murder of the born it hit me that if he had been a columnist for a Democrat Paper or magazine in the days of slavery or Jim Crow and had dared suggest that the murder of a black person was Just as heinous as the murder of a white person he would have been shown the door as well.

Some might be upset at the reminder of this historical reality but it’s not just a historical allusion as abortion so disproportionately slaughters black children and nothing is more sacred to the Democrat elite that their ability to continue that slaughter thus Williamson’s’s objections become beyond the pale.

It seems that some things just never change.

If you’d like to continue to support independent journalism, help defray the $140 a month extra I’ll need for my new hosting site please consider hitting DaTipJar here.



Consider subscribing. 7 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.


Choose a Subscription level


Finally might I suggest my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer makes an excellent Gift.

Sheldon Cooper:  I came to file a complaint. Somebody has made me feel uncomfortable in the workplace by using language of an inappropriate and sexual nature.
Ms. Davis: And who was that?
Sheldon Cooper:   You, you dirty birdie. I thought about the things you said to me yesterday, and I realized I’m deeply offended. Now, be a dear and get me one of those complaint forms.

The Big Bang Theory:  The Egg Salad Equivalency 2013

At Salon.com a rather late realization has set in:

Dang — looks like those women-only “Wonder Woman” screenings were illegal

Turns out that when men whined about being banned from the screenings, they had a legal point

Salon was shocked SHOCKED to find out that under the laws of liberal Austin Texas, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

Over at some colleges they are making similar discovers at a cost greater than a complementary Wonder Woman DVD

A University of Texas student claims in a lawsuit that UT President Gregory L. Fenves misapplied the school’s sexual assault policy and suspended him for five semesters even though his accuser agreed to have sex after a sorority formal in spring 2016.

And the costs aren’t limited to colleges either:

“Rolling Stone has settled a lawsuit with the University of Virginia fraternity whose members were falsely accused of raping a female student in a Nov. 2014 article, The Daily Caller has learned. A source involved at the national level with the fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, tells TheDC that Rolling Stone will pay $1.65 million to settle the defamation suit.”

What’s really funny about this is these results were completely predictable because of laws our friends on the left spent decades getting in place:

According to Dan Eaton, an attorney and ethics professor at San Diego University, the engineer certainly has grounds for a case on two fronts. “First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions,” Eaton writes.

And second, because the memo was a statement of political views, Eaton says Google may have violated California law which “prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.”

An international corporation with armies of both lawyers, Google knew all this. They decided to take their chances with state and federal law anyway rather than stick up for one of their employees and risk public backlash. That’s an incredibly telling decision from a company that has mastered everything from artificial intelligence to self-driving cars.

The piece ends with the idea that google is more afraid of liberal anger than expensive lawsuits, but once those expensive lawsuits start coming, followed by the discrimination lawsuits from conservatives who are denied positions, and other lawsuits concerning “hostile work environments” which our friends on the left have so graciously provided us with, the worm will start turning quickly, particularly for publicly held companies who have to explain to their shareholders why keeping the perpetually outraged left is more important than their bottom line.

As for those who think Google’s size making them safe from this kind of thing.  I’m old enough to remember when AOL was the net and the net was AOL.  Google should take note.

After all if front groups that are essentially fax machines with a post office boxes and a few people tweeting can  scare a company, how much so group consisting of actual people in quantity who both vote and shop?

Perhaps Google should ask Mizzou?