Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

An inconvenient shooting

Not politically useful to the gun-grabbin’, goosesteppin’ Left.

School shootings are terrible events — except for the left where they represent opportunities, as in Rahm Emanuel’s “Never let a crisis go to waste” modus operandi.

CNN, for example, wasted no time in politicizing the latest school shooting in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.

After the shooting, other than some virtue signaling by the media, the story has left the front pages, as the narrative may be inconvenient for the leftist agenda. CNN and MSNBC have lived up to their reputation as “drive-by media” by quickly moving on. No interviews with David Hogg or other gun control fanatics. So, what are some of the inconvenient aspects to this story that the media would prefer to drive by without any discussion or analysis?

Oh, there are lots of them listed here, each and every one pushing precisely the wrong Progtard buttons, thereby guaranteeing the story’s speedy interment. In fact, this one was apparently deemed to be so potentially damaging to our Leftist lords and masters that Enemedia’s usual tacit agreement to quietly abandon further reporting wasn’t enough. The courts got involved, Soviet-style, to make sure those pesky facts STAY buried.

The case of two anti-Trump leftists, one of whom is transgender, who shot up a school in Denver last week has been placed under seal by a judge, banning the public from seeing it.

Devon Erickson, 18, and Alec McKinney, 16, opened fire on two classrooms at the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) charter school in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, on May 7, killing one student and injuring eight others.

16-year-old Alec McKinney identifies as male but is biologically female, having been born Maya Elizabeth McKinney.

Following the shooting, it emerged that his accomplice Erickson had posted anti-Christian and anti-Trump messages on social media while praising former President Barack Obama.

It is now being reported that details of the case will remain secret to the public after it was sealed by a judge.

Via Komrade Bill, who adds: “As near as I can tell, it’s still up in the air whether the magenta-haired Easter-Worshiper hater was gay or not. If he was, that makes it even more imperative for the left to shove this one right down the memory hole.” I’m sure you meant “she” though, right Bill? Watch out with those unacceptable (if factual) pronouns there, buddy. That hate-crime shit can get you in all kindsa trouble.

So this is where we are in Amerika 2019, folks: a judge is suppressing information in a case that would ordinarily be receiving blanket, 24-7 Enemedia coverage nationwide, in close enough detail as to require the use of an electron microscope. I mean…just…wow. Since we’ve descended so far into propaganda wonderland, and myself having just deployed the obvious Soviet reference, it might be helpful for us to keep the old Soviet-era joke foremost in mind from here on out: there is no Pravda in Izvestia, and there is no Izvestia in Pravda.

Share

Christianity, liberty, and their enemies

By their fruits shall ye know them.

In the late M. Stanton Evans’ remarkable, critically important book The Theme Is Freedom, he develops a brilliant case for the proposition that political freedom depends upon the acknowledgement of an authority higher than any temporal authority: i.e., God. He further argues that of all the belief systems that have ever been followed, Christianity is the only one that emphasizes individual freedom as the rightful condition of men, to be protected from the encroachments of temporal powers. The United States of America, a near to uniformly Christian country for most of its history, is the modern society in which this coupling of religious belief to liberty has been most clearly demonstrated.

Well, our nation’s Founders would certainly seem to agree with that, yeah.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Funny how the rise to power of the fascist Left, the rapid escalation of encroachment on American liberty, and the en masse abandonment of Christianity since the 60s all seem to coincide, ain’t it? Funny, too, how much effort those same Progressivists have spent on rejiggering the Founders as being either skeptical at best about Christianity, openly hostile to it, or considered themselves “Deists”—a manipulative oversimplification that blithely disregards many direct statements on the subject made by the Founders themselves.

Back to Francis.

Given that premise, does it not make sense that they who seek to eradicate human freedom should target Christianity first and foremost? Does it not suggest that anyone you hear ridiculing Christians or denigrating Christianity should be viewed with a degree of suspicion?

It is an irony to pin all the meters against their stops that they who denigrate Christianity cannot argue against it on any rational grounds. They denounce it as “superstition,” “fear of death,” and other irrelevancies. They refuse to treat with its prescriptions…because those prescriptions directly oppose what they seek: power for themselves and their fellow-travelers.

God Himself has only ten rules for us. He asks nothing more. How dare any temporal authority suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that His rules don’t bind us? And how dare any temporal authority demand more than does He?

The enemies of Christianity, one and all, are totalitarian in ambition. That is: they seek the power to decide what is compulsory and what is forbidden, without any boundaries to the scope of their authority. Christians know that this is wrong. We decry it. We protest against it. In reply, our enemies ridicule us, drive us out of the public square, criminalize living by our beliefs, and ultimately exterminate us.

Progressivism is a religion its own self—a particularly jealous one, one that doesn’t like competition. Might go a long way, too, towards explaining their strange affiliation with Islam. I mean, aside from all the gay-hating and woman-oppressing, they DO have a lot in common: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, intolerance for all other beliefs, and no problem at all with using violence to back it all up, just for starters.

Share

The Tucker Revolution

Tuckernaught? Tuckpocalypse? Carlsnarok? Okay, okay, I’ll stop now.

Tucker Carlson’s cable-tv show begins identically each night. After the words “Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight”—always intoned and inflected exactly the same way—the host launches into an opening monologue on the news of the day, or what he thinks ought to be the news of the day.

On January 2, 2019, though, there was no news. So Carlson used the holiday lull to deliver a non-stop, 15-minute, 2,571-word evisceration of America’s ruling class—political, industrial, financial, intellectual, and cultural. Our rulers, he insisted, had failed at their ostensible tasks: to improve the health of the country and the lives of its citizens.

The show is usually leavened throughout with puckish humor. Not that night; Carlson was deadly serious. He laid at the feet of our ruling class a devastating litany of failure: the destruction of the family, skyrocketing out-of-wedlock births, the opioid crisis, rampant male unemployment, the sleazy effort to anesthetize the dispossessed with payday loans and pot, increasing financialization and techification of the economy and resultant wealth concentration, and foreign war without purpose, strategy, victory, or end.

But have our rulers really failed? Not if one understands, Carlson explained, that their real aim is to enrich themselves and maintain their power: “We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.”

Within a day or two, the speech had gone viral. Friend and enemy alike referred to it simply as “Tucker’s Monologue.” Everyone knew instantly which was meant. To those sympathetic, here was a quasi-Trumpist rallying cry not merely for a new Right, but also for millions of apolitical Americans who feel—rightly—abandoned, even preyed upon, by the status quo. By contrast, those opposed sensed a clear danger: a message that—unlike the stale tenets of Republican-study-group, think-tank conservatism—might actually have a chance of inspiring and creating a new majority.

He’s certainly iconoclastic now. The ways in which he breaks—on his nightly show and in bestselling book, Ship of Fools—with the rightist iron triangle of Republican politicians, conservative donors, and the magazine-think tank industrial complex are legion.

Why is capital taxed at half the rate of labor, Carlson asks, and is manifestly unsatisfied by the conventional Right’s answer that “investment” is necessary for “growth and innovation.” What good are the latter, he further asks, if all their gains accrue to a narrowing upper slice while those taxed double for working (assuming they can find jobs) can’t afford to share in the supposed glories of late-stage capitalism?

Why are we still making trade deals, three decades (at least) into a manufacturing decline that has devastated entire American industries and hollowed out many of our communities, all the while enriching some of our most determined foes? Why do our politicians insist on getting us into wars we not only can’t win but for which they can’t even define victory?

Above all, why—at a population of 330 million and climbing, with as many as 22 million here illegally—do our elites refuse to do anything whatsoever to control our borders? Indeed, why do they thwart, at every turn, President Trump on this very issue and attack anyone who speaks up for any limit on immigration whatsoever?

What, specifically, changed the mind of the formerly bow-tied boy-Buckley (or as a friend put it to me, “typical conservative dorkwad”) and launched Carlson toward becoming the leading light of a new conservative movement?

That’s just the opening of a Michael Anton review and analysis which, while lengthy, is a rockin’ good read nonetheless. Part of what makes it so enjoyable is the unvarnished glee with which Anton recounts (and skewers) the Old Guard’s sniffy condescension towards Carlson:

Within a day of Tucker’s Monologue, the “Right” rallied—not of course to denounce the decidedly unconservative trends Carlson complained about, but to attack Carlson himself. “Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot,” Carlson had said. Right on cue, as if to trumpet their idiocy, in rushed a platoon of policy wonks to defend the sanctity of markets and explain why creative destruction should and must apply every bit as much to people, families, and societies as it did to the buggy whip industry.

Bret Stephens devoted an entire column to riffing on a Monty Python movie, as if Carlson’s meaning were such a joke no serious refutation was warranted. (Then why devote an entire column to it?) It’s worth noting that the proffered catalogue of elite beneficence—“capital financing, deregulation, access to global markets, a stable and predictable regulatory and legal environment, IRAs and 401(k)s, talented immigrants, global cities, good food, universities that are the envy of the world, record-making growth and a world in which there’s almost no chance of my children being conscripted to fight a war”—while no doubt offered with utmost sincerely, reads like self-parody.

“The Right should reject Tucker Carlson’s victimhood populism” whinged David French, who, when not exploring a presidential campaign, never misses an opportunity to moralistically lambaste those to his right.

Later, Anton merrily deals out equally resounding slaps upside the empty heads of bewildered, hapless cucks Max Boot and Bill Kristol. Like I said, it’s a long piece, but stick with it to the end. It’s a sheer delight to read, brim-full of penetrating insight, clear-eyed analysis, and a bunch of good, toothsome lines to boot.

(Via Steyn)

Share

Christians Vs Churchians: what works, what doesn’t

If you preach it, they will come.

Stop accepting the Bible as true and admit Christianity has gotten it terribly wrong on homosexuality. This is the advice Rev. Oliver Thomas gives in a recent opinion article in USA Today for how the church can stop “hemorrhaging members” and see brighter days.

He warns that “the church is killing itself” because it has painted itself into a corner by actually believing what the Bible says. He contends that Christians should just admit that the Bible gets it wrong on so many important issues and that “reason and experience” should be our new guide, as if this is a new idea. He says the church is terribly wrong about sexuality, particularly homosexuality, and would do very well to wise up, lest it find itself reduced to a warehouse for cobwebs.

“Churches will continue hemorrhaging members and money at an alarming rate until we muster the courage to face the truth: We got it wrong on gays and lesbians,” he says.

We don’t have to wonder whether Thomas is correct. Not only is he wrong, but an impressive body of very strong data and experience demonstrates the precise opposite of what he claims is true.

Yes, many churches are hemorrhaging members, and have been since the early 1970s. But anyone who studies these things carefully will tell you this is happening almost exclusively in the more politically and theologically liberal mainline churches. These are the same churches that are doing exactly what Thomas calls for: rejecting the credibility and authority of Scripture.

This same research shows the churches he says must change or else are holding rock-solid steady in attendance. These are the more conservative congregations that unapologetically take the Bible at its word, including on homosexuality. His advice here is not just ill-advised, but the equivalent of telling any retailer that the way to growth is to stop being helpful to your customers and jack up your prices. Let’s see how true this is.

Research done jointly at Harvard and Indiana universities makes this clear, reporting that the number of adults attending liberalizing mainline churches has tanked precipitously from 35 percent of the American population in 1972 to 12 percent in 2016. This decline of the mainline churches began in the early 1960s when they started to question and officially change their positions on historic Christian basics like the deity of Christ, the existence of miracles, the reality of sin, and the atoning death of Jesus and His resurrection, as well as jettisoning biblical convictions about sex, gender, and abortion. People started running for the doors of these churches with every new compromise, and this exodus continues en masse today. It could hardly be worse if these pastors asked their parishioners to leave and never come back.

The Harvard/Indiana University research also shows that the churches that take the Bible as the reliable word of God are doing very well. Compromising on biblical truths was, and is, a devastating church-growth strategy. Holding fast to these truths and preaching them boldly is a very effective one. Let’s look at some real numbers from the folks at the Pew Research Center showing the same thing.

Pew’s “America’s Changing Landscape” explains that, between 2007 and 2014, mainline Protestant churches declined by 5 million adult members. This is hemorrhaging by any sober accounting. Churches in Pew’s “evangelical” category grew in absolute numbers by about 2 million between 2007 and 2014. Again, the exact opposite of what Thomas prescribes.

Since we all know liberalism poisons and ultimately destroys absolutely everything it is allowed to touch or influence, that’s no surprise—especially when we’re talking about an institution they hate as vehemently as they do Christianity. But here’s where things get interesting:

When same-sex-attracted Christians go to church, they are not choosing the pews of churches Thomas is calling us to become. Again, it’s just the opposite. Research conducted jointly at Columbia University and the University of California at Los Angeles by scholars who are not shy about supporting gay politics found that gay- and lesbian-identified people are 2.5 times more likely to attend churches that took a more conservative view on Christianity (including homosexuality) than the so-called “welcoming and affirming” congregations that celebrate it.

The authors of this study were paternalistically perplexed about why same-sex-attracted people would choose churches that they assumptively described as having a “hostile social environment to LGB individuals,” as if such people don’t know what’s good for them. Well, maybe same-sex-attracted individuals find such churches are indeed not hostile or hateful.

The assumption of bigotry and intolerance on the part of most if not all Christians is a core tenet of liberalism, irreducible and non-negotiable, which is pretty ironic in light of their present-day alliance of convenience with murderous Islam. The old mantra “love the sinner, hate the sin” was much more than just a slogan for the congregation of the small town church I grew up in, and I’m sure it’s probably the same in most others. It was an obligation for those sheltered folks, a standard to be lived up to. They might have been put off by homosexual behavior; they surely considered it immoral, a willful flouting of Biblical strictures against self-indulgence and morbid sins of the flesh. But the bottom-line truth is, in almost twenty years of every-Sunday-without-fail attendance and participation there, I can’t recall much in the way of either discussion of or interest in the whole issue. I damned sure never heard any “hatred” expressed over it.

Ironically, those rainbow flags you see flying outside some churches proudly announcing “We welcome all!” are not appealing to the very people they are intended to attract. It’s the churches that so many on the left mistakenly and irresponsibly accuse of “hating the gays” that are actually where many gay people find what they’re really looking for.

People seeking Christ are not looking for a scripture-denying church. They want the real thing, not in spite of it making real demands upon them and teaching the scriptures as they are, but very likely because of it.

Kinda surprising, that. A heck of a lot more thought-provoking stats and analysis to be found in the rest of the article, arriving here:

It’s finally time to stick a fork in the liberalizing project within Christianity that has been hard at work over the last 60 years or so. Hard numbers judge it a massive failure on every measure year after year.

If you know the Left and its established MO of infiltrating, corrupting, and perverting institutions until they’re brought fully into line with Leftist ideology, it’s pretty hard not to conclude that the “failure” was actually the real objective all along. Remember the unassailable truth of O’Sullivan’s Law: any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. You won’t find a better example of it than what’s been done to Christianity; its enfeeblement was accomplished in an incredibly short span of time relative to the fifteen hundred years in which it had flourished. The onset of the Church’s descent into fossilized irrelevance closely coincides with the Left’s ascension to dominance, which can reasonably be viewed as something more than mere happenstance.

Share

THE END IS NIGH!

Only three days left? Well, damn. And I was thinking about doing some laundry next weekend.

Climate change is in the news again. Earlier this year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY) warned us that we have only 12 years to address the harm that human beings are doing to the planet. Last week, Beto O’Rourke amended that, suggesting we have only 10 years. Now, I don’t want to scare anyone, but according to my calculations that I arrived at by reading science, both Beto and Ocasio-Cortez are looking at this problem through rose-colored glasses. In fact, the world has precisely three and a half days to change its ways or it will basically be destroyed.

As I write this, it is 1:45 pm on Friday May 3rd. By sometime in the midmorning on Tuesday, if we don’t take action, Miami will be underwater, Toledo will be on fire, a swarm of locusts will descend upon Houston, and Brooklyn … well, actually Brooklyn will be fine, but that’s not the point. The point is that we have just over 72 hours to change everything we do and hand the entire economy over to the state or else we will witness an apocalypse that will make Revelations look like Sesame Street.

I know what you’re saying, you’re saying, “Dave, how can we possibly reverse the damage done by the entire two centuries of the industrial revolution by Tuesday? It’s impossible!” But when Hannibal’s elephants looked at the Alps, did they tell Hannibal they couldn’t get across them? No. When Rocky Balboa was forced to train in a drafty Russian barn and outrun KGB agents in the snow, did he say, “This is too hard?” No.

The time to act is now. In fact, more accurately the time not to act is now. So what can you not do? First of all, do not become pregnant and deliver a child in the next three and a half days. That is literally the worst thing you can do for climate change. I know babies are cute and all, and pretty small, but believe me, those suckers pump out greenhouse gasses like 19th century dark satanic mills. And you can try to tell them to stop, but they don’t understand words, so …

Another thing you should not do is fly, or drive, or really go anywhere at all. What’s that? You have a doctor’s appointment? Something about a weird growth on your leg? Well, let me ask you bluntly, what is that growth on your leg going to matter when Denver is under 24 feet of burning snow?

Now I know all you folks are the right kind of people, and I’m going to be perfectly frank; individual inaction is not enough. What we need more than anything else is a global governing body that can enforce inaction.

Actually, I might be in favor of that, as long as the governing body itself was included in any and all inaction mandates.

If we don’t take our heads out of the sand in the next several minutes, there will be nothing but sand left on the planet.

Wait, there’s actually still going to be a planet? I had just assumed old Terra was going to fly apart or be blown to bits or something. Or maybe spontaneously ignite because of a 1.4 degree rise in yearly mean temperature over three hundred years and burn itself to cinders, which will be scattered across the galaxy by the solar wind.

So: what, then? Will there still be a planet after all, just no more climate? Or will there be a climate too, but one that kills off all us humans for unforgivable sins like the internal combustion engine and air conditioning and delicious, juicy cheeseburgers? Will there still be animals? How about stinkbugs? Tall buildings? Shrubbery?

Man, all this science is making my head hurt. Seriously, though, if Albert “Arnold The Pig” AlGore had been right in that famous movie of his, An Inconvenient Prediction, the world would have ended long before now. And he ain’t the only half-bright Chicken Little who got it completely wrong, either.

Share

Bunkered up

Ever wonder why that Hitler rant after the Mueller report dropped was so damned funny? Mostly because it cut so close to the bone.

Historians tell us that in the final days of the Third Reich, as the Red Army surrounded the Berlin Führerbunker, a crazed Adolf Hitler ranted, raved, and issued increasingly irrational orders for non-existent Wehrmacht divisions to counterattack and repel the invaders. Even as Germany was being laid waste by the British and American armies advancing from the west and the Russians from the east, Hitler still appeared to believe that victory was within reach. After all, when he had started World War II, world domination by the Nazis had been all but certain. It had to have been inconceivable to him that he had been so wrong from the beginning, and now he would have to face the consequences.

Equally deluded and disbelieving was Josef Goebbels, the Reich’s propaganda minister. According to historical reports, even at that late date and in those dire circumstances, Goebbels’ deluded denial of the advancing peril equaled that of his Führer.

I couldn’t help but think back to crazy Adolf as I watched the utterly bizarre performance by the unhinged Democrat senators who hurled meaningless, semi-hysterical invective at Attorney General William Barr as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Similarly, the mainstream media’s equally outlandish portrayals of Barr’s steady, thoughtful, and intelligent testimony reminded me of the credulous and loyal Goebbels. Just as Adolf and Josef couldn’t accept the reality that they had lost the war, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii), Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), and their media enablers seem to be incapable of accepting the results of the Mueller investigation.

Although the Attorney General carefully avoided saying that he had reached any conclusions about “overreach” by top government officials, the mere fact that he raised that possible investigative subject should induce night sweats and fitful insomnia throughout the bedrooms of the Seat of Government.

Who knows? Just like the popularity of backyard bomb shelters during the height of the Cold War, underground Führer-style bunkers may become the hot new trend among deep state leaders looking to make a desperate, crazed last stand against the approaching forces of justice.

We should make sure those bunkers are well-stocked with sidearms and plenty of ammo, to ensure strict fidelity to historical precedent and thereby achieve the desired result. As I said a little while ago, the Democrat-Socialist bedlamites have dug themselves into a very deep hole, especially considering this:

More than two-thirds of Americans want an investigation into the Justice Department’s handling of the Russia Collusion Hoax.

This is very bad news for Barack Obama, the corrupt Deep State, their minions in the establishment media, and Democrats.

According to a April 25-28 poll of 1,007 random adults taken for CNN (a far-left fake news outlet), a full 69 percent “think Congress ought to investigate the origins of the Justice Department’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including 76% of Democrats, 69% of independents and 62% of Republicans.”

And the “origins” of that inquiry means the Obama Justice Department.

The poll also shows that a mere 37 percent want to see Trump impeached while a clear majority, 59 percent, do not. Last September, that number was nearly tied with 47 percent wanting Trump removed from office while 48 percent did not.

So: bad news for libtards all around, then. Looks like it’s either bunker up or lawyer up for you Corruptocrats. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of assholes.

Share

Cornered, like rats

Lest anybody forget, there’s more going on than just Barr’s thang.

Many of us have believed for the last several years that a small, but extremely powerful cabal within the intelligence community and law enforcement felt – because of their self-righteous arrogance and partisan leanings – that they could use the immense power of the surveillance state to conduct a partisan attack on a political opponent.

These officials felt justified in their actions because they believed Donald Trump was not a suitable person to be president of the United States and because they had policy differences with Trump.

In addition, it appears that some in that cabal feared Trump becoming president because they believed he would demand great accountability and transparency inside of the intelligence and law enforcement community.

I hope that investigations likely coming out of the inspector general’s report will lead to answers regarding former CIA Director John Brennan’s role in giving credence to the Steele dossier.

And I hope the inspector general’s report will provide answers to why the initial FISA application authorizing surveillance of Page was approved and then renewed three more times.

I suspect that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges took the FBI at its word and that someone who is guilty at a minimum of the crime of falsifying by omission did not admit to the court that the applications were based on a piece of partisan propaganda.

All of these things are deeply troubling because our surveillance and law enforcement regimes are based primarily on trust. Trust that those seeking FISA applications to surveil American citizens are being honest, and trust that they are above reproach.

The problem that we now confront is that the trust placed in these people and in the process has been shattered. We must remember that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted in response to abuses at the FBI under Director J. Edgar Hoover, who headed the bureau from 1924 until his death in 1972.

All of what we have seen over the last several years has revealed the FISA safeguards are an utter sham. If FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers are willing to lie and falsify information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – and more importantly, if there are no consequences for those actions – then FISA is a joke.

This also means that our civil liberties are a joke and we will have accepted a police state that can use a piece of partisan propaganda or anything else as a justification to spy on private citizens.

The only way we can deal with this abuse is to have serious consequences for these actions. People must go to prison for breaking the law.

Absolutely, positively, one bazillion percent correct, to the very last syllable of it. But really, why don’t we all just cut to the chase here and do something these shrieking Democrat-Socialists seem to desire above all else:

The details of the Russiagate conspiracy theory, that some combination of Russian Facebook trolling, most of which took place after the election and targeted black people, and the hacking of the emails of Hillary’s campaign chair, whose contents no one outside the media and political activists cared about, somehow swung the election, are gibberish. But the facts don’t matter in the paranoid style of politics.

Hillary Clinton, whose people invented the Russia conspiracy theory and used it to convince Obama officials to spy on Trump allies and staffers, compared it to 9/11. Other Democrats and media outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times compared it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.

“This was an act of war, in my view,” Senator Richard Blumenthal said. Senator Tim Kaine also thought it was an act of war. Senator Ben Cardin said that the election conspiracy amounts to an “act of war”. Rep. Steven Cohen also agreed that it was an act of war.

An “undeclared, but very real, ‘war’ has already come to the United States,” Senator Chris Coons claimed.

If they really believe that Facebook trolling is an act of war, then they should declare war on Russia.

President Trump can’t declare war. Only Congress can do that. President Trump should ask Democrats to put up or shut up with a declaration of war. If they truly believe in their conspiracy theories, if they really think that what happened was as bad as 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, that it was, in their own words, an “act of war”, they should have no problem voting unanimously for a declaration of war against Russia.

If they truly believe that what happened was an act of war, why won’t they defend America?

The only thing they REALLY believe is that they should be in power: unchecked, unchallenged, always and forever.

Share

Fords and Chevvies and fuckups, oh my!

Remember the other night when I waxed nostalgic about the nearly-forgotten Ford/Chevy rivalry? Of course, that’s not to say that there aren’t still a few of us geezer types determined to keep those flames ablaze. There’s a largish number of street rod/rat rod/classic car whippersnappers out there who feel likewise, as well.

And then we have those benighted fools who take the matter WAY too seriously.

BEDFORD CO., VA — An argument over which truck is better, Ford or Chevy, escalated and ended with gunshots in a Virginia home on Easter. 

According to WSET, prosecutors said it happened during dinner involving Mark Turner, his girlfriend, her son and the son’s girlfriend. 

Turner and his girlfriend’s son got into an argument about trucks. 

“The allegation is that there was alcohol involved

Oh, go on. You can’t POSSIBLY mean that.

and a dispute began against Logan Bailey, the son of the girlfriend, and Mr. Turner about what type of vehicle is best, Chevy versus Ford,” attorney Wes Nance said. 

Investigators said Turner pulled out a knife and threatened Bailey. Turner’s girlfriend stepped between her boyfriend and her son. 

Turner stabbed his girlfriend in the lowerback, leaving a six-inch wound, according to Nance. 

Then, things got even worse.

And believe it or not, they did. They really, really did. Body count as of this writing, near as I can make out: eight gunshot wounds; at least one stab wound; and one (1) skull cracked.

I was originally hipped to this whole embarrassment via MisHum’s ONT link to a different report, over which version I am going to be forced to do a little annoyed harrumphing here.

Since the dawn of time, the battle between Chevrolet and Ford has burned brightly. Legend has the age-old, mullet-inspired argument has produced absolutely no winners. But a plethora of losers. Now, yet another battle has been fought, this time at the hands of a Virginia man with a knife and a gun.

Bold mine, because…uhhh, dude, what the fuck? That HAD to be written by some kid trying to be funny, blissfully unaware that when this rivalry started the menfolk were wearing the back and sides high and tight, and no gentleman would dream of venturing out of the house without a hat anyway. Mullets didn’t even exist back then, for crying out loud. The kind of long, flowing locks the mullet ‘do requires were for women only in those days; any adult male who tried to cross that particular line would have found himself with way more trouble on his hands to worry about than Fords and Chevys, with a quickness.

On the bright side, however, the Drive youngster’s version of events does include a most amusing mugshot of the ignernt knucklehead in less than showroom condition after having his empty head clouted by the po-po, so there’s that. The cub reporter mentions Turner being “struck” by something yclept “a flexible baton round”; since I have not the slightest idee what the devil that might even be, I’m just gonna assume he got his bell rung by an Asp baton, which pretty much all cops everywhere carry.

All in all, I’m harboring the suspicion that this sad-sack Turner was just looking for a reason to get busy shooting and cutting those other folks to begin with, and likely had been working himself up to it for a good long while. He was probably just waiting for the night he got hisself likkered and doped up enough to go ahead and get the party started, I’m guessing.

It all got me to thinking that I need to establish a brand-new category here for this sort of thing—by which I mean Ford-specific items, not slope-browed ridgerunners venting the ol’ spleen on their kinfolk over little to nothing at all. So I did: Fords forever, baby!

Oh, and: Skeptic, I’ll getcha for that one someday, buddy. Heh. Honestly, all kidding around aside, I’d never heard that zinger before.

Share

Prisoner of our own barbarians

Civilization versus the brats spoiled by its successful advance.

It is by now a familiar cliché, long propagated by Western thinkers and the media, that Europe and European culture are responsible for a multitude of ills. Europeans have been raised to detest themselves, certain that they have inflicted evil for which they must relentlessly atone. This evil is known by two terms: colonialism and imperialism, both driven by capitalism. Nothing today is more European than this self-hatred, this passion for cursing and lacerating ourselves. Yet, by issuing their anathemas, the high priests of defamation only signal their membership in the universe they reject. How can we fail to see that we take a strange pride in being the worst? Self-denigration is all too clearly a form of indirect self-glorification. Evil comes only from us; others are always motivated by sympathy, goodwill, and candor. Such is the paternalism of the guilty conscience: seeing ourselves as the kings of infamy is still a way of staying on the crest of history. Europe remains messianic in a minor mode, campaigning for its own weakness. Barbarism is the European’s great pride; he denies that others are ever barbarous, always finding attenuating circumstances for them, which also denies them all responsibility.

The terrible presumption of the cry “we are civilized” too often meant, earlier in European history, that “we are superior to you.”

Terrible presumption? I’d argue that it happens to be the simple truth, actually. Which does NOT amount to a license to exterminatye inferior, more barbaric cultures, or otherwise victimize or denigrate them. Being fallible and human, though, probably makes such victimization pretty much inevitable.

It also happens that the bourgeois, in turn, can transform himself into a barbarian under the pretext of defending civilization, as when torture is sanctioned in the fight against terrorism. When that happens, there is a grave danger of adopting the enemy’s ways of seeing and doing, the better to defeat him; of setting up a system of generalized surveillance of citizens on the pretext of protecting them; of weakening the marvelous edifice constructed by the founders of the open society. “When fighting a monster, beware of becoming a monster yourself,” warned Nietzsche.

This is an oversimplification. Often, when fighting monsters, the pursuit of victory requires turning their own monstrous methods—their own inhumanity—against them. But I believe it’s possible to make use of those methods without succumbing to them—to recognize the necessity, while careful to maintain the proper abhorrence for them. Thus:

The civilized man must constantly look barbarism in the face, to remember where he comes from, what he has escaped—and what he could become again.

Even more importantly, to see that he does not allow civilization to be overrun by barbarism.

Two dreams confront each other in our Western democracies. One, European, wants to eradicate human malice solely by means of dialogue, tolerance, and constant reminders of past horrors. The other, American, wants to put the darker powers of human nature in the service of social perfectibility—a creative barbarism, analogous to Greek catharsis. An angelism of niceness on the one hand; the channeling and sublimation of violence, on the other. Such is our predicament. We are urged to defend the law, civilization, and decency against savagery, while knowing perfectly well that we need savagery to awaken us. We want to defeat the barbarian and also preserve him, so as to preserve the energy he instills in us. He is both detestable and desirable.

Such irresolvable paradoxes are a part of life on this planet, natural and inescapable. They can be examined; they can be analyzed. Their terms can maybe even be adjusted somewhat—their effects mitigated, their iron grip on us loosened slightly. But they can never be made to just go away, as hubristic, foolish Proggie seems to believe.

Share

Erasing history

And “conversations” that…aren’t.

A few days ago, Kamala Harris, a.k.a. the background dancer who screwed her way to lead singer, was asked by Don Lemon if she supported Sanders’ plan to allow murderers and rapists to retain their voting rights while in prison. “I think we should have that conversation,” said the former “prosecutor.” When I saw the clip, I honestly didn’t mind the evasive nature of her answer. Politicians are evasive by nature; it comes with the job. What pissed me off was the idea that leftists ever engage in a “conversation.” When do leftists ever engage in “conversations”? They adopt a position (often a complete reversal of a previous one), and then they declare the old position to be “hate speech” and those who espouse it “hate criminals.” Where was the “conversation” on trannies in the girls’ bathroom? Where was the “conversation” on there being 1,745 genders instead of two? I don’t recall having those “conversations,” do you? One day, leftists decided that “this is the new truth,” and suddenly people like me get banned from social media for stating the scientific fact that a man can’t wish himself into being a biological woman.

Where was the “conversation” on immigration? I just remember going to bed one night when top Democrats were in favor of strong border control, and waking up the next morning to find that desiring strong border control makes you a Nazi.

If there was a “conversation,” I don’t remember it.

Affirmative action? Forced busing? Court ordered…no “conversation.” And if Democrats, who view voting rights for imprisoned murderers as a race issue (because of the disproportionately high number of blacks and Latinos who’d be affected), decide tomorrow to uniformly support that policy, overnight anyone who opposes it will immediately become Hitler.

Did any Western European leaders have a “conversation” with their constituents about flooding the continent with nonindigenous immigrants? When exactly was that referendum? At least with Brexit, there was a conversation, but has the popular consensus—the result of that conversation—been respected? Of course not.

Leftists don’t “converse.” They impose. And to do this, it often becomes necessary to erase history, ancient and recent. This is done not only to cow the current generation, but to brainwash the next. “Why, Notre Dame always had a minaret! Hell, the building was constructed by Muslims, who were always the majority in France! Just as England was always nonwhite.”

Future Europeans will learn little of old Christendom, but you can be damn sure they’ll know all about Auschwitz. In thirty years, every schoolkid in the West will know about the fifty Muslims killed in New Zealand in March 2019, and none will know of the hundreds of Christians killed in Sri Lanka a month later.

Controlling what we forget and what we remember, what we are encouraged to defile and what we are ordered to hold sacred (like Harlitz-Kern’s holy kazoo), is how you make sure there isn’t a conversation. Leftists understand this better than anyone.

If Stalin taught these bastards anything, it’s that the airbrush is mightier than the memory.

Oh, I think it’s safe to say that Stalin taught them pretty much everything they know. But while we’re talking about erasing history…no. Just…NO. Not just no—HELL NO.

The lawyers and CPAs who run Elvis Presley Enterprises have been threatening the city of Memphis for the past two years with plans to dismantle Graceland—the most hallowed redneck house in the world—and move it to another continent.

They mean this quite literally. They have offers on the table, they say, to bring in redneck historians and lovingly peel up the green shag carpet from the Jungle Room—where Elvis’ last two albums were recorded despite the rushing background noise of the waterfall that spurts out of one wall—and then move all the lacquered wood furniture in the shape of tree stumps to someplace like Dubai, where real estate entrepreneurs like to collect items of Americana and turn them into pop culture museums. It would be sort of like displaying objects from the Titanic if the Titanic had been intentionally sunk in Southampton harbor and then sold off for scrap.

Elvis was from Tupelo, Mississippi, 100 miles to the southeast of Graceland, but he would have been immersed in the African-American music that emerged from the Baptist churches and blues honky-tonks ranged up and down the Mississippi River between St. Louis and New Orleans. Dewey Phillips broadcast that music on Red, Hot and Blue, sometimes even highlighting actual church choirs, but in Memphis the blues and gospel music of black folk ran smack-dab up against all that clog dancing and fiddling that came down through the Appalachian Valley from Scotland, Ulster, and Cumberland. As all Elvis aficionados know, the King was criticized early in his career for singing like a black man, and the term “rock and roll” itself comes straight up out of the slave-based Delta rice fields.

Elvis may not have been black, but his musical DNA was as mixed-race as Alexander Hamilton. Memphis was the place where original black music met original white music. That’s what makes it American, that’s what makes Memphis the Santiago de Compostela of rock and roll, and that’s why you can move Graceland to Nairobi or Edinburgh but you’ll only be telling half the story. If Graceland moves, Graceland dies.

I’ve visited Graceland a couple of times myself—if you have even the slightest spark of affection in your heart for the King, I highly recommend it—and one of the most striking things about the place to me was that, from the backyard right up next to the house, you got an easy view right into the backyards of other houses in the neighborhood. I had always pictured it as being more secluded—at least tucked away behind some high hedges or some sort of privacy fence or something, in the manner of usually what comes to mind with other big fancy mansions.

But no, it was pretty much wide open out there; you could see laundry hanging out to dry on clotheslines all over the place, guys on lawn tractors, old ladies stooped over in their truck patch hacking at weeds, and such. Naturally, those neighbors could likewise see up into Elvis’s yard too. It was kinda cool to imagine the wild, outlandish goings-on Elvis’s neighbors had a bird’s eye view of over the years.

As Joe Bob says: Move Graceland, Graceland dies. Whatever law or ordinance the Memphis city council needs to pass to bring this ill-considered, near-criminal nonsense to a screeching halt, they oughta do it if you ask me. It’s an arrogant affront to history itself. While admittedly nothing like as significant or weighty as Notre Dame, Graceland’s legend is bigger than the present owners seem able to grasp. It doesn’t belong only to them.

Share

A true delight

You CF lifers will doubtless know what a dyed-in-the-wool, bred-in-the-bone Ford freak I am. My dad was a lifelong Ford man himself, and raised me to loathe all things GM reflexively, just as naturally and unthinkingly as breathing. If I opened a vein, I would bleed FMC Blue, the resulting puddle resolving itself uncannily into a distinct oval-shaped pattern. So you guys can easily imagine how much I enjoyed this brief, partial catalogue of Government Motors perfidy.

General Motors Doesn’t Want Anyone To Know These 20 Strange Facts
Despite GM’s long history and notoriety, there are numerous things that people do not know about the company and the products it has produced. From strange business decisions to hush-hush scandals, the company has a lot of dirt hiding under the rug. Here are 20 strange facts General Motors doesn’t want anyone to know or, at least, would prefer that most people forget.

Heh. I’m smiling already over here. A lot of what follows I already knew, but the very first one in the list surprised even me.

20—GM FAILED TO FINANCE A PURCHASE OF FORD
The history of General Motors is one of acquisitions and the take-over of many well-known car manufacturers. On September 17, 1908, the day after William C. Durant capitalized GM as a holding company, he purchased Buick Motor Company and shortly after that, acquired more than twenty companies, including Oakland, now known as Pontiac, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and McLaughlin of Canada.

What few people know (except automobile historians) is GM also wanted to take over Ford—and nearly succeeded. In 1909, Durant offered Henry Ford $8 million for his stock in the company and Ford agreed. Durant also convinced the GM board of directors to make the purchase. However, Durant’s New York bankers squashed the deal when they refused to give him the loan needed to make the purchase.

All poking of fun aside, I’ve lamented at some length here over the years the loss of the age-old Foad/Chivvy-lay rivalry that was such a central feature of my ill-spent youth. All us greasy gearheads used to have ourselves a high old time ribbing each other about who ruled and who drooled, featuring the eternally unresolved “First On Race Day” versus “Fix Or Repair Delay” squabble among other jibes. It was all in good-natured fun, the dispute easily if only temporarily settled by a trip over to Franklin Boulevard in Gastonia for a drag-race blast from Shoney’s on the east side on down to McDonald’s on the west. Rarely did the matter descend to vulgar fisticuffs, although I’ll stop well short of claiming such a thing never did happen. Because that would be a lie.

That Shoney’s is as long-gone as the Ford-Chevy controversy itself is, alas, with all that noble American iron now reduced to pretty-much-interchangeable plastic egg-mobiles—featureless and indistinguishable one from another, except by direct reference to the badging. Nowadays, the young ‘uns couldn’t care less about such arcana, a vanished slice of Americana grieved over only by the old coots who reveled in it. A shame, really; they know not what they missed. Maybe it’s understandable: with the cars themselves being rendered anonymous, how could ennui and erosion of brand allegiance not be expected to follow?

Read the rest of ’em; whether you’re a Ford man or a Chevy dupe, you’re bound to find something of interest. Number 16 was another one I wasn’t aware of, and as a bonus I’ll throw in another fun GM factoid not mentioned at the above link:

The U.S. Army Ordnance Department considered several designs for low-cost/high production-rate submachine guns fabricated from stamped and welded sheet metal. A design developed in large part by George Hyde, with the assistance of General Motors’ Inland Manufacturing Division, was given the prototype designation of T-15. It was chambered for the standard .45 ACP cartridge and featured a sliding wire stock, which substantially reduced its length when retracted. Army Ordnance Col. René Studler was an ardent proponent of the new submachine gun and was instrumental in its subsequent adoption. The T-15 prototype was refined and superseded by the T-20. Unlike the selective-fire T-15, the T-20 only fired in the full-automatic mode.

The T-20 had number of advantages as compared to most other submachine guns, including the fact that its internal parts were fully enclosed, which reduced the possibility of the mechanism being clogged by dirt, mud or sand. In addition, it was designed with rather generous dimensional tolerances to allow functioning even when subjected to extreme dust or mud conditions. The bolt traveled along two steel guide rods, which prevented contact with the inside of the receiver and resulted in increased reliability and smoothness of operation. The gun could be quickly disassembled, and the barrel and bolt were easily removed. It did not have a conventional safety, but the ejection port cover prevented accidental firing when closed.

The T-20 prototype was extensively tested at Aberdeen Proving Ground and proved to be more reliable in the mud and dust tests than any other submachine gun ever tested by the U.S. Army. In addition to the Army’s Infantry Board, the new submachine gun was evaluated by the Airborne Command and Armored Forces Board. These latter two organizations were especially interested due to its compactness, which had obvious advantages for airborne use or in the cramped confines of a tank.

After conclusion of rigorous testing, the T-20 was recommended for adoption in December 1942 as the “U.S. Submachine Gun, Caliber .45, M3.” Official approval came on Jan. 11, 1943. Shortly after formal adoption, a contract was awarded to General Motors’ Guide Lamp Division for 300,000 M3 submachine guns. The Guide Lamp plant, located in Anderson, Ind., had extensive experience in the fabrication of stamped metal components, so it was a logical choice to manufacture the new submachine gun. 

How I knew about this was, I actually fired one at Knob Creek a few times, and its proud owner told me all about Grease Gun history. The article makes a glancing comparison between the M3 and the Thompson. Having run a shit-ton of rounds through both, I can tell you there IS no comparison—the Thompson is superior in every way. At the same time, though, if I was a D-Day footslogger coming ashore with the prospect of slogging across France carrying one or the other of ’em staring me in the face, I’d probably have picked the M3. Them Tommy guns are heavy, man.

Oh, and: if you’re a shooter, live anywhere near driving distance of Kentucky, and haven’t been to the Knob Creek shoot yet, may I ask what the hell have you been waiting for?

(Via Larwyn)

Share

The exception that proves the rule?

Apparently, not ALL Millennials are stupid, shallow, and spoiled rotten.

I’m sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to “fix” the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook’s, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought. We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times. Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful.

Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, “An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.”

Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth.

Which, given what the Enemedia has become, is saying something. I’ll hold off on excerpting further, but trust me: there’s more, it’s all great, and you’re gonna love it. So get yourselves on over there and read the rest. Hats off to you, Alyssa, and best of luck with your writing career. You’re obviously quite talented, but given the incredible tide of bias you’ll be swimming against in the publishing world you’re probably gonna need all the luck you can get.

Via Insty, who throws in: “Indeed. It is essential for Democrats’ objectives that things be awful. Or, failing that, that people think that things are awful.” The REAL hell of it is that, when they’re in charge, things ARE awful. Must be coinkydink, or maybe more of that Heinleinian “bad luck,” maybe.

Update! You’ll want to read all of this one, too.

This is no “sugar high” for the U.S. economy. To the great shock and disappointment of liberals who have been desperately hoping for an economic downturn, the U.S. economy once again blew away expectations, recording a 3.2 percent GDP growth rate in the first quarter of this year.

Even MSNBC described the quarterly growth as “extraordinary.”

Liberals have been predicting an impending recession for months. Frustrated with the obvious success of President Trump’s sweeping middle-class tax cuts – which they had claimed would result in “Armageddon” – Democrats next argued that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would only produce a “sugar high” for the economy. With each successive quarter that their predictions have failed to materialize, they’ve only become more frustrated with the economy’s long-term prospects.

This isn’t a one-time anomaly, either. GDP growth has been increasing steadily throughout Trump’s presidency, and the most recent data bring us to three consecutive quarters in which year-over-year growth has been 3 percent or higher. In fact, GDP growth has averaged 3.3 percent over the past four quarters.

When Trump predicted this economic outcome more than three years ago, the Washington establishment snickered and scoffed, convinced that the pathetic economy Obama presided over was simply the “new normal.”

And it would have been the “new normal” for every bit as long as the American people allowed Obama-types to run things. It’s a testament to the remarkable resilience of capitalism that it’s capable of so speedily bouncing back once the socialist shackles are…hell, not even removed, just loosened up a mite.

All of us, even the freshly-minted Trump skeptics among us, badly need to remember one crucial thing: bad news for the country is good news for the Democrat-Socialists—and very much vice the versa.

Share

SSSHHH! Don’t tell Moran or Cavuto

More “despicable speculation” and “conspiracy-mongering.”

Countless churches throughout Western Europe are being vandalized, defecated on, and torched.

In France, two churches are desecrated every day on average. According to PI-News, a German news site, 1,063 attacks on Christian churches or symbols (crucifixes, icons, statues) were registered in France in 2018. This represents a 17 percent increase compared to the previous year (2017), when 878 attacks were registered — meaning that such attacks are only going from bad to worse.

*closes eyes, sticks fingers in ears* TRALALALALALAICAN’THEEAAAARRRRYOOOOUUUU

Similar reports are coming out of Germany. Four separate churches were vandalized and/or torched in March alone. “In this country,” PI-News explained, “there is a creeping war against everything that symbolizes Christianity: attacks on mountain-summit crosses, on sacred statues by the wayside, on churches… and recently also on cemeteries.”

Who is primarily behind these ongoing and increasing attacks on churches in Europe? The same German report offers a hint: “Crosses are broken, altars smashed, Bibles set on fire, baptismal fonts overturned, and the church doors smeared with Islamic expressions like ‘Allahu Akbar.’”

GODDAMMIT STOP WITH THE FUCKING RACIST SPECULATION YOU BIGOTED BASTARDS

In 2016, following the arrival in Germany of another million mostly Muslim migrants, a local newspaper reported that in the town of Dülmen, “‘not a day goes by’ without attacks on religious statues in the town of less than 50,000 people, and the immediate surrounding area.”

In France it also seems that where the number of Muslim migrants increases, so do attacks on churches. A January 2017 study revealed that, “Islamist extremist attacks on Christians” in France rose by 38 percent, going from 273 attacks in 2015 to 376 in 2016; the majority occurred during Christmas season and “many of the attacks took place in churches and other places of worship.”

I’m SURE all that’s just a coincidence. Can we please talk about something else now? Guess not, since Ace has mentioned another one:

The Saint Denis cathedral, in which are interred the bones of Charles Martel, was also vandalized in March.

For the handful of you who might not be aware of who that was, this sums it up fairly well:

By the eighteenth century, historians such as Edward Gibbon had begun to portray the Frankish leader as the saviour of Christian Europe from a full-scale Islamic invasion, wondering whether without Charles’ victory, “Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford”.

Hm. Might provide a little insight into possible Muslim motivation for vandalizing the church Martel rests in, might it not? Which in turn would lend weight to all this unconscionable, silly, stupid-stupid-stupid “speculation,” perhaps.

Since I thought I remembered a post at Badass Of The Week on Martel I poked around in their archives unsuccessfully for one, although it did remind me of this CF post on their Jan Sobieski article. Then I got myself seriously sidetracked, which is what tends to happen when you visit that incredibly entertaining site. So I’ll rather abruptly close this piece out and get on with the digression. Not only did I run across scads of good stuff over there I that want to post on here, I was also reminded that BOTW isn’t in Ye Olde Blogrolle—a simply inexcusable oversight which I will immediately rectify.

Share

Ghouls out

Here they come, predictable as the sunrise. Ladies and gents, I give you the vile, despicable Left, in all its pus-oozing depravity.

“I wonder how many art pieces and artifacts that were sitting in the Notre Dame were stolen from former colonies,” said user Shaziya. When confronted with criticism and backlash, she doubled down: “I’m criticizing French colonialism, if this bothers you so much then you ought to reevaluate your morals, bye.”

Well, SOMEBODY certainly ought to, yeah.

“I think it sucks that Notre Dame is burning but f*** imagine if we had this same energy for every historic building we carpetbombed in the Middle East,” said another user.

Other users reveled in the fact that “white people” were saddened to see Notre Dame go up in flames. “I’m dying at the white people triggered,” said one person named Aly. “It’s a damn building that’s literally used for tourism, no one died, move on.”

While Notre Dame indeed invited tourists to look upon its magnificent beauty, becoming one of France’s most iconic landmarks, the cathedral still served as a home to practicing Catholics who worshiped God through the Holy Mass every Sunday — not to mention the multiple popes in recent history who have led processions there. The church hosted weddings, funerals, and consecrations. It never sacrificed its Christian mission at the altar of commercialism, as perhaps best exemplified by the priceless relics — including the crown of thorns said to have been worn by Christ — that Notre Dame housed within its walls.

“Notre Dame on fire is the most aesthetically pleasing visually I’ve ever seen,” said another user.

“This one’s for colonizing African countries b****,” said another user.

“Notre Dame burning is cosmic karma for all the historical sites and artefacts [sic] France destroyed and stole when being colonialist scum,” said the blue-checkmark “culture writer” Hikikomori Povich.

Sickening. Elsewhere, Rick Moran shits the bed.

It may turn out that the fire that destroyed most of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was deliberately set. Maybe it was terrorism. Maybe it was a protest against President Macron. Perhaps it was your garden variety right-wing or left-wing nuts.

But jumping to conclusions at this point is silly and stupid. My colleague Monica Showalter wrote the proper takedown of these fools. And kudos to Fox News hosts Shep Smith and Neil Cavuto for actually cutting off conspiracy theorists who appeared on their shows.

Don’t you wish hosts on other networks had cut off the wild speculation from liberals about the fantastical idea of Russian collusion?

I have no real problem with Moran’s call for caution in the immediate aftermath of events like these, when rumors are flying, no one really knows a whole hell of a lot for sure, and solid facts are awfully thin on the ground. But in this case he’s wilfully brushing past certain realities, particularly Parisian ones, and his shrill accusation of “conspiracy theorizing” on the part of Catholic League president Bill Donohue is just over the top.

Smith’s reaction was exactly right. Cavuto echoed his sentiments:

Several hours later, Cavuto had a similar experience with Catholic League president Bill Donohue, who immediately raised the notion that this inferno was tied to other church burnings.

“Well, Neil, if it is an accident, it’s a monumental tragedy,” Donohoe said. “But forgive me for being suspicious.”

He added: “Just last month, a 17th-century church was set on fire in Paris. We have seen Tabernacles knocked down, crosses have been torn down, statues have been smashed.”

Cavuto went on to request that Donohue avoid bringing up his suspicions as no connections have been made by officials. The Catholic League leader, however, was unable to help himself, eventually asserting: “I’m sorry, when I find out that the Eucharist is being destroyed and excrement is being smeared on crosses, this is what’s going on now.”

The Fox News anchor interjected, letting Donohue that while he appreciates his time, “we cannot make conjectures about this.” Cavuto then dropped the call.

Too often, the media allow this kind of speculation to run rampant, feeding the paranoia of right- and left-wing extremists who will believe anything bad about their perceived enemies. For any news outlet, speculation without evidence is irresponsible. If you want to feed your conspiracy habit, there are plenty of nutcases posting nonsense on the internet where you can get your fix.

Professional news organizations are supposed to be in the business of reporting facts. Intelligent speculation is one thing. But wild fantasies with zero evidence to back them up belongs on social media, not on news broadcasts.

Um, sorry to have to point it out and all, Rick, but like it or not, Donohoe didn’t say anything in the above quote that wasn’t…ummm, y’know…established, well-known fact. Maybe he got into some “wild fantasies” elsewhere in the truncated interview; I didn’t see the thing, so I can’t say. But if the above is what you call “wild fantasies,” “extremist,” “paranoia,” and “conspiracy theorizing,” well, your definition of those things differs one hell of a lot from mine.

Donohoe noted that attacks on Christian churches in Paris are numerous, and escalating. Which, y’know, is true. He cited some specific desecrations. Which, y’know, happened. He then said, calmly and not unreasonably, that this history left him “suspicious”—without naming any names, or accusing anybody of anything at all.

For this, Cavuto went full-on hysterical and cut him off. Moran then took up the cudgel and bashed Donohoe over the head with it, for his “irresponsible speculation” among other atrocities. Both, for no good reason at all. Oddly enough, I can’t seem to recall either Cavuto or Moran reacting quite this intensely to the Left’s knee-jerk penchant for blaming every recent mass-shooting incident on “right-wing extremists” of one stripe or another—a tired, seemingly involuntary reflex the Left maintains despite nearly every one of those shootings later turning out to have been perpetrated either by a Left-leaning psycho or a politically-incoherent or -disinterested one.

I myself am perfectly comfortable with speculating—based on both recurrent historical fact and the oft-stated intentions of Muslims themselves—that it’s very damned likely one (or more) of them was behind the Notre Dame fire. Should it turn out that I’m wrong this time I’m okay with that too, and have no problem owning up to it. Seems to me that maybe my reaction is a good bit less irresponsible, unhinged, and extreme than Moran’s and Cavuto’s were. But hey, YMMV and all that jazz.

Limbaugh, who also includes herein the complete transcript of Cavuto’s unfairly interrupted interview with Donohoe, makes the telling point:

Well, I’ll admit here this could all be irrelevant. The Notre Dame fire could very well have been accidental, caused by some construction worker flicking a still-burning cigarette. But as a thought experiment, apply all the numbers that I just recited to black churches in the United States, and then imagine a fire like the one at Notre Dame at a black church in America, and then imagine how the media would react to that.

Using the same theory, if there had been over a thousand black church fires, acts of vandalism, cemetery violence, if that had been happening in the last two years in the United States and a big black church erupted in flames yesterday, what do you think the story would be? The story would be who on the right did this? What white nationalist is doing this?

The speculation on who on the right could have been responsible would be the story. There wouldn’t be any, “Hey, let’s not jump to conclusions. It could be arson. It could be totally innocent. Let’s not go there.” Every guest would have been required to blame such a fire at a black church in America on white nationalists.

I’ll be honest with you here, folks. I’ve never understood… That’s not the right way to say it. I understand it. That’s the problem! I understand it. You go back to 9/11, and at the time, we knew who did it. The next day, who knew who did it! There were their pictures all over the news of the 19 hijackers. We knew who did it. We knew their names. We knew where they grew up. We knew where they were trained, that the majority of them were from Saudi Arabia — and then Osama Bin Laden is out claiming credit for it.

It’s a no-brainer who did it. And yet, within a few short days the entire narrative changes and becomes our fault. “What did we do to inspire this kind of attack?” The State Department! The State Department convened a symposium on, “Why do they hate us so much?” And it didn’t take long after 9/11 before you weren’t allowed to talk about the people who did it. You know the old saw about, “Oh, we’ve got to guard against the backlash against Muslims in the United States.”

What do you mean guard against a backlash against…? It’s descended from there consistently to today, where you’re not even allowed to mention it, speculate, talk about it. Even things that we know were Islamist terrorism we’re not really supposed to say this.

At some point, it becomes far more irrational and damaging to blind ourselves to observed reality than it is to make speculative judgment based on it, even if such judgment might turn out to be incorrect once in a while. As far as I’m concerned, we passed that point with Muslim terrorism a long time ago. I repeat: if this story quietly goes away in a few more days, you’ll know we’ve just taken another step down the primrose path…with folks like Cavuto and Moran skipping happily along in the lead.

Share

History, revised

Ask a silly question.

We’re all heard stories about young children being punished at school by their socialist teachers for drawing or cutting out pretend handguns, or even for pointing a finger on the playground and saying “Bang! Bang!”

And some of us did sound the alarm about the “slippery slope,” years ago, when the forces of political correctness realized how easy it was to start rewriting history by “digitally editing” old historical photos. After all, why NOT remove the cigarette holder from old photos of President Franklin Roosevelt? You don’t want today’s kids to think it’s OK to smoke, do you?

But surely we’ll never reach the point where gun haters in a U.S. government agency will actually start doctoring images to remove the rifles (the arms with which Americans won and have long defended our freedoms) from the hands of American COMBAT SOLDIERS, will we? — altering an image of a soldier in combat, removing the piece of equipment on which his survival depended, to make it appear that U.S. soldiers CARRY NO NASTY RIFLES when they go to war?

They’ll never go THAT far. Right?

Gee, that’s a toughie all right.

Standing in line at the post office the other day, I noticed a poster on display showing eight newly issued commemorative stamps, along with a sheet of 20, behind glass, of one of the new stamps, called “World War I / Turning the Tide.” In the background of this stamp can be seen a biplane, a shell burst, and some barbed wire. In the foreground, a uniformed and helmeted U.S. doughboy strides bravely ahead, holding close to his chest an American flag.

I have nothing against featuring the American flag on a stamp, mind you. But look at the way that soldier’s arms and hands are positioned. You’ve seen men on combat patrol holding their arms and hands in that position plenty of times. But they weren’t holding flags. 

Does it get worse, you ask? Guess.

I emailed artist Mark Stutzman in Maryland, who designed the “Turning the Tide” commemorative and who had earlier drawn the Post office’s popular 1993 “Elvis” and “Buddy Holly” stamps. In his original design, as submitted, had the American doughboy held a rifle in his hands?

He replied: “Hi Vin, Thanks for writing. Interesting that you should bring this up. My original proposal was with a rifle.”
A source familiar with the back-and-forth between artist Stutzman and the Postal Service told me the USPS “Stamp Advisory Committee” was “a little ‘gun shy’ about the rifle being so prominent.” Stutzman declined to confirm that for the record.

“We debated a few options and settled on him holding the flag instead,” Stutzman told me. “It seemed to bring some patriotism forward and helped identify him as American more immediately. Since stamp images are so small, there’s a need for immediate comprehension. In this case the read of hierarchy is WWI soldier, America, and war (barbed wire, plane, smoke)…I am somewhat speculating on the reasoning for why the decision (to remove the rifle) was made since I got information about committee meetings second-hand through the art director. He may be a better source for info and also have a direct line with the Postal Service. Greg Breeding is his name. . . . Super guy and easy to talk to.”

Not so much. 

Imagine my surprise. Then begins the hem-hawing, slithering-squirming, slip-sliding evasion of the old Bureacrat Shuffle.

After several days of ducking my emails and phone messages, art director Breeding, in Charlottesville, Virginia, finally sent me his polite refusal to talk:

“Hello Vin, Thank you for your interest in the World War I stamp. It was my deep privilege to art director this issuance to commemorate America’s role in bringing World War I to an end. Such an incredible part of our history. Regarding your questions, it is the policy of the Postal Service to direct these types of inquiries to Public Relations…”

Said PR guy “will be happy to assist you and, sometimes, he will subsequently involve the art directors and other Postal employees as well.”

Not so much.

Suprynowicz soldiers manfully on in his bootless quest for a simple, straight answer to his query, but the bobbing and weaving from our putative “civil servants” just continues on and on from there. Y’know, like it does. I guess we can maybe take some small gratification from the fact that even these insensate bureauweasels seem to know that their airbrushing of history is something to be ashamed of, cold though that comfort may be.

(Via MisHum)

Share

Refugee problem: a practical solution

Francis calls it a “political wet dream.

John Whiteman, Prime Minister of a First World nation that shall go unidentified for obvious reasons, recently announced a change to his country’s “refugee” policies. He can’t change the law, but he can change how it’s observed in practice – and he has. Immediately afterward, he addressed a group of “refugees” that made it to his nation’s shores:

“Refugees, eh? Yet more than ninety percent of you are young men, all of you look healthy, and it looks like most of you have smart phones. What are you running from, the fathers of the girls you knocked up?

“According to our laws, we have to house you ‘refugees’ here…but only until we can return you to your home countries in safety. So here’s the deal: you’ll be living in tents, in this compound, which you won’t be permitted to leave. There’ll be no WiFi, no electricity, and no entertainment of any kind. Yes, there’ll be food and water, but we won’t care about your opinion of the food, and water will be all you get to drink. Clothes? What’s wrong with the clothes you’re wearing?

“The compound is surrounded by crew-served machine gun emplacements that are continuously manned. Anyone who tries to scale the fence will be shot down, no questions asked. His neighbors can dispose of his body; we certainly won’t want it.

“For extra security, you’ll all be wearing ankle monitors. Very special ankle monitors: if you cut through the band that holds them on, they explode. Guaranteed amputation of your lower leg. If one of you is detected outside the compound, he’ll be tracked down and executed wherever he’s found, again no questions asked. Yes, kids too. Some of you ‘teenagers’ have mighty impressive beards.

“We aren’t interested in hearing any demands from you. In fact, the very first demand any of you makes will get all of you loaded onto a raft and dragged a mile out to sea. Think you could make it back?

“Whoever survives this regime will be returned to his homeland when we think it’s safe. You won’t get a vote. After all, we didn’t get one when you decided to leave, and fair’s fair.

“So make yourselves at home! Those of you whose phones are working should call your buddies back in Dumbfuckistan and tell them about the conditions here. Especially you should tell them about the size of this compound – the fixed size of this compound. No matter how many ‘refugees’ arrive here, they’ll all be confined to the space you occupy now. No enlargement will be considered.

“Have a nice day!”

Do read on from there, you’ll like it. Unfortunately, you can safely bet that most Americans would be mortified and shocked by the “inhumane extremism” of the ideas explored therein, which speaks sad volumes about the rudderless moral chaos of our era.

Share

Clarification

Simberg says this quote from a NASA official stuck out to him, and it does me too, though maybe for a different reason.

Neither Bridenstine nor Pence said so explicitly, but these comments reflect their sense that NASA has become too bureaucratic, too tentative, too risk averse. During his town hall this week, Bridenstine had a telling response when asked why, by setting such an ambitious goal of a 2024 landing, was he not putting schedule over safety?

“I would not say it’s a return to schedule over safety, I would say it’s a return to schedule,” he said. “Safety is paramount for everybody at this agency, it always has been. But the number one mission is not safety. If it was, we would all just stay in the ready room and just watch CNN.”

Of course we all already know that safety isn’t the “number one mission” for NASA. “Muslim outreach” is.

(Via Insty)

Share

It’s satire…I think

Democrat-Socialist 2020 candidates rated by their patron saint.

Comrades,

I know what you think I, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, have risen from my mausoleum by Kremlin Wall Red Square as amusement for Day of Fools of April.

Not so! Trust me, bolsheviki, I do not play idle game in honor reactionary bourgeois holiday invented to drug proletariat with bad jokes.

We are at moment history very grave. Mueller Report is disaster and orange-haired robber baron who tweet imperialist lies to working class will once again be president American States.

Our old comrade John Brennan promised this would not happen, swore so, but, alas, tovariches, as I told Zinoviev at Second International, even best friend not to be trusted. The revolutionary checks twice!

So now… “What Is to Be Done” – part two….

We do not want to make mistake of past. We must not overreach. Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho, Maduro, Tom Hayden, Sean Penn, even Mao try to do too much too soon. Everything take time.

That is why necessary examine Democratic candidates carefully. Those with big mouth die quickly. Those with sloppy hands die faster.

But first—important. More Mueller report only make worse, make easier for Trump. Enough of Mueller and FISA. Smart revolutionary shut up about this. Learn from errors. Send Adam Schiff to Gulag or Amerikansky version of Lubyanka if he keep talking. I not like Beria but he knew how to handle these idioty.

Also this Nadler. Shove him down hole or send to Israel where no doubt they eat alive or turn into matzo balls for Passover. Tant pis pour lui, as French say.

Well whaddya know, something I agree one hundred percent with ol’ Vladimir Ilyich on.

Share

Smarter than the average bear

The estimable Mollie Hemingway explains her resistance to chumphood.

When Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced in late March that his sprawling Russia probe had ended with not a single indictment related to criminal collusion, it was a devastating blow to the media’s already damaged credibility. “The Mueller Report is an unmitigated disaster for the American press and the ‘expert’ class that it promotes,” wrote Lee Smith in an overview at The Tablet. Smith was one of the exceedingly small handful of journalists who didn’t fall for the Russia conspiracy.

I’ve written dozens of stories skeptical of the Russia-Trump conspiracy and critical of the media’s coverage of it. How were a few of us able to resist the overwhelming pressure to join the conspiracy theorists?

That handful was exceedingly small because the overwhelming majority of “journalists” was not “taken in” by the deception, but were actively participating in it. They were far more interested in resisting Trump than they were in, y’know, doing their fucking job.

In late September, I watched a perfectly executed information operation play out from the Clinton campaign. It was the campaign’s opposition research on women, hooked to Alicia Machado. These things can only roll out perfectly thanks to a compliant media, one thing the Clinton campaign had in spades.

In late October, I watched another attempted information operation roll out from the Clinton campaign. It was opposition research related to Trump and Russia. I noticed that when the stories dropped, the typically slow Clinton immediately put details about one of them at the top of her Twitter feed and pinned them.

It was a curious move, and made me think her involvement in that story was even more than I already suspected. And I already suspected it was her campaign that was peddling the information. It is perhaps worth noting that the story — about a mysterious server pinging Russia from Trump Tower — was debunked within hours.

When Trump won the 2016 election, it shocked most of the elites who control discourse. An excerpt from “Shattered,” a book about the 2016 Clinton campaign, explained what happened next:

In other calls with advisers and political surrogates in the days after the election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss. ‘She’s not being particularly self-reflective,’ said one longtime ally who was on calls with her shortly after the election. Instead, Hillary kept pointing her finger at Comey and Russia. ‘She wants to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way,’ this person said.

That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

In Brooklyn, her team coalesced around the idea that Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by the contents of stolen e-mails and Hillary’s own private-server imbroglio.

The Clinton strategy wasn’t reported for a few months, but it was obvious to any mildly observant onlooker. Reporters followed Clinton’s lead, per usual, and fixated on Russia. The Obama administration published a couple of reports making the case for the seriousness of Russian meddling that some cyber experts dismissed as not well substantiated.

Lots more really good stuff here, of which you should read the all.

I frequently refer to Sharyl Atkisson and one or two others as “the last real journalist,” but Hemingway deserves to be on that list her own self.

Share

Sick dehumanization

By sick subhumans.

Nevertheless, because of these views, I can now say I know what it feels like to be persecuted. Recently, I went to order from a food truck with my friend Joel Patrick. Joel is a black Trump supporter who wears his support for the president not just on his sleeve, but on his head and his chest too, and we were essentially denied service. We waited for roughly 20 minutes while being completely ignored by everyone working there. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they were just busy, but the minute we walked away because they took an eternity to even acknowledge our existence, they gladly greeted the next customer who wasn’t in MAGA gear with prompt and friendly service.

If my grandmother were still alive, we would have been able to bond over how it feels to be denied service by Democrats.

I am fortunate that being denied service is the worst that’s happened to me, because, as Eric Bolling can attest, it could be a lot worse. Every week, it seems, there’s a new video of someone being harassed or assaulted because they dared to wear a MAGA hat out of the house.

Most notably, the Covington Catholic High School students were not just harassed, they were smeared by the national press. They were slandered by the media. They were sent death threats. People said they would bomb their school. All because they expressed support of the president.

Maddie Mueller (no relation to the man who sadly couldn’t deliver this weekend) is fighting her school because the administration actually tried to ban her from wearing a MAGA hat on campus. Gunnar Johansson’s family is trying to get to the bottom of what happened when his MAGA hat was yanked off of his head by a school bus aide. Logan Jones was suspended for wearing a MAGA sweatshirt and holding a Trump flag. A woman in Massachusetts was arrested for allegedly assaulting Bryton Turner, a man who dared to wear a MAGA hat to a Mexican restaurant.  Even our elders aren’t spared. Just last month, an 81-year-old man was attacked for wearing his MAGA hat, and a 19-year-old was arrested for the assault.

What is happening here? It’s an epidemic. You cannot walk out of your house and be safe if you support the president. These leftists justify their actions by saying those who wear a MAGA hat may as well be members of the KKK. But it is actually those assaulting people in the streets and verbally tormenting them who more closely resemble the Klan.

Unsurprising, since the Klan itself was a Democrat thing. But there are other unsurprising, ironic, non-coincidental similarities to be explored.

Well before President Donald Trump’s election the Democratic Party’s self-proclaimed “democratic socialists” characterized anyone who opposes them as Nazis. The irony is that members of that contingent have more in common with Nazis than they would care to admit.

The utilitarianism governing the use of tissue from aborted fetuses for such experiments as creating humanized mice — usage favored by Democrats — also governed the Nazis’ use of prisoners for experiments in concentration camps. In one instance, doctors infected children with tuberculosis, removed their lymph nodes to determine the disease’s progress, then executed their subjects.

America’s democratic socialists mimic the rationale of the Nazi program. Last March, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown — a Democrat whom Planned Parenthood endorsed for re-election — signed legislation allowing mentally ill patients to be denied food and water unless the patient had issued an advance directive to the contrary before becoming incapacitated. Previously, only caregivers with power of attorney could so decide. The bill received unanimous support from the Democrats in the lower house of Oregon’s legislature.

Both ideologies embrace junk genetics and demand laws reflecting that embrace. Just as the democratic socialists promote a multiplicity of genders and encourage transsexuality in children, Nazis promoted pseudo-scientific racialist theories that circulated decades before Hitler emerged.

The democratic socialists and the Nazis even share the propensity to promote their agendas by fabricating incidents. Eight decades before Jussie Smollett’s staged hate crime and the phony Steele dossier, the Nazis orchestrated an incident that plunged the world into war.

On Aug. 31, 1939, as relations between Germany and Poland rapidly deteriorated, Polish troops attacked and briefly occupied a German radio station near the Polish border to broadcast this message: “Attention! This is Gliwice. The broadcasting station is in Polish hands.”

Gliwice was the Polish name for the then-German town of Gleiwitz. Gunfire could be heard during the broadcast. German police “overpowered” the troops and recaptured the station.

However, the Polish “troops” were members of the SS, who not only carried out the attack but dressed concentration-camp inmates in Polish army uniforms and killed them as “proof.” One of the “troops” was an unmarried German farmer who sympathized with the Poles. The SS arrested him a day earlier and murdered him.

German radio carried news of the faux attack within hours. The next day, Sept. 1, Hitler declared war against Poland, beginning World War II.

The article lists more useful comparisons still, the requisite precursor of which is the self-same “sick dehumanization” described in the first excerpt. That, too, is neither coincidence nor surprise. Which means none of us has to wonder or be in any doubt about where our present-day Gooseteppin’ Left intends to take things. Political movements driven by the authoritarian/totalitarian impulse, if successful at attaining power, always seems to wind up in the same hellish place.

Some things never change. And that ain’t surprising either.

Share

Constitution Shmonstitution

A rueful reminiscence from Wilder.

When I was in grade school the teachers spoke of the Constitution with reverence. As second graders, we listened as the teacher told the story of how it was written and the freedoms it guaranteed us and the responsibilities that it demanded of us. My grade school teachers were all married women, and they loved America. It was a small town, and the teachers had grown up in the area. Some of them had taught their own children and their own grandchildren in the same school where the chalkboard dust, lead paint dust, water from lead-soldered pipes, and asbestos floor tiles soaked into my skin daily. Even the early reader books were taped together with yellowing cellophane tape at the bindings, and most of the books had been printed decades before. I got to See Spot Run like legions of boys before me, running my fingers over the same dog-eared pages that had been read for years, young mouths quietly sounding out the words.

And these boys before me, who had sat in the same desks, drew beginning math on the same blackboards, pulling chalk from the same worn, wooden tray that I did, got paddled in the same principal’s office that I did. They had traveled the world to strange places that their teachers never named when they opened the geography books during the time they spent in second grade. These were places with foreign names like Guadalcanal. Bastogne. Chosin Reservoir. Da Nang.

One of these boys in particular, a blonde haired young Ranger, was barely eighteen when he was shot climbing the cliffs at Pointe Du Hoc on the sixth of June, 1944. His sister was a friend of my father. As a young boy that Ranger sat in that same room, learning the same math decades before I was born. He sat in that same classroom just a few short years before he was buried in Normandy in late spring at the age of 18. No member of his family could afford to visit his grave until over fifty years had passed and his sister walked to his grave and touched its cold marble stone and ran her fingers over his name. Despite that, the young Ranger isn’t lonely – he is surrounded by 9,387 of his comrades who died during the invasion of France.

The school was torn down some time ago – I don’t know when. A bond issue was finally passed, and a new school was built. There aren’t many more students than when I went there, but there are new classrooms. These new schools are gleaming with whiteboards and new furniture and new books, and from the pictures you can see that the kids look a lot like the kids from when I went there; but the connection with 100 years of history went when the building was torn down.

Change is inevitable, but the one thing that my teachers taught us was that the Constitution was a rock, something special, something that every American had shared for hundreds of years. It was important, and it protected us, and protected our freedom.

I believed that, the way the boys that live forever on Pointe du Hoc did.

Today, however, the population of the United States is at least 14% foreign born, but I’d bet that number undercounts illegal aliens.  Second generation Americans, people born here of immigrants, account for at least 10% of the population. A quarter of the population of this country simply has no connection to anything American. 10% were born here, but were raised in a household that had little to no connection to anything American.

These residents also don’t have teachers that teach that the United States is good, that the Constitution is a meaningful document – times have changed and that just isn’t the “woke” take. They don’t get any of this from their family, either. Their family simply doesn’t know anything about freedom and the Constitution in most cases, and probably wouldn’t care if they did. It’s a document that foreigners put together – it is not part of their history at all.

If we have politicians that actively create divisions between Americans with a heritage of limited government and an increasing number of people for whom the history of the United States means nothing, the Constitution won’t mean anything. It will be a speed bump for those who have no connection to it and who have no love of it. The Constitution in the hands of those who hate the limitations it puts on them will, in the long run, provide no safety at all as it is interpreted away, as the press revolts against it, and as the newly imported electorate ignores it.

And what meaning will the blonde Ranger of Pointe du Hoc have then?

Not a whole lot different from what he has now, I’d say. It’s more a matter of which group of us we’re talking about; those of us who have cherished the meaning and memory of that Ranger right along still do, and will forever. Problem is, there’s a large and growing cohort that not only does not cherish that meaning, but has either abandoned the memory or never acquired it in the first place. A bigger problem is that not all of said cohort—probably not even most—are immigrants, unassimilated or otherwise. But there’s a bigger problem still.

In the comments John says, “I’m not trying to make people comfortable with nostalgia – I’m trying to show what we’ve lost.” We’ve lost quite a lot, and stand to lose more yet. The Pointe du Hoc Ranger will be forgotten, as surely as will the lessons he once taught, the example he once provided, and the inspiration and pride he instilled. Partly, that’s just the relentless tide of history clearing the sand of footprints, as it inexorably does—a fact better accepted than lamented or railed against, probably.

But not everything has to be forgotten; not everything should be. And then there are those things whose memory must at any cost be preserved, because the price of allowing them to fade is nothing less than our own extinction. Not for nothing did John begin this excellent post in an old schoolhouse, I think. Because it’s there where our enforced loss of memory and meaning begins, and the cultural amnesia and indoctrination occurring in those classrooms is the biggest problem of them all. Only by addressing that issue will our memory problem be put fully right, if ever it is. Only then can we say we’ve given that valiant Ranger and his comrades their due, our eternal debt to them sufficiently serviced, and their rightful place in our hearts and minds restored.

Share

BLASPHEMY!!!

Nazism, Marxism: two peas, one pod, all Left.

“Conservative” and especially “liberal” have changed over time and have different meanings in the United States and Europe. Hayek himself, who had a more European view of conservatism, was wary of labels. He spurned both “conservative” and “libertarian,” and dedicated his most famous book “to the socialists of all parties.”

For precision, I refrain from using “conservative” or “liberal” unless through quotation and use “left” and “right” as generally accepted in modern America. The right consists of free-market capitalists, who think the individual is the primary political unit, believes in property rights, and are generally distrustful of government by unaccountable agencies and government solutions to social problems. They view family and civil institutions, such as church, as needed checks on state power.

These people don’t think government should force a business to provide employee birth control or think law should coerce bakers to make cakes against their conscience. They think the solution to bad speech is more speech, and the solution to gun violence is more guns. These people talk about freedom—the method of individual decisions. (The counterexample might be gay marriage but that is a positive right—“give me something”—instead of a negative right—“leave me alone.”)

The left believes the opposite. They distrust the excesses and inequality capitalism produces. They give primacy to group rights and identity. They believe factors like race, ethnicity, and sex compose the primary political unit. They don’t believe in strong property rights.

They believe it is the government’s responsibility to solve social problems. They call for public intervention to “equalize” disparities and render our social fabric more inclusive (as they define it). They believe the free market has failed to solve issues like campaign finance, income inequality, minimum wage, access to health care, and righting past injustices. These people talk about “democracy”—the method of collective decisions.

By these definitions, the Nazis were firmly on the left. National Socialism was a collectivist authoritarian movement run by “social justice warriors.” This brand of “justice” benefited only some based on immutable characteristics, which perfectly aligns with the modern brand. The Nazi ideal embraced identity politics based on the primacy of the people, or volk, and invoked state-based solutions for every possible problem. It was nation-based socialism—the nation being especially important to those who bled in the Great War.

But hey, you don’t have to take my word for it—or the above author’s, or even Hayek’s. You can get the skinny straight from the original horse’s mouth.

Yet the evidence the Nazis were leftists goes well beyond the views of this one scholar. Philosophically, Nazi doctrine fit well with the other strains of socialism ripping through Europe at the time. Hitler’s first “National Workers’ Party” meeting while he was still an Army corporal featured the speech “How and by What Means is Capitalism to be Eliminated?”

The Nazi charter published a year later and coauthored by Hitler is socialist in almost every aspect. It calls for “equality of rights for the German people”; the subjugation of the individual to the state; breaking of “rent slavery”; “confiscation of war profits”; the nationalization of industry; profit-sharing in heavy industry; large-scale social security; the “communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low costs to small firms”; the “free expropriation of land for the purpose of public utility”; the abolition of “materialistic” Roman Law; nationalizing education; nationalizing the army; state regulation of the press; and strong central power in the Reich. It was also racist and anti-immigrant.

Gee, the more things change, the more they really DO stay the same.

It wasn’t only theoretical. Hitler repeatedly praised Marx privately, stating he had “learned a great deal from Marxism.” The trouble with the Weimar Republic, he said, was that its politicians “had never even read Marx.” He also stated his differences with communists were that they were intellectual types passing out pamphlets, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun.”

It wasn’t just privately that Hitler’s fealty for Marx surfaced. In “Mein Kampf,” he states that without his racial insights National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.” Nor did Hitler eschew this sentiment once reaching power. As late as 1941, with the war in bloom, he stated “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same” in a speech published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Nazi propaganda minister and resident intellectual Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that the Nazis would install “real socialism” after Russia’s defeat in the East. And Hitler favorite Albert Speer, the Nazi armaments minister whose memoir became an international bestseller, wrote that Hitler viewed Joseph Stalin as a kindred spirit, ensuring his prisoner of war son received good treatment, and even talked of keeping Stalin in power in a puppet government after Germany’s eventual triumph. His views on Great Britain’s Winston Churchill and the United States’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt were decidedly less kind.

If, as has been said, the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing us he didn’t exist, then it could equally be said that the greatest trick ever pulled by the devils of the Left was convincing the world that Naziism was somehow a Right-wing phenomenon. Although the pitiful handful of present-day Hitler wannabes might argue otherwise—I don’t know, I don’t care—it ain’t, and it never was.

Share

“When Presidential Character Once Mattered”

An uncharacteristically sarcastic blast from VDH.

Here’s why I did not vote for Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Ronald Reagan—despite their records.

1944: Sorry, I am not voting for a fourth term for Franklin D. Roosevelt. He’s a vindictive character and has brought disrepute into the White House. When he didn’t get his way, he pouted and tried to pack the Supreme Court. When critics went after him, he threatened them with targeted regulations and taxes to silence them. He signed the order putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps—another one of his “executive orders” that he so often has abused.

Then there are those rumors. Have we ever had a president who used his own daughter as a conduit to conduct an affair while in the White House? And who knows what Eleanor was doing at the time? Why hide the truth about his health? Anybody who sees or hears the president, knows his army of conspiratorial aides are lying about his ailments as they always do. We’ve known all along that he was paralyzed—and not simply partially disabled, when his braces and aides staged his standing up to make us believe he could almost walk.

The president is now wasting away. Rumors are that his blood pressure is dangerously high and won’t go down. It’s Woodrow Wilson all over again, when they lied that his stroke was never serious, even as the guy was near comatose as his wife ran the country. FDR’s advisors know that he won’t make it six months if elected a fourth time. (What president before has even run for a third term?) They are hiding that fact to make sure the Democrats keep control of the presidency once he dies in office. There should be a constitutional amendment or something to remove an incapacitated president.

I cannot vote for a candidate who flat out deceives the American people. Character is destiny, and without it policy means nothing. Storming Normandy was a brilliant success, but it should not come at cost of endorsing an adulterous president. Even if FDR is leading us to global victory, his record is stained by his mendacity.

1951: If Harry Truman runs again for a second full-term—that would make almost another 12 years of one-party governance—I would not vote for him.

Why? Try his character. Truman entered the Senate from the corrupt Kansas City political machine. For good reason, he was branded “the Senator from Pendergast.” Truman has never disavowed those mob machine ties—and never been investigated for his part in mainstreaming Missouri’s endemic corruption. The guy failed in almost every business endeavor he tried until Tom Pendergast found a job for him. As president, he’s been both petty and profane, using salty language and stooping so low as president to threaten bodily harm to a critic of his daughter’s singing career.  He drank with cronies and wasted precious time playing poker. Truman couldn’t even make it through a semester in business college—and it showed.

The bull-headed, go-it-alone grifter Truman has never listened to his far better experienced and educated advisors. He knew nothing of the Manhattan Project but soon just dropped two atomic bombs on Japan without a scintilla of doubt. Sober and judicious pros in the State Department like Alger Hiss warned him of ginning up a Cold War and adopting a polarizing “containment” policy against our former wartime ally Joseph Stalin. Truman ignored him. And who exactly lost China?

Again, Truman never listened to expert diplomats and generals, who also advised against sending troops into the Korean quagmire, or recognizing Israel, or integrating the armed forces, or establishing the CIA, or firing hero General Douglas MacArthur, and on and on. Just a bully whose motto really wasn’t “the buck stops here” but “my way or the highway.” I suppose he did a few good things, but they’re canceled out by his uncouth and unpresidential comportment.

1956: I just cannot vote to reelect Dwight Eisenhower—even if that gives us left-wing Adlai Stevenson. We never really have addressed Ike’s character flaws. While he was supreme commander of our forces in Western Europe he seems to have conducted a veritable affair with his chauffeur Kay Summersby, whose fiancé was killed on the front lines. She even visited the country for months when Ike was thinking of running for president—to his embarrassment. For me, Ike’s dalliance cancels out D-Day and all that.

When Ike wrote his best-selling memoir, he concocted a ploy to declare his huge royalties as capital gains, not income—to avoid the sort of taxes we all pay. Even salty Truman didn’t do that.

When icon George Marshall was attacked by the McCarthy crazies, the trimmer Ike kept silent—with his finger in the air to measure the political winds. So, he let his former boss and patron be slandered.

Ike ran against Truman’s war, but when he got elected, he more or less did the same thing as Truman. Not a lot of character there. Which is more important, being right about the go-ahead order for the June 6 invasion or being wrong in cheating on your wife?

I think the better strategy for 1956 is “NeverEisenhower,” and just hope Stevenson wins. That way, the Democrats will go so hard left-wing that they will turn off the country. Their extremism will allow us time to rebuild the Republican Party and get ready for 1960 with known establishmentarians and good party men like Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.—or at least a guy who has held one office before thinking he could become president.

Heh. I see what you did there, Hanson, you wily old Nazi, you.

Share

“Soft beatings inevitably turn hard”

A calm voice in a turbulent time.

In March of 2016, during the heat of the Republican primary contest, Josh Marshall, the tetchy founder of Talking Points Memo, offered an ominous augury about the raucous Trump campaign. “Someone will die,” he thundered, giving, at the time, the umpteenth warning about the violent effects of the real estate magnate’s aggressive rhetoric. “It may sound like hyperbole. But this is the kind of climate of agitation and violence where someone will end up getting severely injured or killed. I do not say that lightly,” Marshall warned his loyal audience.

I’ve thought about the piece a lot since Trump’s unlikely election and the Democrats’ slow descent into madness. Every new instance of liberal-concocted violence brings it back to mind, like a nagging reminder. Whether it’s James Hodgkinson’s attempted killing spree, Trump supporters accosted in public, or even hoaxed hate crimes, Marshall’s prediction might appear prescient, albeit in a backwards way.

In “No Hate Left Behind,” Thomas Edsall cites a study from political scientists Nathan Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason on the growing ease at which Americans are willing to employ violence against their partisan opponents. “Just over 42 percent of the people in each party view the opposition as ‘downright evil,’” Edsall despairs, unaware that one of his byline colleagues once suggested “good people can’t be Republicans.” The data only gets worse from there. When asked if their favored party loses the 2020 presidential election, “18.3 percent of Democrats and 13.8 percent of Republicans said violence would be justified on a scale ranging from ‘a little’ to ‘a lot.’”

Then there’s the question of ontological moral status. The researchers found that “nearly one out of five Republicans and Democrats agree with the statement that their political adversaries ‘lack the traits to be considered fully human — they behave like animals.’”

Ahh, there’s that increasingly annoying false-moral-equivalence again. And false it is.

Consider: one side endorses murdering newly-born infants as “a woman’s right to choose”; one…doesn’t. One side commits actual acts of violence as punishment for expressing a dissenting opinion, even for merely wearing a certain hat in public. The other…doesn’t. One side holds rage-fueled rallies and protests which leave mountains of rubbish, ruined landscaping, broken windows, even bags of human feces and/or urine in their aftermath. The other holds mannerly, entirely (not “mostly”) peaceable events at which no one but themselves need fear assault, and thoroughly polices up its mess afterwards.

One side primarily inhabits decaying urban areas enlivened by crackheads, hookers, vagrants, and raving madmen; sidewalks festooned with piles of human shit; and miscellaneous other signposts of sophistication, superior intelligence, and gracious living. The other prefers clean, quiet, well-tended suburbs or more remote country homes, also clean and well-tended. In those areas, any shambolic wino stumbling groggily onto someone’s nicely-manicured lawn to pinch an open-air loaf will find himself remanded into police custody with a quickness, with three hots and a cot the only compensation for the “injustice” visited upon him. Hell, when somebody’s dog shits on the lawn it’s usually cleaned up right away.

No, one of these things is NOT like the other. I’ll leave it to you guys to discuss which is the more civilized and which is more closely comparable to “behaving like animals.” It seems pretty danged obvious to me, but YMMV. Then comes the calmer perspective:

Saying there’s too much hatred in America’s air is like saying there’s too much salt in the ocean. The country was founded on partisan bickering, which occasionally turned violent. It’s narrow-minded to suggest we’re at a more perilous time in our history than, say, the Civil War or even the frequent riots of the ‘60s and ‘70s or the Galleanist bombings of 1919. The last guy who tried to wage a national bombing campaign only sent duds from his bumper-sticker-laden creeper van.

Aside from hyperventilating Hollywood types, who get an outsized amount of media coverage, and the discursive rantings on Facebook, we’re not quite at the point where neighbors turn on neighbors, kids turn on parents, brothers turn on brothers, all in a bloody free-for-all. Go to a supermarket on any given day and you’ll see all types of Americans quietly going about their business. Few people let the fear of mass shootings or terrorist attacks disrupt their plans. We have yet to see roving gangs of marauders targeting MAGA-hat wearers or Beto devotees.

America doesn’t have an anger problem so much as it has an anger-management problem. We’re a naturally het-up people. Sometimes that leaks out into scrums of fisticuffs. But, a lot of frustration that drives these physical altercations comes from a double standard. Those who go unpunished for aggression aren’t going to see the light and make peace with their ideological adversaries. One side gets a clear pass when it comes to acting on its frustrations, and it’s not the side Jussie Smollett tried to blame for his botched publicity stunt. When leftists haul off and slug conservatives, the media-driven outcry is not nearly the same as when the inverse occurs.

Josh Marshall inadvertently revealed as much by focusing on Trump’s coarse language and not the left’s own lack of self-control. Yes, someone has died as a casualty of a twisted political ideology. But the threat of a mass breakout in violence remains overstated. How we act in person is different than what we say on Twitter or to a pollster. One-on-one conversation can ease years of Facebook-fueled tension in just minutes. As Great Britain’s P.G. Wodehouse once admitted during the Blitz, “when I’m about to feel belligerent about some country I meet a decent sort of chap” who causes him to lose “any fighting feelings or thoughts.”

That can all change, of course.

It can at that. We’ll know soon enough which way things go.

Share

War to the knife

History, repeating itself.

Mao’s Cultural Revolution endured over a 10-12 year period, ending with his death in 1976. Millions died; many more millions were socially and professionally ruined; hundreds of millions were incessantly terrorized. But though it might seem at first glance that China’s society had descended into madness, there was very clearly a method to that madness. What were some of the defining characteristics of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and how did these characteristics manifest themselves?

  1. The revolution was conducted against the entire collection of established institutions in Chinese society. Particular focus was placed on eradicating religious symbols, monuments and organizations, as well as any institution that had roots in the past, as China’s pre-Communist history was treated as an endless litany of evil acts whose legacy could only have a malign influence in the future unless completely stamped out.
  2. The ranks of the civilian revolutionary cadres were composed mostly of university students (though K-12 students were heavily recruited as well in secondary roles.) Between their youthful vigor, the thoroughness of their indoctrination and the typical eagerness of a young generation to assert themselves and exercise their energies in effecting change, they proved to be a shrewd choice to coerce Chinese society and its institutions.
  3. Assembled into large gangs, the university-based Red Guards intimidated establishment figures in the educational and political spheres by publicly shaming and berating them, coercing confessions from them for imaginary crimes against the principles of social, political and economic justice of the Revolution, and with increasing frequency physically assaulting and/or killing them. These purges included Party members who had previously been considered to be staunch supporters of the Revolution but had been deemed to be lacking in sufficient revolutionary fervor.

Does any of the above sound…familiar?

All too, buddy, all too.

Via Linda, who elsewhere warns:

They hate us. They have contempt for us, and no hesitation about displaying it openly. They viciously attack us in public, in our homes, and use thug tactics to threaten our livelihoods, our safety, and our ability to function in a modern society.

I hate this. I have family and friends on both sides. When it’s all over, there will be a putative victor (because a fight so infused with hatred must end in complete surrender for one side), but there will not be peace. It will end in bitterness, lasting distrust, and unwillingness to associate with the other side in any way. It will be the end of the United States, as we have known it.

Logic has not stopped their lies. Resort to the courts is a lost cause. They have taken over the legislative bodies, maligning and intimidating any opposition, threatening the established leadership, and using underhanded means in their climb to power.

I don’t see an end that doesn’t culminate in death – many of them.

Linda’s “victor,” from whichever side, will be putative indeed, standing as he will be amidst the smoking, blackened rubble of what was once the most prosperous and generally beneficent society yet brought forth on Earth—miserably grubbing about for sustenance, shelter, and the other irreducible necessities of life. Should Proggy be that Pyrrhic “victor”—heaven forbid!—he will suddenly find such formerly all-consuming obssessions like gay marriage, cultural appropriation, political correctness, and carbon offsets to be much reduced in importance.

But that’s the fate that inevitably overtakes any Free Shit Army of heedless lotus-eaters. Eventually, they’ll be despoiled by their own decadence—toppled from ease and unmerited luxury back into hardscrabble savagery to once again be taught the same unlearned lesson in a far tougher school, under a pitiless master who does NOT grade on the curve.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix