Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Just another hype

The “opioid crisis,” that is.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who chaired the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, invokes that narrative when he talks about “the injured student-athlete who becomes addicted after [his] first prescription” or remembers the law school classmate who died of an overdose after getting hooked on the oxycodone he was taking for back pain. Such examples are misleading because they are rare, accounting for only a small percentage of opioid-related deaths.

Contrary to the impression left by most press coverage of the issue, opioid-related deaths do not usually involve drug-naive patients who accidentally get hooked while being treated for pain. Instead, they usually involve people with histories of substance abuse and psychological problems who use multiple drugs, not just opioids.

Conflating those two groups results in policies like the pill count that left Craig without the pain medication he needed to get out of bed in the morning, go to work, and lead a normal life. The rationale is that cutting people like him off will stop them from ending up dead of an overdose in a Walmart parking lot next to a baggie of fentanyl-laced heroin.

But the truth is that patients who take opioids for pain rarely become addicted. A 2018 study found that just 1 percent of people who took prescription pain medication following surgery showed signs of “opioid misuse,” a broader category than addiction. Even when patients take opioids for chronic pain, only a small minority of them become addicted. The risk of fatal poisoning is even lower—on the order of two-hundredths of a percent annually, judging from a 2015 study.

Despite such reassuring numbers, the government is responding to the “opioid epidemic” as if opioid addiction were a disease caused by exposure to opioids, a simplistic view that ignores the personal, social, and economic factors that make these drugs attractive to some people. Treating pain medication as a disease vector, the government has restricted access to it by monitoring prescriptions, investigating doctors, and imposing new limits on how much can be prescribed, for how long, and under what circumstances. That approach hurts pain patients by depriving them of the analgesics they need to make their lives livable, and it hurts nonmusical users by driving them into a black market where the drugs are deadlier.

A large majority of opioid-related deaths now involve illicitly produced substances, primarily heroin and fentanyl. As usual, the government’s efforts to get between people and the drugs they want have not prevented drug use, but they have made it more dangerous.

Government: is there anything it can’t fuck up in its ceaseless quest to exert absolute, comprehensive control?

This is a long article, covering a lot of ground; it’s well worth a look, particularly for the insight it offers into how government and the media work hand-in-glove to stampede the gullible herd—to “keep up the skeer,” as Bedford Forrest had it in another context.

Admittedly, the drug abuse question is a somewhat thorny one. But it’s not nearly as thorny as it’s generally made to appear, and certainly not as pervasive. As with most everything else, the right answer is the one megalomaniacal bureaucrats who only want to “help” would never dream of considering: leave people the hell alone.

Share

Make it stop!

My God, but the EGO on this douchebag.

Former President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama are negotiating a major production deal with Netflix, The New York Times reported on Thursday night.

The pending deal would bring exclusive content from the Obamas to the streaming site’s 118 million subscribers. It was not immediately clear what types of content they would deliver to the site, but Eric Schultz, a former adviser to the president told the Times: “President and Mrs. Obama have always believed in the power of storytelling to inspire.”

One possible show idea, the newspaper said, could involve Obama discussing topics that were germane to his policies as president — including health care, voting rights, and immigration, The Times said.

Those topics comprise portions of the legislative agenda he exercised during his time in the White House — many of which President Donald Trump has sought to roll back since he took office last year.

May I suggest a title? “Vital Social Issues ‘N’ Stuff, with Barky.” Sure, it’s lifted from Kelly Bundy’s short-lived show on Married With Children. But I’m confident His Majesty’s show will be of comparable quality and worth, if nowhere near as enjoyable to watch.

Despite my expectation that watching the abominable thing will be capable of inflicting actual, physical pain on saner sorts, I’m equally confident that Oshitstain will have a dismaying number of palpitating, worshipful droolcases eager to tune in and lap up his every lecture—his maddening drone falling on their ears like the sweet singing of angels, stimulating them into quivering, weeping near-catatonia. Like, say, this idiot.

It’s easy to look at what’s happening in Washington DC and despair. That’s why I carry a little plastic Obama doll in my purse. I pull him out every now and then to remind myself that the United States had a progressive, African American president until very recently. Some people find this strange, but you have to take comfort where you can find it in Donald Trump’s America.

That was belched forth by some dizzy bint in the course of touting the anticipated (by her) Blue Wave, wherein soothing memories of the earthly rein of her Lord and Savior Obama will inspire millions of normal Americans to vote in favor of re-impoverishing themselves, re-unemploying themselves, re-taxing themselves into penury, and re-subjecting themselves to endless hectoring, harassment, and random violent assault by freaks, illegal aliens, perverts, street bums, criminal thugs, gun-grabbers, Marxists, Antifa fascists, Al Franken, Mexican gangbangers, crooked career politicians, Harvey Weinstein, Muslim rapefugees, duly-deputized shadow minions of the Deep State, and assorted other dysfunctional malcontents, psychopaths, and creepazoids. IE, the Democrat-Socialist constituency en bloc.

And then, when the victims of these reprobates are desirous of the healing balm of diverting entertainment to ease the pain of their financial, spiritual, and physical wounds, they can sit back on the couch, tune in Netflix, and subject themselves to a pantload of sniffy condescension from His Majesty himself reminding them that it’s all their fault because America Sucks That’s Why, and that he’s very disappointed in the way they’ve let him down. Again.

Whatever Obama-licking liberal butt-boy conceived this devil’s deal with the Clown Prince Of Darkness to turn Netflix into O-TV ought to have his ass beat like a drum seven days a week, and twice on Sunday. Hopefully the ratings will handle that chore for us, if only in the figurative sense.

Share

Parliamentary madhouse

The identity-politics lunatics are running the asylum.

Anyone who has ever spoken on a college campus will have felt the weariness that descends during the Q&A when audience members begin their “questions” with “As a woman…” “As a black woman…” “As a trans woman…” If Frances McDormand’s “inclusion rider” can be made to apply to something as elusive as the particular combination of talents required to bring a script to sparkling life, is it really such a stretch to imagine a House of Gays – that’s to say, a legislature predicated on appropriate representation of identity groups? After all, the left is already institutionally hostile to America’s electoral college, under which small, peripheral, recalcitrant white-privilege backwater states have a disproportionate say in the selection of a president. Instead of these obsolete, irrelevant, geographical boundaries, would it not make more sense for the Senate to reflect the balance of competing power interests in today’s America? A precise number of seats, determined by the Supreme Court, for gays, trans women, cis women, cis black women, trans Muslim women, cis illegal immigrants, etc?

Fine by me. Then we can insist on like representation for white Christian males, reserving a number of seats proportionate to OUR population percentage for us exclusively. Fair, right? Sauce for the goose and all that? If we grant the underlying premise—that gays, transgenders, blacks, women, etc cannot possibly be properly represented by anything other than one of their own—then that has to be the only reasonable conclusion, right?

Breath: not holding it. But still.

Oh, you can laugh, but it’s not so difficult to imagine a jurisdiction such as California proposing such changes to a state legislature. For example, not so long ago it was broadly accepted that the right to participate in choosing the government of your society was a privilege of allegiance to that society. Yet now Californians and many others are proposing the extension of voting rights to non-citizens – by which they mean not even lawful immigrants but persons whose very presence in the land is an act of lawbreaking that mocks the very concept of fealty. If you step back for a moment, that’s extraordinary: millions and millions of Americans who support such alien-voting proposals have abandoned, in the blink of an eye, the defining attribute of citizenship.

They’re citizens of the WORLD, dude, not anything so petty and conceptually constricting as a mere country. And certainly not any country as abominable as THIS one. FREE YOUR MIND, MAN.

For a majority of young people in particular, “free speech” is a cis het white male concept that is subordinate to identity rights. If you disagree with that proposition, you might schedule a debate on the merits of free speech at, say, King’s College, London – but the mob will break it up, throw smoke bombs, smash windows, put the security guard in hospital, and the college will take the mob’s side because you threatened their “safe space”. As I heard a decade ago in my battles with Canada’s “human rights” commissions, to officialdom it’s you freespeechers who are the problem, holding debates, talking about stuff, and thereby upping our security costs because of your needless provocation of the increasingly inarticulate varsity.

The dictatorship of the identitariat is spreading rapidly, as all bad ideas do, way beyond loony campuses. If the right to freedom of speech no longer has much purchase on society, the law of contract for the moment still prevails – so I congratulate VDare.com on extracting a five-figure sum from Hilton Hotels for screwing them over and canceling their annual Immigration Reform Conference in Arizona. Dare are opposed both to illegal immigration and the legal immigration enabled by the 1965 act. I can think of no reason why in a free society a person should not be entitled to hold such views. But, in the wake of last year’s statue-toppling frenzy, PayPal (a de facto Internet monopoly) booted out Dare, and other contractors, such as Hilton, followed suit. Some corporations do this stuff because they’re headed by social-justice ideologues who are genuine believers; others are merely jelly-spined wankers thrown into a tizzy by a couple of hostile Tweets coming over the transom. I have no idea into which category Hilton fall, but I certainly hope the “five-figure sum” was in the high five figures – and even then that isn’t really big enough to discourage this malign trend.

When identity becomes politics, free speech shrivels: governments, whether Canadian Liberals or British Tories or German Coalitions-of-all-the-no-talents, are prepared to sacrifice it, so why should twitchy, risk-averse corporate venue-renters be expected to defend it?

The really bothersome thing is something I saw mentioned someplace the other day by somebody or other: when all of these corporate shunnings, bannings, and denunciations go just one way, it becomes kinda difficult not to suspect that they’re a bit more than merely craven or “risk-averse,” fearful of the effects of bad publicity on the bottom line. As this unknown someone stated: when was the last time you remember even ONE of these little dustups resulting in a corporation announcing support for, say, the NRA? When all the chips end up on the Left side of the table every single time, it’s a safe bet the deck is stacked against the Right. The “corporate cowards” are more likely quiet fellow-travelers, if not outright Leftards themselves, Red in tooth and claw.

Which is, y’know, extremely ironic, and of right ought to lead Republicans to rethink their former reflexive support for them. Steyn goes on to lay out a hierarchy of the Identity Politics Peerage (you’ll never guess who’s currently at the top of the pecking order), which I’ll insist that you click on through to read all of.

Update! Ahh, it was Ace:

A friend noted the other day that a dating app he uses was now banning all references to guns. Another friend asked, “Have you ever seen a single corporation offer a similar Virtue Signal to the right? Has any corporation run a commercial or campaign similarly expressing solidarity with right-leaning traditionalists on any issue?”

Do any corporations attempt any kind of similar cultural courting of the right, transmitting the right’s values or at least subtly portraying them in a sympathetic light?

Unlike Corporate Crony “Conservatives,” we #WokeNormals, as Kurt Schlichter calls us, are now Woke to the fact that the corporate sector has been wholly captured by the transnational progressive left, and we — unlike the Corporate Crony “Conservatives,” won’t be doing them any further favors.

They can get their favors from the party they support in word and in deed: The Democrat Party.

And if the Democrat Party chooses to conduct a legislative heist and steal their money — to hell with them. You go to bed with a whore, you wake up with your wallet missing.

Seconded, with bells on. Let them find out just what sucking up to the Commie Left gets them.

Share

What, this again?

Stupid: unfixable.

It’s time to give socialism a try

No it isn’t. It’s time for you to rethink a few things, admit a few things—LEARN a few things. The rest of us are way ahead of you, and we’re getting a little tired of waiting for the short bus to finally catch up.

Astoundingly, this WaPo op-ed seems not to be parody or satire. It’s really kind of pitiful at this point; the stubborn fools really, truly have nothing else. NOTHING. The Left is so completely mired in the gooey morass of pure folly they couldn’t be dug out with a backhoe. All they can think to do is keep eyes dutifully averted from their ideology’s manifest failures, hoping against hope the rest of us don’t see, and just…go right on regurgitating the same tired, irrelevant crap.

In the United States, we’ve arrived at a pair of mutually exclusive convictions: that liberal, capitalist democracies are guaranteed by their nature to succeed and that in our Trumpist moment they seem to be failing in deeply unsettling ways.

“Failing,” is it? Oh sure, your ideology is, but that “Trumpist moment” you so bitterly lament sure ain’t. With unemployment at record lows; incomes rising; businesses bringing money, jobs, and opportunity back from overseas tax shelters; the stock market soaring to previously undreamed of heights; and even manufacturing showing signs of reviving? If this is failure, we’ll take more of it, please.

For liberals — and by this I mean inheritors of the long liberal tradition, not specifically those who might also be called progressives —

Boy, talk about splitting hairs, about distinctions without a difference. Here’s a more honest interpretation: “Liberal makes meaningless distinction in hopes of appearing more moderate…while promoting socialism.” Pull the other one, hon, it has a bell on it.

efforts to square these two notions have typically combined expressions of high anxiety with reassurances that, if we only have the right attitude, everything will set itself aright.

Which is nothing but more of the usual: if we only wish hard enough, all our totalitarian dreams will finally come true! The anxiety is fitting enough, though: they’ve failed over and over, we’ve seen through them at last, and so we elected someone to undo the damage their Golden Idol did. He’s doing so unexpectedly quickly, with positive results evident to all and undeniable by the mentally sound among us.

Lefty’s only response so far: A) complain bitterly about a reviving economy, more people working, and more money in people’s pockets, and B) insist—nay, demand!—that we go back to their hapless floundering about IMMEDIATELY—that we turn the reins back over to them so they can drive us right back into the liberal sinkhole for good.

Hanging on and hoping for the best is certainly one approach to rescuing the best of liberalism from its discontents,

Its failures, you mean. Its innumerable, almost boringly predictable, colossal failures.

but my answer is admittedly more ambitious: It’s time to give socialism a try.

And there it is again: the only POSSIBLE solution to the failure of liberalism is…MORE LIBERALISM. In some quarters also referred to as “doubling down on stupid.”

But my sense is that while Sullivan, Mounk and all the other concerned liberal observers are right that something is wrong with the state of American liberalism, the problem is much deeper than they allow.

Oh, you bet your sweet bippy it is.

I don’t think business-as-usual but better is enough to fix what’s broken here. I think the problem lies at the root of the thing, with capitalism itself.

How very…insightful. American liberalism—violently, viscerally opposed to capitalism like a drowning man is opposed to more water—is in trouble, and the problem is…umm, capitalism.

Jeez, can’t you guys even be somewhat coherent? It’s like you’re not even trying anymore. You’re all just phoning it in.

In fact, both Sullivan’s and Mounk’s complaints — that Americans appear to be isolated, viciously competitive, suspicious of one another and spiritually shallow;

According to who, exactly? You miserable elitist tapeworms in your exorbitantly-priced urban ratholes, quivering in terror at the nascent American renaissance? You surely can’t be talking about normal Americans, who are in the main living contentedly in quiet, peaceful homes surrounded by loving families; perhaps competitive but by no means viciously so; suspicious not of each other but of YOU and your ilk, their would-be masters, and quite rightly too; comforted and enriched by the Christian faith you deride and mock from the depths of your mindless ignorance—while you yourselves provide a near-comical example of true spiritual shallowness by mindlessly chasing after every fad guru, shaman, mystic, quack, crackpot, or plain charlatan who knows an easy mark when he sees a city full of them.

You flock to the bookstores and lecture halls in search of, well, whatever. But the peace you gain is fleeting, the comfort insubstantial, the contentment illusory—because you have no faith. Your egotism and narcissism will not allow you to relinquish their primacy and subsume yourself in humble acceptance of a higher power. Such sad excuses for “spirituality” are merely a game, an empty ritual bereft of meaning and incapable of imparting wisdom. Because in the end, try as you might, you just can’t bring yourself to really, truly believe. Your vanity condemns you to a pursuit that is eternal, and eternally fruitless, with the only reward at the end of it all being…nothingness.

The Christian faithful you so despise, while perhaps now and then harboring doubts as their faith is tested by life’s travails, are much happier than you’ll ever manage to be. Which, deep down in the place you don’t talk about at parties, is the real reason you despise them.

we are anxiously looking for some kind of attachment to something real and profound in an age of decreasing trust and regard — seem to be emblematic of capitalism, which encourages and requires fierce individualism,

Okay, that’s fair enough. And not a bad thing, either.

self-interested disregard for the other,

Which I suppose would be why America leads the world in charitable giving and volunteerism, and why conservatives (i.e. supporters of capitalism) far outstrip liberals in philanthropy here at home.

and resentment of arrangements into which one deposits more than he or she withdraws.

Right. Be sure to note all the “resentment” at the next church-sponsored soup kitchen, charity bake sale, or paper drive you attend. Why, they’re a veritable boiling cauldron of “resentment,” they are.

Clueless dimwit.

Capitalism is an ideology that is far more encompassing than it admits, and one that turns every relationship into a calculable exchange. Bodies, time, energy, creativity, love — all become commodities to be priced and sold. Alienation reigns. There is no room for sustained contemplation and little interest in public morality; everything collapses down to the level of the atomized individual.

More ignorant horseshit. No room for contemplation? Little interest in public morality? Well, that last might be true in a minor way; what most of us have is a willingness to live and let live, to let others walk their own path without interference from us. To leave people the hell alone, in other words. Which is the one thing so-called liberals can never, ever do.

Not to be confused for a totalitarian nostalgist, I would support a kind of socialism that would be democratic and aimed primarily at decommodifying labor, reducing the vast inequality brought about by capitalism, and breaking capital’s stranglehold over politics and culture.

“Not to be confused for a totalitarian nostalgist, I would like to advocate nostalgic totalitarianism.” Whereupon we descend into Mark-1, Mod-0 liberal adolescent fantasy. To wit: juvenile shallowness masquerading as Deep Thought, pie-in-the-sky nitwittery indulging pretentions to profundity.

“Democratic”? The People spoke loudly enough last election, rejecting you utterly. Your petulant refusal to accept the results of democracy has been shoved in our faces without cessation ever since. “Decommodifying labor”? To quote the old joke from Soviet Russia: “we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” “Inequality”? An immutable fact of life on this planet—one that, if approached with the right attitude, can serve as an inspiration to better one’s lot. “Breaking capital’s stranglehold” etc? NEVER going to happen. EVER. It most certainly never did in any previous doomed attempt at socialism, and it won’t with yours either.

The entirety of this dim bulb’s stinking pile of rhetorical desperation does accomplish one useful thing, I admit. It establishes beyond doubt the unassailable veracity of yet another reality of human life, namely: Some people never learn.

You keep right on dreamin’ your sweet, sweet dreams, honey. There’ll always be plenty of grown-ups solidly grounded in reality around, willing and able to counter fantasist codswallop with 24-karat truth…and to protect American prosperity and freedom from the monsters under the Left side of the bed.

Share

Age of Travesties

When “shock value” is the only value left.

Early in the Netflix series called Babylon Berlin, set in Germany in 1929, the police vice squad raids the studio of a pornographic film company. At first, we hear only the off-camera voice of the director speaking to “Mary,” “Joseph,” the “shepherds,” and so on—and, for a second, we infer that it is a rehearsal for a school Christmas pageant.

Then the camera, following the police officers, enters the studio to disclose the pale, naked bodies of actors engaged in an orgy in a manger—coupling in the fashion of barnyard animals, as the director calls out instructions and encouragement.

The scene is not just a travesty of the Nativity but a travesty of blasphemy itself—and, somewhere beyond that, a comment on a style of German transgressiveness so naïve and humorless and boorish and literal-minded (almost moronic) as to be…not innocent, exactly, but bovine, a little too dumb to arouse an intelligent person’s indignation. One feels disgust, but it is not directed at the religious transgression; rather, one is overwhelmed by the depressing, over-the-top stupidity of it all, the squalor. The vice squad officers, all business and a little bored, take the scene as a matter of course. These are the polluted waters of their culture. This is their swamp. (Weimar Germany was a prequel, needless to say.)

It’s possible to have a similar reaction to aspects of America in 2018.

An understatement if ever there was one.

Leading universities have turned themselves into hybrids of Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood and Mao’s Red Guards. They have become madrassas of identity politics, given over to dogmatism, indoctrination, the coddling of grievance, and the encouragement and manipulation of neurotic youthful insecurities for the purpose of consolidating political power. The effects of travesties being committed on American campuses, where the mind of the hard Left is embedded in faculties, administrations, and boards of overseers, will be felt for generations. The damage may be irreparable.

Consider the comedy of the pronouns, which is symptomatic—and hilarious, if you can stand it. In the Alice in Wonderland of academe, pronouns are deemed to be discretionary. A person may choose a unique pronoun (“ahi,” “her,” or “Gloria Swanson,” or “John Foster Dulles” —up to you, precious: we leave the choice to your iridescent narcissism).

This is a travesty of the sanctity of the person and of individual freedom. It is not social justice but vandalism of the language—self-obsession carried beyond the reach of parody. It is the sort of mischief that children do when they have no parents worthy of the name; universities make a wicked travesty of the idea of in loco parentis.

“Vandalism of the language” indeed. But in his eagerness to avoid declaring, as he puts it, “which side is responsible for what has gone wrong in our culture and politics,” Morrow passes right by the fact that this vandalism is not something done randomly or unawares—that it is part of a larger Leftist strategy to vandalize the entire culture, in a long-term quest to bring America That Was crashing down and tumbling into the arms of global Marxism at long last, and for good.

Where, after all, has nearly every nonsensical perversion of language you can think of originated if not with the Left? The sowing of confusion and doubt by distorting the very words we speak—eliminating old ones, coining new ones, and rendering long-accepted meanings of others into their exact opposite—is a tactic used by both Hitler and Stalin in their day, to great effect.

Example: “assault weapon,” a meaningless drivel-salad invented by the gun-grabber Left to link perfectly ordinary semi-automatic rifles with assault rifles for the purpose of frightening and misleading the ignorant into supporting tight restrictions and eventually a ban on them. The spurious definition of “assault weapon” is based entirely on cosmetic appearance and not function; it is pure manipulation, propaganda and nothing whatsoever more.

The most shocking aspect, though, is not that the Left did it, but that they did it so successfully. The term is now thoroughly embedded in American culture; even 2A supporters use it, in dismaying numbers. And it’s nothing but manufactured horseshit.

That’s just one example. There are others related to firearms, and way, way more just about any and everywhere else you look—far too many to be comprehensively cataloged. The Left’s reduction of so much of plain language into near-gibberish would have to be one of their greatest success stories, in truth. “Tolerance”? “Diversity”? “Dissent”? “Patriotic”? “Brave”? “Heroic”? “Rape”? “Freedom”? “Truth”? Good Lord, even the word “liberal” itself has come to mean the precise opposite of what it once did.

None of which even begins to address the forced conversion of perfectly acceptable words like “handicapped” into clumsy, insulting pabulum like “differently abled”; “heterosexual” into “cisgendered”; “Negro” into “person of color,” and so on and on. Don’t even get me started on bland, neutered tripe like “Congressperson” or “waitron” or “chairperson.” I’m suspicious of the morphing of “secretary” into “administrative assistant,” “employment office” into “human resources department,” and “boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband/shackjob” into “life partner,” but I can’t prove anything. Yet.

Thankfully, the Marines decided not to go with “rifleperson” or “infantryperson” in the end, after paroxysms of indignation from disgusted leathernecks who must have suddenly found themselves wondering what the hell they signed up for in the first place. The Corps end up bowing pretty deeply to political correctness, though, just not quite all the way to the ground. Yet.

The lowering of Marine CET physical fitness requirements to accommodate female “Marine” Mass Organized Conflict Facilitator Persons who can’t hack the program is another matter. Well, actually, no, it really isn’t. It’s another surge of the same old Dismal Tide inundating sanity, reality, and common sense while undermining the effective defense of this nation. Which, hey, for a Progtard, what’s not to like?

In the interest of comity, however, could we at least all agree to stop referring to Muslims as a “race”? I know it’s a bridge way too far to expect any acknowledgment that skepticism about the wisdom of admitting hordes of them into the country with no expectation of either assimilation or allegiance—skepticism informed by knowledge of Muslim history, present-day proclivities, and clearly stated intentions—can NOT reasonably be denounced as either “Islamophobia” or “racism” with any real fairness, and don’t ask it of anyone.

While we’re on race, “Asian,” “black,” and “Hispanic” are ethnicities; not one of them is really a “race.” I still prefer “Indian” or “American Indian” to “Native American,” although I acknowledge that it’s sloppy and off-base. Plus some of the Native Americans themselves seem a bit tetchy about it, so I’m willing to go along to get along there. On the other hand, I’d love to see “African-American” shitcanned entirely. Dammit, you can be one or the other, but you can’t be both. Pick one and get on with your life. If you go around wearing African tribal garb but you were born and raised here and neither you, your parents, nor your grandparents have ever so much as vacationed in Africa, you’re a pretentious phony, or at best deeply confused. But you ain’t African. Sorry.

“Hooker” or “prostitute” into “sex worker”, “stripper” into “exotic dancer,” “porn star” into “adult film actress”? Eh, thanks, but no thanks. Not ones that rankle me greatly, mind, but I figured I’d go ahead and throw ’em out there.

When they start demanding we all refer to “Cajuns” as “linguistically-enhanced sobriety-challenged Bayou persons,” I’m getting off the damned bus. But Cajuns are more or less white, so Proggies probably won’t care much about renaming them.

All things considered, it’s a travesty, is what it is.

Share

Truth hurts

Oh, this is just too, TOO rich.

Pointing out inaccuracies in your opponent’s arguments is a cynical ploy to stop discussion. Or so I gather from Adam Weinstein, who just published a Washington Post op-ed taking gun control critics to task for “gunsplaining”—Weinstein’s name for when one is “harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner” after one makes some incidental factual error about guns, such as calling AR-15s “high-powered” or confusing clips with magazines.

We ARE more credible than thou, you fucking douchebag. As I always say: the libtards’ argument isn’t really with us. It’s with reality. Kinda tough on them. I do not give a single, solitary, trifling damn. Not even one.

“Gunsplaining,” Weinstein declares, “is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it.”

When one side’s position is based entirely on ignorance, fear, dishonesty, and sinister ulterior motives regarding the subject at hand, what you’re having ain’t much of a discourse. And…”bad faith”? You SURE you want to go there, gun-grabber?

The rest of the article is a good enough rebuttal, and worth reading. But it’s at best unnecessary. At this point, I maintain that the only “discourse” we need to be having with the fascist, gun-grabber Left consists of this: NO. You ain’t getting them. Not now, not ever. You want a fight over it? You’ll get one, for sure and certain. In the meantime, go fuck yourselves.

Period fucking dot. Full stop, end of story.

Your move, assholes.

Share

You, yes you

Schlichter revisits an old theme of his—and mine.

Don’t be gaslighted. They will tell you exactly what they want for you if you give them long enough. The beauty of social media is these creeps just can’t help themselves; you just have to have the strength to listen and accept the truth no matter how unpleasant it is. Many of them want you dead – again, they will tell you outright. Others will be satisfied with you just being serfs, unable to participate in your own governance, obedient, working hard to fuel the liberal redistribution machine that pays off Democrat constituencies. To the fields, flyover drones! Grow our kale, drive the trucks carrying our cucumber-infused pale ale! We are to be the silent stagehands in the urban hipster play that is their lives.

Understand that the left doesn’t hate the NRA. The NRA stuff is a distraction. Leftists are dumb, but they understand the power of the NRA is really the power of millions of Normal Americans coming together to defend their right to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. That’s why they fear it. That’s why they can’t abide it. They want your voices silenced.

And the left doesn’t hate guns either. In fact, the progressives fully intend to be the only group left with any guns. That should turn out great for us.

At best, the government that they promise will protect us will make excuses why they can’t see red flags waving and why they can’t be expected to actually protect us. Liberals have just come out foursquare in favor of police cowardice; their argument is you don’t need guns to protect yourself, and you certainly can’t expect a Democrat-run law enforcement agency like the Broward Sheriff’s Office to protect you because that would be scary to the poor government workers. Where does that leave you? You can’t protect yourself, and in return, no one from the government will protect you either. That whole outliving talk looks more and more sinister every day.

They want you disarmed and disempowered, not the nuts, not the criminals, not the terrorist, not the illegal aliens. You. Why?

Because they hate you.

They hate that you won’t submit.

They hate that you won’t obey.

And they hate that you refuse to give up your only means of protecting yourself and preserving your rights.

They hate you.

So what do you do?

You understand and accept the truth, which many allegedly on our side refuse to do because the truth is too harsh and painful.

Sad, sorry, contemptible case in point:

The people pushing for gun restrictions have basically done the exact opposite of what I thought was wise. Instead of depolarizing the issue they have massively polarized it. The students from Parkland are being assisted by all the usual hyper-polarizing left-wing groups: Planned Parenthood, Move On and the Women’s March. The rhetoric has been extreme. Marco Rubio has been likened to a mass murderer while the N.R.A. has been called a terrorist organization.

The early results would seem to completely vindicate my position. The Florida Legislature turned aside gun restrictions. New gun measures in Congress have been quickly shelved. Democrats are more likely to lose House and Senate seats in the key 2018 pro-gun states. The losing streak continues.

Yet I have to admit that something bigger is going on. It could be that progressives understood something I didn’t. It could be that you can win more important victories through an aggressive cultural crusade than you can through legislation. Progressives could be on the verge of delegitimizing their foes, on guns but also much else, rendering them untouchable for anybody who wants to stay in polite society. That would produce social changes far vaster than limiting assault rifles.

Two things have fundamentally changed the landscape. First, over the past two years conservatives have self-marginalized. In supporting Donald Trump they have tied themselves to a man whose racial prejudices, sexual behavior and personal morality put him beyond the pale of decent society.

While becoming the movement of Dinesh D’Souza, Sean Hannity and Franklin Graham, they have essentially expelled the leaders and thinkers who have purchase in mainstream culture. Conservatism is now less a political or philosophic movement and more a separatist subculture that participates in its own ostracism.

If progressives can cut what’s left of the conservative movement off from mainstream society, they will fundamentally alter the culture war. We think of the culture war as this stagnant thing in which both sides scream at each other. But eventually there could be a winner. Progressives have won on most social issues. They could win on nearly everything else.

That’s David Brooks, whose picture will surely sit beside the entry for the present-day usage of the word “Cuck” should it ever make it into the dictionary. Emphasis mine, to highlight just how deeply he’s internalized the Left’s usurpation of the meaning of “mainstream culture”—more damningly, of how highly he prizes the opinion of what he thinks of as “polite society.”

Ah, but it gets worse still. His attitude towards the accustomed Cuck function of Noble Loser, eternally begging for scraps from the Lefty table that they’ll never, ever give him, isn’t merely resignation—he actually prefers it that way. His horror and disdain for the people who are fighting aggressively—AND WINNING—is proof enough of that.

Self-flagellating sycophants like Brooks, surrounded as they are by Leftists justly contemptuous of their spinelessness, are afflicted by an inferiority complex towards liberals so broad and deep they’re not even aware of it. They don’t stop at accepting the Left’s premise that conservatism is indefensible, an ideology despicable root, branch, and bough—they voraciously gobble it down whole, to be regurgitated on command.

Is it any wonder that such “conservatives” have failed utterly to conserve anydamnedthing? They waddle around their precious DC eateries, watering holes, and “exclusive” gatherings of the Deep State elite like neglected, unloved puppies desperate for any sign of affection, rolling onto their backs and pissing themselves for a dismissive pat on the head from their masters. They snarl as ferociously as they’re able at those who have done far more, by simply showing fight, to advance the principles they falsely proclaim. Then they scurry eagerly back to their masters to simper for more abuse.

The loathsome worms have balls enough to sniff about “conservative principles,” complacently accepting defeat and destruction for years and years as if that were somehow either useful or honorable. They then demonstrate what’s truly important to them by waxing indignant (for purely aesthetic reasons, no less) over a successful effort to upend the Deep State status quo: why, it’s unseemly! It’s coarse, it’s rude, it…it…it…why, it’s UNHEARD OF!

UNCLE PETER, MY SMELLING SALTS!

For them, defeat is infinitely preferable to winning in a way they don’t approve of, a way that makes them uncomfortable among their true peers. It’s the old cigarette ad in reverse: they’d rather switch than fight.

Far from being inappropriate or off-base, there could not possibly BE a more perfect descriptor for them than the word cuck. It fits them to a tee. Which is probably why it bothers them so much, truth be told. Nice thing is, the more they fume and splutter, the more they rail in defense of an unsustainable system tottering under the weight of its own contradictions and manifest failure, the more irretrievably they relegate themselves to the sidelines, dismissed themselves as the empty, useless irrelevancies they now are.

Their sell-by date is long past, and they’re sour and curdled. I’ll let Schlichter pour them down the drain.

The first step is the political battle. Wake up – the midterms are coming and we need to ensure that these people do not gain the power to undercut our rights. At CPAC, President Trump demonstrated that his competitive nature is in full effect – he intends on winning. We need to do the same. Volunteer. Donate. Activate. Yeah, it’s a hassle. We’d all like a pause to this constant cold warfare. That is not happening.

The second step is the cultural battle. The left is intent on mobilizing the corporations that form the infrastructure of society against us. We need to respond with our own political power, and that means casting off the tired shackles of an ideology that assumes we are in a pure free market scenario. “Free market solutions” don’t apply where companies instead act based on political ideology when choosing to exercise political power; how, exactly, do we respond to a company that acts against us but decides it doesn’t care about the market consequences? Well, we can’t – unless we use our own political power. Georgia refusing to give Delta a tax break – which it should not have gotten in the first place – is the template. If they want to declare a cultural war on us, let’s give them one. It’s not how you or I want it to be, but it is how it is. Maybe pain will motivate them to re-adopt the old rules. Surrender sure won’t.

Nope. The inglorious example provided by cucks like Brooks proves that adequately enough.

Share

Fake news, fake everything

Why I don’t do Twitter, Reason the Eleventy-millionth.

A few weeks ago I read a news item about the proliferation of “bots” as a commercially crooked, fraudulent, deceitful way by which celebrities try to fool the public into believing that millions of Americans passionately follow them on Facebook, on Twitter, and on other social media. If a celebrity has fewer “followers” than someone who has absolutely no reason to be famous, no discernible genius nor other socially valuable aspect, that reveals the celebrity’s social inconsequence. As a result, there apparently are entrepreneurs who create millions of fake accounts on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere — and then get paid by the insecure celebrities or their publicity agents to set those fake accounts — “bots” — as “followers” of the celebrity. In other words, the celebrities pay for “Followers.” They pay fraudulent entrepreneurs to fabricate followers for them.

Think of your own name and identity. Now look in the mirror: how many of you are there? Perhaps one. (If two, either count calories or carbograms more carefully, or get a new mirror.) Meanwhile, let’s say there are ten accounts on Twitter with your name and identity — and all of them are set to follow someone you hate or never heard of. Guess what? Without you even knowing it, that person whom you hate or never heard of is going around bragging that he or she or it has ten more “followers” on Twitter than would be the case if your fraudulent “bots” did not exist, and if the celebrity had not paid for it. In all, hundreds of thousands — even millions — of Twitter “followers” do not even exist. It all is fake. It all is a lie. And the celebrities and their agents pay for the fake “Followers.”

Out of curiosity after reading the piece, I went onto Twitter. I personally do not tweet. I have serious reasons for avoiding Twitter. My law students do not care about my views about politics and religion. My synagogue members do not care about my interpretations or discussions of the civil laws of remedies, contracts, civil procedure, and advanced torts. My law clients do not even want to imagine that I do or think anything all day and night except worry about their legal issues. So I stay out of Twitter.

But — oh, what joy! Sure enough, there I am on Twitter: Dov Fischer, with my casual Hebrew rabbinic title, and the number of commandments that appear in the Torah by the Word of G-d and the hand of Moses. Apparently I have 4 Followers — none of whom I remotely have heard of, nor have even the remotest connection to my congregation, my Judaism, my law practice, my more-than-1,500 law students whom I have taught these past 14 years, my twenty-six years of published political and social commentary, nor my beloved New York Yankees and Mets. “Bots” following a “Bot”?

And — better still! — I am “Following” 41 people including Zedd (Who the heck is he? Is it a he?), Jimmy Kimmel, Tim Cook, Kobe Bryant (the one from the Colorado hotel), Ellen DeGeneres (Nobel laureate Obama’s Medal of Freedom winner), Bernie Sanders, LeBron James, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (He’s still alive?), Elon Musk, SpaceX, Disneyland (Who can afford it? $600 to stand on line seven hours to go on a ride?), and just-plain Disney. Are these people or their publicity agents so insecure and desperate for attention that they actually need to pay someone to create a false Twitter account just to add a “follower”? And to buy millions more?

Are you as passionate a follower of the Rich and Pseudo-Famous as I am — or, more accurately: as my fraudulently created “bot” is? Go and take a look. Look yourself up. See whom you “follow”!

Naaaah. Don’t want to know. Don’t give a shit.

I DID sign up for a Gab account a while back, but I never have used it. I figure anything I have to say, I’ll just say it here. There are in fact plenty of Tweets I’ve linked here, as you all know, but only after seeing ’em mentioned someplace else. Don’t know why, it just never really grabbed me. Another symptom of my metastasizing old-fogeydom, I reckon.

Wonder if I have any Gab followers at all by now? Maybe I’ll go toss something or other up over there, just for the hell of it. If I can remember my login and whatnot, that is.

Just what I need, another internet time-suck update! Meh. Two followers, bizarrely enough. I posted something lackluster, just to say I did. I remain…uhh, unenchanted, shall we say, which I hasten to add is surely not Gab’s fault. The handle is Tommygunmike, if anyone is interested, but I don’t know that I’m in any real hurry to go back, honestly.

Share

Ask a silly the silliest question

And then answer it.

Do they really hate ordinary people that much?

Yes, they do. For liberals, the distinction between the “dumb masses” and their enlightened selves renders life meaningful. Disdain for ordinary folks is not just an ancillary trait of liberalism. It is fundamental to its nature.

At its heart, liberalism is a gnostic religion, and the essence of that religion is the believer’s faith that he possesses the means of changing the world for the better. The belief that the world must be changed requires there to be a mass of individuals whose lives are in need of change. Following this logic, it is the liberal, not those deplorables in need of change, who knows what must be changed. For liberals, there must be a mass of people in need of this knowledge for life to make sense.

Above all, liberalism is a hubristic faith. Its followers share the fatal flaw of pride in their own intellectual capacity. This is why liberalism appeals so strongly to those in the knowledge trades: teachers, journalists, writers, psychologists, and social workers. The sense of “knowing more than others” is its strongest attraction – particularly to the young, who otherwise know so little. Liberalism confers, or seems to confer, almost immediate power and authority to those who embrace it.

That’s just the opener. He goes on from there and nails it all down clean and tight, tying some at-first-blush disparate threads together into a seamless whole. This bit especially resonated with me:

At its core, liberalism can be defined in gnostic terms as the human mind’s idolizing of itself. In this sense, Obama’s famous aphorism is spot on. The liberal mind really is what the liberal mind has been waiting for.

What it seeks is not, however, goodness, or security, or higher living standards, or even better health care. What it seeks is the celebration of its own brilliance. “Smug” is a small word that perfectly captures the nature of the progressive mind.

To succeed, liberalism must acquire and retain clients in need of change. It is not in the interest of the liberal to solve problems. What the liberal needs is continually to discover new problems and hold them up as in need of solution.

Thereby not just substantiating their pretension to innate superiority, but confirming them as indispensable. Their core insecurity, juvenile and facile as it is, demands constant affirmation. Their egos, wildly inflated as they are, shatter as easily as the thinnest glass at the slightest touch of the hammer. Which, tragically for them, is exactly what reality is constantly subjecting them to. Which in turn is why they’re such miserable people, truly happy only when inflicting misery on others.

This analysis also covers why it is that they lash out so viciously, out of all proportion to the perceived provocation, whenever they’re thwarted in their designs or even so much as contradicted verbally. If you don’t believe me, try arguing—reasonably, calmly, respectfully—with a lib, on any issue at all, preferably a somewhat trivial one. The vehemence of the reaction you get will astound you. Persist, and the “discussion” will degenerate into an arm-waving, bug-eyed shouting match with a quickness no matter how hard you may work to keep things civil. Debate them into a corner from which there is no escape and the very least you can expect in response is a simmering, pouty, butthurt sulk.

As I’ve mentioned many times, being a professional musician all these years inevitably means I have many liberal friends out there in meatspace. There are certain things I just don’t talk about with most of ’em, unless I’m intentionally trying to tweak their noses a little. Even then, I’m careful to let things go only so far before I relent. Pressing it ain’t worth the bother; I already know they aren’t persuadable, and I don’t wish to sacrifice friendships I do actually value over mere politics. As the old joke goes: it wastes my time, and annoys the pig. Out of the whole crowd, I can think of exactly three (3) with which I can have serious discussions without things degenerating into a near-brawl.

Freud had ’em sussed out long ago, as it happens. And they’ve hated him ever since for it, too.

Update! Oh, THIS oughta piss ’em off for sure.

I normally shy away from this kind of activism, but at some point conservatives need to begin pushing back. To that end, here’s what I encourage:

An NRA member needs to find the most progressive bakery he can, and then request an AR-15-shaped cake for a Second Amendment celebration. Walk into the store wearing an NRA shirt and hat. Openly carry a gun if you’re legally allowed. Ask for the top of the cake to be decorated with words like “In celebration of the NRA.”

When the mortified SJW baker refuses, sue her.

In doing so, you may run up against the argument that being a gun owner isn’t an identity. Hogwash! If you feel like being a gun owner and an NRA member is central to your identity, no one has the right to deny you that identity.

Instead of trying to fight progressives’ absurdities with logic and common sense, maybe it’s time to start turning the absurdity back onto progressives.

I’ve long advocated turning Alinsky back on ’em, Rule 4 in particular: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Damned skippy. In so doing, one would also be in compliance with Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” If such an unthinkable atrocity didn’t speedily reduce Progtards to spluttering, hysterical incoherence once word of it got around, I don’t know what would. There’d probably be nationwide urban rioting over it, I’d bet. Such side-splitting developments would actually make tuning in to the MSM nightly news shows worthwhile.

Share

No

Just…NO. Not now, not ever.

Show of hands: Who thinks this stops, even slows down, once those mean old not-actually-assault weapons get banned? That liberals have taken a hard stand in favor of cowardice does not exactly fill one with confidence that once we give up our Second Amendment rights that we’ll be safer or freer.

Nor should it, seeing as how neither “safer” nor “freer” are goals for them. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The liberal elite is using its social and cultural ties to those at the helm of big companies to essentially blacklist the NRA, and thereby the tens of millions of Americans who support gun rights. But oppression is oppression whether it’s done by a government bureaucrat or a corporate one, and our principle of non-interference in business assumes business stays out of politics. But now National, Hertz, and others are cutting ties to the NRA, and liberals are advocating banks do the same. Their intent is clear – what they can’t do in politics they will simply do by not allowing the representatives of people whose politics they don’t like access to the infrastructure of society. And we’re not supposed to do anything about it because, you know, free enterprise and stuff.  You know, our principles.

No. They are exercising political power. We have our own political power, and we need to exercise it – ruthlessly.

He has several good ideas on how to go about that, none of which are all that likely to happen because the Republicans—and, sadly enough, Trump—are not NEARLY as solid on this as he thinks they are.

Which is not to say that at least SOME of them aren’t solid as a rock, mind:



That’s Georgia’s Lt Gov talking there; kudos, kudos, and more kudos to the man for his strong, unequivocal stand here. He’s clearly smart enough to know what dicking around with Lefty always buys those who succumb to the fatal temptation, and he ain’t having any. The alarming 2A turnaround signified by Trump’s declared intention to “ban” bump stocks is…well, baffling:

President Trump on Tuesday directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to craft new regulations to ban firearm modifiers including the “bump stock” used in the Las Vegas massacre, amid bipartisan calls to strengthen gun laws in the wake of recent shooting rampages.

During an event at the White House, the president announced he signed a memo ordering the regulations on “bump stocks” and told Sessions he wants new federal guidelines finalized “very soon.

I’d love to be able to convince myself that this is just another Trumpian rope-a-dope to gull the Left into another stinging defeat—Lord knows we’ve seen him do exactly that again and again, to our great delight—but I’m having trouble doing it this time. Maybe it will yet prove to be so, I dunno.

Be that as it may, I can’t see anything at all to be gained from such a maneuver on this issue anyway. Yes, bump stocks are useless toys, good for a few minutes’ amusement on the range and very little else, as anybody who ever used one knows. Getting rid of them wouldn’t deprive anybody of a whole lot; certainly, it won’t accomplish one damned thing when it comes to preventing mass shootings. A case can be made that they aren’t a hill worth dying on.

Nonetheless: we all already know that not one of the thousands of laws already on the books has ever prevented a mass murder. We know that one more law isn’t going to somehow magically do the trick. We know that almost all of what the Left screams about regarding guns in America is arrant bullshit—sinister fabrication when it isn’t ignorant tripe, stuff and nonsense when it isn’t outright deceitful. Their facts aren’t facts, their statistics are spurious, and their proposals will not accomplish what they claim are their goals…which aren’t their real goals anyway.

None of which even matters all that much anymore, because we also all know what the Left really wants. The few left among them who are well-meaning but hopelessly, stupidly wrong are rendered irrelevant by the vast majority who harbor nefarious designs on Constitutional liberty. From here on out they need to be slammed down immediately, as hard as possible, each and every time they propose ANY new “gun-control” measures. As Schlichter proposes, they need to be informed, beyond any possibility of doubt, that we will give them not one more inch. This far, no fucking farther.

The “debate” with them over our gun rights—false and fraudulent as it’s always been—is over, the negotiations finished, the case closed, the court out of session. If they find the result unsatisfactory, that’s just too goddamned bad. They’ve hoodwinked the RINOs enough times over the years with phony “compromises” in which they got everything they wanted while giving up nothing that they ought to be able to grasp right away what we mean when we say: NO COMPROMISE.

None. No means no. No compromise, no making nice, no playing footsie with double-dealing Leftists out to win it all by hook or by crook. No backing down. No give, no wiggle-room, no do-overs. No deal. LEFTY. GETS. NOTHING. Marta Hernandez, bless her stout gun-totin’ heart, says it well:

I’m done with leftist, gun grabbing trash that is incapable of conversation about policy without emotionalist histrionics, and whose first reaction to anyone who doesn’t toe the gun-grabber line is to insult their lineage and intelligence.

I’m done with ignorant statist Neanderthals who claim that you don’t need a gun because it won’t make a difference in a life-or-death situation, since after all Scot Peterson and his merry band of pusillanimous invertebrates had guns, and those guns didn’t help stop Nikolas Cruz, ignoring the fact that the bearer has to have the actual testicular fortitude to use said tools. I’m done with the hoplophobes sit on their high perch of cluelessness accusing those of us who disagree with them of disregarding the lives of children in favor of our so-called “toys” that don’t make a difference anyway.

They use traumatized children as tools to push their policies without regard for their lives or their safety, and then they have the raw nerve to accuse those of us trying to have an adult conversation about gun control of hating kids and not holding their lives dear.

So let me set things straight right here and right now.

I am the parent of two wonderful kids, both of whom are serving in this nation’s military. They both knew gun safety rules, and learned how to shoot by the time they were 8 years old. I certainly don’t need lectures from half-witted cock anvils who haven’t had the pleasure of raising responsible, intelligent children into independent, rational adults (mostly because they couldn’t get laid if they crawled up a chicken’s ass and waited) about how I should care for the lives of kids more than I do my guns.

I am a veteran, who has been deployed to a combat zone. I was never infantry, obviously, but I am skilled enough with firearms to have qualified with the M9, the M16A2, and the M4. I have also safely fired the SAW, the M2, and the M60 machine guns, as well as the M203 and the AT4. Most of us who have spent any time in the military have at some point, so I’m not anything special, but I’m pretty damn sure that I know more about firearms and their safe use than some screeching harpy, whose idea of serving its country is wearing a pussy hat on its pointy head and drinking box wine in solidarity with its wailing, shrieking, gibbering sister-shrews.

I’ve also fired Uzis, SKSs, AKs, M1 Garands, and simple shotguns safely and effectively as a civilian. An M1911 is my regular carry weapon, and believe me, I am willing to use it should my life or the lives of my loved ones be threatened by the violent goblins whom you strive to protect by disarming me and mine.

So let me set you straight on a few things, leftist gun-grabber trash.

Is my right to defend myself and stand up to tyranny more important than your invented “right” to “feel safe?” Damn straight it is!

She has plenty more—PLENTY—all of which you will very much enjoy reading. Her point is the only one we need to bother making from now on. It can be driven home with even more brevity, just as I did the other day. It is this: GO FUCK YOURSELVES.

You ain’t getting ’em. Period fucking dot.

Share

Dope, inside

More on the Broward Cowards. Much more…and worse.

I spent about 18 months in 2012, 2013 and 2014 investigating Broward and Miami-Dade school policies and how those policies transfer to law enforcement practices. My interest was initially accidental. I discovered an untold story of massive scale and consequence as a result of initial research into Trayvon Martin and his High School life.

What I stumbled upon was a Broward County law enforcement system in a state of conflict. The Broward County School Board and District Superintendent, entered into a political agreement with Broward County Law enforcement officials to stop arresting students for crimes. The motive was simple. The school system administrators wanted to “improve their statistics” and gain state and federal grant money for improvements therein. So police officials, the very highest officials of law enforcement (Sheriff and Police Chiefs), entered into a plan.

As soon as Miami-Dade began to receive the benefits (political and financial) from the scheme, Broward County joined on. The approach in Broward was identical as the approach in Miami-Dade. It’s important to remember, this was not an arbitrary change – this was a well-planned fundamental shift in the entire dynamic of how teenagers would be treated when they engaged in criminal conduct.

The primary problem was the policy conflicted with laws; and over time the policy began to create outcomes where illegal behavior by students was essentially unchecked by law enforcement. Initially the police were excusing misdemeanor behaviors. However, it didn’t take long until felonies, even violent felonies (armed robberies, assaults and worse) were being excused. The need to continue lowering the arrests year-over-year meant that increasingly more severe unlawful behavior had to be ignored. Over time even the most severe of unlawful conduct was being filtered by responding police.

We found out about it, when six cops blew the whistle on severe criminal conduct they were being instructed to hide. The sheriff and police Chiefs were telling street cops and school cops to ignore ever worsening criminal conduct. The police were in a bind.  They were encountering evidence of criminal conduct and yet they had to hide the conduct. There were examples of burglary and robbery where the police had to hide the recovered evidence in order to let the kids get away without reports.

The police would take the stolen merchandise and intentionally falsify police records to record stolen merchandise *as if* they just found it on the side of the road. They put drugs and stolen merchandise in bags, and sent it to storage rooms in the police department. Never assigning the recovery to criminal conduct. Stolen merchandise was just sitting in storage rooms gathering dust.

They couldn’t get the stuff back to the victim because that would mean the police would have to explain how they took custody of it. So they just hid it. To prove this was happening one of the officers told me where to look, and who the victim was.

At first I didn’t believe them. However, after getting information from detectives, cross referencing police reports, and looking at the “found merchandise”, I realized they were telling the truth. A massive internal investigation took place and the results were buried. Participating in the cover-up were people in the media who were connected to the entire political apparatus. The sheriff and police chief could always deny the violent acts (assaults, rapes, beatings etc.) were being ignored; that’s why the good guys in the police dept gave the evidence of the stolen merchandise. That physical evidence couldn’t be ignored and proved the scheme.

From 2012 though 2018 it only got worse. In Broward and Miami-Dade it is almost impossible for a student to get arrested. The staff within the upper levels of LEO keep track of arrests and when a certain number is reached all else is excused.

Well it didn’t take long for criminal gangs in Broward and Miami-Dade to realize the benefit of using students for their criminal activities. After all, the kids would be let go… so organized crime became easier to get away with if they enlisted high-school kids. As criminals became more adept at the timing within the offices of the officials, they timed their biggest crimes to happen after the monthly maximum arrest quota was made.

The most serious of armed robberies etc. were timed for later in the month or quarter. The really serious crimes were timed in the latter phases of the data collection periods. This way the student criminals were almost guaranteed to get away with it. Now. You can see how that entire process gets worse over time. Present corruption (the need to hide the policy) expands in direct relationship to the corruption before it.  This is where the School Police come into play.

Understanding the risk behind the scheme, it became increasingly important to put the best corrupt cops in the schools. *BEST* as in *SMARTEST*. Those SRO’s became the ones who were best at hiding the unlawful conduct. Again, over time, the most corrupt police officers within the system became the police inside the schools. These officers were those who are best skilled at identifying the political objectives and instructions.

Those “School Cops” also have special privileges.  It’s a great gig.  They get free “on campus” housing close to the schools they are assigned to etc.  They’re crooked as hell and the criminal kids how just how to play them. It’s a game. Also an open secret. A lot of it came out during an earlier *internal affairs* investigation. Unfortunately the behavior never changed because the politics never changed. It’s still going on. For years this has been happening and no-one cared. Crimes happen; students excused; victims ignored; etc. The Broward County School and Law Enforcement system is designed to flow exactly this way. It’s politics.

Only then a Parkland school shooting happened. For Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel this had to be an “oh shit” moment; but not for the reasons the media initially thought.

To adapt the old lady’s famous statement to fit this stinking, toxic shitpit of a scandal: it’s corruption all the way down. It’s also the reason we’ll never, ever give up our guns, no matter how fervently they shriek, wheedle, moan and try to deflect attention away from the real failure here.

During Wednesday’s horrible fiasco of a “Town Hall”, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel spelled it out:

What I’m asking the law makers to give police all over this country is more power.

I was sufficiently struck by the above to write it down – because it was clear even then that Sheriff Israel is an incompetent deployer of the power he already has. The scale of his department’s appalling failure in the Parkland massacre gets worse almost hourly. 

I said on Tucker’s show that the state had failed at every level – school district, county, federal. But Sheriff Israel’s performance is especially egregious. An honorable man would surely have tendered his resignation. On the other hand, sitting on stage, watching his voters jeer Dana Loesch and call her a “murderer”, the sleazy creep can be forgiven for concluding that with constituents this eager to be misdirected why not string along? Their fury should have been aimed at him – and he should have spent his hour on stage ducked behind a podium demonstrating the policy-compliant incident-long Broward County crouch.

I observed on TV that, given the situation with “refugees” in Germany and Scandinavia and so on, it was more likely that Europeans would rediscover their inclination toward self-defense than that Americans would surrender it. Any foreigners wanting to know why claims to leave it to an all-powerful state don’t resonate with half of America need look no further than Scott Israel.

Actually, it resonates with us quite powerfully—as an object lesson on the peril inextricably entwined with trading liberty for (false) security, as Progressivist would-be dictators demand.

Cry all you want, shitlibs. You aren’t getting them, not even one. That’s flat, and final. If you want them, you’re going to have to come and take them. Once more: we’re willing to die defending ourselves against you. Are you willing to die for your dreams of tyranny? Think hard—and then make your move, you whining, lying, gutless pussies. If you dare.

Our response to the phony, one-way “debate” over “gun control” has now been purified in the crucible of the Founders’ “long chain of abuses” to one very simple statement, a lone middle finger waved in defiance of the gun-grabbers: go fuck yourselves. There is nothing more that needs to be said.

Share

Cucks gotta cuck

I tire of this shit. I really, really do.

“Study: 90 percent of Americans Strongly Opposed To Each Other.” That’s the headline on a story in what on some days seems America’s most reliable news outlet, the Onion.

We laugh (or at least I did) because it strikes a chord. Americans of many different political outlooks today seem united in believing that we are experiencing the worst times in the nation’s history. Trump detractors talk about a neurotic Nazi establishing a dictatorship. Trump fans talk about a “Deep State” using secret protocols to undermine the voters’ choice.

Both sides have some cause for complaint.

Oh, they do, do they? The Deep State obviously, incontrovertibly exists; the evidence of its ongoing campaign to “undermine the voters’ choice” is voluminous and beyond reasonable debate by now, a matter of public record that even its Leftymedia vanguard openly confesses in its recent reportage. So…mind telling me exactly where we might find “cause” supporting the preposterous and offensive smearing of Trump as a “Nazi establishing a dictatorship,” O Judicious and Even-Handed One?

One of these things is NOT like the other. The alacrity with which NeverTrump cucks like Barone leap to humbly demonstrate their fair-mindedness, their willingness to give “serious” consideration to absurd-on-its-face Leftard horseshit, is how the feeble, docile sheep got themselves Trumped in the first place. They bare their throats for the liberal knife again and again and again, then are shocked—SHOCKED!—by all the blood on the floor. They pointlessly overanalyze and obsess over arcane minutia, their dignified droning and belching drowned out by the baying of the Deep State’s tireless jackals.

And then they profess themselves baffled as to how anyone could be so ill-bred a lout as to prefer a bare-knuckle brawler to their own ineffectual mincing and posturing—to see to it that our antagonists are the ones doing the bleeding, for a refreshing change. You prefer winning to losing genteely? Why, you ruffians! You scalawags! YOU BARBARIANS!

Barone’s larger point admittedly stands, though, along with the Onion’s. The divide is real, deep, and unbridgeable. It’s profound, and it is right that this should be so. The lines are stark and clear, drawn with a scalpel. The struggle between Left totalitarianism and Constitutional governance is one not to be shied from but embraced. It is the noblest of fights, tyranny against liberty, and ought to be embraced with vigor and joy, regarded not as a burden or misfortune but as a privilege and a sacred duty. Mercifully, there remains a valid hope that the struggle will continue to be rhetorical and political and will not descend to actual violence and bloodshed. It is our additional duty to ensure that such a catastrophe never envelops us, by fighting in other arenas with tireless dedication until we prevail.

The Founders knew that this struggle would be ongoing: the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Our vigilance lapsed for far too long, allowing the Left to steal a march (a Long March—ahem) on us and very nearly wreck our country for good. But with Trump’s election we made an overdue start on stemming the Dismal Tide. The astonishing rapidity with which our economy rebounded bespeaks an unexpected American resilience from which every true American can take heart; the collapse of Progressivism into incoherent folly and hapless flailing about, inevitable as it always was, is another encouraging confirmation.

But one way or another, by nonviolent means or by bloodshed, the struggle will go on. This is by no means a matter for lamentation, reluctance, or dismay. The modern Left’s ideology is antithetical to every principle espoused by the Founders and laid down in the Constitution; their intentions are monstrous, their actions intolerable. Their depraved vision is fundamentally incompatible with liberty, with individualism, with America’s founding ideals. They are implacably, unalterably opposed to those ideals, and will stick at absolutely nothing to see them overthrown.

After years of working clandestinely against it, they have only recently made their hostility to the American ideal public, in the mistaken assumption that the struggle was over and they had won the final round, vanquishing their hated foe for all time. That premature victory lap was an error that will haunt them for a long time to come, and may yet prove to be fatal. The repudiation dealt them by The Trumpening stupefied and deeply depressed them, sure enough. But nobody should be expecting them to give up just yet. They will fight on. They will never stop. They still intend to win.

And this we cannot allow. The boot must stay on their necks. This year’s midterm elections need to be another painful round for them, a defeat so unmistakeable and bitter it takes their breath away—one after which their excuse-making and blame-shifting is so transparently pathetic it can only be laughed aloud at by sane people. This is one case where kicking a man when he’s down is definitely called for.

There is liberty, or there is not. Liberty cannot compromise with tyranny; it can only succumb to it. A binary solution set confronts us: victory, or defeat. There are no other paths, and no other options.

Bring. It. On. And let the cucks fall where they may.

Update! This. This right here.

There is precious little, if not nothing, that average citizens can do to act against the Deep State actors who have foisted the staggeringly disgraceful Russiagate witch-and-scavenger hunt upon the American people. However, the Democratic Party, and concomitantly, the Leftist “mainstream” media, can and must be made to pay. The ballot box is the only way to deliver the payback.

Obviously, I’m not addressing the undeniable aspect of Russian interference. Who didn’t know that? I’m talking about delivering a sound ideological and electoral shellacking to every politician, every unhinged Leftist comedian, and every newsmedia personality that has hung a partisan hat on the ridiculous notion that Mr. Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to circumvent Hillary Clinton’s election and secure the Oval Office.

It is in the hands of the country’s voters now, Republicans, independents, and concerned, open-minded Democrats, to send an incontrovertible message about corruption and real collusion in the upcoming midterm election.

Recipients of the grassroots reprimand should include ultimate RINOs like Robert Mueller, James Comey, and Rod Rosenstein. Nevermind that certain high-stakes players may be card-carrying members (in Comey’s case, formerly) of the GOP. If one core truth about this debacle can be told, from the very beginning it has been about acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and the Deep State. Whoever has been instrumental in promulgating this attempt to stage a silent coup against a duly elected president must pay a price — if not legally, at least in terms of a severe upbraid from members of the freedom-loving, fair-minded citizenry.

What about the media — as Sean Hannity puts it, the “destroy Trump” media? There is only one way to make them pay. Make them choke down another catastrophe. Make them accountable for the fake news they’ve disseminated. Make them have to again sit in their beltway media centers and pontificate about how democracy dies in darkness, about how deplorable the American people are, and about how, if we only wait until 2020, the next change they’ve been waiting for will occur, and the presidential election they have been untruthfully attempting to scuttle will finally end.

Let the President Trump-aligned 2018 Red Wave begin.

From his lips to God’s ears. How can anyone not relish the prospect of Leftymedia spending another election night reduced to inconsolable televised weeping? Of all the sad-faced actors and actresses holding up selfies with their heart-rending cardboard-sign cris de coeur, despair all over them like a bad rash? Of network-news-show anchors left completely unable to even speak, robbed of their ability to express their soul-destroying anguish? Of a forced outburst of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth from the Ruling Class entire inflicted on them by the Deplorable Dirt People?

THAT’S entertainment, folks.

For their own part, NeverTrumpTard Clown-Car Cucks better wake up at last lest they be left choking on Trump’s dust, unpitied sacrifices in a contemptible struggle, linked forever in the public mind with the hopeless Lefty losers whose ragged coattails they so stubbornly clutched, riding all the way down with them into flaming ruin.

Again, I mean.

Share

Toxic liberalism

Can’t believe I didn’t come up with that term myself already.

What kind of man does society value?

Appropriately docile, neutered, feminized ones. Which is to say: none.

Well, for starters, men are not really valued by society the way they used to be. The loss of manufacturing and the shift to service-sector jobs has played a role in that. Also, the rise of school curricula that favors girls over boys has contributed to not only the diminishment of men, but likely also to the disproportionate numbers of women opting to go to college (and graduating) compared to their male counterparts. So, too, has the diminishment of community, thanks to the internet and the insane schedules in peoples’ lives today that very often leaves them isolated and alone.
We mustn’t forget that Pop Culture very often portrays men as sex-crazed maniacs, to be hated and feared. Or, in the case of popular family situation comedies, the fathers are portrayed as dunderheads to be pitied and constantly one-upped by their chirping children and nagging wives. Of course, there is always rap culture, excessively violent video games, and films, to further warp a young man’s mind.

For America to survive, it needs an accountable and responsible citizenry (and government). We cannot be free under any other circumstance. Free societies tend to be the most prosperous. The more erosion of responsibility we endure as citizens, the more powerful the state will become, and the less free we will all be (and therefore, we’ll be less prosperous and less safe). Unlike modern Liberals, the Founding Fathers firmly believed that the American people were responsible enough to possess firearms, which is why they enshrined that belief in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Left blames guns and wants to take them from ordinary citizens because the Left wants to diminish personal responsibility, knowing full well that the act will erode your liberty. Since responsibility has historically been associated with masculinity, classic masculinity itself has been deemed “toxic,” and our young men are told to abandon those virtues in favor of… something… anything else. This is not tenable.

Until we rid the country of toxic Liberalism, our society will continue churning out more young men like Nikolas Cruz, and America’s inexorable decline will become terminal.

You said a mouthful there, buddy. As for the wilting hothouse flowers some are pleased to refer to as “men” nowadays, how ’bout them Broward Cowards, eh?

Not one but four sheriff’s deputies hid behind cars instead of storming Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Fla., during Wednesday’s school shooting, police claimed Friday — as newly released records revealed the Broward County Sheriff’s Office had received at least 18 calls about the troubled teen over the past decade.

Sources from Coral Springs, Fla., Police Department tell CNN that when its officers arrived on the scene Wednesday, they were shocked to find three Broward County Sheriff’s deputies behind their cars with weapons drawn.

Well, y’know, the main thing is that they all made it home at the end of their shift, right?

Loath as I am to offer it, there is an argument to be made in defense of the perfidy of these sniveling wretches. No really, there is. I only wish I was joking.

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office (BSO) didn’t “miss warning signs” or make “mistakes” in not writing up reports. The Sheriff’s office did exactly what their internal policies, procedures and official training required them to do, they intentionally ignored the signs, and intentionally didn’t generate documents.

It is important to understand the policy here. Broward County law enforcement (Sheriff Israel), in conjunction with Broward County School Officials (Superintendent Runcie and School Board), have a standing policy to ignore any criminal engagement with High School students.

Secondly, the 27 minute tape-delay in the CCTV system is not an “accident”, “flaw” or “mistake”. It is entirely by design.

As a standard Broward and Miami-Dade practice, when school law enforcement need to cover-up or hide behavior, they need time (when that behavior happens) to delete the evidence trail. As such the school policy -as carried out in practice- is more efficient with a 30 minute tape delay affording the school officer enough time to deal with the situation, then erase the possibility of a recording of the unlawful activity surfacing.

Building in a 30 minute delay on the CCTV system was one of those pesky add-on items that happened a few years ago when the School and Law Enforcement officials established the policy of intentionally not arresting students.

With modern technology it’s tough to hide criminal behavior, especially the violent stuff, when it is being recorded. Duh. Ergo the tape-delay was the best-practice workaround.

Lastly, when the county education policy is intentionally constructed to ignore criminal behavior in schools, the Sheriff and School superintendent cannot rely on “law-and-order-minded” school police officers to carry out the heavily nuanced policy. The county officials need the people closest to the work, the officers, to be able to think quickly on their feet to safeguard their prized district-wide statistics.

A Broward County SRO must carry a political hat and be able to intercept behavior, modify his/her action based on a specific policy need, falsify documents, hide evidence, manipulate records and engage inside the system with an understanding of the unwritten goals.

Broward County school law enforcement are given political instructions, and carrying out political objectives. They are not given law-enforcement instructions.

It shouldn’t be too hard to read between the lines and figure out what this policy is really all about. Violence, disruptive behavior, and many other disciplinary problems are inevitably going to be the near-exclusive province of a handful of unruly and unmanageable black students in most any school of a certain size. The sad reality is that such is the case in way more schools than just this one, and everybody knows it. But nobody dares say a word about it, much less take action to either get the troublemakers under some sort of control or get them the hell out for good should they prove to be beyond disciplining. That would cause way more problems than anybody really wants to deal with if they can avoid it; as Sundance points out, the goal here is not security or even order, but keeping those stats looking good and that paperwork tidy.

So school authorities, to include the cops and/or other security personnel on the grounds, have tacitly agreed to tie their own hands and avert their eyes in the hope that all the ugliness will just go away somehow. The can gets kicked on down the road into somebody else’s bailiwick: no responsibility, no reckoning, no career-imperiling fuss or muss. No sand to clog the gears and disrupt the thrumming of the Pointless Machine—a machine whose sole purpose has devolved into perpetuating its own existence, and nothing more. It all adds up to just another case of sweeping the problems caused ultimately by Toxic Liberalism under the rug, along with all the other mouldering old bones.

Really, when you give it some thought, it’s pretty much the way government at every level above, say, a well-run small-town mayor’s office operates. Which in turn is a big part of the reason why the Founders insisted via the Constitution that government be kept as close to the governed as possible: to keep it accessible to them, to ensure its accountability to them, to facilitate corrective action when (not if) it went astray. It’s plain to see where our having wandered so far from that ideal has gotten us, for anyone with eyes to see and the stomach for looking.

Lame bureaucratic justifications aside, however, in a case like this—a murderous lunatic in the act of slaughtering innocent kids and teachers inside the building—I find it difficult to get my head around the notion of cops so despicable, so craven, as to cower and cringe from cover in response…rules or no rules, policy or no policy. As with the military, a willingness to put themselves in the way of physical harm—to lay their lives on the line to protect the public—is part and parcel of the oath they swear, if it isn’t explicitly stated in specific versions of it here and there. It is the bones and sinew of the very concept of “duty.” In many places, “To protect and serve” is painted right on the friggin’ doors of their patrol cars, for crying out loud.

Looks like the South Park version (“To harass and annoy”) is WAY nearer the mark in Broward County, it turns out.

I’ve mentioned many times here that I have friends and family both who are or were cops, and I can tell you with absolute confidence that not a one of them would have reacted in such a contemptible fashion. They would have gone in there and done whatever they could to end it, ass-covering, weasel-worded policies and rules be damned. As it happens, I had a brief conversation earlier today with one of them about all this, an old regular at the Harley shop I used to work at, now a retired homicide detective. The shame and grief—the horror—he felt was an almost palpable thing, although it was in no way his burden to bear. It was unjustly spattered over him by much lesser men than he: betrayers of public trust and confidence, grotesque parodies of real police officers, entirely unworthy of the badges they besmirched.

We all have to pray that their numbers are small, that they’re exceptions that prove a worthier rule. Maybe they should have all just joined the FBI instead.

Update! Apparently, the fish really DOES rot from the head.

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel—the man whose agency failed to prevent the Parkland massacre despite having received a tip last November that Nikolas Cruz was plotting a mass shooting—has been accused of public corruption.

Asked about the allegations, Israel responded, “What have I done differently than Don Shula or Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Gandhi?”

He also said, “Lions don’t care about the opinions of sheep.” That’s a paraphrase of a quote from the Game of Thrones character Tywin Lannister, a villainous public administrator known for promoting his family’s interests ahead of the government’s or the people’s.

The man is vile. There’s just no other word for it. God only knows what he and his loathsome fellows have gotten up to and gotten away with over the years. It’s a cinch that this is only the tip of a very big, very dirty iceberg.

Hey, wait a minute here: did this crooked cop—whose underlings refused to do their duty and allowed kids under their dubious “protection” to be slaughtered, shirking all a-tremble in their hidey-holes while cops from a neighboring cop-shop stepped around them to righteously fulfill their oaths—just compare himself to Lincoln, Ghandi, and MLK?

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!?

Suddenly, a lot of incomprehensible things begin to make sense. Clearly this department needs a thorough scrubbing down, starting with the slime on top. If I was a taxpaying citizen of Broward County, I’d be highly pissed at seeing what my tax dollars had been supporting all this time. Like, torches, pitchforks, tar, and feathers pissed. But maybe that’s just me.

Share

Should be seen and not heard

No, I do NOT mean only the proverbial “children” with that title. With Progressivists, there’s a whole host of things they’d just as soon we’d all pretend not to notice.

Unfortunately, Democrats and the media have the ability to focus national attention on whatever they desire because Republicans are pathetic and have no counter-narrative. They refuse to raise the issue of Democrats letting gun felons out of jail (and even agree with them on that), loosening sentencing, handcuffing the police, sanctuary cities, MS-13 gangs, and the drug crisis resulting from open borders. The criminal alien issue is 100 percent political and the result of bad public policy, not culture, because criminal aliens can and should be deported anyway. Yet Republicans agree with Democrats on the fundamentals of the issue and allow them to chain the national debate exclusively to school shootings and AR-15s.

Even as it relates to domestic crime, Republicans refuse to put Democrats on defense for the broader issue. Even with the devastation of school shootings over the past few years, the rash of blue city murders and handguns and knives are a much bigger issue than school shooters and semi-auto rifles on a national scale. Yes, it is a great national horror when we see 17 people killed in a school. But shouldn’t there at least be some focus when the same number of people are killed in a few days in places like Baltimore and Chicago – partly by draconian gun laws?

In reality, even with the rise in school shootings, 374 people were killed in 2016 by criminals wielding rifles, 116 of whom were killed in mass shooting events. Yet almost 11,000 others were killed in our streets by gun violence, mainly by handguns and most prominently in jurisdictions with tough gun laws. Moreover, five times as many people were killed by knives than by rifles in 2016. And while our political elites, the same folks peddling the gun control agenda, obsesses over every other measure of racial disparity, they don’t want to discuss the fact that 7,881 black people were victims of homicides in 2016. In other words, 1,305 more black people were killed than white people in 2016. That is simply an astounding statistic given that black people compose just 13 percent of the population. Some of this is due to culture, some of it is due to liberal crime laws, but none of it can be pinned on lack of background checks for purchasing guns. You need to go through a two-month licensing process just to own a gun in one’s home in Maryland, yet Baltimore is the king of homicide.

Focusing on AR-15s and school shootings is the equivalent of Democrats seeking to define the broader immigration/border issue by illegal immigrants who are valedictorians or serve in the military. Yet anyone with half a brain understands that the broader issue of immigration is a crisis of crime, gangs, poverty, welfare, and drugs that is killing Americans.

The same applies to the entire Democrat thesis on crime and guns. Leftists seek to destroy all tough-on-crime laws except for taking guns away from law-abiding individuals. They refuse to recognize the connection between the two – that the ubiquitous daily violence in blue cities is essentially the result of gun-free zone policies. Realize that 98.4 percent of all mass shootings since 1950 have taken place in gun-free zones.

Gee, how surprising. Must be a coincidence. Elsewhere, Schlichter offers a handy primer for refuting Lefty gun-grabber arguments, point by point. They’re all good, but the brass tacks are embedded in Number 6:

Our rights are not up for debate. But, as a courtesy, because talking is the way a free people should endeavor to solve problems, we should debate them anyway. Rational discussion beats the alternative – many of us are vets who saw the alternative overseas – even if the other side prefers emotional blackmail using articulate infants to bum rush their anti-civil rights policies. So, here are seven (it could have been 50) of the most annoying – and dishonest – arguments you will hear, and how you can fight them.

6. No One Wants To Take Your Guns!
This is another classic lie. In fact, that’s exactly what liberals want to do. How do we know? They tell us when they think we are not looking – and, with more frequency, when we are. It’s fun when they say they don’t want to take your guns, then say you have to give up your ARs. If your opponent is getting wistful about Australia’s gun confiscation, he wants to take your guns.

Let’s get serious. They all want to take your guns. Why? Two reasons. First, it takes power from the citizenry. Liberals love that. Second, gun rights are important to normal Americans because the fact we maintain arms means we are not mere subjects. We are citizens, with the power to defend our freedom. Liberals hate that we have that dignity; taking our guns would humiliate us, and show us who is boss. They want to disarms us not because of the gun crime – name a liberal who wants to really do something about Chicago as opposed to hassling law-abiding normals – but because they hate us and want to see us submit.

Annnnnd bingo. As Kurt says, he could just as easily have cited 50, but that one right there is where the rubber meets the road. It’s the one on which all the others rest, based as it is on 1) their unquenchable longing for totalitarian tyranny, and B), their ignorant hatred and terror of guns in any hands except the minions of their Almighty State. Which is almost astoundingly ironic, given this:

trump-hitler.jpg

Share

Stomp the swamp

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Why are so many of the people who have risen to the top of our government institutions, those who become the leaders or directors of our alphabet agencies, so imperious, so devious, so malevolent, so lacking in character and so disdainful of the American people? How is it that people of good character no longer want to work for the government or run for elective office? The answer: because it is not just a swamp, it is a toxic, venomous morass of self-serving lowlifes.

How on earth did such men and women reach the highest levels of power in our once-democratic government? Under Obama the government was weaponized at the highest levels of every agency: IRS, EPA, HUD, FDA, FEC, FCC, DNI, DOD, and other acronyms too obscure to recognize, but wielding enormous power over mere citizens. 

While there are more than a few talented men and women of character in government, they are still the exception in the upper echelons, not the rule. There are even fewer men and women of character in the mainstream media, which is why we are blessed to have so many reliable internet news outlets aside from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC.

Far too many of these people, our so-called leaders, rose to their positions of power by default, with other people’s money, people rich enough to buy influence, or their own dynastic money like the Kennedys. How can men and women of fine character and an aptitude for leadership go up against candidates funded by an evil man like George Soros? They cannot.

And so we are saddled with ignoble people like those in the Obama administration and those who remain in the deep state who are doing their best to take out the most consequential and conservative President we’ve had since Reagan. We must find a way to weed out the reprobates. Most American are sick to death of the dregs running the show.

Well, it’s certainly to be hoped they are. But even after as vigorous a slap in the face for the swamp creatures as was the election of Trump, along with the clearly salubrious effects of his ascension becoming evident to every sane person, I fear that that still remains to be seen. Limbaugh sounds a particularly chilling cautionary note along those lines:

Something very quietly is happening out there. It’s not being touted, and it’s a little bothersome that it isn’t being touted. The Democrats are showing remarkable discipline here in not touting what is very quietly happening out there. And what is very quietly happening out there is that the Democrats are winning elections. They have recently begun to win elections. They are winning special elections. They are winning local and state elections.

And they’re not shouting about it. They’re not being loud and boisterous and celebratory at all. They won another one. And the last five or six of these elections that they have won — one was in Missouri — they’re flipping Republican seats. The election they won yesterday was in a district that Trump won by eight percentage points in 2016.

This has happened about 15, 16 times in the last six months, that the Democrats have won elections and in many of them have flipped seats occupied by Republicans. This is not anything to do with the resignations from Congress of all these Republican committee chairmen. That’s another story itself. The Democrats and the Drive-Bys are not doing their Tarzan routine of pounding their chest and saying, “Look at us.” It’s happening under the radar.

Now, the reason I’m bringing this up, ladies and gentlemen, there is no way, there is no way that any Democrat should be winning any election now. There is no way under the sun the Democrats ought to be winning a single election, with the economy alone, with the tax cuts alone, there is no reason for the Democrats to be winning any elections. And yet they are all of a sudden. Through most of last year they were losing elections left and right just like we were from 2010 on.

This is a massive and it’s apparently, to date, a very successful grassroots effort that is being funded by George Soros, primarily, but there are others. 

And there the name of that evil son of a bitch pops up again. Yes, I said “evil,” and I meant it. It’s neither hyperbole nor exaggeration: we’re talking here about a monstrously vile reprobate who made his billions by collapsing entire national economies, creating chaos and misery among who even knows how many people for the sole purpose of enriching himself at their expense.

Now this entirely loathsome, filthy-rich communist is using his ill-gotten wealth to buy elections for Democrat Socialists, cleverly constructing a mechanism to thwart any effort to undo the damage they’ve done to the nation and loosen the federal grip on American throats. One can only admire his cunning, and his patience.

If there was any justice in this world, Soros’ victims would have salted the sidewalk slug long ago, shriveling him up and sweeping him away into the oblivion he so richly deserves.

As Rush says, there is no way that Democrats should be winning elections now, other than in their faltering urban dystopias. I do maintain that the Democrat Socialists are finished as a nationally viable party in the long run. But they’re still capable of wreaking plenty of mischief and disaster in the here and now, and I remain…umm, not entirely sanguine, shall we say, about the percentage of Americans who have seen through them fully and for good. It is not inconceivable that there are still enough blind fools out there who will require further demonstrations of who they are and what they do before finally seeing the light.

I still eagerly anticipate a stinging Democrat Socialist defeat later this year—a many-times-merited abjuration that, while not quite amounting to the final nail in any coffins, will still be a major step towards sealing their fate. But a lot can happen between now and then, and I’m not fool enough myself to fail to recognize that I might very well be wrong about the thing, too.

It was always the case that the Deep State was going to fight tooth and nail to retain their power and perks. One of the most powerful weapons in their arsenal is the pustule Soros. While I do remain confident, that confidence can never be absolute in a nation that elected Barrack Obama president. Twice. The midterms are sure enough going to tell us a lot; the most important revelation of all might be just how damned stupid too many of us are, even yet.

Share

Looking for love logic in all the wrong places

Ace commits an error very common on our side:

Other people have pointed this out, but Trump is saying: We should pick immigrants according to our needs.

The left is fighting this claiming that it is immoral to think about ourselves; we must think only of the immigrants’ plight.

But why are they in a “plight” at all? What would be immoral about just leaving them where they are now?

Because, of course, they live in shitholes. That’s what the left puts forth to change this argument from one of rational self-interest (pick immigrants and number of immigrants according to our own changing needs) to one of absolute moral imperative — we must let them in because to leave them in their current countries would be cruel and inhuman.

There’s only one kind of place it would be cruel to leave someone — that’s right, a shithole.

So they can choose between screaming that we are morally obligated to lift immigrants out of their shitholes, or they can scream that it’s a travesty to call these countries shitholes, but they can’t do both.

But of course they can. They do it all the time, in fact, on just about every issue you can name. It’s been a source of half-annoyed amusement for me for a good long while now: the Left seemingly paints itself into another corner, and then some Righty blogger, columnist, or TeeWee talker crows in triumph that “they can’t POSSIBLY…” or “they wouldn’t DARE…” say or do this or that…

And then they go right ahead and do it anyway. And get away with it, too, except for whatever momentary pause our Charlie Browns out there kicking furiously at that football again and again might give them. Which is to say: none at all.

The mistake at the heart of the assertion that the Left “can’t POSSIBLY” do anything they wish is based on a fallacy: that logic, rationality, integrity, fairness, evidence, and even facts themselves matter to Progtards in even the smallest degree. It has been made bounteously clear a million times over that they do not. Not when there’s an argument to be won or a dissenter to be silenced or run over roughshod, they don’t.

The Left does not debate in good faith. Not ever, not about anything. There’s no real harm in making the case for that truth, I reckon, and in some ways it’s even a good and necessary thing. But nobody should be saying “they can’t…” with any serious expectation that it will inspire some serious reflection on their internal contradictions among them, much less stop them from doing whatever they may wish. I’m sure Ace knows that, and uses that statement not out of a shocked revulsion at their dishonesty and lack of honor, but as a reinforcement of the very notion of integrity in debate. Like I said: nothing wrong with that. And in similar vein, I’ll present this:

Three weeks after college, I flew to Senegal, West Africa, to run a community center in a rural town. Life was placid, with no danger, except to your health. That danger was considerable, because it was, in the words of the Peace Corps doctor, “a fecalized environment.”

In plain English: s— is everywhere. People defecate on the open ground, and the feces is blown with the dust – onto you, your clothes, your food, the water. He warned us the first day of training: do not even touch water. Human feces carries parasites that bore through your skin and cause organ failure.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that a few decades later, liberals would be pushing the lie that Western civilization is no better than a third-world country. Or would teach two generations of our kids that loving your own culture and wanting to preserve it are racism.

Senegal was not a hellhole. Very poor people can lead happy, meaningful lives in their own cultures’ terms. But they are not our terms. The excrement is the least of it. Our basic ideas of human relations, right and wrong, are incompatible.

I couldn’t wait to get home. So why would I want to bring Africa here? Non-Westerners do not magically become American by arriving on our shores with a visa.

For the rest of my life, I enjoyed the greatest gift of the Peace Corps: I love and treasure America more than ever. I take seriously my responsibility to defend our culture and our country and pass on the American heritage to the next generation.

African problems are made worse by our aid efforts. Senegal is full of smart, capable people. They will eventually solve their own country’s problems. They will do it on their terms, not ours. The solution is not to bring Africans here.

Actually, I do disagree with one thing here: after uncounted millennia of these “smart, capable people” in Senegal and other places NOT “solving their country’s problems,” I can see no reason to assume they ever will. I’ve read several Righty columns and posts the last few days on Trump’s “shithole” truism, with almost all of their authors hastening to declare that the problems of shitholes like Haiti, Somalia, and others are “not the fault of their people.” They do this either in obeisance to liberal pieties, or in order to deflect the cries of “RACIST!” that will surely follow any contravention of them.

Which timid delicacy STILL doesn’t render those pieties true or accurate (it won’t safeguard the writers from shrieks of “RACISM!™” either, but that’s another topic). After literally eons of failure, squalor, and general lack of civilizational progress in these squalid places—with every form of governance ever conceived of having been attempted there, the only one yielding any success at all being colonial rule by more enlightened European nations—the inescapable conclusion is that, yes, these shitholes are what they are PRECISELY BECAUSE OF their primitive, mostly ineducable, un-upliftable, savage inhabitants. Naturally, there are exceptions, as Karin herself points out. All facts, history, and numbers considered, they would be of the kind that prove the rule. Goad examines but a handful of the inconvenient truths:

In terms of life expectancy, Norway leads the pack at 81.8 years. Then comes the USA (79.3), with a sudden drop to 63.5 years for Haitians and a mere 55.0 years for Somalians.

Norway also wins the blue ribbon when it comes to per-capita income, which is a staggering 38 times that of Haitians and 173 times that of Somalians.

The noble Norsemen also win when it comes to their nation’s mean IQ, which is 100 compared to the USA’s 98. Somalia (68) and Haiti (67) both suffer a mean IQ that is below the commonly accepted cutoff line for “retarded.”

The only category where the USA comes out on top is the percentage of the population with access to improved sanitation facilities—one index claims that 100% of Americans can find a functional toilet if they try. Next comes Norway at 98.1%. Haiti (27.6%) and Somalia (23.5%) are far, far worse.  According to Wikipedia, “Sewer systems and wastewater treatment are nonexistent” in Haiti, which would mean the country is a literal shithole.

Prediction: Not a single loudmouthed virtue-signaler who’s publicly wetting themselves about Trump’s alleged comments will ever move to Haiti or Somalia.

That, too, is true, and telling. If you think it’s all “racist” anyway, well, my heart just breaks over your anguish there, kid. But reality is what it is, and speaks for itself…just like Trump’s open acknowledgement of these shitholes’ nature—and the desirability and likely negative impact on our own country of importing them—does.

Be sure to read all of it; her conclusion is bang-on, and well-stated. Hats off to her as well for having courage enough to confront some ugly truth head on, and to allow her views to be informed and shaped by it rather than clinging to what I would guess was the standard starry-eyed “we’re all the same” liberal balderdash she would have been infected with in college. As one of Vox’s commenters puts it: “What’s the difference between a missionary and (a) racist? Two weeks.” We can file that worthy observation for future use right alongside the great old classic, “a liberal is a conservative who’s been mugged,” I think.

Share

Last call for everything

Steyn notes a pathetic passing.

Last call for Sir John A Macdonald: The establishment at top right is a small trivial example of a profound sickness. Sir John’s Public House is a Scottish pub in Kingston, Ontario located in the building where Canada’s first Prime Minister once had his law office. On Tuesday, the publican changed the name and replaced the signs. It is no longer “Sir John’s Public House”, merely “The Public House”:

“Some of our customers and some of the native organizations in the Kingston area said that they could no longer do business with us. They said that it was no longer a safe place for them, and that the name ‘Sir John’s’ just brought back too many unhappy memories for their communities,” Fortier said.

What sort of ninny goes to a Scots pub looking for “a safe place”? I had an agreeable lunch there a couple of years back when passing through Kingston, but can’t say I’d be minded to return now it’s joined the ranks of the culturally craven. Instead of “The Public House”, why not something catchier like “Omar Khadr’s Public House”?

Why not something more realistic, like Khaled’s Dar Al Harb (no alcohol allowed)? But then we get down to cases, from a much less depressing era:

Pub names, unlike those of most other retail outlets, are explicitly intended to be a) distinctive and b) rooted in history. I don’t just mean all the familiar English ones like the George & Dragon and the Saracen’s Head, which are assuredly on the way out as Islamophobia-hate-crimes-in-waiting, but I’m also thinking of rarer coinages like the Hielan Jessie on the Gallowgate in Glasgow, named for Jessie Brown, wife of a corporal in the 17th Highland Regiment, who in the Indian Mutiny, after her husband was killed, rallied his surviving comrades to fight on by claiming to hear the approaching bagpipes of the 78th Highlanders. As a predecessor of mine at The Spectator reported in 1857:

Suddenly I was aroused by a wild unearthly scream close to my ear; my companion stood upright beside me, her arms raised and her head bent forward in the attitude of listening. A look of intense delight broke over her coun- tenance, she grasped my hand, drew me towards her and exclaimed ‘Dinna ye hear ‘it? Ay, I’m no dreamin’, it’s the slogan o’ the Highlanders! We’re saved!’ Then flinging herself on her knees she thanked God with passionate fervour.

Isn’t that a bit triggering for all those descendants of mutinous sepoys now running Glasgow corner shops?

The owner of Sir John’s Public House is like a lot of Canadians. He thinks it’s easy and painless to surrender the past. He doesn’t realize that, when you surrender the past, you’re also surrendering the future.

Or, to pare it down to its barest skin: when you surrender either, you’re…surrendering.

Share

You will be made to…wait, WHAT, again now?

Chaos. Incoherence. Inconsistency. Add it all up and you get Progtard comedy gold.

Singer Ginuwine has sparked a heated debate on Twitter after a recent episode of Celebrity Big Brother UK. In the latest episode, Ginuwine seemingly rejected fellow housemate India Willoughby.

The controversy stems from a conversation between Willoughby and the “Pony” singer, in which she asked whether he would date a trans woman. “You would date me, yeah,” Willoughby, who is a trans woman herself, asked. “Not if you were trans,” Ginuwine replied. After Ginuwine replied that he would not date a trans woman, Willoughby attempted to plant a kiss on the singer. When her advance was rejected, Willoughby stormed off.

Mmm, s’cuse me and all, but wasn’t ZXHRR’s outrageous demand that this guy make himself available to ZXHRR for ZXHRR’s sexual use, umm, harassment? In fact, wasn’t ZXHRR’s unwanted (NO MEANS NO! EXCEPT WHEN IT DOESN’T!) lunge an actual, errrr, sexual assault? Isn’t this Ginuwine fellow, whoever the hell he is, now officially a Victim™, who must Always Be Believed? And shouldn’t Progtards everywhere be up in arms over his victimization?

No, no, I guess not. Never mind.

Now Twitter has split into two sides. One side is outraged by Ginuwine’s rejection, suggesting that his unwillingness to date trans women is transphobic and bigoted. On the other hand, some fans are rallying behind the “In Those Jeans” artist, insisting that he has a choice to date whomever he chooses. Some also suggested that Willoughby was actually harassing him.

Dude, that’s three sides. Unless, as I suspect, the ones in that last category numbered about, oh, four, and were commenting in the same spirit of mockery that I am here and therefore don’t count. One more question, though: are all the Left’s slopes as slippery as this one is proving to be?

Via Ace, who goes on to make a damned good point about where our own domestic media fits into all this tommyrot, and how Progtardia uses these horseshit Critically Vitally Important Issues ‘N Stuff as a tactic to keep the culture shifting ever Leftward.

So let’s tot it all up then: we have a Being Of Penis unequivocally rejecting a proposed sexual advance, up to and including outright assault by the Left’s own established previous standards for the term, by another Being Of Penis who wishes to be a Being Of Vagina but who everybody involved admits is not. The Being Of Vagina perpetrates the assault anyway in contravention of the clearly expressed rejection of said attack. This event cannot be acknowledged—despite its having been captured on film—by Proggies as the assault it self-evidently was, though, because…well, because reasons. Also, shut up.

I repeat: chaos. Incoherence. Complete batshit lunacy, in fact. I can’t imagine there’s a sane Normal in the Western world—be they Beings Of Penis or Vagina—who can make any sense at all of it, and whose sole wish in reaction will be anything other than to keep the whole throbbing mess just as far away from them as is humanly possible.

This, too, is how you got Trump, you idiots. Not a moment too soon, either.

Share

Wow

Absolutely gobsmacking. And nauseating.

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a.k.a. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the illegal alien, five-time deportee, and seven-time convicted felon who killed 32-year-old American Kate Steinle in July 2015, was sentenced to time served on Friday after being convicted in November of possession of a firearm by a felon.

Zarate was acquitted of the murder and assault charges he faced, in what critics called an example of jury nullification in the politically-charged case.

Zarate was sentenced to three years in state prison, but “will be on parole for 48 months and will remain in custody to face federal charges,” according to Fox News.  Those federal charges include weapons and immigration offenses.

Another cold, hard slap in the face for her poor grieving parents, for whom it should have been more than enough to have lost their lovely daughter to a vicious, predatory animal who shouldn’t have been here in the first place after his first half a dozen deportations. “Sanctuary cities”? Not for decent, sane people, they ain’t.

This is a truly monstrous flouting of anything one might remotely consider justice, and crosses the line from “stupid and insensitive” right over into outright evil. But the only interest the sick toads responsible have in justice is in destroying it. It’s the only conclusion any rational person could possibly reach. And I’ll say it once more, not that it will ever have the smallest impact on any fool so far gone in dementia as to be unperturbed by this sorry saga: nobody—NOBODY—has any “right” to enter this country in defiance of the laws and procedures established to manage immigration. Period fucking dot.

Trump was right to propose his “big beautiful wall,” just as he was right to threaten yanking all federal funds from “sanctuary” cities and states. I hope he follows through on it, just as I hope that the next victim of a violent attack by an illegal alien is one or more of the oxygen thieves behind this atrocity. I guess their act of extreme violence against the very concept of justice makes sense in a way, seeing as how they damned well better hope their ain’t none in this world.

(Via Bill)

Share

The African crucible

Melting away liberal pieties, one after another.

You see, Africa is the example that counters everything our Progressive rulers believe about the world. If the blank slate is true, then Africans should have made great strides in closing the gap with the white world. If things like “institutional racism” were real things, Africa should be racing toward modernity now. If colonialism was the reason these places were so backward, a half century of freedom should have gone a long way toward curing the effects of the white man. Instead. everywhere Africa is worse than a half century ago.

The response from our Progressive rulers is to just ignore Africa. You see it in this National Review article on the end of Mugabe’s rule. The authoress is young, so she was poached in the warm liquids of multiculturalism her whole life. Her struggle to explain the decline of Rhodesia into Zimbabwe reads like a person trying to disarm a bomb while blindfolded. She not only avoids the elephant in the room, which is race, she leaves the reader with the impression that there is no such thing as elephants. Race does not exist.

That’s why Africa stopped being important to our Progressive rulers. It’s why the efforts of George Bush to do something about AIDS in Africa was largely ignored. You can’t talk about Africa without talking about race and race realism. Those are taboo subjects, so the whole continent may as well not exist. Bring up the subject in a room full of Progressives and watch their reaction. You won’t see fear. It will be confusion. The subject has been purged from the catechism, so it no longer exists. Africa is not cool anymore.

That’s why Africa should be a central topic on this side of the river. It is the easiest way for the normie on the other side to begin his journey. It’s a topic where the facts are so stark, it is easy to understand the basics of human bio-diversity, evolution and the cognitive differences between groups of humans. The group characteristics on display in Africa, also look like what Americans see on their televisions. There’s also the great divide between East and West. The Dark Continent is a living museum of human evolution.

Oh, I dunno about all that. It would certainly be so if weepy libtards had a shred of sense, integrity, humility, or shame to go along with their surfeit of compassion. But although I do admit to seeing a fair bit less discussion of that eternal pit now than in years past, I doubt it’s because of any sudden emergence of those other qualities. More likely, it’s just not Africa’s turn to be a prominent topic of liberal scolding. But that scolding is cyclical; Africa will no doubt come back to take its turn in the rotation eventually. And I’m quite sure that there are plenty of libs willing to seize any offered chance to hang Africa’s perpetual disaster around America’s neck still.

Africa is what it is, what it’s always been: a disease-ridden, poverty-stricken, war-torn hellhole: its more developed areas run by corrupt, vicious dictators; its remoter, wilder areas by murderous tribal chieftains interested mostly in subjugating and/or killing off rival tribes. There’s a wider variety of extremely unpleasant ways of dying to be found there than anyplace else on Earth. There’s a higher incidence of ignorance, illiteracy, child-like superstition, and general barbarism there than you’ll find in more advanced countries.

Contrary to what libtards would have you believe, this is NOT our fault.

Continue reading “The African crucible”

Share

The Kwanzaa con

Fake news holiday.

BLACKS IN AMERICA have suffered an endless series of insults and degradations, the latest of which goes by the name of Kwanzaa.

Ron Karenga (aka Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga) invented the seven-day feast (Dec. 26-Jan. 1) in 1966, branding it a black alternative to Christmas. The idea was to celebrate the end of what he considered the Christmas-season exploitation of African Americans.

Now, the point: There is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent. Begin with the name. The celebration comes from the Swahili term “matunda yakwanza,” or “first fruit,” and the festival’s trappings have Swahili names — such as “ujima” for “collective work and responsibility” or “muhindi,” which are ears of corn celebrants set aside for each child in a family.

Unfortunately, Swahili has little relevance for American blacks. Most slaves were ripped from the shores of West Africa. Swahili is an East African tongue.

To put that in perspective, the cultural gap between Senegal and Kenya is as dramatic as the chasm that separates, say, London and Tehran. Imagine singing “G-d Save the Queen” in Farsi, and you grasp the enormity of the gaffe.

Worse, Kwanzaa ceremonies have no discernible African roots. No culture on earth celebrates a harvesting ritual in December, for instance, and the implicit pledges about human dignity don’t necessarily jibe with such still-common practices as female circumcision and polygamy. The inventors of Kwanzaa weren’t promoting a return to roots; they were shilling for Marxism. They even appropriated the term “ujima,” which Julius Nyrere cited when he uprooted tens of thousands of Tanzanians and shipped them forcibly to collective farms, where they proved more adept at cultivating misery than banishing hunger.

Even the rituals using corn don’t fit. Corn isn’t indigenous to Africa. Mexican Indians developed it, and the crop was carried worldwide by white colonialists.

That’s from a classic old column by the late great Tony Snow, laying bare the whole disgraceful swindle. I don’t give enough of a shit about the worthless tool to bother looking it up, but I’d be willing to bet almost anything that the “Dr” in Ron Malingerer’s asserted nom de fraud is as big a shuck-and-jive as everything else associated with him is.

Oh, and need I even mention the Kwanzaa Kreep himself is a woman-torturing psycho, too? In sum:

It is hard to understand why anybody would want to follow a violent felon, in a made-up holiday that mistakes racism and segregation-ism for spirituality, and fiction for history.

Because they’re fucking chumps, that’s why. With a capital C-H-U-M-P, in big bold letters so nobody makes any mistakes about it.

Share

Off with her head!

Sheila Jackson Lee is an asshole.

The Democrat has developed a reputation for making life hell for any clerk, stewardess, or pilot unwilling or unable to make her three-and-a-half-hour flight anything less than glamorous. She takes advantage of federal travel perks to book multiple flights (only to cancel at the last minute and at no charge). She demands an upgrade to premier seats. She expects, in her words, “to be treated like a queen.”

Never a Henry the Eighth around when you really need one.

Sometimes it gets ugly. For instance, when one peasant of a flight attendant failed to serve the food Jackson Lee requested, the congresswoman went wild. “Don’t you know who I am?” she reportedly shrieked. “I’m Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Where is my seafood meal? I know it was ordered!”

That inflight incident was in 1998, and Jackson Lee has only increased in seniority since. She sits on the Committee on Homeland Security and she serves as the ranking member of the subcommittee on transportation security, no doubt, giving her even more sway over the airlines and even more of a reason to feel entitled.

She has no reason whatsoever to feel entitled except for her status as a pig-ignorant, arrogant minion of an overgrown and too-powerful government. Without that insidious prop, as I always say, she’d be cleaning hotel rooms or manning a drive-thru window somewhere, which would be a much better fit for her level of intelligence and ability (ahem). Although her foul temperament means she’d be incompetent at that too.

Read the rest, and be cheered by the fact that at long last we have a President attempting to do something about the Deep State that empowers and emboldens nasty little excrescences like Lee.

Share

“Increasingly detached from reality”

Some serious self-beclowning goin’ on.

Cohen says Trump is “a narcissist, “lacks empathy,” and “has an adolescent male fascination with the military.” Not wanting to be outdone, Boot has a phalanx of slurs at the ready: Trump’s “very ignorant” and “kowtows to dictators and undermines American support for freedom and democracy around the world.” He’s “a bully” and “likes to beat up on people who are weaker than him.”

Boot rehashes the baseless and well-worn charge of “tyrant” and claims that “Trump, as a personality type, is probably not that different from a Mussolini, a Peron, a Chavez. And if you were operating in Argentina or Italy, he would probably be a dictator by now.” Boot’s cheap invocation of Theodor Adorno’s discredited authoritarian personality theory—which Adorno invented to show that anyone who leaned right was a Mussolini in waiting—frames his complete denial of reality.

On policy after policy, Trump has gone out of his way to defer to Congress—perhaps even sometimes to his detriment. From healthcare to taxes, he has given Congress free rein to enact the wishes of Republican leadership. And as the travel ban makes its way through the federal court system, Trump has abided by each and every decision the courts have meted out—no matter if he agrees with the ruling or not. He has honored the constitutional principle of the separation of powers more than any president since Ronald Reagan.

Domestically, Boot declares that Trump is “undermining the rule of law. He’s actively obstructing justice. He’s backing—he’s lending the support of the presidency to monsters like Roy Moore. He is exacerbating race relations. He is engaging in the most blatant xenophobia, racism, and general bigotry that we have seen from the White House.”

Apparently, pointing out that citizens and their property in our inner cities need to be protected from rising violent crime is abominable—though curiously, it seems not to have troubled him when the Bushes did it. Boot explains later that by “actively obstructing justice” he means that Trump is “undermining Robert Mueller and his special counsel investigation.” No, Mueller’s team is undermining their own scandal-plagued investigation just fine by themselves—they don’t need any help from Trump. It wasn’t Trump who likely illegally obtained emails from the transition team. And it wasn’t Trump who demoted Peter Strzok, a rabidly anti-Trump top agent at the FBI, but then didn’t tell Congress until months later.

Boot’s rhetoric would fit right in at the editorial meetings at Salon. Parroting DNC talking points and hoping for Republicans to get crushed in 2018 (Boot says that he is “actively rooting for Republicans to lose the congressional elections next year”) is what True Conservatism™ has come to mean, it seems. Evan McMullin, eat your heart out.

The miserable yapping of these certifiable-lunatic anklebiters is like sweet, sweet music to mine ears. Suck on it, pipsqueaks. Such ludicrous, hysterical gasbaggery merits no more serious, courteous, or considered a response than just that—and is as bracing a sign as any that the right side is winning, in a more consequential fashion than may sometimes be apparent. Read the rest of Sabo’s takedown, though; it gets steadily more hilarious as it goes on, his recitation of these two pompous nitwits’ own foreign-policy failures being a particularly sidesplitting highlight.

Share

Diversity Bollards

I’m sure we’re all BAFFLED as to motive.

So there will be more empty seats round the Christmas table this year, after an “Australian citizen” mowed down pedestrians at the junction of Flinders Street and Elizabeth Street in Melbourne. The casualties include “a pre-schooler with serious head injuries”. The “Australian citizen” (I presume this designation is being used to emphasize that he’s entirely eligible to serve in Mr Turnbull’s cabinet) did it deliberately, but relax, lighten up, there’s no need to worry because, according to Victoria’s police commissioner, all this terrifying terror is “not terror-related”.

You’ll recall there was a previous “vehicle attack” in downtown Melbourne earlier this year, after which the authorities ordered up the bollardization of every pedestrianized precinct in the vicinity. As Andrew Bolt writes:

All the bollards put up after six people were killed in Bourke St Mall in January have not stopped this.

After the Halloween jihadist killed eight people on a bike path in Lower Manhattan, New York’s bollardizers commanded similarly extravagant installation of Diversity Bollards up and down the city.

Alternatively, instead of attempting to ring-fence every potential target – ie, everything and everyone – with Diversity Bollards, we could try installing bollards where they matter – around the civilized world.

Better yet, around the Muslim world instead. Failing that, Trump’s Big Beautiful Wall ought to suffice.

But the second part of Steyn’s post is where things really go careening around the bend into full-on bughouse insanity.

Speaking of non-terror-related Muslims, there’s a hot new hashtag trending in Britain called #AVeryMerryMuslimChristmas. This derives from the title of a new report by Westminster’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. “A Very Merry Muslim Christmas” purports to demonstrate that almost all Christian charity in fact comes from Muslims:

What we hear even less about is the ‘Muslim Merry Christmas’. The soup kitchens, the food banks, the Christmas dinners, the New Year clean up – work Muslim charities will be busy doing during the Christmas period.

Yeah, you Islamophobes thought that the “Muslim Merry Christmas” consisted of shooting up churches in Egypt and Pakistan, and mowing down shoppers in Berlin markets and Melbourne intersections, and self-detonating at Port Authority Bus Terminal. But you’ve got it all wrong: Allah is the reason for the season. Without him, this whole Christmas thing would be a total bust.

And that right there is why the West can’t have nice things—or a peaceable existence free of monthly Muzz-rat terror attacks in our own damned countries. Read on, though, because as incredible as it seems, it gets worse. The picture Steyn posts of St Paul’s cathedral in Melbourne is nothing short of sickening.

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

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