Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Tyranny comes in all sizes, shapes, and colors

And it does NOT emanate exclusively from FederalGovCo, either.

1. Happy hours are illegal
Happy hour specials can only be offered for ‘food.’ Yeah, mind blown? Me too.

2. You can get a DWI on a horse
Good, because my favorite bar has seriously scarce horse parking. Other ways to get a DWI-tractor, bicycle, electronic scooter.

There are more of these at the link, yet more on the books, and they’re rarely if ever enforced. And yeah, they’re all pretty silly at one level. But frivolous and amusing though we might find them, they also have to raise a more serious question in the mind of anyone possessed of an ounce of self-honesty, namely: in a country forever congratulating itself on how “free” it supposedly is, how the hell does legislation this intrusive and meddlesome ever get passed into law in the first place?

Now, it is definitely true that North Carolina is a very liberal state, and always has been. NC has elected but one (1) Republican governor in the last, oh, I dunno, six hundred years or so, and that was the execrable Pat McCrory—who, despite the phony blandishments he pukes up on his local radio show, is about as faux-conservative as faux-conservative professional politicians get. And yeah, no state or even local government is anything like perfect. The states particularly, in their role as the Laboratories Of Democracy, are more or less allowed to flout the Constitution’s limitations (ahem) on the federal gummint, which they do to a fairly alarming degree. I get all that, I really, really do.

But still. Y’all know I become nettlesome every year, as the 4th of July approaches, at the sudden sprouting of all the huge tents in every shopping center parking lot offering fireworks for sale, exhorting all and sundry to “Celebrate freedom!” during the one fucking week every year that selling the damned things is legally allowed. And at that, the fireworks they sell aren’t anything to get excited about: sparklers, snap-n-pops, and wet-fart little ‘crackers, that’s it. No M80s, no cherry bombs. No bottle rockets, repeaters, arrowheads, Roman candles, and such-like. Too, too dangerous, you see. Plus, there’s always the awful risk of some unreconstructed, RACIST!™ old-timer laying the Roman candle on its side in the gutter and referring to it by its primordial-joke name—”nigger chaser”—thereby corrupting the youth, spooking the horses, and causing the wimmen to faint dead away from the rude shock of it.

“Legally allowed” to celebrate Independence Day with otherwise-illegal fireworks? Bosh, I say. The mere utterance of the phrase “legally allowed” ought to automatically stoke the ire of every red-blooded American still extant—however many of those there might be left—just as a matter of principle; its very existence should be considered an affront, its now-omnipresent application a call to arms, the moral equivalent of a war-tocsin being struck. No happy hour? No rollerblading in the sun? No riding a bicycle one-handed? Horseback DUIs, all the other tyrannical tommyrot from the article, and so very much more, not just here in the Tarheel State but everywhere across the fruited plain? In (what was once) America?

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK, people?

Share

Historical greatness

Gerard has several great posts commemorating the Apollo 11 moon landing (link to the main page, just scroll) over at his joint—along with one on an anniversary of a rather more sordid, horrific, and disgusting sort—with links to other essays and lots of inspiring photos. This one is my personal fave:

After the 1972 conclusion of the Apollo program, a group of about 30 NASA thoughtleaders sequestered themselves for a few days on Caltech’s sunny campus. They reviewed what they had accomplished and tried to grapple with exactly how they had pulled off the challenge of the century: landing humans on the lunar surface and returning them safely to Earth on an absurd deadline.

Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the moon, attended most of their sessions in relative silence. While known to be quiet, he was never what someone would call shrinking or invisible. His thoughtful presence carried significant weight in any meeting. Armstrong was not a typical test pilot turned astronaut. “I am, and ever will be,” he once said, “a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer.”

After everyone else had finished speaking at the Caltech gathering, Armstrong calmly rose and went to a chalkboard. He drew four bell-type curves, spaced slightly apart, and labeled them: Leadership, Threat, Economy and Talent. And he said to the room, “My thought is, when you get all these lined up, you can’t stop something really big from happening.” Indeed, the early 1960s had it all: a bold (and in some ways, desperate) president; the threat of the Soviet Union; flush federal coffers; and an unprecedented number of college-educated youngsters. When the curves aligned, Armstrong suggested that an Apollo could rise. According to Gerry Griffin, engineer, flight director and eventual director of the Johnson Space Center, everyone in the room was nodding in agreement, as if to say “Of course, that’s it.”

The analysis of rarely aligned curves can help explain why we haven’t yet sent humans back into the cosmos. But four peaks fail to fully capture the miracle: 400,000 souls uniting in peacetime on a project so ambitious as to appear ludicrous. As humanity makes ample noise about restarting these journeys to other worlds, it’s worth looking under Apollo’s hood and asking the surviving engineers how they did it. Based on scores of recent interviews, their most frequent and fervent responses follow.

All of them fascinating, I assure you. Meanwhile, Steyn ponders our sad inability to repeat the feat, much less outdo it:

When After America came out, I was booked on “Fox & Friends” to talk it over with Brian Kilmeade. Sitting next to Brian on the couch waiting to get going, I watched Steve Doocy across the studio link to an item on the space shuttle Enterprise beginning its journey to whichever museum it’s wound up at. Steve called it “historic”, and, as I remarked to Brian, pity the nation whose greatness becomes “historic” – whose spacecraft exist only in museums. There’s a passage in After America on just that theme:

In 1961, before the eyes of the world, President Kennedy had set American ingenuity a very specific challenge—and put a clock on it:

‘This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.’

That’s it. No wiggle room. A monkey on the moon wouldn’t count, nor an unmanned drone, nor a dune buggy that can’t take off again but transmits grainy footage back to Houston as it rusts up in the crater it came to rest in. The only way to win the bet is with a real-live actual American standing on the surface of the moon planting the Stars and Stripes. Even as it happened, the White House was so cautious that William Safire wrote President Nixon a speech to be delivered in the event of disaster:

‘Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace…’

Yet America did it.

It was not a sure thing. In 1961 the Soviets had it all over the Americans in the space race: They had already reached the moon, with the unmanned flight Luna 2, and they had put a man in space, Yuri Gagarin. Gagarin and the cosmonauts were inspirational figures well beyond the Warsaw Pact. By contrast, all the US unmanned missions had been failures, and their astronauts were earthbound – or sub-orbital at best. Kennedy was cautioned against his moon speech on the grounds that he was setting America up for very public humiliation.

But he chose to go ahead.

And now? From After America:

Four decades later, Bruce Charlton, professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham in England, wrote that “that landing of men on the moon and bringing them back alive was the supreme achieve- ment of human capability, the most difficult problem ever solved by humans.” That’s a good way to look at it: the political class presented the boffins with a highly difficult and specific problem, and they solved it—in eight years. Charlton continued:

‘Forty years ago, we could do it—repeatedly—but since then we have not been to the moon, and I suggest the real reason we have not been to the moon since 1972 is that we cannot any longer do it. Humans have lost the capability.

‘Of course, the standard line is that humans stopped going to the moon only because we no longer wanted to go to the moon, or could not afford to, or something…But I am suggesting that all this is BS…I suspect that human capability reached its peak or plateau around 1965-75—at the time of the Apollo moon landings—and has been declining ever since.’

Can that be true? Charlton is a controversialist gadfly in British academe, but, comparing 1950 to the early twenty-first century, our time traveler from 1890 might well agree with him. And, if you think about it, isn’t it kind of hard even to imagine America pulling off a moon mission now? The countdown, the takeoff, a camera transmitting real-time footage of a young American standing in a dusty crater beyond our planet blasting out from his iPod Lady Gaga and the Black-Eyed Peas or whatever the twenty- first-century version of Sinatra and the Basie band is…It half-lingers in collective consciousness as a memory of faded grandeur, the way a nineteenth-century date farmer in Nasiriyah might be dimly aware that the Great Ziggurat of Ur used to be around here someplace.

How long will it even half-linger? Great civilizations can survive a lot of things, but not impoverishment of spirit. That’s one reason I didn’t join in the media sniggers at Donald Trump’s new Space Force – because I’d like it to be true.

Agreed on that one. But I have an idea of at least one contributing factor in our descent into paralyzed decline:

Phil Plait has mixed feelings about the moon-landing hoax.

Plait — known as “The Bad Astronomer” to his many thousands of readers on Syfy — told Space.com he is frustrated that he and others like him still have to debunk the hoax theory from time to time, 50 years after the first moon landing. Then again, Plait became famous because he’s so good at debunking in the first place. 

Back in February 2001, Fox Broadcasting ran a documentary titled “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?” Plait coincidentally had a pile of research ready from a book he was working on, and a friend sent him an advance copy of the show so that he had time to write up a response.

I kind of wish it had never aired,” Plait said about the Fox documentary, “because it opened a huge Pandora’s box. On the other hand, it’s exposing a wound to sunlight. That thing was there anyway, festering. Let it get out to the public, and let it heal, and let it kill the infection. But yeah, it’s troubling. Just to know that if Fox hadn’t aired that, who knows what my career path would have been.”

Like the 9/11-hoax conspiracies, the old “fake moon landing” crap is so stupid it’s embarrassing to sensible people. I mean, come ON: a conspiracy involving not just a handful but tens, even hundreds of thousands of participants…not one of whom ever utters a single syllable exposing it for the rest of their lives? Occam’s Razor alone makes mincemeat of such arrant lunacy. Throw in the idea of the US government being competent enough to pull such a hoax off, then keep it concealed LITERALLY FORFUCKINGEVER, in spite of an Everest of evidence to the contrary in front of our faces every single day, and…well, buy into it if you want. I’ll just be over here quietly laughing at your dumb ass, that’s all.

Anyways, the article toodles along smoothly until this bit, which is what led me to make that “contributing factor” crack earlier:

Plait said there is a danger in talking about the moon-landing conspiracy and other clearly debunked conspiracies like it, such as vaccines causing autism or humans not being responsible for climate change.

Oh, jeez. So here we have an obviously smart fella, a scientist of some type, capable of debunking several other hoaxes and conspiracy theories…and yet he’s fallen for the most pernicious one of the modern era.

I just can’t even. If this guy is any indicator of how intelligence and competence have atrophied, soon enough we won’t even be able to tie our own shoes—much less rediscover the ability to design, build, and successfully launch rockets—and any exploration of space we do will be limited by the effort not to drool on ourselves when we look skyward at night.

Update! Aesop tells the NYT/SJW/PS crowd to suck a fat one.

Moonshootem.jpg

It upsets them ’cause it’s true.

Share

Four-stage death roll

Paraphrasing Walter Cronkite: the thought of your kids on Communism oughta scaaaare yuh to death.

We Americans are currently in a civilizational state historians William Strauss and Neil Howe would call the “Third Turning”: an unraveling. The so-called Left is making it happen, too, with conservatives enabling it by conserving yesterday’s liberalism and being those nice guys who finish last.

In Marxist circles, this stage would be called “destabilization” — the second of a four-part process to subvert a society and seize control. The first, third, and fourth stages are, respectively, “demoralization,” “crisis,” and “normalization.”

The demoralization stage, which essentially is the undermining of a target nation’s morality (the process of radically changing the population’s “values”), was actually “over-fulfilled” in the mid-1980s already, as Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov put it at the time. This process continues and is manifested in the widespread antipathy for sexual propriety, faith, and all that is great and good — and in the lust for perversion, socialism, feminism, multiculturalism, “transgenderism,” and anti-Americanism in general. We see it in the tearing down of statues; removal of long present Christian symbols; leftist propaganda and decadence in schools and entertainment;, prioritizing of illegal aliens over citizens; revising of American history and impugning of whites; and in attacks on the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and all things traditional.

This destabilization of the American mind and moral compass now has begotten, as it must, societal destabilization. This is reflected in, most obviously, the flooding of our nation with unassimilable foreigners via a purposely porous border. This serves the Cloward-Piven goal of overloading the system to cause breakdown, necessitating replacement of it with, the theory goes, a socialist one.

Of course, this human flood strains schools, hospitals, and services and resources in general. But it’s also used for propaganda purposes, with simple efforts to enforce immigration law — ones pursued by Barack Obama himself — used to demonize ICE agents and the current administration. Vile, divisive lies such as claiming that detention facilities are Nazi-like “concentration camps” lead to hatred, violence, protests, and terrorist attacks such as Saturday’s assault on a Tacoma, Washington ICE facility.
   
This is part of the greater destabilization represented by physical attacks on, threats against, and censorship of the Left’s political opposition, phenomena now being encouraged by media and facilitated by Big Tech as left-wing politicians and law enforcement turn a blind eye. Why not? This all serves to quash their political opposition.

Should this continue in both duration and increasing severity, we will eventually be brought to the “crisis” state, a relatively short stage in which there’s a revolutionary change of power.

All of this is already quite familiar to anybody with functioning synapses, which makes it sobering stuff indeed. Just don’t call ’em Marxists.

To be clear, I don’t say those fomenting this are “Marxists.” Doctrinaire Marxism is, well, so yesterday. Leftists epitomize the moral relativism imbuing our age and, as such, worship the Gods of the Shifting Goalposts. Oh, they’re not better than Marxists (they may be worse), but they have made a lateral move in lunacy. Today they’re sort of like the Marquis de Sade meets Stalin and the Stasi.

Well, I dunno about all that, now. There’s an ongoing debate in various places—mostly Right-leaning ones; the Left doesn’t care what you call ’em, so long as you submit to and obey them— about the usefulness, accuracy, and relevance of terms like “liberal,” “conservative,” “Right,” “Left,” et al for a few years now. It all seems like splitting the hairs a scoche too fine to me. Whatever your nomenclature of preference is, it’s plain enough where the battle lines are drawn; getting bogged down in semantics at this late date seems worse than a waste of time that could better be spent zeroing rifles and loading mags.

Share

With great power comes great responsibility

Pay no attention to the corruption behind the Big Tech curtain.

How is it that Facebook, who refuses to dox any of the violent Antifa terrorists that use its platform, are happy to give up the personal details of the Facebook user who anonymously uploaded a slowed video of Nancy Pelosi, within minutes, to some rando journalist on the phone? (How do you even call Facebook?)

Well what if I told you a Policy Director at Facebook was Nancy Pelosi’s Chief of Staff before taking said job directing policy at Facebook? What if I told you the head of algorithm policy at Facebook worked for Hillary at The State Department? Or that the Head of Content Policy worked for the Hillary presidential campaign? What if I told you the person in charge of privacy policy at Facebook used to work for Al Franken, before he worked for Senator Bonoff, before he worked for Congressman Oberstar? Or that the Director in charge of “countering hate and extremism” at Facebook came from the Clinton Foundation? Did you know that the person at Facebook who currently “oversees programs on countering hate speech and promoting pluralism”, and “develops internal third party education and drives thought leadership on hate speech and content moderation” was one of Obama’s policy advisers at The White House?

Why does Facebook have someone whose job is to show others how to use their platform as a type of privatized government and “exert influence” over the public? And what exactly does it mean for Facebook to “exert influence” over the public?

How about YouTube? How does Laura Southern’s documentary about the border get removed from YouTube within 24 hours of posting without any reason or explanation? What if I told you a Policy Manager at YouTube, before becoming a Policy Manager at YouTube, was employed by Hillary for America and was a manager in Obama’s campaign before that? What if I told you YouTube’s Global Content Policy Lead previously worked at the DNC? Did you know the person responsible for “growing the next generation of stars” on YouTube worked in the Office of Digital Strategy at the White House under Obama? Or that the person in charge of developing the careers of YouTube creators was the Director of Video for Obama? Speaking of helping the careers of creators, did you know Vox, the company that got Steven Crowder demonetized, was one of the companies that YouTube doled out $20 million dollars to, for ‘educational videos’?

Ten people, directly connected to the progressive Democrat political machine who are now controlling our conversations online. Sounds like an important alarm, no?

What if I told you there were nearly a hundred more?

I’d be surprised there weren’t more than that to be found—and would assume that, in truth, there are. But it is chilling nonetheless. Silicon Greybeard demurs:

Does their monopoly status require they undergo more Federal regulation to ensure access? Is access a “civil right”? It really is the big argument of our day.

For those who are regular readers, or who are but haven’t picked this up from me: these are private companies invented and developed by individual citizens. They have every right to kick anyone and everyone off their platform. Further, the leftist leaning politics of Silicon Valley companies should be apparent to anyone – which means they’ll attract these Democrats. My solution is to not use Facebook or Twitter and just use YouTube and Google for the few ways I want. While I don’t particularly think YouTube access is a civil right, reframing that question by asking what if YouTube banned all blacks or all gays or all of any other group instead of conservatives seems to lead to a different conclusion.

I can’t agree. Due in part to the fortuitous timing of their appearance; their near-universal acceptance; and the near-impossibility of any real competition establishing itself at this late date, these are de facto monopolies. However, because of their politicized nature and ubiquitousness, they are far more insidious than the ones Teddy Roosevelt took the bust-up stick to way back when.

These companies wield grotesquely outsized influence and power; at this point, they’re more akin to public utilities than they are private companies. Having become formidable platforms for disseminating political opinion whose owners and employees have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to use their muscle for censorship of viewpoints they don’t like, the Big Tech/social media megaliths habitually and intentionally run afoul of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Allowing them to continue on as they have been isn’t merely unfair; it’s downright dangerous. In sum:

Each day we wake up and see the latest way conservative voices are being censored, shadowbanned, silently deleted, hidden from view, buried in searches, algorithmed out of existence. Whether it’s the biased search results hiding /r/The_Donald on Google and Reddit (or their questionable subscriber numbers), whether it’s banning Twitter accounts that simply track violence against Trump supporters, creating policy to allow death threats against conservatives, censoring the Declaration of Independence for hate speech, blocking a conservative Marine for literally saying the sky is blue, labeling bible verses as porn, or simply banning the top conservative voices for no reason at all, Big Tech companies absolutely are controlling our speech.

These aren’t just Democratic voters, but former employees from the DNC, from the offices of Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, Feinstein, Giffords, Schumer, Reid, Planned Parenthood, even Rachel Maddow, who are migrating en masse to gate-keeping positions in social media companies. They didn’t all learn to code, they aren’t designing the like button or working on Messenger. They are taking up residency in the policy departments across the web; shaping the conversation, pushing agendas, picking who gets featured, deciding who gets blocked, judging who gets banned for life, dictating the parameters of the algorithms we’ll never be allowed to see, and making cases for censorship – that always seem to ratchet in one direction.

Lots, lots more at the topmost Spinquark link, and damned good on ’em for their fine investigative journalism.

(Hat tip to Fuel Filter)

Share

Reparations I can REALLY get behind

What the hell, why not.

To those who suggest we might be better spending our time righting the injustices of today rather than of the distant past I say: shame on you. If these wrongs are not righted through compensation they will live on in our collective shame and the descendants of the victims will continue to suffer. Far from abandoning the principle of restorative justice we should be expanding it and exploring what other injustices might be put right through financial compensation.

One glaring example is the great evil visited on the Anglo-Saxon population by the Normal Conquest of 1066. By any standard, the effect on indigenous English society was enduring devastation. Through war, invasion and genocide, the Anglo-Saxon ruling class was almost entirely replaced, control of the church and state surrendered to foreign adversaries, English replaced by Norman French as the language of government, and England’s entire political, social and cultural orientation shifted from Northern Europe to the continent for the next thousand years.

This matters because, just as the pain of colonialism continues to be endured by its descendants, the Conquest continues to have lasting effects. In his study of surnames and social mobility, economic historian Gregory Clark concluded that Norman surnames continue to be 25 percent overrepresented at Oxbridge to this day relative to other indigenous English surnames. As Clark put it: ‘The fact that Norman surnames had not been completely average in their social distribution by 1300, by 1600, or even by 1900 implies astonishingly slow rates of social mobility during every epoch of English history.’ Not for nothing did Nonconformists and Whigs loudly oppose ‘the Norman yoke’ during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Cambridge University, which still drips with Norman money and influence, should now consider to what extent it needs to compensate its Anglo-Saxon victims. The Sutton Trust estimates that Oxbridge graduates earn £400,000 more during their lifetimes than graduates from other UK universities. These figures imply that descendants of the rapacious Norman invader class could be earning tens of thousands of pounds more than other graduates — an undeserved lifetime premium that has survived 31 generations.  So, reparations must certainly be made.  But who shall pay, and who shall receive?

It should be straightforward for a Royal Commission to trace the present-day descendants of Britain’s Norman usurpers through a combination of genealogical and administrative research as well as — inevitably — mandatory genetic testing. A small tax on the Lampards, Vardys and Gascoignes of the world, payable to the Bamfords, Bransons and Ecclestones, would be sufficient to catalyze healing for the open sores of the past.

There will be inevitable quibbles, such as descendants of Normans claiming that they were not personally responsible. But this is feeble prattle. Countries typically honor treaties dating hundreds of years in the past, despite no one being alive who signed them. We pay debts accumulated by previous generations. Similarly, reparations correctly depend on a notion of collective and inherited responsibility, precisely why the Jews were held accountable for the death of Jesus Christ for most of the Christian era.

We are learning every day just how deep our roots in the past lie. The more we learn, the more necessary it is to see the past in terms of the attitudes of the present, and to rectify regrettable aspects. Eventually these may encompass events as old as the Indo-Aryan invasions of 1500 bc, which produced the Hindu caste system, as well as more unheralded travesties such as the American conquest of the Philippines, which introduced junk food, soap operas and general bad taste. Ultimately, only by demarcating a special class of victims and making grievance inheritable can we address the sins of the past and promote harmony in our own world.

Bang on. So if you aren’t passionately, one thousand percent behind seeing justice done for such horrible imperialist oppression, you are almost certainly a RACIST™, and should probably be killed.

Share

Arming up

All that “we have all the guns” braggadocio? Gonna need to rethink that one, I’m afraid.

Well, unfortunately I’m here to tell you that isn’t true: the hard left knows full well the role guns play in the political process, and they’re currently arming up and training.

I’ve been keeping tabs on this trend, and the other day I ran across a rather alarming piece in the New Republic…

Alarming it most certainly is, and I suggest you go read all of it. Given the Left’s long history of violence and oppression, nobody should be assuming that they’ll all just roll over and give up at the first sign of resistance this time around. Some of them are soft, pampered, callow youths, sure. But make no mistake: some of them are hard-core, serious, dedicated revolutionaries, true modern-day Bolsheviks who fully and firmly intend to see each and every freedom-loving American either in a gulag, or dead. Bill offers a sobering reminder that all this is hardly anything new:

This is something I’ve worried about for a very long time.

Most people today are too young to have any working knowledge/memory of the hard left of the 1960s, especially if they didn’t participate in that movement.

I’m old enough, and I did participate.

Here’s what I remember:

Slogans: Up against the wall, motherfuckers! Shoot the liberals first! Mao: Power comes out of the barrel of a gun!
When the Black Panthers become revolutionary darlings, they didn’t equip themselves with pamphlets, bullhorns, and papier mache puppets. They carried rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

So, where are the guys in this article likely getting their knowledge, information, and training in the fine art of bearing arms?

From Uncle Sam, of course.

Clueless lefty pussies assume that if you join the military, you are a fascist conservative. But even a moment’s though will tell you that any large group – the US military is a very large group – will not be perfectly homogeneous. And if you are a budding revolutionary, why wouldn’t you spend a couple of years on Uncle’s dime learning to be an effective, dangerous revolutionary?

Don’t kid yourself. More than a few 18 year olds have done exactly that. (We all know that 18 year olds are all very, very conservative, right?)

A few years back, I remember reports that gangbangers were joining the military for exactly that purpose.  The reports were soft-pedaled and eventually faded away, but it seemed perfectly logical to me.  I mean, if you want go  be trained by experts in the fine art of armed urban warfare, get your training legally, and have it paid for by the military you expect to have to fight, how else would you do it?

Our side doesn’t have all of the guns, or all of the knowledge. The left is, I would suspect, still, relatively speaking, extremely weak in terms of all out armed civil war. But it is not helpless, and people who do make that assumption are both ignorant and stupid.

And when the bill comes due, the price tag on such assumptions is damned steep. Before our first Civil War, most people both North and South believed it would take but one hard skirmish to send the opposition packing, thereby securing an easy, relatively bloodless victory for themselves. Instead, they found themselves mired in a desperate, five-year-long calamity, one of the bloodiest, most destructive conflicts in history. Their blithe assumptions of a cakewalk are now generally derided as the purblind foolishness they always were.

But all too many of us today are inexplicably disregarding our own history to walk the primrose path all over again. It’s my belief that, as horrific a cataclysm as Civil War v1.0 was, Civil War v2.0 will be even more nightmarish, and will drag on for far longer, too. It is probably unavoidable by now; it might even be considered necessary, the only means left to us of resolving the otherwise irreconcilable conflict between totaliarian collectivism and those who just want to be left alone to live as freely as they possibly may.

Nonetheless, it remains a truly awful prospect—all of us will lose much, and probably most will lose absolutely everything. Entire regions could well be thrown back into a pre-Industrial Revolution type of lifestyle. The comfort and convenience every American has come to regard as his birthright, just the natural order of things, will be gone forever, replaced by a state of nature more akin to Hobbes’s brutal vision than, say, Hugh Hefner’s. It is a thing to be contemplated not with eagerness and anticipation, but with dread.

Share

Read it, learn it, live it

Self-evident, immutable, eternal.

The now citizens of the United States of America were not just severing ties with their colonial British past, nor were they simply forming a new government. The foundation laid by the Declaration of Independence articulated truths that had never been used as the foundation of any actual government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These rights are comprehensive in the lives of men and women, though it is important to note that the document says “among these rights,” which suggests that this list is not exhaustive. That such rights exist is a matter of self-evident truth—that is, the truth of the thing is contained within the definition of the thing. To acknowledge that there is such a thing as “man,” created by God and not himself a god, is to acknowledge his equality to every other creature that can be called “man”—and that goes for females, too. Man, as in mankind, meant that in their essential dignity and nature as beings, created by God, they are beings who are by nature also created equal.

The mere assertion that a sovereign people have inalienable rights is not sufficient, however, because government is always required to secure those rights. A right can exist without people acknowledging it. For rights to be actualized, action is required and the authors of the Declaration were very clear about what kind of action they meant.

The relationship between the citizens and the government is made clear by Adams: “by the affirmation that the principal natural rights of mankind are unalienable, it placed them beyond the reach of organized human power.” This reinforces the idea that government is meant to secure rights rather than grant them, and also the notion that the people themselves, rather than the government, are sovereign.

Just to drive the point home:

Related to the revelation that our natural rights come from God, is that by that same virtue they pre-exist government—whether a republic, democracy, monarchy, or tyranny. This is an important distinction. By listing our rights before mentioning the existence of any sort of state, the Declaration makes it clear that government is not the source of those rights.

Any rights granted by the state, no matter how holy, benevolent or well-intentioned the officeholders, can be taken away in an instant. Rights that come from Nature and Nature’s God, however, are permanent, intransigent, and emphatically unalienable. Contrary to the opinions of many modern politicians, the Declaration makes it clear that the American experiment is fundamentally grounded on the principle that free and independent people get to tell the government what to do—not the other way around.

As Randy E. Barnett has put it, the founding documents of the United States paint a picture of tiny islands of government power awash in a vast sea of liberty. Today, we’ve inverted that ideal to our grave detriment. Too often our present political landscape resembles a parched, vast expanse of government power marked by disappearing oases of liberty. We must do all that we can to reverse this course. It begins with the recognition that our rights come first—government comes second.

Indeed. It’s more than dismaying to ponder how far we’ve strayed from the ideals spelled out in those Founding documents that some of us—with the best of intentions, mind—now blame our Constitution itself as inherently flawed because of OUR failure to uphold it. Sorry, but I just can’t buy that. Those concepts, along with the words in which the Declaration and Constitution express them, are as close to flawless as we mere mortals can come. Their wisdom, their unassailable logic, represent a mighty work wrought by men of truly formidable intellect and good character. There has simply never been anything like them; mankind waited a damned long time for them to come along, and it seems unlikely that they will ever be surpassed, or even equalled.

Read the Declaration again, carefully and attentively, and then ask yourself: who could possibly find fault with even a single word? Who could fail to hear the essential truth of them, or to be stirred by their resonance to both awe and pride? Maybe most important: what kind of person could wish to see those beautiful words rejected, ignored, or supplanted? What could such a one’s real motivation for spurning them be?

That We the People, over generations, have proven unworthy of the towering gift granted us does not absolve of us of our duty to be humbly grateful for it nonetheless. And it’s never too late for us to rediscover our birthright, and to rededicate ourselves to the struggle to reclaim it. Aesop has it straight:

Not all progress has been positive, and what made it easier for you to go from the Atlantic to the Pacific has also made it far too easy for government to spread like a malignant cancer, and intrude its big nose and ravenous maw into everything in your life, every purchase or sale you make, and everything you do, including what lightbulb snaps on when you flip a switch, or what type of toilet you may now flush.

Blacks are no longer slaves on Southern plantations. Instead we all are, working annually the equivalent of January to June just to satisfy the recockulous demands on our labors and wealth made by actual armies of local, county, state, and federal versions of the cancer. (No small part of it paid in protection money as welfare, to keep the shiftless descendants of slaves from rioting from coast to coast, for those who aren’t already enjoying extended government room and board of an entirely different type, in the local grey bar motel.)

This, none of it, was surely not what the Founders intended, for anyone. And yet, here we are.

So as you enjoy your God-given rights today to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, baseball double-headers, hot dogs, and sales on automobiles and big screen TVs, coupled hopefully with a spectacular fireworks show in honor of that liberty, ponder what you’ve lost, how you might get some of it back, and what you’ll do to instill the desire for liberty to your offspring, and succeeding generations, that they might have more than the shadow of freedom we presently find allotted to us.

It’s a tradition as American as fireworks and picnics today, and far healthier to the republic than getting a new big screen TV. We are a race of malcontents, thrown out of every civilized country, and dumped here to tame a continent. Anyone whose natural recourse is to run to the government every waking minute ought to be viewed with innate suspicion and reviled with undisguised loathing. And gifted with no small amount of rotten fruit and eggs at whatever speed your arm can manage. (Including, at last count, 21 Democrat candidates for president next November.) Imagine the salutary effect on the republic if their motorcades were thusly pelted from city to city unceasingly for the next 16 months.

Indeed. Wretched, treacherous scoundrels such as the 27 Dwarves—arrogant enough, audacious enough, to assert that their petulant, juvenile complaints, demands, and degeneracy should be given precedence over our Founding principles—should be unable to so much as venture outside their front door without fear for their safety; that fear ought to be fully justified too, and constantly bolstered by constant scorn and hostility from those they dare presume to rule. Ridicule, harrassment, being pelted with rotten fruit and/or dead rats: these things of right ought to be the very least of their worries.

Share

“Sometimes it breaks my heart but I make no apology for loving America”

The title quote is from this post, which is all about an echo from a distant and forgotten era:



Skelton was a household favorite of my family’s back when I was but a wee bairn, but I don’t really recollect this priceless bit. His closing quote is chillingly prescient, since the future he laments is precisely what has come to pass. Worse, actually, since, once having exiled “under God” from public discourse, they did the same to the Pledge entire. Skelton, like most of his generation, would be simply appalled at what we have allowed ourselves and our country to become. That said, though, I still do hold the following truths to be, umm, self-evident:

American military, economic and cultural power dominates the world (you’ve never heard of the biggest movie made by China or France this year, but they’ve certainly heard of “Avengers: Endgame”). America leads the world in Nobel laureates, and it isn’t close. America leads the world in the success of our middle class, and it isn’t close. True, America has more poor people than some other countries — but that’s because we let in millions of people from poor countries. Saying “America has a poverty problem” is like saying, “Florida has a high death rate.” Florida doesn’t kill people, it just attracts a lot of old ones.

“What about slavery?” is not an irrelevant question to ask about American history. Slavery is indeed our original sin. It’s important. We fought a war over it. You may have heard of it.

But to think of slavery first when you think of American history is like thinking of Charles Manson first when you think of men. America accomplished a few good things as well. America is a radical idea that had never come close to being implemented before — a broad-based democracy with government engineered for the purpose of zealously protecting our natural, or God-given, rights. We zoomed out ahead of the rest of the world, and we never looked back. As late as 1870, only 40% of the men in Britain were entitled to vote. Voting in America was not universal until women got the vote in 1920, but the US was miles ahead of everybody else in allowing its people to be heard.

Even more important, the US was and is miles ahead when it comes to allowing its people to speak. In Britain, people can and do get thrown in jail for things they’ve said on Twitter. (The 2003 Communications Act makes it a crime to type mean things on the internet. No, you don’t get a break for being young, or drunk, or for thinking you’re being darkly funny. The police actually monitor social media looking for people to arrest.) A 2014 headline in The Guardian reads, “Is it right to jail someone for being offensive on Facebook or Twitter?” No, it isn’t right. It is in fact quite wrong, and in America it is unthinkable because we have the world’s strongest protections for speech.

Don’t take it from me; ask the world. A Gallup survey notes that 150 million people, or one out of 25 adults on the planet, would move to the US if they could. That’s more than the next four countries combined. “America remains unusually attractive to people from all over the world — in a way to which no other country compares,” Gallup reported.

Everybody knows America is number one, which is why, even among the hating class of Americans, no one ever leaves. Ta-Nehisi Coates and Spike Lee haven’t moved to France. Gavin Newsom isn’t moving to Mexico. Colin Kaepernick isn’t moving to Cuba. Lena Dunham, Bryan Cranston, Barbra Streisand and all the other celebrities who threatened/promised to move to Canada are still here. Hell, we can’t even get the Canadian-born whiners and haters (like Seth Rogen and Jim Carrey) to move back.

America didn’t complete the project of freedom on that broiling day in Philly, but that’s like saying your kid’s first day of school is no big deal because your kids can’t do algebra yet. On July 4, 1776, we began setting up the greatest opportunity for human flourishing the world has ever known, and our example continues to be the world’s beacon. The United States of America isn’t perfect. We’re merely the best.

As the man said: sometimes she breaks my heart. But I still can’t help but love her anyway. You may think me a gullible fool for that; you may be right about that, too. But I wish you all a joyous Independence Day just the same.

Update! Bryan Preston puts paid to all the whining about slavery:

Colin Kaepernick’s history teachers should be ashamed of themselves. They either failed to teach him real history, or they succeeded in indoctrinating him into a false political narrative. Either way, he was short-changed and missed out on one of history’s greatest stories. To associate the 1776 American flag with slavery is to miss the purpose and genius of the American Revolution.

The former football player turned well-paid corporate activist put the kibosh on a special edition Nike shoe because it sported the Betsy Ross flag on the heel. I’m sure you’ve heard that much. Kaepernick’s reason, which I’m sure you’ve also heard, is that in his mind the 1776-era American flag “represents an era associated with slavery.”

That’s so clueless it’s difficult to know where to start. Slavery was abhorrent and did exist in the colonial era, and for decades afterward. Slavery existed for millennia before there were any colonists in America, and unfortunately, it still exists now. Slavery did not solely exist in America in 1776. It was not uniquely American. And the American Revolution was not fought for or about slavery.

Know what I truly love about this, though? Moronic liberal killjoys have now put themselves in the position of protesting against the 4th of July, and trying to ruin everyone else’s enjoyment of it. Just another fine example of my “WE HATE YOU, VOTE FOR US!!” concept.

Party down update! How to do the Fourth right—and do right by the 4th, too.

Before you say, “I wish people would pay more respect for our nation on July 4th, rather than just lighting fireworks or getting drunk,” it might be useful to remember that George Washington celebrated the second anniversary of Independence Day by giving his soldiers extra rations of rum. If that’s not enough, here is what John Adams said about Independence Day in 1776, before the first one was even celebrated: “It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.”

I get as annoyed as anyone with people who seem to believe that the point of Memorial Day is swimming pools and mattress sales, or that the point of Christmas is shopping. But we are doing exactly the right thing by having as big a party, as John Adams first suggested in 1776. And if George Washington encouraged his soldiers to get a bit tipsy, what’s wrong with that?

Nothing. The real problem–the difference between us and George Washington & Co.–is that they knew what to do the other 364 days of the year.

Do we?

For just a moment, today, it might be wise to inject a drop of perspective into the froth of festivities (and beer), and consider what we should be doing to keep the spirit of 1776 alive. I think a good way to start is by recalling what George Washington suggested we do.

Read all of it.

MAKE DISHWASHERS GREAT AGAIN update! Modern America in microcosm.

In 1978, the average dishwasher only took an hour to wash plates, cups, and silverware. By 2014, the average time had increased to between 2 and 3 hours, despite advancements in technology. The culprit? Federal regulation. Yet on Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DOE) under Secretary Rick Perry granted a petition to consider new standards to make dishwashers great again. More than 2,000 Americans supported the petition, launched by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

What ails America, in one easy-to-understand graph:

AVG-DISHWASHER-TIMES.jpg

A grateful nation turns its weary eyes to Trump:

The Trump administration’s decision to act on CEI’s petition represents clear progress for consumer choice and America’s families. While the agency is not dropping the previous rules that forced manufacturers to slow down their dishwashers, the new rules will allow newer models that run more quickly by using more water and electricity.

“The DOE decision to add this new class of dishwashers will substantially expand the availability of dishwasher choices to the consumer,” Watkins told PJ Media on Wednesday. “Currently there are only two dishwasher regulatory standards, a compact and a standard dishwasher standard. This means most dishwashers are under a one-size-fits all limit that the amount of water and energy dishwashers use.”

“A change like the one DOE just granted could present substantial new options for consumers looking to get a dishwasher that can clean dishes quickly for consumers,” he added. Thanks to this new rule, “we have the potential to vastly improve the options to consumers to clean dishes quickly.”

As part of the consideration process, DOE published the proposed rule, allowing Americans to comment on it. A whopping 2,297 Americans commented on the rule, almost entirely praising it.

Another in a long, long list of unsung accomplishments that gives the lie to those who fond of complaining about his having achieved nothing of value. No, he ain’t perfect. Yes, there are important problems he hasn’t yet won out on or adequately addressed. BUT…has he lived up to my own expectations overall? Yep. Would I like to see him be more aggressive and confrontational? Absolutely. Do I see even one single other soul out there likely do better? No. Would I prefer one of the 27 Dwarves—or Egg McMuffin, or David French— in 2020? Not on your life.

Just keep slogging away at it, Mr President, and you’ll continue to have my support. After so many years of defeat and betrayal, I’ll take those small victories every time, thanks.

Share

Words of wisdom

Inspiring, uplifting…and, ultimately, depressing words from America’s greatest President.

Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.

…About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government—the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that “Democracy is Christ’s government.” The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.

On an occasion like this a great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever-broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp.

Silent Cal, they called him. But when Coolidge spoke, he said one hell of a lot, didn’t he? Every word a gem, too; that last ‘graph in particular is about as arresting as anything I’ve ever seen.

Share

Second look at Dunkin’ Donuts?

Having grown up where I did, I was always way more of a Krispy Kreme guy myself. Maybe I need to rethink some things.

The world famous doughnut maker Dunkin’, outraged that some franchises are not using the required E-Verify system to make sure its workers are documented, has moved to oust the owners and take over the restaurants.

According to several reports, the Massachusetts-based breakfast and lunch restaurant, which recently changed its name from Dunkin’ Donuts, has sued to stop those franchise owners from operating.

The most recent suits were filed in Delaware and Pennsylvania, “amid what appears to be a crackdown on franchisees employment verification practices,” according to Restaurant Business.

A post from Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, said, “Each of the lawsuits is similar. They each said that Dunkin’ reviewed employment verification documents and practices, found violations at the subject franchisee companies, terminated the operators’ franchise agreements and then swiftly moved to remove the franchisees from the restaurants.”

The doughnut, sandwich, and coffee firm has said it won’t comment on pending legislation.

Quietly doing the right thing without any fanfare, publicity-seeking, or chest-thumping over their superior morality: this right here is what proper corporate responsibility, ethics, and citizenship look like, people. Hats off to ’em, I say. If more American companies took Dunkin’s approach to E-Verify, our illegal-alien problem would rapidly be a thing of the past. If cake donuts ain’t your bag, you might at least consider dropping them a line expressing your support and thanks. I did.

Share

From Texas to Frisco in one simple step

Austin decides to go full Third Turd World.

Austin has long been the weird, liberal capital of Texas. The rest of Texas just sort of shrugs and puts up with it. Austin is quirky. Austin is odd. Austin lives in its own little world. Austin is also home to some of the best live music joints anywhere and you have to work pretty hard to find a bad restaurant in the city, so it’s not without its charms. The joke about Austin is that it’s nice because it’s so close to Texas (its the capital, a deep blue dot surrounded by a vast red sea). Austin is like that oddball cousin we all have. He’s there. He picks his nose and argues with light posts. But he’s nice and basically no threat to anyone, so whaddyagonnado?

Well, Texas’ weird cousin just became a threat to itself and others.

On June 20, the Austin city council passed what has to be one of the dumbest, most nonsensical ordinances since the city’s last idiotic, nonsensical ordinance (they pass a lot of ‘em, bless their hearts).

The city council made it perfectly legal to camp out on the city’s public spaces and sidewalks, under bridges and overpasses and, well, everywhere all over town – except, notably, parks and Austin City Hall.

That’s right. The city council exempted themselves from seeing homeless campouts — let’s call them Adlervilles, after the esteemed Mayor Steve Adler — on their own front porch. Mayor Adler and his cohort deemed city hall camping out of bounds. But you, owner of the local cookie store or overtaxed home, will get to see and step over and around all manner of things right out in your yard 24-7 now.

Fine. But why inflict this on homeowners, business owners and everyone but themselves? I’m not making this up. They claim it’s mean to issue tickets for running a clothesline off the Discount Tire store – which has actually already happened! That the tickets create a spiral out of which the homeless cannot escape. So it’s somehow better to issue tickets if you water your lawn at the wrong time, because Harry the Homeowner can actually pay the fine, but inhumane to keep the streets free of bedrolls and poop – a policy which in Los Angeles is giving rise to medieval disease. Only in the liberal mind does this make any sense.

Oh, I think we can take that bit about just who “can actually pay the fine” as more or less dispositive here. Not that the sanctimonious virtue-signalling isn’t worth some points as well, mind. Remember the eternal rule: for liberals, charity really does begin at home. Yours, not theirs.

Share

Dumpster fire

You win some, you lose some. Yes, even Trump.

This week’s big leak about a major Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation was orchestrated by acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan in an effort to sabotage the raids before they were scheduled to take place, according to three current and two former senior administration officials.

In a move he said was to placate Democrats, President Trump announced on Saturday that the nationwide immigration enforcement operation planned to start Sunday — aimed at migrant families who illegally remain in the country despite being denied asylum — was called off to give lawmakers two weeks to work on a plan to fix legal “loopholes” he said have enticed migrants to come to the U.S.

However, all five officials who spoke with the Washington Examiner confirmed McAleenan’s decision to go rogue and stymie the operation was what prompted the White House to call off the 10-city operation.

“That’s law enforcement sensitive information. You just don’t reveal that,” the second official said. “It gets people hyped up. It gets the NGOs activated, and then anyone wearing a jacket with the ICE name on it is really chastised. Cities are coming out saying, ‘Here’s how you can protect yourself against it.’”

That same official said the “worst” consequence of the leak, especially if it was directed by the department’s leader, was how it endangered personnel.

Despicable? Of course. Seditious? Indubitably. An outright criminal demonstration of just how far the unaccountable minions of the Deep State are willing to go to protect their prerogatives and power? Without question.

Surprising? Hardly. And of all the people likely to find themselves blindsided by such a scummy, slimy maneuver, is it unreasonable to assume one Donald J Trump might be one of the last? Not on your life.

Houston, we have a problem. A BIG one.

What do you think of Donald Trump appointing Kevin McAleenan as acting Secretary of Homeland Security?
He seems qualified, though It’s unsure where his political loyalties are. I’m concerned because he is an “Obama Holdover” who was well regarded by Lord Obama himself and recent CNN reports about him are not hate filled which scares me. The man could be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I think Trump was not as brutal as he should have been coming in to completely toss out any Obama holdovers and the results are internal opposition, extraordinary leaking, and loyalty only until a book deal can be made.

Regardless, it appears these moves have been in the works with Trump for weeks and McAleenan after all of that time he was appointed as “Acting “ Secretary which suggests he is not likely the first choice in a permanent replacement.

Of all the reasons one might be disappointed or disillusioned with Trump, his evident failure to recognize the threat to his agenda posed by these Obama stay-behinds is Numero Uno with a bullet as far as I’m concerned. And this is only the latest example, of WAY too many. I’ll let Liz Shield say it for me:

When are these leakers going to be hunted down and punished? Anyone who is leaking information from the White House needs to be discovered and punished severely. It’s dangerous to have unelected bureaucrats deciding to influence policy by trying to embarrass the administration. It’s Trump’s fault that he hasn’t smoked out these activists and fired them or put them in an office with nothing other than a crossword puzzle and a pencil. You can’t fire these dirtbags because of the ridiculous union “job protection” rules, but you can add civil service reform to the top of the list of issues Trump should have addressed on day one.

Come on, man. Trump has picked the worst people to work in the administration and the clowns he hasn’t picked were picked by the establishment Republican industry who are not on board with his agenda. What a dumpster fire.

Out of all the campaign promises he hasn’t for various reasons—some his fault, some beyond his control—managed to make good on, who woulda ever thunk Trump’s failure to “hire the best people” would have turned out to be the most consequential?

Trump better get a handle on this and start stomping some cockroaches toot fucking sweet, lest he suddenly find his house completely overrun and beyond salvage.

Share

Business as usual in the Clown World kakistocracy

One of Dov’s most toothsome rants.

We lugs don’t trust anyone in Washington, and we have kind-of figured out finally that the system is too unwieldy, too corrupt ever to fix. The Swamp, we now know, cannot be drained because it is not a marsh or everglade but an ocean of sludge filled with plastic straws, unrecyclable paper, Strzok-Page love notes, and 33,000 bleached messages about yoga and wedding dresses. The System betrays all. Half of us vote for a liberal like Clinton, only to be presented with an end to Welfare, a tough crime bill, and a dry-cleaning bill for a dress stain. At least he delivered Midnight Basketball. The other half of us, deep-rooted patriotic conservatives, vote for Republicans and end up with Justices like David Souter and Harry Blackmun, with wage and price controls, and with international “free-trade” agreements that all-but-destroy our steel and aluminum industries, while decimating our manufacturing. We elect Liberals who run on peace agendas, like Woodrow Wilson (“He Kept Us Out of War”) or JFK/LBJ who swear they will not allow a Goldwater to embroil us in military catastrophe, and we end up with our boys dying overseas in huge numbers in Vietnam. Or the other half of us go with our more conservative “America First” approach, and we end up with reckless adventurism aiming for regime change in the Arab Muslim world, based on the delusion that there beats in the heart-and-soul of every resident of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria a passion to actualize the writings of Rousseau, Locke, and Thoreau.

We watch our borders overrun brazenly, shamelessly. No control, with millions teeming to enter illegally, lecturing us: “We have a right to be here!” They could lecture us “Yankee Go Home!” but we cannot send them back? They don’t speak a word of English except the one sentence they have been taught by American Leftist activists to memorize: “I claim asylum because of well-founded fear of persecution based on my ethnicity, race, and religion. Para todas las demás preguntas, marque 2 por Español.” (For all other questions, dial 2 por Español.) We see the Democrats swear for decades to guard the border, build a wall, and protect the endangered lower economic class and African Americans from a swarm of cheap labor, until the Democrats figure out that the lower economic class and African Americans are in their pockets anyway, while the New Illegals actually turn Republican strongholds into Democrat states. So we turn to Republicans, who promise to fix the border. Next thing you know, the capitalist big business “Chambers of Commerce” are in cahoots with the Left, importing the same Illegals for cheap labor. We turn to Reagan for some conservative rugged patriotism and firm strength, and he grants universal amnesty to Illegals. Then Bush-the-First promises to be even kinder and gentler. Then Bush-the-Next decides that, since he has Spanish-speaking relatives who can pronounce “nookyuluh” as well as he can, we may as well let the Illegals keep coming in because, unknown to the Liberals, the Illegals all are small-business owners and all are devout Hispanic Catholics who are pro-life and anti-abortion like the Pope, pro-family, conservative Republicans at heart. And then Bush!-the-Last comes in, with Ana Navarro as his political advisor, telling us that we don’t want to keep the millions out because we are “better than that.”

So we elect Trump, who promises to deport 10 million Illegals, and we give him a Republican House and a Republican Senate, and we oust John Boehner for a new young dynamic GOP House Speaker who was the Vice Presidential nominee and conservative conscience of the losing Romney campaign, and that guy turns out to be Whatever. He gets his one “Budget Reconciliation” chance in a two-year legislative term to pass a budget that will build a border wall because that is the one bill every two years that does not require a filibuster-proof 60-vote Senate vote for passage, so it’s a piece of cake. And he “pulls a Bill Buckner” (rest his soul) and leaves it out. So even though the President proves to be a once-in-a-generation Transformational President who brashly eliminates swaths of economy-strangling regulations, who dramatically renegotiates one after another terrible international trade treaty, who fearlessly pulls out of cockamamie international fiascoes like the Iran Deal and the Paris Climate Nonsense, who moves the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and recognizes United Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal capital and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan, who directs laser-focused attention at the border crisis and tries one-after-another-after-another stratagem to deal with the morass, who waves a magic wand and resurrects a Dead Economy with bold tax cuts and even more determined deregulating and converts it into a blazing-hot engine, who reduces African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, and female unemployment to historic lows, who changes the face of the Supreme Court and nominates more than one hundred solid conservative federal district and appellate judges, who reimagines America’s energy-producing capabilities and converts America into a net exporter of energy and the world’s largest energy producer, who recalibrates the Veterans Administration and V.A. health care, who forces through a “Right to Try” initiative that allows Americans with perilous ailments access to cutting-edge medical research possibilities — despite all that, and so much more, the GOP House not only drops the ball but butt-fumbles.

No solutions or meaningful fixes to medical coverage, health care, and the mess exacerbated many times over by Obamacare. No solutions to the Southern Border national emergency. No groundbreaking ground-breaking infrastructure legislation. And so the American voters throw the bums out in 2018.

The Left Democrat districts were going to vote Democrat no matter what. The conservative Republican districts were going to vote GOP no matter what. But in 2018, Democrats targeted more moderate, though conservative-leaning swing districts, and they campaigned on promises. We will do it. We will fix health care. We will find a fix for the border. We will rebuild the infrastructure. The message and that promise won the day. The same moderate, conservative-leaning swing districts that repeatedly had given the Republicans control of the House for much of the past two decades switched over for a better way. They were promised an end to the old Obama-era shenanigans. No more Democrats Gone Wild. No more Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

We Promise.

Do I even need to tell you to read all of it?

Share

Demographics is NOT destiny?

It’s never wise to contradict Steyn, in my opinion. But this guy makes an encouraging case.

A special election is scheduled for September 10 in North Carolina’s 3rd Congressional District to replace former incumbent Walter Jones, the long-serving Republican who died earlier this year. The district is solidly Republican. Jones earned twice as many votes as his Democratic challenger in nearly every election since he first took office in 1995.

But the district is interesting for another reason, one that every Republican strategist in America should study. It is one of 47 congressional districts in the United States where, in the 2018 midterm elections, a majority of nonwhite voters were projected to vote Republican.

The following map, prepared by elections analyst Geoffrey Skelly at FiveThirtyEight, shows the congressional districts (red) where, if no one but nonwhite people voted, Republican candidates would still be likely to win.

It’s hard to overstate the significance of these 47 congressional districts. They belie the smug certainty on the part of Democratic politicians and strategists across the United States who equate the demographic transformation of America with an inevitable and unbreakable Democratic majority.

Take mass nonwhite immigration, higher birth rates for nonwhites, mix in identity politics and leftist, race-centric indoctrination against “white privilege,” and voila, America becomes a one-party state.

Or does it?

Interesting proposition for sure. I can neither agree nor disagree, honestly; Steyn’s old “demography is destiny” line is aimed more specifically at the disastrous mass influx of unassimilable Muslims into a Western culture they despise anyway, as is his related truism that “the future belongs to those who show up for it.”

But might it be possible, at least, that the Democrat-Socialist hail-Mary campaign to replace the American electorate with Mexican and Central American illegals might turn out to be futile? Has Trump shifted all the normal paradigms so significantly that this hoary old assumption, like so many others, also no longer holds?

Share

Do as they say, not as they do

Not in MY backyard.

Talk about great news for blue America. The left tells us that all immigration is good. More immigration is better. There is no distinction between legal and illegal varieties of immigration. If you disagree with any of this, you’re a white nationalist. That’s what they’ve said almost every day for the last two years.

And now, completely out of the blue, comes the man they despise most in the world, Donald J. Trump, offering them what they want more than anything: more immigrants, immediately, delivered right to their door at federal expense. It must have been like Christmas morning.

But that’s not how they responded. The left wasn’t happy about Trump’s offer. They were shocked and enraged. You know what this is, they said? It’s dumping. The headline on Mother Jones read, “Donald Trump Wanted to Dump Asylum Seekers on Streets of Democratic Cities.” In the view of The Daily Beast’s Harry Siegel, “The White House wanted to dump refugees in sanctuary cities.” He called that idea “nasty.” At the same time, almost simultaneously, both CNN and MSNBC ran headlines accusing the White House of wanting to “dump” migrants into cities.

What’s the message here? Immigrants are trash? If you wanted to defile someone’s pristine city, you’d “dump” immigrants on it? Hmm. That sounds a little … searching for the word here … racist — a lot racist, actually. But Nancy Pelosi agrees with it. She immediately issued a statement: “The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated. Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.”

But that doesn’t really make sense. How can the presence of immigrants “perpetuate fear?” San Francisco is a sanctuary city. It subverted federal law in the hope more illegal immigrants would come. Now they may be coming, and San Francisco is upset.

Well, say the news anchors, Trump’s plan is illegal. There’s a process. Really? Did the people of Lewiston, Maine, or Hazleton, Pennsylvania — and countless other places across the country — take part in a process when massive groups of refugees were moved to their cities? But when you try to do that to the city where Pelosi lives, it’s supposedly “illegal.” This is getting confusing.

Let’s make it easier. Here’s a list of neighborhoods that could use some immediate refugee resettlement. These are affluent places. They are politically liberal. As a matter of policy and conviction, they love illegal immigrants; they just don’t really have any yet. Let’s change that. 

OHHH, let’s. This was one of Trump’s very best ideas, although admittedly it’s also probably the one with the least likelihood of his ever being allowed to actually do it. In hindsight, I’d bet Trump knows that too, and only brought it up at all to call attention to the staggering, balls-out chutzpahcrisy of the Democrat-Socialist “diversity” pimps. Once again, he called them out and exposed them for the brazen frauds they are—fobbing PC disaster off on the hated Normals that they’d never for one second tolerate in their own walled, gated, and guarded neighborhoods.

He not only called the pious shitlibs on their “sanctuary city” bullshit; he rubbed their noses in it, smeared them all over with it, and made complete fools out of them. No, he didn’t get it done, more’s the pity. But that wasn’t gonna happen anyway, and he still managed to score big with it nonetheless. Maybe the man really IS playing 4D chess here, huh?

Share

Senator Tom Cotton wins the Innarnets!

Economic power as weapon.

There’s a troubling trend among giant corporations using this wealth and power to force liberal dogma on an unwilling people. As liberal activists have lost control of the judiciary, they’ve turned to a different hub of power to impose their views on the rest of the country. This time it’s private power, located in a few mega-cities on the coasts.

And that’s not an exaggeration. The overwhelming majority of companies that lashed out against the pro-life movement in that New York Times ad are headquartered on the coasts, hoping to rule the rest of us like colonies in the hinterlands. More than three-quarters are headquartered in New York or California alone. More than a dozen are foreign companies. Yet those same companies presume to tell all of America what we should think.

And for some reason, this outrage only seems to go in one direction. As states like Arkansas have passed pro-life laws, other states have sadly gone down a different path, stripping unborn children of recognition and protection under the law. States like New York, Illinois, and Vermont recently passed laws declaring abortion a “fundamental right,” accessible until moments before birth for practically any reason as long as you have a doctor’s note.
We’ve already begun to see the consequences of these laws, which strain so mightily to defy and deny the humanity of the unborn. In New York City, prosecutors recently dropped a charge of abortion against a man who brutally stabbed to death his girlfriend and her unborn child. They dropped that charge because the pro-abortion law that had just passed the legislature in Albany removed all criminal penalties for killing an unborn child. According to the laws of New York State, that woman’s child never existed.

Pro-abortion laws passed in New York, Illinois, Vermont, and elsewhere truly deserve the label “radical.” So why isn’t the national media covering these radical laws with the intensity they’ve reserved for states like Georgia? Where are the indignant CEOs who profess to care so much for their female employees? Nowhere to be found, because their outrage is very selective. They don’t speak for the majority of Americans, much less for women. Instead, they’re actively trying to force a pro-abortion agenda on an unwilling public.

These companies want to wield a veto power over the democratic debate and decisions of Arkansans and citizens across our country. They want to force the latest social fashions of the coasts on small towns they would never visit in a million years. They want us to betray our deeply held beliefs about life and death, in favor of a specious account of “equality.” If there’s one thing the New York Times ad got right, it’s that “the future of equality hangs in the balance” when it comes to abortion. But their idea of equality doesn’t include everyone: it omits and degrades unborn babies as expendable, lesser than, even “bad for business.” That’s a strange kind of equality, if you ask me.

Nailed it, clean and tight. Humble thanks to Ace for so generously providing that transcription for us, bless his coal-black heart. His own remarks, wherein he moots the idea of shareholder lawsuits against the CEOs of these WOKE! corporations, are as always worth a look:

Now, most such suits are over stuff like corporate charity but those suits don’t work because of the very malleable concept of “goodwill.” If a corporation thinks that donating to Planned Parenthood buys it more goodwill, it’s within the corporate charter (as increasing goodwill is always or almost always permitted as a basic function of business).

HOWEVER, moves that alienate half the country, threaten states, BOYCOTT entire states, etc., do not increase goodwill. They decrease it.

Also, I’m 99% sure they don’t run polls about this stuff to determine if such a move would increase goodwill or not. I think I know that because I know a guy who does consulting and was asked about this sort of issue, asked by the CEO of a MAJOR, MAJOR corporation for advice (because he thought all the liberal marketing department people and mid-level managers were just telling them their Get Trump opinion, not necessarily reflective of popular opinion).

How major a corporation? Well, one of the blue chips.

Anyway, he started to do a study, and so began looking for previous studies on this sort of issue for a background and template for his own study.

His findings? THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ACTUAL STUDY OR POLL DONE ON A CORPORATE POLITICAL POSITIONING MOVE. N-E-V-E-R.

His was the first.

Corporations just make these decisions based on the personal political preferences of the officers and board, and their vague “feels.”

True enough, but my guess is even that ain’t the whole story. These corporations—many of them headquartered in urban liberal citadels like NYC—are not ony acting in accord with their executives’ personal political leanings, but are also responding to the loud, shrill demands of Proggie activists—who have more than adequately demonstrated their willingness to launch protests cum riots at the very doorstep of those corporate HQs, complete with threats, human chains blocking main entrances, plus the usual assorted piss-and-shit-flinging, sabotage, and senseless, random violence.

The Left has long been the squeaky wheel, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And when that greasing is in harmony with corporate leadership’s own political preferences anyway—and when they also know that conservatives/Normals/whatever are unlikely in the extreme to make things as uncomfortable for them as they already know the Left will—well, just what would be the downside for the CEOs here?

It always boils down to the same old thing in the end, doesn’t it? The comfortably-numb Right, accustomed through long habit of passively accepting defeat after defeat, must find a way to rile itself up enough to start directly confronting the Left—ALL of the Left, from individual political-street-theater performers right up to corporate malefactors who must be forced to make a choice as to whether their business is, y’know, the business they’re in, or politics. Until that happens, the Right must resign itself to being antagonized, harrassed, attacked, and ignored.

Share

Unclear and confuscated

Obligatory disclaimer: yes, it’s the Bee, and I do know it’s satire. Or, as their new subscription-solicitation box pronounces: “Fake news you can trust, delivered straight to your inbox.”

And yes, I signed up for it.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a special session called to order Friday, Congress voted unanimously to do a complete overhaul of Father’s Day, renaming the holiday “Toxic Masculinity Awareness Day” and redefining the day’s meaning to encourage citizens to heap shame and disgust on all fathers, current or potential.

Americans across the country excitedly prepared to celebrate the updated holiday designed to shame fathers and all things masculine as the weekend approached.

“It was just time,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, citing the high numbers of depression and anxiety among men as “a good sign things are progressing in the right direction, but we still have a lot of work to do before all men, everywhere do the right thing and hate themselves with the appropriate level of vehemence.” The new initiative seeks to have all men wailing in the streets in sackcloth and ashes, flagellating and weeping with shame and regret for their harmful, problematic masculinity.

The rewritten holiday guidelines suggest cancelling any gift orders for cigars or plans to take dad out for steak and instead sitting dad on the floor in the living room and repeatedly shaming him for being part of the problem, saying things like “Take that money you were going to spend on a beard trimmer and instead donate it to women’s rights.” The government also established an associated website, ToxicFathersDay.gov, where you can download a free card to give your father that reads, “This isn’t your day any more. Do better.”

Okay, I THINK it’s satire. Maybe not; it’s so hard to tell these days, and attaching that “statement” to Paul RINO ain’t helping to keep the lines clear either. Here, let’s try another one.

U.S.—While everyone has a mother–a necessity in every family for raising and providing for the children–there is a second type of parent some people have called a “father.” It is unknown what purpose this seemingly vestigial parent provides, but today is a holiday known as Father’s Day, where the existence of fathers is acknowledged even if their purpose is unknown.

There had been concerns in the past that fathers actually were harmful to families because of their toxic masculinity, but that masculinity has been tamed in recent years. Now they’re relatively harmless and can help with chores around the house–though usually only under tight supervision, as they’re not very good at them–and can occasionally watch the children–though this again can cause trouble, as they often irritate the children with bad jokes.

While no one recommends having a father, if you know of one, today is the day to tell him, “There you are.” Scientists expect fathers to completely disappear in the next few decades, though, as they’re replaced with an automated device that can both kill spiders and say, “Nice to meet you, Hungry.”

Yep, I think it’s satire. I THINK.

Know what the real problem with the Bee is, though? Every danged time I look in over there I wind up wanting to excerpt EVERYthing here. They just suck me right in every time, and whenever I find myself immersed therein it’s so enjoyable that I don’t want to come back out again.

Update! Exhibit A in support of that last ‘graph of mine.

Covert Navy SEAL Team Really Starting To Regret Wearing These Pride Month Uniforms
RAQQA, SYRIA—A Navy SEAL Team recently expressed regret in showing support for Pride Month after their new uniforms gave away their position in a covert operation to infiltrate an ISIS stronghold. Seal Captain James McKeever says they endured heavy gunfire after the little rainbow flags poking up off of their shoulder area drew the enemy’s attention. “The whole mission was a bust. We barely made it out alive.”

The SEAL team is now being investigated for hate speech after expressing such clearly unpatriotic and anti-gay opinions. “To refuse to wear a bright, rainbow-covered frog suit on a covert ops mission is the definition of anti-gay bias,” said investigator Janice Gillespie. “They will be duly reprimanded.”

See? You SEE what I mean, dammit?

Updated update! An incredibly moving Father’s Day tribute that is DEFINITELY not satirical.

The men of 8th Company were much older now and not as lean as the men — boys, really — who appeared in the photos from 1950-51. Most carried extra weight around the middle, had the leathery skin that came with years of overexposure to the sun, and old tattoos that had purpled with age on biceps and calves that were not as hard and chiseled as they once were — but you didn’t try to tell them that. Like old athletes, they spoke with as much bravado as ever.

I had to smile. It had been my privilege to be raised in the company of such men. They could be profane and the jokes were always off-color. They were, to a man, hard-drinking and chain-smoking. They incessantly complained about the army and were fiercely proud of their part in it. Ornery and ready to fight each other, they were nonetheless ready to die for each other, too. Their vices were ever near the surface and yet, I cannot imagine where America would be without their kind.

I was 20 years old and sat silently watching and listening as I so often did when my father swapped war stories with other veterans. But this time it was different. These weren’t just any veterans; these were the men with whom he had shed blood. This would be his last reunion and it was important to him that I be there. As the son of an 8th Company Ranger, I was, like other sons, an honorary member of this very exclusive club and therefore allowed to participate on the periphery of their banter — and fetch them beer. Lots of beer. Ranger reunions were impossible without beer. And with middle-aged men, that meant frequent trips to the bathroom.

With my father away for a moment on just that sort of mission, one of his old buddies leaned in as if to tell me a secret:

“If any man was ever born to be a soldier, it was your father. Some men have an instinct for the battlefield, and he damn sure did. Absolutely the best shot I ever saw. Could hit flies at a hundred yards. And, man, he was fearless…”

My father, returning, rolled his eyes: “That’s bulls–t, Mike. I was as afraid as any man.”

He turned to me. “It’s as I’ve told you before, son, a man who is truly fearless will get you killed. There’s something wrong with him. His instincts don’t tell him to be afraid when he should be. You want a man on point who wants to stay alive just like you do and whose senses are telling him ‘something’s not right here’ when there’s reason to believe you’re walking into an ambush. Now Mike here, was a helluva point man…” This was all very typical. They extolled each other’s battlefield heroics, but not their own.

All of these men dealt with the psychological wounds of war whether they ever received a Purple Heart or not. My mother tells me that my father suffered from hideous nightmares to the day he died, a recurring one being that he had fallen into a thinly covered mass grave full of bodies in a state of decomposition. Though he fights to climb out over the bodies, the rotten flesh slides off the bones as he grips them and their flesh remained on him for days until he could bathe, a luxury not afforded to men behind enemy lines. Though he would never say, she thinks the nightmare reflected an actual occurrence. I wager all of these men had nightmares of war.

Years later, as he lay on his deathbed delirious from the heavy doses of morphine, he returned to the battlefield. I will never forget his words, a command shouted with urgency and authority: “Cover the left flank! Cover the left flank! Move! Move! Move!” The order was repeated along with something about laying down suppression fire. Whatever the battle he was in, he was reliving it and he was determined to hold the line. In that moment, I prayed that the Lord would take him. He was suffering the horror of war all over again.

The next afternoon, his chest, heaving and belabored for days, relaxed and the air left his lungs in one long sigh. My father was dead.

Trust me when I assure you that you absolutely MUST read all of this. Keep the hankies close at hand when you do. And wonder where we ever found such men, and whether we’ll ever see their like again. Pray to God that we do; sooner or later, as surely as the Sun rises, we’re going to need them.

Share

Bull in a China shop

Elite Street versus Main Street.

America’s bull is loose in the China shop. President Trump has set in place a confrontation with China over that nation’s trade infractions. The shop’s elite patrons are in paroxysms, while Main Street presses their nose to the glass to watch the show. That two groups could see such different things in the same occurrence is the crux of American politics today.

For decades, Main Street America has felt the effect of the elite’s prevailing trade approach. Elites therefore cannot directly oppose Trump in attacking China; they are left only with the cursory response that they would pursue it in a better way — despite never having bothered to do so.

China’s mercantilist approach is nothing new. In Asia, Japan, and then Korea, earlier used this developmental approach. In America, a different segment of Main Street suffered each time.

The economic throwback of mercantilism seems quaint to America’s elites — its beneficiaries — but cruel to its victims — Main Streets. Undoubtedly, the elite’s perception would have been very different had China been flooding America’s markets with lawyers instead of leggings.

America is democratic to a fault. Today’s elite brands it demagogic. However, it predates America’s revolutionary origin. After, Tocqueville eloquently documented it. We have a long-held love of satirizing the elite — from the Three Stooges running roughshod through a mansion, to the Marx Brothers demolishing an opera.

For Main Street, Trump has imbued America’s innate love of such high jinks with a sense of high justice: “It is about time.” There is no little element of payback here. This is why Trump has bulled into so many china shops — NAFTA, trade with the EU and Japan, immigration — not just China. And, why so many have enjoyed watching him go.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding in American politics. The elite believe Main Street cannot see there is a bull in the china shop, or do not understand the damage he will cause. For Main Street’s part, they see and understand perfectly — and it is precisely where they want him. The real issue separating elites from Main Streets is not about where the bull is, but whose ox is being gored.

This one’s an enjoyable read, full of amusing lines that make some seriously insightful points in an almost comic way.

Share

Reconstitution

Clown nose OFF.

Conservatives must realize that in terms of creed and culture, we are past the point of no return. It’s time for an offensive strategy.

That subhed slams a drum I’ve been banging on myself for years now. Onwards.

From my vantage, it seems as if we are already living in a hollowed-out shell of a once-great nation where there is diminishing allowance for dissent—and, therefore, diminishing possibilities for recourse. Conservatives have not met the challenge. Whether to Huntington’s standards or to Kesler’s, they have decidedly failed in the “republican task.”

If, in the early 2000s, Americans were concerned for the viability of a society wherein broken families and communities were becoming the norm, we seem to accept one now where brokenness is the norm—and our elites, at least, have just stopped pretending to care. We now reside in a kind of bizarro-land, or, as some in my generation have termed it, “clown world.”

“Clown world” is one of the of the most striking memes to emerge in the realm of online political commentary lately. Like any spicy meme, it has been copied and edited by countless different groups, including some vile ones. But its reach is the product of a simple, philosophically devastating message. “Clown world” is used to describe instances of abasement that at any other point in history, to any person of dignity, would be regarded as incomprehensibly evil or stupid—so outrageous that they must be a joke. State-enforcedsexual transition hormones for children! Drag queen story hour! Voting rights for terrorists! This is Aristophanes with a shot of Nietzsche.

The next line is so damned sweet it makes my few remaining teeth ache.

The resistance to insist on the American way, for no other reason than it is ours and that this is reason enough, has resulted in the Right’s effectual acceptance of the Left’s constantly moving goalposts of woke sensibility.

MMMMMMMMyeah; cleanup in Aisle Mypants, please. Onwards ag’in.

In other words, conservatism gave up on culture. So afraid was the Right of charges of identity-based discrimination that they gradually ceded the whole symbolic, moral, and linguistic ground to the Left, relegating themselves to the “objective” realms of economy and war.

But conservative pundits continued to emphasize disembodied principles. They delayed action. They forwent dignity for the libertine. And as nascent clown world found no substantial pushback from their supposed enemies, it metastasized into a public dogma—an evisceration and replacement of both American culture and creed.

No more. The (“small”-r) republican task should no longer be played as a game of liberal one-upmanship with progressives. What we now face is a culture and a creed subverted beyond recognition. Treating any of its distorted major features as something to be conserved would be like applying makeup to a rotting corpse.

I’d love to excerpt a lot more of this, but I’ll back off now and insist—nay, demand—that you go read all of it. Trust me, you’ll like it. Excellent work, Ms Yang.

Update! Codevilla ponders whether there can even BE a conservative resistance in the first place.

#TheResistance began as an attempt by Clinton and her staffers to explain why their unexpected electoral defeat had to be illegitimate. It burgeoned quickly into rejection of rule by voters because so many on the Left and in the ruling class rallied to it, having already decided that ordinary Americans have no right to stand in their way.

Clinton’s characterization of Trump voters as “deplorables” and “irredeemables” and Barack Obama’s description of rural Republican voters as “clingers” to Bibles, guns, and racism, has long been ruling-class conventional wisdom. This attitude is what crossed the threshold of revolution.

Because the Resistance succeeded so well in limiting the impact of the 2016 election, it solidified the Left and the ruling class’s sense of common identity and entitlement. Henceforth, the bureaucracies, the educational establishment, the judges, the corporate establishment and the media will continue to impose themselves, regardless of conservative election victories or laws, never mind the Constitution. This attitude is not the result of a policy decision, but the expression of an evolving identity.

That last line is the truly important bit: it confirms that those who still hold out hope of the Left “coming to their senses” or backing off in any way, shape, or form from their seditious lunacy are kidding themselves. For Proggy, “the political is personal”; politics has been elevated to unchallenged dominance over every least aspect of Progressivist lives, and they will never countenance any less of a commitment from the rest of us. Which brings up another burning question:

Question For Bernie: What Happens To Those Who Don’t Want To Join Your Commune?

Easy: the gulags, the Killing Fields, the Holodomor, Siberia, Auschwitz. The same thing that always happens, in other words.

Much like Hillary Clinton feeling the need to reintroduce herself to voters multiple times, Bernie Sanders has decided to tell us again exactly what democratic socialism is. Maybe the need for so much explaining indicates that voters know what DemSoc is and want no part of it.

Naahh; only the sane, well-informed ones, that’s all.

The big question that never gets addressed regarding these and other “explanations” of socialism is: Why do the self-identified “democratic socialists” feel it’s OK to force those who’d rather be free into their collective?

Because they’re smarterer than we are, being “experts” who are way more qualified than we’ll ever be to make the correct choices. They’ll decide what “correct” is; your input will be neither sought nor permitted, thanksverymuch.

The system Sanders wants to force on this country of ostensibly free people requires more coercion than that which we are already under. Without force, both real and threatened, socialist systems cannot work. They require governments to take from some and give to others. Its subjects are obligated to participate.

Feature. Not bug.

If Americans learn nothing else about socialism, they should at least know this. “The goal of socialists,” writes William L. Anderson, “is socialism — not prosperity.” In other words, the objective is to use promises of abundance and a better life to do nothing more than amass raw political power.

Precisely so. Now, with the desperate necessity of mounting an effective resistance to such horrors thus established, back to Codevilla we go.

The conservative resistance would have to be organized, openly as a revolution, by national-level political leaders, whose credible voices could not be silenced. This resistance would have two assets: state-local government backed by the people, and economic boycotts.

But rallying the deplorables would have to overcome the natural conservative reluctance to acknowledge that the Republic of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the republic of “all men are created equal,” is beyond our capacity now to restore. It must be understood that it needs instead to be reasserted anew.

The ruling class, unwilling to loosen its grip on America, will appeal to “the rule of law,” use its control of the bureaucracy to cut funds, its control of the media to intimidate, and might even send some federal agents to give substance to that intimidation. They might point guns. But knowing what they are up against, they dare not shoot.

America has already come apart. The conservative resistance can conserve only one of those parts.

Fine and dandy; only one part was ever worth conserving anyway. The other one can rot, its denizens and promoters to be remanded—by force, surrounded by walls and armed guards a la Escape From New York, if necessary—into their crumbling urban Thunderdomes so as to savor the fruits of their ideological “victory” to the absolute fullest.

Or we could just, y’know, shoot them all and be done with it.

Share

School daze

A forgotten past will bury the ignorant.

Many of us do not know that senators were originally chosen by the state legislatures—and this change was made not that long ago. In 1913, around the beginning of the Progressive Era, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution tossed aside this critical feature of the Framers’ design, replacing it with the direct election of senators we have today.

The Founders would certainly have opposed the 17th Amendment because they would have understood that it would throw the system they gave us completely out of balance, as it, in fact, has done. It was perhaps the single change that would do the most to undo what the Founders had accomplished by means of the Constitution.

Hrrmmm; “…around the beginning of the Progressive Era,” you say? Must be a coincidence.

The Senate was once a barrier to the passage of federal laws infringing on the powers reserved to state governments, but the Senate has abandoned that responsibility under the incentives of the new system of election. Because the state governments no longer have a powerful standing body representing their interests within the federal government, the power of the federal government has rapidly grown at the expense of the states. State governments increasingly are relegated to functioning as administrative units of today’s gargantuan central government.

The Founders would say we no longer have a federal system, that the 17th Amendment in effect overthrew the 10th Amendment. Here is the 10th: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The 10th has become a dead letter. Instead of retaining many of their powers and responsibilities as the Framers intended, the states are more and more entangled in administering federal programs and in carrying out federal mandates. These mandates are often not even funded by the federal government; the costs of unfunded mandates fall on the states.

The many new departments of the federal government that have accumulated in Washington, D.C. during the Progressive Era in which you and I now live, such as Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, involve themselves in, and even direct, functions the Framers left to the states.

Direct election of U.S. senators undermined this critically important protection of liberty. The erosion of Americans’ individual liberty that has resulted is no doubt the most important consequence of the change. Many of our troubles today are self-inflicted, the result of us forgetting how the Founders’ system was designed to work and the unwise changes we have made because of our forgetting.

This ignorance is no more coincidental than the insidious 17th; it was painstakingly wrought according to a plan spelled out by a whole Progressivist pantheon of treacherous villains like Alinsky, Gramsci, and Marcuse, among many others. The doom it foreshadows is a feature, not a bug. And don’t think for a minute they’re done yet, either.

Tragically, because of our forgetting, we may be on the verge of making another mistake like the one Americans made in 1913. There is a powerful movement afoot to get rid of the Electoral College, an essential constitutional safeguard of American liberty.

As you know, each state is allotted as many electoral votes as it has senators and members of the House of Representatives. To become president of the United States, one must win election state by state. Eliminating the Electoral College and electing the president by direct vote, as the progressives are determined to do, would transform the office. Its occupant would in effect become the president of the Big Cities of America, and the last vestiges of autonomy guaranteed to the individual states by the Constitution’s electoral system would be swept away.

One more time: NOT by accident, NOT coincidence. Doubt that? Don’t.

The near sole purpose of present-day academia is indoctrination. This is a fairly bold thesis, but the evidence is in its favor.

A “bold thesis”? Really? It’s nothing more nor less than established, incontrovertible fact, seems to me, but YMMV. Onwards.

The increasingly progressive leftist agenda is sweeping through academia and conservatives are passively watching it happen.

The main indoctrination stories you hear are those of radical professors on college campuses, outlandish majors created to forward social justice movements, and, on occasion, a political outburst by a high school teacher.

Although these issues need addressing, by far the biggest – and the one that should scare everyone the most – is the silent indoctrination.

Indoctrination is no longer dependent upon the political beliefs of teachers. We are now past that. Course material is blatant political propaganda. Not just the course material for gender studies and similar. The core curricula of grade school through college.

I completed my first two years of high school at Oxbridge Academy, a private school in south Florida. My last two years at were at Laurel Springs, an online private school. This gave me a whole new perspective on bias in academia.

Although I had teachers and access to tutors, I seldom interacted with either. I thought removing interaction with an individual would reduce if not eradicate bias.

I was very, very wrong.

The removal of an instructor allowed me to see just how biased course materials are. And the discussion boards with fellow students showed me just how unaware of this others were. Unless you are involved with politics to a degree, it can be easy to miss politically motivated material.

The lack of political education in combination with the demand that students trust their textbooks as reliable sources allows the left to silently indoctrinate students.

She includes some truly appalling examples from actual textbooks that ought to be deeply shocking—but aren’t. Not anymore. Which is in itself a big problem. Bottom line:

Conservatives once laughed at radical campus politics, imagining that upon impact with the “real world,” blue-haired social justice warrior activists would have to grow up and confront the hard realities of the capitalist marketplace. Instead, what’s becoming increasingly clear is that academic leftism is metastasizing off-campus, spreading into some of the world’s largest corporations as well as institutions of culture, with graduated millennial employees as its carriers.

While the right wrestles with how to deal with big technology companies’ hostility to conservative voices on their platforms, the source of that enmity goes mostly unremarked upon: Google’s highly credentialed workforce has roughly the personal politics of a faculty lounge. Regrettably, universities don’t live up to the Las Vegas adage–what begins on campus definitely does not stay there. It spills over into every aspect of our broader culture, from complaints about actors not precisely matching the intersectionality profile of the characters they portray, to the leftward tilt of America’s corporations.

Say it with me: NOT coincidence. NOT by accident. They’re working a plan…and the plan is working.

Share

“Why is San Francisco such a mess?”

Sorry for going dark most of this week, folks. Been spending all my time trying to work out a deal on an old beater car, having been without for two months now—which definitely cramps a Door Dash-driver’s style, as one would imagine—due to a bunch of crap I ain’t gonna get into now. So, laying all that troyerik mishegoss aside, let’s clear out a few open tabs, shall we?

Lemme see, lemme see, what do we have lying around here…oh, this one looks like it could be fun.

Sooner or later, every San Franciscan is going to have to answer this question: Why is the best city in the world such a mess?

Meanwhile, everyone else is asking: Why—San Francisco inarguably being the shit-strewn Third World mess that we all know it to be—do some people there cling so desperately to the delusional conceit that it’s still somehow “the best city in the world”?

The Washington Post is the latest to be on San Francisco’s case. It was once the Paris of the West. Now it’s “Too homogenous, too expensive, too tech, too millennial, too white, too elite, too bro.”

Too complicated, too desperatively evasive, when all they had to say was: too liberal, for too long—a conclusion based on an Everest of real-world evidence provided by every other urban shithole in America run for the last five or six decades by liberals.

And everyone knows it. I heard from a woman who was one of the neighbors when I lived on 21st Avenue, years ago. She was a kid then and played with my daughters on the sidewalk — jump rope, games like that. “This is not the city I grew up in,” she wrote. “I will never come back.”

You hear that a lot from expatriate San Franciscans. They moved out for a hundred good reasons, but a lot of us loyalists stayed with the city. We still like the city — the feel of it, the small-town nature of San Francisco, the neighborhood restaurants, the corner stores, the nutty vitality of the place.

A lot of those nuts readily to be found right on the streets, if you don’t mind sorting through the stuff they’re embedded in. Kernels of corn too, I bet.

True confession: first West Coast tour time the band did way back in the mid-90s, I myself absolutely LOVED SF. I had a couple of friends there who showed me around some; the three or four Bay Area (one was in Oakland, I believe) shows we did were very well-attended and received, too. Overall, I had a great time there. I still consider it the single most beautiful city I ever did see, although I was quite surprised to find so many of the people I encountered to be stiff, prickly, standoffish assholes—this, at a time when I’d been living in New York City for several years already, supposedly the world’s capital of Rude. Not so, folks; SF was WAAAAY worse, to my great shock and disappointment.

But this is no little “cable cars climbing halfway to the stars” view of the city. People who have lived here for a long time can see clearly what’s wrong with the city. But it’s San Francisco. It’s like a romance gone awry. It’s complicated.

No, it isn’t; much as you might like to think it to be, it really, really isn’t. It’s liberal governance, producing the exact same results it does any and everywhere it’s tried.

To cope with these problems, the citizens have continued to elect weak city governments, all built on compromise and deals with competing pressure groups. At City Hall everybody is responsible for everything and nobody is responsible for anything.

Another perfectly-typical, Mark-1 Mod-0 hallmark trait of liberal governance, which is never anythink like as weak as it needs to be.

To make a complex problem worse, the city has so many rules and regulations that it has become nearly impossible to build anything.

Ahem. Typical. Hallmark. Etc. Problem NOT complex. Problem very, very simple. It’s beginning to seem jaw-droppingly incredible to me that even this poor schlub can remain oblivious to it. But now we get to the truly pitiful part.

The Washington Post is right. It’s too too. So why do we loyalists stay? Why don’t we cash out, sell our modest homes for a million bucks and buy a mansion in Broken Bow, Neb.?

It’s the people you find here. People like Fran Martin and Anne Seeman and their neighbors, who turned a neglected eyesore in an out-of-the-way neighborhood into a 6-block-long showplace called the Visitacion Valley Greenway. People like Nancy Windesheim and Joan Carson, who headed an effort to repair and landscape a one-block section of Esmeralda Avenue in Bernal Heights and turn it into a small treasure, complete with a children’s slide.

OOOOH, A SLIDE? Woooo-weee, that there’s some high-class living right there, you betcher. Why, out here in Benighted Ign’ernt Knuckledragger Hell, you only ever come across one of them thar fancy slidey-board thingies at, oh, EVERY FUCKING SCHOOL, PARK, AND PUBLIC PLAYGROUND YOU HAPPEN PAST. Usually more than just one of ’em, actually. Yes, such things are a good bit less rare than hen’s teeth to us hicks from the sticks. Only ’round these parts, you don’t have to worry about the big, steaming pile of fresh-cranked wino turd you’ll find yourself deposited face-first in at the end of the ride. That would seem to be a feature exclusive to these urban liberal utopias the poor souls trapped therein tell themselves we’re all so very envious of.

There are other people with smaller visions who built community gardens all over the city; the neighbors who put in a kids’ swing just off San Jose Avenue.

Waitwaitwaitwait: do you seriously mean to tell me that in addition to a slide, SF also boasts A SWINGSET TOO BESIDES? I can’t believe it. I WON’T believe it.

Many of these people are not native San Franciscans pining for the good old days and complaining about how the city has gone to the dogs, dammit.

They moved here because they saw something special in this place. They did a lot of work to make San Francisco better. Not just talk. Hard work.

And in return, got the same payoff doled out by liberal governance everywhere, every time: a stinking bag of shit. Just remember folks: what they’ve done for SF, they can damned sure do for you too. And fully intend to, whether you like it or not.

Share

Another day, another win

Why no, I’m NOT tired of it yet.

President Donald John Trump once again roped the dopes in the media with his Mexican tariffs.

Like Wile E. Coyote thumbing through the Acme catalog, they knew better but gave into their worst impulses.

To be sure, President Trump was deadly serious about the imposition of tariffs.

But he also knew he would not have to.

President Trump had the battle won the instant he tweeted tariff. The Mexican government did not bother putting up a fight. The words were kind and diplomatic, and the capitulation was swift and painless.

The government seized the money of human traffickers, sent thousands of its National Guardsmen to its southern border, and agreed to stop the caravans.

But the political side also had a success as President Trump watched his critics throw their grenades — into telephone wires that shot the grenades right back at them.

National Review’s editors huffed and puffed, “The president here is unnecessarily complicating his own life. He has just overseen the successful renegotiation of NAFTA, which will be reconstituted as the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). But that agreement has not yet been ratified — not by the United States, and not by Mexico. Imposing punitive tariffs over a policy dispute unrelated to trade five minutes after negotiating a new trade pact makes the Trump administration — and the United States — look like an unreliable negotiating partner. Mexico is not wrong to resent it, and even Trump allies such as Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) are against him on this.

“Also, it’s a good rule of thumb to fight one trade war at a time. If the administration, correctly, wants to focus on China’s malign trade practices — and not just during the current dispute but over the long term — it needs good trading relationships with its allies, especially here in North America.”

Who knew there was a rule of thumb on trade wars?

Y’know, you’d think #NeverTrumpTards, having been wrong every damned time about every damned thing, would be getting tired of all the losing already. And now, after having shrieked their throats raw and bloody in indignation over the abominable, inhuman atrocity of tariffs, they find themselves looking at yet another piping-hot, jumbo-sized platter of delicious crow on the menu. It still comes down to the same thing I’ve always said it would: Trump The Disruptor.

Democrats and their allies in the media continually bemoan President Trump breaking long-standing political norms. They still seem unwilling to grasp one of the central tenets of the 2016 movement that led to his election. Yes, accepted practices and “norms” of Washington worked well for apparatchiks of the administrative state and their crony allies among big business and K Street influencers. But this crooked system failed miserably to enhance the well-being of millions of working-class Americans who therefore chose, very knowingly, to send an agitator to Washington, D.C.

President Trump has been particularly forceful in breaking protocol and bucking conventional Beltway wisdom in the international arena. For example, he scuttled our participation in the unfair Paris climate accord. He also successfully shamed NATO partners into paying their proper share of the alliance’s defense burden. In international trade, he demands reciprocity and honest dealings from China, a country that has serially abused America for decades. 

Trump also smartly confronted Mexico over its inaction regarding our volatile shared border. The recent situation there has grown totally untenable, on pace this year to send over 1 million unvetted and uninvited trespassers pouring into our country. The overwhelming majority of these people, contrary to media narrative, are economic migrants willfully abusing our nation’s generous and well-intended asylum provisions. But, because the Democrats in Congress seem to prefer a controversy to a solution when it comes to illegal migration, the internal options for Trump and his Department of Homeland Security remain limited. But thinking creatively, the president determined that our immense economic leverage over Mexico could be summoned to coax them into acting as a good neighbor. For too long regarding Central American migrants, we have allowed Mexico to transfer its temporary trouble into our permanent problem.

But President Trump warned Mexico of imminent trade sanctions unless it shared proactively in the burden of stopping this dangerous flow of people and the attendant humanitarian border crisis it caused. Predictably, critics shrieked in disapproval over the last week.

But Trump did precisely what Trump was elected to do. He saw past the prevarications of the media, the self-serving platitudes of corporate plutocrats, and the pusillanimity of purported allies in the legislature. He took decisive executive action that forced the Mexican government to honor its obligations and respect the sovereignty of our land. After all, if Mexico or any other country wants access to the crown jewel of global commerce — the American consumer market — then it must act as a responsible partner. Our nation seeks prosperity and friendship with all nations, but will not be abused. 

And, note ye well, THAT is a big part of why they loathe him so intensely. The American consumer market is by orders of magnitude the largest in the world—the most powerful economic force on the planet. Corrupt, destitute Mexico simply cannot afford to be denied access to it. Like wise China, who needs to avoid being shut out of the American market WAY more than America needs rack upon rack of shoddy, ill-fitting, poorly-made 4XXXXL cargo shorts at Wal Mart.

No, the only strange thing about all this is that Trump seems to be the only one in Mordor On The Potomac who knows it—or, more accurately, the only one to whom it matters, and who is unashamed about acting as if it mattered. Thus:

Assuredly, these steps will not end the border crisis. Longer-term, our country desperately needs reform of our inane migration laws, particularly as they relate to asylum. We need a wall. We must harness technology to better track visa overstays. But given the options available to him at present, President Trump negotiated masterfully in this confrontation. He recognizes that in the global trade “poker game” America has the strongest hand and must play like it. His steadfast refusal to accept the status quo or cower to the elites validated the hopes that tens of millions placed in him when the voted to send a “disruptor-in-chief” to the Oval Office.

I remain convinced that, try however he might, Trump ain’t gonna be getting any wall; the Ruling Class has too many ways to stymie and stall, and it’s probably the one issue they’re least likely to ever yield on. But he’s still winning anyway, and even the most trivial loss for the Democrat-Socialists is still a win for America.

Update! Desperate, defeated, discombobulated.

Trump’s success in getting Mexico to agree to do more to curb the flow of illegal immigrants through their country and into the United States should be receiving universal praise, but unfortunately, Democrats, who we all know want to see illegal immigration increase to help secure their party’s power in government, couldn’t concede that Trump’s plan worked.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Trump’s tariff threat, which succeeded in its goal, a counterproductive exercise in “threats and temper tantrums.”

“President Trump undermined America’s preeminent leadership role in the world by recklessly threatening to impose tariffs on our close friend and neighbor to the south,” Pelosi, a California Democrat, said Saturday morning. “Threats and temper tantrums are no way to negotiate foreign policy.”

Ummm, actually, Stretch, those “threats and temper tantrums” are more widely known in grown-up circles as “negotiating from a position of strength,” you clown-faced buffoon.

Pelosi said she was “deeply disappointed” by the asylum provisions of the deal, which she claimed “violates the rights of asylum seekers under U.S. law and fails to address the root causes of Central American migration.”

But the most absurd comment came from Senator Chuck Schumer.

And boy, did it ever:



I’m sorry folks, but it would take a heart of stone not to laugh right out loud at that pitiful, all-thumbs attempt at spin. Again: when Democrat-Socialists are crying, America is winning.

Can’t repeat it often enough update! Sefton puts it well, especially with the closer.

Good morning kids. Start of a new week so let’s get with it. The big story over the weekend and continuing is President Trump’s yuuuge win over Mexico, who folded like a wet taco when for the first time in my lifetime a US president actually threatened to seriously punish them with tariffs if they did not stop aiding and abetting the depopulation of Central America (and their own failed kleptocratic third world shit-hole) into our country. From a purely political perspective, it represents a Nelson Muntz laugh of epic proportions to the Democrat-Left-Media Complex and their remoras in the GOP-e who claimed it would destroy our economy, it’s racist and xenophobic or who just openly hate America and have no phony excuses but are grumbling at being kicked hard in the nadlers by Orange-Man-Bad. Yes, the winning – I ain’t now ways tahr’d of it.

Heh. Good as that is, JJ knows this is no real solution, and also knows what is:

Look, we can talk about walls, and troops on the border and all the rest of it all we want. The real long-term solution is to create a virtual wall that for sure is 100% impenetrable: Disincentivizing these people from coming here in the first place. No welfare, no food stamps, no free schools, no college tuition, no free medical care, no drivers licenses…Nada del Tio Azucar, nunca. It’s bad enough that upwards of 30 million foreigners are eligible to drain our Treasury legally. But take a look at the story in the links about a blood-sucking tick convicted of substantial food stamp fraud and multiply that by millions as well and, to quote Everett Dirksen, sooner or later you’re talking about some real money. The other half of that equation, as I stated, rests with our own citizenry. Any person or business that knowingly hires illegal aliens should be punished with severe fines and serious prison time. Does that mean someone who has a lady from Guatemala come in once a week to clean the apartment? Not sure. But something like a food processing plant, garment factory (if we still have them here anymore) or other industry employing masses of illegals should be shuttered, the assets seized and the owners chucked in D-Block.

He’s right, and you know he is. Now on to a truly golden meme, ripped off from elsewhere at the ol’ HQ:

winner-loser-2019.jpg

Jeez-O-Pete, Trump yuks it up with the Queen while Her Herness can’t draw flies even at a Costco warehouse—a place hardly known for drawing celebrities to hang out there. Hope poor old Hils found herself a good deal on pallets of cheap gin to ease the pain and humiliation, at the very least.

Share

Dead cities

Kiled by the Wrecker Left.

For one thing, so much of the president’s admittedly rough-hewn language has been purposely distorted and taken out of context by a news media desperate to prove every Republican racist. It’s an open question, therefore, whether it’s Trump or CNN who is at fault for the bad ambience around here.

No it isn’t. It’s Klavan still bitterly clinging to his fading NeverTrumpism, so I’ll let him slide this time. Nonetheless, CNN is lying, so the fault is entirely theirs. “Rough-hewn language” and flat-out, purposeful dishonesty are quite different things, neither congruent nor comparable. One is impolite, the other is…well, lying.

But laying that aside, West is essentially saying that Trump’s indifference to left-wing academic standards of racial sensitivity is more important than what he has actually accomplished for actual human beings.

Typical Leftard: his interest isn’t in accomplishing a damned thing for actual human beings; his interest is in controlling them.

Congressman Al Green of Texas says the same: “The president can be impeached for his racism and his bigotry.”

No, he can’t, neither of those things being either a high crime or misdemeanor, you muttonhead.

“Unfortunately, however, he is a beneficial bigot. Meaning he benefits a good many people and I, unfortunately, have to tell you I’m so saddened when I see people who have built their reputations fighting bigotry allowing this to persist to the extent that it has.”

Reminder regarding the boldfaced passage: The Democrat-Socialists are opposed to this. Which is way more “saddening” than whatever this backasswards doofus is wetting his panties over.

Run that around in your aching head a moment. The president is a “beneficial bigot” because his policies help “a good many people.” Is that the same as his being a not-bigot who simply doesn’t kowtow to the politically correct speech codes the left has imposed on us to keep us from criticizing their awful policies?

Because if you want to get a load of some non-beneficial non-bigotry all you have to do is visit one of America’s left-wing cities. “Rats at the police station, filth on L.A. streets — scenes from the collapse of a city that’s lost control,” reads a headline in the Los Angeles Times. The filth has gotten so bad in my town, officials are worried about the spread of flea-borne typhus and rodent-carried bubonic plague — that’s the Black Death that once wiped out a third of Europe, just so you know.

The local news station in Seattle — where left-wing governance has brought about the same sorry Angelino state of affairs — is running an hour-long documentary called “Is Seattle Dying?” and yes, it is. Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco likewise. And in Chicago, after a single weekend in which over 50 people were shot, Jussie Smollett is now the only person in the city who hasn’t been attacked.

Heh. See, that last line is why I’m willing to cut Klavan some slack now and then.

The left spends an awful lot of energy trying to get conservatives to shut up. Political correctness, deplatforming, demonetizing, blacklisting, outrage mobs, boycotts — all dedicated to making sure that they alone get to do the talking.

But you know what? The right doesn’t even need words to make the point anymore. Just go to the Democrat-governed cities. Look out the window. Walk the streets.

Everything the left talks about is meaningless. Everything they touch turns to crap.

Sure enough. All the more reason, then, to make damned sure they ain’t allowed to touch anything important, valuable, or breakable. Schlichter gets down to the case in California:

California has morphed from paradise into a garbage state run by garbage people for their own garbage benefit and amusement. The “garbage” part is literal – once the Sierra Nevada mountains symbolized the state; now, towering heaps of trash and human waste do. Welcome to what the Democrats want for all of America. Just watch your step. Literally.

If it were not for the climate, something the liberals in charge of my state have nothing to do with as much as they think they do, it would likely be a nearly empty desert once again. But the sun shines, the beach beckons and the palm trees sway over a population of morons who keep electing proggy fascists to run the place. Which they are doing, right into the ground.

Where once people flocked to make their dreams come true, you now pay multiples more for a U-Haul heading out than heading in. The great California middle class, made up of the Normal people whose hard work and ingenuity made it the Golden State (even though Hollywood types got the publicity), is fleeing to places where they can afford to live, and where the government doesn’t hate them. 

LA, SF, Detroit, NYC, Chicago: what the Democrat-Socialists have done for those nightmare urban blightscapes, they can do for your town too—and unless you stop them, they most certainly will. As Kurt says:

California will continue to circle the drain, and barring revolution – a real one, with all the attendant bad stuff for the ruling class – there’s no coming out of it. They’re dining on zebras in the Caracas zoo and yet the socialist revolution marches on. California is no different; it’s just a decade behind the Venezuelan vanguard.

It’s doomed. And what’s important to understand is that the liberal elite wants the same thing for the rest of America. To our ruling class, California is not a cautionary example. It’s the goal for our whole country.

Are you going to let that happen? 

A better way of putting it might be: how far are you willing to go to stop them?

Share

When men were men—and so were boys

Remember this Steyn quote I posted yesterday?

They were young, but they were not children. Five years ago, I listened to President Obama explain from Brussels that the deserter he brought home from the Taliban in the days before the D-Day anniversary was just a “kid”. In fact, he was 28 years old. I remember walking through the Canadian graves at Bény-sur-Mer a few years ago. Over two thousand headstones, but only a handful of ages inscribed upon them: 22 years old, 21, 20…But they weren’t “kids”, they were men.

Yeah, well, about that—and about how much more bold and manly the young boys of yesterday were than the sniveling, weepy, ambi-gender SJW dorksnorts we’re afflicted with today.

Louis (sometimes styled Louie) Abernathy was born in Texas in 1899 and Temple Abernathy was born in 1904 in Tipton, Oklahoma. Their father was cowboy and U.S. Marshal Jack Abernathy.

In 1909 the boys rode by horseback from Frederick, Oklahoma, to Santa Fe, New Mexico, and back. Louis was nine, and Temple was five.

When the boys completed their Santa Fe journey, they began planning a cross-country horseback ride to New York City, again by themselves, to meet Theodore Roosevelt when he returned from his trip to Africa and Europe. They made that trip in 1910. They were greeted as celebrities, and rode their horses in a ticker-tape parade just behind the car carrying Roosevelt. While in New York, the boys purchased a small Brush Motor Car, which they drove, again by themselves, back to Oklahoma, shipping their horses home by train.

In 1911, they accepted a challenge to ride horseback from New York to San Francisco in 60 days or less. They agreed not to eat or sleep indoors at any point of the journey. They would collect a $10,000 prize if they succeeded.

After a long trip, they arrived in San Francisco in 62 days, thereby losing the prize but setting a record for the time elapsed for the trip.

In 1913, the boys purchased an Indian motorcycle, and with their stepbrother, Anton, journeyed by motorcycle from Oklahoma to New York City. This was their last documented adventure.

Now, admittedly the Abernathy kids were unusual even for their own more rugged era, sure. But here’s the thing: the manliness gap between them and their contemporaries was nothing NEAR as wide as the one between them and today’s pathetic piss-boys. Even at 10 years old, these boys out-masculine the pitiful excuses for men you’ll find in present-day college dorms, offices, or fancy-schmancy workout emporiums by a YUUUGE margin. Sadly, mass societal emasculation is what you’re buying into when first you accept the FemiLeftist premise that all masculinity is toxic, and start raising your sons accordingly.

(Hat tip for the steer to OB-KT)

Share

The last great act of defiance?

Time to take the gloves off.

For more than half a century, as leftist judges have preempted or nullified our efforts to govern ourselves, conservatives have staked much on the appointment of judges who would follow the law rather than legislating or administering from the bench. And indeed, the number of such judges has been growing for a generation.

But since the 2016 election, it has become clear that merely appointing good judges cannot stop what the bad ones are doing, as leftist federal judges continue to strike down one after the other of the Trump Administration’s initiatives, as well as conservative state laws.

Even if a majority of the Supreme Court were to overrule every district court judge’s usurpation once an appropriate case reached it, leftist judges would still be a major brake on one side of American public life. Until conservatives somehow stop this judicial malpractice, all the work they do to elect whomever, to pass whatever laws, to appoint more good judges, is guaranteed to be undone by some bad judge putting his seal on some leftist group’s brief.

Nor can honest, nonactivist judges provide a counterweight on the other side of political conflict. If conservative judges were the mirror image of leftist ones, there would be a cadre of them ready to invalidate the next leftist president’s every move, as well as every law and practice of California’s and other blue states’ governments. But there is not such a cohort in waiting.

Defying the reach of a federal court ruling—even one of the Supreme Court’s, never mind that of a district court—is within everyone’s power. Alexander Hamilton had made that point in Federalist 78: the judiciary’s fundamental power is neither more nor less than the power to persuade. You may be otherwise persuaded. Hamilton is clear that there is no constitutional duty to obey the courts—certainly not on policy.

Andrew Jackson applied that principle even to the Supreme Court’s decision in the specific case of the Bank of the United States in 1832: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” There is no constitutional reason why any president, or governor, should forbear from carrying out a law or an executive decision just because a federal district judge’s opinion is that it violates some standard, The president or governor has his own opinion. In the final analysis, all depends on executive power, which, in turn, depends on popular support.

Kinda goes hand-in-hand with my proposition that, should the Democrat-Socialists ever be allowed to election-fraud another of theirs into the Oval Office, the correct Republican response would be to make sure that Xhe/Xhim/Whatever would face every jot and tittle of #Resistance that Trump has endured, plus a BUNCH. Alas, it ain’t gonna happen, I don’t think, any more than Codevilla’s worthy suggestion above will. Still, though, the fact remains:

Ace, of AOSHQ. has bruited the concept of The Great Divorce, that is, that the eventual upshot of the current massive divisions in America will be a near complete separation, even legally and physicially, between the urban Democrat hordes, and the rest of America and Americans.

In this scenario, the only real question is whether that separation will be accomplished peacefully, or with varying levels of violence.

I tend to think there is considerable validity to the scenario, because of the uber-narratives that dominate both sides. On the right – read “America as we knew it, and still know it in many places,” – that narrative boils down to “We just want you to leave us alone to live our lives as we wish.” On the left, the other side of that coin is embraced as religious scripture – “We want to control every aspect of your lives for your, and our, own good.”

The left, in the bubble-redoubts they believe give them control of what they also believe are “the commanding heights of the culture” – media, the educracy, majoritarian politics, the deep state, the looming corporate state, the GoogleZon technocracy – assume themselves assured of victory. This is, unfortunately for them, a sad misreading the reality, as they will, to their shock, inevitably discover.
 
The resultant mass cognitive dissonance within the left will be devastating, and is one of the principle reasons I don’t think The Great Divorce will be entirely bloodless.

And after that? This, like as not.

Should we blow everything up, just to see how we could fix it?
Don’t be asinine; of course not.
But don’t assume just because something is craptastic in the moment, it’s going to be that way forever.
That’s a four-year-old’s view of time: “everything is about me, right this minute.”
So grow up. And perhaps, take a longer-term view than just right this minute, or even until the day after tomorrow.

Don’t take my word for it. Because while no one I know would like to go live at Florence and Normandie nearly 30 years after the L.A. riots, you won’t find anyone in Normandy, France bitching too hard about the war that landed on their shores 75 years ago this coming Thursday. Go there and ask if you don’t believe me.

Ask 100 people which world they’d rather live in:
One populated entirely by rifle-toting, bible-clinging rednecks having a barbeque.
Or one populated by Emo Antifa twinks and purple-haired lesbian land whales all shrieking and moaning about how evil white mankind is, and the contest is over in five seconds.

A conflict here is almost certainly an extinction-level event for the left, for generations yet unborn.
(Whereas their victory would be the continued genocide of the unborn.
So don’t try to pretend there’s any moral equivalency between baby killers, and those who’d rather kill baby killers.)

Tell me again why we don’t just open the ball first, and prosecute that whole party now, to the hilt.

We’re already the merest momentary pause from that question becoming purely academic, and the discussion getting overtaken by events as it is.

Let the dog catch the car.
Then watch what happens to him once he’s got it, and doesn’t know what to do next, with a mouthful of bumper.

I repeat: the Leftwits now openly advocating schism, war, and genocide should be very careful what they wish for, lest they get it—good and hard, and for all time. Go ye and read the rest of it, if only for the great Mark Twain quote at the end.

Share

Categories

Archives

Notable Quotes

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

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

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

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." -Bill Whittle

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