Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

“A nation of immigrants”?

Nope.

The “nation of immigrants” trope is relatively new in American history, appearing not until the late 19th century. Its first appearance in print was most likely The Daily State Journal of Alexandria, Virginia, in 1874. In praising a state bill that encouraged European immigration, the editors wrote: “We are a nation of immigrants and immigrants’ children.” In 1938, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said to the Daughters of the American Revolution: “Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.” John F. Kennedy would later use the term as the title of a book, written as part of an Anti-Defamation League series, so it is undoubtedly objective, quality scholarship.

But in 1874, as in 1938, and even in 1958 when JFK’s book was written, America was not a nation of immigrants. The women Roosevelt was addressing were not the daughters of immigrants but rather the descendants of settlers—those Americans who founded the society that immigrants in 1874 came to be a part of.

Concerning immigration patterns, from 1820 through 1924, 34 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Europe. Throughout this period, intermittent waves of immigration were punctuated by pauses and lulls. These respites provided immigrants time to Americanize. By contrast, from 1965 through 2000, 24 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Latin America and Asia, and with few if any pauses between waves. In just 35 years, America experienced nearly as much immigration as it did over a century. Nevertheless, from 1820 through 2000, the foreign-born averaged just over 10 percent of the total American population.

To claim that America is a “nation of immigrants” is to stretch a truth—that America historically has experienced intermittent waves of immigration—into a total falsehood, that America is a nation of immigrants. For the truth of the first thing to equal the truth of the other, every nation that experiences immigration may just as well be considered a “nation of immigrants.” Germans have lived along the Rhine since before Christ, yet Germany has also been swarmed by foreigners from the Middle East and North Africa. Is Germany, therefore, a nation of immigrants? A resounding nein is the answer we are hearing from Germans.

Before America was a nation, it had to be settled and founded. As Michael Anton reiterated in response to New York Times columnist Bret Stephens: America is a nation of settlers, not a nation of immigrants. In that, Anton is echoing Samuel Huntington, who showed that America is a society of settlers. Those settlers in the 17th and 18th centuries—more than anyone else after—had the most profound and lasting impact on American culture, institutions, historical development, and identity. American began in the 1600s—not 1874—and what followed in the 1770s and 1780s was rooted in the founded society of those settlers.

Settlers, Anton explains, travel from an existing society into the wilderness to build a society ex nihilo. Settlers travel in groups that either implicitly or explicitly agree to a social compact. Settlers, unlike immigrants, go abroad with the intention of creating a new community away from the mother country. Immigrants, on the other hand, travel from one existing society to another, either as individuals or as families, and are motivated by different reasons; and not always good ones. Immigrants come later to be part of the society already built by settlers, who, as Higham wrote, establish the polity, language, customs, and habits of the society immigrants seek to join and in joining must embrace and adopt.

Justice Louis Brandeis would later echo Jay, declaring that the immigrant is Americanized when he “adopts the clothes, the manners, and the customs generally prevailing here…substitutes for his mother tongue the English language,” ensures that “his interests and affections have become deeply rooted here,” and comes “into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations.” Only when the immigrant has done this will he have “the national consciousness of an American.”

Remember, Brandeis was a Progressive leading light back then. In light of the above statement, the raving madmen of our present-day Loonie Left wouldn’t for a moment consider him an acceptable SC nominee now. But then, if Trump nominated Che Guevara to the Court the NYT, WaPo, and all the rest would doubtless denounce even him as a “right-wing extremist,” too.

That’s progress, see.

Share

Dead letter

It’s broken. We can argue about the reasons why, perhaps; my own belief is that the fault lies not in the document but in our own failure to uphold its promise. Either way, the fact remains: it’s broken.

Wickard .v. Filburn was a raw theft of that power from the states by the Federal Government. It should have been met with the immediate refusal by the States to acquiesce, if necessary backed by the Governors calling up their National Guard contingencies as there never was and still does not exist today jurisdiction in the Supreme Court on the matter. The substance of this case was that Filburn was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The entire cycle of life of said wheat was contained within the boundaries of one state. The Government claimed that because he grew it he wouldn’t have to buy as much wheat on the market, that wheat was traded both nationally and internationally in the marketplace and thus his lack of need to make a purchase through his entirely intrastate actions meant it had jurisdiction. In short the Supreme Court claimed that there was no limit on any act of the Federal government, ever, since any action or inaction by a citizen always results in some change in one’s economic activity. The mere act of taking a crap leads to “interstate commerce” under this standard and thus the Federal Government can regulate where, how and when you may do so or even tax same; you might buy toilet paper, if you use water to flush or wash your hands you might cause your local government to consume chlorine shipped across a state line to sanitize said water, etc.

The Court ripped up the entire Constitution with this decision — and thus far, since 1942, for more than 75 years, it has gotten away with it.

Then there are decisions where the litigants lied before the court. Miller, the seminal empowering decision for federal gun control, was one such instance. Not only was Miller unrepresented (he was broke and nobody showed up to argue his side of the case) but the US Government directly lied to the court both orally and in written form about the lack of military application of the weapon Miller was arrested for possessing (a short-barrel shotgun), claiming it had no legitimate military or militia purpose despite having previously purchased a weapon of almost-exactly the same design, form and function by the thousands for use in trench warfare during WWI.

Roe .v. Wade was also a deliberate lie. The claim was that Roe was raped. We know this was a lie because Roe later disclosed same. While that was not the foundation of the decision it clearly played into the sentiment on the court and it was not a mistake it was a lie.

Perjury is supposed to be one of the highest offenses in any civilized nation because in every single case it perverts justice, yet in neither of those cases was any subsequent notice given to same nor were the judgments vacated. Congress could address this but has refused to even discuss it. There are dozens of similar instances and in exactly zero of those events has a litigant ever faced justice for having done so nor has any Supreme Court decision been summarily tossed on that basis even when the lie is later admitted by the litigants or facutally proved, as was the case in both Roe and Miller.

We have a framework for not only our government but for changing how it works. The problem is that you can no longer find it in the many linear feet of law and regulation directly contrary to the limits on power in the Constitution and nobody — utterly nobody — will do a damn thing about it.

No, a “Convention of States” will not address this.

Why not?

Because the highest law in the land already addresses all of it and said law is routinely and outrageously ignored without one scintilla of consequence attaching to any government agency or employee who does so — ever — even when they perjure themselves while under oath.

There is utterly no reason to believe, until and unless that highest law of the land is enforced, which will only happen when the people demand it be enforced, that any such event will mean anything as whatever such a “Convention” produces will also be ignored unless it is backed up with a credible threat of force.

Why do we need a “Convention” to enforce what already exists?

Lots more emphasis throughout, which I didn’t transcribe more of because…well, there’s a LOT of it, okay? Denninger tends to do that, and I ain’t saying he’s wrong to, mind. Probably best just to click on over and read all of it.

Share

Practical solutions to modern problems

Aesop kicks a few ideas around.

Starting with the second deportation, the method of repatriation used by ICE in all cases should be by trebuchet.

Then after they’re returned to the land of their forefathers at a few hundred FPS, they’ll probably still have one unshattered femur left to limp back home, and stay there.

I’m not terribly worried about a day without a Mexican; we had a hundred and fifty years without a Mexican, and it was called America. And it would be a lot catchier title if we renamed it Another Day Without Setting $318M Of Your Taxes On Fire, and made it a 24/7/365/forever national celebration.

Frankly, they’re lucky we don’t cut the crap, and simply authorize ICE to substitute land mines for the wall, until it’s built. Then they could just deport everyone missing a leg as presumptively here illegally.

You’ll notice there’s not a lot of Norks running through minefields to get to South Korea. And we’ve got a metric f**kton of the things just sitting in storage, so we might as well put them to some good use.

And while we’re up, let’s do one more thing: announce that henceforth, anyone ever deported for entering the US illegally will be banned for life from ever visiting the US on a visa, or ever emigrating here legally, and refused any amnesty for cause, even if it’s someday offered to those already here. Caught once, banned for life. Caught here a second time: Fly Air Trebuchet home. Easy peasy.

Works for me.

Obviously Aesop is being highly satirical here, but it does draw a line under the depths of absurdity to which this grotesque national hissy-fit has plummetted. It all calls a few thoughts to mind:

  1. The Left is making a serious miscalculation here: they’re relying on the same kind of polling data that told them Hillary!™ was absolutely certain to win the 2016 election by an overwhelming margin. They’re also blithely ignoring the fact that re-establishing our national borders and vigorous enforcement against violation of them by the hordes coming here illegally was one of the principle reasons Trump was elected in the first place.
  2. Most if not all of the imagery Leftymedia is busily shoveling down our gullets to inspire shock and shame is actually from Obama’s reign of error. Since the Left didn’t have a screaming psychotic break over such inhumanely inhuman inhumanity then, it’s obvious that it isn’t a moral or “compassion” issue for them but a partisan political one. In truth, they hope to use this as a cudgel to bludgeon Trump and the rest of us into submission at long, long last.
  3. Nobody wants to see children suffering or abused. But the agent of any suffering endured by these kids (those of them who aren’t MS13 gangsters, that is) is not Trump, nor is it Americans who wish to see our border protected and to have some say over who is and is not allowed to immigrate here. It’s the parents who violated our laws by coming here illegally. If they’ve been victimized by anybody, it ain’t Trump. It ain’t normal Americans either.
  4. Those parents are NOT “immigrants”; they are NOT “refugees.” They are CRIMINALS. They have no legitimate right to be here; the act of criminally flouting US immigration law entitles them to but one thing, and one thing only: detention. Well, okay, three things: arrest, detention, and expulsion. That’s it. There is nothing whatever immoral about sending them back, at our discretion and convenience.
  5. Laura Bush and the rest of the Vichy GOPe/NeverTrumpTard baglappers eager to slam Trump for keeping a campaign promise can all go suck a fat one.
  6. If America is as nasty, callous, cold-hearted, bigoted, and generally soul-blighting a place as the Left always insists, why on earth would all these people risk so much to leave their homes, friends, and families to come here illegally? And why would libtards want to help them stay?
  7. There’s so much else wrong with this shitshow I don’t even know where to begin addressing it. So I won’t.

None of this, not a single aspect of it, is anything new. It’s a hoary old rerun right down to the last niggling detail: the smug assertion of moral superiority; the overwrought bleats of “Hitler” and “Nazi” and “Holocaust” and “genocide” hurled at normal Americans with legitimate and reasonable concerns; the distortion and/or falsification of the historical record, along with appeals to Constitutional “rights” found nowhere in the Constitution on behalf of non-citizens outside its protection; the inflation of rather mundane events of little import or relevance to most Americans into a national CRISIS!! requiring immediate and drastic action in response; the use of children as props to further a political agenda; the stampede to collusion of milksop Republicans; the brazen deception and manipulative appeals to emotion; the marginalization of mainstream thought and the mainstreaming of radical lunacy; the risible claims of near-universal “bipartisan” agreement; the establishment media’s tireless effort as cheerleaders and propagandists rather than evenhanded reporters of events.

The whole shitfling is very much Swampland business as usual, in hopes of accomplishing some by-now familiar goals: thwarting the agenda Trump was elected specifically to implement, his removal from office by illegitimate means, and a stern reminder for normal Americans of their subordinate, subjugated role as the ones footing the bill for Leftist folly without complaint.

Share

Brechtian nightmare

Dissolving the people, and electing another.

These stories are the more obvious signs of the dissolution of the people: One of the livelier members of the new people is affronted by an obvious provocation – a satirical magazine, a Jewish school, a pop concert, a swingers’ club; it’s an ever longer list… But we think we know how to handle that: increase the budget of the security services, more surveillance, more databases, more manpower swooping down in the nick of time…

But, in between such stories, the softer, slyer, suppler dissolution continues unseen and largely unreported. My sometime editor Mary Wakefield has an interesting if rather agonized column about how the dwindling numbers of non-Muslim pupils in certain English schools can’t seem to make any Muslim friends:

Quite by coincidence and on separate occasions, in the past month I’ve met two (non-Muslim) women whose children have had trouble at Muslim-dominated state schools. The kids made friends easily in their first term, said the mothers, but as the months went by it became harder to stay pals. Their schoolmates never invited them home, nor would they come round for playdates or parties. The friendships faded away and the kids were left confused. One of the two mothers I met had decided to move house: new catchment area, new start. She felt guilty, she told me, because she’d been keen her son have friends of all faiths. But he was one of only two non-Muslim boys in his class, and he was lonely.

So there’s now only one non-Muslim boy, who presumably feels even lonelier. Although I’d wager he’ll go too – and, to invert Rupert Brooke, there’s yet another corner of an English field that is forever foreign.

What remains now of “Christian civilization” in England? Or of “our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions” – such as, say, Church of England primary schools in which all but two boys are Muslim. There are many communities “far beyond the oceans…built up on our laws and on our civilization”, but in the ancient Motherland Bertolt Brecht’s words seem more pertinent than Churchill’s.

And which men in a new Britain will still say “This was their finest hour”?

As Brecht so stingingly quipped of the East Germans, British subjects have forfeited the confidence of the government. Now they’ve indeed been replaced, turning Churchill’s wistful speculation on the Empire and the Commonwealth lasting “a thousand years” into a sad joke. Winston was right, though: it WAS Britain’s finest hour— one they’ll never again come anywhere near equalling.

Share

STILL winning!

Let freedom ring, baby.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop decision was not even close in terms of votes (7-2, with Sotomayor and Ginsburg naturally voting in favor of oppression), nor was it a “narrow” ruling on the merits. Instead, it was a ringing endorsement of the idea that sniveling leftist bureaucrats can’t target religious folk for hassles just because the dissenters refuse to bend a knee to the secular idols du jour.

This was not about gay marriage – conservatives are no longer monolithic on the issue (I got grief on some site for congratulating Townhall’s Guy Benson on his recent engagement). This was about the right to dissent, to think differently even if you or I or (usually) the liberal elite don’t agree. And this ruling should not be shocking, but it still sort of was.

After all, until recently the tide was with those liberal elitists whose goal was to force the religious and the patriotic to their knees on every cultural issue. First, they came for the cake bakers, then they came for us. But the militant Normals changed everything when they elected Donald Trump. Do you think we’d be reading about a win for religious liberty if whatever robed pinko Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit would have appointed had taken the bench? No way – Kagan and Breyer would have joined the other three in holding that somehow that the whole freedom of religion thing doesn’t apply if liberals disapprove and off we’d go, taking another perilous step toward the nightmare of national divorce and potential conflict.

The opinion of Justice Kennedy, who I would love to see retire and spend more time with his family, nevertheless wrote a powerful rebuke to bigoted bureaucrats who never even bothered to hide their anti-religious zealotry when persecuting a guy for refusing to submit and acknowledge their supremacy. Their prejudice was stunning, not least for its shamelessness – these moral illiterates made no effort to hide their seething contempt for believers. And guess what? That’s not okay.

You don’t get to persecute religious people in America. I know, what a drag, huh? Pretty soon lots of people are going to start openly believing things liberals don’t like. It’ll be chaos!

Well, it was only ever the one religion they hated and attacked, you know. Myself, I’m still waiting for one of these precious shit-stirring twits to mince into a halal bakery and demand they cater a gay wedding. They’d learn with a quickness what it’s like to suffer “microaggression” and have their “safe space” violated. Might even be some “triggering” going on, although not the kind they weep in public over. As for that “narrow” business Kurt rejects:

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a decisive 7-2 majority of the justices called out the double standard that Colorado had applied against my client, Jack Phillips. The Supreme Court reversed the decision to bully Jack for his faith and further clarified that the “government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for [Jack’s] conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate.”

Seems unequivocal enough to me; how “government has no role” could fail to apply to other like situations I’m sure I don’t know. This part, though, is disturbing:

Justice Neil Gorsuch said it well in his concurrence: “Popular religious views are easy enough to defend. It is in protecting unpopular religious beliefs that we prove this country’s commitment to serving as a refuge for religious freedom.”

True enough, sure, but…wait, what? Is this really where we are in America now, where the Left has dragged us off to? To a place where Christianity is now an “unpopular religious belief?” Never mind; probably best not to answer that one. But don’t think for a moment the Left is across-the-board anti-religion. In fact, they have one of their very own, and it’s…well, ummmm…it’s…

The left works like Hinduism. You are born into caste. Each caste has a certain karma. There is good karma, earned by victim points. There is bad karma, earned by “privilege”. The level of your caste is decided by the difference between the two. The more victim karma your caste has, be more inherently moral you are and the higher your caste.

Nothing you can personally do will affect this Karma. A mass rapist from a high caste will always be morally superior to a saintly person from a low caste. This is how a rich black woman can still be oppressed by dirt poor white trailer trash.

You cannot change caste. You can only hope to convince the priesthood that you were actually born into another caste. Thus a white male is low caste. But if a white male can convince the priesthood he is a transwomen, he does indeed improve his victim karma and he rises in caste.

Since people from low caste are fundamentally irredeemable they deserve everything bad that happens to them.

The supreme object of worship is blackness. Blackness represents a virgin birth..the african-american nation was born in chains, thus they are free from the taint of negative karma, known as Privilege. Blacks, all blacks are inherently superior in a spiritual sense since they are free form the taint.

This offers whites, who have the lowest victim karma a chance for redemption. This can happen in two ways

1) Race mixing: Whites mixing with blacks can give birth to children with pure black souls.

2) Domination by blacks: If whites allow themselves to be dominated and oppressed their descendants may be purified by the suffering of their ancestors.

Dare we call this religion Dinduism?

Heh. Dare we call it anything else?

Share

Light: seen

The Great Awakening continues.

I’m a Democrat, and it would be easier to accept my side’s version of unfolding events. It would certainly make my life easier when talking with my liberal friends. But facts are pesky things, and I’ve become increasingly aggravated by my own side. It seems the desire to win the 2016 election and Trump hatred has not only warped the Democratic political and media establishments, but exposed them for what they are.

Yes, Trump is intemperate, narcissistic, and the most unconventional president ever. But it appears that his opponents in our political and media establishments are far worse: they wanted to subvert democracy to save it from Trump; they wanted to thwart the will of Trump’s 63 million voters and not just undermine his presidency, but to concoct an investigation to impeach him and get him out of office.

Looked at this way, it appears that Trump’s election is vindicated for many reasons: There appears to be a deep state in this country comprising both Republicans and Democrats, which will not abide an outsider president.

She ain’t quite all the way red-pilled yet, but the very fact that she’s clear-headed enough to recognize some obvious truth when it hits her upside the noggin puts her head and shoulders over the great majority of her fellow Democrat Socialists, in terms of both intellect and integrity.

She’s quite brave too, committing such a brazen act of heresy right out in public like this. The usual wave of death threats, doxxing, attempts to get her fired, and violent attacks on her and her entire family will probably push her the rest of the way over onto the Dark Side, so my hat’s off to her.

Share

Back to the future?

A government that tries to control everything ends up controlling nothing—one way or another.

Sadly, with a high enough percentage of the population voting for socialism, not to mention an increasing percentage of the population preferring to celebrate inferiority over excellence, we as a country cannot return to the “glory days” of the 1950’s. Millennials are not capable of living on their own at 18. Women prefer to outsource kids to day care instead of raise them. Men have been replaced with government checks. And what men are present in their nuclear families are usually Soy Boy jokes which cannot compare to a strong, but fair 1950’s Ward Cleaver. Without the based, anchored, and galvanized WWII generation, the generations of Americans that remain are simply too inferior and lazy to achieve what Americans did in the 1950’s. And so you assume we can never return to those halcyon days of yore and are condemned to Enjoy the Decline.

However, I have a bit of good news for you, and it is one of those rare bits of good news indeed. For while “we” as a country can’t and never will return to the 1950’s, YOU as an individual can. And there’s nobody who can stop you.

The main reason anybody can return to the 1950’s at any time is because while on a national or macro level the US may be turning into a childish, socialist shithole, on the local or micro level the average American still holds considerable sway and control over their immediate and local environment. You don’t have to live in California where the insane people put cancer warnings on coffee. You don’t have to live in Seattle where the city council obviously loves parasites more than the producers. You can simply choose to live in towns that aren’t socialist, have low crime, low traffic and don’t vote to tax their citizens all the time. But returning to the 50’s goes well beyond simply picking the right municipality to live in. It boils down to individual life-style decisions that are even more personal, more “micro” and will more directly affect the quality of life you live. And if you make the right decisions, there’s a good chance you’ll enjoy a 1950’s life replete with 2020’s technology and conveniences.

Follows, a wildly practical how-to on ways to ignore alien orders and live a worthwhile, decent life insulated from the insidious influence of our dysfunctional culture to the greatest extent possible, including this:

Continue reading “Back to the future?”

Share

Sick of all the winning yet?

Nope, not me. Gonna take me a minute to get around to the point I want to make here, so bear with me, awright? We’ll begin with an piteous whine from King Cuck himself:



Dunno; is a malingering, self-righteous crank who can’t keep his campaign books straight or his staff paid yours? Or is a profoundly corrupt, greedy, drunken old Leftist hag more your speed, maybe? But French’s prissy bitching and moaning is actually about something else entirely, and Ace knows what it is:

I’m not sure what that matters. I’m also not sure how we were all elected to the position of Morality Police and Sexuality Scolds. I personally don’t really envision myself in that role, and I don’t rush to it gladly.

But if I’m being asked “Is this good?” then the answer is: No, this is not good. In fact, it’s bad.

But that’s not really want Ben Howe wants, or what David French wants, or what Steven Hayes wants.

What they want is for people to say “Oh, we were wrong for voting for Trump to keep Hillary Clinton from the presidency; we should have done what you guys did and supported her, either openly (and somewhat honorably) like Ben Howe did, or covertly (and thus less honorably) like French and Hayes did.”

And on that: Sorry, guys. I’m afraid that you guys, like Hillary Clinton, must one day give up your bitterness and blame-shifting over Hillary Clinton’s loss.

Annnnd bingo. What’s next for these sore-loser Sad Sacks anyway? Soothing their butthurt and indulging their RESIST! fantasies by joining in with an Antifa riot or something? Because Muh Principles™, I suppose.

Well, no, of course not. That would mean doing something, as opposed to what they’ve always preferred to do instead: complain supinely, waiting around for the Left to hand them their next defeat while they polish their useless ideological purity to a more satisfying gloss.

For myself, I’m happy to answer French’s question this way: damned right Trump’s my man, no matter how badly atwist your overtightened knickers become over any bit of business a billionaire New York playboy might have gotten up to a while back. Or yesterday, for that matter. Can’t quite grasp why? Lincoln’s fine old quote about Grant might help to explain things: “I cannot spare this man. He fights.” Which stands in stark contrast to cuck contentment with endless defeat—even worse, their lofty disdain for anything so unseemly and uncouth as a real, down-and-dirty brawl. Which is the one and only way the Left will ever be stopped.

In Trump’s case, he not only fights—he wins. Again, and again, and again. No wonder the hapless, ineffectual cucks hate him so much.

Lookit: plummeting unemployment numbers. A miraculously revived economy. Deeper than expected cuts in federal regulation. A hardnosed foreign policy rethinking that has created a historic opening to North Korea, blunted Iranian aggression, and inspired meaningful reform in Saudi Arabia. American energy independence—possibly even dominance. These are but a few items off a long list of Trump wins both great and small. But the biggest win of them all could turn out to be sowing the seeds of disarray, defeat, and eventual destruction for the Democrat Socialist Party.

The imploding Mueller witch hunt? It’s becoming apparent that Trump has played those fools masterfully, resulting in this heartwarming bit of unabashed truth-telling:

A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Friday in the bank fraud case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, at one point saying he believes that Mueller’s motivation is to oust President Donald Trump from office.

“We don’t want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants,” Ellis told Dreeben. “The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power.”

When Dreeben answered Ellis’ question about how the investigation and its charges date back to before the Trump campaign formed, the judge shot back, “None of that information has to do with information related to Russian government coordination and the campaign of Donald Trump.”

Mo’ bettah still, it looks like Trump has unspooled enough rope for the clowns to hang themselves with, and now feels confident enough to begin biting back at some Deep State enemies:

President Donald Trump threatened in a Wednesday tweet to use “the powers granted to the presidency” to intervene on behalf of congressional lawmakers seeking thousands of subpoenaed documents from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Although the DOJ has turned over a few thousand of the documents requested, many are all or substantially redacted, both Trump and the GOP lawmakers believe DOJ’s production efforts fall far short of what they should be in terms of volume and timeliness.

“A Rigged System — They don’t want to turn over Documents to Congress. What are they afraid of? Why so much redacting? Why such unequal ‘justice?’” Trump tweeted Wednesday. “At some point, I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved!”

“There was no Collusion (it is a Hoax) and there is no Obstruction of Justice (that is a setup & trap). What there is is Negotiations going on with North Korea over Nuclear War, Negotiations going on with China over Trade Deficits, Negotiations on NAFTA, and much more. Witch Hunt!” Trump also tweeted Wednesday.

Our Prez has the wind at his back; here’s what I think he ought to do to keep it that way, further discomfiting his foes and inspiriting his supporters:

First, he announces a mass firing of huge—YUUGE!—numbers of Obama stay-behinds and Swamp saboteurs. Immediately after, he announces a huge—YUUUUUGE!—rally in DC. He can call it whatever he may like: a MAGA event, a Million American March, an opportunity for normal Americans to express their support for his agenda and demand the same from Republican collaborators, even a thank-you picnic for his loyal backers. Whatever, he puts out the call for a massive gathering in the very heart of the beast.

And then MILLIONS of us need to show up. NRA members, Tea Partiers, small-business owners, the newly-employed and prosperous—MILLIONS of us need to descend on Washington, making the welkin ring with but one insistent question for the obstructionists, the crooks, the game-riggers, the con artists, the status-quo reprobates. That question, first proposed by a lifelong friend of mine more than thirty years ago, is: WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK…?!?

The Swamp creatures need to be shown, in no uncertain terms, that we intend to see the thing drained. They need an undeniable demonstration of our rage at business-as-usual manipulation and soft-coup attempts. They need to learn to fear our wrath at their low-skullduggery by witnessing it firsthand, up close and personal. They need to understand that we’re going to make damned sure our votes DO count after all, that we won’t stand idly by while they scheme and plot to overthrow the results of a duly-ordered election—that “the consent of the governed” and “the will of the people” are going to be more than just empty phrases from now on. They need to be shown that this time, we ain’t kidding around.

A protest on such a scale would make all that abundantly clear to even the thickest and/or most arrogant sneakthief among ’em, more so than any other single thing I can think of. If it strikes real fear into the hearts of Deep State goons and professional politicians, well, good. It’s supposed to. Such a show of strength and determination just might be our last true hope of turning things around without schism or bloodshed. It would embolden our friends, dishearten our enemies, and stiffen the spines of at least some of the fence-sitters. It would let some till-now-friendless folks in Mordor on the Potomac know that they’re not alone. I hope Trump or someone on his team is already mulling the idea over, with a serious eye towards bringing it to fruition.

Share

Evolution, not revolution

Another good start.

New proposed Trump administration regulations aim to make how much hospitals charge patients more transparent—a continuation of federal Obama era initiatives to pull the curtain back on the notoriously opaque American health care system by making hospital service charges easily available online. But, as with the Obama administration efforts, questions remain on just how useful the hospital pricing information will be for average U.S. consumers.

The proposal from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is part of its annual guidance for Medicare, the gigantic federal program that covers millions upon millions of elderly and disabled Americans. Its purpose is ambitious: To nudge American health care to more quality care and away from the fee-for-service model that rewards conducting more tests and services.

“We envision a system that rewards value over volume and where patients reap the benefits through more choices and better health outcomes,” wrote CMS in its release. “While hospitals are already required under guidelines developed by CMS to either make publicly available a list of their standard charges, or their policies for allowing the public to view a list of those charges upon request, CMS is updating its guidelines to specifically require that hospitals post this information.” In English: The listing of these prices vis-a-vis Medicare would become mandatory and, the hope is, eventually spill over to other parts of the health industry.

No, it ain’t repeal of Obamacare. Much less is it the desperately-needed removal of the dead hand of government from its choking grip on the American health care system. But it’s a good thing just the same.

(Via Insty)

Share

The second half of the equation

We’ve covered the gun-grabber part of Proggy’s Two-Pronged Tantrum tonight already. Walsh leads off this column by batting that one around a bit himself (“The Left—which is by turns both malevolent and cowardly, and therefore both tantalized by and fearful of firearms”), then moves on to tackle Prong Two.

Which brings us to the cause of their second recent nervous breakdown: the Trump Administration’s decision to reinstate a question about citizenship on the 2020 census form. The movement against it is being led by former attorney general Eric Holder, the knave who was held in contempt of Congress over the Obama administration’s “Fast and Furious” gun-running program to Mexico, and is an unrepentant radical.

Ostensibly, Holder’s complaint is that by including the question in the constitutionally mandated census, some folks might be frightened off, the response rate might be lowered, and thus the count—which is used in part for apportionment of a state’s representatives in Congress—would be inaccurate.

“The addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire is a direct attack on our representative democracy,” said Holder, announcing a lawsuit. Woulda, coulda, whatever.

On the contrary, this question goes directly to the substance of our representative democracy by acknowledging the difference between citizens and non-citizens, a crucial distinction the Left is trying mightily to erase—and not just because the Democrats stand to benefit from the addition of millions of new dependent and culturally hostile voters.

No, it goes far deeper than that.

To remove citizenship from the equation is to abandon the notion of national borders, and thus the idea of America as a sovereign nation-state. Naturally, the Left is trying to accomplish this under one of its favorite false flags, “compassion,” sprinkled liberally with historical revisionism and social-justice animus. After all, who can be against “immigrants,” sainted ancestors to us all, except a bunch of heartless bigots who came by their birthright through force and violence?

Never mind that most of our immigrant forebears arrived here legally, were required to be sponsored or to quickly find employment, were shown not to be carrying infectious diseases, and judged unlikely to prove either an economic burden or a threat to public safety. The laws directed at gangland in the 1920s and ’30s expressly targeted foreign-born criminals such as Lucky Luciano (born Salvatore Lucania), who was deported to his native Italy, where he died. Also deported was New Orleans mafia boss Carlos Marcello, who had been born in French Tunisia to Sicilian parents, and was exiled to Guatemala in 1961—but re-entered the country illegally a few months later and died in Louisiana in 1993.

In other words, there are immigrants—folks who want to put aside the ways of the old country and become traditional Americans—and then there are “immigrants,” who view the United States as ripe for exploitation, criminal plundering, or Islamic colonization.

Well, hey, that’s pretty much how the Left views the US too, you know. Combine that sympatico outlook, the tacit affirmation of Proggy’s jejune “citizen of the world” conceit, and all those sweet, sweet Democrat-Socialist illegal-alien votes, and what’s not to like?

Share

It’s the culture war, stupid

How and why we are where we are, deftly nutshelled by Sefton:

This Thursday I want to start off with an excellent piece by the always excellent Daniel Greenfield. And its an alarm that I’ve been sounding for a long time now about what to me is the battle for all the marbles – the battle for the minds and souls of our children. It’s easy to look at Camera Hogg and Knucklehad Smiff Gonzalez and identify them as mind-numbed drones propagandized by their teachers. But look at their parents; no doubt they have the exact same mindset as their spawn because they, too, were the products of a previous generation of teachers who poisoned their minds. For 50 years or longer, academia has slowly and steadily been populated by educators and administrators who have purged the curricula of truth and replaced it with anti-American, anti-Western and anti-judea Christian truths (as an aside, many were funded by, guess who? The Soviets). And as the children go out into the world they populate every walk of life and occupation, corrupted by others of their generation who spread the rot in the media and entertainment. I remember as a kid in the 60s an 70s having the feelings of self-doubt about America being as wonderful and pure as its image and reputation. Today, kids see the country as the source of all evil and hatred in the world. At least when I was their age, I had parents and grandparents who knew the truth and understood that despite our society’s flaws, we were still the greatest nation and people on the face of the earth, mostly because we had the freedom to peacefully engage with those with whom we disagreed and bring about constructive change legally, openly and honestly. No more. The voices of dissent – and let’s face it, we are now the counterculture – will not be engaged. They will be silenced.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: the Long March Through The Institutions was the most brilliantly effective tactic the Goose-steppin’ Left ever came up with. Using the coin of near-absolute control of the government schools and universities, they bought themselves a stranglehold on America’s future for generations to come. None of their insidious efforts will be more than temporarily undone until the weaponization of our children has been.

“The battle for all the marbles”—you sure said a mouthful there, JJ. Well done, buddy.

Optimistic update! Counterpoint provided by Limbaugh:

I have for many, many moons now been informing everybody that the left, that the liberals, that the progressives, the Democrat Party cannot be open and honest about what it believes because if it were they would suffer tremendous defeats nationwide.

Remember, I’ve always said that. They have to mask themselves. They have to camouflage themselves as centrists or other things. Obama was a master at it. Bill and Hillary Clinton were masters at it. But something’s happening out there, and it’s gonna redound to our benefit, because the Democrats are now throwing off the masks. They are throwing off the camouflage, and in the process they are revealing themselves to be who they really are.

So there’s two things happening out there — and the Democrats are feeling their oats because they’re lying to themselves about they’ve already got the 2018 midterms won. They believe everybody hates Trump just as much as they do. So the election is as it was in 2016, it’s a foregone conclusion, it’s a fait accompli. And with this comes a feeling of their oats, a newfound confidence that they can finally be honest.

Look at how they had to hide the fact that they were for gay marriage for decades and then one day, it seemed like in one day it happened, became legal in all 50 states. That emboldened them. And they think — I’m telling you. Do not doubt me. They think they are on the cusp of getting the Second Amendment banned or repealed with the same speed and fervor that they secured gay marriage as a legal entity in all 50 states. And on that they could not be more wrong.

Rush has always steadfastly maintained that America is a center-right nation. Don’t know if I can quite buy that myself, as nice as it would surely be to think so. That said, I’ve also theorized several times ’round these parts about the Left shedding the mask, and speculated that it was done prematurely and to their ultimate detriment too.

Hope is a good thing, but only so long as there’s some basis in reality for it. Without that Hope slides headlong into Delusion, then crashes hard into the wall of Downright Pathetic. I confess to being undecided about all this still, but we’ve been seeing some very encouraging signs the last couple of years. The shrill, yawping hysteria puked forth in the wake of the Left’s slow-motion schizoid break over the Trumpening can’t possibly be doing them any good with Normal Americans.

On the other hand, I can’t say I’ve seen much more than blase indifference towards restoring the Constitution’s primacy out there, except among those few of us already ferociously dedicated to it. Most Americans seem to have accepted the existence of a federal superstate easily enough, and have expressed hostility towards the prospect of seeing their own government bennies and perks reduced in any way. The concept of Big Government as a solution rather than a problem still doesn’t seem to be up for much debate.

I think it’s safe to assert that most Americans aren’t ideologically motivated. Their grasp of and engagement with politics could both fairly be characterized as superficial—which suits them just fine, thanks. Their understanding of what the Constitution actually is, what it does and does not do, is likewise…umm, not exactly profound, shall we say. The level of American-history education among the general populace is nothing short of appalling. Civics? Don’t ask. They don’t even teach it in the schools anymore. The fact that this is no coincidence isn’t on the radar at all.

Such ignorance might not be their fault. It could certainly be argued that the pressure of earning a living in an economy crippled for years by the misguided embrace of an ideology antithetical to our Founding ideals leaves most Americans without the time or energy to properly school themselves on less immediately practical matters. Obliviousness to the fact that indifference to politics is a luxury dependent on the success and vigor of core American values and institutions can’t come as much of a surprise. For most Americans, it’s just the way things are, the way they’ve always been, a natural part of the American environment. Should it suddenly collapse and close attention become a survival trait, that WILL come as a surprise to them—a damned big one. Damned unpleasant too.

Yes, no, maybe. We’ll all find out soon enough, I suppose, one way or another. Unless we don’t.

Share

Be of good cheer

Or, perhaps, not.

Tuesday’s narrow win by Democrat Conor Lamb in a special congressional election in Pennsylvania has thrilled Democrats eager to believe that the entire country has finally seen the error of its ways and is about to remove the interloper Donald J. Trump, if not from power then at least from moral authority in the White House. This, they crow, is yet more proof of the “blue wave” that surely is coming in the fall, when the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition retakes the House of Representatives, re-installs Nancy Pelosi as speaker, and effects the Progressive Restoration in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016.

Chastened Republicans, meanwhile, are expected finally to bow to the inevitable and hang their heads in shame, while accepting the natural overlordship of their Democrat betters and returning to their Vichycon places at the table, collaborating whenever possible and putting up only token resistance when not.

Not so fast. It’s always dangerous to draw national conclusions from local elections, which House races are by definition.

I’m still reasonably confident of another Democrat-Socialist shellacking this fall; for starters, all this nonsense about Trump’s supposed “unpopularity” conveniently ignores approval numbers which are now safely above Saint Barrack’s own. And I still no longer put much stock in polls at all anyway. Nobody should forget that the current “unpopular” polling meme is being touted in the very same places that gave Trump no chance whatsoever of beating Her Herness in the first place.

Leftymedia clings to the same erroneous assumption they have all along: that Normals hate Trump every bit as much as they do themselves. It’s more than vaguely reminiscent of the stunned, traumatized libtard who famously declared, after Nixon’s win, “I don’t know anybody who voted for him.” (Possibly a misquote—see this.)

Well, of course she didn’t. How could she? Wrapped up snugly in their DC, Upper West Side, or Hollywood cocoons, snooty Progtard elitists couldn’t remotely conceive of the existence of anyone so troglodytic, so benighted—so confoundingly perverse!—as to ignore the scolding of their betters and vote for someone they so deeply disapproved of.

I could easily be wrong about a coming Dem-Soc disaster though, I admit. Back over to Walsh for some reasons why:

What ought to worry the GOP about the Lamb victory is not the victory itself—Lamb had been leading handsomely in the polls, running as a “conservative”—but the stealthiness of the campaign, which is all part of an emerging new Democrat strategy. As House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) noted, “the candidate who is going to win this race is the candidate who ran as a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Nancy Pelosi, conservative.”

So behold the emerging Campaign ’18. For months now, Democrats have been recruiting youthful military vets, some of them anti-abortion, and committed to a generational change of the Democrats’ geriatric leadership. In an area like Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district, which historically has been home to white, working-class, blue-collar cradle Democrats, this is a winning idea. In order to take back states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Democrats finally are realizing that the Pelosi-Schemer-Clinton axis of evil no longer holds any appeal, but that clean-cut, all-American types like Conor Lamb very much do. A party that has never had any problem compromising its transient “moral” principles won’t hesitate to run right at conservative Democrat voters, even it means betraying their professed ideals in order to support the national party with votes in Congress when it matters. “By any means necessary” is the Democrats’ slogan for a reason, after all.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the consultants who make a living by turning winnable races into close elections, bear much of the blame. Behind the scenes, in race after race, they decide beforehand which candidates are viable and which aren’t. The result is a top-down determination about where the PAC money will go, and about which candidates will get national media attention. Ask yourself this: had you ever heard of Rick Saccade until last week? Bet you heard of Conor Lamb.

Ah, but it’s worse than that; worries about GOPe ineptness are only part of the story. We shouldn’t leave treachery out of our calculations:

RUSH: I see the smile. Oh, he’s gloating. (imitating Murphy) “Yeah, I did, Trump, Trump, Trump, guess what, we’re getting clobbered in the polls. The problem is fundamentally Trump and the fact that the party’s become a bunch of lemmings following him. Oh, you idiots. I tried to tell you, I tried to tell you. We have the most unpopular president in the history of presidents, two-thirds of the country’s offended by the guy every day, I told you, it’s Trump, Trump, Trump. Blue wave is coming. We’re toast! Ha-ha! I told you.”

Let’s go on to McKinnon, Mark McKinnon next. He ran all the media for George Bush in the 2000 campaign and was prominent in 2004. He was on with Don Lemon. And McKinnon is the guy that founded this centrist group called No Labels. We’re not conservatives. We’re not liberals. We’re actually liberals that don’t call ourselves liberals, is what the No Labels group is. And Lemon said, “Okay. You’re plugged into a lot of Republicans, Mark. What are they really saying behind the scenes?”

MCKINNON: They’re saying, get off the beach. The wave is coming. Get out of here. I mean, actually, that is happening. I mean, they’re getting out of the races altogether. In fact, 41 Republicans have retired and resigned. And I think because of last night we’re gonna see more resignations. Last night’s news, that was the canary in the coal mine getting hit by mustard gas and a grenade, and there’s feathers everywhere. I think a lot of Republicans were holding out hope that because of the tax cuts and because of the very strong economy, that would help carry through some of the problems that we’ve been seeing out there. This suggests that that’s not gonna be the lifeboat that everybody thought it was gonna be.

RUSH: Okay. We got one more with Murphy back on CNN, and he’s on the same show with McKinnon ’cause you’ll hear McKinnon in this bite as well.

MURPHY: We need to give the same kind of long leash to some of our candidates who want to walk away from the president a little bit and walk away from some of these litmus test primary issues, like guns in these suburban districts where Republican support is collapsing. So I would say my advice to the Republicans would be, copy that, because we are heading for real headwinds. That’s an effective tactic, as we just learned in one of our base districts.

RUSH: So we need to give a long leash to some of our candidates who want to walk away from the president a little bit, walk away from some of these litmus test primary issues like guns in these suburban districts where Republican support is collapsing. Republican support for guns in suburban districts is collapsing.

Hey, anybody remember when these guys were howling about Trump because Muh Conservative Principles? Nah, me neither.

Limbaugh administers the antidote:

Okay, so the message is that Trump is a buffoon, an idiot, he’s hated and despised, two-thirds of the country doesn’t like the guy. He’s the most negative polling president first year, first term we’ve ever had, blue wave is coming, get off the beach or you’re gonna drown. Republicans are resigning left and right. It’s over.

How did he get elected in the first place, then? Could somebody explain to me what happened, how did he get elected in the first place? Was he overwhelmingly popular by people who voted for him and now one-third of the people that voted for him have abandoned him or more, he’s hated and despised? Trump is hated and despised by many of the people that the voted for him, Republican support is collapsing because of Trump, Trump, Trump? How did a guy like this ever get elected then?

And that’s still my question too. Like I said, I could easily be wrong here. Enough people out there could buy into the Democrat-Socialist bait and switch to send the Repubs packing. And I have no doubt that a return to their also-ran status would suit plenty of business-as-usual GOPers just fine.

But the fact remains that, aside from blatantly misrepresenting themselves, the Democrat Socialist Party has NOTHING. Nothing but old, tired ideas that have failed every time they’ve been tried; Obama’s dismal record; and a bitter, bone-deep contempt for traditional American values they don’t even bother trying to conceal anymore. I just can’t quite get my head around the chilling thought that most Americans are so fickle, so naive, so fucking stupid as to be taken in by such brazen chicanery. Not yet, I can’t.

I mean, really: if a guy like Conor Lamb truly is such a rock-ribbed “conservative”—even going so far as to run a campaign ad featuring himself firing an AR15, ferchrissake—then why on earth would he bother with the Democrat Socialist Party at all? Any person who owns and enjoys an “assault weapon” knows very damned well that the Dems are practically drooling at the prospect of banning them again, emboldened enough by recent tragedy to abandon the old “I’m a hunter myself” subterfuge to shout their intentions from the very rooftops. If Lamb was as staunch a Second Amendment proponent as he claims, he wouldn’t even be a member of the Democrat Socialist Party, much less running for office under their tainted rubric.

No, we’ve seen this movie before, about a bajillion times. Run in a Republican district as a “conservative” or “moderate,” slime your way into office, and then march in lockstep with the rest of the dirty DC commies forever after. It pains me to have to say it about a former Marine, but Lamb is either a fraud or a fool. And the people who just elected him are either suckers…or something much, much worse. There just is no other explanation.

Lest we forget, the execrable cur John Murtha was a Marine too. From Pennsylvania, if I remember right (yep, I do). Must be something in the water up there or something.

Share

Sweet dreams

I used to call myself a free-trader too. Nowadays, not so much.

Unlike many of my free trader friends, I recognize the damage that free — but unfair — trade has done to the United States. In his seminal work, Death by China, current White House trade policy adviser, Peter Navarro, outlined how China has used the utopian assumptions of free trade and globalization to enrich and empower itself at America’s expense. Navarro (and others) likened China’s policies over the last 30 years to amounting to a sustained economic war that targeted the American middle-class, in turn, causing the rapid decline of the United States. Navarro was a key figure in the president’s recent decision to enact a 25 percent tariff on all steel coming into the United States and a 10 percent tariff on all aluminum coming into the country.

If you are a worker in steel or aluminum-producing fields in the United States, hope has been returned to your lives. If you are corporate leader for an American company in either of these industries, you are praising Trump for his courage. There is little doubt, also, that the United States was shedding critical industries related to national security for far too long. And, as a former political hack, this is a refreshing turn, because Trump is taking away a critical Democratic talking point going into the 2018 elections. Between the historic (though incomplete, in my view) tax cut enacted last year and the move to put the profits of Wall Street on hold to favor middle-class, blue-collar workers in the steel and aluminum industries, the Democrats will have little maneuvering room in 2018.

But, what happens if there is more damage done to the United States in the long run?

Weigert raises some concerns I find interesting, certainly, but I ain’t economist enough to pass judgement or even comment much on them. That said, I do feel qualified to state that “free trade” is a chimera. It has never really existed in this world; over the years, I have come to strongly doubt it even can.

I also remember that after years of being victimized by an intentional campaign to drive them under undertaken by the Big Four Japanese motorcycle companies, Harley Davidson snapped back strongly thanks to Reagan’s protective temporary tariffs on Japanese bikes—a move derided at the time as an abomination by free-traders.

Admittedly, Harley’s problems were also due to years of piss-poor management under AMF. By the late 70s, they had a defect rate of nearly 50 percent, and were building bikes known more for their unreliability and poor performance in just about every category there was. The things were leaky, creaky, slow old rattlewagons that didn’t really handle so much as they just sort of wallowed. Even the humblest Honda or Yamaha could run rings around the clunkers without strain, in every way there was.

And now the young hipster types are falling all over themselves for those old Shovelheads, snapping them up, customizing them brilliantly, and riding the hell out of them. It’s something to see, something that amuses me no end. But I must admit, a great many of the ones I see around town these days are damned impressive. I also must admit having to help the youngsters with getting them started at the bar more than just a couple of times; having mechanicked on the finicky bastards for years (not to mention owning one myself for nearly ten years), I still remember a few useful tricks for dealing with them when they turn sour and stubborn.

My own old Shovel traveled pretty damned widely in its day, and I have to say it didn’t give me a lot of trouble after the motor was rebuilt early on. No trouble I didn’t cause myself, that is, usually by flogging it well beyond its capacity for abuse and breaking something.

My rambling aside, I greatly prefer keeping a company like Harley in business via protectionism over sacrificing it in obeisance to an ideal that has never really existed in the real world anyway, except as a means by which foreign competitors can (and do) take advantage of us. Weigert’s point about preserving “critical industries related to national security” is a vital one as well. Allowing our country to become dependent on foreign steel in particular never did make any sense to me; in certain circumstances which are far from unimaginable, such a dependence puts us at grave—even existential—risk.

In light of these stark realities, I can’t muster too much concern over Weigert’s contention that Trump’s proposed tariffs are “too steep.” Spengler’s fretting, too, seems overblown to me (tariffs will reduce us to “the economic profile of a Brazil”? Seriously?). The spluttering outrage of free-trade unicorn chasers in the usual Cucktard circles (cough cough) over Trump’s supposed “blunder,” tiresomely predictable as it is, isn’t even worth bothering about.

A country as resource-rich as this one—blessed with a national ingenuity, drive, and willingness to turn-to that is nothing short of legendary—need not resign itself to reliance on others for much of anything, and should not. Our lapse into dependence on foreign oil was costly enough, in more ways than one, and was every bit as unnecessary—a self-inflicted wound that nearly bled us white, with the added disastrous consequence of empowering bloodthirsty Middle East primitives and financing their maniacal ambitions tacked on. I’m no economist, and the comparison may not be entirely valid. But it seems obvious to me that this time around, we’d do better to learn the lesson instead of repeating the mistake.

Share

Oh, the lies we tell ourselves

America is the richest nation in the world. America is the most free nation in the world. The American military is the strongest in the world, is effectively invincible, and will always be so. Slashing its budget can therefore do no real harm, and there is no chance of anyone daring to take advantage of any erroneous perception of decline and weakness on our part.

The U.S. Navy doesn’t have enough amphibious warships to effectively support the Marine Corps in training for combat operations, according to senior Pentagon officials.

Marine Lt. Gen. Brian Beaudreault, deputy commandant for plans, policies, and operations, said Friday the current fleet of 32 amphibious assault ships falls short of the number needed to meet operational requirements. He said this negatively impacts the ability of joint naval forces to train, particularly in large-scale formations, which harms readiness.

Beaudreault, testifying before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, said the training shortcomings have left at risk the “core competency” of the Marine Corps and Navy to move a combat force from ship-to-shore to rapidly penetrate enemy battle space.

“We can do some training…through virtual systems, but at some point you have to put the ships to sea and go through a mission rehearsal,” he testified. “The ability to generate the number of ships required to train at a Marine expeditionary brigade level just simply isn’t there, so we take it in bite-size chunks.”

The Navy has said it needs as many as 38 amphibious ships to meet rising operational demands, but the service likely won’t be able to reach that number until 2030 due to budget constraints.

That’s okay, it will be fine. I’m sure it will.

A US Navy plane crashed into the ocean southeast of Okinawa on Wednesday afternoon, marking at least the sixth apparent accident involving a Navy asset in East Asian waters this year.

The C2-A Greyhound transport plane was carrying 11 crew and passengers to an aircraft carrier when it crashed into the Philippine Sea, the Navy said. As of Wednesday evening, eight people had been rescued, and three were missing.

Wednesday’s crash comes three weeks after a Navy and civilian panel recommended sweeping changes in a comprehensive review of the Japan-based US 7th Fleet, which covers East Asian waters.

The review found that two deadly accidents — the collisions of the USS Fitzgerald and the USS John S. McCain with commercial ships in June and August, respectively — were avoidable.

No worries. Things will work themselves out. They always do, right?

The two US Navy destroyers involved in deadly collisions in the Pacific this summer both had lengthy records of failure to fulfill key training requirements, according to Government Accountability Office data provided to Congress and obtained by CNN.

The USS Fitzgerald had expired training certification for 10 out of 10 key warfare mission areas in June, and the USS John S. McCain had let its certifications lapse in six out of the 10 mission areas, the data show.

The training records of the McCain and Fitzgerald were worse than the average warship in the Pacific, but they weren’t the only ones with training problems. GAO testimony released last week revealed that expired training certifications for the Navy’s 11 cruisers and destroyers based in Japan had skyrocketed five-fold from 7% in January 2015 to 37% in June. Two-thirds of the certifications had been expired for at least five months.

No problem. Let’s just all remain calm and complacent here, okay? No need to fret. Really.

The number of Marine Corps aircraft ready to fly on any given day has plummeted in the last sevenyears, leading to serious questions about the safety of the service’s aircraft as leathernecks continue to wage war on terrorists and respond to crises around the world.

Mission-capable rates for all but one of the Marine Corps’ 12 fixed-wing, rotary and tiltrotor airframes have fallen since the end of fiscal 2009, according to data obtained by Marine Corps Times via Freedom of Information Act request. While officials stress that the number of flyable aircraft fluctuates daily, the downward trends have alarmed Marine leaders and members of Congress.

Of the Marine Corps’ 276 F/A-18 Hornets, only 87 are currently flyable, Marine Corps officials said on April 20. That is less than one-third of all the service’s F/A-18A-D variants that can be used to strike the Islamic State group, provide close-air support or fly reconnaissance missions.

By comparison, 73 percent of F/A-18As were mission capable in fiscal 2009 along with 77 percent of the C-variant and 76 percent of F/A-18Ds.

Marine helicopters have seen the biggest drop in readiness. Only 42 of the Marine Corps’ 147 CH-53E Super Stallions are flyable, or about 28.5 percent of the CH-53E fleet, according to Marine aviation officials. At the end of 2009, the CH-53E’s mission-capable rate more than doubled that at 63 percent, with 39 percent of the helos fully mission capable.

“In the typical squadron … the remaining six are not able to fly tonight due to a shortage in parts, long-term fixes or need some kind of attention that the squadron doesn’t have the ability to provide,” Salene told Marine Corps Times. 

Hm. What might have happened in 2009 that could have caused all this, I wonder?

Oh yeah. I remember now.

President Obama would like the American people to believe that his lower spending caps on defense are only about eliminating waste at the Pentagon. He expressed this idea quite succinctly during a White House press conference on June 29, 2011: “I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to have difficult conversations with the Pentagon saying, you know what, there’s fat here; we’re going to have to trim it out.”

Undoubtedly, there are areas of waste in the Department of Defense (DOD), but by the Administration’s own admission, the President’s defense budget is overwhelmingly about reducing U.S. military capabilities. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has stated that this budget will reduce defense spending by $487 billion over 10 years, with $259 billion of these cuts applied over the next five years against an undefined baseline. Of the $259 billion in savings over the five years, he acknowledged that only $60 billion would come from increasing efficiency in the Department of Defense. Thus, according to Secretary Panetta’s statement, less than a quarter of the proposed savings over the next five years will come from increasing efficiency and more than three-quarters will come from reducing military capabilities.

Gee, it would seem elections really DO have consequences after all. Thank goodness there won’t ever be any more wars, eliminating any need for preparing ourselves to cope with the unexpected or unforeseeable.

Share

Antidote

Beginning to find the recent tsunami of sleaze, sordidness, and perfidy tiresome? Try this on for size, then.

The phrase “he’d give you the shirt off his back” is routinely used to describe someone who would give everything to help another, but how many are as giving as Johnny Bobbit, Jr.?

Bobbit recently stepped up to help a literal damsel in distress after Kate McClure ran out of gas. McClure pulled over and got out of the vehicle to walk to the nearest gas station.

Bobbit, however, was having none of it. He knew the neighborhood was a dangerous place for a woman to walk alone:

[Bobbit] told me to get back in the car and lock the doors. A few minutes later, he comes back with a red gas can (and) his last 20 dollars to make sure I could get home safe.

This is a serious act of generosity from anyone. But Johnny Bobbit is homeless, and that last $20 may have meant all sorts of important things to him. He gave it to someone in need, even though most of us would have seen Bobbit as the one in need.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Bobbit is a former Marine.

McClure was so appreciative of his act, she started a GoFundMe campaign. Her goals were simple:

I would like to get him first and last month’s rent at an apartment, a reliable vehicle, and 4-6 months worth of expenses. He is very interested in finding a job, and I believe that with a place to be able to clean up every night and get a good night’s rest, his life can get back to being normal.

The campaign has amassed, as of this writing, almost $380,000 for Bobbit.

With that money, Bobbit could buy a modest home, a reliable vehicle, and get any treatment he needs. Hopefully he can find and maintain gainful employment.

Indeed. I know both from observation and bitter personal experience that once you’re down, the way the system is structured makes it very damned difficult to climb back up again. That difficulty is compounded severely as one gets older, too. There’s nobody to blame for it, and there’s no point in complaining about it; it’s just the way it is, that’s all. When you’re in a hole, it gets deep so incredibly fast that before you know it you can’t even tell which way is up anymore. So I wish Bobbit the best of luck in getting his feet back under him again. I sincerely hope he makes it.

Share

Got Moslems?

Got problems.

It’s easy to blame and ban inanimate objects. And it avoids any discussion of the perpetrators. 

Newham is the London borough with the highest number of acid attacks. It also has the second highest percentage of Muslims in the UK. 398 acid attacks occurred in 5 years in the area named as “the most ethnically diverse district in England and Wales”. 33% of Newham consists of non-UK passport holders. 

But surely that’s some sort of random coincidence.

Except that the place with the third highest number of acid attacks is Tower Hamlets. Tower Hamlets is a Muslim no-go zone. It has one of the smallest native British populations in the country. 35% of the population is Muslim. Most of those are Bangladeshis with a healthy sprinkling of Somalis.

There were 84 acid attacks in what has been dubbed “The Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets”. 

Also, entirely by coincidence, Bangladesh has the highest rate of acid attacks in the world. But if anyone suggests that these two statistics are related, the Met police will investigate them for hate crimes.

Fifth on the acid list is Redbridge where the native British population fell by 40,844 in a decade. The last census showed British and Irish natives fleeing Redbridge while Pakistanis and Bangladeshis stormed in. The Christian and Jewish population fell while the Muslim population rose 11%. So did the acid attacks. 

Pakistan has one of the highest rate of acid attacks in the world. It lags behind Bangladesh. But fortunately Redbridge boasts a diversity of both Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. And acid attacks. 

But surely this is yet another unfathomable coincidence. Like 2 + 2 equaling 4.

London is experiencing a splash of the acid test of diversity. That burning feeling on your face is the thrilling sensation of corrosive multiculturalism eating away at British communities. 

Banning guns, knives, drain cleaner, plungers and ostrich feathers won’t address the problem. The fallacy of gun control, knife control and acid control is that inanimate objects don’t kill people. 

Guns don’t shoot themselves. Knives don’t unsheathe in broad daylight and stab pedestrians. Bottles of acid don’t knock on cars and then splash the occupants when they roll down the window. 

Immigration imported acid attacks to the UK the way that it imported gangs of Muslim men stabbing waitresses in eateries while shouting, “This is for Allah”. 

Allah and acid are both imports from the Muslim world. 

Murders in London, like murders in most major American cities, are driven by gang violence. Behind the shootings, stabbings and acid attacks are gangs. Many of those gangs are made up of first and second generation migrants and settlers from the Muslim world. The UK’s prisons bulge with Muslim convicts. And these criminal gangs naturally feed recruits into Islamic terrorism as they do in Iraq and Syria. 

Banning drain cleaner won’t stop acid attacks. Drain cleaner control is no solution. Migration control is.

“Allah and acid are both imports from the Muslim world”—both having been inflicted on the Western world by its idiot “liberals.” Again: to end the scourge of barbaric Islam in civilized nations, we’ll have to end the scourge of Progressivism first.

Share

Getting it yet?

Slowly but surely, inch by painful inch.

Even apart from the fact that trust in media is at historic lows, this is what happens after decades of hyperpartisan coverage. The reason saying “I know you want to save Hillary Clinton” stings is because everyone knows it’s true. It’s not just true of Clinton, it’s true of nearly every Democratic officeholder in the land. There are consequences to unfair coverage, and one of them is that it’s hard to take media freakouts seriously anymore.

The media have spent the better part of the last 40 years crying wolf about every single conservative office seeker in the land, painting them as “successors to George Wallace.” The dog doesn’t hunt anymore, and just at the time it might be needed.

I won’t even bother reminding anyone of what political party George Wallace was a diehard member of. Praetorian Media won’t ever bring it up, but the truly beautiful thing is that—despite their most diligent efforts—we all know anyway.

If the media had been even a fraction as outraged by Hillary Clinton’s server, her shady lies, her foundation’s solicitation of funds from oligarchs and dictatorships while she served as secretary of State, the revelation that foreign governments had almost certainly hacked her information, this freakout by the media would come off very differently.

If the media had not spent 2012 mocking Mitt Romney for his “gaffe” of saying that Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat, if they had cared when Ted Kennedy asked the Soviets to intervene in the 1984 Democratic primary, if they briefly interrupted worship at Barack Obama’s feet when he made hot-mic promises to Russians, and so on and so forth, this would be a different story.

Funny, don’tcha think, how the Russians were the Democrat Socialists’ bestest pals for so long—any public mention of them as any kind of adversary or rival would give them the shrieking fantods, for decades—right up until they seemed to cross Her Royal Bitchness. Then, suddenly, they weren’t. You can almost hear them gasping “Evil Empire” right about now, and just never you mind the paroxysms of appalled agony they lapsed into back when Reagan said it all those years ago.

There’s a lesson here, and we ought to note it well: the liberal-fascists are all about winning—more than anything else, even to the exclusion of everything else. They swap allegiances, trade enemies for allies, and talk out both sides of their mouths without fear of repercussion or recrimination. They say ten different contradictory things before breakfast every single damned day, and on the rare (pre-Trump) occasions when they were called on it, simply tossed off an accusation of “racism” or “misogyny” or “homophobia” or some such and then changed the subject.

They got away with it for years and years, and figured they always would. Now, at long last, there’s a Republican nominee for president who goes after them relentlessly, and doesn’t give so much as a fart in a whirlwind how outraged Praetorian Media might wax about it. He knows who’s on his side—and who never will be, no matter how hard he tries, McCain and Romney style, to suck up to them.

We now have this perfect confluence of absolute fed-upness with all this on the part of a great swath of the country, standing behind a guy who doesn’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut who gets upset by the shit he flings at the libtards. Rather than doing the whole “let’s not be beastly to the commies” vaudeville act the Republicrats have been sickening us with for so many years, we finally have a guy who will actually say, “hey, don’t like what I just said? Fuck you, here’s more of it. Hope you fucking choke on it.”

And since this is beginning to feel like less of a focused post on a single topic and more of a generalized, willy-nilly diatribe (as has long been my wont here anyway), allow me to edify you folks with a little story on how I know Trump is going to slaughter Hillary and her Demonrat Party so completely this fall.

A few days ago I was driving by Belmont Abbey College, which for geographical reasons I have to do frequently, usually several times every day. It’s a beautiful old place; my mom worked there for a good many years, and me and my brother used to pretty much have the run of it. I actually pulled in and parked the other day so my daughter could sit and listen to the sext bells ringing, which she heard from the road as we passed by and wondered about. The oldest freestanding monastery in the US, it is. Look it up if you don’t believe me. None of which matters right now, and I apologize for the digression. Anyways.

I got behind this fella, known in these parts as the Can Man. He’s an elderly black guy who drives a plain white box van with “The Can Man” painted on the sides. He picks up empty soda cans from local businesses, households, or just off the side of the road, and hauls them off to the recycle center to make whatever few shekels he can off ’em. Just another guy trying to eke out a living any way he can off the flyblown corpse of the once-mighty American capitalist economy, right?

WELL. I used to see him riding around these parts fairly regular, and then all of a sudden I didn’t, for about a month there. I was actually kind of concerned; like I said, he’s an old guy, and I hoped he hadn’t kicked the bucket or gotten bad sick or something. Laid up in the hospital late in life with nothing backstopping you but Obamacare isn’t something I’d wish on anybody, be they close friend, casual acquaintance, or complete stranger.

I need not have worried, it turns out. What he was doing was getting his box truck painted. Well-painted, actually, a truly handsome professional job. And what he had painted on his sole source of income was this: big, splashy American flags on both sides and the back. With a photo-perfect representation of Donald Trump on all three sides, and a small caricature on the right rear, tucked in between the wheel well and the bumper. Big, bold lettering all around, saying: “Vote Trump! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Now just you think about that for a moment. Here’s a guy the Democrat Socialists would assume would be forever yoked to them. Black, every bit of 80-some years old, dirt-poor, making whatever living he can out of the discarded metal scraps of a moribund economy. I don’t know him and can do nothing more than speculate, but going on the odds, I’d say he’s a guy who probably never voted Republican in his life, and never dreamed he would.

But there he is, all in for Trump. He’s so all in, he spent probably two or three grand of his own hard-earned, at exactly nobody’s instigation and for no conceivable reward, to paint the man on the side of his work truck. There’s no way on God’s green earth that the Trump organization is paying him for his support; there’s no chance whatsoever that they’ll ever even know about him at all. He’s willing to risk whatever scorn or approbation he’ll undoubtedly get from dumbass Yankee yuppies around here to speak his piece…all over the side of his work vehicle.

Let me know next time you see that kind of sincere and spontaneous support for Cankles, or any other slimy professional politician you can think of, from whichever party.

If The Donald ever did hear about the Can Man and his campaign truck, he’d probably buy him a new truck…and a house to park it beside. That, too, is just as American as hell, in all the right ways. But none of it will matter in the least to the Can Man. He’s putting his livelihood on the line because for the first time probably ever, he’s got hold of some hope that maybe, just maybe, the politics as usual that has brought America to its knees in every way that matters might just be disrupted. He knows in his gut that we need that more than anything else right now. And he won’t be the only one out there who feels that way. Not by a long yard he won’t.

The Can Man does not give a single shit about Trump’s position on “free” trade, or TPP, or Glass-Steagall, or the CFPB. He doesn’t care about the sort of arcane arguments about Constitutional nuance people like you and me get exercised over. Crooked Hillary or Slimy Ted Cruz or any of the others could come oiling up to him, wrap a greasy tentacle around his shoulders, and promise him the moon, steak every Wednesday, and free hookers for life in return for his vote, and he wouldn’t even remember their names ten minutes later. He’s seen and heard all that shit way, way more than enough already, and he just doesn’t care.

All the Can Man wants is a president who will put American interests first, each and every time—that’s all, and that’s plenty enough for him. If you think that doesn’t add up to a blindside ass-kicking that Cankles, the Democrat Socialists, and Praetorian Media will never see coming or ever have the faintest hope of understanding, I suggest that you hide and watch.

It’s gonna be fucking great.

Share

Position paper

What it’s all about.

Populism, at least Trump’s version of it, is a platform built largely on the principle of economic nationalism. It focuses on three primary policy areas: trade, defense, and immigration.

Trump’s description of the problem for each is very clear: 1) our trade policy has decimated our manufacturing base, leaving millions of Americans economically stranded; 2) our defense policy has engaged us in conflicts around the globe that in many cases have actually made the United States less secure, and have added considerably to our bloated national debt; and 3) in 1986, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants, on the condition that our borders would be secured and illegal immigration would be dramatically curtailed. Since that time, at least 11 million (and likely many more) illegal aliens have entered the United States, effectively suppressing wages for many working Americans, and adding tremendously to the cost of our education and public assistance programs.

His stance on these issues, when taken together, represent the most important plank in the history of American conservatism. That is the vital importance, and in fact primacy, of national sovereignty. In fact, since our nation’s founding, the principle of national sovereignty has been the preeminent and driving force for what it means to be an American conservative.

It is the position that as “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” we are not only entitled but obligated to define and protect our own country, our own principles, and our own culture, independent of those nations and societies that claim the same rights and obligations.

No individual has done a better job of articulating the schizophrenic dilemma the Republican Party finds itself in today than Pat Buchanan. In fact, it was Pat, who, when running for president himself in ’92 and 2000, accurately predicted what we are facing today. He summed up perfectly the forces that have driven America into its current state of hopelessness when he described the culprits as “two wings on the same bird of prey,” that being the established power structures of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Pat also reminded us that, on more than one occasion, Bush 43 emphatically denounced the populist platform long before Trump’s candidacy. Bush defined populist positions on defense, trade, and immigration as “isolationist,” “protectionist,” and “nativist,” respectively. In 1991, shortly after the Gulf War, his father, George H. W. Bush, proudly announced to the entire world that we were entering a “new world order” (Bush’s words, not mine).

Since that time, under two Republican and two Democrat administrations, Americans have witnessed the following:

1) In the name of national defense and America’s obligation to lead the free world, we have spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands of American lives in foreign conflicts that have done little in securing order and peace, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, our intervention in places like Iraq and Libya has done a great deal to foster chaos, and create avenues through which malicious regimes and terrorist groups continue to grow and thrive.

In an effort to revive Woodrow Wilson’s mission to “democratize the world,” we have taken the presumptive and arrogant position that the United States has the right to dictate the political make-up of cultures and countries different than our own. We are doing all of this with money the country doesn’t have, and largely at the behest of other nations that refuse to participate, financially or otherwise. Americans of nearly every political and philosophical persuasion have come to realize what a misguided policy this has been.

Is this really a position of “isolationism,” or one of simple common sense?

2) In the name of free trade, since Bush 41 both parties have worked closely together to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement, establish the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade II, form the World Trade Organization, and grant Communist China most favored nation status in trade. What has this gotten us? Well, since 1991, our accumulated trade deficit approaches $12 trillion! Tens of thousands of manufacturing plants have closed, and millions of American jobs have been sacrificed for the sake of globalism. Now establishment Republicans and Democrats are locking arms once again to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Mitt Romney tells us Trump’s position would incite a trade war. Really? Since ‘91, our trade deficit with China alone exceeds $4 trillion, and he’s afraid of a trade war? Can he not see that we have been in the middle of a trade war for decades, but one we simply choose not to fight? It’s clear by now that fair-minded Americans on both sides of the aisle understand you can’t have true free trade without true fair trade.

Is this really a position of “protectionism,” or one of simple common sense?

3) In the name of compassion and human rights, today, our southern border has become a piece of Swiss cheese. The argument to secure our borders and deport, at least temporarily, those who are here illegally, stems from the simple fact that we are a nation of laws, which, everyone is required to abide by.

Bushes 41 and 43, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama would all consider this position as lacking in compassion. But the overwhelming majority of Americans understand that what truly lacks compassion is when a society attempts to absorb a group or groups of people it cannot properly and effectively assimilate in a fair and just manner. They realize, among other things, that when we fail to address this issue firmly, we are helping to drive down wages for hard-working Americans; we are further stressing our overworked public education system; and we are taxing our public assistance programs to an extent that our local, state, and federal governments are increasingly less capable of addressing.

Finally, if establishment Republican and Democrat leaders are unwilling to strictly enforce laws related to those people who are here illegally, on what grounds do they claim authority to enforce laws pertaining to this country’s legal citizens?

Is this really a position of “nativism,” or one of simple common sense?

In these three critical areas, the Bush and Romney camps have not only disavowed the core basis for conservative thinking, they have also turned their backs on American sovereignty and the American middle class. They are not conservative leaders, they are false prophets.

In 1970, cartoonist Walt Kelly, in the comic strip Pogo, paraphrased a quote of some historical significance with the line: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” No better description could be applied to the power base of the Republican Party.

He goes on to describe “the Chamber of Commerce coalition,” who often argue that, if the middle class has suffered somewhat from NAFTA and imbalanced free trade, it still benefits from lower-priced consumer goods. But what does it profiteth a man to be able to pay less for a car, a fridge, or a pair of jeans if he hasn’t worked in three years, and has no prospect of ever finding a decent job? Or is working in the “service economy”–part time, with no benefits, at a fraction of his former manufacturing-industry wage?

Like, say, this guy:

Amid the rugged cattle farms that dot the hills of southern Kentucky, in a clearing just beyond the Smoke Shack BBQ joint and the Faith Baptist Church, lie the remains of the A.O. Smith electric-motor factory.

It’s been eight years since the doors were shuttered. The building’s blue-metal facade has faded to a dull hue, rust is eating away at scaffolding piled up in the back lot and crabgrass is taking over the lawn. At its zenith, the plant employed 1,100 people, an economic juggernaut in the tiny town of Scottsville, population 4,226.

Randall Williams and his wife, Brenda, were two of those workers. For three decades, they helped assemble the hermetically sealed motors that power air conditioners sold all across America. At the end, they were each making $16.10 an hour. That kind of money’s just a dream now: Randall fills orders at a local farm supply store; Brenda works in the high school cafeteria. For a while, he said, their combined income didn’t even add up to one of their old factory wages.

Just as the Williamses were being informed by A.O. Smith that they’d be let go, a young Mexican woman named Zoraida Gonzalez was hired some 1,200 miles away in the hardscrabble town of Acuna, just over the Rio Grande from Texas. To replace its Kentucky output, A.O. Smith was ramping up production in lower-cost Mexico, a move facilitated by the signing a decade earlier of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Gonzalez was brought in to help handle phone calls.

Now 30 years old and in charge of payroll, she makes about $1.75 an hour, on par with wages earned on the plant’s assembly line. It may not seem like much by U.S. standards. (Or, for that matter, to some of the workers toiling in the heat of Acuna’s factories.) To Gonzalez, though, the money has been life-changing. It’s given her things she says her mother never had: a washing machine, cable TV, a Ford Freestar minivan that she shares with her boyfriend, daily zumba classes at a nearby gym and the hope that her 11-year-old son, Angel, will be the first member of her family to attend college.

Gonzalez doesn’t know much about Nafta and she knows even less about Donald Trump or the way he blames U.S. trade deficits with Mexico and China for the loss of jobs in America. But Williams sure does.

Maybe Williams and his wife should take Kevin Williamson’s advice and just die already. Or get themselves a U-haul and move to Mexico.

Giant sucking sound update! More on the trade imbalance from Hayward:

Economic discussions must also factor in the element of time, and it’s not entirely heartening to think our immense deficit will level itself out years or decades in the future… at which point we lose all those cheap consumer goods, and we’ve permanently lost a huge number of jobs to foreign competitors. If the shot-callers of 1985 had seen what the next 30 years would bring, would they have considered the trade-offs a good deal, and made the same policy choices?

We may also wonder if hitching so much of our economy to potentially unstable foreign systems, whose labor policies would be considered illegally abusive in the United States, is either wise or moral.

Cheaper retail prices have certainly affected both government policy and business decisions in the United States. We can all agree that when everything costs less, each dollar is worth more. But what happens when forces beyond our borders, beyond our control, begin eating away at that spreadsheet wealth by removing the advantage of low prices?

Are we comfortable with getting those prices by doing business with countries where the life of the average worker includes poverty, and diminished liberty, beyond the worst nightmares of American labor advocates – who currently insist that asking the most inexperienced domestic hire to perform the simplest entry-level task, without paying at least $15 an hour plus government-mandated benefits, is tantamount to a human-rights violation?

It shouldn’t be surprising that trade negotiations with governments that have no such concern for their citizens are lopsided against U.S. negotiators. The very conventional wisdom that suggests we’d automatically lose any sort of “trade war,” with virtually any of our economic adversaries, inherently concedes that all the leverage is stacked against us, and the process is more akin to appeasement than bilateral negotiation. The side that believes itself hopelessly outmatched in war is not likely to drive a hard bargain, unless its negotiators are exceptionally bold and clever.

Well, hey, clearly, we have nothing to worry about then.

Somewhere between doomsday exchanges of protectionist artillery, and monster trade bills that read more like surrender documents, there must be a better way – a path that might sacrifice a little short-term consumer sugar for a healthier long-term diet of American job growth, and set aside the desires of powerful international constituencies to look at what the American people really need.

Well, that’s just insane. Worse, it’s Not Who We Are™!

It’s difficult to applaud thirty years of trade policy that eroded American employment, while enriching the nation that is currently installing missile batteries in the formerly free waters of the South China Sea, and telling the world to prepare for the rise of a new hyper-power, as the old one collapses into an exhausted welfare-state heap.

And yet somehow, here we are. Must be some more of that Heinleinian “bad luck.”

Share

Utopia it ain’t

Being a “liberal” means never having to say you’re sorry. For destroying entire cities.

Carey Gabay, a Harvard-educated lawyer and aide to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was walking with his brother down a Brooklyn street near a well-traveled parade route when he was shot over the weekend. Gabay was caught in the crossfire that erupted between two rival gangs in Brooklyn. It is a spate of violence that had already taken the life of a 24-year-old man who was fatally stabbed in that same part of Brooklyn just hours earlier. Gabay remains in critical condition as of this writing. No arrests have been made in either his shooting or the deadly stabbing incident.

Hopefully, Gabay’s family was not watching MSNBC on Tuesday morning. If they were, they would have seen the city’s callous and indifferent Mayor Bill de Blasio affirming the tranquility of his city. “Crime is down almost five percent over last year,” a smiling de Blasio averred. “We have had the safest summer in over 20 years.” While overall crime is lower than in previous years, the murder rate is not. By mid-August, killings had risen by almost 10 percent over last year. De Blasio’s New York is not alone in experiencing a substantial increase in the homicide rate. In America’s Democrat-led metropolises, the murder rate is almost uniformly up from last year. Chicago is up 20 percent; New Orleans is up 22 percent; Washington D.C. is up 56 percent. Baltimore and St. Louis – two cities that were rocked by racial violence over the course of the last year – are up 56 and 60 percent respectively. Milwaukee has experienced a staggering 76 percent increase in the murder rate.

It was, however, on the matter of homelessness that de Blasio sounded his most out of touch. No New York City resident or commuter can pretend not to notice it. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of people sleeping on the streets, begging on corners, nodding off with an outstretched hand amid an opioid-fueled stupor.

“This is a historic problem, decades old,” de Blasio said in his own defense. “The fact is, the Great Recession led to something we hadn’t seen before.” The mayor’s attempt to blame the city’s homelessness spike on a recession that began six years before he took office was exposed as naked scapegoating when he was asked if Barack Obama’s economy remained subpar. “The economy’s not worse, it’s better,” he said in direct contradiction to his earlier pronouncement. The mayor sought to inoculate himself against attacks on his record by noting that his administration has transitioned 15,000 out of city shelters and into affordable housing. “Putting people in a shelter costs their lives a lot,” he added. It’s unlikely that those souls who spend their days laying face-first on a sidewalk in Manhattan’s Herald Square being literally stepped over by morning commuters would agree.

The left scarcely deserves the benefit of the doubt they receive from the public. Their hearts may be in the right place, but their hearts are distinctly poor governors. It is time for liberals to take stock of their disastrous records, and that can only happen when the public and the press stops excusing the left’s abject failures because they believe their intentions are noble.

True enough. I’d suggest not holding your breath waiting for it. The cardinal rule of Leftism is and shall remain in effect: the only possible answer to the problems they cause is more of the same, we just didn’t go far enough!

(Via Sarah Hoyt)

Share

Illegal immigration: twelve things

He’s right. Nobody said you had to like it. We just have to admit it.

A few thoughts for Americans (justifiably) upset by the influx of illegal Mexicans:

First, they come because you invite them. In effect you say, “Diego, don’t you cross that river. If you do, and we catch you, we’ll just put you back across the border and you can try again, perhaps the same night. When you make it across, which is easy, we’ll give you a good job and, depending on where you are, a driver’s license, schools for your kids, welfare, food stamps, and medical care. Any children you have will be US citizens and, as we all know, sooner or later you will have amnesty Now, don’t cross that river, you hear?.”

That’ll work.

Second, they come because you guys changed the immigration laws. Mexico didn’t change your laws. The illegals didn’t change your laws. You did.

Third, you let them stay. You are not deporting them. You encouraged them to come and, when they did, you let them stay, and now you complain that they came and stayed. How sensible.

Fourth, you grouse that Latinos take American jobs. They do not. It is probable that no Latino has ever taken an American’s job. How would he do it? Point a pistol at the gringo’s head and say, “Give me that shovel or I’ll blow you into gruel”?

In fact conservative, noisily patriotic American businessmen give them American jobs. Businessmen know they are doing it. After all, Mexicans are easy to recognize. They are brownish and speak Spanish. These are the same conservative, patriotic etc. who off-whored (that was a typo, but accurate so I’ll leave it) other American jobs to China. They are the same ones who import programmers from India. My country tis of thee…

Fifth, Americans don’t want the jobs that Latinos do. If a young man from El Salvador can come all the way from Central America to harvest tobacco in North Carolina or work in restaurants in Washington, so could an unemployed “teen” from Detroit or Chicago. They don’t, which leaves the jobs to…yes!…Latinos.

Sixth, the federal government is complicit. Obama does all he can to further immigration. Mexicans didn’t elect Obama. You did.

Twice. Our domestic idiots did that foolish, nihilistic thing twice.

Share

The Journal that saved New York

I had no idea they’d been around that long, but congrats to a fine, fine publication on its twentieth birthday: to its excellent staff, and especially to editor Brian Anderson, a long-time friend of this blog generally and Ye Humble Olde Host specifically. Brian was kind enough to send me a copy of his book, South Park Conservatives, back when it came out, and a most worthy and compelling read it is. That’s always the case with his stuff, and with the other writers in the CJ stable too.

But what about this “saved New York” business? Is Ye Humble Olde Host being facetious, or just impertinent? Is he ridiculously overstating the case?

Well, as it happens, none of those things apply. In fact, the Man That Saved New York said it long before I did. But I’m getting ahead of myself here.

Backstory, full disclosure, all that: I was in NYC at the tail end of the Dinkins admin, and was there for almost all of Giuliani’s two terms, and have visited quite frequently since. I saw the man transform New York myself, despite absolutely piteous hysterics from a good part of its citizenry (and from pretty much all of it on the Lower East Side, which is where I lived and spent most of my time) the whole while.

The outcry against Giuliani, starting from well before he even started his run for mayor, was…well, I can honestly say I’ve never really seen anything quite like it. You couldn’t pick up a newspaper, a magazine, an alterna-weekly, or a fanzine from almost any subculture from punk rock to tattooing to B&D (and I did, all of ’em) without running across at least one anti-Giuliani howl in there someplace, and usually more than one, if you count the sniffy little asides scattered like dung-mines throughout the editorial content.

The place was positively lousy with Giuliani-as-Hitler posters, and you’d walk through protests in Tompkins Square and Union Square Parks and elsewhere just about every other day, whether organized by the Gay And Lesbian Communist Transgendered Revolutionary Front or the Panty-Sniffers Action Strike Force, or just random impromptu degenerations of hack-sack tourneys, drum circles, and miscellaneous green-weenie die-ins into full-on frothing street theater. I remember walking by the Village Voice offices a few times as they were hosting, uhh, gatherings out in the street in front — naturally, they would’ve; it was their kind of scene, man, and kind of their last hurrah, since they went into the death spiral immediately after he won and started turning the city around. Giuliani-hate was in the very air like a grimy mist, and, looking back, was actually a chilling precursor to the derangement Bush 43 would inspire in the not-so-distant future.

But these days, I know a lot of people who were out in the middle of those street-theater productions, hamming it up with the rest of the flea-bitten circus, who will at least grudgingly admit that the man did some good. It was actually when I started waking up from my college-Lefty fog myself; I just couldn’t reason out how the wise and humane Left thought allowing Saddam to run roughshod over a neighboring sovereign state was in any way a good idea, and I started looking into things for myself from that point on — a thing the thin coating of standard-issue groupthink that gets sloppily brushed on in our universities just isn’t capable of withstanding much of for very long. I understand the finish holds up a lot better at the undergrad-and-above level, but still isn’t necessarily permanent. Having to get out and pay your own way in the world acts on the last crusty, rusty remnants almost like sandblasting, it seems.

I’ll let Brian explain to you what Giuliani dragged the city choking, gasping, and near death from:

Twenty years ago, the Manhattan Institute launched City Journal as an intellectual and journalistic response to New York City’s downward spiral and to the illness of the American city generally. Most observers believed that illness fatal; City Journal did not.

Several things, the magazine argued, were killing cities. The first and most pressing was crime. Recall New York in 1990, a city of fear. More than six people a day lost their lives to violence. Along with those 2,262 murders—an all-time high—came rape, assault, burglary, auto theft, and other crimes. Some inner-city neighborhoods were like war zones, with nightly drive-by shootings and police nowhere to be seen. New Yorkers grew accustomed to barring their windows, triple-locking their doors, and looking nervously over their shoulders. The same was true of residents of most other American cities.

Disorder was equally pervasive. In New York, aggressive panhandlers shook down pedestrians on corner after corner; parks were homeless encampments; graffiti scrawled its ugliness over everything. And nothing could be done about any of this urban pathology, the experts said, short of some kind of radical transformation of American life: the crime and disorder were understandable responses to an uncaring, selfish society.

Yet “uncaring” was a wildly implausible charge. In fact, American cities were being harmed by a hypertrophy of care. Since the sixties, most cities had become vast welfare agencies, providing cradle-to-grave services to the poor. Instead of helping the poor get ahead, however, the municipal welfare state caged them in dependency. By the nineties, welfare rolls had expanded dramatically, reaching more than 1 million in New York City.

To help pay for these services, taxes skyrocketed, harming urban economies already challenged by the postindustrial era. Businesses fled, as did many residents. Cities increasingly became handout-seeking wards of the federal government.

Declining schools were another big problem. New York City’s schools had once been excellent, helping generations of immigrants assimilate into their new country. By the time (CJ)’s first issue appeared, though, many schools in New York and other cities were bureaucratic failures, dominated by trendy but unproved pedagogy, ineffective teachers impossible to fire, and student brutality. Minority kids suffered the most, dropping out in droves, their futures lost, while teachers’ unions resisted reform.

Small wonder so many people gave up on cities and left for the suburbs. But City Journal rejected the idea that the urban crisis was inevitable. Change the policies, and cities could thrive. After all, as Jane Jacobs and other urbanists had shown, cities had been the primary source of economic growth and cultural dynamism throughout American—and world—history. They could be so again.

And here’s the bit where Hizzoner gives credit where it’s due:

And in New York, it happened. During the 1990s, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani implemented many ideas championed by City Journal, later saying that if there were “a charge of plagiarism for political programs, I’d probably be in a lot of trouble because I think we plagiarized most of them, if not all of them, from the pages of City Journal.” On the crime front, the magazine was an early advocate of George Kelling and James Q. Wilson’s Broken Windows theory, which holds that if a city lets beggars, hookers, and pushers conquer public space, graver crime will follow, since the authorities are sending a message that no one is in charge. Crack down on quality-of-life infractions, and potential wrongdoers hear the opposite message: that someone is watching. After Giuliani and his first police chief, William Bratton, adopted this approach and combined it with key managerial and accountability reforms, crime began to plummet, with murders down 56 percent in six years and all felony crimes dropping even more.

Giuliani introduced welfare reform, too—cutting the welfare rolls from 1.1 million when he took office to 462,000 when he left—and he began to make the city more business-friendly, among other changes that City Journal had long promoted. The result was one of the greatest public policy successes of our times: the rebirth of Gotham.

And at every step in this transformation, the professional Left raised a hue and cry that had to be seen and heard to be believed. I remember the interminable Village Voice articles denouncing welfare reform particularly; when fingerprinting of welfare recipients was implemented as a means of shutting down the I-80 corridor (known at that time as the Handout Highway because cheats were working full-time at driving its length, all the way to Illinois, to collect their government handouts in different jurisdictions along the way) as a means of defrauding the taxpayers, the Voice waxed positively lyrical about the horror of depriving the Noble Poor of the last tattered shred of their supposed “dignity.” Of course, it worked; almost immediately, literally thousands of con artists were rightly removed from the rolls.

And then there was the squeegee-man controversy. The squeegee men gathered in huge, squawking flocks like turkey-buzzards near the entrances to the tunnels to New Jersey, smearing piss-soaked rags across the windshields of unwilling drivers, then waving their tin cups in the faces of their captive “clients” and demanding money for the “cleaning” service. People would actually turn on their wipers to try to avoid being accosted by the filthy stewbums, who often threatened the hapless drivers with violent retribution if they didn’t cough up. It more closely resembled a nightmare scene in a thieves’ market in some war-torn Third World shithole than anything you’d expect to see in the erstwhile Greatest City In The World.

And naturally, when Giuliani announced a crackdown on these violent, crack-addled thugs, whose modus operandi was only a small step removed from outright mugging, the professional Left sprang into action. “No squeegee no peace” was the battle-cry for the spoiled Westchester brats who camp out and panhandle from the stoops of St Marks Place in the summer, and disappear immediately the first crisp fall night. They actually chanted that inane mantra right out loud, without any apparent embarrassment at all, sometimes getting so enthusiastic about it that their reeking dreadlocks would shake loose from the ratty bags encasing them and fly about their faces in a frenzy of wasted motion and effort.

And wasted it most certainly was, because Giuliani wisely resisted their insipid entreaties on behalf of parasites who wouldn’t piss in their mouths if their gums were on fire. The squeegee men slowly slipped back into the shadows where they belong, and commuters were once again free to endure the stalled traffic in some sort of peace.

Every day seemed to bring some small but noticeable improvement to the quality of life of New Yorkers, even as so many of them complained bitterly about it. Giuliani broke the Progressivist hammerlock that was strangling New York City, and any New Yorker who is now free to stroll the city at night without fear of molestation or bodily harm owes him a debt of gratitude. Likewise, they owe some thanks to Brian Anderson and City Journal, too. I’ll be most pleased to raise a glass tonight to toast their success, and to wish them twenty more years of it at least. Everyone who cares at all about our great American cities — the damage liberal misrule has done to them, and the possibilities for reclaiming and restoring them — owes them the same thanks. Hearty congratulations to all involved; ya done good, gang.

Share

SOLD! American

Another non-surprise:

The Obama administration has decided to abandon construction of a high-tech “virtual fence” along the Mexico-U.S. border, proclaiming it an expensive failure.

Just as most people expected it to be.

When the so-called Secure Border Initiative was announced back in 2006, President Bush called it “the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history.”

“The American people are rightfully insistent on the fact that we solve this 30-year-old problem,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said. “And this is about a solution which we believe is going to do the job.”

Even at the time, though, most of those paying attention understood the project to be a purely political gesture by the Bush administration, which was eager to tamp down criticism of its immigration policy.

Bush was, and remains, an amnesty-promoting RINO. He was right on the War On (Some) Terror for about fifteen minutes there, and his love of country and honest respect and affection for its soldiers can’t really be gainsaid, unlike the Current Occupant. But beyond that, there ain’t a whole lot good to say about most of his policies — and especially the sham border “fence.” Anybody who ever believed it would either A) do what it was supposed to do, or B) ever be finished in the first place, was a schmuck on wheels.

I have to wonder, though: why is it that the dilemma here is always presented to us as either open borders and amnesty, or no immigration at all? Is there really anybody out there at all (beyond a handful of fringe lunatics) who truly believes those are the only choices we have? What the hell is so damned difficult about securing the borders FIRST, and then reforming immigration to streamline the process and make it easier and quicker for legitimate applicants to get in, that most of our Ruling Class can’t seem to comprehend?

Why yes, as a matter of fact that was sarcasm just now. Why do you ask?

(Via Bill)

Share

Razing Arizona

“I’m fixing a hole where the rain and a million people get in”-Paul McCartney, assistant librarian, Liverpool, Arizona

Milwaukee County Supervisor Peggy West, on boycotting Arizona:

“If this [Arizona] was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this. But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border.”

She’s twice-confused in her geography; she thinks Arizona is over by Kansas and that Milwaukee County extends to Tuscon. That’s why she’s writing laws for Arizona, you see.

But we shouldn’t be too hard on her. The President doesn’t know where the border is either.

The Disclaimer-in-Chief has put up warning signs on federal lands 80 miles from the border and 30 miles outside of Phoenix, warning Americans that they are entering the sovereign territory of smugglers and drug gangs. Gov. Brewer wants him to do his job instead. Imagine.

Shouldn’t the warning signs be aimed at foreign criminals, not law-abiding citizens? If BP was recklessly using these public lands without permission, the feds would put a stop to it at once!

Or maybe not.

When Arizona’s law passed, Mexico issued travel warnings to its citizens (say–isn’t that the problem to begin with?)…and now Obama has issued travel warnings for Americans in America, too! It makes sense: to Obama, Arizona is a foreign country.

He won’t plug the hole in the ocean.
He won’t plug the hole in the budget.
He won’t plug the hole in the border.
And he can’t seem to plug his piehole.

But there is one hole he’s relentlessly working on plugging, night and day…his hole-in-one.

If she really wants his full attention, she should declare the desert a sand trap.

Share

The W o BFF: r u n nml?

COG-NITIVE FUNCTION-ARIES

Jonah G.:

“We say he doesn’t need a best friend.”

As a result of this thinking, best friends are broken up. Buddies are put on separate teams, assigned to different classes, etc. It’s not quite the sort of thing cult leaders and North Korean prison guards do, but in principle it’s not too far off either. …

I think removing best friends from childhood is a barbarous and inhumane act, akin to amputating a limb from an athlete. You can still have a childhood without a best friend, just as you can still be an athlete without a leg. But why would you voluntarily make someone’s life so much harder? Having someone with whom you can share the joys and discoveries of early life is a gateway into not just adulthood, but humanity.

The most offensive part of this whole enterprise is that it is aimed at making life easier for administrators, not better for kids.

In his 1998 book, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, Yale political scientist James C. Scott documents how over time states of all kinds — democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, et al. — try to make their populations more “legible.” …

Scott documents all sorts of massive state failures that ignored human nature and common sense. The war on best friends strikes me as a perfect retail example of this wholesale line of thinking.

At a minimum, I think the kids should get cable tv, weight rooms and free lawyers like the other inmates.

Share

Happy Fathers’ Day, dads

Old man says, “Young man, my, you’re looking
Pretty green
Like a stranger to this kind of place
Come sit at my table
Come and look into my face
I’ve got a story to tell.”–James Taylor, “Only For Me”, Dad Loves His Work

Thanks, dads–and those kids need you more than ever today.

Share

Categories

Archives

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix