Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Ummm….WINNING, is it?

I think Coulter just may be tired of all the, uhh, WINNING.

Mulvaney’s most disturbing comment was to say that what upset Trump the most was the Democrats’ “spiking the football” on this deal.

Apparently, Trump’s fine with no wall — and everything else in a bill straight out of George Soros’ dream journal — if only the Democrats hadn’t been so rude as to tell the public about it. When your main complaint is that the other side is gloating too much, maybe you’re not that great a negotiator.

Yeah, sure, it’s only 100 days in, it’s an artificial deadline, the media is dying to say Trump has failed and so on.

Except: Planning for the wall should have begun on Nov. 9, and a spade should have been put into the earth to begin building it the day after Trump’s inauguration. Now, it’s 100 days later, and we still don’t have the whisper of a prospect of a wall.

Moreover, this isn’t one random bill funding Planned Parenthood (which this bill does). This is the budget deal. There won’t be another one like it until next October.

That’s a spectacular failure. Democrats have got to be pinching themselves, thinking, Am I dreaming this?

Oh, I doubt that. After all, it’s only been like this for the last forty years or so; they gotta be so used to it by now they just take it as a given. This, though, is the crucial part:

No amount of abandoning his supporters will get Trump anywhere with Wall Street, Hollywood or the media. Their ferocity will simply shift to ridicule.

The deal was that we were getting the Hollywood version of a New York businessman: an uncouth, incurious rube — who would be ruthless in getting whatever he wanted.

In addition to being the only candidate for president in either party taking America’s side on trade, immigration, jobs and crime, what set Trump apart was his promise that we would finally win.

Remember? There would be so much winning, we were going to get “sick and tired of winning,” and beg him, “Please, please, we can’t win anymore…It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else.”

We’re not winning. We’re losing, and we’re losing on the central promise of Trump’s campaign.

How would Trump, the businessman, react if an underling charged with developing a new golf course could never break ground?

Trump would fire that employee so fast your head would spin.

We want the ruthless businessman we were promised.

We certainly do. Yes, it’s early days yet, steep learning curve, all that. And I always said anyone expecting Trump to fix everything all by himself was delusional—in four years, much less a few months. But on the wall at least, it’s time for him to dig in and bare some teeth. No, he can’t legislate from the Oval Office, that ain’t how it works. And yes, he’s produced some very good executive orders, and is fighting a three-front war against the Republicrats, the Demicans, and Court Media. But he’s showing too much give on some of his core platform planks, seems to me, and if he wants to risk being turned into a lame duck three years prematurely, well, that’s probably the way to go about it.

We elected you to drain the damned swamp, Donald. A tough job, certainly—maybe, probably an impossible one—and one that won’t get done in a day, or a hundred of them. But you ain’t gonna do it by pouring more stinkwater in, either.

Update! Schlichter:

So far you’ve done some great things, and you are blessed with hilariously inept enemies. But the one opponent you can’t beat is yourself. That’s why they are trying to manipulate you – because only you can defeat you.

Are you going to let yourself be played?

Do you want to go down in history as a loser?

If your reaction to seeing your buddy Arnold’s miserable failure is “Oh yeah? Hold my near beer!” just keep on stiffing your friends and hanging with the “cool” kids who are laughing at you behind your back.

Or you can say “No.” You can take charge. You can tell the K Street Krew and the Squish Squadron how it’s going to be. You spent your life dealing with old money jerks who laughed at you for who you are and what you did. Until now, you played them. Not vice versa. They were never your friends, and they aren’t now.

Choose to lead, not be led.

Choose loyalty to you and the cause, not the wormtongued advice of craven creeps.

Choose to be a winner, not pathetic.

Amen, to every word of it. Screw those “craven creeps,” as hard and fast and deep as possible, every chance you get. Dance with who brung ya.

Share

(Un)Civil (not quite) War

Or not yet, anyway.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

Well, in fairness (of a sort), if anybody knows treason, it would be these guys.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next.

Ain’t it. Ain’t it just. As Daniel says, this country was founded on the assumption that certain core principles—limited government; the paramount importance of individual liberty to pursue one’s own ambitions without interference; the idea of rights granted not by government but by God, existing outside government and properly beyond its reach, unalienable and sacrosanct; the right, in sum, to be left alone—were shared among all of us.

That is no longer the case; the assumption no longer holds. The Left has not only abandoned those principles; it abhors them, is hostile to them. It has to be; its lust for absolute power cannot otherwise be sated. The thought of even one of us being out of their clutches, free of their malign influence and authority, is anathema to them.

And also as Daniel says, the question really is what comes next. There is liberty, or there is…not. The two positions are irreconcilable; as I’ve said before here, if you really believe compromise with them is possible, then which of your Constitutionally-enumerated freedoms are you willing to surrender to them? Tyranny cannot coexist with freedom; it’s one or the other.

So either we find some way to persuade them of the dire, hideous consequences of their decision to disregard our right to self-determination, of the folly of trying to further enslave us, or we accept our servitude and surrender to them once and for all. Bottom line? This:

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.

Bingo. We must all hope that they wake up eventually, before it’s too late to avoid a cataclysm that I expect will be far, far worse than the last one. But we shouldn’t delude ourselves about exactly what they are, either. Ultimately, we’re going to find out what our liberty is truly worth to us. Its value, as always, is not calculated in the coin of the realm, or in gold; it’s calculated in blood.

We’re poised on the brink; it’s not too late to step back, I believe. But it’s them who will have to do the stepping; we’ve stepped back ourselves so far that our backs are now against the wall, and there’s no place left for us to go but right directly at them. It’s a horrible prospect for sure. But what they have in mind for us is far worse.

Share

I stand corrected

A riposte in our comments section from Ironbear to yesterday’s War To The Knife post that really needs to be brought out front here, I believe.

Rabid partisanship and political vituperation and voting with your wallet is as American as Apple Pie and Mom. It’s only in the latter parts of the 20th Century that we’ve been sold a bill of goods that we’re supposed to be “bi-partisan” and “better than that” and “not sinking to the level of our enemies” and all that shite.

It’s a bill of goods sold to us by our enemies, because it’s easier for them to win when we’re hobbled by having our hands tied with their rules.

Screw that noise. It’s time we got back to our roots and went all 19th Century on them.

We’ll know that America is reborn and slowly coming back alive and kicking when Ted Cruz horsewhips Chuck Schemer out of the Senate Chambers. Or when a Republican Congressman takes a cane to one of their “Honorable Opponents” from the Other Party and beats the crap out of them. And/or when Rand Paul calls out Paul Ryan and challenges him to a duel – and shoots him.

(Look up the history: all based upon actual incidents from our history.)

Kim du Toit is right: we’ve gotten pussified. We’ve forgotten our own history because we’ve let the Left revise it on us until we’ve bought into their precepts of how it was and how it should be.

It’s far past time that we remembered that the American thing to do is to punch the bad guy in the snoot – after calling him a bad guy to his face.

True enough. But we should probably keep carefully in mind what ended up following Preston Brooks’s caning of Charles Sumner in particular. It may well be as inevitable as that first great American cataclysm was. It shouldn’t be flinched from, perhaps, but it should be feared, and avoided, if possible; the result won’t be predictable, there’s no guarantee at all that won’t lead us into a situation even worse than the one we have now, and the price will be terrible. It’s not something I would wish my daughter to have to endure. Although a life enslaved to an illegitimate, predatory Superstate certainly isn’t, either.

We should have no illusions about the Disloyal Opposition; I heard Mitch McConnell on the radio today referring to Senate Democrat Socialists as “our colleagues” or some such mealy-mouthed twaddle, and I admit it annoyed the hell out of me. As I keep saying, they are enemies: the enemies of everything America was supposed to be about, dedicated to ruling over us with an iron fist, intent on our political and perhaps even personal destruction, ruthless and implacable. We need to recognize that. But that still doesn’t mean we should eagerly leap into a second civil war—a real war, a shooting war—or be happy about it should we fail to avert it.

I don’t have any answers on this one. But I think righteous anger and determination tempered with caution and even a touch of dread might be the best approach to take for now. And yeah, should one of them give you a poke in the snoot at a pro-Trump rally, I’d say take the advice of their slope-shouldered tin god and punch back twice as hard (and MAN, hasn’t it been wonderful not to have to hear his annoying drone on the news every day!). Maybe if they collect themselves enough bloody noses and black eyes in response it will bring them back from the brink of madness, and we can all avoid slipping into hellish nightmare.

Share

Royal Nonesuch

Yeah, I been re-reading some Mark Twain of late. Why do you ask?

The fact is the “Palestinians” never had “their own country,” to return to and “liberate.” They could have had a country if the UN partition had been accepted. However, hatred of the Jews and refusal to accept the existence of a neighboring Jewish state outweighed the gift of having their own state. This abhorrent fact renders Arafat’s statement about the existence of “their country” as a lie.

It should also be noted the Jews have had a constant presence here dating back over 3,000 years. Plus, since they were victorious in defending themselves in the Six Day War of 1967, international law allows them to claim the disputed land, which gave them the legal right to build communities.

It’s time to call a spade a spade. The entire premise on which the PLO was founded is a fabrication. There was never a “Palestine” and no “Palestinian” people. What is correct is there were Arabs of various ethnic origins living together with Jews in an area which was under the control of the British. Arafat himself for example, was a transplanted Arab Egyptian, not a “Palestinian.”

Part of the challenge of this unending conflict is separating fact from fiction. Suggesting the “Palestinians” have the right to “liberate their country” assumes they have or had one. They don’t and never did.

All they’ve ever had to do to achieve peace is accept Israel’s existence, on land the Jews had lived on for millennia before their Pedophile Prophet was even born. This they have steadfastly and constantly refused to do; their travails are of their own making, their aspirations are based on genocidal lunacy and nothing more, and they are thus deserving of no sympathy from civilized people at all. Then, too, there’s this:

…a 1751 manuscript book that has some very interesting ‘data’ which may interest but come as no surprise to the moron horde though a great surprise to those that would seek to delegitimize the State of Israel.

This book was likely created by either a British naval officer or an academic; its title is ‘Some Memorandums Relating to Geography and Astronomy’.

Two entries I found very interesting but not surprising were ‘Different Kingdoms of the World’ of which Israel is listed and an entry regarding capital cities of which Jerusalem is named for Israel. [No there is not a single mention of the word Palestine anywhere.]

And there wouldn’t be, of course. “Palestine” is a fabrication, a hallucination shared by murderous barbarians squatting on land that was never theirs, and the benighted Western ignoramuses who hew to them and feed their hatred. The outcry over Israeli “settlements” is malicious horseshit; the Palestinian “right of return” does not exist, and never did. Their continued existence is due almost entirely to Israeli human decency and forbearance, and little other reason at all.

Share

Very simple, not so easy

Much is always being made of the “complexities” of the Israel-Palestine problem. It’s no such thing; it is very easy, very simple to understand. And as a service to my beloved readers, I am now going to lay it out for you, in a way that even the simplest libtard could grasp, were they willing to even try.

It all boils down to this quote from the Hadith:

Sahih Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

And there it is. How do you negotiate, how do you compromise, how do you find common ground with that? With people whose most sincere wish—for whom the cornerstone of their very existence—is to see Israel destroyed and the Jews—all Jews, including those foolish and despicable American Jews immersed in Progressivist self-deception and wishful thinking—wiped from the face of the earth?

There are plenty more such quotes from the Koran, Hadith, and Sura (a hundred and nine of them, in fact, for which there is NO equivalent in the Christian bible, although the Torah does have some questionable passages that hew uncomfortably close to the Koran), not just endorsing, not just suggesting, but outright commanding violence on the part of the followers of the vile, deranged pedophile Mohammed. Such commands are what make Islam unique among all the world’s religions, particularly in the modern age. Thus:

The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.

And again: there it is.

Now, the Israelis have tried trading land for peace in the West Bank and Gaza; in each case, they lost the land, but did not gain peace.

Time and again—and even as staunch and solid an Israeli leader as Netanyahu has fallen victim to the delusion—Israel has been led to the bargaining table with deceptive, treacherous, and genocidal Paleosimian leaders. Time and again, they have made their bootless concessions. And time and again, the Palestinian swine have walked away, from Arafat to Abu Mazen, now known for some reason as Mahmoud Abbas. The inescapable historical fact:

UN Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, passed in November 1947, called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the land which at that point was controlled by the British-run Palestine Mandate. All the Arab countries opposed the resolution, voted against it, and promised to go to war to prevent its implementation. Representing the Palestinians, the Arab Higher Committee also opposed the plan and threatened war, while the Jewish Agency, representing the Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate, supported the plan.

The Arabs and the Palestinians were true to their word and did launch a war against the Jews of Palestine, violating both Resolution 181 and the UN Charter. Much to the surprise of the Arab side, the Jews were able to survive the initial onslaughts and eventually win the war.

The fundamental fact remains that had the Arabs and the Palestinians accepted the Partition Resolution and not violated the UN Charter by attacking Israel, there would be a 63-year-old Palestinian state today next to Israel, and there would not have been a single Palestinian refugee.

Just as today, it seems that even in 1948 the Arab side was more concerned with opposing and attacking the Jewish state than with creating a Palestinian state.

The Jews were living in Judea hundreds of years before Mohammad was even born and his filthy pseudo-religion established by conquest and murder. The so-called Palestinians have no legitimate, historical, or legal claim to so much as one inch of Israeli land. The Israelis would be perfectly happy to adopt the so-called “two-state solution,” and have tried in good faith and with no intent of deception to do just that. The Palestinians have rejected each and every such offer and resumed their barbaric atrocities. They wish to see Israel destroyed, and the Jews wiped from the face of the earth. There’s your Israeli-Palestinian problem summed up; there’s why, as long as the Palestinians cling to the abominable teachings of Mohammed, there will never be a real solution. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

As I said yesterday, there are those on the alt-Right who would see us abandon Israel and cozy up to the Muslim shitrapies. I will never be one of them.

Bottom line update! JJ Sefton sums up pretty well:

Since its founding in 1948, the modern State of Israel has been the lone beacon of freedom and enlightenment surrounded by a vast wasteland of medieval tyranny, pig-ignorance, squalor, barbarity and a blind, centuries-old unreconstructed hatred. In spite of this, it has year after year made concession after concession in a desperate attempt to stop generational bloodshed and save the lives of not only its own children but of children whose parents use them as suicide bombers. It has only earned them enmity. And the twin ideologies of Islam and Marxism are converging with the aim of wiping Israel off the map and annihilating every Jew that Hitler couldn’t gas now in sight; all thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States.

Having backed Israel into a corner by all but giving Iran nukes, and now opening a second front at the UN to annihilate the Jewish state politically, I suppose Bibi’s only response must be as unthinkable as Obama’s incitement: Annex the West Bank and to hell with the consequences.

Well, nah; all he really has to do is just wait till January 20th, when the Marxist, Jew-hating Left will finally get its comeuppance, Israel will once again have a friend in the White House and, as Trump said, “things will be different.”

Things WILL be different update! A most delicious quote: “Who is Obama?” (Israel’s Culture and Sports Minister Miri) Regev asked rhetorically. “Obama is history. We have Trump.” Yes, we do—all of us, Israelis and Americans alike—and not a moment too soon, either.

5 questions update! Here’s the first two:

1.  Why are the territories continually referred to as “Palestinian?” With cities such as Hebron, Shilo, Bethlehem, Jericho, and Jerusalem—and many others from the Bible—why is the land never referred to as “Jewish” or “Christian?” For example, one of the most well-known cities in the West Bank is known as “The Palestinian city of Nablus.” How many people know how that name came about? (Hint: the Roman Emperor Vespasian re-named it from Shechem to “Neapolis,” as in Naples).

2.  Why are Palestinians free to live throughout cities in Israel such as Tel Aviv, but Jews are told they cannot be free to live in cities such as Hebron or Jerusalem?

Good questions all. I’ll add one of my own: what kind of access do you think Christians, Jews, or any non-Muslims would be allowed to holy sites in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Jericho, and other places in Israel if the Palestinians were in charge of them? Hint: one need only look to Mecca for the answer.

Share

War of all against all

Some things never change.

Finally, Cracked and their experts suggest the idea that a second American civil war will not be two-sided, but multi-sided. This is the only intelligent notion in the entire article and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Here is the problem — multiple groups on the left and the right have entirely different concepts on what the final American product should look like. Some on the left are anarchists, some are communists, some just want the continuation of the democratic process (but still think Trump should be supplanted). On the right, there are hardcore neo-cons and war hawks that want to nuke the Middle East into oblivion, women and children included. There are libertarians that just want a return to small government and constitutionalism. There are anarcho-capitalists that seem to want the erasure of government and the constitution entirely but live in a world of theory rather than practicality (I call them egghead libertarians). There are even Christian factions that long for a Christian-based theocracy.

Then, there are people like me, who just want to get to the root of the problem and hang the globalists from lampposts (after a speedy trial of course). We don’t necessarily have a beef with any other group as long as they stay out of our way. We would like to circumvent the danger of a civil war altogether if possible.

Unfortunately, I think Cracked and their experts are right on this, and that a second American civil war will be multifaceted. And, while we are all at each others throats, the elites will be lounging on the riviera sipping mojitos and laughing. The most dangerous faction (besides the elites) will be the catalyzing faction; the regressive left. They will be the group that initiates all other hostilities.

What leftists do not know is that they have always been useful idiots for the global elites, and, they will be thrown in the garbage once the elites are finished with them.

Which is the only amusing thing I can find in the whole scenario. Well, that, and the prospect of gunning down the damned mooing Leftards in job lots.

Share

Unity now!

Not now, not ever.

Any number of times where we’ve been victorious, the left, by rote, starts demanding unity, that we get rid of our differences, that we come together. But it always ends up being us that has to do it. They never have to change a damn thing about themselves, even and especially when they lose. No, it’s all up to us to compromise, to unify, to do whatever it is so they won’t be angry anymore, so their protesters can get off the streets and once again enjoy life. Why is there disunity in America in the first place?

Well, it’s natural when you have partisan politics as the governing system of the country, and it’s not gonna change. And as long as you have passionate people on both sides, you’re going to have partisan divides.  And as long as both sides have people are never gonna compromise their principles, you’re always going to have a circumstance where there is never unity. The nation’s never been unified in the ways that people today are demanding it be unified anyway. It’s a pipe dream, something that sounds really wonderful to hope for. 

And, by the way, it sounds really wonderful to say in the afterglow of an election, to talk about putting aside our differences and unifying. It sounds wonderful, and maybe that’s what Americans want to hear. I’m hoping it’s just what people think they have to say right now on our side. Look, there’s a headline in The Politico today: “Obamacare Defenders Vow ‘Total War.'” They’re not gonna lay down, folks. They’re not gonna unify.

For unity to take place, they would have to agree with us that Obamacare is a disaster and help us get rid of it and put something in its place. They’re not gonna do that.  Why, when they just got beat, they just got shellacked, when their entire agenda was repudiated and all because Trump put this stuff out there that he was going to get rid of Obamacare? Trump won! Why in the world should we, after victory, say, “Okay, we’ll leave it and we’ll let you guys come in and participate in the meetings that we’re gonna have to save it”?

It’s not how things would work if we lost. 

No, and it never has been. But the GOPe was all too happy to lie down and roll over for them anyway, and while Rush says it’s because of cowardice, my belief is that it’s more like collusion.

It is a trap. 

There is disunity because the left views this as constant, never-ending war. We have tried. Our party, members of our party have tried to appease the Democrats and the left for as long as I have been doing this, and it never, ever works. It never makes the media less mean. It never causes Democrats to say they love us and like us more. Not that that matters, but it seems that some people want that to be the case.

Well, it does if you assume that they’re so stupid as to be blind to a reality easily enough seen by the rest of us. I don’t buy that.

As for disunity, it’s because we have a clash between two very different views of proper government, and they are irreconcilable. The Left, the Progressivists, the liberals, whatever, believe that there should be no limits at all on what government may do. They believe, against all historical evidence, that a powerful central government is necessary not only to restrain a stupid and hapless populace from harming themselves and others, but to coerce the sheeple into proper modes of behavior and thinking. They believe in a near-omnipotent federal government as the shepherd and protector of people too benighted to act in their own best interests. They believe that the best solution to nearly any problem you could name is a government solution.

The rest of us believe in the people’s right to be left alone. They believe that, if not carefully monitored and checked by our Constitutional system, the federal government will slowly but surely expand its reach and power to whatever degree it can get away with. They believe it will stifle the economy, usurp our individual liberty, and slowly transform us from a hardy and independent people into a nation of meek, servile children. They believe most particularly that this part of the Constitution—although long neglected and abused—means exactly what it says, and just might be its most eternally relevant and vital statement: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Again: there is no reconciling this conflict. Which is why this election, heartening though it was, will settle precisely nothing. The divide cannot be bridged; the conflict will have to be settled in some other fashion, if it ever is.

Update! Think I was kidding about how much they hate the Founders, and all their principles and prescriptions for proper governance?

University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan is being asked to refrain from quoting Thomas Jefferson because of his racist beliefs, according to The Cavalier Daily.

A letter, signed by 469 faculty members and students, was sent to Sullivan on Nov. 11 protesting the use of a Jefferson quotation in her email calling for unity after the presidential election, the student newspaper reported.

“We would like for our administration to understand that although some members of this community may have come to this university because of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, others of us came here in spite of it,” the letter read. “For many of us, the inclusion of Jefferson quotations in these e-mails undermines the message of unity, equality and civility that you are attempting to convey.”

Lawrie Balfour, a politics professor who signed the letter, told the newspaper that those who signed the letter were grateful that Sullivan responded to anxiety following the election but felt it was the wrong moment to turn to Jefferson because of recent incidents of identity-related hate speech.

“I’ve been here 15 years,” Balfour said. “Again and again, I have found that at moments when the community needs reassurance and Jefferson appears, it undoes I think the really important work that administrators and others are trying to do.”

And there you have it, straight from the horse’s…uhhh, mouth.

Our “countrymen”? Not hardly. Not in any sense beyond a strictly geographical one, anyway.

Share

What if…?

Gavin McInnes suggest a course of action should the unthinkable come to pass. Hint: it does NOT involve going gently into that good night.

So here is how we’re going to lose: We are going to fight even harder to get this country back and we are going to fight dirty. When they go low, we are going to go lower. If they want to make it personal and ignore the facts, we’re happy to dive into the muck. The majority of the GOP refuse to do this and this is why they just became extinct. When Rush Limbaugh indicated that Sandra Fluke might be a slut for demanding birth control from a Catholic institution, conservatives were outraged he swore. Fuck them. We swear now.

We learned this from watching Trump and it’s a lesson that can’t be unlearned no matter who becomes president. He’s the centipede hatched from a dying GOP and we watched him go from an egg to a larva, past pupa and into the inevitable full-grown arthropod we see today. When the Huffington Post said it was only covering Trump in the Entertainment pages next to the Kardashians, Trump responded with “I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man. He made a good decision.” When Ann Coulter describes this moment in her book In Trump We Trust, she adds, “Imagine Mitt Romney doing that.” She’s right. It’s unfathomable. He was too wholesome and that’s exactly why he lost. Mitt never said “grab them by the pussy.” I don’t think he even knows the word. The man had zero skeletons in his closet, but that wasn’t good enough for America. They dumped him for being square. So, evolution brought us Ted Cruz. The job of the president is to uphold the Constitution, and Cruz could recite it forwards and backwards. Unlike Romney, he had the balls to stand up to anyone and seemed to thoroughly enjoy conflict. He was dumped for being too ugly and boring. This begot Trump. We went from a puritan virgin, to a virgin who can fight, to a dirty fighter on his third wife. If he loses, we will continue the life cycle and become a violent gang of dirty fighters. This is why, even if he loses, he won. Trump taught us that taking the high road doesn’t work. He taught us that intellect and decency and turning the other cheek get you slapped in the face. We don’t mind rolling up on Hillary and her supporters in our convertible and proudly declaring, “Afternoon, counselor,” as Max Cady did. It’s just as enjoyable as victory.

Life in a post-Hillary America is about revenge. If a professor is being pilloried for violating PC laws, we should go down to the president’s office and demand liberty. Milo Yiannopoulos did this when his DePaul University talk was shut down and it led to school president Dennis Holtschneider stepping down. We need to begin naming names. When bloggers and journalists shame an innocent person, we need to shame them back. Shannon Coulter, who has been annoying people for decades, recently began a campaign to obsessively harass stores that sell Ivanka Trump merchandise (ever notice these people are always running fake companies?). She needs to be punished for punishing the employees of a candidate’s daughter. Ugly thumb Hampton Catlin and his sadly androgynous husband Michael Lintorn Catlin got Brendan Eich fired for not being a fan of gay marriage. Let’s check in on them and their fake company and make sure they understand sabotage as much as Eich. When Adria Richards got “mr-hank” fired for making a dongle joke, nerds harassed her employers until they did the same to Richards. The Richardses and the Catlins of the world are not real bullies. They’re crybullies. The only thing holding us back was our own restraint and if Hillary gets elected, “the chains are off.” We thought it too gauche to mention that Arianna Huffington is so bad in bed, her naked body drove a man to homosexuality. Well, it’s not. It’s fun and it’s funny. I realize I sound like a Social Justice Warrior right now and that’s because I’m about to become one: a Social Justice Warrior Warrior.

Instead of whining about how unseemly and awful it is to be punched, we ought to be punching back twice as hard, as somebody or other (ahem) once said. And if you libtards don’t like Trump, wait till you see what comes next, you fascist bastards. We didn’t want it to come to this; we tried to warn you, again and again and again. But you refuse to learn the lesson about the importance of leaving people the hell alone. Now you get to reap the whirlwind. May you have joy of your meddlesome arrogance in the end. Otherwise, it’s this:

Men: If Hillary Clinton wins on Tuesday, you might as well lop off your testicles with a meat cleaver and ship them parcel post to Washington, DC. Either that, or you can wait until the new Queen Bee’s Castration Squad knocks down your door and leaves your groin as flat and smooth as a Barbie Doll’s crotch. Get ready to have a vagina spot-welded onto where you used to have a penis.

You think I’m kidding, don’t you?

No, I don’t, and he isn’t. Read the rest of it.

The other day I heard a NPR propaganda story on a Hillary rally that featured some angry, aggressive bint complaining about Trump’s dead-accurate “such a nasty woman” quote with this: “The world needs a lot more nasty women.” No, actually it doesn’t; we have a surfeit of them; we’re drowning in them, they’ve all but swamped and capsized us. “Nasty” isn’t the same as “brave” or “independent” or even “feisty” and “spirited.” It’s just nasty. And nobody not one themselves needs any more of it. We’re about to see how much they really like it when we get nasty ourselves.

The days of overcivilized forbearance, of sitting back meekly nodding our heads and hoping the alligator will eat us last, are and of right ought to be done. We can only hope we didn’t wait too long. The swamp that badly needs draining isn’t bounded by the Beltway, you know.

Share

If this doesn’t worry the hell out of ya…

You ain’t thinking clearly.

In 2014, we asked, “What can a mere rifle do?” in reference to a standoff attack on a Pacific Gas and Electric power substation in Metcalf, California.

The answer, in that case, was to blow the transformers to hell and gone, and bug out. To date, there has been no arrest in the case; at one time, a DHS official suggested it was an inside job. There have been subsequent attacks, despite attempts to upgrade security; indeed, once, criminals cut through a fence and made off with equipment that was on site — for security upgrades.

Now, there’s been a new rifle attack on a station, in rural Utah. It appears to have been less sophisticated and less persistent than the California attack, but more effective — the attacker or attackers blew the station off the grid with as few as three rifle shots.

Read on for the wholly laughable “security” measures put into place; they’re a forlorn echo of the sort of DHS/TSA security theater we’ve all become used to at airports, ports, and former borders.

The question, as WeaponsMan says, is: how exactly DO you prevent such attacks? Is it even possible to do so?

Finally, the problem with “security” is that it comes down to a mall cop sitting night-in night-out at a bank of computer screens.

Want El Al security? You have to spend El Al money and hire El Al level of people.

How likely does anybody think that is, until after it’s way too late?

The truly worrying thing to ponder, though is this: whether it’s a Muslim terrorist or a domestic variant doing it, if you wanted to spark some real civil unrest and concomitant tragedy—the sort of thing that could easily and quickly lead to a broad and irreparable rip in the fabric of society—I can’t think of a more effective way to do it than to shut the power grid down for even a not-so-comparatively-long period. Might take more than a few rifle shots to do it; then again, it might not.

Sort of makes the #BlackLiesMurder rioters look like pikers all of a sudden, don’t it? But then, if whoever is doing this DOES have, shall we say, a deeper agenda, then he’s already proved himself to be way smarter than those feeble stupes are, just by his choice of targets.

Share

Letter from our future

Nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide.

I am almost 50 years old, I have a University degree, and was – out of love for nature – always a trusted voter for the Green Party. I never felt much interest for politics. In Germany everything seemed to always go its natural regular course. I had trusted our parliamentary democracy, I thought our administration would hardly make mistakes, because it is controlled by the opposition. Never, absolutely never did I think that I would lose all my trust in the State. It’s unbearable that I am afraid of the future. Preferably I’d just like to leave. But I feel to old to leave Europe.

What country would even take me anymore? I am not a shameless African that just seats himself in a refugee boat. I would properly apply to the respective immigration authority. But my chances are close to zero. I am – like most Europeans – damned to impotence as I see this invasion happen.

When, about ten years ago, a friend of mine emigrated to Australia, I felt sorry for her. How could one leave our beautiful Europe? A continent with such wonderful nature and culture. I would’ve never even thought of this. Today I know: She did the right thing.

For now, perhaps. But the problem with running is that, sooner or later, what’s chasing you always catches up.

(Via WRSA)

Share

These you will have with you always

Fred on the minimum wage, and the larger problem.

There is of course much hypocrisy in the theoretical edifice. For example, businessmen argue that the minimum wage constitutes intolerable interference by the government in the conduct of business—meanwhile sending armies of lobbyists to Washington to make the government interfere in the conduct of business. In fact capitalists have no objection to federal meddling. They just want it to be such meddling as puts more money in their pockets. Nothing more. Ever.

In like fashion they say that they want to protect the worker’s freedom—yes, his freedom, such is the capitalist’s benevolence, the worker’s freedom–to sell his labor at a mutually agreed price. Curiously, in practice this means the employer’s freedom to push wages as close to starvation as he can get away with. This miraculous congruence of high principle with low profit is among the wonders of the universe.

A capitalist will similarly object to zoning on grounds of protecting property rights–it’s his land, and he can do with it as he likes—but if you buy the lot next to his house and build a hog-rendering plant, he will shriek for…zoning. 

In every case, without exception, his high principles will lead to more in his pocket. He will be against a minimum wage because, he says, it prevents young blacks from entering the job market and learning its ways. You can just tell he is deeply concerned about young blacks. He probably wakes up in the middle of the night, worrying about them. He doesn’t, however, hire any. Purely incidentally, not having a minimum wage saves him…money. And if he were truly concerned about young blacks, might he not express this concern by—paying them a living wage?

Nah.

What has this to do with the minimum wage? A fair amount. People of IQ 130 and up tend to assume unconsciously–important word: “unconsciously”–that you can do anything just by doing it. If they wanted to learn Sanskrit, they would get a textbook and go for it. It would take time and effort but the outcome would never be in doubt. Yes, of course they understand that some people are smarter than others, but they often seem not to grasp how much smarter, or what the consequences are. A large part of the population can’t learn-much of anything. Not won’t. Can’t. Displaced auto workers cannot be retrained as IT professionals.

Few of the very bright have ever had to make the unhappy calculation: Forty times a low minimum wage minus bus fare to work, rent, food, medical care, and cable. They have never had to choose between a winter coat and cable, their only entertainment. They don’t really know that many people do. Out of sight, out of mind.

Cognitive stratification has political consequences. It leads liberals to think that their client groups can go to college. It leads conservatives to think that with hard work and determination…

It ain’t so. An economic system that works reasonably well when there are lots of simple jobs doesn’t when there aren’t. In particular, the large number of people at IQ 90 and below will increasingly be simply unnecessary. If you are, say, a decent, honest young woman of IQ 85, you probably read poorly, learn slowly and only simple things. Being promoted, or even hired, requires abilities that you do not have. This, plus high (and federally concealed) unemployment allows employers to pay you barely enough to stay alive. Here is the wondrous working of the market.

As the stock market reaches new highs and the nation’s wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands, we hear that a rising tide floats all boats. This is fine if you have a boat. Maybe it only looks as though capitalists flourish while the middle class sinks and the welfare rolls grow and kids have to live at home and they will have no retirement. Well, some boats leak, I guess.

The question arises: What does the country do with the large and growing number of people whose labor is worth nothing? Or, perhaps more accurately, whose labor isn’t needed?

I’m reminded of the old joke: the trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is…capitalists.

Fred’s musings here bring up another question, one that reveals one of the reasons Obamacare will never be repealed, and the bloated federal government will never be downsized. Namely: what does anyone propose to do with the “workers” in all those federal agencies, most of whom are lazy, stupid, inflexible and incapable of creative or innovative thought–a large percentage of whom are black, nearly all of whom are practically unemployable in any genuinely useful field?

Try eliminating even one of the smaller and more marginal federal agencies and watch as the Government Media inundate us with sob story after sob story on the evening news shows about some poor, poor bureaucrat and his poor, poor family. He’s now out of a job, can’t find another (which will have nothing whatever to do with the Obama Economic MIRACLE™, mind), and he and his family now find themselves in real danger of being tossed out of their home and starving in the streets. OH, THE HUMANITY.

Suddenly these wretched, pettily vicious drones, heretofore responsible for much torment of the more-productive and useful general population, will–with the liberal application of great dollops of media-generated pathos–be transformed into the most sympathetic of characters in a Dickensian passion play that will see every generous American heart and hand wrung until withered.

Don’t know how you get around that one. I wish I did.

Share

The crux of the problem

Is that it isn’t a problem, but a process.

For a week now, experts of all kinds have been trying to understand the reasons for the attacks in Brussels. An incompetent police force? Unbridled multiculturalism? Youth unemployment? Uninhibited Islamism? The causes are numerous beyond counting and everyone will naturally choose the one that suits best their own convictions. Law and Order fans will denounce the haplessness of the police. Xenophobes will blame immigration. Sociologists will rehash the evils of colonialism. Urban-planners will point to the evils of ghettoisation. Take your pick.

In reality, the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale.

And originally implemented by the fascists of the Goosesteppin’ Left, it must be noted. The Muzzrats are just taking advantage of a program already long-established.

Our noses are endlessly rubbed in the rubble of Brussels airport and in the flickering candles amongst the bouquets of flowers on the pavements. All the while, no one notices what’s going on in Saint-German-en-Laye. Last week, Sciences-Po* welcomed Tariq Ramadan. He’s a teacher, so it’s not inappropriate. He came to speak of his specialist subject, Islam, which is also his religion. Rather like lecture by a Professor of Pies who is also a pie-maker. Thus judge and contestant both.

No matter, Tariq Ramadan has done nothing wrong. He will never do anything wrong. He lectures about Islam, he writes about Islam, he broadcasts about Islam. He puts himself forward as a man of dialogue, someone open to a debate. A debate about secularism which, according to him, needs to adapt itself to the new place taken by religion in Western democracy. A secularism and a democracy which must also accept those traditions imported by minority communities. Nothing bad in that. Tariq Ramadan is never going to grab a Kalashnikov with which to shoot journalists at an editorial meeting. Nor will he ever cook up a bomb to be used in an airport concourse. Others will be doing all that kind of stuff. It will not be his role. His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people from criticising his religion in any way. The political science students who listened to him last week will, once they have become journalists or local officials, not even dare to write nor say anything negative about Islam. The little dent in their secularism made that day will bear fruit in a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic. That is Tariq Ramadan’s task.

Take this veiled woman. She is an admirable woman. She is courageous and dignified, devoted to her family and her children. Why bother her? She harms no one. Even those women who wear the total, all-encompassing veil do not generally use their clothing to hide bombs (as certain people were claiming when the law to ban the burqa was being discussed). They too will do nothing wrong. So why go on whining about the wearing of the veil and pointing the finger of blame at these women? We should shut up, look elsewhere and move past all the street-insults and rumpus. The role of these women, even if they are unaware of it, does not go beyond this.

That’s from Charlie Hebdo, who one presumes might just know whereof they speak. Being Leftists, they know what a “vanguard” is, how it’s used, and what its purpose really is. And I’d expect them to know one when they see one. MG Oprea picks up the ball and runs a little further with it:

The Charlie Hebdo editorial correctly points out that in Europe the dominant liberal culture has pounded into us that we must adapt to Muslims who come to our country, and never ask them to adapt to any of our ways. Doing so would be colonialist and wrong. It’s a double standard, of course. As the welcoming countries, Europeans must suppress their own culture and ideals for those of the Islamic immigrant population. But when they go abroad to non-Western countries, either to live or to visit, it’s considered offensive not to adapt to their ways of life.

No one who found the Charlie Hebdo op-ed so offensive would ever suggest Morocco ought to welcome McDonalds or Wal-Mart with open arms. They would say the country is being ruined with Western culture. They want non-Western countries to remain exactly as they are—preserved and frozen in time-while the West must endlessly adapt to anyone who makes it their home.

Asking immigrants to assimilate doesn’t mean white-washing their culture and religion, asking them not to wear the hijab, or demanding that they eat pork. But it does mean asking them to accept, to some degree, the culture of the country to which they have willingly moved. These are things like women’s rights, tolerance, free speech, or criticism of religion. It also means not having to apologize for having a culture of one’s own.

Europeans have been lulled into accepting that it’s wrong to criticize Islam or scrutinize it in any way. The Charlie Hebdo editorial points out that it’s a slow process, an insidious wearing away of what is and isn’t acceptable to say or think. The process must be slow, because few people would accept a proposal dictating what topics they’re not allowed to discuss. So, you gradually shame them into it.

In the end, it all boils down to the same thing: Islam is incompatible with Western civilization. So is Leftism. If Western values are to survive, both will have to be defeated utterly. They can continue in their own enclaves in uneasy coexistence with the values of freedom and democracy; as long as they’re fearful enough of the likely result of attacking us to refrain from doing so, we can safely refrain from attacking them. Which leads us to this:

All politicians say (at least after they get past the primaries) that we’re all in the same boat, and we should unite around our shared values and goals. Which is true to a degree. But it’s also true that we’re increasingly trying to create two very different countries in the places we live.

That divergence is enabled by the fact that the two parties have become both more ideologically extreme (though Republicans have moved farther to the right in many ways than Democrats have moved to the left {complete horseshit, of course–M}) and more ideologically coherent. Half a century ago both a Northern liberal and a Southern segregationist would call themselves loyal Democrats, but there’s much less diversity of perspective within each party today. And with the differences heightened and clarified, when one party gains power, its leaders move with as much urgency as they can to transform the place they control.

While we often lament this geographic sorting that divides us, the farther Red America and Blue America move apart, the more logical it is for any given individual to make that a factor in where they choose to live.

Our contemporary media also exacerbate this trend by enabling any issue, no matter how small or local, to get national attention. That allows us to feel connected to people who share our beliefs anywhere and everywhere. If we find ourselves in a place that doesn’t jibe politically, we can ignore the people around us and seek community from those we connect to electronically. Or maybe just pick up and move. And each step the two Americas take away from each other makes moving even farther make more and more sense.

Again: Leftism is incompatible with Constitutional values specifically, and Western ones generally. It is an ideology requiring an over-powerful and enormous central State to micromanage our lives as its first principle, its Prime Directive. “Moving farther” isn’t the answer. But political separation, painful and complicated as it is, might be.

If libtards really want to live in a society in which the Superstate runs their lives and is totally responsible for protecting them from all threats, with no individual initiative allowed–a State with strict gun control, where no criticism of jihadist ideology is countenanced, with open borders and a profligate welfare apparatus geared towards supporting “refugees” while forbidding their assimilation–maybe we should let them. Or force them to, as the case may be.

Share

Ooops!

Did National Lampoon Review just step in it?

All well and good: there are plenty of reasons for principled conservatives (and libertarians) to oppose Trump. However, there’s one big problem with this well-publicized blast at The Donald.

In March of last year, Politico reported that National Review was becoming a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, which would enable it to solicit tax-deductible donations: “Since its launch, the magazine has operated as a not-for-profit business, even as it came to rely on more and more donations in recent years. Starting next month, it will become a nonprofit organization, which will make it exempt from federal taxes. National Review also plans to merge with the nonprofit National Review Institute, its sister organization, according to a source with knowledge of the plans.”

This anti-Trump issue of National Review is, in effect, a campaign pamphlet directed against a political candidate—indeed, the cover proclaims “Against Trump”—and, as such, is in clear violation of IRS statutes regulating nonprofit organizations.

The regulations are quite explicit that nonprofit organizations must “not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

And it isn’t just the content that constitutes a violation of the rules, but also the timing. As the IRS puts it: “A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election.” In their editorial, the editors make specific reference to the Iowa caucuses, which are scheduled to begin in a week. There is no ambiguity here: National Review’s editors are brazenly violating the law.

So it would seem. Can they possibly have been so stupid? More to the point, can their lawyers have been? Do they even have any? Any that are competent, I mean? Bill says:

Talk about self-defeating dumbasses. Not only are they promising to go down with the ship, apparently they are intent on sinking their own ship. Well, stupidity should be painful. And I can’t find it in myself to have much sympathy for their plight if this turns nasty for them, given that they brought the whole thing on themselves, thanks to their own smug certitudes.

As I said yesterday, I still enjoy reading at least some of their commentary on other issues besides Trump, and I’d hate to see them go down–especially over something as just plain boneheaded as this. The loss of Andrew McCarthy on Moslem issues alone would be a stiff one, although of course he’ll continue on at PJM and perhaps elsewhere. But…well, damn, come on, guys. Sheesh.

Share

History, repeating itself

I haven’t followed developments in Egypt very closely, but I’d be willing to bet Bill will be proved right in the end:

Americans naturally back an underdog, and revolutionaries who oppose dictatorial regimes are almost guaranteed to gain sympathy with the average American.

Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian dictator, has been a reasonably staunch ally – well, client – of the United States, so the American left, in general, despises him, especially since he has eschewed open warfare against the Jews the American left hates in Israel. So that segment, and its yapdogs of the leftstream media, are making clear their support of the “freedom fighters” currently in open revolt against the Mubarak regime.

But what Americans don’t understand (except for some of the leftists) is that these aren’t “freedom fighters” in any sense that we understand. They are Muslim rebels, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, who are fighting to take control of one of the most critical states in the Islamic world.

This is the Ayatollah Khomeini all over again, with fatuous fatheads like Jimmy Carter cheering them on in the name of “Democracy.” Should this rebellion succeed, we will have a key Muslim nation controlled by an army of Muslim fanatics easily as belligerent and dangerous as anything vomited up in Iran.

I’ve read in a couple of places that the protesters are demanding “more freedom” — whatever that means in a Muslim-majority country — but if the Muslim Brotherhood comes out on top, Egypt will wind up with anything but. Ed’s on the same page, reiterating the potential ramifications for Israel:

Given Mubarak’s status as a de facto president-for-life and his own track record of political suppression, it’s almost impossible for Obama to endorse Mubarak. However, by signaling sudden distance between Mubarak and the US, the impulse to stage a coup will certainly not decrease. If Mubarak falls, the result will almost certainly be either a seizure of power by the Muslim Brotherhood or a military coup, both hardly desirable outcomes in Egpyt, especially considering its strategic position on the Suez Canal.

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes control of Egypt, Israel will suddenly face an existential threat to its south and from Gaza, as well as a new Hezbollah-run Lebanon in the north. That’s a nightmare scenario for Israel, which has its own issues with Mubarak but nothing on the scale of what may be coming.

Looks like another one of those situations wherein all we’re left with is to hope that both sides somehow lose.

Share

The Nuclear Frozen Deer in the Headlights-Movement, starring Barack Paul and Ron Obama

“Speech delivery counts for little on the world stage unless you have convictions and, yes, the vision to see beyond the front row seats. The Democrats may remember their lines, but how quickly they forget the lessons of the past. I have witnessed five major wars in my lifetime, and I know how swiftly storm clouds can gather on a peaceful horizon. The next time a Saddam Hussein takes over a Kuwait, or North Korea brandishes a nuclear weapon, will we be ready to respond?

In the end, it all comes down to leadership. That is what this country is looking for now. It was leadership here at home that gave us strong American influence abroad and the collapse of imperial Communism. Great nations have responsibilities to lead, and we should always be cautious of those who would lower our profile because they might just wind up lowering our flag.”–Ronald Reagan, 1994

Spengler:

It seems clear that the administration of US President Barack Obama never will use force against Iran, despite the Iranian regime’s open contempt for Washington and the international community. US Secretary of State Clinton this week responded with a direct “no” – not “all options are on the table” – when asked if America was planning a military strike. …

Israel has a strategic problem broader than the immediate issue of Iran’s possible acquisition of nuclear weapons: it is an American ally at a moment when America has effectively withdrawn from strategic leadership. That leaves Israel at a crossroads. It can act like an American client state, or a regional superpower. Either decision would have substantial costs. To remain in Washington’s pocket is to show weakness and invite the contempt of its adversaries; to ignore Washington’s demands would incur the wrath of its most important financier and arms suppliers and possibly result in a reduction of aid. …

Iran’s perceived attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, though, is not Israel’s problem as such; the problem is that Israel is the ally of a superpower that does not want to be a superpower, headed by a president with a profound emotional attachment to a nostalgic image of the Third World. If America were in fact acting like a superpower, the problem would not have arisen in the first place, for the United States would use its considerably greater resources to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

Rather than focus on the second-order effect – the consequences of Iran’s possible acquisition of nuclear weapons – Israeli analysts should consider the primary issue, namely the strategic [contraction] of the United States.

Mark Steyn:

It is certain that Tehran will get its nukes, and very soon. This is the biggest abdication of responsibility by the Western powers since the 1930s. It is far worse than Pakistan going nuclear, which, after all, was just another thing the CIA failed to see coming. In this case, the slow-motion nuclearization conducted in full view and through years of tortuous diplomatic charades and endlessly rescheduled looming deadlines is not just a victory for Iran but a decisive defeat for the United States. It confirms the Islamo-Sino-Russo-everybody-else diagnosis of Washington as a hollow superpower that no longer has the will or sense of purpose to enforce the global order. …

However, even without launching a single missile, Iran will at a stroke have transformed much of the map – and not just in the Middle East, where the Sunni dictatorships face a choice between an unsought nuclear arms race and a future as Iranian client states. In Eastern Europe, a nuclear Iran will vastly advance Russia’s plans for a de facto reconstitution of its old empire: In an unstable world, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will offer himself as the protection racket you can rely on. And you’d be surprised how far west “Eastern” Europe extends: Moscow’s strategic view is of a continent not only energy-dependent on Russia but also security-dependent. And, when every European city is within range of Tehran and other psycho states, there’ll be plenty of takers for that when the alternative is an effete and feckless Washington.

Speaking of Soviet dupes, where are all the “Nuclear Freeze”-ers now, when they’re finally needed?

Do they really think that competitor nations such as Egypt and Soggy Arabia won’t run an arms race if they see Iran down at Sports Authority buying Nikes by the truckload? Do liberals and isolationists think these nations would trust Obama to hold their nuclear umbrella if the weatherman is saying “cloudy with a chance of missiles”? Would you?

Spengler again:

The Saudis have done everything but take out a full-page ad in the Washington Post to encourage the Obama administration to attack Iran. Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, warned on February 15 that sanctions were a long-term measure while the world faces a short-term threat from Iran. Egypt reportedly has allowed Israeli missile ships to pass through the Suez Canal en route to the Persian Gulf.

Steyn closes:

So Iran will go nuclear and formally inaugurate the post-American era. The left and the isolationist right reckon that’s no big deal. … I think not.

Did CPAC crowds realize they were signing on to this agenda when they applauded Ron Paul and gave him the straw poll victory?

I don’t think so. I think they were affirming his Limited Government views. But Paul also believes in Limited Defense and Limited Strength.

Here’s what another conservative once said at CPAC:

To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world — nothing more and nothing less.

To carry out that purpose, our fundamental aim in foreign policy must be to ensure our own survival and to protect those others who share our values. Under no circumstances should we have any illusions about the intentions of those who are enemies of freedom. …

Too many in positions of importance believe that through generosity and self-effacement we can avoid trouble…

But, like it or not, trouble will not be avoided. The American people and their elected leaders will continue to be faced with hard choices and difficult moments, for resolve is continually being tested by those who envy us our prosperity and begrudge us our freedom.

America will remain great and act responsibly so long as it exercises power — wisely, and not in the bullying sense — but exercises it, nonetheless.

Leadership is a great burden. We grow weary of it at times. And the… administration, despite its own cheerful propaganda about accomplishments, reflects that weariness.

But if we are not to shoulder the burdens of leadership in the free world, then who will?

The alternatives are neither pleasant nor acceptable. Great nations which fail to meet their responsibilities are consigned to the dust bin of history. We grew from that small, weak republic which had as its assets spirit, optimism, faith in God and an unshakeable belief that free men and women could govern themselves wisely. We became the leader of the free world, an example for all those who cherish freedom.

If we are to continue to be that example — if we are to preserve our own freedom — we must understand those who would dominate us and deal with them with determination.

Not challenging them to a townhall meeting as Hillary proposes. They’re not going to tear themselves away from busting students’ heads to provide her with a photo op. The students’ revolution provides the one sword that could possibly cut the Gordian Knot–but Obama reflexively and timidly bows to Islamist authoritarians instead.

If Reagan was right about Peace Through Strength, then what will the Obama/Paul Doctrine of Limited Strength produce?

A: Limited Peace.

Let’s see how that polls at CPAC.

Update: Paul believes America is too “good” to be involved in defending freedom in the world. Obama believes that America is too “bad” to be involved in defending freedom in the world.

But the result is the same:

“I am unwavering in the belief that this has been a strategic mistake and that this war has to end. It would be a further strategic mistake for us to continue with an open-ended occupation…”

“They’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.”

One statement was Barack Paul, the other, Ron Obama.

Update with a Lady:

“They would never be influenced by sweet reason. However, if they saw that the United States had the will and the determination to build up its defences as far as necessary, the Soviet attitude might change because they knew they could not keep up the pace. He believed that the Russians were now close to the limit in their expenditure on defence: their internal economic difficulties were such that they could not substantially increase the proportion of their resources devoted to the military. The United States, on the other hand, had the capacity to double its military output. The task was to convince Moscow that the only way it could remain equal was by negotiations because they could not afford to compete in weaponry for very much longer. The President recalled a cartoon which had Mr. Brezhnev saying to a Russian general, “I liked the arms race better when we were the only ones in it”.”–Maggie Thatcher

Share

Impeach the Speech

-GIVER!

Before the glory curdles completely, a few impressions from the President’s Mecca hajj-speech.

First, there is no need to restate this since Thiessen nailed it the first time:

“He failed to mention that from Iraq and Afghanistan, to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Kuwait, over the past two decades our military has done more to free Muslims from oppression than any power in history. In fact, there was not one word of praise for our troops and what they have done for the people of the Middle East in the entire address.

To the contrary, he threw the men and women of our military and our intelligence community under the bus when he declared, in front of a Muslim audience, that the attacks of 9/11 “led us to act contrary to our ideals.” On foreign soil, he accused our intelligence professionals who stopped the next 9/11 of committing torture — validating years of al-Qaeda propaganda. He talked about closing GTMO without any defense of the good men and women who run it — even though his own attorney general, Eric Holder, has admitted it was a model prison. If he was going to discuss these topics in the Middle East, he at least owed it to our troops and intelligence professionals to say what dozens of investigations have proven: that there was no systematic abuse of detainees at GTMO or anywhere else. Instead, Obama echoed al-Qaeda’s calumnies against them — and did so in a foreign land. This is unprecedented. It is shameful. And they deserve better.”

Second, Bill Ayers and the rest of Obama’s communist terror pals are still obsessed with how we helped the Shah of Iran overthrow a communist demagogue in 1953. That’s what Pres. Odinga was talking about when he complained about the Cold War interference in “Muslim countries”.

Evidently, when Ayers and Obama were sitting at adjoining desks for all those years at the Annenberg Foundation, writing autobiographies and laughing about wasting millions of Republican dollars on communist education reform, this was still a hot topic.

Move on, people! Get a life! Besides, I thought everything that happened before He was born was irrelevent. But, hey, if we’re going to play Golden Oldies, then let me say this for the record: when Bill Ayers and wifey blew up those cops in San Francisco in 1970, it was not an attempt to spring Sirhan Sirhan from prison.

probably.

Thirdly, why is the president apologizing for European colonialism? Doesn’t he know America was once a European colony? It was in all the papers. And there are different kinds of colonialism. For example, Egypt was once a Christian nation…until Mohammed colonized it at the point of a sword. Some Saudis are funding the Wahabbist colonization of Africa. What exactly does He think Darfur is?

Mark Steyn’s take:

Rich [Lowry] thought that the president succeeded in his principal task: “Fundamentally, Obama’s goal was to tell the Muslim world, ‘We respect and value you, your religion and your civilization, and only ask that you don’t hate us and murder us in return.'” But those terms are too narrow.

You don’t have to murder a guy if he preemptively surrenders. And you don’t even have to hate him if you’re too busy despising him. The savvier Muslim potentates have no desire to be sitting in a smelly cave in the Hindu Kush, sharing a latrine with a dozen half-witted goatherds while plotting how to blow up the Empire State Building. Nevertheless, they share key goals with the cave dwellers – including the wish to expand the boundaries of “the Muslim world” and (as in the anti-blasphemy push at the U.N.) to place Islam, globally, beyond criticism. The nonterrorist advance of Islam is a significant challenge to Western notions of liberty and pluralism.

Once Obama moved on from the more generalized Islamoschmoozing to the details, the subtext – the absence of American will – became explicit. He used the cover of multilateralism and moral equivalence to communicate, consistently, American weakness: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.”

Even when Obama says something good, it is undermined by his other policies. He says that his first job is to protect Americans. But what if there is a nuclear threat to America, but no other nations will stand with us because they have been co-opted or coerced? If he says we can’t “pick and choose” for ourselves, then his first job is no longer to protect America, but to get France’s permission. That’s why I say “Impeach Now!” and avoid the Christmas/Winter Solstice/Kwanzaa/Eid rush.

Speaking of “preemptively surrendering”, I hope you read this post on Preemptive Self-Stockholming. It shows what happens to a nation of Human Shields.

Before he left America on his trip, President Otto Biography said:

If I had a Muslim summit, I think that I can speak credibly to them about the fact that I respect their culture, that I understand their religion, that I have lived in a Muslim country, and as a consequence I know it is possible to reconcile Islam with modernity and respect for human rights and a rejection of violence. And I think I can speak with added credibility.

The “I”‘s have it; that’s 53 uses of the first-person in one paragraph. I-man thinks he can throw Bush, the CIA, the military, the USA and Western Civ under the bus while catering to every Muslim pathology of the last thousand years–including equating the Holocaust with the Palestinian’s self-poisoning. And somehow, Obama will hover above it all, as lesser mortals below struggle to fulfill His vision. It would be merely assinine if it wasn’t so dangerous.

Steyn closes:

A great power can survive a lot of things, but not “a mediocrity of spirit.” A wealthy nation living on the accumulated cultural capital of a glorious past can dodge its rendezvous with fate, but only for a while. That sound you heard in Cairo is the tingy ping of a hollow superpower.

But only when it is led by a Hollow Superman.

Share

100 Miles Per Gallon, 100 Millimeters Per Joule

A lot of articles touting hybrid automobiles offer as a (often but not necessarily solely financial) selling point impressive-looking mileage figures – 80 miles per gallon, 100 mpg, 200 mpg, 5 katrillion mpg (OK, I made that last one up).

However, would not be a better (to say nothing of intellectual more honest) basis of comparison to say, “A comparable gasoline-only vehicle gets X meters/Joule, whilst a hybrid gets Y meter/Joule”? Or would that reveal them to be so inefficient and filthy that even a green progressive would be ashamed to own one?

Share

Here’s Your Torch and Pitchfork. The Line For the Mob Is to Your Left.

The Puppy Blender continues his vile spewing of hate speech by opining on barbecue.

Now, we might legitimately debate the question, “WTF is barbecue, anyway?” The various regional cuisines called “barbecue” are so far apart in style and means of preparation that no unifying principle can be discerned among them, beyond their all involving slow-cooked meat.

I am willing to concede that Prof. Reynolds is factually correct when he lays down such ukases as:

Real barbecue is pork […], but in a tomato-based sauce. Other approaches are amusing, and sometimes tasty, diversions, but they’re not barbecue.

and triumphantly quotes SKBubba as ranting:

Barbcue is pork. Pulled. With red sauce.

Definitions are essentially arbitrary, in that, so long as they are made explicit, we cannot challenge them on any meaningful grounds, any more than we can denounce English for using window rather than fenestra to denote a hole in the wall.

Rather, I accept that “barbecue” involves a sauce in which tomatoes play a prominent role. I continue from that point in asserting that “barbecue” is the ruination of potentially-edible foodstuffs by introducing an alleged ingredient that no one with pretensions to being an actual human being should consume. You shouldn’t even feed that muck to your dog1; quite aside from whatever laws your jurisdiction may have, we are warned by the Torah to avoid tza’ar ba’alei haim (cruelty to animals).

I maintain that tomatoes (or “t-m-t-es”, as I prefer to call them, out of distaste for actually writing a word denominating so disgusting a thing) are unfit for human consumption, and any sauce using them is to be viewed as Satanic diarrhea. I can (and do) cook, and make, IMHO, a quite tasty finishing sauce2 for barbecue…one based on bourbon, brown sugar, and shoyu. But I do not use t-m-t-es or t-m-t- products in my cooking and, G-d willing, never shall.

Lips that touch t-m-t-es shall never touch mine3.

1For the sake of argument, I will assume that you have a dog.
2When cooking meat for barbecue, one should not, of course, introduce large amounts of sugar that will burn, leaving a bitter crust. Instead, a vinegar-based “mop” should be used to baste the meat, and the sugary sauce should only be introduced at the very end of the cooking process.
3Not that I think that any reader wants to kiss me; it’s the principle of the thing…

Share

Wussie Potter and the Bloodless Prince

The Other Spengler at the Asia Times finds Harry Potter to be a typical fin du si?ɬcle Western slacker.

He’s got a point. Harry Potter isn’t one of my secret vices (I’d prefer Quack Experimental Anime Excel Saga, thank you), but J.K. Rowling doesn’t seem to make Hogwarts a hard enough place. Medieval Christian magic was conceived of as difficult and spartan (read James Blish’s Black Easter). That sort of thing probably puts off the reader.

Still, if a generation of pre-teens who think that they’re going to be sorcerors or Jedi Knights is the cost, it is but a small one. My generation thought that they were all going to be Che Guevara, and we’re still paying that price.

(H/T to John Reilly’s The Long View.)

Share

How the mighty are fallen

The latest ?Ǩ?outrage?Ǩ? ?Ǩ hyped in only the way that the mainline media can drum up ?Ǩ?news?Ǩ? out of nothing at all ?Ǩ is the photos of Saddam Hussein in his underwear.

BFD (or perhaps ?Ǩ?BVD?Ǩ? is more the mot juste). Whilst Newsweek?ǨѢs blatant idiocy this past week proves that some alleged people can get outraged over a dial tone, I genuinely can?ǨѢt see why even a Petulant Leftist would to spill his latte about this.

The photos were leaked to the Sun, supposedly by someone in the U.S. military. That?ǨѢs certainly something to be condemned and punished, but the appropriate punishment is a dishonorable discharge1, with thirty days in the stockade to be tacked on in particularly egregious cases.

It?ǨѢs said that the publication of the photos violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. If so, it merely demonstrates how utterly unrealistic the Conventions are. In the event, no nation or other political movement save the U.S. has ever even tried to care about the Conventions, and good case law holds that a statute unenforced for a long period has been constructively repealed.

Of course, the lack of rioting conclusively demonstrates that the Arab street doesn?ǨѢt give a rat?ǨѢs ass about Saddam ?Ǩ?Who dat??Ǩ? Hussein anymore. Whilst for a short time he was the center of fantasies blaming the impotency of Middle Eastern regimes on anything but the recognition of murderous thugs like?Ǩwell, Hussein?Ǩas national leaders, he was forgotten about two days after being dragged out of his spider hole. At least Farouk of Egypt, after his deposition, got to hang out at the casinos of Monaco; Hussein can count himself lucky if he has been issued a deck of cards with which he can play solitaire.

Such outrage as exists has been stage-managed by Hussein?ǨѢs legal mercenaries. Hussein?ǨѢs fifteen minutes of fame were over a couple of years ago; time to forget about him and get back to serious matters like flushing Korans down toilets.

1?Ǩ?Dishonorable discharge?Ǩ? sounds rather too much like medical evidence that a man has an STD?Ǩ
On second thought, I?ǨѢm not going there.

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



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