Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Ask yourself why

As I keep saying: it ain’t just Trump they hate.

They’ve hated us – those heartland Americans clinging to our guns and religion – long before Trump came along and will do so long after he is gone. The Justice Department’s I.G. report has confirmed widespread prejudice among top Justice and FBI officials, but it’s a mistake to think this bias is directed against Trumpper se. Officials like Peter Strzok were intent on “stopping” Trump, but stopping him from doing what? Stopping him from restoring the right of ordinary Americans to govern their country?

Well, DUH.

With the Trump presidency, everyday citizens have gained a voice in Washington. At exactly the same time, media attacks on these Americans have exploded. The inference is clear: Hollywood, the mainstream media, and academe believe that ordinary Americans must be silenced. Only the “smart” ones, as leftists consider themselves, have a right to be heard. The left is attempting to silence the opposition and has been doing so for a long time.

Welcome to the party, pal.

Fortunately, conservatives have not succumbed to this sort of extremism. No matter how much we disagree with the left, we still believe that all Americans are entitled to the same protections under the Constitution, chief among them freedom of speech. While he may have strong disagreements, a true conservative does not respond by denying his adversary’s right to speak.

Oh lord, here we go with the “no true conservative” crap again. Because MUH PRINCIPLES!™

I fear that if they ever gain full control, progressives will go much farther than Obama did. It won’t just be the use of powerful government agencies to attempt to steal a presidential election, as appears to have happened in 2016. It will be a much broader theft of our freedom, including our personal freedoms and our right to own property.

You “fear”? It’s an absolute certainty. It’s their entire agenda; it’s their reason for being. Which makes the following sorta baffling.

Conservatives must resist, but even then, we will not descend into the level of hatred that denies the humanity of our opponents.

Then you aren’t going to win, bub. Hate to say it, hate to even think it, but it’s the sad fact.

“Conservatives” are going to have to decide what they consider to be worth fighting for, or whether anything at all is. The decision isn’t being offered to them as an option which can be avoided or abstained from; it’s being rammed down their throats, by adversaries whose commitment and relentlessness are absolute, whose willingness to do violence against their enemies has been repeatedly demonstrated. “It can’t happen here”? It already has, way more than just once.

You aren’t going to save the Shire by being shocked and sad, my dear Frodo.

Share

Desaparicido

Hey, remember when this sort of thing happened mainly in Third World commie dictatorships? Oh wait

The arrest of British free speech activist Tommy Robinson has sent shockwaves across the Anglosphere. The United Kingdom, once dedicated to the values of freedom, has taken a path toward authoritarian government and away from freedom. The once great nation, which created the Magna Carta and once commanded an empire, is now the land of tyranny. Unless the British people love their freedom enough and fight this injustice in fierce fashion, it will remain a land silenced by intimidation and fear.

Robinson, a former member of the English Defense League whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is being unfairly persecuted by the U.K. government.  Robinson’s “crime” was that he yelled questions outside Leeds Crown Court and named the alleged defendants, like any other reporter. So what? The state broadcaster, the BBC, and the mainstream media had already named them. Why was he arrested, and why were they not arrested?

If gangs of white men had spent decades torturing and raping little Muslim girls and a justly outraged Muslim reporter were covering the case, in a similar manner as Robinson, would he be arrested?

We all know that the answer is “no,” and we know why. The U.K. is so invested in its politically correct multiculturalism diversity project that it has applied a different treatment of Muslims under the law, which accepts the diversity of legal systems and places the country on a path toward ruin.

Americans should be highly concerned over this case, because the same type of “hate speech laws” used against British citizens are currently being advocated in the U.S. Senate, by Marco Rubio (R), Kamala Harris (D), Susan Collins (R), and Dianne Feinstein (D) and a long list of others. Hillary Clinton pushed the same laws in 2012 and 2015 and 2017. Three similar unconstitutional laws aimed at our First Amendment rights were advanced in our Congress, after being drafted by Emgage USA and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, two Islamic organizations and defenders of designated terrorist organizations and their supporters, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism. The passage of any such anti-freedom of speech bill would place our country on Britain’s same ruinous path.

I only wish I could say I find any of that surprising. With just this one grotesque crime against liberty and decency, the Brits have moved themselves from “pitiable” right into the “despicable” column. There could not be a more revolting statement than the one the British government has just made with this outrage: that they much prefer tolerating and protecting Muslim child-rape gangs to safeguarding freedom of speech. But I can’t say I’m much surprised by that either; as noted, we have no shortage of Moonbat Lefties (and gutless RINO sellouts, sadly enough) right here in the States who feel the same way about it.

The very idea of “hate speech” laws is an abomination which of right ought to be intolerable in even a half-free country. Once-Great Britain is well and truly finished; it will soon begin to live up to its “Old Blighty” nickname in ways its benighted subjects never imagined. I don’t pity them; they deserve their ignoble fate, having earned it many times over. But there’s a small, guttering spark yet flickering in some of them:

In a land that once could proudly state, “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” the torch of freedom has been extinguished. It’s a land divided by diversity that has now descended into the darkness of tyranny.

If the globalists in both American parties and the U.S. State Department have their way, America will be next.

Tommy Robinson represents a large segment of Britain’s people, with over 500,000 signatures on a petition already to “Free Tommy.” The people sent a clear message on Saturday, May 26, 2018, that they have had enough, as thousands of British people stopped traffic, chanted, and pressed the gates of 10 Downing Street and threw bottles at machine gun-toting policemen. Their anger hung thick in the air, because they want Robinson, at the very least, to be released from prison and allowed to get back to his life and enjoy the same protection and human rights and dignity as Anjem Choudary, the terrorist-supporter, was afforded by the authorities. Short of this, the summer in Britain will turn out to be a season of riots and civil strife, awaiting the spark that moves the good and decent Brits – of a long ancestry dating to 1066 and William the Conqueror – to fight furiously to make their land free once more.

Well, possibly, I guess, and I wish those folks well. But I have little expectation of any such thing, and none at all that it might be successful. They can anticipate neither succor nor sympathy from these shores; we face a grim enough struggle ourselves, with victory by no means assured.

Share

A rational reason to ban guns

Hey, when he’s right, he’s right.

After all, like much of the Constitution, the Second Amendment relied on a responsible citizenry to safely use such a powerful device as a gun. In the right hands, a gun can defend a citizen’s family and property. In the wrong hands, however, it can massacre a school full of children. After decades of the Left’s assault on traditional American values, is there any private American citizen out there who is truly responsible enough to handle a firearm?

Responsibility and accountability have not only taken a beating in American culture over the last several decades, but the entire culture has abandoned those concepts in favor self-destructive beliefs. The things we once valued as the basis of healthy society, like marriage and child-rearing, are now devalued at alarming rates.

The erasure of liberty and its replacement by state control has been the primary mission of the American Left for over a century. As Diana West aptly analyzed, we’ve experienced the “death of the grown-up” in the United States. Children are individuals who lack the responsibility required for living independently. Today, most Americans are treated as overgrown children by the Left. Only instead of needing adult supervision, they are in need of government oversight. Thus far, most Americans have done little to disprove the Left’s disgusting assumption about them (as evidenced by the data cited above).

Perhaps the Left is correct when it demands that all ordinary Americans surrender their arms to the state. After more than a century of the Left’s “long march through the institutions,” maybe the Left has succeeded in making the American people nothing more than overgrown children. If that is true, and Americans are no longer responsible enough to be trusted to use their Second Amendment rights properly, why end with banning guns? Face it, the Left has managed to slowly decimate our liberty by destroying our culture.

Of course, Weichert is deliberately overstating the case a bit here to make a point; it isn’t quite as bad as he makes it sound—quite. There most certainly are plenty of Americans still responsible enough to own guns. We haven’t all been reduced to overgrown, helpless, feckless children just yet. But that ain’t for want of trying by the Left.

Share

Strangulation

Ain’t it strange how small-business startups have cratered.

In a lot of the Western/developed world, the spread of regulations really does do a great job in dissuading people from undertaking acts of marginal commercial utility that would give them and others pleasure. E.g. this facebook friend of mine:

You know, if you want to encourage people to follow the rules, you should make following the rules simpler.

I want to be able to hand-sell some of my books at local fairs this summer. Research tells me this is a losing proposition—I won’t sell more than a dozen or so copies—but it’s outdoors, and it’s social.

I want to do the right thing. Here in Michigan we have a 6% sales tax. I want to pay that—taking it out of my cut, not raising the price to buyers, because again I’m doing this to be social.

But I can’t just send the state a check. No, I have to have a state license to collect sales tax—that I’m paying out of my pocket.

But I can’t just apply for a state license. No, I have to provide a Federal Employer ID Number. Even though I’m not employing anyone.

It’s like they WANT me to be a scofflaw…

…More generally though, the strangling kudzu of red tape really is a problem to modern economies. Amongst my various friends and acquaintances I have many who want to do things that will allow them to (eventually) pay some taxes to their various governments. There are people trying (and giving up on) running food trucks/carts. There are people trying to build (rebuild/extend…) houses. There are people such as the author quoted above trying to sell books or other wares. In every case their attempts to do these things are impeded, thwarted even, by requirements to get permits and certifications and pay fees for other paperwork which some other part of the government will then inspect to confirm that something is allowed. The problem is not the requirement for a specific permit per se – seen in isolation most make some kind of sense – it is the cascade that results because every one of them requires copies of additional permits and those additional ones have their own additional certifications that need to be attached and so on.

In very few cases does the possession of the magic Permit P actually prove that what you are doing is actually safe/healthy/fireproof…, all it does is prove that you have completed the paperwork obstacle course. Indeed when Inspector I comes along to do the final check he or she is likely to spend more time checking the various bits of paper than actually verifying that your building/product etc. is in fact safe/healthy/fireproof…

All this is what it takes to avoid being a scofflaw.

It all winds up with everyone becoming a scofflaw of some sort; viewing their government as the adversary it has in fact become; and losing all respect or regard for it, with nothing but contempt and hatred remaining.

And then things start to get REALLY interesting.

(Via Sara Hoyt)

Share

(Un)Friendly fire

One way or another, PC always ends up eating its own.

So some Indian-American comedian or other made some documentary or other about Apu and how “problematic” he is to this comedian’s delicate Indian-American identity. Among his other complaints, he objects to the fact that Apu is voiced by a white man. The Simpsons responded with a funny scene basically telling this comedian to pound sand. The cultural left, including the documentary guy, was incensed. Why? Because their bullying depends on people being scared and apologizing. Once people stop fearing them, the cultural left has no power at all. They’re just a bunch of would-be thought police.

Unfortunately, they got to Azaria. He went on TV and talked about how sad the accusations made him, and how he was willing to stop doing Apu’s voice if that was the right thing to do. I don’t blame Azaria for saying this, but I think it is absolutely awful that he did.

I have no respect for this Indian-American comedian’s complaints. He attacked the work of a far more talented man and put him in a position where he felt bad about doing great work that gives people joy. That’s a disgusting, small and ugly thing to do. To do it in the name of your race is even smaller and uglier. He should be ashamed of himself. Let him do his own original work that gives people joy instead of parasitically feeding off the work of others. I know he thinks he’s woke and “starting a conversation,” but I think he’s a pinch-hearted racist.

If we follow this guy’s logic, if only people of the “right” race are allowed do racial characters and humor, then the brilliant Denzel Washington ought to leave the Broadway stage where he’s currently performing in The Iceman Cometh and all talk of the fantastic Idris Elba doing James Bond should cease. Oh, I know, this Woke Racism is only supposed to go one way, the “right” way. But that’s nonsense. Racism is racism, whichever way it goes.

Ahh, but that’s the problem with taking Progtards seriously and trying to be civil about things, instead of telling them in no uncertain terms to go fuck themselves with an umbrella the moment they open their fat yaps, as Azaria should have done. Politely reminding them of their towering hypocrisy or pointing out the contradictions inherent in their position is of no use at all. You just steamroll ’em, spit on ’em as you pass, and keep right on going with the Hawaiian Good Luck Sign vigorously waving throughout the entire procedure. Klavan gets back on the beam in the end, though:

I think it’s time — it’s past time — that people like Azaria — all performers, writers, producers — all creators — took a lesson from Kanye West. Do your work and speak your mind without apology. The cultural left is just a small cadre of bullies. Stand up to them and their power will evaporate.

Yep, pretty much. Because the only power they have is whatever we allow them to have.

Share

Fuck you—WAR

While we’re talking about Codevilla and all.

Political-war-by-accusation-of-crime is common in the world. As a rule—Charles de Gaulle was not the first to note it—“peoples are moved only by elemental sentiments, violent images, brutal invocations.”

But in America, political war used to be rare. The Federalist Papers begin thus: “it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice.”

Was America ever ruled by reason? For the most part, and relative to the rest of the world, yes it was. How did this come to be? In 1816, Thomas Jefferson answered: “our functionaries have done well, because… if any were [inclined to do otherwise], they feared to show it.” In short, America was exceptional because the American people were exceptional. 

Today, Americans seem to be regressing to humanity’s sad norm.

Once again: not accident, not coincidence, not happenstance.

The 2016 election campaign gives insights, positive and negative. The majority of Americans’ sentiment that the ruling class has been warring against their way of life in word and deed overshadowed all issues. Donald Trump led from the beginning because his words showed the same disdain toward the bipartisan high and mighty that they, in turn, show to the rest of Americans. His (relatively mild) “brutal invocations and violent images” called forth the most elemental of sentiments: Your detractors are bad, you are good. Consequently, people who felt demeaned and pushed around by their pretend-betters came to feel that although Trump shared the ruling class’s culture more than their own, at least a Trump presidency would not threaten them; and that perhaps Trump might be their champion. Trump’s presidency lived up to minimal expectations. His administration is not leading the media’s, the judges’, the bureaucrats’, the corporate executives’ continuing war on ordinary Americans.

But that war is unabated because the power of the people who degraded our lives in their own image is undiminished. For them, the rest of America is and will remain irredeemable. They well nigh removed Christianity and Judaism from the public square. Their schools have dumbed down a generation. They reduced raising children within marriage to a vanishing majority in the country at large and to a rarity among blacks. They have filled our streets with criminals. Their corporations try dictating what people may say and even think. They have stigmatized the verbal currency of two centuries, and bid to outlaw it as hate speech. And they continue to tighten their vise. In the process, however, these rulers are convincing the rest of Americans that they are irredeemable as well.

When one side rejects persuasion in favor of war, what are the other’s options?

Nobody likes war; nobody wants war. But as with Muslim terrorism, when war is brought to one’s doorstep, there can be but two options: victory, or defeat. To insist on remaining above the fray in hopes of preserving one’s genteel “diginity” is a tacit acceptance of defeat, whether one likes it or not.

Codevilla goes into some interesting and unexpected places with this. I’m not sure I agree completely with all of the ideas he comes up with; some of them are damned good, if unlikely to actually come to pass. Being Codevilla, all of them are worth a look anyway. For my money, his biggest error comes right at the end:

The ruling class has conquered commanding heights over every part of American society. Because, as it did so, this class convinced itself unalterably that the rest of us are a lower class of beings, re-conquering those heights could not restore citizenship among us.

The ruling class didn’t “convince itself” of anything “as it did so.” The belief in our innate inferiority—of the absolutely necessity of micro-managing the lives of the Great Unwashed “for their own good”—was baked right into the cake from the outset; it is Progressivism’s most fundamental tenet. Without that arrogant presumption, Progressivism would not and could not exist at all. None of us should be fooling ourselves for a second that they’re the least bit likely to give it up, or to accept any resistance to it from the likes of us.

Share

Careful what you wish for Part the Eleventymillionth

Schichter expands on the topic of my previous post, which I figured was long enough as it was.

As I have shown before, they dream of an America where they can crush all dissent from their orthodoxy, and I’m not playing that.
 
They want to silence you too, and every other patriot. But that’s a short-sighted tactic because people who are silenced, particularly uppity Americans who take their natural rights seriously, won’t just shrug and give up. They will stew and fume at the injustice of their oppression and then they will radicalize and then, because they have been wrongfully denied access to the means of participation in the governance of their own society, they will inevitably exercise their power in the only way left to them. They will rebel. They have before. Sometimes it’s peaceful – like by electing Donald Trump. But if peaceful doesn’t work, they are going to give not being peaceful a try. That’s just human nature.

The liberal plan for civil war does not take into account how prosperous states like Texas went hard right in the 90s and show no sign of changing colors, and there is no mention of how Republicans hold more elected offices today than at any time in history. Well, as any successful general knows, when faced with unpleasant realities you ignore them and hope it all somehow works out.

Or not.

In the end, the “civil war” is going to be won, according to the warplan for Operation CARACAS REDUX, when America just sort of opts to be like Cali and elects all Democrats. Why would it do that? That part remains unclear. Part of it is because it is obvious that Democrats care so much more for the workin’ man, but apparently no one asked the workin’ men because the workin’ man voted for The Donald.  Also, people really care that the weather in a century might be slightly warmer, so there’s that. None of these are really good reasons. Their warplan seems to be, “Wish hard, and it will be so.” 

A much more realistic scenario is the country splitting apart, probably with some level of violence. That’s not a wish, though that won’t stop the liberal liars from claiming it is. Ignore what they say and watch what they do. Liberals are repudiating the entire idea of rights and democracy in favor of an ideology that embraces their own elite rule by decree. That they admit that it is impossible to reconcile our rights and our self-determination with their lust for unchallenged power is the one accurate thing in the liberal “civil war” game plan. 

They are correct when they say “[i]n this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there’s no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward.” Yep, true. They are also correct when they observe that, “America today does exhibit some of the core elements that move a society from what normally is the process of working out political differences toward the slippery slope of civil war.” Yep, also true, and it ought to scare the hell out of them.

A whole lot of heartache and strife could easily be avoided if they really were as smart as they think they are, rather than as ignorant and bullheaded as they believe us to be.

Share

Repeal the 2A? Why bother?

They already effectively did—by ignoring it.

Make no mistake about it: in the hands of the American left, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not safe. For that matter, virtually nothing wise or precious or sacred or holy or otherwise good is safe with those corrupted by a liberal worldview. Whether marriage, the family, the church, life in the womb, education, small businesses, fossil fuels, law enforcement, the military, or the Constitution, time and again, liberals have proven themselves to be on the wrong side of the truth.

What’s more, in the hands of today’s leftists, the Second Amendment – and anything else in the U.S. Constitution with which modern liberals are unhappy – is in jeopardy whether or not it is “repealed.” As most now well know, John Paul Stevens – a retired associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court – recently gave his direct endorsement to the shockingly foolish – but increasingly popular among Democrats – idea that the Second Amendment should be repealed.

Few should be surprised by Stevens’s position in this matter. With the way too close Heller decision a decade ago, he almost got his wish. In 2008, liberals were a mere one vote short of effectively killing the Second Amendment. In a republic that properly respected and understood its Constitution, Heller wouldn’t have been necessary, and under the absurd circumstances that such a case should make it to the highest court in the land, the vote to uphold the Second Amendment wouldn’t be close.

In their efforts to remake America into their image of a leftist utopia, rarely never (FIFYA—M) have liberals let the Constitution stand in their way. For decades now – whether as public executives, legislators, or judges – liberals have conveniently ignored the Constitution or “interpreted” it beyond recognition.

Any “right” whose exercise requires a government license or permit can’t properly be called a right at all. All in all, this seems like a good time to re-link and re-excerpt Charles Cooke’s pitch-perfect challenge from 2015.

That being so, here’s the million-dollar question: What the hell are they waiting for? Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it.

Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games. And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution.

Cliff’s Notes version: come and take them, you lame fascist fucks.

Share

Lies, damned lies…

And damned liberals.

Here’s the deal – everything the liberals say about guns is a lie. Every. Single. Thing.

Oh, it ain’t just guns, boyo. You coulda just left “about guns” right out of there.

It’s a lie when they scream that you can hit the Guns-2-Go drive-thru and buy yourself a fully semi-automatic assault machine gun with high-powered 5.56 mm rounds, because glorified 5.56 mm rounds are “high-powered” on their planet, faster and quicker than you can call an Uber.

It’s a lie when they say an armed citizenry would be powerless in the face of a leftist government equipped with tanks and artillery and bombers – though their assumption that a leftist government would use tanks and artillery and bombers on the American people seems like a pretty good reason for having an armed citizenry.

It’s a lie when they say they only want to have a “conversation” and seek only “bipartisan compromise.” Foamy Marco Rubio got suckered into that grift just like Chuck Schemer suckered him into pushing amnesty, and they’ve been ritually disemboweling him ever since.

Which brings us round to one of the best lines on the topic I’ve seen yet. Bold mine, because it merits the emphasis:

Liberals constantly sneer that we are “insecure about our masculinity” and “need guns to feel like men.” Leaving aside the millions of gun-owning women out there who don’t seem to fit within that stupid paradigm, and the irony of leftist doors opining on manhood, liberals miss the point.

We don’t need guns to be men. We need guns to be free men.

And that right there is what really drives them nuts.

Update! Who you gonna believe, us or your lying ears?

Did you hear? They’re talking about repealing the Second Amendment. It started with former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. And it sure does seem like those calls prompted skeptics of American gun culture to echo their remarks. Turley and Stevens were joined this week by op-ed writers in the pages of Esquire and the Seattle Times. Democratic candidates for federal office have even enlisted in the ranks of those calling for an amendment to curtail the freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Of course, this is just the most mainstream invocation of anti-Second Amendment themes that have been expressed unashamedly for years, from liberal activists like Michael Moore to conservative opinion writers at the New York Times. Those calling for the repeal of the right to bear arms today are only echoing similar calls made years ago in venues ranging from Rolling Stone, MSNBC, and Vanity Fair to the Jesuit publication America Magazine.

Are you sitting down? You might be surprised to learn that none of this occurred. It’s only your vivid or, some might go so far as to say, fevered imagination. Rest assured, CNN host Chris Cuomo insists that “no one” is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. And even if they are, as Justice Stevens most certainly is, he’s a “boogeyman” who commands no influence or respect. Apparently, to suggest that anyone is calling for such extremist measures, and not universally beloved “common-sense” restrictions on firearms ownership, amounts to swatting at phantoms. Cuomo retreated into a familiar, well-fortified rhetorical trench—a place where other liberals can be found whenever basic firearm-ownership rights are called into question. Essentially, his contention boils down to this: You didn’t hear what you thought you heard.

You might also have heard conservatives complain about a double standard applied to students who survived the Parkland shooting and emerged as prominent gun-control activists. Those conservatives claim that when they take these students seriously and engage with their ideas or criticize them for unfairly smearing their opponents, they are accused of issuing personal assaults on the character of near-defenseless children. Well, you’ll be happy to learn that this, too, is a figment of conservative imaginations.

It is a “straw-man argument,” suggested the New Republic editor Jeet Heer, to claim that liberals have reacted with anything other than friendly disagreement when student activists are criticized. The left’s only visceral objections arise when figures on the right accuse these students of fabricating their identity or experience—which, unfortunately, has occurred. The mere suggestion that the left has done anything other than welcome respectful and legitimate criticism of the Parkland students amounts to “conspiracy theories,” according to Rewire New editor-in-chief Jodi Jacobson. Anyone saying otherwise is “scared” or peddling a “weak case.”

That’s good to know. I was concerned for a while there that liberals had deliberately conflated substantive disagreement with personal attacks on the Parkland activists.

Don’t worry, folks; if you don’t like any of those lies, they have plenty of others.

Updated updated! Turtles lies, all the way down.

For baseball players, it’s “Keep your eye on the ball.”

For fighter pilots, it’s “Lose sight, lose the fight.”

Different ways of saying the same thing:
History’s gut pile is assembled from the body parts of the witless and clueless.

At its root, the Parkland shooting, except for the dozen-and-a-half unfortunate victims, was nothing surprising or newly dreadful, and nothing functionally different than any of the other mass shootings enabled by the concentrated stupidity of Gun Free Victim Zones. It’s what happens when you ring the dinner bell, chum the water, and push tourists into the pool with predators created by the Left, sharing the same amoral outlook as hungry carnivorous sharks.

FFS, that’s been the entire point of the exercise, indeed the very raison d’etre for the Evil Party to enact it: precisely to keep up a steady supply of outrageous acts, to feed their Political Hate Machine with a never-ending supply of still-warm victim’s blood, for their faithful party hacks to always be dancing in, until they achieve their goal:

the total disarmament of anyone who would oppose their totalitarian control of the population.

Whoot, there it is. Plenty more at the link, of which you should read the all.

Share

Coming attraction

Boots on faces, forever.

Dear Britons, defenders of free speech. Out of my cell in Colnbrook, I want to ask you something. Be honest and raise your hands.

Who among of you has ever been in the following situation: You grab a beer after work, or you are visiting your girlfriend’s parents for the first time, or you meet other children’s parents at school — and suddenly the conversation moves to politics: radical Islam, immigration.

Who of you in this very moment was faced with the decision between speaking his mind and facing problems, or complying and staying silent?

Raise your hands and be honest.

I will not be able to see the results, but every single hand is too much. This amount of fear should not exist in a society. Speech that has social costs and severe consequences is no longer free. It has a price — and our Government and the Antifa are working everyday to raise that price.

No freedom of speech means no democracy. In front of our very eyes this country is becoming a tyranny, shutting all debates about immigration down, until demographics solves the issue by replacement.

People of the UK. I might be in a cell right now, but you all are in a cell. It’s the prison of fear and silence your government and the PC tyranny has locked you in since the days of your childhood.

I ask you, I command you, break free!

Patriots of the UK: come out of the closet. Make your dissent visible by visible acts of resistance that inspire others. I know for certain that millions in the UK think like me. Those millions should be on the street now.

We need a coming out of the silent majority, or Britain is lost. We need a free, open and honest debate about immigration, Islam and demographics, so we can sort these problems out together.

And I know that the force is still in you. With your Brexit vote you stunned the world! The will and the life of the British nation is not broken.

It would be nice to think so. But from where I sit, the situation don’t look any too good—either there, or here. This is the most important bit, at least as far as the US is concerned:

Never forget, Obama’s people were right up front about it—they said they were changing America by changing the people. In America, we have a chance now to turn that around, make the most of it! This is not the time to take a break just because Donald Trump is in the White House. They will be attempting to come back!

Come back, hell. They never went away. Yeah, I know a lot of us out there are about ready to give up hope after the omnibus budget betrayal, about which I hope to have more up here later. I share that frustration myself—putting it VERY damned mildly—and am not quite sure what the right response might be. Bracken says this:



And he may very well be right. There was plenty Trump could have done to forestall this; he should have been working on a strategy months ago. No way around it: he fucked up, and that mistake is going to cost not just him, but all of us. Like I said, more on all that later.

Meanwhile, the Left termites keep right on eating away at our already badly-chewed-up liberty, and the GOP backstabbers keep right on helping them do it. Anytime Pelousi and Schemer are smiling, bad things are happening to America That Was. And anybody listening to the things the Baby Einsteins at this weekend’s anti-Second Amendment protests were saying knows that they have exactly the same regard for the First: none whatsoever. In fact, they’re ag’in both of ’em, and all the rest of the Constitution right along with ’em. The Left has trained their Vanguard well.

Nut-cuttin’ time is coming. I begin to fear it may be a lot closer than we might think.

Share

Auto-nomy

I knew right away this Walsh column was gonna ring a bell with me.

In any case, the joke’s on us. The nominal reason for introducing technology that absolutely no red-blooded American male could possibly want is that cars with no drivers and no steering wheels are somehow going to be safer, and that by eliminating human error—stupidity, drunkenness, distracted driving, texting and a million other crazy things people do in their cars while in motion—we’ll all get where we’re going in one piece. But given the still-imperfect state of the technology, how could driverless cars be perfectly safe? We don’t even have consistent cell service yet.

But even if Johnny Cabs were perfectly safe the moral argument against them would be strong.

We know, for example, that roughly 30,000 Americans will die in traffic accidents every year—a number that has been steadily declining for decades, by the way, even as the population has increased—and yet that minuscule risk is one we all willingly assume every time we get behind the wheel, whether it’s to run to the store, take the kids to after-school activities, or to drive across country just for the hell of it. Are the tech giants and the auto manufacturers really arguing that this number will now magically and precipitously fall?

Further, the point of driving for many of us is not simply to get there alive, but to enjoy the trip; that’s why some folks prefer to saddle up a Mustang or lasso a Jaguar. Driving is supposed to be fun and, for most men of my acquaintance, it’s never any fun being a passenger, or piloting a Prius. The lure of the open road created the American muscle car, while the joy of a Sunday drive in the country paved the way for generations of touring sedans, as ordinary Americans decided to see the U.S.A in their Chevrolets.

There are more sinister reasons to be wary of driverless cars, however. In the post-9/11 age, the government has a limitless appetite for surveillance power—law enforcement is now able to track every American carrying a cell phone—a robocar is a “convenience” just waiting to be exploited and abused. Who, for example, programs the ride? Who controls it? Should the police decide that they have a few questions for you, what’s to prevent your Johnny Cab from detouring from grandma’s house to the local precinct station? And if it does, what are you going to do about it?

These are not idle questions. The assault on the Fourth Amendment is by now nearly complete. “Terrorism” is the all-purpose excuse for monitoring the innocent along with the potentially guilty, and just about everybody can fall under suspicion. The very act of boarding a plane now exposes to you formerly unreasonable search and seizure, and there’s not a thing you can do about it. So why would you climb into a robocar and take yourself hostage on purpose?

As always and forever the Left, their Leviathan State, and its helpful propaganda arm will provide as many justifications for our incremental enslavement as they can manufacture, the bitter pill of tyranny candy-coated with “safety” or “security” or “health” or “sustainability” or “fairness” to sweeten its taste and smooth its course as we choke it on down. But when you reach the end of the Yellow Brick Road and pull the curtain aside, the fact remains: it’s all about power and control.

Continue reading “Auto-nomy”

Share

But of course

So I was considering a post on Lyft and Uber over the last couple of days, just trying to organize my thoughts on it. See, I’ve been driving for Uber for a couple of months now, and it’s great. I make quite good money at it, the folks I drive around are always really nice and fun to chat with, and I can work around the demands of tending to the young ‘un with ease. It’s one of the best jobs I ever had, in truth.

My premise in pondering such a post was this: Lyft and Uber are perfect examples of the capitalist ideal at its very best. These companies have leveraged technological advances in a very creative fashion, conjuring a market from nowhere that satisfies a demand nobody even suspected might exist before. They compete with a tightly controlled taxi industry that is wholly at the mercy of government interference. State and/or local authority then steps in to pick winners and losers by putting its clumsy thumbs on the scale in government’s usual fashion: regulation, taxation, and licensing requirements that effectively restrict competition and inhibit innovation.

The fact that the ridesharing services are running rings around their government-strangled competition is made evident enough by the screaming from the taxicab companies about unfair competition and demands for the playing field to be leveled by forcing rideshare companies into the government’s less than tender embrace. Those objections aren’t without merit, to be sure. But only if you concede the premise that micromanagement of all economic activity is the proper role of government in the first place.

A lot of my riders have told me they never had bothered with taxis before; unlike NYC, cabs here are mostly a last resort for the desperate or hopelessly drunk. The cabs themselves are often dirty and poorly-maintained rattletraps, their drivers surly and unreliable, or so I’ve been told. Also unlike NYC, you can’t just hail one from the street. You call for one, and then you wait. And wait. And wait.

I’ve been anticipating with dread the day when government would at last begin to assert its right to meddle, which was inevitable—waddling roughly into the room to ruin everybody’s good thing with its usual greedy presumption. And, well, here it comes.

OAKLAND, Calif.—A local city council member is beginning to float the idea of taxing ride hailing companies like Uber and Lyft as a possible way to raise millions of dollars and help pay for local public transportation and infrastructure improvements.

If the effort is successful, Oakland could become the first city in California—Uber and Lyft’s home state—to impose such a tax. However, it’s not clear whether Oakland or any other city in the Golden State has the authority to do so under current state rules.

Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan told the East Bay Express that she wants the city council to put forward a ballot measure that would tax such rides.

“The power to tax is a separate power regardless of whether or not you can regulate something,” said Kaplan in an interview with the alt-weekly. “They’re using our streets to do business, and we don’t currently have any revenue from it.”

Well, we can’t have THAT, now can we?

I don’t know how things are set up in the People’s Republic of California, but here in NC I’m required to pay taxes on: my vehicle registration; my driver’s license; the purchase of the vehicle itself; tires, maintenance, and repairs; every gallon of gasoline I buy; and the income I make when I’m working. Those taxes are not insignificant, even individually. Add ’em all up and they’re a long, long way from “don’t currently have any revenue from it,” thank you very much. And it still isn’t enough.

Thus does the ruination of yet another fledgling industry begin. It’s becoming hugely annoying to me when I hear some Proggie asswipe bitch about what an awful thing capitalism is, as if any such thing even existed anymore. It’s for sure and certain those types are no longer familiar enough with it to recognize it if it walked up and bit them on the ass.

Via Stephen, who says: “Your typical politician exhibits a level of greed which would make most businessmen blush.” Ain’t THAT the stinkin’ truth.

Share

Tocsin, ringing

Nobody nails it like Codevilla.

At least half of Americans sense that their country has been taken from them. In 2016, they voted for Donald Trump despite obvious reasons not to: churchgoers, despite his lack of religiosity; women, despite his womanizing, small business people, despite his big business identity; advocates of civility, despite his plain incivilities, and so on. They voted for protection against government, big business, the media, the educational and even the religious establishments, which wage a cold civil war to push them and their “deplorable” way of life to society’s margins.

But the election’s aftermath confirmed fears that mere voting cannot reestablish traditional American priorities. It has done and can do little to lessen the ruling class’s relentless pressures on how we live our lives. How to save a way of life while avoiding surrender, or a hot civil war, is the subject of anguish, and much debate.

In principle, the solution is simple, sufficient, and deeply rooted in American history: what some call “subsidiarity,” previously practiced in America as federalism. As culturally diverse people sort themselves out over a vast land, only despotism can force each part to live in ways repugnant to its majority. Hence, I suggested in 2017 that just as people on the Right should be content with the majority of Californians’ decision to be a “sanctuary” from national immigration laws, those on the Left should be just as tolerant of Texans or North Dakotans deciding to make their states “sanctuaries” from Federal Court decisions concerning abortion or a bunch of other things.

But avoiding civil war on this basis is inconceivable now because the Left believes it has the right, duty, and power to force universal adherence to its dictates’ utmost details. Nor can surrender purchase peace, because the Left’s dictates do not and cannot have a final form. Endlessly evolving, they are less about what is being imposed on America than about inflicting righteous punishment on inferiors—the appetite and power for which increase with every success.

That is why the prescriptions of “conservative reformers”—for example, Yuval Levin’s The Fractured Republic—deny reality. They suppose that economics, ever the ground of compromise, is the dividing line between Right and Left. Hence they posit that the American Left is amenable to retreat from confrontation, to live-and-let-live.

But money has never been the point.

As with every other word the man utters, I dare you not to read all of it. There simply is no more insightful, eloquent, and unflinching commentator around.

Share

Should be seen and not heard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

trump-hitler.jpg

Share

Any time you’re ready, pissants

Feeling froggy yet, Lefty?

Liberals love to fantasize about confiscating every gun in America. It may be their most beautiful dream. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment; Washington makes gun ownership illegal; almost all the guns come pouring in or are destroyed; a few hapless Jim Bobs who won’t get in line get shot up by the cops and then the government is free to do anything it wants and if people don’t like it, well, what are they going to do about it without guns?

Let me suggest a less happy, but probably more accurate version of how an attempt at gun confiscation would likely go. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment followed by Washington making gun ownership illegal. So far, so good, right? Then the vast majority of police departments across the country refuse to do more than accept weapons that are turned in and, of course, very few citizens actually hand over their weapons. At this point, D.C. would have no choice other than to accept that gun confiscation is impossible, which would be the most likely outcome.

Oh, I don’t see things going THAT way at all. Yes, there are certainly a very large number of cops who will drag their feet in any way they can if ordered to implement such a tyrannous edict. There are plenty of others who will openly and straightforwardly refuse to cooperate at all, including some who have already sworn publicly to it; I know some of both stripes in my own neck of the woods personally, in fact. I know a good few cops, a handful of them for many years, but I couldn’t name a single one who anticipates such a development with anything but dread, horror, and revulsion.

But it must also be acknowledged that some of them will go along with it, and those who don’t will probably be looking for other employment shortly thereafter. And the idea that Lefty will ever accept that gun confiscation is impossible is, frankly, laughable. It ain’t. Gonna. Happen. If we should have learned anything at all about Progressivists by now, it is that they NEVER give up, they NEVER abandon their totalitarian ambitions, they NEVER stop digging into the foundation of American liberty in hopes of toppling it at last. Never. Any moves they make seeming to accept such a thing are nothing more nor less than deception, a hudna.

To get rid of guns on a scale widespread enough to matter in the United States, you’d need to go house to house and search because most people would claim their weapons were stolen or lost. Doing that with millions of up-to-that-point law-abiding citizens would be considered tyrannical and it would produce a violent backlash that hasn’t been seen in this country since the Civil War. If you want to turn ordinary American citizens into “freedom fighters” against an abusive government, try to take their guns and it will work about as well as anything else you can imagine.

I still say, as I have all along, that there is no other issue, no other Leftist transgression, that would be more likely to spark a revolt against them culminating in Civil War 2.0 than the 2A issue. I hasten to add that I don’t consider it all that likely, and I certainly don’t consider it desirable. But if Leftists continue to delude themselves about their ability to pull off gun confiscation without catastrophic consequences, for them and for all of us, that’s how it will happen.

Which brings us round to this old but evergreen blast from Charles Cooke—who, as completely misguided as he is about Trump, always was one of our best and brightest on 2A issues.

When the likes of Rob Delaney and Bill Maher and Keith Ellison say that we need to get rid of the Second Amendment, they are not speaking in a vacuum but reflecting the views of a small but vocal portion of the American population. And they mean it.

That being so, here’s the million-dollar question: What the hell are they waiting for? Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it.

Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games. And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller“interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution.

You’re going to need a plan. A state-by-state, county-by-county, street-by-street, door-to door plan. A detailed roadmap to abolition that involves the military and the police and a whole host of informants — and, probably, a hell of a lot of blood, too. Sure, the ACLU won’t like it, especially when you start going around poorer neighborhoods. Sure, there are probably between 20 and 30 million Americans who would rather fight a civil war than let you into their houses. Sure, there is no historical precedent in America for the mass confiscation of a commonly owned item — let alone one that was until recently constitutionally protected. Sure, it’s slightly odd that you think that we can’t deport 11 million people but we can search 123 million homes. But that’s just the price we have to pay. Times have changed. It has to be done: For the children; for America; for the future. Hey hey, ho ho, the Second Amendment has to go. Let’s do this thing.

When do you get started?

“When” indeed (via AP):



Why, in light of this, it almost seems as if the Democrat Socialists are playing this issue in the exact same fashion their Vichy GOPe/Uniparty junior partners did Obamacare: as one they can raise a great base-energizing hue and cry over (along with plenty of campaign contributions), but that they have no real intention of ever trying to actually do something about.

All of which brings us right round in turn to the greatest damned song ever written about all this:




Pay special attention to that first verse; it’s a killer, and really does say it all.

Update! Aesop takes a good, hard look:

The Second Amendment only constrains government (and we see how well that’s working, 30,000 deliberate infringements later) by design, from interfering in any wise with a natural law right to self-defense, and its means by the most practical current expedients. It’s an unalienable right. That means it’s irrevocable, untouchable, and baked into your DNA, in perpetuity. It predates the US Constitution by millenia, is wholly untouched and unconstrained by it, and entirely and permanently beyond the jurisdiction of such paltry authorities (by contrast) as the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court to touch, alter, grant, revoke, or deny.

Game. Set. Match.

You can repeal the entire US Constitution, beginning to end, and it still doesn’t mean I have to give up my guns. Not even any one of them.

But the attempt, let alone the actual accomplishment, to repeal the amendment would have a very beneficial effect: it identifies the would-be repealers as unmitigated tyrants, and leaves me a clear conscience henceforth when I undertake to send them to Hell, on a shutter.

Its accomplishment, should such somehow come to pass, immediately nullifies any notional claim to legitimacy on the part of the US government, rendering such claim not only spurious but, to wit, actionable. In fact, it’s not only rendered actionable, either; as flatly stated in the Declaration of Independence, action is demanded of any people presuming to call themselves free men under a just and legitimate government. The Founders, bless them, were quite specific and unequivocal about what action is demanded too, both in their deathless words and in their own ensuing deeds. They left exactly ZERO margin for error, anyplace you preening pinheads can bring yourselves to look.

I’m all in with Aesop: you liberal-fascist sons of bitches will never get mine, and I don’t give a good God damn how many fucking laws you pass. Period, full stop, end of story. At the end of the day, it comes down to this: the right safeguarded by the 2A is one I’m willing to die to retain. So tell me: are YOU dimestore dictators willing to die taking it from me? Because the moment you decide you are, come and take them, you slope-shouldered, diaper-dragging, snot-nosed little eunuchs.

Unless and until such time arrives, do us all a favor and shut your fucking yaps about it. Your empty sniveling may go over big with your base, but it’s a good bit less than impressive to the rest of us.

Your latest round of bug-eyed hysteria demanding we relinquish our unalienable rights—after YOUR precious Almighty State stumblebums failed utterly to put so much as a speed bump in the path of a damaged psychopath created by YOUR witless social engineering—has lifted the veil once and for all. We know who you really are. We know what you really want. You aren’t going to get it. Not without a fight you ain’t—a fight that’s going to leave you with way worse than just a few bumps and bruises. Count on it. Period fucking dot.

Aesop has plenty more, by the way, all of it every bit as bang-on good.

Share

Charm, offensive

Schlichter seems shocked, but after years of seeing Lefty fellate the Soviet Union, China, North Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, and every other communist tyranny you care to name, it shouldn’t come as any big surprise.

And then there is siding with the North Koreans against our president and vice president. Look, liberals’ fake patriotism in the wake of the humiliating defeat – in an election – of Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit was always grating. But, as predicted, liberals can’t keep up the pretense of siding with America. This stuff about Trump and the Russians, the same Russians who couldn’t sit down during the Cold War without checking to make sure they weren’t going to crush a Democrat’s head, was always a joke. That the liberal establishment thinks worse of Mike Pence than a woman who is literally the head of the Propaganda and Agitation Department for a country that just threatened to nuke the United States says all you need to know about their fake patriotism.

No liberals, I’m not questioning your patriotism. Don’t be silly. I’d never do that. I don’t waste my time questioning unicorns either.

America’s most effective advocate of the principle of an armed populace is now officially the liberal media that usually seeks to do the ruling class’s bidding and strip us Normal Americans of that sacred right. But after the media’s bizarre display of eager tongue-bathing of the semi-human savages who run North Korea, any patriot has got to be thinking, “I best load up, because it’s pretty clear what the establishment’s desired end state is.”

The New York Times quivered: “Kim Jong-un’s Sister Turns on the Charm, Taking Pence’s Spotlight.”

Reuters tingled: “North Korea judged winner of diplomatic gold at Olympics.”

And CNN harassed airport travelers with: “Kim Jong Un’s sister is stealing the show at the Winter Olympics.”

But besides having bad taste, our mainstream media is revealing our ruling class once again. You watch the non-stop squee over these monsters and the only conclusion you can reasonably draw is that, for our worthless establishment, the North Korea murderocracy is not a cautionary example. It’s an objective.

Dude, of COURSE it is. The establishment of a globe-spanning Marxist misery-pit is the whole idea for them; it’s Job One, a feature and not a bug. What did you think they’d been working towards all the years they’ve been growing the federal government, making its power nearly absolute, taxing everything that moves (or doesn’t), demanding more federal spending no matter how astronomical the sum, waxing hysterical over the heartless evils of capitalism, denouncing the primacy of the individual and emphasizing the collective, and gushing with praise and envy over Europe’s embrace of socialism?

It Takes A Village, remember? Government is a word for the things we do Together? Taxes are the price we pay for civilization? Those and a bazillion other inspiring little liberal shibboleths?

Admittedly, North Korea is one of the more ghastly examples of Marxism’s inevitable failure; that being so, one might imagine Leftards would hesitate before extolling the place as any kind of example, if only as a matter of self-interest. But one would be underestimating their confidence in their talent for deception, overestimating their intelligence, or perhaps both.

Elsewhere, I sure hope Kurt ain’t holding his breath waiting for this. Yes, you betcha it’s related.

The FBI can buy manufactured evidence to spy on us, and that’s okay. We aren’t human.

The IRS can persecute us if we try to exercise our right to participate in the political process, and that’s okay. We aren’t human.

 Some Sanders fan who no doubt had a COEXIST sticker on his minivan can shoot up a bunch of Republicans, and that’s okay. We aren’t human.

Maybe his family getting sent fake anthrax will teach Don Jr. some obedience.

Let’s slide past the hideous moral bankruptcy of this way of thinking and get to the practical problem with normalizing terrorism and dehumanizing opponents. It creates a set of new rules, and the complicit liberal elite better think really hard about whether they truly want those new rules in effect. After all, they enacted new rules regarding vicious campaigning and then Trump came and wiped out Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit using them.

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing violence and terrorism?

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing denormalizing your political opponents?

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing dehumanizing your political opponents?

You may think you do now, but trust me, you really don’t.

There is a way out, a way that is obvious to anyone of good faith and common sense, and since it’s always a leftist attacking Republicans, the Democrat leadership needs to lead the way. The way out is to join together with the President and other conservatives and unequivocally reject violence and terror.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and all the other key Democrat leaders must stand on a stage beside Donald Trump and Don Jr. and say, without qualification that this is unacceptable and wrong. Then they and their minions in politics and in their pet press must stop with the non-stop, psycho-fueling hate for their conservative opponents – not the political disagreements but the senseless, drooling venom that infects the MSNBCs and the Twitters and all the rest.

But that will never happen.

Of course it won’t. In their eyes, that would be not just defeat, but surrender. It would require them to renounce the principles they’ve come to cherish most, depraved as those principles are.

The Left intends not to govern, but to rule. Their intent is not to debate, but to silence. They wish not to defeat us, but to enslave us—to bring us to heel, to train us to accept the bit. To force us by any means necessary to accept the superiority of their beliefs and foreswear any notion of dissent from them.

And if they can’t, well, that’s what the gulags are for.

Shocking, that Leftymedia would be so shamelessly fulsome in their praise for the Kim Il Whosits and their hideous government? Not hardly. They have so much in common, y’know.

Share

Civil War v2.0 realities

A little speculation.

To begin with, it would not look like the first American Civil War, which was essentially a war between two regions of the country with different economic interests. The divide created two separate countries, both initially contiguous, intact, and relatively homogeneous. The lines of demarcation now are only somewhat regional, and tend to correspond to differences between urban and rural populations, as well as differences of race and class. A second American Civil War would be much more similar to the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside. Conflicts of this nature, with enemies mixed geographically, are a formula for spontaneous mass bloodletting.

Seems reasonable enough to me. Instead of set-piece clashes between large armies fielded in the old Napoleonic fashion*, Civil War v2.0 is way more likely to be fought with guerilla-style, hit-and-run tactics—quick, small-scale bloodlettings, raids, or sniper attacks followed immediately by a hasty, surreptitious retreat: the very embodiment of what is now referred to in military circles as Fourth Generation Warfare, or 4GW. Such an open-ended conflict could and very probably would drag on for a long time indeed; with resounding, decisive victory a practical near-impossibility almost by definition, such a war would end up a long, bitter, and brutal slog, ended not by victory or conquest but by sheer exhaustion.

The federal government, naturally, would attempt to intervene, but on which side and with what ultimate intent being difficult to predict. In Bracken’s Enemies trilogy, as well as Max Velocity’s excellent Patriot Dawn and many others, federal intervention in a Civil War/rebellion provides the State its justification for instituting true tyrannical oppression, taken to its practical limits, at last…which still winds up being largely ineffective except in the limited geographical areas it controls.

All of which is certainly chilling enough. This, though, might well be the most chilling observation of all:

Some dimensions of a future civil war would be, I think, largely unprecedented. When lesser countries have imploded in violence in recent times, they have done so with most of the world around them still intact. There were other nations to offer aid, assistance and intervention, welcome or unwelcome. There were places for refugees to go. The collapse of the world’s remaining superpower would take much of the world down with it. A global economic crisis would be inevitable. The withdrawal of American forces from bases across the world to fight at home would also create a power vacuum that others, even under economic strain, would be tempted to exploit. Whichever side gained control of our nuclear arsenal, our status as a nuclear power would probably persuade other nations not to interfere in our conflict militarily, but the collapse of trade alone would produce crippling effects that would be hard to overestimate. Many components for products our manufacturing sector makes are globally sourced. Add to this the breakdown of our transportation system, dependent on oil and transecting one new front line after another. The internet would fail. It is a frail enough now. Financial systems would fail. What happens if the banks find half their assets suddenly in hostile territory? All Federal government functions, including Social Security, would fail, many of them losing their very legitimacy to one side or the other. Food production, heavily dependent on diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention a steady supply of genetically engineered seeds, would slump alarmingly. In short, most things we depend on are now held together by a network of delicate and complex connections. Without those connections, would you have a job? If so, in what medium of exchange could your employers manage to pay you? What would there be for you to buy? Does your town, your county, or even your state have the ability to marshal its resources into a viable economy? How many people in those entities could deal with anything worse than a weather disaster, in which they count on the fact that help is coming soon?

The odds of civil war here, no matter how low-intensity or limited in terms of scale, inflicting chaos on other parts of the world seem to me to be pretty high. The question is whether such a looming threat, which would come to toxic fruition pretty quickly, would motivate some sort of direct intervention—necessarily involving foreign boots on American ground, of course—on the part of those other nations. Assuming any of them were even capable of any such intervention in the first place, of course, which is by no means a given. It’s safe to assume that the UN would regard the opportunity to take over and administer the US itself as heaven-sent, a dream come true—a chance to demonstrate both its might and its indispensability for all the world to see.

At first they would, anyway. They’d learn different pretty damned quick.

From an economic perspective, I think it is fair to say that the left would have a bigger problem than the right. Cities cannot feed themselves under any conditions, and what food could be grown on America’s resource-starved farms would be gobbled up by people nearer and dearer to the farmers. Leftists would have to both secure vast territories around their urban strongholds and relearn from scratch the generations-lost art of food production. Liberal enclaves stranded in the hinterland would simply be untenable. We, on the other hand, would be critically short of new Hollywood movies. Without a steady supply of the works of Meryl Streep and Matt Damon, millions of conservatives would instantly drop dead from boredom – that is, according to Meryl Streep.

And if there could possibly be a reason to actually wish for another Civil War, right there it is. A pretty powerful one it is too, I must admit.

Read the rest of it. WRSA holds that it’s “More than a bit optimistic,” and recommends perusing Bracken’s several comments too, which begin with this interesting thought:

A civil war will not be intentionally started by left or right. It will be an unavoidable downstream consequence of a disruption of our modern technological infrastructure. The disruption could be triggered by many vectors, but the consequences will all be the same. Once the lights go out in a major U.S. city, even for a week, chaos will ensue, and every supermarket will be looted to bare shelves. The Genie will then be out of the bottle, and it won’t be put back in.

This, too, seems right enough to me. Matt then links to one of his several WRSA posts on the topic, starting off with this preface:

A second civil war in the United States would be an unparalleled disaster. Nobody who is sane and who has studied modern civil wars from Spain to Lebanon to the Balkans and beyond would ever wish to see one occur. But if political, cultural and demographic trends are sweeping us toward that unhappy destiny, it would be wise to at least cast a weather eye over the possible terrain. 

Yep. As I keep saying myself, nobody but nobody among decent, well-meaning people ought to be seriously wishing for such a thing, and I very much doubt any significant number are. But the Left, incredibly, seems absolutely determined to force this horror on us, one way or another. Unless they somehow are brought to senses they don’t appear to possess in any measure, sooner or later they will leave Americans desirous of nothing more than their right to be left alone with no choice but to defend themselves. Again I say it: Lefty should be very, very careful what he wishes for…lest he wind up getting it.

The scenario wherein a tech or infrastructure disaster sparks such a conflict is even more alarming, the more so for being the more likely case. As Matt says, once urban grocery store shelves have been stripped, people trapped in the big cities will start to get hungry, with no recourse other than dispersing en masse into the surrounding countryside to forage for food. They won’t be content to just sit back and starve. And the folks they’ll be looking to loot aren’t very likely to just sit passively back and let themselves be looted, either.

Either way, Civil War v2.0 ain’t something anybody ought to be looking forward to with anything other than dread. Then again though, as unavoidable as it’s beginning to appear, maybe Grant had the right of the whole thing after all when he said, “If we have to fight I wish we could do it all at once and then make friends.”

* Ironically, the Civil War—and most especially the new weapons used to fight it—is generally regarded as having rendered Napoleon’s tactics obsolete—or more accurately, to have revealed them as such.

Share

Gone rogue

In fact, the very definition of a rogue agency: completely out of control, ignoring its proper mission and responsibilities when it’s not trampling them actively, with no real checks on the ability to abuse their excessive power, no boundaries, no meaningful oversight.

In Washington, the ostensible story is rarely the real story. We know, for example, that former President Clinton engineered a meeting with President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport on June 27, 2016.

That’s the official story, replete with the charming and intentionally disarming detail that all they talked about was their grandchildren. It was just coincidental, don’t you know, that at the time the FBI was looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a “personal” email server to send, receive and store classified information.

And it was also simply coincidental that just a few days later, the director of the FBI – who served under Attorney General Lynch – announced that he wouldn’t recommend a prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting. In fact, the FBI turned its sharp light not on the scandalous meeting between the attorney general and Bill Clinton – but rather on one of the whistleblowers who got the word out.

The organization I head, Judicial Watch, asked the FBI on July 7, 2016, for any records that might pertain to the infamous tarmac meeting. We had to sue after we were ignored by the agency.

There’s more, of course. And it’s a drop in the bucket. Roger Simon pours more in:

In a series of heavily criticized tweets (aren’t they always) Trump is asserting that the FBI’s reputation is in tatters. Of course, he’s right. This isn’t justice as it’s supposed to be, not even faintly. It’s Kafka meets Orwell in the Deep State.

Robert Mueller may not realize it, but the conclusion of his investigation, whatever it is, will never be accepted by a huge percentage of the public. As the French say, Mentir est honteux. Lying is shameful. Mike Flynn may have lied, but so, undoubtedly, has the FBI, multiple times, more than Flynn could ever dream of doing or be capable of doing. And they’re the ones we’re supposed to trust in the end.

UPDATE:  Apparently my attack on the FBI was understated.  Peter Strzok, it turns out, was the man who was responsible for changing “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in Comey’s final report on the Clinton email investigation, thus setting Hillary free for a crime the world knows she committed.

Steyn redirects the flow:

Martha Stewart wound up behind bars for telling a lie in a matter in which there was no underlying crime. In the case of Flynn, I heard some bigshot in Congress argue that Flynn’s lies were somehow “material” to the investigation. But, as Professor Jacobson points out, it’s hard to see how Russia can “interfere” with the election after it’s been held. Flynn’s conversations occurred in his capacity as a senior figure in the incoming administration. That’s the normal business of diplomatic relations – and it is most emphatically not the business of minor policemen within a leaky and insecure permanent bureaucracy.

So Flynn’s “lies” are not material – unless the Deep State is “investigating” the winning side in the election for engaging in the usual business of government.

Actually, it’s not for “engaging in the usual business of government” at all; it’s for having won election on a platform promising to dismantle the Deep State. All of this—all of it—is just part of the larger and ongoing soft-coup attempt by Shadow Government minions determined to protect their positions and hold onto their (excessive, routinely abused) power.

Second, I happened to speak to the FBI about a certain matter a couple of months back. Very pleasant lady. Thought it all went well. But my lawyers were dead set against it – because, if you go to see the Feds in the context of some or other investigation and you chance to be infelicitous about this or that, you’ll find that suddenly you’re the one being investigated for, as noted above, the one-way crime of lying to the authorities. Did Flynn, in fact, lie? When you’re shooting the breeze with G-men, mistakes or faulty recollection can be enough to land you in prison – if the Feds think it useful to them to threaten you with that. When Flynn pleaded guilty, was he, in fact, guilty? Or was he rather a ruined and broke man who could no longer withstand the pressure of the metaphorical electrodes with attendant billable hours?

I think we all know the answer to that. As I always say, the process is the punishment. And the Federal Government (which wins 97 per cent of cases it brings to court) can inflict a more punishing process than anyone this side of Pyongyang. This is a vile business that does no credit to a civilized society.

Indeed it doesn’t. But worse, none of it would even exist in a truly free society whose government operated within the limitations specified in its Constitution. Worse still, Steyn has more—a LOT more.

Third, as longtime readers, listeners and viewers know, I strongly dislike the uniquely American “presidential transition” period. As you know, in, say, the Westminster system, if a prime minister loses on a Thursday, his goes to the Palace to resign on the Friday, and he moves out of Downing Street on the weekend. The new cabinet ministers are in place the following Monday or Tuesday. The “transition” is part of the general institutional sclerosis of Washington, and certainly no friend to swamp-drainers: A year after Trump’s election, key positions in every cabinet department – Deputy Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Under-Secretaries, Deputy Assistant Secretaries, Assistant Deputy Secretaries, Deputy Assistant Under-Secretaries – are still held by Obama appointees.

Since January 20th, the party that lost the election has been, supposedly, out of power. But its appointees remain in charge – to the point where the President has to go to court to evict the in effect self-appointed head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – a lawless and unaccountable body so beyond the much vaunted “checks and balances” of the US Constitution that it can shake down its targets (banks) and transfer the proceeds to its ideological allies (anti-capitalist activist groups). The permanent bureaucracy’s argument re the CFPB is that elections don’t matter. Primitive countries have coups against the president; subtler systems have a thousand below-the-radar coups in every rinky-dink bureau and agency.

Trump may be the elected president, but at the CFPB, the Justice Department, State, Homeland Security et al the self-selected permanent state cruises on.

It’s actually frightening, is what it is. Because what it means is that, in truth, elections really DON’T matter. Until the unmasking of the Deep State brought about by Trump’s election, such a statement would have been dismissed by almost everybody as mere paranoia and loony-tunes conspiracy-theorizing. Now, the proposition is so brazen and in-your-face as to be impossible to credibly argue against. Steyn calls that an inversion in his post, but the overarching inversion here is that only a lunatic would deny a reality that not very long ago would have—hell, did—get you dismissed as, umm, a lunatic for suggesting.

Now, there’s an irony so caustic it would scorch the non-stick right off your best T-Fal skillet, people. To sum up:

There are lots of powerful people in both political parties and around the globe who didn’t want Trump to win the election. They were afraid, and rightly so, that he meant it when he said he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Trump is the enemy of the plans they have made at places like Davos and other global gatherings where the left-liberal clique that has run the world since the 1960s gathers to plot out the future course of events.

Trump threatens their interests. It’s a matter of simple economics. As so he must be removed, one way or another. Mueller is their tool for doing so, whether the president actually broke the law or not.

We’re approaching a constitutional crisis that gets at the essence of self-government. Should “We, the people” be in charge of the U.S. government or should that role be ceded even further to the career bureaucrats, members of the Foreign Service, Capitol Hill staff, K Street lobbyists, media stars and others who make up the permanent government? The day of reckoning is coming, something the president could bring about sooner rather than later by – now that he has pleaded guilty to something – pardoning Flynn in order to destroy Mueller’s ability to put pressure on him. It would be something to see, watching the special prosecutor and his minions try to move ahead in their effort to construct a semblance of proof the Trump campaign coordinated activities with the Russian government to the detriment of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign without being able to squeeze a key player in this fantastic fantasy. It’s not a matter of Flynn not being able to talk as much as it is liberating him to talk about the pressure applied to him by the prosecutor – which, if past behavior is any indication, probably should itself constitute some kind of a crime.

The deep staters are dancing tonight because they believe they are one step closer to their objectives. Again, maybe so, but it would be wrong for the president to go down without fighting, bare knuckles, against the trends that could very well, in the long run, destroy our democratic institutions as designed by the founders and as we’ve come to know them.

They’ve already been destroyed. More precisely, they’ve been co-opted, perverted, and transformed into the very thing the Founders warned us against. There is no hope of fixing them; the more people become aware of that, the more imminently dangerous the ground we tread becomes.

Damning update! From Scott McKay:

Peter Strzok is everything, as it turns out. Strzok looks like the man at the center of what can best be described as the complete collapse of the FBI and Justice Department’s trustworthiness and credibility, a collapse which is triggering a crisis in the public confidence in the federal government as an institution we consent to have power over us.

To summarize, the Mueller probe is rotten to the core. It’s been nearly a full year in existence and is no closer to finding evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians than he was when he started, and to date all he’s managed is a pair of guilty pleas based purely out of conduct during the investigation, with Flynn’s the most significant.

This isn’t a banana republic, at least not yet. But it’ll become one on Trump’s watch if the president doesn’t act to put a stop to the runaway corruption in the Justice Department.

Here’s how to do that. First, Trump should pardon Flynn for the lie he admitted to the FBI, immediately. Only that, though — Flynn shouldn’t get a free pass for other things he’s done, like for example his Turkish escapades which might well bear further investigation.

Next, Trump should see to it that Strzok and Weissmann, and a number of others on Mueller’s team who are clearly compromised — they’d be disqualified as jurors on any case involving the president as having conflicts, much less as investigators — are fired. Not tomorrow. Today. This minute.

And Trump should tell Mueller he has until Christmas to bring an indictment against someone for collusion with the Russians, or else he’s fired and his probe gets disbanded. This investigation can’t be open-ended, and it also can’t be allowed to be a perpetual motion impeachment machine — not because it’s bad for Trump, but because it is poisonous to American democracy that this witch hunt might go on while the same people involved in it were actively at work exonerating Clinton.

Trump should also fire assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and assistant FBI director Andrew McCabe, both of whom are hopelessly compromised as well, and conduct a top-down review of FBI and DOJ personnel to rid those agencies of the partisan political corruption that clearly pervades them.

There can now be no mistake about the legitimacy of the Deep State coup against Trump his supporters have claimed. It’s real. The question now is what the president is going to do about it. The Democrats will use the 2018 midterm elections as a public referendum on whether they’re to be given the political power to impeach the president, and Mueller’s probe is nothing more than an effort to legitimize that naked grasp at the brass ring. Trump may have been practicing a bit of a rope-a-dope to smoke out just how empty this “collusion” narrative has been, but we’re past that now. Now it’s time to end the circus and turn out the clowns.

Enough already. Get rid of these people.

Amen—to include every last Obama stay-behind agent in the government he can reach. I’m highly skeptical that a massive round of firings at the FBI could ever be enough to undo the rot there, but it would at least be a start at something productive, and would indicate the seriousness of Trump’s commitment to draining the swamp…or the lack thereof.

Share

“The income tax system cannot be fixed. It must be destroyed”

I don’t know if “fix” is the right word anyway. It’s working as intended. It’s just that it has no place in any legitimate Constitutional government, is a wholly corrupt abomination, and is a tyrannical affront to the ideals of the Founders, that’s all.

The income tax is applied in a deceptive manner, in that by withholding taxes from paychecks, it becomes effectively invisible to the lower-level wage-earner once he gets over the initial shock of seeing his first paycheck arriving at far fewer dollars than he had counted on.

Not coincidence. Not accident. Not happenstance. On purpose.

The need to abolish the income tax permanently has become glaringly apparent. Congress has become paralyzed trying to reform a system that is beyond broken. Any fix in any one part of the tax code causes it to break somewhere else. It is a system of exemptions for favored portions of the population, who are in effect subsidized unfairly by those less favored.

The tax code has created the insane idea, ingrained into those who make laws, that your money is not really yours at all, but rather, it belongs to the government. Government takes what it wants, gorging itself in wasteful profligacy, and then doles what is left of it back to you, as if it were doing you a favor.

Worse yet, tax laws are used (in effect) to buy votes. Politicians adjust the tax laws to help their campaign donors, reducing their taxes at your expense. They then get re-elected to repeat the process.

Let’s just all repeat my mantra together now, shall we? Not coincidence. Not accident. Not happenstance. On purpose. Every bit of it.

Rough justice update! Sic simper tyrannis.

Former IRS executive Lois G. Lerner told a federal court last week that members of her family, including “young children,” face death threats and a real risk of physical harm if her explanation of the tea party targeting scandal becomes public.

Ms. Lerner and Holly Paz, her deputy at the IRS, filed documents in court Thursday saying tapes and transcripts of depositions they gave in a court case this year must remain sealed in perpetuity, or else they could spur an enraged public to retaliate.

“Whenever Mss. Lerner and Paz have been in the media spotlight, they have faced death threats and harassment,” attorneys for the two women argued.

“Not a smidgeon of corruption,” eh, Barky? I’ll toss in another good old quote: “When the people fear government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty.” With that truism in mind, I can’t restrict my reaction to mere indifference to Lerner’s plight, but find it positively encouraging. It says good things about the possibility of the political pendulum swinging back in the right direction, if nothing else.

Despite having gotten death threats before now as claimed above, I very much doubt her fear of attempted physical assault or murder is really justified by any real chance of its actually happening. She’s not likely to suffer anything but occasional inconvenience and discomfort for her criminal efforts to stifle dissent, to disenfranchise and harass people for daring to harbor views unapproved by the ruling Deep State/Progressivist cabal—people who mistakenly expected the First Amendment to apply to them, or to have any meaning at all.

She and every other petty despot embedded in every dark corner of the Deep State ought to be fearful, or at least cognizant of a very real risk concomitant with any depredation or transgression against the rights of the people they supposedly “serve.” Swift and severe retribution against them by an outraged populace would amount to no more than justice being served at last, and ought to be expected rather than shocking or rare. Complacent, fatalistic acceptance of such depredations is a large part of why we’re in the mess we’re in.

Far from receiving any just punishment at all, though, Lerner didn’t even lose her fucking pension, and was allowed to retire in peace after first lying about the targeting and harassment; then making a pre-emptive statement of “confession” calculated to shield her from justice for her inexcusable cooperation in subverting democracy and flouting the core principles of the Republic; then pleading the Fifth, thereby piling outrage upon outrage by seeking the protection of the very Constitution she had willfully and knowingly trampled underfoot. She was found to be in contempt of Congress, which matter was quickly and quietly dropped with no consequence to her. Incredibly, she even collected over a hundred thousand dollars in bonuses while presiding over banana-republic style suppression of the right to express dissent.

Then stir this into the noxious stew:

On June 13, 2014, the IRS first stated that it lost Ms. Lerner’s emails from 2009 to 2011.

The IRS said hard drives and backups are destroyed for six other IRS employees too. The IRS spent $10 million unsuccessfully trying to recover them, but much later, the Inspector General found them, noting that IRS IT professionals said no one ever asked for them. It is still possible Ms. Lerner could be queried over the hearings revealing 32,000 more emails, and possible criminal activity.

But on his last day in office, U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen concluded that Ms. Lerner’s statement was not a waiver of her constitutional right against self-incrimination. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz complained that, “Mr. Machen attempted to absolve Ms. Lerner of her actions by substituting his judgment for that of the full House of Representatives. It is unclear whether the Administration directed Mr. Machen not to prosecute Lois Lerner, or whether he was motivated by an ideological kinship with IRS’s leadership.”

Ms. Lerner will probably not face any further action. 

“Not a smidgeon of corruption”? My God, the whole thing was a pluperfect example of nothing BUT pure corruption, complete corruption, from start to finish and top to bottom. Obama’s preposterous assertion was never anything but laughable on its face, and was itself an example of his own sense of invulnerability, and his smug contempt for not just the rule of law but the American public itself.

Make no mistake: the weaponization of the IRS by the Obama junta and its deployment to harass people guilty of nothing whatsoever was a crime—a despicable one, a heinous one, a legally-actionable one, and one that should never have been dismissed, denied, excused, or accepted by any real American. It was a particularly odious abuse of power perpetrated by the most feared agency in the federal government—an agency long drunk on its own near-limitless power, capable of destroying lives permanently for the most minor of infractions with total impunity. It can—it has—wiped out the fruits of a lifetime’s work, struggle, and sacrifice over a trifling error of its own commission. It is a monstrous bureaucracy unfettered by meaningful oversight or restraint. It’s difficult to imagine anything more un-American.

These crimes cry to the heavens for redress. And we’re never going to get it.

In a more righteous era, with a government restrained by a healthy and proper reluctance to run roughshod over the rights of its people, enforced by the dauntless self-respect and vigilance of those people, she’d have been swinging by her neck from a DC lamppost long ago, just as soon as she openly confessed to her crime. But then, as the bumper sticker says: The Founders would have been shooting by now.

Lerner fears for her life? Good. She deserves a whole hell of a lot worse than that in payment for her despicable, immoral, and unforgivable suppression of the most fundamental rights of wholly innocent Americans. That she has the unbelievable audacity, the pure gall, to whine about her situation now just makes her even more contemptible. She is a vile worm; a blight on the landscape, a miserable excrescence without character, courage, virtue, or any other redeeming quality. Indeed, she’s far worse than that: she and her cohorts are dangerous, and are exactly what the Founders warned us against.

And once again, make no mistake: the IRS and every other Federal agency and department is staffed full to brimming with people just like her. Yes, there are exceptions. But she was by no means singular or extraordinary; she is the rule, the norm, and they’re all there still, beavering away in obscurity, eating away at our national foundation every minute of their busy workday.

Taken together, they in their thousands constitute a truly daunting problem, one that may well be insuperable. But the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and Lois Lerner is an air-tight argument for doing away with the nest of vipers that is the IRS all by herself.

Share

“Basically the Democrat Party is a Duke lacrosse team that actually did it”

Okay, I know I said this whole sordid, tawdry mess was waaay up over the shark with the Ron Jeremy accusations. And I wasn’t wrong, really.

But…Charlie Rose? Charlie friggin’ Rose? Seriously?

Okay, I gotta admit that I did NOT expect that one; this business hasn’t just jumped the shark, it’s hovering overhead, thumbing its nose and blowing raspberries at him. I also gotta admit that I’m with Ace on this particular bit:

Again with the walking around naked.

Honestly, I had no idea this was such a thing.

Me neither. Elsewhere Ace kind of seems to miss one, though:

This is the standard liberal line, from Matthew Dowd to FoxNews “analyst” AB Stoddard: Al Franken admitted what he did.

No, he didn’t. Tweeden had photographic proof he groped her; he “admitted” that, which could not be denied. There was a fucking picture of him caught red-handed, as it were.

He refuses to admit the even more egregious part of her allegation, that he forcibly tongue kissed her.

Because there’s no proof on that one.

Just her claim.

Which counts as proof against Roy Moore, but not against Al Franken, for some reason I can’t even guess at.

Oh, that’s the easiest one of all, and I suspect Ace knows it as well as I do: because Franken is a fully-paid-up member of Team Commie, and Moore is not.

And that’s it. That’s all it takes. In order to get away with anything, absolutely anything at all, and be excused for it by the Left, all you have to do is be on their side politically. If you are, nothing that you do, absolutely nothing at all, will induce them to throw you under the bus, at least until you’re no longer useful to them. You can violate any and every “principle” they claim to hold most dear as egregiously as you can contrive to, and…nothing. They will find a way not just to sweep it under the rug, but will actually make complete fools of themselves trying to find some way—any way—to blame it on the Republican Demon Du Jour.

That’s one of the traps you set for yourself when “the personal is political,” see. Schlichter explains:

The Democrats used to be able to exploit the fact that GOP voters actually have morals. But then the tyranny of the new rules arose and their ploy stopped working. Gloria Allred dragged out a bunch of accusers to try and get us to abandon Trump in 2016, and all she got was a “Meh.” People saw the math didn’t work.

“You are morally obligated to dump this guy based on the shaky contentions of a bunch of people a rabid liberal partisan who makes money off such accusations produced, and you must therefore vote for the woman who spent the last thirty years trashing the abused women her husband left weeping in his wake. Because patriarchy.”

Nope. No more. Republicans refused to allow their morals to be weaponized against them again, and it confounded the libs. That meant they had to rely on their candidate and their policy positions and, well, that went poorly.

See, that’s the problem with hypocrisy. It’s not merely that the idea that, “If you do it you lose, and if we do it, we still get to win,” is so galling, though it is. It’s that it can actually change the rules. The rule used to be that accused sexual abusers can’t be politicians. That stopped being the rule when the Democrats Move(d) On. So when they tried to invoke the rule in 2016, they found it was uninvokeable.

This is how you got Roy Moore, who should have arranged to be in a federal corruption trial right (now) because then no one in the Senate would be demanding that he drop out. Alabama voters might very well choose the guy who dated babies over the one who wants to kill them, and if Moore wins, a good part of the reason will be, “The hell with you liberals.”

Certainly true, and in a lot more places than just Alabama, too. But as I said yesterday, they don’t care that they’re contorting themselves into pretzel shapes and contradicting themselves on an hourly basis right out in public trying to make this work out in their favor; they have not the most trifling concern for reason, consistency, integrity, or decency. And why should they? They’ll never have the vaguest clue how many of us out there are laughing ourselves silly or shaking our heads in bemused disgust at them over this degenerate lunacy, and they don’t care what we might think or say anyway. The NYT, WaPo, MSABCNNBC, and the rest of the Old Media spirit squad are all diligently presenting their manic floundering as perfectly reasonable and sane, and that’s all they’re ever going to see or care about.

And the Vichy GOPe is helping as best they can. They’re all working as one to try to keep up the skeer on Moore, even as each accusation against him crumbles into dust one by one by one, and maintaining that the real perverted sex criminal is one Donald J Trump, who MUST BE IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY because he told the truth about how some women react to wealth and fame once. Also, he said “pussy,” which is a hate crime worse than lynching unless you’re a rap artist, a militant bull-dagger wearing one for a hat, or Bill Clinton on the golf course. It all comes down to the same thing—and “principles” don’t even enter into it.

They’re never gonna admit what they did was immoral. They’re never gonna admit that what they did was a miscalculation. Because everything they do is because they intend to do it. They do not have moral lapses. You would have to have morality in the first place to have a moral lapse. They do not have moral lapses.

They are not nice people. They are not tolerant people. They are none of the things that they have told you you have to be. They’re none of the compassionate, understanding, open-minded people willing to give people a break. That’s not who they are. They are willing to pounce and destroy anybody that they want to take out with the slightest provocation, the bare minimum of reason.

You know, F. Scott Fitzgerald said the rich really are different. They’re not like you and me. Maybe. But I’ll tell you who isn’t like you and me, and that’s these leftist liberals and communists. They are not like you and me. And it is a mistake to assume you can rationally persuade them, talk to them, or whatever, like you would talk to anybody else that you feel comfortable talking to. They hate you. They’re predisposed to hate you, and there’s nothing that can change that, especially if they don’t know who they are.

If all they know about you is whether or not you’re a conservative or Republican, then that’s all it takes. In their minds, they don’t make mistakes of behavior, of right and wrong. They make mistakes of calculation. They’ll make political calculation mistakes, but not behavioral or virtuous, those kinds of mistakes. Nah-nah-nah-nah. They’re not capable of those kind of mistakes, ’cause they are what is. In their minds, they are what’s normal. You and I are the odd people that need the men in the white coats in the little yellow bus picking us up from school every day and taking us to parts unknown. And they never stop any of that. That is their lives.

They get up, they spend a day, and they go to sleep calculating, plotting, thinking, they dream of it, it is their lives. Your life, this stuff (is) not primary or even secondary. Maybe tertiary. You have other things going on in your life. You actually try to live your life. This is everything to them, acquiring the power, maintaining the power, and then, most importantly, using the power against us, their enemies.

Annnnd bingo. Right there it is. No more, no less.

Which is why I think what we have to be focused on is not just defeating them, certainly not debating or attempting to convince them, but crushing them into the fucking dust. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be making our case logically right along, of course. But Aesop knows what the point of that really is, and what we accomplish by it:

To imagine (Klavan is) seriously expecting that the Left will suddenly break suction, pull their heads out, and start acting like rational human beings is to ignore the body of Klavan’s work to date.

His work is masterful black comedy, for its own sake, and his remonstrations to the Left are in the same vein as lecturing a puppy before applying the rolled up newspaper: one doesn’t do it because they expect the pooch will suddenly stand upright on its hind legs, hang its head, and profess sorrow, remorse, and an earnest aspiration to behave better, delivered in the Queen’s English.

They do it to observe the proprieties before the Sword (or in this example, the Rolled-Up Newspaper) of Justice falls, and delivers the Smackdown of Justified Wrath on the guilty party.

In short, you don’t do it for Fido, you do it for you. This is why you’re not just a brutal thug beating a dumb animal, and it’s also why you don’t shoot the dog. (Or the Left.)

At least until they graduate from being asses, to being outright terrorists, at which point lopping heads off is all well and good, as Klavan would assent to in a heartbeat.

I wouldn’t shoot a dog for peeing on a fire hydrant, and I wouldn’t shoot a Leftist for being an ignorant braying jackass. In both cases, it’s what they do.

But when either one graduates from transgressing polite behavior, to threatening life and limb, they need to be put down.

They’re pushing nearer and nearer to that point every day, with riots and violent attacks against us all around the country over the past year. It’s regrettable, of course, and I don’t know many folks on our side who are really happy about it. But there doesn’t really seem to be any way to get them to see the light and finally back off. Sooner or later, people will get tired of being punching bags for roving bands of vicious, cowardly goons who intend to dispense once and for all with the last tattered shreds of a Constitution they’ve been pissing over for decades and enslave them under a Marxist tyranny, and are no longer the least bit reticent about saying so right up front.

They will not stop. They will have to BE stopped. And all I can think to say to that is: so be it.

So hey, might as well enjoy a good laugh over their perv problem in the meantime, right?

Share

Unity now nah

The last desperate resort.

One of the weirder aspects of the modern age is the endless calls for unity from our superiors, particularly those in the Progressive camp. It’s weird for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact the Left is endlessly trying to marginalize anyone that disagrees with them. It is how diversity came to mean rigid homogeneity. Putting aside the hypocrisy, it’s weird because it is fairly new and very un-American. It also contradicts the very premise of democracy, which is about competing opinions, jostling for support.

It seems that the calls for “unity” have coincided with the spread of the American civic nationalism stuff. Thirty years ago, no public figure talked about “who we are” or made grand claims about a unified America culture. In fact, the lack of conformity was the gold standard of intellectual rigor. Democrats used to claim they had so much internal debate, it was like herding cats. Republicans used to crow about being the party of ideas, meaning that they had the bulk of free thinkers and dissident chattering skulls.

It’s not a coincidence that the flowering of the civic religion stuff has coincided with increasing calls for unity and now the un-personing panics. Religions, particularly in their growth phase, are highly intolerant of competing religions. It’s why the Left, even today, attacks Christianity. They see it as competition. In order to have a civic religion, it means stamping out ideas and movements that contradict it, even if those ideas are rooted in observable reality. In the name of unity, dissent must be crushed, along with the dissenter.

The unintended result of this is to de-legitimize the Right half of the ruling class. A so-called conservative with a twitter account, especially one with a blue check, will now be seen as nothing more than an organ grinder’s monkey. The civic religion only works when political debate is confined to the tiny ideological space occupied by Progressives and their hand-picked opposition. Strip away the legitimacy of the so-called conservatives and the civic religion is revealed to be a public relations campaign by the ruling oligarchs.

That’s the core reason that American public debate seems so uncivil. In an effort to defend the status quo, the ruling elites have become increasingly aggressive at stamping out dissent. The whole “Russian hacking” nonsense was a thinly veiled way of saying that those who voted for Trump were either stupid or un-American. The fact that it appears the purveyors of this story were themselves in cahoots with the Russians suggests there are no limits to what they will do to crush their opposition. Torquemada would be proud.

Eric Hoffer said, “Fanatical orthodoxy is in all movements a late development. It comes when the movement is in full possession of power and can impose its faith by force as well as by persuasion.” It’s also a late phase effort, a rearguard action, intended to defend the status quo, despite there no longer being an obvious use for it. The current arrangements in America no longer serve anyone other than the relatively small number of people who live like royalty in the Imperial Capital and its satellite cities.

At some point, the cost of maintaining unity among increasingly hostile tribes outweighs the benefit. The increasingly shrill demands for unity and obedience, along with the corresponding fissures opening up in public life, suggest we’re following a familiar path that leads to a break down. Some social scientists seem to get, to some degree, what is happening, but no one knows what comes next. Maybe it is just too frightening to consider or maybe it is impossible to know. What’s not coming, though, is national unity.

There can be no real or lasting unity joining people who desire freedom with those who wish to take it from them. There can only be conflict—which one side must win, and the other…lose.

Share

The Long March

How we got here, and where it’s all leading.

Disabling of independent thought. Nothing is more threatening to petty dictators than a citizenry’s widespread ability to think clearly and independently. Radical education reformers have sought for generations to drum the capacity for independent thought out of students. “Critical thinking” has been made into a garbage term for fads that have students doing anything but gain content knowledge.

Most college students today probably could not answer even a fraction of the questions on an eighth grade general knowledge exam from 1912. Without core knowledge, people have a difficult time putting any knowledge into its proper context. After decades of such politicizing reforms, you can end up with college students so muddled in their thinking that they need “trigger warnings” before reading anything that might conflict with the social and emotional programming they’ve experienced. In the propaganda phase, we’ll see how political correctness compounds this problem by cultivating the fear of rejection for expressing one’s thoughts.

Ever more bureaucratization. Human freedom is inversely proportional to the bloat of the administrative state. I’m not sure who should be credited with first making this observation. It resounds in the work of the American Founders, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Hayek, and even the psychiatrist Carl Jung, among many others. But the piles of regulations that put businesses, as well as personal lives, into straitjackets attest to this destabilizing trend for human freedom.

You can trace this back quite a ways, particularly with President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs put into place to address the Great Depression. But it certainly helped put into high gear the bloat we see today. Compounding the problem is the notion that immigration should be limitless and the nation borderless, despite a national debt of $20 trillion. The metastasis of bureaucracy is a huge indicator we’ve been on the path to centralized power that feeds corruption and lays groundwork for communism.

Erasure of collective memory. Another crime of radical education reform is its attack on the study of history, civics, and the classics of literature. Today we can see the bitter fruits of such 1960s radical education reform, which has roots going back to 1920s with John Dewey. If we are no longer able to place ourselves and society into the context of historical events, our vision going forward will be blurred at best.

It gets even worse if we don’t learn how our form of government functions. Today fewer and fewer college students have the capacity to understand that the First Amendment serves as a buffer against totalitarianism, not something to be abolished under the pretext of “hate speech.” And depriving students exposure to literary classics like Shakespeare (based on the charge that such works are “Western” and therefore ethnocentric) prevents them from discussing the universal human condition and our common humanity.

Instead, students are increasingly fed grievance studies and identity politics. As universities go this route, it trickles down to K-12 education. As a result, we are losing the social glue of our common traditions and heritage—not just as a nation, but as human beings. This cultivation of ignorance by the education establishment over the years compounds the isolating effect on people. It makes youth especially vulnerable to becoming fodder for power elites.

That’s from part two of a truly monumental work, a near-comprehensive primer on the mechanisms by which communism has infiltrated our society. I excerpted that bit because it underlines what I’ve always believed is the single most important step of the early stages: the infiltration and takeover of the educational system, and its subsequent use to not only promote communism, but also erode respect for American values, distort historical fact, erase knowledge of our Founding and our civic structure, and diminish the very idea of the value of liberty and the concept of unalienable, God-given rights themselves. From part three:

Once communism gained a foothold in Russia, it doomed its citizens to lives of scarcity, misery, social distrust, terror, and mass murder. The same goes for China. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, the Castros, Che Guevara, Joseph Stalin, the Kims of North Korea—all of them were brutal dictators enabled by a system that always places too much power into the hands of too few people. It’s a corrupt and cruel system that allows an elite oligarchy—which Lenin called a “vanguard”—to enslave the entire population.

But what about a nation like America, which was built on the idea that every human being is endowed by our Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? We have a Constitution that guarantees these rights and separates the branches of government, placing restraints on government so individuals may live freely. Furthermore, this document intentionally contained the seeds of slavery’s destruction. Americans shed a lot of blood to protect the freedoms enshrined in that document for us and for our posterity.

So is it possible that we, a free people, could ever throw it all away? Could we sell ourselves into the slavery called communism? Sadly, of course we could. Anyone who forgets his birthright is more likely to squander it. And there has been a lot of forgetting. As Ronald Reagan warned, “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Chillingly prophetic words, those. And then there’s this:

Nearly 100 years ago, the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci declared that the key to achieving global communism was through culture, not promoting socialist economic policies that had little appeal in the West. This would require a “long march through the institutions” of society, destroying them from within so communism could fill the vacuum.

Radicals of the 1960s like Saul Alinksy picked up on this theme, noting that “the system” (i.e., American freedom) could only be destroyed once radical operatives had secured control over society’s institutions. The deep state is one example of institutional takeover that’s been building through decades of bureaucratic bloat, with operatives embedded in the military and intelligence agencies. The cultural takeover of media outlets, academia, and entertainment is both broad and deep today, after decades of creep.

But it is the mediating institutions have been most relentlessly attacked—family, church, and voluntary organizations—because they serve as buffer zones of influence that help shield individuals from abuses by the state. Today they are more vulnerable than ever to total absorption by the Mass State, a prerequisite for communism.

Such has been their success that to even take note of this sinister “progress,” much less suggest that it should be seriously pondered or examined, is to hazard getting oneself labeled as a deluded headcase, an irrational, conspiracy-theorizing lunatic. Which in turns suggests just how difficult a struggle lies ahead of us, and how long it might take us to turn the tide—assuming that’s even possible at this late date.

Like I keep saying: not by accident, no coincidence. Once you acknowledge that, the rest follows as surely as dawn follows dark. These articles make an ironclad case for the proposition, and specific as they are, backed up by plenty of supporting links, amount to damned useful support for any good-faith discussion of the matter you might happen to find yourself involved in. From part one:

Although communist and socialist governments murdered well more than 100 million people in the course of the twentieth century, that number spikes even further when you include the practical bedfellows of communism, like Nazism and fascism, for example. According to the calculations of Professor R. J. Rummel, author of “Death by Government,” totalitarian regimes snuffed out approximately 169 million lives in the twentieth century alone. That number is more than four times higher than the 38 million deaths—civilian as well as military—caused by all of the twentieth century wars combined.

As Rummel states: “Power kills. Absolute power kills absolutely.” The common thread that runs through communist and fascist ideologies is their totalitarian nature, which means they control people by breeding scarcity, ignorance, human misery, social distrust, the constant threat of social isolation, and death to dissenters. All in the name of justice and equality.

They cannot abide any checks or balances, particularly checks on government power as reflected in the U.S. Bill of Rights. They fight de-centralization of power, which allows localities and states true self-governance. Such restraints on the centralized power of the state stand in the way of achieving the goal of communism: absolute state power over every single human being.

Which is why they’ve worked so diligently to neuter the Constitution, to dismiss it as a document of only historical interest with merely notional, glancing relevance to life in America today—”how could they have foreseen” etc and blah blah blah—or, alternatively, to promote it as a “living document” infinitely malleable to more comfortably suit the whims and fads of the moment.

It has become fashionable in some quarters on the Right to bash the Constitution as a failed document, a near-useless, poorly-conceived, slapdash botch doomed to said failure by its own in-built flaws right from the start. I never have subscribed to that theory myself; it has admittedly failed as the primary guardian of our rights, sure enough. But it’s my belief that the failure, just as Adams warned, was ours. Had we demanded strict adherence to its policies and prescriptions as we should have, and raised a real howl every time it was traduced or ignored by maleficent politicians with barely-clandestine designs on our natural rights, it would still be functioning perfectly well as the blueprint for proper governance of a free people.

The Constitution didn’t break down on its own; because of a soft complacency going back many, many years, it was broken. I have serious doubts as to the possibility of putting it back together again; I consider civil war or partition or both to be far more likely, sobering as it is to anticipate. But if repair and restoration is ever to happen, a clear understanding of who and what broke it, and why, would have to be a vital first step.

Share

Is America a failed state?

Francis mulls it over.

Corruption is pervasive inside many governments. The majority of Latin American nations, if their officials and lesser functionaries were to be denied the “privilege” of bribery, probably couldn’t function at all. Hernando de Soto could tell you all about it. Indeed, such practices are hardly confined to the Western Hemisphere.

Yet Argentina, Brazil, Peru, and so forth are never described as failed states. Clearly, the term doesn’t apply to corrupt regimes simply because they’re corrupt. What, then, is the distinguishing characteristic?

Is it a failure to enforce the law? But most nations have many, many laws that go unenforced. The United States of America is one such. Enforcement power is always insufficient to enforce all the laws on the books, because governments enact laws without regard for that consideration. The firearms laws of the U.S. provide an exceptionally compelling case.

Is it some characteristic of the law itself – some quality that the laws of a failed state must possess (or lack) that’s not present in (or absent from) the laws of other nations? That’s too nebulous to explain why the term has been applied so sparely. The luxuriant proliferation of law in every nation on Earth would reveal the presence (or absence) of any proposed characteristic in at least some of the laws of each nation.

Here’s an interesting case: Was South Vietnam, just before its conquest by North Vietnam, a failed state? It lacked the will, the power, or both to defend itself against the invasion, which is an important aspect of sovereignty. But at what point would that begin to matter? A number of smaller nations are probably just as ill-prepared to defend themselves against their neighbors, even if those neighbors haven’t troubled them yet.

No, there’s something else involved…some other characteristic of a nation that qualifies it as a “failed state.” It’s about the nature of the state itself.

More precisely, whether and how fully it lives up to its declared intentions and principles. The supposed intention of our government, its raison d’être, is to safeguard the natural rights and ordered liberty of its citizens, to regulate interstate commerce, and to provide for their common defense. Or so the documents that defined its original structure and guiding philosophy say.

By that measure, it isn’t completely failed but is inarguably well along the road to ruin, and our Ruling Class seems determined to continue along to the dismal terminus. On the other hand, the distance we’ve strayed from the vision of those documents, well into a territory the writers of those documents would consider entirely alien, argues that ours is indeed a failed state. But as Francis notes, our government is stable and secure, and is in no realistic danger of collapsing or being toppled at present—which would seem to argue against its being a failed state. Francis later considers an additional metric:

The defining characteristic of a state is an organization that possesses the pre-immunized privilege of coercion over those within its scope. Note the qualifier pre-immunized. Many non-state organizations can and do use coercive methods to attain their objectives. However, they remain liable to pursuit and penalty under the law, whatever it might be, should the state decide to act against them. Only the agents of the state are granted immunity – i.e., the presumption of lawfulness – for specified uses of coercion.

A state which can operate under the presumption of immunity for its deeds is a functioning one. Regardless of the laws it promulgates and whether or not it chooses to enforce them, it has not failed. It maintains its defining difference from the other organizations within its jurisdiction. Inversely, a state whose agents and other subunits are routinely punished for their actions by non-state actors is at the very least in danger of failure.

The federal government of the U.S. is not a failed state by that criterion. At this time there is no force in existence that threatens the immunity of its agents from punishment. Ruby Ridge and Waco provide clear demonstrations, regardless of our opinion of what happened in those two incidents.

You can say that again, buddy. Our government has inarguably failed to live up to its original principles and objectives; it has far exceeded the clear and specific limitations placed on it by its founding documents, casting the lofty ideals of its origin aside while still publicly claiming to abide by them and revere them. Its claim to moral rectitude and its very right to govern as defined in the Declaration is forfeit, voided by its own illegitimate actions. Its claim to the consent of the governed is maintained only by the populace’s terror of the State’s ability to, as Francis says, “operate under the presumption of immunity for its deeds,” which is all but unquestioned at this point.

Does that make it a failed state? Or just a successful tyranny?

I’ve always maintained that every government has one de facto purpose, whether acknowledged openly or (more commonly) concealed or denied: to consolidate and expand its power over those it governs. From that admittedly cynical perspective, our government has been spectacularly and depressingly successful. The irony is that that success always leads to failure in the long run: government’s encroachment on its subjects, gradually evolving into tyranny and abuse, breeds the discontent among the ruled that will sooner or later lead to its abolishment by them.

Think now of how many of us blithely evade or disregard on a daily basis many of the tens of thousands of regulatory restrictions they’ve burdened us with. It’s estimated that the average American commits between three and five felonies a day, each and every day. How could such an absurd state of affairs help but breed anything but contempt for the hapless government that seeks such total control over its subjects…but is obviously powerless to enforce it? That contempt may start out as a source of mild bemusement, but can and likely will degenerate into something a lot more dangerous to the grasping government should it ever seriously attempt to bring its subjects more fully to heel.

Think, too, of the sorry degeneracy of the appalling swine who run the government; not just the politicians, but the inept bureaucrats who actually do run the damned thing. The politicians alone are enough to reveal how far we’ve fallen. When was the last time you heard any of these contemptible cretins referred to as a “statesman”? The very idea of comparing any of the villainous poltroons currently in Congress to, say, James Madison, James Monroe, or, for that matter, Peter Muhlenberg of the first Federal Congress is risible on its face. The kind of people drawn these days to “serve” in Congress couldn’t be trusted to walk your damned dog. You certainly wouldn’t dream of hiring them to babysit your daughter, even for five minutes.

The profligate treachery and self-serving arrogance of John McCain; the addled witlessness of Maxine Waters; the complete mendacity and dishonesty of Nancy Pelosi; the smug double-dealing of Harry Reid; the slimy disingenuousness of Mitch “Yertle” McTurtle—these aren’t exactly ringing endorsements of the caliber of people in charge of government in the modern era. Some of them—most, probably—might be vain and presumptuous enough to think they’d fare well in a comparison to the true statesmen of an earlier age. But that only adds “delusional” to the litany of their inadequacy.

The character traits of those attracted to national elective office effectively guarantee that they’ll be the very type of person we wouldn’t want there. An overblown sense of self-importance; a desire to lord it over others, and an unswerving belief in their competence to do so; a monstrously and unjustly inflated ego; a mania for attention and affirmation; a near-sociopathic lack of interest in the needs or desires of other people; dishonesty and shamelessness; short-sightedness and disinterest in long-term consequences; basic fiscal greed—these pathologies, crippling disqualifications in just about any other field, are now requirements for success as an American career politician.

As for the bureaucrats, anybody who has spent a nightmarish afternoon struggling to deal with just about any government agency for just about any reason knows that they might be even worse. Hide-bound obstinacy; dull-wittedness; inflexibility; inability to distinguish between the trivial and the significant, or to usefully prioritize them; a bone-deep affinity for obsequiousness to superiors and bullying everyone else; an absolute dearth of creativity or empathy, and a loathing of any departure from routine to indulge them, even to their own inconvenience—these are the watchwords of the career bureaucrat. There are exceptions, of course; I’ve been pleasantly surprised to have run across one or two of late myself. But surprise only underlines the rarity of that deviation from the usual round.

Really, one could argue that EVERY state is a failed one eventually; that’s the evident historical pattern, at any rate. The amusing thing to me is how completely that implacable reality demolishes the core conceit of the Progressivists who are the driving force behind the growth of the Almighty State: namely, the belief in the perfectibility of the human animal. Unhappily for them, the harder they try to manipulate and reshape us according to their idea of “perfection”—the more encompassing the scope of their meddlesome interference—the quicker the seeds of our eventual rejection of them will flower into open rebellion against them. One of the “flaws” of human nature that they will never be able to correct to their satisfaction is our obstreperous, seemingly inborn resistance to the very kind of manipulation they envision.

If Progressivists and other Almighty State devotees had sense enough to leave us mostly alone as the Founders intended, their control over those aspects of life they might be permitted to oversee would be prolonged, and more stable. In an irony of nearly galactic proportions, their megalomania guarantees the undoing of their ambition…precisely because there IS such a thing as “human nature,” and the aspects of it they most dislike don’t easily yield to Progressivist tinkering or “perfecting.”

But then, if they had that much sense, or any at all, they wouldn’t be Progressivists or statists in the first place, and would recognize the fundamental truth of Thoreau’s (or O’Sullivan’s) axiom: that government governs best which governs least. Governs longer, too.

And that’s the crowning irony: by discarding the Founder’s ideal of limited government, the proponents and architects of the hoggish Superstate ensure its own inevitable devolution into a failed one. Call it karma, if you like.

Share

Bullets first

Schlichter sums up:

Show of hands. Who is up to give up your ability to protect yourself because the same people who celebrate us being murdered demand it? Anyone? Hello? Bueller?

Then, of course, the killing spree got stopped by the very thing that liberals insist doesn’t exist except for all the times it has existed – a good guy with a gun. A Texan exhibiting something liberals are unfamiliar with – manhood – took his rifle and went one-on-one with that walking chamber pot and put a round in him. The tubby terrorist, confronted with an armed American citizen instead of little kids, dropped his rifle and ran, gut shot. Let’s hope he suffered good and hard before he checked himself out like the coward he was.

So, let’s review. We’re supposed to demand laws that make it illegal for human suppositories like this to have guns, even though it was already illegal for him to have guns. We’re supposed to rely on government background checks to protect us even though the government keeps failing at that. We’re also supposed to disarm at the behest of people who know literally nothing about guns or existing gun laws. And we’re supposed to not believe that we have the ability to defend ourselves, even though normal Americans do so every day – here, an instructor from the NRA literally ended this bloodbath. But we should ignore that for reasons and because.

But wait, there’s more. We’re supposed to disarm in the face of people who celebrate when we are murdered. The Hollywood types, taking a break from molesting each other, didn’t exactly celebrate our deaths, but they couldn’t help spewing their hatred for our faith. I bet if we were disarmed, and a government controlled by liberals had a total monopoly on force, they’d be totally cool and respect our religious rights. I checked with Chet and he thinks so – it’s not like right now they want to bankrupt people for not baking cakes.

Here’s the sad fact – the people who want us disarmed don’t care if we get murdered. Not at all. Chicago has a slow motion Sutherland Springs every two weeks and the smarmy Democrats who run that hellhole don’t care. If they did, they would unleash the cops, who know exactly who the crooks are. Remember how liberals howled about “stop and frisk?” That took illegal guns off the streets, but progressive politics always take precedence. Our lives don’t matter except as a tool to be exploited when they want to take normals’ rights.

Our elite doesn’t want gun control. It wants us control.

Bingo, nailed it in one. But they have a big, big problem which, just as it always has, still boils down to this: from my cold, dead hands, bitches. I know they’d be fine with that as long as they could get someone to do it for them and all, but still.

Think I’m alone in that, or at best part of a tiny, statistically insignificant handful of radical, fanatical 2A extremists? Better think again, Poindexter:

In 2014, attorney and policy analyst Paloma Capanna filed suit on behalf of Rochester-based radio host Bill Robinson seeking data on NY SAFE Act compliance: specifically, how many assault weapons had actually been registered in the state.

Cuomo administration officials first ignored, then denied Robinson’s Freedom of Information Act request. But, on June 22, following two years of litigation, state police released the information based on a court decision which found that while the law forbade the disclosure of the actual registration forms, nothing precluded the release of aggregate data.

That data shows massive noncompliance with the assault weapon registration requirement. Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law’s assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered. That’s a compliance rate of about 4 percent. Capanna said that the high rate of noncompliance with the law could only be interpreted as a large-scale civil disobedience, given the high level of interest and concern about the law on the part of gun owners.

“It’s not that they aren’t aware of the law,” said Capanna. “The lack of registration is a massive act of civil disobedience by gun owners statewide.”

Oh, and did I mention their needing someone to confiscate ’em for them? Why yes; yes I did.

Opposition to the SAFE Act has been widespread across upstate New York, where 52 of the state’s 62 counties, including Ulster, have passed resolutions opposing the law. Upstate police agencies have also demonstrated a marked lack of enthusiasm for enforcing the ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. According to statistics compiled by the state Department of Criminal Justice Services, there have been just 11 arrests for failure to register an otherwise-legal assault weapon since the SAFE Act took effect in March 2013 and 62 for possession of a large capacity magazine. In Ulster County, where 463 assault weapons have been registered, there have been just three arrests for possession of large-capacity magazines and none for failure to register an assault weapon. Ulster County Sheriff Paul VanBlarcum has been a vocal critic of the law; he said he believed large numbers of Ulster County gun owners had chosen to ignore the registration requirement.

“We’re a rural county with a lot of gun enthusiasts,” said VanBlarcum. “So [463] sounds like a very low number.”

VanBlarcum said he had advised deputies to use their discretion when it came to making arrests for SAFE Act violations like unregistered assault weapons and he had no plans to undertake proactive enforcement measures.

“We are not actively out looking to enforce any aspect of the SAFE Act,” said VanBlarcum.

As I’ve mentioned before, I have friends and family who are cops; many of the customers at the Harley shop I used to work at are cops. And I can assure you based on my own conversations with these guys that there is absolutely ZERO enthusiasm among them not only for having to enforce these laws, but for the laws themselves in the first damned place. Their opposition to such laws, in other words, is based not on narrow concern for their own safety in enforcing an unpopular law, but on their personal firm belief in the right to keep and bear arms.

Too, they’re nearly all recreational shooters themselves; when I used to attend the bi-annual Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot every year, a goodly number of the attendees there were always cops. There are exceptions out there, of course, but on the whole these aren’t people who are going to be able to muster a whole lot of enthusiasm for personally going out to violate the Constitution on a door-to-door basis. In fact, they’re way more likely to refuse to do it flatly and without equivocation:

With more states passing stronger gun control laws, rural sheriffs across the country are taking the meaning of their age-old role as defenders of the Constitution to a new level by protesting such restrictions, News21 found.

Some are refusing to enforce the laws altogether.

Sheriffs in states like New York, Colorado and Maryland argue that some gun control laws defy the Second Amendment and threaten rural culture, for which gun ownership is often an integral component.

They’re joined by groups like Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, both of which encourage law enforcement officers to take a stand against gun control laws.

Lewis, who is running for re-election this year, said sheriffs have a responsibility to push against what he sees as the federal government’s continual encroachment on citizens’ lives and rights.

“Where do we draw a line?” he asked. “I made a vow and a commitment that as long as I’m the sheriff of this county I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my law-abiding citizens of the right to bear arms. If they attempt to do that it will be an all-out civil war. Because I will stand toe-to-toe with my people.”

If our 2A rights are ever to be fully restored—or even maintained as is, without further watering down or sneak-thief encroachments on it—we’re going to need as many like Sheriff Lewis as we can possibly get to help with it. As for non-compliance, it ain’t just New York, either:

While the recent experience in New York is strong evidence of the American public’s unwillingness to comply with firearms registration, it is only the latest instance illustrating the futility of these types of laws. In Connecticut, a 2013 law required residents to register certain types of semiautomatic firearms, and individual magazines with a capacity greater than 10, by January 1, 2014. Out of an estimated several hundred thousand guns and 2.4 million magazines that were required to be registered, by the deadline Connecticut gun owners had registered 50,016 firearms and a mere 38,290 magazines.

In March, the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, assembled by Governor Dannel Malloy “to review current policy and make specific recommendations in the areas of public safety, with particular attention paid to school safety, mental health, and gun violence prevention,” issued its final report. The commission suggested that Connecticut “Prohibit the possession… of any firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading.”

Similarly, in 1989 California enacted a law requiring registration of certain semi-automatic firearms. According to a February 17, 1992 Los Angeles Times article, in the years since enactment only 46,062 semi-autos were registered. The article goes on to note, “The state Department of Justice has estimated there are 200,000 to 300,000. Others have calculated as many as 450,000 to 600,000.” The authorities attempted to bolster the lackluster compliance with a 90-day amnesty period at the start of 1992; this program only netted another 13,470 firearms.

The results of New Jersey’s semi-auto ban were comparable. An April 17, 1992 New York Times article titled, “Owners of Assault Guns Slow to Obey Law,” notes, “In New Jersey, which enacted an assault weapon ban in 1990, 2,000 weapons have been surrendered, made inoperable or registered as collectors’ items, according to the State Police. The state Attorney General’s office estimates that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 assault weapons in New Jersey.”

And those are just the ones they know about. But hey, given our history and national character, only in America would such personal defiance of tyrannical edicts be likely to occur, right? Wrong yet again:

Canada passed a strict gun-control law in 1995, partly in reaction to a 1989 shooting  at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique with a semiautomatic rifle. The law required universal regulation of guns, including rifles and shotguns. Proponents said the central registry would give law-enforcement agencies a powerful new tool for tracking guns used in crimes. They also claimed it would help reduce domestic violence and suicide.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

The bigger lesson of Canada’s experiment, Mauser says, is that gun registration rarely delivers the results proponents expect. In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country.

All of which brings us ’round to this delicious 2014 press release, from Connecticut Carry:

To Officials of the State of Connecticut: Either Enforce or Repeal 2013 Anti-gun Laws.
It’s time for the State to enforce the tyranny they passed or repeal it entirely.

For years, Undersecretary Michael Lawlor, the upper levels of the State Police, and Governor Dannel Malloy have sought to disarm those whom they fear. The laws they passed show that they fear constitutionally and lawfully armed citizens. Despite thousands of gun owners showing up at each legislative session expecting to be heard by their ‘representatives’, government officials seized upon public panic related to the Newtown Massacre, as a means to exert legislative and executive fiats intent upon disarming gun owners who have harmed no one. The Connecticut Executive and Legislative branches showed their cowardice when they installed metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances to the Legislative Office Building (LOB) only for firearms-related hearings.

Gun hating officials now have their laws on the books in Connecticut. They dreamed up those laws, in their tyrannical dystopias, but it was NOT the majority of the public that supported such laws. Despite all the severe legal language that the government passed, there is still no open discussion of enforcing those tyrannical laws, as they stand. Throughout the Legislature and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), there is only talk of “amnesty” and possibly boiling the frog at a slower rate.

As many media sources have pointed out, there is very little compliance with the new edicts, and there is absolutely no way for the State to know who is obeying the law or not. State officials have made their bluff, and Undersecretary Lawlor has made his position clear, that the State will enforce the laws. We say: Bring it on. The officials of the State of Connecticut have threatened its citizens by fiat. They have roared on paper, but they have violated Principle. Now it’s time for the State to man-up: either enforce its edicts or else stand-down and return to the former laws that did not so violently threaten the citizens of this state.

There is nothing that will so completely destroy faith in those edicts faster than the State-provoked chaos and violence that will be required to enforce the 2013 anti-gun laws. Connecticut residents should not have to live in perpetual fear of “the jack boot” coming down on them. Unenforced, frequently repeated threats fall on deaf ears. By passing laws that they cannot or choose not to enforce, State officials tell the public that this State is ignorant, immoral, blind, and impotent in its legal and decision making processes. The passage of such foolishly conceived, insufferable laws is an affront to every law-abiding citizen. Every official who supports such legal foolishness mocks our State and the Constitution they swore to uphold.

“From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.” – Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta

I remind you, as incredible as it may seem, that this comes to us from…Connecticut. The state hasn’t repealed the abominable thing as far as I know, of course, but not for want of effort on the part of CC and Ed Peruta; good on ’em for slamming the dimestore dictators like this, valiantly continuing the never-ending battle for liberty in a region not exactly noted for being particularly hospitable to it. I can’t say I envy them their struggle; it’s one of several reasons I left NYC in the first place, although it pains me to have to acknowledge that where I live now ain’t exactly known for being bereft of liberals either.

Kudos, too, to all the doughty patriots there and elsewhere who defiantly—and courageously—rejected tyranny and upheld the spirit of our Founders by refusing to meekly surrender their weapons to an overreaching, grasping government. As I always make a point of telling each and every gun-grabbing liberal I argue the issue with: you’ll never get mine, motherfucker.

Who knows, if Trump can keep helping the Democrat Socialist collapse along, and the RINOs continue to offend red-blooded Americans with their now-exposed fraud and collusion, maybe the time may not be too far off when we can stop concentrating on merely holding the line and actually begin to roll the insidious project to deny the basic human right to defend one’s self, one’s family, and one’s home back.

Share

Liberal flips out, assaults Republican, media tries its best to cover for the violent freak

In other news, dog bites man.

The Bowling Green, Ky. neighbor who allegedly sucker attack Sen. Rand Paul last weekend, causing six broken ribs, was aggressively anti-Trump and anti-GOP in his social media, calling for the impeachment of the president and urging Russia investigator Robert Mueller to “fry Trump’s gonads.”

Captured screen grabs of Rene Boucher’s Facebook page provided to Secrets and taken down since the event also show that the anesthesiologist was a fan of the #NeverTrump clan.

Subhed: Lawyer for violent Lefty pustule lies his ass off.

His lawyer said that politics played no part and it has been suggested that the two verbally tussled over lawn clippings, leaving the impression that the Republican Kentucky senator was a negligent landscaper.

Perfectly reasonable and believable assertion. Why, who among us HASN’T inflicted grievous bodily injury on a long-time neighbor over lawn clippings occasionally, right? LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN etc.

But seven neighbors in the Rivergreen gated community told Secrets Wednesday that the Pauls are friendly homeowners who kept their property tidy.

All seven neighbors expressed shock at the “scary” attack on Paul as he was doing yard work last Saturday and they dismissed reports that it was the result of poor landscaping. However, they are puzzled about why Boucher, 59, allegedly tackled Paul, 54, who was wearing ear plugs at the time. Boucher has been charged with assault.

Puzzled? It seems clear enough: a liberal-fascist sees his side suffering defeat after defeat after defeat after years of uncontested victory, his authoritarian/totalitarian agenda going down in flames and the damage wrought by his Lord and Savior Obama being undone slowly but surely, and it drives him around the bend. Seething with hatred and contempt for his opponents, gradually unhinged by their refusal to acquiesce to Team Tyrant’s divine mandate to control them absolutely, he finally lashes out in the only way he knows how: not with reasoned, respectful debate, but with swift, sneaky violence. He Pearled Paul’s Harbor. For anybody who understands these people and their villainous megalomania at all, that’s about as “puzzling” as a first-grade spelling book.

Another neighbor, Dan Renshaw, owner of a large car sales group, told us, “This episode is so wrong on so many levels, to be absolutely blindsided and attacked while mowing one’s lawn. I can’t imagine being in my yard pulling weeds or mowing and being totally attacked by anyone, much less my neighbor? It’s hard to believe he was out of jail the next morning on a $7,500 bail.”

He took note that the attack wasn’t on any neighbor, but a U.S. senator. “What kind of individual does this?”

A liberal.

Renshaw also dismissed the speculation that the fight was over landscaping. “Their lawn is always mowed. It’s such a lame excuse. That could have killed Rand if a rib had punctured a lung or worse yet the heart. Just no excuse for this type of behavior from adults. Especially educated adults.”

Ahh, but we aren’t talking about “educated adults.” We’re talking about stupid, delusional fascists for whom the right to dissent is not sacrosanct but infuriating—not a healthy expression of freedom but a dire provocation that demands not tolerance but retribution—and whose mindless rage is impossible to control when confronted by it.

Neighbor Alicia Stivers express shock at the violence of the attack. “I have never heard Sen. Paul speak an unkind word about anyone, let alone become physically violent. Which makes it all the more shocking that a next-door neighbor of many years who has not so much as exchanged an email or spoken word with Rand in several years, would race downhill and pummel Rand from behind,” said Stivers.

All these people who are so shocked by this are leading almost unbelievably sheltered existences, and really ought to get out more. Go attend a #BlackLiesMurder or “anti”fa riot—or, I dunno, the next Democrat-Socialist National Convention, say—then come back and tell us all how baffling you think it is.

She has served four years on the neighborhood association and said that there were no reports of problems between Paul or Boucher. “I am wondering how the media can describe what took place as an altercation. Is it an altercation when no words are exchanged and one person is attacked from behind with no warning? I must check my dictionary,” she added.

Heh. Okay, that’s a pretty good one, I admit. She’s evidently something of a smartass, and I’ve always liked that in a woman, myself.

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