Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Fighting words…

…or empty threats? First, the backstory:

The journalists at CBS This Morning on Tuesday laughed at a new trend by militant leftists: Dumping milkshakes on politicians they don’t like. Co-host Tony Dokoupil began with a whimsical recounting: “In the latest of a series of attacks on right-wing politicians, Brexit Party Leader Nigel Farage was doused with a milkshake yesterday. That was actually salted caramel if anyone is wondering.”

This prompted laughter from Dokoupil’s co-hosts. Continuing the jovial discussion of political violence, he added, “I’m sure it feels great. I’m sure people love the feeling. Pictures fly around the world.”

Ace responds:

You know what else might feel great?
Throwing milkshakes at CBS personnel, both when they’re doing live-shots and when they’re just walking down the street on their own private time.

The rules you make for me, you also make for yourself.

For people who bitch and complain when they’re jeered at the opposite political party’s campaign rallies, they sure take a more blithe attitude about conservatives being physically assaulted.

Well, like I said: We’ll see how great it feels when the media starts getting pelted with some harmless, fun, happytime street justice.

The sentiment expressed is perfectly true, I have no quarrel with it. Problem is that, as with the Ogabe-era blogosphere bluster about how the Democrat-Socialists were surely going to regret it when their own tactics were thrown back at them by newly-empowered Righties, it never, ever comes to pass.

Sadly enough, the only person even making an attempt at forcing the Left’s New Rules down their throats has been one Donald J Trump, President of the United States of America. And when he does, or even talks about doing it, the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth each time from the fraudmeisters of Conservative Inc over the horror of it all is truly dismal to witness. My God, the pathetic feebs even get their panties in a bunch when he so much as hurls a few insults at them on Twitter. And THESE are the ones we think are going to finally draw a line, say enough already, and finally start dealing out some quid pro quo most righteous in return?

Note ye well, all this is a problem for more reasons than just the obvious one: that the effective suppression of all dissent is simply unacceptable. For one, the too-reliable Righty all-talk-no-action response to continually escalating violence has clearly emboldened and encouraged the Leftist enemy, rather than instilling a healthy sense of trepidation and caution in them. This accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond guaranteeing that the assaults will continue, and worsen. For another, it amounts to abdicating the field of battle and tacitly yielding to the Left’s encroachment on our liberty and our rights, granting them victories they don’t deserve and accepting self-inflicted losses we can’t afford.

Not to jump on Ace too hard for this, mind. Vengeance fantasies and daydreams about seeing justice visited upon our enemies at last are very satisfying things to ponder now and then, a harmless enough way to pass the occasional idle moment—actually, a reasonable, completely human response to intolerable provocation. But if we really want this crap to cease, the sorry truth remains: They will not stop. They will have to BE stopped. Sorry, but I’m afraid we all need to face up to the fact that it’s going to take a bit more than just talking amongst ourselves to do it.

Share

Wrong righted redux

Been waiting to see what Steyn would have to say about Trump’s pardon Mark’s friend and former employer Conrad Black.

You have the “right to a fair trial,” but U.S. prosecutors win 99 per cent of the cases that go to court — a success rate that would embarrass Kim Jong Un and Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the feds win 97 per cent without ever going near court. In 2007, on the first day of Conrad Black’s trial on the 12th floor of the Mies van der Rohe skyscraper that houses Chicago’s dozens of federal courtrooms, I went looking for somewhere to make a discreet call on my cellphone. There were people everywhere — reporters, lawyers, spouses, curious deputy attorneys dropping in from neighbouring offices, a fan of mine wanting me to autograph my Broadway book to his pal John Mahoney from “Frasier”… Eventually, I pushed open a door and found myself in an empty courtroom. So I phoned from there in complete privacy. When others attending the trial discovered the room, I went to the empty courtroom further down the corridor. And, when in turn that grew popular as a handsomely paneled telephone booth, I went to the empty courtroom upstairs, or downstairs.

So many courtrooms, and no trials. Because, when the odds of not losing are one in 100, who goes to court?

Americans who know anything about the country’s evil and depraved “justice” system grasp that central fact. It’s only rubes who say “let the process play out” or “if you haven’t done anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear.” For a start, by the time the process “plays out,” you’ll be broke and scavenging from dumpsters (as Trump’s fallen National Security honcho Michael Flynn learned, shortly before copping a plea). Second, from a prosecutorial point of view, “if you haven’t done anything wrong” they can still get you on misremembering to the FBI in a matter for which there’s no underlying crime (as Martha Stewart discovered), or, alternatively, on Robert Mueller’s second-favourite process crime of hanging out with too many foreigners in alleged breach of the “Foreign Agents Registration Act,” which Trump aide George Papadopoulos told me recently Mueller had threatened him with. (I met most Aussie cabinet ministers of the John Howard years, so I’m undoubtedly guilty on that front, even before you factor in dinner with Jason Kenney and a bit of chit-chat with Maxime Bernier).

It’s a corrupt system heavily reliant on blackmail. But its crude thuggish simplicity concentrates the mind, and thus everyone gets it. Which is why, when the dismantling of Conrad Black’s business empire began 16 years ago, the rich and powerful were the first to abandon him: whatever will be will be, but one thing’s for certain — Conrad’s screwed, he’s over, cut him loose now. 

This is a well-deserved crisping of America’s dysfunctional, disgraceful, warped “justice” system—as Steyn rightly says, a system evil, depraved, and corrupt to its core. Our Founding ideal of a speedy trial before an impartial jury of one’s peers has been reduced to no more than the punchline to a wholly unfunny joke; the endless prosecutorial manipulation and dirty-deal-making that has brought us to our sorry “the process is the punishment” state of affairs is but one of the factors guaranteeing that true justice will only rarely and accidentally be found within fifty miles of any courthouse in the land.

I’ve been telling both family and friends for years that our abominable system is set up so that, once they find themselves caught up in its crushing gears, it will be damned near impossible to get themselves out. Sadly, it has proved to be entirely true for more than just one of ’em. Alas, this is yet another of those issues for which I have no solution to offer—for which there may not even be a workable one at all, in fact. But one way or another, the system WILL change. It must.

Share

Lock. Her. UP

No, not Hillary!™ this time. Well, okay, her too.

A student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was arrested for larceny last month after she was caught on video taking a sign belonging to pro-life activists. The arrest arrives just days after the arrest of a UNC-Chapel Hill student accused of physically assaulted a pro-life activist after allegedly getting angry over his sign.

After which, hilarity ensues.

“Look, sir, I’m not trying to get arrested,” said the student to the officer, after he had informed her that she was being detained for larceny.

“I cannot believe these are the people who you protect,” continued the student, referring to the pro-life activists.

“I’m not trying to protect anyone, but I do have to enforce the law,” responded the officer, “That’s just how it is.”

“Do you see us being subjected to this shit?” said the student, gesturing toward the pro-life signage.

What I see is a sniveling, overprivileged dumbass OUTRAGED!™ at being “subjected” to any opinion that differs from her own.

“They have a right to be here,” said the officer, “If you don’t like their views, you can go away, you don’t have to watch it.”

“It doesn’t matter how much you ignore them, they’re gonna come back, and they’re gonna come back again, and this is why women have such a problem getting abortions in North Carolina, and y’all just let them get away with this shit,” said the student, “I cannot believe y’all let this happen.”

Since when have women had any problem at all getting as many abortions as they want, as often as they want, in North Carolina or anyplace else, you baby-murdering bitch?

“Take your backpack off, turn around, and put your hands behind your back, you’re under arrest for larceny,” said the officer.

“I cannot believe this is happening,” said the student upon realizing that she was under arrest, “is there something else that I can do?”

“No, I just told you you’re under arrest,” replied the officer, “I cannot un-arrest you.”

And then the piteous weeping starts, which is a pure delight to watch. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. As Ace likes to say: LOL get fucked. More:

The student grabbed the sign from Austin Beigel, a peaceful protester, and walked off with it – not realizing that an officer would meet her at the end of her path.

“Did you steal their sign?” the officer asked the feminist.

“I just moved it,” she responded.

“Well you took it,” the officer confirmed.

The young feminist then had the nerve to ask the officer why she was being detained. With a look of disbelief on his face, the officer responded, “Uhh…larceny. You stole his sign.”

I’m sure you can guess what happened at this point: the student pulled out her cherished “victim card.”

“I moved it 50 yards,” she said as she tried to weasel out of the situation.

“I don’t care if you moved it one foot,” the officer responded before he gave a needed lesson in ethics. “You don’t have the right to take someone’s property. Period. I don’t care what the circumstance is.”

“I know you may not agree with what’s being said,” he continued. “But you don’t have the right to take someone’s property. Okay?”

One would hope that Little Einstein would be capable of learning this vitally important lesson. Unfortunately, one’s hope would be in vain; the fascist cunt will doubtless be carefully nursing a grudge over how horribly she was “victimized” for the rest of her days, self-righteously blibbering on to anybody willing to listen about her “courageous” and “heroic” days of protest and oppression.

Yeah, tell me again about how we can live peaceably among shitbrains so thoroughly and irredeemably wrong about what free speech, tolerance, and civility are all about, whydon’tcha.

Why is that these leftists think they can commit stupid acts without facing the just consequences of their actions?

Because they’ve been allowed to do exactly that for way too long, that’s why.

Share

Fascist is as fascist does

Just another Democrat-Socialist “hero.”

PHILADELPHIA — When Brian Sims first ran for state representative in 2012, he ran as a new pro-business voice. He was going to be a bridge-builder, brimming with commonsense ideas on pocketbook issues.

Sims never met that promise.

Instead, he became many other things: an outdoor adventurer who climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro, a partisan attack dog who accused fellow state Rep. Martina White of saying she wanted to deport all immigrants, something his staff had to admit she never said, and a celebrity activist whose lucrative, nationwide speaking circuit earned him an ethics investigation.

He also became the guy who tweeted a photo of himself wearing a suit and a smirk and raising his middle finger to the vice president of the United States as Mike Pence headed to Philadelphia.

Sims wrote: “Let me be the first to officially welcome you to the City of Brotherly Love and my district! We are a city of soaring diversity. We believe in the power of all people. Black, Brown, Queer, Trans, Atheist, & Immigrant. So…get bent, then get out!”

“The power of all people”—except Caucasians, males, heterosexuals, etc. Actually, though, he DID provide a helpful list of who he means by “all people.” Basically, if you ain’t on that list, you’re fair game.

Last week, Sims decided to film his own harassment of a woman outside an abortion clinic here in Philadelphia, calling her an “old white lady” and her beliefs “grotesque” to her face and to the camera. The clear plan was to incite his audience against this peaceful protester, whom he saw as clearly bigoted and evil.

This was an emboldened, out-of-touch, arrogant elected official who woke up one day last week and made a conscious decision to go to Planned Parenthood for the express purpose of fighting and badgering.

And he chose a woman, standing by herself. And he didn’t start a dialogue. He didn’t introduce himself. He badgered her. Repeatedly. Relentlessly. Angrily. He badgered an enemy he himself described as an old lady.

We must reflect on this. This is the extreme Left acting out in public in exactly the manner they ascribe to conservatives: confrontational, intimidating, police tactics, berating women, threatening the First Amendment.

This stunning behavior — premeditated, confrontational, abusing the power of office, targeting women, contrived to gain political benefit — all occurred and was criticized by no one to date on the Left. No elected Democrat has come out and condemned Sims publicly.

Think about that.

No need to. And nobody needs to “reflect” on anything, either; there’s no use in it, it’s worse than a waste of time. Nor will there be any Democrat-Socialist condemnation of Sims’ repulsive violence against his foes. We all already know why: because this is who they are, this is what they do.

No, I’d say “thinking” and “reflecting” time is well behind us, and if any Democrat-Socialists DID condemn his actions, it would be false—they’re all for it, one hundred percent behind him. Hell, getting them to halfheartedly denounce Bernie Bro James Hodgkinson was like pulling teeth. And he was, y’know, shooting people.

No, next time this obstreperous, bullying punk decides to show everybody what a total badass he is by strongarming little old ladies or teenage girls because they dared to disagree with his dumbshit politics, those little old ladies or teenagers need to make sure to have brought along some muscle of their own. Then, should Sims show up feeling frisky, that muscle should proceed to stomp a fucking mud puddle in his worthless ass and walk it dry. Next time, and every time, until the pain of his injuries inspire the necessary “reflection” on his part.

Hate things had to come to this and all, but…well, here we all are. We ain’t the ones that need to “reflect,” as if we were guilty of anything other than being victims of liberal-fascist abuse and violence. We didn’t start this crap. But unless we’re okay with having it continue—and continue to escalate—we cannot, we MUST not, flinch from finishing it. Because that’s all too clearly the only way it’s ever going to stop.

Share

Christianity, liberty, and their enemies

By their fruits shall ye know them.

In the late M. Stanton Evans’ remarkable, critically important book The Theme Is Freedom, he develops a brilliant case for the proposition that political freedom depends upon the acknowledgement of an authority higher than any temporal authority: i.e., God. He further argues that of all the belief systems that have ever been followed, Christianity is the only one that emphasizes individual freedom as the rightful condition of men, to be protected from the encroachments of temporal powers. The United States of America, a near to uniformly Christian country for most of its history, is the modern society in which this coupling of religious belief to liberty has been most clearly demonstrated.

Well, our nation’s Founders would certainly seem to agree with that, yeah.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Funny how the rise to power of the fascist Left, the rapid escalation of encroachment on American liberty, and the en masse abandonment of Christianity since the 60s all seem to coincide, ain’t it? Funny, too, how much effort those same Progressivists have spent on rejiggering the Founders as being either skeptical at best about Christianity, openly hostile to it, or considered themselves “Deists”—a manipulative oversimplification that blithely disregards many direct statements on the subject made by the Founders themselves.

Back to Francis.

Given that premise, does it not make sense that they who seek to eradicate human freedom should target Christianity first and foremost? Does it not suggest that anyone you hear ridiculing Christians or denigrating Christianity should be viewed with a degree of suspicion?

It is an irony to pin all the meters against their stops that they who denigrate Christianity cannot argue against it on any rational grounds. They denounce it as “superstition,” “fear of death,” and other irrelevancies. They refuse to treat with its prescriptions…because those prescriptions directly oppose what they seek: power for themselves and their fellow-travelers.

God Himself has only ten rules for us. He asks nothing more. How dare any temporal authority suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that His rules don’t bind us? And how dare any temporal authority demand more than does He?

The enemies of Christianity, one and all, are totalitarian in ambition. That is: they seek the power to decide what is compulsory and what is forbidden, without any boundaries to the scope of their authority. Christians know that this is wrong. We decry it. We protest against it. In reply, our enemies ridicule us, drive us out of the public square, criminalize living by our beliefs, and ultimately exterminate us.

Progressivism is a religion its own self—a particularly jealous one, one that doesn’t like competition. Might go a long way, too, towards explaining their strange affiliation with Islam. I mean, aside from all the gay-hating and woman-oppressing, they DO have a lot in common: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, intolerance for all other beliefs, and no problem at all with using violence to back it all up, just for starters.

Share

Shadow government shenanigans

Dirty, through and through.

Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained 44 pages of records from the State Department through court-ordered discovery revealing that the Obama White House was tracking a December 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records concerning then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unsecure, non-government email system. Months after the Obama White House involvement, the State Department responded to the requestor, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), falsely stating that no such records existed.

“Tracking” them? They were ignoring them. Actually, defying them. The long of it is here. The short of it?

The short of this is that Hillary kept all her official emails on her personal server. When outside parties would make requests, they would only search her unused official accounts and then respond back that no records existed. All the while, they knew Hillary was doing business outside of official channels in a way that clearly subverted FOIA laws.

What we are seeing here is a pattern of continual lying by the Obama administration and its officials about Clinton’s use of a private email server. Furthermore, they did so to directly avoid FOIA requests which were lawfully supposed to be fulfilled.

You are not allowed to simply say “whoops, that’s on my personal account so that’s not subject to FOIA” for obvious reasons. It would allow widespread corruption.

Clinton is bulletproof so nothing will come of this, but it’s just another in the long list of bad, possibly illegal behavior by her and the Obama administration. This entire thing deserves a real investigation and not the whitewashing it got under James Comey. Anyone that opposes that is only doing so for partisan reasons.

Precisely so. Separate, but very much related:

The nature of the government’s surveillance on me and my family is forensically proven and not subject to legitimate question. Yet, unlike with the discoveries about James Rosen and AP, the government has yet to issue its mea culpa. And there’s a reason.

As bad as they were, the other known instances of journalists being spied upon happened under cover of court orders, albeit ones issued in secrecy. But the government spying on me was not done under the authority of a court warrant. That’s why my case is even more dangerous than the others. It implies that the scope of government improperly turning its intel tools on its own citizens, including journalists and political enemies, could be far more extensive than anyone realizes.

How do I know there was no warrant in my case? Not only did inside sources tell me this, but it was also confirmed to me by the Department of Justice inspector general. With no warrant, it means I was perhaps caught up in so-called “incidental” spying upon other figures. Intel sources have told me that when aggressive government agents want to listen in on somebody but know they cannot justify a warrant, they simply find a target around that person and capture their communications in the incidental spying.

Long before the 2016 presidential campaign, confidential sources had alerted me to longstanding misuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court system and the erosion of protections when it came obtaining permission for wiretaps and other surveillance methods. So, the election debacle came of no surprise. I saw it as an extension of years of improper manipulation. It now appears to me as though the effort to target those surrounding Donald Trump had more to do with intel officials’ concern that a President Trump  might dig into these longstanding surveillance abuses with the help of none other than Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

It was no secret in the intel community that Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama, was not only aware of long-standing intel agency surveillance excesses, but was also planning to clean house. In the end, Flynn was unable to do the job because he got wrapped up in the Trump-Russia allegations. Funny, that.

Ain’t it. Ain’t it just.

So since the DoJ won’t do its job, I’m left to self-fund my own pursuit of justice in civil court. As I have learned in the process, the fight is much bigger than my own. If the government isn’t held responsible for its unwarranted intrusions in my case, according to my lawyers and a dissenting appellate who just sided with us, the government will have a precedent that provides it with a free pass to spy on any U.S. citizen for any reason with no fear of punishment.

Sadly, the orcs roosting in Morder On The Potomac care not a whit for precedent, permission, or propriety. They do whatever they want, and worry about the flimsy rationalizations for their rampant illegalities when they must. Attkisson is by no means wrong in seeking justice for herself and her colleagues victimized by the rogue, tyrannical abomination now (mis)ruling us all. Nor is she wrong on both the law and the principles underpinning it, which have been flung down and danced upon. But her naivete concerning where all this is likely to go is touching at best. And her apparent belief that our conscienceless Deep State masters consider themselves constrained by legality, the Constitution, decency, or any other damned thing is beyond naive; it’s foolish, if not downright delusional.

Share

Paying the Danegeld

It’s lights out for Once-Great Britain.

Subway removes ham and bacon from nearly 200 stores and offers halal meat only after ‘strong demand’ from Muslims
Fast food giant Subway has removed ham and bacon from almost 200 outlets, and switched to halal meat alternatives in an attempt to please its Muslim customers.

It has confirmed turkey ham and turkey rashers will be used instead in 185 of its stores, where all the meat will now be prepared according to halal rules.

The chain, which has around 1,500 outlets across the UK, explained its decision by saying it had to balance animal welfare concerns with ‘the views of religious communities’.

Why don’t you pathetic cowards just tell it like it is: it’s just the one “religious community” you’re appeasing here.

A Subway spokeswoman told MailOnline all halal meat served in the participating branches is from animals who were stunned prior to slaughter.

She said: ‘The growing popularity of the Subway chain with the diverse multicultural population across the UK and Ireland means we have to balance the values of many religious communities with the overall aim of improving the health and welfare standards of animals.

‘We put a programme into place in 2007 to ensure that the population demographic is taken into account when new store openings are considered in order that we meet consumer demand in each location.’

Translation: “Now that Old Blighty has immivasioned itself into just another Muslim-majority shitrapy, we must adjust our menus in accordance with the requirements of sharia law.”

Welcome to your new nation, Englishters. May you have joy of your choices. And may the US wake the fuck up and get off your dark path before it’s too late for us, too.

(Via VP)

Share

Now do Muslims, whydon’tcha

Right back atcha, Slick.

To celebrate a “Decade of Dialogue” in its annual diversity conference, Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts & Sciences invited a straight white man to give the keynote lecture.

But not just any straight white man.

Tim Wise, an “anti-racism writer, educator and activist,” has denigrated Christians as “Jeezoids” and fascists and called Pope Francis evil. He has tweeted that “people who believe in a God of hell/damnation deserve to be mocked viciously and run out of the public square.”

Those who base their morality on the Hebrew Scriptures “deserve to be locked up,” he said in 2015, claiming to be “sorta kidding but not by much.”

Which is just a coward’s way of trying to slither around the fact that he means every last word of it.

The activist emphasized the importance of identifying institutional barriers to diversity and inclusion.

The irony, it BURNS.

The rest of it is the standard-issue, Mark-1 Mod-0 shitlib flapdoodle—and if you think for one second he and his like wouldn’t march every white, male, Christian Dissident-Rightist straight into a gulag or Zyklon-B shower the moment they glommed enough power to do so, you’re a damned fool.

Anybody out there still thinking we can somehow find a way to live peaceably alongside these inflamed rectal polyps? Or that we should bother trying?

Share

No more talk

Just do it.

On Tuesday, Democratic president candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell took aim at the NRA, taunting them that they wouldn’t debate him. But NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch had a swift and blistering response, quoting from Val Kilmer’s immortal performance as Doc Holliday in the film “Tombstone” and firing back, “I’m your huckleberry.”

Swalwell was responding to Loesch pointing out that Swalwell had “dodged legitimate questions about his gun confiscation-and-jail policy for quite some time.” Prior to that salvo, she had stated, “You said you would jail law-abiding gun owners if they didn’t turn in their lawfully owned firearms. How do you plan to confiscate guns?”

Swalwell responded, “Ms. Loesch — I see you’ve spent another day blowing up my Twitter. Thank you for following! But here’s the deal, you’re an @nra mouthpiece. I don’t aim down, so I don’t debate mouthpieces. But send me your president, @OliverLNorth. I’ll debate him anywhere.”

Good on Dana for stomping this asswipe and all, but my unalienable 2A rights ain’t up for debate—”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,” remember?—and I care not one lonely damn with whom Swallowspunk might or might not prefer to flap his cockholster in public about the issue. No talk, little man. Come and take them, if you dare. We’re all out here…waiting. Practical advice for ya: better bring help. Lots and lots of it.

Swalwell, apparently afraid to take on Loesch, sidestepped, “Here’s a prediction: the @nra is afraid to have its president debate me. They talk so tough on Twitter, but when challenged to a debate to defend their advocacy for unrestricted weaponry it’s just crickets from @OliverLNorth. #NoFear.”

“Afraid”? Of the likes of you, and whatever sob-sister army composed of like-minded pissants you might scrape up? It is to laugh, until the floating ribs part from their moorings. I say again: come and take them. Here’s a helpful historical review of what you’ll find waiting.

Someone once asked how many men were needed to start a revolution.
Apparently, 77 is enough to get the ball rolling.

Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” – Captain John Parker, Lexington militia

Throw down your arms, you damned rebels!” – British officer, 4th Regiment of Foot, on Lexington Common

And then the F**k-Up Fairy landed, someone pulled a trigger, and the genie was out of the bottle.

Tally at the end of the day:

Colonials:
49 killed
39 wounded
5 missing

British troops:
73 dead
174 wounded
53 missing

The British troops, formed of disparate clumps of men and officers from a dozen regiments (which made command and control even more tenuous throughout the day) after brushing aside what was always intended as token resistance at Lexington (the colonial militia was on the common, not blocking the road at all, and made no move to impede the far superior British forces, all the colonial leaders and stores of weapons having been removed or hidden long before the Redcoats’ arrival), marched on to Concord bridge, where they searched the town for weapons until noon, mostly to no great effect, but upon their attempted return to Boston got a much different greeting than at Lexington, and then began an all-day long fighting retreat that left every British officer from the original expedition injured or wounded and unhorsed, all of them exhausted, nearly out of ammunition, and all but surrounded and captured as they straggled back to the safety of Boston city limits. The British in Boston were subsequently surrounded and besieged by tens of thousands of enraged colonial militiamen, which troops then formed the seed of what became the Continental Army.

And with blood shed in strength by both sides, no way any longer to put back the cork to the genie’s bottle.

Lesser lights in modern times, agitating for both gun control and confiscations, and shilling for an open conflict in the midst of civil society, should learn a lesson or three about being careful for what you wish.

Yessirreebob they should. So…any time you feel froggy, Swallowspunk. Any. Fucking. Time. One of Aesop’s commenters brings up the amazing story of Samuel Whittemore as further food for gun-grabber thought.

On April 19, 1775, British forces were returning to Boston from the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the opening engagements of the war. On their march, they were continually shot at by colonial militiamen.

Whittemore was in his fields when he spotted an approaching British relief brigade under Earl Percy, sent to assist the retreat. Whittemore loaded his musket and ambushed the British Grenadiers of the 47th Regiment of Foot from behind a nearby stone wall, killing one soldier. He then drew his dueling pistols, killed a second grenadier and mortally wounded a third. By the time Whittemore had fired his third shot, a British detachment had reached his position; Whittemore drew his sword and attacked. He was subsequently shot in the face, bayoneted numerous times, and left for dead in a pool of blood. He was found by colonial forces, trying to load his musket to resume the fight. He was taken to Dr. Cotton Tufts of Medford, who perceived no hope for his survival. However, Whittemore recovered and lived another 18 years until dying of natural causes at the age of 96.

Let me reiterate that for you: at just short of 80 years young, this true American hero was still spry enough to be reloading after having been shot in the face, bayoneted, and left for dead. He wasn’t done with his enemies quite yet, see; aged as he was, gravely wounded as he was, having already done more than his part to resist, he was still unswervingly determined to have another go at killing as many of those Redcoat gun-grabbers as he possibly could, by any means he could contrive.

And if you think they just ain’t building Americans that way anymore, well, you just try us. You’ll learn, to your horror and dismay, that there are still a good few out here even yet. And they’re all done talking.

They’re out here…waiting.

Share

What the hell are they TEACHING these kids nowadays?

Wait, hold on—this is an evangelical Christian school we’re talking about here?

On Thursday, the evangelical Christian school Taylor University announced it had invited Vice President Mike Pence to give its 2019 graduation speech. A tremendous uproar ensued, with students and alumni reporting that the decision made them “sick” and expressed support for “hate” and “harmful bullish*t.” The school told PJ Media it would not yield to pressure and was still proud to have Pence speak at graduation.

“The invitation stands. We are looking forward to hosting Mr. Pence on our campus next month,” James Garringer, director of media relations at Taylor University, told PJ Media on Friday.

Yet the pressure is mounting. As of Friday afternoon, 2,393 people have signed a petition on Change.org protesting the decision to invite Pence.

“Inviting Vice President Pence to Taylor University and giving him a coveted platform for his political views makes our alumni, faculty, staff and current students complicit in the Trump-Pence Administration’s policies, which we believe are not consistent with the Christian ethic of love we hold dear,” Alex Hoekstra, a former staffer for President Barack Obama and a 2007 Taylor University graduate, said in the petition.

Then it looks like your education is woefully incomplete, snowflake.

Others proved more angry and visceral.

“I have never been made to feel so physically ill by an email before. Taylor University, you should be ashamed of yourselves,” Claire Hadley, who graduated from Taylor in 2015, began in a long Facebook post. “I am physically shaking. The fact that the school who claims to love and support me, and each of it’s [sic] students and alum, would invite such a vile individual to speak on the most important day of the year??”

“Physically shaking,” is it? Oh, WAAAAH. Nut up, buttercup; dry your childish tears, still your quivering, pouting lips, and somehow summon the courage to tolerate the expression of a dissenting view once in a while without suffering a complete mental breakdown over it. See, it’s like this:

“Inviting the sitting vice president of the United States, and former Indiana governor and congressman, to speak at commencement is not an attack on students, faculty or alumni with differing political views or opinions about Mike Pence,” Kevin Holtsberry, a 1994 Taylor alumnus and a former policy advisor at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, told PJ Media.

“In a time when free speech and intellectual diversity is under attack, particularly on college campuses, I hope Taylor sticks to its commitment in the face of what I am sure will be unrelenting hostility from a vocal minority,” Holtsberry concluded.

I’m so old I can remember a time when free speech and intellectual diversity were cherished principles on campus—ideals to be scrupulously maintained, even promoted, rather than “hate crimes” from which the fragile sensibilities of silly, ignorant little twits must be shielded.

Which means I am really, REALLY old.

Disagreeing with a person does not entail “hate” or violence against him or her, and Taylor University graduates should understand that. They should also know that the Bible’s position on sexuality is at odds with that of LGBT activism.

Taylor University would have been right to invite Mike Pence, even if the university did not agree with his Christian views on sexuality. Pence is a vice president, a former governor of Indiana, and a former leader in the House of Representatives. Students should be glad to hear him speak at graduation.

Sadly, this incident illustrates yet again the trend of liberals demonizing dissent from their ideas. Conservative speech is not violence, and Mike Pence is not “rooted in hate.”

Kudos to the school for standing firm against these whining, fascist brats. Who knows, maybe the kiddies will learn a little something useful about freedom of speech and the value of broadmindedness from this brutal assault on their delusions, to emerge from their nightmarish trauma as more rational, tolerant people.

Not that I’m betting that way, mind. Usually, it takes until they’re around forty or so for the Lefty conditioning to wear off.

Share

Ladies and gentlemen, your next affirmative-action president!

Because it’s the gay guy’s turn, that’s why.

No, Democrat wonder candidate du jour Pete Buttigieg is not some bridge-building centrist who really gets the vibe of Normal Americans and promises to bring us all together in a festival of hugging and liking each other. That’s a con. He’s just another leftist who wants to do all the same miserable things to people like you and me that every other pinko trying to pick up the torch from Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit wants to do. Only to get past our defenses, to avoid tripping our alarms like Big Chief Liz and Willie Brown’s Ex do, he tries to be really low-key and boring about it.

Plus he’s gay, you know – another thing that’s boring about him, although the media makes like it’s some super-hip and exciting twist. Welcome back to the cutting edge of 1979 – he’s gay, and he’s definitely going to freak out the squares whether they like it or not! In that vein, he recently bravely took on the Veep’s non-comments about him and being gay and so forth. Here’s the most recent public comment by Mike Pence on Pete Buttigieg, uttered in 2015. Brace yourself for this fireball o’ hate!

“When WSBT 22 asked Pence what he thought of Buttigieg’s announcement [of coming out as gay], he replied, “I hold Mayor Buttigieg in the highest personal regard. We have a great working relationship. I see him as a dedicated public servant, and a patriot.”

YOU MONSTER! Now Pete is bravely resisting this raw, four-year-old bigotry! “And that’s the thing I wish the Mike Pence’s of the world could understand, that if you have a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.” Take that, super-confused nice guy Mike Pence! Pete Buttigieg is not going to just stand there while you don’t talk about him and his gayness!

As I have so often stated about ((((DEM JOOOOZ!!!))), my problem with Buttiplug ain’t that he’s gay; it’s that he’s a liberal. And yes, I do intend to refer to him henceforth as “Buttplug.” I saw Sefton and Ace doing it, and it made me laugh, so I’m swiping it myself. If that seems homophobic to you and gives you Teh Sadz, well, I just hate it all to pieces for ya, I really do. Bottom line on the latest free-rider in the ludicrously overcrowded Dem-Soc Kandidate Klown Kar:

In fact, if you look at everything Pete Buttigieg is promising, you will not find one single proposal that either increases how much of your own earnings you get to keep or that increases your freedom. Not one. Just like with every other liberal Democrat, everything he would impose upon you will make you poorer and less free. But to him and his ilk, that’s fine, because your prosperity and your liberty are not the goals. They are obstacles to the real objective – more prosperity and more power for people like Pete Buttigieg.

He doesn’t want a society where Americans come together. He wants to keep ripping us apart, while using his soothing tones and unity clichés to okey-doke us into letting him into the Oval Office. And if we are fooled again, like so many suckers were by Barack Obama, we’d find the new boss is the same as the old boss.

Let’s face it – the America the Democrats are trying to trick us into accepting is not the one we want.

Actually, Kurt, they already built their America all around and over us. All they’re trying to do now is put the finishing touches on the ugly, uninhabitable thing. They thought they’d done it with Ogabe; they were driven completely around the bend in November 2016, when that assumption turned out to be just a little premature. But only a little, and they haven’t packed their tools away quite yet.

Share

Sick dehumanization

By sick subhumans.

Nevertheless, because of these views, I can now say I know what it feels like to be persecuted. Recently, I went to order from a food truck with my friend Joel Patrick. Joel is a black Trump supporter who wears his support for the president not just on his sleeve, but on his head and his chest too, and we were essentially denied service. We waited for roughly 20 minutes while being completely ignored by everyone working there. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they were just busy, but the minute we walked away because they took an eternity to even acknowledge our existence, they gladly greeted the next customer who wasn’t in MAGA gear with prompt and friendly service.

If my grandmother were still alive, we would have been able to bond over how it feels to be denied service by Democrats.

I am fortunate that being denied service is the worst that’s happened to me, because, as Eric Bolling can attest, it could be a lot worse. Every week, it seems, there’s a new video of someone being harassed or assaulted because they dared to wear a MAGA hat out of the house.

Most notably, the Covington Catholic High School students were not just harassed, they were smeared by the national press. They were slandered by the media. They were sent death threats. People said they would bomb their school. All because they expressed support of the president.

Maddie Mueller (no relation to the man who sadly couldn’t deliver this weekend) is fighting her school because the administration actually tried to ban her from wearing a MAGA hat on campus. Gunnar Johansson’s family is trying to get to the bottom of what happened when his MAGA hat was yanked off of his head by a school bus aide. Logan Jones was suspended for wearing a MAGA sweatshirt and holding a Trump flag. A woman in Massachusetts was arrested for allegedly assaulting Bryton Turner, a man who dared to wear a MAGA hat to a Mexican restaurant.  Even our elders aren’t spared. Just last month, an 81-year-old man was attacked for wearing his MAGA hat, and a 19-year-old was arrested for the assault.

What is happening here? It’s an epidemic. You cannot walk out of your house and be safe if you support the president. These leftists justify their actions by saying those who wear a MAGA hat may as well be members of the KKK. But it is actually those assaulting people in the streets and verbally tormenting them who more closely resemble the Klan.

Unsurprising, since the Klan itself was a Democrat thing. But there are other unsurprising, ironic, non-coincidental similarities to be explored.

Well before President Donald Trump’s election the Democratic Party’s self-proclaimed “democratic socialists” characterized anyone who opposes them as Nazis. The irony is that members of that contingent have more in common with Nazis than they would care to admit.

The utilitarianism governing the use of tissue from aborted fetuses for such experiments as creating humanized mice — usage favored by Democrats — also governed the Nazis’ use of prisoners for experiments in concentration camps. In one instance, doctors infected children with tuberculosis, removed their lymph nodes to determine the disease’s progress, then executed their subjects.

America’s democratic socialists mimic the rationale of the Nazi program. Last March, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown — a Democrat whom Planned Parenthood endorsed for re-election — signed legislation allowing mentally ill patients to be denied food and water unless the patient had issued an advance directive to the contrary before becoming incapacitated. Previously, only caregivers with power of attorney could so decide. The bill received unanimous support from the Democrats in the lower house of Oregon’s legislature.

Both ideologies embrace junk genetics and demand laws reflecting that embrace. Just as the democratic socialists promote a multiplicity of genders and encourage transsexuality in children, Nazis promoted pseudo-scientific racialist theories that circulated decades before Hitler emerged.

The democratic socialists and the Nazis even share the propensity to promote their agendas by fabricating incidents. Eight decades before Jussie Smollett’s staged hate crime and the phony Steele dossier, the Nazis orchestrated an incident that plunged the world into war.

On Aug. 31, 1939, as relations between Germany and Poland rapidly deteriorated, Polish troops attacked and briefly occupied a German radio station near the Polish border to broadcast this message: “Attention! This is Gliwice. The broadcasting station is in Polish hands.”

Gliwice was the Polish name for the then-German town of Gleiwitz. Gunfire could be heard during the broadcast. German police “overpowered” the troops and recaptured the station.

However, the Polish “troops” were members of the SS, who not only carried out the attack but dressed concentration-camp inmates in Polish army uniforms and killed them as “proof.” One of the “troops” was an unmarried German farmer who sympathized with the Poles. The SS arrested him a day earlier and murdered him.

German radio carried news of the faux attack within hours. The next day, Sept. 1, Hitler declared war against Poland, beginning World War II.

The article lists more useful comparisons still, the requisite precursor of which is the self-same “sick dehumanization” described in the first excerpt. That, too, is neither coincidence nor surprise. Which means none of us has to wonder or be in any doubt about where our present-day Gooseteppin’ Left intends to take things. Political movements driven by the authoritarian/totalitarian impulse, if successful at attaining power, always seems to wind up in the same hellish place.

Some things never change. And that ain’t surprising either.

Share

Gimme sanctuary

Oh, it’s a Red Flag all right.

More than two dozen counties in Colorado have taken a page from the left’s playbook by declaring themselves “Second Amendment sanctuary counties” in anticipation of the passage of a bill that allows local governments to seize people’s guns without due process.

In February, Democrats in the Colorado legislature introduced HB19-1177, commonly known as the Red Flag bill.  The law allows the government to seize firearms from a law-abiding owner after as long as a petitioner “establishes ” by a preponderance of the evidence that the gun owner “poses a significant risk to self or others.”

The subhed calls Red Flag “an insane idea ripe for abuse,” which it is. But abuse, of course, is the whole point.

The petitioner only has to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is a lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. It basically asks whether the petitioner’s proposition is more likely to be true than not true. This is the same standard that kangaroo courts for campus sexual assault and harassment rely on, per the guidance of the Obama administration.

Second, the Red Flag bill ensures gun owners, not their accusers, bear the burden of proof, and makes it very difficult for the gun owner to defend his or her constitutional right to bear arms. The owner is completely unaware a petition has been filed against him until the police show up to confiscate all his firearms. Since a search warrant is issued at the same time a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO) is issued, the police may search the house even after the owner surrenders his firearms.

There’s more, and worse, from there. But then comes the good news.

In anticipation of the bill’s passing, more than two dozen Colorado counties, including Douglas County, the seventh-most populous county in Colorado, passed “Second Amendment Sanctuary” resolutions. Many did so at the request of their duly elected sheriffs.

These counties affirm their support for their sheriffs “in the exercise of his sound discretion to not enforce against any citizen an unconstitutional firearms law.” They also promise not to appropriate government funds to build storage facilities for firearms seized by law enforcement. More counties are either considering similar measures or, like Arapahoe County, the third-most populous Colorado county, waiting for the final wording of the bill to decide the best course of action.

Facing increasing opposition from counties, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weise, a supporter of the Red Flag bill, dismissed the resolutions as something that couldn’t override a state law.

But state law can override the US Constitution, huh? I see, I see.

He said sheriffs in those counties should resign if they refuse to follow the law.

As should all elected officials responsible for turning illegal-alien “sanctuary cities” and states into shit-strewn, disease-ridden Third World hellholes, amIright? Ohnononono, of course not. That’s diff’runt.

It’s interesting that the left now pushes back against gun sanctuary counties by using similar language to what conservatives have said about immigration sanctuary cities—”Our nation and state depends on the rule of laws” and “Everyone must obey the law.”  But there is a fundamental difference between sanctuary on the left versus that on the right.

The left supports illegal immigrant sanctuary because they don’t want to obey federal laws they don’t like. They choose to protect law-breakers who may pose security threats to communities and law-abiding citizens. The left supports the Red Flag bill and opposes the gun sanctuary counties because they oppose gun ownership and Second Amendment rights. Once again, they rely on a state law to disobey federal laws they don’t like.

Basically, the Left wants its way, and is perfectly happy to pervert, debase, and ignore any law, precedent, or principle to get it. They’ll deal with the chaotic dysfunction they create later—maybe. Just let ’em get us all under control first, then they’ll see about “fixing” things for us.

Colorado isn’t alone in this fight. A similar Red Flag bill is working though the New Mexico legislature right now. Twenty-nine out of 33 sheriffs there signed a letter disapproving of the bill, and 24 counties have passed a Second Amendment sanctuary resolution, affirming their support of their sheriffs not enforcing what they view as unconstitutional gun control legislation.

What’s happening in Colorado and New Mexico has national implications because similar Red Flag bills passed in at least eight blue states in the United States in 2018, including New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. In recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, David Kopel, a Constitution scholar at the Independence Institute, said “Nearly a third of such orders are improperly issued against innocent people.”

Conservatives in these blue states have been looking for ways to push back against aggressive gun control legislation that they believe infringes upon their constitutional rights. Now Colorado and New Mexico have shown them what they can do.

As good a move as this one is, I’m afraid we’re all going to have to step up and do a lot more before a whole lot longer. Until it’s shown to be painful—even fatal, most likely—for them to mess with us, they will NEVER stop doing so.

Share

Lost world

Or, how to cow and pussify a nation, and keep it that way.

8 Fun (and Possibly Dangerous) Activities Enjoyed by Past Generations That Today’s Kids Will Never Experience
Children are more coddled and protected than ever in 2019. For kids, it’s oppressive. I know mine listen to my stories of summers full of freedom and independence, running around the neighborhood all day until dark, with wide-eyed envy. These days, kids are hardly free to do anything we could back in generations past.

And yet we marvel in gobsmacked disgust at where in the world such a wretched, emasculated, pitiful twerp as this might possibly have come from:

PajamaPussy.jpg


Somewhere, the Boys of Pointe Du Hoc are weeping. Onwards.

7. Ride in cars without seatbelts

When I was a kid we had a station wagon with blue vinyl bench seats. There were no seatbelts. When we were infants, my mother put us in a laundry basket on the passenger side front seat. When we got bigger, we sat in the back, bouncing around like ping pong balls. We survived several accidents like this. I don’t know how. I vividly remember my face smashing into the back of the bench seat in the front on a few occasions when my mother stopped short, and one scary black ice scenario where we all felt like we had crushed ribs from being flung against one another too hard. While it’s not recommended, there was a freedom and joy about driving that we don’t have anymore in our boosters and five-point harnesses. Gone is the joy of climbing into the back of the station wagon to play cards with your sister on sleeping bags or waving endlessly at the poor guy behind you. Gone is the ability for kids to get comfy and take a good nap on the floor stacked with pillows. It makes me sad that on a twenty-hour car trip my kids are locked into seats with bad neck support, getting numb legs. And while we all know seatbelts are better, and I wouldn’t take my kids out of them, I still wish they could experience a cross-country trip like we did. It might have been stupid and dangerous, but it was a hell of a lot of fun.

It wasn’t all that stupid, and it wasn’t all that dangerous either. Otherwise, how could so very many of us—the OVERWHELMING majority, actually—possibly have survived to adulthood? Megan, I love ya and all, but you’re betraying the lasting effectiveness of your own lifelong obedience training by asserting that it was. Yeah, yeah, the world has changed, technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, all that jazz; I get that, I really do, and I acknowledge that a great many of those societal shifts have been for the better.

But still: allowing ourselves to be panicked into general stampede by the Nanny State’s distressing tales of fatal risk besetting us at every single turn is how we got ourselves herded into the collectivist corral in the first damned place. Don’t think for a minute that it wasn’t on purpose, either. It always sickens me to hear otherwise intelligent, perceptive people say things like this in blithe acceptance of the cultural conditions imposed on us by the nefarious Progtards, as if there was no sensible alternative but to accept their premises without demur.

There are seven more of these, and all in all it’s a sad thing to read for an old fart like me.

Share

History, on endless repeat

Any of this sounding familiar at all, to anybody?

U.S. v. I. Lewis Libby is worth revisiting to set the record straight. It also illustrates the damage that can be done to national security by a special counsel who, finding no crime, generates through his investigations the alleged offenses he seeks to prosecute.

With a virtually unlimited budget, a malleable mandate, a single case and little in the way of oversight or time constraints, the special counsel operates outside the usual system of formal and informal checks on prosecutorial conduct. This gives him the power to transform executive branch slip-ups, oversights and faulty recollections into criminal offenses capable of crippling the White House and wreaking havoc on individuals and their families.

According to the conventional view, in the summer of 2003 Mr. Libby compromised national security by unlawfully outing a covert CIA agent. Mr. Libby’s supposed purpose was to punish the agent’s husband, who challenged President George W. Bush’s assertion in his 2003 State of the Union address that the British government learned that Iraq had sought to purchase African uranium. According to the standard anti-Bush account, when Mr. Libby became enmeshed in a federal investigation, he lied to conceal his crime and protect Mr. Cheney.

This account is false in all essential respects, as Mr. Fitzgerald—since 2012 a partner in the Chicago office of the Skadden Arps law firm—had reason, as well as an ethical obligation as an officer of the court, to know.

Scooter Libby did not “out” CIA employee Valerie Plame. That was done by then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a critic of the conduct of the Iraq war. Mr. Armitage disclosed to columnist Robert Novak that Ms. Plame, who at the time held a desk job in the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division, urged the agency to send her husband, retired Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, to Africa in early 2002 to investigate whether Iraq had sought uranium. Presidential aide Karl Rove and then-CIA Director of Public Affairs Bill Harlow confirmed Mr. Armitage’s disclosure for Novak’s July 14, 2003, column. (Novak died in 2009.)

Mr. Fitzgerald didn’t charge anyone with leaking Ms. Plame’s identity or disclosing classified information to reporters. From the moment he took over the FBI leak investigation in December 2003, he knew that Mr. Armitage was the leaker but declined to prosecute him, Mr. Rove or Mr. Harlow because the disclosure of Ms. Plame’s identity wasn’t a crime and didn’t compromise national security.

Having failed to find any underlying crime, Mr. Fitzgerald nonetheless pressed on for someone to prosecute, eventually focusing on Mr. Libby, whose trial became a contest of recollections. The excruciatingly inconsequential question on which his conviction turned was whether, as Mr. Libby recalled, he was surprised to hear NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert ask him about Ms. Plame in a phone call on July 10 or 11, 2003.

Ms. Miller was the only reporter who asserted that Mr. Libby volunteered information about Mr. Wilson’s wife. And Mr. Fitzgerald attached special importance to the journalist’s June conversation with Mr. Libby, declaring, at the 2005 news conference following Mr. Libby’s indictment, that “Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.”

If Ms. Miller had testified accurately, she would have dealt a severe blow to Mr. Fitzgerald’s central contention that Mr. Libby was lying when he said he was surprised to hear Russert mention Ms. Plame.

In closing arguments, Mr. Fitzgerald insisted that a “cloud” hung over Vice President Cheney, at whose behest, the prosecutor insinuated, Mr. Libby had compromised national security. Ms. Miller’s revelation—that “it was hard not to conclude that my testimony had been wrong”—erases the cloud that Mr. Fitzgerald’s prosecution, abetted by an enthusiastic media, put over the vice president. At the same time, Ms. Miller’s book casts a dark shadow over Mr. Fitzgerald’s prosecution of Mr. Libby. And it raises troubling questions about what the prosecutor told and did not tell other prosecution witnesses to shape and reshape their memories.

Oh, it raises far more troubling questions than that: it raises the question of just what the hell is WRONG with us, that we sit back and allow the unconstitutional, squalidly banana-republic-style position of “special counsel” to disgrace this nation by its continued existence? It is nothing more nor less than one of the handiest tools in the Deep State box—very useful for tuning, tightening, and maintaining its strangulating chokehold; reining in its (very occasional) antagonists; or just putting the fear of God into all and sundry now and then, a reminder of who’s REALLY the boss around here. Has any truly important or even worthwhile purpose EVER been advanced by its use? Even once?

Share

Show them the man, they’ll find you the crime

Death by 302.

Here’s how a standard FBI interview works. Two agents sit down with the person to be interrogated. One agent does the questioning, the other takes notes — by hand. After the interview is over, back at the bureau office, the agent who took notes uses them to construct a memo summarizing the conversation.

That summary, then, is twice removed from the actual interview. The notes are not an exact rendering of the dialogue; and the memorandum is not an exact copy of the notes. Yet the summary is treated as the official record of the interview. The 302 is a record to which the interviewee is held even though it is not close to a verbatim rendering of what was said — neither questions nor answers.

Those who regularly deal with 302s seem unsurprised when they are missing crucial information. In Jackson’s courtroom, lead Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann was declaring Manafort had been caught in “another false statement.” The proof, said the prosecutor, was found in paragraph 17 of a “declaration” made by an FBI agent involved in the interrogation.

“But it would be reflected in the 302, also?” the judge asked.

“I don’t think it is,” Weissmann responded. “I think it’s only in the declaration.”

The hearing moved on. But let’s pause to consider what just happened. The special counsel’s team was accusing Manafort of a specific lie, but the document ostensibly detailing what Manafort said — the 302 — did not have any record of the statement in question. So the prosecutor fell back on a supplemental declaration by an FBI agent. The 302, in other words, was so unreliable that it lacked key information on which prosecutors were basing their case.

And he was sentenced to prison anyway, after having had his home, his livelihood, his good name, and every penny he had taken away.

These problems are behind a decades-long campaign to have all law enforcement — from small-town deputy sheriffs to deputy directors of the FBI — make the recording of interviews standard policy.

One of the leaders of that effort has been civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate, author of the book “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.” He argues that 302s present a pervasive and unnecessary temptation for agents to bend the truth. A “fundamental flaw in the FBI’s truth-gathering apparatus,” Silverglate wrote in 2011, is “the long-defended Bureau-wide policy of not recording interrogations and interviews, a practice that allows the FBI to manipulate witnesses, manufacture convictions, and destroy justice as we once knew it.”

That may sound like strong stuff, unfair even. But the FBI’s own intransigence in the face of the electronic recording movement lends credence to Silverglate’s critique. An FBI response to this proposed reform has become notorious in civil libertarian circles. In 2006, the bureau produced a written rebuttal to the “on-going debate in the criminal justice community whether to make electronic recording of custodial interrogations mandatory.”

The policy memo offered several reasons why the FBI resisted recording, including the telling admission that, when people get a look at FBI interrogations in action, they don’t like what they see: As “all experienced investigators and prosecutors know, perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants,” the memo states. “Initial resistance may be interpreted as involuntariness, and misleading a defendant as to the quality of the evidence against him may appear to be unfair deceit.”

The bottom line is that FBI agents feel empowered lie to witnesses or suspects, but when those targets lie to the FBI they are charged with crimes. And being allowed to produce 302s, instead of taped interviews, allows this practice to continue. It’s worth noting that when that memo was produced, the FBI director was…

Guess who it was. Go on, guess. But wait, it gets even better:

There are more recent examples. Immediately after assuring President Trump in private meeting, “I don’t do sneaky things, I don’t leak, I don’t do weasel moves,” then-FBI director James Comey went to his car, got out his laptop and immediately began writing a 302-style memo. Which he later leaked. According to his own congressional testimony, Comey did the same thing to former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Yet Comey seemed surprised anyone would see those as weasel moves or sneaky things, the obvious irony being that we only know about the “weasel moves” quote because Comey put them in his 302-type memo.

Yeah, well, SOP for every lying weasel is to lie about being a weasel to anyone you intend to pull any weasel moves on. Then you crow to any fool willing to listen about your towering integrity, your unimpeachable honesty, and your abiding reverence for the “rule of law.” You reiterate your absolute commitment to “going only where the evidence leads.” Don’t worry, even when this soaring ziggurat of utter bullshit totters and falls, you can count on the media to back up your assertions…as long as it’s a Republican you’re targeting.

Ahh, but does it get better still, you ask? Of course it does—for certain values of “better,” at least.

The concern isn’t a new one: “You can have a conversation with an agent,” Robert Kennedy’s press secretary when RFK was attorney general, once told journalist Victor Navasky, “and when it is over he will send a memo to the files. Any relation between the memo and what was said in the conversation may be purely coincidental. You would think you were at different meetings.”

It was that sort of reputation that led the Department of Justice in 2014 to issue a new Policy Concerning Electronic Recording of Statements. Promulgated by then-Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, the document opens with this declaration: “This policy establishes a presumption that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and the United States Marshals Service (USMS) will electronically record statements made by individuals in their custody.”

There was great anticipation that the new policy would finally be the end of commemorating interviews in memos derived from handwritten notes. “This policy change is an important step in the right direction,” the Harvard Law Review declared in 2015, “reflecting a growing movement that has recognized the benefits of recording interviews; however, the new policy puts in place little express accountability for failure to comply with the presumption.”

Not only is there “little express accountability” for not recording interviews at the FBI, the bureau has made it policy to interpret the presumption of recording in the narrowest possible way, while obliging agents to file 302s as a matter of course. DOJ policy notwithstanding, “FBI interviews with witnesses are rarely recorded,” says one prominent white-collar Washington, D.C., defense lawyer. “About 99 percent of the time agents take notes during the interview and then turn those notes into a 302.”

That 99 percent may be a slight exaggeration, but what is the real ratio of taped to typed interviews? If the bureau knows, it isn’t willing to share: “The FBI does not maintain statistical information about the aggregate number of electronic recordings or FD-302s prepared in a given window of time,” an FBI official told RealClearInvestigations.

So here’s what we have here: a truly omnipotent, entirely unaccountable, highly-secretive federal “law enforcement” bureaucracy that makes its own rules, rejects any and all calls for transparency or oversight, bends the law when it isn’t flouting it outright, and pursues its own clandestine agenda on its own terms. We have, in other words, the very thing the Founders warned against, the existence of which they established explicit boundaries intended to prevent. We have, in short, a monstrous, tyrannical, untouchable affront not only to justice, but to decency itself.

I was just about to repeat yet again that I only wish I could say I found this horrible article shocking, but this time I just can’t do it. The truth is, it IS shocking—stunning, even, no matter how jaded about our appalling, out-of-control government you may be. There is no possibility whatsoever that such a warped abomination—conceived in corruption, fattened on amorality, shot through with wickedness—can be reformed. Malignancy this deep is immune to it; it cannot be salvaged.

Tear it down. Burn the rubble. Scatter the ashes. Salt the earth.

(Via WRSA)

Share

The War on Christianity

Is real.

The unlawful arrest of a Christian street preacher in London has drawn attention to the continuing use of hate speech laws to silence Christians in multicultural Britain—even as incendiary speech by Muslim extremists is routinely ignored.

On February 23, Oluwole Ilesanmi, a 64-year-old Nigerian evangelist known as Preacher Olu, was arrested at Southgate Station in North London after complaints that his message about Jesus was “Islamophobic.” A video of the arrest, viewed more than two million times, shows how two police officers ordered the man to stop preaching because “nobody wants to listen to that,” confiscated his Bible and then arrested him for “a breach of peace.”

The video was filmed by Ambrosine Shitrit, co-founder of Eye on Antisemitism, a London-based organization that tracks anti-Semitism on social media. Shortly before Ilesanmi’s arrest, Shitrit had seen him interacting with another man, who turned out to be a Muslim. She thought the Muslim was about to assault Ilesanmi when she went over and started filming with her phone. When the police arrived in response to an emergency call, the Muslim man left the scene.

The video shows Ilesanmi pleading with police, “Don’t take my Bible away. Don’t take my Bible away.” An officer responded: “You should have thought about that before being racist.” A popular blogger known as Archbishop Cranmer tweeted what many people doubtless felt: “Dear @metpoliceuk, Setting aside the appalling ignorance of these two officers, would you handle a copy of the Qur’an like that?”

Ilesanmi said that after he was searched, the police drove him to a remote area before “de-arresting him.” In Britain, “de-arrest” is a legal term which means that no crime has been committed. Since then, London police have changed their story about what transpired; some have accused the police of staging a cover-up.

When journalist Marcus Jones of Premier Christian Radio asked the Met Police whether they agreed that Ilesanmi had been driven away to a remote location, the Met Police expressly denied it. In an email exchange, they said that Ilesanmi was escorted “approximately 200 meters away, de-arrested and shown to a nearby bus stop.”

This, as it turns out, was a lie. The post includes a sickeningly long list of Christian street preachers being placed in chokey on all sorts of specious pretexts. As a Christian myself, I’ll say upfront that I’m not overly enamored of street preachers myself; I was raised in a more modest, quiet denomination (FUMC) that held such public proselytizing to be rude, intrusive, and inappropriate. The theory was that, while not specifically forbidden, for most people it was at best off-putting, which rendered it ultimately ineffectual. Yes, bearing witness and sharing one’s faith is an important part of Christianity. But there is a proper time and place for that sort of thing, which might not be in the middle of a busy city sidewalk, among the jostling, already-harried workaday crowd.

On the other hand, I happened across a street preacher in downtown Charlotte just the other day. He was a disheveled, dirty, homeless-looking guy crumpled on the sidewalk at 4th and Tryon, propped against a big handwritten sign. His marginally-coherent muttering in praise of Jesus, punctuated by the occasional shouted rant, was, umm, somewhat less than compelling, let’s say. Every now and then he would set down his battered Bible to pick up and rattle his beggar’s cup vigorously, soliciting a more temporal, earthly reward for his efforts.

But know what? I didn’t seek to have this unsightly, possibly ersatz Man Of The Cloth tossed into durance vile by the local gendarmerie. Nor was I overly discomfited or alarmed by his ghastly presence. I handled this transgression independently, without complication or undue fuss: I just kept walking on by. Sounds easy enough, right? Unfortunately, the Bobbies seem to feel differently about matters, wielding a much heavier hand in the pursuit of protecting London’s public spaces from encroachment by the abominable affliction of…Christianity.

It’s disgusting, despicable, and not a little alarming. But sadly, tragically even, it’s not shocking.

Share

The Democracy question

Ruling the mob via bread and circus.

It is a worthwhile question to consider when watching the Brexit drama unfold over the next two weeks. The official version of this process is the British people had a referendum and they voted to leave the EU. The law put March 31, 2019 as the deadline for leaving and Parliament had until that date to work out a deal with the EU. If there was no deal, then Britain unconditionally leaves the EU. A deal to leave slowly and gently, however, would need to pass through Parliament. That was the orderly process laid out for Brexit.

As of this writing, the government of Theresa May has tried several times to get the deal she struck with the EU through parliament. The deal is an insult to the intelligence of the average British subject, so it has failed to get through parliament. The deal she cut is to leave the EU in name only. Britain would continue to allow Brussels to dictate terms on things like regulation, trade and most especially immigration policy. Those rooting for democracy have to be appalled by the craven cynicism of this ploy.

The Commons Speaker, which is like the head parliamentarian, ruled that Theresa May cannot submit her deal for a vote again, unless it is substantially altered, which is an impossibility at this point. That would mean Britain is headed for a hard Brexit at the end of this month. It would also mean that a responsible democratic government would now be moving to inform and prepare the public for that eventuality. Instead, the government is scheming with the EU to delay everything so they can have a second referendum.

Americans are familiar with this gag. Back in the dark days when marriage was linked to biological reality, left-wing agitators would get homosexual marriage initiatives onto state ballots. These initiatives would fail, but the agitators would get them on the ballot again the next election. The Left sees democracy as a bus. Once it takes you to your desired stop, you get off. That means they demand people keep voting on their issues until the people get the correct result. Once that happens, no more democracy.

This is the scheme the “Remainers”  have always had in their back pocket. It’s why they have been happy to drag out this process for years, right to the deadline. This week, they will argue that the country is not prepared to meet the legal deadline, so there has to be a delay in the process. Of course, the point of the delay is to then get a second vote setup for later in the year. If that vote goes their way, that’s it. If they lose again, then the whole process begins anew as they scheme to undermine the results.

Again: the one thing to keep foremost in mind about Brexit is the same as with Trump’s Big Beautiful Wall: ain’t gonna be none. The Power, here and there, has no intention of ever allowing such things to come to pass. Though they’d prefer to remain hidden behind the curtains quietly keeping the Great And Powerful Oz Show in Ordnung, they’ll step out and flex their real muscle if and when they must.

Unfortunately, such overt action to put the peasantry back in its proper place will eventually create problems for The Power, as folks slowly come to realize that their votes mean nothing, that self-government is a disgraceful sham. Then Da Peepul do one of two things: they either give up completely with a shrug, or they get pissed right the fuck off. With the docile, stump-broke Brits, it’s a depressingly easy guess which way they’re most likely to jump. On this side of the pond the question is still open, if only just barely.

Share

Dispossessed by Californication

Heritage Americans have been relieved of their country, having had it quietly, stealthily yanked out from under them by the Left. Pat Buchanan examines the process.

How does the left expect to permanently dispossess Middle America?

Let us count the ways.

In 2018, over 60 percent of Floridians voted to expand the electorate by restoring voting rights to 1.5 million ex-cons, all of Florida’s felons except those convicted of sex crimes and murder.

Florida gave Bush his razor-thin victory over Al Gore. Should Trump lose Florida in 2020, he is a one-term president. If the GOP loses Florida indefinitely, the presidency is probably out of reach indefinitely.

Florida’s Amendment 4 is thus a great leap forward in the direction in which the republic is being taken. Gov. Terry McAuliffe of the swing state of Virginia restored voting rights to 156,000 felons by executive order in 2016, calling it his “proudest achievement.”

In California and Oregon, moves are afoot to reduce the voting age to 17 or 16. Understandable, as high schoolers are more enthusiastic about socialism.

Last week, a bold attempt was made by House Democrats to lower the U.S. voting age to 16. It failed — this time.

The Democratic Party does not want to close the door to voting on migrants who broke our laws to get here and do not belong here, as these illegals would likely vote for pro-amnesty Democrats.

If the new U.S. electorate of, say, 2024, includes tens of millions of new voters — 16- and 17-year-olds; illegal migrants; ex-cons; new legal immigrants from Asia, Africa and Latin America who vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the political future of America has already been determined.

California, here we come.

As noted in this post: there can be no question that the Democrat-Socialists are going to attempt to steal the next election. The 2018 midterms, a veritable circus act of fraud and chicanery, were a successful test run for the Greatest Show On Earth in 2020. Think we’ve seen extremism, frothing lunacy, and fascist violence from Proggy creeps already? I promise you all: if they manage to swindle their way into a “win” in 2020, you ain’t seen NOTHING yet.

Share

Whither Brexit?

As with our Big Beautiful Wall, all you really need to know about Brexit is this: ain’t a-gonna be one, and be damned to you uppity pee-ons and your pathetic little votes.

Last night, sixteen days before Britain supposedly leaves the European Union in accord with the people’s vote of three years ago, their elected representatives voted by 312 to 308 to rule out a “no-deal” Brexit – ie, a straightforward walkaway – ever.

So the EU now has no incentive ever to reach a deal with Britain. The appalling “deal” Theresa May “negotiated” was for a wretched and humiliating vassal status with Brussels. Because for the Eurocrats, what matters is to teach the lesson the ingrate voters that you can check “Out” any time you like but you can never leave. Mrs May’s deal was meant to be a message to antsy Continentals that the citizenry’s impertinence must never happen again.

When that flopped, Brussels moved to the next stage – not that Brexit must never happen again, but that Brexit must never happen, period. And, to their shame, the people’s representatives at Westminster have colluded in their subversion of the people’s will.

So last night the elites rose up and overthrew the masses. Of course, they have also destroyed their own reputation, and that of England as the Mother of Parliaments. But in a sense that also makes the larger point – that the world is too complex to be left to self-government by the people’s representatives, so best to leave it to Brussels. Sorry, you grunting morons don’t realize how difficult it all is, so you can vote for it all you want, but it can’t be done…in almost every other media outlet, most especially the BBC, the issue is presented not as a conscious subversion of Brexit but as prudent sober voices of restraint stepping in to save the nation from the chaos engendered by the people’s stupidity.

Ahhh, but that right there—I boldfaced it so’s nobody would overlook it—is the very beating heart of Progressivist ideology, the central pivot point around which every other part of it rotates. Our British Cousins are more thoroughly marinated in the toxic Progtard hell-brew than we are. So, why would anybody have expected anything less from the Brits’ Ruling Class lords and masters than the deployment of any and every stratagem at their disposal to do as they have now done? And why would any Real American shaking his head in disgust over the de facto disenfranchisement and dismissal of our Brit cousins not expect our own to do the exact same thing?

If you’re in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster today, I would recommend sacking the place and salting the earth.

It looks more and more as if that’s the only answer left, to us and the Brits alike. In truth, I’d submit that the fact that such open, outright revolt hasn’t occurred already has only emboldened the RC shitweasels, and is a big part of why we are where we are—both in Old Blighty and in America That Was. The only question remaining is: what, if anything, will we do about it?

Share

War to the knife

History, repeating itself.

Mao’s Cultural Revolution endured over a 10-12 year period, ending with his death in 1976. Millions died; many more millions were socially and professionally ruined; hundreds of millions were incessantly terrorized. But though it might seem at first glance that China’s society had descended into madness, there was very clearly a method to that madness. What were some of the defining characteristics of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and how did these characteristics manifest themselves?

  1. The revolution was conducted against the entire collection of established institutions in Chinese society. Particular focus was placed on eradicating religious symbols, monuments and organizations, as well as any institution that had roots in the past, as China’s pre-Communist history was treated as an endless litany of evil acts whose legacy could only have a malign influence in the future unless completely stamped out.
  2. The ranks of the civilian revolutionary cadres were composed mostly of university students (though K-12 students were heavily recruited as well in secondary roles.) Between their youthful vigor, the thoroughness of their indoctrination and the typical eagerness of a young generation to assert themselves and exercise their energies in effecting change, they proved to be a shrewd choice to coerce Chinese society and its institutions.
  3. Assembled into large gangs, the university-based Red Guards intimidated establishment figures in the educational and political spheres by publicly shaming and berating them, coercing confessions from them for imaginary crimes against the principles of social, political and economic justice of the Revolution, and with increasing frequency physically assaulting and/or killing them. These purges included Party members who had previously been considered to be staunch supporters of the Revolution but had been deemed to be lacking in sufficient revolutionary fervor.

Does any of the above sound…familiar?

All too, buddy, all too.

Via Linda, who elsewhere warns:

They hate us. They have contempt for us, and no hesitation about displaying it openly. They viciously attack us in public, in our homes, and use thug tactics to threaten our livelihoods, our safety, and our ability to function in a modern society.

I hate this. I have family and friends on both sides. When it’s all over, there will be a putative victor (because a fight so infused with hatred must end in complete surrender for one side), but there will not be peace. It will end in bitterness, lasting distrust, and unwillingness to associate with the other side in any way. It will be the end of the United States, as we have known it.

Logic has not stopped their lies. Resort to the courts is a lost cause. They have taken over the legislative bodies, maligning and intimidating any opposition, threatening the established leadership, and using underhanded means in their climb to power.

I don’t see an end that doesn’t culminate in death – many of them.

Linda’s “victor,” from whichever side, will be putative indeed, standing as he will be amidst the smoking, blackened rubble of what was once the most prosperous and generally beneficent society yet brought forth on Earth—miserably grubbing about for sustenance, shelter, and the other irreducible necessities of life. Should Proggy be that Pyrrhic “victor”—heaven forbid!—he will suddenly find such formerly all-consuming obssessions like gay marriage, cultural appropriation, political correctness, and carbon offsets to be much reduced in importance.

But that’s the fate that inevitably overtakes any Free Shit Army of heedless lotus-eaters. Eventually, they’ll be despoiled by their own decadence—toppled from ease and unmerited luxury back into hardscrabble savagery to once again be taught the same unlearned lesson in a far tougher school, under a pitiless master who does NOT grade on the curve.

Share

Gettin’ sporty

Coming Unpleasantness is…unpleasant.

In recent months I’ve made frequent reference to military historian Michael Vlahos, who, as another regular guest on Mr. Batchelor’s nightly show, has been discussing the possibility of civil war in America. One of the points he’s made often is that it’s hard to say, except in retrospect, when civil wars actually begin; before the armies take the field there are years, or often decades, of deepening strife in which comity disintegrates and the two sides learn to hate and dehumanize one another. When, for example, did America’s civil war of the nineteenth century really begin? At Fort Sumter? Or was that merely the moment that a civil war already in progress for decades burst into flame? In hindsight, it’s clear that the bitter antipathy between North and South was already beyond all hope of reconciliation long before the shooting started. The evidence is plain enough: Bleeding Kansas, the John Brown atrocities, the caning of Charles Sumner, the Congressional brawl of 1858 — or even the Graves-Cilley duel, which happened all the way back in 1838, and became a rallying point for an already darkening North-South antagonism.

So: has our new civil war already begun?

I’d say so, yeah. It’s my belief that any Point Beyond Which Etc has been passed, probably longer ago than many might imagine. Certainly the brazen lawlessness of the Obama junta could be said to have amounted to a Rubicon of sorts; the metastasizing unbending fanaticism and batshit lunacy of the fascist Left after Trump’s election, along with the now-obvious malevolence of the Deep State, makes where we now stand plain enough to any with eyes to see. Thus:

How did we come to such a pass? For those of us on the Right side of this gaping chasm, the answer is clear: the ground under our own feet hasn’t shifted much at all, while everything to our Left has torn away at an accelerating pace. Cultural and political opinions that were shared, without controversy, by almost every American just a few years ago — opinions still held by half of the nation’s people — are now “right-wing extremism”, and their public expression denounced and suppressed as “hate speech”. Saying a thing that once was obvious to everyone can now cost you your reputation, your livelihood, and in many parts of the West today, your freedom.

We know how close we are to the edge, to the dissolution of civilized order into chaos and tyranny. We can feel in our bones the implacable hatred of our would-be commissars for everything we believe is good and right and true — along with a growing understanding that their hatred doesn’t stop at our traditions and beliefs. As long as we live and breathe, we are a threat. If the blood-soaked history of the twentieth century can teach us anything at all, it should teach us that it will not be enough to see us displaced and destroyed. They will want us dead and gone.

One of the milestones along the road to civil war is the normalization of violence as a rational response to a dehumanized enemy, followed soon after by an eagerness for general conflict.

Oh, rilly. You don’t say.

This eagerness arises first in the breasts of those seeking radical change, who see violence as justified by the righteousness of their cause, and who are usually young and excitable people who have a much better sense of how to destroy what exists than to build and preserve a system that, however flawed, actually works. (This also reflects that the Right, almost by definition, moves toward order, while the Left is always entropic.) But the Right is eminently capable of reactive, or even proactive, violence when confronted by an existential threat to order, and is every bit as liable to the “othering” and dehumanization of its enemies in preparation for war.

There is, then, a spiral of mutual threat and provocation in the run-up to war, along the course of which a people can go from general comity and commonality, to political or cultural division, to rancorous debate, to increasingly bitter struggle for political power, to “othering” and dehumanization, to normalized violence, to bloodthirsty eagerness for war, to general armed conflict. We are already well into the latter stages, and even on the Right I see martial enthusiasm increasing: the hatred of the enemy, the idea that we are now so far beyond reconciliation that there is going to be a fight, and that we might as well get on with it (especially as we are the ones who will most likely win).

If you ask me, the Right’s “hatred of the enemy” is not merely understandable; it is justified. In fact, I’ll go ya one further: it is necessary, a matter of survival. No, we don’t want a Civil War v2.0, or anything resembling one. All we ever wanted was for them to leave us the fuck alone. But the Left long ago took that option off the table, and we were NOT consulted about it.

Those of us on the Right tend to be a lot better educated when it comes to history than our enemies. We know already what will be the inevitable upshot of their ascension to total power over us: gulags, killing fields, death camps. Holocausts. Holodomors. Great Leaps Forward. That sort of thing.

They’ve become unabashed about threatening us directly and unequivocally, about declaring without the least reticence that they want us dead. So regret and deplore it all we might, we’re still left with only just the two choices here: bow our heads and take whatever they decide to deal out, or…this:

They are going to have to be not just beaten back, but utterly destroyed. All memory of them wiped from human reckoning. Not just their army destroyed, but their women killed, and their babies’ heads smashed on rocks, and all those who cheered them on eliminated to the last man. Their livestock slaughtered, their temples of error pulled down until one stone lies not upon another, and their fields sown with salt, that nothing will ever grow there again. Like Carthage after the Third Punic War, which policy ensured for all time that there never came a Fourth Punic War.

And their calling cards are the same ones throughout history.
They want to shut you up.
They want to disarm you.
And then, free of your arguments and your arms, they want to kill you.

That’s why they now openly proclaim the outright plan to strip the clear acknowledgements of the First and Second Amendments, and muse before God and everybody how joyful and pleasant it would be to come and round you up, and kill you.

Take such thoughts and such people exactly at their word.

Some historically-minded wonder what it would have been like if only someone had strangled Hitler in his crib. It would never happen, for the same reasons you aren’t doing it now. You have half a Congress full of would-be führersgruppenführers, and gauleiters, openly telling you what they want, and will do given the slightest chance, and yet nobody’s fired so much as a single shot. And likely, nobody will. They wait until the columns march into whatever suffices for Poland these days before they’ll recognize they let things go too far, and only pay attention too late. Pray the response is not too little.

As Aesop elsewhere says, they think they want this. But there’s a slight problem: they know not what they do. And as always the case, the absolute worst thing that could ever happen—to Leftards and to everybody else—is for them to get it. You average white male American is a very peaceable and forgiving sort. He’ll endure whole backhoes full of shit being dumped over his head with little in the way of retribution beyond angry complaint…right up until the moment he won’t. Force him to admit that, as Aesop says, it’s necessary for him to take his enemies at their word, that his way of life, his family, his home, his very life itself is threatened, he will buckle down with a quickness.

And then? A few historical reminders might be useful at this point: Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Tokyo. Dresden.

Those last two should be particularly noted. White Male Americans were so absolutely, positively determined to defeat utterly their last batch of existential foes that we actually came up with the idea of the fuel-air bomb—a bomb so vicious and evil that it works by quite literally sucking all the oxygen from the surrounding area to feed itself. Whereupon the enemy is confronted with two highly unpleasant options of his own: he can burn to death, or he can suffocate. Oh, all right, all right; he can also be crushed under the rubble of buildings leveled by the initial blast wave, too. Or torn to shreds by said blast wave his own self, should he be in its path.

By the way: did I mention that we hit Dresden with this hell-weapon more than once?

In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city. The bombing and the resulting firestorm destroyed over 1,600 acres (6.5 km2) of the city centre. An estimated 22,700 to 25,000 people were killed, although larger casualty figures have been claimed. Three more USAAF air raids followed, two occurring on 2 March aimed at the city’s railway marshalling yard and one smaller raid on 17 April aimed at industrial areas.

The attack on Dresden quickly became controversial, which is subject to popular debate into the 21st century. Immediate German propaganda claims following the attacks and post-war discussions on whether the attacks were justified have led to the bombing becoming one of the moral causes célèbres of the war. A 1953 United States Air Force report defended the operation as the justified bombing of a strategic target, which they noted was a major rail transport and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort. Several researchers claim not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city center. Critics of the bombing have claimed that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no strategic significance, and that the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the military gains. Some in the German far-right refer to the bombing as a mass murder calling it “Dresden’s Holocaust of bombs”. According to other critics, given the number of civilian casualties and a claimed paucity of strategic targets, Dresden’s destruction was unjustifiable and should be called a war crime. They claim the city could have been spared, like Rome, Paris, and Kyoto, though both British and American militaries defended the bombing as necessary.

Large variations in the claimed death toll have fuelled the controversy. In March 1945, the German government ordered its press to publish a falsified casualty figure of 200,000 for the Dresden raids, and death toll estimates as high as 500,000 have been given. The city authorities at the time estimated up to 25,000 victims, a figure that subsequent investigations supported, including a 2010 study commissioned by the city council.

So to recap, then: the German authorities have only in the last decade been able to finalize the official body count from these truly nightmarish attacks…which were launched against a city of no real strategic or military importance at all. Because we WANTED TO, that’s why. The Germans are still complaining about the inhuman ferocity of them, and they ain’t entirely wrong. Our response? Meh; don’t start no shit, won’t be no shit. Start some shit, God have mercy on you. Because WE sure won’t.

I’ve said it a bunch of times already, even though I have no expectation at all that any such thing will be happen. But Proggy REALLY needs to think all this through.

Share

Free speech? No thanks, we’re liberals

The young man assaulted at Berkeley for being conservative speaks his piece.

As a field representative for the Leadership Institute, I travel to campuses throughout California helping conservative clubs recruit and train new members. I’ve seen the intolerance and hate toward conservatives on our  campuses with my own eyes, and the only difference between what happened to me on Feb. 19 and every other day is that the event was caught on video.

Conservative students across the country have suffered verbal and physical assault, social ostracism and even academic persecution for voicing their opinions on political topics. This is because young liberals believe that they are on the morally righteous side in a culture war and, in order to win, they must silence any form of dissent.

Well, no, you just missed. Actually, it’s because they’re fascists.

Increasingly, leftists believe they are justified to respond to ideas disagreeable to them with open hostility and even force.  Students are commonly told now that words are literally violent and can be responded to with physical force. I don’t mean verbal threats of violence or efforts to intimidate, I mean words that express ideas that the listener finds offensive or disagrees with.

NOW you’re getting it, son.

The message that provoked my attacker was our sign that read “Hate Crime Hoaxes Hurt Real Victims,” a reference to the  recent case of Jussie Smollett, who was charged by Chicago police with filing a false police report about an apparently fictitious attack. My attacker said we were promoting violence, which, in his view, gives him permission to use any means necessary to shut us down. The irony is that the sign was intended to warn of the danger of disregarding facts and jumping to judgment in an effort to confirm a narrative our feelings tell us is true.

No, the irony is that this Progtard putz expressed his putative opposition to “promoting violence” using…wait for it…actual violence.

Really, though, I ain’t picking on young Hayden with these minor quibbles. He’s out there putting his ass on the line, walking the walk, fighting the good fight against the violent Left’s Hitlerjugend v2.0, and I applaud him for it. He’s got guts, and I wish him nothing but the best.

Share

“Trump Calls The Democratic Party Socialist. He’s Right”

Wait, there was ever any question about it?

A recent New York Times headline warned readers that “Republicans Already Are Demonizing Democrats as Socialists and Baby Killers.” The article pivots on President Donald Trump’s strategy of portraying Democratic Party leaders as a gaggle of radicalized socialists.

The real problem is that he’s right on both counts. It’s a measure of their sheer brazen chutzpah that they’d even try to convince anybody otherwise. Either that, or their incredible faith in their lying and deceit skills.

New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait, one of the few left-of-center pundits willing to occasionally criticize Democrats for their collectivist tendencies, recently penned an article headlined, “Trump Calls the Democratic Party Socialist. He’s Lying,” in which he contends that both the leftward lurch of Democrats and the popularity of Sen. Bernie Sanders have been overstated for political reasons. A number of Democrat candidates, he says, have already rejected the word “socialist.”

Rebuffing the “s” word doesn’t make you any less socialist than embracing the word “capitalist” makes you a champion of free markets. No, these presidential candidates aren’t latter-day Trotskys…

Aren’t they? If they aren’t, they’ll do until the latter-day Trotskys come along. Which, all we have to do is just wait until the next time they have all three branches of government firmly in their control again and watch what happens.

…but contemporary Democrats, who have long favored tighter controls and bigger government, are now far more inclined to embrace proto-socialistic policies than they are liberal (in the genuine sense of the word) ones. By any fair reading, their agendas can be described as socialistic.

For starters, nearly every Democrat candidate now frames his or her political case within the context of a class struggle. Every one proposes fixing the scourge of “inequality,” not by loosening regulatory controls or finding ways to create a more meritocratic society, but by confiscating wealth and redistributing it to the alleged victims of capitalism. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s confiscatory “wealth tax,” although ostensibly about funding her pet projects, is sold as a way of instituting state-induced societal fairness.

She’s not alone. These days, the left’s big argument is one giant zero-sum economic fallacy—the idea, for example, that successful Americans are “taking” bigger pieces of the pie than they deserve, to the detriment of society. The argument, the spirit, the aim, and the execution have far more in common with Karl Marx than with Adam Smith.

Well, DUH. It’s been argued here and elsewhere that most of our political/ideological classifications have been rendered nearly useless, and there’s a lot of truth in it. I still use the old “liberal” descriptor just for convenience’s sake, despite its meaning having been twisted beyond all recognition by now, knowing that you all know what I mean.

But really, even with the ongoing betrayal of the fraudulently “conservative” Republican party blurring distinctions further yet, the lines are still pretty distinct and simple to identify. And I won’t get all niggling and obssessive about whether we call it liberalism, Progressivism, socialism, Marxism, communism, totalitarianism, fascism, or whatever. It all boils down to one thing in the end: a belief that large, intrusive government knows best for its subjects and of right ought to be in as much control of their lives and decisions as possible. That said government should have as much power to intervene, meddle, and micromanage as possible. That an entire society can and should be dominated and directed by an elite class of supposed “experts” capable of making intelligent decisions for the masses, who are incompetent to make those decisions for themselves.

And that’s it, you can just stop right there. No need to get bogged down in pedantry over the minute details of specific policies or legislative proposals; the only question is, does it expand the government and increase its reach? Or does it limit or even reduce it? The argument is no longer about “liberal” versus “conservative,” maybe not even “Left” versus “Right”—if it ever really was. It’s about statist versus freeman. It’s about power and control versus liberty and self-determination, about the collective versus the individual. It’s about the State versus the People—about whether the individual shall retain any innate, inviolable rights at all, rights the government is strictly forbidden to touch in any way.

So with that in mind, when’s the last time you heard of a Democrat-Socialist voting against an expansion of federal power, or proposing one, or even appearing to be wrestling honestly in indecision about the question? They can wax indignant over Trump calling them by their right name all they like, but the truth is far beyond debate at this point.

Share

No coincidence

How socialist revolution is done.

If somebody wanted to fundamentally transform society to its roots, where would he or she start?

The most logical starting point would be education. And if there were one part of the educational system that would produce this transformation most broadly, effectively, and efficiently, it would most likely be at our schools of education that train teachers for the K-12 classroom. That’s where ideas from the rest of academia are inserted into the curriculum for elementary and high school students, and where politically unsophisticated young people are turned into classroom teachers. Control the schools of education, and the education system will eventually be yours to forward your political agenda.

Remarkably, that is just what has happened in this country. Over 100 years ago, when our education schools were just starting up or growing from two-year normal schools to university status, Progressive educators set out to transform the nation into one that was based on social science theories, collectivism, and central planning.

How successful were they? Several years ago, I started an investigation into how politicized education schools have become. Today, the Martin Center is releasing the results of that investigation in a new report, titled “The Politicization of University Schools of Education.”

The report’s main conclusion? That schools of education may very well be radicalized beyond anything imagined by the early Progressives.

Sadly, one question that I could not find an answer for is how we can restore our schools of education. Two of the three—UNC and Wisconsin—seem too entrenched in radical ideology to ever purge the poisonous politics voluntarily. And Michigan may not be too far behind.

And while the usual conservative solution is to create alternate institutions, such as homeschooling or private schools that hire outside of mainstream education schools, it is unlikely that the great mass of people will eschew public schools for these alternatives any time soon.

But if there is any hope for renewal, it starts with awareness. It is time our policymakers stopped ignoring the disastrous trend to politicize education.

Ignoring it? They’re for it, ferchrissake. It was the whole plan all along. And it’s worked all too well, too. As I’ve said so many times: Gramsci was a genius.

(Via Insty)

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

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

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

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