Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

But of course

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, we can’t have THAT, now can we?

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

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

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

Share

Tocsin, ringing

Nobody nails it like Codevilla.

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

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

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

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

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

But money has never been the point.

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

Share

Should be seen and not heard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

trump-hitler.jpg

Share

Any time you’re ready, pissants

Feeling froggy yet, Lefty?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When do you get started?

“When” indeed (via AP):



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

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




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

Update! Aesop takes a good, hard look:

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

Game. Set. Match.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Charm, offensive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that will never happen.

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

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

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

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

Share

Civil War v2.0 realities

A little speculation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Gone rogue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steyn redirects the flow:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damning update! From Scott McKay:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough already. Get rid of these people.

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

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rough justice update! Sic simper tyrannis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then stir this into the noxious stew:

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

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

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

Ms. Lerner will probably not face any further action. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

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

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

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

Again with the walking around naked.

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

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

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

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

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

Because there’s no proof on that one.

Just her claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Unity now nah

The last desperate resort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

The Long March

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Is America a failed state?

Francis mulls it over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Bullets first

Schlichter sums up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some are refusing to enforce the laws altogether.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

In other news, dog bites man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A liberal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

A comparison

Which yields a dismal conclusion. Several, actually.

In Vegas, there is no reason to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy tagged for it actually carried it out, because no one saw him do it.

In Texas, most of a church-full of people could tell you exactly who did it, and one of the people who saw him do it followed him with a rifle – after shooting him with said rifle – to the point when police finally arrived minutes later to take custody of the corpse.

In neither incident did the police do anything worthwhile in any way to deter, inhibit, nor end either shooting. Their sole contribution, as in 99.9% of shootings, is to unroll barrier tape, chalk outlines around bodies, and gather evidence and fill out reports for trials that will never happen. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Not one of 30,000 gun laws did one single thing to prevent or even delay either shooting.
Nor would any 30,000 more accomplish anything better.

The notionally presumptive Vegas shooter broke no laws until he knocked out windows and opened fire.
The Texas shooter broke every law imaginable, being legally prohibited from even so much as possessing any firearm. Shocking Every Clueless Barking Leftard Moonbat The Usual Suspects, a homicidal criminal breaks the law, exactly as the definition of the word “criminal” might imply to someone with an IQ greater than their shoe size. (Every politician with a (D) after your name, call your office…)

In both cases, those same Usual Suspects wasted not one moment before beginning their usual insane catcalls to punish everyone who didn’t do either crime, by banning more guns (again!), whilst gleefully dancing in the still warm pools of the blood of the victims to do so. Every one of them, from Congressbitch Shitweasel Gabby Giffords, to the retinue of Hollywood misogynist pedophile- and rapist-enabling celebutards, should be castigated verbally and egged  – by the dozen, please – physically, until they grow a verbal filter sufficient to shut their pieholes, pretty much until the grave takes over the task for them when they die of natural causes. They are shitlords of the lowest order, and there is no amount of public shaming – up to activating their dental plans, in a need for new implants sort of way – that goes too far in shouting them down and howling them into silence.

In both cases, the media engages in knee-jerk around-the-clock non-stop coverage, but only to gin up their well-deserved flagging ratings, and to service their own anti-gun agenda, while contributing nothing but ass-gas to the discussion, and shunting 50 more important daily stories into the dustbin, stopping just short of tying strings to the bloody corpses and using them as marionettes on live TV.

As I said, several conclusions are unavoidable here, none of them pleasant. But the most important one we can draw is an eternal one: liberals, statists, collectivists, fascists, whatever—your laws do not work. They have NEVER worked; they never WILL work. I ain’t just talking about gun control here, either. Your desire for absolute control over each and every one of us in order to engineer us into your ideal of a Perfect Man—itself a highly destructive, self-defeating absurdity—is a fantasy, a pipe dream. It isn’t going to happen, and the results you’ll get from the attempt are never going to be what you hope for or expect. Which failure is only to be expected from meager intellects pretending to superiority—from people who arrogantly deny God as “silly superstition” while trying to set themselves and their misbegotten Superstate in His place.

In sum: come and take them, you sniveling wretches.

I was in an e-mail conversation with CF friend and supporter Sam Sorenson earlier wherein I said that it seems as if liberals are smack in the middle of a sort of cosmic karmic comeuppance of late, suffering one humiliating pratfall after another as all their cherished shibboleths just keep blowing up in their faces one right after another. We were discussing it in the context of another issue which I’ll be getting into later, but the truth is I can’t think of a time when reality has bitten them harder than this:

Hero Who Stopped Texas Gunman: I Couldn’t Have Stopped Him Without My AR-15
The hero who stopped the gunman behind the deadly Texas church massacre said using an AR-15 enabled him to end the bloodshed. In an emotional interview with CRTV’s “Louder With Crowder” on Monday, Stephen Willeford described the gunfight and dramatic car chase that ensued to stop the shooter from slaughtering additional churchgoers.

“If I had run out of the house with a pistol and faced a bulletproof vest and kevlar and helmets, it might have been futile,” Willeford said. “I ran out with an AR-15 and that’s what he was shooting the place up with.”

“I hate to politicize that, but that’s reality,” he added.

A perfectly delightful pressing of nearly every gun-grabber button, that was: a heroic gun owner, who also happens to be a member in good standing of the perfidious NRA, uses an evil, deadly semi-fully automatic assault-weapon rifle gun to successfully halt a massacre all on his own, with no guidance, consultation, coordination, or permission from or with any State organ, bureaucracy, or agency—and shows no remorse for his inexpert and presumptuous audacity.

Meanwhile, the mad killer was in no way deterred or hindered by any of the more than 30,000 gun control laws already on the books and, as Aesop says above, would not have been stopped by 30,000 more. He got his weapons and gear in open defiance of them, after having eluded every legal and administrative roadblock the State could muster against him—after dodging every regulation, system, procedure, and doctrine designed to recognize, analyze, diagnose, persuade, re-educate, restrain, or otherwise neutralize him. He killed with perfect impunity until an armed citizen with a far more highly developed sense of responsibility, self-respect, community, and simple duty than self-righteous liberals will ever possess stepped up and did the necessary. This dauntless man didn’t “cower in place,” he didn’t wait until help arrived, he didn’t piss his pants or faint dead away, he didn’t tremble and quake in fear as they would prefer.

And he got the job done, where all their high dudgeon and legalisms failed miserably. Just as they always do. More, and worse, he did so in a most public way, so that the calm efficacy of his heroism and the relevance of his underlying beliefs cannot possibly be denied, and the futility and folly of their own was written in blood on the church-house floor. Worse still, the heroic law-abiding owner of this semi-fully automatic assault-weapon rifle gun had never heretofore hurt anybody with his deadly murderous man-killing machine of a weapon; it never once exerted its nefarious mind-control power to influence him to wantonly kill a single soul, and it never once hopped up out of his cabinet, rack, or safe to go out and do bloody mayhem on its own. Indeed, his legal ownership of this morally repugnant Weapon Of Mass Destruction would most likely never have been made widely known at all if he hadn’t used it properly to provide us all with such a shining example of toxic masculinity and the traditional manly virtues of courage, valor, self-reliance, daring, and selfless concern for his fellow citizens liberals despise so much, and have all but wiped from the shriveled souls and intellects of the weak, emasculated Pajama Boys they’re producing in job lots.

Making it all even more satisfying is the response their propaganda organs are even now being forced to report daily: all across the country, pastors with more concern for their flocks’ safety than for respecting the pious liberal mandate enforcing their cringing helplessness are declaring their intention to arm themselves, and are calling for their congregants to do likewise. The idea of these people taking the fundamental human responsibility of self-defense into their own hands by availing themselves of the most useful tool for doing so must have liberal “journalists” in a sweating, gibbering rage when they’re off-camera. Already, we have this lecture approvingly compiled by a gun-grabbing liberal writer who probably hasn’t seen the inside of a church in…well, ever.

“I think the religion of Robert Jeffress is not the religion of Jesus,” McBride told ThinkProgress in an interview. “I think it is becoming increasingly apparent that we have a practice of blasphemous Christianity by many so-called Christians. Jesus is the Prince of Peace in a world of war. Rather than continue to push for more instruments of death, which are unable to keep us safe, we must rather start to call for a more peaceful existence that limits the proliferations of instruments of death.”

“Unable to keep us safe”? Might want to ask the people who survived the slaughter exclusively because of the skillful wielding of one of those “instruments of death” how they feel about your so cavalierly condemning them to death by massacre instead, you addled-pated, despicable wretch.

He added: “Any faith leader that calls for an opposite of that…has a deep moral hole in their soul, and they should be ignored.”

Other critics of gun violence include Shane Claiborne, a prolific Christian speaker and writer who works with an initiative that literally melts down AR-15s–weapons similar to the one reportedly used by Sutherland shooter–and turns them into plowshares, in keeping with a biblical reference.

Note, please, that not one of these mass-murder events has ever been halted, disrupted, or forestalled by a plowshare. Not a single fucking one. But hey, you’re doing great work there, Rev. You’re really Making A Difference, you are. Guys like you are about as useless as tits on a boar hog. But hey, self-righteousness, egotistical preening, and pointless demonstrations of moral superiority are what Christianity is really all about, right?

“Jesus carried a cross not a gun,” Claiborne told ThinkProgress. “He said greater love has no one that this–to lay down their life for another. The early Christians said ‘for Christ we can die but we cannot kill.’ When Peter picked up a sword to protect Jesus and cut off a guys ear, Jesus scolded him and put the ear back on. The early Christians said ‘when Jesus disarmed peter he disarmed every Christian.’ Evil is real but Jesus teaches us to fight evil without becoming evil. One the cross we see what love looks like when it stares evil in the face. Love is willing to die but not to kill.”

Left unmentioned is the evil of failing to properly reverence and respect the sanctity of God’s gift of life by refusing to defend not only one’s own but that of others against the preventable or at least stoppable depredations of people who disregard it entirely. But it does dovetail rather nicely with the liberal clergy’s shallow ignorance, and the press’s cynical, willful, and underhanded misrepresentation of Jesus as a pacifist—a deception intended to undermine Christianity rather than honestly analyze or respect its teachings, from “journalists” who have spent a hefty portion of their careers railing against Christianity, insulting Christians, and demeaning religion generally (Eastern mysticism, Islam and a nebulous, adolescent, but specifically non-religious and undemanding “spirituality” excepted).

In any event, we can all expect more fawning reportage shortly from anything-goes urban liberal churches whose contemptible but insidious practice is to neglect Western theology in favor of proselytizing for “diversity,” “tolerance,” “outreach,” and a general supine pacifism to counter this crippling assault on their faltering narrative. Pastors whose enthusiasm for political correctness and whatever other thumbsucking sophistry is currently fashionable with Leftist “intellectuals” far outweighs their commitment to Christian dogma—and whose dwindling congregants will be heavily outnumbered by the “journalists” eagerly reporting on them—will be lauded for their courage as they launch various programs, marches, and councils to call for disarmament, understanding, openness, and “love.” These hapless sheep will be hailed as “heroes,” possessed of far more true courage and moral authority than the embarrassing rednecks who think self-defense is desirable, ethical, or even possible against the violent impulses of deranged lunatics whose madness has been exacerbated if not outright caused by the infantilization of the populace, the sense of futility and self-loathing it engenders, and the general social decay that are the diseased fruits of Progressivism. Steyn understands the rot, and what it must inevitably produce:

A republic requires virtue, and the decline of virtue is accompanied necessarily by the decline of the concept of evil, and its substitution by exculpatory analysis of the “motives” of evil. A more useful conversation would be on what it takes to remove the most basic societal inhibition – including the instinctive revulsion that would prevent most of us from taking the lives of strangers, including in this case eighteen-month-old babies. That inhibition is weaker in the dar al-Islam, because of Islam’s institutional contempt for “the other” (unbelievers) but also because of the rewards promised in the afterlife. Thus, violence is sanctioned by paradise. That is the precise inversion of our society, and yet the weakening of inhibition seems to be proceeding here, too. A church sealed off by yellow police tape: a shameful and astonishing sight, and yet one senses that it will neither shame nor astonish us for long, that something else will come along to make the records books and distract a couple of news cycles.

“Solipsistic psychos” and “feeble narcissism”: As I write, someone is on the airwaves promising that we will soon know the “motive” of the shooter. To dignify what drove this guy to do what he did as “motive” is to torture the word beyond meaning. But then our interest in the concept of “motive” is highly variable.

So, when a “Minnesota man” stabs mall shoppers while yelling “Allahu Akbar!”, the motive “remains unclear”: The befuddlement is nigh on universal …for years on end. But a fellow who thinks getting a bad-conduct discharge or falling out with your mother-in-law, or losing your job or being dumped by your girl or having your mom suggest that as you’re pushing thirty it might be time to move out of the basement, is a “motive” for shooting up a church or a schoolhouse or a movie theatre or an old folks’ home or whatever’s next, that guy we’re fascinated by, for weeks on end – and then months and years later on in all those “Inside the Mind of…”TV documentaries. They have church shootings in Egypt and Pakistan, too, but in service of cleansing the dar al-Islam of believing Christians, and leaving Islam king on a field of corpses. Our church shootings are in service of…what?

Texas officials now believe they have their “motive” – in their words, “a domestic situation going on in this family”; in my words, “the black void at the heart of the act”. It is a grim phenomenon, its accelerating proliferation is deeply disturbing, and it is not unconnected to the broader societal weakness in which Islam senses its opportunity.

Nope. And neither are those two things—sharing a connection made possible by the seemingly puzzling alliance of convenience between unchurched Western libertines and a primitive religion that would happily kill them all for their degeneracy—happening by accident, either.

Share

Cherchez la feminist

Is there anything they can’t fuck up and destroy?

A Boise State University professor’s recent essay exploring the intellectual history of the meaning of gender has roiled the campus, with claims by administration officials that the article represents “the root of genocide.”

Of course it does. I mean, with “liberal” screechmonkeys, what doesn’t?

Scott Yenor, a professor of political science, wrote the essay for the Heritage Foundation website; it traces the development of contemporary transgender theory to the seminal early-feminist work The Second Sex, by Simone de Beauvoir. Yenor demonstrates that a key premise of transgender discourse—the disassociation of biological sex from gender identity—is rooted in Beauvoir’s effort to show that femininity is not a biological fact but is imposed by society. He traces the development of this idea through first- and second-wave feminist thought, culminating in today’s radical claims that small children should be allowed to choose their gender identity and even receive hormone therapy, and that everyone should be free to use the bathroom or locker room that suits his or her identity.

Yenor’s essay is an intellectual history, not a diatribe. He concludes that the objective of transgender theory is to stop treating “gender dysphoria” in children as “a pathological syndrome requiring counseling and preventive parenting.” Rather, its “ultimate goal is public recognition of queer theory’s view of the human landscape”—an aim that leads to a fundamental conflict. In demanding that children be free to choose their gender, transgender activists would condemn as child abuse parental actions that fail to respect their child’s gender selection. Ontario’s Minister of Children and Youth Services Michael Coteau took such a position earlier this year.

In response to Yenor’s scholarly inquiry, Boise State officials reacted in a fashion now familiar on campuses nationwide.

You can easily guess what follows: “fascist,” “Nazi,” “Hitler,” “hate speech,” “violation of rights,” and on and on and on. I didn’t see any quotes referring to the Klan, but I’m sure there were some.

Hope this guy’s got tenure, because if he doesn’t, you can safely assume his career as an academic—hell, his very ability to make a living for himself and his family in any fashion at all, or to live peaceably in his own home—is now officially over. The spirit of free inquiry, honest good-faith debate, and the right to speak one’s mind openly remains what it always has been for these animals: anathema, and the respect for it nonexistent.

“Unity”? With the likes of them? No, thanks. Not now, not ever.

Update! Speaking of “unity.”

One of the stranger things about our public discourse the last couple of decades is the constant call for unity. The black hats on the political stage are always described as divisive or polarizing. The white hats are the “uniters”, bringing people together. Whenever something happens, like a disaster or shooting, the news is full of stories about how the community is united in response. Usually this means some sort of ceremony with candles and the local leaders officiating a ritual intended to show unity.

Of course, the fetish for unity is a Progressive thing. Often it takes comical turns, like when public opinion is running hard against some Progressive cause. Then the public is described as “divided over the issue.” A suitable bad guy is found and scorn is heaped on him by the media for his divisiveness. On the other hand, when opinion is slightly in favor of the Progressives, then we hear that the public is nearly unanimous in their support. This is followed by calls of unity, which means the opposition should surrender.

The classic example of this was homosexual marriage. State after state held referendums on the issue. for 30 some odds times the public voted against it. After every defeat, the media reported that a divided electorate narrowly opposed gay marriage. Then the one time it passes, a deluge of press claiming a tidal wave of support in favor of homosexual marriage. It was so convincing, the Supreme Court decided that voting was too much a bother and unilaterally declared gay marriage a sacrament.

Unity was not always a fetish for our rulers. In my youth, I had to sit and listen to civics lectures from Boomer instructors about the glories of raucous democracy. The whole point of democracy was for the people to have a civilized argument in order to gain a majority around a position. The change seems to have happened in the Clinton years. Anyone who opposed the Clintons was accused of dividing the public. As is true of so many of the problems in the current crisis, the roots of this unity fetish are in the Ozarks.

A free people cannot even coexist with those who wish to subjugate and enslave them…which renders any notion of “unity” not just spurious, but highly undesirable at best. As Zman says, it’s nothing more than a subterfuge promoted by people harboring nefarious designs on our liberty and right to self-determination. Which leads me to repeat: you can keep your damned “unity,” thanks. No market for it over here.

Nucking futs update! And then there’s the merely hilarious:

Kellogg’s will be redesigning Corn Pops cereal boxes after a complaint about racially insensitive art on the packaging.

The Battle Creek, Mich.-based cereal and snack maker said on Twitter Wednesday it will replace the cover drawing of cartoon characters shaped like corn kernels populating a shopping mall. The corn pop characters are shown shopping, playing in an arcade or frolicked in a fountain. One skateboards down an escalator.

What struck Saladin Ahmed was that a single brown corn pop was working as a janitor operating a floor waxer. Ahmed, current writer of Marvel Comics’ Black Bolt series and author of 2012 fantasy novel Throne of the Crescent Moon, took to Twitter on Tuesday to ask, “Why is literally the only brown corn pop on the whole cereal box the janitor? this is teaching kids racism.”

He added in a subsequent post: “yes its a tiny thing, but when you see your kid staring at this over breakfast and realize millions of other kids are doing the same…”

…you expect your kid to ignore it as the wholly meaningless, inoffensive thing it is and get on with your life. And if you should spy his little lip all a-quiver with misguided dismay over this wholly innocuous bit of nothing, you explain to him that there is no shame whatsoever in being a janitor; it’s honest work, and is a perfectly respectable and honorable way for anyone, black, white, brown, or other, to earn himself a living. No reasonable person ought to infer any insult at all in depicting anyone as a janitor, much less a cartoon character that, y’know, doesn’t actually fucking exist.

That’s what you’d do if you’re a responsible parent interested in raising your son right, anyway, and helping him become a mature, rational adult capable of making his way in a civilized society, rather than a pitiful, dysfunctional bag of stale piss frightened of his own shadow and taking offense at every trivial statement or action he might have the misfortune to witness and be traumatized by. Which kind of parent this guy clearly isn’t, being instead the kind of hysterical douchebag who would waste any portion of his time to register complaint about a bunch of cartoon cereal pops—which, I remind you, do not actually fucking exist—being RACIST!™

Kellogg’s knuckled under and groveled appropriately, of course:

Kellogg’s responded to Ahmed on the social media network about five hours later that “Kellogg is committed to diversity & inclusion. We did not intend to offend – we apologize. The artwork is updated & will be in stores soon.”

Wonder how much the sudden increase in their business would have amounted to if they’d had the stones to tell the pathetic dweeb to go take a flying fuck at the moon? Then again, if they had any balls in the first place, they would’ve made ALL the damned things yellow and dispensed with any attempt at pussified PC “diversity” right out of the gate—yellow being the color of most corn and all, and of the actual cereal itself. In fact, now that I think of it, they never would have changed from their old, no longer acceptable name: Sugar Pops.

Which only illustrates the rule: you give in to liberals even once, you’ll never be allowed to stop. With them, there is no satisfactory resolution that will placate them; there is only perpetual escalation. Better to just ignore the annoying psychos until they go bother somebody else. Yes, they’ll most likely be back eventually with another complaint. Ignore them then, too. It’s not as if these green-teethed granolaheads would even dream of buying your unhealthy, murderous product anyway, you know.

In a statement to USA TODAY, spokesperson Kris Charles said Kellogg respects all people and is committed to diversity.

See what I mean? That right there is where you made your mistake, chump. You paid the Progressivegeld; now you’ll never be rid of the Progressive.

Is anybody but me becoming kind of concerned over the prospect of living and raising children in a society run by such unbalanced yammerheads?

(Via Daniel)

Share

Let’s ban all the things!

Just give ’em time to figure it out. They ARE pretty thick, you know.

After Vegas, the gun control memes and myths come out. It doesn’t matter how wrong they are, they will echo in the mediasphere and then the talking points will leak into everyday conversations. 

“Guns are uniquely lethal.” 

Last year, a Muslim terrorist with a truck killed 86 people and wounded another 458. 

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, the Tunisian Muslim killer, had brought along a gun, but it proved largely ineffective. The deadliest weapon of the delivery driver was a truck. Mohammed, who was no genius, used it to kill more people than Stephen Paddock would with all his meticulous planning in Vegas.

Do we need truck control? 

Let’s not be giving the tiresome bags of fascist shit any bright ideas, Daniel. After all, they’re working as hard as they can to eliminate the combustion engine already.

Share

The ultimate National Conversation

Careful what you wish for, “liberals.”

I don’t agree with liberals often, because I’m not an idiot and because I love America, but when they once again say, “We must have a conversation about guns!” I still couldn’t agree more. And, since all we’ve heard is you leftists shrieking at us all week, I’ll start it off.

You don’t ever get to disarm us. Not ever.

There. It sure feels good to engage in a constructive dialogue.

Okay, I can see already that I’m getting ready to bend “fair use” over and give it the rogering of its young life. I just don’t see any way I can avoid lifting this most excellent of Schlichter rants almost entire.

Now, we should have this conversation because in recent years we’ve seen a remarkable antipathy for the fact that normal Americans even have rights among those on the left. We should have this conversation to clear the air before leftists push too far and the air gets filled with smoke. But we really don’t need to have a conversation about our rights to keep and bear arms. They’re rights. There’s nothing to talk about.

This goes for all our rights that the left hates, like the rights to speak and write freely, to practice our religion as we see fit, and to not be railroaded by liberal authority without due process. Leftists hate our rights because they hate us, and when we assert our rights it gets in the way of their malicious schemes to dominate and control us. It makes them stamp their little sandaled feet in rage when we normals just won’t cooperate and surrender our rights. But we love our rights – rights are wonderful things with which we were endowed by our Creator, and which our beloved Constitution merely reiterates. But the left, including its pet media, thinks that our rights were merely iterated, and that the left can take an eraser to the parchment and—voila!—no more pesky rights for you flyover people.

Nah. I think we’ll keep ‘em. All of them, unchanged. And there’s only one way we can lose them, unless a lot of leftists buy a lot of guns, conduct a lot of tactical training, and stop being little weenies. I’m not worried about any of those things happening, particularly the last one. So, as a practical matter, we only lose our rights if we allow ourselves to be shamed, threatened, whined, and lectured into giving them up by skeevy tragedy-buzzard pols, mainstream media meat puppets, and late night chucklemonkeys whose names and faces all blend together into one unfunny, preachy blur.

I just don’t see Jimmy Kimmel donning Kevlar to molon labe and risking his sorry carcass trying to separate normal Americans from their ability to defend themselves, their families, and their Constitution from the people who constantly tell us how much they hate us.

Well, not unless there’s about thirty of him surrounding one of us, as per the usual liberal-fascist MO. Otherwise, it’s doubtful he’d so much as lift a finger to prevent his wife and daughter getting raped and murdered in front of his very eyes. Probably by a gang of those “moderate Muslims” the Left is so enamored of, without ever being able to find a single living example of.

On the bright side, I DID manage to honor fair use by leaving out a few paragraphs there, which you’re going to want to go and read anyway. But then Kurt really cuts loose with the Clue Bat, fungo-ing huge, achy lumps onto those empty “liberal” heads:

So, let’s continue our important conversation. How about this? How about we continue to speak freely, saying whatever we want however we want, and you leftists just sit there and be offended? How about we practice our faiths however we want, even if that means some of us don’t end up validating every one of your preferred personal peccadillos (I checked under all of the penumbras and emanations in the Constitution and I can’t find anywhere that you have a right to have us high-five everything you do). And how about we insist that everyone accused of something gets due process and the chance to defend himself – or herself, or even xirself?

Yeah, we know that us having rights is inconvenient, but that’s too damn bad. Because we aren’t asking you for our rights. We’re telling you we aren’t giving them up.

See, we’re done walking on eggshells and playing your verbal minefield game. You’ll call us “murderers,” “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes” and every other kind of “phobe” you can invent no matter what we do anyway, and it’s all a lie. It’s also all meaningless. You don’t even believe it. It’s just a rhetorical weapon, and a lame one, but you’ve fired all your ammo. The chamber is empty. Keep pulling the trigger on your slanders, but we’re now woke to the scam and you’re just shooting blanks.

Anyway, let’s continue our conversation. You’re not going to pin the rampage of some scumbag on millions and millions of people who didn’t do it. You’re not going to leverage this spree into disarming us – which is your ultimate goal. We know how you hate the idea that we are armed and independent, that we hold a lead veto over your fever dreams of tyrannical rule over us. You know how important it is to us to be free citizens; you yearn to humiliate us by stripping us of our self-respect by taking away our means of keeping ourselves free from the tyranny of people like you.

You never cared that 59 people were murdered – some of you, as we have seen, cheered – and I gotta say, it’s a bad look to screech “I’m glad you crackers are dead, now heed my command to give up your guns!” If you really cared about 59 people being murdered, you’d demand that the Chicago PD flood the ghetto and stop and frisk until every punk with a gun was disarmed because 59 people get murdered there in a slow month. Oh, but wait – their rights! Gee, I thought that RIGHTS DON’T MATTER IF TAKING RIGHTS AWAY SAVES JUST ONE LIFE… I guess it’s really about whose rights, isn’t it?

So, let’s finish our conversation about guns. Where was I? Oh yeah. No.

BANGFUCKINGZOOM. I’m gonna leave out his conclusion too, which is another thing you won’t want to miss. I’ll close my own post here with a quote from the great Charlton Heston, directed at Al Gore at the time and still readily applicable to the rest of the gun-grabbin’ Left: from my cold, dead hands, motherfuckers. You jump on up and start the ball any time you think you’re ready to dance. We’ll be waiting.

Share

Some folks never learn

Socialist is as socialist does.

Sounding eerily like the Sandinistas he once supported, the mayor of America’s largest city declared his love for heavy-handed central planning in surprisingly unguarded terms.

When asked about the enormous gap between New York’s rich and poor, the mayor responded:

What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.

Yeah. And speaking of “standing in the way,” let’s all just ignore the hundreds of years of history that have proven beyond any reasonable doubt, again and again and again, that socialism does not work, has never worked, never will work, and cannot work. It’s all that stands in the way of your childish utopian fantasy being successfully realized at last—right Bill?

At this late date, there’s really only one interesting question here: who would be the bigger moron, Red Bill or the dimwits who elected his stupid commie ass?

(Via MisHum)

Share

Getting to the root of the problem

It didn’t start with Obama. Nor Clinton, Carter, JFK, or even FDR.

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson was the newly elected president. Wilson and his fellow progressives scorned the Constitution and the Declaration. They moved swiftly to replace the Founders’ republic with a new regime.

There is widespread agreement that Wilson did not always show good judgment – for example, in his blunders in international relations – but in the project of overturning the Founding, he and the movement he led selected their targets shrewdly. By the time he left office, the American republic was, as they say, history. The fundamentals of the new regime were in place, and the expansion of government under FDR, LBJ, and Obama was made easy, perhaps even inevitable.

Nineteen-thirteen gave us the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution. That year also saw the creation of the Federal Reserve. This burst of changes marks the effective beginning of the Progressive Era in American politics, the era in which we now live. Wilson was to do much more that would once have been considered out of bounds, but these three changes were enough to change everything. In 1913, the fundamental agreement the Founders made with the American people about the relation of the states and the federal government was broken.

Here is the Founders’ original bargain, stated by James Madison in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

It is important to remember that when we speak of the ratification of the Constitution, this is what was ratified. But this is not the government we now have. Today’s central government is not the federal government of the original Constitution.

Boy, he said a mouthful there. He mentions the three pillars of Progressivism that were the first big steps on the road to undoing America as founded; the 17th Amendment, the abomination that allowed for direct popular election of Senators, is mentioned first, as well it ought to be. I’ve certainly railed about it here often enough.

Clearly, the bargain, honorably entered into by the Founders’ generation, was broken. It was broken by the 17th Amendment, which instituted the direct election of U.S. senators. That amendment struck directly at the heart of the Founders’ design.  According to the original Constitution, senators were chosen by the state legislators. Unlike the members of the House, who represent the people of their district, the senators had a special responsibility to represent their states in the deliberations having to do with the those “few and defined” powers the Constitution transferred from the states to the federal government. That is why the states with small populations and the states with larger populations got the same number of senators and the same number of votes in the Senate. It is also why the Constitution gives the Senate power over treaties and over the appointment of the senior officials of the executive, those whose responsibilities include “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” The 17th Amendment eliminated the fundamental electoral guarantee of the Founders’ vision of a federal government with limited powers.

The system we have today bypasses the state legislatures. The consequences have been many and profound. Probably the most obvious has been the inevitable erosion of the independence of the states and of their ability to counterbalance federal power.  The Senate was a barrier to the passage of federal laws infringing on the powers reserved to state governments, but senators abandoned that responsibility under the incentives of the new system of election. Because the states no longer have a powerful standing body representing their interests within the central government, the power of the central government has rapidly grown at the expense of the states. The states increasingly are relegated to functioning as administrative units of today’s gargantuan central government.  

To my way of thinking, this was the Big One, the one crucial step to transforming Constitutionally limited government into something the Founders would have abhorred. He goes on to make the case against the 16th and the creation of the Federal Reserve, winding up thusly:

It is perfectly obvious that we are far down the path to a new kind of tyranny by way of endless bureaucratic regulation and confiscation. If we are to recover and secure our liberty, much must be done, and much must be undone. We cannot succeed unless we carefully remove these three pillars of the Progressive State.

Again: he said a mouthful there. But to accomplish that would require the determined and unequivocal insistence of a benighted and historically-ignorant populace well-indoctrinated via a monolith consisting of government schools, the media-entertainment complex, the university system, and the government itself to regard a too-powerful central government as the natural order of things, and the answer to all their problems. Frankly, I don’t see it happening—not now, not ever. The country will break apart long before that ever happens…and I don’t see that as being particularly likely, either.

But at least we all have the satisfaction of knowing that Woodrow Wilson—a hateful, conniving, treacherous, rancidly evil bastard—will burn in Hell for a thousand years.

Update! Related? Oh, you better believe it is.

Yet another Orwellian restatement of the obvious: Marxism isn’t done. It’s alive and well. Every time it fails, it re-brands itself, peddles itself to the next generation of wishful thinkers, and wrecks another country. Venezuela is the most recent, glaring example. The U.S. may be wrecked in time, too, because the proselytizers of Marxism (under various types of shiny Christmas wrapping) infest our university system, the entertainment establishment, the news media, and government.

Think Marxism will never happen here? Upton Sinclair—the ardent socialist intellectual—said: the American people will never accept socialism when it’s labeled as socialism, but they *will* accept socialism under different names.

Which is why modern American Marxists will so hotly and adamantly deny that their brand of socialism, is in any way Marxist, or especially communist. Because they know Marxism and communism have a bad rap. They are depending on their ability to re-brand the same bad ideas (which “sound good” in the words of Thomas Sowell) in order to push those ideas forward.

In the end, every time socialism fails, the Marxists will claim it’s magically not socialism. We have had numerous examples of different interpretations of Marxist theory implemented at the national level, and those examples speak of unprecedented human suffering. Which somehow doesn’t count, we are told, because these countries weren’t doing it right.

So, clearly, we have to try again.

And destroy another nation.

And another. And another. And another.

And now, at long last, they have America itself squarely in their crosshairs—making it a bitter irony indeed to hear people talk about how we “won” the Cold War. But hey, THIS time they’ll get it right for SURE. Right, libtards?

(Via Sarah Hoyt)

Share

What’s in a name?

I get sorta annoyed with Steyn sometimes, I truly do. I mean, every third week or so I pronounce his latest column one of his best ever, and then…he goes and does another one.

So this time I ain’t even gonna say it.

Most of the news bulletins I’m exposed to are on the radio, as I’m tootling around hither and yon. So it took me a while to discover that what the media call “peace activists”, “anti-racists” and “anti-Nazis” are, in fact, men and women garbed in black from head to toe, including face masks. Thus, as I pointed out on the radio last month, the violence on American streets derives from today’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party – antifa – working itself up over yesterday’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party – the Ku Klux Klan. Both have stupid pseudo-exotic self-romanticizing names and, as many commentators have observed, both have strict dress codes intended to conceal their identities. From white sheets to black bandanas is a mere fashion evolution: the purpose is the same – to do ugly things one could not confidently do with one’s face known to all.

Yet, as disturbing as antifa is, its romanticization by the respectable classes is even worse. My swaggeringly obtuse compatriot Warren “Catsmeat” Kinsella tweeted:

‘Antifa’ is short for anti-fascist. The only ones who should oppose antifa are fascists.

To which Charles C W Cooke responded:

Exactly. This is why I don’t understand anyone who is critical of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Good rejoinder, I guess, but it ain’t as if a “liberal” like Kinsella would ever really BE all that critical of any Worker’s Paradise, now would he?

But you’d be surprised how far a name can take you. Why, only a fascist would be anti-antifa! As Todd Gitlin explains in The New York Times:

Despite the spurious rhetoric of equivalency, supporters of antifa have, to date, killed no one.

Operative qualifier, of course, being that very slippery “to date.” Not through any lack of trying, either.

Whether or not “fascism” can be defeated through speech, Donald Trump surely can: All you have to do is make better arguments at stump speeches and TV debates and campaign rallies and county fairs, and he’ll lose. That’s how it works in systems of self-government. But, as part of its general disdain for “speech”, the left now brands anyone it doesn’t like as “fascist”, and therefore illegitimate, and ripe for a bloody good hiding: Trump, Scalise, Ann Coulter, Charles Murray, the liberal Middlebury professor who made the mistake of inviting Murray and so had to be put in hospital pour encourager les autres, reporters with cellphones, cameramen whose cameras are carelessly pointed towards antifa’s energetic efforts to kill no one “to date”.

Meanwhile, the police stand around and watch. Administrators of publicly funded colleges dislike having to pay lip service to free speech, and are happy to have antifa’s shock troops on hand to send the message loud and clear. Municipal governments cannot, yet, be as openly hostile to dissent as college campuses are, but in Charlottesville the authorities were plainly resentful at a judge’s order commanding them to re-instate the neo-Nazis’ rally permit, and they determined to circumvent it. So they surrendered the streets to the “anti-fascists”, and then drove the “fascists” into their path: The good cops in effect decided to leave it to some informally deputized bad cops. The selective rule of law is one of the most unsettling features of contemporary America, and there will be a lot more of it in the years ahead.

There’s gonna be a lot more of other types of unpleasantness in the years ahead, too—a good many of them types that the fascist Left and their black-clad and hooded goon squads ain’t gonna like much. But what the hell; they called this tune, so it’s only right that they end up dancing to it too.

Share

“Lots of cant, no solutions”

Schlichter uses the Loser Right’s lamentations over the Arpaio pardon as his jumping off point:

What will bring the Rule of Law back? How do we get to the Conserva-Eden we are expected to act like we already reside it? Perhaps another statement of principle? Maybe another post on some unread conservajournal? I know – how about more complaining about how frustrated conservatives are uncouth and should just sit there and take whatever fascist garbage the left dishes out?

I always thought it was conservative to punish wrongdoers. The other side abandoned the Rule of Law, so I would think that they might – maybe – learn a lesson by experiencing the consequences of their bad choice. But apparently punishing wrongdoers is now off the table because some other principle, of which I was unaware during nearly four decades inside conservatism, requires we never ever retaliate. 

So, my finger-wagging True Con friends, what’s your plan? How do we go from liberals abandoning the Rule of Law, and such ancillary and associated components of a society based on liberty like free speech and free enterprise, to a liberty-based society operating under the Rule of Law? “Elect more True Cons!” isn’t a plan; it’s an aspiration, and not much of one. I don’t need another cliché, or another citation to general principles, or some variant of my new favorite, all-purpose get-out-of-having-an-actual-plan-free card, the old “We’re better than this” line.

See, I reject the notion we are ever somehow morally obligated by conservative principles to lose to liberals. If I have to swallow something awful, I’ll take half a loaf any day over an entire loaf of liberal dung like Felonia von Pantsuit. I think the new rules are terrible, and they are antithetical to everything I’ve worked for since before many of my Fredocon critics were a tinge of regret growing in their mommies’ bellies the morning after. But I refuse to sit back and allow libs to be victorious because I won’t dirty my hands fighting fire with fire. If that makes me not conservative enough for some, I can live with that. I can’t live with leftist tyranny.

I think you want to rely on the power of conservative ideas and sort of hope they spontaneously erupt into a conservative paradise via a right wing Big Bang without you actually having to fight for them. After all, fighting is messy and unseemly, and you also have to ally yourselves with…those kind of people, if you know what I mean, and I think you do. It’s so embarrassing having to explain them to your liberal peers. Many of these misbegotten normals are baffled by fancy sandwiches and stuff.

Before you give me more grief for allying with the Republican in the White House – you know, that guy your party elected – I’m going to need your plan. See, we need real solutions, and my solution is fighting back hard and ruthlessly.

Works for me. In fact, I’m coming closer and closer to embracing the “kill ’em all, let God sort ’em out” approach as the only practical and effective way to get them off our necks, and I don’t care even a little bit whether Conservatism Inc is good with that or not. Denying the enemy the head of Sheriff Joe, as Kurt puts it, is but a single step in the right direction along a long, hard road. There are a lot more of them ahead of us, and as we continue putting one foot in front of other, the plaintive bleating of the irrelevant Loser Right will fade to a barely-heard background hum. Which is all to the good if you ask me.

Share

The “liberal” bait and switch

Hawkins explains how it works.

Furthermore, not only are you never really arguing about what you think you’re arguing about with a liberal, liberals will paint you as evil for continuing to support something they were backing five minutes ago. How many liberals did you hear demanding gay marriage 20 years ago? Almost none. Then, the second Barack Obama changed his mind about it, everyone who disagreed with gay marriage became a gay-hating homophobe. Did you notice the shocking speed with which we moved from “Liberals would never demand that women share bathrooms with men. That’s crazy….” to, “Anyone who doesn’t support men and women in the same bathroom is transphobic”?

Along similar lines, condemning whatever liberals want you to condemn to try to win favor with them is pointless. Go ahead and support their call to take down Confederate monuments. Do that and they’ll then demand that you oppose any sort of efforts to prevent voter fraud. Agree to that and they’ll insist that you admit that you’re racist by default since you’re white. Go along with that and they’ll say you have to vote for whatever tyrannical socialist they run in 2020 to be a good person. Then finally, if you say that’s a bridge too far, they’ll say, “Ha! Knew it! You’re just another one of those white supremacist Republicans!” There is no win/win to be had. There is no honest debate. There’s only a bait and switch designed to elevate liberals at everyone else’s expense.

Let me also note that I am not against apologizing when you’re wrong. I do it. It’s the right thing to do….except when you’re dealing with liberals. Never apologize to liberals. But, what if you’re 100 percent wrong? Still, don’t apologize. Why? Because liberals don’t view apologies like normal human beings. They view even the most sincere apology from a non-liberal as a club they can use to beat you. If you get in the crosshairs of some mob of social justice warriors, you’re a fool if you think that they will let you be because you were big enough to admit you were wrong. To the contrary, they will demand that you be fired, that you be scorned, that no good person could ever have anything to do with you again and they will point to your own apology as absolute proof that they’re right.

Other times, the liberal bait and switch is more insidious. Remember how it worked with Obamacare?

Democrats promised Obamacare would dramatically cut the cost of health care, that people could keep their doctors and plans if they liked them and everything was going to be wonderful, amazing and better in every way. Of course, none of that turned out to be true. Later, after trying to blame the failures of Obamacare on Republicans, liberals admitted that they had to lie to get the bill passed and said we should all be grateful that they did. Besides, everyone knew they were lying, right? Now that the system that they promised would be the best thing ever is falling to pieces, their solution is single-payer health care, which coincidentally turns out to be what many Republicans said they were trying to do all along. According to Republicans, the idea was to design a plan that would fail so they could try to do a full government takeover. That might sound a bit conspiratorial, except as it turns out, that’s exactly what happened. Going along with a bad liberal idea almost inevitably turns out to be a set-up or justification for an even worse idea down the road.

You want intellectual honesty from liberals? You’re not going to get it.

Of course not. What you WILL get instead is more demands, each more outrageous than the last, every time you give in to them. Their insistence on not just winning each and every time, but on the utter annihilation and humiliation of their opponents by rubbing their noses in their defeat might just be the single most annoying thing about them. It’s one reason why, say, the 2A folks are absolutely correct to be worried about the slippery slope where gun laws are concerned. They know very well that if you give them an inch on “reasonable, common sense gun safety laws” or “assault weapon” restrictions, the next thing you know they’ll attempt to have their jackbooted gendarmerie kicking your door in and seizing every firearm within reach the moment they think they can get away with it.

And that’s just one example. Every single slope is a slippery one indeed where these greedy fascists are concerned, on every issue you care to consider, from free speech to health care to business overregulation to all the various culture clashes. In the end, when it comes to the Left, the only sensible rule of thumb must be: never give in. Not one inch, not one time. Because whenever they win, America loses. And freedom becomes an ever-fading vision in the rearview mirror as we trundle along the road to abject servitude and despotism.

Share

NUTS!

A haircut. They’re now committing attempted murder in broad daylight, in public, over a fucking haircut.

This Colorado man is avowedly not a neo-Nazi.

But he believes his long-on-top, buzzed-on-the-sides haircut got him mistaken for one — and nearly stabbed to death by a confused anti-fascist.

Joshua Witt, 26, escaped his brush with hairdo-doom with a defensive slice to the hand and three stitches.

“Apparently, my haircut is considered a neo-Nazi statement,” he told The Post Saturday, as his account on Facebook garnered 20,000 shares.

Witt says he’d just pulled in to the parking lot of the Steak ’n Shake in Sheridan, Colo., and was opening his car door.

“All I hear is, ‘Are you one of them neo-Nazis?’ as this dude is swinging a knife up over my car door at me,” he said.

“I threw my hands up and once the knife kind of hit, I dived back into my car and shut the door and watched him run off west, behind my car.

“The dude was actually aiming for my head,” he added.

This is how truly insane these people are. Still think you can “reason” with them, “dialogue” with them, debate in good faith with them, make them see the light at last?

If so, you’re every bit as willfully obtuse as they are. And are a complete chump to boot. Heartfelt and appalled denunciation of the murderous lunacy they’ve inspired and promoted from the Democrat Socialist Party and its “mainstream”-media propaganda wing in 3…2…1…never. Stephanie Pagones says:

Even if he were one of the very, very few Nazis in this country: so what?

That doesn’t justify a violent attack, but it’s even worse in this case, because Witt was nothing other than hungry. He had the wrong freaking haircut in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Guess what, media and politicians? This is what happens when you refuse to call out your own side for violence, or pretend it isn’t happening. Trump was 100% correct to call out these monsters along with the white supremacists.

It’s also what happens when our side refuses to fight back and crush them completely—and when our weak-tea so-called “leaders” like Ted Cruz (GOPe-Asshole) try to score cheap political points by attacking a President they loathe for daring to notice that the Goosesteppin’ Left is as much if not more to blame for the mindless violence they instigate than some pitiful handful of Nazis. Y’know, as long as we’re calling people out here and all.

Share

Defense and offense

He’s right, and you know it.

The monuments under attack are, of course, only symptomatic in the larger scheme of things. The Left’s whole effort is aimed at detaching the young from the history of these United States, especially its founding principles, its seminal struggles, and the words and characters of those who articulated them.

The “Antifa” and “Black Bloc” thugs attacking peaceable patriotic gatherings have the same end in view. There’s no way to separate a people from its history if they’re allowed to talk about it, or any element of it…especially the Founders’ emphasis on freedom of expression.

They who believe it’s sufficient to be prepared to defend themselves are sadly mistaken. No one has ever won a war by doing nothing but playing defense. The Right must seize the initiative – go on the attack.

The notion horrifies many decent persons. Yet it is so. Two questions then arise:

  • What will finally make us rise to the occasion, if anything?
  • When and where will it arrive?

It is not enough to stay abreast of the news and deplore the trends in progress. It is not enough to speak out against them. It is not enough to attend a rally or two in defense of freedom of expression or the preservation of historic monuments. It is not even enough to attend such rallies armed and ready for the eruption of violence. Those are all defensive measures: necessary but sadly insufficient.

The one and only remedy is to go on the offensive.

The first, absolutely indispensable step is infiltrating the opposition. We must learn the individual identities of those who gather to suppress us, and we must pursue them individually, just as they strive to pursue us. If they have gatherings, some of ours must be present. If they don’t, we must tap their communications and monitor them ceaselessly. The information we can gather that way is beyond price.

Once we know who they are, it’s a short step from there to learning where they will be. That gives us what we’ll need for what must follow: charges, against both the individuals and the groups, of conspiring to violate others’ civil rights. That’s a federal criminal charge that can’t be dismissed. According to our family lawyer, a police commander who tells his subordinates to disregard such complaints is himself guilty of misfeasance – for instructing his men to commit nonfeasance — so make sure all such complaints are properly witnessed.

Even if those charged ultimately escape prison sentences, they’ll suffer from the experience of having to defend themselves against the charges. As the saying goes, “the process is the punishment.” It might be enough to deter them all by itself.

If the so-called forces of order prove unwilling to do their sworn duty, then it will be time to discuss more direct measures. But we’re more likely to reach that point if we continue to be passive before the assaults upon us.

Sound harsh? Scary? After all, you wouldn’t like to be spied upon or hounded into court to defend yourself against the weight of the criminal law. But what they’ve been doing to us is far worse…and as I wrote above, it’s getting them what they want, so we can’t expect it to stop.

Sue them, dox them, boycott their businesses, hound their employers until they lose their livelihoods. Mock them, verbally abuse them, harass them ceaselessly and without mercy. And yes, beat the living hell out of them when it proves necessary. Turn their tactics back on them; get in their faces, punch back twice as hard. Let them get a taste of being on the receiving end of a little Gramsci and Alinski themselves.

I consider Francis a good friend, although we haven’t met face to face yet. I know him to be a reasonable, humble man, a decent, God-fearing man. But I also know him to be a man of commitment, honor, and courage. He isn’t one to advocate this lightly. But neither is he one to shrink from it. He’s right, their despicable tactics have worked well for them so far. If we’re to have any hope of throwing off their tyrannical yoke, that can’t go on being the case. They need to begin to feel some pain from it—real pain, enough to make them think very carefully before attempting it again.

In fact, a good friend and neighbor of mine was just on the receiving end of it himself, to wit:

A disturbing photo posted by Robby Hale, the singer of a Charlotte punk band that has sparked controversy in the past with its misogynistic and homophobic lyrics and other antics, was making the rounds on Sunday. It shows the singer holding a burning cross.

In the wake of the Charlottesville tragedy involving white supremacists and the death of a counter-protester, Hale’s actions have caused a palpable ripple through the local music scene.

The three other members of Scowl Brow — Rick Contes, Joshua Taddeo and Daniel Biggins — reached out this morning and said, “Language like that is disgusting and unacceptable and does not represent the entire band.” (UPDATE: The three members have since announced their departures from the band.)

Josh Higgins of Refresh Records wrote in an email this morning that Scowl Brow has been dropped from the label. “The message that this image conveys is one that I find truly disgusting and do not condone nor wish associated with myself, Refresh, or any of our other artists,” Higgins said. “We support equal rights for all, full stop.

“As of Friday, we have terminated our relationship with Scowl Brow and have begun the process of removing merchandise and music from our website and digital platforms,” Higgins added.

For full disclosure and transparency, even Creative Loafing was aware of Scowl Brow’s deplorable lyrics as recently as 2014, when the paper ran a review that failed to take a direct critical stance on it:

“[Hale’s] also not afraid to give a frank perspective,” the CL critic wrote, “even if it’s far from politically correct. ‘Tell me what the hell is going wrong in this town, every day there’s more pussy hipsters around/You never know who’s straight or who’s off suckin’ some dudes,’ Hale sings on ‘Mediocre My Ass.'” The critic went on to characterize the lyrics as “honest.”

CL was tipped off to Hale’s photo at 11:30 a.m. Sunday by Brett Green of Charlotte’s Mineral Girls, and we immediately contacted Hale by Facebook Messenger. He has yet to return our message. We will be updating this story as it develops.

I’ve known Robbie for several years now, and have shared a stage with him once or twice. He’s a regular old hard-working blue-collar guy, an aspiring musician who has had his career hopes derailed by the blight of political correctness. Never yet have I heard him utter a word that was even remotely racist or hateful in any way.

Robbie is pretty much apolitical, and he’s certainly no Bible-thumping right-winger. In fact, he’s disinterested in politics and pretty contemptuous of religion in general and Christianity in particular. My views on that differ, and we’ve had some long discussions about all that at my house which were enjoyable for both of us.

Rob is a very talented guy, and Scowlbrow’s shows are famous for being pretty rowdy and raucous. Some of his lyrics are provocative, sure—direct and in your face. Which, if I remember correctly, was once considered a virtue in rock and roll. Obviously, that only applies if you’re getting in faces approved by the Progressivists who dominate the music biz.

There’s more to the story, of course. There always is.

UPDATE: Hale contacted CL Sunday afternoon and said the photo in question has been taken out of context.

“That was a piece of a burning pallet I picked up out of a bon fire, and the racist (Facebook) comment was not of my own,” Hale said. “This Nazi stuff wasn’t happening when that picture was taken.”

When asked what message he was trying to get across in the photo, Hale commented that he was just “drunk and being an asshole. I wasn’t being a racist. I’m not a fucking racist. Some of my fucking best friends are black.”

Happily, Robbie informs me that he has now availed himself of the services of a good lawyer. In light of that, I jokingly asked him yesterday what the incoming new management of Creative Loafing was planning in the way of changes to the paper, which is your typical Leftist muckraking weekly alterna-rag. He laughed about that, but I swear, I hope he sues them right out of existence. The last couple of days I’ve been half expecting a crowd of SJW idiots to show up here at the complex to protest, maybe even a Black Lives Matter/antiFA goon squad, but nothing so far. The trusty ol’ Mossberg pump remains loaded just in case, awaiting further developments.

So, in sum: thanks to the local Progressivist thought police and the meddlesome douchebag who tipped them off (possibly as part of an old personal grudge, who knows) to a years-old photo that amounted to nothing more than some silly PBR-fueled goofing around and meant nothing whatever to anybody at the time, Robbie has had his whole life upended. Scowlbrow is hugely popular around these parts and just returned from two weeks of touring, their first time out on the road. Now his label has dropped him, they’ve yanked their CDs and merch from the shelves, and there’s a rupture between him and his bandmates that is probably irreparable.

This is how they do it, people. This is how they operate. Think of all the normal, ordinary people out there who have had their lives shattered by these loathsome crawly things for the crime of Wrongthink: Masterpiece Cakeshop. Memories Pizza. Hell, even a guy as rich and powerful as Brendan Eich wasn’t immune to the malignant pressure from the Fascist Left.

In the end, though, they’re nothing more than bullies. And everybody knows the best way to deal with a bully, which assuredly does NOT involve either running away or turning the other cheek. As Francis knows: they won’t stop. They will NEVER stop. They are going to have to BE stopped.

I repeat: sue them, dox them, scorn them, hound them. Punch back twice as hard. Either that, or kiss your country goodbye for good. No war was ever won by staying on the defensive.

Share

Categories

Archives

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix