Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

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

Embrace the hate!

This one starts off with a GREAT quote from the esteemed and estimable Dr Helen Smith:

Liberals do not believe in the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which are American ideals, or at least they used to be. If you love freedom, then you will be hated by the modern liberal who believes that government should regulate individual freedom. If you love freedom and believe that the state does not own you, then leftist hate should be a goal, not a fear.

You said a mouthful there, Doc. Hawkins goes on to make an essential point: they ain’t exactly helping those they claim to love, either.

Meanwhile, how do liberals “help” minority Americans? How’s Compton looking these days? How about Chicago? Flint, Michigan? Liberal “help” means living in poverty in terrible neighborhoods, but always having someone else to blame for your failed life. It means feeling angry, victimized and hated by people who’ve never thought twice about you while liberals promise to help you by tearing down statues of Confederate generals. That doesn’t put money in your pocket, but it makes cosmopolitan liberals feel better about themselves.

This is usually how liberal “help” turns out for people.

Transsexual men, you don’t have a mental illness! Mutilate yourself through surgery and libs will claim that the guys who don’t want to date you and the women who don’t want to share a bathroom with you are bigots! Lord knows you wouldn’t want to suggest mentally ill people get psychological treatment instead of life-altering surgery.

Liberals “help” the poor by raising the minimum wage, but shrug their shoulders when it inevitably causes large numbers of poor Americans to lose their jobs. Conservatives who quite correctly predicted that would happen are called heartless.

It’s just charades, dumbshows, and misrepresentation all the way down with these people. in fact, there are two rules of thumb to bear in mind when analyzing their statements and proposals, both of which are invariably true: 1) for everything they say, the opposite is going to be the truth, and 2) whenever they complain bitterly about something our side is supposedly doing, a la the Trump/Russia nontroversy, it’s actually going to be something they’re doing themselves.

Share

Creeping Orwell

“Creepy” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Ontario announced earlier this month that it will become the fourth Canadian government to fund a behavioral modification application that rewards users for making “good choices” in regards to health, finance, and the environment. The Carrot Rewards smartphone app, which will receive $1.5 million from the Ontario government, credits users’ accounts with points toward the reward program of their choice in exchange for reaching step goals, taking quizzes and surveys, and engaging in government-approved messages.

The app, funded by the Canadian federal government and developed by Toronto-based company CARROT Insights in 2015, is sponsored by a number of companies offering reward points for their services as an incentive to “learn” how to improve wellness and budget finances. According to CARROT Insights, “All offers are designed by sources you can trust like the BC Ministry of Health, Newfoundland and Labrador Government, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Diabetes Association, and YMCA.”  Users can choose to receive rewards for companies including SCENE, Aeroplan, Petro-Canada, or More Rewards, a loyalty program that partners with other businesses.

Carrot Rewards is free to download, and users receive 200 points just by downloading the app and answering a few questions (the answers don’t have to be correct). Sending an invitation code to friends will also gain users points, as the government is happy to track the daily activity of as many citizens as possible — which, by the way, the app can do even when it is not “active.” In order to use the app, users are giving Carrot Insights and the federal government permission to “access and collect information from your mobile device, including but not limited to, geo-location data, accelerometer/gyroscope data, your mobile device’s camera, microphone, contacts, calendar and Bluetooth connectivity in order to operate additional functionalities of the Services.”

Now watch the sheep line up, pat each other on the back over how forward-thinking they are, and sniff down their noses at anyone who seems the least bit hesitant about opening themselves up to such comprehensive government snooping, surveillance, and manipulation. Thank goodness such a thing could never, ever happen here.

Yeah, I know, that last line wasn’t funny at all.

(Via Hoyt)

Share

We’re from the government, and we’re here to help

Having them in charge of our health care is going to work out just fine though, I’m sure.

Who would make a can without a vent unless it was done under duress?

That sound of frustration in this guy’s voice was strangely familiar, the grumble that comes when something that used to work but doesn’t work anymore, for some odd reason we can’t identify.

I’m pretty alert to such problems these days. Soap doesn’t work. Toilets don’t flush. Clothes washers don’t clean. Light bulbs don’t illuminate. Refrigerators break too soon. Paint discolors. Lawnmowers have to be hacked. It’s all caused by idiotic government regulations that are wrecking our lives one consumer product at a time, all in ways we hardly notice.

It’s like the barbarian invasions that wrecked Rome, taking away the gains we’ve made in bettering our lives. It’s the bureaucrats’ way of reminding market producers and consumers who is in charge.

How many other things in our daily lives have been distorted, deformed and destroyed by government regulations?

Ask yourself this: If they can wreck such a normal and traditional item like this, and do it largely under the radar screen, what else have they mandatorily malfunctioned? How many other things in our daily lives have been distorted, deformed and destroyed by government regulations?

Oh, most of them, really. We ARE after all talking about the same fumblefingered numbskulls who mandated that we all start running ethanol in our vehicles and lawn care equipment, a fuel that A) destroys engines, B) costs more to produce, C) creates more pollution, and D) is less fuel-efficient than regular gasoline.

If FederalGovCo were to set out to bake you a nice apple pie, it would require 200 paper-pushers to oversee the job; it would take ten years for the FDA to approve the recipe; it would end up costing about 700 dollars; and it would be so disgusting as to be inedible. If your grandma—who had baked a million of the things, all of which were perfectly delicious—tried to come into the kitchen to help out, she would be jailed for not having the proper license. If you complained about the taste, your honesty would get you a serious denunciation for “hate speech” for hurting the feelings of the eighteen transgender lunatics involved in the process as mandated by law, despite the fact that not one of them had ever baked so much as a Swanson’s chicken pot pie in their entire lives.

Then a blue-ribbon panel would be appointed to get to the bottom of the whole disaster, and Congressional Republicans would spend the next fourteen years holding hearings about it. In the end, we’ll all agree that it’s Trump’s fault—working together with the Russians, no doubt—and just say to hell with it and go to McDonald’s instead.

Government is supposed to be for building roads, securing the borders, and providing for national defense…and it can barely even get those things right. What it now is is a jobs program for morons too incompetent for useful work, and/or those drawn to it because of their megalomaniacal penchant for bossing others around. The more things we allow it to get its grubby fingers into, the more things it will wreck, and the unhappier we will all be.

And, well, here we all are.

(Via Glenn)

Share

Yet another self-beclowning

Are they all fucking retarded? Each and every single one?

Never mind, don’t answer that.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a leader of the “resistance,” hasn’t been doing too well lately. She told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that, if the Republican healthcare bill is passed, “700 billion” people will lose health access. Keep in mind that our planet has about 7.3 billion people living on it. We knew the GOP proposal was ambitious, but not quite that ambitious! Maybe there should be an ongoing senility test for congresspeople?

Or for the people who keep right on re-electing people so moronic they’re barely even intellectually fit to clean my hotel room, or work a fast-food drive-thru.

But lest you think Waters is in any way unique or exceptional among Leftist droolcases, there’s also this sterling bit of nutjobbery:

It was a terrifying morning, as unarmed Republican members and staff endured nearly 10 minutes of gunfire from a politically motivated shooter during a scheduled practice for Thursday’s Congressional Baseball Game. What should have been a routine meeting to prepare for a charity event turned members of Congress into defenseless, sitting ducks.

While D.C. and the rest of the country reeled from news of the attack and awaited information about the victims, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe stepped up to the mic and turned the conversation to gun control.

McAuliffe: “This is not what today is about, but there are too many guns on the street. We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence. I have long talked about this, background checks, shutting down gun show loopholes, that’s not for today’s discussion … ”

Though he initially said he wouldn’t talk politics, he doubled down on the partisan rhetoric when asked by a reporter why he was talking about it if he said he wasn’t going to talk about it. His answer? “I talk about it every day.”

McAuliffe then used an exaggerated statistic to prop up his straw man argument: “We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence.” In fact, he repeated the stat three times before a reporter had to correct him.

If 93 million Americans died every day, the whole U.S . population — 321 million — would be gone by Sunday.

Are they really this stupid, or just malicious fucking liars out to score political points and deny us our liberty by any means they can contrive? It’s a tough question all right, but in the end, how much does it really matter?

Share

Deep State’s gonna Deep State

It’s real, and its tyrannical overreach is SPECTACULAR.

A new analysis of documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden details a highly classified technique that allows the National Security Agency to “deliberately divert” US internet traffic, normally safeguarded by constitutional protections, overseas in order to conduct unrestrained data collection on Americans.

According to the new analysis, the NSA has clandestine means of “diverting portions of the river of internet traffic that travels on global communications cables,” which allows it to bypass protections put into place by Congress to prevent domestic surveillance on Americans.

The new findings, published Thursday, follows a 2014 paper by researchers Axel Arnbak and Sharon Goldberg, published on sister-site CBS News, which theorized that the NSA, whose job it is to produce intelligence from overseas targets, was using a “traffic shaping” technique to route US internet data overseas so that it could be incidentally collected under the authority of a largely unknown executive order.

US citizens are afforded constitutional protections against surveillance or searches of their personal data. Any time the government wants to access an American’s data, they must follow the rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court, a Washington DC-based court that authorizes the government’s surveillance programs.

That’s a laugh. The FISA “Court” is a pretext and a subterfuge, and almost never turns down a request from the murky mishmash of politicized police-state intelligence and law tyranny-enforcement agencies to get permission to spy on whoever they wish. And if you think this particular technique is all they have going on without the people’s knowledge or consent, you probably also believe the Constitution is still in effect, or even matters at all as anything other than a document of purely historical interest.

DAMN those Democrat Socialists for inflicting such a thing on us, anyway!

The so-called Executive Order 12333, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, went on to become the bulk of the NSA’s authority, expanding the agency’s collection capabilities to both foreign and domestic targets. The order is far more permissive than the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as enacted by Congress, as it falls solely under the watch of the executive branch and is not reviewed by the courts.

Um. Uhhh. Oh. Never mind. You’d think Saint Ronnie would have known about mission creep, and its inevitability in any bureaucracy. Then again, maybe he did. He’d have to have been the sort of “amiable dunce” the libtards always claimed he was not to.

Personal security? Right to privacy? Might as well face it, people: you got none. Along with their rest of your supposedly Constitutionally-guaranteed “rights,” they’re as dead as the dodo, as useless as teats on a boar-hog, and as empty and meaningless as a politician’s promise. Meanwhile, the Deep State witch hunt/coup attempt grinds ever on:

The FBI launched a criminal probe against former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn two years after the retired Army general roiled the bureau’s leadership by intervening on behalf of a decorated counterterrorism agent who accused now-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other top officials of sexual discrimination, according to documents and interviews.

Normally I’m damned skeptical of sexual discrimination claims, but this one seems damned credible—and if you read on for the detailed account, you’ll see that the whole thing has that all-too-familiar odor to it of a rogue, out-of-control federal bureaucracy claiming sneaky vengeance for any disruption or exposure of its clandestine agenda.

It’s one hell of a Deep State swamp President Trump has set himself the task of draining. We can only hope he—and we—are up to it.

Update! More evidence, as if any were needed, via Insty:

A producer for CNN admitted in a newly released undercover spy video that President Trump is “probably right” in accusing his opponents of engaging in a witch hunt as it relates to collusion with Russia.

The video, published online Monday night by conservative sting activist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas website, shows John Bonifield, a CNN producer who covers medical issues, saying, “I just feel like they really don’t have it [proof of collusion] but they want to keep digging.”

He continued, “And so I think the president is probably right to say, ‘Look, you are witch hunting me.'”

Bonifield also says in the video that that federal investigation into whether Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with the Russian government “could be bullshit” and that it’s “mostly bullshit right now.”

It certainly is. Thank God for people like O’Keefe, Snowden, and Assange. Their motives may or may not be suspect at times, but they’ve done us all a service by exposing this wriggling, slimy mass of dung beetles feeding on the mouldering corpse of the old Republic nonetheless.

Share

Sick of it yet?

I can’t make up my mind who should be more ashamed: them for doing it, or us for putting up with them doing it. I’m pretty sure I DO know who’s more likely to change their, umm, approach, though.

A total of 30 Republican members of Congress have either been attacked or revealed that they were the victim of a death threat since the beginning of May.

May 8: Wendi Wright, 35, was arrested after stalking Rep. David Kustoff (Tenn.) and trying to run him off the road. After pulling over, Wright “began to scream and strike the windows on Kustoff’s car and even reached inside the vehicle.”

May 9: Virginia Rep. Tom Garrett needed heavy security at a town hall after receiving a series of death threats in May that police “deemed to be credible and real.”

“This is how we’re going to kill your wife,” one message said. Others detailed how they would kill his children, and even his dog.

May 12: A town hall participant accosted North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer, shoving fake dollar bills into his suit jacket. A Kramer supporter grabbed the same man by the neck. Both men were ejected by law enforcement, but neither were charged.

May 12: A Tucson, Ariz. school district employee was arrested by the FBI for sending several death threats to Arizona Rep. Martha McSally. The man threatened to shoot McSally and told her to “be careful” because her days “were numbered.”

May 21: Florida Rep. Ted Yoho described his office getting vandalized by protesters. One female constituent left a voicemail on an office answering machine, promising, “Next time I see you, I’m going to beat your f**king ass.”

June 14: Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.), and Reps. Steve Scalise (La.), Kevin Brady (Texas), Jack Bergman (Mich.), Mike Bishop (Mich.), Mike Conaway (Texas), Roger Williams (Texas), John Moolenaar (Mich.), Gary Palmer (Ala.), Chuck Fleischmann (Tenn.), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Barry Loudermilk (Ga.), Mark Walker (N.C.), Steve Pearce (N.M.), Brad Wenstrup (Ohio), Rodney Davis (Ill.), Jeff Duncan (S.C.), Trent Kelly (Miss.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), and Joe Barton (Texas) were attacked by a gunman during a baseball practice in Alexandria, Va.

Scalise, the House majority whip, was shot in the hip, and remains in the hospital. Four others were injured, including a staffer for Williams and two Capitol Police officers assigned to Scalise.

The same day, New York Rep. Claudia Tenney received an email reading, “One down, 216 to go.”

The list goes on from there—and this is just since May. Remember, too, that these are just the Congressmen who have been attacked by violent liberal-fascist goons. Throw in the who-even-knows-how-many ordinary folks out there who have been assaulted by these despicable creeps, and all of a sudden it begins to look as if Civil War v2.0 has already gotten under way—with only one side doing all the fighting.

So far.

Remember, too, that all of this—every last bit of it—is down to Democrat Socialists refusing to accept the results of the last election, their ongoing attempt to overthrow a legitimately-elected President, and the bloodthirsty rhetoric they’ve been so free and easy with in support of their coup attempt.

One way or another, by hook or by crook, they mean to rule us. They don’t give even the most infinitesimal damn about the good of the nation or the people in it. They care only about power: exercising it, maintaining it, expanding it. And even now, their hateful incitement to violence continues without the slightest pause or diminution.

They will not stop. They will NEVER stop. They will have to BE stopped.

Well, so be it. Let them reap the whirlwind for all me. When their vicious filth finally does splash back on them at last, my sympathy and concern over the injury and horror inflicted on the individuals involved won’t be detectable with an electron microscope.

Share

Lee knew

Fred gets back on track. He doesn’t really mention Trump at all here, which surely helps.

“The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.” Robert E. Lee

The man was perceptive. Amalgamation of the states under a central government has led to exactly the effects foreseen by General Lee. 

Democracy works better the smaller the group practicing it. In a town, people can actually understand the questions of the day. They know what matters to them. Do we build a new school, or expand the existing one? Do we want our children to recite the pledge of allegiance, or don’t we? Reenact the Battle of Antietam? Sing Christmas carols in the town square? We can decide these things. Leave us alone.

States similarly knew what their people wanted and, within the limits of human frailty, governed accordingly.

Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government, which really means the Northeast Corridor. The Supreme Court expanded and expanded and expanded the authority of Washington, New York’s store-front operation. The federals now decided what could be taught in the schools, what religious practices could be permitted, what standards employers could use in hiring, who they had to hire. The media coalesced into a small number of corporations, controlled from New York but with national reach. More recently we have added surveillance of everything by Washington’s intelligence agencies.

Tyranny at home, said General Lee. Just so. This could happen only with the consolidation of the states into one vast empire.

Which is why the Constitution says what it does, and why the failure is not in it, but in us: we neglected to uphold it, and its noble promise thereby slipped from our grasp. This bit explains the Founders’ reasoning well enough:

Tyranny comes easily when those seeking it need only corrupt a single Congress, appoint a single Supreme Court, or control the departments of one executive branch. In a confederation of largely self-governing states, those hungry to domineer would have to suborn fifty congresses. It could not be done. State governments are accessible to the governed. They can be ejected. They are much more likely to be sympathetic to the desires of their constituents since they are of the same culture.

Well, we can’t say we weren’t warned.

Share

Root causes

Still wondering how our once-mighty economy got turned into a staggering, anemic, dysfunctional parody of its former robust self?

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Teens in Gardendale are in for a rude awakening this summer when it comes to cutting grass. According to the city’s ordinance, you must have a business license.

Teenagers have been threatened by officials and other lawn services to show their city issued license before cutting a person’s lawn for extra summer cash.

Cutting grass is often one of the first jobs many have in the summer. But a business license in Gardendale costs $110. And for a job, just for a couple of months, that can be a bit extreme.

“I have never heard of a child cutting grass had to have a business license,” said Elton Campbell.
Campbell’s granddaughter cuts grass around the neighborhood.

“She charges one lady $20, and another lady $30, and another girl $40 besides what we pay her,” said Campbell.

For her, this was the perfect summer gig!

“Just helping out and raising money for admissions and trips,” said Alainna Parris.

But now, it’s becoming a hassle.

Which is kind of the whole point. But lest anyone thinks it’s all the fault of greedy, grasping government, think again:

“One of the men that cuts several yards made a remark to one of our neighbors, ‘that if he saw her cutting grass again that he was going to call Gardendale because she didn’t have a business license,” said Campbell.

And there you have it. Government will always be ready, willing, and eager to step through the doors opened for it by medddlesome fools like this putz.

“He’s coming after a kid when a kid is at least trying to do work. There’s kids at home on iPads and electronics and not wanting to go outside,” said Parris.

And that presents a larger conundrum: how do we foster anything resembling a good work ethic and a sense of responsibility in our youths when they’re faced with horseshit like this? Assuming, of course, that we want to inculcate those values in the first place. Clearly, that can no longer be taken as a given.

Mayor Stan Hogeland said when operating a business for pay within the city limits, you must have a business license. He said sending someone after a child making extra money over the summer, is not a priority. But he is committed to find a way to make this less of an issue for teens.

“I would love to have something on our books that gave a more favorable response to that student out there cutting grass. And see if there’s maybe a temporary license during the summer months that targets teenagers,” said Mayor Hogeland.

Seems reasonable enough. But is a kid out mowing lawns in and around his neighborhood for a few bucks really “operating a business” in any truly meaningful sense? If a kid helps an elderly neighbor rake some leaves or paint his house or mend a fence, say, and the neighbor throws him twenty bucks for his trouble, is that “operating a business for pay” too? If not, why not?

I look back on my own childhood experience mowing lawns, and I can’t help but wonder: how in the world did we all ever manage to survive our own childhoods without the Nanny State watching over us and making sure we were all in full compliance with its edicts, anyway? And what about safety? Lawnmowers are dangerous devices; shouldn’t these kids be wearing helmets, gloves, goggles, full suits of medieval armor—shouldn’t ALL of us be?

And finally: is it too much to ask for the busybodies to finally admit that they’ve badly overstepped their bounds, and to willingly relinquish some of the outrageous power and control they’ve asserted over us—without our having to string a bunch of them up from lampposts first, that is?

Does the word “tyranny” have any meaning at all anymore?

Share

“Mean and shriveled”

The Left, in a nutshell.

These aren’t oil-patch newsletters or cookery magazines that find themselves sideswiped after carelessly dabbling in an issue that’s of no particular relevance to them and decide to cut their losses before it leads to advertiser boycotts and falling stock prices. Both magazines pride themselves in being dedicated to the craft of writing and were addressing the central question of what it is a writer is free to write about. To me the only answer to that is: Everything. To Messrs Kay and Niedzviecki’s bosses the answer is something far more mean and shriveled.

As the bestselling novelist Lionel Shriver put it when I interviewed her on this subject a couple of months back:

I have so little time for the concept of cultural appropriation, meaning that, as it applies to my occupation, you don’t have the right to assume that you know what it’s like to be someone other than yourself. Which is what fiction writers do.

Exactly so. As I said to Lionel:

Rudyard Kipling can write Indian and English characters, and Salman Rushdie can write Indian and English characters, and may the best man win.

But even to have to point that out is a defeat: As we agreed, the minute you have to state something so butt-numbingly obvious as that Shakespeare wasn’t a Prince of Denmark or a Moor of Venice, you’ve lost. We’ve all lost. We’re in a mad world, where it seems entirely normal for literary magazines to rule on what fictional characters a novelist is permitted to conceive.

As it happens, there’s one almighty cultural appropriation going on right now. Indeed, it’s a heist. The United Kingdom has become the acid-attack capital of the world. Female genital mutilation is practiced in “medical” clinics from Michigan to Melbourne. The taharrush has spread to Cologne and other Central European cities. Ritual beheading has come to French Catholic churches and upstate New York. And if you protest, “Look, I totally deplore all this cultural appropriation. I think it’s outrageous that Britain and America and Australia and Europe are culturally appropriating acid attacks and FGM and beheading and honor killings”, you’re told, “No, no. That’s diversity. It’s vibrant. What’s not to enjoy? It’s a beautiful mélange – just like this new Homeland Security proposal to ban laptops from cabin baggage on translatlantic flights, because a western cultural artifact is being appropriated and weaponized in the cause of eastern jihadism. What a rich cultural co-mingling…”

Jonathan Kay thinks I’m a bit boorish and vulgar when I go on about such things. So I was hoping someone would maybe write a novel or make a film about it.

But that novel can never be written – because, under Writers’ Union of Canada logic, only a Muslim could write it. Because in a vibrant diverse world, the one place that can’t be diverse and vibrant is a work of art.

There’s no internal consistency, no logic, no philosophical principle here. Only – as two Canadian editors learned last week – the brute power of a totalitarian left ever more inimical to the only diversity that matters: diversity of thought, diversity of expression.

Thereby demonstrating once again, as if any further examples were needed: they aren’t liberal, in any traditionally accepted sense of the term. They long ago hijacked that word for their own nefarious purposes; no part of its original meaning or dignity applies to them in any conceivable way, which is why they stole it. They’re fucking fascists. Cut and dried, plain and simple, full stop, end of story.

The best part, though, is how this so perfectly highlights the question posed by the cognitive dissonance weighing down Progressivism like an anchor: where, exactly, does “diversity” end, and “cultural appropriation” begin? The handful among them capable of rational thought, possessed of the tiniest shred of integrity, should answer: “Right down the middle of those precious urban ethnic restaurants I’m so fond of—and from which I of right ought to be banned.” Just for starters.

None of us should be holding our breath waiting for them to think it through.

Share

Republicrat VICTORY!

Obamacare repealed and replaced! By….Obamacare.

Let’s get to some of the details of this bill. And this is in as simple language and explanation as I can make it. It’s a side-by-side comparison of what was in Obamacare and what’s changing, what’s being kept, and what’s being removed. Now, under Obamacare, the individual mandate requires people who can afford it to go out and buy health insurance. This House Republican bill repeals that. Kind of.

Because there is a caveat.

It is repealed. However, there are penalties in the House bill, the Republican bill, if you don’t have insurance. Well, they’re not penalties. The penalties that are in Obamacare would disappear. The change is that if you go uninsured for more than 63 days, you will have to pay a 30% surcharge on your premium when you get insurance. This is said to be an incentive designed to encourage people to maintain insurance coverage. So while they’re repealing the individual mandate and repealing the penalties, they are replacing that with a proviso that you can’t go longer than two months without coverage.

Well, you can. But if you do, you’re going to have a 30% surcharge added to your premium when you do get a policy. Now, some are going to think this is a distinction without a difference.

And that’s because it is. But at the risk of being tedious, I’ll refer you all back to what I’ve said so many times: once you let government into healthcare, you will never, ever get it out. Its grasp will only expand; its malign influence, the damage it does, will only broaden, deepen, and worsen. It will NOT be reversed or undone. Not until the next revolution, it won’t. If any.

Government health care has been the Progressivist brass ring since FDR’s reign, at least. There’s a reason for that. The opportunities it affords the Left for control over every jot and tittle of individual lives, the access to endless buckets of money, the chance it gives them to appear Concerned and Compassionate, are simply bigger than any other program imaginable might ever bring them.

And as of 2009, they’ve seized that brass ring. They’ve been struggling for it relentlessly for a century or so. And now they have it. It will not be taken back from them without violent revolution, and perhaps not even then. Everything else is just talky-talk-talk, and nothing more.

Let the sideshow wing of the Uniparty celebrate all it likes. Let Trump spin it how he will. The defeat happened way back in 1965, if not before; all we’re seeing now is the unfolding of the endgame. Name for me one country that ever yielded to the impulse to render their health care decisions to a powerful central government, and thought better of it later, and restored anything resembling a free and open market. You can’t do it, because it never did happen. Not yet, it didn’t. And it won’t happen here.

Government health care is our eternal reality now. Everything else is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Share

Take off already!

Yet another idea whose time has long since come, but will never really arrive.

To our geographic north lies a European-style welfare state that spends about 35 percent of its federal budget annually on elderly programs, children’s services, and health care, and to the south one encounters a Latin American kleptocrat paradise where the only white Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be found are tourists spending their filthy lucre at beach resorts staffed by the downtrodden brown people of the Estados Unidos Mexicanos. What exactly is keeping American lefties from thumbing a ride to Toronto or Tijuana and asking the nice socialists across the border for political asylum?

Progressives have patience only with those who share their opinions, and in their haughtiness, they believe themselves justified in employing the heckler’s veto and in thrusting their ideas on everyone around them. Yet despite having cultural control through the universities, the entertainment industry, and the mainstream media for more than half a century, they have been unable to convert enough Americans to give them a lasting majority in the Electoral College.

The White House was occupied by America’s first social justice warrior president from 2009 to 2017; his bureaucratic acolytes continue in stealth to do  the yeoman’s work of stifling traditional American values, but the left is still unable to silence the opposition. Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Herman Cain, and others command the attention of millions of Americans on a daily basis, and the Tea Party, Convention of States, and State of Jefferson movements are examples of the grassroots of American patriots who refuse to be subjugated by the collectivist mandarins in the District of Columbia and the various state capitals.

With so much resistance against big government simmering from sea to shining sea, it seems high time for the statists among us start asking themselves if they should pack their Birkenstocks and head off to any number of socialists utopias, from San Salvador to Stockholm, where they can have all the government-run equality they can stomach.

I’ve been saying it myself for years, but the answer is fairly obvious: as long as they know there’s even one person living free of their influence and outside their control, they can never be satisfied. Even the suspicion that there’s a single one of us happily evading their clutches would prevent them from ever having a restful night’s sleep, and would torment them until they managed to rectify the situation to their despotic satisfaction.

All they’ve ever had to do was leave us one place—one solitary, relatively small patch of ground on the entire fucking Earth—where we can live free. And they can’t even do that. That ought to tell even the most obtuse among us all that anybody will ever need to know about who and what they really are.

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