Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Hard Left turn

Have they been radicalized…or just unmasked?

From the wee hours of the morning on November 9, 2016, as they grappled with the sting of President-Elect Donald Trump triumphing over the anointed Queen of the Swamp, Democrats have been radicalizing by the minute.

Objective Americans have witnessed the transformation of JFK-style classical liberals into Marxist protégés even the namesake himself would be proud to call his pupils, not to mention the hostile takeover of the Democratic Party by the “three home-owning multi-millionaire,” Bernie Sanders, and “I’m not an expert on American-Israeli policy, but let me comment on it anyway” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The Democratic Party is soon to be more aptly referenced as the Democratic Socialist Party.

Way ahead of ya there, bub.

If Democrats really opposed the radicalization of their own party, they would fight it, but the quiet truth is that they welcome it.

It doesn’t take a sociopolitical expert to follow the signs to the ultimately destructive end that the Democrats’ extremist positions and policies will have on our nation in both the short and long terms. The real question is why.

Why would Democrats radicalize to the point that they run the risk of destroying the very nation that gives them refuge and prosperity? The answer is simple: desperation. The American people have largely woken up to the long con of the left, forcing radicalized Democrats to the realization that on the battlefield of ideas, they lose, and they lose big.

Democrats recognize that if they lose on the battlefield of ideas, they can win only through the smoky cloud of chaos and division, wherein Americans are pitted against each other like  gladiators in the Colosseum. To this end, the left has been strategically dismantling the bedrock institutions that have made America the freest, most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

Actually, the answer is even simpler than he thinks, and it isn’t “desperation”; radicalization long predated that, and they don’t really care about the “battlefield of ideas” at all. They have no interest in making reasoned arguments supporting their silly-assed dorm-room-bull-session ideals; they don’t care about persuading their opponents or anybody else. Instead, they want CONTROL. They intend to disallow debate, to disabuse those opponents of any presumption to a right to dissent.

The division, the chaos, the dismantling of institutions: these are nothing whatsoever new either, nor are they errors introduced out of desperation. They’re the program—the means to attaining a desired end, which end is the iron-fisted total control I just mentioned. They’re the tactics by which they hope to achieve the strategic goal of tyranny.

The radicalization of the Democrat-Socialists and the broader Left didn’t begin with Trump’s win, and desperation wasn’t the seed of it. It happened long, long ago; desperation merely brought it to the surface for all to see, and drove them to paroxysms of madness after having thought themselves so close to realizing their nefarious goal. It’s all just another reason to be thankful for Trump’s timely rise, and his pugnacious eagerness to do battle with them.

Share

Relentless

At what point do we draw a line under this and call it what it truly is: government-endrosed and -abetted harrassment and persecution of a member of a hated religion to deny his Contitutionally-protected (supposedly) right to freely practice and express his beliefs?

In June, the Supreme Court decided the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, issuing a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. Phillips had refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, and the commission had compared his decision to religious arguments in favor of the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism.

Now, the commission is again going after Phillips for declining to create a custom cake — this time a cake celebrating transgenderism. On Tuesday night, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the Christian law firm that represented Phillips before the Supreme Court and helped him gain an important 7-2 victory, filed a federal lawsuit against the commission to forestall action against Phillips.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” ADF Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner declared in a statement. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him—something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

On the very day the Supreme Court decided to hear Masterpiece Cakeshop (June 26, 2017), a caller asked the bakery to make a cake with a pink inside and a blue outside, celebrating a gender transition from male to female. The shop politely declined, but Phillips believes that the same lawyer, on other occasions, requested that he create other custom cakes with messages that violate his faith — a cake celebrating Satan and a cake with Satanic symbols. The lawyer, a man identifying as a woman, goes by the name Autumn Scardina.

Shortly after the Supreme Court gave Jack Phillips his win, denouncing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for “religious hostility,” the state began to investigate Phillips again, finding probable cause that he had discriminated against the transgender lawyer who Phillips believes placed the call.

In other words, the horribly-misnomered Colorado “Civil Rights” Commission—a mangling of language so staggering in its grotesquerie as to shatter credulity—is nothing more than the exclusive plaything of a single obssessive psychotic freak.

That’s your tax dollars at work, Colorodans. Which means that now, it’s your move.

To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

All well and good, I guess. But it couldn’t be more clear at this point that when it comes to getting these odious fascists off our backs and out of our lives, the only thing that’s ever going to do the trick is to start killing them in job lots. At the very least, this Autumn Scardina creature in particular should be doxxed, terrorized, robbed of his/her/its livelihood, surrounded by screaming, fist-waving protesters every minute of his/her/its day, and generally hounded until he/she/it breaks down into a blubbering, trembling pile of disagreggated protoplasm.

And in case anybody out there persists in making the mistake of thinking this is about cakes in any way, shape or form:

While the commission — and some liberal Supreme Court justices — argued that Phillips had discriminated against the same-sex couple in 2012 based on their sexual orientation, he constantly argued that he merely wished to opt out of creating a cake to celebrate an event he did not consider a true wedding. This was not the first time Phillips had turned town such cake orders, either. He has always refused to bake any Halloween-themed cakes, which are consistently in demand every October.

Furthermore, when Craig and Mullins requested their cake, Phillips offered to sell them anything else in the store, but they refused. Phillips was not engaging in discrimination against them — he was refusing to bake a cake that would convey a message he disagreed with.

Ironically, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission actually defended another baker who refused to bake a cake that would convey a message. In 2015, the commission declined to take up an appeal involving Azucar Bakery, which refused to bake Bible-shaped cakes with messages against homosexuality. The bakery’s owner, Marjorie Silva, said she refused to bake the cakes because the writing and imagery were “hateful and offensive.”

The very same commission that defended Silva’s free speech rights trampled on Phillips’ free speech rights. This was one major reason why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phillips. (The Court was also persuaded by the commission’s outrageously offensive comparison between Phillips’ religious refusal to bake the cake and a defense of Nazism, which was particularly egregious because Phillips’ father fought in World War II and liberated a concentration camp.)

If all the freak actually wanted was a goddamned cake to “celebrate” his/her/its dementia and depravity, he/she/it could have gone to who even knows how many other bakeries and gotten one easily enough, up to and including the above-mentioned Silva’s shop. No, this self-loathing abomination’s true goal is the suppression of the right to practice one’s religion freely and in peace. Bottom line:

“The most common misconception amongst people generally and people who care about religious freedom is that you can win a case and then walk away,” Tedesco, the ADF lawyer, explained. “We always tell our friends that our opposition doesn’t rest. I don’t think there’s any better example of that principle than this same commission taking up essentially the same case against the same man.”

“The Left and progressively-minded commissions like this will never rest,” Tedesco warned. “It’s just a matter of eternal vigilance.”

“If we tire out, if we become weary in defending these things, we will ultimately lose these freedoms for the next generation,” he added, ominously.

Taking this and every other God-given freedom away from those who desire only to be left alone is precisely the goal of Leftist swine, and they will never tire or relent in pursuit of it. They will rise from their own noxious ashes again and again and again, as many times as it takes, until they get what they want.

Repeat after me: they will not stop. They will have to BE stopped. Lawyers and lawsuits won’t do it. Angry op-eds won’t do it. Listening to Rush Limbaugh every day won’t do it. Voting certainly won’t do it. Nothing short of actual physical confrontation and violence will.

Well, so be it then. Kill ’em all. Let God sort ’em out. Try as I might, I can no longer see any way this restart of the long-stalled Darwinian-selection process doesn’t begin soon. As dismal as I once considered the prospect, I can no longer honestly say I give a damn. Let them reap what they’ve sown; may they have joy of their foolish, fascist choice.

Share

The Tyranny Party

Tell me again all about how Trump’s the “authoritarian,” libtards.

One of the nice things about a core curriculum—sadly disappearing from most of higher education—is that it forces you to read books you would otherwise have skipped. Although this can be painful in the moment, it often pays off in unexpected ways.

Sigmund Freud is not a writer I would have picked up had he not been assigned. But I’m glad he was. The older I get, and the more of the Left I see, the more useful becomes Freud’s concept of “projection,” an unconscious defense mechanism that protects the ego from guilt or anxiety. It has amazing explanatory power and can help one make sense of a trove of recent books by left-wing writers, and one disgruntled former conservative, that blame Donald Trump for “authoritarianism” in American politics.

What, according to the authors reviewed here, is authoritarianism? They all attempt definitions, which are more or less similar. We may therefore take one as representative. The authoritarian, say Harvard government professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in How Democracies Die,

1) Rejects, in words or action, the democratic rules of the game,
2) denies the legitimacy of opponents,
3) tolerates or encourages violence, or
4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.

Gee, none of THAT sounds familiar at all, does it? Final analysis:

The most certain way a once-stable republic gives way to tyranny is when the republican spirit of its people is eliminated or undermined. All such regimes decisively depend for their success and longevity on a foundation of virtue in the people. How’s that going in our time? None of these books has anything at all to say about the family, the bedrock of representative republicanism. Only Mounk treats religion at any length, and then mainly to lambaste figures and societies to his right for being insufficiently deferential to Islam. Nor do these writers even mention the government-driven erosion of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “mediating institutions,” another bedrock of American democracy. All of these goods—and more—have been under persistent left-wing attack for at least two generations. The health of democracy seems not to have improved during that period. The connection seems obvious enough but these authors glide right past.

In any event, it’s rich to read the Left fret about the end of “democracy” when they have spent so much conscious effort undermining its necessary preconditions. They have done so, I think, for two reasons. First, they long ago came to equate liberty with license. Philosophically, once nature was discarded as the standard by which to guide and judge human life, the satisfaction of appetites became the only conceivable end. Hence in matters of personal morality, the contemporary Left is a curious combination of libertine and censor. Any physical—especially sexual or pharmaceutical—act that does not draw blood or pick a pocket is permitted. There are no mores that are simply necessary to society or to personal well-being. If you’re not directly harming someone else, then no one has any business even passing judgment on what you do. But you deserve to be crushed for thinking or saying the wrong thing—especially for passing judgment! Witness the recent massive freak-out over Penn Law professor Amy Wax’s praise of the once-commonplace concept of “bourgeois norms.” How dare she!

The second is that the Left has internalized, mostly without realizing it, the classical case that the only truly legitimate regime is the rule of the wise. For them, it comes dressed up in its modern guise as Hegelian historicism, but either way, it’s ironic that in today’s cisgender Euro-bashing fiesta, their whole political philosophy rests on two quintessentially dead white male arguments. But, hey—they believe they are the wise. Not those dumb rednecks. When the pieces start to fit together in your mind, you begin to realize why the modern Left wants to make America more like those South American countries with a pale upper class, a darker lower class—and no middle of any shade. Because they get to be in charge. Uppity low-income, middling-I.Q. whites are troublemakers. They think they deserve a say. Trump gives those nettlesome, red-hat-wearing proles a voice. What else do you need to know to grasp that Trump is bad?

The greatest factor in hastening the end of American-style democracy over the past 125 years (at least) has been increasing government centralization and administrative rule. To answer the question posed by Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein’s edited volume: it already did happen here! The project all along has been, and still is, to end politics. That is, to foreclose as illegitimate public debate and disagreement on issues allegedly settled by science and administered via expertise. As our personal freedom to abuse our bodies, sate our appetites, and neglect our duties ever expands, our actual freedom to govern ourselves and determine our collective future radically contracts. The people writing these ostensible democratic laments are all in the intellectual lineage of those who brought us to this point. Their aim is to complete the project. Trump’s aim—however inchoate or implicit—is to reverse it. Who’s the real anti-democrat?

It’s Michael Anton, so there’s plenty more between my excerpt blocks, all of which you’ll want to read.

Share

The Muslim exemption

Are you living in a Muslim-enslaved country? If your answer is “no,” just how sure are you about that?

It’s the scene every Friday at the cafeteria of Valley Park Middle School in Toronto. That’s not a private academy, it’s a public school funded by taxpayers. And yet, oddly enough, what’s going on is a prayer service – oh, relax, it’s not Anglican or anything improper like that; it’s Muslim Friday prayers, and the Toronto District School Board says don’t worry, it’s just for convenience: They put the cafeteria at the local imams’ disposal because otherwise the kids would have to troop off to the local mosque and then they’d be late for Lesbian History class or whatever subject is scheduled for Friday afternoon.

The picture is taken from the back of the cafeteria. In the distance are the boys. They’re male, so they get to sit up front at prayers. Behind them are the girls. They’re female, so they have to sit behind the boys because they’re second-class citizens – not in the whole of Canada, not formally, not yet, but in the cafeteria of a middle school run by the Toronto District School Board they most certainly are.

And the third row? The ones with their backs to us in the foreground of the picture? Well, let the Star’s caption writer explain:

At Valley Park Middle School, Muslim students participate in the Friday prayer service. Menstruating girls, at the very back, do not take part.

Oh. As Kathy Shaidle says:

Yep, that’s part of the caption of the Toronto Star photo.

Yes, the country is Canada and the year is 2011.

Just so. Not some exotic photojournalism essay from an upcountry village in Krappistan. But a typical Friday at a middle school in the largest city in Canada. I forget which brand of tampon used to advertise itself with the pitch “Now with new [whatever] you can go horse-riding, water-ski-ing, ballet dancing, whatever you want to do”, but perhaps they can just add the tag: “But not participate in Friday prayers at an Ontario public school.”

Some Canadians will look at this picture and react as Miss Shaidle did, or Tasha Kheiriddin in The National Post:

Is this the Middle Ages? Have I stumbled into a time warp, where “unclean” women must be prevented from “defiling” other persons? It’s bad enough that the girls at Valley Park have to enter the cafeteria from the back, while the boys enter from the front, but does the entire school have the right to know they are menstruating?

But a lot of Canadians will glance at the picture and think, “Aw, diversity, ain’t it a beautiful thing?” – no different from the Sikh Mountie in Prince William’s escort. And even if they read the caption and get to the bit about a Toronto public school separating menstruating girls from the rest of the student body and feel their multiculti pieties wobbling just a bit, they can no longer quite articulate on what basis they’re supposed to object to it. Indeed, thanks to the likes of Ontario “Human Rights” Commission chief commissar Barbara Hall, the very words in which they might object to it have been all but criminalized.

Islam understands the reality of Commissar Hall’s “social justice”: You give ’em an inch, and they’ll take the rest. Following a 1988 cease-and-desist court judgment against the Lord’s Prayer in public school, the Ontario Education Act forbids “any person to conduct religious exercises or to provide instruction that includes religious indoctrination in a particular religion or religious belief in a school.” That seems clear enough. If somebody at Valley Park stood up in the cafeteria and started in with “Our Father, which art in Heaven”, the full weight of the School Board would come crashing down on them. Fortunately, Valley Park is 80-90 per cent Muslim, so there are no takers for the Lord’s Prayer. And, when it comes to the prayers they do want to say, the local Islamic enforcers go ahead secure in the knowledge that the diversity pansies aren’t going to do a thing about it.

Which is why eventually the sane people are going to rise up against those pansies and overthrow their pussy-ass PC tyranny. Trouble is, by the time they do, it’s going to be too late…if it ain’t already, that is.

Share

Proud Boys’ Proud Girl

First off, the background, from the PB manifesto/mission statement:

The Proud Boys are a men’s organization founded in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. McInnes has described the Proud Boys as a pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world; aka Western Chauvinists.

Proud Boys‘ values center on the following tenets:

Minimal Government
Maximum Freedom
Anti-Political Correctness
Anti-Drug War
Closed Borders
Anti-Racial Guilt
Anti-Racism
Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
Glorifying the Entrepreneur
Venerating the Housewife
Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism

Though these are our central tenets, all that is required to become a Proud Boy is that a man declare he is “a Western chauvinist who refuses to apologize for creating the modern world.” We do not discriminate based upon race or sexual orientation/preference. We are not an “ism”, “ist”, or “phobic” that fits the Left’s narrative. We truly believe that the West Is The Best and welcome those who believe in the same tenets as us. We have an international reach, with members spanning the globe.

Seems laudable and reasonable enough to me, but then I’m not a Degenerate Left scumbag who blames Western Civ for all the problems Leftist cant and their encouragement of Third World dysfunction have created worldwide. Apparently, though, a Washington state sheriff’s department feels differently about things:

The Clark County Sheriff’s Office initially placed Deputy Erin Willey on leave pending an internal investigation after a local newspaper, The Columbian, shared a photograph of Willey wearing “a hooded sweatshirt with a logo showing a switchblade, lipstick and an abbreviation for Proud Boys’ Girls” with the sheriff’s office. Willey was hired in May of 2017 and was let go on July 17 following the Columbian’s report.

The sheriff’s department did not specify the reasoning behind Willey’s firing, but according to the Columbian, it was because of the photo…

Let this fully-converged sheriff’s department look to the Left for support if they like; let them grovel and genuflect at the altar of Political Correctness til their beggar’s knees are raw and bloody. We’ll just see what it gets them.

Share

Battle over

Freedom lost.

Some are treating “avowed socialist” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s primary victory over Democrat war-horse Joe Crowley as a watershed moment. Assuming she wins the general election, she’ll join 434 other socialists in the House of Representatives. That’s not a watershed political moment, it’s a watershed truth-in-advertising moment. She’ll be one of the few socialists there who admits to it.

The partisans on both sides of the barricades are a hundred years too late. The battle is over, victory to the socialists. In the US, it’s impossible to find an industry or economic activity that’s free from government ownership or regulation. Governments have their hands in agriculture, manufacturing, communications, finance, insurance, banking, transportation, technology, housing, medical care, advertising, entertainment, warfare, welfare, charity, and every other human endeavor of consequence. When children need to get a permit and pay a fee to set up a sidewalk lemonade stand, what’s left?

I wish I could find a way to argue with that. This next, too, is difficult to contradict:

Socialism doesn’t work; history is littered with its failures. That is why it’s embraced. Government derives its power from coercion and violence. It is no coincidence that the twentieth century, history’s most socialistic, has also been its most murderous, with governments inflicting an estimated 100 to 200 million deaths.

Socialism’s failure, death, and inevitable restrictions of liberty account for its odium among those who oppose it. The clearest lesson of history is the most ignored. Man versus the state is history’s overarching theme. Humanity flourishes when it’s free to do so (man wins) and deteriorates when it’s not (the state wins).

There is only one way to eradicate a weed without pesticide: pull it up by its roots. Well over 99 percent of arguments against government—inadequate border security, military interventions, out of control spending and debt, the national security state, loss of liberty, etc.—essentially try to kill the weed by pulling off its leaves and stems, but leave the roots intact. As long as there is unquestioning acceptance of the government’s self-granted right to forcefully relieve the productive of their honestly earned incomes, those issues amount to diversionary sideshows.

Since the dark year 1913, government has grown relentlessly larger, more powerful, and more corrupt. The tax take has gone one direction. Even with all that loot, the government has plunged into the abyss of debt and unfunded liabilities. The US has become an oligarchic empire spanning the globe. At least half its population rely on the state for some or all of their sustenance. Occasionally the socialists have lost battles, but those have amounted to mere tactical retreats. They’ve won the war.

The nice thing about socialism—well, maybe “nice” ain’t exactly the right word—is that the seeds of its destruction are carried within it, right from the start. But it’s always a long time a-dying, with much human misery accompanying the death throes, and it always seems to rise again from its crypt eventually. Which makes Glenn’s brilliant quip from a couple of weeks ago the more pungent: “Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway.

Like Islam, socialism is one of the greatest scourges foolhardy humanity ever inflicted on itself. That its name isn’t uttered by one and all in the same horrified and disgusted tone that its foul offspring Naziism is amounts to a crime all on its own.

Share

Missed opportunities, abandoned ambitions

The American Dream is more of a nightmare these days, thanks entirely to Big Government.

Kaitlyn (not her real name) just moved here from Georgia. Her husband is an auto mechanic. “He can fix anything with four wheels! Well, except my car – it runs like crap!” She went on at some length about how good he was at fixing things. His plan was to start his own shop once they moved here. They moved into a double-wide trailer that had a nice pole barn out back, which he planned to outfit with electric and a high-end air compressor, maybe even a grease pit, and start his own business.

He spent almost a year working on permits, licenses, inspections, and so on. He spoke to people from the county, city, state, feds, and the EPA. He talked to attorneys, accountants, and consultants to help wade through all the red tape. After about a year, he realized that the start-up costs were more than he was willing to gamble on the eventual success of a business that did not yet exist, so he got a job with the city, maintaining their trucks and mowing equipment. It doesn’t pay very well, but it has good benefits. It’s not a bad job, she says. Nothing to complain about. Everything is ok.

Kaitlyn did a great job on my hair, was very pleasant and personable, and is clearly very intelligent. She said that a few miles from their house, a barber recently retired. She considered buying his shop. She’s always dreamed of owning her own business. She said that’s the whole reason she went to cosmetology school. I said that sounded great – the shop is already set up, it has a large group of established customers, and she could expand from there.

She said that she spent several months looking into it, but she would need permits, licenses, inspections, and so on. I pointed out that it has been a barber’s shop for years, so the inspections, permits, and so on would already be done. She said that it would be a new business, and she would have to pay for all that to be done over again. She spoke with attorneys, accountants, and consultants to help wade through all the red tape – some of the same individuals that her husband had just consulted. She soon realized that the start-up costs were more than she was willing to gamble, so she got a job with a chain. The pay is not very good, and the benefits are lousy. One reason her husband took a government job was for the health insurance for their family. But she doesn’t mind working for Sport Clips – it’s a decent job, she says. Nothing to complain about. Everything is ok.

So how does this story end?

Well, in my view, it’s already ended. This young couple from a modest background has all the potential in the world. They’re both ambitious, intelligent, and very good at a valuable skill. They’re devoted to their family, their dreams, and each other. They dream of better things and are willing to gamble, willing to work hard today for a better tomorrow, and willing to take on the additional responsibilities that come with owning a business. They’re savvy enough with modern government to hire attorneys and consultants to help with the red tape.

And even they can’t open a new business, to do something they already know how to do.

Progressives may think they’re utopians who dream of a better tomorrow. But, in reality, they are the robotic defenders of the status quo. Everything stays the same because nothing happens. And when things don’t happen, those things don’t make the evening news. They didn’t happen at all, so there’s nothing to complain about. Everything is basically ok. And that’s the way it will stay.

Until it doesn’t.

And then, all of a sudden-like, EVERYTHING happens—all at once, and violently.

Anybody trying to start a small business in America these days is either a masochist, or just plain nuts. The most fundamental ideal of what was once the American Dream has now been placed out of reach of the people—snatched away from them by the depraved minions of a greedy, grasping, arrogant Superstate. It’s not something we should be tsk-tsk-ing and shaking our heads over, then shrugging and getting on with our day. It’s something that ought to make us absolutely furious—cold, shaking, killing mad. Because that kind of rage is what will be required to take it back. Like it or not, nothing less is going to do it.

(Via Gail Heriot)

Share

Lakota, or Choctaw?

Oh, I’m gonna be abusing the hell out of “fair use” with this one.

First, we all have to accept certain realities about where we are as a nation. Rains will come and go. The stock market will rise and fall. The sky is blue. Water is wet. And government in America will just never stop getting bigger. This is simply a fact of life.

We haven’t seen our government shrink since Calvin Coolidge, and there is little appetite among the American public for shrinking the government. We are now at the point in this country where we call them “cuts” if the government doesn’t increase spending quite as much as they had planned.

As government gets bigger, freedom must get smaller. Larger government, even when under the rule of supposed Republicans, is a leftist’s dream. Every day brings a new story about the infestation of liberalism in the federal bureaucracy. Such is the way of the world.

So, barring some unforeseen awakening, America is heading for an eventual socialist abyss. It is really only a matter of dates. Will we all die in the inevitable communist purges within ten years? Of course not. Will it happen within the next century or two? Almost certainly.

Do you remember the American Indians? Most likely you at least give them a passing thought whenever you pull a stick of Land O’ Lakes butter out of the fridge or hear some liberal pretend to be outraged over the Washington Redskins. Either way, they were the randomly settled group of nomadic tribes who resided in America before a bunch of Europeans arrived, took all their lands, and conquered them.

The Indians were faced with something that faces all civilizations. It’s something we face now. They were facing the unstoppable force of inevitability. Many of them knew it. The settlers from Europe were about to take over every inch of this country. Some tribes, like the Choctaw, chose to play nice with the government in hopes that their peaceful gesture would be returned. They got a Trail of Tears for their kindness.

But some tribes, like the Lakota, chose a different path. They chose war. Leaders of the Lakota like Sitting Bull knew full well how this war would end. Nevertheless, he gathered thousands of young warriors in the Black Hills and made his enemy feel some pain before he surrendered. He scored a decisive win at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, and collected some scalps. Yes, the U.S. government prevailed in the end, but General Custer and his 200 men weren’t there to see it.

That brings us to the continuous internal battle we see on the Right. We have this ever-present acrimony between the factions because some of us will not accept where we are and the enemies we face.

Some on the Right believe that tyranny in this society, as in all societies, is inevitable. The people who will micromanage every aspect of your life are not God-fearing conservatives. They are leftists, and they are vicious.

They are not political opponents in the sense that you have a debate with them. These modern-day leftists want you to lose your job. They want to destroy you. How do you think they’re going to treat you when they finally sit in the seat of power for good? So fight them tooth and nail. Make them long for the day when you’re no longer fighting them. Be the Lakota.

Amen to that. The battle for America That Was was lost long ago. America That Was is not coming back—period. Trump amounts to a holding action, a breathing space, and I’m all for him undoing every Leftist depredation against liberty and Constitutional government he possibly can, bless his heart.

But as I’ve always said, the unmaking of America didn’t happen overnight, and no one man will ever be able to undo the tangled skein of Progressivism now woven throughout the national fabric. Worse, there’s not another candidate of Trump’s talents, attitude, and indifference to the slings and arrows of Leftism in sight. After Trump, the odds are that we’ll get another milksop Republican or (shudder) Democrat Socialist in the White House, either of which will mean that the Deep State monolith will be quickly re-established.

None of which means that the bastards who took America That Was from us ought not to be made to suffer for it, to the greatest extent we can manage. Really, it’s no more than a matter of elementary self-defense by now, as Ironbear noted in a comment to an earlier post here:

Stephen Scalise, mentioned in your post.

The guy who was killed by a SWATting, also mentioned in your post.

The older people (multiple) who were dragged out of cars and assaulted and battered during the 2016 elections and primaries.

The woman who was egged and assaulted during rally in the Primaries.

The homeless woman who was assaulted and battered while trying to defend Trump’s Hollywood walk star.

Rand Paul, beaten while mowing his lawn by an anti-Trump Democrat neighbor.

The guy who was dragged off the stage at a rally while trying to violently get to Trump.

The fire at Trump Tower.

Charlottesville…

Should I continue the list? I can.

We’re in a shooting war.

The other side is the only ones shooting – and that’s only because the Right is far more patient than one has any right to expect.

Now, it may not be the Deep State itself directly committing these broad-daylight assaults against decent Americans. But it’s being done with tacit Deep State connivance, especially when you realize how very few of these various acts of political violence saw justice done via the legal system. Having witnessed the Deep State’s own recent and ongoing efforts at election-rigging and outright coup d’état, that lapse shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

Yeah, the bastards won. True, with Trump’s election, we’re no longer in full rout; it’s just possible we may somehow win the war yet, against all odds. But if no more than a fighting retreat ends up being all that’s left to us, then we damned well ought to make it as fierce a one as can be imagined, and make them pay most dear for every inch of ground we must cede to them.

Share

Ask yourself why

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

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

Well, DUH.

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

Welcome to the party, pal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Desaparicido

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

A rational reason to ban guns

Hey, when he’s right, he’s right.

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Strangulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then things start to get REALLY interesting.

(Via Sara Hoyt)

Share

(Un)Friendly fire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Fuck you—WAR

While we’re talking about Codevilla and all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Careful what you wish for Part the Eleventymillionth

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

Share

Repeal the 2A? Why bother?

They already effectively did—by ignoring it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Lies, damned lies…

And damned liberals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that right there is what really drives them nuts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated updated! Turtles lies, all the way down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Coming attraction

Boots on faces, forever.

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

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

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

Raise your hands and be honest.

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

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

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

I ask you, I command you, break free!

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Share

Auto-nomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “Auto-nomy”

Share

But of course

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, we can’t have THAT, now can we?

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

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

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

Share

Tocsin, ringing

Nobody nails it like Codevilla.

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

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

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

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

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

But money has never been the point.

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

Share

Should be seen and not heard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

trump-hitler.jpg

Share

Any time you’re ready, pissants

Feeling froggy yet, Lefty?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When do you get started?

“When” indeed (via AP):



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

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




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

Update! Aesop takes a good, hard look:

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

Game. Set. Match.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Charm, offensive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that will never happen.

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

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

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

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

Share

Civil War v2.0 realities

A little speculation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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