Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

A modest proposal

Sounds reasonable enough to me, at least at first glance.

The 2A guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, for incredibly important reasons. It does not, however, require us to be blind and stupid. It doesn’t mean we should ignore obvious warnings from aspiring mass killers, like last week’s high school shooter.

In many previous mass shootings, there were no clear prior warnings. Some vague danger signs may have been recognized afterward, but often, as with the Las Vegas shooter, nobody had any idea whatsoever of the shooter’s plans, and the shooter had no criminal or mental health history. But the Florida massacre was carried out by a teenager who announced his intention to be a school shooter. And he was still able to legally buy a gun.

Of course, we all know the two tips to the FBI about the shooter’s statements weren’t properly followed up. But what if they had been followed up? Depending on the jurisdiction, simply saying “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” isn’t necessarily an arrestable offense, isn’t necessarily a felony, and isn’t necessarily enough to justify an involuntary mental health commitment. So it’s plausible that even if the FBI had investigated, and confirmed he had made the statements, and that he talked about murdering people, and that he introduced himself as a future school shooter, and that he had a history of erratic behavior, he still would have been able to legally buy an AR-15 to murder people with. I say allowing a known aspiring mass murderer to legally buy guns is blind and stupid. And I think most of my fellow 2A supporters would agree.

So is there a way to legally prevent gun sales to those types of people, without infringing on the 2A rights of the innocent? Yes. Does supporting the 2A require us to support gun sales to people who are telling us they want to commit murder? No.

I’m not talking about banning the AR-15, advocating confiscations, repealing the 2A, or any nonsense like that. I’m not suggesting anything that would affect the tens of millions of legal, peaceful gun owners who we live and interact with every day. What I’m suggesting is that when someone tells us they’re buying a gun to commit a crime, especially a crime like mass murder, even if they haven’t broken the law or been committed, we listen to them. I’m proposing that we put laws in place to make those threats part of the background check system, and stop those wannabe murderers from legally buying a damn gun.

Like I said: sounds reasonable enough to me. But there are big problems with the idea, as Aesop points out. Basically, it still comes down to this:

I wish the FBI had done the job we pay them to do, and had gone out there to see if he’d have stepped in it with both feet, so they could haul him in, but then I’d also like a winning Powerball ticket and the phone number of the Playmate of the Year.

The sheriffs were at this nutjob’s house 39 times prior to this incident. One more visit about a FB post would probably have accomplished nothing. (Unless they screwed up in one or more of the other 39 visits.)

But somebody shooting him in the head during his rampage – say the football coach, but with a school-legal CCW  and a .45 – would have solved his problems forever.

I know you’re sincere about this, and none of us wants to see dead kids again if there’s any legal way to  prevent it.

But any “solution” that violates the Bill of Rights is de facto and de jure a cure monstrously worse than the disease.

I can’t see any way to make things work appreciably better than they do now by investigating every utterance everyone makes 24/7/365, other than people doing the jobs they’re paid to do in the first place.

Yeah, like that’s going to happen. I mean, these are government employees we’re talking about here.

Share

Questions, questions

Diplomad asks a couple.

The Trump-Russia collusion story is a hoax by the Hillary campaign and its allies, and if we had a legitimate press it would so have been declared. This humble and inconsequential blog called it a hoax long ago (here and here, for example). As I have stated repeatedly, the whole thing falls apart with one question: Why would Putin favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton? His buddies had paid Clinton millions, including via “speaking fees” to Bill. Except perhaps for Donald Trump,  everyone, at home and abroad, just assumed Hillary Clinton was going to be the next president.

Well, yet another nail has been hammered into the coffin of this horrible story.

In the last few days, we have had another letter and memo released (somewhat redacted) by Senators Graham and Grassley, two gents who do not particularly care for Donald Trump and are commonly seen as RINOs.

Read it; you don’t need me to tell you what’s in it, but if you want a devastating analysis of what this memo does to the whole Russia story, read Andrew McCarthy’s piece in the NR. There is no way I can do a better analysis than what McCarthy did; note, again, that McCarthy has not been a fan of Trump’s.

It’s clear that the FBI used the fake Steele dossier to get warrants to surveil American citizens. The FBI knew the dossier was fake and a product of the Hillary campaign. Yet they used it to get the initial surveillance warrant, as well as the extensions. Particularly galling, as McCarthy notes, the FBI did not provide any evidence of wrong-doing found by the initial surveillance when it sought those extensions, and, essentially, just repeated the lie that Steele was reliable and had reliable sources.

What I don’t see examined anywhere, however, is yet an even more troubling scandal and piece of evidence of the “deep state” at work.

Why would an honest, objective judge accept the flimsy “evidence” provided by the FBI?

A: an “honest, objective judge” wouldn’t. A bought-and-paid-for fellow-traveler, a Progressivist shill (or three, or four), did. These treasonous Deep Staters went judge-shopping for a fig leaf, a rubber stamp; the FISA “court” is well enough known for providing that already. Any bets on whether any or all of the too-biddable jurists in this instance will turn out to be Obama appointees, should our betters ever allow us to know their identities?

Yeah, thought not.

Dip poses a few more questions before his son puts the capper on: “I am tired of memos and investigations. We all know what went on. It’s time for people to be indicted and jailed.” Damned skippy it is. Sadly, I’ve said before I don’t expect any such, and I still don’t. That might well be the most depressing aspect of the whole thing, at least for me.

Time, and past time, to rid ourselves of the insidious FBI as well. If their entire history of corruption, treachery, lawlessness, and (apparently justified) sense of entitlement and impunity weren’t reason enough, the plot to rig the last election and the ensuing campaign to hamstring the duly-elected President would be plenty all by themselves.

As for why they ever attempted this hamfisted mishegoss of a coup in the first place, Daniel Flynn has that covered:

An administration siccing the surveillance state on the opposition party’s presidential candidate based on dubious reports compiled by the favored presidential candidate’s campaign ranks as a terribly reckless strategy risking the future freedom of its architects for their future power, no?

“Not if you think you will win the election and no one will ever find out,” an animated Joseph diGenova tells The American Spectator. “That’s why they did it. They thought she would win and no one would ever find out.”

Alas, Hillary Clinton did not, as so many expected, win the presidency. So, the incoming administration, investigated by dubious means, got to see what the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and various Justice Department officials believed it would never see.

Seems simple enough at that, don’t it? All the convolutions and contortions and headache-inducing lists of names and dates and places and timelines and other such piffling pedantry should not for a moment be allowed to obscure that essential truth. They just KNEW Her Herness couldn’t possibly fail to win, and the rigging of the election would be swept under the rug along with all of Obama’s other high crimes and misdemeanors forever.

Oops.

Let’s keep in mind another essential, core truth here: they’re fucking incompetent. Despite their monumental arrogance, the obvious takeaway is that these idiots—Democrat Socialists, the Fibbies, Obama and the Clintons, Comey, the whole can of slimy worms—could fuck up a one-car funeral.

Okay, granted, launching a clandestine attempt to overturn an election and overthrow a legitimate government might not be the easiest thing in the world to pull off, the basic right and wrong of the thing aside. But did that give these clowns even a second’s pause? Hell no. Far as I can discern, not one among ’em—not ONE—ever once expressed hesitation or doubt about the advisability of mucking about with one of our most cherished bedrock institutions. Nobody had wit or discernment enough to ask, “Hey, fellas, ummm, maybe destroying for all time Americans’ trust in the integrity of their elections might not be such a good idea, y’know?”

Kinda makes you wonder what else they might have gotten up to over the years, and gotten away with to date, that would instill such reckless faith in their ability to pull it off this time around, don’t it?

Thankfully, though, they couldn’t. Their arrogance was their Achilles heel; their incompetence was their undoing. The Keystone Kops would’ve made a better job of it than these shitheels. Even Inspector Clouseau always got his man in the end. But not these guys. And for that, we should probably all be grateful.

Share

Better late than…

CF lifer TR sends this along, with permission for me to post it. Naturally, it came in the middle of the big move, so I’m only just now getting around to doing so. Events have overtaken some of the points herein, rendering them no longer relevant. But others are evergreen, I think, and it all adds up to a good outline of events so far, making it well worth a look.

Special Prosecutor Mueller is trying to throw a Hail Mary. For those who don’t know, a “Hail Mary” is a desperate, last-second forward pass on the football field, without regard for defensive coverage, just hoping that it lands in the hands of an offensive receiver who will then score and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

The “Special” investigation headed by Robert Mueller is about to come to an end. We know this because he’s throwing his Hail Mary right now, and you only do that when the clock is running out. His Hail Mary is to attempt to get President Trump under oath and hope desperately that he can catch the POTUS in something that he can then call a “lie,” and establish a process crime. He has to do that NOW because the clock is about to run out, not only on the investigation, but on Mueller himself. Why is that so?

To understand that, we must back up a ways. All the way to the original Uranium One sale to the Russians. While everyone focuses on the fact that Hillary Clinton was heavily involved in that sale, let’s not forget that Robert Mueller was also on the committee that OK’d the sale, as the FBI Director. Hence, if the sale was crooked, Mueller might feel that he’s as exposed as Mrs. Clinton. This wouldn’t be a problem IF Hillary had won the election; all the Obama/Clinton scandals would have gotten swept under the rug by a complicit Justice Department.

But Trump won. What to do? Well, that of course is the “insurance policy” referred to by Peter Strzok and his rather homely paramour, Lisa Page. Russia Russia Russia. Open an investigation, appoint a “special prosecutor” who is guaranteed not to be unbiased, and delegitimize the duly elected President. This strategy depended on many things, not the least of which is the spinelessness of the Republican Party and its NeverTrump wing.

At first, things were fine. AG Sessions, doing dishonor to proud Southerners everywhere (especially those named Jeffrey and Beauregard), recused himself despite it having been proven in Congressional testimony that he had no reason to do so.

In walks swamp dweller Rob Rosenstein, who then appoints someone whose career – and perhaps freedom – depends on keeping Trump at bay and the scandals quiet. Robert Mueller.

I think Mueller knew from the very beginning that the Russia investigation was, as Van Jones said, “a big nothingburger.” BUT, it was the only way to attempt to keep Trump on the defensive and make any inroads by the FBI/Justice into the Obama era scandals moot – with the help of a complicit and fawning media, of course. Even if Mueller believed that there was something there, he had to know within 60 days that there was no Russian collusion. However, the old paradigm that “work expands to fill the time allotted” came true, and we ended up with another endless investigation.

Early on, the plan was working nicely. Russia was all the media talked about (when they weren’t distracted by the ‘daily OMG’ of Trump saying a naughty word), and probably a plurality of people believed that there was something to the investigation. This strategy would have played itself out, but probably not for a couple of years – which might have given the Dems a shot to retake Congress in 2018 and do an impeachment show trial.

Then came the news that Justice was reopening the Uranium One investigation (which produced its first indictment a few weeks ago). Suddenly Mueller had a lot to lose. I have to think that, when he got the Flynn guilty plea, Mueller badly wanted this investigation to be over. The Flynn plea had all the hallmarks of a typical Washington investigation-ender. Indict the ham sandwich for nothing substantial, bring enough pressure to bear to get the sandwich to plead guilty, and then take a victory lap of the talk shows – where Mueller could say things like “We think the conspiracy went higher, but unfortunately couldn’t prove it,” and cast a shadow over Trump’s Presidency long enough to produce the aforementioned Democrat takeover and impeachment.

At the very least, Uranium One could disgrace Mueller; at the worst, he could be indictable. With Uranium One still being investigated, Mueller was denied that opportunity, and he had to keep searching to find SOMETHING indictable about Trump. The fact that he hasn’t just might mean that Donald Trump is, from a legal perspective, perhaps the cleanest person to occupy the Oval Office in decades. Isn’t THAT ironic?

Now the clock is running out. The truck driver indicted in Uranium One may have something substantial to say. The MEMO is about to be released (notice that with all the talk of the memo, talk about Mueller getting Trump to testify has gone away). Mueller’s only option left is the perjury trap. His last-second, midfield, Hail Mary.

And supposing he traps President Trump – which isn’t unreasonable, considering that President Trump is not known for precision of wording – then what? Perhaps an under-the-table deal where Mueller says, “I won’t make this public if you let me off from Uranium One,” or Mueller taking the shot to discredit President Trump to the point that U1 will just go away? It’s hard to say, but desperate men do desperate things.

I could be wrong, of course, but I can’t come up with a single reason that this sham investigation has gone on past the Flynn indictment.

A hundred years from now, historians may remember “Memo Day” as the day that started the restoration of our democracy, and President Trump as the man who reversed our path to tyranny. Or – they may only write what they’re allowed by the government overseers who follow Robert Mueller.

We live in interesting times, indeed.

Indeed we do; in truth, I’d say that’s putting it danged mildly. No matter how it all shakes out, though, it’s apparent enough that Trump didn’t come along a moment too soon.

Mueller might well turn out to be the most hapless of all the clowns in the Dem-Soc circus; he’s turned over plenty of rocks, all right, but they were in the wrong field, and the worms crawling underneath were ones he would probably rather have stayed covered. But maybe it wasn’t really his fault; the failed Obama/Clinton putsch attempt was a serious enough offense against the Republic that maybe it was all just too monumental not to come out in the event of Her Herness’s defeat.

I know I said a while back that Trump needed to dump Mueller and end his phony “investigation,” but seeing how thoroughly the splashback has doused the nefarious Clinton/Obama cabal, I’m damned glad he didn’t now. The intriguing question at this point is whether the unraveling of this sloppy skein of corruption and treachery was just a matter of happenstance, luck, and good instincts—or whether Trump sat patiently back and let all this spin out on purpose, with knowledge, forethought, and intent, craftily dealing out enough rope for the plotters to hang themselves with. In which case the man should be acknowledged as a bona-fide political genius, amateur or not.

Many thanks to TR for sending this along.

Share

Civil war

You probably already saw it, but no way can I go one step further without mentioning this brilliant piece by Greenfield.

Guns are how a civil war ends. Politics is how it begins.

How do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.

That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

You can hate the other party. You can think they’re the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship.

Your very own dictatorship.

The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to the left, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate.

The attacks on Trump show that elections don’t matter to the left.

Republicans can win an election, but they have a major flaw. They’re not leftists.

That’s what the leftist dictatorship looks like.

The left lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats.

Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can’t scratch his own back without his say so, that’s the civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that’s not the system that runs this country.

The left’s system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.

If it’s in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited.

He’s a dictator.

But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can’t do anything. He isn’t even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented.

A Democrat in the White House has “discretion” to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn’t even have the “discretion” to reverse him.

That’s how the game is played. That’s how our country is run.

Lengthy as that excerpt is, it’s a mere fraction of the whole. If you haven’t already, trust me: you really, really want to read all of this one. I’ve long held Daniel in the highest esteem as one of the very best thinkers and writers we have out there, but he’s really outdone himself with this piece. Aesop follows up with a great one of his own:

According to the specialists employed with your tax dollars in how to defend or subvert a given political system, there are some 17 levels of preparation involved before you get to “sporty”.

Slitting throats and blowing shit up are at Level 16.

You, and anyone you’ve ever heard of, are no farther developed than Level 3.

Cogitate on that.

This wisdom is excerpted cheerfully from a little book on doctrinal subversion that many of you have heard of, and some of you have studied, in a hands-on sort of way.

It’s known colloquially as The Bible, and officially as FM 3-05.201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations, April 2003.

You should look it up.

In fact, you should probably download that pdf, print it out, and spend some goodly time dedicated to absorbing the wisdom therein, both for the intellectual exercise, and because there may be a practical exam at some point.

But despite any interest in leveling up, you’re not ready for that, I’m not ready for that, nobody you know of is ready for that, and the proof is right there above, before your lying eyes. The fourteen layers of foundation missing between now and then are what everyone who imagines otherwise is missing.

That lack is the sort of thing that gets you nonsense like Bunker Hill, Harper’s Ferry, and the First Battle Of Bull Run.

He goes on to offer some practical suggestions:

The beauty is, there’s some miniscule chance to affect things, even yet. Not by purely voting at the bastards, certainly, 

but every thumb you can put on the scale – and in the Left’s eyes, both figuratively and literally, when opportunity presents itself – before things degrade to open conflict is to your advantage. Undermine the hell out of anything you can on the Leftard side, especially while it’s easy and cheap, let alone not something that’ll get your head in a noose, right? It’s helpful, it’s a zero-sum (every one of them you convert, or simply demoralize, is one less you have to fight), and hell, it’s FUN.

Learn lessons from history: starve the beast. The US Cavalry was purely ancillary with our Indian problem in securing the frontier. The business-end was the hunting out of the buffalo. You could look it up. So if you find the Leftards’ buffalo herds, and turn them into rugs and burgers, you’ll have a much more harmonious outcome.

By the by, there may never be any Great Cataclysm. Or, it may not happen in your entire lifetime. But how long and how gradual the slide into oblivion is may very well depend on how vigorously you kick them in the teeth as the trolls of collectivism and anarchy try to climb over the walls.

Life thus far hasn’t been about shooting anyone in this country, by and large for nearly two centuries. But there have always been one helluva lot of hippies out there. And heaven knows, they aren’t going to punch themselves.

Heh. Nope, not likely. He offers more practical, tactical solutions here, winding up thusly:

Give the Left the finger, every day, in your own head, and then slip them the wiener of pushback where it hurts, and without any lube. Embarrass them in public, and rub their noses in it, until they’re bloody with your efforts. It’s the only way a bully is broken and defanged.

THAT is your mission, every day, forever. Beat ’em like a rented mule.

Not pussing out. Not running and hiding. Not yet.

Start bailing out the boat, instead of stocking the liferaft and jumping inside, waiting for the ship to sink. (And you @$$holes drilling holes in the bottom can guess what’s coming to you, sooner or later.)

You have the Second Amendment to protect the First. The more you unload with the First Amendment, the less likely it is you’ll need recourse to do so with the Second.

The Left lost the election. Then they’ve thrown everything they could at Trump the past year, and he’s crushed them. And laughs and mocks at their pathetic attempts.

Whether we’re talking Vince Lombardi or George Patton, the strategy is the same:

you use attacks from the air to create opportunities on the ground.

President Trump has done the air strikes.

Has he ever. The Left is in dire straits indeed, reduced to beclowning themselves by sitting on their hands like sulky children during Trump’s blockbuster SOTU speech—flatly opposed to the very idea of making America great again, bitter and dismayed at the prospect of the nation getting back on its feet, prosperous and strong. That shit might play in their handful of sinking urban shitholes, but it ain’t gonna win them any votes in the rest of the country. Quite the opposite, in fact.

What we have here is End Stage Progressivism, the natural denouement of their muttonheaded policies, duplicity, arrogance, and megalomania. They’re caught in a trap of their own devising, and the resultant collapse is a delight to behold. It’s no more than they deserve, and it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of assholes.

Share

CATASTROPHE!

America in CRISIS, Day 1.

What a tragedy it would be if Democrats made good on their threat and decided DACA was so important that they must shut down the federal government over it. Please don’t! Why, I’d be heartbroken if the government did less and a bunch of foreigners didn’t get rewarded for ignoring our laws. I think this is just the right hill for the Democrats to choose to fight to the death on, and I encourage them to do so. Throw us right in that briar patch, because you are smart and savvy and there’s no way a big dummy like Trump could beat you and make you look like fools.

Again.

Heh. Yep. Y’all be sure to keep on fucking that chicken, Democrat-Socialists.

Here’s the thing – most of Trump supporters aren’t takers – they’re makers. They’re the people the government flunkies come to with their palms up whenever some bureaucrat wants to spend a zillion bucks studying LGBT issues among Antarctic penguins or funding the NPR’s X-rated reenactments of the Nativity. How sad are Trump’s supporters going to be if the deal is, “We don’t hand over citizenship to a bunch of people who shouldn’t be here and everyone they’re related to down to their 29th cousin three times removed, and in return, we make the government stop spending money.”

There is literally no Trump voter who will say, “Why, that’s a terrible deal! If that happens, we don’t give amnesty and we don’t spend money!”

Not one.

To the extent that a shut-down hurts some of the government’s few useful employees, like the members of our military, I eagerly look forward to Chuck n’ Nancy and the other circus freaks who make up the Democrat Capitol Crew explaining to the American people why they chose to make our men and women in uniform suffer so the Democrats can import some new ballot stuffers. “Support the troops unless we need to screw them over so we can ship in foreigners to vote for future Maryland Senator Chelsea Manning” seems like a flawed message, which is why I heartily encourage the Dems to try it out.

See, here’s the problem for the Democrats: You shut down the federal government and the vast majority of Republicans will do just fine. Hell, they’ll positively thrive. But the Democrats? Their constituents are both the chunky bureaucrats who make $100K a year shuttling papers from Box A into Box B, and the lazy layabouts who exist to wait for the postman – who should be privatized – to bring their check from Uncle Sucker.

So if the Democrats decide to shut down the government over DACA, awesome. Go out and make the case that, in addition to all the other inconveniences, injuries, and expenses Americans have borne as a result of people disrespecting our laws and coming here illegally, we now have to shut down our government because of them too. Sounds like a well thought-out plan. Go ahead, Dems. Give it a try. There’s no way Trump is going to humiliate you again. Sure, you tell yourselves that every time you go up against him, but hey, you gotta win sometime.

Absolutely they do! So along with Kurt, I enthusiastically endorse this latest brilliant Democrat-Socialist maneuver, and look forward to them disproving Einstein’s (or whoever’s) famous rule and getting a different result this time around for sure. As Schlichter notes, they no longer have Oshitstain—or Her Herness—in office to run cover for them by making any “shutdown” inconvenient for as many people as possible.

They managed to hang it around Republican necks the last go, and did so with ease; they’re playing on a very different field now, whether they’ve realized that yet or not. They’ll still have their liberal media Spirit Squad trying to whip up a panicked frenzy among somebody other than residents of their decaying urban refuges, of course. But there’s not nearly as many of us out here in Real America buying the tripe they’re peddling these days as there used to be—which is another thing that seems to be escaping their notice, and just might turn out to be kind of, y’know, important.

Share

The secret: no secret

It ain’t just the fuck you money. It’s the fuck you attitude.

President Trump has fuck you money because he defines success differently than do other people at his level of wealth. He cannot be shamed into or out of a particular action or position because he simply does not care how the chattering class views him. This, alone, makes him a fascinating character and one deserving of study. I also believe it’s what makes Donald Trump such a uniquely effective politician.

It’s this quality that has Trump’s opponents spinning like tops. They’ve gone back to the same playbook for so many years that they don’t know how to adapt to someone who is immune to their historically most potent attacks. Trump has ripped back the curtain on the wizards of public shaming and revealed them to be powerless crybabies.

But he’s the only man who could do it. He had both the money and the attitude necessary to the task. His supporters grasped the importance of this unique advantage early.

I am not alone in this assessment. What is less obvious is exactly what it is that makes Donald Trump tick. He loves to talk about winning, but how does he define winning for himself? My best guess is that it’s getting things done when other people say you can’t. It’s an internally motivated, fuck you approach to life that I don’t think most politicians possess.

Quite the opposite, actually: professional politicians have it bred into their very marrow that they must NEVER, no matter what, either literally or figuratively say fuck you to anybody, whether it’s deserved or not. Should they get caught doing so, a groveling, insincere apology that satisfies no one will immediately follow. They consider an oleaginous eagerness to please a job requirement instead of a character flaw, and Trumpian obstreperousness, his willingness to handle his opponents roughly when their behavior merits it, a career-killer.

We cannot spare this man. He fights.

Pundits on both the left and right have asserted that Hillary Clinton is the only possible candidate that a guy like Trump could have beaten. While I think that she was a terrible candidate, I also believe that they have it backwards. I don’t think a single GOP candidate could’ve beaten Hillary other than Trump, as he was the only one who inspired enthusiasm within the frustrated and dispirited base.

I’ve heard rumors that people who actually know Donald Trump say that the man they know is nothing like the one you see on television. I suspect that this is true and that most of what you see is a clever act designed both to appeal to his supporters and to frustrate his opponents.

I also believe that Donald Trump is far more intelligent and capable than his opponents and even many of his supporters believe him to be. This video of a young Donald Trump on the David Letterman show in the 1980’s gives some insight toward the man. It’s worth noting that he was banging the drum about our “allies” taking advantage of us 30 years ago. Also notice how intelligent and well spoken he is. Did he somehow lose all his smarts as he grew older or is this interview a glimpse of the man behind the mask?

The big question as we move past Donald Trump’s first year in office is whether Trumpism is a force that is dependent on the man bearing its title or whether it’s a cultural and political wave that will retain its power when he leaves.

I don’t have the answer to this question, but I think it can be confidently asserted that there is no returning to the status quo after Donald Trump has exited the stage.

It IS a damned good question at that, but I remain pretty confident myself that the movement he galvanized is bigger than he is, and will continue on without him in at least some fashion. Whether it will be as successful without him might well be another story. Trump was the perfect melding of Man and Moment, and we had been waiting for him a long time. He didn’t create the movement himself, but instead stepped in to lead it, to steer it, and that happy confluence of events might well prove to be unique, and not reproducible.

Continue reading “The secret: no secret”

Share

Interesting times

Taking a peep into the ol’ crystal ball.

Those of you in tax-haven Red State heaven may find you have one helluva lot more pension teat-sucking fifth columnists than you imagined, all of whom have, as their first interest, the maintenance of the entire status quo, who won’t be subscribing to your newsletter, marching in your parade, and will likely dime you out given half a chance and any enticement from TPTB.

And they’re in your AO, and they all get a vote too; either at the ballot box, or via Rule 308. You have a limited option-set for accommodating them or exterminating them, and every choice has its pros and cons.

Functional society lives in a very narrow pH range between totalitarianism and anarchy; anyone who thinks they’re going to yank the lever very far in either direction and fix everything by killing everyone who disagrees with them will pull the walls of the trench onto their own head, whether we’re talking political power, legitimacy, or getting zipped into body bags. Which all tend to be fairly correlative, especially in sportier times.

There ain’t gonna be no Grand Strategy where you carve out a Redoubt, a New South, or a Flyover Paradise.

Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.

Ask a Milosevic what happens when you try.

If you’re very lucky, you may have a coherent state (as in One of the Fifty), and one that has your best interests at heart. Worst case, it’ll be coherent, and want you dead, gulaged, re-educated, or whatever term of art applies come the day.

Most folks will have a county, or a few counties, with roughly similar interests. Large counties, with geographic barriers, may devolve to civilizational outposts, surrounded by No Man’s Land areas or varying functionality.

In short, things are liable to look more like the Wild West than the Walking Dead.

Things will become better, and worse. Rougher, simpler, meaner, and more focused on your choices and day-to-day existence. There will be bandits, savages, and brigands in the wastelands. They’ll all want to come to the bright lights of the city for all the reasons folks do now, and did then.

But there aren’t likely to be front lines; scores will be settled far more personally, in back alleys or bar room brawls. Some people will try and build industry and commerce, and the order of civilization and prosperity.

Others will try to burn it out, rob it, and subjugate it. Like always, everywhere.

This, boys and girls, is why we study history: lessons from Deadwood, Tombstone, or the South Side of Chicago circa 1930 will have as much to do with reality then as now.

Expect devolution, not revolution.

Yep, I think he sees things pretty clearly. It’s a WRSA comment from our friend Aesop, so that should come as no surprise.

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

Compromise, or surrender?

Much as I love him, and you all know I do, I fear I’m gonna have to raise a quibble or three with Schlichter on this one.

We conservatives need to get our heads right about the mid-terms or liberals will end up guzzling patriot tears and their gloating will be flat-out intolerable. We’re not doomed in 2018 – I mean, it’s not like tax reform or pulling out of the Paris Climate Scam, which have already killed millions of people, including me and you. But, if we fail to get on course for victory then we’re going to see Nancy Pelosi and the Gropeocrats back in charge and trying to make America into California.

Trust me. You do not want to live in the United States of California.

Right as rain there, and nothing but the inarguable truth. Onwards.

So, the first step toward victory is some real talk about us normals – you know, conservatives who are more concerned with our country than with muttering about principles and trying to sell cruise cabins. We need to talk about how we’ve screwed up and how we need to change what we’re doing wrong. We got lazy after we vanquished Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit and installed what has turned out to be the most conservative president since St. Ronald. We had the House, and we had the Senate, so we relaxed. Sure, we’ve gotten some great things done, but every step has been a battle thanks to the enraged Dems, their lying media pals, and that cheesy bunch of Never Trump weasels who are motivated by rage at how we dissed them and their Conservative, Inc., cronies. The enemy is creating a sense of permanent chaos, and they intend to present themselves as a return to normality. “Vote for us liberals and everything goes back to normal,” they’ll lie. They’ll actually amp up the insanity with impeachment shenanigans and obstruction, and they’ll probably bumble their way into provoking a short and hilarious civil war.

Quibble One: “Vote for us liberals and everything goes back to normal” is a…umm, LIE? No, actually, that sounds like nothing but the naked truth to me. The problem here is, what they think of as “normal” IS pretty much accepted as normal now: a hamfisted, incompetent, bloated, meddlesome, and tyrannical government; a moribund, zombified socialist economy unresponsive to any and all attempts at “fixing” it; the scorn and contempt of governments around the world as our “leaders” bumble their way into foreign policy disasters one right after another; traditional American values and institutions, the long-cherished pillars of our strength and prosperity, now in smoking ruins; our soldiers’ lifeblood spilled on ground not worth holding—half-heartedly fought, miserable little wars we don’t intend to win against enemies we’re too squeamish to name, in places where we have no discernible national interest, our soldiers crippled by ridiculous ROEs that render them little else but walking targets; yielding the leadership role to a morally bankrupt and wholly corrupt UN that regards us only as a cash cow and a source of blue-helmeted cannon fodder to be squandered pursuing unworthy objectives and enforcing unenforceable edicts—and a sense of doomed hopelessness about it all enervating the Normals, who are rightly disgusted by the whole dismal tarpit and despairing of finding a means to extricate ourselves from it.

Yep, that would be Progressivist “normal” all right, and has been our unpleasant reality for at least a decade if not longer. It is by no means any kind of lie to say a vote for them is a vote to go back to that. After all, the restoration of that dysfunctional, destructive order remains the only program they have on offer.

We have to stop them, but stopping them starts with us fixing what we’re doing wrong. We can only change ourselves, so we need to do that.

Not at all sure I’m down with that one either, but I’ll leave it for now and come back to it.

Yeah, I know the Trumpaphobic True Conservatives™ are desperately trying to regain their power and prestige after we rejected them along with the rest of the Jeb!-loving Establishment Fredocons who never managed to conserve anything except the cash they raked in falsely promising to fight fight fight. But we’re not talking about them now.

We’re talking about us now. Let’s talk about what we did wrong. Let’s talk about what we need to change, because if we don’t change The Swamp is going to swamp us. Our opponents are motivated. They are organizing. They are targeting the weakest Republicans, and in Virginia and Alabama they snatched seats we should have kept or taken.

Quibble Two: we didn’t have any real chance of taking anything in Virginia. As basically the physical home of the Deep State, it’s long been as blue as blue states come. The recent Democrat-Socialist win there shouldn’t have come as any surprise to anybody, and the prospects for “taking it back” (actually, converting it) aren’t going to be any too good for a long while yet, most likely. Ambitions are fine and all, but tempering them with a bit of hard-nosed realism is probably the wise course.

In Virginia, we had a huge, bloody primary fight that left the winner weak going into the general. Ed Gillespie is an Establishment meat puppet, but he would have been okay, and “okay” is better than any commie Dem. We need to pick our fights. Here’s a news flash – the most conservative candidate won’t win every time. We need to figure out who is the most conservative candidate who can win, and back him/her – that’s the old Buckley rule. The purge of the squishes must come later. We need raw numbers, and if that means accepting the occasional Susan Collins, fine. She’s the closest thing to a win in Maine, so accept that and move on.

Um. Okay, let’s call it Quibble Three: I agree that insistence on ideological purity is likely to prove self-defeating sure enough, but Collins is probably a lousy example of a reasonable, worthwhile compromise which demands anything more of us in the way of “support” than simple resignation to the world’s imperfect nature. Truth is, she can be relied upon to vote against anything remotely “conservative” way more often than not (her almost shocking vote for the tax reform bill notwithstanding), and that just ain’t good enough. Any compromise that requires backing her is going to end up costing way more than we’ll ever get back. It ain’t a “compromise” at all, really. It’s closer to a surrender. Losing her seat to a Democrat Socialist wouldn’t make a difference worth discussing; as a practical matter, it’s a de facto wash.

A better example of effective realpolitik would be, say, Rudy Giuliani. You won’t find any electable soul more conservative than him in NYC, and nobody should be wasting any time looking. He’s far, far preferable to nearly any other New Yorker you could name—even with his stated enthusiasm for “assault weapon” bans and other such tramplings of the 2A thrown into the mix. And since there’s no more prospect of New York’s suddenly going from blue to red (or even a light-ish purple) in the near future than there is in Virginia, Giuliani is definitely somebody I could imagine supporting, maybe even for Prez should Trump suddenly become unavailable or disinclined. A fair bit more than reluctantly, too. Again: onwards.

I get mad too. I’m furious with the Elderly Mutant Establishment Turtle. But I’m an adult, not a child, and sometimes I have to delay my unholy vengeance. We worry too much about purging our ranks and not enough about making sure we still have ranks to purge. Oh, the accounting shall come – we will have our revenge. But today we need to keep control of Capitol Hill so Donald Trump can keep packing the courts, gutting the bureaucracy, and winning the war against jihadi dirtbags.

We can wait to get even.

Exhibit A is Roy Moore. Face it – we screwed that up bad. He was a terrible candidate, and terrible candidates lose.

Let’s concede he was treated unfairly by the lying media. Gloria Allred and her scuzzy minions lied about him. Team McConnell spent a ton of much-needed money trying to force a GOPe stooge down Alabamians’ throats so The Tortoise wouldn’t have to deal with the uppity Mo Brooks. Maybe there was some voter fraud. All that’s irrelevant.

Quibble Four: no, it most certainly is NOT. Not when Moore’s loss is directly attributable to the Deep State GOPe’s treachery: his margin of defeat appears to have corresponded almost exactly to the write-in votes encouraged by the Vichy GOPe (caveat: there’s some reasonable dispute about this, and not all of those votes have been counted yet as far as I know).

I’m perfectly willing to countenance throwing some (tepid) support behind a squish here and there when it’s necessary, just as a matter of recognizing certain sad realities about where we are as a country. Not so for treacherous Deep State shitweasels like Yertle McTurtle or Jeff Flake—or, yes, Juanny Mav. They’ve put knives enough into our backs already, will never be anything other than what they are, and my concern over whether a Democrat Socialist might replace them or not couldn’t be discernible with an electron microscope. One more time: onwards.

We have a lot of Senate races coming up. I like some of the more conservative folks – Dr. Kelli Ward in Arizona, Austin Petersen in Missouri. But here’s the thing – if they, fairly or not, allow themselves to be marginalized such as they are less likely (to) win the general than their GOP primary opponents, I’ll toss them over. Nothing personal, just business.

Quibble Five: they most certainly WILL be marginalized, and it will NOT be fair. Anybody who considers regaining the Alabama seat a gimme, a sure thing, is kidding himself. The Left WILL pull out all the stops next time. They saw how well their smear campaign against Moore, bereft of a shred of credible evidence behind it, worked for them: the Vichy GOPe accepted their premise and stampeded from Moore as if he’d been a leper, just like they’ve always done, and led a lot of others over the cliff with them.

If McConnell hadn’t piled on Moore from the very start—which, of course he did, having been in on the scam from go—and had instead gotten behind him wholeheartedly, we wouldn’t be talking about any Senator Jones right now. As such, announcing your willingness to “toss them over” beforehand—i.e., preemptively agreeing to accept the premise of their smear campaign before they’ve even ginned it up—seems like a terrible, terrible mistake to me.

And yes, I do in fact see the irony in being annoyed with McYertle over his refusing to do the very same thing I’m jumping on Schlichter for suggesting. In my humble defense, the difference—slight though it may seem—is that McYertle’s refusal got us Jones in Alabama. Whereas, all we get from going along with Schlichter’s proposal is…McYertle. Who do you think will wind up doing more damage long-term? Jones is a pipsqueak who’s already backpedaling a bit on his hardcore Marxism and declared his willingness to cooperate to at least some small degree with Trump. McYertle has smugly sabotaged most of Trump’s legislative agenda, Obamacare reform among other things, his unexpected ramrodding of the Gorsuch appointment via the so-called “nuclear option” being a highly laudable exception.

I firmly believe that, instead of “cleaning our own house,” it’s both more productive and more vital to crush the Left, and keep right on crushing them. Any time spent on walking around the battlefield shooting our own wounded is time not spent taking the fight Leftwards, although it’s surely true that we’re going have to fight the Vichy GOPers as well sooner or later.

Rather than debating whether we ought to be lending any helping hands to affirmed Deep State tapeworms like McConnell, McStain, or Flake, we ought to be attacking the Left every chance we get, with everything we’ve got, until they’re down to stay. To recycle one of my favorite old metaphors: after we’ve severed the head, burned the corpse, scattered the ashes, and salted the ground under the Left there’ll be time enough to deal with the traitor scum in our own ranks.

But all of this kind of misses the real point anyway: it’s now bootless to talk about Republican this or Democrat that, liberal me or conservative you, as if any of those terms still had much in the way of either relevance or meaning. As my old friend Chris Pfouts used to like to say, it’s worse than a waste of time. The real distinction is to be made elsewhere now:

One of the telling aspects about the Trump phenomenon was just how over-the-top many of these first wave alt-media types were in their opposition to Trump. Guys like Erick Erickson and Glenn Beck were such rabid Trump haters, it was assumed they were being paid to do it. PJ Media had a gaggle of unhinged Trump haters on their site. Red State turned itself into such a clown show, they endorsed Hillary Clinton. The hipster conservatives of a decade ago were now the squares wagging their fingers at the kids.

There are a couple of lessons here for the people forging ahead with alt-tech as well as alt-media. One is that to be an alternative, to truly challenge the status quo, the nature of the alternative has to be incompatible with the nature of the orthodoxy. Otherwise, the big fish eat the little fish, so the little fish of alternative media get gobbled up. This is why Andrew Torba is adamant about his stance on terms of service. He has correctly discovered that to be a challenge to Twitter, Gab has to be a break from the orthodoxy.

That’s something the Left quickly understood in their march through the institutions. What was set up to keep the old WASP elite in power, could easily turn them into shaggier versions of the people they replaced. That and those institutions failed to defend the old guard against the radicals. The Left has systematically altered the institutions of American life to maintain their dominance. The Left did not just march through the institutions. They altered them, like a virus alters the host’s healthy cells to replicate itself.

That’s another lesson. The people in charge are well aware of how they gained their position. They are not about to make the same mistakes as their predecessors. When Siaka Stevens gained power in post-colonial Sierra Leone, one of the first things he did was destroy the rail line between Bo and Freetown. The reason is it crippled the economy of his primary political rivals. Even though it damaged the nation’s economy as a whole, what mattered to Stevens is it helped him stay in power. The Left thinks the same way.

What that means for alternative media and alternative tech is they have to remain independent and hostile to the orthodoxy. A guy like Richard Spencer, racing to be on liberal media when they call, is going to be destroyed eventually. He’s not as clever as he thinks and Lefty plays for keeps. The same holds for technology. Again, Gab is a good example of how to do it right. They are building their own financing mechanism so they don’t have to sell their souls to the Silicon Valley oligarchs.

Finally, the PJ Media experience says something else. Even as these first wave populist outlets were absorbed by the blob, the audience continued to grow. This is another lesson of history. Once people break free from the old intellectual and moral restraints, they don’t go back to the old ways. We are in the midst of an intellectual revolution, where the old modes of thought are challenged by new modes of thinking about politics, society and the human condition. Old media has the money, but new media has the numbers.

In the end, it is always about the numbers.

Which means Old Media won’t have the money a whole lot longer, either. Back to Schlichter:

The lessons are clear. We need to understand that our enemy is serious, motivated and intent on finding and exploiting the weaknesses in our candidates. We need to be ruthless in deciding who is most likely to win, even if it means backing someone who is 80% with us instead of 90%. It means being coldly rational instead of over-heatedly emotional.

We need to win the midterms next year. We need to get our heads right to do it. Yeah, our enemies are horrible and politics is unfair. Boo hoo. We can’t change that. The only thing we can change is ourselves, and we need to or we’ll get crushed.

I won’t argue with that too much, other than to note that the only real change we need to make is to realize fully how the ground has shifted under everyone’s feet. The Left has been thrown into confused despair by it—those among them who are even aware of it at all, that is, which would seem to be a pitiful minority—and is lashing out in every direction both futilely and hilariously. It’s Liberal Sideshow Bob in his field full of rakes; he can’t help stepping on one no matter which way he turns.

I can see Schlichter’s point, I guess, just a little bit. But in the final analysis, as Kurt himself said, it’s the rough equivalent of the old Buckley argument: we must support the most conservative candidate who can win. That proposition got us McCain; it got us Romney, and it would have gotten us Jeb if we had yielded to its temptation last time around. And it’s never gotten anybody a single damned thing else.

Which is all the more reason why we need to keep our focus on seeding that field with more rakes for Liberal Sideshow Bob, over and above any other consideration. It ain’t no time to be navel gazing, therefore I don’t see any pressing need to worry about throwing away any effort in the direction of propping up untrustworthy mountebanks like McYertle, Flake, or any other Deep State puke just because they ain’t Democrats. Not if it means loosening our strangling grip on Lefty’s throat before he’s well and truly out, I don’t.

It’s beginning to look now as if the most positive thing likely to come out of any of this might be the final destruction of the Republican Party, with its Statist charlatans and con-men shuffling on off to the Democrat Socialists where they belong, and the rest of them joining the rest of us in inaugurating a real opposition party at last. That redrawing of the battle lines into something more accurately representing the situation as it actually exists would be welcome indeed as far as I’m concerned.

The creation of the Republican Party and its relatively rapid emergence as a viable alternative during the turmoil of the pre-Civil War period seems to me to be worthy of consideration here. Would anybody want to argue that the times we’re now living in are very much less turbulent, the struggle less existential, the stakes less consequential? Could be it’s another of those ideas whose time has finally come, as I always say. It’s a cinch that Republican perfidy and overall uselessness has made it a whole lot more likely.

Share

“Take the streets”

Go ahead and try, you fat schlub.

The federal government’s former ethics czar says he is “stocking up” on “gear” in order to “take the streets” in the event that President Trump removes Robert Mueller as special counsel.

“I’m concerned the assault on the rule of law is coming over the holidays when we’re distracted. It‘ll be a defining moment for the Republic,” Walter Shaub wrote on Twitter on Friday.

Backwards, boyo: the assault on the rule of law has been going on for a year, and is what canning Mueller and ending his fishing expedition would put a quick halt to. But this blustering blowhard IS right about one thing: it will in fact be a defining moment for the (former) Republic. Or a redefining one, with any luck.

Aside: ethics czar? Wait, what, there is one? If so, this is clearly a department that needs to be one of the very first targets of Trump’s program of cutting government. Obviously, it has failed completely in its mission, is accomplishing nothing whatsoever, and amounts to nothing more than wasted dollars for a job that simply ain’t getting done. Its demise would be noticed by no one other than those who “work” there, whose busy day consists mostly of two-hour lunches followed by three-hour naps.

Shaub, an Obama appointee who quit his position earlier this year in protest against Trump, circulated a advertisement for an event sponsored by MoveOn.org, the left-wing activist group.

Of course. Of fucking course.

Elsewhere in the article, (rump)Schwab busies himself denying that any threat of the Left’s usual violent rioting is either expressed or implied by his pledge to “gear up and “take the streets,” which I’m guessing he’s actually being truthful about. I mean, looking at the picture of the bloated bureaucrat, he wouldn’t be capable of marching much of anywhere at all, far less kicking any ass should he manage to get to wherever it is he thinks he’s going.

I’d guess attempting (not that he ever would) no more than half a flight of stairs without the assistance of several stout fellows would leave Blaub in extremis similar to Hillary!™s famous life-or-death staircase struggle: huffing, puffing, and blowing like the Big Bad Wolf—clutching his chest for several agonized minutes, sweating right through his cheap suit, and frenetically punching up 911 on his ketchup-glazed cell phone for an ambulance.

Hell, any “march” less leisurely and more demanding than the one from the back of the line at Burger King to the cash register just might croak him. Mercifully, his several chins could be counted on to cushion his fall and protect his face somewhat should he keel over, allowing for an open casket should they find one oversized enough to suit. Cramming Schlob’s corpulent carcass into the meat wagon after his thunderous collapse might pose a bit of a problem, yeah, but I’m sure the local paramedics have seen this guy in similar straits before, and have developed strategies for coping with it by now. They may even have found room in the county budget for a forklift, who knows.

But hey, he’s got the younger, better-conditioned millennial AntiFa fascists to rely on for all his thuggery needs, right? They can attack individuals in packs and break stuff as usual, then he can deflect all the blame onto them if asked; the media can sweep the melee under the “mostly peaceful” puff-piece rug, and all will remain well in Liberal Land.

“Take the streets.” Oh, sure. Anytime you feel froggy enough, big boy.

Share

If you can’t drain it, disperse it

I mentioned this not too long ago, but it bears repeating.

Amid the talk of draining swamps, restoring political might to blue-collar America and turning off the spigot of taxpayer cash that showers Washington, a familiar battle cry is ricocheting through this city: Move the bureaucrats out.

It has the ring of a Trumpian fantasy. Dislodge arms of the federal government from Washington and reattach them in faraway places, spreading the wealth generated by these well-paid agency workforces and forcing senior bureaucrats to face the people they affect.

But the idea has established populist roots that spread across party lines, and they are reemerging at this unique political moment.

The swaggering Interior secretary from Montana is putting the finishing touches on his plan to move the headquarters of three large public lands agencies to the West. The Stanford economist representing Silicon Valley in Congress sees opportunity to strategically seed regions of the country with pieces of the federal bureaucracy that can benefit them — and that they can benefit. The unlikely prospect of locating the Department of Transportation in Los Angeles is dangled by Republicans eager to show this crusade has bipartisan cred.

There hasn’t been so much buzz about getting “Washington” out of Washington since Franklin D. Roosevelt sent 30,000 federal workers to the Midwest after a presidential commission advised such moves would ensure the prototypical federal employee “remains one of the people in touch with the people and does not degenerate into an isolated and arrogant bureaucrat.”

It’s a fine idea for more than just one reason. Which makes it somewhat surprising that any Democrat Socialist would be anything but howlingly, immovably averse to it. Walsh adds:

The problem with Washington today is that far too much power and money is concentrated in a small geographical area, which lends credence to the Leftist fantasy that a country as large and diverse as the United States can be controlled from central command. Westerners, for example, have long known that the Bos-Wash corridor kidz have no real understanding of the issues that lie beyond the Hudson and Potomac rivers; getting some federal agencies closer to their areas of jurisdiction can only help.

After the war, the West German government was dispersed, so as not (to) allow a concentration of malevolence such as occurred during the National Socialist regime to repeat itself. Now that the Left has declared the “Resistance” to the GOP victory in the 2016 election, we might want to think about the German example, before it’s too late. At the very least, it will ease pressures on the D.C.-area real estate market, give the bureaucrats some much-needed fresh air and sunshine, and expose them to the real world beyond the Mall. Who knows, they might even learn something.

“Concentration of malevolence”—I really like that bit, which is as pithy a description of Mordor on the Potomac as I can think of. But let’s not get nuts with our hopes here, Mike; I mean, “learn something”? Naaaah, not a chance.

One of the nicer aspects of such a move, though, is that dispersing DC power would be a fine practice run for dispersing the libtards en masse themselves. Say, to a nice little Caribbean island, maybe.

Share

A consummation devoutly to be etc

We can only hope Lifson is onto something here.

When Rod Rosenstein evaded the answers being sought in a congressional hearing and deferred to the inspector general investigation underway, I thought it a reasonable response, even though Rosenstein is now a hate-object for having appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel. The I.G., Michael E. Horowitz, is no political stooge. (For background on the inspectors general, see Ed Lasky here and here. There are unsung heroes of our constitutional republic among them, hero-federal bureaucrats.)

And letting any of the I.G.’s cats out of the bag early could have serious consequences.

He then points us over to another of Sundance’s thoroughly researched and insightful posts, to wit:

The text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strozk and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, have been released to both Fox News and CBS.

The messages reflect a strong bias against President Trump. However, the bigger story is not the anti-Trump bias within the text communication, the BIGGER story is why the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General (OIG), began even looking at Agent Peter Strozk’s communication in the first place.

Remember, the original mandate by the Inspector General’s office was initiated to review and discover any politicization of the FBI and/or DOJ officials.

After news broke of Strzok’s removal from investigative duty within the FBI counterintelligence unit, what the OIG responding statement said was for 11 months the Dept of Justice OIG office has been investigating the politicization within the DOJ and FBI and deciding if the actions, or lack of action, was driven by the political ideology of the participants therein…

Getting caught as a leaker is likely the reason Strzok was removed and reassigned to the HR post; not the bias. The bias, writ large, is essentially a snipe hunt; it makes good media clicks, it feeds a good headline, but ultimately it’s a nothingburger. The reports on this angle are flak and countermeasures.

However, Agent Strzok leaking information to the media; his changing the outcome of an FBI investigation into a political ally, Hillary Clinton; and his investigative involvement in the Trump Russia Conspiracy, via the Steele Dossier and FISA warrant, well, that’s the real issue evident here.

Interesting indeed. Without falling into the old wishful-thinking trap of assuming that Trump is some sort of 3D chess-playing wizard here, I will note that he’s shown himself to have patience enough to be capable of playing a longer game than people often assume, in both business and politics. This is convoluted, twisty, tangly stuff for sure; also, Occam’s Razor still makes for an excellent guide in most circumstances, and should perhaps be carefully borne in mind in this case, too.

All that said, though, I wouldn’t bet against Trump playing a pretty Machiavellian game here himself: one of his most under-acknowledged and useful skills throughout his career has been his ability to get adversaries to underestimate him to their own great detriment, as we’ve seen demonstrated again and again since the beginning of the Republican primary campaign. And Sundance himself has been adept enough at seeing forests instead of trees for long enough now that I ain’t willing to bet against his having the right of things here, either. Not quite yet, I ain’t. I seem to recollect seeing somewhere or other that Horowitz’s final report is scheduled to drop in April of next year; all will come clear by then, I guess. Back to Lifson:

We should be hearing from the I.G. in the early part of next year, in time for this to start to unfold in TV prior to the November midterm elections.

Sundance looks ahead the next couple of steps, toward prosecution, and follows the potential chain upward. Momentum, and consequently timing, is critical because of the expected all-out resistance. Watergate was nothing compared to this.

Well, no, it wouldn’t be, would it? I mean, Watergate was a bungled coverup of a penny-ante burglary—which, I think, hardly rises to the level of a soft coup aimed at nullifying the results of a legitimate presidential election and removing a duly-sworn-in chief executive from office without real justification. Not to even mention the revelation of partisan corruption from top to bottom of entire federal agencies, with arguably treasonous treachery and manipulation at the very highest levels.

Update! Steyn on the big picture:

Politically, America is a bitterly divided 50/50 nation, where a few hundred thousand votes in a dwindling number of swing states determines control of the national (it’s no longer really “federal”) government. That places an ever greater burden on the professional civil service to behave professionally, and to be perceived as behaving professionally. Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Strzok, Page and the rest have engineered a situation that ensures half the country will never accept the legitimacy of whatever their “investigation” concludes. If they indict Trump, one half will regard it as a coup by Deep Staters in the bag for Hillary. If they exonerate Trump, the other half of the country will blame Trump for discrediting these fine upstanding career public servants.

So Mueller and his team have made things worse. Thanks a lot, corruptocrats.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that this pseudo-investigation is an elaborate bit of FBI dinner theatre to obscure Strzok and others’ attempt to subvert the election. What Strzok and Ohr have done is far worse than anything Flynn and Papadopoulos did: why should only the latter face jail time?

Why, because Stroke and Ohr are liberals, see. That makes it diff’runt.

Until we reach the heads-on-pikes stage, I mean. At which point I will eagerly look forward to Obama, Hillary!™, and the rest of the dirty gang sharing the same fate.

Share

Get your grubby government fumble-fingers off

Shoulda never let Big Nanny meddle with it in the first place, it was working quite well as it was.

The one thing we’re all told about net neutrality is that it’s meant to keep internet service providers from discriminating between websites, speeding access to some and throttling it to others. In theory, according to the ubiquitous fans of net neutrality, evil ISPs would charge content providers more to provide fast access to their sites, while also charging customers more, for reasons that are never made exactly clear.

The truth is that ISPs have been doing the exact opposite, with deals like AT&T’s, or T-Mobile’s Binge program, which didn’t count data used to stream Netflix, Spotify, and other popular sites.

Also, ISPs already provide super-fast access to the biggest sites on the web, from Facebook to Google to Netflix, even hosting their servers in order to give customers the fastest connection possible. This is why the debate is misnamed. ISPs already discriminate; it’s working fine.

The lawsuits make it even clearer that the advocates for regulation aren’t really looking out for the interests of the consumer. John Oliver once boiled down the issue pretty well. Instead of “net neutrality,” he said, the issue should be called “preventing cable company f****ery.”

He’s right. The real issue has nothing at all to do with network peering between internet giants (those direct pipes to Google) or free data plans. It is at best an attempt to control the behavior of cable companies, who have poor reputations.

We all know that cable companies offered terrible service when they were monopolies, and their service is still lousy where they’re not faced with competition. When they realized my brother up in Idaho was a cord-cutter, they jacked up his internet fees to $200 a month. In my neighborhood, where I’ve got a few options, the cable company called me up the other day to offer some extra premium channels for the rate I was already paying.

Competition in the market for internet service is still somewhat limited by the physical necessity of connecting your home to the network, but even a battle between the phone company, the cable company, a satellite company, and your cell service provider does a decent job of keeping prices in check. They’re all offering more of what we want for lower prices, and they’re about to face more competition still, once wireless goes 5G.

While the scare stories are legion — my favorite is a bizarre rant in the Globe and Mail arguing that the end of net neutrality would mean doom for “the resistance” — and the technical details are often mind-numbingly complex, this is still a simple story. Between 2005 and 2015, competition produced an 1150 percent increase in broadband speeds. Free markets and unfettered capitalism built out the fast internet. Now the government wants to step in and help.

It’s an old story, and we all ought to know by now exactly how it always turns out. It’s been demonstrated again and again and again: competition in a relatively unfettered, open market will produce lower prices, more innovation, and generally better results than government control each and every damned time.

Share

The War on Christmas is real

Well, why wouldn’t it be?

Why does your friendly neighborhood Leftist war on Christmas? Why does he hate it so? Other writers, wiser than I, cannot answer:

No one quite knows the reason. It could be his head wasn’t screwed on just right. It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight. But I think that the most likely reason of all, may have been that his heart was two sizes too small.

On the other hand, the good Dr. Seuss penned one of those Christmas books that somehow manages to mention Santa without mentioning Saint Nicholas, or Christ. So maybe he honestly did not know.

Why must a Leftist hate Christmas, then?  Let us look at it as a multiple choice question.

  • (1) A Leftist is rude.
  • (2) A Leftist is a killjoy.
  • (3) A Leftist is divisive.
  • (4) A Leftist hates America.
  • (5) A Leftist hates Christ.
  • (6) All of the above.

All that being so—and it surely is—why wouldn’t they be making war on Christmas? I mean, for them, what’s not to like about waging it? It’s a no-brainer, is what it is. They HAVE to do it. They can’t possibly NOT do it.

I’ll repeat: they’re such joyless, juiceless, shrivel-souled, just plain miserable moaners it’s sometimes hard not to feel a little bit sorry for them. It’d be nearly impossible not to if it weren’t for their constant campaign to inflict their misery on everyone else, rather than seeking a way out of it for themselves instead.

Via Vox, who says: “Don’t let them do it. Feel the joy. Feed the joy. Fuel the joy.” Which will only make them even MORE miserable.

Update! Now and then, some libtard will feign great umbrage at somebody noticing their hatred for America, and will protest indignantly that they are too patriotic, you guys! They just don’t hold with the kind of unreflective, mindless jingoism espoused by all the warmongering, racist, bigoted, homophobic, misogynist troglodytes who don’t agree with Progressivism, see. The libs’ patriotism is vastly superior, really, all the deeper and more meaningful because of its nuance and inclusiveness and humility.

So they’ll say, and expect you to believe. Maybe they even believe it themselves, some of them. But then Liberal Sideshow Bob will step on yet another rake.

Comedian Sarah Silverman told the audience on her Hulu show I Love You America that, at the sight of the American flag, she “instantly felt very weird. It didn’t make sense, but I felt…scared.”

The reason? “Nationalism.”

Washington Times:

The talk-show host said she immediately questioned her boyfriend’s motives, to which he responded, “Um, because I love America?”

“I was like, ‘Right, right, of course,’ but inside I was shaken,” Ms. Silverman recalled.

“I had no idea why I was freaking out,” she said, so she called her sister, a rabbi in Israel, to try to understand her feelings better.

Ms. Silverman went on to criticize President Trump’s “nationalist” slogans like “Make America Great Again” and “America First” as problematic because they “exploit patriotism” and indicate that America is “No. 1” without acknowledging the need for change.

“As patriots, I think we should strive to see ourselves in each other, whereas I feel that the nationalist view is to see yourself and then others,” she said. “There’s a willing blindness in saying, ‘We’re No. 1.'”

Well, actually, no. What there is, is pride, a belief that this country is, in truth, the greatest nation on earth, warts be damned. To believe that America is unique in all the world, to love this country first above all others, to wish to see its elected leadership pursue its interests doggedly and unashamedly, does NOT render one A) incapable of recognizing its imperfections, B) hostile to other countries by default, or C) eager to see the American system imposed by force or chicanery on any other country.

As Moran says, this fine-toothed parsing of “patriotism” and “nationalism” is a time-honored Lefty ploy:

Conflating “nationalism” with “patriotism” is a political construct that has nothing to do with reality. Silverman, like many liberals, have decided to define nationalism extremely narrowly. That definition equates the simple, heartfelt patriotism of most Americans with the virulent, racist nationalism of Nazi Germany.

You can love America and point out its errors, its troubled past, or its sins. But without acknowledging America’s triumphs, its generosity of spirit, its dedication to human freedom, and all the things that make us an exceptional nation, one can legitimately question what kind of “patriotism” Silverman and her ilk actually feel.

A very narrow, self-serving, and superficial one, of course. They’re “patriotic” not for an America that actually exists, but for a dim fantasy in which all their collectivist dreams have been realized: an America humbled—weakened, docile, and impoverished by a vision that is diametrically opposed to everything its Founders wished. A “patriotism” that can only react to the sight of the nation’s flag unfurled and flying proudly with fear and horror—rather than being moved and inspired by it—is no kind of patriotism at all, and is as useless as it is contemptible.

Share

Build the damned wall NOW

Wow. Just…wow.

Donald Trump Jr lead a group of outraged politicians and right-wing commentators after the Mexican illegal immigrant who admitted to shooting Kate Steinle in the back while she was walking with her father on a San Francisco pier was found not guilty of second-degree murder.

‘What a disgrace,’ the president’s oldest son tweeted late Thursday night after attending the White House tree lighting ceremony.

‘Don’t let the rest of the country become California. If this isn’t a wake call up (sic) to reasonable and law abiding people I don’t know what is.’

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was charged with second-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. Though he admitted to shooting the 32-year-old in the back on July 1, 2015, he said the gun went off accidentally.

He was also not found guilty of involuntary manslaughter or assault with a firearm, and was only convicted on being a felon in possession of a weapon. Garcia Zarate now faces between 16 months and three years in state prison, and US immigration officials have said he will be deported.

Again. For all the good it will do.

Before the shooting Garcia Zarate had been deported five times and served federal prison time for illegally re-entering the United States. He had also been released from the San Francisco jail about three months before the shooting, despite a request by federal immigration authorities to detain him for further deportation proceedings.

San Francisco is a so-called sanctuary city that bars city officials from cooperating with federal immigration deportation efforts.

Thereby rendering this blunt statement from Don Jr perfectly fair and accurate:

Don Jr also blamed the verdict on democrats. Responding to a question Charlie Kirk posed in a tweet about how ‘an illegal alien can kill someone and walk away,’ Don Jr responded ‘Liberals…and the general lack of common sense so prevalent amongst them.’

Precisely so, and undeniable.

And now, thanks to the damnfool Left’s recalcitrant obstinacy, Steinle’s anguished parents see their grief compounded, their nightmare permanently extended, and must relinquish forever even the dimmest hope of ever seeing justice done for this entirely preventable crime. Progressivist nitwits better hope that the amount of blood on their hands is never recognized by sane Americans, nor the very real damage done to all of us by their folly and foolishness…lest it be made legal to hunt them down in the streets, and a bounty placed on their empty heads.

Via Ed, who quite rightly asks: “WANT MORE TRUMP, CALIFORNIA? HEADLINES LIKE THIS WILL GET YOU MORE TRUMP.” And it damned well ought to, too.

Share

There they go again

Now the Lyin’ Left is hoping to hang Charles Manson around the Right’s neck.

At VICE magazine—which at the moment appears to be on the verge of about 100,000 sexual harassment lawsuits, give or take a few—we are told that Manson was a “virulent racist” and that “If Charles Manson were alive and literate, he would be writing for Breitbart.”

The Huffington Post refers to the Manson Family as a “Far-Right…Cult.” It further alleges that both Charlie Manson and leaders of the modern Alt-Right such as Richard Spencer were ultimately seeking power, as if no one on the left ever cloaks their unquenchable thirst for power beneath bullshit phrases such as “equality” and “justice.”

Even in India they’re trying to shackle Manson to Donald Trump and the Alt-Right. An essay in The Hindu aggressively denies that Manson was in any way a product—and especially not the reductio ad absurdum—of the 1960s counterculture:

Manson had a well-documented hatred of Jewish people, African-Americans and women. Rather than the liberal counterculture movement of the 1960s, his bigoted philosophy bears a disturbing resemblance in some respects with the far-right or alt-right brand of neo-fascism that has mushroomed in certain pockets of U.S. politics recently.

Writing for Raw Story, 85-year-old hippie icon Paul Krassner blames imprisonment and Scientology—Manson for many years claimed to be a Scientologist—rather than the 60s counterculture for molding Manson’s psychology: “Manson was never really a hippie,” he writes.

Oh, really?

Would anyone care to explain the fact that the Manson Family first took root in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district during 1967’s “Summer of Love”? What about all the orgies and long hair and LSD? Care to account for the communal living and dumpster-diving? How about the Manson Family’s rock-star aspirations and the fact that the Beach Boys covered one of Charlie’s songs? What about their vocal opposition to the Vietnam War, to “the establishment,” to “capitalist filth,” and all the inflamed rhetoric about “pigs”? What about the fact that Richard Nixon openly hated Charles Manson and vice-versa? How about Manson girl Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme’s failed 1975 assassination attempt on Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford?

What about when John Lennon approvingly noted that Manson “took children in when nobody else would” and claimed that “I just think a lot of the things he says are true”? How about the fact that folksinger Phil Ochs and Jerry Rubin visited Manson in jail? How do you explain Bernadine Dohrn of the far-left murderous terrorist group Weather Underground—and later cosponsor of Barack Obama’s fledgling political career—describing the LaBianca murders in the following psychotically exultant terms?

First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.

To claim that Charles Manson had nothing to do with the 1960s counterculture is like saying that the 100+ million killed under communist regimes had nothing to do with real communism.

Pretty much, yep. Which isn’t to say that Manson’s own political beliefs (if any) were Leftist, mind. As with so many of these mass-murdering nuts, his political leanings—to the extent he had any at all; if he ever stated them in any great depth I’m not aware of it—were a chaotic, nonsensical melange of disparate and even contradictory bits of this and that. Manson’s primary motivation was never politics at all, but his demented obsession with sparking a race war (Goad has further examination of that, and proposes a much more mundane and pragmatic alternative idea behind the Tate/LaBianca murders). Bottom line:

Manson was indeed a product of the 1960s, but more than anything he was the product of a teenaged alcoholic mother/prostitute and the doomed path such a bedraggled spawning set him on. By the time of the Tate/LaBianca murders, Manson had already spent half of his life in correctional facilities of one sort or another. And if he developed negative attitudes toward blacks, it likely had far less to do with reading George Lincoln Rockwell and far more to do with being forced to interact with blacks behind bars during his formative years. He was not nearly as naive about race as so many who’d condemn him for being a “racist” are.

MLK was murdered a year before the Manson Family murders. Riots had sprung up all across the USA. As a street hustler and lifetime con, Manson had the survival instincts that so very few pampered modern leftist scribes will ever have. If he foresaw an inevitable race war in America, maybe he was nothing more than a hillbilly Bob Dylan and saw it blowin’ in the wind.

If Manson was truly prophetic about anything, though, it was why whites would lose a theoretical race war. According to Manson, when blacks came seeking blood vengeance, whites would be too hopelessly split between those with self-preservation instincts—those who are now defamed as “racists”—and the uptight, sheltered squares who thought it would be “racist” not to let black people start killing them en masse.

None of which will dissuade the contemptible, self-loathing Progtards from trying to make political hay out of him themselves, naturally. In fact, if the Manson Family murders had happened last week, they’d probably be trying to gin up a way to call for another gun ban in the wake of it, and blaming Trump and Fox News for the whole thing. Which only means they’re damned near as loony, incoherent, and manipulative as Manson was.

Share

The Opposite Rule

ZMan hangs a useful name on something I’ve mentioned here many a time.

Like most normal men, I’m enjoying the hell out of seeing the girls go crazy, accusing every liberal man in sight of being a predator. When it comes to the media, I’m firmly in the camp that says, “burn, baby, burn.”  When it comes to cretins like Al Franken and John Conyers, well, there is no torment that would be too monstrous for them. Of course, the Hollywood stuff is manna from heaven. The only thing that would make it better is if they actually start burning men at the stake in the Hollywood hills. That would be awesome.

As others have been enthusiastic to point out, this is almost exclusively a Progressive problem. The men being hauled off to pervert’s island are mostly the male feminist types, who used to delight in accusing normal men of bad behavior. The Fox News scandal that kicked this off is the notable exception, but that’s beginning to look like a special case as the great panic rolls forward. I’ll get back to this in a minute, but I think the Fox stuff fits into all of this, as does the Roy Moore hoax. It’s all part of the larger pattern.

What this looks like is the Left set out to accuse their rivals of the things popular on the Left. All of these Prog-men being jammed up by the girls were happy to accuse Trump of being bad for women. Meanwhile, guys like Matt Lauer were planning to build a sex dungeon at 30 Rock. Al Franken was entertaining his buddies with stories about how he wanted to drug and rape Leslie Stahl. The Opposite Rule of Liberalism says that whatever Lefty is hooting about, you can be sure he is the most guilty.

Yep. Call it projection, call it deflection, call it a strategic diversion or whatever else you like, but the Opposite Rule works well enough for me.

Share

Tis the season

For predictions of what might take place next year, and Schlichter goes ahead and gets himself an early start.

THE DEMOCRATS, THE GOPe, AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WILL NOT TAKE A PERSONAL INVENTORY AND THINK ABOUT THEIR ROLE IN ELECTING ROY MOORE. (Confidence Factor: 95%)

Nah, it’s much easier, and so much more self-satisfying, for urban elites to pretend that the people of Alabama are a bunch of pro-pedo freaks than to consider that they actually don’t believe the charges, in large part because they don’t trust their establishment and media betters. Oh, and it’s easier to pretend that Alabamians don’t see the incredible hypocrisy being rubbed in their face by people who protect their admittedly guilty establishment fellow travelers while demanding that these red staters submit to years of representation by an ardent leftist based on hotly disputed claims.

TRUMP WILL TWEET ABOUT SOMETHING AND THE LIBERALS AND WUSSY NEVER TRUMPERS WILL FREAK OUT AND WE CONSERVATIVES WILL LAUGH HYSTERICALLY (Confidence Factor: 100%)

I mean some freakoutrage besides Pocahantasgate. While the libs and Never Trumpers were wetting their collective collectivist selves, we normals were rolling and those awesome Navajo Code Talkers were totally thinking, “I was at freakin’ Iwo Jima – I think I can handle a joke.

Yeah, that prediction was almost too easy.

That might just be the worst of it: these greasy degenerates have become so predictable. Our present-day political class has lost whatever entertainment value they might once have had, and have shriveled into something boring and banal.

I mean, come on, remember Wilbur Mills and his stripper girlfriend, “The Argentine Firecracker,” splashing around in the DC Tidal Basin nekkid after getting popped for a late-night drunk drive around the DC environs? Now THERE was a scandal worth paying attention to, I tells ya. There were giants in them days, folks, real lowlifes who knew how to fuck up properly, and disgrace themselves with style.

Pygmies. They’re all just pygmies now, feeble shadows of the truly amusing miscreants that roamed the earth before them. It’s kinda sad, and certainly disappointing.

Share

Ruminations on Civil War v2.0

So TR sends an e-mail, to wit:

Let’s suppose, for a moment, that the Dems are successful in stealing the Alabama seat, and perhaps winning control of Congress back in 2018. Then they immediately impeach Trump. For what? Doesn’t matter – the Constitution doesn’t matter to them. Then the Senate, with a cabal of Dems and NeverTrump “Republicans,” convicts and removes him from office.

Do they really think that it’s over? That Pence will be inaugurated as President and that Trump supporters will go gentle into that good night? If they think that, I do believe that they are sadly mistaken. I think that is the moment when the “cold Civil War” becomes a hot Civil War. I think that’s the final straw for those of us who have tried to do things the right way, in accordance with the Constitution and our political system, and that we will realize that we are under a dictatorship by another name.

I’m sure the Romanovs felt quite secure, too, on November 6, 1917.

What are your thoughts? Do you think this finally shakes enough of us out of our stupor, or do we continue down the road to serfdom?

Good questions, and weighty ones. I sat down intending to dash something pithy and concise off in response. But since these days I just can’t seem to limit myself to pithy and concise anymore, the whole thing sort of ran away with me, and I ended up with the following extended peroration instead, which I’ll tuck below the fold to spare those of you whose interest in meandering speculation from me is, shall we say, constrained.
Continue reading “Ruminations on Civil War v2.0”

Share

Latest shoe dropping

The Uniparty Coup Cabal find themselves a new Ewan McMuffin:

When retired Marine Col. Lee Busby read it was too late for a write-in candidate for the Alabama Senate race, he said, “Hold my beer, we will just see about that.”

Busby told The Daily Beast on Monday he is launching his long-shot bid to stop Republican nominee Roy Moore from reaching the Senate.

“I have no idea if the allegations against him true or not, but I don’t see anything within his experience as a judge that qualifies him for the job.”

Busby said his state needs a choice other than Moore or Democrat Doug Jones.

“Alabama is not happy with the two choices we have down here. They are not appealing.”

Seeing as he’s a former Marine, I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he’s sincere, with integrity enough to refuse to be part of any low Establishment skullduggery. On the other hand:

Busby said he spent 31 years in the Marine Corps and on his last tour of duty was vice chief of staff to then-Gen. John Kelly, who is now White House chief of staff.

Now, Trump might be concerned enough about Moore’s chance of winning that he or his staff could conceivably have instigated Busby to throw his hat into the ring, sure enough. But frankly I doubt it; for one thing, I think the odds are on Busby ending up as a spoiler, siphoning enough votes from Moore to throw the election to the Democrat Socialist viper. The odds are always long against winning as a write-in, and Busby has jumped into this one way late: what kind of organization can he possibly have, and how could a slapdash, cobbled-together campaign crew possibly hope to get itself running smoothly enough to push an underdog candidate over the top in so short a time?

Trump and his advisers would have to know all this, and I’m sure that, despite his lukewarm support for him so far, he’d far rather hold his nose and see Moore sworn in than have that happen.

As unpredictable and/or unmanageable a wild card as a Senator Moore might well turn out to be, Trump can still count on one hell of a lot more support and assistance with pushing the MAGA agenda from him than he could ever hope for from any Democrat Socialist you could think of, much less as staunch a Statist tapeworm as Doug Jones seems to be. He does himself no real harm in remaining mostly aloof on this…apart from the prospect of helping Jones and the Uniparty shitweasels steal an election via Busby that still looks like Moore’s to win.

An ironic aside: anybody remember back when the self-same GOPe frauds who are now far too pious to endure a candidate “tainted” by unprovable, decades-old sexual smears backed only by the say-so of suspect witnesses were demanding that we all “hold our noses” and vote for Romney, McCain, Bush, etc? Nah, me neither.

Share

“Drain the swamp” won’t even BEGIN to cover it

Codevilla weighs in on GrabAssGate.

During my eight years on the Senate staff, sex was a currency for renting rungs on ladders to power. Uninvolved and with a hygroscopic shoulder, I listened to accounts of the trade, in which some one-third of senators, male senior staff, and corresponding numbers of females seemed to be involved. I write “trade,” because not once did I hear of anyone forcing his attention. Given what seemed an endless supply of the willing, anyone who might feel compelled to do that would have been a loser otherwise unfit for survival in that demanding environment.

This, I wager, is not so different from others’ experiences in Washington. Senior female staffers were far more open than secretaries in describing their conquests of places up the ladder, especially of senators. There was some reticence only in talking about “relationships” with such as John Tower (R-Texas) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) because they were the easiest, and had so many. The prize, of course, was Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)—rooster over a veritable hen house that was, almost literally, a “chick magnet.” Access to power, or status, or the appearance thereof was on one side, sex on the other. Innocence was the one quality entirely absent on all sides.

In the basic bargain, the female proposes. The power holder has the prerogative to say “no,” or just to do nothing. By a lesser token, wealthy men need not offer cash to have female attention showered on them. Money is silver currency. Power is gold. A few, occasionally, get impatient and grab. But taking egregious behavior as the norm of the relationship between power and sex willfully disregards reality. Banish the grabbing, and the fundamental reality remains unchanged.

Which is one reason why, as I’ve said, my sympathy for most of these “victims” is limited, to say the least. Of course, that’s excluding any truly innocent women who have in fact been raped. But I have serious doubts as to them being anything but a tiny minority, more or less the exception that proves the rule.

What this all still looks like to me is a Uniparty scheme to get at Trump via Moore which has blown up in the plotters’ faces. Now the Democrat Socialists, always the Uniparty branch harboring far more degenerates than the Repubs could ever get away with, are in the unaccustomed position of being hoist on their own petard, of being embarrassed by having the chasm between what they profess and what they do brought right out in the open.

And it reminds me again of the futility of campaigns to “get money out of politics.” As long as we’re saddled with a government as overgrown, powerful, and intrusive as this one, it will never happen. Both sex and money will continue to be the means by which people will attempt to purchase influence or favors from any entity so entangled with every facet of our lives—even if that favor is only to be left alone.

A properly limited federal government operating within Constitutional constraints simply wouldn’t have as much to sell, and therefore wouldn’t inspire nearly as much corruption. Not none, of course. But nothing like the impenetrable and almost incomprehensible web of sleaze and degeneracy woven about Mordor on the Potomac now.

The Clintons and the Weinsteins, yesterday’s ruling class paragons, are useful foils. When, inadvertently, photos implicate a member of the current ruling class leadership, such as Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) in beastly behavior, ruling class colleagues and media give him a pass (“he apologized!”) and use his case unfavorably to contrast the real enemies—always on the Right: President Donald Trump and Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore. “They are disqualified from office because they haven’t even admitted their guilt!”

In short, penalties for breaches of any item of political correctness are and will remain what they have been in the past, without exception: thinly veiled excuses to harm whoever stands in the way of the ruling class’s members.

The conclusion Codevilla reaches might not be at all what you’d expect; I confess to having been quite taken aback by it myself. But he’s far too smart and perceptive, and has been right far too many times already, for me to even think of betting against him before giving it some serious thought. If he has the right of it, the rot goes far deeper than even I in my cynicism ever imagined…and will be damned near impossible to root out without just burning the whole damned place to the ground and starting over.

Share

Correcting Kurt

Vox does it, in response to Schlichter’s warning in a recent column that we’re “going to start hating” the fascist Left “right back.”

Most of us aren’t “going to start hating” the Left. We started that a long, long time ago. I can’t even honestly say that I hate it anymore, at least, no more than I hate mold. The point is, you either get rid of the mold or you move somewhere else to get away from it. The one thing you do not do, the one thing you cannot do, is try to warn it, fix it, or coexist with it.

Conservatives simply don’t grasp that “please stop” is no more convincing than “please clap”.

The mold analogy is a good one, but I’m also reminded of the old joke about the scorpion and the frog: you don’t necessarily have to hate them, quite. But you definitely shouldn’t be giving them any rides across flooded rivers on your back, either. It’s just their nature, and as such it’s probably best to stay away from them as much as possible. We non-frogs should be diligent in our efforts to keep them out of our homes and gardens, too, by any means we can.

Share

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

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

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

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

Again with the walking around naked.

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

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

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

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

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

Because there’s no proof on that one.

Just her claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Oh, irony!

They’ll remain oblivious, of course.

As Roy Moore’s troubles were just getting underway, leftist CNN commentator Van Jones made what has to be one of the least self-aware and yet most revealing comments of the Trumpian Age. Targeting Breitbart firebrand Steve Bannon, who had promoted Moore, Van Jones said, “Bannon is trying to create this sense of an aggrieved identity, frankly, of a white aggrieved identity group that’s under siege by everybody. And this is that in its worse form. So, you’re not supposed to vote as a father, you’re not supposed to vote as a woman. You’re supposed to vote as a member of this identity group against the world. And if that works, that is very, very bad for the Republican Party and it’s very, very bad for our country.”

This comes from the man — from the political party — from the philosophy — that has sold absolutely nothing but aggrieved identities for the last sixty years, ever since it became clear that actual leftist policies don’t work. Blacks, women, people who think they’re women, people who pretend to be black — whatever category you find yourself in, the left has preached that you should ignore the disaster of leftism and focus only on your sweet victimhood, voting your grievances even when it’s against your best interests.

In other words, Van Jones’ only real complaint against Bannon is that Bannon has sunk to the level of Van Jones!

It is no surprise that leftists are empty vessels with “Virtue” printed on the side. What is new here is that all CNN’s horses and all the New York Times’ men can’t quite put the Dems’ self-image together again. What’s new is a rebel media and a pugilistic president who call them out for the despicable liars they are. The days when a press monopolized by the left could crown a sick punk like Ted Kennedy the “Lion of the Senate,” and get away with it? Them days are done.

So if leftists really want conservatives to behave like conservatives, they should make sure the networks and the Times and CNN begin to hold everyone to the same standards all the time no matter what’s at stake.

Don’t even dream of holding your breath waiting for that, bub. As Vox says:

Klavan and other conservative commentators have got to get over their irrepressible desire to fix the Left and understand that they don’t get a vote. The point is not to prove to the Left that they are wrong and that they should stop what they are doing and behave more like we do. The point is to defeat them utterly, then eradicate their ideas from Western civilization before they manage to destroy it once and for all.

Preee-cisely.

Share

Unity now nah

The last desperate resort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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



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