Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

“The more one thinks about the idea, the less sense it makes”

Reparations now!

Who would get them and why? Would someone with two slaves in his or her family three get half of what someone with four slaves in his or her family tree receives? Would middle-class and poor blacks get the same? Would reparations be in lieu of affirmative-action programs, which also purport to right historic injustices, or in addition to them?

Those are just the start of the questions, but unlike in past decades, many if not most “civil rights” and black nationalist groups have joined forces to make “reparations” a legitimate item on the racial progress agenda. Gone are the luminaries among black intellectuals and leaders who voiced their disgust and distrust of “fake reparations” as either an “apology” for slavery or as a sop to black charities and “rights” organizations that thirst for bounty from a reparations pot.

Some damned deplorable old ofay racist blue-eyed devil cracker muuhfuuuuh delves a little deeper:

HOT FLASH: Concerning slavery and interracial animosity, there are things everyone should know – yeah, more “in the land of should” stuff – but few people do:

  • The institution of slavery is as old as recorded human history.
  • Slavery still exists today, though “under cover,” in the Middle East, Africa, and various Indian Ocean societies.
  • Among First World nations, the first to abolish slavery was Great Britain in 1833. The United States followed in 1866. You may recall the unpleasantness that was required to do so.
  • Interracial animosity is a constant of human existence. Attempts to eliminate it have failed wherever and whenever they’re tried.
  • History suggests that interracial animosity is not connected to whether slavery exists or has ever existed in a given locale.

In other words, the races naturally look upon one another with a degree of suspicion that unfortunate events can elevate to open hostility. Moreover, there are reasons for this: not cultural but biological reasons that are written into the genes of every race.

White Americans have done their damnedest to eliminate interracial friction. It hasn’t worked – but not because white Americans haven’t given it a sincere effort. 

White Americans have allowed black racialists, in collaboration with the political class, to make us feel guilt for something in which we had no part: slavery. Indeed, most of us have no ancestors who ever owned slaves. The total number of American slaveowners before 1866 was about 30,000. Even if those thirty thousand slaveowners had borne ten children each, and their children and children’s children did likewise, that would amount to only 30 million descendants of slaveowners: less than 10% of today’s population.

But slavery – more specifically, “the legacy of slavery” — is the hook on which the racial rabble-rousers hang their claims of white oppression of blacks. It’s total nonsense and always has been, even in the South during the Jim Crow era.

Don’t take my word for it; look it up. American blacks prospered steadily, both economically and socially, from 1866 to 1964: a century of relentless advancement. Husbands were reunited with wives. Families sundered by slavery regathered. Ironically, Southern blacks did better, statistically, than those who relocated to Northern states, even under the Jim Crow regime: the Northern cities to which they moved tended to erect barriers to the trades and new enterprises the migrating blacks would otherwise have entered!

But racialist demagogues don’t want you to know that. It would take the bread out of their mouths. They also don’t want you to know that by inhibiting productive work and encouraging illegitimacy and fatherless families, the welfare state has done more harm to American blacks than two centuries of slavery could ever have done.

Racialist demagogues are far more concerned with maintaining their followings and the revenue to their “foundations” than with improving any aspect of race relations. So the crusade to impose unearned guilt on American whites and extract tribute from us through the legal system must continue.

And people ask where the white identity and white nationalist movements get their impetus. It is to laugh…hollowly, and with many a tear.

Now, I don’t disagree with any of the sentiments expressed in the above excerpted posts. Any attempt at “reparations” legislation will be scandalous folly, doomed to fail for all sorts of good and patently obvious reasons. It will end up satisfying precisely no one on either side of the equation—not the beneficiaries, not the people forced to pay a tab in no just or logical sense their own. It will be unjust and tyrannical by definition, coercing people whose ancestors never owned a single slave into coughing up handsomely to other people many of whom are not the descendants of slaves. It will be farcical, unfair, unethical, and completely unworkable.

Worse yet, it will also be truly, definitionally racist: a government-sponsored program of coerced confiscation from blameless people guilty of no crime, the ill-gotten gains then gifted to ersatz “victims” who have been done no conceivable harm—ie, a wealth-redistribution scam based wholly on skin color and nothing whatsoever else.

In other words, these comically-misnomered “reparations” will be just another typical government boondoggle, gratifying only the tens of thousands (or more) of overpaid, slothful bureaucrats hired to manage the whole sorry scheme—bureaucrats who will never be fired, because this new grift will conjure reasons for itself to extend its mandate indefinitely…just like every other eternal government goat-rope does.

I know all this, and so do you, and so does anybody with half a lick of sense. Honestly, though, I hope they go through with it anyway. Because I’m pretty danged confident that the day the “reparations” con is voted into existence will also be the day every self-respecting white person in the country quietly removes himself from the taxpayer rolls for good, his eyes having been opened at last to his true status as both despised whipping-boy and taken-for-granted feed trough. Which overdue awakening, in turn, will mark the beginning of the end for FederalGovCo, however the final result ends up working itself out.


Refugee problem: a practical solution

Francis calls it a “political wet dream.

John Whiteman, Prime Minister of a First World nation that shall go unidentified for obvious reasons, recently announced a change to his country’s “refugee” policies. He can’t change the law, but he can change how it’s observed in practice – and he has. Immediately afterward, he addressed a group of “refugees” that made it to his nation’s shores:

“Refugees, eh? Yet more than ninety percent of you are young men, all of you look healthy, and it looks like most of you have smart phones. What are you running from, the fathers of the girls you knocked up?

“According to our laws, we have to house you ‘refugees’ here…but only until we can return you to your home countries in safety. So here’s the deal: you’ll be living in tents, in this compound, which you won’t be permitted to leave. There’ll be no WiFi, no electricity, and no entertainment of any kind. Yes, there’ll be food and water, but we won’t care about your opinion of the food, and water will be all you get to drink. Clothes? What’s wrong with the clothes you’re wearing?

“The compound is surrounded by crew-served machine gun emplacements that are continuously manned. Anyone who tries to scale the fence will be shot down, no questions asked. His neighbors can dispose of his body; we certainly won’t want it.

“For extra security, you’ll all be wearing ankle monitors. Very special ankle monitors: if you cut through the band that holds them on, they explode. Guaranteed amputation of your lower leg. If one of you is detected outside the compound, he’ll be tracked down and executed wherever he’s found, again no questions asked. Yes, kids too. Some of you ‘teenagers’ have mighty impressive beards.

“We aren’t interested in hearing any demands from you. In fact, the very first demand any of you makes will get all of you loaded onto a raft and dragged a mile out to sea. Think you could make it back?

“Whoever survives this regime will be returned to his homeland when we think it’s safe. You won’t get a vote. After all, we didn’t get one when you decided to leave, and fair’s fair.

“So make yourselves at home! Those of you whose phones are working should call your buddies back in Dumbfuckistan and tell them about the conditions here. Especially you should tell them about the size of this compound – the fixed size of this compound. No matter how many ‘refugees’ arrive here, they’ll all be confined to the space you occupy now. No enlargement will be considered.

“Have a nice day!”

Do read on from there, you’ll like it. Unfortunately, you can safely bet that most Americans would be mortified and shocked by the “inhumane extremism” of the ideas explored therein, which speaks sad volumes about the rudderless moral chaos of our era.


Long Island to NYC: drop dead!

Francis expands on yesterday’s NYC secession post.

I would be very grateful for such a secession even though I’m stuck on Long Island, which would be joined willy-nilly to the far-Left downstate region. First, it would compel downstaters to pull their heads out of their asses and confront what the political elite of this state has done to us. But second and far more important, it would emphasize to politicians everywhere that subjugation can be resisted – that a sufficient number of freedom-minded persons can and will eventually liberate themselves, regardless of the price.

Secession is a frightening word to politicians and their hangers-on. The late Joseph Sobran noted that it really means freedom. For the upstate region to separate from the cancer that is New York City would be to free upstaters from the political dominance the Big Apple has exerted over them for many decades. New York City’s many pathologies would no longer burden the upstate region. Neither would the many intrusive and irrational laws the city’s liberal population has forced on the state. And let’s not get started about New York’s taxation, which is driving young Americans out of the state at a record rate.

I think it as good as guaranteed that the New York political elite will fight any organized drive for a separation into two states. Politicians generally aren’t stupid, regardless of how often they may posture stupidly before a camera. They grasp that power requires subjects, and the more the better. The national political elite will fight a secession drive equally fiercely, as it would provide conservatively inclined Americans with more votes in the Electoral College. 

The rebellion of the South occurred to preserve slavery against the North-based abolitionist movement and to escape the protective tariffs that favored Northern manufactured goods over cheaper imports. A state of affairs much like that which bedevils New York brought about the secession of the Confederate states.

In composing a tract such as this, it’s absurdly necessary to say explicitly that this is not an argument for slavery or the Confederacy’s desire to preserve it. Rather, it’s an illustration of the sectionalist tensions and enmities that result when one region imposes its interests on another through the law. Quite similar tensions and enmities afflict New York State. The only imaginable solution, given the thoroughgoing corruption of the state’s political class and the unbelievable arrogance of the urban liberals who support them, is secession.

Should that solution be thwarted, the tensions and enmities will grow. I don’t want to find out what the consequences will be by experiencing them. Far better than we part while an amicable parting is still possible. But don’t expect to hear that from Andrew Cuomo or any of the Democrats who dominate the councils in Albany and New York City.

Well, of course not. The Powers That Be greatly enjoy the Power They Have, and fully intend to retain their iron grip on it. That power is tightly bound up in the status quo: it is its source, its sustenance, and its security. Permanent professional politicians—whether presently in office, seeking election, or sucking and slurping around government’s swampy periphery like blowflies—will go to any length to see that it remains undisturbed. The Electoral College bit admittedly hadn’t even occurred to me, but as Fran says, it provides a compelling motivation indeed for our putative elites to defend their cherished status quo to the very last breath.


NY to NYC: drop dead!

A deliciously scorching smackdown.

The New York City Daily News treated Upstate New York to one of the most condescending editorials imaginable the other day. Chris Denton offers a reply.

In the New York Daily News on March 4th, 2019 the following editorial appeared:

“Something must be off with the water upstate. Several Republicans in Albany are offering dopey plans to split the big city and its environs, which pay the bills and provide the entertainment, from the rural stretches. One senator wants an economic impact study of a rupture (easy: we get richer, you get poorer). One assemblyman is pushing a separation referendum. Another clueless duo seeks one senator per county (dozen for upstate, five for the boroughs), even though it violates the US Constitution. This much we know: Our water, which comes from upstate, is great. In any divorce, we get it. They are all wet.”

Here is the upstate reply:

Dear Editor:
Let’s start with a few questions about the consequences to NYC if upstate leaves:

Where are you going to get your energy?

Governor Cuomo is shutting down your Indian Point Carbon-Neutral Nuclear Power Plant. Mayor deBlasio is shutting down city power plants. Your Governor Cuomo has stopped the building of pipelines upstate that would have allowed gas hook-ups in Westchester and Long Island, but which now are not possible due to lack of pipelines to deliver it. Your Governor Cuomo has stopped all natural gas drilling, which the new state will allow.

The new upstate will allow drilling. Upstate will have very cheap energy. And can sell it to Massachusetts and NYC at a price high enough to assuage their collective Environmental Guilt. Upstate generates twice as much electricity as it uses, nearly all of which comes from the four nuclear carbon-neutral power plants and Niagara Falls carbon-neutral hydroelectric power plant. Upstate doesn’t need solar or wind for its energy needs or for its environmental conscience.
The destruction of upstate hill tops from Industrial Wind Turbines and the destruction of forests and farm land from Industrial Solar Gathering Sites will cease. Upstate will no longer suffer from infrasound, flicker, bat kills, bird kills, eagle kills, wake and electromagnetic interference from Wind Turbines. NYC and its environs will pay three times as much as upstate does for its energy. You are going to need that money of which you spoke.

Labor market? The pension system for NYC employees will fall on NYC’s head. You are going to need the riches you claim to have. Upstate will start with a clean slate. Right to work state. Rent our prisons to NYC et al. No defined benefit pension plans to drain the life out of the tax payers. Minimum wage can reflect our economy, not NYC’s. The lack of mandatory prevailing union wage scale for all government projects and the end of unfunded mandates will save us billions.

Subsidies for utopian projects? The tax draining subsidies for solar and wind which upstate doesn’t need will save us more billions. You are welcome to assuage your environmental guilt at your own expense and to put in as many wind turbines as you can cluster in Long Island Sound, in the Atlantic off Montauk Point, off the Hamptons, off Fire Island and Far Rockaway, in Central Park, and on top of buildings.

You are welcome to put solar panels on every square foot of Central Park, Van Cortlandt Park, Jamaica Bay, Liberty Island, Ellis Island, Rikers Island, City Island, Governor’s Island, Fire Island, Shelter Island, etc. No exceptions for politicians and the rich, which you will now be free to tax at 70%. Gee, I wonder what part of the old New York State they will move to? And once upstate is free of the NYC driven social agenda of driving out Amazon, it will be welcomed upstate. And you can have your own socialist state and become an open borders sanctuary state at your own expense.

One more thing. In NYC only the gangs carry guns – mostly to hunt defenseless people. Upstate we carry guns for hunting game and for defense against gangs. Upstate men, women and the elderly shoot back.

If you Upstaters are smart, you’ll get busy building a Big Beautiful Wall around NYC of the sort Snake Plisskin had to fly over to get into the city, and fast. The closing Editor’s Note is a sweet parting shot too:

Editor’s Note: What Chris is addressing, here, as I see it, is the cocky “you need us” New York City attitude that supposes the world depends on the condescending folks who live there, when the exact opposite is true. New York City cannot exist without the rural areas that supply its food and make its energy. It is wholly dependent on imports, in fact, and Upstate New York could survive quite nicely without it. It wouldn’t be poorer, but richer, because it could sell its products without having to bear the unbearable burden of New York’s wasteful spending and high taxes. Secession is less the point than understanding these facts. Indeed, I might have titled this post “If you think you’d benefit by a secession, we dare you!”

As always, arrogant, obnoxious libtards should be very careful what they wish for, lest they get it—good and hard.

(Via Insty)


“Soft beatings inevitably turn hard”

A calm voice in a turbulent time.

In March of 2016, during the heat of the Republican primary contest, Josh Marshall, the tetchy founder of Talking Points Memo, offered an ominous augury about the raucous Trump campaign. “Someone will die,” he thundered, giving, at the time, the umpteenth warning about the violent effects of the real estate magnate’s aggressive rhetoric. “It may sound like hyperbole. But this is the kind of climate of agitation and violence where someone will end up getting severely injured or killed. I do not say that lightly,” Marshall warned his loyal audience.

I’ve thought about the piece a lot since Trump’s unlikely election and the Democrats’ slow descent into madness. Every new instance of liberal-concocted violence brings it back to mind, like a nagging reminder. Whether it’s James Hodgkinson’s attempted killing spree, Trump supporters accosted in public, or even hoaxed hate crimes, Marshall’s prediction might appear prescient, albeit in a backwards way.

In “No Hate Left Behind,” Thomas Edsall cites a study from political scientists Nathan Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason on the growing ease at which Americans are willing to employ violence against their partisan opponents. “Just over 42 percent of the people in each party view the opposition as ‘downright evil,’” Edsall despairs, unaware that one of his byline colleagues once suggested “good people can’t be Republicans.” The data only gets worse from there. When asked if their favored party loses the 2020 presidential election, “18.3 percent of Democrats and 13.8 percent of Republicans said violence would be justified on a scale ranging from ‘a little’ to ‘a lot.’”

Then there’s the question of ontological moral status. The researchers found that “nearly one out of five Republicans and Democrats agree with the statement that their political adversaries ‘lack the traits to be considered fully human — they behave like animals.’”

Ahh, there’s that increasingly annoying false-moral-equivalence again. And false it is.

Consider: one side endorses murdering newly-born infants as “a woman’s right to choose”; one…doesn’t. One side commits actual acts of violence as punishment for expressing a dissenting opinion, even for merely wearing a certain hat in public. The other…doesn’t. One side holds rage-fueled rallies and protests which leave mountains of rubbish, ruined landscaping, broken windows, even bags of human feces and/or urine in their aftermath. The other holds mannerly, entirely (not “mostly”) peaceable events at which no one but themselves need fear assault, and thoroughly polices up its mess afterwards.

One side primarily inhabits decaying urban areas enlivened by crackheads, hookers, vagrants, and raving madmen; sidewalks festooned with piles of human shit; and miscellaneous other signposts of sophistication, superior intelligence, and gracious living. The other prefers clean, quiet, well-tended suburbs or more remote country homes, also clean and well-tended. In those areas, any shambolic wino stumbling groggily onto someone’s nicely-manicured lawn to pinch an open-air loaf will find himself remanded into police custody with a quickness, with three hots and a cot the only compensation for the “injustice” visited upon him. Hell, when somebody’s dog shits on the lawn it’s usually cleaned up right away.

No, one of these things is NOT like the other. I’ll leave it to you guys to discuss which is the more civilized and which is more closely comparable to “behaving like animals.” It seems pretty danged obvious to me, but YMMV. Then comes the calmer perspective:

Saying there’s too much hatred in America’s air is like saying there’s too much salt in the ocean. The country was founded on partisan bickering, which occasionally turned violent. It’s narrow-minded to suggest we’re at a more perilous time in our history than, say, the Civil War or even the frequent riots of the ‘60s and ‘70s or the Galleanist bombings of 1919. The last guy who tried to wage a national bombing campaign only sent duds from his bumper-sticker-laden creeper van.

Aside from hyperventilating Hollywood types, who get an outsized amount of media coverage, and the discursive rantings on Facebook, we’re not quite at the point where neighbors turn on neighbors, kids turn on parents, brothers turn on brothers, all in a bloody free-for-all. Go to a supermarket on any given day and you’ll see all types of Americans quietly going about their business. Few people let the fear of mass shootings or terrorist attacks disrupt their plans. We have yet to see roving gangs of marauders targeting MAGA-hat wearers or Beto devotees.

America doesn’t have an anger problem so much as it has an anger-management problem. We’re a naturally het-up people. Sometimes that leaks out into scrums of fisticuffs. But, a lot of frustration that drives these physical altercations comes from a double standard. Those who go unpunished for aggression aren’t going to see the light and make peace with their ideological adversaries. One side gets a clear pass when it comes to acting on its frustrations, and it’s not the side Jussie Smollett tried to blame for his botched publicity stunt. When leftists haul off and slug conservatives, the media-driven outcry is not nearly the same as when the inverse occurs.

Josh Marshall inadvertently revealed as much by focusing on Trump’s coarse language and not the left’s own lack of self-control. Yes, someone has died as a casualty of a twisted political ideology. But the threat of a mass breakout in violence remains overstated. How we act in person is different than what we say on Twitter or to a pollster. One-on-one conversation can ease years of Facebook-fueled tension in just minutes. As Great Britain’s P.G. Wodehouse once admitted during the Blitz, “when I’m about to feel belligerent about some country I meet a decent sort of chap” who causes him to lose “any fighting feelings or thoughts.”

That can all change, of course.

It can at that. We’ll know soon enough which way things go.


Biology matters

Boys will be boys. Or girls. Or, y’know, whatever.

I’ve written before about how transgenderism destroys Title IX sports opportunities for girls and how this absurdly anti-science and anti-women stance will destroy women’s sports.

Shouldn’t even BE any “women’s sports.” Not anymore. Liberals worked very hard, for a very long time, to advance the ridiculous, reality-twisting idea that there is literally no difference between men and women. If that stupidity now clashes with their childish obssession with “fairness,” too damned bad for them. They should be forced to enjoy the fruits of their victory. They distilled this bitter cup of contradiction and folly themselves; now, let them drain it to its very last dregs.

Regarding hormones, men do not suddenly have more testosterone in puberty. To the contrary, boys, even in the intrauterine environment, are washed in different hormone concentrations than girls. They grow more quickly than girls. They’re different in babyhood. It happens again in toddlerhood. It happens finally, forcing secondary sex characteristics in puberty.

This is science. And then, these boys, who would be average athletes if they were to run, swim, wrestle, etc. against other boys, demolish the field because of their formidable, and unfair, biological advantages. The girls running against the boys know the difference.

Being a woman is not simply a matter of estrogen and progesterone. A woman’s hormones vary dramatically depending on her life cycle. For example, a woman’s testosterone elevates when she is pregnant. It also goes up proportionally against estrogen and progesterone during menopause. A female’s hormonal system is extraordinarily complex and ever changing. She can add more testosterone and growth hormone and even steroids to this mix but her bone density and structure, her brain, her lung capacity, muscle density, and on and on don’t magically change into a male’s.

Biological males cannot be women. Period. They can manipulate their hormones. They can receive breast implants. They can castrate themselves and mutilate their penises. None of these superficial changes can unwind the DNA helix.

All good, all true. But then things go a little sideways:

The solution to the dilemmas of the gender dysphoric child wanting to compete as the opposite sex is simple, but not easy: let them compete, but do not let them win. They have biological advantages over their female compatriots. A girl “transitioning” to boy and on testosterone, also should be allowed to compete but not win. Every race, match, etc. should automatically go to her competitor. Why? Because she is hormonally enhanced. A boy competing against a girl is hormonally enhanced. It’s not fair.

So what? What on earth could possibly be the point of allowing someone to “compete”…but not win? Doesn’t that sort of, I dunno, nullify the whole concept of competition?

No. HELL no. The very existence of “women’s sports” is discriminatory, segregationist, and sexist. It promotes inequality. Every athlete, regardless of gender or anything else, must compete on equal terms, on a truly level playing field, with no favoritism or distinction made according to gender identity. Only then will we achieve true equality. And that’s the most important thing of all, right?

Gender is a construct—a hateful, anachronistic holdover from a less enlightened era. Our betters have told us so, and we must accept their wisdom. So let us all embrace the new age of Progressivist enlightenment. Let us all finally take that last step into Liberal Utopia. Stop your whining about the “unfairness” of it all, girls; get out there on the field and take your lumps. This is the world the Left wanted, the one your feminist forebears made for you. Now you get to live in it too. Don’t let mere biology keep us all shackled to the old oppressive patriarchy and its restrictions, its degradation and denial of your boundless capability. Spread your wings and SOAR!

Remember to fly right on past all those chickens on your way up, and pay them no mind. They’re only coming home to roost, that’s all.


Foreign…AND domestic

ESPECIALLY domestic.

Thursday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin asserted that the sovereignty of the United States of America faces a greater threat from the modern Democratic Party than from any of her foreign enemies.

“We can deal with Red China. We can deal with Russia. We can deal with Iran. We can deal with North Korea. The problem is, when you have a cancer from within — and that’s what the Democrat party has become — that’s quite a different story. So many of the great men in our history made the point that if this country is to be destroyed, it’s going to be destroyed from within.”

Levin pointed out that not only would the agenda of the modern Democrat party eat the country from within both economically, through socialist policies, and by having open borders, but he also reminded listeners that the Democrat platform has foreign allies, too.

“Would,” Mark? Try HAS, rather. You’ll be nearer the mark.

I’ve said this in the context of fighting Muslim terrorism, but it’s gradually come to apply pretty much across the board to any conflict or confrontation we may face: if we hope to prevail against foreign adversaries, current or future, we’ll have to defeat the Democrat-Socialists first. They’re now the Main Enemy, Job One.


The little coup that couldn’t

VDH performs the post-mort.

In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.

Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.

Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning.

Yes indeed; t’is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But I won’t be holding my breath, and neither should you. Which brings us right ’round to this truly dismal prospect:

“Imagine, if you will, the momentary hysteria of the Kavanaugh nomination,” this individual writes, “revived and extended into a permanent state, with a real sense of existential threat animating all participants. That is our probable 2019.

“This doesn’t stay inside the Beltway. This means heightened ideological conflict as a permanent feature of ordinary American life,” the writer continues.

“We haven’t seen much of this before — the strife of the 1960s and 1970s being fairly localized in many ways, and that of the 1860s being mostly regionalized — with one major exception. That exception is the American Revolution itself, when neighbors really did turn upon one another in the name of political theory in a process more brutal and merciless than popular memory recalls.”

The writer reminds us that “in our lifetimes, the single most significant threat to the life, liberty and property of the average American citizen has always been the federal government. The danger in 2019 is that a consequence of that federal government’s crescendoing dysfunction will be the replacement of that most significant threat with one far more grave, far more vicious and far more relentless: our own neighbors.”

“This is about people burning down their neighbors’ houses and businesses, to run them out of town, over ideological differences. Look at the Balkans in the early 1990s. This is about a group from one side, murdering the entire family — Dad, Mom, Brother and baby Sister — of their neighbors, over political differences.”

Barring that extreme (or maybe not), “This is the probable 2019 and you should prepare for it,” continues Mr. Robb’s anonymous friend.

Unlike the American Revolution, there will be no black hats or white hats: “There does not seem to be much by way of partisans for liberty in 2019. More apt, probably, is the example of France with its own tradition of ideological self-terrorization, devoid of any good guys, whether in 1792-94, 1870-1871 or 1958-1962.”


You can say that again, pal.

(Via Wes Rhinier)


Can’t get no…satisfaction

Naked and belligerent” is no way to go through life, honey.

FEBRUARY 18–Cops today arrested a “naked and belligerent” Florida Woman for allegedly attacking her fiancée after he declined to have sex with her, according to a police report.

Officers responding early this morning to a disturbance call at a Vero Beach apartment building encountered Samantha Jewel Hernandez, 21, sans clothes and in an ornery mood. Hernandez (pictured at right) denied doing anything to her fiancée, “but was too intoxicated” to provide further information.

The victim, 21, told police that Hernandez “wanted to engage him in sexual intercourse,” which he declined. “Hernandez was angry at the fact that [the victim] did not want to have sex and began attacking him, striking him in the face and ripping his shirt.”

Saw this tucked into MisHum’s ONT thread, and of course you know I clicked on through wondering just how fat and ugly this gruesome manatee would be. So imagine my surprise:


Well, I’ll be danged. Proof positive of the truth in the old joke: no matter how cute she is, somewhere out there is a guy who’s tired of fucking her.


Just another pipe dream

A particularly expensive, unworkable one at that.

People who insist we have a national high speed rail network are a lot like anti-gun people, they misunderstand what little they know. Paying passengers largely abandoned passenger rail service sixty years ago, and it was unprofitable before then, outside the dedicated tracks serving the densely populated DC-Boston corridor with its twelve million passengers a year riding about 2,200 trains a day. Most “high speed rail” elsewhere amounts to glorified trolleys running from a city to suburban towns.

We have a rail network configured for freight trains topping out at seventy miles an hour, so a high speed passenger system would have to be built from the ground up, including bridges, tunnels and separation from roads and highways. When contemplating this, remember, major destinations in Europe are only a few hundred miles apart. A straight line about 1,500 miles long gets you from London to Moscow. In the US it only gets you from Boston to mid-Kansas.

We made our choice when government built the interstate highway system and municipal airports while the railroads financed themselves, paid taxes and adhered to punitive regulations and labor laws, all with government mandated rate schedules. DC came to its senses at the last minute and realized the railroads were indispensable, collapsing and irreplaceable. The almost supernatural efficiency of steel wheels on steel rails saved them.

I’ve driven long distances and camped out by the tracks to witness the biggest free show on earth. I’ve ridden European high speed rail too. It’s impressive, classy and rightly envied. Passengers get a serene, rock steady ride while the scenery goes by like it’s coming out of a fire hose, as does the money to pay for it. And by the way, the “eminent domain” to get the necessary straightaways is all but incontestable in Europe, we’d employ every attorney in the country for decades before a mile of track was laid.

Another argument-against I saw somewhere or other recently had to do with the fact that, aside from the aforementioned DC-Boston corridor, most of the US is simply nowhere near dense enough population-wise to make the thing feasible. But hey, when did libtards ever let such trifling impediments as feasibility, practicality, and profitability stand in the way of a cherished pipe dream?


Green Nude Eel

Robert Spencer sounds a cautionary note about Sandy’s Folly.

Democratic socialist wunderkind Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has been receiving torrents of ridicule for the “Green New Deal” program she unveiled with great fanfare and media adulation on Thursday, and it’s well deserved. But conservatives may come to find that laughter catching in their throats: as stupid as it is, and as disastrous as it would obviously be if it were implemented, many powerful figures on the Left aren’t laughing. And it’s not in the least impossible that they’ll bring that disaster upon the nation by trying to implement it.

Is she better equipped to be a bartender (which she was not long ago) than a member of the House of Representatives? Of course. But that won’t stop her rise. The Left ridiculed Donald Trump and called him stupid all through 2016, and he was elected president. What Ocasio-Cortez has on her side is the fact that powerful people on the Left take her seriously.

For all its talk (in the FAQs provided by Ocasio-Cortez’s office) of becoming able within the next few years “to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes” and providing “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work,” the most arresting passage in the entire Green New Deal plan is this: Nearly every major Democratic presidential contender says they back the Green New deal including: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee.

Those Democrat leaders aren’t laughing Ocasio-Cortez out of the room for announcing a plan that includes the intention to “upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.” They’re nodding their heads and signing on. They don’t think it will make them look just as dimwitted as Ocasio-Cortez to endorse a plan that calls for constructing “high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Those railway bridges connecting California with Hawaii, Australia, and Japan are going to be, like, awesome.

The Green New Deal as Ocasio-Cortez has presented it will never be implemented in full, because the United States would go bankrupt and a new civil war would break out before all of its recommendations could be put into place. But that won’t stop Democrats from moving in the direction of a unitary socialist state in which all means of production are in the hands of the government – for the good of the climate and the people, of course.

He’s certainly right about that. As I’ve said for years now: they won’t stop. They will have to BE stopped. Count on it…and don’t count AOC out just yet, either. As Spencer concludes:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fanatical, totalitarian vision are likely to afflict the United States and threaten our freedom for the foreseeable future. Yes, the Green New Deal deserves ridicule, but those who are laughing should also pause to recognize what is coming.

Yep. Anyone living in a nation that elected Barrack Obama—twice—really can’t afford to be overconfident about what might lie in wait a bit further on down the road.


Trump’s Achilles heel

I started working on a post on this topic a week or two ago, abandoned it, deleted it, and now have decided to try, try again, inspired by the good Rabbi Fisher’s latest.

Even President Trump’s supporters do not fully realize the job he has done. As I have written in the past, during the course of a wonderful rabbinic career that has given me so much personal satisfaction and fulfillment and that hopefully has touched the lives of my flocks, I once endured the Twilight Zone interlude of being rabbi of one of the worst Nightmare Congregations in America. (Two of my dearest friends, both Christian pastors, have enlightened me that the experience was not unique, and both pointed me to an extraordinary book, Clergy Killers, that lays out the despicable phenomenon of Houses of G-d of all faiths where outlier ego-driven laity can destroy spiritual harmony as they superimpose their personal social pathologies on everyone in their church, temple, or synagogue.) During that brief thirty-month journey in the Twilight Zone, there was a coterie of only a dozen jerks out to sabotage my every effort despite the warm support and even deep love I enjoyed among the vast majority of that congregation of 250 or so people. But the jerks comprised the inner circle, the “Board of Directors,” comprised of some wonderful people out-shouted by determined ego-driven laity who knew so very little about conducting a religious community but a great deal about internal political manipulations and striving for crumbs of vainglory.

I recount this brief nightmare — and thank G-d Almig-ty it was only a passing phase, a blip in a pulpit career of more than a quarter century — because I therefore appreciate more deeply from that personal experience what President Trump has accomplished against all odds.

Let us be forthright: Here is the President’s one flaw, and Chris Christie has been spot-on, though self-serving, through his book tour. Donald Trump came to Washington. D.C. too cockamamie-sure that he knows everything about everything and therefore can navigate anything on his own. He took on a chief of staff and a press spokesman blithely because, oh, may as well. He picked cabinet members based on considerations — and I do get it — as to what would satisfy the Mediacracy wolves’ thirst for blood. So he owed Jeff Sessions eternal gratitude — he really did — for being the only United States Senator to back him during the rough-and-tumble GOP primaries, and made him his Attorney General. He put Rex Tillerson in charge of State because Tillerson had carved a phenomenal career in dealing effectively with the Russians including Putin on energy issues. He put Mad Dog in charge of defense because the name sounded good, and Gen. Mattis seemed the guy. In all these, Mr. Trump failed to appreciate that, no, you cannot be maximally effective as President without help you can count on — help that is the best of the best, and that is the most loyal of the loyal, and people who share precisely your vision, not aiming to advance their own.

His great mistake was that — quite the opposite of his public persona — he was too nice a guy, too willing to make others happy and play to others’ expectations. So he put faith in Paul Ryan to be an improvement over John Boehner, and that was a mistake. He brought in Reince Priebus, a wonderful guy, and Sean Spicer — but those jobs were above their pay grades; he should have begun with Gen. John Kelly. Omarosa should have been made his Secretary of TV Shows and stationed in Bosnia. Mike Pompeo should have been his Secretary of State from Day One. John Bolton belonged on the inside from the outset. Nikki Haley proved a shockingly great United Nations ambassador, but he blew it with the A-G. It should have been Chris Christie, or the ever-tongue-slipping Rudy Giuliani, Joe diGenova, or even the best we have had in years, Michael Mukasey. That one last botch — picking the wrong Attorney-General — will be recorded in history as his worst mistake. It doomed so much of his first term. Look how great Eric Holder was for Obama, followed equally by Loretta Lynch. Each knew how an A-G with guts and fortitude, bold and brash, fast and furious, on the tarmac and off the tarmac, can make or break so much of a President’s agenda. Indeed, that is why John Kennedy decided that “Gee, nepotism may look bad, but I want my brother in that role.”

Close but not quite, Dov; you need to think a little bigger. His REAL weakness is something that could easily end up ruining him, although there’s really no shame or disgrace in harboring it. See, Trump is old enough and patriotic enough that he still strongly, strongly believes in the American system of government. He believes not that it has been intentionally destroyed and rebuilt as a grotesque perversion of its former self, but that it has merely gone astray and can still be repaired. Worse yet, he believes that most of the elected officials in charge of the monstrosity share his ambition to put it back on the right track, needing only proper leadership to help steer things out of the ditch and back on the highway again.

None of that is true. The people he’s relying on to either be persuaded or respond positively to the will of the people they misrule are the ones who wrecked things in the first place—and, as I said, they did it on purpose. Even his own damned party is actively working to thwart his attempt to drain the Swamp; it couldn’t be more obvious by now that the Vichy GOPers don’t want the damned thing drained, despite years of promising to do exactly that. They’re all good with the dysfunctional and nonviable status quo, thanks, and are quite willing to fight vigorously to sustain it. Rabbi Fisher has a fiendishly clever idea for how Trump might move forward from here, though:

Donald Trump came in with no prior legislative experience. If he had known then what he finally has learned now, he would have shoved that border wall down Ryan’s throat, and he would have gotten it. If he had had the right A-G, he would have crafted his entry ban a bit more cleverly, and each of his subsequent Ninth Circuit debacles would have been more elegantly situated for Supreme Court review. Indeed, if he had me— and I am utterly not qualified, nor would I want it because I like being a rabbi and law professor, and I hate participatory politics — but if he had had even me, I would have advised him that, every single time he issues a new Executive Order, he should counter-intuitively have the pro-Trump Texas or Louisiana Attorney General race immediately to the Fifth Circuit to attack him and his Executive Order… so that the first court that rules with a national injunction would be the pro-Trump, pro-conservative Fifth Circuit. Race to the Fifth before the Left gets to the Ninth. That would have changed the whole dynamic on everything from the Keystone XL Pipeline to the various issues on the southern border.

He has more ideas still, all of them good but none likely, because they depend on the same false premise Trump holds:

As these next two years unfold, I hope that gutless GOP Senate committees, if only to save their own hides, start subpoenaing every Clinton thing they can think of: Clinton Foundation, Clinton speaking fees and secret speeches, back to Benghazi, back to the 33,000 yoga and wedding-dress emails. Investigate who lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Kavanaugh hearings and make them roommates with Manafort and Cohen. Get Lois Lerner back; we miss her. Investigate Comey and all his crew: Macabre McCabe, Strzok, Page. Investigate that Obama CIA director, John Brennan, who voted for Gus Hall, the Communist candidate for President. (Did we actually just have a CIA director who had voted for a pro-Soviet Communist President of America? And that guy is accusing others of treason and collusion with the Russians?) And, taking a cue from Mueller, just name a Special Investigator to investigate “the Clintons” — with the proviso that he or she is authorized to follow the trail wherever it leads. It will lead everywhere.

Yeah, but the “gutless GOPe Senate commitees” have NO desire to go there, or anywhere near it. They intend not to take a single step in that direction, because THAT’S what they believe “saving their own hides” depends on. In fact, I think Trump himself may just be reluctant to do such a thing himself, believing that the damage it could do to our existing institutions and federal-government structure far outweighs the benefit of re-establishing the rule of law and demonstrating that it applies across the board. It’s a real dilemna the Prez is facing here, and he’s all alone in wrestling with it. I can’t say I envy him in even the slightest way.


Suck up or die

And you thought the Virginia clusterfuck was bad.

  • The movie actor Liam Neeson, who I remember as a fine brooding Ethan Frome, explained to an interviewer how he’d worked up the anger for a film role he’s just recently performed. He’d recalled his feelings from an incident forty years ago, when a lady close to him was raped by a black man. The enraged young Neeson had gone out, presumably in London, looking for a random black man with the intent to kill him. Fortunately he calmed down before committing any violence. He’s spent the last few days apologizing and protesting that he’s not racist.
  • January 28th in a New York Times op-ed, Daniel Pollack-Pelzner who teaches English at liberal-arts Linfield College in Oregon told us that Mary Poppins is problematic—I’m sure that’s the right word, “problematic”—because in the classic movie version Mary deliberately blackens her face with soot. (Because she’s followed a chimney sweep up a chimney, but hey…) And in the original Mary Poppins books by Pamela Travers, 1930s to 1950s, characters use language about black people that we’d consider offensive in 2019, although nobody would have thought so in 1940 or 1950.
  • Gucci has been marketing an $890 black knitted top whose neck you can roll halfway up to your face, where is has an opening for your mouth, the opening featuring a red knitted surround that looks like big lips. This has caused outrage. [Gucci ‘deeply apologizes’ and removes from the shelves its $890 balaclava knit top after thousands on Twitter branded it ‘blackface for millennials’, Daily Mail, February 7, 2019] Gucci’s withdrawn the item and issued gushing apologies, affirming that— if I can get through the quote without throwing up all over my microphone —”We are fully committed to increasing diversity throughout our organization and turning this incident into a powerful learning moment for the Gucci team and beyond.”
  • Adidas brought out a new line of sneakers expressly in celebration of Black History Month. Unfortunately the sneakers are totally white. Twitterstorm! Adidas has now withdrawn the sneakers.

My first question, contemplating this nonsense: Are there  enough grown-ups in the Democratic Party to fend off the party’s radicals?

Strike that! My second question: are there enough grown-ups in the United States to avert our apparently remorseless slide down into babbling infantilism?

And look at the implicit anti-whiteness on display in these stories. The merest, most trivial slight is taken to be outrageously offensive to the fragile sensibilities of blacks, even if from decades ago, while viciously anti-white comments go unremarked—will, in fact, get you a job on the New York Times editorial board, as it did for Sarah Jeong. 

Well, yeah, but that’s diff’runt, because white people suck.

The place of white people in this drama: grovel, apologize, grovel, apologize, and plead pitifully: “I’m not racist!”

The astonishing thing to me is that so many whites have put up with this silly nonsense for so long.

Can’t blame ’em, really; they know they’re liable to get themselves lynched by the Diversity Mob if they complain about their whipping-boy status—figuratively for now, maybe, but eventually literally too. Best to just keep their heads down, keep their mouths shut, and keep on paying the bills for everything.


Coonman and Poonman: the scandal goes wide

What, the argument now is basically “There’s too many of us guilty of these Badthink PC crimes out there, so we should be lenient” or something?

Sorry and all, but…no. HELL no.

Looking at the possibility of losing the Virginia governorship to the Republicans, a few liberals are calling for adjustments to the PC penal code. The New York Daily News, normally unforgiving in its commitment to upholding the strictures of political correctness, ran an editorial entitled: “Facing facts: Blackface is awful, but is it always and immediately disqualifying from public office?” The paper seemed to argue that the growing volume of cases argues against a zero tolerance policy:

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring’s admission that, as a 19-year-old in 1980, he wore what could be considered blackface, may be a blessing in disguise.

Coming just days after the revelation of a racist photo in Gov. Ralph Northam’s 1984 medical school yearbook, it provides all Americans the opportunity to pause and think through what truly ought to constitute a firing offense in public life.

Former Democratic Congressman Jim Moran is also arguing for a less draconian response, telling NPR: “And, you know, these — this public shaming, I’m not sure how much it accomplishes versus looking at the longer picture. If the longer picture is, and I think should be, racial justice and conciliation and reparation, then I wonder if giving people a second chance, as well — whatever they did — might serve, in the long term, the greater interest.”

Yeah—just as long as that “second chance” is never, ever extended to a Republican, right Jim?

But who created this culture of shaming? Many of the same liberals now caught up in it, including even Joy Behar, who was one of the quickest left-wing celebrities to call Republicans racist for non-racist policies. Behar now joins Ted Danson in Hollywood’s club of blackface-performing progressives.

By defining racism so broadly — liberals routinely extend the charge to philosophical matters such as opposition to affirmative action and amnesty — liberalism created a culture that lent itself to over-accusation and political death penalties. Its tendency to put the worst possible interpretation on all things racial also puts Democrats in a corner. They can’t explain away these incidents as bad taste or bad humor; liberalism always looks for deeper and darker reasons than those. That’s why their apologies have to be so freighted with admissions of enormous guilt.

Democrats have lived by PC accusations and are now dying by them.

Let ’em. In fact, we ought to be helping push them off that cliff, not offering them a lifeline. Not a single one of us ought to be willing to give them even the slightest consideration. These are the rules, shitlibs—YOUR rules, dreamed up and rigidly enforced by you and you alone. Just because you now find those rules inconvenient doesn’t obligate us to let you slide one damned inch. This is YOUR petard; now YOU get to ride it, right into fucking geosynchronous orbit. Period fucking dot.

Update! Schlichter has been telling them for a long time now that they’re going to hate their New Rules, which will be true only if we MAKE it true. Which means he’s enjoying this as much as I am.

It’s called “Alinsky Rule No. 4,” pals. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Cue the sad trombone. Somewhere, Brett Kavanaugh is laughing into his Budweiser.

I know I am, except it’s Dos Equis.

But this hilarity does bring up something serious we need to consider on the conservative side. We need to prepare for the next time some Republican gets besieged by SJW witch-burners, and be ready with our response to their unwarranted demands for his/her/xir’s head.

Our response should be, “Go pound sand.”

Now, that’s not necessarily the phraseology we should use. Mine would be more colorful, and anatomically challenging, but the point is the same. They don’t get a head for their wall. They don’t get to win. Not over silliness.

Now yes, I am advocating two different sets of standards, one for Democrats and one for the GOP. That dual-track rule thing is itself a New Rule imposed by the left, and when you see Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit in an orange jumper doing the pokey time we would all do for classified stuff shenanigans we can talk about having one set of rules again.

Let them eat their own. Perhaps they will learn through pain to be better people. Perhaps they will simply devour themselves. Hey, it’s all good.

Seconded, times eleventy-million. And if they fail to learn from the pain, well, they can just keep right on suffering it for all me. As Kurt said, it’s all good. Eat their own? We oughta be force-feeding them, cramming it right down their throats just as fast as we can spoon it up for them.

Poonman gotta Poonman update! I read years ago that sex offenders have the highest recidivism rate of all criminals. It may or may not be so, but I think we can safely say that Poonman would be Exhibit A for the case in favor of.

Meredith Watson is the second woman to accuse Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax of sexual assault.

Watson’s attorney released a statement Friday alleging that Watson was raped by Fairfax in 2000 while they both attended Duke University.

The lawyer says Watson shared the experience with friends but decided to come forward after Fairfax denied sexually assaulting Dr. Vanessa Tyson, a California professor who accused him of physically forcing her to perform oral sex on him while they attended the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Interestingly, Glenn adds: “I had heard rumors of a second accuser, but this isn’t the one I heard the rumors about.” And then there’s this:

Somewhere, Brett Kavanaugh must be laughing his ass off right about now. In yet more sex-offender news, there’s the Bezos dick-pic dustup, which I am not going to go into beyond noting the hilarious coincidence of his accuser being surnamed…Pecker. Ahh, if only his parents had named him Richard.


Walls work

Just the facts, ma’am.

Love them or hate them, their effectiveness is indisputable.

  • “Part of our area is covered with some fencing on our east side. That accounts for about 6 percent of our traffic,” Border Patrol chief Raul Ortiz told journalists during Trump’s Jan. 10 visit to Rio Grande Valley, Texas. “Where we have no fencing, over 90 percent of our traffic occurs in those areas.”

    A day earlier, Ortiz added, 450 people were apprehended in the unfenced sector, including 133 from such non-Latin nations as India, Pakistan, and Romania.

  • Some 560,000 illegals were caught astride San Diego and Tijuana in Fiscal Year 1992, when a border wall was installed there. By FY 2017, the Border Patrol says it snared 26,086 — down 95.3 percent.
  • A barrier between the Tucson, Ariz., sector and Nogales, Mexico, was erected in 2000. That year’s 616,346 arrests plunged to 38,657 in FY 2017 — down 93.7 percent.
  • A fence installed at the border between Yuma, Ariz., and Los Algondones, Mexico, brought apprehensions from 138,438 in FY 2005 to 12,847 in FY 2018 — down 90.7 percent.
  • “Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area,” then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke wrote in USA Today in August 2017, “and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.”
  • A 150-mile barrier between Israel and southern Egypt cut the number of illegal-alien entrants from 17,000 in 2011 to 43 in 2013 after the fence’s completion, Israel’s Ministry of the Interior states — down 99.7 percent.
  • Bulgaria erected a barrier on its Turkish perimeter in 2013. That year’s 11,000 illegal crossings dropped to 4,000 in 2014 — down 63.6 percent.
  • Just as British Gibraltar dangles from Spain’s underside, Spanish Ceuta and Melilla surf atop Morocco. Multiple fences and barriers there sliced 2014’s 2,100 arrests at the Spanish-territorial/Moroccan frontier to 2015’s 100 — down 95.2 percent.

Of course, the fact that they work is why the Democrat-Marxists don’t want one.

So, Trump Derangement Syndrome actually causes Democrats’ borderphobia.

Indeed, Ekins elaborated, “Reuter/Ipsos found that simply telling Democrats Trump supports a policy turns them against it — even universal health care.” Saying to Democrats that Trump favors government medicine drives their enthusiasm for it from 68 percent to 47. If Trump likes it, Democrats loathe it.

Walls work, and Democrats know it. But they want this President to fail.

So, Democrats battle effective border protection so they can “resist Trump” — national security be damned.

Funny, isn’t it, how something that every bit of historical and contemporary evidence proves doesn’t work—Communism—they insist can be made to work somehow or other. But something the evidence proves DOES work they claim DOESN’T, CAN’T work. Then again, they’re brazen liars who cheerfully contradict themselves eighteen times before lunch every single day without batting an eye. So y’know, there’s that. Or, to put it another way:

The Democrat Party truly is America’s arsenal of hypocrisy.

Heh. Indeed™.


Stand…and deliver

Last night I wrote about why and how we lose, provoked by an execrable bit of cuckish mewling from a Federalist post. Tonight, let’s look at how we might win.

Trump told Democrats and obstructionist Republicans he’s not interested in playing political word games over the wall, sometimes calling the wall a border structure, other times calling it a barrier or using a different word, the Daily Mail reports. Trump has quipped that Democrats can call the wall “peaches” if they want, so long as lawmakers appropriate funding.

“The Wall is getting done one way or the other!” Trump tweeted. In another tweet he added, “Construction has started and will not stop until it is finished.”

According to the British newspaper:

The U.S. president continued to rage for more than an hour, telling Republicans on a bipartisan panel tasked with coming to a border security arrangement to stop ‘wasting their time’ on the negotiations with his political opponents. “I’ve got you covered. Wall is already being built, I don’t expect much help!” he proclaimed.

Trump took to Twitter to continue complaining about the negotiators’ failure to accomplish anything.

“Large sections of WALL have already been built with much more either under construction or ready to go. Renovation of existing WALLS is also a very big part of the plan to finally, after many decades, properly Secure Our Border. The Wall is getting done one way or the other!” he wrote.

Although more than a few Democrat lawmakers have said Congress should fund the wall, the Democrats in charge of talks continue to stubbornly refuse to offer any money for the construction project.

The new Democrat majority in the House isn’t even pretending to negotiate in good faith with Trump. They correctly view the wall as an existential threat to their party and despite their endless whining and mockery of the idea of the wall, they know its construction would slow the flow of illegal aliens into the country and impede the growth of the party’s electoral base.

As Aesop has posted more than once, part of the Wall is in fact now under construction, refuting Ann Coulter’s embarrassingly ill-informed complaints to the contrary. I still maintain that an impassable, border-length wall of the sort we all envisioned to bring illegal immigration under control at long last just isn’t going to happen no matter what Trump does; there are too many obstacles standing in his way, both on the Left and the pseudo-Right, and the determination of his/our foes is unshakable. BIG FAT CAVEAT: I also could be full of shit and wrong; it’s happened before once or twice, and very few people have come out in the winner’s circle by underestimating Trump. I also have to admit that I would dearly love to be proved wrong on this one, although I still can’t find much reason to expect such at the moment. Back to Frontpage:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) continues to be politely skeptical at the prospect of the president using emergency powers to obtain wall funding but many of the NeverTrumpers of Conservatism Inc. inside the Beltway have been downright hostile.

One of the more outrageous reactions came from Capital Research Center research director Michael Watson who tweeted that Trump should be impeached for trying to build the wall. “Declaring an emergency to override Congress’s spending authority is an impeachable offense and should be treated as such[,]” he wrote on Twitter.

Watson and a chorus of now-unemployed Weekly Standard staffers are incensed that White House aides have reportedly prepared an executive declaration that gives the president the ability to redirect billions of dollars in military construction and flood-control funds.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) has threatened to file a lawsuit immediately if Trump invokes the National Emergencies Act to secure funding to build the wall.

Legal experts say the president can call upon the National Emergencies Act, a statute President Gerald Ford signed into law in 1976, to get construction of the wall underway.

President Trump has already invoked the National Emergencies Act three times in his tenure, according to ABC News. President Barack Obama invoked the statute no fewer than 10 times.

It is becoming increasingly clear that in the current polarized environment using the National Emergencies Act may be the only way the wall gets built.

Both Uniparty wings are standing firm; Trump will have to stand firmer, which I don’t doubt he has the backbone and fighting spirit to support. In any event, Trump is the only guy in the political arena right now who might just be able to pull this thing off. Why do I say that? Ultimately, it’s because of the Trump Effect.

I have a friend who tells me that attempts to understand Donald Trump in the ordinary ways we understand politicians, even truly remarkable politicians, are doomed to failure. My friend is pointing to the astonishing revelations Trump has precipitated.

One such effect is that people in public life are ripping off their masks—and what is being revealed is shocking. Bill Kristol has told us he is all for the deep state. George Will came out in support of the co-head of the Clinton crime family. James Comey stood before the whole world to explain why Hillary should be indicted—and then said she would not be indicted.

And just look at what the Democrats are doing. They now openly advocate that America open its borders to all comers. They have abandoned “safe, legal, and rare” and are now in a hurry to legalize infanticide. The Democrats are done with hiding their real intentions from voters. That’s amazing, when you think about it. Until now, hiding their real intentions has been the secret of their electoral success.

The important point is that we now know who these people have been all along. They are simply making known what they have kept hidden. What my friend is pointing to is this: Trump, somehow, has caused them to unmask themselves. They can’t seem to help themselves…because Trump.

This really is astonishing. Call it “the Trump effect.” And the Trump effect does not stop with people unmasking themselves.

It is now clear that opposition to the American idea is much more deep-seated, thorough-going, and widespread in our country than many of us ever imagined before Trump. Of course, on one level, this is frightening. Consequently, many good Americans understandably recoil from the truth about America that has been revealed. They long for a return to the way things were before Trump—but that is the one thing that is definitely not going to happen. We are in revolutionary times. The Trump effect has made it clear to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear that the survival beyond our time of what remains of the Founders’ gift is not assured.

I’ve long called him Trump the Disrupter, but maybe his “Trump the Unmasker” function will prove to have more significance and impact in the long term. The way he’s clarified things for us may yet wake up enough Normals to turn the tide on the issue of the Wall, along with a lot of other things besides. And should the American vs TWANLOC conflict go loud, the Wall will probably wind up looking like a relatively minor concern all of a sudden anyway.


Post-birth abortion

Baby-killing end-game.

The total embrace of abortion on demand was on full display last week as New York state lawmakers cheered the passage of their abortion bill, offering the odious bit of legislation a thunderous, standing ovation. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo even ordered for the One World Trade Center’s spire to be illuminated in pink light in honor of the bill, transforming the peak of “Freedom Tower” into a massive blood-tinted monument to pro-abortion excess.

In the Virginia House of Delegates this week, there was an equally ghastly display of pro-abortion zeal, as Democrat Kathy Tran introduced a bill that similarly allows for late-term abortions. In a video circulated online this week, a clearly discomforted Tran clarified for the state’s deliberative body that her bill allows for abortions to be performed even when the mother is “about to give birth” and even when “she’s dilating.”

One difference between the pro-abortion circuses in the Empire State and the Old Dominion is that Tran at least had the appearance of being ashamed of what she is seeking to normalize through law. But all that tells us is that Democrats are still united in the push for total abortion, even when some of them are clearly uncomfortable with what they’re advocating. Further, the Virginia bill will likely be defeated by the House’s majority Republicans, but only after enjoying a resounding endorsement from the state’s Democratic governor, Ralph Northam, who went out of his way Wednesday to defend the bill on the largest local media platform available to his office.

This is the modern-day Democratic Party. It’s all abortion, all the way down.

To borrow the old Virginia Slims catchphrase: you’ve come a long way, baby.

Walsh rails at the supine, feeble response of the Church:

Meanwhile, those who actually are in the business of devil-fighting, instead of devil-worshipping, are AWOL. That would be the Catholic Church (the rest of the Christian sects are too far gone to care, or care about), in the form of the Irishman, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, and the Argentine-born Italian pope, Francis. If any single public figure has richly earned public excommunication from the Church, Andrew Cuomo is him. And yet, where are Francis and Cardinal Dolan?

So, what are you going to do about it, Your Eminence? Nothing: “Notable canon lawyers have said that, under canon law, excommunication is not an appropriate response to a politician who supports or votes for legislation advancing abortion,” he said in a statement.

This is not only wrong, it’s cowardly, which is what we’ve come to expect from the American bishops, who have been so busy trying to bury their gay clergy scandal without getting the hems of their skirts dirty that—since many of them have no skin in the game in more ways than one—they don’t have time for matters of faith and morals any more.

Ah, but the Dagger Johns of the Church Militant are long gone, and in their place have come the mincing social-justice warriors in cassocks and mitres, too fearful of man to be fearful of God, false to their faith and false to their mission. Andrew Cuomo and his gloating, murderous, ilk are bad enough, but these whited sepulchers are even worse, because they know better and don’t care.

Which, I propose, is a big part of the reason why the Christian flock is abandoning its putative shepherds in droves. Well, that, and the ubiquitous degeneracy of America’s sick, narcissistic culture.

What I’m not seeing anywhere, though, is any recognition of what this argument is really all about. It’s not, or at least not entirely, about the Democrat-Marxist “culture of death,” or Sangerian eugenics, I don’t think. It’s about consequence-free sex and wholesale promiscuity. Abortion is now purely a matter of convenience, a last-ditch birth control method. When Democrat-Marxists encourage a perception of babies as life-limiting, choice-restricting inconveniences—not an enrichment of one’s life, but the end of it, to be not welcomed with joy and anticipation but dreaded with horror and despair as a crippling affliction—how could it possibly be otherwise?

Female prerogative update! The truth revealed, as Demonrat “logic” finally catches up with them.

As my colleague David Harsanyi pointed out on Twitter, is there a difference between aborting a fetus in the third trimester because it’s causing the mother emotional distress, and killing a premature infant in the NICU for the same reason? If there is a difference, what is it? Will any Democrat say?

They will not, because there is no difference, and they know it. These bills demonstrate that the debate over abortion was never about when life begins. All that hemming and hawing about a fetus just being a “clump of cells” was disingenuous from the start.

In fact, there has never been any doubt about when human life begins (it begins at conception). The debate was always about whether we would by law make the life of the unborn—or the just-born—subject to the convenience and desire of the mother. Democrats have decided that we should.

Until recently, abortion advocates refused to acknowledge this. But now they are coming around, in part because the Democratic Party’s leftist base has demanded it. They don’t want any more talk about abortion being “safe, legal, and rare,” they want to proclaim it as a positive good. But to do that, abortion mustn’t hinge on a question of biology or gestation or fetus viability, but on the sheer will of the mother.

We used to hear abortion defenders talk about a woman’s body—“my body, my choice”—and how male legislators shouldn’t be telling a woman what to do with her body, as though the fetus were an appendage or an organ. To some extent we still hear that sort of language. But with the Democratic Party’s sharp leftward lurch, and the legislation Democrats are now advancing in blue states, the emphasis has unmistakably shifted from a woman’s body to her will.

Now at last the pretense has lifted and we can talk about what we should have been talking about for the past 46 years: whether parents have the right to commit infanticide against their unwanted children.

And, as I mentioned above, whether sexual profligacy free of constraint and consequence is a good and desirable goal—or even possible at all—and if it is, is abortion-as-contraception a morally defensible means of achieving it.


Letter to Sandmann

Dov Fisher puts it in writing.

Dear Nick,

It now is some ten days since you unintentionally became famous, and you blessedly no longer are the news outside Covington. But I write to tell you that you are not forgotten for many of us whom you made proud. That includes me, an Orthodox Rabbi.

Obama once said that, if he had had a son, it would have been a boy like Trayvon Martin. Nicholas, I do not doubt that. Not for a moment. I would rather set the boys of CovCath as role models.

There is no way on G-d’s earth that anyone could have prepared you for the Crazy America that exists outside Covington. I know Covington very well; I lived a year in Kentucky and spent time in Covington every few weeks. Covington is a beautiful small city. I would bring my kids to see the Carroll Chimes Bell Tower and Clock depicting the Pied Piper of Hamelin in Mainstrasse Village. Nick, the “big shots” in New York City (where I used to live) and in Los Angeles (near where I now live) look down on Kentucky. They think you guys are a bunch of small-town redneck hicks. That is how they myopically view the whole gorgeous state of Kentucky. But that is because they do not know what they do not know. Covington is a beautiful city with beautiful people in a beautiful state. In Manhattan, by contrast, the intellectuals need to have four door locks on their apartment entrances that they have to lock and unlock, one-two-three-four, just to get in and out, because they are afraid of break-ins and being mugged. They have special “police locks” that not only get bolted into their front doors but into the floor, because crooks still break through the other three door locks. It’s like living in “Fauda.” When they travel on their overcrowded, over-priced, always-late, often broken down subways, they keep their eyes shut or focused on the floor because they are taught never to look anyone in the eye since he might be crazy and kill them if he thinks they are looking at him. By contrast, in Covington everyone is friendly and trusting. In Kentucky, people greet strangers openly and welcome outsiders warmly. It is safe to look at people in the eye in Covington. So it turns out that people in Covington are a lot smarter, and New Yorkers are a lot stupider, than either group thinks. In Covington, a country boy can survive.

New Yorkers in the Left Media cannot understand why CovCath boys like you would smile in the faces of people like that lying phony Native American “Vietnam Vet.” That is because in New York they never would have smiled at him in the first place, figuring he might have a knife or a tomahawk, so they would have run away from him. The Left Media do not understand a culture where you actually look people in the eye, smile their way, and stand your ground.

New Yorkers are trained for situations like that — to start running away: maybe he has a knife, maybe a gun, maybe a hatchet. But you are from Covington, so you proudly stood your ground. You did not back away. You demonstrated the best of the Covington Catholic education you have gotten by standing your ground and just smiling at him. That smile said: “I am here in peace. I am not going to be incited into escalating your menacing confrontation. So you can go on beating that stupid drum of yours all day, Ringo, but I am not going to back off, nor will I be drawn into a fight. Because I am here to support life and the rights of the unborn.”

Besides, how could you even know what or who he is? An Indian? But he does not even look like Elizabeth Warren.

Umm, ouch. Read the whole thing; the good rabbi has done truly outstanding work here. His point about Obama’s ersatz “son,” the martyred Saint Trayvon of Dindu, is especially apt. Y’all know I only rarely transcribe links in the pieces I excerpt here, as an incentive to click on through to check out the original article if nothing else. But I felt that one was important enough as a useful reminder to include it.


Two (2) options, neither pleasant

Another good over-the-transom screed from our old friend and CF lifer TR.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Covington kids debacle, and I keep thinking I’ll get less angry and it keeps not happening. Here’s why. The entire sad episode exposes the utter and complete moral bankruptcy of all of our societal institutions and customs. Too dramatic? I think not. Think about this – these were KIDS. And now those KIDS, before their graduation from high school, have seen literally everything they have told to believe in, every institution they have been told would protect them if they did the right things, turn on them with no provocation at all.

GROWN-UPS: This entire episode came about because these kids were victimized by not one, but two, groups of supposed adults. Remember, kids are told that adults are their safeguard in society. Adults will break up the fights, mediate disputes, and model the correct behaviors. Well, they were standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, minding their own business, when one group of supposed “adults” – the blacks – began calling them faggots (aren’t homophobic slurs still bad), and worse. The kids, rather than engage and react, did an incredibly mature thing – they decided to drown out the savages with their own school spirit chants. At which point another group of so called “adults” – led by Chief Lies a Lot – decided to victimize them by creating a racial incident where none existed. And I don’t for a moment buy the bullshit that he was trying to ‘defuse’ the situation. If he was doing that, he would have confronted the aggressors. So….these were kids victimized by adults, and there was no adult willing to show courage and integrity. Thus Sandmann had to do it himself.

THE MEDIA: When you’re in school, you are of necessity filled up with a bunch of nonsense about the integrity of the “media.” And yet, when the first heavily edited video was Tweeted, every major media outlet – from CNN to the New York Times to Fox News – ran with it unquestioningly, with no intellectual curiosity about whether it was real or not. NOT ONE GODDAMNED MAJOR MEDIA OUTLET CHECKED OUT THE STORY FOR ONE FUCKING SECOND. NOT ONE. These kids were vilified before they ever had a chance to have dinner that evening. The only reason any major media outlet issued any sort of correction was because private citizens got the video – and the facts – out.

THEIR CHURCH: Full confession, I’ve never been a churchgoer. But I know kids who went to Catholic schools, and the church is their center, the hub of their entire life and worldview. Once upon a time, that was a good thing. No longer. The bishop of the Covington Diocese, however, took a break from his busy schedule of butt-diddling children to issue a stern condemnation of the kids. In his “apology,” he said that he was “bullied for hours by media outlets demanding a statement.” Know what? If he’s so weak and worthless that he can’t stand up to a few hours of “bullying” by media types, then he has no business being in any sort of a leadership position.

THEIR SCHOOL: And if church isn’t a kid’s safe place, the school certainly is – doubly so if it’s a Catholic school. And yet, the Principal of their school – no doubt feeling as “bullied” as the Bishop – also condemned the kids, and raised the ante by threatening expulsion. This, despite the fact that one of their teachers was THERE (he’s the one who gave permission to do the school chants) and witnessed the whole damn thing! In fact, has there been anyone quieter during this episode than the gutless teacher? He could, very easily, have told the principal that what the short video showed was NOT what happened – but either he didn’t, or the principal didn’t pay attention. And if the principal didn’t pay attention, why didn’t he come forward? Answer – because he’s a gutless sack of shit.

THE GOVERNMENT: The Mayor of Covington quickly moved to condemn the kids as well without knowing the facts. That’s awful.What’s worse, however, is the level of death threats and other violent threats that happened and that will draw no consequences. For instance, there is a creature known as “Wheeler Walker, Jr.,” who apparently makes some sort of juvenile country porn music. And on the fateful Saturday, this creature tweeted this: “I know I have fans in Paris Hills, KY. If you know this little shit, punch him in the nuts and send me the video of it and I’ll send you all of my albums on vinyl, autographed.” Now, that’s a felony. That’s the solicitation of assault and battery for compensation. He named the place (putting the jurisdiction in Kentucky), the specific act, the proof he needed, and the compensation he’d offer. So, what will happen to him? Absolutely nothing. Nada. Now, the District Attorney has put out some brave talk about ‘investigating’ the threats, but I’m sure it’s one of those things where he figures that everyone will forget this in a few weeks and he won’t have to do anything.

Now, imagine that you’re 17 years old. Your life has just been destroyed and you’ve done NOTHING wrong. NOT ONE GODDAMNED THING. And of the institutions you’ve been told would protect you and help you through tough times, every one has not only abandoned you – they have turned on you. Can you imagine how awful that must be?

There are some who are saying that this is good – the kids will be red pilled. I don’t think it’s good. I think it’s fucking EVIL. And god damn every last fucking person who piled on, whether it’s a CNN reporter or some sack of shit who shared the video without a moment’s thought about the real human consequences.

What should happen to the offenders? Well…..

First of all, my understanding is that Sandmann’s parents have retained the biggest son of a bitch in libel law. Good. He should sue everyone he can for everything they have. All the media organizations of course. But also, the diocese and the school. Wait, that might destroy them? Good. They deserve to be destroyed. Also, Chief Lies a Lot and his shitty little tribe for starting it. Sue and don’t settle – wage complete lawfare. Take everything they have and everything they’re going to have. This shit will follow those kids around for the rest of their lives – what’s that worth? Everything.

Judicially, it would be nice to see those who threatened violence be prosecuted. Won’t happen. More fitting would be if someone would do to them what they wanted done to the kids – or maybe a little worse. Also won’t happen, unfortunately, but a man can dream, can’t he?

If nothing else had proven this, this proves that we cannot possibly coexist with the Left. They destroy us or we destroy them, simple as that.

That’s about the size of it, yeah. Bad thing is, they’ve already gotten a huge head start on destroying us; to destroy them is going to require us to mount one hell of a Hail-Mary comeback at this late stage of the game.


Surrender, or skillful subterfuge?

Y’all may have noticed I haven’t brought up Trump’s “temporary” reprieve for furloughed federal dead weight yet. Mostly, that’s because I’m of two minds about it. On the one hand: yeah, it surely does look like a cave from at least one angle; Trump was getting nowhere fast with Stretch Pelosi and Chuck “The S’faccim” Schumer, who are standing fast without betraying the least hint of give. On the other hand:

Oh please. Lighten up, Francises – and many of you are my pals. But you need this bucket of cold water. What happened Friday doesn’t matter.

Not at all.

Well, that’s not quite accurate. It could matter, if you decide to keep doing exactly what Nancy Pelosi wants you to do, freaking out. That’s why she employed her brilliant stratagem of just saying “No” – since you’re upset, let me point out that this is sarcasm.

It wasn’t brilliant – it was obvious. She was counting on you to set up as a do-or-die test for Trump over something where she and Chuck Schumer held a veto. Thanks to Paul Ryan and the Fredocons, the House belongs to the Democrats, and the Senate can’t pass anything without 60 votes and we have 52 plus Mitt. So Trump can’t build a wall without their OK, and the emergency power thing is no panacea – it will last about 30 seconds before some Obama judge enjoins it.

You were going to let your support for Trump be entirely contingent on the Democrats’ approval? What were you thinking?

So we lost this round? So what? We’ve lost before, and we’ll lose again. This is for the long-haul folks. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. There’s no magic wand where one term of Vitamin D cures a century of progressive pathology.

I’m not ready to even accept that we’ve lost the battle – let’s see what happens in three weeks. But what was the better plan for the shutdown skirmish? Keep it going? Friday morning was bringing reports of airport shutdowns. That might have made it real to the Normals. See, we political types were watching and caring, while they weren’t. But it looked like they were about to start. Maybe Trump’s instincts, which you have to admit have been remarkable (Just ask Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit after you pump a few cups of joe into her lie-hole to sober her up), told him it was time to cut his losses. Remember Alinsky Rule No. 7?
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

Did any of you see any indication at all that the shutdown tactic was about to deliver us victory, that it was not becoming a drag? Me neither. Cut your losses. Pull back here, counter-attack there.

So calm down. Don’t be manipulated. If you want the wall, keep backing the only possible politician who has any chance at all of delivering one. Will he? Maybe. Maybe not. But if you don’t support him, your chances drop to zero.

We lost a fight. We have not lost the war. We only lose if we do what Nancy and Chuck want and turn on the President.

I’m inclined to think Kurt is right. Trump may be thinking that, after re-opening the government for three weeks, Pelosi et al will have provided him with absolutely indisputable proof of their mulish intransigence, their unwillingness to compromise in any way on securing the borders. That would free him to fulfill his threat to declare an emergency, then use military funding to at least partially fund the wall.

As Kurt says, that maneuver will immediately be kiboshed by some liberal judge, and the courtroom back-and-forthing will drag on for the remainder of Trump’s lame-duck term, probably. It ain’t gonna get anybody a wall; I remain steadfast in my belief that there ain’t gonna be one, period, no matter what anybody tries to do. But it might serve to shore up Trump’s core support should he seek reelection, at least. Back to the first hand, Ace uncorked some fairly astute analysis in the immediate wake of Friday’s reopening announcement. He covers a fair bit of ground—read it all if you haven’t already—concluding with this:

5. Trump can’t back down or he will not be reelected. But on the other hand, Nancy Pelosi can’t back down or she’ll lose her majority.

So this is pointless. Both sides know this.

The only thing that’s going to resolve this issue is Trump declaring a national emergency and building a wall using his inherent and statutory powers.

The only useful part of the shutdown, and it’s barely useful, is making a case to a Hawaiian judge that Congress is dysfunctional and cannot act in the face of an actual emergency and therefore Trump’s has plausible justification to declare an emergency within the meaning of the statutes.

Actually, I very much doubt that that’s the conclusion likely to be drawn by the kind of “Hawaiian judge” Ace is talking about. That type isn’t interested in whether Trump has “plausible justification” or not, anymore than he’s going to care what the law says, what the Constitution says, or what his proper role here might or might not be. He’s going to be concerned with one thing only, and that’s what will determine his course. His “deliberations” won’t be over what the law and precedent require him to do, but to contrive a pretext for doing what he already wants to do. That’s how liberal jurisprudence works.

Ultimately, the dispute over whether the US will have a well-guarded border and properly-managed immigration, or chaotic open borders enabling an unrestrained invasion of unassimilable aliens, is Exhibit A illustrating the unbridgeable political chasm in this country. As with so many of the other issues dividing Heritage Americans and the commie Left, there is no reconciling the two positions—no fair or workable compromise possible, desirable, or imaginable. There can be the one, or there can be the other. Nothing else. How anybody can expect America to continue as one nation like this is well beyond my ken.


Malice, not mistake

EXCELLENT observation from Neo that I hadn’t given any thought to my own self.

The role of Phillips himself was (and still is) felt by the right to be the following: that he purposely stirred up the initial face-to-face confrontation, that he lied about his military service, lied when he stated the boys had said “build the wall,” lied when he said they had approached and surrounded him, and that he also omitted the details of the racial and other slurs the boys (and the Native Americans) had endured coming from the Black Israelites. And the media gave Phillips a forum for repeating those influential lies.

However, what’s being almost completely ignored even on the right (the NY Post is just about alone in mentioning it, and they don’t emphasize it much at all) are Phillips’ most vicious lies, told quite early in the game (I’ll get to what they were in a minute). These particular lies probably had a big role in shaping people’s perceptions of the boys and helped to spur their widespread demonization.

It was Phillips himself who quite early on, during his Saturday interview with CNNthat set the original tone and was widely disseminated, gave the following description of the Covington boys:

It looked like these young men were going to attack [the Black Israelites]. They were going to hurt them. They were going to hurt them because they didn’t like the color of their skin. They didn’t like their religious views. They were just here in front of the Lincoln — Lincoln is not my hero, but at the same time, there was this understanding that he brought the (Emancipation Proclamation) or freed the slaves, and here are American youth who are ready to, look like, lynch these guys. To be honest, they looked like they were going to lynch them. They were in this mob mentality.

That is not some disagreement about who went up to whom, or whether the wall was mentioned by the boys, or what caps some of them wore. This is an extremely defamatory statement by a political agitator, designed to shape perceptions that the boys were vicious racists with a killer instinct. The language is purposefully inflammatory and of the harshest variety.

It is a lie, and unless Phillips is clinically insane and out of touch with reality (something I don’t believe is the case), it is a knowing and purposeful lie about a bunch of teenagers who were minding their own business. It is a lie so egregious, so foul, that I really lack words to describe the depth and depravity of that lie.

And as far as I can see, just about everyone is ignoring it now.

She’s absolutely right. Of course, when it comes to turncoat cucks like NRO, Kristol, and all the rest of the false-flag “right,” nobody should expect any different from them anyway. That’s Teh Narrative™, by gum, and you can bet they’ll be sticking with it, just a-hopin’ and a-prayin’ the whole while for this painful self-beclownment to go away toot sweet. As for the NY Post op-ed Neo mentioned above, I’ve had that one sitting open in a tab for a few days now awaiting the opportunity to post on it.

Nathan Phillips is a liar, not a victim
Days after Nathan Phillips’ story of his confrontation with a group of students in Washington was thoroughly discredited, many on the left are still rallying behind him, pretending he was somehow a victim.

This, even after both the New York Times and the Washington Post had to publish not just “clarifications” about the incident itself, but even corrections of his claim to be a Vietnam, or “Vietnam times,” veteran. (Turns out he was a stateside refrigerator technician, and frequently AWOL.)

It also turns out Phillips made nearly identical allegations against a few college students four years ago.

Yet he still has supporters because he keeps crafting new narratives that appeal to left-liberal prejudice. He certainly has the right bottom line, though: “Time for lies to be not accepted anymore,” he told CNN.

Oh, you got that one right, Chief Spewing Bull. You can see the truth of it in how swiftly your whole fairy tale got itself fractured. Kinda tough on guys like YOU, admittedly. But I’m digging it, myself.

Nathan Phillips is a pestilential dung beetle, a noxious little Lefty toad. Unfortunately, though, he and his putrid ilk will always have supporters…among the dishonest, the bigoted, the faithless, and the insane, all of which are plentiful enough on the ground. Elsewhere, Neo brings up another telling point:

In Sandmann’s interview, at one point he says:

…in hindsight I wish we could have walked away and avoided the whole thing.

Perhaps it’s more accurate to say he wishes Phillips had never come up to him in the first place. At any rate, I have some advice for Sandmann: it wouldn’t have mattered. If Sandman had somehow managed to walk away from Phillips, one (or more) of these things would have almost certainly resulted: Sandmann would have been criticized for disrespecting Phillips by walking away, and/or Phillips would have followed him beating that drum all the while, and/or Phillips would have focused the same technique on another boy.

I’m not just trying to be cute here. I am serious in saying I believe there was nothing Sandmann could have done that would have changed the outcome, once he was selected as the target for the confrontation and the recording of the exchange on video by Phillips, who was accompanied by people with videocameras filming it from the start.

Annnd Bang Zoom!™, nailed it yet again. Damned fine analysis, from a damned fine writer and thinker.

Y’know, it occurred to me just now that, although I’ve had her in my bookmarks for, like, ever, she ain’t in the CF blogroll. Don’t know how I let that get by me; consider it just another stupid oversight rectified, y’all. She’s always been a good bit more polite about things than I am—not as, umm, fiery, shall we say. Which of course is fine, but she might be less than just totally thrilled to suddenly find herself keeping company in Ye Olde Blogrolle with us foul-mouthed-yob types over here. Nonetheless: welcome aboard, Neo. Us rapscallions, blaggards, and general no-goodniks are glad to have ya.


Figure it out already, ferchrissake

Oh, how I tire of this.

Remember when wearing a MAGA hat meant you were certain to lose an election to Hillary Clinton? Remember the days before a red baseball cap became a symbol of all evil in the universe?

I’ve been typing words on the Internet to pay the bills for, I dunno, 12-13 years now. I spent eight of those years disapproving of a cult of personality centered in the Oval Office, and I’ve spent the past few years disapproving of the subsequent cult of personality centered in the Oval Office. I don’t like tribal groupthink, and I’m as immune to Trump’s charisma as I was to Obama’s, so in 2019 that means I have even fewer friends and admirers than usual.

But as we head into week 2 of the MAGA Kid Saga, I’m finding common cause with my Trumpkin brothers and sisters. Whatever our differences, I’ve always agreed with them that the media is astonishingly biased and corrupt. The abject shamelessness of our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters, the self-appointed gatekeepers of the truth, has never been more apparent than it’s been over the past week.

That’s Jim Treacher, of course, who’s a good writer and a funny guy. I corresponded with Jim a few times back in his independent blogger days, before he signed on with PJM. I don’t read him much anymore, and it pains me to have to call him out on his fervent dislike of Trump; I’d love to be able to say that this particular piece confirms that he’s rethinking his reflexive opposition to Trump and coming around, if slowly, to a more informed and intelligent understanding of what the Trump counterrevolution was really all about.

Unfortunately, I can’t. The obstacle disproving any wished-for removal of Jim’s NeverTrump blinders is in those “cult of personality” and “tribal groupthink” bits. Jim may believe he establishes his above-the-fray, impartial, reasonable-guy bona fides with them; he may sincerely believe they’re true and accurate descriptors of the Trump phenomenon and those who brought it about. But they simply aren’t so.

It may be that there are some folks out there who blindly worship Donald Trump; who will support him no matter what he might do or say; who hold him in a reverent awe akin to that of the most perfervid Elvis fans for their idol. But if there are, I’ve never yet run across one. What Jim fails to realize is that Trump was never any kind of idol or an object of blind worship for most of us who supported him from the beginning, and still do. We didn’t expect to agree with everything he tried to do. We knew he wasn’t either a perfect man, a perfect political leader, or a perfect president, and never would be.

What Trump actually was and is for most of us is a tool—more precisely, a weapon, to be used against our Deep State enemies in a last-ditch attempt to right the nation’s course via electoral means. Admittedly all tools, all weapons, have flaws and weaknesses. They can break unexpectedly on you; they can be incorrectly applied; they can be ideal for use in one particular circumstance or situation but useless in another, perhaps even damaging. So it is with Trump.

But after decades of being hoodwinked again and again by the Decepticons of Conservative Inc, he was quite clearly the only tool to hand for the near-insuperable job of reclaiming what’s left of our country from authoritarian/collectivist toils by peaceful means. Ted Cruz was never going to be able to accomplish a fraction of what Trump has; none of the other 16 Dwarves were even going to take an honest stab at it, much less actually do it. They were all going to drone right on about their commitment to fiscal responsibility, smaller government, prosperity, and strength and then quietly get on with what for them is Job One: yielding graciously to the Left.

The other thing Jim and the other NeverTrumpTards miss is that Trump’s rough-hewn, brash, confrontational personality—his eagerness to confront his (and our) shadow-government foes in open, down and dirty combat; his total insouciance regarding those foes’ opinions of him; his twisty, slippery rhetorical style; his unabashed and unapologetic commitment to winning if at all possible—are considered by them to be grave flaws: unserious, indecorous, and embarrassing. They long for a return to a bygone era of fastidious Come-Let’s-All-Reason-Together politics. They’re discomfited by the kind of bloody, bare-knuckle brawling Trump so enjoys and excels at.

Treacher and the rest can’t seem to grasp that those traits—rude crude, and socially unacceptable though they may be—are NOT flaws. Quite the opposite: they’re Trump’s greatest strength: absolute prerequisites for having any hope at all of achieving what we elected him to achieve. We wanted and needed a fighter, someone who fully realized that this is a war we’re in here—a particularly dirty one, against a sinister and deceptive enemy. We wanted and needed someone who wasn’t a polished, effete professional politician. A streetfight with a tooth-and-claw thug demands not a pugilist but another thug, an ear-biter and eye-gouger, somebody who gets what kind of desperate, no-holds-barred struggle we’re mired in and is willing to use the enemy’s own extreme tactics to go on the offensive, instead of remaining in the same old defensive crouch that got us where we are.

There ain’t no “cult of personality” to be found anywhere in the vicinity; this kind of struggle is too rough, too raw, too damned real to allow for such fripperies. We’re down to the nut-cuttin’ here, as the saying goes: there’s winning, and there’s losing, and that is absolutely ALL. Those who would let pious worries over “winning the wrong way” should get the hell out of the way and let the brawlers get on with it. In the end, “losing honorably” is still losing, and Trump supporters are fed up with that crap. If it takes a loud, coarse, obnoxious sort like him to put us back into the “win” column, well…hey, sorry and all, but personally I’m a-okay with it.

So go ahead and buy yourself that MAGA hat, Jim—there’s no shame in it. Or don’t, you can suit yourself. You’ve been good enough so far to express your distaste for Trump carefully, without shrieking or profane insults that I know of. But don’t kid yourself that there’s some other alternative remaining that will spare your dignity and halt the Progressivist onslaught too, or even slow it. There isn’t, like it or not; Trump and his supporters are the only game going now. I can assure you, though, that no amount of forelock-tugging disclaimers and “I can’t stand him either!” virtue-signaling, however heartfelt, will ever buy you a damned thing from Lefty. Not respect, not restraint, not accomodation, not cooperation. Not ever. Call it McCain’s Unlearned Lesson, maybe.

You should be able to see easily enough what the Left has in store for you after Covington, how very deeply they hate and despise not only the Covington Kids, Trump, and his supporters, but you too—you and every last one of us who dares to oppose or disagree with them. You shouldn’t kid yourself about that, either. We, however, will be happy to welcome you over to the Dark Side with us. You won’t have to recite any catechism or swear any oaths. You won’t have to agree with us every single time, or even keep silent about it when you do. No dress code, no minimum purchase, no credit check, no ID, no bag limit. If that still sounds like a “cult of personality” to you, I guess maybe we’re doing it wrong or something.


Shutdown showdown

A real Mexican standoff.

Opposition to a border wall takes the form of exasperation and snark but little in the way of argumentation. One frequently heard argument is that illegal immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans. At the very least, U.S. Sentencing Commission data raises serious questions about that claim. Another common response is to call sententiously for “building bridges, not walls,” as though real walls preclude the construction of metaphorical bridges. Senator Charles Schumer, in the Democratic response to the president, called the wall “ineffective and unnecessary.” Opponents of the idea of a physical structure impeding unwanted migration claim that they support border security wholeheartedly—it’s just that walls don’t work.

But what evidence is there that walls—for millennia the most basic unit of construction and defense—are ineffective? A wall, or fence, runs along much of the border near population centers like San Diego and El Paso, and these barriers appear to work, to the extent that a partial wall can be said to work. A 440-mile wall separates Israel from the West Bank; it has dramatically reduced terrorism. Saudi Arabia has a wall on its border with Yemen and has begun construction of a wall on its Iraq border, too. Hungary, Russia, Lithuania, and Slovenia have built border walls. Belfast and Derry have “peace lines” (walls) separating Catholic from Protestant neighborhoods. The 1,800-mile, impermeable India-Pakistan border is visible at night from space because 150,000 floodlights light it. The United States maintains 25,000 soldiers in South Korea to preserve the integrity of the fence dividing the Korean peninsula.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that critics oppose a wall not because it wouldn’t work but because it would.

Well, I mean, DUH.

Many on the left seem clearly offended by the idea that nations have the right to determine who crosses their boundaries. Today’s sanctuary-cities lobby grew out of the 1980s crusade of “solidarity” with Central American revolutionary movements; it echoes those earlier movements’ conviction that northern migration from Latin America is righteous anti-colonialism, a revenge of history. It echoes, too, a sense, pervasive if often unstated, that Americans don’t deserve the country that their ancestors—including African slaves—built.

I repeat: DUH.

President Trump has given the Democrats a chance to make a deal. He appears serious about building the wall. If no progress is made toward an agreement, Trump will have two options: further temporizing of his position, up to and including concession of defeat; or attempt to exercise presidential authority—subject to legal review—to declare a national emergency and build the wall on his own.

After which attempt he will find himself in a fight for his life—Leftist derangement having metastisized the way it has the last two years, and given their escalating penchant for violence, maybe even literally so instead of just politically-speaking. Elsewhere (via Insty), Michael Barone uses Leftymedia’s hair-on-fire reaction to Trump’s speech the other night to lay out a little more factual detail:

As American Enterprise institute’s Michael Rubin pointed out in 2017, Israel’s wall with the West Bank, Morocco’s wall with Algeria, India’s with Bangladesh, Hungary’s with Serbia and others have reduced illegal crossings to near zero. To the point that this year, Rubin reports France, Iraq, Lithuania, Estonia and Norway are putting up walls. “It is simply counterfactual to suggest that walls won’t work,” he writes, “willful subordination of facts to the politics of the day.”

And why are walls immoral? Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., recognizes the “Berlin Wall was to keep people in” argument, but insists a wall to keep people out is “medieval” and “a symbol of ‘us and not us.’” Well, yes—U.S. citizens and not U.S. citizens.

Likewise, House Armed Services Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., says Trump’s call for the wall is rooted in “xenophobia and racism.” To say that it is impermissible or racist to distinguish between American citizens and others is to make a case for open borders.

Annnnnd say it with me one mo’ time ag’in: DUH!! And again, here’s the real problem:

Yes, the mainstream media deliberately misleads the public all the time. On issues like border security they have been promoting a false narrative for so long that many of them don’t even know they are lying. The younger “journalists” brought into the fold have been fed the narrative from a young age and are more ignorant than disingenuous.

The narrative goes like this: the only people trying to cross the border are plucky do-gooders who merely want to make better lives for their families both here and back home.

On the rare occasions that there is a discussion in the MSM about the darker elements crossing the border, they are dismissed, largely by saying that the bad stuff just doesn’t happen that often.

Sane people would argue that there are no acceptable levels of murder, rape, overdoses, or gang violence that are related to criminal elements.

Liberals, however, have no qualms about innocent Americans dying in pursuit the progressive dream of minting millions of new Democratic voters overnight.

There you have it, all wrapped up in a nice, tight little bow.


Propaganda pratfall

The NYT trips over its own dick and proves a point other than the one they intended (the link is to Walsh’s evisceration and not the NYT, of course).

To be sure, the furloughed public servants are merely suffering delayed paychecks thanks to the Democrats’ refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election, and while the public has not been as deliberately inconvenienced as it was during the dog-in-the-manger Obama shutdown, its effects are nevertheless being felt at such points of intersection as the national parks. Still, life has gone on otherwise pretty much as before — and the longer the shutdown rolls on, the more easily the way we were can be forgotten.

So the longer Donald Trump wrangles with his two superannuated cartoon antagonists, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the stronger the president’s position becomes. This despite the Democrat Media’s insistence that the shutdown is a terrible thing, costing the lives of (as usual) untold women, children, and minorities. Indeed, the New York Times, in an attempt to be helpful, even went so far as to illustrate “What the Shutdown Would Look Like if It Happened in Other Industries.”

The 800,000 federal employees furloughed or working without pay is more than the 748,000 people employed by the mining and oil extraction industries in the United States. (And it’s 16 times the size of the entire coal mining industry.) It’s also more than the 640,000 people employed by the entire textiles and clothing manufacturing industry. It’s more than double the number of people who work for Target and more than four times the number of people who work at General Motors.

The Treasury department furloughed roughly 72,400 workers. That is nearly three times the number of people who work at Facebook. The Department of the Interior furloughed about 56,000 employees, which is more than the nearly 50,000 people who work at Chevron worldwide … and more than 10 times the number of people who work at Netflix.

Take a moment to soak all that up: the number of FedGovCo’s NONESSENTIAL employees exceeds those employed by entire fucking industries in the private sector? By as much as SIXTEEN TIMES their number? Walsh spells it out:

One would think that these numbers only serve to prove how unconscionably large the federal government has become, but of course that’s not the way the Democrats and their fellow travelers near Times Square see it.

I repeat: SIXTEEN TIMES. NONESSENTIAL “workers.” That’s SIXTEEN TIMES as many useless paper-pushers, thumb-twiddlers, rumpswabs, and pud-pullers as are employed in the coal mining industry, all of whom do actually, quantifiably useful, important, work. A lot of those jobs put the guys doing ’em (and yes, they’re overwhelmingly male) in danger of serious physical harm. Those people nonchalantly shoulder a burden of risk every minute of every workday that is wholly beyond the comprehension of mouthbreathing federal-gummint drones whose gravest worry is a paper-cut, having their chair tip over while napping, or hurt feelings when someone reads an op-ed belittling them aloud in the office. All in all, I have to say that, the diligent efforts of the liberal media to drum up sympathy notwithstanding, my nightly weeping over the plight of these goobermint parasites is…shall we say, a bit short of copious.

Most Americans regard “idle” and “bureaucrat” as synonyms. For those of us who have spent our lives toiling in the private sector, where employees are expected to produce things, “nonessential worker” is a concept that has no meaning. In the real world beyond the Beltway, businesses hire people because they have some “essential” task that must be performed. Thus, we aren’t often moved to tears when told “nonessential workers” will be sent home because of a government shutdown, Yet major news outlets actually expect us to be swayed by stories like this from the Wall Street Journal:

Rusty Long is debating which bills to pay and which to hold off on, as he plans to miss his first paycheck on Friday, along with hundreds of thousands of other federal employees … “We’re not going out to eat, we’re cooking every meal at home, and there were conversations about what could we stop if we needed to and what could I do to bring in additional income,” he said.

I’m sure Rusty and his family are fine folks, but he’s an architect who works for the Agriculture Department. I have no idea why that bloated bureaucracy needs architects, but I’m willing to bet he could find a job outside the government. So, the first question that occurred to me when I read this story is: Why is money being removed from my paycheck and given to such people in the first place? And, as human tragedies go, that the Longs are forced to manage their budget carefully and are unable to eat out often isn’t very impressive.

OK, call me callous, but this isn’t exactly Les Misérables. It’s a pain in the posterior to miss paychecks — but most furloughed bureaucrats will get their back pay when the Democrats figure out the shutdown is a loser and compromise. So, unless these folks have been really irresponsible with their personal finances, it’s not like our nation’s capital is going to wind up like Speaker Pelosi’s district in San Francisco.

Once again, for good measure: NONESSENTIAL. Here are some synoyms for that word straight from the Merriam-Webster thesaurus:

dispensable, gratuitous, inessential, needless, uncalled-for, unessential, unnecessary, unwarranted

Not a ONE of those words ought to be applicable to anyone who is paid with taxpayer dollars. In the private sector—which must actually produce or provide something useful or desirable and make a profit doing it—if any of those words apply to you, you won’t have a job for long. If they apply to your employer, or if that employer keeps enough people to whom they apply on its payroll, it will soon be out of business.

So how on earth can anyone justify exempting government from that reasonable, common-sense standard? What is the reasoning behind allowing the money taxpayers sweat for to be squandered on useless dead weight and tail-chasing bureaucracy? It ain’t like we’re talking chump change here either; the “omnibus spending agreement” reached back in March of last year was 1.3 trillion dollars.

Help me out here, folks; I’m trying to make sense out of this ziggurat of stinking, steaming crap, but I’m coming up way short. Maybe I’m just too dang igner’nt to get any kind of handle on high-level economics, I dunno. But what I wonder most about is how this was ever allowed to happen in the first damned place.



To quote Johnny Rotten: not a trace. No reality.

Never in modern times has there been such a disconnect between the opposition party and the realities of national life. The very talk of removing Trump, without evidence of an impeachable offense, is a stick in the eye to history and most Americans.

To be clear, the disconnect is not the product of policy differences, though they exist too. This is instead a mass outbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome that, for those infected, can be cured only by undoing the results of the 2016 election.

And if by some lightning strike they succeed, then what? Impeach President Mike Pence, too?

How does any of this help the country address its infrastructure needs, reform entitlement programs or ensure better schools and more opportunities? And what message does it send to our allies and adversaries about America’s resolve?

The questions answer themselves. The relentless fixation on impeachment is a destructive decision that sacrifices national progress and security on the altar of partisan madness.

Well, to be fair, the Democrat-Marxists care not a whit for either of those things.

Paralysis by politics, of course, is a bipartisan disease, and Trump is not immune. His decision to force a partial government shutdown over border wall funding followed warnings that he was on the verge of betraying a key promise to his supporters.

But that doesn’t make both sides equally wrong.

No, it certainly doesn’t. On that last point, this sort of thing just annoys the living hell out of me:

THE L.A. TIMES IS PRETTY COOL WITH ANTI-SEMITISM, APPARENTLY: Can you admire Louis Farrakhan and still advance the cause of women? Maybe so. Life is full of contradictions.

As Drew McCoy tweets, “Replace ‘anti-Semite’ with ‘anti-Muslim’ and see if this piece gets published.”

Yet another reminder that the alt-right and the mainstream left are the mirror images of each other.

That’s Ed Driscoll making with the false equivalence in bold above; I’ve seen him do it several times, and he’s by no means the only one guilty of it.

By yielding to the Left’s denunciation of the former alt-right as being composed exclusively of “Nazis,” “fascists,” and “white supremacists,” the milquetoasts nominally on our side have shot themselves—and us—in the foot yet again. The term “alt-right” itself has been forever poisoned by a misguided eagerness on the part of Doormat Rightists to score points with the Left by proving their docility and reasonableness to them. It’s exactly the sort of thing that made a fool of Juanny Maverick a thousand and one times, that killed the Tea Party movement a-borning. It’s futile. It’s stupid. And it ain’t even close to the truth.

Sorry, cucks, but one of these things is NOT like the other. The alt-right, whatever and whoever it might represent now, is in no way a “mirror image” of the Left. The Left is seditious, treacherous, underhanded, and violent. They hate America That Was in its every particular: its values, its traditions, its strength, its prosperity, its influence. They hate the white males who founded it, built it, and made it work. They want it destroyed forever—ALL of it—and replaced with a collectivist tyranny firmly in control of every single aspect of our lives. ALL of our lives, every one of us.

The alt-right is, or was, NONE of those things. Not ONE. Period. Fucking. DOT. To pretend otherwise is a mug’s game, a fool’s errand, and suicidal. How can it possibly be that so many of us still can’t understand that the Left can never be defeated by continuing to play their game, by their rules?

The funny thing is, the desire to disassociate and distinguish themselves from the half-assed Loser Right is the very reason the alt-rightists started calling themselves that in the first place. Now they’re trying again with Derb’s newly-minted Dissident Right, which I actually like better anyway. We’ll soon see how long it takes the cucks and schmucks to fuck that up for us too, I guess.




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

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

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options


If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards


RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


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