Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

“Steady state” stuff and nonsense

Codevilla on the (ahem) “steady state.”

The media commentary on Messers Woodward and Anonymous misses the revolutionary nature of Anonymous’s claim, supported by Woodward. That is because it is limited to degrees of agnosticism about whether the allegations against Trump and the claims of successful subversion are true, as well as to tergiversations about the courage of  “whistleblowers” and the ethics of publishing unverified claims.

Truly revolutionary, as well as false, is the claim that officials who oppose the choice the voters made at the ballot box by acting under a false flag of loyalty thereby bring any sort of stability to American public life. For better or worse, the American people elected a president of the United States according to the Constitution. On their behalf, he acts. To them alone is he responsible, by well-defined constitutional instruments. To acquiesce in that claim is to abet a revolution.

Who appointed anyone as the guardians of the “steady state?” Among many notions of steadiness, whose do they guard? To whom are they responsible? Since they take care that none but their friends should know what influence they are having on what actions of government, on whom shall Americans displeased with those actions vent their displeasure? And how shall ordinary people vent their displeasure with a “steadiness” of which they disapprove? Pitchforks?

In short, who rules here? To whom does America belong?

The American people once waged a revolutionary war to assert the principle that “just powers” derive only “from the consent of the governed.” That meant—and that can mean—one thing only: elections. The Constitution begins with “We the people…” and goes on to describe powers conferred on elected officials, and on such others as depend on those elected officials. Elections define “popular government.” Popular government is what our ruling class’s self-identification with the “steady state,” “deep state,” expert state, administrative state—call it what you will—is destroying.

“We the people” owe no allegiance whatever to the “steady state.” Any and every act of government that does not proceed intelligibly from law, as in the civics books, is illegitimate. Why should any of us regard such things and people as good and right, much less as representing our interest? Americans are learning the sad lesson that others have learned by living under administrative authorities. They represent themselves, not you. Ignore them as much as you can. Tell them nothing. Go around them. Take much, give nothing. That is how republics die.

Actually, no. Republics die from ever having let weasels such as “Anonymous” (now outed) get a foothold in the first place, and from having allowed the government to get big enough to provide said weasels with shadowy holes from which to do their dirty work, and to which they can scurry and hide. ” Ignore them as much as you can; tell them nothing; go around them; take much, give nothing”? That’s not how republics die; it’s how people trapped under the weight of the carcass must live—the only sane way to grab a sour scrap of liberty and self-respect—until that weight can no longer be borne, and must be thrown off by any means possible…yes, including pitchforks, but certainly not limited to them.

It’s Codevilla, so it’s damned excellent, my lone semantic quibble notwithstanding.

Share

Achilles heels

Walsh invokes the classics:

The masked fascist thugs who ludicrously call themselves “Antifa,” routinely attack public gatherings, and Left wingers sporting “Say No to Hate” t-shirts scream at the sky at the very thought of Trump and his policies. Not since the 1960s have we witnessed such a public breakdown in moral and psychological order.

But even back then, there was the fig leaf of “protest.” The students who assaulted the Democratic National Convention in 1968 could pretend they were protesting the Vietnam War, and the complicity of the Johnson Administration’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, in it. The riots in major American cities in this period could be attributed to black Americans’ frustration over police practices, and their impatience with the slow pace of social change. And everybody still feigned a belief in America—imperfect, perhaps, but still capable of self-reflection and a determination to do better.

Today, not so much. Socialism is now openly a goal of the political Left, mostly mouthed by small children at the behest of their red-diaper baby grandparents. Calls for violent revolution are treated by the press as perfectly reasonable reactions to the 2016 election, and of course #TheResistance has only been emboldened by its media cheering section as it seeks to plant the notion, by means most foul, that they “wuz robbed” of an election they thought they had in the bag.

What besides a profound, educationally inculcated, and emotionally juvenile hatred for the United States motivates them to such paroxysms of hysteria? For the fastidious collaborationists known as the #NeverTrumpumpkins, they are personally offended by the president’s sometimes boorish behavior and have had their skirts ruffled by his flouting of what they consider to be the sacred rules, precepts, and preenciples of “The Conservative Movement.” In reality, however, most of them are simply returning to their roots as Democrats, their brief sojourn on the Right more an alliance of convenience than one of genuine principles.

On the broader Left, their rage, like that of Achilles, has to do with death—the death of the “dream” Ted Kennedy articulated when, his personal reverie of becoming president of the United States having come a cropper, he delivered himself of these lines: “For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

But the “dream”—a nightmare to most real Americans—is dying, and they know it.

It was a dream of statist control, run by experts in Washington, and brooking only token opposition from the Vichycons across the aisle. It was a dream of “fundamental transformation” of the most intimate and personal areas of our lives, including the very nature of sex. It was a New Luddite dream of zero carbon emissions, technological water-treading (except in pacifying personal electronics), and the destruction of national sovereignty.

The Obama Administration represented the high-water mark of the leftist floodtide, at least during this generation’s flood season. They thought that the eight years of misery America had already endured under the Punahou Kid’s malignant stewardship would be capped and cemented by the four-to-eight-year reign of the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua, after which the deplorable country formerly known as “America” would have no hope of recovery. And when it didn’t happen, when 63 million of their formerly fellow Americans rose up and stopped Hillary cold in the Electoral College, they lost their minds in an Achillean rage that continues to this moment and is, if anything, intensifying as it reaches its climactic breakdown.

When it comes to insanity and rage, I’m afraid we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Share

State of the Republic

How goes the coup?

For what is afoot here is something America specializes in — regime change. Only the regime our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is afoot is the overthrow of America’s democratically elected head of state.

The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor’s office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role.

Presidents are wounded, disabled or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.

No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in. But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a hate-filled city that ran a sword through Nixon for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson years.

So, where are we headed?

If November’s elections produce, as many predict, a Democratic House, there will be more investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government may be able to manage.

There is the Mueller investigation into “Russiagate” that began before Trump was inaugurated. There is the investigation of his business and private life before he became president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump Foundation by New York State.

There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report the leaks from all of these investigations.

Then, if media coverage can drive Trump’s polls low enough, will come the impeachment investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.

2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d’etat can the Republic sustain before a new generation says enough of all this?

My guess is that, should this one somehow succeed, it will be the last—and the seditious Ruling Class pustules running it will immediately be given cause to rue their error greatly.

Share

Deep State steps in it

They will never, EVER stop.

The New York Times’s just published an anonymous op-ed from a “senior official” in the Trump administration. This self-righteous combination of clichéd anti-Trump tropes and arrogant moral preening puts the QED on the proof of the NeverTrumpers’ moral idiocy.

The stalest complaints involve Trump’s personality and style, although the only difference between Trump and, say, Lyndon Johnson is that Johnson with the help of the media knew that most of his vulgarisms and epithets would never be made public until he left office. And he wasn’t monitored 24/7 by a barrage of reports and images from internet news and blogs, hundreds of cable channels, and social media.

As for crudity and vulgarity, if you insurgent White House employees want vulgarity, just look around you. We are saturated with a culture of vulgarity, self-promotion, and crude sexualization. At least Trump hasn’t besmirched the White House with Clinton-style sexual antics, or like Obama brought foul-mouthed rappers who celebrate the murder of judges to socialize in the White House. But to Anonymous, the worst of Trump’s affronts is that he, with the help of deplorable uppity citizens, has “allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.” This charge bespeaks an ignorance of the Constitution and its founders’ understanding of human nature. Given the variety and volume of colliding “passions and interests,” “civility” was a luxury. More important was protecting political freedom by preventing factions from joining forces to increase their power.

The catalogue of Trump’s shortcomings are stale, subjective epithets from nearly two-years of Trump-hating screeds, without any awareness that in terms of actions, progressives like Barack Obama have been much worse. For example, the brave anonymous resister says Trump’s behavior is “detrimental to the health of our republic.” Exactly how have excessive Tweeting, braggadocio, or insults of rivals done more damage to the Constitution’s separation of powers than Obama’s politicizing of the IRS, the EPA, two AGs, the Department of Education, the FBI, and the DOJ?

Anonymous also claims Trump “has attacked” the ideals “long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people.” Name one specific action that proves Trump has done any of these things. Even his moves on tariffs––which have not yet played out–– are supported by many economists, who also agree that the U.S. is being played for a chump by many countries. As for “free minds” and “free people,” such bombast is despicable considering the attacks on personal and political freedom that Democrats have institutionalized in universities, the media, and popular culture through cultural Marxist ideas like political correctness. How has Trump’s “enemy of the people” epithet materially damaged press freedom in this country compared to the decades of the mainstream media functioning as the Dems private public relations firm? All we hear is the press screaming night and day that they are being silenced.

Personally, I’d be happy to see a lot more of the “dictator” they scream about from Trump at this point. If he suddenly started tossing Deep State enemies into dungeons in job lots, that would be fine by me, although I admit it’s unlikely in the extreme. But there is one way less draconian move he could make—one that should have been done a long, long time ago. To wit:

EVERY LAST OBAMA HOLDOVER IN THE ENTIRE US GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.

Make that: MUST be removed. Let the jackals howl; they’re going to anyway, no matter what. Now we get to the meat of the matter, though.

Perhaps the worst claim is that Trump is “anti-Democratic.” Here’s hutzpah worthy of the kid who murdered his parents then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan. Let’s see, a president legally elected according to the Constitution, subject to voter accountability through regularly scheduled elections, hemmed in by two independent branches of government, is called “anti-Democratic” by an unelected, unaccountable, self-selected gang of disgruntled employees without the guts to give up their fat paychecks and insider status by going public and making themselves accountable to the voters, and answering publicly the questions and counter-arguments of those who disagree with them.

And it gets meatier, beatier, bigger, and bouncier from there. I taxed “fair use” heavily by excerpting so much of it; do read the rest.

Anonymice update! Walsh weighs in:

Not for the first time, what’s going on in Washington brings to mind not the late Roman Empire, but the early one—the Julian line that began with Caesar, passed through Augustus and Tiberius, and then degenerated into the reigns of Caligula, Claudius, and ended with Nero. As the Republic morphed into the Empire, the Senate receded in importance, as did the twin consuls, annually elected. Powerful women—the mothers, wives, and mistresses of the emperors—wielded great power. And yet, in the end, nearly all died unnatural deaths, assassinated (all but Augustus, in fact), murdered, executed, or forced to suicide. To spare you reading Gibbon in his magnificent entirety: the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was written in the stars, right from the start, just as Shakespeare said.

The Left and its allies in the media would have us think—as this op-ed is clearly meant to do—that Trump is some combination of Claudius and Nero, a mad king barely restrained by his courtiers. “Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back,” the unknown author writes. “Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.”

I have no idea whether any of this is true. It is possible that Trump is as changeable as they say, and that his worst impulses are held in check by the wise men around him. More likely, however, is that Trump remains surrounded by those who want to see him fail, out of pique; if he’s an emperor, he’s beleaguered rather than omnipotent, with spies lurking behind every arras, shivs at the ready.

Certainly, the success of the administration’s initiatives, from the booming economy to the moments of clarity it has brought to rogue enemies and feckless allies from North Korea to Germany, is indisputable, no matter what you think of Trump. I would further venture to say that those who support the president do not do so because they are enamored of him, or think of him as a god-king, or Cheeto Jesus, but rather because they agree with his policies and like their results.

But to a wide swath of #TheResistance, this is both incredible and unacceptable. Trump offends them so personally and so deeply that they cannot constrain their bitterness, their jealousy, and their anger. The old guard, Baby Boomer media, almost to a man, despises him for his insouciant rejection of the “norms” with which they grew up. Indeed, one of the things that most infuriates them is his resolute refusal to play the part of Richard Nixon, which is why they have recently deployed the ghosts of Watergate Past, including not only “Woodstein” but even superannuated bit players like John Dean, as repellant a weasel today as he was in the 1970s.

They all are, and the NeverTrumpTards of Conservative Inc perhaps the most repellent of the whole nest. But—given the NYT’s proven penchant for making up Fake News out of whole cloth, along with the too-convenient timing vis a vis the release of Woodward’s latest fabrication—I very much doubt this particular Deep State shitweasel even really exists, frankly.

Not that it matters one little whit. The skullduggery of the Deep Staters won’t sway Trump’s supporters at all; the more they plot and scheme against him, the more they confirm both his and our suspicions about them, and the hotter our scorching hatred of them burns.

Share

Yet another lie debunked

Related to the last one, yes, but Ithought I’d break it out into its own post anyway.

The claim that the US has by far the most mass public shootings in the world drives much of the gun-control debate. Many argue that America’s high rate of gun possession explains the high rate of mass shootings.

“The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world,” President Barack Obama warned us. To justify this claim and many other similar quotes, Obama’s administration cited a then-unpublished paper by criminologist Adam Lankford.

Lankford’s claim received coverage in hundreds of news stories all over the world. It still gets regular coverage. Purporting to cover all mass public shootings around the world from 1966 to 2012, Lankford claimed that the United States had 31 percent of public mass shooters despite having less than 5 percent of the population.

But this isn’t nearly correct. The whole episode should provide a cautionary tale of academic malpractice and how evidence is often cherry-picked and not questioned when it fits preconceived ideas.

Lankford’s study reported that over the 47 years there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. Lankford hasn’t released his list of shootings or even the number of cases by country or year. We and others, both in academia and the media, have asked Lankford for his list, only to be declined. He has also declined to provide lists of the news sources and languages he used to compile his list of cases.

These omissions are important because Lankford’s entire conclusion would fall apart if he undercounted foreign cases due to lack of news coverage and language barriers.

Lankford cites a 2012 New York Police Department report which he claims is “nearly comprehensive in its coverage of recent decades.” He also says he supplemented the data and followed “the same data collection methodology employed by the NYPD.” But the NYPD report warns that its own researchers “limited [their] Internet searches to English-language sites, creating a strong sampling bias against international incidents,” and thus under-count foreign mass shootings.

Does Lankford’s paper also have that problem?

Of course it does, as Lott and Weisser go on to explain. Via the below-cited Tom Knighton, who adds:

Additionally, the fact that Lankford won’t release his list of mass shootings seems to indicate that he knows his study is crap but doesn’t want anyone to figure it out.

It’s unlikely that this study will get a whole lot of play. It goes against the anti-gun narrative to such a profound degree that it’s guaranteed to cause some serious cognitive dissonance. Anti-gunners will reject it outright, not because of bad methodology or anything, but simply because they don’t like the outcome. They prefer the poorer study that confirms their beliefs. Confirmation bias to an extreme.

But the truth is, we’re not some mass murder mecca.

That truth, along with a whole lot of others, is inconvenient to the gun-grabber agenda. So as Knighton says, it won’t get much play. That being so, I repeat: come and take them, you rotten rat-bastards. Stop whining, stop play-acting, stop lecturing, and make your fucking move. Let’s just see what it gets you.

Given how many armed Americans there are who are deadly serious about their God-granted 2A rights, and given what those people know Leftists to be, it’s a wonder there aren’t a lot more shootings in America than there are, really. A testament to the cool, calm forbearance of American gun owners, that is. Or their sense of charity and tolerance for the terminally stupid, maybe.

Share

Just another damned Drunkocrat-Socialist

One of Ace’s Moron Horde unleashes an amusing comment about Ted Cruz’s opponent, Beto “Blotto” O’Rourke, having been pinched for crashing his car while drunk as a boiled owl, then trying to flee the scene.

Old take: Beto is so dreamy, why he’s almost a Kennedy!
New take: Wait, fleeing a drunk driving accident and using his connections to get out of trouble? O’Rourke my ass, he IS a Kennedy.

Heh. Meanwhile, Ace also notes that Trump has his own plans for an assist in the Texas Senate race:

I will be doing a major rally for Senator Ted Cruz in October. I’m picking the biggest stadium in Texas we can find. As you know, Ted has my complete and total Endorsement. His opponent is a disaster for Texas — weak on Second Amendment, Crime, Borders, Military, and Vets!

Good on ya, Mr President—and good on Cruz too, for a righteous two-barrel blast of double-ought truth right into smarmy Democrat-Socialist faces:



Tom Knighton picks it up from there:

The O’Rourke supporter let the mask slip. He had no problem responding that the anti-gunners will want to come and take our guns away because we know that deep down, that’s the end game. That’s the goal.

Luckily, this is in Texas. I don’t care what the polls say about how close the race is; I don’t see a rabid liberal like O’Rourke winning against someone like Ted Cruz. In part, it’s because O’Rourke and people like this guy want the guns. They want them all, and they won’t be happy until they get them all.

That’s not Texas. Texas is a state deep in the heart of gun country. While some anti-gunners undoubtedly live there and like living there, the majority of the state supports the right to keep and bear arms, as a matter of heritage if nothing else.

Cruz’s response was perfect. He’s right that it summed up the campaign perfectly. That’s what this campaign season is really about. The Democrats have gone full-on gun control with their candidates. They expect to retake Congress, then take away our guns to some degree. Then they’ll start working to take more of our gun rights away, inch by inch.

They most certainly will. They will never, ever stop, either, until the RKBA is a long-gone memory. At this point, desperately hanging onto our ever-dwindling God-given rights is what EVERY election season is all about, really. Ted Cruz was no more than telling the simple truth about these statist, liberty-hating assholes…which is the most damaging thing anyone can ever do to them short of killing them outright.

Share

Two sets of laws

Rule of law for thee, but not for me.

Today, the “law” is a weapon wielded by the establishment to cement its grip on its power and position. That’s why Democrats are so eager to repeal Citizens United and pass all sorts of new laws restricting election campaigning. They know they will be able to violate those laws with impunity while using them to jam up their conservative opponents.

What it means right now is that preferred establishment figures and groups get a free pass from their elite prosecutor pals, but you – an uppity Normal or the representative you choose – gets the full weight of the feds. That’s by design. The law is not designed to restrain our masters. It’s designed to keep you in chains. The elite tries to sell you on the idea that justice is blind, that before the law everyone is the same. But that’s a lie. It’s not, and that’s the way they want it.

Where there are two sets of laws, there are no laws. There’s just power being applied to try to keep the Normals in line.

Where are the indictments of the swamp dwellers pulling tax or foreign representation shenanigans with a (D) behind their name? How about one of the Podestas? Yeah, right. It’ll never happen. Normal-friendly General Flynn gets ambushed and pleads when he’s on the verge of bankruptcy and his family threatened; Clapper and Brennan lie away under oath to Congress then get juicy gigs on pinko networks. These selective prosecutions are a signal – defy the elite at your peril.

So, is it any surprise that when the establishment now comes to us breathlessly announcing that they finally got the goods on Donald Trump breaking the law that we just shrug and laugh? As my upcoming book Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy explains, we Normals are no longer buying the lies. We see that the law as applied today is not a tool of justice but one of oppression. And this is bad.

It’s also nothing new. In fact, you could almost say it’s something of an American tradition at this point.

Share

If you can’t say something nice…

John McCain is dead. And if I was capable of abiding by the principle expressed by my title phrase, I’d stop right there.

But I can’t, and y’all know I can’t. Hell, it’s a big part of the reason why you’re here in the first place. I’ll try to keep it short and…well. Anyways.

The godawful excess of veneration and exaltation of this small, vain man by his fellow Deep Staters in both government and media this week has been nothing short of sickening. Guess his perennial brown-nosing of Proggies both Democrat and Republican finally did pay off in the end.

Keating Five. Gang Of Eight. Gang Of Fourteen. McCain-Feingold. These are but a few of the long, long list of supposedly bedrock-conservative “principles” McCain betrayed over the course of his odious career. His colleagues knew him as “prickly” and “acerbic”; his employees knew him as a nasty, tyrannical, egotistical prick. Now he’s someone who “will never be forgotten,” as I saw someone or other quoted as saying earlier today. Pretty slick way of saying he was a right bastard without actually saying it, seems to me.

But the most sickening aspect of this blanket beatification has to be the “war hero” bit, the man who “stood up” under unspeakably hideous torture with nothing but his courage and iron to sustain him, to keep him from breaking.

Bullshit. Arrant bullshit. I will grant, he did serve in wartime, if incompetently, self-indulgently, recklessly, and to the general detriment of his shipmates in ways both great and small. Lots of folks have been quick to point out that he should be honored for not running off to Canada instead, but I don’t know how likely that ever was as the son of an admiral and the scion of a long line of Navy men. Nevertheless, serve he did, so a grudging tip of the cap for that. The one other compliment I can sincerely bring myself to pay the man is that he himself was honest enough to explicitly admit (eventually, after initially denying it) that the animals of Hoa Lo prison did indeed break him, and he felt the sting of shame deeply over it:

Eventually, McCain made an anti-U.S. propaganda “confession”. He had always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he later wrote, “I had learned what we all learned over there: every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.” Many U.S. POWs were tortured and maltreated in order to extract “confessions” and propaganda statements; virtually all of them eventually yielded something to their captors.

“Virtually”—but not quite all. Not hardly.

Fellow POW, Admiral James Stockdale, who was also held as a prisoner of war in the Hoa Lo prison and lead prisoner resistance, won the Medal of Honor for not allowing himself to be used in the manner McCain was. The citation for Stockdale’s Medal of Honor reads:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while senior naval officer in the Prisoner of War camps of North Vietnam. Recognized by his captors as the leader in the Prisoners’ of War resistance to interrogation and in their refusal to participate in propaganda exploitation, Rear Adm. Stockdale was singled out for interrogation and attendant torture after he was detected in a covert communications attempt. Sensing the start of another purge, and aware that his earlier efforts at self-disfiguration to dissuade his captors from exploiting him for propaganda purposes had resulted in cruel and agonizing punishment, Rear Adm. Stockdale resolved to make himself a symbol of resistance regardless of personal sacrifice. He deliberately inflicted a near-mortal wound to his person in order to convince his captors of his willingness to give up his life rather than capitulate. He was subsequently discovered and revived by the North Vietnamese who, convinced of his indomitable spirit, abated in their employment of excessive harassment and torture toward all of the Prisoners of War. By his heroic action, at great peril to himself, he earned the everlasting gratitude of his fellow prisoners and of his country. Rear Adm. Stockdale’s valiant leadership and extraordinary courage in a hostile environment sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

THAT’S what a real hero looks like. “Songbird” McCain? Umm…well…uhhhh…

When the communists learned that McCain’s father was Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., the soon-to-be commander of all U.S. Forces in the Pacific, he was rushed to Gai Lam military hospital (U.S. government documents), a medical facility normally unavailable for U.S. POWs.

The communist Vietnamese figured, because POW McCain’s father was of such high military rank, that he was of royalty or the governing circle. Thereafter the communists bragged that they had captured “the crown prince.”

For 23 combat missions (an estimated 20 hours over enemy territory), the U.S. Navy awarded McCain a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service medals.

“McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat,” explains Bill Bell, a veteran of Vietnam and former chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs — the first official U.S. representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall of Saigon. “Since McCain got 28 medals,” Bell continues, “that equals out to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys — grunts on the ground — who had more than 7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I’m sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down.”

For years, McCain has been an unchecked master at manipulating an overly friendly and biased news media. The former POW turned Congressman, turned U.S. Senator, has managed to gloss over his failures as a pilot and collaborations with the enemy by exaggerating his military service and lying about his feats of heroism.

Be all that as it may, it’s his long, sordid history of duplicity, betrayal, and low skullduggery throughout his overlong Senate career that truly and eternally condemns him. Aesop says it better than I can:

We note today the news from multiple sources that, after a long and brave struggle, the brain cancer in his head will finally succeed in removing from office the man the torpid and disgraceful voters of Arizona would not for over three decades in office, Sen. John Sidney McCain III. We salute the brain cancer in this long, valiant, and hard-won effort, and thank it for belatedly doing what mere voting should have done for AZ and the nation at least two decades prior.

Were we there when his casket passed us by, we’d render the hand salute, crisply and with military precision, to honor the flag on his coffin, that sacrifice he gave, and the sort of man who could and did undertake such service to his then-ungrateful and indifferent country.

But we did not undertake this to praise him, but to bury him. (We beseech the fates, please, soon.) So one fine day, his well-filled caisson shall pass, and he’d be laid to rest, and should we have the opportunity, we doubt we’d forego the chance to leave something on his grave site afterwards. A deposit that would not pass for flowers, nor from our heart, but rather from somewhere a foot or two lower down, to betoken what he spent the last 32 years on this earth doing: undercutting and backstabbing his constituents, and crapping on the state of Arizona, his party, his military record, the fallen shipmates who never made it home, his multiple oaths of office, and his country itself, in becoming one of the most petty, vindictive, backstabbing and cruel little pricks ever to befoul the halls of the United States Senate. Which, given the competition, is really saying something.

Everyone will remember with clarity the spiteful remarks, the gratuitously antagonistic and pugnacious demeanor, the outright duplicity, the barely concealed rage, the disloyalty to people who served him and were discard like used Charmin – the former governor of Alaska comes to mind – once he could get nothing more from them. The dictionary entry for “misanthrope” should bear his photographic likeness, and were he to pick up a cat in the dark, we have no doubt he’d pet it the wrong way out of sheer force of habit. We doubt even dogs liked him. Humans, however, will remember too the half-hearted, half-assed, and half-witted bumble for the presidency, inflicting by force of his own lacking humanity and manifest unfitness for the office, the last disastrous regime upon America, such that it could not be dislodged until the 22nd Amendment came to the rescue, just in the nick of time.

And most of all, they will remember the snarl of undisguised contempt he wore perpetually, and the demeanor and personality that gave it to him, and preventing even the most kind-hearted person from ever regarding him with well-deserved pity, rather than the justly earned disgust he’s finally enjoyed. That he is the sort of man who would drag himself to cast the deciding vote to thwart the will of the vast majority of Americans in ending the disastrous experiment in full socialism that was ObamaCare, contrary to his party, president, and simple mathematics, amidst the ravages of brain cancer, really tells you more about the man than anything that two thousand days of beating and torture at the hands of inhuman communist bastards ever could. He’ll probably enter eternity still more proud of that petty, vindictive, and traitorous act than he will of any day he ever spent in uniform.

And any obituary, come the happy day, cannot but note that the latter more than dwarfs the former.

Some sort of scientific study should be done on just what in the hell is wrong with Arizona voters that they could vote to re-elect such a blight again and again, and follow up by sending a like-minded excrescence, Jeff Flake, to DC as his cohort. I’m guessing it’s something in the water, maybe.

McCain was the pluperfect example of absolutely everything wrong with Mordor On The Potomac and its despicable denizens—of the loathsome, twisted genotype colloquially known as “professional politicans.” His posthumous parting cheap-shot at Trump was petty, cowardly, and demeaning—to McCain, and no one else. It was the act of a true and irredeemable asshole, a jerk nonpareil; his forbidding Trump to attend his funeral likewise. Petty spite of such a low nature is John McCain’s proper legacy; may he be long remembered for it.

I mentioned last week the edifying coincidence of Aretha Franklin dying on the same day as Elvis; the same with Jefferson and Adams both dying on the 4th of July. But can it really be a coincidence that McCain joined the Choir Invisible on the same day as his kindred spirit and fellow predator-politician Ted Kennedy? Maybe the Almighty was giving us a strong hint as to where both of them will be spending eternity. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.

Share

“Did Trump Really Save America From Socialism?”

For the moment, yeah.

Americans need to understand that the shocking refusal by a major political party to accept the results of the last election and the onslaught of verbal, legal, and physical assaults the Democrats have engendered, are not specific to Donald Trump. In other words, it is now clear plans were made by Obama to exploit federal power during his presidency to give the Democrats control of our nation — perpetually. It really didn’t matter if Trump was the GOP nominee or not. In other words, the chaos we are witnessing today would not have been much different had, for example, Ted Cruz won the presidency.

Sure, the issues and the phony narratives would be different but the intensity of the attacks would be the same and the illegal politicizing of Federal agencies would probably still have occurred. There is little doubt the Dems would have created phony narratives customized for whoever the nominee was, similar to how they customized the Russian collusion hoax for Trump. This is what the establishment Republicans and the Never-Trumpers don’t understand. Long before Trump’s candidacy, total war was declared on the GOP when the Obama administration strategically created the conditions to make its progressive revolution a permanent one. Or so they thought.

First, let’s dump the naivety. Obama has been fully in charge of both the pre- and post- election attacks on Trump. He is the leader of the resistance. The idea that his appointees at the FBI, DOJ, IRS, CIA, State Department, etc., would risk committing multiple felonies without direction from him or his henchman is simply not believable as many long-time political leaders and observers have stated.

Obama’s goal was to weaponize his agencies so as to create the conditions to make it impossible for any Republican to win the presidency again. The circumstantial evidence over the last ten years strongly suggests that Obama was determined to make the 2016 election the last real free election, meaning one in which legal citizens elected the president. Based on his actions during his presidency, it is difficult to not conclude otherwise.

Indeed, Obama even did an interview with actress Gina Rodriguez in which he made clear that illegal aliens who vote won’t be investigated by his administration because the voting records are not cross-checked against the immigration databases.

This is also why Obama ally and socialist billionaire George Soros funds a network of Obama-aligned groups to carry out much of the dirty work. For example, Soros funds a plethora of groups that promote open borders, attack ICE, and make it easier for illegals to avoid arrest.

These groups also fight all efforts to implement any kind of voter ID system that would make it difficult for illegals to vote. Indeed, the current DNC Chairman, Tom Perez, worked with “Casa De Maryland,” a Soros-funded group that successfully convinced the city of College Park to allow illegals to vote in local elections.

But Soros plays an even bigger role in the Obama-led resistance. The House Intelligence Committee reported that Soros and seven to ten other heavy hitters spent $50 million trying to convince people that the phony intel contained in the Dossier was authentic. Soros also funds Media Matters, a leftist group that works to convince social media companies to censor conservatives, a necessary tactic in order for Obama’s soft coup to be successful. And Google, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook appear to be dutifully following the left’s demands.

Are you getting the picture yet? It’s a nifty formula: Register illegals and felons to vote but suppress the votes of conservatives and those who serve our country. Add up all these actions and it’s difficult to not conclude Obama and his leftist allies in various states were engaged in a massive conspiracy to use the power of federal and state governments to influence the electoral process. And much of this occurred before Obama knew Trump would be the GOP nominee.

But let’s bring this conspiracy up to the present. All of this flows nicely into Obama’s plan to use his intelligence agencies as an appendage of the DNC. There is now little doubt that Obama’s appointees involved themselves in a scam to purchase phony intel and then used it as the basis for an application to the FISA court so they could spy on Trump’s campaign. This plot had little to do with Russia and everything to do with creating a damaging narrative about “treason” and “collusion” that was to be spoon fed to their media allies and used to try to remove Trump from office.

But something happened on the way to socialist utopia. Trump won. That was not supposed to happen.

To be blunt, the plan was for Hillary to win and continue the destruction of the American system of limited government, the rule of law, and the free enterprise system. A Hillary victory would have continued Obama’s agenda of open borders, government control of many industries, a cradle to grave welfare system, and emaciated military and socialist policies that would continue economic stagnation. Future elections would appear to be legit but they wouldn’t be.

Under a Clinton presidency, she would continue the Obama immigration policies, thereby allowing a few million more illegals to enter the country and would also massively increase Third World refugees who vote heavily Democratic. Indeed, in 2016 she announced that as president she would increase Syrian refuges alone by 550%. Add to this the aggressive federal/state/private voter registration programs targeting these groups and the result would be a boost of Democrat vote numbers probably large enough to keep winning the White House on a perpetual basis, essentially invalidating the will of the legal majority.

Elections would just be a formality to make the masses feel like they still lived in a free country, but the only free elections would be between Democrats in their own primary. The result would be the transformation of America to a full blown socialist country within a decade. Just as Obama had promised.

Nor should there be any doubt about Obama’s socialist vision for America. This is important because his ideology explains why he is leading the resistance: socialists believe in the Marxist theory that capitalism cannot coexist with socialism, hence they are obligated to destroy the free enterprise system and all the cultural traditions that go along with it. It was not a coincidence that the attacks on traditional marriage, the undermining of religious freedom, the promotion of transgendered “rights,” and other issues challenging traditional mores came to a fore during the Obama years. Obama and the progressives seek to undermine America’s cultural traditions because they are linked to America’s Christian and capitalist heritage. Their socialist ideology explains the chaos we find everywhere we look today. Historically, socialists detest free speech, free press, freedom of religion, and other constitutional rights we all take for granted. Just walk down any big city street with a Trump hat on and you will witness the attacks for yourself. Start getting used to it.

This one is long, it’s deep, and covers one hell of a lot of ground, with a ton of supporting evidence to back up the premise. Nonetheless, I still have a few problems with it. For starters, I can’t buy Obama as the evil genius behind it all. For all his narcissistic arrogance, he’s a stuttering, shambolic, inept moron, and it’s always been my contention that he was never much more than a puppet, with darker, more clever and obscure players pulling his strings from way offstage. Moreover, our descent into socialist darkness started way before he came along anyway.

On the other hand, the ineptness and slow implosion of the Klown Kar Koup does seem to provide some basis for the argument that he was more than just a figurehead, at that.

I also have a problem with this bit:

If the GOP cannot unify to pursue a scandal this deep-rooted and consequential, then they don’t deserve to win in 2020 and will not likely survive as a viable party. It’s as if the Republican establishment wants the Deep State to prevail, Trump to be removed, and America returned to the socialist path it was on under Obama. Are they really that naïve that they don’t understand that once we go down that road, it’s unlikely the damage can be undone?

Dude: the Republican establishment IS the Deep State. Are you really that naive that, even after decades of being betrayed again and again by them, you don’t understand that yet?

Moreover, AG Jeff Sessions needs to take back control of his agency. It is alarming that he appears to be not involved in any DOJ investigations concerning anything remotely related to Russia or Hillary, because he was advised to recuse himself by career DOJ attorney Scott Schools, even though the legal case for Session’s recusal was non-existent. Not surprisingly, Schools was hired by Obama official Sally Yates who was fired by Trump for refusing to support his travel ban. Sessions needs to reverse this silly recusal, hire new staff who are actually loyal to him, and get back on top of investigating the biggest political scandal in American history.

I advise all and sundry not to be holding their breath waiting for it. Whatever he may once have been, Sessions is just another Swamp rat now. His nonchalant willingness to sit idly by as the rogue agency he is supposedly in charge of attempts a blatant overthrow of the legitimately elected government is proof enough of that. This next is certainly right enough, though:

This is do or die time. Failure to act now by the GOP will cost the country dearly. Obama and his progressive allies have an aggressive multi-prong plan to survive congressional investigations, win back the White House in 2020, and resume their effort to take America down the socialist path. This is war, and the Democrats know it, but it’s not clear the Republican leadership understands this moment in history.

Occam’s Razor tells us that they understand it’s war well enough. It’s just that they’re on the other side.

Anything can happen, of course, but I really don’t see the Democrat Socialists winning the White House back in 2020. They might well have “an aggressive multi-prong plan” sure enough. But it’s going to take somebody other than Lieawatha/Fauxcahontas, Crazy Bernie, Sick Hillary!™, or Gropy Joe Biden to implement it. Unless they’re willing to enrage their base by reining in the lunatics; dialing back the howling Marxism and tacking a bit to the middle; and can dig up a complete unknown untainted by scandal, corruption, youthful indiscretion, sexual deviancy, or the kind of greasy, unctuous smarm that oozes off of almost every Democrat-Socialist candidate like oil out of a cracked transmission case, I tend to think their chances of ever selling their chaotic flea circus to Mainstream America again dwindle with every AntiFa assault, Muslim terrorist attack, transgender parade, BlackLiesMurder riot, and accidentally-honest expression of hatred and loathing uttered by one of their bumbling, ignorant Flavors of the Month.

I could be all wet about that, I admit. But in any event, it’s what comes after Trump that we need to be concerned about. And we admittedly have a recruitment problem of our own there. Unless we can somehow find another battle-ready Trump-ish outsider to put forward, it’s going to be a return to DC business as usual when the professional-politican vultures waiting in the wings make Mordor On The Potomac their exclusive domain once more, probably for good.

Share

Relentless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Slavery, re-branded

Socialism 101.

It is important for people to learn the connection between property rights as being directly protected by liberty, and how this connection ensures life. To help picture this clearly, think of yourself as Robinson Crusoe. Or Tom Hanks in Cast Away. Or if you’re talking to the very young, Matt Damon in The Martian.

These fictional characters illustrate this bond between property and life. When these castaways were shipwrecked alone, the only choices presented to them is either to survive or to perish. In order to live, they will have to employ the use of their mind and direct their body to produce the necessary requirement of survival: shelter, water, food.

A socialist will bring up the example: imagine if a year later, another castaway is stranded on the same patch of land as you. Don’t you have the moral obligation to share your shelter, water and food with him? The answer to this is not “yes you’re obligated morally to share” nor “no, you’re not obligated morally to share”, but rather, the correct answer is: “you shall decide”.

Why is “you shall decide” the right answer? It is because the shelter, water and food you’ve created is a product of your mind and body, which is an extension to your very life.

The laws of survival which applies to you when you were first shipwrecked applies to the new castaway, as well. He too must employ his mind and body to ensuring his own survival. Because if he did produce the requirement for his survival, you yourself do not have the right to take the product of his labor from him against his will in the case where you fail to produce what you need to survive.

Naturally, logic obliges, that if another person is shipwrecked, you’d want to help him, because he will in turn, be a useful addition to your life. You could request that he help you plow your land in exchange for food. In this case, both parties engage in the exchange of value for value. No one is required to involuntary give up their property.

This is capitalism. This is the reason why socialist despises the defining of liberty as being tied to property rights, and want to do away with property rights completely, by condemning the profit motive in capitalism. It is because capitalism isn’t slavery.

A bit awkardly-written, shall we say, in spots—but let he who is without sin cast the first etc…ahem. I suspect maybe English is not her first language, not that there’s anything wrong with that. No biggie, of course; all in all, she lays out the core philosophical case defining socialism as slavery simply and well, I think, without resort to the practical argument reciting the litany of its sure-thing-every-time failure. How useful her argument might be in terms of persuasion is open to question at best, sadly enough, since the blockhead Left isn’t listening anyway.

(Via Insty)

Share

Strozk out!

Good riddance. And about damned time.

In tweets celebrating news that FBI agent Peter Strzok was fired from the FBI Monday, President Donald Trump called for the reopening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, declaring the original investigation led by Strzok a “total fraud.”

Which it most certainy was; it has that in common with Mueller’s Klown Kar Koup shitshow.

Strzok was one of the lead agents in the criminal investigation into whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton violated federal law by storing classified information on a private email server. The FBI under Comey declined to prosecute Clinton for any possible violations of the Espionage Act. In Comey’s statement, he said Clinton had acted with “extreme carelessness.”

Usually described in the accompanying indictment (absent here), by investigators with actual integrity (also absent here), as “negligence.” To wit:

An earlier draft of Comey’s statement used stronger language, saying Clinton had been “grossly negligent” — a term that would have carried legal meaning under the Espionage Act. In July 2018 congressional testimony, Strzok admitted that metadata shows that Comey’s statement was edited in June 2016 on his computer, but he claimed he cannot remember making the edit.

Uh huh. But Comey’s initial (and temporary) lapse into honesty wasn’t going to help Hillary avoid being frogmarched off to prison like she should have been, so adjustments had to be made—and were.

It’s beginning to look as if claims of monstrous collusion between Russian officials and U.S. political operatives were true. But it wasn’t Donald Trump who was guilty of Russian collusion. It was Hillary Clinton and U.S. intelligence officials who worked with Russians and others to entrap Trump.

That’s the stunning conclusion of a RealClear Investigations report by Lee Smith, who looked in-depth at the controversial June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between officials of then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign staff and a Russian lawyer known to have ties with high-level officials in Vladimir Putin’s government.

The media have spun a tale of Trump selling his soul to the Russians for campaign dirt to use against Hillary, beginning with the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting.

But “a growing body of evidence…indicates that the meeting may have been a setup — part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials,” wrote Smith.

Which it most certainly was. Read all of this last link; it’s so chock-a-block full of good, thorough reporting and right-on truth it’ll make quite a refreshing contrast to the stinking codswallop Fake News Media keeps right on desperately shoveling.

Share

“Democratic socialism” and equality before the law

Incompatible and contradictory.

Observing the media hijinks and economic moronity of Democrat hopeful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is prepared to increase taxation to unsustainable levels to pay for the socialist dream – “universal health care, tuition free higher education, and the 100 percent use of renewable energy, among other programs” – I could not help but reflect that infinity can be measured only by the extent of human stupidity.

Ocasio-Cortez, a lightweight even on the Bernie Sanders scale, is merely the latest in a long line of what we call today “democratic socialists” or “social justice warriors.” They are oblivious to the proven fact that socialism never works, that it has failed wherever it has been tried, that a centralized state and a command economy inevitably lead to rampant inefficiency, reduced incentive to compete and innovate, diminished production, economic stagnation, and ultimately to one or another version of the police state, whether the “velvet totalitarianism” that John Furedy speaks of or sheer brutal repression – in current terms, the Venezuela option. Socialism is the enemy not only of human flourishing and individual freedom, but, as we will note shortly, of the concept of equality before the law.

“Democratic socialism” is a contradiction in terms – or it is democratic in the same way as death is, reducing everyone to the same level. Socialism is no less a grim reaper than mortality. Similarly, “social justice” has nothing to do with the Western legacy of equality before the law. Clearly, people are not equal with respect to character, intelligence, aptitude, moral fiber, personal responsibility, and motivation, but they should be equal before the law. “Democratic socialism” ignores the complexity of human personality by reducing difference to a lowest common denominator just as “social justice” is dismissive of individual contributions to the well-being of the state. What such fantasy-laden constructs call “equality” is nothing but the dispensation of unearned privilege to the masses, culminating inexorably in the imposition of a featureless collective.

Socialism is a perversion of both equality and justice, the weaponizing of the law in the service of an unfeasible ideal and the progressivist legalization of outright theft, which can result only in the eventual destabilization of the state. It terminates in the society of Harrison Bergeron, in which everyone is equal only in the sense that everyone, apart from an echelon of exploiters, is equally poor, equally deprived, and equally miserable. This is not what Amos would have conceived as justice.

But it is what the Ocasio-Cortezes of the world – and they are legion – would in their risible ignorance inflict upon the rest of us, if we are lunatic enough to allow them. Florida candidate for governor Ron DeSantis is on the mark when he points to the utter folly of Ocasio-Cortez “running around saying, well, capitalism is going to die and…that socialism is the wave of the future. And as somebody who lives in Florida, I can tell you, we probably have more refugees from socialist countries – Cuban-Americans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans – then just about any state…and certainly they can tell you socialism doesn’t work. It’s a failed philosophy.”

Or, to go back to the Powerline meme collection:


Fleeing-capitalism.jpg


If socialism really IS “the wave of the future,” the future is gonna really, really suck.

Update! OG blogger Stephen fisks the living hell out of a socialism-pimping Reuters propaganda piece.

First the headline, which reads: “Once oil wealthy, Venezuela’s largest state struggles to keep the lights on.”

That headline gives the impression that Venezuela has run out of oil, but nothing could be further from the truth. The country still possesses the world’s largest oil reserves, so there’s plenty of oil wealth. It’s still right there in the ground. It hasn’t gone anywhere. The problem is that Bolivarian socialism has ruined the country’s extraction industry, but you wouldn’t know that from anything in the entire story.

Here’s the second graf:

The rolling power blackouts in the state of Zulia pile more misery on Venezuelans living under a fifth year of an economic crisis that has sparked malnutrition, hyperinflation and mass emigration. OPEC member Venezuela’s once-thriving socialist economy has collapsed since the 2014 fall of oil prices.

When Hugo Chavez took over the country in 1998 and began imposing his socialist regime, oil prices were at around $18 a barrel. Twenty years later they’ve “collapsed” to… about $70, with some temporary lows around $40 or so.

That is to say, oil prices since 2014 have averaged about triple what they were in 1998. And from ’98 to 2014, oil was mostly on an upward trajectory and routinely went for well over $100. So the question isn’t how this “crisis” was caused by a “collapse” in oil prices. The question is: What the hell did Maduro and Chavez do with all the damn money?

Here we have a story detailing Venezuela’s economic collapse, and every single problem can be explained by two words: Because socialism. And yet the only time reporter Mayela Armas uses the word socialism, it’s in the context of a “once-thriving socialist economy.”

It never WAS a “once-thriving socialist economy”—because when they went socialist, the economy stopped thriving. Just like they all do, every single time. One thing Stephen gets wrong, though: he calls this propaganda “malignantly uninformed,” but it’s more like MISinformed. Or, to be more precise, dezinformatsiya.

Share

History lesson

How America went astray.

If governments through the ages have had a fixed star, it would begin with their Bureaucracy.

In the debates over how the new Constitution of 1787 should look, one constant both Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans seemed to agree was that the size and power of government should depend entirely on the people’s control of the men who both could increase the size and mission of government, and also raise the money to pay for it.

Despite their animosity towards one another, the Federalists and Republicans were of one mind about keeping the federal government very lean. The idea that the federal government should want to grow did not begin until the formation of the Democratic Party and Andrew Jackson, 1824-28, when the spoils system was first introduced…after all the lions had passed away.

But they finally got an income tax in 1913 (16th Amendment), (count the years, by generations, 126 and 4) which, while very, very small, its fine print enabled Congress to increase it almost at will, and then, 19 years later, 1932, with the Great Depression, and the next generation of Progressives called in to fix it, (FDR and the New Deal), the government grew like mushrooms in a rain forest. Many of those programs survived well into the 60’s, until LBJ could replace them with a new set of programs, The Great Society, which haunts us still.

It was in this period that federal employment first jumped its territorial boundaries in the District and invaded Virginia and Maryland. And someone in Big Government figured out this was a good thing for Big Government, which in those days was entirely Democrat. Even the good ol’ boys in the rural south. FDR’s New Deal saved the old South, where loyalty to the Democrats was even higher than in the northeast until the Cold War-Civil Rights days. That’s because the first basic handshake FDR had with the old Confederacy was that if they’d back the national Party and their plans, and keep the blacks from voting (they were largely Republican then…ask MLK) he’d keep the federal programs coming their way.

I hate trying to compress thousands of pages of American history into a few paragraphs just to focus on how the bureaucracy came into being roughly 125 years after the federal government was formed, but it’s important to note this was where, like that rutting deer, it always wanted to go.

Trust me on this: Bureaucracies are organic, and it’s in their nature to want to expand and grow.

Since 2010, at least, “the people” who’d lost this control over their government, have been pushing back to change (through process), while the bureaucracy has been resisting, using every string they have in Congress to prevent it. The bureaucracy has been sensitive to this threat for many years.

In every agency in government, not just the high profile ones (EPA, CIA, State), there is a struggle going on between Trump’s new administration and the careerist deep-state. In some of those the struggle is exacerbated by left-right political ideology, where climate change and the billions it generates in universities and slush-fund companies such as Solyndra, is as much a life-and-death issue to many true believers at EPA as Iran becoming a nuclear power is to the Left in State and CIA. (Just watch John Brennan or James Clapper speak for two minutes and you’ll know what I mean.)

But on these issues, the Constitution names who wins the coin-toss in every case. “The people” through Congress decide, which is why Congress is so conflicted, for it is “the people” who puts them in Washington with a nice $174,000/yr salary, plus other benefits. But Congress’ real loyalty is to those people who can carry them to the next level, some on K Street and other connections, and turn them into millionaires and powerful brokers; who turned Harry Reid’s senate salary into millions, as well as Paul Ryan’s.

In that world, the federal bureaucracy, not “the people”, is the real Congressional constituency, only “the people” aren’t supposed to know this, and Congress over the past 30 years at least, have spent billions trying to keep “the people” in the dark. (Think of a Connecticut commuter-bank executive who keeps a mistress in Manhattan. Same tryst, same secrets.)

This is why they call it “the Swamp”. Apt name; marsh gas and weeds. And alligators, bugs and things that crawl in the night.

Lots more here—LOTS—and no matter how much you may think you already know about it, or how much you actually DO know, it’s all must-read stuff.

Share

“I’ve got a lot to say, but nothing to you”

Britain reluctantly springs a political prisoner from the gulag.



The hope of the British authorities that this “troublesome priest” would be murdered in prison remains thankfully unfulfilled. Ace throws a little water on the celebration by noting that Robinson’s reprieve is likely temporary:

Ezra Lavant says the world is a little freer today, but is it? The governments now in open revolt against their own people have made their point — defy us, and we will send men with guns to throw you in jail and maybe get murdered.

I think that message will be heard much louder than the message that they freed Tommy Robinson after unjustly imprisoning him.

And this isn’t necessarily the end of it: While the contempt charge was tossed out for judicial errors, the state may, and likely will, seek to re-try him. Robinson is only out on bail awaiting this new trial. He hasn’t been declared innocent, nor have the underlying charges been declared null and void.

True as that no doubt is, in blighted Old Blighty these days you have to enjoy what small victories you get. I’m glad Robinson is out, and I’m glad that he’s okay for now. He’s one of the good guys, and I wish him nothing but the best.

Share

Socialism at work

Aww, ain’t she cute.

I graduated law school in 1999 and immediately went to work for a big law firm, representing big corporations. But I am a lifelong liberal and really wanted to put my law degree to work for social justice. I wanted to help the poor, and I was very interested in how a major city dealt with large-scale poverty reform, so I applied to work in New York City’s government.

I got a job working as a lawyer for the city in 2003, a year after Michael Bloomberg became mayor. I happily took a 20 percent pay cut because I wanted to make a difference.

I loved coming to work every day under Bloomberg. I loved the constructive discussions about how to fix the most urgent social problems — meetings that involved workers at the highest levels of government with the civil servants and case workers at the lowest. All opinions were valued. And I loved being out in the city and seeing how programs worked or didn’t work.

I felt I was making a difference.

When Bill de Blasio became mayor of New York in 2014, things changed drastically. I started to hear rumblings early on. My former colleagues who were dedicated public servants were concerned by a large-scale rollback of Bloomberg’s strategic initiatives. These seemed to be based on partisan politics and black-and-white thinking as opposed to critical analysis. It was very disappointing for me since I had also voted for de Blasio.

Although I was still working in the same social-services agency where I had remained at the end of Bloomberg’s term, my job changed radically. I had no contact with the new commissioner who appeared to be disengaged from substantive discussions about social-services programs for an extremely vulnerable population. In fact, she was much more preoccupied with renovating her office — I heard her new desk alone cost thousands of dollars. She even requested that a private bathroom be built for her. She had the attitude of an oligarch and was disturbed that she had to vet invitations to galas through legal and City Hall. She wanted carte blanche to attend expensive events.

She also refused to meet with the lawyers in her department and she kept the door to her office closed and didn’t know the names of the people who worked in her agency.

Under my commissioner, there were no benchmarks, no goals and she did not hold regular meetings with her general counsel. Under her tenure, the legal unit was gutted. And there were no consequences for failing to meet performance goals because there were no performance goals.

Bloomberg wouldn’t be mistaken for a conservative anywhere but NYC, of course. But he ain’t really a socialist either, and he certainly isn’t cut from the same filthy left-wing cloth as Red Bill. Her plaintive closing wail is perfect:

My career spanned a handful of social-service agencies under the administrations of two very different leaders. I was shocked to discover that I actually preferred Michael Bloomberg’s very corporate City Hall to Bill de Blasio’s failed socialist utopia. Who wouldn’t?

Why, only some simple, dewey-eyed whelp caught up in the arrogance of her ignorant assumptions who never actually had to live in one, natch. Any bets on whether the kid still considers herself a diehard “liberal” even now, despite her up-close-and-personal lesson in how it really works? Any further bets on how many times DeBlasio gets re-elected in spite of all the damage he’s done in his tenure so far?

Yeah, I thought not.

Share

“Don’t call him Ishmael”

Moby Dick redux.

As far as fishing expeditions go, this one evokes one such adventure told 167 years ago — and still checked out of libraries today. “But shall this crazed old man be tamely suffered to drag a whole ship’s company down to doom with him?”

The president’s pursuers initially alleged collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russians. They used a foreign spy in their attempts to prove foreign interference in the presidential campaign. The fact that the campaign of Trump’s opponent paid for this investigation — their use of intermediaries to do so a tacit admission of its deceitful purpose — did not persuade federal investigators to take the evidence amassed with a grain of salt. Instead, they agreed to further subsidize the foreigner’s efforts to prove that foreigners meddled in the presidential election and presented his evidence to a judge, bypassing the fact that partisan entities launched it as part of an opposition research effort, as, incredibly, coming from a “credible” source. One administration did this to spy on a campaign volunteer for the administration that succeeded it.

Trump’s pursuers continued to obfuscate. An inspector general and congressional oversight revealed investigators boasting “we’ll stop it” in reference to Trump’s election, a discussion of an “insurance” policy in the unlikely event of the despised candidate’s election, and an FBI lawyer texting “Viva le resistance” regarding his plans for acting as a fifth columnist in the incoming administration. Finding no evidence of collusion, Trump’s pursuers steamrolled over attorney-client privilege and raided the office of Trump’s personal lawyer. A 1990s apologist for the Clintons then released a conversation involving Trump and his attorney — surreptitiously recorded by the latter. It proved this shocking fact: a billionaire former casino magnate and beauty pageant overseer once slept with a really, really beautiful woman.

How did we get from Vladimir Putin to Karen McDougal?

“To produce a mighty book,” Herman Melville explains, “you must choose a mighty theme. No great and enduring volume can ever be written on the flea, though many there be who have tried it.” Robert Mueller, who couldn’t convict Hells Angels and tried to frame Steven Hatfill as a domestic terrorist, now tries to write a mighty book with Donald Trump as his Moby Dick. This one figures to end for Ahab the same way the first one did.

The investigation exposes the investigators more than the investigated. It reveals the umpires as partisan players. It demonstrates lawbreaking by law enforcers. It sows distrust in institutions heretofore beloved by the American people.

Beware of fishing expeditions. You might catch something; monomania more likely than Moby Dick. They tend to hook the fisherman more often than the fish. But the man attached to one end of the line never sees it that way.

Unfortunately for him, Mueller’s tome won’t wind up on any must-read list; it’s gonna sink just as surely as the Pequod did.

Share

Lesson: ignored

Wasn’t properly taught, nor driven home.

California Rep. Maxine Waters said that Americans should be “out in the streets screaming” about President Trump in a Wednesday interview.

Waters told CNBC’s John Harwood, “I think [Trump’s] dangerous.”

“I don’t know why people take it. I think Americans should be out in the streets screaming to the top of their voice. Do something. Make something happen,” she continued.

During the interview, she also said, “[Trump is] one of the most deplorable people I’ve ever encountered in my life.”

These comments come after Waters encouraged the harassment of Trump cabinet members in June.

Looks like the Oathkeepers, with their half-hearted, aborted “protest” at her office instead of her home, screwed the pooch sure enough. Malone again: “If you open the ball with these people you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they won’t give up the fight until one of you is dead.” And yes, it should be noted that in one case we’re talking about gangsters, crooks, and violent criminals, while in the other we’re talking about…Al Capone.

(Via Ace)

Share

The Deep State is real

An excellent synopsis of the “Russia collusion” hoax.

Under questioning, Comey admitted to the Inspector General Michael Horowitz that he authored the May 2 statement and penned every word of it himself. But then he offered the implausible claim that “he did not recall that his original draft used the term ‘gross negligence,’ and did not recall discussions about that issue.”

Comey’s amnesia is preposterous. He would have us believe that, as FBI director, he memorialized in print his decision that the leading candidate for president of the United States had committed crimes, yet later could not recollect anything about the most important decision of his career.

The truth is that Comey well remembers what he wrote, because he participated in subsequent discussions with top officials at the FBI about Clinton’s “gross negligence.” Several meetings were held on the subject and contemporaneous notes prove that Comey was in attendance. Those records show that although Comey was convinced that Clinton was “grossly negligent” in violation of the law, he was determined to clear her notwithstanding. To achieve this somersault and absolve the soon-to-be Democratic nominee, the legally damning terminology would have to be stricken from his statement. 

Amnesia must be contagious at the FBI. Testifying before Congress, Strzok feigned no recollection of using his computer to make the critical alteration that cleared Clinton. He did, however, directly implicate the FBI director.

“Ultimately, he (Comey) made the decision to change that wording,” said Strzok.

But wait, how could Comey order a change in the words he doesn’t remember writing?  Their stories don’t jibe. At least one of them is lying.

Read all of it. As confusing and convoluted as the coup attempt may seem at first blush, it’s actually quite cut and dried. To wit: our government is assuredly NOT what we’ve all been led to believe since childhood. Its shadowy, unaccountable agencies operate with neither the “consent of the governed” nor its subjects’ best interests in mind; the minions of those misbegotten agencies possess not honor nor integrity nor humility nor a sense of duty nor respect for American values, traditions, and institutions to any discernable degree.

Our government, in short, is an affront to all the Founders revered and intended. To insist, as Democrat-Socialist shitwads do when it’s politically convenient for them, that real Americans owe such rogue abominations as the FBI, CIA, IRS, and the whole diseased host of alphabet agencies even the smallest dollop of allegiance or reverence is a grotesque insult—one that ought to resound across the fruited plain continuously, until every last sewer-rat therein is forced to flee for their very lives from the environs of Mordor On The Potomac lest the righteous rage of an abused populace descend upon them in the measure they deserve.

Share

Cut ’em off

Seriously, there’s even a discussion to be had here?

So the reason we permit these guys to keep their security clearances is actually twofold:

1. To keep them legal to accept classified information, in case the president needs to call them out of retirement to advise him on a national security matter.

With Comey and McCabe proven leakers, with Brennan looking like he arranged the Comey briefing just to leak it, and calling Trump a traitor every week, etc., I would say the likelihood that Trump will call up on these Genius Experts’ Expert Genius to be about the likelihood that Kate Upton will pay me thirty million dollars to sit on my face.

2. Frankly, as way to pay them continuing non-pecuniary benefits in their retirement, because anyone with a security clearance will be paid more money than those without one in the fields where such a thing is valuable, e.g., defense industries, information security, etc.

I don’t see why Trump would feel obliged to put money into their pockets by extending to them a benefit he is not required to extend to them.

So there are two reasons to keep these people cleared for classified reason — one which could maybe, allegedly benefit the country, but which will never happen, due to the fact that these people belong to the Deep State which has been trying to get Trump blocked from taking office and now that he is president, removed from it.

The second is just a nice thing you do for your friends, to keep paying them off for services rendered, but they are not Trump’s friends and the services they have rendered are a conspiracy to enact a coup against the duly elected president of the United States.

On the other hand, there is the risk of permitting them to retain their security clearances.

Given that there is absolutely no benefit to the country — none at all, zero — of letting them keep their clearances, the downsides risks stand all alone, with no upside potential to offset them.

Draining The Swamp of neccessity means clearing out the Obama stay-behinds and Deep State shitweasels infesting the place, and clearing them out for good. Seditious swine like Brennan and Clapper in particular are a GREAT place to start. Ace winds it up:

As there is no national security upside to letting these leakers and liars keep their security clearances and continue “monetizing” them — as Trump correctly said — and quite a bit of national security downside to letting them keep them, it’s time to terminate the clearances.

It most certainly is—time, and way past time. Cut ’em off and send ’em packing. Let the shitlibs cry a raging torrent; they’re going to anyway, of course.

Share

Proud Boys’ Proud Girl

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

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

Proud Boys‘ values center on the following tenets:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

SHOCKER: dog bites man!

Trump right again.

During President Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Associated Press reporter Jonathan Lemire asked him about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump — as he has done many times before — responded with an answer that cast doubt on the U.S. intelligence agencies’ assessment of massive Russian election-interference.

Naturally, all hell broke loose in America’s elite political and media circles. Tom Nichols, a sometime Federalist contributor, said Trump threatened the very safety of America in saying he doubted his intelligence agencies. A group of liberal law professors, who naturally have an affinity toward bending the law to achieve their desired outcomes, accused Trump of committing treason. Treason is a crime punishable by execution.

Former Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan, who voted for a communist at a time when communists were killing millions and when Russia — in the form of the Soviet Union — really was an existential threat to America, also accused Trump of treason. Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Trump was “un-American.” Former Fox and now MSNBC analyst Ralph Peters said that Trump was a “slave to Putin.” CNN’s Philip Mudd, a former intelligence community official, called for a coup against Trump by the “shadow government.” Meanwhile, a Democratic congressman called for a military coup, and Democrat senators want to haul Trump’s interpreter before Congress to testify under oath.

Mainstream conservatives weren’t deranged, but many were still deeply upset. The Federalist’s Robert Tracinski called Trump’s words at the summit “inexcusable.” The Wall Street Journal editorial board called the events a “personal and national embarrassment.” Fox News’ Brit Hume said the summit did “damage.” Newt Gingrich called the President’s words the “most serious mistake of his presidency.”

After all the selective leaking to frame the Trump administration for obstruction, after a U.S. presidential campaign was spied on by the opposing Party’s administration, after years of botched or politicized intelligence assessments, after years of arming bad guys around the world, and after multiple revelations of spying on Journalists, Congress, and American citizens — of course it is appropriate to doubt the U.S. intelligence agencies.

Follows, a lengthy list of why such doubt is not only appropriate but essential, along with a link to a very-much-related earlier piece:

There is a reason many have referred to the intelligence bureaucracies as “the Deep State.” These intelligence bureaucracies behave like all bureaucracies do—they seek to entrench their power and influence policy. But they also have a lot more power than do the rest of Washington’s bureaucracies.

The deep state can spy on and blackmail elected officials, and thus immunize itself from reform; it can claim selected expertise and choose what information is disclosed to elected officials, giving it incredible freedom to shape and push a particular narrative. The intelligence bureaucracies can also, for the sake of secrecy, choose not to disclose certain activities, pieces of information, and uses of funds to elected officials. The great risk, then, is that these intelligence bureaucracies become a government unto themselves, wholly unaccountable to elected officials.

Republicans often warn us about the growth of the federal bureaucracy, whether it be abuses by the Internal Revenue Service or onerous regulations coming from the Environmental Protection Agency. Most Republicans, however, nary offer a word about the threat the intelligence leviathan potentially poses to liberty. But living with or justifying unchecked power is not conservatism. The founders of our country warned us about power that goes unchecked, and unchecked power leads to abuse—always.

And the intelligence community has a bad record on abuse of power. In the last eight years alone, former director of national intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress, under oath, about whether Americans’ bulk data was being collected (it was), and about whether Congress was being spied upon during the Iran deal (they were). Fox News reporter James Rosen was spied upon, and so were his parents. The Associated Press was also spied on. It is likely that many more abuses have not come to the light.

The intelligence leviathan’s record in the last 70 years is even worse. We’ve all heard about J. Edgar Hoover’s disgusting spying on civil rights leaders, but the CIA especially has a terrible track record. The agency is overly bureaucratized, and has a list of misdeeds from the weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda claims leading up to Iraq, to the lie that was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident leading up to the Vietnam War, to being put to private (non-government) uses, to its disastrous proxy wars and coups all over the world, to its experimentation on unwitting U.S. citizens during Project MKUltra.

Because of this, even the conservatives who are calling for the de-politicization of the intelligence bureaucracies—as if there is a quick fix—are missing the point. The founders didn’t envision a CIA, let alone a national police force. Just for example, the FBI was only made necessary when the federal government dramatically expanded in size and scope due to Prohibition, which only was made necessary when Americans decided to turn to government, not to the church and civil society, to remedy the country’s ills.

The point is that the intelligence bureaucracy will always be politicized, as long as it is endowed with such immense power. The deep state shouldn’t just be brought to heel under President Trump’s authority, its size and scope should be reduced so that no president can wield its current accumulation of power.

As the man says, these are just some of the contra-Constitutional abuses of excessive power we KNOW about. You can be sure that there are many, many more.

Of course this sorry state of affairs is all a direct and predictable result of the American people long ago having allowed the gummint to slip its Constitutional leash in the first place. Some of us blame this on the Constitution itself, saying it “failed to prevent” the cancerous mestasization of the Superstate. Well, maybe, I guess, but I don’t hold with that myself. The Constitution was never going to be able to prevent anything without the American people maintaining, as Jefferson himself (maybe) had it, “eternal vigilance.”

It’s all moot now anyway; we have the government we have, and that’s that. Which is still no reason for non-GOPe conservatives to wax all weepy and hand-wringy over Trump’s bluntly naming the CIA, FBI, and the rest of the Deep State monolith as exactly what they are: corrupt, devious, and dangerous affronts to liberty and legitimate government. The GOPers, naturally, are publicly puffing and blowing about “treason” for the same reasons as their Democrat Socialist superiors: purely political ones.

As for the crocodile tears shed by guys like Brennan and Comey, their motivation speaks for itself and damns them even further than they already were; their words are and of right ought to be nothing more than white noise. Tracinski, unfortunately, is a NeverTrumpTard, or was. Peters seems to have suffered some sort of breakdown of late. Hume and Gingrich just plain ought to know better. After having seen the conspiracy to fraudulently elect Hillary!™—then, having failed, to manufacture evidence to overthrow Trump—unexpectedly exposed, we all ought to.

Share

Battle over

Freedom lost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Looking at Strzok’s testimony through a post-modern lens

Man who considers himself a transgender woman: “In my mind, I’m a woman. You are required to take my opinions, residing solely in my brain, over any evidence to the contrary. It’s outrageous and insulting to suggest otherwise.”

Peter Strzok, paraphrased from his testimony yesterday: “In my mind, I’m not biased in my professional performance. You are required to take my opinions, residing solely in my brain, over any evidence to the contrary. It’s outrageous and insulting to suggest otherwise.”

It’s no accident that this comparison feels valid. The parallels are there. They come from the post-modern idea that there is no objective truth. There is only the narrative.

A man with gender dysphoria doesn’t believe in objective facts about his situation. He believes only in what he feels, and what he can get others to accept. If he gets a critical mass of people to agree that he’s a woman, then the narrative is established, and the rest of us are not supposed to challenge it with any of our grubby facts and evidence.

When it comes to Peter Strzok’s motivations and actions, he doesn’t believe in objective facts either. Not even for the purposes of law enforcement. The FBI has shown that facts in cases against people they dislike are not particularly important. What’s important is what they can get a grand jury, a judge, and the public to go along with. The narrative is that a minor misstatement by innocuous people like Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby is a heinous crime, deserving of prison time, whereas breaking federal law for years and mishandling classified information is no big deal and certainly not worthy of prosecution.

In the testimony yesterday, Strzok’s narrative is that he might have a teensy weensy bit of bias against Trump and for Hillary, but he’s such a superman that he never, ever, not for a single moment, allowed that bias to affect his professional performance.

This doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Yet, the post-modern left, including Strzok’s toadying allies in the Democrat Party and the media, defend him to the hilt. I call them all post-modern because the truth about the situation is entirely irrelevant when it comes to what the left wants and needs. What matters is what kind of narrative they can spin and get accepted.

That narrative doesn’t have to be actually believed by their opponents. Many people look at a man with gender dysphoria, and simply don’t believe that he’s a woman. They know the biology, and they know how people can deceive themselves into believing all kinds of nutty things. But the howler monkey gallery on the left will descend upon them if they make that opinion known. So they never say what they believe about it; life is hard, and there’s just no benefit to standing up to a psychologically disturbed person and stating the truth.

Similarly, the media and the Democrats don’t care if you or I believe Strzok is a lying sack of shit and a thug with a badge, or if we think the investigations he drove were explicitly to help the side he likes and sabotage the side he hates. They just want there to be enough people around parroting their narrative about him, so that if we say something negative about Strzok in polite conversation, one of their brainwashed howler monkeys will jump in with “How dare you?”

Much of the left’s energy in modern day society is devoted to constantly, continuously battling the truth that makes them look bad. Their main weapon is to make discussion of such truth out of bounds. They have many tactics to do that; we saw some on the floor of the Congress yesterday.

I think the most important single reason they loathe Trump with all their being is that he says what he thinks anyway, swatting their outrage aside like a gnat, and thereby poses an existential threat to their main means of control.

We all better hope Trump is successful in rendering that tactic ineffective. Otherwise, the end result is two political sides that hate each others’ guts and have no way to communicate about it.

Let me be clear, in case it isn’t obvious: the side that is responsible for that state of affairs is the one that abandoned truth in favor of post-modernist thinking. You can’t argue with them in Enlightenment fashion because they don’t accept the premises of the Enlightenment.

At this point, the left’s complete capitulation to post-modernism means that they have shut off all paths to a peaceful resolution. It’s about attaining and maintaining power for them now. Until people like Trey Gowdy and Jeff Sessions(zzz) are prepared to accept this reality and use every means at their disposal, including force. For example, they need to be jailing perps such as Strzok, Page, Comey, Lerner, Koskinen, McCabe, et.al. Otherwise, the left pays no price for their thuggishness and denial of reality. They will retain their power to maliciously ruin the lives of their political opponents, and retain control for the left at the federal level, no matter what the citizenry wants.

If allowed to stand, this effectively ends the American experiment. We all know the possibilities that branch outward from that point, and none of them are good.

Share

Missed opportunities, abandoned ambitions

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

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

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

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

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

So how does this story end?

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

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

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

Until it doesn’t.

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

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

(Via Gail Heriot)

Share

Categories

Archives

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix