Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Imagine there’s no countries

It’s easy if you try. And never mind the nightmare.

What you see here is the core issue between Poland and the EU over accepting migrants into Poland. It’s not about whether Poland or the EU gets to determine how many and what type of migrant Poland must take. It’s whether anyone can set any limits at all. The UN is making clear that no country can determine who may enter its lands for settlement. All the blather in that report about human rights is just filler. The issue here is whether countries should exist and the UN is making clear they think the future is post-national.

Part of what you see with the open borders people is their belief that their unique situation can scale up to the stars. The UN is a heavily guarded playpen for the rich brats of the world’s political elite. These brats look around and see a rainbow of colors getting along like old chums. They jump from there to assuming that this can be done everywhere, not realizing the global elite can only get along when there are men with guns keeping the peace. They live in a fortified compound and they want that for everyone.

Another aspect to this is simply spite. Ruling elites have always, at some level, been at odds with those over whom they rule. The “burden of leadership” means giving up time and energy to the maintenance of order and the perpetuation of society. It’s only natural to resent it a little. What we have today is a ruling elite that hates the majority of the people, namely the white people. Notice the UN is not making open borders arguments for Africa or China. Open borders only applies to white countries, never anywhere else.

Yeah, well, I’m sure we can all think of a few pretty good reasons for that easily enough. But noticing them would be racist, and speaking of them aloud would be criminal. Or will be shortly.

Christopher Caldwell famously pointed out that “One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.” The same thing is happening with whites in their own lands. At first, the number of non-whites was too small to make a strong case against immigration. Now, the numbers are too large to do anything about it. The West is about to be over run.

Parts of it—namely Western Europe—have already BEEN overrun, and it’s far too late to do anything about it except learn to live with it, to docilely “absorb” regular atrocities committed by the intractable savages in their midst as routine. The US is well on its way down the same path; it remains to be seen if the will can be mustered to even slow it—much less halt or reverse it—in defiance of a smothering avalanche of Progressivist propaganda and protest. But even if they succeed, ironically enough, things aren’t likely to work out quite like the Tranzi globalists imagine. As always, they fail to take human nature into account:

Of course, the question sensible whites ask is how exactly the borderless world is going to function. The West exists because whites buy into the system. As America careens into a dystopian nightmare where feral mobs pull down the symbols of the nation, how much longer will those Constitution loving, patriotic Americans, who keep the country running, buy into the system? In Europe, hardly anyone is willing to fight for their country when asked by pollsters. Why would they? Their countries no longer exist.

In a borderless world, why would anyone have any loyalty to anyone or anything outside their tribe? How could there even be a state? In theory, the custodial state solves this by having corporations police the people, but as we see with the high tech firms, tribalism begins to rot them out from the inside. The cost of propping up cash furnaces like Twitter eventually becomes too much to bear, even for the true believers. Large scale social institutions can only exist in a world of large scale social trust.

The cucks can mew about identity politics, but tribalism is the inevitable politics of multiculturalism. In fact, in a multi-ethnic, multicultural world, there can only be identity politics. Everyone is forced to root for their own team exclusively.

The New World Order was unsustainable, and is now blowing up in the faces of its architects, to the horrendous detriment of its subjects. The UN couldn’t run a circle-jerk in a Tijuana whorehouse; it’s somewhat suitable as a meeting ground and discussion forum among independent nations, but not at all as an omnipotent governing body charged with directing the entirety of human affairs as the Tranzis dream of, because such is not only undesirable but impossible.

If there’s one thing we in the US should have learned by now, it’s the long-neglected adage of our Founders that a smaller, restricted government kept close to the governed and accessible by them works best for everyone…except for the rapacious, thieving despots who wish not to govern, but to rule. We abandoned that essential truth. Failing to renew our commitment to it will cost us dearly, and sooner rather than later too.


Embrace the hate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The eternal mystery

But only to Lefty super-genii.

Why is it that reporters keep scratching their heads about Venezuela’s descent into extreme poverty and chaos? The cause is simple. Socialism. End it and you will end the misery.

Here is how the Times explained the reason for Venezuela’s dire situation: “The growing economic crisis (was) fueled by low prices for oil, the country’s main export; a drought that has crippled Venezuela’s ability to generate hydroelectric power; and a long decline in manufacturing and agricultural production.”

There’s no mention — not one — of the fact that Hugo Chávez tried to turn Venezuela into a socialist paradise, policies that his successor Nicolás Maduro has continued. The Times’ coverage is par for the course.

As we have noted many times in this space, it is socialism, not oil prices or the weather or greedy businessmen or any other such factor that’s to blame for Venezuela’s economic crisis. This is what socialism produces. Always and everywhere. It is as close to an iron law of economics as there can be.

Yet reporters continue to obfuscate, if not totally ignore, this economic reality when they try to explain to readers what is going on down there.

Why do reporters ignore the obvious? We’d surmise that it’s largely because liberal journalists are infatuated with the idea of socialism.

Well, duh. They’re socialists themselves, and they’re so much smarterer than the rest of us, and…well, this time, it just HAS to work. And if you don’t believe all that, just ask them.


Republicrat VICTORY!

Obamacare repealed and replaced! By….Obamacare.

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

Because there is a caveat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Crony socialism, anyone?

Well, it’s official: the government of the state of North Carolina has been replaced by the NCAA, and the will of the people as lawfully and properly expressed through their elected representatives be damned.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – The NCAA says it will consider North Carolina as a host for championship events again after the state rolled back a law that limited protections for LGBT people.

In a statement Tuesday, the governing body said its Board of Governors had reviewed moves to repeal repealed the so-called “bathroom bill” and replace it with a compromise law. The NCAA said the new law “meets the minimal NCAA requirements” while expressing some concerns about provisions within it.

The statement says a majority of the board “reluctantly voted” to allow for consideration of bids from North Carolina during current deliberations for sites running through 2022. Events for the 2017-18 season that have already been awarded to the state — such as opening-weekend men’s basketball tournament games in Charlotte — will remain in place.

“We are actively determining site selections, and this new law has minimally achieved a situation where we believe NCAA championships may be conducted in a nondiscriminatory environment,” the board’s statement reads. “If we find that our expectations of a discrimination-free environment are not met, we will not hesitate to take necessary action at any time.”

You will be made to care, and Badthink will be punished by the duly authorized officials of the State of NC(AA).

It’s been sick-making to watch as political and business leaders here have crawled on their bellies to avoid offending various corporate entities promoting the cause of allowing mentally disturbed men access to women’s bathrooms. They can take their sportsball games and jam ’em up their flue for all me—all the way up, as far as it will go. But then again, I haven’t paid the slightest attention to any of that crap in decades, so they’re not likely to care much what I think anyway.


True conservatism

What’s not to like?

I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.

When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases, and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.

Our true choice is not between tax reduction on the one hand and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions. And any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Now, guess who said it? Go on, guess. The answer is as revealing about the totalitarian abomination the Democrat Socialist Party has now become as anything I can think of.


Rigged, yes

Trump’s right, and we all know he is.

Some people have a hard time understanding what Donald Trump says when he says “the system is rigged”. People who oppose him like to imagine it means rigged elections and that he’s casting doubt on the entire political system.

The truth is much simpler, and more sinister than that.

So here it is: progressives control the organs of information distribution in western society. They use that control to limit the range of thought among the public to an acceptable range. Even when Republicans win elections, the molding of the American people by the media and the education system is still taking place. And those Republicans don’t do a thing to dismantle the progressive mind control apparatus.

That is how the system is rigged. That is why our nation marches ever leftward; because the instruments of information dissemination are exclusively controlled by progressives.

This system is starting to show cracks and those cracks may be just enough to propel Trump into the White House. More and more people are realizing the system is rigged and are learning to reject the message being given to them no matter what. After being fed so much poison, some people are no longer considering whether or not to take the medicine the progressive mind control machine is giving them, they are rejecting it outright.

Don’t be surprised if more actions are taken to cut off the flow of information coming from alternative media in the next year.

Fairness Doctrine, aka the Limbaugh Limiter, anyone? And under a Clinton junta, that would just be for openers. Now tell me again all about how helping her to win is going to somehow restore conservatism and revive the GOP, whydon’tcha.

(Via WRSA)


This is not your grandfather’s Democrat Party

True colors, shining through.

How could the moderators have ignored that other leak of last week, of Clintons’s speech to Brazilian bankers where she confessed she “dreams” of a “hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.”

If the quote is accurate, and Clinton has not denied it, she was saying she dreams of a future when the United States ceases to exist as a separate, sovereign and independent nation.

She envisions not just a North American Union evolving out of NAFTA but a merger of all the nations of North, South and Central America, with all borders erased and people moving freely from one place to another within a hemispheric super-state.

If this quote is accurate, Clinton is working toward an end to the independence for which our Founding Fathers fought the American Revolution.

After all, Thomas Jefferson did not write some declaration of diversity in 1776, but a Declaration of Independence for a new, unique and separate people.

Clinton dreams of doing away with what American patriots cherish most.

Well, naturally. Being the very opposite of any kind of patriot herself, who could possibly expect otherwise, from her or any other Progressivist?


Death spiral of the Republic

Trajectory: straight down.

The consequences of empowering today’s Democratic Party are crystal clear. The Democratic Party—regardless of its standard bearer—would use its victory to drive the transformations that it has already wrought on America to quantitative and qualitative levels that not even its members can imagine. We can be sure of that because what it has done and is doing is rooted in a logic that has animated the ruling class for a century, and because that logic has shaped the minds and hearts of millions of this class’s members, supporters, and wannabes.

That logic’s essence, expressed variously by Herbert Croly and Woodrow Wilson, FDR’s brains trust, intellectuals of both the old and the new Left, choked back and blurted out by progressive politicians, is this: America’s constitutional republic had given the American people too much latitude to be who they are, that is: religiously and socially reactionary, ignorant, even pathological, barriers to Progress. Thankfully, an enlightened minority exists with the expertise and the duty to disperse the religious obscurantism, the hypocritical talk of piety, freedom, and equality, which excuses Americans’ racism, sexism, greed, and rape of the environment. As we progressives take up our proper responsibilities, Americans will no longer live politically according to their prejudices; they will be ruled administratively according to scientific knowledge.

Progressivism’s programs have changed over time. But its disdain for how other Americans live and think has remained fundamental. More than any commitment to principles, programs, or way of life, this is its paramount feature. The media reacted to Hillary Clinton’s remark that “half of Trump’s supporters could be put into a ‘basket of deplorables’” as if these sentiments were novel and peculiar to her. In fact, these are unremarkable restatements of our ruling class’s perennial creed.

Who, a generation ago, could have guessed that careers and social standing could be ruined by stating the fact that the paramount influence on the earth’s climate is the sun, that its output of energy varies and with it the climate? Who, a decade ago, could have predicted that stating that marriage is the union of a man and a woman would be treated as a culpable sociopathy, or just yesterday that refusing to let certifiably biological men into women’s bathrooms would disqualify you from mainstream society? Or that saying that the lives of white people “matter” as much as those of blacks is evidence of racism? These strictures came about quite simply because some sectors of the ruling class felt like inflicting them on the rest of America. Insulting presumed inferiors proved to be even more important to the ruling class than the inflictions’ substance.

How far will our rulers go?

Only one answer to that: farther. Always and forever. That’s the bonus benefit for Progressivists of Progressivism: it will keep them in work forever, because their self-assigned task of using an unrestricted government’s power to “fundamentally transform” us benighted savages who wish only to be left alone by them will never be finished.

It’s Codevilla, so naturally you’ll want to read it all. He has plenty to say about the Republicans as well, and the likelihood (or not) of Trump or anyone else rescuing us from at least 50 years of folly, misdirection, and malfeasance.

(Via Insty)


Same shit, different same shovel

It’s almost unbelievable. Or it would be, if we didn’t know what they’re really all about by now: they aren’t the opposition; they’re enablers, collaborators, collusionists, and in all ways the full partners of the people who have very nearly destroyed the nation.

Even though it only funds the government for a scant 69 days, the McConnell continuing resolution manages to do it at the bloated Boehner-Obama spending levels that were jammed down the throats of conservatives in 2015.

In doing so, the continuing resolution sets up yet another spending cliff that will spawn a false panic in the lame-duck session, and lay the groundwork for more “must-pass” terrible deals. In other words, in December, lawmakers will once more have to pass yet another spending bill in order to ensure the government continues normal operations.

Worse still, this continuing resolution fundamentally grows government. The bill includes $500 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to address flooding in Louisiana—despite the $12 billion the agency already has.

Furthermore, it grants President Barack Obama vast new hiring authority, so he can bring in a bunch of bureaucrats to burrow into federal agencies right before he leaves office.

The most troubling elements of the McConnell continuing resolution, however, come down to policy. Conservative priorities are abandoned—or outright ignored—while liberal policies are given priority.

In his final bill, McConnell chose to side with the Democrats over conservatives.

Of course he did. He’s on their side, he and all the rest of the GOPe. Now go ahead and explain to me again all about the importance of “principle” in working to defeat the one man who stands even a ghost of a chance of disrupting this corrupt kabuki nonsense, and allowing Hillary to swindle her way into power instead.


Our banana-republicization continues apace

It is irresponsible in the extreme for Trump to speak of rigged elections and vote fraud. Such things can never happen in ‘Murrica, and he’s undermining our faith in…uhh, whatever it is we foolishly claim to have faith in about this fucked, upside-down nation.

Once was apparently not enough for Pasco Parker.

Prosecutors say the 63-year-old Tennessee man voted in the 2012 presidential election, not once…not twice…but three times, in three different states.

“It’s too easy to vote twice, it comes down to your honor,” said Jay DeLancy, executive director of North Carolina volunteer voting watchdog group The Voting Integrity Project, which caught Parker.

DeLancy cited the case as an example of the kind of voter fraud that some have dismissed as overblown. “It’s a lot more widespread than what people think, because the general public thinks there is no voter fraud. As proof they look at prosecutions, but we have learned how difficult it is to get prosecutions,” he said.


(Via WeirdDave)


“There’s no freedom here. If there is, she’s an orphan.”

Bonus points for guessing what movie that quote is from.

The US Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a new proposal Friday to require heavy-duty vehicles like trucks and buses to include speed-limiting devices. If approved, all newly manufactured trucks, buses, and passenger vehicles weighing more than 26,000 pounds would be required to come equipped with devices limiting their speeds to 60–68 mph. That would cover big rigs, dump trucks, refuse haulers, many buses, and other large work trucks.

The new rule is being touted by the feds as an important step toward fighting the rise in traffic fatalities across the country, as well as a key ingredient in lowering CO2 emissions. “In addition to saving lives, the projected fuel and emissions savings make this proposal a win for safety, energy conservation, and our environment,” DOT secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement.

Safety advocates note that research shows speed to be a crucial factor in nearly a quarter of all truck crashes. Since 1992 all trucks in the US have been manufactured with the speed-limiting equipment, but the trucking industry has resisted calls to “flip the switch” to activate this technology. “Speed limiters are an available solution to large trucks flagrantly exceeding highway speed limits and needlessly putting the public at grave risk,” said Henry Jasny, senior vice president and general counsel for the Advocates For Highway and Auto Safety.

Perhaps surprisingly, the trucking industry is in support of the new mandate. “We know the cliché ‘speed kills’ is true when it comes to driving,” Sean McNally, spokesman for the American Trucking Associations (ATA), told “Speed is a factor in a third of all vehicle crashes and 23 percent of all truck crashes, so slowing our vehicles down can have tremendous safety benefits.”

Hey, just think what wonderful things banning them entirely would do. I surely hope nobody thinks for one minute they’ll be stopping with trucks. Because you can be certain they won’t:

The ATA has urged safety regulators to limit the speed of all vehicles, including passenger cars, to 65 mph. But safety groups want the speed capped at 60 mph.

Emphasis mine, and all too obvious to anybody who knows a thing about how fascist governments work, and what they’re really all about. Hey, if it’s that great an idea, why not 50? Or 40? Or 30? You know the drill: IF EVEN ONE LIFE IS SAVED…

While we’re at it, let’s go the Full Fascist and make the minimum wage a thousand dollars an hour, too. And does anybody think that any government this meddlesome and intrusive is going to allow the Second Amendment to continue to exist for much longer? If so, you got some more thinking to do.

(Via Misanthropic Humanitarian)

Big picture update! ZMan sees where we’re headed with stuff like this:

All of this is familiar ground if you read blogs like this one. We no longer have poor people in the way in which we think of poverty. There is another angle to this that does not get much attention. The robot revolution is not just going to give us even more plenty with less human labor. The robot revolution will also strip away many of the positional goods. Robot cars, assuming it happens, turns the car into a public utility. Most likely robot cars will require banning human drivers so there will be no reason to own a swank ride to impress the neighbors.

It does not stop there. Putting the slack-jawed yokels out of work by automating the widget plant still leaves Cletus and Junior at the bottom of the social order. Instead of working, they will be provided a stipend so they can sit around all day playing games and taking drugs. When the plant managers and accountants are sent home with the stipend because robots took their jobs, something else happens. Suddenly, the old rules of status fall apart. Vast parts of the professional classes can be eliminated with automation, according (to) the futurists.

If you’re unconcerned about unreasonable speed limits on trucks being enforced by federally-mandated automated machinery, hey, don’t worry. Sooner or later they’ll get around to something you DO care about.


NOT WHO WE ARE: The fruits of unfettered immigration

I mentioned a grim prediction from Vox in an update to an earlier post. This one is…uhh, grimmer? More grim?

It’s hard for the older generation to realize things are as bad as they are. Trapped in memories and increasing isolation, they have no idea what the USA has become. It’s all but impossible for the younger generation to realize what they have lost, or more precisely, of what they have been robbed.

Conservatives have betrayed America. Progressives have destroyed it. What remains is the tattered remnants of a nation that still cannot grasp that not only is it not stronger, healthier, and more powerful than ever before, but it is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of its invaders. The USA is like a cancer-stricken patient whose oncologist keeps assuring him that the cancer cells are white blood cells that are strengthening his immune system.

He’s gonna get accused of all sorts of racism for the rest of it. But not by me. I don’t necessarily agree with every last word of it, but I think it’s on the beam overall. And seeing as how we had tight restrictions on immigration from 1924 to 1965 (including a ban on communists in 1952, which we’re told is COMPLETELY UNPOSSIBLE with regard to Muslims, because REASONS), I can’t for the life of me figure out how it is that we’re now at the point where we not only can’t halt it, we aren’t allowed to even discuss regulating it a bit. Because WHO WE ARE, don’tchaknow.

Well, strike that. I know EXACTLY why that is. And so do you, if you’re honest.


Defending the indefensible

Global-government Tranzi Progressivism.

A world of wall-builders would be poorer and more dangerous. If Europe splits into squabbling pieces and America retreats into an isolationist crouch, less benign powers will fill the vacuum. Mr Trump’s revelation that he might not defend America’s Baltic allies if they are menaced by Russia was unfathomably irresponsible (see article). America has sworn to treat an attack on any member of the NATO alliance as an attack on all. If Mr Trump can blithely dishonour a treaty, why would any ally trust America again? Without even being elected, he has emboldened the world’s troublemakers. Small wonder Vladimir Putin backs him. Even so, for Mr Trump to urge Russia to keep hacking Democrats’ e-mails is outrageous.

The wall-builders have already done great damage. Britain seems to be heading for a recession, thanks to the prospect of Brexit. The European Union is tottering: if France were to elect the nationalist Marine Le Pen as president next year and then follow Britain out of the door, the EU could collapse. Mr Trump has sucked confidence out of global institutions as his casinos suck cash out of punters’ pockets. With a prospective president of the world’s largest economy threatening to block new trade deals, scrap existing ones and stomp out of the World Trade Organisation if he doesn’t get his way, no firm that trades abroad can approach 2017 with equanimity.

Countering the wall-builders will require stronger rhetoric, bolder policies and smarter tactics. First, the rhetoric. Defenders of the open world order need to make their case more forthrightly. They must remind voters why NATO matters for America, why the EU matters for Europe, how free trade and openness to foreigners enrich societies, and why fighting terrorism effectively demands co-operation. Too many friends of globalisation are retreating, mumbling about “responsible nationalism”. Only a handful of politicians—Justin Trudeau in Canada, Emmanuel Macron in France—are brave enough to stand up for openness. Those who believe in it must fight for it.

They must also acknowledge, however, where globalisation needs work.

Their proposed solution? As ever with these neo-Marxists: bigger, more powerful government; more spending and handouts to the indigent; more untrammeled admission of Murderin’ Muslims into the nations they intend to conquer. In other words, their eternal rallying cry (say it with me one time!): MORE OF THE SAME.

They will never, EVER stop, no matter how many times history beats them over the head with the repeated and inevitable failure of their unworkable ideology. Not until they’ve brought the entire world under their sway, and wrecked it completely.

In America, where most is at stake, the answer must come from within the existing party structure. Republicans who are serious about resisting the anti-globalists should hold their noses and support Mrs Clinton. And Mrs Clinton herself, now that she has won the nomination, must champion openness clearly, rather than equivocating. Her choice of Tim Kaine, a Spanish-speaking globalist, as her running-mate is a good sign. But the polls are worryingly close. The future of the liberal world order depends on whether she succeeds.

And the future of freedom and human self-determination depends on whether we finally kick you to the curb hard enough so that you can never get up again.


A shocker

Fred on ed.

Some time ago I read a column on the schooling of blacks written by Walter Williams, the black economist at George Mason University, who grew up in the black housing projects of Philadelphia in the Thirties. I have read Williams for years. He is an absolutely reliable witness. He reports that all the kids could read, and that classrooms were orderly and teachers respected. Today, by all reports, in the urban black schools the kids can’t read and chaos reigns. Black kids have not gotten stupider since the Thirties. Something is wrong somewhere.

I read similar stories about chaotic, violent, illiterate Latino kids in American schools, these things being attributed to low intelligence. I live in Mexico, and see nothing even faintly resembling these stories. The statistics agree. (Mexican literacy, CIA FactBook: 95%. American literacy, US Department of Education: 86%) Something is wrong somewhere.

In 1981, I wrote a piece for Harper’s on the overwhelmingly black Catholic schools of Washington, DC, and found them to be exactly as Williams described the schools in his projects: well-behaved, and all the kids could read. The article follows. shortly.

I expected that liberals would applaud a piece demonstrating that black kids could learn far better than they did in the public schools. Instead, fury erupted. The success of the Catholics pointed up the incompetence of the teacher’s unions and the vacuity of accepted social theory. Whatever nits can be picked with the piece, whatever one believes about the relative intelligence of blacks, whites, yellows, and ed majors, it is obvious that black kids could do far, far better than they are doing. Something is wrong somewhere.

Indeed it is. But know what I find most interesting about it? That Harper’s would ever publish anything by Fred, ever. Sure, things were a lot different back in the dim and distant days of 1981; can anyone even imagine Harper’s—or, say, the WaPo, for which Fred also used to write regularly—publishing one word either by or about him today? I sure can’t. It’s kind of jarring to be reminded that they once in fact did. It’s a reminder of just how far Left the Overton window has shifted in thirty years.


The more you know about government

The less you approve of and trust it.

Look at the chart to the right. Notice the very steep slide that began in 1965 for the Silents and 1970 for the Baby Boomers. What is relevant is not how a very old Silent or an old Boomer’s opinion compares to a young Millennial’s trust in government, but rather how those opinions compare at similar ages.

The Silents’ trust in government peaked at 82 percent, the Boomers’ at 73 percent. The famously cynical GenXers trust peaked at 58 percent, and the supposedly naive Millennials peaked at 62 percent right in the patriotic aftermath of 9/11. The oldest Baby Boomers were 48 years old before they reached the level of cynicism about government that the Millennials have already reached.

That’s likely because by then, they actually had some bitter experience dealing with it as a reference point on which to base an informed opinion, rather than just relying on what their college professors repeatedly told them. And the decline in trust among The Yout’ coincides with the most comprehensive metastisization of government power in our history, which I’m sure is just a coincidence, or perhaps “bad luck.” The steep slide Vox mentions also dovetails nicely with the sharp Left turn the nation took as the Great Society “fundamental transformation” got cranking. Funny, that. But not in a ha-ha kind of way.


Hey, anybody remember when the GOP used to denounce “black-robed tyrants” rather than defend them?

It’s just sooooo horrible that Trump implied he wouldn’t get a fair hearing from the La Raza judge, isn’t it? Why, I’m speechless with outrage over it! And Trump is so damned stupid he has no idea that the National Council Of La Raza has NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER with the La Raza Lawyers association. None. They are entirely separate.

And if you believe that, you’re a fucking numbskull.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who has been criticized by Donald Trump as a “hater” appointed by President Obama who should be recused from the case, listed his membership in the “La Raza Lawyers of San Diego” on a judicial questionnaire he filled out when he was selected to be a federal judge. He was named in a brochure as a member of the selection committee for the organization’s 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala. Meanwhile, the San-Diego based law firm representing the plaintiffs in the Trump University case, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, was listed as a sponsor of the event.

WND reported the San Diego firm paid $675,000 to the Clintons for speeches, and the firm’s founder is a wealthy San Diego lawyer who served a two-year sentence in federal prison for his role in a kickback scheme to mobilize plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits.

While critics of Trump have argued that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers’ association is not affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, consider the following:

  • The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of California, affiliated with the Chicano/Latino Bar Association of California.
  • On the website of the La Raza Lawyers Association of California, at the bottom of the “Links & Affiliates Page,” the National Council of La Raza is listed.
  • The website of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is joint-listed as San Diego’s Latino/Latina Bar Association.
  • On the “endorsements” page, the combined website lists the National Council of La Raza as part of the “community,” along with the Hispanic National Bar Association,, a group that emerged with a changed name from the originally formed La Raza National Lawyers Association and the La Raza National Bar Association tracing its origin back to 1971.

Further, while the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the National Council of La Raza are legally separate incorporated entities, the two groups appear to have an affiliation that traces back to the emergence of MEChA, the Moviemento Estudiantil Chicanos de Atzlán.

MEChA is a 1960s radical separatist student movement in California that espoused the mythical Aztec idea of a “nation of Aztlán,” comprising much of the southwestern United States, including California.

As David Horowitz points out on his website Discover the Networks that La Raza, Spanish for “the race,” also has roots in the early 1960s with a “united front” organization, the National Organization for Mexican American Services, NOMAS. The group initially was funded by the Ford Foundation, and subsequently by George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Yeah, I’m sure this guy will rule absolutely fairly in the Trump U case. Why, he probably doesn’t despise Trump nearly as bad as the miserable, slimy worms of the GOPe—who quite clearly believe that this time, THIS TIME, they’ve finally found the lever with which they can pry Trump out of the nomination—do.

Keep crawling, little worms. Before it’s over, you’ll have reduced your pathetic party to little more than a circle jerk that can hold its “national convention” in a soda shop. Then you can natter smugly to each other about those “principles” you’re too chickenshit to ever act on all you like.

Via Bill, who spews forth some HATEFULBIGOTEDRACISTHATRED himself:

If you are an affiliate or in any way support the efforts and goals of La Raza, the Hispanic anti-American revolutionary hate group, you have no place in an American judicial system, any more than a Muslim Mad Mullah wedded to Sharia does.

Bingo. Nailed it in one. And if we’re so well and truly far gone that we can’t even allow a nominee for president to take note of these simple truths, well, there really is no saving this country—and it’s not worth saving anyway. Just turn the keys over to the Muslim Brotherhood and La Raza and put out the lights on your way out the door, willya?

Update! Trump’s response:

Over the past few weeks, I have watched as the media has reported one inaccuracy after another concerning the ongoing litigation involving Trump University. There are several important facts the public should know and that the media has failed to report.

Throughout the litigation my attorneys have continually demonstrated that students who participated in Trump University were provided a substantive, valuable education based upon a curriculum developed by professors from Northwestern University, Columbia Business School, Stanford University and other respected institutions. And, the response from students was overwhelming. Over a five year period, more than 10,000 paying students filled out surveys giving the courses high marks and expressing their overwhelming satisfaction with Trump University’s programs. For example:

  • Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.
  • Art Cohen, a lead plaintiffs in the litigation, completed a survey in which he not only rated Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in virtually every category, but went so far as to indicate that he would “attend another Trump University seminar” and even “recommend Trump University seminars to a friend.” When asked how Trump University could improve the seminar, Mr. Cohen’s only suggestion was to “[h]ave lunch sandwiches brought in” and make the lunch break 45 minutes.
  • Former student Bob Giullo, who has been critical of Trump University in numerous interviews and negative advertisements from my political opponents, also expressed his satisfaction, rating Trump University’s programs “excellent” in every category. When asked how Trump University could improve its programs, Mr. Giullo simply asked that students be provided “more comfortable chairs.”

Normally, legal issues in a civil case would be heard in a neutral environment. However, given my unique circumstances as nominee of the Republican Party and the core issues of my campaign that focus on illegal immigration, jobs and unfair trade, I have concerns as to my ability to receive a fair trial.

As well you might, and should. Anybody think the lawyers bringing this case forward might have done a little venue-shopping beforehand? Nah, that could NEVER happen, right, GOPers?

(Via pb)

Robot update! Adams weighs in:

If you have been watching CNN, you know Anderson Cooper has been reporting about the discovery that a sitting judge is actually a robot. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is presiding over the Trump University case.

Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades. But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. Ergo, he must be a robot.

Must be. Meanwhile, the idiot GOPe goes right on helping to tie the noose in the rope the Left will use to hang them.

Deeper designs update! Sundance digs in, finds moldy rot:

More specifically, the GOPe leadership of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were always going to be in opposition to Donald Trump. The entire architecture of the republican presidential race was structurally intended to advance the ‘establishment’ candidacy of next-in-line Jeb. This was the grand design since October of 2014, including every player within the presidential race, which we previously outlined in great detail.

As we presented mid-2015, if Trump bested their globalist/Wall St efforts -which seemed almost insurmountable at the time-  the GOPe would have no reasonable alternative other than to support the alternate side of the UniParty coin, Hillary Clinton.

However, supporting Clinton is ideologically favorable but optically challenging. Everything would have to be carefully constructed to avoid the appearance of their support.

Predictably 2016 endorsements would not be actual endorsements per se’. Support in-name-only is the best way to think of it. What followed (post Indiana) was essentially the visibility of this approach. The media sells the arms length approach as necessary due to the vulgarian or controversial nature of candidate Trump. However, that narrative is factually false.

The GOPe do not support the nationalist candidacy of Donald Trump because the America-First principles espoused by Trump are antithetical to their legislative agenda. It has nothing to do with Trump’s personality; their motives only use the behavioral excuse as a shield to hide the reality of their UniParty affiliation.

As an example today when House Speaker Paul Ryan says candidate Trump’s remarks about Judge Curiel are “the literal definition of racism“, most of the Trump supporters and most of the Anti-Trump advocates, point out how Ryan’s remarks are going to be in Hillary Clinton campaign ads.

Yes, indeed Ryan’s words will be in Hillary Clinton campaign ads; but that is not accidental – it is by Machiavellian design.

The GOPe is going to do everything within their power to undermine the candidacy of their own nominee because that nominee is an existential threat to their own grip on power.

I’d say he’s got it. Which Machiavellian cunning, as I’ve said many times about Obama, doesn’t preclude their being stupid.


Marine Corp adrift on the PC Sargasso

A woman can do anything a man can do. Except when she can’t.

The Marine Corps in 2013 studied how proficient females were at pullups. The results were embarrassing. A total of 55 percent of females couldn’t meet the standard of three pullups. In fact, out of 318 female Marines, the average pullups they could complete was 1.63. And 20 percent of the total who could actually achieve three pullups did so by cheating with an extra lower body motion, called “kipping.”

But all of a sudden, the Marine Corps decided to give females yet another year to get their act together. They were allowed the entirety of 2014, as well, to prepare themselves for the pullup requirement.

Then 2015 hit and for some reason females were still allowed to skip pullouts.

So guess what happened next. Go on, guess.

Marine Corps Plan Says Women Won’t Have To Do Any Pullups

Anybody surprised?

While female Marines will strongly be incentivized to do those pullups to achieve a high score, they can opt for the “flexed-arm hang” instead. For example, females can’t score higher than 50 points for a flexed-arm hang, but just one pullup will net them 51 points, Marine Corps Times reports.

“I think this is a great way to implement the change as it gives an incentive to increase a score without the fear of failing the PFT,” Col. Robin Gallant told Marine Corps Times. “As women work on them to increase their score, they can be confident that they won’t fail a PFT. I think this is a huge benefit and I’m glad it might become a reality.”

Of course you are.

Col Gallant is, needless to say, a female member of the Few, the Proud, the Politically Correct. And she realizes that the truly important thing here is not readiness nor war-fighting ability nor competence nor meeting fair and universal standards for strength, but mollycoddling female half-a-Marines so that they needn’t fear failing tests or washing out.

Hey, remember back when we were going to allow women in the armed forces, but were assured that standards would never be watered down to accommodate people who were manifestly unqualified because they were unable to meet them? Nah, me neither.


Federal blackmail

Or: how the Constitutional order was destroyed, and how the current tyranny is enforced.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is considering whether North Carolina’s new law on gay and transgender rights makes the state ineligible for billions of dollars in federal aid for schools, highways and housing, officials said Friday.

Cutting off any federal money — or even simply threatening to do so — would put major new pressure on North Carolina to repeal the law, which eliminated local protections for gay and transgender people and restricted which bathrooms transgender people can use. A loss of federal money could send the state into a budget crisis and jeopardize services that are central to daily life.

Although experts said such a drastic step was unlikely, at least immediately, the administration’s review puts North Carolina on notice that the new law could have financial consequences. Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina had assured residents that the law would not jeopardize federal money for education.

But the law also represents a test for the Obama administration, which has declared that the fight for gay and transgender rights is a continuation of the civil rights era. The North Carolina dispute forces the administration to decide how aggressively to fight on that principle.

Another way of putting it is that the Left–the most dangerous foes the Constitution has ever faced, gorged but unsated by an uninterrupted string of victories for many decades now–intends to reorder the entire society top to bottom to accommodate the wishes of the tiniest fraction of the population. Their spluttering outrage here in NC amounts to more than a victory lap; they’re just spiking the ball now. McCrory and the supporters of this bill were fools to think they’d ever be allowed to win on this or any other issue.

Federal blackmail has been used again and again since the 70s to force the formerly sovereign and independent states to knuckle under and toe the liberal line, but the principle behind it goes all the way back to Lincoln. It’s worked beautifully for our masters, and with the states now entirely dependent on the sour and ultimately toxic “nourishment” they receive from Uncle Sam’s sugar tit, there’s no way to stop them now.

(Via Sarah Hoyt)



Amusing as hell to see liberals lamenting this, which you do now and then.

Americans’ obliviousness of their governmental institutions and their country’s past runs deep, as illustrated by a survey conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It was unveiled in Sept. 2014 with a news release titled “Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds.”

“The survey of 1,416 adults, released for Constitution Day (Sept. 17) in conjunction with the launch of the Civics Renewal Network, found that:

*”While little more than a third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, just as many (35 percent) could not name a single one.

*”Just over a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto.

*”One in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration.”

In 2000, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that seniors from America’s colleges and universities were graduating with, “alarming ignorance of their heritage and a profound historical illiteracy…four out of five—81%—of seniors recently surveyed from the top 55 colleges and universities in the United States received a grade of D or F on history questions drawn from a basic high school curriculum…Seniors could not identify Valley Forge, words from the Gettysburg Address, or even the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution.”

That’s neither accident nor coincidence; it’s the Gramsci strategy in practice, and the results are bad for America but good for Progressivism, as Korda seems to suspect but doesn’t say outright.

When an American knows little or nothing about how, when, or why the United States was founded, its governing principles and institutions, and what has been sacrificed to preserve them, the chances are slim of that person having a deep concern about the continuation of those institutions. Why would the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights matter to someone who doesn’t know what they are?

Furthermore, people with political agendas and motives can, perhaps for better, but likely for worse, take advantage of such ignorance.

Bang, zoom, give the man a donut.

(Via Insty)


Preview of coming, uhh, attractions

Brace yourselves.

On January 20, 2017, President Bernie Sanders was sworn into office. The elderly Vermont politician, who had always made waves, refused to use a bible, instead taking his oath on a smudged copy of his own economic five-year plan. He also unilaterally modified the presidential oath from “preserve, protect and defend” to “enhance, enrich and humanize the Constitution of the United States”.

The unlikely candidacy of Bernie Sanders had shocked and divided a party and then a nation.

President Sanders won the Democratic Party nomination by going far to the left and then, defying conventional wisdom, he moved even further to the left in the general election. Unable to retain the minority portion of the Obama coalition, many of whose leaders had been allied with Hillary Clinton and were still bitter over her loss and did little to help him, his victory relied heavily on youth voter turnout.

Voter turnout in America had been falling since the sixties. But in 2016, it fell below the 50% mark for the first time in history. When Bernie Sanders won a three-way election, only 43% of a weary nation came out to vote. And barely a fifth of the country voted for the first Socialist president.

The Sanders campaign had eschewed a slogan; instead it listed all the things that would be given away for free. Free health care, free college, free homes, free phones, free internet, free cars and free money for everyone. In the last week of the campaign, President Sanders had unveiled a guaranteed minimum income that would be paid to every individual in this country making Welfare-for-All into a reality.

The disappointment did not take long to arrive.

It never does. Anybody think that this time, at long last and after who even knows how many object examples all over the world, they’ll learn a damned thing from it?

Daniel’s Bernie campaign posters are pretty good, too.


Probably a parody

These days, it’s nearly impossible to be certain.

WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. “These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?” Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of queer, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. “I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options.” Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.

It’s funny, in a painful, Oh-God-help-us sort of way. All any choice of Obama’s will really have to be, though, is a Constitution-trampling, America-hating communist, and that will be plenty good enough. This, on the other hand, ain’t funny at all.

If you missed my Monday appearance on ABC’s Q&A with Tony Jones, you can see it in full here. The other panelists were Guardian political editor Lenore Taylor, the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young, Labor’s Terri Butler and incoming Trade Minister Steve Ciobo. Topics ranged from refugees to regulation, Turnbull to Trump. All went well until the end when I warned that Bernie Sanders could be the first Socialist President of the United States, and the ABC crowd burst into delirious applause. I fled in terror.

We all will be soon enough–that, or arming up and hunkering down for one last desperate stand against the dark totalitarian forces intent on ruling us. With every passing day, the choices seem to be narrowing down to just those two.


The wrong side of history

If Bernie doesn’t win this time, it’ll be somebody just like him or even worse the next.

As Santayana said, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Less than two decades after socialism seemed to have been confined to the dust-heap of history, another generation may have to learn hard lessons.

The survey, taken at the end of January, found that 43 percent of Americans under 30 had a favorable view of socialism. Less than a third of millennials had a favorable view of capitalism. No other age or ethnic demographic preferred socialism over capitalism.

Even if millenials aren’t swayed by the dramatic improvement in worldwide living standards, one would hope they would see the benefits of capitalism in the products and services that inhabit their world.

They live, and thrive, in a consumer-driven, on-demand society. They have immediate access, at their fingertips, to more knowledge, art, music, and communication than the wealthiest oligarch just a few decades ago.

Each and every one of the products and services they use every day was developed by someone chasing profit and market-share. It is a cliche to say that capitalism has powered the technological and scientific innovations that have improved all our lives. Apparently, however, it is a cliche that bears repeating.

On a positive note, every other demographic block in America still prefers capitalism over socialism. Well, Democrats, perhaps naturally, are evenly split between the two economic systems. At least Democrats, though, have slightly higher unfavorable ratings of socialism than capitalism.

The danger, of course, is that the demographic in America that does prefer socialism is also the future of the country. Of course, they have the luxury of looking positively on socialism, since any impact on their lives is restricted to dusty history books.

Not for long, they won’t. They’ll have the opportunity of re-learning the same lesson every country in the world who has put the socialist rats in the wheelhouse has. Tough for them…and for everybody else, too.

Aside from dozens of national think tanks and advocacy organizations devoted to propogating conservative and free market views, there are more than a hundred free-market think tanks in states across the country.

It is safe to say that billions of dollars have been spent over the past two decades promoting and educating the public on the benefits of capitalism and free markets. There are publishing imprints, media companies and new conservative news sites everywhere. Yet, something has gone horribly wrong.

You surely said a mouthful there, bub.


Intervention needed?

I’m beginning to worry a bit about Kevin Williamson. I mean, first the “Rubio and Cruz atop the GOP” delusion, and now this.

Obamacare Is Dead
It doesn’t work because it couldn’t work.

It’s working exactly as intended: to destroy private insurance and all healthcare currently existing outside of government’s controlling gravity well, as a precursor to a full government takeover of healthcare and the establishment of a single-payer system. And if you think it’s going anywhere at all, ever, without a violent overthrow of the federal gummint overturning it and everything else, you need professional help.

The fundamental problem with ACA is that under it, insurance ceases to be insurance. Insurance is a prospective financial product, one that exploits the mathematical predictability of certain life events among very large groups of people — out of 1 million 40-to-60-year-old Americans, x percent will get in car wrecks every year, and y percent will be diagnosed with chronic renal failure — which allows actuaries and the insurance companies that employ them to calculate premiums based on risk, thus funding the reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by the insurance pool’s members. Insurance is, by its very nature, always forward-looking, considering events that have yet to come to pass but that may be expected and, to a reasonable extent, predicted with some level of specificity. Under ACA, insurance is retrospective. ACA mandates that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, meaning events that already have happened, which renders the basic mathematical architecture of insurance — the calculation of risk among large pools of people — pointless. Insurance ceases to be insurance and instead becomes something else, namely a very badly constructed cost-sharing program.

He’s exactly right about all that: under the ACA, insurance is no longer insurance at all; it has been fundamentally transformed into welfare, and the pre-existing conditions gambit is the giveaway. This was not an accident or error.

Not all cost-sharing programs are bad ideas. Medi-Share, for example, is precisely the sort of voluntary, privately administered mutual-aid program that could — and, I believe, will — end up displacing government-run health-care programs entirely.

Uh huh. And just how will that miracle happen, exactly? Think Progressivists are just going to sit idly by and let the free market supplant the one program they’ve been working hardest to establish for over a hundred years–the veritable Holy Grail of Progressivism? Think they’re going to let all that power over individuals slip through their fingers without bringing the full might of their Leviathan State to bear against it? Can you think of one example of the free market supplanting a government monopoly, one example where a government bureaucracy has quietly allowed itself to be dismantled and relinquished its authority because a free-market alternative worked much better? Even ONE? If so, see my remark above about the vital necessity of seeking professional help at once, before your condition worsens, to the degree that it renders you unable to function in a neo-Marxist society, comrade.

Of course markets work for most people, and of course there are exceptions to that. For 93 percent of the population, the solution to health-care reform is: Let markets do their thing. The only real argument is how big a check to write to those looking after the other 7 percent, and how to structure the payments. That’s a real fight, too, but it isn’t the one we’re having. Right now, the Republicans and the Democrats are two political coroners arguing over what time and cause of death to put on the paperwork; rigor mortis set in long ago.

Uh huh. Get back to me in twenty years, when your successors–or perhaps you yourself, should you manage to skate past the death panels that long–are writing this exact same column again–and Obamacare’s single-payer successor remains the law of the land.


Radicalized losers

I think this problem is far more pervasive than just the occasional school shooter.

What drives a young man to pick up a gun and target the innocent, and how does he see himself in that moment of horror? Is he crazy, just lashing out — or does he see himself as a hero, deprived of acceptance by those around him, and finally able to give his life meaning by becoming a gruesome sort of martyr?

“Western societies are producing more and more of these Lost Boys, the fail-to-launch young men who carry weighty social grudges,” wrote The Federalist’s Tom Nichols, a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, and an adjunct professor in the Harvard Extension School. Nichols marveled at “the combination of immaturity and grandiosity among these young males.”

Immaturity and grandiosity — could two other words better describe a certain cultural image of the unrestrained American male? Seth Rogen, in all his clumsy glory, may seem like a couch potato, but he has a sweet side and maybe a trick up his sleeve. While films often make a point to show women as impressive and put together, men do not see the same treatment.

For many of these frustrated young men, violent or eye-catching acts are a “shortcut to glory,” Nichols argues. Many see the world into a dualistic struggle between good and evil — not on the spiritual plane or on the moral level within individuals, but as a fight between their group and a hated other. Roof chose the lens of white supremacy, many choose jihad, and Chris Harper-Mercer elected the anti-religious views of a militant atheism.

In each case — bloody or not — the frustrated man finds a path to eternal significance, fighting against the people he deems responsible for his struggles or whom he simply identifies with the enemy.

He’s onto something here with his unmanly-men thesis; Progressivism has infantilized Americans as a matter of nefarious strategy, which in turn makes it easier to “fundamentally transform” us from sturdy independent sorts into hapless dependents compliant enough to allow them to get on with their social-engineering experiments without much resistance. The answer, as with almost all of our current problems, is to refute and roll back liberalism and re-establish Constitutional governance–simple-enough sounding, and anything but in practice. Read all of it.




"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


If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards


RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix