Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Prog-nosis: piss poor

More like an endlessly-metastasizing tumor, I think. Or a parasitical infection, like tapeworms, maybe. But still, the man…uhh, gorilla has a point.

I was thinking the other day that progressivism is like a virus. This is no doubt a bit of an oversimplification, but this is how viruses work: when they come in contact with a cell, they trick it into thinking it’s something they need, like a nutrient, so the virus gets pulled in. Once inside, the virus repurposes the cell’s DNA into making more viruses. The cell gets turned into, literally, a virus factory. Eventually, so many viruses will be manufactured that the cell will burst, releasing all of the new viruses to infect other cells.

You can see the parallels with progressivism. First, unlike a normal cell, which has a function as part of some larger organism and can reproduce itself, viruses can’t exist independently. They’re kind of like a parasite. Similarly, progressives don’t really do anything useful or productive.

Also, viruses don’t do anything except cause illness. I guess there are some viruses that have been indentified as beneficial, but not many. So, generally speaking, if you have a virus, it’s bad. And any time a progressive shows up and wants to do something or be in charge of something, it’s bad. When left unchecked, viruses will reduce healthy organisms to a sickly caricature of what they formerly were. Case in point: The Star Wars franchise. Or the State Department.

Second, progressives also gain entry into institutions and organizations by deception. They trick the unwary into opening the door for them by using words such as ‘peace’, ‘justice’, ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ as if they are actually interested in peace, justice, equality, and fairness. Which they’re not. Everything they tell you is a lie.

GP goes on to lay out several more good points of comparison, winding up with this:

Finally, like most viruses, science hasn’t really found a cure for progressivism.

Well, maturity usually does the trick. As Churchill put it (or, possibly, didn’t): if you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain. Failing that, a single dose of lead in a copper or steel jacket, topically applied to either the head or the Sniper’s Triangle area, would work nicely too.

Share

Less talk, more action

Julie Kelly loses patience.

While Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s name quickly has vanished from the front pages following his disastrous testimony before Congress last month, the investigation into “Russiagate”—how top officials in the Obama Administration fabricated the phony Russian collusion hoax and weaponized the country’s most powerful law enforcement tools against an American political campaign—appears to be moving at a snail’s pace. 

The results of a long-awaited probe by the Justice Department’s inspector general into potential abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Comey’s FBI has been delayed again until at least early fall. In a separate inquiry, Inspector General Michael Horowitz reportedly concluded that Comey illegally leaked classified information and referred the former FBI director to the Justice Department for possible prosecution, but Attorney General William Barr reportedly rejected that advice: “Prosecutors found the IG’s findings compelling but decided not to bring charges because they did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources,” reported John Solomon at The Hill earlier this month. 

Umm, forgive my ignorance in bringing it up and all, but wasn’t Comey’s transparently corrupt use of the spurious “lack of intent” standard to paint over Hillary!™‘s crimes something we were all making sport of not too long ago? And now BARR is resorting to it?

Sorry, y’all excuse me for a moment.

Doublefacepalm.jpg

Okay, onwards.

The House Intelligence Committee last year asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify and publish depositions by dozens of people the committee interviewed about the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. That request remains unfulfilled. 

In May, the White House empowered Barr to declassify all materials needed to expedite his office’s investigation into Russiagate.

“Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions,” announced former White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. Nearly three months later, the public has not seen one document.

In January 2018, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) referred Steele to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation for lying to federal officials. Steele has not been charged. In April 2018, 11 House Republicans sent a letter to the DOJ asking for criminal investigations into Comey, McCabe, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and others for various offenses. Comey continues to rant on Twitter and write anti-Trump columns for the New York Times; McCabe is a regular on MSNBC and now is suing his former employer for wrongful dismissal based on—get this—political reasons. McCabe also has been under grand jury investigation for at least a year.

The Mueller report concluded that Joseph Mifsud, the man who allegedly triggered the FBI’s probe into the Trump campaign in July 2016 after he met with George Papadopoulos, lied three times to investigators. Unlike several other Trump associates, including Papadopoulos, Mifsud has not been charged with perjury.

Alas, Kelly presents plenty more support for the depressing idea that the Deep State fix is well and truly in. Even my own hope of seeing justice done for the dastardly crimes against American self-government committed by the coup conspirators is beginning to fade. It all makes Sanders’ statement about “restoring confidence” in our tainted, toxic institutions sound like either pathetically naive blather or some kind of sick, sick joke. Lends considerable weight to that last post about the importance of resisting the gun-grabbers, now don’t it?

Share

Resistance: not futile

Don’t obey unlawful orders.

Once again, responding to a horrendous crime by inflicting knee-jerk, authoritarian restrictions on innocent people proves to be an ineffective means of convincing people to obey. Specifically, New Zealand’s government—which also stepped up censorship and domestic surveillance after bloody attacks on two Christchurch mosques earlier this year—is running into stiff resistance to new gun rules from firearms owners who are slow to surrender now-prohibited weapons and will probably never turn them in.

Officials should have seen it coming.

“Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuff reported at the end of May, based on internal government documents.

As of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over. There are an estimated 1.5 million guns—with an unknown number subject to the new prohibitionon semiautomatic firearms—in the country overall.

That gun owners would, in large numbers, defy restrictions should have been anticipated by anybody who knows the history of government attempts to disarm their subjects—or who just glanced across the Tasman Sea to Australia.

“In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities,” wrote Franz Csaszar, professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, after Australia’s 1996 compensated confiscation of firearms following a mass murder in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Csaszar put the number of illegally retained arms in Australia at between two and five million.

Even here at home, gun owners in such presumably-cowed deep Blue states as Connecticut (15% compliance) and New York (5% compliance) raised a defiant middle finger and refused to stack arms when government demanded it of them, to their eternal credit. As Vox says:

The people of New Zealand have seen what has happened post-gun control in both Australia and England. The violence has gotten worse, not better. The governments have gotten more authoritarian, not less. And given the degraded demographic situation in all these countries, only a complete fool would comply with these intrinsically immoral laws and disarm himself.

Amen to that. The above article is over a month old; a commenter posts that the number of weapons turned in as of a few days ago is up to 15,511—still a paltry few, relatively speaking, most assuredly far less than the authoritarian authorities hoped and/or expected.

The dark cloud to this silver lining, obviously, is that those defiant gun owners are going to find getting themselves the requisite skill-honing range time a bit, shall we say, problematic going forward. A freedom that must be carefully concealed and never openly exercised ain’t no freedom at all. As Bracken always says, if you think it’s time to start burying the guns in the backyard, it’s probably time to start digging them up instead.

But still, resistance to the gun-grabbers is a good thing wherever and whenever it’s to be found, infinitely preferable to the kind of sheeplike acquiescence so disgracefully displayed by our once-doughty British cousins. So hats off to the good Kiwis; may the rediscovery of their balls not have come too late, and may their example provide a cautionary note to all those who would rule rather than govern.

Share

The Costanza Principle

“Remember: it’s not a lie if you believe it.”

Two Democratic presidential candidates recently observed the fifth anniversary of Michael Brown’s death by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Mo. — a case that sparked the Black Lives Matter movement as well as days of unrest locally.

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., tweeted, “Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted, “5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.”

Of course, being the reliably liberal propaganda outlet it is, Politi”fact” immediately gets to work weaving its rhetoricomagical smokescreen to obscure the hard truth:

After these tweets came out, PolitiFact heard from numerous readers who asked us to check whether Harris and Warren were correct in calling Brown’s death a “murder.”

There is no question that Wilson killed Brown, and there’s strong evidence that it was not accidental.

In discussing the case with legal experts, however, we found broad consensus that “murder” was the wrong word to use — a legal point likely familiar to Harris, a longtime prosecutor, and Warren, a law professor.

In fact, two other Democratic senators with law degrees now running for president — Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand — more accurately referred to it as a killing.

That said, experts who have studied police-related deaths and race relations said that focusing too much on the linguistics in controversial cases comes with its own set of problems.

It’s all just the usual mealy-mouthed bullshit, twisting and warping and dissembling in order to Keep Lefty Hope Alive. Just one problem (bold mine):

As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution.

Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown.

VI.
Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.

Should be, right enough—but won’t, not as long as scurrilous, Democrat-Socialist hacks think there’s still a skoche of political mileage to be wrung from it.

The above lancing of this boil of suppurating Leftist falsehood is from the official DoJ report on the matter (PDF link). That, mind you, would be the Obama junta’s own DoJ, under the control of one Eric Holder at the time. Which matters greatly because, given what we’ve all now seen of how deeply the rot and corruption sown by Obama in those parts goes, it’s clear they would NOT have balked at using even the flimsiest pretext to have Wilson brought up on murder charges if there had been one to be found. And it wasn’t just the Obama DoJ that could find no “there” there, either:

A Missouri grand jury also declined to indict the officer for the shooting. Normally when you have not one but two investigatory bodies, one of which had political reasons to be skeptical, nonetheless conclude that a homicide was justifiable then by definition it’s not properly described as “murder.” But if PolitiFact took that view, it would risk being seen as insensitive to police shootings by people whose opinion it values.

AP is being way too gentle with the scoundrels, as far as I’m concerned. Fact is, Politi”fact” is trying to help their Democrat-Socialist partners in crime perpetuate a useful lie—a particularly destructive and dangerous one, at that. There’s only one possible thing to be gained from continuing to burnish this tawdry deception, and that only for those who consider advancing the careers of Democrat-Socialist political hacks by fraudulent means any kind of “gain” in the first place. For the rest of us, we’ll have to reckon with the likelihood of being burned by the flame they’re stoking for purely partisan purposes.

Share

DAMNED PESKY ((((JOOOOOZ!!!)))) STRIKE AGAIN!

Cavil and kvetch all you like about ((((DEM JOOOOOZ!)))) and Israel. I’m all for ’em myself.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

No country in the world respects America and the American Congress more than the State of Israel.

As a free and vibrant democracy, Israel is open to critics and criticism with one exception: Israeli law prohibits the entry into Israel of those who call for and work to impose boycotts on Israel, as do other democracies that prohibit the entry of people who seek to harm the country.

In fact, in the past the US did this to an Israeli member of Knesset, as well as to other public figures from around the world.

Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are leading activists in promoting the legislation of boycotts against Israel in the American Congress.

Only a few days ago, we received their itinerary for their visit in Israel, which revealed that they planned a visit whose sole objective is to strengthen the boycott against us and deny Israel’s legitimacy.

For instance: they listed the destination of their trip as Palestine and not Israel, and unlike all Democratic and Republican members of Congress who have visited Israel, they did not request to meet any Israeli officials, either from the government or the opposition.

A week ago, Israel warmly welcomed some 70 Democratic and Republican members of Congress, who expressed broad bipartisan support for Israel, which was also demonstrated a month ago in a resounding bipartisan vote against BDS in Congress.

However, the itinerary of the two Congresswomen reveals that the sole purpose of their visit is to harm Israel and increase incitement against it.

In addition, the organization that is funding their trip is Miftah, which is an avid supporter of BDS, and among whose members are those who have expressed support for terrorism against Israel.

Therefore, the minister of interior has decided not to allow their visit, and I, as prime minister, support his decision.

Ace helpfully provided the above transcription of Netanyahu’s most edifying Tweetstorm, which I fucking love every word of. For his own part Da Prez is fully on board too, bless his heart:


“Disgrace” is right, along with every other word. Now if only Trump could see his way clear to barring them entry back into the States and send their worthless asses off to “Palestine” instead, where the two wretched, hateful shit-stirrers can sit and stew among their own people and leave civilized folks alone. Like I said: bitch about ((((DEM JOOOOOZ!!!)))) to your heart’s content for all me. I’ll happily take a single Netanyahu over ten thousand Omars and Tlaibs every time—six days a week, thanks, and twice on Sundays.

Ace also chronicles the predictably unhinged reaction from the despicable Left and their #NeverTrumpTard rumpswabs, if you have a strong stomach. If I wasn’t firmly in the “I stand with Israel” camp already, the thought of being associated in any way with the whole clown-car full of such asshats would be plenty enough to drive me there all by itself.

Share

Why trust the untrustworthy?

None but a fool would believe a proven liar, nor should trust ever be granted those who have proved themselves unworthy of it.

Suddenly, rather than focus its attention on the alleged suicide of one of the most notorious and politically connected sex traffickers in history, the media instead targeted those malicious “conspiracy theorists” who refused to accept as fact the questionable circumstances around Epstein’s death. The media’s collective attitude is best summed up with this tweet posted by Politico early Sunday morning: “Jeffrey Epstein’s death has brought conspiracy theories into the political mainstream, with some influential people unable to take the details at face value.”

In the accompanying article, without irony or a shred of self-reflection, Politico editor-in-chief John Harris lamented that “the signature of American politics in the Trump era is a conviction—shared initially by many people who backed Trump but now embraced with similar fervor by many who loathe him—that things are not what they seem, that the official version of events is sustained by lies, that the institutions of American life are not on the level.”

But Harris doesn’t explore the reasons why this is the dim lens through which millions of his fellow countrymen now view our country’s most powerful institutions. Harris doesn’t wonder aloud why people distrust the government, our political leadership and our national news media so much that they actually believe the Clintons or some other shadowy figures might be responsible for Epstein’s death.

Harris doesn’t raise the possibility that perhaps a litany of ongoing embarrassments for the news media coupled with the fact that the previous administration weaponized the country’s law enforcement and intelligence apparatus to sabotage a rival political campaign and then tried to cover it up are contributing to a general climate of hostility, rage, and doubt.

Harris has good reason to eschew any such quest for insight: Because it would lead him straight to a mirror. Harris’ own website and his media colleagues in general have lost all credibility with the American public. From assuring us the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the outcome of the 2016 election to reporting every unproven allegation of rape against Brett Kavanaugh, Politico and its brethren have fueled this crisis of confidence. (Harris authored an article in September 2018 with the headline, “Why God is Laughing at Brett Kavanaugh.”)

Pro-life high schoolers wearing Make America Great Again hats were “mocking” and “laughing at” a Native American elder, the media told us. Hillary Clinton will win the presidency. The stock market will tank after Trump is elected. Donald Trump won’t serve a full term. White supremacy is on the rise and poses a greater threat to national security that Islamic extremism because Trump and Republicans are using special “code words” to fan the flames of racism. There is no national emergency at the southern border. The Trump Administration is the first to lock migrant children “in cages.”

That is only a partial list of falsehoods, flat-out lies and legitimate conspiracies that the untrustworthy folks who populate our once respected institutions have told us in the past three years.

Meanwhile, the media continue to ignore or to justify what many Republicans see as the biggest political scandal in our history, which is the way in which the Obama Administration sought to destroy the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump by using the most powerful government methods—including secret surveillance tools—to do it.

This is nothing more than government and Enemedia reaping what they’ve so diligently sown—a planting that took place over many, many years. Harris’s lamentation about “the signature of American politics in the Trump era” is especially rich; the institutions of American life—having been co-opted, undermined, and perverted by a Left that is hostile to them—are NOT “on the level,” and “the Trump era” was by no means the beginning of our awareness of it, either. As always, Trump has merely spoken things Real Americans have been saying amongst themselves for years—giving full-throated voice to people and ideas that our would-be masters would much prefer remain voiceless.

These institutions not only forfeited our faith in them, they actively spurned it. Having expressed it a thousand times, in a thousand ways, their arrogant contempt for the Normals has now come back to haunt them. Mollie Hemingway says Enemedia’s abominable performance last week represents a turning point:

Host Howard Kurtz started the discussion by noting:

Mollie, there is no longer any pretense of a debate. Journalists, commentators say….President Trump is a racist, President Trump is a white supremacist. {And} maybe leap into charging that he is condoning, inciting, that he’s directly responsible for mass violence.

Hemingway agreed: “It was really horrible, what we saw this week. We had two horrible mass shootings, and we had people in the media kind of absolve both of the shooters of their crimes in order to blame President Trump and his voters for mass murder.”

“This is completely beyond journalistic responsibility,” she added, “and a real turning point for the worst in American discourse.”

Making note to point out how many primetime FNC hosts support Trump, Kurtz then asked if the media are at “a point where the President can do nothing right, and many journalists [have] basically become part of the Resistance?”

Hemingway pointed to the significant differences between the shooters, noting that one of them “had these anti-immigrant viewpoints, and there was a shooter who was very supportive of Antifa and Elizabeth Warren and what not it’s not like he was saying out of thin air.”

Kurtz then turned to a front-page report in the New York Times stating: “Trump uses day of healing to deepen the nation’s division” and “A day intended to show compassion devolved into anger-fueled broadsides at Democrats and the media.”

“As if all the partisanship in this matter comes only from Donald Trump,” he continued.

Hemingway responded by calling the situation “an amazing game that’s being played” and stated:

So you have days of blaming Donald Trump for mass murder and his supporters for mass murder and then, when he responds to any of these things, well then, he’s acting unpresidential.

There is now simply no way any reasonable, observant person can credibly dispute their bias and dishonesty. None. They long ago made their choice; hearing them whine now about having to live with the consequences, å la Harris’s self-serving bleat above, should be sweet music to every Real American’s ears.

Share

Call to arms

As the Left’s desperation grows, their unhinged refusal to abide by the results of any election they don’t win becomes more frenzied; their resolve to overthrow the duly-elected President by any means at all becomes more mulish; and their calls to revolution, disorder, and violence become less subtle, more open, and more dangerous.

PARIS—From Algeria to Hong Kong, Sudan to Puerto Rico, people all over the world have been turning out in the streets this year to confront policies and regimes that previously seemed all but invulnerable. And through relentless, largely peaceful protests they’ve had amazing success.

“Largely peaceful.” Uh huh. You’ll squeal like stuck little piggies when Real Americans finally get themselves a bellyfull, and some of that same mostly-peacefulness that far too many of us have already experienced from your side gets unleashed upside your heads for a change.

There is a lesson here. Americans disgusted by Donald J. Trump, disheartened by his control over the Senate and Supreme Court, demoralized by the consistent support he enjoys from two-fifths of the population, and appalled by his incitement of gun-toting racists, might want to take note.

The examples of mass demonstrations that have taken on, and in some cases taken down, terrible leaders show there are formulas that can be applied in many places, including the mainland of the United States of America. There’s even an illustrative equation.

Why have we not seen this kind of concerted, continuous combination of mass and velocity in the United States?

Maybe the American opposition to the Trump regime really isn’t as impassioned as many rants on Twitter might suggest. Or maybe those are just onanistic ends in themselves. There’s been a lot of obvious passivity: waiting for Robert Mueller to take care of everything, or pretending that the symbolic act of impeachment will squeeze the sleaze out of office.

Certainly, by comparison with the demonstrators in other parts of the world there’s a hint of sloth and even of cowardice.

When I broached some of these ideas on Twitter (where else?) one tweep complained impotently that “we” couldn’t even get Twitter to take down the president’s account, as if that would solve anything.

More than one suggested fear of Trump supporters with guns acts as a deterrent.

Glad to hear it; that means the Second Amendment, against all odds, is still working as intended. It also suggests there might actually remain some small hope, however miniscule, of you frothing fascists coming to your senses and stepping back from the brink before it’s too late. People like you are precisely whom the Founders warned us about; the 2A was written not to protect anybody’s right to hunt but to act as a deterrent to your kind, a last line of defense should you fail to heed its warning at last.

Your fear is wise and proper. May God grant that you never lose or dismiss it—for ALL our sakes.

Share

Gun Rights Cake

So in last night’s “die gun-grabbers die!” post, the Aesop excerpt included a link to LawDog’s classic “Gun Rights Cake” essay, one I’ve also mentioned here myself a time or three. But it suddenly occurred to me that some of y’all may not have seen it before, and probably passed Aesop’s glancing mention on by without a thought or care. And that’s too bad, because you’re missing out on a real standout of a gem of a prize: one of the most pithy, unusual, and well-put-together arguments against any further concessions to the maneuverings and manipulations of gun-grabbers who aren’t ever going to be placated no matter what we agree to give up—people for whom the word “compromise” has always meant “We win, you surrender.”

So as a public service, I’m gonna do y’all a solid and repost it again. There’s a comic-strip version which I’m all but certain I ran here a while back, and LawDog also helpfully provides a link to his own GRC repost which features some quite worthy additional material as well. But the Q&A discussion from the original text-only post is worth including a bit of, which I don’t believe I ever have put up here. So we’ll go with that one this time around.

Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”?

Yes.

Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?

Yes.

If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?

The same way you banned guns in New York. The same way you banned guns in Chicago. The same way you banned guns in Washington DC. Duh.

Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?

You mean never shooting anybody, or never shooting anybody who needs it? I believe that all law-abiding citizens are human, and thus, not perfect. That’s not a reason to ban their guns, though.

All good stuff, and there’s plenty more of it. And then comes the question that leads to the timeless and immortal “Gun Rights Cake” response.

Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn’t even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about “compromise” from your camp … except, it’s not compromise.

Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.

I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.

Nope. It’s always been subterfuge, a diabolical stratagem that demonstrates what the Left learned from the unexpected failure of another of their pet projects, Prohibition. Incrementalism has been their preferred approach to stripping Americans of their freedom ever since, on just about any issue you care to name. The inch-by-inch, step-by-step approach ensures the frog stays in the pot, see, until he’s all boiled and done. But if there’s one core, take-it-to-the-bank truth about them, it is that they will NEVER stop. They will have to BE stopped.

Share

Warning order

Strong message follows. STRONG.

Dear Leftards:

You irrepressible commie halfwits think you’ve got the cards. You’re the idiot talking tough with the shotgun in your hand, and you’re about to get comeuppance. In Louis L’Amour’s memorable phrase, you’re about to have your meathouse torn down. With a mere couple of nutbags (mainly your own nutbags, nota bene) doing what nutbags do, you imagine you’ve got enough pull now to leverage your way into more asinine abridgments of the Constitution.

You haven’t, you won’t, and you really, really need to knock it off.

We’re really not kidding.

You’ve had all the slices of our cake you’re ever getting.

A lot of people thought we’d be facing ramped up anti-gun legislation long before now, because Shrillary and the Clinton Family Crime Syndicate looked like a shoe-in…until she wasn’t. 

And serious people were ready, then, to open the ball you’re itching for now.

If TPTB were to decide they could set the last vestiges of the Constitution on fire, there’s more than a few that would take it upon themselves as a point of honor, not to wait cowering inside their homes, but to go out hunting OPFOR, 24/7/365. And they’d get more than one scalp apiece.

In short, minions of Leftardia and Stupidia, you have blundered into a minefield, on a pogo stick.
Stop what you’re doing, tiptoe out, and pray to whatever deity you think appropriate that you get away with your skins.

Because if you insist on pushing your revolution, you’re going to get the war of which you cannot grasp, and the results of which you cannot even conjure in your wildest fever-swamp nightmares.

And your opponents, who’ve been stacking in supplies and loading magazines, are shifting from backing away, and hoping the fight you long for doesn’t come, and instead coming to a feeling of thinking it’s about time to roll up their sleeves, and end you.

Not your party.
Not your progressive communist utopia.
You.
For all values of that word
.

Every goddamned traitorous last one of you. Followed by your spouses, your children, your pets, your semi-domesticated illegal alien hordes, your schemes, your putrescent institutions, your metastasizing socialist programs, and every festering vestige of pustulence you’ve spewed onto a country you do not understand, didn’t build, and over which you and yours will never rule.

The comments-section discussion goes in all sorts of directions one might not expect, including a fairly devious gun-grab proposal from someone claiming to be “military intelligence” (but probably isn’t) and another claiming to be a “Real Conservative” (but DEFINITELY isn’t). In response to both of those fantasy-fascist douchebags—along with every other half-assed pantywaisted gun-grabbing Stalin wannabe all the way down to the umpteenth generation of ’em—I’ll just repeat my usual offer: Come and take them.

Enough talking. It’s your move, Lefty asstards. So make it already. Let’s all see how that works out for ya.

Share

Republican pounces!

From his cold, dead hands.

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15
Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.

“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”

Good on Lindsey for speaking up and all, but it was a futile effort; not one mind will be changed, not one gun-grabbing shitlib will see the simple logic and pause for a moment’s reconsideration. There’s only one answer to give them, it should be delivered like a good swift kick right square in the teeth, and Stephen Kruiser knows what it is.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn’t offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

“Because I (expletive deleted) want to.”

That’s really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn’t harming anyone else.

Fuckin’ A right, buddy.

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

You damned sure ain’t at that. Let Lefty huff and puff and beat and blow and weep and moan to his little heart’s content. Let him issue his demands and threats and be damned. More and more of us have reached the conclusion that we’ve conceded way too much ground already, and no matter how much we give it will never be enough. You don’t get another inch, gun-grabbers. Not just no, but HELL NO, with a big fat “fuck you” on top for garnish. That’s it—fini, omega, het-ay nde-ay. Come and fucking take them, you miserable worms. Do it, if you dare. Better bring help.

There’s another peril in play with this one, though, and it’s perched right on Trump’s lap.

Then there are the “red flag laws,” which is the left’s new approach to confiscating guns. These laws are unconstitutional three ways to Sunday, violating three of the rights within the Bill of Rights. These laws usurp the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Sixth Amendment’s right of the accused to a speedy and public trial.

My home state of Colorado passed such a law this past April, one of the consequences of voters giving Democrats control of the executive and legislative branches of a state. Other states have similar laws and there is now a push for a national red flag law. If President Trump is smart, he will see the color red before signing such a law, if it ever even makes it to his desk, as signing such a law may be a large red stop sign in his quest for a second term as president.

Red flag laws will have the effect of disarming those best able to stop a shooter. But that’s not the real goal of these laws. Instead it’s a new approach to thwarting the Second Amendment. President Trump is hopefully thinking long and hard about signing on to such measures, as this has the potential to be his “read my lips, no new taxes” moment.

Hopefully, he’s not thinking about it at all. If there’s any single unforced error almost certain to reverse Trump’s currently solid re-election odds, this is the one. As staunch a Trump supporter as I am and always have been, a needless cave to the Left on this would drive even me to the sidelines—me, and a whole hell of a lot of others too. No, I wasn’t happy about the noises he made in the aftermath of last week’s shootings. That said, I am also fully cognizant of Vox Day’s Two-Day caution: on any seemingly worrisome Trump statement, wait at least two days to see what actually transpires before deciding that all is lost.

Happily, that has proven to be sage advice time after time. Tossing a rhetorical hook out as bait to misdirect Democrat-Socialists into a false bargaining position based on anticipation of concessions he has no intention of making has been a useful enough ploy for Da Prez that I can’t quite see him abandoning it now. Nor do I think the record suggests that Trump is out of touch or naive enough to be unaware of how his most loyal supporters would react to a betrayal of that magnitude. Quite the opposite, actually; it would be completely out of character for the man to make such a boneheaded move.

But who knows, stranger things have happened. Only one thing is certain: should he falter this time, the cost of his blunder will be steep—not just for him personally, but for all of us.

Trump appeal update! Expanding the base. Note the final pic, which is what puts it into the “related” category for this post.

Shitlib has Teh Sadz update! Reassuring words of gun-grabber despair from the hoplophobic com-symps at the New Yorker. Naturally, it’s full of phony statistics, cooked polls, and outright fabrications, so I ain’t gonna recommend you read it all. But I can’t help but be encouraged to see that even these devious pissants aren’t holding out much hope.

Also, it is Trump we are dealing with, and he is notoriously averse to crossing rural and suburban gun owners, who make up a key part of his base. Even if the polls currently show overwhelming support for expanded background checks and other measures, Trump will be sensitive to a possible backlash, especially if the opposition includes some of his right-wing media outriders, such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

Furthermore, there is a possibility that Trump will try to tie any gun-control measures he endorses to immigration-law changes that Democrats oppose, such as lengthening the period for which asylum-seeking families can be detained after crossing the border. In a tweet on Monday, Trump suggested “marrying” immigration and gun control. On Thursday, the Times reported that he has toldsome advisers that he “would like a political concession in exchange” for acting on gun control. If he insists on this linkage, the chances of getting any legislation passed are slim.

From your lips to God’s ears, asswipe.

Share

Fear the Bee!

How many liberals does it take to screw in a lightbulb? That’s not funny.

Progressives take their partisan comedy seriously. It helps that they have a stranglehold on the comedy landscape. When David Spade announced he wouldn’t attack President Donald Trump it made headlines.

Which brings us to The Babylon Bee.

For the uninitiated, the Bee serves up Christian satire with a heaping helping of political humor. Yes, the site often pokes fun at President Trump.

That’s what any respectable humor outlet would do, no matter who’s in the Oval Office. It’s also what comedians did prior to Obama’s election.

What the Bee produces that few, if any, comedy institutions attempt are stories that tweak the Left, often sans mercy.

Snopes rigorously fact checks Bee stories over and again that are obviously false, funny and targeting progressive stars like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Bee stories skewering conservative figures? Snopes.com leaves them unchecked.

Here’s why it matters.

Few comic voices are standing up to the Snopes.com bullies…yet. That’s not surprising. While Jimmy Kimmel laments Kathy Griffin’s struggle after posing with a president’s bloodied head he hasn’t, to our knowledge, rushed to the Bee’s defense.

Kimmel stands behind Griffin because they’re on the same ideological side. He wouldn’t dare mock Ocasio-Cortez, even if she’s the most mockable politician in our lifetime.

Why? Mocking her could ding her credibility and, by extension, hurt the Democrats. It’s why Snopes.com can’t leave The Babylon Bee alone. The outlet fears the power of their very funny viral jokes aimed at the Left. They may wish Twitter would ban their account already.

Given Twitter’s usual speedy resort to the ban stick for everybody else who isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool fellow traveler, it’s amazing they haven’t already. Must be time for me to post another Bee excerpt.

ATLANTA, GA – According to a report from the Centers for Disease Control released on Thursday, people with inside, compromising knowledge of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s financial and political dealings are 843% more likely to commit suicide.

“We’ve never seen a single risk factor cause a spike of this magnitude,” a CDC spokesperson told reporters. “Interestingly, in spite of their increased suicide risk, people with dirt on the Clintons rarely show any warning signs of suicide, and they never leave a suicide note.”

As always with the incredibly deft satirists at the Bee, it’s funny ’cause it’s damned near true. Their adroitness at skating along today’s increasingly rapier-thin line between the literal truth and the completely absurd makes their work all the more effective against the humorless Left. It’s a dead cert that many of them find themselves reduced to unmanned, spluttering discombobulation under the Bee’s withering assault on their lunacy, their hypocrisy, and their tail-chasing self-contradiction.

Laughter is not only the best medicine, it also makes a damned fine weapon too—especially when wielded against the scolds, killjoys, and whey-faced schoolmarms of the Left. Alinsky knew it:

Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

So nice to finally see their own Rules being used to shred the Radicals into bloody gobbets.

Share

Ask a silly question

Get an honest answer.

When did it become ­acceptable for politicians, and their media helpers, to target private citizens for their ­political opinions?

When those opinions diverged even slightly from Democrat-Socialist dogma, of course.

In the wake of the mass shooting in El Paso, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) released the names of a few dozen San Antonio residents who had donated to President Trump’s re-election campaign. (Castro is chairman of the presidential campaign of his twin brother, Julián.)

Castro was apparently unconcerned by the prospect that these people — retirees and small-business owners — would be inevitably targeted for ­harassment. They had voted the wrong way and donated to the wrong campaign, and they needed to be punished.

He wasn’t “unconcerned.” Harrassment and, ultimately, violent assault was the whole idea from the git-go. Unapproved beliefs, you see, must not only be punished—they must be suppressed.

Liberals view the election of President Trump as a monstrous anomaly, something that should never have happened. They view all Trump supporters, be they Acela Corridor denizens or car-dealership owners in suburban Texas, as complicit in this great evil and therefore fair game.

The media is only too happy to help. Everyone remembers what The Washington Post and The New York Times did to the Covington Catholic boys. Or recall the way CNN went after an anonymous tweeter after Trump retweeted an image he had created mocking the network.

The message to anyone who dares not march in lockstep with liberalism: You don’t matter, and we will target you for ruination whenever we feel like it.

NOW you’re getting it.

Liberals, in short, have ­resolved that anything goes as they seek to thwart and undermine democracy in the name of liberalism.

Sure, liberals always say they want more political participation from the masses, but it turns out the only participation they welcome is the kind that helps them win.

Hence, too, their efforts to use underhanded juridical means to undo the outcome of elections they lose, whether that’s the “collusion” probe in America or endless bureaucratic stalling aimed at preventing Brexit.

But the attacks on private citizens is a new low.

Perhaps. But rest assured: you ain’t seen nothin‘ yet. For the Left, the end of totalitarian tyranny justifies any and all means, and they’ll inflict casualties and stack bodies just as high as they think they need to so as to accomplish our subjugation irreversibly. When it comes to gaining, securing, and expanding power and control for themselves, the Left recognizes no limits whatsoever. That is the only rule they follow, the only morality they have, and the only rationalization they need.

Share

Four more years terms!

Endorsed from here, because why the hell not.

Peter Strzok, the central figure in both the FBI’s burying of Hillary Clinton’s crimes and in carrying out the “insurance policy” of his lover, Lisa Page, to use the powers of the national security establishment to take out a U.S. presidential candidate, is strolling back in to FBI Headquarters these days as though it was just another day at the office.

I am not making this up.

“Strzok is in the (HQ) building all the time,” one FBI insider revealed, according to a recent media report at True Pundit. “He is taking meetings or part of meetings.” The article goes on, “FBI sources confirm Strzok has been granted access to FBI facilities in Washington, D.C. and its headquarters building on numerous occasions since he was sacked in August 2018.”

Strzok is the man who emphatically told former FBI lawyer Lisa Page that they would “stop” Mr. Trump from winning the 2016 election. And they would do that using a fraudulently predicated counterintelligence investigation based on “evidence” planted by one of their own assets, Joseph Mifsud, a mysterious Maltese professor widely linked to Western intelligence services, on a hapless Trump campaign volunteer, George Papadopoulos.

Yet now we learn that not only is Strzok being permitted back into FBI Headquarters (perhaps as a paid contractor?), but he still holds his security clearances. “He (Strzok) is getting in with a visitor’s badge and is involved in meetings,” one FBI insider said. The same article notes, “Maybe they are all trying to get their story straight before things go public.” Moreover, it continues, “FBI sources said when Strzok is not at the Hoover building he has been holding meetings with high-level DOJ brass at a location across the street from the Bureau’s Pennsylvania Avenue base.”

One can only sit back and marvel at the churchbell-size balls on the guy. Strzzzoozzk’s obvious nonchalant confidence regarding his status and impunity doesn’t say anything good about the likelihood of Barr and Co’s investigations yielding much in the way of meaningful results, either. The entire cabal of seditious reprobates of right ought to be trembling their teeth loose at the prospect of a speedy trial, followed by a first-class hanging. That they clearly are not is disheartening, to say the very least.

Donald Trump’s presidency has revealed that our country is in the grip of an entrenched bureaucracy whose hold, I am of the increasing opinion, may take decades to break. This anecdote about Peter Strzok’s continued security clearances and access to a building that President Trump nominally controls illustrates the vicelike grasp that “Deep State” players continue to hold over our government. Presidents come and go, but the powerful, embedded apparatchiks remain, and protect their own.

This is why I say, figuratively speaking, that our country needs five terms of Donald Trump. President Trump of course is limited to two terms as president under the Twenty-Second Amendment, but if we are to break the incredible power of the Christopher Wray-types that populate the upper echelons of our government, we will need successor presidents with the same dogged mindset as President Trump to bring rogue agencies like the FBI to heel. It may take twenty years — a generation.

Gonna take a helluva lot more than that, I’m afraid. The Deep State was way longer than any 20 years a-building, and it was way more than just one guy a-building it, too. Even then, we’re assuming ridding ourselves of it can be done at all without violence, bloodshed, and national immiseration. As for “break the incredible power of the Christopher Wray-types” etc, a good start on that project would be for Trump to stop inexplicably hiring and/or promoting pernicious Deep State termites and Ogabe stay-behind saboteurs and start giving them the boot instead.

Share

No consent from losers

While we’re re-running oldies but goodies from 2016 and all, have another. Might want to find some really dark goggles, even a welder’s mask, to read it with though; the irony is so blazingly, piercingly incandescent it could easily blind somebody.

Donald Trump likes to sort the world into winners and losers, which isn’t a bad way of thinking about democracy. Winners and losers of elections have essential responsibilities in functioning democracies. Winners do not exact revenge on their opponent by, say, abusing the powers of their office and jailing that opponent, as the Republican candidate threatened to do at the second presidential debate. Losers do not refuse to accept the results of a vote judged free and fair by a country’s governing institutions.

Yet the Republican candidate has spent the past week—really, much of the general election—strongly suggesting that he will not accept a loss to Hillary Clinton. He has repeatedly claimed that “Crooked Hillary” is “rigging” the election with help from the media and a global network of power brokers. The rigging, he says with certainty but no compelling evidence, consists of the coordinated assassination of Trump’s character, as well as looming voter fraud. And the rigging will, in Trump’s telling, produce nothing less than the dissolution of the republic; the United States will be overrun by immigrants and ISIS. Trump’s message is that the election will be stolen from his supporters, as will the country. Many Trump supporters expect this outcome; roughly half aren’t confident that ballots will be accurately counted on Election Day.

Donald Trump’s loose talk of imprisoning Clinton and his preemptive rejection of the election’s outcome pose one of the most serious challenges to U.S. democracy in recent memory. They endanger the “democratic bargain,” to quote the authors of Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. That study examines how losing works in democracies around the globe, and the bargain at issue “calls for winners who are willing to ensure that losers are not too unhappy and for losers, in exchange, to extend their consent to the winners’ right to rule.” This bargain is also one of the core components of democracy.

Of course, now we know that the conspiracy to rig the election went far, far beyond Her Herness, the media and “inaccurately” counted votes. Its tentacles extended deep into the Obama junta, the DoJ, the CIA, and elsewhere in the darkest recesses of the Deep State labyrinth. The investigation into the corrupt, seditious plot is only beginning, with no guarantee that we’ll ever see justice done. And that doesn’t even touch the subsequent soft-coup attempt by those same players, a desperate ploy to not only conceal their seditious crimes but to hinder and ultimately remove a duly-elected President under false pretenses.

All of this—ALL of it, mind you—because the Democrat-Socialist Party, NOT Trump, flatly and traitorously refuses to abide by the results of any election it can’t swindle its way into “winning.”

This is why the democratic bargain is so important: Winners do not suppress losers, which means losers can hope to be winners in the future. As a result, the losers’ doubts about the legitimacy of the political system gradually recede as they prepare for the next election.

But if the losing candidate doesn’t uphold his or her side of the bargain by recognizing the winner’s right to rule, that acute loss of faith in democracy among the candidate’s supporters can become chronic, potentially devolving into civil disobedience, political violence, and a crisis of democratic legitimacy. How the loser responds is especially critical because losers naturally have the most grievances about the election.

“[I]n the aftermath of a loss, there is plenty of kindling for irresponsible politicians to set fire to,” Bowler notes. “Most politicians who lose elections recognize this potential for mischief, and so they ordinarily make a creditable run at helping to keep matters calm.”

Ahh, but in this case it’s not just the losing politician acting “irresponsibly.” It is the entire party—along with its Praetorian Media allies; the overwhelming majority of its supporters; its already-elected officeholders in positions both high and low across the entire country; and the unelected officials seeded throughout the federal bureacracy who are either party members or sympathizers.

Then we come to a yearningly winsome recap of Honest Al AlGore and his forced “concession” after his loss in 2000. Yes, it’s every bit as full of shit as you would expect.

In December 2000, for example, Al Gore conceded defeat to George W. Bush after one of the country’s closest and most divisive elections. The Supreme Court halted the recount of votes in Florida and effectively handed the presidency to Bush, even though Gore won the national popular vote and had good reason to argue that the court’s decision was politically motivated.

The SC “halted the recount” after, what, six or seven previous ones had failed to gin up enough fraudulent ballots to convincingly hand the swine Gore the election. Inevitably, the Atlantic also trots out the good old “popular vote” hobbyhorse for another good flogging, the problem being that THERE IS NO RELEVANT “POPULAR VOTE” IN A US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION—as is explicitly mandated by the US Constitution for some very excellent reasons. The Electoral College, God willing and in defiance of the most devious efforts of those Constitution-loving Democrat-Socialists, will be with us for a while longer, for which everyone not interested in being governed according to the whim of the residents of the nation’s blighted urban areas should be deeply thankful. Yet more twaddlelicious bullshit then ensues:

By the time Clinton’s statement was delivered, all those bitter complaints had been removed from the text, save for brief mentions of disagreement with the court’s ruling and the need for bipartisan election reforms. Clinton’s team clearly recognized that it was time to put out fires, not to leave kindling lying around. “President-elect Bush and Vice President Gore showed what is best about America,” Clinton said. “In this election, the American people were closely divided. The outcome was decided by a Supreme Court that was closely divided. But the essential unity of our Nation was reflected in the words and values of those who fought this great contest.”

The SC, “closely divided,” yeah. As I recall, the vote that decided things ended up being 7-2. That, after our noble Albert “Arnold The Pig” AlGore had duly made his election-stealing preparations beforehand, by flying teams of lawyers out to certain places ready to contest the results by any grubby means necessary. Why, how very big of this noble Knight-Protector Of America Democracy to graciously concede after EVERY SINGLE LAST AVENUE likely to enable him to hoodoo his way into the Oval Office had been thoroughly exhausted, and not one moment before! Gee, what a guy!

Here’s the fact of the matter: Gore, his army of legal-beagle rumpswabs, and his criminal conspiracy masquerading as a legitimate political party happily dragged the country through every fetid puddle of lawyerized sewage they could find FOR MONTHS before finally backing down and slinking away. The Atlantic’s zealous attempt at turd-polishing aside, Al Gore remains exactly what he always was and always will be: a sleazy, slimy, duplicitous, dimwitted, professional-politician hack. Nothing less. And damned sure nothing more.

As for that “essential unity” bushwa, I suppose we must in fairness recognize a distinction betwixt Gore’s eventual if reluctant submission to defeat and the unhinged, delusional rejection of American electoral reality we’re being subjected to now. Bad as Gore and the rest of the Demonrat den of iniquity all were in 2000, their successors are unquestionably much, much worse. The distinction is one not of kind but of degree, yes. But at this point AlGore should at least have developed sense enough to take what he can get.

Share

How it all starts

There’s a bad moon on the rise.

Senator Kneepads is about to get an education on delusional grandstanding.

“I also have as part of my background and experience working on this issue, when I was attorney general [of California], and we put resources into allowing law enforcement to actually knock on the doors of people who were on two lists — a list where they had been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others and another list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction that prohibited that ownership,” she added.

Harris commented that she would send law enforcement door-to-door to confiscate guns from illicit people.
“Those lists were combined and then we sent law enforcement out to take those guns, because, listen, we have to deal with this on all levels, but we have to do this with a sense of urgency and we have to act. Enough with the talk,” she said.

Let’s be clear here, if you’re a felon in possession, or you’ve failed a court hearing on your sanity, with counsel present on both sides, I have no problem with this. But Sen. Kneepads isn’t talking about that. Those people should have ALREADY had their guns taken away. She’s talking about doing this with “Red Flag” laws, which violate all constitutional and common law, and every rule of jurisprudence going back to before Magna Carta. (Common Core grads, look it up.)

That illegal abomination of ideas is going to get Officer Friendly a face full of buckshot, and he’ll deserve it, every single time. And I hope it happens, until the cops wise up and tell the politicians they’re under arrest for violating everyone’s civil rights.

As I said in Aesop’s comments, Officer Friendly already knows all about that face-full of buckshot, he doesn’t care for the idea, and so has gotten himself busy in several at-risk locales to officially announce his desire to be included out of the festivities before they commence (examples here and here, with further common-sense analysis from a Utah LEO here). Now, not all cops are as bothered by the prospect of betraying their oaths and finishing the Constitution off for good, of course. Maybe even a majority of them aren’t, I dunno. However it works out, though, I’m confident that, for whatever reason, enough of them will sell their souls to Gun Grabber Satan as to create a real mishegoss of a mess of a clusterfuck when we get down to nut-cutting time. So, in sum:

This is not going to go like they planned when the entire country goes all Flight 93 on them.

The look of surprise on their faces will be priceless, and the last thing that goes through their minds will likely be 158 grains of lead.

Minds? Hell, if they had those, we wouldn’t even be talking about this crap at all.

Share

Forecast: increasing spiciness, with a strong chance of Hell on Earth

Big John has his latest CW2.0 Weather Report up. It’s a link-rich roundup that, taken all in all, might very well freeze your gizzard.

Share

Storm clouds a-gathering

Codevilla on how to ignite a civil war.

In societies riven by mutual hate, the people who control the police and public communications make all the difference. When they maintain impartiality, as did Germany’s Weimar government while the Nazis and Communists struggled for primacy, partisan warfare tends to be resolved politically—though the results are harsh. When societal hatred or the partiality of authorities results in deaths, long-smoldering cold civil war can blaze into holocaust.

We Americans are now facing the danger of a civil war thus ignited. We do not think of civil war this way because our Civil War from 1861 to 1865 was less a conflict within society than it was a highly organized war between states. That war notwithstanding, personal friendships and mutual esteem persisted on both sides, such as that between Ulysses S. Grant and prominent Confederate General James Longstreet.

What we face now is worse.

Probably, yeah. What I’m even more confident of, though, is this: we have NO IDEA what it will actually be like. Not how it might begin, nor how it might play out, nor how long it might go on, nor how it might end, nor what shape its aftermath might take.

I’ve long been annoyed at how most politicians, pundits, and others—left, right, whatever—insist on viewing the Trumpian uprising exclusively through the lens of the past. They base their analyses on established rules that have been upended and made irrelevant. Vanishingly few of them seem able to grasp that maybe, just maybe, the societal tsunami represented by Trump and his supporters might not play out in precise accord with the old, established playbook they’re comfortable with. Even some of the writers I like and regularly excerpt here fall into this trap.

And I don’t get that, I really don’t, especially when it comes from the people who were most shocked and stunned by Trump’s 2016 victory. Seems to me that those most humiliated by the shattering of their predictions of a surefire Hillary!™ win would be a little more circumspect about their obviously misplaced faith in Ye Olde Ways now, and would be among the quickest to consider abandoning them. Guess sometimes hindsight ain’t 20-20 after all.

And the same principle applies to CW speculation. Any civil war we might wind up stumbling blindly into will likely share one, and only one, characteristic with any of its predecessors: it will be nothing like what any of us expects now. In any event, though, Codevilla knows who should be held accountable.

What should happen, what can happen, when the real, existing violent organizations of the Left—Antifa and the several radical black organizations—try to exclude or to punish? Several cities—Portland, Oregon and Charlottesville, Virginia among them—have had their streets taken over. What happens when these organizations organize mobs to harass their least favorite people? What happens when some of them wind up dead?

At a certain point, the other side shoots back. Here as elsewhere, the several police forces may be expected to split and take opposite sides. Then the army’s special forces become the arbiters, and the war rages.

We know that our ruling class having largely made government into a partisan thing, America has crossed the threshold of revolution. While we have no way of knowing what lies ahead, we know that the spiral of political violence has already taken its first fateful turns, and that the logic of our partisan ruling class is pushing for more.

Heaven help them should they get it.

Update! Call me a weirdo, maybe, but I find at least some reassurance among Bill’s words of despair:

What is there to say? It’s all so frickin’ predictable.

We’ve got a bunch of new judges, many of whom seem…oh…shaky, at best.

We replace swamp monsters with new swamp monsters. Everybody has lots of excuses and explanations for that, but the fact remains – one step forward, one step back.

It’s depressing. And starting to get, at least for me, profoundly uninteresting.

Is there going to be a hot civil war?

No, because there are not enough people in this country willing to point a gun at another person and pull the trigger over political differences. The vast majority of fatal gun violence is carried out over disputes over real things like drugs and familial hatreds. The percentage where somebody pulls the trigger because they hate conservatives, or hate immigrants, or hate leftists is tiny, little more than statistical noise.

That may change, but I’d be surprised if it happens any time soon.

I bolded the comforting part to distinguish it from the rest, which is all the more bleak because it’s, y’know, true.

Share

The more things change…

Then again, some things NEVER do.

It may be that the best book that will ever be written about today’s progressive mind-set was published in 1941. That in The Red Decade author Eugene Lyons was, in fact, describing the Communist-dominated American Left of the Depression-wracked 1930s and 1940s makes his observations even more meaningful, for it is sobering to be confronted with how little has been gained by hard experience. The celebration of feelings over reason? The certainty of moral virtue? The disdain for tradition and the revising of history for ideological ends? The embrace of the latest definition of correct thought? Lyons was one of the most gifted reporters of his time, and among the bravest, and his story of the spell cast by Stalinist-tinged social-justice activism over that day’s purported best and brightest—literary titans, Hollywood celebrities, leading academics, religious leaders, media heavies—would be jaw-dropping if it weren’t so eerily familiar.

Indeed, looking backward from a time when, according to surveys, more millennials would rather live under socialism than capitalism, it’s apparent that Lyons was documenting not just a historical moment but also a species of historical illiteracy as unchanging as it is poisonous, its utopianism able to flourish only at the expense of independent thought. On a range of issues, alternative views were defined as not merely mistaken but morally reprehensible; and among the elites who dominated the cultural sphere, deviants from approved opinion were subject to special abuse. Of course, having lived and worked in Soviet Russia, Lyons made distinctions about relative abuses of power. Under Stalinism, dissidents were liquidated, or vanished into the gulag; the American Left could only liquidate careers and disappear reputations.

Well, not as hideous as being gulag-ed or Holodomor-ed, admittedly. But ask any one of the many who have had their ability to make a living destroyed, their home violated and damaged, themselves and their spouses/children hounded and stalked everywhere they went by gangs of violent commie thugs about it sometime, and just let them tell you all about how much fun it was. You’re sure to get an earful about those wonderful, compassionate humanitarians.

He acknowledges that most who followed the leftist line meant no evil—he calls them the Innocents Club, “high minded, idealistic, eager to be useful…Not their hearts, but the organs located in their skulls, were at fault.” Still, he gives no one a pass. Decades before Tom Wolfe wrote Radical Chic, Lyons showed a special disdain for the wealthy who embraced radicalism to salve their guilty consciences. Perhaps the most prominent of these was Corliss Lamont, son of the chairman of J. P. Morgan & Company, who, as head of the Friends of the Soviet Union, emerged as the chief public apologist for Stalin’s crimes. As Lyons wrote, Lamont spared “neither his money nor his energy in defending the mass slaughter in Russia, and in damning those who dared examine that horror.” Affronted, the multimillionaire sued. The suit went nowhere, but Lamont’s grandson is today governor of Connecticut.

Given his intimate acquaintance with the Left, Lyons well knew what calumnies the publication of The Red Decade would bring down on his head. At the time, especially in elite circles, the charge of “red baiting” was akin to that of racism, sexism, or homophobia today; whether made in anger or with premeditated intent, it was enough to halt any challenge to the Left’s worldview. It was a weapon deployed, he wrote, by “literary critics, book reviewers and political commentators…a neatly contrived device for heading off free and uninhibited discussion of little things such as man-made famines, horrifying blood purges, forced labor on a gigantic scale.” In fact, in almost every meaningful arena of American life, those who “ran afoul of the revolution were made to feel the full weight of their crimes; they were ostracized socially, handicapped professionally and not infrequently stripped of their jobs as well as their reputations for ordinary decency.”

Lyons’s own world of book and magazine publishing was so dominated by leftists that former adherents who turned against the Party, deemed “moral monsters and turncoats,” could be made essentially to evaporate from mainstream view. He lists no fewer than 30 writers who suffered that fate during “the intellectual red terror,” including (as if to underscore the point for contemporary readers) such now largely forgotten former luminaries as Max Eastman, John Dos Passos, and James T. Farrell. He includes himself on that list. “The part I cannot induce the uninitiated to believe is how effective the terror could be,” he writes. “When you first met a particularly far-fetched libel on your character, it merely seemed funny in its absurdity.” But continually repeated, he adds, the lies take their toll, for wherever one tried to make one’s way professionally, “there were manuscript readers, casting directors, book reviewers who—consciously or by a sort of pack instinct—took their prejudices ready-made from the Popular Front comrades.”

For all the Left’s capacity to shape opinion in Lyons’s time, the power wielded by today’s progressives is even more malign, for its heavy hand is all but unconstrained by countervailing forces. For one thing, 70 or 80 years ago, organized religion held such sway in America that even committed leftists understood that it could be derided only behind closed doors; and while there were some prominent clergymen who fell hard for the progressive line, they usually made sure to do so only as private citizens. Even they would have dismissed as lunacy the possibility that one day not only their congregants, but entire religious orders, might be widely characterized as dangerous zealots for adhering to traditional beliefs, or that agencies of government would compel them to violate their most deeply held spiritual convictions.

At least rhetorically, the Communists of the late 1930s were, in fact, far less hostile to the American idea than are today’s run-of-the-mill progressives. In an age where Americans were raised to revere their country’s singular history, they all but wrapped themselves in the flag. “Communism Is Twentieth-Century Americanism” went the party’s famous Popular Front slogan, and they did not hesitate to name their Spanish battalions for Lincoln and Washington or the Party school for Marxist instruction after Jefferson. The contrast with today’s Left, which sees American history as a cavalcade of oppression, could not be more striking. Little wonder that today’s Democrats, seeking to stay abreast of their fervent base, are as publicly invested in identity politics and collectivist economics as the denizens of any faculty lounge.

Indeed, this speaks to the most striking difference between the world that Lyons described and the one we contend with today: it’s no longer a tiny, if disproportionately influential, political entity waving the Left’s banner; it’s one of the two major parties.

This article is both chilling and infuriating simultaneously. Communism’s enduring appeal for dopes and dupes across the globe is way beyond baffling. It’s a zombie ideology that never seems to die—no matter how abject its failure, how cruel and demeaning the life-circumstances and conditions it invariably creates—nor does it ever want for fools advocating the imposition of its misery on everyone else. It just keeps staggering blindly on, to blight everything it touches along the road to ruin.

Share

There they go again

It’s tragic and sickening, but liberal ghouls have themselves some new coffins to shamelessly climb up on for gun-grabber pep rally purposes. Here are a couple of hefty buckets of cold-water reality to splash in their purpled, frenzied faces, not that it will do a damned bit of good.

A common myth you can expect to hear a lot in the coming days and weeks is that the United States “leads the world in mass shootings” and therefore we must pass some law that will do nothing to stop future mass shootings, but will infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

What you might not hear is that this claim is completely bogus.

Sure, if you following conservative media, you’re probably aware of this. Townhall, The Daily Signal, Bearing Arms, FEE, The Washington Examiner, and others have all previously reported on how the myth that the United States leads the world in mass shootings is based on a deeply flawed study, which has been debunked by the Crime Prevention Research Center.

Yet, the myth remains alive and is sure to be regurgitated endlessly again.

Yep, count on it. Even Barry “Obama” Soetero interrupted his recent public-spotlight vanishing act—probably taking time out to sweat the slow exposure of his many crimes related to the sudden unexpected collapse of the Mueller witch-hunt—to weigh in with an unwelcome dollop of his habitual moronic duplicity featuring the bogus claim. They’ll squawk about this and they’ll squawk about that, in most careful and diligent avoidance of examing the REAL root causes.

It’s quite tiresome, really. In truth, the main underlying cause of increased mass-murder events — and so much evil in general — is a severe philosophical/spiritual malaise besetting our nation.

Were gun control the remedy here, mass shootings would be rare. Not only were there fewer firearm laws many decades ago, but in 1940s and ‘50s New York City, boys would often take guns on the subway because they had rifle clubs at school. So is access to firearms really the problem’s root cause?

As for the El Paso shooter’s motivation — our immigrationism combined withleft-wing environmental concerns — there are people who will do evil in a cause’s name regardless of its nobility or ignobility. The real question here is, boiled down: Why are we seeing so much more evil in America now than in bygone days?

Say what you will about TV, the Internet, video games, violence, or mass murder, it can’t be right or wrong if there is no right or wrong. It’s the ultimate self-evident reality: How can you build a moral society when its shades-of-gray people don’t even believe in morality?

Not that I’m trying to argue with the basic assertion he’s making, but I remain convinced that a far more important aspect of any serious root-causes examination would have to be the way shitlib culture has treated America’s young men: by viciously attacking them; shaming them; denouncing them as “rapists,” every last one of them. Ordinary, healthy young men are to be regarded as sexist, misogyist, thuggish primitives, guilty of being fundamentally incapable of reining in their violent and antisocial impulses until proven otherwise. They are denied any healthy outlet for the natural masculine urge for competition, for earning their rightful place in a clearly-defined hierarchy built around physical achievement and ability. The term “toxic masculinity” itself ought rightfully to be banished as a hate-crime, if we’re going to have to put up with such folderol as the asinine notion of “hate crime” at all.

Our young men are being beaten down, harrassed, and horribly scarred by a ruthless campaign to emasculate them—to remake them in compliance with a truly toxic Progressivist design for their “improvement.” After decades of such abuse, how could any of us be surprised when the more fragile among those poor, wrongly-scourged souls finally do break and lash out against a world that so cruelly tormented them?

Over to Larry Correia’s timeless 2012 masterpiece for the bottom line:

Well, I suppose if your need to do something overrides all reason and logic, then by all means let’s ban guns.

Australia had a mass shooting and instituted a massive gun ban and confiscation (a program which would not work here, which I’ll get to, but let’s run with it anyway.). As was pointed out to me on Facebook, they haven’t had any mass shootings since. However, they fail to realize that they didn’t really have any mass shootings before either. You need to keep in mind that mass shooting are horrific headline grabbing statistical anomalies. You are far more likely to get your head caved in by a local thug while he’s trying to steal your wallet, and that probably won’t even make the evening news.

And violent crime is up in Australia. A cursory Google search will show articles about the increase in violent crime and theft, but then other articles pooh-pooing these stats as being insignificant and totally not related to the guns.

So then we’ve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has since skyrocketed. Their stats are far worse than Australia, and they are now one of the more dangerous countries to live in the EU. Once again, cursory Google search will show articles with the stats, and other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves… Sensing a trend yet?

And then we’ve got South Africa, which instituted some really hard core gun bans and some extremely strict controls, and their crime is now so high that it is basically either no longer tracked or simply not countable. But obviously, the totally unbiased news says that has absolutely nothing to do with people no longer being able to legally defend themselves.

Then you’ve got countries like Norway, with extremely strict gun control. Their gun control laws are simply incomprehensible to half of Americans. Not only that, they are an ethnically and socially homogenous, tiny population, well off country, without our gang violence or drug problems. Their gun control laws are draconian by our standards. They make Chicago look like Boise. Surely that level of gun control will stop school shootings! Except of course for 2011 when a maniac killed 77 and injured 242 people, a body count which is absurdly high compared to anything which has happened America.

Because once again, repeat it with me, criminals simply do not give a crap.

In conclusion, basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control.

If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didn’t get into, but once again, there’s a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything.

They will never be happy. In countries where they have already banned guns, now they are banning knives and putting cameras on every street. They talk about compromise, but it is never a compromise. It is never, wow, you offer a quick, easy, inexpensive, viable solution to ending mass shootings in schools, let’s try that. It is always, what can we take from you this time, or what will enable us to grow some federal apparatus?

Then regular criminals will go on still not caring, the next mass shooter will watch the last mass shooter be the most famous person in the world on TV, the media will keep on vilifying the people who actually do the most to defend the innocent, the ignorant will call people like me names and tell us we must like dead babies, and nothing actually changes to protect our kids.

Larry includes absolute reams of statistical, historic, and factual backup for his argument here; if you haven’t seen this one before, do NOT fail to read every word of it now. There are many fine points to be made in support of the individual right to self-defense with legally-available tools best suited and adequate to the task; Larry makes most of ’em in this piece, and makes ’em quite well too.

None of which will change a single damned thing, as I said, nor move this now-pointless and intractable shouting match forward so much as an inch.

The Leftist position on guns can be filed under one of two overall categories: well-meaning, or ill-intentioned. For the well-meaning, their view is founded entirely on ignorance, emotion, irrationality, and assumptions that are in error. Some small few of these people are in fact amenable to persuasion by our side, to whatever degree. Most aren’t. They have been thoroughly propagandized, their indoctrination facilitated by a total lack of any experience with or exposure to guns, along with the terror inspired by that ignorance. They don’t think beyond the immediate feel-good rush from new legislation, restrictions, or even bans and confiscation; assuming as they do that all problems can be legislated away, the practical impossibility of actually implementing their “imagine no guns!” fantasy never occurs to them. Their hearts break at the suffering of the victims and their loved ones; they’ve never had any use for guns in their own lives, and can’t even begin to imagine a good reason why anyone else would either. They’re afraid of guns, so you should be too. Anyone who actually likes the evil things might as well be an alien from another planet. In a sense, they are.

The ill-intentioned, on the other hand, may or may not be ignorant of the facts…which doesn’t matter even slightly, because they don’t care. Their opposition to private ownership of firearms and the 2A springs not from a desire for a safer, more civilized world, nor from compassion or empathy for the victims. It comes from an unslakable thirst for ever-greater power and control, just as Larry says above. For them, neither truth nor logic enters into it in any way, and are really either irrelevancies or impediments. Their interest is not in protecting, shielding, or safeguarding anybody, and the only thing they want to put an end to is the ability to resist or defy them.

So what are we left with, then, as we watch every last law-abiding American gun owner slandered in the press yet again—as Enemedia despicably uses hysterical, terrified kids as props in pursuit of their tyrannical agenda? The arguments have all been made. There is little if any productive discussion to be had here, not a whole lot left to talk about. It’s all rapidly boiling down to the one thing, and either they will or they won’t.

So: come and take them, Leftards.

Full stop, end of story update! LawDog spells it out:

And — again, gods and little green apples — my inbox comes up with emails starting with: “It’s time for …” or “Common sense …” or “You have to agree …”

Let me stop y’all right there.

The answer is “No.”

No, I’m not going to give up my guns.

I don’t care. I’m not giving up my guns.

I didn’t murder anyone. My guns didn’t murder anyone. My friends haven’t murdered anyone. My friends guns haven’t murdered anyone.

80 million American gun owners didn’t murder anyone.

I am not going to be punished for some pustulent little bridge-troll deciding to vomit his evil into a Wal-Mart in El Paso.

And, yes, taking my guns away is punishing me. I will not be punished for the evil of someone else; evil that I had NOTHING TO DO WITH.

This is not up for debate. We’ve tried debate at the national level and the only thing debate got us was incremental chunks of our gun rights taken away by you faithless dacoits.

I am no longer going to engage in a debate in which I lose every time. Sod that for a game of soldiers.

So, let me stop you right there, Scooter. The answer is “No.”

Cut, print, that’s a wrap, people.

(Via Aesop)

Share

The real Robert Mueller

Go-Go Gohmert nails the repellent Deep-State sleazebag to the fucking cross.

Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone.

I do not make these statements lightly.

What I have accumulated here is absolutely shocking upon the realization that Mueller’s disreputable, twisted history speaks to the character of the man placed in a position to attempt to legalize a coup against a lawfully elected President.

Any Republican who says anything resembling, “Bob Mueller will do a good job as Special Counsel,” “Bob Mueller has a great reputation for being fair,” or anything similar; (A) wants President Trump indicted for something and removed from office regardless of his innocence; (B) is intentionally ignorant of the myriad of outrageous problems permeating Mueller’s professional history; or (C) is cultivating future Democrat votes when he or she comes before the Senate someday for a confirmation hearing.

There is simply too much clear and convincing information available to the contrary. Where other writers have set out information succinctly, I have quoted them, with proper attribution. My goal is to help you see what I have found.

That’s from the opener to a Gohmert-compiled PDF that runs to 48 pages (!), a disturbing compendium of corruption, abuse, and outright criminality that one strongly suspects is STILL not all of it. Trust me, folks: no matter how bad you might think it is…it’s worse.

Vietnam-war-hero me no Vietnam war heroes, either; Mueller is as dirty as dirty comes, he has been for a very long time now, and as far as I’m concerned whatever he may or may not have been in the long-ago and far-away buys him not one damned thing after seeing him confirm the warp of his woof in the here and now. As Vietnam war heroes go, I put Mueller in the same (Swift) boat as John Heinz-Kerry: kindred souls, brothers from different mothers, two peas in a pod, and to hell with the both of ’em. Not all of those who serve serve honorably, nor do those who did necessarily remain forever honorable after getting their mustering-out handshake and DD214.

After only a quick skimming of the PDF, I’m now more skeptical than ever of the veracity of Mr Integrity’s ass-covering “I’m old, I’m confused!” Vaudeville act during last week’s Democrat-Socialist flea circus. Good work by Gohmert; he’s committed an act of true public service by peeling the slime off this filthy toad.

(Via Clarice Feldman)

Share

Keeping hope alive

Jabba the Nadler just can’t let go.

Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler argued Sunday that the impeachment of President Donald Trump was still a strong possibility, claiming during a segment of CNN’s “State of the Union” that the president had “violated the law six ways from Sunday.”

“I want to clear this up here. You’re investigating possible impeachment but you haven’t formally opened an impeachment inquiry. Are you trying to have it both ways here?” Tapper asked.

“No, we’re not trying to have it both ways,” Nadler responded. “We said exactly what we’re doing. We’re investigating the question of — we’re investigating the corruptions of the administration, the abuses of power, what Mueller showed, the possible violations of the emoluments clause, that might recommend articles of impeachment and it has been recommended to the committee and we’re investigating to determine whether we should report those to the house and we’re going to court to get more evidence.”

Tapper turned the question to Nadler personally, asking whether he would support impeachment.

“My personal view is that he richly deserves impeachment,” Nadler said. “He has done many impeachable — he’s violated the law six ways from Sunday. But that is not the question. The question is can we develop enough evidence to put before the American people who — we’ve broken the log jam.”

“The president and the attorney general were lying to the American people saying that the Mueller report found no obstruction or collusion and exonerated the president,” the chairman continued. “I think the hearing the other day was an inflection point because it showed quite clearly that the report did not exonerate the president.”

Ahem *cough cough* harrumph: The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. Direct quote, you pathetic loser. But by all means, you go right ahead on with your bad self. You, and the rest of your treacherous, treasonous co-conspirators. Let’s all just see what your seditious, anti-American skullduggery gets you in the end.

Share

Trump trolls ’em again

RACIST!™

President Donald Trump criticized Rep. Elijah Cummings on Saturday, calling him a “brutal bully” to border patrol officials and suggesting he should help fix the city of Baltimore.

“Rep, Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Trump challenged Cummings after the veteran lawmaker exploded at Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin K. McAleenan for the treatment of detained migrant children crossing the border.

Trump defended the border facilities as “clean, efficient, and well run,” albeit “very crowded,” while Cummings’ district was considered the “worst in the USA.”

“Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess,” he wrote. “If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place.”

Trump said the congressman’s district should be investigated for all of the federal money that is invested there despite its being a “corrupt mess.”

All of which is true, naturally. But it ain’t just Baltimore; not by a long shot, it ain’t. So might there be some common thread, some unifying characteristic shared by America’s shitholiest of shitholes? We wonders, yes we wonders.

Look at other cities in similar dilapidation and there holds a unique truth: Democrats run them all.

How long will sewage run down the streets of San Francisco? How long will St. Louis, Detroit, and Baltimore, continue to rotate as the nation’s most dangerous crime infested metros? And how long will federal dollars keep chasing bad money with new?

Seattle is just as bad. Los Angeles has zoomed past them both.

And according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report and as reported in the USA Today (from Feb 19, 2019), the top 10 most dangerous cities in America are run by Democrats.

The overwhelming majority of them are also all governed by Democratic Governors. And the Congressional districts represented are also majority Democratic.

HAS to be a coincidence.

For Baltimore it’s been this way for decades.

And the only reason that Elijah Cummings got passionate about the issue, isn’t because it’s true. It’s because he got called out on it, by someone who is working to make America better for everybody. Thus revealing—whether in knowledge or in ignorance—Congressman Cummings hasn’t been.

But Democrats who lives in these cities already know that.

They live in the land of corrupt squander every waking day.

And yet they keep right on voting for Demonrats. Right up until they just can’t take it anymore and flee the nest they so thoroughly fouled…only to get busy as beavers repeating the whole disastrous process, blighting somebody else’s home the exact same way they did their own.

Cummings is a complete moron, of course, and good on Trump for slamming his stupid, worthless ass. Best part, though? Gotta be this:


And there you have it, folks: our current state of political dysfunction and decay, neatly wrapped up in a single Tweet.

Overrun update! Just more coincidence, I’m sure.

The Baltimore Sun’s editorial board published a scathing op-ed later in the day that simultaneously waved off the city’s rat problem while calling Trump a rat. “Better to have a few rats than to be one,” blared the headline.

But according to earlier reports from The Baltimore Sun, that rat problem is actually quite a bit more extensive than the editorial board implied.

In April of this year, the same editorial board published another op-ed titled “Baltimore’s perpetual trash problem.” Among other issues, the article detailed some of the problems that stemmed from ubiquitous piles of trash — increased rodent infestations among them.

In September 2018, another Baltimore Sun article quoted then-Mayor Catherine Pugh as saying that the problem was so extensive that “you can smell the rats.”

The problem was so far-reaching that “Rat Film,” a documentary based on Baltimore’s constant battle with the prolific rodents, premiered at a local film festival in 2017 and aired on public television in 2018. The Baltimore Sun covered the PBS premiere.

As incredible as it may seem, there’s even more. All in all, what we have here is more of the usual old thing: Trump states the plain truth, the Democrat-Socialists and fake-news Enemedia are goaded into flipping the fuck out…then wind up shitting and falling back into it—hilariously. The man is living rent-free in their empty heads, and they just can’t get him out.

Method to the madness update! Forcing them to defend the indefensible.

President Trump has done it again.

Just as he forced Democrats to defend the far-left ‘Squad’ in his unexpected ambush on Rep. Ilhan Omar and her pals, he’s now forcing Democrats to own the urban shambles and filth that characterize one-party blue-city rule, putting all Democrats on their backfoot. That’s what’s behind his surprise Twitter assault that began with Rep. Elijah Cummings and his rat-infested Baltimore district, which pretty much came out of the blue.

What’s he doing? Forcing a new narrative as election time kicks in, making Democrats have to address the reality that they have been in power for decades in one-party blue districts and cities, and they have left those districts smoking ruins, rat-infested hellholes, “places no human being would want to live,” complete with live-action shots. The video of the Baltimore resident decrying the Democratic area’s neglect is absolutely deadly.

How are Democrats going to defend themselves from this one? In one-party blue cities, states and districts, there’s no one to blame but themselves. Trump’s tactic is particularly ripe for propagation in solid-blue, shambling expensive California and already Trump is moving his attack onto Pelosi with his latest tweets.

Thus far, Democrats are fighting back by yelling ‘racism.’ It’s a tired, weak weapon, grotesquely overused, and unlikely to rally black voters to Democrats, given the truth of Trump’s tweets. What’s more, it can’t be employed by Pelosi, who’s white. The issue and the narrative Trump is pushing out there is that all-blue cities are hellholes and they’ve been made hellholes because Democrats did it.

This is political brutality cubed, a sign that Trump is a going to beformidable candidate to Democrats seeking to unhorse him. What it shows is Trump not only means to ‘win’ against his opponents, he intends to annihilate them. His election game is on and he’s not playing beanbag. He using the same powerful tactics he was able use on Pelosi and her bickering ‘squad’ which had the effect of forcing Pelosi to defend the indefensible and making Rep. Ilhan Omar the face of the Democratic Party. Now he’s making urban decay the second face of the Democratic Party. His poll numbers went up after the first one. Count on them going up again after this. 

Now you shitlibs go ahead and complain some more about how “stupid” Trump is, whydon’tcha, while he continues to run rings around all you self-proclaimed Supergeniuses.

Caught in his own web update! Even Bernie the Bolshevik knows a shithole when he sees one. Or used to before Trump seconded his now-inconvenient assessment, anyway.

Also on Sunday, the official “Trump War Room” Twitter account released a video from 2015 in which Sen. Sanders disparages West Baltimore:

But anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you’re in a wealthy nation; you would think that you were in a Third World country…But today, what we’re talking about is a community in which half of the people don’t have jobs. We’re talking about a community in which there are hundreds of buildings that are uninhabitable. We’re talking about a community where kids are unable to go to schools that are decent.

The Washington Examiner dug up a tweet from 2016 in which Sanders wrote: “Residents of Baltimore’s poorest boroughs have lifespans shorter than people living under dictatorship in North Korea. That is a disgrace.”

Oh, there’s disgrace aplenty here for sure, Red Bernie—all of it one hundred percent, exclusively owned by you and yours.

Share

Crime and (no) punishment

Good ol’ Tucker lays it all out clean and tight for us.

The Russia hoax ended on Wednesday — we can say that. It ended not with a bang, but with the muddled half-memories of a fading old man slipping in and out of focus.

America sat transfixed by Robert Mueller’s halting testimony before Congress. No honest person could have come away at the end believing that the president of the United States colluded with the Russian government to steal an election. That was the allegation, you’ll remember.

And then, after the most extensive investigation in modern American history, we found the truth. And so, we can say conclusively, once again, what we told you the day this all started, the whole thing is a crock. It never happened. They were lying to you. That’s clear now. The debate is over.

What should happen to these people now? Congressman Adam Schiff, for example. Schiff claimed he possessed actual evidence of Russian collusion. And he didn’t just say that one time, he said it repeatedly.

In the end, you know what happened — or didn’t. Schiff did not produce the evidence. He didn’t have it because it doesn’t exist. Schiff was bluffing, which is to say he was lying. He still is, actually. As of Wednesday, Schiff was continuing to claim that the Trump campaign “embraced foreign help, made use of it and covered it up.” In other words, collusion. Schiff still believes the collusion hoax.

Or does he? On Thursday, Adam Schiff went on CNN to carry water for his boss, Nancy Pelosi. “Impeachment might not be a great idea,” he told CNN’s viewers.

But wait, that doesn’t seem to make sense. If Donald Trump is working for a hostile foreign power, as Adam Schiff has told us countless times that he is, how can we not impeach him? No one on CNN asked Adam Schiff to explain that contradiction, unfortunately. Not that it matters. Think about it for a second, and you’ll see exactly what’s going on.

Adam Schiff never believed a word he was saying about Russian collusion. I suppose the good news is Schiff is not delusional. The bad news, though, is that Adam Schiff is a soulless liar. He is a man willing to say literally anything for political advantage, and that’s really the worst of all. Being a lunatic would be much more appealing than that.

For my money, Schiff is probably the lowest, most detestable piece of shit besmirching American politics today. To call him a dirty scumbag is to gratuitously slander dirty bags filled with scum. He is ten pounds of rancid sputum in a five pound sack. Apart from such damning traits as his nonexistent integrity or treacherous nature and speaking purely in physical terms, his bulbous, misshapen head and unpleasant face perfectly bespeak the noxious, calculating character festering within. The greasy, phony, off-kilter smile only adds to the broader nausea. Democrat-Socialist Rule Numero Uno applies tenfold to this asswart: when he’s smiling, it means capital-T Trouble for America.

“Soulless liar” is likely the most positive description a scrupulously honest person could ever offer of him. And even that is probably being overly generous to the abominable wretch. Of course, being the kind of (ulp!) “man” he is, Schiff would probably be quite pleased with the moniker, no doubt considering it flattery most ebullient. And he might just be right, considering; as condemnatory as it is, it doesn’t go far enough, is way too polite, and still far better than he deserves.

Share

Tables: turning

Make it so, Mr President. Hammer and fucking tongs.

During a surprise event on Friday President Trump invited the press into the oval office where Guatemalan Interior Minister Enrique Degenhart and acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan were signing a joint asylum agreement.  The President then held a press conference filled with lots of news.

The Guatemala agreement is certainly news, and Trump also works in a complimentary mention of the Mexican government’s sudden burst of cooperation on border security after he waved the threat of punitive tarriffs in its face. But this is the part I like best:

And we’re doing this all because the Democrats won’t give us what we need. So simple: Get rid of the loopholes; work on asylum. It would take a very short period of time. They won’t do it. All they want to do is impede. They want to investigate. They want to go fishing.

And I watch Bob Mueller, and they have nothing. There’s no collusion, there’s no obstruction. They have nothing. It’s a disgrace.

We want to find out what happened with the last Democrat President. Let’s look into Obama the way they’ve looked at me. From day one, they’ve looked into everything that we’ve done. They could look into the book deal that President Obama made. Let’s subpoena all of his records. Let’s subpoena all of the records having to do with Hillary Clinton and all of the nonsense that went on with Clinton and her foundation and everything else. We could do that all day long.

Damned skippy, Mr Prez. Let’s just do that thing. Subpoena it all, declassify it all, release it all. Bring everything out into the fresh, clear light of day; let’s all see what deep, dark Obama-Clinton skullduggery, manipulation, and treachery might be dragged from under its rock. Full disclosure, full exposure of the lies, the criminal and even treasonous acts, the collusion and conspiracy. The failed attempt to steal an election by fraudulent and illegal means, the subsequent attempt at overturning said election using nefarious methods. The spying, the lying, the mad, amoral drive to seize a power they only ever abused.

Unfortunately for Trump, though, he’s probably gonna have to go out and find himself an honest, non-partisan FBI head before any of that can happen.

Frankly, the Republicans were gentlemen and women. When we had the majority in the House, they didn’t do subpoenas all day long. They didn’t do what they — what these people have done.

What they’re doing is a disgrace. So destructive to our country. And I think that’s why we’re going to take back the House. That’s why we’re easily going to hold the presidency and we’re going to continue to hold the Senate.

Trump moved on to answer questions on Turkey, Guatemala and Mexico before lighting up the Democrat-Socialists again:

You know, the amazing thing about the Democrats: It was all fine, everything was great, four or five years ago, before I was President. And now they think we’re going to win, so they’re doing everything they can — with the impeachment nonsense, where you had no obstruction, you had no collusion.

You know, obstruction is sort of interesting. They’ve interviewed 500 people. They’ve interviewed lawyers. They’re interviewed everybody that they wanted to interview; people that have — I could have kept back by using presidential privilege. I could’ve kept back everybody. They didn’t have to interview anybody.

I gave them a total — and they say “obstruction.” These people are clowns. The Democrats are clowns. They’re being laughed at all over the world. And I watched this morning — I watched Nancy Pelosi trying to get through that, with the performance that Robert Mueller put on, where — I don’t think he ever read the agreement or the document. And the document said, “No collusion.” They don’t even talk about that. So there was no crime. They said, “Well, there was no crime but he obstructed.” How do you obstruct if there’s no crime? But, actually, it was worse than that because it was a phony crime that they put on. The crime was what they put on.

But I watched Mueller — for two and a half years, we’ve watched this. And that’s the best they have, and it’s a disgrace. And the world is laughing at them. And unfortunately, it’s so bad for our country. It’s bad in our relationships with other countries, including Russia. There’s no reason we shouldn’t get along with Russia. There’s no reason we shouldn’t get along with other countries.

Big Boss Man is sounding in fine fettle and feisty after this week’s resounding repudiaton of the coup cabal’s impeachment plot. He’s slipped the Mueller leash, and is now free to launch a vigorous counterattack against his tormenters, with fewer (but still some) political restrictions and repercussions hanging over his head. So get going, Mr Prez; your encouraging words are fine and all, but what we all need to see now is real no-holds-barred action taken against the vile, villainous curs who so scurrilously tried to pull the White House down around your ears.

Don’t hesitate, don’t waffle, don’t take counsel of your fears (or those of your more diffident advisors); don’t allow yourself to be talked into a “cautious” or “careful” approach. Go on the attack—a real Alpha Strike against the sleazy, conniving bastards who wantonly subjected you, your family, your team, and your legion of supporters to more than two years of misery, stress, and harrassment—all of it based entirely on nothing but utter bullshit.

It’s now time to make the bastards pay for the damage they’ve done, the destruction they’ve wrought, the discord they’ve sown—pay in FULL, cash money, right up front. The prize here isn’t mere vengeance; it’s justice—not just for yourself but for ALL of us, carrying along with it as it does a stark warning to any who would ever contemplate committing such profoundly heinous deeds again.

Do it. MAKE. THEM. PAY. Do it now.

Share

Don’t dream it’s over…even now

They’ll never stop. You know the chorus already.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony Wednesday has been described as “excruciatingly awkward,” “confused,” “struggling” and “a stammering, stuttering mess.”

I saw something completely different. From my perspective, after six hours of testimony, it was the 74-year-old career prosecutor and law enforcement officer who won the day. It wasn’t that close.

Tasked with overseeing the most high-profile investigation of our time, Mueller managed to complete the investigation without appearing to have a partisan agenda, with both sides embracing him at times. Even Trump said he acted “honorably”—before he turned on Mueller as “conflicted” and partisan—and touted “total exoneration” soon after Mueller concluded his work. Mueller’s down-the-middle, leak-free handling of the high-stakes investigation was an object lesson in professionalism.

And Wednesday’s performance was no different.

Mueller didn’t want to testify, for good reason. He had done his work already. As a prosecutor, he had to ensure he stayed detached from the political process, presenting his findings in a manner that did not make it appear he was choosing a side or advancing an agenda. One slip of the tongue could be used to undermine his team’s work.

In the long view, the verdict of history depends most of all on Mueller being seen as nonpartisan, measured and above the fray—an operator whose work is unimpeachable and can be relied on (now, or after Trump’s term, or years from now) as a bulletproof statement of fact. So all the little details of the case that members were trying to ferret out pale in comparison to his ability to maintain that status and be seen as a reliable agent of impartiality. During the hearing, that was clearly his goal. In doing that, he succeeded, and history can thank him for it.

The disconnect from reality here is as astounding as it is comprehensive. And sick, delusional droolcases like this oaf are the selfsame people who seek to “Amendment 25” Trump even now, mind you. One can scarcely wrap one’s mind around it, really. It’s not just stupefying, though; it’s also more than a little bit alarming, at this late date.

We can no longer indulge ANY notion of treating with these people as if they were well-intentioned, persuadable, or at all rational opponents. By now, I’m not sure if even the strongest meds available would help. I’m thinking nothing less radical than electroshock therapy stands a chance of piercing the hallucinatory cocoon of pure fantasy they’ve swaddled themselves in as a shield against, y’know, objective reality.

Nobody should be thinking this lunatic is the only one either, or even all that unusual. In truth, I doubt there’s enough available rubber-room square footage in the whole country to house ’em all. Maybe lobotomy en masse might be worth a try.

Share

CF Comments Policy Statement

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

Notable Quotes

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

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

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

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." -Bill Whittle

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