Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Two kinds of power

An astute take on the situation.

Clinton, who is still smarting over winning the popular vote and losing the Electoral College vote (the only vote that matters — for now), has spent the better part of two years trying to delegitimize the 2016 election. Her voters — the sort who scream helplessly at the sky in protest — have been pumping each other up, grasping for any and all justifications for their “resistance” to the “authoritarian regime” now occupying the White House.

It’s not enough to say Republicans and Democrats differ on policy or even disagree on first principles. According to the true believers, the other party is in the business of destruction. We used to believe in a democratic republic, we put “ballots over bullets.” Today, votes are the equivalent of violence.

It was remarkable to hear the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee effectively endorse that point of view. No civility is possible until Democrats win.

Why such rhetoric? Why now? Truth is, it’s been a long time coming.

Antonio García Martínez, an author and contributor to Wired magazine, summed up the landscape perfectly in a tweet: “The Right is angry because they have near-total political power, but little cultural power. The Left is angry because they have near-total cultural power, but little political power. Each covets what the other has and feels is rightfully theirs.”

Underneath it all is a deep and seething resentment that’s palpable, but also a feeling of powerlessness. Why can’t they understand? That’s what all the screaming on Kavanaugh was about on Capitol Hill. That’s why the screaming continues today.

How much worse could it get? Plenty.

It’s a fairly short distance from a gaggle of protesters screaming at a senator and his wife in a tony Washington, D.C. restaurant to shooting a senator whose vote “put our lives at risk.”

We’ve seen it before. We saw it in the 19th century before the Civil War, when a pro-slavery Democrat nearly beat an abolitionist Republican to death with his cane on the Senate floor. We saw it in the early 1970s, when there were more than 1,900 bombings in 18 months targeting police and military installations.

Whether or not Kavanaugh’s confirmation rallies Democrats or Republicans to the polls on Nov. 6 doesn’t really matter. A narrow Democratic majority in the House resolves little. Politically and culturally, we’ll remain as divided as ever.

An inescapable state of affairs, given that the divide is a direct and inevitable result of the eternal conflict between liberty and tyranny, between (at least somewhat) Constitutional government and despotism. Those are the sides, and you can only pick one, with no possible way to split the difference, compromise, or bridge the gap. He’s right to say that “…a narrow Democratic majority in the House resolves little.” No one election could do it. In fact, it may well turn out that the dispute can’t be resolved via elections at all. But in the end, it WILL be resolved—one way or another.

Share

Axl WHO again, now?

You didn’t expect anything less from Hollywood celebs, I hope.

he message from the aging rock star about the California Republican was succinct:

“F*ck Nunes.”

Those gripping words were tweeted earlier this year by Axl Rose, the frontman for Guns N’ Roses. The rocker apparently was miffed after Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) suggested that the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. (Rose’s appetite for destruction isn’t just the title of his band’s most popular album: During a concert shortly after the election, he beat an oversized pinata depicting the new president.)

The profane tweet by Rose—who now looks like the homeless love child of Sam Kinison and Ethel Merman—earned nearly 30,000 likes.

Rose is one of many celebrities hoping to dump some cold November Rain on Nunes’s reelection next month. The lawmaker who President Trump on Thursday saidshould get the Medal of Freedom for “what he has gone through and his bravery” is a top target of the Left for leading the investigation into the biggest political scandal in U.S. history: The weaponization of the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence apparatus to infiltrate a rival presidential campaign and undermine an incoming administration.

Hopefully resulting in justice at last being served on Obama, Her Herness, and the rest of the Coup Clux Clowns, with all and sundry being fitted for some nice orange jumpsuits with inmate ID numbers stenciled on.

If this seems like overkill, it is. Celebrities are running cover for congressional Democrats and Obama loyalists terrified at what the Nunes investigation will yield. They are trying to bully him into backing down; his opponent confirmed that if Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) replaces Nunes as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee next year, Democrats would begin investigating Nunes himself.

But Hollywood’s intimidation tactics against Nunes aren’t working. He continues to pressure the president to declassify documents related to so-called FISAgate, and his committee will soon postthe transcripts of more than 70 witnesses who were interviewed about their role in the scandal. An outspoken critic of Rosenstein, who signed the final FISA application on Page, Nunes and some of his Republican colleagues have threatened to impeach him for blocking congressional demands for information.

While Nunes has raised the ire of the Left, he has earned the respect of the president and many rank-and-file Republicans. Making sure Nunes’s investigation continues after the midterms should be a key talking point for party leaders over the next few weeks. Celebrity outrage at Nunes underscores how serious and damaging this scandal is for the Democrats. Otherwise, just like the Clinton email scandal, everyone will get off the hook. Again.

Such a dismal outcome would be proof positive that not only is the Deep State real, it’s also pretty much invincible.

Share

A little pre-Halloween horror

I’m aware, as most of you readers are or should be by now, of the esteemed Aesop’s take on all this. But I don’t think he’s spelled it out quite as completely and concisely as he does here. It amounts to an excellent precis, and I couldn’t agree more.

The conventional wisdom and polling data say the Dems are going to pick up 10 House seats for sure next month, but whether they can flip the majority (23+ seats) is still an open question.

If they do, it’s all impeachment and investigation, all the time.
Which will almost certainly lose them the House again in 2020.
(And FWIW, I consider trying to undo 2016 by impeaching Pres. Trump, like trying to undo the 2nd Amendment, to be an actual revolution-inducing act, in a kill-them-all-and-let-God-sort-them-out way. And not metaphorically. YMMV.)

If they don’t get the House in the mid-terms, they’ve already turned the crazy up to “11”, and they have nowhere left to go there, except actual, regular, political violence. I expect them to do that, because
a) they’re really that stupid
b) they have no other choice
c) they lack the common sense or insight to recognize the result of that course of action beforehand, and lack the self control among their idiot minions to stop it anyway even if they wanted to.

That will be an extinction event for them, because the Right will declare open season on them, and the Moderates will sit back and watch approvingly.

Because once you yell “Play ball!” on killing your political opponents as a viable course of action, Americans have a long and distinguished history of shoving that bat right up your ass. And then, going after your family for good measure. 

And both sides know that after the first killing, all the rest are effectively free, so this promises to be a short but ugly spasm of violence. To start.

After that, any bets or prognostications enter a fogbank of epic proportions, because once you uncork that genie, things will get out of hand and we’ll all be lucky to live through this, as Fred Thompson warned us.

As he says, that’s it in a nutshell. My one quibble, which is minor: personally, I don’t think they’re going to even be able to gain House seats. In fact, I expect them to lose some there too; their Kavanaugh debacle will cost them, but it’s just one of many self-inflicted wounds they’ve suffered, eye-openers all for anyone paying even slight attention, with the Kavanaugh mess being the moldy cherry on top of the whole flyblown shit-sundae. Executive summary:

The Leftards have lost their minds.
Before they can regain their senses, you’re going to have to get their attention first.
The only thing that will do that, amounts to large numbers (Antietam/Gettysburg-large, not 9/11-large) of them stacked up like cordwood, or hanging from lamp posts.

Sadly—tragically, for all of us—it would seem so. A clarifying quote from the first time around:

“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
—William Tecumseh Sherman

I also remember a quote from Grant, which I can’t find online: “If we have to fight, I’d rather do it all at once and then make up and be friends.” Don’t know how relevant that one is now, but it came to mind for some reason.

Share

The Trigglypuff vote

They deserve each other, and real Americans deserve better.

Commenting on the irrational female rage unleashed by the Kavanaugh confirmation circus, Stephen Green remarks: “The Democrats have worked hard to lock down the Trigglypuff vote, but at what cost of even slightly more moderate voters?” But do such voters really exist?

We are more than 25 years into a cycle of increasing polarization that arguably began with Bill Clinton’s election as president. Clinton’s radicalism — remember the so-called “assault weapons” ban? — sparked a backlash that cost Democrats the control of the House that they’d held for 40 years. Everything thereafter increased the partisan divide: The budget standoff that led to the government shutdown, the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment crisis, the Florida recount in 2000, the Iraq War, the recapture of Congress by Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats, Obama’s election in 2008, the Tea Party movement, on and on.

It is not the case that America’s politics have become more divisive because the Republican Party has moved further right. Liberal pundits, commenting from within their ideological cocoons, habitually apply labels — “far right,” “extremist,” “white nationalist,” etc. — to depict the GOP as beholden to a dangerous fringe, but this is just paranoid propaganda. The typical Republican voter in 2018 is actually no more “extreme” than his father was in 1988. Nor is the policy agenda of the GOP now any more “far right” than it was in the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The cause of the increased partisan divide is not that the Republicans have moved right, but that Democrats have moved left.

What happened, when did it happen and why did it happen?

Just this: enough Americans woke up to what the Democrat-Socialists really were—as opposed to what they misleadingly claimed themselves to be—to reject them firmly and fully by putting Trump in the Oval Office, which drove them batshit insane. Room for lots more detaIled analysis, natch, but that’s the nut of it.

Having worked so hard to lock down the TrigglyPuff vote, as Stephen Green says, Democrats are now held hostage by the mob mentality of the identity-politics “social justice” coalition they’ve built.

This is what the Kavanaugh confirmation circus confirmed: Democrats are now the party of TrigglyPuff, of angry college girls driven to fits of insanity — a deranged mob clawing at the doors of the Supreme Court — by the irrationality of their “progressive” belief system.

What about those “slightly more moderate voters” who might be alienated by the Democrats’ surrender to extremism? They don’t seem to exist. Polls indicate that the Democrats’ advantage in the generic congressional ballot is holding firm around 7 or 8 points. Why?

I’ll just answer that question with a quote from Huck Finn: “H’ain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?” In towns like NYC, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Detroit, etc, yes. Yes, it surely is.

(Via Insty)

Share

How it’s done

Street justice served, fresh and piping hot.

Members of the far-right men’s group “Proud Boys” beat up at least three protesters Friday in the streets of Manhattan after an event Friday night. The members of the pro-Trump organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies as a hate group had gathered at the Metropolitan Republican Club on the Upper East Side to hear a speech by the group’s founder, Gavin McInnes. Minutes after they left the event, some 30 members of the group took part in the beating, which allegedly began when three anti-fascist protesters knocked a “Make America Great Again” hat off the head of a Proud Boy member.

Don’t start no shit, won’t be no shit, AntiFa fascist. But if you make a bonehead move with ill intent, prepare to tote the full-load ass-whuppin’, just like you deserve. The New Rule, a la Schichter, is: what goes around comes around. In full measure, with a quickness.

Videos posted on social media show the violence that included apparent members of Proud Boys beating protesters while shouting “faggot” and “cocksucker.” None of the Proud Boys were detained for the attacks although three anti-fascist protesters were arrested. Police accused the protesters of attacking a 30-year-old man who was leaving the rally.

Two journalists who were at the scene, Sandi Bachom and Shay Horse, talked to the HuffPost and described how the “confrontation turned into a mob assault” with Proud Boys vastly outnumbering the protesters. “They turned it into a pummeling,” Horse said. “This was three people on the ground and people just kicking the shit out of them.” After the attacks, the Proud Boys members posed for a photo while flashing “white power” hand signs, according to a photo posted on Twitter. “I haven’t seen a fight that violent in a long time,” Horse tweeted.

Good. I hope they got their sorry asses beaten half to death, and will be walking with a limp, jumping at loud noises, and peeing through a tube into a bag for life. The only unsatisfying part of this feel-good story is that there weren’t more Lefty oxygen thieves present to take their dose along with these three simps.

“The proud boys were totally ready and willing to be violent tonight. They didn’t even wear masks.” Members of the group also reportedly shouted “I like beer” repeatedly, a clear reference to what Justice Brett Kavanaugh said during his confirmation hearings.

Heh. You go, ‘Boys. If there’s gotta be blood in the street, I’d much rather it be theirs.

The Proud Boys are a sterling example to us all, clearly ready to take care of business at the slightest provocation from fascist pussyfarts and deal out the right stuff in response, rather than curling into a fetal ball and whimpering about “civility” or some such.

In their faces. Twice as hard. “You must condemn the right-wing violence,” sniffs Leftiecakes? Yeah, go fuck yourself with a splintery, rotten 2×4. Cuck nancyboys, too, can snivel and whine right alongside their libtard leash-holders about how just awfully awfully awful it all is; Proud Boys don’t give a shit what they think either. Me, I fucking love it.

Share

Why they’re mad

Fighting mad, one might say.

Kavanaugh was angry because his life had been destroyed. The left is angry because it wants power.

Leftist political anger inflicted sadistic torments on Brett Kavanaugh for political reasons. And the media pretends that this political anger is somehow more worthy than the outrage of its victim.

The media left demanded to know what right Brett Kavanaugh had to be angry. They mocked his pain, ridiculed his suffering with the venal contempt and snarky hatred that now passes for leftist comedy.

But a better question would be what right does the left have to its endless anger?

Eight years of running the country didn’t leave it any more generous toward its opponents, any less hungry for power, or any less tribal, partisan and furious than it had been in 2007. The left isn’t angry because it cares about rape victims. Not when it’s lining up to buy tickets to Bill and Hillary’s latest tour.

It’s angry because, as Holder tweeted, it wants power.

And it’s willing to destroy every political, civic, cultural, social and moral norm to get it. The left doesn’t believe in norms because it doesn’t believe in any compromise or standard. All it has is its will to power.

Some people have the right to win elections (Hillary Clinton) and others (Donald Trump) don’t. Some justices have the right to be confirmed without campaigns of personal destruction (Democrat nominees like Kagan and Sotomayor) and others (Republican nominees like Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh) don’t.

And some people have the right to be angry (New York Times and Washington Post readers) and others (Trump supporters and Front Page Magazine readers) don’t. The entitlement of double standards is essential to the leftist quest for power which is about manufacturing perceived inequality in order to administrate mandates of total inequality. Disparate impact justifies affirmative action. If black workers or students underperform, then poor white workers and students must go to the back of the line.

It deprives people of their rights and it responds to their anger with more anger. In its rage, it wipes out every political and social norm it can manage until its opponents are being hounded out of restaurants, fired from their jobs, assaulted on the street, shot at charity baseball games, smeared as rapists, doxed by reporters and staffers, censored on the internet and eavesdropped on by corrupt federal agencies.

There isn’t a legal or political norm that Obama didn’t violate during his time in office. Reporters were spied on. So were Republicans. The IRS and the FBI were used to target political opponents. A man was sent to jail for making a YouTube video. The DOJ was used to go after folks who mocked Obama.

After eight years of political terror, the Democrats have settled into accusing their political opponents of treason and demanding their imprisonment, everything from intimidation to death threats to attempted murder, and trying to destroy a Supreme Court nominee based on the most baseless allegations.

This is what leftists have done to our political norms. And what enrages them about Kavanaugh is not any feigned concern for our political norms, but that our norms survived their tantrums and dirty tricks.

To Hell with them, too. If they want to see anger, let them keep right on. They just might find out eventually that “Kill ’em all, let God sort ’em out” ain’t just a bumper sticker anymore.

Share

Ignorance, or malice?

Explaining things to dumbasses.

The Senate was always intended to represent the states, not the people and, as such, its equal membership across the states makes sense. It is not that the people are represented unequally in the Senate, it is that they are not supposed to be represented in that way.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist 62, “the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty.” The Senate he helped create did both, representing the states as states, while reflecting and preserving the balance of federalism struck at the constitutional convention.

The Senate did exactly what it was designed to do until the populist progressives last altered its makeup in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment. There were some problems with the old system, in which state legislatures elected U.S. senators, and increasing deadlocks around the turn of the 20th century meant that seats went unfilled more frequently. But rather than fixing that system, progressives abolished it and made the Senate a mal-apportioned version of the House by making its members elected by the people directly.

This, perhaps, is the root of the problem. Changing to popular election makes the Senate look no different from one of the state senates, where voters elect state senators from districts that, while larger than state house districts, are nonetheless equal in size. The change in electoral method has made us forget the Senate’s purpose of representing the states as political entities, not merely as oversized districts.

The results have been clear. Since 1913, power has flowed steadily away from state capitals and toward Washington, D.C. The Senate, in this respect, has worked in Democrats’ favor for 100 years as the former bulwark of federalism is now subject to the same centralizing trends as the House and the presidency. In a nation that is increasingly diverse, the trend should be the opposite, with states gaining more power from the central government so that the people need not be governed by one-size-fits-all legislation. The only change the Senate needs is returning it to its intended purpose as the representative of the states.

A Senate in which states are represented equally is not broken. If reporters and pundits have deficiencies in their civics education, that is not the fault of the Senate, and neither is it the Senate’s fault that Democrats have not held a majority since January 2015. Four years’ absence from power is not a structural defect; it is a flaw in the quality of their Senate candidates. Instead of tearing down institutions, Democrats should gain power the old-fashioned way: by nominating candidates who can win elections.

Which is their whole problem: not enough of us are either brainwashed enough, stupid enough, or cowardly enough to sit back and humbly accept the burdensome yoke of communist tyranny. Not yet, anyway. Meanwhile, half of the dimbulb Left doesn’t have the vaguest clue about the hows, whys, and wherefores of American government. And the other half is violently, unalterably opposed to it, and hate it worse than cancer.

Fundamental transformation update! Walsh cuts right to the chase:

Hillary Clinton, the most vengeful, spiteful loser in the history of American electoral politics, has abandoned the Left’s always deceptive, now evanescent call for “civility.” She insists there can be no civility between the parties until the Democrats are restored to power—and, by extension, the Republicans are vanquished.

What Hillary Clinton and her allies are really calling for is not civility, but submission. Like True Believers everywhere, theirs is a Manichean view of the world in which one side is wholly and manifestly good, the other deplorably and irredeemably evil. There can be no victory but total victory, no matter how long the struggle takes. After all, “there is only the fight.”

Short of civil war, there’s a clear solution to this two-state problem, and it’s been available from the beginning: federalism. The Left’s drive to diminish the power of the states and to consolidate power at the federal level is the reason why it hates the Senate and the Electoral College. The bulk of Hillary’s popular-vote margin came in California, where every vote for her beyond a one-vote majority in a winner-take-all state was wasted. The irony is that as long as Democrats flock together along the coasts, they’ll continue losing.

So their endgame is clear: the effective abolition of the states for all national political purposes. Talk about “fundamental change.” Because when you cut away all the boilerplate and the verbiage, the mock-piety and pretend horror, and strip the battle down to its essentials, what’s left is this: will the United States remain, as its founders intended, a federal republic, or will it become something more akin to a plebiscitary democracy, in which all important questions are decided in the heat and passion of the moment?

Actually, they aren’t any too interested in democracy either, unless it’s the sham, rigged variety wherein the dictator always takes a hundred and twenty percent of the votes and is the only one on the ballot, his prospective opponents having all been murdered or jailed. Or, say, like Philadelphia back in Comrade Barrack’s day.

Share

Burn in Hell, loser(s)

I missed out on commemorating this most joyous anniversary last week.

Fifty-one years-ago this week, Ernesto “Che” Guevara got a major dose of his own medicine. Without trial, he was declared a murderer, stood against a wall, and shot. If the saying “What goes around comes around” ever fit, it’s here.

“When you saw the beaming look on Che’s face as his victims were tied to the stake and blasted apart by the firing squad,” said a former Cuban political prisoner to this writer, “you saw there was something seriously, seriously wrong with Che Guevara.”

The one genuine “accomplishment” in Che Guevara’s life was the mass-murder of defenseless men and boys. Under his own gun dozens died. Under his orders thousands crumpled. At everything else, Che Guevara failed abysmally, even risibly. For instance, during his Bolivian “guerrilla” campaign, Che split his forces whereupon they got hopelessly lost and bumbled around, half-starved, half-clothed and half-shod, without any contact with each other for six months before being wiped out. They didn’t even have WWII vintage walkie-talkies to communicate and seemed incapable of applying a compass reading to a map. They spent much of the time walking in circles and were usually within a mile of each other. During this blundering they often engaged in ferocious firefights against each other.

“You hate to laugh at anything associated with Che, who murdered so many,” says Felix Rodriguez, the Cuban-American CIA officer who played a key role in tracking him down in Bolivia. “But when it comes to Che as “guerrilla” you simply can’t help but guffaw.”

So, for many, the question remains: how did such an incurable doofus, sadist and epic idiot attain such iconic status?

Well, essentially, because all Leftists are moronic shitstains nursing violent revenge fantasies against everyone who is more successful, more talented, more courageous, more intelligent, and more worthwhile human beings generally than they’ll ever be. Via Ed, Tim Blair takes the ball and runs with it, by linking the socialists’ standard-issue fever-dreams of mass slaughter as embodied by the hideous and despicable Che to another murderous commie Progtard.

I repeat: burn in Hell, every last demonic man Jack of youse.

Share

White on white

Re the hilarious irony attendant to the previous post, Porter spells it out for the obtuse.

The truth is if you’re not really looking you won’t find much about Portland in which to take offense. It’s when you tune into the ambient noise that the inputs become ugly. That’s because Portland isn’t just a liberal town. It’s a red or dead one. It’s a place where Maoists, Bolsheviks, and Khmer Rouge can be safely nurtured without fear of hostile intrusion by humanity.

What that means in practice is that a visitor from Earth is as likely to see a lunatic woman stepping over homeless on the sidewalk while shrieking to no one about heartless Trump, as they are a riot of unemployed black-clad baristas unselfconsciously smashing the city’s progressive retail outlets. I have seen both.

That’s why I found the following two tweet-embedded videos so unsurprising.

In them, antifa takes it upon themselves to commandeer a public intersection and scream racial profanities at confused or disobedient motorists. By racial profanities, I obviously mean anti-white.

In the first video, an obese middle-aged moron whose legs can not be seen because they are camouflaged in cut-off shorts confronts a driver who is so fascist that he actually tried to drive on public streets. Understandably enraged, the communist plumbs the vast empty expanse of his brain for the most vile insult he can imagine to hurl. And there it was.

You’re a Little Whitey, Aren’t Ya?

I hope liberal parents will be content in the knowledge of their 1.3 children suffering that sneer for a lifetime.

Though perhaps realizing he had unerringly pinned the tale on the Nazi, the perceptive pylon repeated his accusation multiple times. White! White! White! You’re White! screamed the white.

I understand there is no more hideous pejorative to the leftist mind, but to the swarms of extraterrestrials that cloud the Oregon skies, this act of militant idio-supremacist moral preening must seem like ample enough reason to turn this planet into a bauxite mine, and move on to more intelligent locales.

While white men screaming “white man!” at other white men as an insult is a stupidity difficult to exceed, his ‘comrades’ certainly weren’t dissuaded from the attempt. In another intersection hijacking, an elderly driver induced antifa’s crusaders to attack his car at not one but two traffic lights. Would you guess this attack was triggered by the driver dragging Tom Robinson by the neck to a lynching tree? Well, it was nearly that bad: he was dragging his own old white body through a green light. And that, Atticus Lenin, is even more raysis.

In the sidebar Tweets, he elaborates:


And then a commenter unleashes this astute observation:

The older I get, the more I see it as a spiritual problem. I heard a talk by a priest where he describes a consistently unnecessary negative attitude as a mindset that is only different in degree from those in hell.

These people are practicing for hell and it’s terrifying. From a human perspective, I do legitimately pity them, and I’m not being sarcastic. Their internal world is entirely thirst, itch, dryness, insecurity, bitterness, self loathing. Even their jokes aren’t really jokes, just mean spirited punchlines lacking either structure or joy.

That doesn’t excuse the need to restore order and restrain their violence by a long shot. You can’t have violence running rampant. But it’s all to say it’s a spiritual problem at heart. Argument by itself is not going to work. This is why we’ve failed reaching them, at least in part. They’re looking for meaning, and lower taxes and slogans (but libertarian or conservative) is not going to cut it.

Nothing is. Well, except maybe actual edged weapons. And projectile types, too. And maybe, at some further point, canister, grapeshot, and a few good helpings of time-on-target. Which is probably a good thing, since it’s become nigh impossible to parody them, and they’re so self-righteously thick they’re oblivious to mockery.

Share

It’s a white thing

And I don’t want to understand.



The thug yelling “Yeah, you little white motherf**ker. Yeah, you’re a f**king whitey, a little whitey, aren’t you?” appears to be a “f**king whitey” himself, at least to judge from his pasty white calves. So are most of the other protesters. But, rather in the way all those white ladies on “The View” kept going on about “old white Republican men” during the Kavanaugh business, for an increasing number of white people, sneering at your fellow white people as “white people” is the preferred epithet. This is sad and at one level psychologically unhealthy – like living in a ward full of self-proclaimed Napoleons laughing at the one guy who isn’t. But on the other hand it shows diversity is now so deeply ingrained that white folks can celebrate it all by themselves.

As the scenes from Portland remind us, the cold civil war – growing hotter by the day – is really between two classes of white people, even if one of them insists on pretending it isn’t.

Well, sure, but they’re the GOOD ones, see. But if that isn’t ludicrous enough for ya:

Perhaps white people who prefer not to identify as white people could become whxte people – in the same way that a remarkable number of UK businesses are now using the word “womxn”:

Companies have come under fire for using the word “womxn” instead of “woman,” after worrying the latter word excludes transgender people.

Not so long ago, in the days of “sex changes”, the point about becoming a woman was to become a woman. But now trans-women are a thing unto themselves, so the term “woman” is exclusionary. “I am woman, hear me…pipe down about it in case everyone thinks I’m being non-binary-phobic.”

A squirrel can identify as an emotional support animal, a white man can identify as a person of color, but a woman can no longer identify as a woman because that’s transphobic. One begins to detect among some of the chippier feminists a faint sense that this trans thing is a reverse phallocentric takeover of the entire woman business.

I don’t have a squirrel in this fight, but the above three stories are not the daily news churn of a healthy society.

Oh, great. Just when I was finally getting used to “wymyn” and “xyr” and all.

Share

Weak tea

Lefty’s next move.

Fresh off getting their britches kicked over the Kavanaugh nomination, the American left has come up with yet another scheme to stymie the GOP and strangle the MAGA program in its cradle.

This is the product of John Burton, an Obama acolyte and political activist who, harnessing the crowdsourcing process (the “Wiki effect”), has signed up an army of amateur volunteers to examine the records of dozens of vulnerable GOP candidates with the intention of publicizing these findings in a string of October surprises.

Burton is an ex-banker who worked for the Obama campaign as an opposition researcher. After Donald Trump was elected, he joined the “Resistance,” according to his own words, out of guilt that he’d allowed Trump to be elected.

He immediately organized a telephone campaign in which, shortly after the inauguration, 78,000 callers contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee demanding an investigation into “Russian collusion.” Some sources give him credit for the Mueller investigation, which is arguable, to say the least.

Burton then applied himself to organizing “Citizen Strong,” a 501(c)(4) “grassroots” outfit dedicated to ending the Trump menace. Anticipating the 2018 elections, he has organized 16,000 volunteers who have been searching the net for “damaging material” on GOP candidates. Citizen Strong is targeting three Senate races, 22 House races, and 133 state legislative races in 13 states. The effort has been financed by what even his supporters call “dark money.” (It should also be mentioned that one of the individuals involved is an evident Russian immigrant named “Tanya.” Another is named “Vlad.” You’d really think they’d know better.)

The purpose is to unleash all this material prior to November 6, throwing GOP electoral efforts into chaos and delivering the seats in contention to the Dems.

Oh noes, whatever shall we DO?

A few examples of Citizen Strong’s exposés have already been released (though nothing on the chief target, Dana Rohrabacher, accused of – you guessed it – Russian collusion). They are less than world-shattering. We’ve been informed that the wife of Wisconsin state rep. Tyler Vorpagel, who has voted for welfare reform, was collecting unemployment while working on his campaign!!! It may come as news to J.P. Morgan alumnus Burton – as well as his Russian comrades-in-arms – that unemployment compensation is not welfare. It’s a form of insurance, paid for by workers while employed. We can be sure that Wisconsin’s middle- and working-class voters will know the difference.

Similarly, Representatives Mike Bost of Illinois and Dave Schweikert of Arizona will be pilloried for staying at Ritz-Carltons or the Waldorf while traveling – a silly piece of class warfare that might agitate Occupy activists but few others. Political offices do come with some privileges. This should be news to nobody.

The rest is of much the same tenor – all of it reaching, exaggerated, and essentially empty. Citizen Strong may have come up with something earth-shattering, but thus far, there’s no sign of it. Simply repeating “Blasey Ford” and underlining that this is the same type of operation – which it is – should negate the bulk of it. Mentioning such names as “McCabe,” “Strzok,” and “Page” would not be out of place.

It almost seems as if they’re so dispirited they’re just phoning it in now. If this is all they have, no wonder so many of them are pushing so hard for violent revolution. But the one thing we know for sure?

We can rest assured that there will be plenty more coming.

Yep. They’ll never stop; no matter how pathetic their efforts become, no matter how low they stoop, they’ll always find a way to stoop even lower.

Too bad for them that there’s no unseeing the ugliness and contempt for the country and its Normals that they’ve shown us the last two years. This sort of hamhanded, feeble sleaze—and sheer batshit lunacy, of course—is now all they have left. Sprinkle that with the suffocating stench of eau de loser wafting off of them, and…well, sorry, but I don’t see it changing any minds.

Share

Depends on what the meaning of “mob” is

Uh oh, looks like shitlibs have decided on another word we’re not allowed to use anymore.

There is nothing wrong with “fighting” in politics. We don’t need to be hypersensitive about the metaphorical excesses of partisanship (unless it’s Donald Trump or Sarah Palin — then we must take it literally, seriously, and hysterically). But the problem is that Democrats have a bad habit of acting as if every political setback they experience is caused by some act of criminality. This instigates lots people to act like a bunch of children—or worse.

When Democrats lose the House, it’s because of mythical unilateral gerrymandering or mythical mass-voter suppression. When they lose the Senate, the system suddenly becomes an antiquated relic of the 1700s. When they lose the Supreme Court, there is a “legitimacy crisis.” When they lost the 2000 election, it was stolen by the Supreme Court. In 2004, George W. Bush rigged the election in Ohio. When Democrats lost in 2016, those omnipotent Russians and the unfair Electoral College snatched the office from its preordained owner.

The Republican Senate majority “cheated” Obama out of a seat. The Republicans are “packing” the court by seating the same number of justices Barack Obama did. Every legislative action that fails to comport with liberal thinking is to them an apocalyptic event and the end of “democracy.”

If all of this were true, the only question is: why aren’t more people joining a mob? If your government is stealing your country, why wouldn’t you embrace boorishness, or even violence?

Yet Democrats still act perplexed by the backlash. Even now the mob within their ranks is being cast, predictably, as a conservative fiction. “Republicans Seize On ‘Angry Mob’ Mantra To Keep Their Midterm Base Fired Up,” says NPR, and so on. CNN insists that it’s a normal, everyday demonstration of free expression to chase politicians’ wives out of public places. You may not use the word “mob” in their presence.

“The media’s insistence that mob action & intimidation tactics have not been deployed by the left here — stuff that goes well beyond the normal parameters of acceptable protest — is pure gaslighting,” Guy Benson recently noted. “Especially as major national Democrats shrug it off or even egg it on.”

No, it’s not the Parisian mob. It’s more like one of those illiberal campus mobs that attempt, often successfully, to shut down debate. A mob is a disorderly crowd of people who have the intent “of causing trouble or violence.” So, for example, that means people who interrupt lawful proceedings, or people who wildly bang on the Supreme Court doors when a vote doesn’t go their way, or people who surround politicians (and their families) and chase them out of public places like restaurants, or people who join groups that smear other Americans without evidence, and those who try to undermine the rule of law through intimidation.

Well, see, it’s diff’runt when they do it. Just like always.

But you just gotta love it anyway. Just a little bit of pushback, a little bit of showing fight, and all of a sudden they’re flipping their wigs completely—wreaking violent mayhem when they can get away with several of them sucker-punching some lone wolf and running away, curling into a fetal ball and crying themselves comatose when they can’t.

But if you think this is funny—and it is—just wait til we REALLY start punching back…twice as hard.

Civility? Nah update! Schlichter has the right idea:

I liked it when the howling loonies started pounding on the bronze doors of the Supreme Court like Brett Kavanaugh was totally going to open them up and invite the freaks in to air their many stupid grievances over a hot cup of Too Damn Bad. I also liked it when Lindsey Graham dissed that silly shrieking harpy as he adjusted his tie and smirked. And I liked it when Jesse Kelly channeled Andrew Breitbart by heading down to the protest with a t-shirt that said“Hands Off My Uterus.” I liked a lot of things about last week, and all of them involved liberal jerks being unhappy.

Their pain feeds my soul.

Now, in the wake of our total victory over the forces of whiny, stupid evil – I’m trying to think of another term to describe people who think the hysterical chicks in The Crucible were the good guys and that Atticus Finch was the bad guy – some voices on the right are cautioning us to be magnanimous. To not be sore winners. To extend a hand of friendship to those who oppose us.

Oh, I’m extending a hand, but only part of one. A single finger. Guess which one.

This is not the time to go back to the same limp, listless conservatism that got us here in the first place. My new book Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy talks a lot about how the same Conservative, Inc., goofs who want us to surrender now that we’ve won got us here by failing to understand what they were up against in the Before Trump era, when nice guys like Mitt the Cancer-Causing Dog Torturer literally finished last. They were blind out of professional courtesy; the looney left are fellow members of the same elite class, and our conservativish betters didn’t want to rock the boat – or donor-filled cruise ship, as it were.

Ahoy, losers – we’re woke and free of your fussy influence. We have crushed our enemies and driven them before us, and now we hear the sweet music that is the lamentation of the women-identifying persons. You Never Trumpers who used to talk a big game about conservative success to milk the marks now look upon our success and despair. We look at the festival of insanity and choose to giggle. 

Damn straight. Let them send their mobs right on; we got the means to deal with ’em when the time comes. In the meantime, we’ll just keep right on laughing—and winning.

“It’s not only the right who will bleed” update! Careful what you wish for, shitlibs.

The Democrats have overtly committed to violence. If we needed further evidence, we need only look at what Antifa did in Portland the other day, where the police faded away, ceding the streets to Antifa, whose members blocked streets and ordered traffic and pedestrians to obey, for no other purpose than to show that they must be obeyed. Those who didn’t were hit with batons. We’ve all seen the video of a septuagenarian trying to get away and being punished. Now the Democrats who control Portland are considering charges against him…

Dick Durbin, oleaginous Democratic senator on the Judiciary Committee, described the protesters at the Kavanaugh nomination hearings as the “sounds of democracy.” The left’s collective tantrum had nothing to do with democracy. It had everything to do with intimidation and violence.

Everyone knows that Maxine Waters has been calling for violence since the day Donald Trump took office. The left has always been violent. It’s only now that the leftists admit it. No…now, they advocate for it.

It bears repeating that Democrats, unable to win an argument on the merits, or obtain power through elections, are now calling for violence. I include Antifa when I discuss the Democrats because Antifa is their private militia. The media are their propaganda arm.

To be perfectly honest, I think the left is right. It’s time we exercised our “voices of democracy” and did some “kicking,” as well as displayed a little “incivility.” I don’t know about you, but if I’m driving down the Yellow Brick Road, and Antifa blocks my legal access or right to proceed, I will be polite and make every effort to go around as I go on my way. But, should one of those Halloween costume-wearing, tough-guy militia members get in my way and get a “brush back,” I’m not going to lose any sleep. I’ll make the damages up on the GoFundMe account.

The really great thing about all this is, the more Real Americans see this insanity, the more votes it will cost the Democrat Socialists.

Mob rules update! A cautionary note:

The rhetoricians of violence, intimidation, and harassment may be stupid – they were certainly self-deluded enough to lose “the most winnable presidential campaign in history” – but they’re not stupid enough to believe that no one will take their exhortations literally. When the eruptions of left-wing mob behavior are as numerous, as public, and as well documented as they’ve been, there can be no serious doubt that that’s exactly what’s happening. It started on Inauguration Day. It’s only grown worse since then.

We have to assume that they know what they’re doing. We have to assume that they intend the consequences. And we have to allow them no smallest, thinnest shred of concealment from the odium they’ve earned. They must be made to wear it – in some cases, all the way to prison. What else, pray tell, are laws against incitement to riot meant for?

A few brassy persons on the Right have said things to the effect that if a real civil war should erupt, the Right will prevail, because “we have all the guns.” This is foolishness on a potentially catastrophic level. Guns don’t matter nearly as much as the willingness to accept risks to self and loved ones, or the will to fight and win regardless of the cost. What evidence do we have that the Right is adequately supplied with those things? As Right-leaning Americans tend to be rather older than their putative adversaries – men with wives, children, homes, and workplaces to worry about – the matter admits of considerable doubt.

And while we sit here complacent about our preparedness, the chain grows link by link. One end lies in the hands of men and women who are determined to return to power, and never again to be removed from it. The other is connected to the thugs and harassers, and they follow their masters’ exhortations willingly.

Counteraction is required. Perhaps it must be of the sort Mr. “If they bring a knife, we bring a gun” has prescribed for his allegiants. Perhaps something less tawdry will suffice. But we cannot preserve the Republic when only our enemies, would-be totalitarians entirely devoid of scruple determined to regain power at any price, are willing to fight.

Time to pray.

The will of the Right to engage the Left fully is by no means a given; Righty has a lot more to lose from such a war, regardless of the outcome, whereas Lefty has almost nothing at all left. One side will be fighting for an abstraction, an idea; the other, for nothing more than raw, unbridled power. Too, the more hardcore on the Left are arming themselves, and getting real military-type training too.

On the other hand, people will only let themselves be used as punching bags and targets for so long before they lash out. My guess is that Righty is every bit as fed up with Lefty violence against them as they are with, say, the Deep State status quo or merely-verbal mockery from the hate-filled, frothing Left—and those are by no means separate issues. It’s only to be expected that largely comfortable, prosperous, stable people will be reluctant to go to war. As the Left’s provocations become ever more severe, though, that reluctance will likely evaporate.

The upcoming election, along with 2020 (should we make it that far), might just be the last desperate chance at resolving this conflict peacefully. I have serious doubts about just how good a chance that really is.

Share

“We are locked into an existential battle for the future of western civilization”

You may not be interested in culture war. But culture war is interested in you.

I do believe the right has often been guilty of exploiting and weaponizing certain news events or outlier stories, and I wish from the bottom of my heart that I believed this despicable attempt to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life was a bottoming event in our political discourse. But I believe it is “the new normal,” not a bottom, and that the worst manifestations will not be in a Senate Judiciary Committee, or a heated campaign (both of which are bad enough), but will be in our businesses, our lives, and our communities, until these vestiges of cultural Marxism are soundly defeated.

Conservatives have claimed (rightly) for some time that it would be quite difficult to win the war on terror if we could not label it and identify it for what it is – Islamic jihadism. I would say that right now, in the present context, conservatives will have a very difficult time surviving in this culture if we cannot identify, accurately, the battle in which we find ourselves. Well-meaning people of faith frequently comment that we must avoid getting sucked into the culture war. Good luck with that. You’re in it. You’ve been made to care. And no head-in-the-sand-ostrich routine is going to save you now. We are locked into an existential battle for the future of western civilization. A romantic clinging to the idea of neutrality, denying the antithetical frameworks by which both sides see the human person, the human condition, and the nature of a free society, will lead to one side’s victory, and the other side’s annihilation. That is the reality in which we now live.

It would be nice if conservatives of faith had some support in the church, that allegedly spiritual institution of Christian community, doctrine, and practice. If you want to know what the church will look like in 3-5 years, look at what the culture is doing now. If you want to know what the culture looked like 3-5 years ago, look at the church now. From all but complete outliers in Rome and evangelicalism, the Christian church is in the theology of capitulation business now, desperate to fit in, desperate to be accepted by Vanity Fair, and oblivious to the fact that no amount of surrender is going to prove sufficient. Non-churched leftists are completely comfortable calling their ideology “leftism” or “progressivism.” The cultural pacifists that fill today’s pulpits lack the courage to even self-identify for the humanism-soaked sponges that they are. Christians, you are all alone if you are looking for the church to defend your cause, mission, and purpose. I don’t blame unbelievers for laughing at the latest screed that comes from today’s emasculated church; I do blame believers for not doing so.

My despair has come from the realization that our divide in this country is not merely sociological, that the other side is playing for keeps, and will stop at nothing to win. It is exacerbated by the realization that potential courageous opposition – the church – is asleep at the wheel. And my turmoil is unresolved by the realization that the tactics we will face as a remnant defending western civilization and the American experiment in the decades ahead will not, and cannot, be reciprocated by our own side. If we forfeit a quest for civility and decency, we will have already lost.

And that is where we find ourselves. A large percentage of the American population, enterprising, traditional, law-abiding, and respectful of social norms, under persecution from an extremist foe which has actually subverted the mainstream of American leftism. And that large percentage of the American population will spend the next period of time realizing the degree to which they are under assault, and then deciding how they wish to respond.

As for me and my house, we will do our very best to love each other, to love our neighbors, to grow our businesses, and to build community in the places that we live. We will defend ourselves against slanderous accusations. We will fight like mad for the causes we believe in. And we will try to live our lives above reproach.

But in engaging those who would prefer we be squashed, silenced, and ruined, we will not seek to squash, silence, or ruin them. And it is in that final commitment, that we may just be sowing the seeds of our own destruction.

You certainly are; as with their Muslim allies-of-convenience, they view your rationality, your decency, your humanity, and your forbearance as weaknesses to be exploited. To adapt another phrase: we don’t have to like it. We just have to win it. It may be a crying shame. It’s also just the way it is.

I’d take issue with his assertion that Christianity is “asleep at the wheel,” though. A dismaying percentage of mainstream congregations and their leadership, both Protestant and Catholic, are actively lurching Left, and have been for a long time now. Christianity is another bedrock Western institution that has been successfully infiltrated and co-opted by the Left for the purpose of destroying it. It’s possible that it may be restored to its former glory and influence. But the war will have to be won first—and that will require unstinting effort, free of reservation or restraint, using tactics every bit as ugly as the hateful villains we’re fighting.

Share

Declaration of intent to double-down

Because the crazy we’ve seen over the last two years, having reached a scalding supernova with the Kavanaugh Krapfest, hasn’t been NEARLY batshit loony enough.

Politico “After failing to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Democrats wonder if it’s time to be more ruthless.”

No, really; it would seem that, against all odds and reason, they’re actually serious. Aesop, needless to say, is on it.

Seriously, Sh*tForBrains Libtards, last warning:

Make one move in that direction, and this is where your party ends…

Same day. Hand to heaven.

You will be hunted for sport, tortured for pleasure, and dissected, alive, for practice.
And then, your families, lest the error multiply.

You’re not as smart as feral hogs, not as hard to find as deer, and not as wary as bear, all of whose heads decorate legions of trophy walls from coast to coast. You’ll last about a New York minute, which is ironically fitting.

Nobody’s going to give you a proportional response, they’re going to pay you back 1000:1 at minimum, and most likely, simply decide that you’re all a luxury we can no longer afford.

You’re going to start disappearing in batches, and your heads are going to be used as decorations in the town square. People will tell their grandkids about how you all went suddenly and completely extinct, and then your final resting places will, likely as not, be roadside ditches as you flee, in scenes reminiscent of the Highway To Hell from Kuwait City to Baghdad circa 1991. (And FTR, Canada doesn’t want you, and Mexico will eat you for lunch, and those are the friendliest responses to your would-be refugee status. Cuba is liable to just sink your rafts at sea, and let sharks and crabs solve that problem without letting it get to their shores.) What happens to you will be used to frighten children around campfires for decades, and then you’ll be completely forgotten.

And everyone else will nod their head, cluck their tongues, and mutter something like “Fucked around and found out…”

He’s just getting warmed up, pulling it all together with this:

You might want to call that party off before it starts. Because once it does, it’s not going to be half-assed: it’s going to be for keeps. And you’re going to get sorted out once and for all.

Too bad they ain’t listening. They really do seem to believe that there’s a market out there for even more puerile, obnoxious, shit-witted tantrums, hissy fits, disruptions, harrassment, and random violence.

Also, note well: this is official representatives of the Democrat-Socialist Party who are talking about being “more ruthless,” not their semi-coherent, drooling, slope-shouldered, asylum-escapee footsoldiers. The Party apparatchiki are supposed to be the reasonable ones—the grownups, the ones with careers, bank accounts, and secure positions invested and therefore at least some motivation to resist careening off the rails entirely. They’re supposed to be the brakemen on Krazy Train, the ones holding the others back, preventing the fringe characters from taking a flying leap right over the edge.

“More ruthless”? “MORE”? Somebody needs to ask Steve Scalise about that one. Or Mrs Rand Paul, at the very least.

Update! Hillary!™ really is the gift that keeps on giving, ain’t she?

In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton said it’s time for the left to stop being civil and take the gloves off.

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” she said. “That’s why I believe if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then the only thing the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”

Wow. I’m just…wow. I mean…WOW.

Her remarks come just a day after Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was ceremonially sworn in to serve at the highest court in the land following a weeks-long campaign by leftists to paint him as a serial gang rapist. While he was taking the official oath of office on Saturday, protestors stormed the Supreme Court building and banged on the doors in an effort to force them open. Several Republican senators who supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation have received death threats, have had their home addresses published online, and been chased out of restaurants.

So the question remains: What civility do liberals have left to abandon? How can the left get any less civil than they already are without breaking into open street riots? Does this mean instead of threatening violence liberals should actually follow through and harm those who disagree with them?

Umm, maybe you didn’t notice, but both of those things—riots, and the escalation from mouthy threats to actual acts of violence—have already happened, you know. They’ve been going on for two years now, actually. Which sad, sorry fact brings us ’round to this:

Take the example of Hillary Clinton. In the very first sentence in her new scaremongering essay, which makes the case that America’s “democratic institutions and traditions are under siege,” she attacks our democratic institutions and traditions. “It’s been nearly two years since Donald Trump won enough Electoral College votes to become president of the United States,” the piece begins.

The intimation, of course, widely shared by the mainstream left, is that Trump isn’t a legitimate president even though he won the election in the exact same way every other president in U.S. history has ever won election. According to our long-held democratic institutions and traditions, you become president through the Electoral College, not the non-existent popular vote.

So when Clinton, or writers at Vox, or The Atlantic, or Politico, or new liberal favorite Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, say it’s “well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic,” you’re either tragically ignorant about our system or cynically delegitimizing it. Or maybe it’s both.

The Electoral College isn’t ornamental; it exists to undercut the tyranny of direct democracy and ensure the entire nation is represented in national elections. When you attack it, you’re not condemning Trump, you are, in a very palpable way, attacking a core idea that girds much of our governance.

With this in mind, it’s not surprising that the anti-majoritarian Senate is also suddenly problematic for many Democrats. When a NBC reporter, commenting on a Washington Post article, says “the idea that North Dakota and New York get the same representation in the Senate has to change,” he’s probably not ignorant about why the Founders implemented proportional voting, or why there is a difference between the House and Senate, or why the Tenth Amendment exists. He simply favors a system he thinks would allow liberals to force others to accept his preferred policies.

How many times did a Democrat even mention the Constitution during the Kavanaugh hearings? I imagine, if we’re lucky, a perfunctory handful. Trump, far more than the previous administration, has strengthened proper separations of power. One of the ways he’s done it is by his judicial appointments. And Democrats’ inability to make any distinction between the neutral processes of governing and their partisan goals makes them, to this point, a far bigger threat to constitutional norms than the president.

The Constitution, like just about everything else, is brought up by them only for purposes of undermining it further.

Share

Bought and paid for

And very, very organized.

I started following the money for the “resistance” when it was born, hours after Election Day 2016. I have organized my findings in a spreadsheet I have made public. At least 50 of the largest organizations that participated as “partners” in the Jan. 21, 2017, Women’s March had received grants from Mr. Soros’s Open Society Foundations or similar funds in the “House of Soros,” as his philanthropic empire was once called internally. The number of Soros-backed partners has grown to at least 80. At least 20 of the largest groups that led the Saturday anti-Kavanaugh protests have been Open Society grantees.

On Saturday I also studied the fine print on the signs as protesters waved them defiantly at the Capitol and the high court. They came from a familiar list of Democratic interest groups that have received millions from Mr. Soros: the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Center for Popular Democracy, Human Rights Campaign and on and on. MoveOn.org, a Democratic organizing and lobbying group founded with Soros money, sent its army of partisan followers regular missives that led them to a Google form to ask for train tickets and places to stay.

Under a ginkgo tree on the East Lawn of the Capitol, Center for Popular Democracy field marshals put protesters through a “training” Saturday morning. “Are you ready to be arrested?” she asks. “Yes!” the crowd shouts, although one woman asks quietly: “For what?”

“If not,” the field marshal orders, “stand in line for the visitor’s gallery so an experienced protester can go inside and yell.” One organizer hands out tickets to the Senate visitors gallery for the express purpose of violating the law. That they did—the proceedings were repeatedly interrupted by shrieks from the gallery.

MoveOn.org wrote a guide, “How to Bird Dog”—harass officials in public places—in the spring of 2017, in preparation for town-hall meetings during a congressional recess. Over the past year, I have dialed in to MoveOn.org’s Sunday evening phone calls where they plan the operations and tell their “troublemakers” how to corner lawmakers. I still get alerts for their planning sessions. The last ones have been to #stopKavanaugh.

The treasonous manipulations of the nefarious Nazi collaborator and international criminal Soros need to be stopped, permanently, by any means at all. Period. As long as he’s at large and free to work his Machiavellian schemes, liberty and Constitutional government will be endangered.

Share

Never NeverTrump

Once a cuck traitor, always a cuck traitor.

For two years, NeverTrump has united with the Left to sabotage Trump’s presidency, smear congressional Republicans who support him, and ridicule Trump voters. Led by Bill Kristol, the editor-at-large-and-getting-larger of the Weekly Standard, this group is as culpable as the news media and Democratic politicians for the smoldering hellscape that now is American politics.

NeverTrump has bolstered the sham special counsel probe into phony claims of election collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin; they have joined the Left on several occasions to demand that the president be removed from office—in late August, Stephens insisted the president’s actions met the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard for impeachment. They mock Trump supporters with the childish, “But, Gorsuch!” mantra at every presidential misstep, an insult aimed at Americans who voted for Trump singularly out of concern about the future composition of the Supreme Court.

Many NeverTrumpers including National Review’s Goldberg and David French have helped legitimize Michael Avenatti, the creepy porn lawyer also trying to take down Kavanaugh. The president has been compared to Adolf Hitler and Mussolini by this crowd, while they compare themselves to courageous dissidents who fought communism. “Expert” Tom Nichols claimed Trump voters are ruining the country, and the Washington Post’s reprehensible Jennifer Rubin condoned violence against Trump aides, including Sarah Sanders, the first mother to serve as White House press secretary.

On every issue, big and small, NeverTrump worked in lockstep with the media, Hollywood and the Democratic Party to undermine Trump’s presidency and damage anyone aligned with him.

There are still NeverTrump holdouts. Kristol, Nichols, Rubin and Boot are not just opposing Kavanaugh’s nomination but urging people to vote for Democrats this fall, which would empower the very thugs who are leading this assault on our political system and our democracy. Nichols argued that Kavanaugh’s conduct is worse than the Democrats, and accused him of buying into conspiracy theories. So NeverTrumper nutters still abound.

But their numbers are shrinking, and it’s only a matter of time before they turn on each other. That will be a gratifying scene to watch unfold. Sadly, the pile of post-2016 political wreckage lies all around us, with Brett Kavanaugh now in the center of the debris. And NeverTrump, even those now seeking atonement, is as responsible for this as anyone.

I always said I considered Vichy GOPers to be even more reprehensible than the Democrat Socialists. Admittedly, some are worse than others; even Kurt Schlichter, after all, was a NeverTrumper early on. The likes of Rubin, Kristol, Goldberg, and French, and Boot, however, are beyond redemption, and needn’t look for leniency or forgiveness from me. Not that they’d care about such a thing, of course.

Rubin, for one, was never really a conservative anyway; she was one of a handful of liberals terrified by 9/11 who embraced the neocon War On Something Or Other and has slowly slid back into liberal-“moderate” irrelevance since, as the threat to her personally seems to have receded. The others seem to be burdened with a smug, sanctimonious sense of being part of an “elite” which causes them to recoil in horror at Trump’s “obnoxiousness,” his “rudeness” and “coarseness,” his cantankerous eagerness to go to the mattresses in bare-knuckle, down-and-dirty battle with his (our) enemies. Their preference for losing in a genteel fashion rather than risk winning by involving themselves in a vulgar brawl long ago rendered them useless and obsolete. Their obvious disdain for the ill-bred, ignorant hoi polloi who support Trump is no less offensive than the Left’s always has been.

And all that makes them something perhaps even more damaged, crippled, and contemptible than being merely “traitors,” at least in the current intoxicating climate of WINNING: it makes them losers. Sore losers, at that. They can do their sniffing and grumbling from the sidelines now; they’re as far removed from the great struggle to reclaim and restore this country as Julius Caesar’s ghost is, and nothing they say or do matters even slightly to anybody but themselves. They’ve reduced themselves to spectators now, and the pain that surely causes them is no more than their just deserts.

Share

Force and will

Methinks he might be a mite too optimistic about the likelihood of the Left ever accepting defeat.

Plenty has been written about the absurdity of running a republic by way of whisper campaigns, uncorroborated smears, and malicious innuendo. There is no need to rehash the mistreatment—some of it irrevocably damaging—of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. What’s important to remember is that this will now be the new norm of nomination battles. It marks the inevitable decline of our confirmation process over the last 30 years. I write “inevitable” because as soon as progressivism’s explicit living constitutionalism and implicit legal “realism” became dominant on the Left, the descent of the judiciary committee from respectable judiciousness to partisan bedlam was foreordained.

Our national politics in recent decades has lost its bipartisan consensus. The middle has collapsed, and the Democrats and Republicans are pulling away from one another on the deeper principles of politics, with policy disagreements following in train. The standard and incorrect explanation for this divergence is mere partisan recalcitrance and stubbornness. It is more profound than that.

Truth is, we are polarized now about foundational questions of human nature, constitutionalism, and justice. Our cold civil war and partisan rancor will only end when one party finally wins the argument about these fundamentals in a decisive and conclusive victory and uses that victory to solidify and sustain an enduring electoral coalition for a generation or more. Should such a turn come, the losing side, as has been the case repeatedly in American history, will then be forced to accommodate, regroup, reevaluate, and moderate (we of course have the one glaring historical exception of the Democrat-led secession movement in defense of slavery that led to the tragedy of our hot Civil War in 1860).

The stakes are high right now in American politics. When Michael Anton wrote “The Flight 93 Election” in September 2016, many on the political and intellectual Right objected in strong (and often histrionic) terms. It has been encouraging to watch in recent weeks as independents and moderate Republicans have come to Kavanaugh’s (and, on behalf of Kavanaugh, to Trump’s) defense. The president and his nominee are players in a much larger fight over fundamental questions about who we are as a people and who ought to govern and for what purposes.

Even with these high stakes, all Americans ought to pray fervently and hope fondly that we continue this passionate and spirited national argument as fellow citizens, rather than as enemies. Come what may, each side must abide the consequences of legitimate political victory when and if it comes.

Umm, hate to bring it up and all, but they’ve spent the last two years demonstrating beyond any possible doubt their total unwillingness to do just that, leaving no stone unturned to undo a “legitimate political victory.” As for “enemies,” they’ve openly declared us as their enemies, and have done one hell of a lot of violence to back it up, with many flat promises of more to come. I see no prospect of any sudden change of heart on their part, although I’d certainly love to be proven wrong about that.

Share

“This is a remarkable moment in American life: A man is killing actual living, gurgling, bouncing babies on an industrial scale – and it barely makes the papers”

Steyn reveals what the Kavanaugh fight was really all about, via movie review.

On the day that Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as a judge on the highest court in the land, this new film is as appropriate a choice as any for our Saturday movie date: it was America’s abortion absolutism that drove both the fanatical opposition to Justice Kavanaugh’s nomination and the media blackout on the case of Dr Kermit Gosnell, and their opposition to anyone telling his story. Gosnell opens in movie theaters this coming Friday, but a few days ago The Mark Steyn Club Cruise hosted a special screening with filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer as we sailed through the Gulf of St Lawrence. The audience was profoundly moved. One lady, having worked in a very famous West Coast medical facility, said that Dr Kermit Gosnell’s preferred method of “abortion” – live births – was common there too, and that we were all “complicit”. Another viewer focused on his own profession of anesthetist, and teared up as he recalled the untrained fifteen-year-old who functioned as Gosnell’s and used a handmade color-coded chart to remember what to give whom. In fact, unlike the older women with whom she worked, the teenager had at least some semblance of sympathy for the patients, a rare sighting of human feeling in a building from which it had otherwise fled.

In the course of bringing one Philadelphia “doctor” to trial, almost every person in a position of authority in Pennsylvania cautioned that this case “is not about abortion”. And thus the tale as told by the writers and director Nick Searcy: it starts out as a story not about abortion, but about illegal drugs, and a multi-agency federal/state investigation that leads to a particular inner-city clinic. When they enter, they find a garbage-strewn dump where cats wander in and out of operating rooms defecating freely, where “medical waste” is piled up wherever space can be found, and where the kitchen fridge is filled with dozens of jars containing tiny baby feet preserved as if they were pickled eggs. The doctor arrives with food for his pet turtles, who are treated better than any of the women. “This is normal?” asks Detective Stark (Alonzo Rachel). “I dunno,” says his partner (Dean Cain). “I’ve never been in an abortion clinic before.”

Their curiosity is resented by the bigshot feds from the DEA and the FBI, who don’t want abortion getting in the way of their routine drugs bust. Likewise, the Department of Health has sent along a hatchet-faced nurse to ensure that the raid does not in any way impede the “procedures” being performed at the clinic: No one wants this case to be “about” abortion – not the District Attorney, concerned about the politics of being seen to oppose “reproductive rights”; not the Assistant DA’s own obstetrician or the doctor next door, both of whom refuse to testify; and certainly not the lady judge, who’s more concerned about the welfare of Gosnell’s turtles than of his patients.

Wandering genially through the squalor and degradation is the abortionist himself. Earl Billings is the spitting image of Kermit Gosnell and plays him as an affable black man with a beatific smile and a soft-spoken manner that never rises to any epithet stronger than “Oh, my!” It is a remarkable performance of a man of many contradictions, not least in the strange mix of refined esthetic sensibility and total indifference to minimum hygiene standards: in one memorable scene, he plays Chopin on the parlor piano as millions of fleas swarm up the legs of the cops in the basement below.

If Kermit Gosnell isn’t to be considered the living embodiment of evil—evil incarnate, evil made flesh—then the word truly has no meaning at all. And I say that as someone who is NOT blanketly opposed to all abortions always; I still believe that there are circumstances where they are tragically, sadly necessary, the lesser of two evils. In fact, I have a close friend who was forced to resort to it in an extreme circumstance, when he and his wife…well, that’s a topic for another day, maybe.

And it isn’t relevant to this particular case anyway. Gosnell was a warped, inhuman monster operating not a “clinic” but a real, true chamber of horrors straight out of a B-grade horror flick. That the Abortion At All Costs Left has so deftly swept him under the rug to protect their gruesome sacrament blackens their very souls. And there’s even more sick-making, near-incomprehensible horror throughout the rest of Steyn’s post, if you can believe it.

Share

What are the rules?

Schlichter takes a stab at enumerating ’em, but there really ain’t but one.

Now, the elite insists that the alleged and disputed actions of Brett Kavanaugh as a drunk teen forever bar him from a seat on the Supreme Court. Okay, but then how does the disqualification rule apply to other situations? Let’s take Tex Kennedy. Beto O’Rourke drove drunk as a 26 year old, got busted after nearly killing some people and tried to ditch the scene. Let’s put aside whether he’s lying to the voters about absconding and focus on the glug glug vroom vroom part.

Does an adult DUI disqualify him from the Senate? If not, why not? Why are his undisputed actions less disqualifying than Kavanaugh’s alleged one? If true, both represent, at best, huge misjudgments. Both subordinated the safety and rights of others to the malefactor’s personal desires. Both involved alcohol, but one involved a minor and the other an adult. Why aren’t both disqualified?

Can someone explain the rule to me that makes both Kavanaugh irredeemable and Beto – pardon the expression – the toast of Texas Democrats?

What’s the rule?

Here’s what I think. I think there actually are no rules anymore. I think the elite is so terrified it is losing its power that it is tossing out the foundations of the society it is supposed to organize and manage, that is, the rules. I think our elite actually does not believe in rules, that their attempts at enforcing the rules are merely a grift designed to jam up Normals and provide a way to keep them in line.

Of course it is. Which brings us around to the One Rule: anything, anything at all, that Democrat Socialists or Leftists do=GOOD. Anything, anything at all, that Repubicans or non-Leftists do—even if it’s THE SAME DAMNED THING THE LEFT JUST DID—is BAD. No more, it’s just that simple.

Share

Mob rules

Not just a Black Sabbath album anymore. Unfortunately.

For the first time in history, we have a populace who will not abide by the results of our election process, and its effort to obstruct and destroy is damaging the fabric of our society and the foundation on which this country rests. We have a lawful process in place to address the will of the people, and currently we see the Democrats destroying the institutions we have relied on since our founding to carry out the will of the people. Whether it is the unlawful plots at the FBI and the Justice Department to frame an innocent President Trump, the weaponization of the IRS to silence conservatives, or the theater of the absurd at the confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh, the left’s dirty tactics are now a threat to our liberty and democracy. There is not an institution that has not been impacted. Many of us are asking what institutions we can still trust and rely on.

Since the left has not been able to advance its agenda at the ballot box, its followers rely on activist judges in black robes to advance their radical agenda. It was a process that worked well for them under Clinton and Obama, but now, without Congress or the Executive Branch and with the possible loss of the Supreme Court, they see their grasp on power slipping away, and they have become unhinged. They have openly stated they will stop at nothing in their effort to remove a duly elected president. In an effort to  hang on to power, they are now employing mob rule and character assassination in the halls of Congress, as we witnessed during last week’s congressional hearing.

Thus, it is not enough to denounce the thugs. George Soros, the billionaire funding the assaults and attacks, must be brought to justice for not only inciting violence, not to mention investigated for sedition, a crime we need to begin to take seriously. He and his minions are obstructing the agenda we voted on and one we won. It is imperative that Republicans in office begin to use the term “sedition” in public.

Those who plot the overthrow of the United States as a constitutional republic for a one-world order, as Soros has openly advocated, can no longer be ignored. He and his marching minions must be prosecuted for funding a war waged against our republic, and let it be a warning that we will no longer sit idly by as we watch our country destroyed from within. 

He calls for real Americans to vote the Treasoncrats out en masse in November, and he isn’t wrong to do so. His call to bring the truly, literally evil Soros to justice and resurrect the concept of sedition is also right on. Certainly, a Red Wave that removes large numbers of Democrat Socialist politicians from the halls of power can only be a good thing.

But anybody who thinks the ballot box is going to end—or even slow—the Left’s descent into violent, revolutionary madness is dreaming. They’re only to get worse instead, and harsher measures than the vote will be required to rid ourselves of them, if such is ever to be done at all.

Update! Did I just say Leftist insanity and violence will get worse? You bet it will.

Sen. Rand Paul’s wife on Wednesday demanded that a Democrat take back his comment encouraging activists to “get up in the face of some congresspeople,” and said she now keeps a loaded gun near her bed after Paul was mobbed by protesters this week at an airport.

“Preventing someone from moving forward, thrusting your middle finger in their face, screaming vitriol — is this the way to express concern or enact change?” Kelley Paul wrote in an open letter to Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., condemning the incident. “Or does it only incite unstable people to violence, making them feel that assaulting a person is somehow politically justifiable?”

“I would call on you to retract your statement,” Paul said in the letter. “I would call on you to condemn violence, the leaking of elected officials’ personal addresses (our address was leaked from a Senate directory given only to senators), and the intimidation and threats that are being hurled at them and their families.”

It ain’t gonna happen. Violence is all they have left, and they’ve already demonstrated that they’re too power-crazed to just let it go at being defeated in an election. Bless your heart, Mrs Paul, and your husband’s too, but what we’ve seen so far is only the beginning, I’m afraid.

The New America update! Hinderaker says:

I am sure a lot of Republicans in Washington are upgrading their security systems and making sure they are prepared to defend themselves against crazed Democratic Party activists. This isn’t the America I grew up in, but it is the America we all live in now.

The thing I don’t understand is, why do Democrats like Cory Booker, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer, etc., think they are the only ones who can use violence to advance their cause? Do they not understand what a whirlwind they will unleash if they try to use political violence as a path to power?

They don’t care; they think they’ll win, and the depth of the fanatical hatred that drives them won’t allow them to stand down.

Share

Advise and consent

Damned good advice if you ask me.

There is no office where a person can go to get back his or her good name after a lifetime of effort and achievement is destroyed in a moment by unsubstantiated accusations. But under our system of justice there is a place where an individual can go to seek redress and accountability for accusations that destroy reputation. Judge Kavanaugh, you have spent much of your adult life there – that place is a court of law. Because you are a sitting member of the federal judiciary and may yet be a justice on the United States Supreme Court, you may be disinclined to be a litigant in civil defamation lawsuits. If these are your feelings, I urge you to reconsider.

As you well know, the law provides that republishers of unsubstantiated, false accusations are liable for such accusations even when initially made by others if they republish those accusations with a reckless disregard for truth or falsity. Since at least 1896, our courts have recognized the legal maxim that “talebearers are as bad as talemakers” in the eyes of the law.

Your list is long. NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, USA Today, The New Yorker, and the parade of individuals of all stripes who cannot resist the lure of the bright lights and cameras to echo and validate your accusers in the media. And to restore some public faith in our profession, include on your list a lawyer named Michael Avenatti, who has abused and demeaned you and our system of justice for personal publicity, fame, and fortune.

The members of this list, and many others, have demonstrated considerably more than the requisite degree of recklessness in promoting their agendas by accusing you. Their constant republications of unsubstantiated accusations have and will adversely impact your life – and the lives of your family members – for generations. Sue them all.

If we brought the code duello back, that would put an end to one hell of a lot of this, if not all.

Share

Conversion therapy

Let a million Breitbarts bloom.

Anyone who knew the late Andrew Breitbart knew that there was one seminal moment in his youth that altered the course of his life and, by extension, the course of American history: the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings of 1991.

Fresh from his American history degree at Tulane University, Breitbart was a self-described “default liberal.” As a child growing up on the tony streets of Brentwood in West Los Angeles, he was surrounded by liberals. The only real and legitimate “permissible” political identity was liberal. “It was my factory setting,” he would say. Four years at a liberal arts university did nothing to alter that fact.

So there he was with the rest of America watching the Anita Hill sexual harassment testimony play out on national television. He heard that Judge Thomas was some kind of predatory monster who had to be “taken down” for his horrible behavior. He tuned in expecting, wanting this man to get what he deserved for being so horrible to Ms. Hill.

“I watched Day One, I watched Day Two, I watched the entire thing,” he said years later in an interview on C-SPAN. “I went from wanting him to be taken down to saying, ‘Where’s the beef? What’s going on here?’

“I don’t understand what I’m watching here. I don’t understand the color commentary that’s on the screen, where they’re saying, ‘Oh, this is outrageous.’ And I didn’t understand the bumper stickers that were going by me on the streets that say ‘I believe Anita.’ I believe Anita WHAT? What’s going on here?”

Breitbart not only was unmoved by the laughable allegations made against Judge Thomas, but he was also dumbfounded by the experts, pundits and journalists proclaiming to the world that what we were hearing was so outrageous and “disqualifying” that Judge Thomas should be removed from consideration for the nation’s highest court. He (and most other Americans) could see through the partisan efforts of the media and the political class who didn’t pause for a moment of reflection before trying to destroy a good man’s reputation for the sole purpose of keeping him and his unacceptable political ideology from sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.

He saw through the duplicity masquerading as political analysis and reporting. He also saw through the hypocrisy of those who sat in judgment of Judge Thomas. They were the heroes of his political party. They were all Democrats.

“I didn’t understand how Ted Kennedy … THE Ted Kennedy from Chappaquiddick fame … how Howard Metzenbaum and Joe Biden, a series of privileged white men, could sit in judgment of this man who was the son of grandparents who were sharecroppers who raised him. And he went to Yale Law School. He did everything right. I did not understand how it could be that these white men of privilege were attacking this black man who was in this historic position while the mainstream media took him down.”

Sound familiar?

All too. The most salutary long-term effect the Demonrat-Socialists’ late circus might end up having isn’t necessarily putting Kavanaugh on the Court, but the spawning of a legion of new Breitbarts out there.

Biting ’em in the ass update! Thanks to the Demonrat-Socialist self-immolation, a McMuffinhead (!) sees the light.

I have wobbled back and forth on the idea of supporting President Donald Trump in 2020. I opposed him in 2016 and voted third-party. The candidate I supported, Evan McMullin, has, like so many others, abandoned all his values as his hatred of Trump poisons his conscience. I dare say the worst mistake in my life was not when I climbed a mountain only to remember I was scared of heights, or when I played with a scalpel that nearly cut off my finger as a kid. It was voting for McMullin.

Jennifer Rubin, who the Washington Post fraudulently claims is a conservative, has become the most predictable mouthpiece for the insanity that has affected a certain brand of Republican. They view Trump as anathema to their values, so they have abandoned their pre-Trump values. Rubin once favored moving our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. She now opposes it because of Trump. She once supported withdrawal from the Paris Accord, but now opposes it because of Trump.

I have long been critical of Republicans who abandoned principles to stand with Trump, and I am as critical of Republicans who abandon principles to oppose Trump. Principle should stay, because people go. The Kavanaugh nomination has been clarifying in this regard. Seeing some conservatives aid and abet character assassins because Trump nominated Kavanaugh is disgusting.

I find myself in an odd position where, for the first time, I see myself, one of the original so-called “Never Trump conservatives,” voting for Trump in 2020. I have inevitably concluded at times that Trump would do something to push me away from him. He has not disappointed on that front, from tariffs to character issues. But now I do not see how anyone else can offer a more compelling alternative to the president. Each time the president does something I do not like, his opponents play a game of “hold my beer.”

Yeah, well, in truth, Erick, most of the things you probably don’t like about him aren’t really true anyway. And the others—his “obnoxious,” “crass,” “rude” behavior; his cantankerousness; his pull-no-punches, confrontational bluntness, to name a likely few—are actually assets. Bottom line:

Between Trump and his opposition, I would rather vote for him, despite his flaws, than for his opponents who want a flawless progressive utopia. Trump is neither an ambassador for my values nor the articulate champion of my principles I would prefer. But he is a safe harbor in a progressive storm that seeks to both destroy my values and upend our constitutional republic.

“Safe harbor”? No, Trump is a lot more than just that; he’s exactly the bare-knuckle brawler we need to fight these bastards. Far from being a grudgingly-accepted last resort, there’s simply nobody better out there to do the job that needs doing. Erickson will likely come to realize that before the end. Baby steps, people, baby steps. Welcome the Dark Side, E. I promise you you’re going to enjoy all the winning.

Share

Another distinction without a difference

Fascism and Bolshevism: different sides, same coin?

Anti-fascism evolved from an academic fetish among Frankfurt School members into a cult of sorts in the 60’s and 70’s. The Antifa loons of today are well within the tradition of prior anti-fascist loons. The puzzle is why no similar movement ever started in response to the Soviet atrocities. Even if you think the Nazis were worse than the commies, in terms of intensity, the Bolsheviks were around a lot longer. They also managed to kill, or cause to be killed, millions around the world. The commies were a global killing machine.

Why is the former the symbol of evil, while the latter is still popular?

Paleocons, like Paul Gottfried, have suggested that communism may have an appeal to Christians that fascism lacks. That is, communism in the abstract is inclusive, universal and egalitarian. These are concepts that you find in Christianity, at least in the general sense. Anyone can become a Christian and everyone is equal before God. The Social Gospel sounds a lot like neo-Marxism and post-colonial socialism. Liberation Theology in South America is explicitly Marxist. The current Pope is out of this movement.

The problem here, of course, is that, in Europe, the Latin countries were explicitly Catholic and fascist. In fact, some scholars argue that fascism is an outgrowth of Catholic ideas like corporatism and localism. Spain under Franco was both Catholic and fascist. Portugal under Salazar was also Catholic and fascist. Of course, Mussolini’s Italy was very popular with American Progressives until the outbreak of the war. The best you can argue is that fascism seems to have had less appeal to Protestant academics that Bolshevism.

he fact is, the anti-Semitic and philo-Semitic arguments explaining the popularity of Bolshevism versus the demonization of fascism, don’t hold up under scrutiny. Both answers have some truth to them, but they don’t provide a complete answer. A big reason is that no one, especially anti-fascists, can provide a workable definition of fascism. In the book Fascism: The Career of a Concept, the aforementioned Paul Gottfried does an excellent job explaining the various and contradictory definitions of historical fascism.

This is why conservatives fall for the “liberals are the real Nazis” stuff peddled by grifters like Dinesh D’Souza and Jonah Goldberg. Fascism is a poorly defined political movement that can mean just about anything at this point. Even in the interwar period, the various fascist movements had some things in common, but they also had things in common with the Bolsheviks. After decades of anti-fascist proselytizing, fascism is simply a catch-all term for that which the Left currently finds upsetting or threatening.

As Z says, the Left liked Mussolini before the war; Hitler was also quite popular with the original Progressives…right up until he betrayed Stalin and invaded Poland, to general Leftist amazement and dismay. They and their descendants have never forgiven fascism for that. Z maintains that there’s a meaningful distinction to be made between fascism and Bolshevism, and maybe he’s right about that per se. But I think flatly declaring that no common ground exists between fascism and modern Leftist “thought” just might be a bridge too far:

Editor’s note: For the past year scholars James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian have sent fake papers to various academic journals which they describe as specialising in activism or “grievance studies.” Their stated mission has been to expose how easy it is to get “absurdities and morally fashionable political ideas published as legitimate academic research.”

To date, their project has been successful: seven papers have passed through peer review and have been published, including a 3000 word excerpt of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, rewritten in the language of Intersectionality theory and published in the Gender Studies journal Affilia.

Another, entitled “Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism” reworked, and substantially altered, part of Mein Kampf. The most shocking, (not published, its status is “revise and resubmit”) is a “Feminist Approach to Pedagogy.” It proposes “experiential reparations” as a corrective for privileged students. These include sitting on the floor, wearing chains, or being purposely spoken over. Reviewers have commented that the authors risk exploiting underprivileged students by burdening them with an expectation to teach about privilege.

From “My Struggle” to “Our Struggle” ain’t exactly what you’d call a giant leap. But in the end, nobody needs to spend a great deal of time splitting these ideological hairs. What we’re really talking about, then and now, is tyranny versus liberty. Hang whatever name on it you like, that eternal struggle remains the basic distinction, and the bottom line.

Share

SQUIRREL!

Guess we’re back to the Outrage Of The Week again.

Robert E. Lee’s last words were, “Strike the tent.”

This afternoon, the New York Times struck the tent on the Anti-Kavanaugh Circus by publishing a 14,000-word report on President Trump’s financial history.

It’s over because the New York Times wants to change subjects. Polls show Marxist Democrats are taking a pounding over this nomination in red states, which means they will lose Senate seats.

So the Times changed the subject with the story — “4 Ways Fred Trump Made Donald Trump and His Siblings Rich” — which it bills as a blockbuster but we all know it is a diversion.

Within an hour of posting the story online, it had 80,000 mentions on Twitter, mainly from liberal loyalists eager for another venue to vent their hate.

It is Kavanaugh Who? time for liberals.

The story could have been held. A story of that length consuming pages of newsprint belong in the Sunday newspaper, not in the middle of another busy week in the news.

My guess is the story was supposed to run this Sunday, but a panic-stricken New York Times was horrified to witness the evaporation of its dream of the Democratic Party taking over the Senate and leaving a Supreme Court vacancy open for a Democratic president in 2020.

The story about President Trump’s fortune is the Stormy Daniels of financial reporting.

The Times story said, “In Donald J. Trump’s version of how he got rich, he was the master dealmaker who parlayed an initial $1 million loan from his father into a $10 billion empire. It was his guts and gumption that overcame setbacks, and his father, Fred C. Trump, was simply a cheerleader. But an investigation by The New York Times shows that by age 3, Donald Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building.”

Isn’t that how NYT’s Sulzberger family operated?

Well, you know the rule, Don: whatever they’re shrieking loudest about is the thing they’re guilty of themselves.

Update! Next up from the NYT smear factory:

Having failed to corroborate any allegations of rape against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, The New York Times is now preparing to smear him for organizing party planning and logistics more than 30 years ago. This comes on the heels of a blockbuster Times report alleging that Kavanaugh might have thrown ice at someone at some point in the 1980s.

The Times is calling around to classmates asking them about a letter Kavanaugh allegedly wrote to a classmate to organize a week at the beach during the 1980s, according to multiple sources. The letter notes the location on the Maryland shore where the classmates planned to stay, the estimated costs for each organizer, and items they should bring with them, such as “sheets, pillowcases, blankets, etc.”

The letter noted that a total of eight friends, including Kavanaugh, were “in charge” and that they would each get to have beds to sleep in at the designated rental property and a say in who else was invited. The tongue-in-cheek note, infused with inside jokes, said they should talk to neighbors of the property ahead of time and give them a heads up that a party would be hosted there and that alcohol and obnoxious students would be involved.

“P.S. It would probably be a good idea on Sat. the 18th to warn the neighbors that we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us,” the letter said. The note also joked that “the danger of eviction is great and that would suck because of the money and because this week has big potential.”

The letter also made note of their awkwardness with girls, whom the teenage boys very much hoped would join them at the party.
“I think we are unanimous that any girls we can beg to stay there are welcomed with open …” he wrote.

Ahh, but wait, there’s yet another damning revelation just out:

I first met Julie Setnick in 1993 at a Washington, D.C., bar near Wisconsin Circle. I was at a going-away party…

As I sat alone at the end of the bar, Julie approached me. She was alone, quite beautiful, well-dressed and no drink in hand. Consequently, my initial thought was that she might be a high-end call girl because at the tine I weighed 350 lbs so what would a girl like her want with me?

But, there was no conversation about exchanging sex for money so decided to talk with her for a few minutes. I had never been hit on in a bar before.

I didn’t leave with her that night, although we talked about getting together. Over the next couple of weeks we met at what I believed and still believe was Julie’s place. From the beginning Julie knew I was married and that I was having marital problems.

As we shared conversations, my lasting impression of Julie was that she was smart, fun, and funny. But she was also an opportunist. I felt she only had an interest in me because I was on television and well known.

During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things go derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be okay in our relationship.

I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.

So I think we can now say the reason she went back to those “rape train” parties TEN TIMES just became clear: she’s a cum-guzzling cockhound. Ace wraps that one up:

This story had been a bus crash.

Then it devolved into the crash of a bus filled with clowns.

Now it has entered a new phase: A bus full of circus clowns crashing into a school for blind children and even worse the clowns were doing their “Gasoline Comedy” act that day and now all the blind children are on fire and the clowns are trying to squirt water on them with their stupid lapel-flowers but the flowers are just squirting out more gas and the children are crying tears of fire out of their Unseeing Dead Eyes and holy shit a couple of the clowns look like they have boners and they’re chasing around the fiery blind children trying to rub up on them with these bobbling clown-boners with big red bulbs on their tips.

Pretty much. As I said Monday: at this point, it’s just becoming funny.

Share

Get it now?

Word to Yertle: these people are NOT your friends, your colleagues, or your countrymen. They are the enemy. Period, full fucking stop.

Anti-Kavanaugh Protesters Harass Mitch McConnell at Airport
‘Do you always turn your back on women?’

Details:

Two of the activists have been identified by The Huffington Post as Tracey Corder, Center for Popular Democracy’s “racial justice campaign director,” and Naina Khanna, Positive Women’s Network USA’s executive director.

McConnell, seemingly unfazed by the harassment, looked straight ahead and even shook a random man’s hand on his way out of the airport.

This did not sit well with the feminists, as you might imagine.

“It is really telling that you shook the hand of a man while a woman is trying to tell you her story,” yelled Corder.

“We would like to know if you believe survivors of sexual violence?” said Khanna.

At one point, Khanna bizarrely accuses one of the men escorting McConnell of “assaulting” her after she repeatedly brushes up against him. “I keep stepping on her feet,” he responded, explaining why he moved.

As McConnell walked up an escalator, Khanna yelled, “Senator McConnell, do you always turn your back on women like this?”

He was also asked if we would “support a full FBI investigation.” There is already an FBI investigation underway, of course.

“We walked up to him respectfully. We really wanted to ask him about his vote and how he felt,” Corder told The Huffington Post. “This is three women of color trying to talk to him. He saw a white man and instantly shook his hand. That felt pretty hurtful.”

You weren’t trying to “talk to” anybody, bitch. And if it had been me, it would have been a lot more than just your feelings that got hurt, I promise you. How McConnell kept from hauling off and popping these contemptible, lying whores right in the mouth is beyond me. Hard to believe his bodyguard let these crazed cunts anywhere near him.

Share

Categories

Archives

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix